Breaking the Silence publishes shocking testimonies from women who served Occupation

by Philip Weiss

There’s a new and shocking booklet of testimonies out from Breaking the Silence, this one from anonymous female soldiers who served in the Occupied Territories and routinely abused the "Arabs" or "illegal aliens." Because they could, or needed to. Ynet has published many of the testimonies, and they’re horrifying/nightmarish, all about the kind of warped psychological/gender power abuse that people talk about in David Hare plays or in Eastern European memoirs. What if these stories of sexualized humiliation were published in the U.S.? (Noam Sheizaf asks). Don’t worry, they won’t be. And they won’t be acted out in Jewish Community Centers, not for another ten years, till the kids take over.

What did you do mom when this was happening?

Well honey we didn’t know anything about it.

But that guy in the play says it was all over the internet, on Ynet, and Promised Land–

Well I know, but you know, well, there was a lot of anti-Semitism then, and Israel-bashing. And your father and I– well, we used to read– [Mom breaks down]

What, mom, what did you used to read?

The New York Times–.

Totally inappropriate. Sorry. A few excerpts.

[1] A female Seam Line Border Guard spoke of the chase after illegal aliens: "In half an hour you can catch 30 people without any effort." Then comes the question of what should be done with those who were caught – including women, children, and elderly. "They would have them stand, and there’s the well-known Border Guard song (in Arabic): ‘One hummus, one bean, I love the Border Guard’ – they would make them sing this. Sing, and jump. Just like they do with recruits… The same thing only much worse. And if one of them would laugh, or if they would decide someone was laughing, they would punch him. Why did you laugh? Smack… It could go on for hours, depending on how bored they are. A shift is eight hours long, the times must be passed somehow."…

[2] Was there also abuse of women?

"Yes" [a different] soldier replied. "Slaps, that kind of thing. Mainly slaps."

From men?

"Also. From whoever. It was mainly the female combat soldiers who beat people. There were two who really liked to beat people up. But also men, they had no problem slapping a woman around. If she screamed, they’d say, ‘Shut it,’ with another slap. A routine of violence. There were also those who didn’t take part, but everyone knew it happened."

[3] A female Border Guard officer in Jenin spoke of an incident in which a nine-year-old Palestinian, who tried to climb the fence, failed, and fled – was shot to death: "They fired… when he was already in the territories and posed no danger. The hit was in the abdomen area, they claimed he was on a bicycle and so they were unable to hit him in the legs." But the soldier was most bewildered by what happened next between the four soldiers present: "They immediately got their stories straight… An investigation was carried out, at first they said it was an unjustified killing… In the end they claimed that he was checking out escape routes for terrorists or something… and they closed the case."…

[4] They really just started to laugh at me. The commander looks at me and tells me, ‘What? Are you going to let that slide? Look how he’s laughing at you’.

"And you, as someone who has to salvage your self-respect… I told them to sit down and I told him to come…I told him to come close, I really approached him, as if I was about to kiss him. I told him, ‘Come, come, what are you afraid of? Come to me!’ And I hit him in the balls. I told him, ‘Why aren’t you laughing?’ He was in shock, and then he realized that… not to laugh. It shouldn’t reach such a situation."

You hit him with your knee?

"I hit him in the balls. I took my foot, with my military shoe, and hit him in the balls. I don’t know if you’ve ever been hit in the balls, but it looks like it hurts. He stopped laughing in my face because it hurt him. We then took him to a police station and I said to myself, ‘Wow, I’m really going to get in trouble now.’ He could complain about me and I could receive a complaint at the Military police’s criminal investigation division.

"He didn’t say a word. I was afraid and I said. I was afraid about myself, not about him. But he didn’t say a word. ‘What should I say, that a girl hit me?’ And he could have said, but thank God, three years later I didn’t get anything and no one knows about it."

What did it feel like that moment?

"Power, strength that I should not have achieved this way. But I didn’t brag about it. That’s why I did it that way, one on one. I told them to sit on the side, I saw that he wasn’t looking. I said to myself that it doesn’t make sense that as a girl who gives above and beyond and is worth more than some boys – they should laugh at me like that because I am a girl. Because you think I can’t do it…"

Today, when you look at it three years later, would you have done things differently?

