UN Resolutions that suggest Israel undergoes Ethnic Cleansing

UN Security Council Resolution 607 (1988)

The Council was informed of the decision of Israel to continue deportations of Palestinians in the occupied territories, the Council reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.
The resolution called upon Israel to cease the deportations and abide by its obligations arising from the Geneva Conventions

UN Security Council Resolution 608 (1988)

The Council expressed regret at Israel's decision to deport Palestinians in the occupied territories in defiance of the previous resolution on the topic.

The resolution called upon Israel to cease the deportations and ensure the safe repatriation of Palestinians back to the Palestinian territories.

UN Security Council Resolution 636 (1989)

The Council condemned the deportation of 8 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories, reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution also called upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported and to cease further deportations of civilians.

For: 14 Abstention: 1 Against: 0

UN Security Council Resolution 641 (1989)

The Council condemned the deportation of 5 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories, reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution also called upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported and to cease further deportations of civilians, which were usually expelled to Lebanon.

For: 14 Abstention: 1 Against: 0

UN Security Council Resolution 694 (1991)

The Council strongly condemned the deportation of 4 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories on December 17, 1992. They were in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution deplored the action and reiterated that Israel should refrain from deporting any more Palestinians and ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported.

UN Security Council Resolution 726 (1992)

The Council strongly condemned the deportation of 12 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories on December 17, 1992. They were in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution deplored the action and reiterated that Israel should refrain from deporting any more Palestinians and ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported.

Israel did not comply with the resolution, and continued to deport Palestinians.

UN Security Council Resolution 799 (1992)

The Council strongly condemned the deportation of 413 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories on December 17, 1992. They were in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution deplored the action and reiterated that Israel should refrain from deporting any more Palestinians and ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported.

One-State or Two-State, that is the Question.

The initial proposal of the Partition Plan drafted by the UN in the form of Resolution 181 in 1947 was the first notion of a two-state solution, following the mass migration of Jews that caused clashes between those seeking refuge from the antisemitic movement in Europe and the native Arabs that were being displaced by the thousands because of this migration.

The proposal was based on separating the region based on ethnicity, however the Arabs immediately rejected the draft as it was unbalanced, providing the Jews with 56% of the land when they only comprised approximately 15% of the population. The Jews were initially unhappy with the UN Resolution because Britain promised them the entire region, but decided to accept it as their first opportunity to establish a homeland.

The Jewish decision was heavily influenced by the strong Zionist movement within their ranks. Arabs always considered Zionism a threat to the demographics of the region, especially following Jabotinsky's original account of the colonial plan of the region in his 1923 essay "The Iron Wall".

In the essay, Jabotinsky describes the behaviour of a native people towards the prospect of being colonized, which lead to the blunt realization that it would be impossible to expect a "voluntary agreement" with the Arabs. He realized the only way to achieve a state where the Jews were the masters of the land rather than a people absorbed within the population as a minority, was to use force.

Jabotinsky questioned it himself; why would the Arabs want to concede an area they inhabit for a colonial entity that wants to enforce a majority of its own? Why would any native throughout history ever want that? The only real solution to achieve colonization as he saw it, would require a "transfer" of Arabs in order to make the migrants the majority of the region. Even under British occupation and before that under the Ottoman Empire, Arabs were ruled by the respective authority's security forces, but the demographics were never threatened.

When conflict ensued following the proposal, the Arabs were not able to hold their position and maintain their territories only to concede it, which resulted in redrawing armistice lines and demilitarized zones. While some Arabs even now refuse to acknowledge the defeats they faced and stubbornly mention a non-negotiable one-state solution, those who do, feel they can only approach the conflict with one compromise based on the last known legitimate truce regarding borders; the Armistice "green line" Agreement of 1949, or popularly known as the pre-67 borders.

The one-state solution isn't ideal for Israel since the Arabs outnumber the Jews. It would mean a pure democratic process where all people who have a claim on the land, displaced or otherwise, have equal rights to vote and that would result in Arab leadership. Israel would face the same fate as the South African democratic process which ended white minority rule.

Ironically Israel claim it is the "only democracy" in the Middle East, yet a pure democratic process inclusive of all its people would deny Israel's entire existence. Democracy and Zionism therefore are mutually exclusive.

Fortunately for the Zionist movement, the Arabs are divided and do not possess the unifying strength to overpower Israel with its powerful backing of the United States, and therefore cannot force a hand in making such a bold claim for the one-state solution. Arabs have no other option but to approach the negotiation table with the two-state concept.

