Talk:List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel

"Palestine?"

Let me clarify this: the original use of the term "Palestine" in UN documents referred to the region in question, without any prejudice as to whether Jews or Arabs were more Palestinian than the other. This should not be confused with the current usage of the term, which seems to apply to Arab nationalism in the same area. --Leifern 13:02, 8 January 2006

US Vetoes

Even though a huge majority of Americans, 70.4%, believe the US should "not take either side" in the Israel-Palestine conflict[1], the US has vetoed literally dozens of UN resolutions calling for Israel to exercise restraint. Here is a list of 39 "Vetoes Cast by the United States to Shield Israel from Criticism by the U.N. Security Council"[2] As of July 14th, 2006:

Sort of...You cite a poll from 2001 and that uses questions with perhaps...guiding wording. There is far more and far more recent polling data relevant to that question and they don't seem to support your position as much.

The US has already vetoed a council resolution demanding Israel end its military offensive in the Gaza Strip. Eight of the last nine vetoes have been cast by the United States. Seven of those were to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

The very next day, July 15, 2006, the Israeli magazine Haaretz reported that the US unilaterally opposed any council action at all at this time for the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. Some say US unilateral support for Israel is hindering peace in the region. According to the CATO Institute, "a non-profit public policy research foundation headquartered in Washington, D.C.":

U.S. aid allows Israel's leaders to avoid the political and economic costs of clinging to the occupied territories and refrain from making decisions that might lead to an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. It also allows them to avoid the costs of perpetuating a welfare system. Moreover, U.S. aid, more than any other factor, helps to secure the power of the existing political elite.

According to IfAmericansKnew.org, "Although it is not often reported by the press, a large proportion of American diplomatic and military experts have long held that U.S. support of Israel is often contrary to and, in fact, extremely damaging to U.S. interests."

Discussion: Rather than the wholesale removal of negative publicity for Israel, please explain why it should be removed. FightCancer 17:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I was going to try to edit it, but the entire section is just swimming in bias and weasel words. The section is clearly designed not to describe the US vetoes, but to criticize them. This is inappropriate. Out of respect I will attempt to rewrite it to be NPOV rather than reverting it, but sources like "Ifamericaknew" are obviously unacceptable. Schrodingers Mongoose 19:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Read the description of weasel words. "If we add a source for the opinion, the readers can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability:". The articles I quoted mention the sources. So the readers can and should decide for themselves hwo they feel--not you or me. Nonetheless, I have removed that section. Have you seen the actual article since I last edited it? FightCancer 19:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made some edits and I think it's now much more balanced, weasel words aside. I added a brief bit about what supporters and detractors of the vetoes tend to believe. I don't mean to be too critical, but your original section was clearly written in opposition to the US vetoes and cited exclusively far-left sources. I've left the sources intact, however, in accordance with allowing people to judge for themselves. Nevertheless, I think it would be beneficial to find some less biased sourcing. Cheers. Schrodingers Mongoose 19:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm… OK. You completely removed:

• any reference to US public opinion which strongly opposes US public policy,
• any reference to US unilateralism, and
• any reference to whom is criticizing the US vetoes. Who are these observers? You? Please see weasel words.

Application of a weasel word can give the illusion of neutral point of view: "Some people say Montreal is the nicest city in the world." Although this is an improvement, since it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative:

It is not fair to remove this information. Again, as weasel words states, "If we add a source for the opinion, the readers can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability:". Please consider the revision below. If it's unfair in your opinion, please be specific.

COMMENT - Although those who draft and/or edit articles in Wikipedia are not necessarily journalists, it should be incumbent on them to determine whether the source of their submissions are reliable or not. This is even more important in the 'post truth' era that we are in. Information from sources that are not deemed to be reliable or trustworthy should not be entered. But the sources used for articles should be identified, so that readers can then decide whether the information is (in their opinion) viable or laughable.

Perhaps this begs the question about the need for three lists of sources - not for a particular article, but rather for use by all Wiki articles. One would be a list of reliable/trustworthy sources (eg. The Washington Post, The Guardian, BBC, NPR). The second list would contain those that are unreliable (eg. Facebook, Youtube, National Enquirer). The third list would be entitled 'Often reliable, but with a bias' (eg. FOX News, SUN Publications). Dennis the Canuck (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Revision

Even though a huge majority of Americans, 70.4%, believe the US should "not take either side" in the Israel-Palestine conflict[3], the US has vetoed literally dozens of UN resolutions calling for Israel to exercise restraint. Here is a list from Donald Neff of 39 "Vetoes Cast by the United States to Shield Israel from Criticism by the U.N. Security Council"[4] According to Democracy Now!, as of July 14th, 2006:

The US has already vetoed a council resolution demanding Israel end its military offensive in the Gaza Strip. Eight of the last nine vetoes have been cast by the United States. Seven of those were to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

The very next day, July 15, 2006, the Israeli magazine Haaretz reported that the US unilaterally opposed any council action at all at this time for the Israel-Hezbollah conflict.