"I would change the system. It’s seriously defective."

Noam Sheizaf writes:

[T]o me this set of testimonies is even more important than the one Breaking the Silence published regarding operation Cast Lead in Gaza – or at least just as important – because it reveals something of the real nature of the occupation that many people don’t get. Israel’s occupation is not the most murderous regime today, certainly not in history. It’s the daily pressure on the entire population and the humiliations all Palestinians go through that’s unprecedented, at least today. We are talking about millions of civilians, in roadblocks, on the streets and even in their houses, at the hands 18 years old kids, with no one to appeal to and no law to guard them – and that’s before the settlers come into the picture. In this reality, and with a popular uprising against the occupation in the background, acts like those described in the Breaking the Silence report are almost inevitable.

Inside Israeli land grabs

Over the weekend, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu reaffirmed the Israeli government's support of the settlement movement by planting a tree in each one of the three biggest settlement blocks in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Despite the Israeli government's support, funding, and approval of settlers, they are often presented in the media as in conflict with the state and the army. In this report, The Real News' Lia Tarachansky looks at this claim through a recent lecture by Shir Hever, an economist with the Alternative Information Center. A perfect example of the methodology Hever describes can be seen in the settlement of Kedumim which lies adjacent to the Palestinian village of Kaft Qadum. The Real News spoke to the village council of the Palestinian village and the associate mayor of the settlement about how they've expanded and the impact this has had on their lives.



Shir Hever is an economic researcher in the Alternative Information Center, a Palestinian-Israeli organization active in Jerusalem and Beit-Sahour. Researching the economic aspect of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, some of his research topics include international aid to the Palestinians and Israel, the effects of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories on the Israeli economy, and the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns against Israel. He is a frequent speaker on the topic of the economy of the Israeli occupation.

Can't They Just Stop Using The Holocaust Card?

Dershowitz: Israel’s New Goldstone

Richard Silverstein

Sometimes I think the Israeli government’s deliberations are so ludicrous they’re meant to be comic. Take Israel’s so-called answer to the Goldstone Report. The UN investigative body gave the parties to the Gaza war three months to respond by opening a credible investigation of the charges in the report. Israel has dithered the entire time and for most of it absolutely refused to consider doing so. The thinking clearly was that wind would die out of the sails of the Report and Israel could get away with doing nothing.

Dershowitz: Israel's new Goldstone to investigate Cast Lead?

Instead, just the opposite has happened. The world has taken Goldstone seriously and now it appears Israel will have to–not take Goldstone seriously–but figure out a way to appear to be taking it seriously. Haaretz reports that the government is contemplating establishing a limited investigation which would have none of the trappings of a formal commission of inquiry. It would not have subpoena power. It could not question IDF operational commanders. It could not examine specific incidents in the way Goldstone did. All it could do would be to examine IDF investigations of those incidents. It could also interview politicians and generals responsible for creating the military doctrine on which Cast Lead was fought. The goal is to limit any inquiry to the specific question: did Israel systematically target Gaza civilian infrastructure for destruction.

In effect, what the government is doing shrewdly is taking the hardest element of the Goldstone Report to prove conclusively and saying: OK, we’ll agree to examine this one limited question. We won’t examine specific incidents to determine whether they are war crimes. We won’t ask specific commanders how they and their troops behaved in the field.

But I’m saving the best for last–and this is where the real comedy creeps in: Bibi wants a real swell cast of characters to sit on this committee. They would be Israeli jurists and an "international jurist" of renown. No, silly they’re not talking about Richard Falk! Who else but Alan Dershowitz!! I kid you not. Now do you get the joke?

Sometimes I get to feeling sorry for poor ol’ Holocaust: he’s beaten and battered by certain Israeli opportunists attempting to guilt the world into never criticizing that country for anything it does. So comes news that senior government ministers will be blanketing world capitals for Yom HaShoah which happens to coincide closely with the three month deadline mentioned above. Here’s Ynetnews’ subheadline:

Peres in Berlin, Netanyahu in Auschwitz, Lieberman in Budapest and Edelstein at UN headquarters in New York all plan attack UN report into Gaza war on International Holocaust Day.

