“The Sin in Syria is Low Wages,” by Ehsani

The Sin in Syria is Low Wages
By Ehsani
for Syria Comment
October 17, 2010

My motivation for writing this essay is to offer a counter argument to an article that I read this morning by a fellow Syrian who lashed out at the Syrian private sector. The article is by Abu Fares, “The Syrian Private Sector: A Socioeconomic Farce,” which was posted on his website.  As regular readers of Syria Comment know, I have consistently and forcefully sided with the economic reform process in Syria.

Indeed, my only lament is that it is too little too late. I believe that the process has not been fast enough or radical enough. I am fully aware that my support for the reform process is not shared by a significant number of Syrians. This is not surprising. Change will produce new winners and losers. In this short essay, I will first list the winners and losers of the socialist era. I will then explain how the reform process has caught most Syrians off guard and unprepared for the changes that they must face. The failure of many Syrians to understand what needs to be fixed in order to assure the next generation a better life is causing many to blame the reform process and the private sector for the growing poverty and income disparity in our country. It has also brought growing anger at those leading and benefiting from the change.

The winners of the pre-reform system

The socialist experiment that dates back to the 1960’s was launched by confiscating private property, nationalizing industries and giving the state a dominant role in the economy. Moreover, the nationalist fever as well as the geopolitical considerations of the period demanded a policy of self-sufficiency and import substitution when it comes to production and the raw materials needed for this output. It was not difficult to see who the winners were likely to be in this system.

The growth of the public sector meant that the state would be the destination of first choice for young Syrians who did not necessarily have the education or skills that may have been required by a none-state employer. Since these public sector jobs were secure till retirement, it was not difficult to see how government jobs multiplied to exceed two million in number over the past three decades. The way these jobs were allocated usually had little to do with merit or qualifications. Indeed, they were largely dolled out by senior party and government officials for personal gain and to buy loyalty from underlings. Stories of of the occasional kickback paid to secure a key government job quickly gave way to persistent rumors of how nepotism and the selling of state position had become institutionalized over time.

The goal of staying independent and self-sufficient also produced its own winners. For almost forty years, the most coveted trophy of local manufacturers was to secure “himaye watanniye” or protection from imports for their products. The allure of this trophy also meant a huge source of income to senior party and government officials. Local manufacturers were more than happy to pay. One of my close friends was smart enough to start producing ketchup over 20 years ago. His business plan was simple. Pay whatever it takes to obtain the himaye wataniye for his product. Once he did, he flew to Germany (China was not in the game then) and bought the cheapest and most primitive production line available. A few months later, he had the Syrian market largely to himself. Imports of ketchup were not permitted. The Syrian consumer had little choice but to buy this third-rate product enriching my lucky (or smart) relative for close to a decade.

The local manufacturers not only benefited from a monopolistic business environment but also from ridiculously subsidized and cheap heating fuel (mazot), electricity and water. For decades, they enjoyed nearly free inputs for their production and no competition. If this were not enough, they sent their children to state schools and universities for free and paid almost no taxes.

Who were the losers of this system?

The vast resources that were used to subsidize the public sector could have been spent on infrastructure, health care, and export incentives. The average Syrian citizen has paid a very heavy price in the form of run down services and national infrastructure. What is more, Syria has few of the vigorous state institutions and private corporations that would have grown up in a properly competitive system with some measure of quality control and accountability.

The education system has also suffered. Rather than offering totally free education that has become unsustainable and cannot keep up with quality necessary for today’s demanding market, the state should be means-testing students and asking the wealthy to pay something. If not for elementary education and high school, at least for university.

Other obvious losers are Syrian consumers who have been forced to buy inferior local products for decades. They have subsidized local manufacturers, which are today uncompetitive for the most part and will soon collapse if they have not already been driven into bankruptcy.  University graduates in anything other than the schools of medicine and engineering were also losers.

Allow me to relate a personal story to make an important point. When I decided to study Economics in the UK in the late 1970’s, most of my parents’ friends and relatives were bewildered. “Why would you spend this much money on your son to study Economics?” they were often asked. What would he do with this degree? Will he Work as a teller at the local commercial bank of Syria when he returns? What would be his salary? Would it not make more sense if he simply joined his father’s business form now and saved you the money? Interestingly, all Syrian students of that era had to obtain what was referred to at the time as “taleb taht al-ishraf” or student under government supervision. With strict currency control in place, it was impossible for my parents to pay for my tuition unless I qualified. But, it was impossible to qualify as a student of Economics. You had to do either Engineering or medicine to obtain the government approval. Given that computer engineering was a new subject at the time, I enrolled myself in that department for one course and used a letter from the university that I was indeed taking part in their “engineering” school. The trick worked. I proceeded to earn my Economics degree and then my MBA from an Ivy League school in the U.S. When I arrived at the latter institution, I was greeted by the admission officer this way:

“Welcome, you are the first Syrian we have had here since 1964”. These words still ring in my ear some 27 years later. My relatives were correct though. There was nothing for me to do with my new degree in Syria.

The reform process:

I will spare the readers the history of the reform process or the geopolitical events that may have led to the possible delay in its implementation. What is important is that the train has departed the station. Reform began with the introduction of the private bank law back in 2003-2004.

The system of himaye wattaniye was slowly dismantled. Local manufacturers are no longer able to sell inferior products as quasi-monopolies. They now needed to compete with relentless regional producers who are mostly exempt from import duties thanks to the Arab free trade agreement. The recent opening to Turkey has added a new formidable competitor. The same can be said about imports from China. In sum, the local Syrian manufacturing base is now facing an onslaught that it is ill-prepared to face following years of protection and underinvestment. If this was not enough, government officials must have used their excel spreadsheets to figure out that the existing level of subsidies cannot possibly continue. The reduction and streamlining of some of these subsidies has dealt a further blow to the profitability of local producers.

The growth of the public sector has slowed down as government jobs have largely disappeared. The state sector has endured a hiring freeze for a number of years. Who is hiring now? Who are the winners in the new system? What are we to make of recent reports detailing the “incredible” and “shocking” salaries of the senior executives of the country’s new private banks?

These questions and more were posed by Abu Fares in his article, “The Syrian Private Sector: A Socioeconomic Farce”. Reading his post this morning inspired me to write this article.

To be sure, Abu Fares’ article makes for entertaining reading. It is hard to disagree with his negative portrayal of the current income disparity in Syria. However, his story is akin to taking a snapshot of a movie without watching its start, middle or end. What is noteworthy is that while Abu Fares lashes out against the rich, both the nouveau and old money, he conveniently omits any discussion of why the poor make a measly monthly salary of SYP 11,000 (US$ 234). Central to his article is the following question that he poses to his readers:

“Who in the hell gets paid a salary of $42,000 a month in Syria? While the average accountant’s monthly salary is $400 in the private sector, some accountants are making $20,000 and up”?