Including the US opposition to this (which is 5 years old and from a single source) is prejudicial and designed to convey a viewpoint. All of your complaints about my edits are that they do not criticize the US vetoes enough. I believe that including this info is solely designed to provide an anti-veto POV. I have done my best to summarize both the pro- and anti-veto positions. It is inappropriate to lend extra weight to one side. Also, things like "the very next day" should be avoided...it sounds dramatic, not encyclopedic. Schrodingers Mongoose 19:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No. My complaints are that you removed verifiable information which was intended to provide meaningful context about this article. I agree that "It is inappropriate to lend extra weight to one side". However, I'm not doing that. I'm disclosing the facts and citing sources. If there are additional facts that should be included, by all means please post them--but don't delete facts because you don't like the source. FightCancer 13:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is your friend

Wikipedia is an Israeli PROPAGANDA SITE and ANYTHING about Israel that is not written with an eye to glorify the apartheid state of Israel or hide their crimes, or hide the STRANGLEHOLD Jews have on the American government from the American public--Israel doesn't care about anybody else--WILL BE REMOVED for JUST that reason. LOL! What a JOKE! This is true, read here for proof: http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Eng37.htm And also read the second part: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee#WHY_was_the_following_Nader_info_removed.2Fcensored.3F

Some of the sources cited in this article are unreputable. Let's work on bringing it in accordance with our policies. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just like it's not up to the Chinese government to decide which websites the Chinese can Google, just like it's not up to Afghani clerics to decide which religion they must worship, it's not up to us Wiki editors to decide which sources to quote. According to the Wikipedia policy for Weasel Words, "If we add a source for the opinion, the readers can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability". As Wikipedia says, "Help empower the world with free knowledge!" I'll take freedom of information over censorship any day. FightCancer 04:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Take it someplace else. Please review WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RS. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

US Vetoes moved to talk

The United States has vetoed dozens of UN resolutions censuring or condemning Israel. A list of 39 vetoes cast by the United States to scuttle motions regarding Israel can be found here. [5] On July 14th, 2006, the US vetoed a resolution demanding that Israel end its military offensive in the Gaza Strip. Of the last 9 vetoes cast in the security council, seven have been cast by the US against resolutions critical of Israel.

These vetoes have been criticized by many observers as representing unfair and unilateral support for Israel by the United States. Supporters of the vetoes claim that the resolutions are one-sided and do not do enough to condemmn Palestinian Terrorism.

I moved the preceding paragraph to talk. It does not belong here: see the article's title. And BTW, none of the sources is reputable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, it's not up to us Wiki editors to decide which sources to quote. According to the Wikipedia policy for Weasel Words, "If we add a source for the opinion, the readers can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability". Please do not remove any more unpalatable information. FightCancer 12:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

FightCancer, 1) the US vetoes section does not belong to this list. Check the title: this is not an article about the US activity in the UN. 2) you either misunderstand the guideline regarding weasel words or intentionally quote it out of context. See also WP:RS and WP:NOT. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

I removed this sentence from the intro as it believe it is the epitome of weasel words.

Both pro-Israeli and anti-Israeli sources noted the disproportionately high number of the United Nations resolutions against the State of Israel.

• Who says that? You?
• When did they say it?
• How many people think that? Just how many is "some"? "most"??

I suggest we add sources in the text and remove description "disproportionately high". This description is the author's alone and does not reflect the opinions of anyone I know of. FightCancer 13:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad you asked. "No other nation or issue is accorded such scrutinizing treatment. Nineteen anti-Israel resolutions are adopted by the General Assembly annually." [6]. The U.N.'s Israel Obsession, "The U.N. has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other nations combined, including Iraq." [7]. Let me know if you need more. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO, we should include the information above and list the source in the article. FightCancer 12:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds credible. Was it ever included in the article? It is not there now. WikiHuda (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Added information given by Humus sapiens and approved by FightCancer. WikiHuda (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Statement

Palffy, you removed these sentences noting "This is an incorrect statement from a biased source. See resolutions for yourself, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html".

According to IfAmericansKnew.org, "Israel is the target of at least 65 UN Resolutions and the Palestinians are the target of none" from 1955-1992. [8] They add, "These resolutions, which now number 66, contain the international community’s list of indictments against the Jewish state." [9]

Would you mind explaining how the two sentences were incorrect? FightCancer 14:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Edits in the Remarks Section

Hello all! FightCancer put out a request to the Mediation Cabal for arbitration on the issue of sources and comments. I ask that you please place all future discussion regarding this issue under this section.

I would like to propose a compromise. Humus Sapiens removed material earlier by arguing that it did not stand with the title. Using that as a model, I would like to propose that the entire section be dismissed as not in keeping with the title. The title, List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine does not seem to warrant much analysis. In fact, that the title contains the word "list" implies no analysis. Also, the page United Nations Security Council Resolutions has no Remarks section, nor do the linked lists on that page.