The clear message: We suffered, baby. Don’t you dare think you can lay Goldstone on us. We won’t take it. After losing six million don’t you think you’ve taken enough from us? Can’t they let old Holocaust be? Can’t it just be a historical event and not a Rorschach test for Jewish identity?

The Kangaroo and the Prince of America

Uri Avnery

GEORGE MITCHELL looks like a kangaroo hopping around with an empty pouch.

He hops here and he hops there. Hops to Jerusalem and hops to Ramallah, Damascus, Beirut, Amman (but, God forbid, not to Gaza, because somebody may not like it). Hops, hops, but doesn’t take anything out of his pouch, because the pouch is empty. So why does he do it? After all, he could stay at home, raise roses or play with his grandchildren.

This compulsive traveling reveals a grain of chutzpah. If he has nothing to offer, why waste the time of politicians and media people? Why burn airplane fuel and damage the environment?


THE DECLARED aim of Mitchell is to “get the peace process going again”. How? “Get the two sides to return to the negotiating table”.

There is a naïve American belief that all the problems of the world could be solved if only the parties would sit down at the table and talk. When reasonable people talk to each other, they will eventually arrive at a solution.

The trouble with this is that the people responsible for the fate of nations are not, in general, reasonable people. They are politicians with passions and prejudices and constituencies, who are driven by the mood of the masses. When one is dealing with a 130-year old conflict, the naïve belief in the value of talk borders on folly.

Decades of experience indicate that negotiations are useless if one of the parties is not interested in an agreement. Worse: negotiations can actually cause damage when one of the parties uses them to waste time while creating a false impression of progress towards peace.

In our conflict, peace negotiations have become a substitute for peace, a means to obstruct peace. They are an instrument used by successive Israeli governments to gain time – time to enlarge the settlements and entrench the occupation.

(In an interview with Haaretz published yesterday, Ehud Barak accused the “left” in general, and Gush Shalom and Peace Now in particular, of not supporting Netanyahu’s call for negotiations. He got close to accusing us of treason.)

Anyone who now proposes negotiations “without prior conditions” is collaborating with the Netanyahu-Barak-Lieberman government in a ploy to sabotage the chances of peace. Indeed, Mitchell has become – perhaps unwittingly – such a collaborator. When he exerts pressure on Mahmoud Abbas “to come back to the negotiating table”, he is playing the game of Netanyahu, who presents himself as the great peace-lover. Abbas is being pictured as a man who has “climbed a high tree and doesn’t know how to get down again”. There is no occupation, no ongoing settlement activity, no Judaization of East Jerusalem. The only problem is to get a ladder. A ladder for Abbas!

All this for what? What is the kangaroo hopping for? It’s all to help Obama, who is thirsting for a political achievement like a man in the desert thirsting for water. The start of negotiations, however meaningless, would be presented as a great diplomatic success.


THE OTHER day, Obama himself made a rare gesture: the President of the United States of America declared publicly that he had made a mistake and apologized for it. He admitted that he had not properly understood the difficulties involved in the restarting of the peace process.

Everybody praised the President. Such a courageous leader! Such nobility!

To which I would add: And such chutzpah!

Here comes the most powerful leader in the world and says: I was wrong. I did not understand. I have failed. For a whole year I have not achieved any progress at all towards a solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Look how honest I am! Look how ready I am to admit mistakes!

That is chutzpah. That is chutzpah, because a whole year was lost due to this “mistake”, a whole year in which 1.5 million human beings in Gaza, men, women and children, have been suffering utter destitution, many of them without sufficient food, many of them without shelter in the cold and in rain. A whole year in which more than a hundred Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem were demolished while new Jewish housing projects sprang up at a crazy pace. A whole year in which settlements in the West Bank were enlarged, apartheid roads were built and pogroms, under the “price tag” slogan, were carried out.

So, with all due respect, Mr. President, the word “mistake” hardly suffices.

The Bible says: “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy” (Proverbs 28:13). Obama covereth not his “mistake”, and that is good. But it is the second half of the verse that counts: “confesseth and forsaketh”. No mercy for one who “confesseth” but not “forsaketh”. You have not hinted with a single word that you are about to forsake your old ways.