However, just as the Palestinian Papers have revealed, neither the issues surrounding the Right of Return, nor the ever-changing "land swaps" seem acceptable for Israel to agree to any terms that would make the two-state solution viable, regardless of the extreme concessions made by the Palestinian Authority (PA) even on key issues surrounding Jerusalem.

That's because the two-state solution doesn't really work for Israel either, even if the PA agree to all of Israel's preconditions. Zionism, as Jabotinsky puts it, is the colonization of the region, and any final agreement for a two-state solution would put an abrupt halt on the ongoing growth of the "Jewishness" of the land.

The real answer for Zionism is to maintain the status-quo. As long as they are in a state of conflict and the Palestinians don't have an official state, the Israeli government believe that the occupied territory can be annexed by Jewish-only settlements since there is no "official claim" to the land, regardless of what could potentially be part of a future Palestinian state.

The key question that arise from this dilemma is how Israel can get away with building settlements that encroach on a potential future state of Palestine. Even the United States government - Israel's only ally - has admitted that the core issue preventing peace negotiations from resuming is the ongoing settlement activities. These settlements have been deemed illegal by International Law as per the 4th Geneva Convention which was drafted for the protection of civilians, stating that an occupying entity must maintain the identiy and integrity of the occupied people on the land it occupies.

"Might is right" is the unfortunate reality. While the United Nations was established never to allow such atrocities to repeat itself as witnessed during WWII, it is ironically the very mechanism Israel is using to maintain this current state of conflict. That is because the US have in fact been guilty of being Israel's "lawyer", rather than their "honest broker" due to the Israel lobby in the US.

While rest of the world acknowledges the illegal settlements, the US with Israel have been able to stop UN Resolutions being passed in order to avoid halting the settlement activities. The UN Security Council voted to "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory", but the US have been able to prevent it using a very powerful weapon given to them by the UN; the veto.

It is the very contradiction of democracy on the international stage. The ability to cancel any vote made by the nations of the world with a single trump card that can be used at the discretion of any of the five permanent member nations to control the world's decision-making by playing their political games for strategic advantages. Incidentally, the concept of permanent members only exists because the five members were part of an alliance that were the victors of WWII, which is clearly a sign that the very foundation of the UN is already outdated.

Ultimately, the veto is the true power behind world decisions, not the voices on the UN Security Council.

The best way to rectify such a deadlock in the Arab-Israeli conflict, is to have a "majority" vote in the UN rather than a concept of a veto, where the definition of "majority" could be determined based on the weighting of a nation's contribution to the UN Security Council.

That would end Israeli occupation in a heartbeat and the building blocks of a viable solution could finally transpire, whether it is to establish one state or two.

Diplomacy or Militancy? That is the Question

A UN bid for the state of Palestine has been greatly debated with a significant split in opinions amongst Arabs regarding whether or not there is an advantage to Palestinian statehood.

Amongst many critics is the claim that a statehood based on the 1949 Armistice Agreement or "pre-67 borders" removes any legitimate claims for the Right of Return of 4.5 million Palestinian refugees currently residing on the outskirts of historic Palestine, and in countries such as Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan.

Naturally this would be a great advantage for Israel. So why is Israel afraid of a UN application if the Palestinians believe it removes legitimate claims for a large percentage of Palestinians who were invaded and violently displaced from their homes? Wouldn't removing responsibility for the refugee problem be exactly what the Zionist movement wants?

Currently Israel claims that Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) is in fact "disputed" territory rather than "occupied" territory. By this definition, it would allow them to justify land annexation which from Israel's perspective, is by de facto "uncharted". This ultimately denies them seeing the reality, that it is in fact inhabited by the indigenous population of Arabs who have lived there for centuries.

The implication is extended further by proclaiming that there isn't any official recognition of West Bank borders because the Armistice Agreement was only just a truce, and in effect is not recognised by International Law. However there is one problem with this argument. Such a claim effectively defines Israel as a state without official border lines either, and only just an official state body.

Abbas himself has acknowledged that the final agreements for border negotiations cannot be done in the UN, so a simple bid for "official recognition" would suffice for the PA's cause with noteworthy mention that it should be based on the pre-67 borders and not defined by the borders. This creates a dilemma for Israel whereby having two recognised states as UN members with undetermined borders would result in a level playing field, and negotiations could resume between two official state bodies for any border lines.

That is completely outside Israel's comfort zone, especially when the dynamics of the region would significantly shift further away from the status quo that is sitting in their favour. That, along with the mounting pressures of international isolation could only mean political disaster for the state that already declared independence unilaterally in 1948.