Remember, I am part of the Mediation Cabal, so this is not binding and I offer it as a mere suggestion. If this is agreable to everyone, I will perform the edit. If not, please feel free to say so in this section and I will continue to work toward a solution. --LawrenceTrevallion 02:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose we remove the world "List" from the title and include analysis. Or, we could start a new article called "UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine". Or, perhaps someone could suggest an existing Wiki article for where we could include the analysis that I have presented in this article. FightCancer 02:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Until we sort this out, I have placed a warning on the Remarks section of this article. FightCancer's suggestions are reasonable solutions to the point I raised. Does anyone else have an opinion, or does one of FightCancer's suggestions seem better than the others? --LawrenceTrevallion 03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What is this all about? Is there an ongoing dispute? Is there an active discussion? Finally, a "mediator" who made his/her first edit on July 27, 2006. Is this some kind of joke? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why mediation was requested without any discussion. Regarding the proposal to turn this into UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine: I think it is a bad idea. This list lists the relevant resolutions, there is also article Israel and the United Nations that describes the complex relationship. Details & analysis for each notable resolution should go into its own article. There is also Arab-Israeli conflict and whole bunch of links from there. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I requested mediation because you and others are '"routinely removing verifiable facts from the article claiming that the sources "are obviously unacceptable" (Schrodingers Mongoose), "unreputable" (Humus sapiens), and "biased" (Palffy).' You have yet to explain why yourself other than "Take it someplace else. Please review WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RS."

Again, please explain why these sources are "unreputable", to use your word. If you can't explain why these sources are allegedly unreliable, please stop censoring it. FightCancer 13:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahahahaha!! PRECISELY.

Alright, if there are no objections, I will remove the Remarks section from this article. --LawrenceTrevallion 22:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't. Rather, it should be put back into the intro. See my comment in the next section. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for putting this notice on here so late, but I checked with FightCancer to see if he/she still needed my services but never heard back on the subject, so I assume the mediation is closed. LawrenceTrevallion 21:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Paragraph

Is this paragraph currently disputed?

"There are pro-Israeli [1] and anti-Israeli sources [2] that have noted the amount of United Nations resolutions against Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir commissioned an analysis of UN voting concerning Israel. According to results of this study [3], from 1967 to 1988 the Security Council passed 88 resolutions directly against Israel and during that span, Israel was condemned 43 times. In the UN General Assembly, 429 resolutions against Israel were passed, and Israel was condemned 321 times.[4]"

If so, could someone explain if the dispute relates the factual accuracy of the stated numbers of UN resolutions or the manner this is conveyed?

Would rewording and using the material in an introduction be helpful?

"The following is a list of UN resolutions that concern Palestine (Arab and Jewish land), Israel only or bordering states (such as Lebanon). From 1967 to 1988 the UN Security Council passed 88 resolutions directly against Israel and during that span, Israel was condemned 43 times. During this time, in the UN General Assembly, 429 resolutions against Israel were passed, and Israel was condemned 321 times."

This example of rewording certainly isn't perfect, but I think having an introductory paragraph is more usual than having a remarks section at the end.

Addhoc 15:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am still trying to understand what is under the dispute. On one hand, I see a proposal to turn this into some kind of analytical article UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine and on another, to remove the ==Remarks== section (which was/should be the intro). On the former, I wrote above. On the latter: AFAIK, every other list in WP has an intro. See List of indices of freedom or practically any good "list of ". So, what seems to be the problem?

OK, there are a couple of problems: 1) it should go into the intro. 2) ifamericansknew is not a WP:RS. Any better alternative? 3) The tag: what "factual accuracy" is disputed and by whom? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved the remarks section into the introduction and dropped the non-reliable source and the disputed tag. Addhoc 11:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How is IfAmericansKnew.org not a reliable source? If there were a website documenting Iraq's UN resolution violations would it too be unreliable? Again, out job as Wiki editors is not to censor information, but to cite it. According to the Wikipedia policy for Weasel Words, "If we add a source for the opinion, the readers can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability". If you can't explain why this website is allegedly unreliable, please stop censoring it. FightCancer 13:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The site is "antisemitic" BECAUSE it criticizes the actions of the state of Israel, which is the DEFINITION of "anti-semitic' these days. That designation of the site as "antisemitic' PER SE makes EVERYTHING on the site "unreliable", even if that information is a videotape of a speech by Ehud Olmert or George Bush saying that the sky is blue, and pointing a camera upwards at a clear sky to prove it. On the other hand, if the Israeli army, fresh off of slaughtering 57 children in an orphanage claim that (1) it was a "mistake", then, as a matter of fact, it WAS a mistake. If, on the other hand, the Israeli army comes back two hours later and says that rockets were fired from this orphanage by "terrorists", then, it was a "mistaken" raid that "targeted" a rocket launcher from an orphanage", despite the OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION. That is what qualifies as a "facts" these days. It's all a matter of WHO is talking, not the inherent reliability of the information being given out. Orwell would be proud.

Ok, I'll include the reference. Eventually, however, I would prefer a more reliable source. Does the Palestinian National Authority publish records of this information? Addhoc 13:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

FightCancer: I invite you to read the guideline you are refering others to. Anyone familiar with Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words knows that you are quoting it out of context. Stop that.

