It's time to end the I/P conflict by carving the boundary into international law and encouraging the combatants to deal with one another instead of abusing history to provide phony justifications for continuing the conflict.
List of UN resolutions concerning Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From 1967 to 1989 the UN Security Council passed 131 resolutions directly dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Of the 131 resolutions passed, 43 could be considered neutral while the remaining 88 either criticized and opposed the actions of Israel or judged against its interests. Nearly half of the 88 resolutions against Israel "condemned," "censured," or "deplored" the member state or its actions.[3] During this time, in the UN General Assembly, 429 resolutions against Israel were passed, and Israel was condemned 321 times.[4]
The UN is an essential but deeply flawed organization. Its General Assembly is dominated by tiny but numerous countries who want Israel wiped off the map. Its Security Council, which actually makes policy, is dominated by the US and pro-Israel nations. ProgressiveHistorians: History For Our Future
Huh!? Care to elaborate?
Votes against Israel in the General Assembly usually go something like 180 vs. 3. That 3 is Israel, the USA, and some small Pacific nation. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
The UN is an essential but deeply flawed organization..
Woeha..... this is indeed a very US American statement. Please .... get rid of Bush &Co .....elect a real president and the UNO will function as intended.
In the open thread I posted a link to the Annual Report of the BICC (Bonn International Center for Conversion). English edition is not yet available but the figures they mention in the press-release are, for us Europeans, frightening......I repeat : frightening. That level of militarisation is a world wide threat as demonstrated by Israel supported by the USA. The struggle of man against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.(Kundera)
I think it's flawed in ways pro-US as well as anti-US, though. For instance, I think the membership and prominence of the Security Council is tilted unfairly in America's favor. ProgressiveHistorians: History For Our Future
If you looked at the history of vetos in the UNSC, you'll find that initially it was the USSR that most often vetoed resolutions, but at some point (presumably after 1967) the US began to veto resolutions having to do with Israel and nowadays is just about the only country that regularly vetoes reoulutions, as well as dominating the overall tally of vetoes.
The fact that the US uses veto so often indicates that it doesn't dominate the UNSC. If it did, it wouldn't need to veto anything. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
As long as (at least) China, the US and Russia have the potential for Mutually Assured Destruction, they need to have veto power at the UNSC.
What is deeply disturbing is that the US doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about the UNSC, or the global balance of power, and they even seem to think they can achieve a nuclear first strike capability soon. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
