The United States has vetoed 35 UN resolutions related to the middle east. (Palestine; 24, Lebanon; 8, Syria; 1, Libya; 2)

Shortly after the 1967 war, the US asserted that Israel had to comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Territories, but it was only four years later, in 1971, that the US declared Israel’s actions there to be contrary to the Convention. It took another four years for the US to declare the building of settlements in the occupied territories as being illegal and an obstacle to peace. Yet, two days after declaring its position to the UN (1976), the US vetoed a resolution calling on Israel to stop changing the status of Jerusalem and put an end to settlement building on Arab land. It was only in March 1979 that the US allowed the Security Council to address the situation by abstaining on the UNSCR 446, which stated that the Fourth Geneva Convention applied to the Arab territories occupied by Israel, including Jerusalem[1].


However, at this point, the Resolution was more or less meaningless and it was certainly not going to change Israel’s plans for yet more settlements. Despite the fact that US President Jimmy Carter kept on declaring settlements to be illegal, only three out of seven Security Council Resolutions (during his four years in office) on the issue of settlements were supported by the US.


In 1979, a UN commission reported the existence of 133 Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories, and almost 100,000 settlers. The number of settlements began rising substantially once the ultra-nationalist Menachem Begin became Israeli Prime Minister in 1977. By the end of his term (1983), there were almost 200 settlements. By the end of Yitzhak Shamir’s term, a further fifty settlements had been built; there were now around 245 000 settlers in the Occupied Territories[2].


In 1981, less than a month after he took office, President Ronald Reagan expressed his opinion that the expansion of the settlements was not a constructive move, but they were ‘not illegal’… ‘maybe unnecessarily provocative’[3]. President Reagan was a strong admirer and supporter of Israel and showed no sympathy for Palestinians, which obviously meant that there was no chance of his Middle East policy-making being even-handed. Israeli supporters filled almost every portfolio in his foreign policy team, and no regional experts in the State Department had any influence on his policies whatsoever. His term in office also coincided with AIPAC’s membership rising dramatically, and saw the launch of the Hasbara Project, which was set up by Israeli supporters and media commentators as an information campaign to try to regain a positive image of Israel. This came after it had been damaged following Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982[4].


The first Bush Administration offered some hope for change when Secretary of State, James Baker, addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 1989, stating that Israeli settlement expansion had to end. This new Administration also referred to East Jerusalem as Occupied Territory and declared that the settlement issue was one of the main obstacles for peace and one of the first concerns to Palestinians[5].


However this coincided with Jews from the Soviet Union flooding into Israel by their thousands. Shamir, then Israeli Prime Minister, declared that Israel needed to expand its settlement building to be able to house all these immigrants, even if this meant building in the Occupied Territories[6]. James Baker later declared that the U.S. would guarantee a loan for building housing for the Soviet immigrants, but on the condition that the loan was not used to build settlements in the Occupied Territories. Shamir gave Baker assurances about the use of these funds; however, in October he declared that the agreement did not cover Arab East Jerusalem[7].


The Clinton Administration expressed its position on the issue by defending the policy supporting the “natural growth” of settlements. As the Oslo accords began to take shape, the U.S. re-iterated that settlements had been a cause of tension, but both sides were now working together to resolve this. However during the Rabin-Peres Administration, the number of settlers increased by almost fifty percent[8], but these facts were often overlooked, Didi Remez, the spokesman for Peace Now, explained, ‘most Israelis were and are fundamentally unaware of the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. For them, 1993-2000 were years of Peace’[9]. A report published by B’tselem explains that the Oslo Accords had not dealt with the issue of settlements and thus enables Israel to continue with its policies of land expropriation. According to the report, Israel established 30 new settlements in the Occupied Territories, of which 17 during the signing of the Wye Memorandum[10].