How is IAK unreliable? Glad you've asked, see WP:RS#Partisan websites: "Widely acknowledged extremist political, religious, anti-religious and other websites ... should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is, in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source." Here's one analysis: [10], let me know if you need more. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Issues: Unclear lead, misunderstanding of SC, lack of context, uninformative list

This article has a number of problems:

• The lead contains a very unclear sentence: "During this time, in the UN General Assembly, 429 resolutions against Israel were passed, and Israel was condemned 321 times." It is not apparent what the different is between a resolution that is merely "against Israel" and a resolution that "condemned" Israel. "Against" and "condemned" read to be as near synonyms and thus it is not surprising that if a resolution can be characterized by one of these terms, it can likely be characterized by the other.
• There seems to be a misunderstanding of the purpose of UN Security Council resolutions. The UN SC is a group that comes together and deals with international problems. It proposes means to fix problems by recommending changes in behavior for involved participants as well as setting out mandates/plans for the involvement of neutral participants (peace keepers, negotiators, sanctions, aid, etc.) Since Israel has been a participant in the very messy Israel-Arab conflict, Gaza-West Bank "occupation" and the general Israel-Palestinian conflict it has been a participant that has been scolded a lot. The UN SC is a serious group and does not have time to hand out awards for good behavior.
• To make clear to the reader that Israel is singled out, which seems to be the implicit purpose of much of the lead, one should use better contextual comparisons. I would be interested to know the following statistics:

1. How many resolutions has the UN SC passed in total and of that total, how many concerned Israel.
2. How many times has each international entities been scolded (which is a less paranoid way of saying "against") about behavior in UN SC resolutions -- one can either count the number of individual scolds (such that there might be multiple scolds of an entity per resolution) or the number of distinct UN SC resolutions contain one or more scolds of an entity. Do the resulting statistics using either counting method result in Israel near or at the top of the list?

• The current list of numbered resolutions without explanation or descriptive titles is pretty uninformative. Even worse is the short quotes ripped out of context. Could I suggest that we try to eventually group the resolutions by topic? I can imagine classifying resolutions using categories such as: "Israel's founding", "Suez Crisis", "Six Day War", "Yom Kippur War", "Gaza/West Bank", "1982 Lebanon-Israel War", "2006 Hezbollah-Israel War" and "Other" would be decent starters. It may be necessary to use more than one category per UN SC resolution, but even so, categories would be more useful than paranoid viewing resolutions as either "against Israel" or "condemning Israel."

Those are my 2 cents. --Ben Houston 01:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It would also be useful to analyze the set of UN SC resolutions that concern the Israel-Arab conflict. Get a count of how many distinct UN SC resolutions there are concerning the Israel-Arab conflict and which parties are involved and how many times has each involved party has been scolded. --Ben Houston 01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging into this article?

Do individual resolutions need to have there own articles in wikipedia or can we just wikisource them and put more encyclopedic detail about individual resolutions here? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

israel at the un

I think this should be moved to a more suitable "israel at the un" page, which can then include lots of other issues like israel not getting on the security council and various other un bodies. including criticisms, etc. what do others think? there's a lot of matter here. Lihaas (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of poor quality and/or partisan sources

The lede here is severely problematic. The calculation of what resolutions are "against" Israel derives from two sources: A website by "Christian Action for Israel," which is some obscure Canadian activist group, and an article published in a virtually unknown online-only "magazine" called Capitalism, which is devoted to popularizing the philosophy of a hack novelist who founded her own cult. There is also no reason to be using as sources, for example, speeches made by Australian and British politicians trying to justify an attack on Iraq in terms of enforcing Chapter VII resolutions, or incidental comments in op-ed pieces. You can equally cite other incidental comments to make a completely opposite point, but that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. People, please. We are dealing with international diplomacy at the highest level. There are academic sources, ie, articles in peer-reviewed scholarly journals in the field of international law.

I'll copy the offending paragraphs here to the talk page for now; perhaps they can be salvaged, perhaps not. <eleland/talkedits> 20:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right, of course. When I saw the huge blockquotes of Australian politicians in the refs section I should have known who was at work here! ;) <eleland/talkedits> 20:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The following is a list of United Nations resolutions that concern Israel only or bordering states (such as Lebanon).(ref)Israel and the UN - An Uneasy Relationship (Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations).(/ref)(ref)ifamericansknew.org.(/ref) 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.(ref)The U.N.'s Record Vis A Vis Israel Retrieved 22 April 2007.(/ref) During this time, in the UN General Assembly, 429 resolutions against Israel were passed, and Israel was condemned 321 times.(ref)The United Nation's War Against Israel by David Harsanyi: Capitalism Magazine, 27 May 2002. Retrieved 23 July 2006.(/ref) The United States has used its veto power to prevent resolutions concerning Israel from passing through the Security Council on 42 occasions since 1970. [11] Resolutions condemning Israel were not made under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, but rather under Chapter VI, which relates to the "Pacific Settlement of Disputes" between parties, and as such have no enforcement mechanisms and are considered by some commentators to have no binding force under international law.(ref)No binding force under international law

