Inauguration de l’Esplanade David Ben Gourion à Paris

L’inauguration de l’Esplanade David Ben Gourion à Paris, une prime à l’illégalité et à l’impunité.

« Si j’étais un leader arabe, je ne signerais jamais un accord avec Israël. C’est normal ; nous avons pris leur pays. Il est vrai que Dieu nous l’a promise, mais comment cela pourrait-il les concerner ? Notre dieu n’est pas le leur. Il y a eu l’antisémitisme, les Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, mais était-ce leur faute ? Ils ne voient qu’une seule chose: nous sommes venus et nous avons volé leurs terres. Pourquoi devraient-ils accepter cela ? »

David Ben-Gourion, premier ministre israélien, cité par Nahum Goldmann dans « Le Paradoxe Juif », page 121.

Paris, 12 avril 2010 –Le Maire socialiste de Paris Bertrand Delanoë inaugure jeudi 15 avril une esplanade de Paris dédiée à David Ben Gourion dans ce qui apparaît comme une opération à relents électoralistes à vingt quatre mois des élections présidentielles françaises, en même temps qu’une prime politique à l’illégalité internationale à l’impunité de la part des pouvoirs publics français.

L’inauguration d’une place dédiée au fondateur de l’armée israélienne, auteur de la proclamation unilatérale d’indépendance d’Israël, responsable de ce fait du nettoyage ethnique qui s’est ensuivi matérialisé par l’expulsion de 800 000 Palestiniens et la destruction de 500 villages, intervient dans un contexte de crise larvée entre la France et Israël consécutif au refus du premier ministre Benyamin Netannyahou d’autoriser la reconstruction du centre culturel français à Gaza, détruit par l’armée israélienne en 2009.

La cérémonie se déroulera en présence du président israélien Shimon Pères, ancien collaborateur de Ben Gourion et artisan de la coopération militaire franco israélienne sous la IV me République, ou, en sa qualité de chef de la mission d’achats militaires (1954-1956), il fit l’acquisition du premier réacteur nucléaire de Dimona, de même que l’avion de combat à réaction Mirage IIII, mettant en place une coopération entre les services de renseignements dans la lutte contre l’Egypte, prélude à l’agression tripartite (franco anglo israélienne) de Suez, novembre 1956.
Shimon Perès, Prix Nobel de la Paix, faux pacifiste, est l’ordonnateur de l’opération «raisins de la colère» contre le sud-Liban, (11 avril 1996), en pleine campagne électorale israélienne qui a abouti à la destruction d’un camp de l’ONU à Cana, entraînant la mort d’une centaine de personnes, en majorité des enfants.

L’accueil du président israélien à Paris porte ainsi rétrospectivement caution des rebuffades consécutives essuyées par le personnel diplomatique français en poste en Israël de la part des autorités israéliennes et constitue un mauvais signal adressé à l’opinion internationale, alors qu’Israël vient dordonner l’expulsion massive de près de 70.000 palestiniens vers gaza dont ils sont originaires.

Dans un faux souci d’équilibre, M. Delanoé a assuré qu’une place sera dédiée au poète palestinien Mahmoud Darwiche dans le 6eme arrondissement de Paris, alors que sur le plan proprement municipal, Paris a déjà conféré trois places majeures à des personnalités israéliennes, la Place Fontenoy, face à l’Unesco et les jardins de Bercy, tous deux dédiés à l’ancien premier ministre assassiné Itzhack Rabin, ainsi que l’Esplanade David Ben Gourion.

M. Delanoé n’a pas précisé l’emplacement de la place Mahmoud Darwiche dans le quartier intellectuel de Paris, où une simple plaque -non une place- à la mémoire de Mehdi Ben Barka y est déjà apposé à la mémoire du supplice du chef de l’opposition marocaine enlevé avec la complicité d’agents français.

Le parti socialiste français dont le Maire de Paris se réclame, passe pour être le relais international du parti travailliste israélien. C’est en effet un gouvernement socialiste celui de Guy Mollet qui conçut et organisa contre le Président Gamal Abdel Nasser d’Egypte, l’expédition de suez de concert avec les israéliens et les anglais, en novembre 1956. C’est un autre premier ministre socialiste Lionel Jospin qui qualifia de «terroriste» le Hezbollah libanais, artisan du retrait militaire israélien du Liban, déclenchant lors de sa visite en Cisjordanie (Palestine occupée), en 2000, le plus célèbre caillassage de l’histoire politique moderne.
Sur le plan international, la cérémonie coïncide avec le refus d’Israël de participer au sommet nucléaire de Washington destiné à jeter les nouvelles bases d’un contrôle de la dissémination atomique, alors que les pays occidentaux aiguillonnés par Israël, s’emploient à imposer des sanctions à l’Iran précisément à propos de sa politique nucléaire.

Israël a refusé de participer à ce sommet arguant du fait que les Etats arabes pourraient demander la mise sous contrôle du programme nucléaire israélien. Israël, unique pays au monde avec le Kosovo à avoir été crée par une décision de l’ONU, se refuse de se soumettre au contrôle de la légalité internationale, au point que le prestigieuse revue «Foreign Policy » n’a pas hésité à consacrer une étude minutieuse, en janvier 2010, à ce que l’auteur de l’article Jeremy R. Hammond qualifie d’«Etat-Voyou» énumérant soixante dix neuf (79) résolutions internationales qu’Israël viole ou se refuse à appliquer.

L’étude couvre la période allant de 1948, (résolution 57 du 18 septembre 1948 adoptée par le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU dans la foulée de l’assassinat par les Israéliens du Comte Bernadotte, médiateur du conflit entre juifs et arabes), à 2009 avec la résolution 1860 du 8 janvier 2009 concernant la destruction de Gaza.

 

Jeremy R. Hammond qualifie Israël d’ «état voyou» et les assassins du Comte Bernadotte de «terroristes sionistes”, mais trois mois après la publication de cet article fort documenté, et, contrairement à la France, aucune plainte n’a été déposée contre lui pour «antisémitisme», «incitation à la haine raciale» voire même «négationnisme».

Sur un sujet sensible, renenaba.com a choisi de reproduire in extenso l’intégralité de l’article du Foreign Policy Journal dans sa version originale, en langue anglaise, à titre de témoignage et de documentation

Jeremy R. Hammond is an independent political analyst and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, an online source for news, critical analysis, and opinion commentary on U.S. foreign policy. He was among the recipients of the 2010 Project Censored Awards for outstanding investigative journalism, and is the author of « The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination », available from Amazon.com. Read more articles by Jeremy R. Hammond.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

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 Jordanian villages 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 that acquisition 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 that acquisition 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”.

7 comments

« Israël, unique pays a monde avec le Kosovo à avoir été crée par une décision de l’ONU »

Petite rectificatif : le Kosovo n’est pas reconnu par l’ONU (2/3 de ses membres ne le reconnaissent pas) !

Monsieur,

Il existe des anomalies dans le Droit International Public, qui est si peu juridique et qui résulte surtout des rapports de forces internationaux.

Je vous confirme qu’Israel et le Kosovo ont été bien crées par décision de l’ONU. Les deux d’ailleurs ne sont pas reconnus par la majorité des pays de l’organisation internationale.

En revanche, l’Organisation de Libération de la Palestine était reconnue comme etat independant de la Palestine par 110 pays . Elle avait qualité d’etat membre de la ligue arabe et y représentait la Palestine, de même qu’au sein de l’Organisation de la conférence islamique (55 pays) et de l’Organisation des non alignés (110 membres). Mais elle n’avait pas droit à un siège à l’ONU et pour la simple raison que les Etats-Unis y opposent leur veto

Pour etre complet, sachez que la Palestine est reconnue par davantage d’etats qu’Israel, mais n’a pas d’existence étatique du fait de la volonté occidentale.

De surcroît, c’est aux Palestiniens dont on exige qu’ils se conforment à la légalité internationale, dont s’exonère allégrement Israel, en toute impunité. tout est une question de rapports de force. Le Droit International donne un habillage juridique à des rapports de forces.

Je tiens à préciser que si la création d’Israël est une réalité militaire malheureusement incontournable pour les peuples qui la subissent, elle n’est ni légale ni légitime. C’est un acte de brigandage international comparable à la conquête de l’Algérie en 1830.

Elle n’est pas légale car:

1) Israël ne peut pas avoir été créé par une décision de l’ONU contrairement à ce que pensent beaucoup. En effet, l’ONU n’a jamais eu dans ses prérogatives de créer ou de de défaire un quelconque Etat. Israël a été créé par la violence des sionistes, encouragée par L’ONU qui je le rappelle, de façon cynique, dans son texte de résolution, invitait les habitants de la Palestine à mettre en oeuvre par tous les moyens la résolution de partage. Les termes exacts sont « l’ONU invite les habitants de la Palestine à prendre toutes les mesures qui pourraient être nécessaires de leur part, en vue d’assurer l’application de ce plan ». Il s’agissait tout simplement d’un appel du pied à la guerre contre les indigènes palestiniens, étant donné la supériorité militaire sioniste avérée. Ce fut un message codé, un chèque en blanc, à destination des sionistes pour qu’ils réalisent leur projet de nettoyage ethnique.

De plus l’ONU a participé au démembrement d’un Etat reconnu en droit international, la Palestine mandataire. Même si les Britishs se retiraient de Palestine, cet Etat existait tout de même et il était illégal de le détruire sans l’accord de sa population majoritaire.

