Friday, July 14, 2006

The US – Israel Axis of Evil ...

Lessons to be Learned From 66 U.N. Resolutions Israel Ignores appeared in the Washington Report in March 1993, so the statistics may be out of date, but the article makes for a fairly balanced and concise view of the whole issue. I would suggest you read the whole article but here are a few excerpts to whet your appetite.

Like former Secretary of State James Baker's repeated assertion that both sides must want peace for it to occur, the Clinton-Rabin agreement ignores the sorry record of the 26 years since Israel's conquest of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. During that period Israel has unequivocally demonstrated that it does not want peace in exchange for territory.

However, the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty was unique. It came at the expense of the Palestinians, which was by Israeli design, and in exchange for Sinai, to which Israel never laid claim. Moreover, Israel received in return for signing the peace treaty with Egypt commitments from the U. S. that have now reached a level of economic and military aid unsurpassed in our history.

The result is that Israel has managed to retain what it has wanted most: East Jerusalem and the West Bank. After so many diplomatic initiatives, it seems fair to conclude Israel does not want peace on any terms but its own.

An end to expulsions is only the latest demand of the international community on Israel, whose defiance goes back to its very beginnings. There remain on the books of the United Nations a collection of resolutions criticizing Israel unmatched by the record of any other nation.

The core issues, as contained in resolutions passed before 1967, remain the Palestinian refugee problem, the status of Jerusalem, and the location of Israel's boundaries. These are the basic issues. They spring from 1948, not 1967.

The early U.N. resolutions call for Israel to repatriate or compensate the original 750,000 refugees of 1948-9 and to renounce Jerusalem as its capital and regard it as a corpus separatum, an international city dominated by neither Arab nor Israeli. (The U. S. position on Jerusalem is slightly different and, not surprisingly, closer to Israel's. It says Jerusalem should not be a divided city and its final status should be decided by the parties.) Finally, the original U.N. partition of Palestine awarded Israel an area only about three-quarters of its current official size. Israel's increase was gained at the expense of the Palestinians in the earlier conquests of 1948.

Other unreconciled issues from this earlier period include such sticky situations as a demilitarized zone that Israel had shared with Syria near the Sea of Galilee. Israel forcefully and unlawfully occupied this zone in the 1950s and 1960s, in defiance of its 1949 armistice with Syria.

Aside from the core issues—refugees, Jerusalem, borders—the major themes reflected in the U.N. resolutions against Israel over the years are its unlawful attacks on its neighbors; its violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, including deportations, demolitions of homes and other collective punishments; its confiscation of Palestinian land; its establishment of illegal settlements; and its refusal to abide by the U.N. Charter and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

In 29 separate cases between 1972 and 1991, the United States has vetoed resolutions critical of Israel. Except for the U.S. veto, these resolutions would have passed and the total number of resolutions against Israel would now equal 95 instead of 66.

Such a list of resolutions passed and resolutions vetoed is unparalleled in United Nations history. The list in itself forms a stunning indictment of Israel's unlawful and uncivilized actions over a period of 45 years and of America's complicity in them.

Yet references to this damning record are totally absent from the vocabularies of American leaders as they go about saying they are seeking peace.


George Carty said...

Why do you think the US is so supportive of Israel. Is it perhaps a case of "Once Israel is gone, there is nothing to stop the Muslims from self-determining their way to a Morocco-to-Indonesia empire, which would be a lethal threat to the Free World"?

Renaissance Scientist said...

There are several assumptions in your question. You have assumed that:

(1) if the US were not supportive of Israel, then Israel would vanish off the map of the world

(2) Israel's existence, or US support of Israel, is somehow preventing Muslims from carving out a Morocco-to-Indonesia empire

(3) A Morocco-to-Indonesia empire would be a "lethal threat" to the US.

I think these assumptions are not correct. Firstly, the Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia are not a bloodthirsty nation waiting for an opportunity to pounce upon Israel the moment the "Free World" stops its support of Israel. (If indeed such was the case, then Israel would long have vanished off the world map.)

Secondly, if Muslims haven't carved out an empire, this has less to do with Israel or US support of Israel, and more to do with US support of dictatorial regimes in the Muslim countries.

Thirdly, a Morocco-to-Indonesia empire in no way poses a "lethal threat" to the US.

US support to Israel maintains an effective hegemony in the Middle Eastern region and that is the real reason.

George Carty said...

Point 3) doesn't seem much in dispute. A reunified pan-Islamic state would have a land area comparable to the Soviet Empire at its height, control one quarter of the world's population and two thirds of the world's oil. It would also have easy prey for conquest along its southwestern frontier (loads of failed states in sub-saharan Africa), plus irredentist ambitions directed against Spain and the Balkans.

I may have been wrong about "lethal threat to the United States" though - as the Europeans, Russians, Chinese and Indians would be liable to gang up on this monster...