• "Some analysts have pointed out that Security Council resolutions condemning or criticizing Israel have been passed under Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, which are different from the Chapter VII resolutions against Iraq." Ayoob, Mohammad. "The war against Iraq: normative and strategic implications", in Robinson, Mary & Weiss, Thomas G. & Crahan, Margaret E. & Goering, John (eds). Wars on Terrorism and Iraq: human rights, unilateralism, and U.S. foreign policy, Routledge (UK), May 1, 2004, p. 164.
• "The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven." Iraq, Israel and the United Nations: Double standards?, The Economist, October 10, 2002.
• "...there is a difference between the Security Council resolutions that Israel breaches (nonbinding recommendations under Chapter 6) and those Iraq broke (enforcement actions under Chapter 7)." Kristof, Nicholas D. Calling the Kettle Black, The New York Times, February 25, 2004.
• "There is a hierarchy of resolutions... Chapter 6, under which all resolutions relating to the middle east have been issued, relates to the pacific resolution of disputes. Above that, there are the mandatory chapter 7 resolutions, which impose the clearest possible obligations, usually on a single state rather than on two or three states, which is what chapter 6 is there for. Chapter 7 imposes mandatory obligations on states that are completely out of line with international law and policy, and the United Nations has decided in its charter that the failure to meet those obligations may be met by the use of force." Straw, Jack. House of Commons debates, Hansard, Column 32, September 24, 2002.
• "There is another characteristic of these resolutions which deserves a mention, and that is that they are under chapter 7 of the United Nations charter. Chapter 7 has as its heading 'Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression'. This is the very serious chapter of United Nations rules, regulations, laws and principles, which the United Nations activates when they intend to do something about it. If the United Nations announces under chapter 7 that it intends to do something about a matter and it is not done, that will undermine the authority of the United Nations; that will render it ineffective. There are many other resolutions under other chapters. Resolution 242 gets a bit of a guernsey here every now and then. Resolution 242 is under chapter 6, not chapter 7. It does not carry the same mandate and authority that chapter 7 carries. Chapter 6 is the United Nations trying to put up resolutions which might help the process of peace and it states matters of principle that are important for the world to take into consideration. Resolution 242 says that Israel should withdraw from territories that it has occupied. It also says that Israel should withdraw to secure and recognised boundaries and that the one is dependent upon the other. Resolution 242 says that, but it is not a chapter 7 resolution." Beazley, Kim, Waiting for blow-back (speech delivered in Parliament on February 4, 2003, The Sydney Morning Herald, February 5, 2003. (/ref)

The link for this statement is dead: The Human Rights Council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other states combined.[1] Dead link, the statement is unfounded, will therefore remove it if there are no objections.Karimmtl 12:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karimmtl (talk • contribs)

UN Security Council Resolution 54 and 61 Chapter VII

The intro incorrectly states that Resolutions concerning Israel have never invoked Chapter VII of the UN Charter. UN Security Council Resolution 54 is recorded under Chapter VII in Johansson, Patrik, UN Security Council Chapter VII resolutions, 1946-2002. The resolution contains an order directed to the Provisional Government of Israel that was issued pursuant to Article 40 of the Charter:

2. Orders the Governments and authorities concerned, pursuant to Article 40 of the Charter, to desist from further military action and to this end to issue cease-fire orders to their military and paramilitary forces, to take effect at a time to be determined by the Mediator, but in any event not later than three days from the date of the adoption of this resolution

Resolution 61 recalls the earlier resolution 54, and states that the Security Council was convened to determine what measures to take under Chapter VII. The council authorized the UN Mediator to take action:

• To establish provisional lines beyond which no movement of troops shall take place.
• To establish negotiated demilitarized zones or "Failing an agreement, the permanent lines and neutral zones shall be established by decision of the Acting Mediator."
• Established a Council to assist the Mediator and report to the Security Council on further measures it would be appropriate to take under Chapter VII of the Charter. harlan (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Both of these resolutions only state that further action, or future measures, might be taken under Chapter VII, but they themselves are not. NoCal100 (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I provided a WP:RS cite above which explained that UN SC Resolution 54 was registered under Chapter VII.

The Security Council Report is affiliated with Colombia University and sponsored by several UN Missions: Canada, Norway, Denmark, Greece, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland. Their "Special Research Report on Security Council Action Under Chapter VII: Myths and Realities, dated 23 June 2008, explains the Council practice in early days. Resolutions never expressly invoked Chapter VII. The Council simply took decisions, and it was clear from the context and from the actual words in the decisions that the Council was acting under Chapter VII.

The report specifically cites Resolution 54 of 1948, and says that the Council determined that the situation in Palestine was a threat to international peace and security and ordered a cessation of hostilities utilising articles 39 and 40 of the Charter. Although the phrase "Acting under Chapter VII" was never mentioned as a basis for the action then taken, the chapter’s authority was being used. harlan (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 338 (with the next few resolutions).is another example mentioned in the report. Good find, Harlan, this point in relation to SC 338 was the first edit I made to wikipedia, and I looked for such an easily accessible web ref for a long time. It is hard to argue that the Korean War resolutions were not intended to be binding / chapter VII, (though there was a debate about their Charter legality) yet the SC was cutesy even with them.John Z (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia articles are hopelessly WP:Synth on the topic of UN resolutions. The UN Charter doesn't mention them at all, just the authority to make recommendations and decisions in fulfillment of the organization's functions and purpose. It is a mistake to assume that the scope of a resolution must be confined to either one chapter or another. Very early on, the ICJ ruled that The UN had implied powers in addition to those explicitly listed in each chapter. The Court reasoned that the members had granted the organization the necessary legal authority for the exercise of its functions and the fulfillment of its purposes (Article 104), and that they were each obliged to render the organization "every assistance" in any action taken in accordance with the Charter (Article 2.5). see Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations for more details.

