At the U.N., Only Israel Is an ‘Occupying Power’

[shira]

What about Russia in Crimea, Armenia in parts of Azerbaijan, or what Vietnam did in Cambodia?


....Our research shows that the U.N. uses an entirely different rhetoric and set of legal concepts when dealing with Israel compared with situations of occupation or settlements world-wide. For example, Israel is referred to as the “Occupying Power” 530 times in General Assembly resolutions. Yet in seven major instances of past or present prolonged military occupation—Indonesia in East Timor, Turkey in northern Cyprus, Russia in areas of Georgia, Morocco in Western Sahara, Vietnam in Cambodia, Armenia in areas of Azerbaijan, and Russia in Ukraine’s Crimea—the number is zero. The U.N. has not called any of these countries an “Occupying Power.” Not even once.

It gets worse. Since 1967, General Assembly resolutions have referred to Israeli-held territories as “occupied” 2,342 times, while the territories mentioned above are referred to as “occupied” a mere 16 times combined. The term appears in 90% of resolutions dealing with Israel, and only in 14% of the much smaller number of resolutions dealing with the all the other situations, a difference that vastly surpasses the threshold of statistical significance. Similarly, Security Council resolutions refer to the disputed territories in the Israeli-Arab conflict as “occupied” 31 times, but only a total of five times in reference to all seven other conflicts combined. General Assembly resolutions employ the term “grave” to describe Israel’s actions 513 times, as opposed to 14 total for all the other conflicts, which involve the full gamut of human-rights abuses, including allegations of ethnic cleansing and torture. Verbs such as “condemn” and “deplore” are sprinkled into Israel-related resolutions tens more times than they are in resolutions about other conflicts, setting a unique tone of disdain.

Israel has been reminded by resolutions against it of the country’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions about 500 times since 1967—as opposed to two times for the other situations. In particular, the resolutions refer to Article 49(6), which states that the “Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” This is the provision that the entire legal case against Israel settlements is based upon. Yet no U.N. body has ever invoked Article 49(6) in relation to any of the occupations mentioned above. This even though, as Mr. Kontorovich shows in a new research article, “Unsettled: A Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territories,” all these situations have seen settlement activity, typically on a scale that eclipses Israel’s. However, the U.N. has only used the legally loaded word “settlements” to describe Israeli civilian communities (256 times by the GA and 17 by the Security Council). Neither body has ever used that word in relation to any other country with settlers in occupied territory.

Our findings don’t merely quantify the U.N.’s double standard. The evidence shows that the organization’s claim to represent the interest of international justice is hollow, because the U.N. has no interest in battling injustice unless Israel is the country accused.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/at-the-u-n-only-israel-is-an-occupying-power-1473808544

[jonno99]

1. Reminds me of a good rule of thumb: don't attack your neighbor without provocation.

Addendum:

And, when you lose the attack against your neighbor, don't complain about how unfair they are being when they "take" some of your land to create a buffer zone - as a defense against the next time you attack them.

[leftynyc]

3. Amen

So fucking tired of ALL the blame falling on Israel when the Palestinians and their vile leadership has let them down again and again and again.

[Little Tich]

2. I call BS on the OP.

There are at least two resolutions on West Sahara that use the word "occupation" outright, and there are numerous references to international law in other UN documents about West Sahara as well.

A/RES/35/19, 11 NOVEMBER 1980
http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/a_res_35_19.pdf

A/RES/34/37, 21 NOVEMBER 1979
http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/A_RES_34_37.pdf

UN Documents for Western Sahara
Source: Security Council report
http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/western-sahara/

It's also worth noting that UNSC Resolution 1483 (2003) very clearly defines the US and UK as occupying powers in Iraq and that they have responsibilities under international law.
http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/pdf/resolution1483_iraq_en.pdf

[jonno99]

4. From what I can see, your documents are about what "was". The OP is about what "IS".

IOW, are there any documents that relate to currently occupying powers - besides Israel?

[Little Tich]

6. The Moroccan occupation of West Sahara is still ongoing - just ask Ban Ki Moon. n/t

[jonno99]

8. It is a very simple point:

Our research shows that the U.N. uses an entirely different rhetoric and set of legal concepts when dealing with Israel compared with situations of occupation or settlements world-wide.

