UN Resolutions – Israel and Iraq

As an American-led attack on Iraq is being debated, many critics are accusing Washington of ‘double standards’. The argument raised is that while President Bush is determined to enforce UN resolutions with regard to Iraq, the US ignores UN resolutions calling upon Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza. The US, claim critics, selectively targets when and where to enforce UN resolutions, to reflect their political interests. Thus, in the debate leading up to the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1435 on September 24 2002, concerning Israel’s presence in Ramallah, the representative of the Arab League, Yanya Mahmassani, charged the UN of pressing Iraq while ignoring Israeli violations of UN resolutions .

Such claims cannot be upheld and no parallel can be drawn between the UN’s direct condemnation of Iraq and its resolutions concerning Israel. The effort to draw comparisons between UN action on Israel and Iraq ignores the fundamental differences between the two countries.

* Iraq is a unique case, which should not be compared to any other country. It is a rogue state, governed by the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, who has used weapons of mass destruction both against the Iranian army and against innocent Iraqi civilians . Iraq has been in flagrant violation of many Security Council resolutions and has continually restricted the work of UN Commissions and international bodies.

*Israel, on the other hand, is a democracy with Western values. It is highly committed to peace and has made many attempts to reach peace with its neighbours, as required by UN resolutions. Every Israeli leadership, including the current government, has been prepared to negotiate peace with its neighbours.

* Furthermore, there are fundamental differences between the different kinds of resolutions in the UN. First, there are General Assembly resolutions, which are non-binding recommendations and reflect the political currents in the world body . Then there are Security Council resolutions, which have their own hierarchy. The UN resolutions concerning Israel and Iraq are based on different legal foundations:

IRAQ
Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq are based on Chapter VII of the UN Charter (“Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression”). Chapter VII provides for the use of coercive force to counter threats and breaches of international peace and security, as well as acts of aggression, in the form of administering economic and/or military sanctions or authorising collective military action. Chapter VII authorizes the Security Council to decide on economic and diplomatic sanctions, and on military actions to restore international peace or security.

Every resolution that the Security Council took in relation to Iraq makes specific reference to Chapter VII , and is therefore legally binding and enforceable . The implementation of these resolutions is not dependent on any negotiations, but demands immediate action on behalf of Iraq.

Article 42 of the UN Charter states that if a Chapter VII resolution is ignored by an aggressor, the Security Council may take such action as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security, including demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

ISRAEL
In contrast, Security Council resolutions concerning Israel are based on Chapter VI of the UN Charter (“Pacific Settlement of Disputes”), which provides the Security Council with the authority to try to uphold the peaceful resolution of disputes, using diplomatic means to persuade parties in a conflict to cease hostilities and to negotiate a peaceful settlement of their dispute .

The Security Council resolutions with reference to Israel either make no reference to the authority being used or refer to Chapter VI. They require peaceful negotiations, are non-binding and are considered recommendations. Israel has never been subject to a resolution based on Chapter VII.

* For Israel, particular attention is paid to Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which formed the basis for all peace negotiations for an Arab-Israel peace settlement. Both resolutions are aimed at establishing a just and lasting peace in the region, based on a negotiated settlement between Israel and its neighbours. The resolutions do not include enforceable measures against Israel, but rather require a negotiating process. Israel has made many attempts to negotiate such a settlement and it cannot be blamed for the failure of the negotiations.

* Israel has also fully complied with Security Council Resolution 425, and on May 24 2000, it completed its pullout from Lebanon to the international border .


Israel is not like Iraq and there is no double standard in the UN’s or the US’s treatment of the two countries. Whereas Iraq poses a genuine threat to regional stability, Israel is an open, democratic society committed to regional peace and coexistence with its neighbours.