On the flip side, there are those amongst the Palestinians, and Arabs in general, who refuse to believe in the legitimacy of the UN altogether because of the irony it demonstrates towards democracy from an organisation that fundamentally provides five permanent members with the ultimate power to overrule and destroy a resolution with a veto if they wish to do so.

However this argument is also flawed. Denouncing such an organisation plays a dangerous game which removes any argument proclaiming that Israeli settlement activities in the West Bank are indeed illegal, especially since they are defined as illegal by International Law based on the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is in fact endorsed by the United Nations.

There are those who also refuse to believe Israel exists altogether, and that denies the reality of confronting a very real opponent on any level. This forces the situation into a more militant scenario and as we have seen in previous attempts by Fatah's rivals Hamas, its almost like punching the Apartheid Wall with their own bare hands. Hamas have been popularly condemned for causing more harm than good to their people without any viable solution to end their plight.

While Fatah have also been condemned for the atrocities against the people of Gaza after the first and only democratic elections in the Strip, they have also been accused of rubbing shoulders with the West. This opinion has slightly changed amongst some as they heard first-hand Abbas' firm stance in front of the entire world against the diplomatic pressures made by the nations who have supported Fatah as a puppet regime. It might not have won their hearts completely, especially with memories of the betrayal exposed in the Palestinian Papers, however the evident defiance seems to have struck a chord.

With Fatah's approach through diplomacy to defy the powers that occupy the Palestinian people, and Hamas' approach through militancy to defy the powers that occupy the Palestinian people, there doesn't seem to be any other suggestions made by the critics except to play the waiting game for emerging powers in the region, which incidentally does not guarantee an honest alliance of any kind. The support of BDS movements can only provide a means to promote a general disapproval, however there are still no positive steps towards other forms of reform, regardless of whether it is to achieve a one-state or two-state solution.

A UN bid proves to be a rare political victory for Palestinians regardless of a result. A successful bid hastens the demise of legitimacy of Fatah and Hamas, who both lack the resolve to unify their establishments and their people, which in turn forces a hand for elections to take place for the official state body of Palestine; while a veto hastens the political isolation of the United States and Israel throughout the world, and especially in the EU where they have had stark negative responses for the earlier veto on halting illegal settlement activities in February. Saudi Arabia have also threatened to sanction the United States following the expected veto.

Regardless of the pros and cons of a UN bid and its effectiveness, the people must choose from a limited number of options to help achieve any kind of outcome: militancy, diplomacy or the waiting game in the hopes that some other external force tilts the balance of power in their favour before Israel annexes the entire region. This could create a limbo for the entire Palestinian population if we wait too long.

Israel's Nuclear Armament

This article has been taken from Iran vs Israel: What the media wants you to forget

The corporate media have been given their orders to throw the focus back on to Iran.
Here is a recap of what they are trying to make you forget:

1. Last Spring, Rose Gottemoeller, an assistant secretary of state and Washington's chief nuclear arms negotiator, asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel refused.
2. The United Nations passed a resolution calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.
3. The IAEA asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.
4. Iran's formal notification to the IAEA of the planned construction of the backup fuel-rod facility underscores that Iran is playing by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has signed.
5. Iran allows IAEA inspections of all its facilities.
6. Contrary to face-saving claims, it appears that the US and Israel were both caught off guard by Iran's announcement. The reasoning is simple. Had the US or Israel announced the existence of he new facility before Iran's notified the IAEA, it would have put Iran on the defensive. As it is now, the US and Israel seem to be playing catch up, casting doubt on the veracity of Israel's claims to "know" that Iran is a nuclear threat.
7. The IAEA and all 16 United States Intelligence Agencies are unanimous in agreement that Iran is not building and does not possess nuclear weapons.
8. In 1986, Mordachai Vanunu blew the whistle and provided photographs showing Israel's clandestine nuclear weapons factory underneath the reactor at Dimona.
9. Israel made the same accusations against Iraq that it is making against Iran, leading up to Israel's bombing of the power station at Osirik. Following the invasion of 2003, international experts examined the ruins of the power station at Osirik and found no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the rubble.
10. Recently revealed documents prove not only that Israel has nuclear weapos, but actually tried to sell some to Apartheid South Africa. Who else Israel approached to sell nuclear weapons remains an unasked question.
11. In 1965, Israel stole over 200-600 pounds of weapons-grade uranium from the United States.
12. Declassified documents from the former South African regime prove not only that Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades, but has tried to sell them to other countries

Did the Jews have the right to declare Israel as an independent state in 1948?

After the mess that the British Mandate left after realising the serious issues that had been caused by the unorganised mass migration of Jews into Palestine, Britain had officially handed over responsibility of the land to the United Nations to lead negotiations towards a two-state resolution comprising of an Arab state and a Jewish state.