Since he did not attempt to answer his own question, I thought that I would give it a shot:

Those making a salary of $42,000 a month or $504,000 a year are the general managers of the country’s private banks. Is this an excessive salary? No. The compensation system of such banks is decided on by an independent board and the institution’s human resource department. Had any of the boards been able to recruit their managers for $4200 instead of $42,000, they would have gladly done so. The truth is that they cannot.

Syrian universities cannot produce qualified bank executives that can manage $1 billion balance sheets. Indeed, Syrian universities cannot even produce English speaking graduates that can take basic starting jobs at financial institutions. As a result, the boards of these banks have had to recruit their top managers from abroad. The only way such qualified individuals would choose to leave their existing jobs and come to Syria, which is under economic sanctions and presents them with a difficult and insecure working environment is if they are paid competitively. While Abufares and most Syrians may think $42,000 is outrageous, they are misinformed. Were they aware of the salaries earned by senior bankers in the rest of the world, they would not be shocked. Syria is slowly becoming part of the global economy again and that is good news. It is going to cause Syrians more than a few shocks.

To look at the problem in a different way, we should not be shocked at the bank manager who earns $42,000 a month but the accountant who goes home with only $400 at the end of the month and must face his family.  It is not the Four Seasons hotel and its prices that should dismay us but the fact that Damascus only has one 5-star hotel. Dubai has over 70. Similarly, it is not the $170,000 Beemer that should make us angry but the fact that so many Syrians must still ride “battered micro-buses with 9 sweaty (and stinking) passengers” who live below the poverty line.

Syria is slowly taking its place in the global market place. Rather than venting against the reformers and the private sector, people must direct their anger at the socialist planners whose ill-advised past policies had held back their country’s infrastructure, education, heath care, competitiveness, productivity, incomes and standards of living for way too long.

The days of getting an eternal government job by making a call to a senior party operative are over. The days of being employed in the public sector without a high school degree are gone. The times of stuffing consumers with inferior products by banning imports have disappeared. In order to get off that smelly bus you now need to learn English, have computer skills, learn credit analysis, and be proficient in new computer software, advertising, marketing and commercial law.

While on the subject, the Syrian public would do better to cease its attacks on Mr. Dardari and the reformers. Better that they embrace the changes underway and get on the train. The President would not have kept Mr. Dardari in this job had he not agreed and supported the spirit of the process underway. No reform process is perfect. I, for one, think that it has been, if anything, too slow. I wish the word “socialism” would be dropped from the constitution. I also wish that we would stop pretending to be half-pregnant with terms like “social market economy”.

I would be ecstatic if the government stopped supporting its 250 losing businesses and embark on a privatization drive. I wish Mr. Dardari would further reduce the subsidies (eliminate all that goes to the wealthy by means testing) and use the savings to spend money on education and export incentives. The reformers must also better articulate their message to the public by explaining the merits of the reform process and how the old system cannot possibly continue. They must show through a simple excel sheet analysis that state coffers will be drained if bread, fuel, sugar, electricity, rice and tea subsidies plus free education keep on being dolled out at the present pace. There is no free lunch. The more you spend on subsidies and inefficient businesses, the less you can spend on education, health care, infrastructure and export promotion.

The money to fund all these programs will have to come from somewhere. Printing money will be the last resort. As for the high price of real estate, reforms must address the speed of the “tanzeem” otherwise known as the process by which more land becomes zoned and prepared for residential use. In sum, while we all may have own criticisms of the process, the public must be made to unite around the fact that the general thrust of the reform policy is sound, appropriate and necessary.

It is time for the Syrian public to realize that rather than criticizing the new Syria, they must lament the old Syria which could not keep its promise of growth, higher incomes and rising standards of living. The days of quitting school and opening a “dekkane” or store and expecting to thrive and grow wealthy are over. It is now Carrefour, the new malls and international brands, Lafarge, the banks and the new expected leasing companies that will become the employers of choice for Syria’s youth. Syria needs to start graduating MBA’s and not only engineers and doctors. The best and brightest of the country ought to start to entertain thinking about careers in advertising, banking, leasing, commercial law and private equity and not just medicine. The $42,000 a month ought to work as an incentive rather than a source of frustration and anger.

The cancer of corruption

While Abufares and the Syrian public have the right to wonder about income disparities, they should direct some of their anger and frustration at Syria’s past economic mismanagement rather than present reforms.  The vast majority of Syrians who eek out an existence on pitiful salaries should not be seen as the norm. The most disturbing feature of the so-called socialist system has been the culture of corruption that it has created for us – a culture that will be very difficult to undo. The pitiful civil servant salaries have institutionalized official corruption to levels that are difficult to fathom.

The best example of such corruption can be seen in the scandal that has recently come to light in Aleppo in the area of real estate cooperatives. This article details the cancer that now plagues city officials. They abuse an archaic system far removed from the functioning of free markets to enrich their pockets and those of mid-level government officials to the tune of hundreds of millions. This cost is born by the average citizen. I encourage readers to go through the comments section of the article in order to understand the depth and seriousness of the problem. The prime minister has recently convened a meeting of his ministers to discuss the runaway prices of real estate and what to do about it. Regrettably, we are unlikely to see concrete actions taken to address this issue any time soon. It is disturbing to see the government paralyzed as it has watched the prices of real estate soar to stratospheric heights over the past 5 years. It has offered no explanation or solution. There is a lot that can and should be done. Untaxed empty apartments dot the country. Speculation in land is a national pastime. Tanzeem takes decades and the list goes on.

Taxes

The bank executive making $43,000 a month is subject to a 20% income tax. Bank profits are subject to 25% corporate income tax. Given that such income earners are subject to international standards of auditing and reporting, they are some of the few Syrians who pay their tax bills in full. The problem of not paying taxes lies outside the publicly listed companies. Not a single family owned business in Syria decided to list on the new stock exchange. This was a telling fact. Large family businesses in Syria pay an effective tax rate of something around 4% it is believed. The government keeps making noise about changing this fact and cracking down of tax cheats. They threaten hefty fines for none compliance but thus far they have done nothing. What is more disturbing is that the owners of such businesses send their children to university for free. They receive subsidized items just like those making $300 a month.

A way forward

1- The government must use tax policy to increase the opportunity cost of holding on to unused and none primary residential units. It must also use tax policy to slow land speculation. The fact that the Tanzeem moves at a snail’s pace means that new residential developments take decades to bring to the market.