...

The U.N. has not called any of these countries an “Occupying Power.” Not even once.

Is the above true - or not?

[shira]

10. It's very simple. Your opponent knows damned well how simple & factual the point is. n/t

[shira]

13. By it's singular focus on Israel, the UN effectively absolves all other nations' occupations.

Which is totally okay with the Israel haters, BTW. So long as the Jews are paying, anything goes.

This unusual grade of obsessive, self-destructive antipathy is a hallmark of classical eliminationist anti-Semitism. Unlike ordinary intergroup prejudice “found in the suspicion and resentment which are often directed against neighbors of another tribe, another race, another faith, or from another place,”explains historian Bernard Lewis, anti-Semitism is a “special and peculiar hatred” that attributes to Jews “secret and diabolical power.”

Against such a perceived enemy, no sacrifice is too great. Nazi Germany’s diversion of much-needed resources in the final months of World War II from fighting the Red Army (and providing for the escape of German refugees) to exterminating more Jews makes sense only to someone who sees the latter as a cosmic evil.

Although anti-Semites often go to great pains to avoid expressing their hatred as anti-Jewish (indeed, they coined the term “anti-Semitism” itself as a politically correct euphemism for Judenhass), this unique cognitive signature is easy enough to spot—just take a measurement of what the subjects are prepared to sacrifice to harm Jews.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/09/viewing-bds-as-a-settler-colonial-ideology-is-gaining-traction/#more

[Little Tich]

16. I seem to be the only one who actually reads the UN resolutions about occupied territories.

Please try to explain how the wording in RES 34/37 about Western Sahara would have a diffent significance from those that deal with Israel:
(snip)

5. Deeply deplores the aggravation of the situation resulting from the continued occupation of Western Sahara by Morocco and the extension of that occupation to the territory recently evacuated by Mauretania;

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/A_RES_34_37.pdf

There's of course more, but it's easier if you just follow the link.

To be fair, if you want to prove that the UN is inconsistent in how resolutions are passed condemning actions in various countries, you might have a leg to stand on. But if it's to prove that resolutions condemning Israel are using a different standard altogether, it's not going to be easy.

[shira]

19. Maybe we should do a word search & comparison on the phrase "deeply deplores"...

....regarding different occupations. I'm willing to bet in advance the count is incredibly lopsided towards Israel, and in fact I'm sure there are plenty more "deeply deplores" WRT Israel than those 7 other situations combined.

Take me up on that? I assure you I haven't even started such a word search.

[Little Tich]

20. Me? I have nothing to prove - you go ahead and have fun with the resolutions... n/t

[shira]

21. The OP includes verbs like "deplore"....

Verbs such as “condemn” and “deplore” are sprinkled into Israel-related resolutions tens more times than they are in resolutions about other conflicts, setting a unique tone of disdain.

So forget my challenge in the last post. I didn't read the OP carefully enough. My bad. Of course, using the word "deplore" ten times more proves my point about the UN being lopsidedly hostile towards Israel & lax in comparison to the other 7 occupations.

Question is why this unique disdain for Israel? What makes Israel worse than all those other occupations?

I'm still not getting what you think you've proved, BTW...since there really isn't any way to say the UN treats Israel's occupation as it does any other. You know that for a fact.

Here's a better challenge for you....

Find how many times "settlements" is brought up WRT these other occupations & furthermore, try to find where they're called "illegal" by the UN.

[Little Tich]

22. I'll let you have all the fun reading and comparing the UN resolutions...

[shira]

5. You're not responding to the precise terminology from the OP.

But it's noteworthy you had to go back nearly 40 years to find some documents.

That should tell you something.

[Little Tich]

7. The Moroccan occupation of West Sahara was specifically mentioned in the OP.

It was also the first I looked at. If the authors of the OP didn't bother to fact-check the most basic premises of their arguments, there's little chance that the rest of the article is accurate.

[shira]

9. Sure, so find how many times Morocco is described as the "Occupying Power".

That was, after all, the claim from the OP. Israel gets labeled that way all the time. Other occupiers, never. Not once, ever.

Stick to the precise terminology in the OP. Don't make up your own claims, pretend that's what the OP argues, and then shoot down those straw mans. I wonder, is this deliberate on your part?

To help you out...

