A rchive Date
[ 16-02-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.N ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/goldstein_feb16.html
Iraq and Israel? There's no comparison
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN -- Toronto Sun
February 16, 2003
It's one of the most common arguments made by apologists for Saddam Hussein.
That is: Iraq is being unfairly targeted by the United Nations Security Council because Israel, unlike Iraq, has been allowed to defy Security Council resolutions for 36 years with impunity. Thus, Saddam's defenders argue, a double standard is being applied which singles out Iraq, but not Israel.
This absurd contention is particularly ironic since, as I documented last week, the UN has been so singularly punitive toward Israel for decades now, the world body can rightly be accused of anti-Semitism toward the Jewish state.
Beyond that, the so-called easy ride Israel-bashers claim the Jewish state has received from the Security Council compared to Iraq, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding, and often a deliberate misstating, of what the two key resolutions regarding each state say, and what they mean.
The two resolutions that lie at the heart of this debate are:
1) Security Council Resolution 242, passed on Nov. 22, 1967. It followed the conclusion of the Six Day War in which Israel's Arab neighbours attempted to drive the Jewish state into the sea, just as they had the day after the state of Israel was created in 1948. This resolution called for the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict."
2) UN Security Council Resolution 1441, passed on Nov. 8, 2002. It said Iraq, dating back to its invasion of Kuwait in August, 1990, "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations" under 16 earlier Security Council resolutions and is being given "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" or face "serious consequences."
Despite what Israel-bashers claim, there is no double standard at all in how these two resolutions have been applied.
Entirely different
First, Resolution 1441, applying to Iraq, is an entirely different kind of resolution from 242, referring to Israel.
As even tough critics of Israel such as The Economist magazine and Sun columnist Salim Mansur, a political science professor at the University of Western Ontario, have explained, the UN makes a clear distinction between two kinds of Security Council resolutions.
Resolution 242, calling on Israel to withdraw from the territories it won in its war against Arab aggression in 1967, is known as a Chapter 6 resolution under the UN Charter. In such cases, the Security Council makes non-binding recommendations aimed at the peaceful resolution of disputes.
By contrast, Resolution 1441, calling on Iraq to give up its weapons of mass destruction following its August, 1990 invasion of Kuwait and its continued non-compliance with the UN, is a Chapter 7 resolution. As The Economist explained last October in contrasting the Israel and Iraq situations, Chapter 7 resolutions give the Security Council "broad powers to take action, including warlike action (my italics), to deal with" to quote directly from the UN Charter, "any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression."
Chapter 7 resolutions, as Mansur explained last December, have been used twice by the Security Council - to deal with the invasion by North Korea of South Korea in June, 1950, and to deal with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August, 1990 - out of which 1441 flowed following 11 years of non-compliance by Saddam with earlier Chapter 7 resolutions.
Equally important, Resolution 242, as it applies to Israel, is one of the most misunderstood UN resolutions in history.
As The Economist explains: "Resolution 242 ... frequently cited in the double standards argument (Israel vs. Iraq), does not say what a lot of the people who quote it think it says.
"It does not instruct Israel to withdraw unilaterally from the territories occupied in 1967. It does not condemn Israel's conquest, for the good reason that most western powers at the time thought it the result of a justifiable pre-emptive war. It calls for a negotiated settlement, based on the principle of exchanging land for peace.
This is a very different matter.
"In the case of Iraq, the Security Council has instructed Mr. Hussein to take various unilateral actions that he is perfectly capable of taking." In contrast, "resolution 242 cannot be implemented unilaterally, even if Israel wanted to do so."
Further, 242 is always quoted selectively by Israel-bashers who repeat, ad nauseam, the section calling for "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" while ignoring its other, equally important component. That is, its recognition of the right of every state in the area, including Israel, "to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
Obviously, the "threats or acts of force" against Israel continued well after 1967, including the surprise attack launched by Egypt and Syria on Oct. 6, 1973. The so-called Yom Kippur War, begun against the Jewish state on the holiest day of the Jewish year, marked yet another (failed) attempt by Israel's Arab neighbours to annihilate it. The threat to Israel, of course, continues today in the form of Palestinian terrorism, meaning we are nowhere near the mutual conditions Resolution 242 requires of all parties in the region, and not just Israel, to make it a reality. By contrast, Iraq can comply with Resolution 1441, which the Security Council has certainly been taking its sweet time about actually enforcing, all on its own.
Iraq and Israel? Sorry, but there's simply no comparison.
Lorrie can be reached at (416) 947-2212, by fax at (416) 947-3228 or by e-mail at lorrie.goldstein@tor.sunpub.com. Or visit his home page Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|