2- For a country that has such expensive subsidies in place and a large unprofitable public sector that sucks up state resources, every unit of tax revenue is critical to bridge the funding gap. That the richest people in the country can get away with paying 4% in tax is shameful. But, wouldn’t you do it if you could? Is it possible for the government to enforce compliance to the above two suggestions when it pays its employees $300-400 a month? When a $400 a month employee shows up on the doorstep of a business tycoon that has a huge tax liability, what are the chances of ethics and honesty winning out over temptation and the desire to fatten one’s income? We all know the answer to this rhetorical question. This brings us to the third and most important suggestion for a way forward.

3- Syria will never put its economic house in order unless it makes a clean break from socialism. Introducing vague German economic terminology and saying that we are now a “social market economy” is not enough. For a country with such limited financial resources, our government has no business being in the business of making shoes, cloths, tires, bottled water, beer and 244 other constantly losing establishments. Every manager in charge of these inefficient businesses sees his job as a license to steal and plunder. All the money wasted in salaries and balancing the losses at year end is money that was stolen from one Syrian to pay another. In this case, the robbed Syrian is everyone who has no connections in the government or the Party. Those robbed include every hospital, university, school and road that has been starved for the lack of investment. The answer to Syria’s many problems is privatization. It is a taboo subject that the government is not educating its people about.

I am sure that my recommendation to privatize will elicit a number of passionate responses explaining how this cannot be done and accusing me of being heartless be of the many employees who will lose their jobs. Nonsense is my answer. The new buyers of these businesses will also need to employ people and will not rely on robots. They will most likely make a profit which will allow them to grow and invest further in the business. This will add to economic growth and end up employing more accountants, lawyers, advertising professionals etc. Once the government stops having to close the hole at these 250 businesses, it will have the funds to pay its tax collectors three or four times their current salaries. Once this is done, it will then be able to announce a strict and enforceable tax compliance drive. A well paid tax collector who accepts a bribe can be dealt with severely and publicly. The same goes for the business person offering the bribe.

Conclusion

Abu Fares should not attack the Syrian private sector, the senior bank executives, the ostentatious BMW drivers, or those sipping coffee at the Four-Seasons. He would do better to save his anger for the old economic habits that have squandered close to $15 billion on uneconomic irrigation projects that were carried out with no regard to return on capital criterion. He must lash out at a the corrupt and inefficient public sector that has wasted billions of scarce Dollars on uneconomic projects that has drained the state coffers of critical funding that could have gone to improve education, health care and infrastructure. That we can still stick our heads in the sand and think that these issues will somehow get solved with time is a travesty. The government must streamline and shed its vast wasteful assets. The government must address the rising cost of real estate and punish those who neglect to pay their taxes. It is high time that Syria adopted sound public policies and taxed people according to their earnings. The reform process is bound to cause much pain and offend our sense of fairness and equality, but their is no alternative. Syrians have unfairly been denied the opportunity to compete in the international marketplace and enjoy its fruits for too long.

Global Voices: Syria: Gap in Private Sector Salaries Disturbing
2010-10-15
By Yazan Badran

“Officially disclosed salaries in the Syrian private sector range from the minimum full-time wage of $125 to $42,000 a month”, Abu Fares lashes out on the Syrian private sector, and the disturbing imbalance in the wages it …

Comments (112)


Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All

101. Alex said:

Ahlain Lily : )

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 24th, 2010, 9:24 am

 

102. Alex said:

‎”the bishops also told Israel it shouldn’t use the Bible to justify “injustices” against the Palestinians.”

Glad they finally spoke against the crooks (Israel’s friends in the US) who found in the old testament (“the bible”) all the (conveniently interpreted) arguments they need to convince millions of Americans to passionately support Israel’s racism and its theft of Palestinian and Syrian lands.

Catholic Bishops Demand Israel End Occupation Of Palestinian Land

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/23/vatican-meeting-demands-i_n_772913.html

VATICAN CITY — Bishops from the Middle East who were summoned to Rome by the pope demanded Saturday that Israel accept U.N. resolutions calling for an end to its “occupation” of Arab lands.

In a final joint communique, the bishops also told Israel it shouldn’t use the Bible to justify “injustices” against the Palestinians.

The bishops issued the statement at the close of their two-week meeting, called by Pope Benedict XVI to discuss the plight of Christians in the Middle East amid a major exodus of the faithful from the birthplace of Christianity.

The Catholic Church has long been a minority in the largely Muslim region but its presence is shrinking further as a result of war, conflict, discrimination and economic problems.

During the meeting, several bishops blamed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for spurring the flight – a position echoed in their final paper. While the bishops condemned terrorism and anti-Semitism, they laid much of the blame for the conflict squarely on Israel.

They listed the “occupation” of Palestinian lands, Israel’s separation barrier with the West Bank, its military checkpoints, political prisoners, demolition of homes and disturbance of Palestinians’ socio-economic lives as factors that have made life increasingly difficult for Palestinians.

They said they had “reflected” on the suffering and insecurity in which Israelis live and on the status of Jerusalem, a city holy to Christians, Jews and Muslims.

“We are anxious about the unilateral initiatives that threaten its composition and risk to change its [Jerusalem] demographic balance,” they said.

They called on the international community to apply U.N. Security Council resolutions adopted in 1967, which called on Israel to withdraw from Arab land conquered in the Six-Day War that year.

“The Palestinian people will thus have an independent and sovereign homeland where they can live with dignity and security,” they said, while Israel will be able to enjoy peace and security.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 24th, 2010, 9:30 am

 

103. Siria: cresce l’economia ma anche il divario nella ricchezza said:

[...] sua risposta al post, Abu Fares fa riferimento a una storia vissuta personalmente che fa parte della sua esperienza di vita nel settore privato: [...]

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 24th, 2010, 9:31 am

 

104. Ghat Al Bird said:

This reads like a step by step outline for the Palestinian side.

The Palestinians’ Ploy
Paul R. Pillar | 10.21.10

Whatever is your opinion about the issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians, you have to give the Palestinians credit for having hit upon a clever idea to inject into the current impasse.

That idea, currently a subject of discussion among Palestinian leaders in the West Bank, is to appeal to international bodies for some kind of affirmation of Palestine as a state on land Israel conquered in the 1967 war.

The reactions to this idea, even though it is still just a proposal (apart from an argument already being made to the International Court of Justice that the Palestinian Authority has enough of the attributes of a state to have standing to bring cases before the court), show that the Palestinians have hit a weak spot, or at least a sore one.

