The 13 December surrender agreement between rebel groups and the regime of President Bashar al-Asad marked a turning point in the five-year long Syrian conflict. Opposition demands for Asad to step down through a transition process now seem impractical and unachievable, mainly because the government now controls most urban areas. Further, the agreement’s relative success will empower its chief negotiators, Turkey and Russia, to reshape the conflict to suit their converging interests, which increasingly sees a role for Asad. The regime will, however, find it difficult to establish its sovereignty over the entire country as Turkish troops and rebel groups backed by Turkey and certain Gulf states – including Saudi Arabia and Qatar – consolidate in more rural areas. Significantly, the regime is now more empowered to pursue its aims, even when these do not fully coincide with the interests of its Russian ally.

Announced late Tuesday, the agreement allowed for rebels and civilians trapped in besieged East Aleppo to evacuate to other rebel controlled areas as regime forces regain control of the remains of the city. This completes the main thrust of the regime’s latest strategy, which aimed at consolidating control of large population centres across the country’s east-west spine, confining the rebellion to rural provinces. The government now controls Damascus in the south, Aleppo in the north, and the central Homs and Hama provinces – the areas many refer to as ‘useful Syria’. This means that any transitional agreement that excludes Asad – as the opposition and Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia have been demanding – will not be possible, thus voiding a major demand of the rebellion.

Already, Qatar’s foreign minister, Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al –Thani, referred to the Syrian opposition’s calls for negotiations without any preconditions regarding Asad’s role. Further, although rebel groups control parts of the Aleppo governorate, much of Idlib, as well as areas in the south, their armed capabilities have been severely weakened, due in part to fears about their links with Jabhat Fatah Al-Sham (formerly Jabhat Al-Nusra). This relationship has made some governments, especially the USA and Jordan (which train and coordinate activities with the Southern Front rebel group) wary. Funding, even from Saudi Arabia, has thus been reduced, and some states, especially USA and Jordan, prefer to conclude agreements with the Syrian regime around combatting the Islamic State group and preventing a spillover into Jordan and Lebanon.

Shifting geopolitical interests have also influenced the conflict. Following Turkey’s apology to Russia over its downing of a Russian fighter jet in November 2015, a rapid rapprochement has occurred between the two states, and a convergence on Syria is emerging. In September the two countries agreed on Turkish use of Syrian airspace, and in October Turkey aligned its stance on Jabhat Fatah Al-Sham closer to that of Moscow. It is probable that Turkey’s recent troop deployment into Syria was endorsed by Moscow. Russia and Syria have virtually ignored Turkey’s incursion into northern Syria and its efforts to form a buffer zone up to the IS-controlled town of Al-Bab – in return for it limiting its support for rebel groups in east Aleppo.

Ankara’s redeployment of thousands of rebel fighters from Aleppo and its August capture of Jarabulus, in the north of the Aleppo governorate, in was a key factor influencing the Syrian regime’s ability to reimpose its siege on Aleppo in September. In recent months Ankara has attempted to negotiate a rebel withdrawal from east Aleppo, initially only for Jabhat Fatah Al-Sham fighters, thus allowing some opposition governance in the city, and later, following regime objections, for civilians and fighters belonging to other groups. This deal was key to the rapid fall of east Aleppo, and to the fact that Turkish-backed forces rather than the Kurdish YPG will likely be prominent in attempts to drive IS from Al-Bab. Turkey and the other major regional power with troops in Syria, Iran, have also been discussing Syria in the past three months, and have agreed to protect the country’s territorial integrity.

Iran was not, however, directly involved in the surrender agreement negotiations, and has been accused by some as a spoiler, because of its demands that wounded civilians in the regime-supporting towns of Foua and Kefraya in Idlib governorate, which are besieged by rebels, also be evacuated, and by then supporting militia groups which have prevented many evacuation attempts from Aleppo. Iran has attempted a deal on these towns for the past eighteen months with Ahrar al-Sham. Its proposal was to engineer a population swap, with residents of these towns to be exchanged with Sunni residents of Zabadani and Madaya. This would consolidate the Shi'a presence in the area from Damascus to the Lebanese Beka'a Valley. Iran also demanded the bodies of slain militia fighters that it had sent to Syria, including members of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iraqi militias. It also demanded information about any fighters that had been taken prisoner.

The Turkey-Russia agreement stalled repeatedly, and although not part of the original Aleppo agreement, it now includes evacuation plans for Foua, Kefraya, and the parts of Madaya and Zabadani as well.Significantly, the USA and EU played no role in the recent surrender agreement, and initially were unaware of it.