Scores of articles misuse Erika De Wet's strict constructionist-style analysis of the ICJ decision in the Namibia case to illustrate the (nearly irrelevant) point that none of the articles in Chapter VI facilitate the adoption of a binding resolution. Most Wikipedia articles simply make the unwarranted assertion that "this is a non-binding Chapter VI resolution".

Although De Wet did remark that resolutions adopted under the provisions of Chapter VI cannot be binding, she went on to explain that United Nations Security Council Resolution 276(1970), was indeed adopted under the terms of Chapter VII - even if only implicitly. She reached that conclusion because: (i)the call to action was binding on all members; and (ii)the resolution was adopted after the Security Council had determined "(if only by implication)" that the situation presented a threat to peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression. see The chapter VII powers of the United Nations Security Council, By Erika De Wet, pages 40 and 41. In so far as the Security Council was fulfilling its purpose according to the Charter, the difference between De Wet's view and the ICJ's view is completely academic. If the Security Council intends for an unidentified or "unmarked resolution" to be binding, then it is binding. You either accept the ICJ opinion, or re-read every one of those so-called Chapter VI resolutions to see if they meet De Wet's Chapter VII criteria. harlan (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Primary Sources UN Sec Res 54, 61, 62

WP:OR permits the use of primary sources when they speak for themselves, or when the analysis is provided by a WP:RS secondary source. The Security Council Report is sponsored by several UN diplomatic missions. It says that UN Resolution 54 was adopted in accordance with the terms of Chapter VII (as outlined in the section above). The fact that it and subsequent resolutions which mention article 40 & etc were "Chapter VII" resolutions can be confirmed by checking the primary sources.

The representative of Israel, Mr Eban, said that the resolution had been adopted under the terms of Chapter VII. His remarks are part of the verbatim record of the 340th Meeting of the Security Council. The meeting took place on the 27th of July, a week after the Security Council had adopted resolution 54. The Council was considering a request for an ICJ advisory opinion on the legality of adopting a Chapter VII resolution in regard to the Palestine Question. Mr. Eban said:

The theory was advanced the other day that a judgment of the Court might be of service to this Council, inasmuch as it would affect the determination of a threat to the peace or an act of aggression. The representative of China hinted that such a judgment might be necessary in order to determine whether Chapter VII of the Charter is applicable to the Palestine question at this or any future time. But the view that a juridical verdict must be preliminary to action under Chapter VII is completely disposed of by the fact that the Security Council has already taken action under Chapter VII, has determined the existence of a threat to the peace, and has, therefore, embarked upon a course which it must, if necessary, pursue throughout all the stages which follow that act of determination. It would certainly be remarkable if the Security Council, one week after applying Chapter VII of the Charter, were suddenly to find it necessary to have the views of another organ

of the United Nations on whether or not Chapter VII can be invoked.

The subsequent resolutions regarding the establishment of permanent cease fire and armistice lines, Resolutions 61 and 62, recalled resolution 54 and cited article 40 of the Charter (Chapter VII). Select a language to download a pdf of the verbatim record here: S/PV.340.

I came across a veiled reference to this in the Foreign Relations of the United States several years ago in connection with the IDF withdrawal from the Sinai in 1956. PM Ben Gurion had unilaterally declared the armistice agreements null and void. A US State Department official questioned the legal standing of the parties to do that, and mentioned that the agreements were an international undertaking that were sanctioned under the terms of Chapter VII. I was reminded of that the other day when the EU Foreign Minister suggested that the Security Council impose a solution that included a withdrawal to the lines that existed on 4 June 1967. harlan (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent POV additions to the lead

1. Low quality sources. Noam Chomsky is hardly an authoritive source on the Mideast conflict, and the other book is not much better. If anyone seriously insists on using the "Uneasy neighbors" book as a reliable source, then at least do not use it selectively - what about including that the UN is "obsessively devoted to criticsm of Israel" and so on.

2. The entry is as POV as it can get here on Wikipedia. Regularly and international consensus are a weaselwords, in particular in light of that resolutions were vetoed only 15% of the time and international consensus can mean anything and nothing. That most of the resolutions did not even supported the PLO and or called for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rather counterfactual. The resolutions called for all kinds of things, as you can easily check if you look at some of the textx of some resolutions.

3. The article is about resolutions concerning Israel, not about the US. If the US needs to be included, what about the vetoes and abstantions of other council members? That is what NPOV would require. It would also require to look at the disproportionate number of resolutions levelled against Israel, compared to other, arguably worse human-rights abusers. But then, that is not the purpose of this article and is not within the article topic.