Any such affirmation would not bring the Palestinians materially closer to real statehood. The goal of Palestinian statehood has repeatedly been affirmed and supported internationally, and has even been accepted—reluctantly—by the current Israeli government as supposedly an objective of U.S.-sponsored negotiations. So another affirmation almost seems superfluous.

And an affirmation would not bring the Palestinians one inch closer to an actual sovereign state on the ground, where the determinative factor is continued Israeli military control of the West Bank supplemented by the daily creation of still more facts on the ground in the form of expanded Israeli settlements.

And yet, defenders of Israeli policy have responded to the Palestinian idea with apparent alarm. In the United States, the defenders have been cranking up their political steamroller in particularly blatant fashion, charging President Obama with being anti-Israel (see Tom Friedman’s recent take on how nonsensical that charge is) and daring him to stand up to the steamroller on this issue.

Charges of “delegitimization” of Israel, which during recent months have been thrown liberally and indiscriminately at any criticism of Israeli policy, are getting flung in increasingly ridiculous fashion. The principal goal of all of this fuming and flinging is a U.S. veto should the matter come before the United Nations Security Council.

The reaction to the statehood affirmation idea has been so vehement because the idea hits at not just one but several vulnerabilities in the Israeli posture. Israeli opposition to such an affirmation would call into further question whether the Israelis, and specifically Prime Minister Netanyahu, are sincere or not in ostensibly accepting the concept of a Palestinian state.

Any forum for a fresh international declaration on the subject would demonstrate anew the almost total absence of support for Israel’s expansion of settlements. Most important, an affirmation would demonstrate clearly that the security and legitimacy of Israel is a separate and very different thing from the issue of settlements and occupied territory, despite the strenuous efforts of Israel and the defenders of Israel policy to blur the two.

Far from being part of a “delegitimization campaign against Israel,” as Abraham Foxman charges, an affirmation of Palestinian statehood within 1967 boundaries would implicitly and necessarily reaffirm Israel’s legitimacy and right to exist on the other side of those boundaries. John Bolton tries clumsily to blur the issues again when he says in one sentence that a Security Council resolution mentioning 1967 lines as state borders would “call into question even Israel’s legitimacy”—which it demonstrably would not—and then shifts the subject in the next sentence in stating that such a resolution would “delegitimize both Israel’s authority and settlements beyond the 1967 lines.”

The legitimacy of the settlements is very much an issue here, although an international resolution would not delegitimize them so much as it would recognize that they never were legitimate in the first place.

If a U.S. veto of such a Security Council resolution led the Palestinians to turn to the General Assembly, there would be, as Ethan Bronner points out in his article on the subject in the New York Times, a “dark or poetic” symmetry. It was another General Assembly resolution –the one in 1947 that partitioned Palestine between a Jewish state and an Arab state—that Israel has long regarded as the source of its international legitimacy.

One more thing about that earlier resolution: the U.N. partition plan allotted 56 percent of Palestine to the Jewish state and 43 percent to the Arab one. Jewish military success in the subsequent war meant that the new Jewish state wound up with 78 percent of the land and the Arabs with only 22 percent. Palestinian leaders—even when they included Yasser Arafat—long ago gave up trying to claw back the lost 21 percent, even though Israel gained it only on the battlefield and not in any legitimizing international diplomatic forum.

That background may help to explain why the current Palestinian leadership is as reluctant as it is to bow once again to superior Israeli power and to let Israeli seizure of land determine the fate of the 22 percent that is left.

If the Palestinians decide to act on their clever idea, the matter ought never to make it to the General Assembly. In the Security Council the proper U.S. vote would be an abstention, denoting an intention to be an honest broker between two peoples who have fought so long over the same land.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 24th, 2010, 11:12 am

 

105. Akbar Palace said:

They called on the international community to apply U.N. Security Council resolutions adopted in 1967, which called on Israel to withdraw from Arab land conquered in the Six-Day War that year.

“The Palestinian people will thus have an independent and sovereign homeland where they can live with dignity and security,” they said, while Israel will be able to enjoy peace and security.

Alex,

Obviously, “they” don’t know what they are talking about.

“U.N. Security Council resolutions adopted in 1967″ do not require “Israel to withdraw from Arab land conquered in the Six-Day War”. Further UNSC resolutions include:

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 24th, 2010, 11:26 am

 

106. Norman said:

More investments in Syria , Alex , Lily said , thank you ,

-Futtaim conglomerate plans tenders for Syria project
Tweet This Share on LinkedIn Share on Facebook Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:30am EDT

DAMASCUS Oct 21 (Reuters) – Gulf conglomerate Majid Al-Futtaim Group expects to tender $1 billion worth of construction contracts for a real estate project in Syria by February next year, the head of its property division said on Thursday.

Several contractors are likely to be awarded separately different parts of the project on a 1 million square metre piece of land in Yaafour west of Damascus, Peter Walichnowski told Reuters.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 24th, 2010, 11:51 am

 

107. majedkhaldoon said:

A.P. said
“U.N. Security Council resolutions adopted in 1967″ do not require “Israel to withdraw from Arab land conquered in the Six-Day War:
UN security resolution 242 says
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
the word;occupied in recent conflict,define those territories,so it means Israel to withdraw from Arab land conquered in the Six-Day War is required,
Israel blur and confuse the resolution.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 24th, 2010, 12:57 pm

 

108. Alex said:

Akbar,

I’m happy you are at least starting to look at what is inside those UNSC resolutions.

Start here please, and come back to tell the Bishops that they don’t know what they are talking about:

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/01/27/rogue-state-israeli-violations-of-u-n-security-council-resolutions/

Rogue State: Israeli Violations of U.N. Security Council Resolutions
by Jeremy R. Hammond
January 27, 2010

Following is a list of United Nations Security Council resolutions directly critical of Israel for violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions, the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Conventions, international terrorism, or other violations of international law.

Res. 57 (Sep. 18, 1948) – Expresses deep shock at the assassination of the U.N. Mediator in Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte, by Zionist terrorists.

Res. 89 (Nov. 17, 1950) – Requests that attention be given to the expulsion of “thousands of Palestine Arabs” and calls upon concerned governments to take no further action “involving the transfer of persons across international frontiers or armistice lines”, and notes that Israel announced that it would withdraw to the armistice lines.

Res. 93 (May 18, 1951) – Finds that Israeli airstrikes on Syria on April 5, 1951 constitutes “a violation of the cease-fire”, and decides that Arab civilians expelled from the demilitarized zone by Israel should be allowed to return.

Res. 100 (Oct. 27, 1953) – Notes that Israel had said it would stop work it started in the demilitarized zone on September 2, 1953.