The 1947 UN Partition Plan was then drafted. This plan would have been the only source of "potential" credibility for anyone to claim any legitimate bordering, but it was rejected by the Arabs.

The main reason for this was that it seemed totally unbalanced to provide the Jews with 56% of the land when they only comprised approximately 15% of the population. The following map describes the situation more accurately:



The Arab's disapproval was presented to the UN so that they could go back to the "drawing board" and re-draft another resolution. It was obvious why the Jews would agree to such an advantageous portion of land, but in the manner of speaking with regards to the interests of both parties, a better resolution was obviously required to be reconsidered.

As far as the Partition Plan was concerned, the land of Palestine was still considered disputed territory during the conflict because neither agreed on a final decision, and therefore neither was able to claim authority or to declare independence.

The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 as an official member of the UN was therefore in direct contradiction of the Partition Plan since it was created without the involvment of the Arabs and therefore deemed a unilateral move made by the Jews in conjunction with the UN during the dispute.

The absence of a bilateral agreement only increased the unrest, and further festered amongst Arab nations until a lack of confidence in leadership brought rise to radical groups.

Some Israelis claim that since the land was "up for grabs", the Arabs should have taken their portion and declared their own independence as well, but that would have meant agreeding to the grossly unbalanced partition.

Almost 20 years later, Israel annexed the rest of the land regardless of any UN agreement, or any international recognition. Israelis now seemed to have forgotten that Arabs originally lived there before the State of Israel was declared and pretend that the history of the land began in 1948.

The real question therefore is, do the Palestinians have a right to exist on the land that was taken from them?

Why have their rights been forgotten?

Anti-semitism and Anti-humanitarian

Many Israelis talk about the UN General Assembly being anti-Semitic. Incidentally, just about anyone who opposes or condemns Israel for events that have taken place in its history are considered anti-Semitic.

Looking at Israel's actions over the past few decades, can we justify the use of white-phospheous chemical weapons resulting in the deaths of 1300 men, women and children in 2009?

This chemical weapon is illegal, and was one of the excuses used to invade Iraq based on "weapons of mass destruction".

During the siege on Gaza it was used on densely populated areas such as schools and hospitals and the UN Resolution 1860 called for an immediate cease fire. Would we consider that resolution anti-Semitic or did the International Community have a case against international war crimes?

What about UN Resolution 1322 when Ariel Sharon's visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the subsequent violence had resulted in the deaths of over 80 Palestinian civilians? Is it anti-Semitic for anyone to condemned that?

What about UN Resolution 904 as a result of the "Cave of the Patriarchs" massacre that occurred in 1994 when 29 worshippers were killed, with more than 125 wounded in the Mosque of Ibrahim in Hebron. Is it anti-Semitic for anyone to condemned that?

What about UN Resolution 799 condemning the deportation of 413 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories. Is it anti-Semitic for anyone to condemned that?

What about UN Resolution 672 with the massacre that took place in Al-Aqsa Mosque 1990, killing civilians and worshippers, and injuring hundreds more. Is it anti-Semitic for anyone to condemned that?

What about the treaty of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons that Israel have ignored?

The UN has also condemned Hamas for not investigating the rockets fired over their borders, and condemned the Libyan President for being a delusional dictator, and has condemned Liberian President in 2005 for killing innocent people, and has condemned South Africa's apartheid pre-1994, and has condemned the Lebanese military for their horrific acts in 1982. There are also countless UN Resolutions on Somalia, Ivory Coast, Afghanistan, East Timor, Iraq, and even against Al-Qaida (even though they confidently justify their own actions as being provoked).

Numerous UN resolutions about an endless list of war crimes world-wide have been drafted because ultimately the UN is the voice of the world. They aren't a body with their own independent members created as a "hate group" specifically for Israel. If Israel causes genocide on numerous occasions we will see numerous reactions from the International Community.

With all these condemnations on acts occurring around the world, why is Israel innocent of the ones they commit?

Why is Israel immune to condemnation from an assembly that was established to prevent crimes such as those that were committed by Nazi-Germany?

Why is Israel exempt from the International Laws that were created to prevent what happened to them in WWII?

Anti-Semitism is a perfect term to ensure no one questions crimes that would otherwise be deemed anti-humanitarian.

Ronnie Barkan, 34, son of a holocaust survivor explains it perfectly:

"I think that the main lesson to be learned from the Holocaust is 'never again to anybody' not 'never again to the Jews.'"

International Law: War Crimes made by Israel

The International Community have asked Israel to be brought before the International Criminal Court for charges of war crimes as Norman Finkelstein explains: