Is it true that Israel is in violation of UN resolutions?

Question

Is it true that Israel is in violation of UN resolutions?

Answer 1

To understand you MUST READ CAREFULLY !!



The fact is that Israel is not in violation of 242. The carefully crafted November 1967 resolution required Israel to withdraw from "territories," not "the territories." As then Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow, who was intimately involved in the negotiations preceding the resolution affirms, the distinction between the two phrases was well understood at the time.



There were two reasons why Israel was called on to withdraw from "territories" not "the territories." First, there was an expectation that the peace borders would differ from the armistice borders. Those eight mile deep borders were inherently so indefensible that they led Israel's Dovish former foreign minister, Abba Eban, to call them "Auschwitz borders." Second, at least as importantly, withdrawal from "territories" necessitates negotiation between the two parties to determine the new borders. Withdrawal from "the territories" is not conditioned on such negotiations. Negotiations mean mutual recognition and, indeed, a peaceful settlement between all the regional states, including Israel. Indeed, the resolution included the appointment of a mediator to help the parties along.



This demand for negotiated borders was a direct rebuff to the Arab states which had convened in Khartoum and, on September 1, 1967 resolved to unite in achieving the withdrawal of Israel "from the Arab lands . . . within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab states abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it and insistence on the rights of the Palsetinian people within their own country." Moreover, it was in Khartoum that the Saudis and the other Arab oil producers undertook to provide the "frontline" states and the PLO with financial help as long as they directed all their energies towards a future war with Israel rather than towards the overthrow of conservative Arab regimes (as they had done prior to June 1967).



VERY IMPORTANT !!!!



Do note that 242 does not mention the Palsetinians and envisions a negotiated settlement only between Egypt (which had ruled Gaza), Jordan (which had annexed the West Bank), Syria and Israel. That was the reason the Palsetinians had always avoided any reference to 242. Israel, on the other hand, has always accepted 242 and has returned territories to both Egypt and Jordan within the context of peace treaties. It had envisioned doing the same with Syria and, following Oslo, with the Palsetinians. Indeed, Oslo was predicated on the PLO's acceptance of 242. That was the reason that Barak offered to turn over 95% of the West Bank and Gaza to a Palsetinian state within the context of a final peace agreement.



The trouble was that, prior to making his generous offer, Barak broke with the longstanding Israeli principle that negotiations must precede withdrawals by unilaterally withdrawing from Lebanon. He had wanted to snatch a strategic card from the hands of Syria and Iran but failed to appreciate the effect of the withdrawal on the Palsetinian front. The Palsetinians, including the Israeli Arab party leadership, celebrated the unilateral withdrawal as "Hizbullah victory." One of them, a lawyer named Riadh Anees stated: "Israel withdrew and the South was unconditionally liberated, without surrendering to any Israeli dictate, with no agreements and no concessions. This is the most important thing the Lebanese Resistance achieved…." He added: "This joy [over the Israeli withdrawal] was brought about by the Resistance [movement]. It should not be credited to Barak's [pre-electoral] promises nor to his commitments to fulfill UN Resolution 425. It was an Israeli flight from the Lebanese swamp." Another activist named Dr. Jamaal Zakhalqa wrote: "The most important feature of the [Lebanese] struggle's victory is the fact that it coincided with the negotiations towards the final solution of the Palsetinian issue… . [Now, it seems that] Israel will not succeed in imposing her decisions and solutions regarding this problem…."



If ever Arafat believed that he would have to give up once and for all the dream of eliminating Israel in order to achieve an end to the conflict, by the time he reached Camp David II, he no longer believed so. Hence, his adamant refusal to sign a document "ending the conflict." The Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon convinced Arafat that he, too, could achieve such a withdrawal if he used Hizbullah's terrorist tactics and made Israel bleed. Palsetinian Authority Communications Minister 'Imad Al-Faluji visited Lebanon and announced: "Whoever thinks that the Intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon's visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, is wrong, even if this visit was the straw that broke the back of the Palsetinian people. This Intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat's return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton. [Arafat] remained steadfast and challenged [Clinton]. He rejected the American terms and he did it in the heart of the US. . . . My visit here in South Lebanon is a clear message to the Zionist enemy. We say: Just as the national and Islamic Resistance in South Lebanon taught [Israel] a lesson and made it withdraw humiliated and battered, so shall [Israel] learn a lesson from the Palsetinian Resistance in Palsetine. The Palsetinian Resistance will strike in Tel-Aviv, in Ashkelon, in Jerusalem, and in every inch of the land of natural Palsetine. Israel will not have a single quiet night. There will be no security in the heart of Israel...."