Res. 101 (Nov. 24, 1953) – Finds Israel’s attack on Qibya, Jordan on October 14-15, 1953 to be a violation of the cease-fire and “Expresses the strongest censure of that action”.

Res. 106 (Mar. 29, 1955) – Condemns Israel’s attack on Egyptian forces in the Gaza Strip on February 28, 1955.

Res. 111 (Jan. 19, 1956) – Condemns Israel’s attack on Syria on December 11, 1955 as “a flagrant violation of the cease-fire” and armistice agreement.

Res. 119 (Oct. 31, 1956) – Considers that “a grave situation has been created” by the attack against Egypt by the forces of Britain, France, and Israel.

Res. 171 (Apr. 9, 1962) – Reaffirms resolution 111 and determines that Israel’s attack on Syria on March 16-17, 1962 “constitutes a flagrant violation of that resolution”.

Res. 228 (Nov. 25, 1966) – “Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property resulting from the action” by Israel in the southern Hebron area on November 13, 1966, and “Censures Israel for this large-scale military action in violation of the United Nations Charter” and the armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan.

Res. 237 (Jun. 14, 1967) – Calls on Israel “to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants where military operations have taken place” during the war launched by Israel on June 5, 1967 “and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities”.

Res. 242 (Nov. 22, 1967) – Emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, emphasizes that member states have a commitment to abide by the U.N. Charter, and calls for the “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied” during the June 1967 war.

Res. 248 (Mar. 24, 1968) – Observes that the Israeli attack on Jordan “was of a large-scale and carefully planned nature”, “Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property”, “Condemns the military action launched by Israel in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the cease-fire resolutions”, and “Calls upon Israel to desist from” further violations of resolution 237.

Res. 250 (Apr. 27, 1968) – Considers “that the holding of a military parade in Jerusalem will aggravate tensions in the area and have an adverse effect on a peaceful settlement of the problems in the area” and “Calls upon Israel to refrain from holding the military parade in Jerusalem which is contemplated” for May 2, 1968.

Res. 251 (May 2, 1968) – Recalls resolution 250 and “Deeply deplores the holding by Israel of the military parade in Jerusalem” on May 2, 1968 “in disregard of” resolution 250.

Res. 252 (May 21, 1968) – “Deplores the failure of Israel to comply with” General Assembly resolutions 2253 and 2254, considers Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem “invalid”, and calls upon Israel “to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem”.

Res. 256 (Aug. 16, 1968) – Recalls Israel’s “flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter” condemned in resolution 248, observes that further Israeli air attacks on Jordan “were of a large scale and carefully planned nature in violation of resolution 248”, “Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property”, and condemns Israel’s attacks.

Res. 259 (Sep. 27, 1968) – Expresses concern for “the safety, welfare and security” of the Palestinians “under military occupation by Israel”, deplores “the delay in the implementation of resolution 237 (1967) because of the conditions still being set by Israel for receiving a Special Representative of the Secretary-General”, and requests Israel to receive the Special Representative and facilitate his work.

Res. 262 (Dec. 31, 1968) – Observes “that the military action by the armed forces of Israel against the civil International Airport of Beirut was premeditated and of a large scale and carefully planned nature”, and condemns Israel for the attack.

Res.265 (Apr. 1, 1969) – Expresses “deep concern that the recent attacks on Jordanian villages and other populated areas were of a pre-planned nature, in violation of resolutions” 248 and 256, “Deplores the loss of civilian life and damage to property”, and “Condemns the recent premeditated air attacks launched by Israel on Jordanianvillages and populated areas in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the cease-fire resolutions”.

Res. 267 (Jul. 3, 1969) – Recalls resolution 252 and General Assembly resolutions 2253 and 2254, notes that “since the adoption of the above-mentioned resolutions Israel has taken further measures tending to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”, reaffirms “the established principle thatacquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible”, “Deplores the failure of Israel to show any regard for the resolutions”, “Censures in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”, “Confirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status”, and urgently calls on Israel to rescind the measures taken to annex Jerusalem.

Res. 270 (Aug. 26, 1969) – “Condemns the premeditated air attack by Israel on villages in southern Lebanon in violation of its obligations under the Charter and Security Council resolutions”.

Res. 271 (Sep. 15, 1969) – Expresses grief “at the extensive damage caused by arson to the Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem” on August 21, 1969 “under the military occupation of Israel”, reaffirms “the established principle thatacquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible”, “Determines that the execrable act of desecration and profanation of the Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque emphasizes the immediate necessity of Israel’s desisting from acting in violation” previous resolutions and rescinding measures to annex Jerusalem, calls on Israel “to observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation”, and condemns Israel’s failure to comply with previous resolutions.

Res. 279 (May 12, 1970) – “Demands the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory.”

Res. 280 (May 19, 1970) – Expresses conviction that “that the Israeli military attack against Lebanon was premeditated and of a large scale and carefully planned in nature”, recalls resolution 279 “demanding the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory”, deplores Israel’s violation of resolutions 262 and 270, “Condemns Israel for its premeditated military action in violation of its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations”, and “Deplores the loss of life and damage to property inflicted as a result” of Israeli violations of Security Council resolutions.

Res. 285 (Sep. 5, 1970) – “Demands the complete and immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory.”

Res. 298 (Sep. 25, 1971) – Recalls resolutions 252 and 267 and General Assembly resolutions 2253 and 2254 concerning Israel’s measures to annex Jerusalem, reaffirms “the principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible”, notes “the non-compliance by Israel” of the recalled resolutions, deplores Israel’s failure to respect the resolutions, confirms that Israel’s actions “are totally invalid”, and urgently calls on Israel to rescind its measures and take “no further steps in the occupied section of Jerusalem” to change the status of the city.

Res. 313 (Feb. 28, 1972) – “Demands that Israel immediately desist and refrain from any ground and air military action against Lebanon and forthwith withdraw all its military forces from Lebanese territory.”

Res. 316 (Jun. 26, 1972) – Deplores “the tragic loss of life resulting from all acts of violence”, expresses grave concern “at Israel’s failure to comply with Security Council resolutions” 262, 270, 280, 285, and 313 “calling on Israel to desist forthwith from any violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon”, calls on Israel to abide by the resolutions, and condemns “the repeated attacks of Israeli forces on Lebanese territory and population in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and Israel’s obligations thereunder”.

Res. 317 (Jul. 21, 1972) – Notes resolution 316, deplores the fact that Israel had not yet released “Syrian and Lebanese military and security personnel abducted by Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory” on June 21, 1972, and calls on Israel to release the prisoners.