With this reconfiguration in interests and power, Syria could be divided into zones of influence, allowing for some cooperation despite the divergences in the Russian, Iranian, and Turkish positions. The prominence of Jabhat Fatah Al-Sham in Idlib may complicate this plan, especially since Idlib directly borders Turkey, and because the group often coordinates with Ahrar al-Sham, which is supported by Turkey and some Gulf countries. Fissures in Ahrar al-Sham have already emerged, and a splinter group, Jaish Al-Ahrar, which is critical of the former’s reliance on Turkey and its supposed antagonism to Jabhat Fatah Al-Sham, has been formed.

With Aleppo back in Syrian government control, Asad has gained the upper hand in the conflict over control of the state. However, the conflict is not about to end; it will probably continue at a lower intensity as the regime conducts operations in Idlib and other rebel-controlled regions, and because rebel groups will alter their tactics in favour of smaller insurgent operations. Many opposition groups may be forced to accept a political solution as their position further weakens, but it is unlikely the regime will allow the opposition autonomy over areas it currently controls. Earlier versions of the surrender agreement, which would have allowed for the maintenance of the east Aleppo local council, and which was accepted by Moscow and Ankara, was discarded because it was rejected by the regime. In many places opposition to the regime from citizens will endure, and not all rebel groups will accept such an eventuality, arguing that they cannot allow all their sacrifices to amount to nought.

.

By Caroline Timoney

On 22 June, Qatar called for the national prosecution of those who had committed crimes against international humanitarian law in Syria.

This is recognition that the veto of Russia and China at the United Nations Security Council has prevented any attempt to send the issue to the International Criminal Court (ICC), that Syria has not ratified the Rome Statute and that the Prosecutor of the ICC, Fatou Bensouda, has so far not begun her own investigation into the issue.

But who would have jurisdiction to prosecute these crimes? What laws would be applicable?

In March, the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria stated that prosecution of lower-level perpetrators of war crimes should not wait for peace in Syria, but should occur in foreign jurisdictions. The Commission intended to continue to lobby for a referral to the ICC or an ad hoc tribunal.

Our first question is what system of law would be applicable. In order to answer this one, we must establish whether this is an international armed conflict or a non-international armed conflict. The conflict in Syria easily meets the test for the existence of an armed conflict: is there protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organised armed groups or between such groups within a state?

But in order to be international at least two different states would have to be involved on opposing sides. In Syria, although the United States and Russia have provided air support to government troops, their involvement would not elevate the conflict to be international. Although often criticised, due to this point the armed conflict in Syria does not meet this definition and thus remains a non-international armed conflict.

Common Article 3 of the the Geneva Conventions may be applied or customary international law, but not Additional Protocol II as Syria is not a party to the latter.

The date at which the armed conflict began in Syria becomes important as war crimes can only occur during a recognised armed conflict. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (COI) date the beginning of the armed conflict between February and August 2012. So were there crimes committed against international humanitarian law from this period?

In a word, yes, for the COI’s report from the period 15 February to 20 July 2012 found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that both Government and opposition forces had committed the crimes against humanity of murder, torture, war crimes and gross violations of both international human rights law and international humanitarian law. These violations included unlawful killing, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, sexual violence, indiscriminate attack, pillaging and destruction of property.

Human Rights Watch released a report in 2013 that highlighted the lack of capacity of the Syrian air force to conduct precise air strikes leading to the deliberate or reckless attacks on civilians; compounded by the rebel Free Syrian Army basing themselves in civilian areas.  The report noted the targeting of bakeries and hospitals both of which place renewed pressure on food supplies and medical resources (personnel, equipment and supplies).

Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documented the use of cluster bombs by government forces, which are banned internationally.

On 4 July, Amnesty International released a new report detailing abuses committed by five armed groups in Aleppo and Idlib since 2012. These are the Nour al-Dine Zinki Movement, al-Shamia Front, Division 16,  Jabhat al-Nusra and the Ahrar al-Sham Islamic Movement.

Since 2014 all five of these groups have received military and financial support either from the MOM – a coalition of the United States, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom – in the form of lethal and non-lethal equipment or, and in the case of the latter two groups, have reportedly received military and financial support from Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

The Nour al-Dine Zinki Movement lost their funding from MOM in September 2015 but is thought to still receive financial and military support from Turkey, Qatar and other Gulf states.

The report details cases of abduction, torture, summary killings and the harsh application of Sharia law by inexperienced laymen – all of which are counted as war crimes under the Geneva Conventions.

But who has jurisdiction to prosecute and would it be feasible?

Under the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the concept of universal jurisdiction was introduced. If grave breaches of the Conventions occurred then the states parties are required to search for these alleged perpetrators and arrest them for trial under their own national jurisdiction or handed over to another state to prosecute.

States are not given a choice as this obligation imposes an active duty on states to both arrest and prosecute. A state party to the Geneva Conventions must therefore have domestic criminal legislation in place to try alleged perpetrators regardless of their nationality and the location of the offence.

States in the region that have ratified or acceded to the Geneva Conventions would have jurisdiction to try such a case if they are able to arrest an alleged perpetrator, or if they receive such a perpetrator from another nation in the region. Qatar, for example, signed all four Geneva Conventions in 1975 and Additional Protocol II in 1990, as too did the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt and Bahrain.


Turkey, Iraq, Israel and Iran have only ratified the Geneva Conventions, while Yemen, currently in the midst of civil war, has ratified all the above treaties but is probably incapable of effecting a successful prosecution.

Of course the Rome Statute would provide a more coherent legal frame for prosecutors with its expanded list of crimes and greater definitions. However, the only states in the Middle East to have ratified the Rome Statute are Jordan and Palestine.

For example without the Rome Statute, the Geneva Conventions do not explicitly regard rape as one of the grave breaches and cases involving persecution based on gender, sexual slavery and other sexual violence would have to rely on the less clear-cut domestic legislation or customary international law.

The international community, in particular the United Nations Security Council, has often been wilfully blind concerning war crimes in the region. Any international tribunal or referral to the International Criminal Court will take many years to come to fruition; the case of Jean-Pierre Bemba, once vice-president of the Democratic Republic of Congo charged with two counts of crimes against humanity and three counts of war crimes, took six years before judgement was given.

Support for Qatar’s proposal may assist in bringing justice to the victims of such crimes. However, justice will be difficult to find where any evidence has fast been disappearing.

The UN high commissioner for human rights, which collates conflict death tolls, stopped counting Syria’s dead in mid-2014 which may hamper the prosecution of alleged perpetrators, and there is currently no solution to the conflict in sight. But any attempt at prosecution may help counter the current culture of impunity in Syria.

* This article was first published in The New Arab

** Caroline is a researcher at the Afro-Middle East Centre based in Johannesburg. She has a Masters in International Law from the University of Cape Town and her research interests include South African politics, refugee rights and international criminal law.

By Afro-Middle East Centre

The recently-signed agreement between sections from Libya’s warring factions will likely have little impact as most Libyan political players and militia groups oppose it, and because local initiatives and views were ignored during its conceptualisation.  The deal could increase fragmentation in the already gridlocked Libyan political situation, and provide more space for the growth of the Islamic state group (IS). Further, foreign intervention, under the guise of supporting the new ‘Government of National Accord’ (GNA), is becoming an increasingly distinct possibility, and was key in informing the international community’s support for the deal.

 

 

The agreement, signed in the Moroccan resort of Skheirat, ends a year-long negotiation process. The negotiations followed the reconvening of the General National Congress (GNC) in Libya in August 2014 in opposition to the internationally-recognised House of Representatives (HoR) based in the eastern city of Tobruk. The deal envisages the creation of a seventeen-member government, led by the little known Faez Serraj as prime minister, and deputies representing the provinces of Fezzan, Tripoli and Benghazi, who will be based in Tripoli. The internationally recognised House of Representatives (HoR) will play a legislative role, while the GNC will play an advisory role. Only members from both institutions who had signed the deal will, however, be regarded as being members of the two bodies.

 

Initially a bottom-up process which sought to incorporate civil society and lower level political actors such as mayors and town councillors into a process of finding solutions, the ‘negotiations’ have become a diktat from foreign powers.  Diplomats have threatened sanctions for ‘spoilers’, refused to recognise the results of internal negotiations between the GNC and HoR, and stated that the agreement is unalterable. Further, the credibility of the UN has been tarnished by its partiality in the negotiations process. At the core of this heavy-handed attitude is the fears of foreign powers, particularly the USA and European Union, of migration and the growth of IS. Libya is viewed as a transit hub for African migrants seeking to enter the EU through Malta, a fear amplified by IS’s consolidation in the port city of Sirte. Western states regard Libya as a growing alternate IS base, and thus see intervention as inevitable. Already US and French aircraft have carried out operations in Libya, and Britain and Italy are likely to deploy ground troops in the country. These states therefore seek the formation of a Libyan government which will sanction and coordinate such intervention. It is expected a UN resolution will soon be passed, declaring the new entity as the only recognised Libyan government.

 

The agreement has therefore been criticised by the leaders of both the GNC and HoR as a foreign imposition. Less than half of the members of both institutions (eighty of 180 HoR members, and fifty of 136 GNC members) have signed the agreement – in their personal capacities, critics claim. Further, on the 6 December, the GNC and HoR signed a declaration of intent in Tunis, which envisages the creation of two ten-member bodies to form a unity government and draft a new constitution. This would pave the way for the holding of elections in two years.  The UN’s special envoy to Libya, Martin Kobler, dismissed this local process by saying the ‘train had already left the station’, asserting that the UN deal was the only one that would be considered, and imploring all factions to sign it. Consequently, the UN deal is unlikely to be respected by the GNC and HoR, and it is difficult to see the new ‘government’ operating out of Tripoli. Further, militia leaders were not involved in the negotiations, and are even less supportive of the agreement than the GNC and HoR. Thus, foreign security will likely be required to protect the new government, weakening its already diminished legitimacy and adding another centre of power into the current civil war. The power of the GNC and HoR will thus be denuded, allowing IS to gain more ground, especially as it begins to create institutions to govern areas it controls, and locals become disillusioned with the failure of the mainstream political actors abilities to govern and provide services.

 

The current situation is a throwback to what Libya faced in April 2011, when the UN and NATO continued  to  advocate regime change even after the Gadhafi regime had accepted the African Union’s road map which would have allowed  for  the development of a local political solution. The failure to involve local, influential actors in the process is a big reason the country currently finds itself in a situation of political gridlock and spiralling insecurity. The UN seems to have failed to learn these lessons. However, the agreement can still be saved if the UN is more flexible and willing to incorporate the local process, which on 14 December saw the heads of the GNC and HoR meet for the first time in an attempt to broker a solution. The UN would also need to stave off calls for foreign intervention and airstrikes – at least until a legitimate political solution incorporating all major players is concluded.

 

UNITED
NATIONS A


General Assembly

Distr.
LIMITED

A/67/L.28

26 November 2012

Original: English

Sixty-seventh session

Agenda item 37

Question of Palestine


Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Yemen, Zimbabwe and Palestine: draft resolution
 
 
Status of Palestine in the United Nations
 

The General Assembly,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and stressing in this regard the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,

Recalling its resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970,1by which it affirmed, inter alia, the duty of every State to promote through joint and separate action the realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,

Stressing the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights,

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,

Reaffirming the principle, set out in the Charter, of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

Reaffirming also relevant Security Council resolutions, including, inter alia, resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973,
446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002, 1515 (2003) of 19 November 2003 and 1850 (2008) of 16 December 2008,

Reaffirming further the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,2to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, with regard to the matter of prisoners,

Reaffirming its resolution 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974 and all relevant resolutions, including resolution 66/146 of 19 December 2011, reaffirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine,

Reaffirming also its resolutions 43/176 of 15 December 1988 and 66/17 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, which, inter alia, stress the need for the withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent State, a just resolution of the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 and the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

Reaffirming further its resolution 66/18 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, bearing in mind that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community, and emphasizing the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States,

Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004,3

Reaffirming its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory,

Recalling its resolutions 3210 (XXIX) of 14 October 1974 and 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, by which, respectively, the Palestine Liberation Organization was invited to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly as the representative of the Palestinian people and was granted observer status,

Recalling also its resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988, by which it, inter alia, acknowledged the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988 and decided that the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system,

Taking into consideration that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in accordance with a decision by the Palestine National Council, is entrusted with the powers and responsibilities of the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine,4

Recalling its resolution 52/250 of 7 July 1998, by which additional rights and privileges were accorded to Palestine in its capacity as observer,

Recalling also the Arab Peace Initiative adopted in March 2002 by the Council of the League of Arab States,5

Reaffirming its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two-State solution of an independent, sovereign, democratic, viable and contiguous State of Palestine living side by side with Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders,

Bearing in mind the mutual recognition of 9 September 1993 between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people,6

Affirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders,

Commending the Palestinian National Authority's 2009 plan for constructing the institutions of an independent Palestinian State within a two-year period, and welcoming the positive assessments in this regard about readiness for statehood by the World Bank, the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund and as reflected in the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee Chair conclusions of April 2011 and subsequent Chair conclusions, which determined that the Palestinian Authority is above the threshold for a functioning State in key sectors studied,

Recognizing that full membership is enjoyed by Palestine in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia and the Group of Asia-Pacific States and that Palestine is also a full member of the League of Arab States, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Group of 77 and China,

Recognizing also that, to date, 132 States Members of the United Nations have accorded recognition to the State of Palestine,

Taking note of the 11 November 2011 report of the Security Council Committee on the Admission of New Members,7

Stressing the permanent responsibility of the United Nations towards the question of Palestine until it is satisfactorily resolved in all its aspects,

Reaffirming the principle of universality of membership of the United Nations,

1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;

2. Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;

3. Expresses the hope that the Security Council will consider favourably the application submitted on 23 September 2011 by the State of Palestine for admission to full membership in the United Nations;8

4. Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;

5. Expresses the urgent need for the resumption and acceleration of negotiations within the Middle East peace process based on the relevant United Nations resolutions, the terms of reference of the Madrid Conference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative5 and the Quartet road map to a permanent two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict9 for the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement between the Palestinian and Israeli sides that resolves all outstanding core issues, namely the Palestine refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, borders, security and water;

6. Urges all States, the specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to self-determination, independence and freedom;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to take the necessary measures to implement the present resolution and to report to the Assembly within three months on progress made in this regard.

Notes
1Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
2United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75, No. 973.
3See A/ES-10/273 and Corr.1; see also Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 136.
4See A/43/928, annex.
5A/56/1026-S/2002/932, annex II, resolution 14/221.
6See A/48/486-S/26560, annex.
7S/2011/705.
8A/66/371-S/2011/592, annex I.
9S/2003/529, annex.

 

No.

Date

Substance / Summary of Content

233 6 June 1967 Calls for an immediate cease-fire and cessation of all military activities.
234 7 June 1967 Demands a cease-fire.
237 14 June 1967 Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants, facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of the hostilities and recommends the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.
242 22 Nov 1967 Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include: withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; and 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.
248 24 Mar 1968 Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property. Condemns the military action launched by Israel in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter and the cease-fire resolution. Calls upon Israel to desist from acts or activities in contravention of resolution 237 (1967). (This was an attack against Karameh, Jordan.)
250 27 Apr 1968 Calls upon Israel to refrain from holding the military parade in Jerusalem which is contemplated for 2 May 1968.
251 2 May 1968 Deeply deplores the holding by Israel of the military parade in Jerusalem on 2 May 1968 in disregard of the unanimous decision adopted by the Council on 27 April 1968.
252 21 May 1968 Deplores the failure of Israel to comply with General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967. Considers that all legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem, are invalid and cannot change the status. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures taken and to desist from further actions changing the status of Jerusalem.
259 27 Sept 1968 Deplores the delay in implementation of resolution 237 (1967) because of the conditions still being set by Israel for receiving a Special Representative of the Secretary-General. Requests the Secretary-General to urgently dispatch a Special Representative to the Arab territories under military occupation by Israel following the hostilities of 5 June 1967 and to report on the implementation of resolution 237 (1967).
267 3 Jul 1969 Reaffirms the established principle that the acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible. Deplores the failure of Israel to show any regard for the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Censures in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the city of Jerusalem. Urgently calls once more on Israel to rescind all measures taken by it to change the status of Jerusalem and in the future to refrain from all actions likely to have such an effect
271 15 Sep 1969 Grieved at the extensive damage caused by arson to the Holy Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on 21 August 1969 under the military occupation of Israel; calls upon Israel to scrupulously observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation.
298 25 Sep 1971 Deplores the failure of Israel to respect previous U.N. resolutions concerning measures and actions by Israel purporting to affect the status of the city of Jerusalem. Confirms that all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel ? are totally invalid and cannot change that status. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures?.
338 22 Oct 1973 Calls for an immediate cease-fire and termination of all military activity. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts....
339 23 Oct 1973 Refers to resolution 338 (1973); confirms its decision on immediate cessation of all military actions; and requests the Secretary-General to take measures for immediate dispatch of U.N. observers to supervise observance of the cease-fire.
381 30 Nov 1975 Expresses concern over the continued state of tension in the area. Decides to reconvene on 12 January 1976 to continue the debate on the Middle East problem including the Palestinian question, taking into account all relevant U.N. resolutions.
425 19 Mar 1978 Calls for the strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon. Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory. Decides to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations Interim Force in Southern Lebanon (UNIFIL).
446 22 Mar 1979 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. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking 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.
452 20 Jul 1979 Calls upon the government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.
465 1 Mar 1980 Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, 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 and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices. Calls upon the government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and requests the Commission to continue examining the situation relating to settlements, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly water, with a view to ensuring protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation.

468 8 May 1980 Recalling the Geneva Convention of 1949 and expressing deep concern at the expulsion by the Israeli military occupation authorities of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and of the Sharia Judge of Hebron, calls upon Israel as occupying Power to rescind these illegal measures and to facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders.
469 20 May 1980 Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to implement resolution 468 (1968). 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 Sharia Judge of Hebron.
471 5 June 1980 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 population. Calls for the immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes and condemns the assassination attempts on the lives of the Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al-Bireh. Expresses deep concern that Israel, as occupying Power, has failed to provide adequate protection to the civilian population in the occupied territories in conformity with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Calls again upon the Government of Israel to respect and comply with the provisions of the Convention as well as with the resolutions of the Council, calls once again upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection 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.
476 30 June 1980 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. Reiterates that all measures taken by Israel which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. Reaffirms that all such measures and actions constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Reaffirms its determination in the event of non-compliance by Israel to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the U.N. Charter to secure full implementation of this resolution.
478 20 Aug 1980 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 and does not affect the continued application of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem. 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 the 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. Decides not to recognize the "basic law" and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem. Calls upon all members of the United Nations (a) to accept this decision, (b) and upon those States that have established diplomatic Missions in Jerusalem to withdraw such Missions from the Holy City.
484 19 Dec 1980 Expressing grave concern at the expulsion by Israel of the Mayor of Hebron and the Mayor of Halhoul, calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to adhere to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Declares it imperative that they be enabled to return to their homes and resume their responsibilities.
508 5 June 1982 Calls upon the parties to the conflict to cease immediately and simultaneously all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border. Requests all Member States which are in a position to do so to bring their influence to bear upon those concerned so that the cessation of hostilities declared by Security Council resolution 490 (1981) can be respected. (Beginning of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.)
509 6 June 1982 Demands that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon and demands that all parties observe strictly the terms of paragraph 1 of resolution 508 (1982).
512 19 June 1982 Expressing deep concern at the suffering of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations, calls upon all the parties to the conflict to respect the rights of the civilian populations, to refrain from all acts of violence against those populations and to take all appropriate measures to alleviate the suffering caused by the conflict.
513 4 Jul 1982 Expressing alarm at the continued sufferings of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations in southern Lebanon and in west Beirut, calls for respect for the rights of the civilian populations without any discrimination and repudiates all acts of violence against those populations. Calls further for the restoration of the normal supply of vital facilities such as water, electricity, food and medical provisions, particularly in Beirut.
515 29 Jul 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.
516 1 Aug 1982 Confirms its previous resolutions and authorizes the Secretary-General to deploy immediately, on the request of the Government of Lebanon, U.N. observers to monitor the situation in and around Beirut.
517 4 Aug 1982 Confirms once again its demand for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. Censures Israel for its failure to comply with the above resolutions. Takes note of the decision of the Palestine Liberation Organization to move the Palestinian armed forces from Beirut and authorizes the Secretary-General to increase the number of U.N. observers in and around Beirut.
518 12 Aug 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
520 17 Sep 1982 Condemns the recent Israeli incursions into Beirut in violation of the cease-fire agreements and of Security Council resolutions. Demands an immediate return to the positions occupied by Israel before 15 September 1982, as a first step towards the full implementation of Security Council resolutions.
521 19 Sep 1982 Condemns the criminal massacre of Palestinian civilians in Beirut; reaffirms its resolutions 512 (1982) and 513 (1982), which call for respect for the rights of the civilian populations without any discrimination, and repudiates all acts of violence against those populations. Requests the Secretary-General, as a matter of urgency, to initiate appropriate consultations and, in particular, consultations with the Government of Lebanon on additional steps which the Security Council might take, including the possible deployment of United Nations forces, to assist that government in ensuring full protection for the civilian populations in and around Beirut. (Massacre of Sabra and Shattilla refugee camps while eastern Beirut was under Israeli military occupation.)
573 4 Oct 1985 Condemns vigorously the act of armed aggression perpetrated by Israel against Tunisian territory in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter, international law and norms of conduct; and demands that Israel refrain from perpetrating such acts of aggression or from threatening to do so. (Israeli raid against PLO Headquarters in Hammam Al-Shut)
592 8 Dec 1986 Strongly deplores the opening of fire by the Israeli army resulting in the death and the wounding of defenseless students at Bir Zeit University. Calls upon Israel to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. Calls upon Israel to release any person or persons detained as a result of the recent events at Bir Zeit University.
605 22 Dec 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, particularly the opening of fire by the Israeli army, resulting in the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians. Calls once again upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
607 5 Jan 1988 Calls upon Israel to refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories; and strongly requests it to abide by its obligations arising from the Fourth Geneva Convention.
608 14 Jan 1988 Reaffirming resolution 607 (1988) of 5 January 1988, deeply regrets that Israel, the occupying Power, in defiance of U.N. resolutions, has deported Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to rescind the orders and to desist from forthwith deporting any other Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories.
611 25 Apr 1988 Having noted with concern that the aggression perpetrated on 16 April 1988 in the locality of Sidi Bou Said (Tunisia) has caused loss of human life, particularly the assassination of Mr. Khalil Al-Wazir, condemns vigorously the aggression perpetrated against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Tunisia in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter; and urges Member States to take measures to prevent such acts against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States. (Al-Wazir (Abu-Jihad) was the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Palestine Liberation Organization.)
636 6 Jul 1989 Deeply regrets 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. Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories.
641 30 Aug 1989 Deplores Israel's continuing deportation 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. Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories.
672 12 Oct 1990 Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) through an active negotiating process which takes into account the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, as well as the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people. Expresses alarm at the violence which took place on 8 October at Al-Haram Al-Sharif and other Holy Places of Jerusalem, resulting in over twenty Palestinian deaths and 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 security forces, resulting in injuries and loss of human life. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
673 24 Oct 1990 Deplores the refusal of the Israeli Government to receive the mission of the Secretary-General to the region in violation of resolution 672 (1990).
681 20 Dec 1990 Expresses its grave concern over the rejection by Israel of its resolutions 672 (1990) and 673 (1990). Deplores the decision by the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume the deportation of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories. Urges the Government of Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967
694 24 May 1991 Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of deporting four Palestinians on 18 May is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.
726 6 Jan 1992 Strongly condemns the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume deportation of Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Requests Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.
799 18 Dec 1992 Strongly condemns the action taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to deport hundreds of Palestinian civilians (on 17 December 1992). Expresses its firm opposition to any such deportations by Israel. Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Demands that Israel ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied territories of all those deported.
904 18 Mar 1994 Strongly condemns the massacre in Hebron committed against Palestinian worshippers in Al-Ibrahimi Mosque, on 25 February 1994, during the holy month of Ramadan, and its aftermath which took the lives of more than 50 Palestinian civilians and injured several hundred others. 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. Calls for measures to be taken to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians throughout the occupied territory, including, inter alia, a temporary international or foreign presence, which was provided for in the Declaration of Principles, within the context of the ongoing peace process.
1073 28 Sep 1996 Expresses its 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. Calls for the immediate cessation and reversal of all acts which have resulted in the aggravation of the situation and which have negative implications for the Middle East peace process. Calls for the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians to be ensured. Calls for the immediate resumption of negotiations within the Middle East peace process on its agreed basis and the timely implementation of the agreements reached. (The draft resolution was issued officially as a presidential text, which normally indicates unanimity prior to the vote.)
1322 7 Oct 2000 Reaffirms that a just and lasting solution to the Arab and Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, through an active negotiating process. Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000, and the subsequent violence there and at other Holy Places, as well as in other areas throughout the territories occupied by Israel since 1968, 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. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva. Calls for the immediate cessation of violence, and for all necessary steps to be taken to ensure that violence ceases, that new provocative actions are avoided, and that the situation returns to normality. Stresses the importance of establishing a mechanism for a speedy and objective inquiry into the tragic events of the last few days with the aim of preventing their repetition.
1373 28 Sept 2001