In short, Arafat's mistaken belief that the unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon proved that Israel cannot tolerate casualties led him to embark on a terror campaign which has destroyed thousands of Palsetinian and Israeli lives in the past 17 months. Sharon's and President Katzav's offers to meet with Prince Abdullah to discuss the Saudi peace plan demonstrate that they, like Condoleezza Rice, understand the value of the principle of negotiated settlement governing SC Resolution 242.



WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ????

Answer 2

I lived at a Kibbutz which was directly under that mountain. I want to tell you how we operated, one person would farm the fields and the 2nd would carry a gun to protect the farmer as Syrian soldiers in the Golan would be firing on us. I was there when one such incident happened

Answer 3

Israel was created by the UN and yet Israel violated every UN resolution.

Answer 4

to answer your question, yes it is true that israel is in violation of the resolutions

Answer 5

i like to buy fake jordan.



http://www.jordanwholesale.net/

Answer 6

Is the UN your G-d now? UN's perfect?

Answer 7

No it is not true.First of all the Palestinians are not mentioned anywhere in Resolution 242. They are only alluded to in the second clause of the second article of 242, which calls for "a just settlement of the refugee problem." Nowhere does it require that Palestinians be given any political rights or territory.The Arab states have traditionally said they accepted 242 as defined by them, that is, as requiring Israel's total, unconditional withdrawal from the occupied territories.



In a statement to the General Assembly October 15, 1968, the PLO, rejecting Resolution 242, said "the implementation of said resolution will lead to the loss of every hope for the establishment of peace and security in Palestine and the Middle East region."



By contrast, Ambassador Abba Eban expressed Israel's position to the Security Council on May 1, 1968: "My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution."The most controversial clause in Resolution 242 is the call for the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." This is linked to the second unambiguous clause calling for "termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and the recognition that "every State in the area" has the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."



The resolution does not make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisite for Arab action. Moreover, it does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from "all the" territories occupied after the Six-Day War. This was quite deliberate. The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant "that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands." The Arab states pushed for the word "all" to be included, but this was rejected. They nevertheless asserted that they would read the resolution as if it included the word "all." The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, Lord Caradon, declared after the vote: "It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear."6



This literal interpretation, without the implied "all," was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those involved in drafting the resolution. On October 29, 1969, for example, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories."7 When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."8



Similarly, Ambassador Arthur Goldberg explained: "The notable omissions — which were not accidental — in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'....the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawalThe resolutions clearly call on the Arab states to make peace with Israel. The principal condition is that Israel withdraw from "territories occupied" in 1967. Since Israel withdrew from approximately 93 percent of the territories when it gave up the Sinai and portions of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, it has already partially, if not wholly, fulfilled its obligation under 242.



The Arab states also objected to the call for "secure and recognized boundaries" because they feared this implied negotiations with Israel. The Arab League explicitly ruled this out at Khartoum in August 1967, when it proclaimed the three "noes." Amb. Goldberg explained that this phrase was specifically included because the parties were expected to make "territorial adjustments in their peace settlement encompassing less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure."



The question, then, is whether Israel has to give up any additional territory. Now that peace agreements have been signed with Egypt and Jordan, and Israel has withdrawn to the international border with Lebanon, the only remaining territorial disputes are with the Palestinians (who are not even mentioned in 242) and Syria.



The dispute with Syria is over the Golan Heights. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin expressed a willingness to negotiate a compromise in exchange for peace; however, then-President Hafez Assad refused to consider even a limited peace treaty unless Israel first agreed to a complete withdrawal. Under 242, Israel has no obligation to withdraw from any part of the Golan in the absence of a peace accord with Syria.

Answer 8

Israel and every other country in the UN. What's your point?