Res. 332 (Apr. 21, 1972) – “Condemns the repeated military attacks conducted by Israel against Lebanon and Israel’s violation of Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty” in violation of the U.N. Charter, the armistice agreement, and cease-fire resolutions.

Res. 337 (Aug. 15, 1972) – Notes “the violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity” by Israel “and the hijacking, by the Israeli air force, of a Lebanese civilian airliner on lease to Iraqi Airways”, expresses grave concern “that such an act carried out by Israel, a Member of the United Nations, constitutes a serious interference with international civil aviation and a violation of the Charter of the United Nations”, recognizes “that such an act could jeopardize the lives and safety of passengers and crew and violates the provisions of international conventions safeguarding civil aviation”, condemns Israel “for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and for the forcible diversion and seizure by the Israeli air force of a Lebanese airliner from Lebanon’s air space”, and considers that Israel’s actions constitute a violation of the armistice agreement, cease-fire resolutions, the U.N. Charter, “the international conventions on civil aviation and the principles of international law and morality”.

Res. 347 (Apr. 24, 1974) – “Condemns Israel’s violation of Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and calls once more on the Government of Israel to refrain from further military actions and threats against Lebanon”, and calls on Israel “to release and return to Lebanon the abducted Lebanese civilians”.

Res. 425 (Mar. 19, 1978) – “Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries”, and “Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory”.

Res. 427 (May 3, 1978) – “Calls upon Israel to complete its withdrawal from all Lebanese territory without any further delay”.

Res. 446 (Mar. 22, 1979) – Affirms “once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention … is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, “Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East”, “Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by” resolutions 237, 252, and 298, and General Assembly resolutions 2253 and 2254, and calls on Israel “as the occupying Power” to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, to “rescind its previous measures and to desist from any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories”.

Res. 450 (Jun. 14, 1979) – “Strongly deplores acts of violence against Lebanon that have led to the displacement of civilians, including Palestinians, and brought about destruction and loss of innocent lives”, and calls on Israel to cease actions against Lebanon, “in particular its incursions into Lebanon and the assistance it continues to lend to irresponsible armed groups”.

Res. 452 (Jul. 20, 1979) – Strongly deplores “the lack of co-operation of Israel” with the Security Council Commission “established under resolution 446 (1979) to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem”, considers “that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”, expresses deep concern at Israel’s policy of constructing settlements “in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population”, and calls on Israel to cease such activities.

Res. 465 (Mar. 1, 1980) – Strongly deplores Israel’s refusal to co-operate with the Security Council Commission, regrets Israel’s “formal rejection of” resolutions 446 and 452, deplores Israel’s decision “to officially support Israeli settlement” in the occupied territories, expresses deep concern over Israel’s settlement policy “and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population”, “Strongly deplores the decision of Israel to prohibit the free travel” of the mayor of Hebron “to appear before the Security Council”, and “Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

Res. 467 (Apr. 24, 1980) – “Condemns all actions contrary to” resolutions 425, 426, 427, 434, 444, 450, and 459 “and, in particular, strongly deplores” any “violation of Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity” and “Israel’s military intervention into Lebanon”.

Res. 468 (May 8, 1980) – Expresses deep concern “at the expulsion by the Israeli military occupation authorities of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and the Sharia Judge of Hebron” and “Calls upon the Government of Israel as occupying Power to rescind these illegal measures and facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders so that they can resume the functions for which they were elected and appointed”.

Res. 469 (May 20, 1980) – Recalls the Fourth Geneva Convention “and in particular article 1, which reads ‘The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances,’ and article 49, which reads ‘Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from the occupied territory to the territory of the occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive”, “Strongly deplores the failure of the Government of Israel to implement Security Council resolution 468”, “Calls again upon the Government of Israel, as occupying Power, to rescind the illegal measures taken by the Israeli military occupation authorities in expelling the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and the Sharis Judge of Hebron, and to facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders, so that they can resume their functions for which they were elected and appointed”.

Res. 471 (Jun. 5, 1980) – Recalls “once again” the Fourth Geneva Convention, “and in particular article 27, which reads, ‘ Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons… They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof…’”, reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention “to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, expresses deep concern “that the Jewish settlers in the occupied Arab territories are allowed to carry arms, thus enabling them to perpetrate crimes against the civilian Arab population”, “Condemns the assassination attempts against the Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al Bireh and calls for the immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes”, “Expresses deep concern that Israel, as the occupying Power, has failed to provide adequate protection to the civilian population in the occupied territories in conformity with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”, calls on Israel “to provide the victims with adequate compensation for the damage suffered as a result of these crimes”, “Calls again upon the government of Israel to respect and to comply with the provisions of” the Fourth Geneva Convention and “the relevant resolutions of the Security Council”, “Calls once again upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion [sic] with settlements in the occupied territories”, “Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”.

Res. 476 (Jun. 30, 1980) – Reaffirms that “the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible”, deplores “the persistence of Israel, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem”, expresses grave concern “over the legislative steps initiated in the Israeli Knesset with the aim of changing the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem”, reaffirms “the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, “Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly”, “Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to later the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”, “Reiterates that all such measures … are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council”, and “Urgently calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy city of Jerusalem”.

Res. 478 (Aug. 20, 1980) – Reaffirms “again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible”, notes “that Israel has not complied with resolution 476”, “Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the ‘basic law’ on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions”, “Affirms that the enactment of the ‘basic law’ by Israel constitutes a violation of international law”, “Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent ‘basic law’ on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith”.

Res. 484 (Dec. 19, 1980) – Expresses “grave concern at the expulsion by Israel of the Mayor of Hebron and the Mayor of Halhoul”, “Reaffirms the applicability of” the Fourth Geneva Convention “to all the Arab territories occupied by Israel in 1967”, “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to adhere to the provisions of the Convention”, and “Declares it imperative that the Mayor of Hebron and the Mayor of Halhoul be enabled to return to their homes and resume their responsibilities”.

Res. 487 (Jun. 19, 1981) – Expresses full awareness “of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date”, notes “furthermore that Israel has not adhered to the non-proliferation Treaty”, expresses deep concern “about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States”, “Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct”, “Further considers that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty”, “Fully recognizes the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation”, and “Calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards”.

Res. 497 (Dec. 17, 1981) – Reaffirms “that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, the principles of international law, and relevant Security Council resolutions”, “Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect”, “Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision”, and “Determines that all the provisions of the” Fourth Geneva Convention “continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since June 1967”.

Res. 501 (Feb. 25, 1982) – Reaffirms resolution 425 calling upon Israel to cease its military action against Lebanon.