When Netanyahu came to power in 1996, Warren Christopher, then Secretary of State, was asked what the US’s policy was on the issue of settlements. He declared, “I think we’ll have to adapt our policy to the current situation. That is our policy.”[11] In December 1996, Netanyahu spoke out firmly in support of continued settlement expansion, saying that he wanted to match the previous Government’s rate of settlement growth. The hypocrisy of his Government went even further when in 1998, during the Wye Plantation agreement, his Foreign Minister, Ariel Sharon, met with settlement leaders and urged them to ‘grab the hilltops’. This resulted in the establishment of 42 new settlement sites[12].


Under Ehud Barak, settlements prospered, marginally less than during Netanyahu, but tenders for public housing were issued at an unprecedented rate. Of the 42 outposts that had been established between 1996-99, only four were dismantled. Barak maintained that  most of the settlements were areas of highest national priority[13].


When Ariel Sharon was elected in February 2001, he immediately violated Israel’s commitment made in the guidelines of its own coalition, under which ‘no new settlements will be built’. Shimon Peres is misleading the Israeli public and the rest of the world when he speaks of natural growth and pledges no new expansion. In fact, 39 new settlement sites were established between February and March and ten between June and September of this year[14]. It is pretty obvious to most people that these new settlements are not being built to cater for housing needs, as Professor Amira Goldblum, head of Peace Now’s Settlement Watch team explains; ‘Construction in the settlements has always been an act of provocation, which contributes to the growth of violence and the use of force in the territories. There are thousands of housing units in the territories now standing empty, which could easily fill the settlers’ demographic needs for the coming years’.


Consistently, the international community has viewed the settlement issue as a major obstacle to peace. However very few Security Council Resolutions have in fact dealt with it directly. Only two Resolutions dealing with the settlement issue were adopted, both in 1979, and out of twenty one Resolutions that were vetoed by the U.S., only four included the settlement problem.



The Status of Jerusalem


The issue of the status of Jerusalem has always been at the centre of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and one of the most difficult issues to resolve. During the British Mandate period, from 1922 to 1948, Jerusalem was Britain’s administrative centre for control of Palestine and Transjordan. It was towards the end of the 1930s that the concept of Jerusalem as an international city became the main recommendation for various groups seeking a solution in Palestine. In 1937, the Peel Commission made recommendations for the partition of Jerusalem. Palestine would be divided into two separate states, a Jewish State and an Arab State, and the city of Jerusalem would be under a Special International Regime[15]. In 1946, the Jewish Agency also submitted plans for the partition of city.


In 1947, the UN General Assembly put forth a partition plan (Resolution 181[16]), backed by the US, which would divide Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish States with Jerusalem under a Special International Regime. The Resolution designated Jerusalem a corpus separatum with its own Government under the United Nations, which would appoint a Governor who would exercise wide powers over all aspects of life in the city[17]. The Resolution also clearly stated that the Governor of Jerusalem could under no circumstances be a citizen from either State. However, neither Israel, nor Jordan accepted this status for Jerusalem as they both believed their control over the city was effective. On 14th May 1948, Israel was established and the Jewish forces captured the Western part of the city, driving out thousands of Palestinians[18].


The US’s policy was supportive of the internationalization of Jerusalem until 1967, when it then threw the problem back at the Israelis and Arabs saying that it was up to them to establish the status of Jerusalem. From 1947, the US did not recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli or Arab capital. In fact, it strongly rejected Jordan’s and Israel’s claims to the annexation of Jerusalem[19]. In the beginning of 1950, Israel declared Jerusalem as its capital and moved some of their government offices, including the Prime Minister’s, to West Jerusalem. This infuriated the US, who then decided to ban all US officials from doing business in Jerusalem. The ban lasted almost thirteen months, after which the US realized that they could not avoid dealing with Israeli officials in the city.


A few months after Israel annexed Jerusalem, Jordan decided to annex East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Jordan River territories that were not occupied by Israel[20]. At this point, the UN and the US were not willing to reverse the situation by force. Furthermore, the Corpus Separatum concept suffered a severe blow when the Soviet Union decided not to back it anymore. After 1952, the international community and the UN General Assembly were disillusioned and did not discuss the status of Jerusalem until 1967. In the US, there was a tendency to ignore the subject, mainly because it was a difficult subject in domestic political terms and until East Jerusalem was annexed by Israel in the 1967 war, no measures had been taken[21]. It is important to note that the American public did not really know much about the Palestinians, and ‘no one in the State Department or at higher levels of government thought of them in a political context, with national aspirations or political grievances’[22].