4. The lenghty discussions on this talk page suggest that consensus is that the article should stay as it is, so not to become another Drama magnet. The very least criterion any new addition should satisfy a wording that is as neutral as possible and that is based on very strong and reputable reference.

5. The edit summary "Here is another Ref. And this is a fact, I don't need a strong Ref" was quite humurous, especially in light of the fact that the promised other reference was "3. The US has periodically used its veto to block resolutions critical of Israel. [sic!]". Stepopen (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Stepopen and welcome to Wikipedia. The text you removed reads as follows:

The United States has regularly voted alone and against international consensus, using its veto power to block the passing of many proposed UN Security Council resolutions supporting the PLO and calling for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

While I am sure that it can be further improved, I do not see a compelling reason for its outright deletion. Regarding your claims in point #1, Noam Chomsky is a WP:RS for the purposes of Wikipedia. Further, should you wish to include the claim that the UN is biased against Israel in this article, per the second source cited, I see little problem with adding that. Regarding point #2, "regularly" is used by the sources cited, and "international consensus" is a paraphrase (I believe) which can bve rephrased should you find it objectionable. I see you are familiar with WP:WEASEL, but I do not believe it applies here. Regarding claim #3, when multiple reliable sources mention US vetoes with regard to UN Security resolutions, we should too. If you have sources that discuss the vetoes by other states in this regard, please present them. I have no problem including them if they exist. The sources indicate though that US vetoes are quite relevant to this topic and so should be included (in my opinion at least, and I believe Imad Marie agrees). Regarding point #4, drama can be avoided by not reflexiely reverting out information you are having difficulty with, but by working to improve it, or by presenting suggestions for improving it here, rather than accusing your fellow editors of "POV" editing when they are merely represneting what is written in reliable sources. Point #5 is largely irrelevant to the present discussion. I provided you with sources that are in fact reliable. If you would like to see more however, such a request can be obliged, if you ask nicely. Tiamut^talk 15:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an NPOV policy that requires that mainstream majority viewpoints be included and presented as fairly as possible. The majority of UN member states have strongly deplored and condemned the actions of the United States in providing arms to Israel and in using its veto to prevent the adoption of sanctions. The US has adopted policies like the Negroponte doctrine in response. harlan (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

References

No, drama can be avoided by looking at the previous talk history, by using only undoubtly reliable sources and not Noam Chomsky, and by being as neutral and balanced as possible in ones own wording. Needless to say that one should also not introduce hoaxes in the article and misrepresent facts - if only roughly 15% of all resolutions have been vetoed by the US than this should not be hidden behind the weaselwords regularly and that the vast majority of all resolutions did not say anything about the PLO or the two state resolutions. That you come here and claim that you merely represent what reliable sources say is not very convincing, just look at how your sourcing works - you google "US veto Israel regularly" and then use whatever you find as a source. That doesn't make it look like you are overly concerned with facts, but more about what you think should be in the article. But then, as Humus sapiens said above, this article is about resolutions concerning Israel, and not about US activity in the security council. Stepopen (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Categorization of this article.

At the risk of precipitating a partisan debate (which is not my intention), I'm nevertheless compelled to raise the issue of this article's inclusion in the category of "antisemitism."
Is there a genuine, no-BS, objective source to support this? To merely follow a list of resolutions and brief descriptions of them with a placement into this category comes off as more or less in line with the fringe-minority view of anything remotely critical of Israel as little better than thinly-veiled antisemitism, a view which is hardly universal enough to warrant the classification of any and all UN resolutions concerning Israel as such.
I would like to get some feedback before eliminating the category listing, as I well understand that nearly everything concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is certain to be rife with controversy.--Apjohns54 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Un.N. Bias

Whu not point out the bias and the double standards of the U.N against Israel?Unicorn76 (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, find reputable sources about that and write an article summing up their findings. This one is about the UN resolutions concerning Israel.

If you feel that the UN itself are biased - sorry, bro, I'm afraid you'll have to find another planet... --Edoe (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Why are there no UNGA Resolutions against Israel after 1991? Is this a lapse in this article? Surely it can't be entirely down to the USA's uncritical stance towards the State of Israel? It's outrageous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.58.189 (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad Links

I apologize, however the links I entered for 1982-83 GA resolutions do not work. The UN site links to an intermediate site which then links to the final site with the resolution, either an html page or a pdf. However, neither the html nor the PDF resolutions (nor the addresses of the intermediate sites which you have to capture very quickly as they go by) work when linked from Wikipedia. If anyone knows how to fix them, please do so and/or post the solution here. Thanks. Jeisenberg (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Why Not Update this?

