Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iraq not alone in defying resolutions of U.N. body
Washington Times ^ | 9/21/02 | David R. Sands

Posted on 09/21/2002 5:09:17 AM PDT by DoctorMichael

Edited on 07/12/2004 3:39:23 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Iraq may be the most blatant, but it is far from the first country to defy the will of the U.N. Security Council. Officials from the United Nations say they do not keep a statistical record of members' compliance with resolutions of the 15-member council. However, it appears that dozens of resolutions, including those on North Korea and the Middle East, have been disregarded.


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraq; un
FYI
1 posted on 09/21/2002 5:09:17 AM PDT by DoctorMichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael

2 posted on 09/21/2002 5:13:29 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Hahahaha. How true!

Comment:
"................dubbing the 1990s the "sanctions decade."..........

It was also the decade of CLINTON, where talk was a good substitute for action and leadership.

3 posted on 09/21/2002 5:19:10 AM PDT by DoctorMichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
My favorite line:

Not every Security Council demand brought the desired result.

4 posted on 09/21/2002 5:39:01 AM PDT by Timm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timm
Shouldn't it read: ___________________________________________________________ Not every Security Council demand brought the desired result. ?
5 posted on 09/21/2002 5:48:57 AM PDT by Spacetrucker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
Marie Okabe, a spokeswoman in the U.N. press office, said the organization doesn't compile a list of resolution violators because of that ambiguity.
Perhaps, that is an omission to "help" themselves feel better about all their good work? It's clear: the UN is IRRELEVANT!

BTW, a good link re: UN Resolution mentioned by the Arabs... ...THE STANCE OF SYRIA AND OTHER ARAB STATES ON 242

< snip >

Syria rejected UNSC Resolution 242 because it did not require Israel to withdraw to the 1949/1967 cease fire Lines. Syria was joined by the other Arab States, claiming that the 1949/1967 Lines were not final borders.

6 posted on 09/21/2002 5:53:29 AM PDT by GirlShortstop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
On Limbaugh's show, Thursday or Friday...a guy calls in, probable seminar caller (a different guy used the same main line of argument and phrasing on Charles Sykes' show on 620 in Milwaukee earlier in the day) and first asks why we aren't ready to send kids to die to bring down the ChiComs. After all, they're sooooo much more destructive and evil than Saddam, right? And why, the caller asks, are we making noises like we're going to do this without the Security Council's approval, while claiming to stand up for the U.N.? Then he starts listing all these Security Council resolutions that other countries are in violation of, mainly Israel, of course: They supposedly have ignored 70 resolutions over the years. Rush lets him rant about it for a bit, then says, "Thank you. You just made my point for me, that the United Nations is one of the least effective organizations on Earth. Everybody ignores them until America agrees with them and backs it up with force.<"P> Very effective radio. Heh heh.
7 posted on 09/21/2002 6:57:35 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GirlShortstop
UN Resolution 242, which you can read firsthand, and is quite succinct, states:

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".

Since this Resolution is dated November 22, 1967, I don't see how it can be clearer. Now, I certainly understand why Israel would not want to comply, but the language, and the intent, cannot be argued.

8 posted on 09/21/2002 9:38:10 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
bump
9 posted on 09/21/2002 11:27:27 AM PDT by Orion78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; Oldeconomybuyer; DoctorMichael
...Resolution is dated November 22, 1967, I don't see how it can be clearer.

I can't agree with you on clearer: if that were the case, there would have been no need for the Saud's recent proposal.
MidEast Facts^

<snip> Some peace proposals— including the recent Saudi proposal—demand withdrawal from the entire West Bank, which would leave Israel 9 miles wide at its most vulnerable point.

The oft-cited UN Resolution 242 (passed in the wake of the 1967 war) does not, in fact, require a complete withdrawal from the West Bank. As legal scholar Eugene Rostow put it, "Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until ‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’ is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces ‘from territories’ it occupied during the Six-Day War—not from ‘the’ territories nor from ‘all’ the territories, but from some of the territories."

10 posted on 09/22/2002 5:47:59 AM PDT by GirlShortstop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; Oldeconomybuyer; DoctorMichael
Oops! MidEast Facts^
11 posted on 09/22/2002 5:56:22 AM PDT by GirlShortstop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GirlShortstop
That's why people hate lawyers -- and you can include "legal scholars" in the mix. The Resolution states "withdrawal...from territories" and this doofus reads that as "withdrawal...from 'some' territory".

I know that Israel does not want to give up all the territory because it leaves them with that 9-mile-wide strip. Fine. But don't use that as an excuse not to read what is clearly written!

Go ahead and say, "We will not honor UN Resolution 242 because it leaves our country virtually split in two." As least that's honest.

12 posted on 09/22/2002 6:15:20 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
That's why people hate lawyers -- and you can include "legal scholars" in the mix.

*THAT* could spur a 300+ comment thread... The link inserted in your post requires a search on Resolution 242. The resolution's beginning reads clearly:
Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
Can one who watches the events in Israel possibly conclude that this criteria has been met?
imo, the perceived irrelevancy of the United Nations is bolstered by Resolution 242.
13 posted on 09/22/2002 8:25:21 AM PDT by GirlShortstop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
That was the infamous Chris from Abiqu (a 4-way stop on Rt. 84 between Espanola and Cebolla in New Mexico...the long way of saying middle of nowhere). He's a frequent caller on the local conservative shows on 770 KKOB in Albuquerque. He's always like that. I've also heard him on some other national shows. A professional liberal caller, but not a seminar caller, because there aren't enough people in Abiqu for a good Amway meeting, much less a seminar.
14 posted on 09/22/2002 8:31:49 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
PS: When somebody from Tijeras can bust on a town for being small, you know its really, really SMALL
15 posted on 09/22/2002 8:35:33 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GirlShortstop
Sorry about the link. Take out the last / and it works. And I would love to read 300+ lawyer jokes.

Well, 242 was passed 35 years ago, and the level of violence has waxed and waned over that period of time. I'm not surprised that nothing's been done if people can't figure out the meaning of the words "withdrawal...from territories".

Look, if Israel wants to ignore 242, fine. Just don't be surprised, or shocked, or disgusted when their enemies ignore it also. Just don't send my sons to fight there.

16 posted on 09/22/2002 8:49:39 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson