|
|
October 4, 2002/Tishri 28 5763, Vol. 55, No. 6
Arabs see double standard
MICHAEL J. JORDAN
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
UNITED NATIONS - On the surface, it might seem like a fair question: Why does the world insist that Iraq comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions, while Israel ignores reams of them?
As pressure mounts on Baghdad, Arab diplomats are accusing the United Nations and the United States, especially, of "double standards" when it comes to enforcing U.N. dictates.
But how valid is the comparison?
In terms both of substance and accordance with international law, it's a false parallel, pro-Israel advocates say.
Essentially, they say, the argument is a smokescreen designed to take the heat off Iraq.
"If we compare the situation generally, there's the political argument that these are two very different types of states: Israel is a liberal democracy, Iraq is a totalitarian state; Iraq has used weapons of mass destruction, Israel has not," said Andrew Srulevitch, executive director of the Geneva-based U.N. Watch.
That's not just an academic difference, supporters of Israel say: Israel is committed to trading land for a durable peace with its neighbors, while Iraq is an aggressive dictatorship that has tried to conquer its neighbors and has used weapons of mass destruction against them. Therefore, they say, Iraqi compliance is more urgent.
After Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent Persian Gulf War, Baghdad surrendered in accordance with the terms of Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter: "Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression."
U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 - the cornerstone of all subsequent Iraq-related resolutions - branded Iraq the aggressor in the conflict and legitimated the sanctions that continue today. It also mandated that U.N. weapons inspectors fully disarm Iraq, a mandate that Iraq blocked.
As for Israel, the 1967 Six-Day War largely was seen in the international community as a "defensive war." Neighbors Egypt, Syria and Jordan had massed troops on the border and were prepared to attack. After the brief conflict, Security Council Resolution 242 laid the groundwork for later negotiations and, crucially, was passed under Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter: "Pacific Settlement of Disputes."
Resolution 242 called for an Israeli withdrawal from "territories" it had captured but, after intense negotiations, intentionally omitted the definite article.
Since then, Israel has become far and away the most popular target of Security Council resolutions. This is due primarily to the large, influential bloc of Arab and Muslim member-states and the alliances the bloc enjoys because of energy needs, regional trade and Third World solidarity.
To neutral observers, the defense of Israel and its noncompliance with resolutions smacks of hair-splitting: noncompliance is noncompliance. But Israel advocates justify the Jewish state's resistance because the resolutions are one-sided and politically motivated.
For example, there are instances where Israel alone is called to task. In April, the Security Council passed a resolution calling for a U.N. investigation of Israel's assault on Jenin, while ignoring Palestinian actions that prompted the operation. Israel refused to cooperate with the investigation - and, in the end, was vindicated when the United Nations itself said that no massacre had taken place in Jenin.
|