After the Six Day War in 1967, the US no longer supported the internationalization of Jerusalem, or even considered it as a separate entity. The US now believed Jerusalem should remain undivided and its future was up to the two parties to negotiate. President Johnson is believed to have been influenced by Arthur Goldberg, US Ambassador to the UN, to drop the issue of Jerusalem. Johnson realized that by ignoring the issue of Jerusalem, he would win much needed support from the Jewish community, as he had been under a lot of criticism because of his policies in Vietnam[23]. Public opinion in the US was very much pro-Israeli, as they saw Israel as a nation that had just escaped a second holocaust. Polls showed that support for Israel was up to 55 per cent, while support for the Arabs hardly existed at all[24].


Israel continued to expand its control of Jerusalem, and eventually annexed the whole city. The US publicly condemned Israel. The UN General Assembly warned Israel not to change the status of the city with a Resolution in July, but neither of them made any reference to the Corpus Separatum. Israel ignored all criticism. In November 1967, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 242, which, although it made no reference to Jerusalem, stated that the Israeli armed forces should withdraw from territories occupied in the recent conflict [25]. In May 1968, the Security Council adopted Resolution 252, stating that the ‘acquisition of territory by military conquest was inadmissible’ and in July 1969, SCR 267 condemned Israel for failing to comply[26]. Again, in September 1969, a Resolution condemned failure of Israel to comply with the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation. Still, Israel ignored all criticism and refused to comply. In 1971, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution, supported by the US, declaring that both parties should negotiate the status of the city. The Israeli Cabinet rejected the resolution and said that their government would not negotiate[27].


Up until 1976, there had been very little mention of Jerusalem in the US foreign policy, even though it was quietly maintained that Jerusalem was part of the Occupied Territories and should be referred to as such[28]. When Gerald Ford became President, however, he openly declared that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem were void. This was followed by an official protest from Israel, which claimed that the US’s position was now tilting towards the Arabs. Two days later, the US vetoed a Security Council Resolution, which condemned Israel’s alterations to the city. Ford was in fact fighting for his own elections and needed support and contribution from the Jewish community. After his re-election, he reversed the US’s position in the Security Council Resolution, which declared Israel’s absorption of Jerusalem as invalid[29].


In March 1980, the US voted for resolution 465, which referred to Jerusalem as part of the Occupied Territories and stated that Israel’s claims to the sovereignty of the city were void. Two days later, however, the US declared that they had in fact intended to abstain, but a failure in communications resulted in them voting in favour. This indicated the first change in the US position on Jerusalem, which had always been very clear about referring to Jerusalem as Occupied Territory.[30]


In the summer of 1980, after the Knesset enacted a law declaring Jerusalem as the permanent capital of Israel, the US, under President Jimmy Carter, abstained on Security Council Resolution 478, which censured Israel for its annexation of East Jerusalem and called on those countries maintaining diplomatic missions in Jerusalem to move elsewhere. Even though this did not directly affect the US, Secretary of State, Edmund Sixtus Muskie, denounced the demand from the UNSC to move embassies out of Jerusalem stating that it was ‘a disruptive attempt to dictate to other nations’[31]. The reason for the US abstaining on this resolution was also linked to domestic issues; presidential elections were coming up and it was also two days prior to the Egypt-Israel peace agreement[32], which was to be a personal achievement for Carter.


President Ronald Reagan, in the 1980s, was more pro-Israeli than Carter, but still did not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, thus the US embassy remained in Tel Aviv. Since then, several presidential candidates have used the issue of Jerusalem in their campaign at home; Gary Hart and Walter Mondale in 1984, Michael Dukakis in 1988, Bill Clinton in 1992, Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000, all claiming that they would move the embassy to Jerusalem if elected[33].


When George Bush Senior was elected, he referred to East Jerusalem as ‘Occupied Territory’, but the uproar was so strong that the White House Chief of Staff declared that despite these remarks, the US would not change its policy. Israel in the meantime, kept on ignoring criticism and continued expanding and expropriating Arab land. The UN General Assembly, Security Council, the European Union and the Vatican, all refused to accept Israel’s claims to a unified Jerusalem and repeatedly referred to the Fourth Geneva Convention and the laws of belligerent occupation to East Jerusalem[34].


Until President Clinton came to power, the US had also refused to accept Israel’s claims to sovereignty over Jerusalem. Clinton, however, was the first US President to declare that the fate of Jerusalem was a matter for the two parties involved to negotiate. Pressure had been mounting on the US to move their embassy to Jerusalem and in 1994, during Congressional elections, Newt Gingrich, House Speaker, said that the US embassy was to be moved to Jerusalem[35]. In May 1995, Senator Robert Dole announced at an AIPAC meeting that a Bill was going to be introduced to provide for the relocation of the US embassy. Jerusalem was recognized by the Public Law 104-45 as the ‘undivided’, ‘united’ and ‘reunited’ capital of Israel, and the new embassy was ordained to be open no later than May 1999[36]. However, the US President was given the authority to postpone the move for a six-months period on the grounds of national security.


Bill Clinton postponed the move of the embassy, but the US ambassador to Israel established a second residence in Jerusalem, where he could entertain US Jewish groups. This move was designed to diminish pressure from the Congress to officially move the embassy[37].


Shortly after his election, George W. Bush declared that he would allow the relocation of the embassy to take place because Jerusalem was the city that Israel had chosen as its capital. However, in June 2001, with the new Intifada being far from resolved, Bush chose to postpone the move for reasons of national security and ‘notified Secretary of State Colin Powell that he was extending an administrative ban on the move for another six months’[38].


On Jerusalem, the US remains at odds with the international consensus and law, unwilling to accept East Jerusalem as occupied. The US’s use of veto is also in opposition to the international community’s position, which undermines the US’s claim to be a role model in peace negotiations.


Annex 1: American Vetoes


1. 10/09/1972: Lebanon (and Syria)

The Council called on parties to cease military operations.

Votes[40]: 13 (members voting to adopt the resolution) – 1 (member using their veto) – 1; Panama (member that abstained from the vote)


2. 24/07/1973: Palestine

/…supported initiatives of  special representatives and Secretary General, and deplored Israel’s continuing occupation of territories seized in the 1967 conflict and expressed conviction that a just solution could be achieved only on the basis of respect for the rights of all states in the area and the rights and legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians.

Votes: 13 – 1- China did not participate in the vote


3. 05/12/1975: Lebanon

/… condemned Israel for air attacks upon Lebanon

Votes: 13 – 1 – 1; Costa Rica


4. 23/01/1976: Palestine

Israel should withdraw from the Occupied Territories and the Palestinians right to establish an independent state in Palestine

Votes: 9 – 1 – 3; Italy, Sweden, UK. China and Libya did not participate in the vote


5. 24/03/1976: Palestine

/… called on Israel to respect and uphold the inviolability of Holy places and desist from actions designed to change the legal status of the city of Jerusalem and desist from establishing settlements in occupied Arab territories.

Votes: 14 - 1


6. 29/06/1976: Palestine

/…affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination including the right to return and national independence and sovereignty in Palestine.

Votes: 10 – 1 – 4; France, Italy, Sweden, UK


7. 28/04/1980: Palestine

/… reaffirmed that Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories including Jerusalem and affirmed that the Palestinian’s right to self-determination included the right to establish an independent sate in Palestine.

Votes: 10 – 1 – 4; France, Norway, Portugal, UK


8. 20/01/1982: Syria (Golan Heights)

            /… decided that all Member States should consider applying concrete and effective measures in order to nullify the Israeli annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights.

Votes: 9 – 1 – 5; France, Ireland, Japan, Panama, UK


9. 01/04/1982: Palestine

            /… called on Israel as occupying power, to rescind decisions disbanding municipal of El Bireh and removing Mayors of Nablus and Ramallah and to cease contravening Fourth Geneva Convention.

Votes: 13 – 1 – 1; Zaire


10. 02/04/1982: Palestine

            /… called on Israel to observe and apply the Fourth Geneva Convention and deplored acts of destruction or profanation in Jerusalem.

Votes: 14 - 1


11. 08/06/1982: Palestine

/… condemned Israel for not complying with resolutions on withdrawal and reiterated demand for unconditional Israeli withdrawal

Votes: 14 - 1


12. 25/06/1982: Palestine (refugee camps in Lebanon)

            /… demanded immediate cessation of hostilities and immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces to ten kilometers from Beirut and simultaneous withdrawal of Palestinian forces to existing camps and requested UN Secretary-General to station military observers.

Votes: 14 - 1


13. 06/08/1982: Palestine

            /… decided that Member States should withhold supplying military aid until Israel withdrew and strongly condemned Israel for not implementing SCRs 516 and 517 (1982)[41].

Votes: 11 – 1 – 3; Togo, UK, Zaire


14. 01/08/1983: Palestine

            /… determined that Israeli practices and policies in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, had no legal validity and condemned recent attacks against Arab civilian population.

Votes: 13 – 1 – 1; Zaire


15. 28/02/1984: Lebanon

            /… called on Israel to respect the rights of the civilian population in the areas under its occupation in Lebanon and demanded that Israel lift all restrictions in violation of Fourth Geneva Convention.

Votes: 14 - 1


16. 11/03/1985: Lebanon

            /… condemned Israeli measures against the civilian population in Southern Lebanon […] and demanded immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces and the implementation of SCR 425 (1978) and SCRs 508 and 509 (1982)[42].

Votes: 11 – 1 – 3; Australia, Denmark, UK


17. 13/09/1985: Palestine

            /… deplored repressive measures taken by Israel against Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories […] called on Israel to immediately stop all repressive measures including curfews, administrative detainees and refrain from further deportations.

Votes: 10 – 1 – 4; Australia, Denmark, France, UK


18. 17/01/1986: Lebanon

            /… deplored Israeli acts of violence and measures against the civilian population in Southern Lebanon and reaffirmed the need to implement SCR 425 (1978) and SCRs 508 and 509 (1982) on Israeli military withdrawal to Lebanon’s internationally recognized boundaries.

Votes: 11 – 1 – 3; Australia, Denmark, UK


19. 30/01/1986: Palestine

            /… strongly deplores provocative acts which violated the sanctity of the sanctuary Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem.

Votes: 13 – 1 – 1; Thailand


20. 06/02/1986: Libya

            /… condemned Israel for its forcible interception and diversion of the Libyan civilian aircraft in international airspace, and its subsequent detention.

Votes: 10 – 1 – 4; Australia, Denmark, UK


21. 15/01/1988: Lebanon

            /… strongly deplored the reported Israeli attacks, against Lebanese territory and civilian population and requested Israel to cease attempts to occupy or change the status of Lebanese territory and reaffirmed the need to implement SCRs 425 and 426[43] (1978) and SCR 509 (1982) on Israeli military withdrawal to internationally recognised boundaries.

Votes: 13- 1 – 1; UK


22. 29/01/1988: Palestine

/… calls on Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention to territories occupied since 1967 and comply with obligations under the Convention, and requested continued monitoring by the UN Secretary-General.

Votes: 14 - 1


23. 14/04/1988: Palestine

/… urged Israel to abide by the Geneva Convention, to rescind orders to deport Palestinians, condemned policies and practices of Israel which violate the human rights of the Palestinians and affirmed the need for a settlement.

Votes: 14 - 1


24. 06/05/1988: Lebanon

/… condemned the recent invasion by Israeli forces of southern Lebanon, reaffirmed the urgent need to implement SCRs 425 and 426 (1978) and SCR 509 (1982) and requested the Secretary-General to continue consultations.

