Israel Ignores yet Another UN Resolution

[Mr Manifesto]

Maybe someone should overthrow the government of Israel- it has a habit of ignoring UN resoultions, just like Iraq!

Link (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s972864.htm)

Israel has reacted angrily to a UN General Assembly resolution demanding it stop building its security barrier in the West Bank.

The resolution also calls for parts of the security fence already built to be dismantled.

Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says the construction will continue because it is needed to prevent infiltration by suicide bombers.

And its UN ambassador Dan Gillerman says the resolution makes a mockery of the UN system.

"Surrendering to the manipulative games, illegal and one-sided initiatives of the Palestinian observer makes a mockery of this assembly and the UN."

The resolution states that the project contradicts international law and passed by a vote of 144 votes to 4, with 12 countries abstaining.


Australia was one of the abstainers. Australia's track record on the world stage is getting better- the president of China is visiting Australia, but no mention will be made of China's human rights records. Wasn't human rights the reason Australia sent troops into Iraq? After WMD's, of course. No, wait, before WMD's! Which was it again?

[ssibal]

The problem is, none of the resolutions against Israel are Chapter 7, whereas they were for Iraq. And, usually they are not unilateral resolutions (i.e. the Palestinians are supposed to take steps too), this was also not the case with Iraq.

[geni]

Israel has nuclear waepons therefore the normal rules do not apply.

[Martin]

Originally posted by ssibal
The problem is, none of the resolutions against Israel are Chapter 7, whereas they were for IraqWell, quite. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it a number of Chapter 7 resolutions against Israel have been proposed, but were unilaterally vetoed by the US. Had Iraq been protected in this manner by a permanent member of the security council from all substantial UNSC criticism, I rather suspect that the US would have picked up its ball and gone home long ago. And it would have been right to do so.

[Zep]

I would respectfully suggest that Israel is simply following the example set by the current President of the USA, who, in the very recent past, chose to ignore and scorn UN resolutions that did not meet with HIS requirements.

[Mike B.]

SHOULD UN general assembly resolutions be binding?

Would that be workable?

Would it be a good idea?

[richardm]

Originally posted by Mike B.
SHOULD UN general assembly resolutions be binding?

Would that be workable?

Would it be a good idea?

Seems to me that if they weren't binding, there would seem to be little point in making the resolutions in the first place.

I'm raising an ignorance flag here. Are they currently intended to be binding, but everyone ignores them, or are they just a wagged finger that everyone ignores?

[Skeptic]

Why on earth should israel listen to a body who organized the "anti-racism" conference in Durban... which turned out to be the biggest jew-hating rally since the nazi era, so ugly in its crude antisemitism that the US walked out?

Why on earth should israel listen to UN protests about it "violating human rights" when the UN human rights committe is headed by Libya, with other members such as the Sudan and Nigeria?

Why should israel listen to the UN when it routinely condemns its actions... while, needless to say, totally ignoring that of palestinian terorrists? Was there ever an emergency UN meeting to condemn palestinian terorrist bombing, like there is every time israel replies?

Why should israel listen to an organization that officially bans it--and ONLY it--from membership in the security council, which every other nation on earth, including such luminaries of non-agression and peace such as the Soviet Union (in the old days) or Syria and Libya today can head?

Listening to the UN about "human rights" and "stopping agression" is the equivalent of listening to the circus' fat lady about diet tips, or perhaps to Al Capone about upright citizenship.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Martin
Well, quite. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it a number of Chapter 7 resolutions against Israel have been proposed, but were unilaterally vetoed by the US. Had Iraq been protected in this manner by a permanent member of the security council from all substantial UNSC criticism, I rather suspect that the US would have picked up its ball and gone home long ago. And it would have been right to do so.

You are probably right. But I have no problem with the U.S. vetoing those resolutions seeing as how none are ever proposed against the Palestinians (at least not to my knowledge).

[ssibal]

Originally posted by richardm

I'm raising an ignorance flag here. Are they currently intended to be binding, but everyone ignores them, or are they just a wagged finger that everyone ignores?

No, they are not binding only Chapter 7 resolutions are.