Res. 509 ( Jun. 6, 1982) – “Demands that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon”.

Res. 515 (Jul. 29, 1982) – “Demands that the Government of Israel lift immediately the blockade of the city of Beirut in order to permit the dispatch of supplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population and allow the distribution of aid provided by United Nations agencies and by non-governmental organizations, particularly the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)”.

Res. 517 (Aug. 4, 1982) – Expresses deep shock and alarm “by the deplorable consequences of the Israeli invasion of Beirut on 3 August 1982”, “Confirms once again its demand for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon”, and “Censures Israel for its failure to comply with” resolutions 508, 509, 512, 513, 515, and 516.

Res. 518 (Aug. 12, 1982) – “Demands that Israel and all parties to the conflict observe strictly the terms of Security Council resolutions relevant to the immediate cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and, particularly, in and around Beirut”, “Demands the immediate lifting of all restrictions on the city of Beirut in order to permit the free entry of supplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population in Beirut”.

Res. 520 (Sep. 17, 1982) – “Condemns the recent Israeli incursions into Beirut in violation of the cease-fire agreements and of Security Council resolutions”, and “Demands an immediate return to the positions occupied by Israel before” September 15, 1982 “as a first step towards the full implementation of Security Council resolutions”.

Res. 521 (Sep. 19, 1982) – “Condemns the criminal massacre of Palestinian civilians in Beirut” in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

Res. 573 (Oct. 4, 1985) – “Condemns vigorously the act of armed aggression perpetrated by Israel against Tunisian territory in flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and norms of conduct”.

Res. 592 (Dec. 8, 1986) – Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention “is applicable to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, and “Strongly deplores the opening of fire by the Israeli army resulting in the death and the wounding of defenceless students”.

Res. 605 (Dec. 22, 1987) – “Strongly deplores those policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, and in particular the opening of fire by the Israeli army, resulting in the killing and wounding of defenceless Palestinian civilians”, and reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention “to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”.

Res. 607 (Jan. 5, 1988) – Expresses “grave concern over the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories”, notes “the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to ‘continue the deportation’ of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories”, “Reaffirms once again” the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention “to Palestinian and other Arab territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, “Calls upon Israel to refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories”, and “Strongly requests Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by its obligations arising from the Convention”.

Res. 608 (Jan. 14, 1988) – Reaffirms resolution 607, expresses “deep regret that Israel, the occupying Power, has, in defiance of that resolution, deported Palestinian civilians”, and “Calls upon Israel to rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians and to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those already deported”.

Res. 611 (Apr. 25, 1988) – Notes “with concern that the aggression perpetrated” by Israelis on April 16, 1988 “in the locality of Sidi Bou Said”, Tunisia, “has caused loss of human life, particularly the assassination of Mr. Khalil El Wazir”, and “Condemns vigorously the aggression perpetrated … against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Tunisia in flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and norms of conduct”.

Res. 636 (Jul. 6, 1989) – Reaffirms resolutions 607 and 608, notes “that Israel, the occupying Power, has once again, in defiance of those resolutions, deported eight Palestinian civilians on 29 June 1989”, Expresses deep regret “the continuing deportation by Israel, the occupying Power, of Palestinian civilians”, “Calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians”, and “Reaffirms that” the Fourth Geneva Convention “is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to other occupied Arab territories”.

Res. 641 (Aug. 30, 1989) – Reaffirms resolutions 607, 608, and 636, notes that Israel “has once again, in defiance of those resolutions, deported five Palestinian civilians on 27 August 1989”, and “Deplores the continuing deportation by Israel, the occupying Power, of Palestinian civilians”.

Res. 672 (Oct. 12, 1990) – “Expresses alarm at the violence which took place” on October 8, 1990, “at the Al Haram al Shareef and other Holy Places of Jerusalem resulting in over twenty Palestinian deaths and to the injury of more than one hundred and fifty people, including Palestinian civilians and innocent worshippers”, “Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli forces resulting in injuries and loss of human life”, and “Requests, in connection with the decision of the Secretary-General to send a mission to the region, which the Council welcomes, that he submit a report to it before the end of October 1990 containing his findings and conclusions and that he use as appropriate all the resources of the United Nations in the region in carrying out the mission.”

Res. 673 (Oct. 24, 1990) – “Deplores the refusal of the Israeli Government to receive the mission of the Secretary-General to the region”, and “Urges the Israeli Government to reconsider its decision and insists that it comply fully with resolution 672 (1990) and to permit the mission of the Secretary-General to proceed in keeping with its purpose”.

Res. 681 (Dec. 20, 1990) – Reaffirms “the obligations of Member States under the United Nations Charter”, reaffirms “also the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, expresses alarm “by the decision of the Government of Israel to deport four Palestinians from the occupied territories in contravention of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention” in contravention to resolutions 607, 608, 636, and 641, “Expresses its grave concern over the rejection by Israel of Security Council resolutions” 672 and 673, and “Deplores the decision by the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume deportations of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories”.

Res. 694 (May 24, 1991) – Reaffirms resolution 681 calling on Israel to respect the Fourth Geneva Convention, notes “with deep concern and consternation that Israel has, in violation of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and acting in opposition to relevant Security Council resolutions, and to the detriment of efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, deported four Palestinian civilians” on May 18, 1991, “Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of deporting four Palestinians … is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention …, which is applicable to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, and “Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel, the occupying Power, refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported”.

Res. 726 (Jan. 6, 1992) – Recalls resolutions 607, 608, 636, 641, and 694 calling on Israel to respect the Fourth Geneva Convention, “Strongly condemns the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume deportations of Palestinian civilians”, “Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention … to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, and “requests Israel, the occupying Power, to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied territories of all those deported”.

Res. 799 (Dec. 18, 1992) – Reaffirms resolutions 607, 608, 636, 641, 681, 694, and 726 calling on Israel to respect the Fourth Geneva Convention, notes “with deep concern that Israel, the occupying Power, in contravention of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention …, deported to Lebanon” on December 17, 1992 “hundreds of Palestinian civilians from the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jersualem”, “Strongly condemns the action taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to deport hundreds of Palestinian civilians, and expresses its firm opposition to any such deportation by Israel”, “Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention … to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention”, and “Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied territories of all those deported”.