It is chutzpah for another reason, too: You say that you have failed because you did not properly appreciate the domestic problems of the two leaders, Netanyahu and Abbas. Netanyahu, you say, has an extreme right-wing coalition, and Abbas has Hamas.

Sorry, sorry, but what about your own “coalition”, which does not allow you to move an inch in the right direction? What about the two houses of Congress, which are completely subservient to the pro-Israel lobbies, both the Jewish and the Christian-Evangelical? What about your fear of your extreme right, which is supporting our own extreme right? What about your inability – or unwillingness – to exercise your leadership, invest political capital in a confrontation with the lobbies and move forwards according to the real interests of the United States (and Israel) – as did President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his time, and even, for a short period, Secretary of State James Baker?


THE TERRIBLE blow dealt to Obama in the Massachusetts by-election has dumbfounded many people. It has changed the texture of American politics and is endangering the health system reforms, the jewel in the crown he has put on his head. It threatens to turn him into a lame duck that may not only lose the midterm elections this year, but even fail to be reelected less than three years from now.

Many ask: what happened to the shining candidate who enchanted the entire United States and mobilized millions of enthusiastic new voters? Where is the man with a vision who aroused the masses with the battle-cry “Yes, We Can”?

How did the inspiring campaigner turn into a so-so president, one who does not excite anyone? How did the candidate, who always hit exactly the right note, turn into a president who is unable to touch the hearts of the people? How did the candidate, who made all the right decisions, turn into a president who cannot make decisions? How did the anti-Bush turn into another-Bush?

It seems to me that the answers lie in one of the fundamental paradoxes of the democratic system. I have thought about this many a time while sitting through boring speeches in the Knesset.

A democratic leader who has a vision and wants to realize it has to pass two tests: to win an election and to govern a country. If he does not get elected, he will not have a chance to realize his dream. If he fails in governing, his election victory loses its meaning.

The trouble is that these two tasks are very different. Indeed, they tend to contradict each other, because they demand very different talents.

The candidate must make speeches, excite the imagination, make promises and convince the voters that he is capable of fulfilling them. These talents can indeed be of help to the ruler – but they do not suffice to enable him to rule. The ruler must make hard decisions, withstand extreme pressures, manage a huge apparatus with many contradictory components, convince the public of his country and the leaders of foreign countries. He cannot satisfy all sectors of the public and all the interest groups, the way he tried to do as a candidate.

The most inspiring candidates often turn out to be disastrous heads of government. They are swept into power by the enthusiasm they evoke in their voters, and then suddenly find out that their brilliant speeches have no impact any more – not on the members of their parliament, not on the public, not on foreign leaders. Their brightest talent has become useless.

I have the impression that Obama’s numerous speeches are starting to tire people and are losing their appeal. When he turns his face from left to right and from right to left, from one teleprompter to the other, he starts to look like a mechanical doll. The millions viewing his speeches on TV see him turning to the left and turning to the right, but never really looking them in the eyes.

The candidate is an actor on stage playing the role of a leader. After the elections, when he actually becomes a leader, he can become helpless. The man who plays Julius Caesar in Shakespeare’s play can be a great actor – but if he were Caesar in real life, he would not have a clue what to do. (When I put this to an actor, his retort was: “But Caesar himself would not be able to play Caesar on the stage!”)

Barack Obama is no Caesar. Rather he is Hamlet, Prince of America. Enchanting, attractive, full of good intentions – but feeble and hesitant. To rule or not to rule, that is the question.


IT IS much too early to announce Obama’s political death. Contrary to Mark Antony, who declares in the play “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him”, I am not yet ready to bury the great hope raised by him.

A year has passed since he entered the White House. A year wasted to a large extent. Three more years are left until the next elections. True, in the first year, after such a dramatic victory, it would have been much easier for him to do things than in the following three years, but Obama can still recover, draw the necessary conclusions from the experience and manage a comeback.

