Talk:List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel Portal
List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Speaking of "weasel" words, WHY, pray tell, does is this article titled "concerning" Israel? Israel has 321 Resolutions AGAINST it, far more than ANY country in history. Israel is CURRENTLY in violation of just about ALL of these resolutions. Do yourselves a favor guys/gals: if you are going to PRETEND to be objective, at least, put a LITTLE EFFORT into it. You are fooling no one but yourselves. It should be obvious to anyone trying to use Wikipedia where a controversy or conflict exists, ESPECIALLY between and amongst Semites that there is no "getting at the truth" nor an "unbiased testimony". It is likely to be in the best interests of all concerned to attach themselves to Citizendium, which by being more scholarly will replace Wikipedia, where every one can edit and does (too many cooks spoil the broth!)Mark Preston 20:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] "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

[edit] 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. [1] 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. [2]

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. [3] 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."[4]:

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. [5]

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." [6]

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.

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. [1] 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. [2]

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. [3]

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)

[edit] 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!


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)

[edit] US Vetoes moved to talk

The United States has vetoed dozens of UN resolutions censuring or condemning Israel. [1] 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. [2]

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)

[edit] Weasel Words

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

Both pro-Israeli [7] and anti-Israeli sources [8] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)