Res. 904 (Mar. 18, 1994) – Expresses shock at “the appalling massacre committed against Palestinian worshippers in the Mosque of Ibrahim in Hebron” on February 25, 1994 by Jewish settler Baruch Goldstein “during the holy month of Ramadan”, expresses grave concern with “the consequent Palestinian casualties in the occupied Palestinian territory as a result of the massacre, which underlines the need to provide protection and security for the Palestinian people”, notes “the condemnation of this massacre by the entire international community”, “Strongly condemns the massacre in Hebron and its aftermath which took the lives of more than fifty Palestinian civilians and injured several hundred others”, and “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to continue to take and implement measures, including, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers”.

Res. 1073 (Sep. 28, 1996) – Expresses “deep concern about the tragic events in Jerusalem and the areas of Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem and the Gaza Strip, which resulted in a high number of deaths and injuries among the Palestinian civilians, and concerned also about the clashes between the Israeli army and the Palestinian police and the casualties on both sides”, and “Calls for the safety and protection for Palestinian civilians to be ensured”.

Res. 1322 (Oct. 7, 2000) – Expresses deep concern “by the tragic events that have taken place” since September 28, 2000 “that have led to numerous deaths and injuries, mostly among Palestinians”, “Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem” on September 28, 2000 “and the subsequent violence there and at other Holy Places, as well as in other areas throughout the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, resulting in over 80 Palestinian deaths and many other casualties”, “Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life”, and “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

Res. 1402 (Mar. 30, 2002) – Expresses grave concern “at the further deterioration of the situation, including the recent suicide bombings in Israel and the military attack against the headquarters of the president of the Palestinian Authority”, “Calls upon both parties to move immediately to a meaningful cease-fire” and “calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah”.

Res. 1403 (Apr. 4, 2002) – Expresses grave concern “at the further deterioration of the situation on the ground” and “Demands the implementation of its resolution 1402 (2002) without delay”.

Res. 1405 (Apr. 19, 2002) – Expresses concern for “the dire humanitarian situation of the Palestinian civilian population, in particular reports from the Jenin refugee camp of an unknown number of deaths and destruction”, calls for “the lifting of restrictions imposed, in particular in Jenin, on the operations of humanitarian organizations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross and United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East”, and “Emphasizes the urgency of access of medical and humanitarian organizations to the Palestinian civilian population”.

Res. 1435 (Sep. 24, 2002) – Expresses grave concern “at the reoccupation of the headquarters of the President of the Palestinian Authority in the City of Ramallah that took place” on September 19, 2002, demands “its immediate end”, expresses alarm “at the reoccupation of Palestinian cities as well as the severe restrictions imposed on the freedom of movement of persons and goods, and gravely concerned at the humanitarian crisis being faced by the Palestinian people”, reiterates “the need for respect in all circumstances of international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”, “Demands that Israel immediately cease measures in and around Ramallah including the destruction of Palestinian civilian and security infrastructure”, and “Demands also the expeditious withdrawal of the Israeli occupying forces from Palestinian cities towards the return to the positions held prior to September 2000”.

Res. 1544 (May 19, 2004) – Reaffirms resolutions 242, 338, 446, 1322, 1397, 1402, 1405, 1435, and 1515, reiterates “the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”, calls “on Israel to address its security needs within the boundaries of international law”, expresses “grave concern at the continued deterioration of the situation on the ground in the territory occupied by Israel since 1967”, condemns “the killing of Palestinian civilians that took place in the Rafah area”, expresses grave concern “by the recent demolition of homes committed by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Rafah refugee camp”, reaffirms “its support for the Road Map, endorsed in resolution 1515”, “Calls on Israel to respect its obligations under international humanitarian law, and insists, in particular, on its obligation not to undertake demolition of homes contrary to that law”, and “Calls on both parties to immediately implement their obligations under the Road Map”.

Res. 1701 (Aug. 11, 2006) – Expresses “its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel” that “has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries” and “extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons”, and “Calls for a full cessation of hostilities” including “the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations”.

Res. 1860 (Jan. 8, 2009) – Expresses “grave concern at the escalation of violence and the deterioration of the situation, in particular the resulting heavy civilian casualties since the refusal to extend the period of calm”, expresses “grave concern also at the deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza”, “calls for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza”, “Calls for the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment”, and “Condemns all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism”.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 24th, 2010, 1:33 pm

 

109. Ghat Al Bird said:

An American born Al Queda Member threatens US/Europe..

Zionist Patsy Adam Gadahn Calls For Terror Attacks In Multiple Cities
October 24, 2010

Editors Note: Adam Gadahn, the grandson of former Anti-Defamation League
board member Carl K. Pearlman, is a complete patsy, trained by rogue
elements of the Mossad to help further the fraudulent war on terror. The ADL
was caught spying on the United States in 1993 and openly works for the
interests of Zionist Israel.

Associated Press Report.

CAIRO — A U.S.-born spokesman for al-Qaida on Saturday urged Muslims
living in the United States and Europe to carry out attacks there, calling it a
duty and an obligation.

In a 48-minute video posted on militant websites, Adam Gadahn directed his
appeal to Muslim immigrants in what he called the “miserable suburbs” of
Paris, London and Detroit, as well as those traveling to the West to study or
work.

“It is the duty of everyone who is sincere in his desire to defend Islam and
Muslims today, to take the initiative to perform the individual obligation of
jihad … by striking the Zio-Crusader interests,” he said, referring to Western
and Jewish interests.

Gadahn, who has been hunted by the FBI since 2004, also sought to discredit
attempts by moderate Muslim leaders to suppress the “jihadi awakening.”

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 24th, 2010, 4:06 pm

 

110. Global Voices in Italiano » Siria: cresce l’economia ma anche il divario nella ricchezza said:

[...] ha coinvolto molti partecipanti nelle sezioni di commento ad entrambi gli articoli. Alex, commentando il post di Ehsani, scrive che il governo siriano dovrebbe ascoltare di più, e meglio, quello che [...]

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 27th, 2010, 4:30 am

 

111. Syria Comment » Archives » What is Behind the Uproar in Syria’s Labor Relations? The Reform Process and Jobs? said:

[...] As for those business enterprises that the government already owns and manages, a “market” economy should open Syria’s doors to competition. More competition from Turkish, Chinese, and Korean goods will expose Syria’s will only further undermine the market for the goods produced by Syria’s state sector. Eventually, the government will have little choice but to sell off the 250, or so, loss making firms it owns. EHSANI2 wrote convincingly about the need to privatize these companies on October 17, 2010 in his “The Sin in Syria is Low Wages” [...]

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 7th, 2010, 12:51 pm

 

112. Syria Freedom Runners said:

[...] the past generation, the government scratches its head when asked how the nation’s economy will provide jobs for the hundreds of thousands of young people entering the workforce each [...]

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

July 5th, 2011, 5:43 pm

 

Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All

Post a comment


3 + = eight