One of the roads there leads through Jerusalem. Obama must keep his kangaroo tied up at home and take the initiative into his own hands. He must announce a clear peace program, the one about which there is now a world-wide consensus (Two states for two peoples, a Palestinian state in all the occupied territories with its capital in East Jerusalem and the dismantling of the settlements in Palestinian territory) and call upon the two sides to adopt it in theory and practice – perhaps by a referendum on both sides. When the time is ripe, he may come to Jerusalem and address the Israeli people from the Knesset rostrum with a clear and unequivocal message.

In short: exit Hamlet, enter Julius Caesar.

Obama why are you Israel's Bitch?

Obama if you care about the safety of Palestinians as much as you do Israel's why do you allow and why do you not speak out against Israel and Egypt for their continued violation of human right abuses and the breaking of International laws? Why don't you listen to many others in your own party that want the siege of Gaza broken?
Why are you giving more and more billions to Israel while millions of Americans starve, keep loosing their jobs and homes? Would that money be better spent helping Americans rather then assisting war criminals commit more war crimes?



A University of South Florida student and former Obama campaign volunteer asks President Obama a direct question about why he's remained silent about Israel's and Egypt's Human Rights violations against Palestinians. President Obama looked visibly uncomfortable with the question, spoke slowly in response and skirted the question.

Get Your Posting on Window into Palestine

Want your article you have written posted on Window into Palestine, want to submit an article or anything else? We are accepting articles, opinions, feedback, events happening along with any other items that provide insight and solidarity for Palestine. Window into Palestine welcomes your article submissions, opinions and feedback Send them to windowintopalestine@gmail.com.

Word length isn’t a real issue, but please don’t send us an encyclopedia-size work. Multi-part articles are acceptable. Window into Palestine reserves the right to edit for length and clarity but will contact you before we post it to get permission of such.

Window into Palestine is always posting each and everyday. We often receive more emails than we can accommodate, and cannot therefore publish everything. If a submission is rejected for posting, please do not get discouraged about sending future work. There are a number of reasons why we may forgo posting a submission, quality of work isn’t necessarily the only one. Time constraints do not allow us to respond to you with reasons why a particular piece may have been rejected. Previous success in getting a submission posted does not guarantee posting of future work.

Article(s) should be pasted in the body of an e-mail using simple text format (and attached as a word file) or attached as an HTML file. Please put “Posting Submission” in the subject field of any e-mail submission. For security reasons, Window into Palestine does not accept any other attachment formats unless the author first communicates directly with us.

All articles must include a brief bio line. Let us know if you do or don’t want your e-mail address to be posted in the bio (unless we hear otherwise, we assume including it so readers may respond directly to you)

Please include a title/headline for your submission, if there is none then we will come up with one that you may not like.

Please let us know if there are any accompanying pictures or graphics, and specify any special text formatting needs. If there are citations or references to other work available on the web, please send along the URLs so we can create text links. Footnotes are cool. They should appear as follows: [1], [2], etc, with the full reference(s) at the end of the article (we’ll create linkable footnotes). And please include the unembedded urls.

Please do proofread your work before sending it in: check your grammar, spelling, look for typos, etc. The more editing we have to do, the longer it takes for us to post your work … if we decide to at all. We don’t mind fixing problems after a piece has been posted, but it can be a pain.

Window into Palestine will try to fact check articles as time permits, but that time is very limited, so please fact check your work and get ‘em straight. It’s your credibility after all.

It is understood that articles or other items posted do not necessarily reflect the views of Window into Palestine or all contributing writers. Conversely, statements and positions by the editor do not necessarily reflect the views of Window into Palestine contributing writers.

Writers retain full copyright control of their work.

Thank you very much for considering Window into Palestine as a venue for your work. It is very much appreciated and thank you to everyone who visits window into Palestine to get more knowledge and insight.

Why is The United Nations And Their Security Council A Bitch For Israel?

Rogue State: Israeli Violations of U.N. Security Council Resolutionsby Jeremy R. Hammond

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) – 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. 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 on Israel to withdraw from territories it 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”.

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”.

I am a Muslim

 I received this email from a list I am on. It is worth reviewing and makes a valid point.

Ed Corrigan

   A Jew can grow his beard in order to practice his faith
But when Muslim does the same, he is an extremist and terrorist!
 