Reaffirms resolutions 1269 (1999) of 19 October 1999 and 1368 (2001) of 12 September 2001. Reaffirms unequivocal condemnation of the terrorist attacks which took place in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001, and expresses determination to prevent all such acts. Reaffirms that such acts, like any act of international terrorism, constitute a threat to international peace and security. Reaffirms the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations as reiterated in resolution 1368 (2001). Reaffirms the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts.

Deeply concerned by the increase, in various regions of the world, of acts of terrorism motivated by intolerance or extremism.

Calls on all States to work together urgently to prevent and suppress terrorist acts, including through increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international conventions relating to terrorism.

1379 20 Nov 2001 Recalls resolutions 1261 (1999) of 28 August 1999, 1265 (1999) of 17 September 1999, 1296 (2000) of 19 April 2000, 1306 (2000) of 5 July 2000, 1308 (2000) of 17 July 2000 and 1325 (2000) of 31 October 2000 in recognising the harmful and widespread impact of armed conflict on children and the long-term consequences this has for durable peace, security and development.
1397 12 March 2002

Recalls all previous relevant resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973),

Affirms a vision of a region where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders. Expresses grave concern at the continuation of the tragic and violent events that have taken place since September 2000. Stresses the need for all concerned to ensure the safety of civilians. Stresses the need to respect the universally accepted norms of international humanitarian law.

