The Politics of Oil

New Resources


[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Date Index] [Subject Index]

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Comment: Paul Foot on UN resolutions



Discussing what Arabs perceive to be double standards --CH
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,838915,00.html
Title: Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Comment: Paul Foot on UN resolutions
Guardian Unlimited
Login Go to:  Guardian Unlimited home UK news World news Archive search Arts Books Business EducationGuardian.co.uk Film Football Jobs MediaGuardian.co.uk Money The Observer Politics Shopping SocietyGuardian.co.uk Sport Talk Travel ---------------------- Audio Net news Special reports The Guardian The weblog Email services The informer The northerner The wrap ---------------------- Crossword Headline service Syndication services Events / offers Help / contacts Information Newsroom Notes & Queries Style guide Travel offers TV listings Weather Web guides ---------------------- Guardian Weekly Money Observer 
Guardian UnlimitedSpecial reports
Home UK Business Online News in pictures The wrap Weblog Talk Search
The Guardian World News guide Arts Special reports Columnists Audio Help Quiz

Special report Israel and the Middle East


  Search this site

Go to...
Special report: Israel & the Middle East

Israel and the Middle East archived articles

Audio reports from Israel



 In this section
Israel goes in after killings on kibbutz

Comment: Paul Foot on UN resolutions

Israelis fear war crimes arrests

Israelis storm West Bank town

Five killed on Israeli kibbutz after police foil suicide attack

Netanyahu's power play clouds US relations

Netanyahu fires first shot against Sharon

Letters: Amnesty universal

Stop printing book until I alter it, chief rabbi tells publisher

Labour chief lags in polls

Jonathan Freedland: There is a way out

Likud heavyweights square off for battle

Sharon calls early election

Yossi Beilin: Vote offers new opportunities for peace camp

Gay Israeli MP faces new battle in knesset


Comment

Still waiting for No 242

Paul Foot
Wednesday November 13, 2002
The Guardian


Triumphant photographs in the newspapers showing all 15 members of the UN security council voting unanimously for the US-UK resolution on Iraq reminded me of a similar picture that dominated my parents' home for a decade. My father, Hugh Foot, later Lord Caradon, was for most of his life a colonial servant. He helped to haul down the Union Jack in Nigeria, where he was chief secretary, and in Jamaica and Cyprus, where he was governor. By far his proudest achievement was as UK representative to the UN in 1967 when he managed, after five months of delicate and dedicated negotiation, to persuade all 15 members of the security council to vote for resolution 242. He had the photograph of the vote framed, and it sat proudly on his desk until he died in 1990.

Resolution 242 referred to the seizure and occupation in the 1967 six-day war by Israeli military forces of lots of other countries' land inhabited in the main by Palestinians. Resolution 242 called for the "withdrawal of Israel's armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". The terms of the resolution have been hotly debated ever since. Clever pro-Israeli lawyers observe that the word "all" does not appear in the text before the words "territories occupied"; and that therefore the resolution leaves it open to Israeli forces to withdraw only from "some", not all, of the occupied territories. So I was very glad to read an article in last month's International and Comparative Law Quarterly by the London solicitor John McHugo. He meticulously and comprehensively demolishes what he calls "the rightwing interpretation" of the resolution. He cites as an example a notice in a park that "dogs must be kept on a lead", and asks whether this could be taken to mean "some dogs must be kept on a lead", or whether it means what it says - "all dogs must be kept on a lead". He interprets 242 in the context of its preamble that emphasises the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". After an analysis of the contributions to the UN debate on the resolution, including my father's, he concludes that the resolution meant what it said: that Israeli forces should be withdrawn from the territories they occupied in the six-day war: the West Bank of Jordan, the Golan heights and a large part of Jerusalem.

How does the reaction to resolution 242 compare with the one passed last week on Iraq? The Iraq resolution has been pursued with furious haste. Weapons inspectors are expected in Iraq in a matter of days, and if there is the slightest even momentary hesitation on behalf of the Iraqi government, everyone assumes that war will follow. Resolution 242, on the other hand, has been passed for 35 years. For all that time it has been contemptuously ignored by the Israeli government. What conclusion can we draw from this comparison?

Some international lawyers argue that the Iraq resolution is passed under chapter VII of the UN charter and therefore requires prompt action, while resolution 242 does not. But why not? Why is the demand for Israeli withdrawal not backed up with a threat of force? As President Bush himself put it in his speech to the UN general assembly on September 12: "Are security council resolutions to be honoured or cast aside without consequence?" The real argument behind the double standard seems to be this: unanimous UN resolutions assisting US oil imperialism will be enforced with the most ruthless military rigour, while unanimous UN resolutions directed against states friendly to the US will be ignored. Whether that is what the founders of the UN had in mind is not clear. What is clear is that whatever happens in Iraq, Palestine is still the issue.

· I waded, astonished, through the mountains of media space devoted last week to the crisis in the Conservative party. Almost all of it deals with personalities - who would make the best Tory leader, poor wooden Iain Duncan Smith, former wild man Michael Portillo or the tobacco king Ken Clarke?

Hardly anyone seems to have noticed the real reason for the Tory panic: the fact that the party is the official opposition of what is now indistinguishable from a Tory government. Hardly a day goes by without a government minister borrowing, as though he or she had invented it, a former Tory policy. Indeed, on a number of issues such as tuition fees for further education students or the privatisation of the tube or air traffic control or a new set of barracks for asylum seekers, New Labour ministers have gone further than their Tory predecessors ever dared to tread. How can a deeply reactionary, privatising, xenophobic party possibly hope to oppose a deeply reactionary, privatising, xenophobic government?

comment@guardian.co.uk

Special report
Israel and the Middle East

World news guide
Israel
Middle East

Timeline
A chronology of events in the Middle East

Key speech
25.06.2002: Full text of George Bush's speech on Palestinian statehood

The issue explained
24.07.2002: Crisis in the Middle East

Interactive guide
How the Israelis and Palestinians came to war

Weblog
The best journalism on the conflict, from around the web

Government sites
Israeli Knesset (parliament)
Israeli ministry of foreign affairs
Israeli government site
Office of the Israeli prime minister
Palestinian Ministry of Information

Media
Ha'aretz newspaper
Palestine News Agency
Jerusalem Post
Jerusalem Times
Electronic Intifada

More news, information and opinion
Peacewatch
Bitter Lemons
Electronic Intifada
Albawaba.com




Printable version | Send it to a friend | Read it later | See saved stories





UP

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002

Back to:   The Politics of Oil Main Page