 
 
 

  A nun can be covered from head to toe in order to devote herself to God, right?
But, then, if a daughter of Muslim-Ummah does the same, why is she oppressed?
 
 

 
 
 

When a western woman stays at home to look after her house and kids she is respected by the entire society because of sacrificing her life to her house


But when a Muslim woman does so by her will, they say, "she needs to be liberated"!
 
 

 
  Any girl can go to university wearing what she wills and have her rights and freedom?
  But when a Muslim Girl/Lady wears Hijab, they prevent her from entering the university!
 
 

 
 
When a child dedicates himself to a subject, he has potential and talent..
But when he dedicates himself to Islam he is hopeless!
WHY  
 
 
When a Jew kills someone, religion is not mentioned, but when a Muslim is charged with a crime, it is Islam that goes to trial!
  < BR>When someone sacrfices himself to keep others alive, he is noble and everyone respects him.



But when a Palestinian does that to save his son from being killed, his brother's arm being broken, his mother being raped, his home being destroyed, and his mosque being violated --- He gets the title of 'terrorist'! Why? Because he is a "Muslim"!
 
 
When there is trouble, we accept any solution available, right? However, if the solution lies in Islam, we refuse to take a look at it.
      When someone drives a perfect car in an improper manner, no one blames the car....

But when any Muslim makes a mistake or treats people in a bad manner -   people say "Islam is the reason"!
 
 

 
 
Without giving a glance at Islamic laws, people believe what the newspapers say.



But question what the Holy QURAN says!

Wanna Eradicate Injustice? Go Ahead - Forward This posting To Everyone You Know...!

A Manual For Killing Anyone That Is Not Jewish?

Rabbinic Text or Call to Terror?
Forward - Daniel Estrin

The marble-patterned, hardcover book embossed with gold Hebrew letters looks like any other religious commentary you’d find in an Orthodox Judaica bookstore — but reads like a rabbinic instruction manual outlining acceptable scenarios for killing non-Jewish babies, children and adults.“The prohibition ‘Thou Shalt Not Murder’” applies only “to a Jew who kills a Jew,” write Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur of the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar. Non-Jews are “uncompassionate by nature” and attacks on them “curb their evil inclination,” while babies and children of Israel’s enemies may be killed since “it is clear that they will grow to harm us.”

“The King’s Torah (Torat Hamelech), Part One: Laws of Life and Death between Israel and the Nations,” a 230-page compendium of Halacha, or Jewish religious law, published by the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva in Yitzhar, garnered a front-page exposé in the Israeli tabloid Ma’ariv, which called it the stuff of “Jewish terror.”

Now, the yeshiva is in the news again, with a January 18 raid on Yitzhar by more than 100 Israeli security officials who forcibly entered Od Yosef Chai and arrested 10 Jewish settlers. The Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic security agency, suspects five of those arrested were involved in the torching and vandalizing of a Palestinian mosque last month in the neighboring Palestinian village of Yasuf. The arson provoked an international outcry and condemnation by Israeli religious figures, including Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger, who visited the village to personally voice his regret.

Yet, both Metzger and his Sephardic counterpart, Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar, have declined to comment on the book, which debuted in November, while other prominent rabbis have endorsed it — among them, the son of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Sephardic Jewry’s preeminent leader. Also, despite the precedent set by previous Israeli attorneys general in the last decade and a half to file criminal charges against settler rabbis who publish commentaries supporting violence against non-Jews, Attorney General Menachem Mazuz has so far remained mum about “The King’s Torah.”

“Sometimes the public arena deals with the phenomenon and things become settled by themselves,” Justice Ministry spokesman Moshe Cohen told the Forward.

A coalition of religious Zionist groups, the “Twelfth of Heshvan,”—– named after the Hebrew date of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination, has asked Israel’s Supreme Court to order Mazuz to confiscate the books and arrest its authors.

“You open the book, and you feel that you read a halachic book. And it’s a trap,” said Gadi Gvaryahu, a religious Jewish educator who heads the coalition. It was, in fact, “a guidebook [on] how to kill,” he charged.

Family members who answered phone calls placed to the homes of both authors said they did not wish to comment.