Votes: 14 - 1


25. 14/12/1988: Lebanon

/… strongly deplored the attack by Israeli forces on 9 December 1988 against Lebanese territory, and reaffirmed urgent need to implement SCRs 425 and 426 (1978) and SCR 509 (1982) and requested the Secretary-General to continue consultations.

Votes: 14 - 1


26. 11/01/1989: Libya

            /… deplored the downing of two Libyan reconnaissance planes by the United States and called on the US to suspend its military maneuvers off the Libyan coast and on all parties to refrain from resorting to force.

Votes: 9 – 3 (France, US, UK) – 3; Brazil, Canada, Finland


27. 17/02/1989: Palestine

/… strongly deplored Israel's persistent policies and practices against the Palestinian people in the Palestinian territories; called on Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions and comply with its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention; and requested the UN Secretary-General to report to the Security Council.

Votes: 14 - 1


28. 08/06/1989: Palestine

/… strongly deplored Israel's policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territories; demanded that Israel desist from deporting Palestinians from the occupied territories; expressed concern about the prolonged closure of schools in parts of the occupied territory and requested the Secretary-General to report no later than

23 June.

Votes: 14 - 1


29. 07/11/1989: Palestine

/… strongly deplored Israel's policies and practices against the Palestinian people in the occupied territories; called upon Israel to end such practices; requested Secretary-General to conduct on-site monitoring of the situation and to submit periodic reports, the first such report as soon as possible.

Votes: 14 - 1


30. 31/05/1990: Palestine

/… established a Commission of three members of the Security Council to examine the situation relating to Israel's policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory; and requested the Commission to report to the Security Council by

20 June 1990.

Votes: 14 - 1


31. 17/05/1995: Palestine

/… confirmed that the expropriation of land by Israel, the occupying power, in East Jerusalem was invalid, and called upon the Government of Israel to rescind the expropriation orders and refrain from such action in the future.

Votes: 14 - 1


32. 07/03/1997: Palestine

/… called on the Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities, which alter facts on the ground pre-empting final status negotiations, and have negative implications for the Middle East Peace Process; and to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the

1949 Geneva Convention

Votes: 14 - 1


33. 21/03/1997: Palestine

/… demanded that Israel immediately cease construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem as well as other Israeli settlement activities in the occupied territories, and requests a report on developments from the Secretary-General.

Votes: 13 – 1 – 1; Costa Rica

34. 27/03/2001: Palestine

            /… Sending of an unarmed UN Observer force to the West Bank

Votes: 9 – 1 – 5; France, Ireland, Norway, UK, Ukraine


35. 15/12/2001: Palestine

            /… Sending of a human rights monitoring force to the Occupied Territories and condemning all acts of terror, extra-judiciary killing, excessive use of force and house demolitions.  Also expressed it determination to contribute to ending the violence and to prompting dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian sides.

Votes: 12 –1-2; Britain and Norway abstained


Annexe 2: Security Council Resolution 242
(November 22, 1967)

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter.

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

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

2. Affirms further the necessity:

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary­General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary­General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

[1] ‘Settlements in U.S. Policy’, Neff, Donald.  Journal of Palestine Studies XXIII, no. 3 (Spring 94), pp. 56-57

[2] Neff, Donald, pp 57-59

[3] ‘Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories’, The Foundation for Middle East Peace. Volume 7, Number 1, January-February 1997. pp 7.

[4] Christison, Kathleen.  ‘Bound by a frame if Reference, Part II: U.S. Policy and the Palestinians, 1948-88’. Journal of Palestine Studies XXVII, no. 3 (Spring 1998), pp 29-30.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Neff, Donald, Journal of Palestine Studies. Pp 61.

[7] Ibid. Pp 61.

[8] Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre, ‘Isreali Settlement and the Peace Process: Signed, Sealed, Delivered’ January 97.

[9] Remez, Didi.  ‘Facts on the Ground since the Oslo Agreement’, 12/2000. Spokesperson for Peace Now

[10] Sovich, Nina.  ‘May 4 statehood threat fizzles out’, Jerusalem File, June 1999. Vol II, Issue 6. p. 8.

[11] ‘Report in Israeli Settlements’. Pp 7.

[12] Peace Now

[13] Peace Now

[14] Peace Now

[15] Neff, Donald. ‘Jerusalem in U.S. Policy’, Journal of Palestine Studies, vol xxiii, nb 1, Aut 93. pp 22.

[16] UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), Future Government of Palestine, November 29 1947.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid, pp 23.

[19]  Neff, Donald.  Fallen Pillars. 1995. Pp 129

[20]  Ibid. Pp 135-6

[21] Ibid. Pp 138.

[22] Christison, Kathleen.  ‘U.S. Policy and the Palestinians, 1948-88’, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 27, Nr 3, Spring 98. Pp 21.

[23] Neff, Donald. Pp 139.

[24] Christison, Kathleen. Pp 22.

[25] See annex 2.

[26] Zaki Nuseibeh, Hazem. Pp 89

[27]  Ibid. Pp 143.

[28] Al Madfai, Mahida Rashid. ‘Jordan, the United States and the Middle East peace process 1974-1991. Pp 111.

[29] Neff, Donald. Pp 143.

[30] Al Madfai, pp 112.

[31] Tillman, Seth P.  ‘The United States in the Middle East, Interests and Obstacles’. 1982. Pp 169.

[32] Ibid. Pp 144.

[33] Ibid. Pp 145.

[34] Khalidi, Walid. ‘The Ownership of the U.S. Embassy Site in Jerusalem’ Journal of Palestine Studies XXIX, no. 4 (Summer 2000), pp 82.

[35] Neff, Donald. Pp 148-49.

[36] Khalidi, Walid. Pp83

[37] Makovsky, David. ‘US Ambassador’s ‘second home’ in Jerusalem’. Jerusalem File, June 1999, pp 11.

[38] Al Ahram.  ‘US Embassy Move Delay’. www.palestinecampaign.org.

[39]  Statement by the British Foreign Office, http://www.fco.gov.uk/news/keythemehome.asp?13

[40] Members who voted in favor – Veto – Members who abstained 

[41] Security Council Resolution 516 (01/08/82): The Security Council, […] Alarmed by the continuation and intensification of military activities in and around Beirut, 1.Confirms its previous resolutions and demands an immediate cease-fire, and cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese- Israeli border; 2. Authorizes the Secretary-General to deploy immediately, on the request of the Government of Lebanon, United Nations observers to monitor the situation in and around Beirut; […].

SCR 517 (04/08/82): The Security Council, deeply shocked and alarmed by the deplorable consequences of the Israeli invasion of Beirut on 3 August 1982, 1. Reconfirms its (previous) resolutions, 2. Confirms once again its demand for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon; 3. Censures Israel for its failure to comply with above resolutions; 4. Calls for the prompt return of Israeli troops which have moved forward subsequent to 1325 hours Eastern daylight time, on 1 August 1982; 5. Takes note of the decision of the Palestine Liberation Organization to move the Palestinian armed forces from Beirut; […].

[42] Security Council Resolution 425 (19/03/1978): The Security Council, […] Gravely concerned at the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East […]; 1. Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity. sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries; 2. Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanon […]; 3. Decides […] to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces […].

SCR 508 (05/06/1982): The Security Council […] Calls upon all parties to the conflict to cease immediately and simultaneously all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border […].

SCR 509 (6/06/1982): The Security Council […] 1. Demands that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon; 2. Demands that all parties observe strictly the terms of paragraph 1 of resolution 508 […]; 3. Calls on all parties to communicate to the Secretary-General their acceptance of the present resolution within twenty-four hours; […].


[43] SCR 426 (19/03/1978): The Security Council: 1. Approves the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of SCR 425 […]; 2. Decides that the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon shall be established in accordance with the above-mentioned report

See also: Is Israel Blackmailing America?

What Really Happened

Email This Page To A Friend