Why stop in 2009? Has the UN really not passed any resolutions on Palestine and Israel since then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.104.9 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 November 2013

Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While UN resolutions over Palestine and Israel issues are sometimes related they are deserving each a separate page. Many of the resolutions regarding Israel are nothing to do with Palestine, and many resolutions on Palestinians deal with status of refugees in Arab League countries, or with the Status of PLO in UN. I therefore suggest to split this page into List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel and List of United Nations resolutions concerning Palestine. Thoughts?GreyShark (dibra) 09:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

For some reason the split tag was removed, so i'm restarting the process.GreyShark (dibra) 19:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - i invite user:BDD, who participated in a similar discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 19:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Not sure. This list is pretty long, but presumably many of these resolutions do concern both Israel and Palestine. (By contrast, a cathedral can really only be in one of Israel or Palestine, even if not everyone agrees on the borders.) Wouldn't there still be substantial overlap between those two lists? --BDD (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: Actually i counted, and it seems approximately one third might overlap, which is in my opinion sufficient for split. In fact quite many resolutions concern Arab-Israeli issues, but not specifically Palestinians/Palestine. For instance many resolutions concern Israel & Lebanon or Israeli-Syrian cease fire line UN mission, general resolutions condemning Israel and more. On the other hand there are quite several resolutions regarding specifically Palestinians, which do not concern Israel directly - such as resolutions on Palestine refugees, resolutions on recognizing Palestine etc.GreyShark (dibra) 05:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you mostly but don't you think that the resolutions on "Palestinian refugees" or on "recognizing Palestine" concern Israel? I think both of these issues are of great concern for Israel. What do you say? Sohebbasharat (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sohebbasharat: Not directly. You can also say that latest List of UN resolutions concerning Syria also concern all of Europe, because of the Syrian refugees and European involvement in the war, but this is simply an extrapulation. Same here.GreyShark (dibra) 22:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I would in principle be in support of a split, however had, there should be a separate article or some kind of table/overview that also lists the specific historic dates too. 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?GreyShark (dibra) 06:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - in order to enhance this discussion i would like to summon user:Al Ameer son and user:IRISZOOM, who participated in a similar discussion on splitting "Islam in Israel" and "Islam in Palestine".
• Comment - to summarize some previous points:
  • This article is the last article and among the last pages on Wikipedia about any topic concerning "Israel and Palestine".
  • Technically we have an article "List of UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine", but the talk page is titled "List of UN resolutions concerning Israel", so we need to fix this.
  • While there is a certain portion of overlap between the suggested articles, but 1/3 overlap is not much different than overlap of resolutions concerning Israel and List of United Nations resolutions relating to Lebanon.
  • Furthermore, it seems we mostly agree that Palestine is a separate entity from Israel as of today and considering the existence of articles like List of United Nations resolutions concerning Western Sahara (and not "Morocco and Western Sahara" even though the level of statehood of Western Sahara is lower than Palestine), Palestine should probably have a separate article.

Opinions are welcome.GreyShark (dibra) 07:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Split I share concerns with the above users about the issue of overlap, but I think that can be easily solved if the overlapping resolutions are mentioned on both of the new proposed pages. Since we have two entities here, there should be separate pages concerning the two. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Split I agree there should be separate pages and that those resolutions that overlap can stay in both articles. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV links

Several resolutions link to Jewishvirtuallibrary, where they are often preceded by heavily POV comments, making the links used strongly POV. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 21:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

POV links are allowed per Wikipedia guidelines, as long as they are reliable and balanced.GreyShark (dibra) 22:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907164437/http://www.eyeontheun.org/browse-un.asp?ya=1&sa=1&u=344&un_s=0&ul=1&tp=1&tpn=Resolution to http://www.eyeontheun.org/browse-un.asp?ya=1&sa=1&u=344&un_s=0&ul=1&tp=1&tpn=Resolution

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Israel equating anti-Israeli discussion as being anti-Semitic.

Over the past few decades Israel has succeeded in stifling any and all criticism of Israel, Israel’s Holocaust of the Palestinians as being anti-Semitic. This is very true within the US and also across Europe. Israel has very powerful political lobbying groups and friends among elected officials ( US Congress and Senate) which helps kill any and all legislation critical of Israel and hence any attempt to reduce the level of financial assistance Israel continues to receive from the USA. Adwisesf (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

How many is "almost more?"

Article says Israel has received "almost more" resolutions than other countries combined. Extremely vague and misleading. Please correct this to reflect facts. From this, nobody can tell. zeleftikam (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2021

An article has been created on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 303. This article's current mention of Resolution 303 is an external link; I'd like to suggest that this be changed to a link to the Wikipedia article, like resolutions 181, 194 and 273. Erik de Wolf (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Where are the zionists objecting to this article in Wikipedia ? I think if they object they will be silenced by the facts that the free World knows.

Who is the worst worldwide terrorist ? 2603:6000:D800:5344:6840:5C4B:5185:3871 (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2023

I'd like to suggest changing the following description of the latest UN General Assembly resolution from: "2023 27 October: Resolution ES-10/21: Criticizing Israeli actions in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war."

To: "2023 27 October: Resolution ES-10/21: Protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations in the 2023 Israel-Hams war.";

As this is more in line with the title and the content of said resolution. The current description refers to how the subject was called on the agenda, and not to the resolution as it was passed.

During an ongoing conflict and this one especially it's hard to stay objective or even find objective information, and that's why I've attentively read the actual text of the the resolution where the linked article links to (https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N23/319/20/PDF/N2331920.pdf?OpenElement through https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%2FES-10%2FL.25&Language=E".

My apologies if this is the incorrect forum to suggest this correction. Jaap-073 (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)