1402 30 March 2002

Reaffirms resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002 and the Madrid principles,

Expresses grave concern at the further deterioration of the situation, including the 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; calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah.

Reiterates demand in resolution 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002 for an immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction.

Decides to remain seized of the matter.

1435 24 Sept 2002

Reaffirms resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002, 1402 (2002) of 30 March 2002 and 1403 (2002) of 4 April 2002, as well as the statements of its President, of 10 April 2002 and 18 July 2002.

Reiterates grave concern at the tragic and violent events that have taken place since September 2000 and the continuous deterioration of the situation. Condemns all terrorist attacks against any civilians, including the terrorist bombings in Israel on 18 and 19 September 2002 and in a Palestinian school in Hebron on 17 September 2002. Gravely concerned at the reoccupation of the headquarters of the President of the Palestinian Authority in the City of Ramallah that took place on 19 September 2002 and demanding its immediate end. Alarmed 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, of 12 August 1949.

1515 19 Nov 2003 Recalls all previous relevant resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002) and the Madrid principles. Welcomes and encourages

Welcomes and encourages the diplomatic efforts of the international Quartet (UN, US, EU and Russia). Endorses the Quartet Performance-based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (S/2003/529). Calls on the parties to fulfil their obligations under the Roadmap in cooperation with the Quartet and to achieve the vision of two States living side by side in peace and security.

1540 28 April 2004 Affirms that proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constitutes a threat to international peace and security.

Reaffirms that States should prevent proliferation in all its aspects of all weapons of mass destruction. that the Statement underlined the need for all Member States to resolve peacefully in accordance with the Charter any problems in that context threatening or disrupting the maintenance of regional and global stability. Reaffirms resolve to take appropriate and effective actions against any threat to international peace and security caused by the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery.

Welcomes multilateral arrangements which contribute to non-proliferation.
1664 29 March 2006

Calls for Lebanon's territorial sovereingty to be respected, following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minster Rafiq Hariri.

Mindful of the demand of the Lebanese people that all those responsible for the terrorist bombing that killed Hariri and others be identified and brought to justice. Recalls the letter of the Prime Minister of Lebanon to the Secretary-General of 13 December 2005 (S/2005/783) requesting inter alia the establishment of a tribunal of an international character to try all those who are found responsible for this terrorist crime and recalling its request to the Secretary-General in its resolution 1644 (2005) to help the Government of Lebanon identify the nature and scope of the international assistance needed in this regard.

1674 28 April 2006 Reaffirms resolutions 1265 (1999) and 1296 (2000) on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, its various resolutions on children and armed conflict and on women, peace and security, as well as its resolution 1631 (2005) on cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations in maintaining international peace and security.
1850 16 Dec 2008

Reiterates vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders. Welcomes the 9 November 2008 statement from the Quartet and the Israeli-Palestinian Joint Understanding announced at the November 2007 Annapolis Conference, including in relation to implementation of the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

Notes that lasting peace can only be based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition, freedom from violence, incitement, and terror, and the two-State solution.

Notes thee importance of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.

Encourages the Quartet's ongoing work to support the parties in their efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Declares support for the negotiations initiated at Annapolis, Maryland on 27 November 2007.

1860 8 Jan 2009

Stresses that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state. Emphasises the importance of the safety and well-being of all civilians. 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; and emphasises that the Palestinian and Israeli civilian populations must be protected. Expresses grave concern also at the deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Emphasises the need to ensure sustained and regular flow of goods and people through the Gaza crossings. Recognises the vital role played by UNRWA in providing humanitarian and economic assistance within Gaza.

Calls for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. Calls for humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment to those in Gaza. Condemns all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism.

1894 11 Nov 2009

Reaffirms commitment to the continuing and full implementation, in a mutually-reinforcing manner, of resolutions 1265 (1999), 1296 (2000), 1325 (2000), 1612 (2005), 1674 (2006), 1738 (2006), 1820 (2008), 1882 (2009), 1888 (2009) and 1889 (2009). Notes that 2009 marks the tenth anniversary of the progressive consideration by the Security Council of the protection of civilians in armed conflict as a thematic issue; and acknowledges the enduring need for the Security Council and Member States to strengthen further the protection of civilians in armed conflict.

Demands that parties to armed conflict comply strictly with the obligations applicable to them under international humanitarian, human rights and refugee law, as well as to implement all relevant decisions of the Security Council and in this regard. Urges parties to take all required measures to respect and protect the civilian population and meet its basic needs.

Page 1 of 2

Follow Us On Twitter

Find Us on Facebook

Like us on facebook

Like on Facebook