Answer 9

and would have been in violation of many many more had their big bully mate the US not vetoed hundreds of resolutions against them in the security council

Answer 10

yep! You are rite. Check these out too:

1. Resolution 106: "...‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid"

2. Resolution 111: "...‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"

3. Resolution 127: "...‘recommends’ Israel suspend its ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem"

4. Resolution 162: "...‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions"

5. Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria"

6. Resolution 228: "...‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"

7. Resolution 237: "...‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"

8. Resolution 248: "...‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"

9. Resolution 250: "...‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"

10. Resolution 251: "...‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"

11. Resolution 252: "...‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"

12. Resolution 256: "...‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation"

13. Resolution 259: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"

14. Resolution 262: "...‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport"

15. Resolution 265: "...‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"

16. Resolution 267: "...‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"

17. Resolution 270: "...‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"

18. Resolution 271: "...‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"

19. Resolution 279: "...‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"

20. Resolution 280: "....‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon"

21. Resolution 285: "...‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"

22. Resolution 298: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem"

23. Resolution 313: "...‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"

24. Resolution 316: "...‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"

25. Resolution 317: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"

26. Resolution 332: "...‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon"

27. Resolution 337: "...‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty"

28. Resolution 347: "...‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon"

29. Resolution 425: "...‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"

30. Resolution 427: "...‘calls’ on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon’

31. Resolution 444: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"

32. Resolution 446: "...‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"

33. Resolution 450: "...‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"

34. Resolution 452: "...‘calls’ on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"

35. Resolution 465: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program"

36. Resolution 467: "...‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon"

37. Resolution 468: "...‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"

38. Resolution 469: "...‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians"

39. Resolution 471: "...‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"

40. Resolution 476: "...‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’

41. Resolution 478: "...‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’

42. Resolution 484: "...‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"

43. Resolution 487: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility"

44. Resolution 497: "...‘decides’ that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"

45. Resolution 498: "...‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"

46. Resolution 501: "...‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"

47. Resolution 509: "...‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"

48. Resolution 515: "...‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"

49. Resolution 517: "...‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"

50. Resolution 518: "...‘demands’ that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon"

51. Resolution 520: "...‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut"

52. Resolution 573: "...‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters

53. Resolution 587: "...‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"

54. Resolution 592: "...‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops"

55. Resolution 605: "...‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians

56. Resolution 607: "...‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention

57. Resolution 608: "...‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"

58. Resolution 636: "...‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians

59. Resolution 641: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians

60. Resolution 672: "...‘condemns’ Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount

61. Resolution 673: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations

62. Resolution 681: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians

63. Resolution 694: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return

64. Resolution 726: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians

65. Resolution 799: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.



Joke: israel is a ...... democratic ..... country! LULz!

Steel

Answer 11

Iran Shah, who was a dictator, and posted by the West, signed the IAEA. So how can we say that he was reflating the Iran citizens opinion? In early 70s Israel managed to build several hundred warheads without any know centrifuges!!! If you are scientist and understand the available nuclear technology in early 70s, you can understand the what Israel needs to achieve that capabilities and still manage to hide from USA, Briton, France, and Canada. I am not against Israel or any country having nuclear weapons but I am against the hypocrisy of west. At present only one country i.e. USA have used nuclear weapon because Japan had no nuclear weapons on hand at that time. I strongly believe that eventually all countries (who wants to possess Nuclear weapons) will get it or at least will develop capabilities to make ready in short time. That is dangerous situation, but it is an unavoidable fact since the first build and use of this unnecessarily glorified weapon.

Answer 12

After Syria, along with a number of other nations, attacked Israel in 1967, Israel wound up winning the matchup.



During the war, which became known as the 6 Day War, Israel took the Golan Heights, which formerly belonged to Syria. Now they won't give it back.

Answer 13

Truth could be different.

Yes, formally Israel is in violation of many UN resolutions?

But, if to keep in mind that UN has majority of the 70 undeveloped, uncivilized, non-democratic Muslim countries, that openly declare with to destroy Israel...

Israel MUST and SHOULD be in violation of such resolutions.

Answer 14

israel surprisingly become deaf when it comes to UN resolutions that ask to end occupation and terror.



abt 242,it states:

1--Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict

2--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



it has been 42 years,yet Golan is still occupied,now i know that zionists r light-minded,but what exactly they don't get?

it said:WITHDRAW

means bye bye,time to pack ppl,ur free living days in foreign territories that u've stoled r over.

Answer 15

It depends who you are asking,



Israelis of course not, they have their own way of doing things.



The rest of the world, where do you start????