In 2008, author Shapira was suspected of involvement in a crude rocket attack directed at a Palestinian village. Israeli police investigated but made no arrests.

Co-author Elitzur wrote an article in a religious bulletin a month after the book’s release saying that “the Jews will win with violence against the Arabs.”

In 2003, the head of the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva, Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, was charged by then-Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein with incitement to racism for authoring a book calling Arabs a “cancer.”

In 2006-2007, the Israeli Ministry of Education gave about a quarter of a million dollars to the yeshiva, and in 2007-2008 the yeshiva received about $28,000 from the American nonprofit Central Fund of Israel.

“The King’s Torah” reflects a fringe viewpoint held by a minority of rabbis in the West Bank, said Avinoam Rosenak, a Hebrew University professor specializing in settler theology. Asher Cohen, a Bar Ilan University political science professor, thought its influence would be “zero” because it appeals only to extreme ideologues.

But the book’s wide dissemination and the enthusiastic endorsements of prominent rabbis have spotlighted what might have otherwise remained an isolated commentary.

At the entrance to Moriah, a large Jewish bookstore steps from the Western Wall, copies of “The King’s Torah” were displayed with children’s books and other halachic commentaries. The store manager, who identified himself only as Motti, said the tome has sold “excellently.”

Other stores carrying the book include Robinson Books, a well-known, mostly secular bookshop in a hip Tel Aviv shopping district; Pomeranz Bookseller, a major Jewish book emporium near the Ben Yehuda mall in downtown Jerusalem; and Felhendler, a Judaica store on the main artery of secular Rehovot, home of the Weizmann Institute.

The yeshiva declined to comment on publication statistics. But Itzik, a Tel Aviv-area book distributor hired by the yeshiva who declined to give his last name because of the book’s nature, said the yeshiva had sold 1,000 copies to individuals and bookstores countrywide. He said an additional 1,000 copies were now being printed.

Mendy Feldheim, owner of Feldheim Publishers, Israel’s largest Judaica publishing house, said he considered this a “nice” sales figure for a tome of rabbinic Halacha in Israel. He said his own company, which distributes to 200 bookstores nationwide, is not distributing “The King’s Torah” because the book’s publishers did not approach the company.

Prominent religious figures wrote letters of endorsement that preface the book. Rabbi Yaakov Yosef, son of former Sephardic Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, blessed the authors and wrote that many “disciples of Torah are unfamiliar with these laws.” The elder Yosef has not commented on his son’s statement.

Dov Lior, chief rabbi of Kiryat Arba and a respected figure among many mainstream religious Zionists, noted that the book is “very relevant especially in this time.”

Rabbi Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, one of the country’s most respected rabbinic commentators, initially endorsed the book, but rescinded his approval a month after its release, saying that the book includes statements that “have no place in human intelligence.”

A handful of settler rabbis echoed Goldberg’s censure, including Shlomo Aviner, chief rabbi of Beit El and head of Yeshivat Ateret Yerushalayim, who said he had “no patience” to read the book, and spoke out against it to his students.

Previously, Israel has arrested settler rabbis who publish commentaries supporting the killing of non-Jews. In addition to Ginsburgh, the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva head, in 1994, the government jailed Rabbi Ido Elba of Hebron for writing a 26-page article proclaiming it a “mitzva to kill every non-Jew from the nation that is fighting the Jew, even women and children.”

“The atmosphere has changed,” said Yair Sheleg, senior researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute, who specializes in issues of religion and state. Previous governments took a tougher stance against such publications, he said, but “paradoxically, because the tension between the general settler population and the Israeli judicial system…is high now, the attorney general is careful not to heighten the tension.”

It is not uncommon for some settler rabbis, in the unique conditions of West Bank settlement life, to issue religious decrees, or psakim, that diverge from normative Jewish practice. In 2008, Avi Gisser, considered a moderate rabbi from the settlement of Ofra, ruled that Jews may violate Sabbath laws and hire non-Jews to build hilltop settlements. And In 2002, Yediot Aharanot reported that former Israeli Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu sanctioned Jewish harvesting of Palestinian-owned olive trees.

This artcle written by Daniel Estrin