read_connect(); //$GLOBALS[ezoic_db]->read->query("use 17things"); ?>

Why the UN Security Council resolutions are are not forcedly applied in the Arab-Israeli conflict?

while other resolutions concerning other countries are applied by force?

For example :Resolution 242 that asks Israel to withdrew its troops from the Arab territories.

Related Items

10 Responses to “Why the UN Security Council resolutions are are not forcedly applied in the Arab-Israeli conflict?”

  1. Love The Liberal Way Or Else! said:

    It’s because the Jews control the UN.

  2. EddyJ said:

    Who is going to enforce it. Europe Asia, Africa, who? The UN is a weak paper tiger. It has no teeth.

  3. The Shadow Knows said:

    who is going to invade Israel and force them to comply?

  4. j823 said:

    First off, nothing the UN does through military force ever gets done.

    To you question, the reason is because the only country in the world that votes in favor of Israel is the United States because they’re so terrified to go against the Jews in this country.

  5. John Obama said:

    Because the UN is on the terrorist side. That would be the arabs

  6. Moderate Somber said:

    A lack of will and injustice.

  7. 63vette said:

    Same reason the Resolutions calling for the Palestinians and other terror groups cease importing weapons and attacking Israel are not forcibly applied.

    If they forced the application of the ones against Israel they would have to force the application of the ones against the Palestinians, Hezbollah, Syria, Jordan and Iran.

  8. Robert said:

    Because Isreal doesn’t care what the UN has to say. The land that they are in was given to them by God, it is their promised land, and anything that the rest of the world has to say means nothing to what God has to say.

  9. Cher was here JPA said:

    Your using the Arab propaganda version of 242. Israel IS in compliance with the 242 voted for & discussed in session.

    It is ON record that “the” “the” isn’t there on purpose. Therefore Israel’s security is as much a concern as withdrawal from DEFENSIVELY acquired lands. So the boundries require negotiation & don’t require Israel to withdraw until she gets what she wants – agreement to peace by the Arabs.

    Since Israel offered WB & Gaza to Arafat, & Golan to Syria — the only real problem is both walked out. Arafat started a 5 year Initifada war with Israel. Syria just said no, & funded Hizbollah.

    Remembering too that international law does not ask a country to give back what it gained in defensive wars. After all if it was required to, there’d be NO deterrance for an aggressive country (5 Arab countries in this case) to keep attacking since they’d always get back anything they lost as a result.

    FYI, Muslims control the general council & Israel is the target of almost everything in the UN, so she certainly isn’t “controlling” the UN. It’s no more true than the classic Nazi antisemiticm claim that Jews aim to control the world, & media, & money.

  10. affinity292 said:

    You are misreading UN SC Res 242.

    The Arab states WANTED it to say what you claim it does say. Their request was rejected and it was passed without changes.

    UN SC Res 242:

    Allows Israel to administer the WB and Gaza UNTIL and UNLESS all relevant parties peacefully negotiate final status borders.

    Requires Arabs to stop attacking Israel.

    States that the WB and Gaza do not belong to Israel, nor do they belong to Arabs. They belong to no one and are in legal limbo until and unless all parties peacefully negotiate final status borders.

    Here. I’ll let the authors of UN SC Res 242 explain it to you:

    Professor Eugene Rostow, then U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, went on record in 1991 to make this clear:

    “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, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.”

    Professor Rostow continues and describes:
    “Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines [‘Green Line’], but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ’secure and recognized’ boundaries …”(5)

    Lord Caradon, then the United Kingdom Ambassador to the UN and the key drafter of the resolution, said several years later:

    “We knew that the boundaries of ‘67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers; they were a cease-fire line of a couple decades earlier. We did not say the ‘67 boundaries must be forever.”

    Referring to Resolution 242, Lord Caradon added:
    “The essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary … “(6)

    In a 1974 statement he said:
    “It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967. … That’s why we didn’t demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to.”(7)


[newtagclound int=0]


Recent Comments

Recent Posts