2)l’ONU fait des propositions aux Etats qui en sont déjà membres.
C’est pourquoi la décision de partage de la Palestine en nov.1947 est parfaitement partiale, illégale et n’aurait engagé les Palestiniens que dans la mesure où ils auraient été consultés sur la question et que leur décision aurait été prise en compte. Ce qui bien sûr n’a jamais été le cas. A la différence des populations majoritaires du Kososvo ou bien de celles de la Tchécoslovaquie et de la Yougoslavie, consultées, lorsque ces pays furent créés, après la première guerre mondiale.

3) l’ONU, un organisme qui normalement a à coeur de préserver la paix, a par sa décision cynique de novembre 47, engagé la région dans une guerre de mille ans. Cette menace contre la paix est pourtant sévèrement condamnée par l’ONU, et justifie même habituellement une intervention du comité militaire des Nations unies !

4)Enfin, comment comprendre que le plan de partage de l’ONU qui a été décidé par l’assemblée générale en nov. 47 ait une valeur contraignante alors que tout le monde sait que c’est le cas des seules décisions du conseil de sécurité.

Enfin elle cette décision est illégitime car l’ONU est une organisation à adhésion volontaire qui d’ailleurs a repris de façon illégale les décisions de la SDN sur la question de Palestine ( les accords Sykes Picot de 1916, la déclaration Balfour de 1917 tout en ignorant l’accord Hussein Mac Mahon de 1915) mais nul pays n’est tenu d’y souscrire. Les Palestiniens dont nul ne peut contester qu’ils furent en continu les habitants de ce pays depuis des temps immémoriaux, sont les seuls qui pourraient accorder cette légitimité or à juste titre ils ne le veulent pas.

Youssef Boussoumah

merci encore pour ces précieuses informations M.Naba;constatant depuis que je vous lis votre intégrité et votre honnêteté intellectuelle,je m étonne toujours de ces gens qui tentent en vain de « chercher l’erreur ou la faute »dans vos écrits.nous ne sommes tout de même pas sur le figaro ou le monde pour ne citer qu’eux!

Bonjour Youssef

L’ONU a repris le mandat de la Société des Nations de l’avant guerre qui confiait à la Grande Bretagne le mandat sur la Palestine. Il est vrai juridiquement que le mandataire doit gérer au mieux les intérêts de ce qui relève de mission et non de disposer ou de détourner l’objet de son mandat.

Le problème du détournement du mandat de l’ONU sur la Palestine devrait d’ailleurs étre soulevé devant la Cour Internationale de Justice de la Haye par les avocats des palignants lors de l’examen de la plainte présentée par des habitants de Gaza contre Israël consécutif à la destruction de Gaza en 2009-2010

Je vous renvoie à ce propos au papier figurant sur ce blog « Conférence
d’Annapolis: La Palestine en contrechamps ». : http://www.renenaba.com/?p=485

Cela est vrai du point de vue juridique et formel. L’ONU, sur le plan du droit pur, a bien fait un détournement de mandat. Mais vous n’ignorez pas que le Droit International Public est spécifique et sa fonction essentielle est de donner un habillage juridique à un rapport de forces.

Puis il y a eu le génocide hitlérien des Juifs du fait exclusif des Occidentaux, principalement, les Européens, auquel ni les Palestiniens, ni les Arabes n’ont été mêles.
Dans cette affaire, il y a eu un double détournement, détournement du mandat de l’ONU et détournement de responsabilité du génocide nazi sur les Palestiniens et les Arabes.

Pour rappel, l’ONU, à sa naissance, était constituée de 48 membres, la quasi totalité relevant de la sphère occidentale. Ni la Chine, ni l’Inde, ni l’Indonésie, ni le Pakistan de même que la totalité des pays d’Afrique (afrique blanche et afrique noire) n’étaient membres de l’organisation internationale, soit une soixantaine de pays representant les deux tiers de l’humanité. Le vote portant plan de partage de la Palestine,la fameuse résolution 18, fut donc aisé à assurer dans ces conditions.

Par comparaison, prenons l’exemple du Kosovo, George Bush jr a estimé que cette enclave d’Europe centrale a mis assez de temps, dix ans, pour accéder à l’Independance. Il a donc ordonné à la diplomatie américaine de mettre en route via l’ONU le processus d’accession à l’indépendance du Kosovo.

Dix ans alors que la Palestine attend depuis soixante ans qu’on lui restitue une parcelle de son territoire national.

La création d’Israël résulte d’une volonté exclusivement occidentale à l’effet de briser le continuum stratégique du Monde arabe, au point de rupture entre la rive asiatique du Monde arabe et sa rive africaine.

Mais à en juger par les derniers développements, reste à savoir si la créature à definitivement échapper à son créateur, au risque de l’entrainer dans de nouvelles aventures. Affaire à suivre

Laisser un commentaire

*