1. The U.N. has not called any of these countries an “Occupying Power.” Not even once.
2. Since 1967, General Assembly resolutions have referred to Israeli-held territories as “occupied” 2,342 times, while the territories mentioned above are referred to as “occupied” a mere 16 times combined.
3. Similarly, Security Council resolutions refer to the disputed territories in the Israeli-Arab conflict as “occupied” 31 times, but only a total of five times in reference to all seven other conflicts combined.
4. General Assembly resolutions employ the term “grave” to describe Israel’s actions 513 times, as opposed to 14 total for all the other conflicts,
5. Verbs such as “condemn” and “deplore” are sprinkled into Israel-related resolutions tens more times than they are in resolutions about other conflicts, setting a unique tone of disdain.
6. Israel has been reminded by resolutions against it of the country’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions about 500 times since 1967—as opposed to two times for the other situations.
7. However, the U.N. has only used the legally loaded word “settlements” to describe Israeli civilian communities (256 times by the GA and 17 by the Security Council). Neither body has ever used that word in relation to any other country with settlers in occupied territory.

7 claims there.

Prove any one of them false.

Or punt.

[Little Tich]

11. The simplest way to refute an argument is to prove that its negation is true, which I've already

done.

It's up to you to prove that "the continued occupation of That territory by Morocco" isn't synonymous with Morocco being the "occupying power", which could be difficult. Perhaps you'll have better luck with trying to prove the argument that the "General Assembly resolutions have referred to Israeli-held territories as “occupied” 2,342 times"?

Either way, if the authors of the OP are unable to understand the contents of UN resolutions about West Sahara, why should they be trusted to know anything about resolutions about Israel? My skepticism is fully justified.

[shira]

12. And you haven't refuted anything. Nice try with the bullshit.

Last edited Fri Sep 16, 2016, 07:44 AM - Edit history (2)

Why doesn't the UN label Morocco the occupying power?

They have no problem using that loaded language with Israel. So why not with Morocco or any other occupier?



I expect crickets in response, as usual.

[jonno99]

14. As the saying goes-

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Peace to you...

[shira]

15. Your argument is to prove Morocco being an "occupying power" isn't synonymous...

....with their "continued occupation of That territory by Morocco".

That isn't the argument the OP makes, however. The argument is in the loaded language and I'm surprised you can't see it. Maybe you don't want to see it.

That loaded language of "Occupying Power" comes verbatim from Gen. Art. 49.6 and the UN applies it only to Israel and no one else (in a prolonged occupation). No other nation that occupies another in a prolonged manner is ever described or compared to the situation within Geneva 49.6. And that's the point.

The OP is 100% factually accurate and correct. We all know why the UN uses that precise terminology only for Israel. As the OP states:

Israel has been reminded by resolutions against it of the country’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions about 500 times since 1967—as opposed to two times for the other situations.

Now you tell us why the Gen 49.6 language referring to the "Occupying Power" isn't used for any other occupying nation other than Israel. Go on. You know why. Be honest. Tell us why Israel is such a special case.

[Little Tich]

17. If you could perhaps take a look at S/RES/1483 (2003) that I linked to in post #2?

UNSC Resolution 1483 (2003)
(snip)

Noting the letter of 8 May 2003 from the Permanent Representatives of the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the President of the Security Council (S/2003/538) and recognizing the specific authorities, responsibilities, and obligations under applicable international law of these states as occupying powers under unified command (the “Authority”),

I'l be honest with you - I think the OP is total BS. If there are any claims you want to pursue about UN resolutions concerning Israel, please provide some evidence based on those resolutions and not the claims of the OP. I have no intention of poring over more UN resolutions to refute an unproven claim.

[shira]

18. Problem is you don't read too well. Here's what the OP states...

Yet in seven major instances of past or present prolonged military occupation—Indonesia in East Timor, Turkey in northern Cyprus, Russia in areas of Georgia, Morocco in Western Sahara, Vietnam in Cambodia, Armenia in areas of Azerbaijan, and Russia in Ukraine’s Crimea—the number is zero.

The US and UK occupations were not prolonged, nor really comparable to that of Israel or the 7 other examples.

Next?

BTW, love the Chewbacca defense. What happened to the argument about "synonymous terms"?