Talk:List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel

message: Even though a huge majority of Americans, 70.4%, believe the US should "not take either side" in the Israel-Palestine conflict, the US has vetoed literally dozens of UN resolutions calling for Israel to exercise restraint.  Here is a list of 39 "Vetoes Cast by the United States to Shield Israel from Criticism by the U.N. Security Council" As of July 14th, 2006:
Sort of...You cite a poll from 2001 and that uses questions with perhaps...guiding wording. There is far more and far more recent polling data relevant to that question and they don't seem to support your position as much.
The US has already vetoed a council resolution demanding Israel end its military offensive in the Gaza Strip. Eight of the last nine vetoes have been cast by the United States. Seven of those were to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict. 
The very next day, July 15, 2006, the Israeli magazine Haaretz reported that the US unilaterally opposed any council action at all at this time for the Israel-Hezbollah conflict.  Some say US unilateral support for Israel is hindering peace in the region.  According to the CATO Institute, "a non-profit public policy research foundation headquartered in Washington, D.C.":
U.S. aid allows Israel's leaders to avoid the political and economic costs of clinging to the occupied territories and refrain from making decisions that might lead to an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. It also allows them to avoid the costs of perpetuating a welfare system. Moreover, U.S. aid, more than any other factor, helps to secure the power of the existing political elite. 
According to IfAmericansKnew.org, "Although it is not often reported by the press, a large proportion of American diplomatic and military experts have long held that U.S. support of Israel is often contrary to and, in fact, extremely damaging to U.S. interests." 
Discussion: Rather than the wholesale removal of negative publicity for Israel, please explain why it should be removed. FightCancer 17:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to try to edit it, but the entire section is just swimming in bias and weasel words. The section is clearly designed not to describe the US vetoes, but to criticize them. This is inappropriate. Out of respect I will attempt to rewrite it to be NPOV rather than reverting it, but sources like "Ifamericaknew" are obviously unacceptable. Schrodingers Mongoose 19:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Read the description of weasel words.  "If we add a source for the opinion, the readers can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability:".  The articles I quoted mention the sources.  So the readers can and should decide for themselves hwo they feel--not you or me.  Nonetheless, I have removed that section.  Have you seen the actual article since I last edited it?  FightCancer 19:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made some edits and I think it's now much more balanced, weasel words aside. I added a brief bit about what supporters and detractors of the vetoes tend to believe. I don't mean to be too critical, but your original section was clearly written in opposition to the US vetoes and cited exclusively far-left sources. I've left the sources intact, however, in accordance with allowing people to judge for themselves. Nevertheless, I think it would be beneficial to find some less biased sourcing. Cheers. Schrodingers Mongoose 19:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm…  OK.  You completely removed:
* any reference to US public opinion which strongly opposes US public policy,
* any reference to US unilateralism, and
* any reference to whom is criticizing the US vetoes.  Who are these observers? You?  Please see weasel words.
Application of a weasel word can give the illusion of neutral point of view: "Some people say Montreal is the nicest city in the world."  Although this is an improvement, since it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative: 
It is not fair to remove this information.  Again, as weasel words states, "If we add a source for the opinion, the readers can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability:".  Please consider the revision below.  If it's unfair in your opinion, please be specific.
COMMENT - Although those who draft and/or edit articles in Wikipedia are not necessarily journalists, it should be incumbent on them to determine whether the source of their submissions are reliable or not. This is even more important in the 'post truth' era that we are in. Information from sources that are not deemed to be reliable or trustworthy should not be entered. But the sources used for articles should be identified, so that readers can then decide whether the information is (in their opinion) viable or laughable.
 
Perhaps this begs the question about the need for three lists of sources - not for a particular article, but rather for use by all Wiki articles. One would be a list of reliable/trustworthy sources (eg. The Washington Post, The Guardian, BBC, NPR). The second list would contain those that are unreliable (eg. Facebook, Youtube, National Enquirer). The third list would be entitled 'Often reliable, but with a bias' (eg. FOX News, SUN Publications). Dennis the Canuck (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Including the US opposition to this (which is 5 years old and from a single source) is prejudicial and designed to convey a viewpoint. All of your complaints about my edits are that they do not criticize the US vetoes enough. I believe that including this info is solely designed to provide an anti-veto POV. I have done my best to summarize both the pro- and anti-veto positions. It is inappropriate to lend extra weight to one side. Also, things like "the very next day" should be avoided...it sounds dramatic, not encyclopedic. Schrodingers Mongoose 19:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  My complaints are that you removed verifiable information which was intended to provide meaningful context about this article.  I agree that "It is inappropriate to lend extra weight to one side".  However, I'm not doing that.  I'm disclosing the facts and citing sources.  If there are additional facts that should be included, by all means please post them--but don't delete facts because you don't like the source. FightCancer 13:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Vetoes 

message: Wikipedia is an Israeli PROPAGANDA SITE and ANYTHING about Israel that is not written with an eye to glorify the apartheid state of Israel or hide their crimes, or hide the STRANGLEHOLD Jews have on the American government from the American public--Israel doesn't care about anybody else--WILL BE REMOVED for JUST that reason. LOL! What a JOKE! 
This is true, read here for proof: http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Eng37.htm  And also read the second part: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee#WHY_was_the_following_Nader_info_removed.2Fcensored.3F
Some of the sources cited in this article are unreputable. Let's work on bringing it in accordance with our policies. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it someplace else. Please review WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RS. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RS]] is your friend 

message: The United States has vetoed dozens of UN resolutions censuring or condemning Israel.  A list of 39 vetoes cast by the United States to scuttle motions regarding Israel can be found here.  On July 14th, 2006, the US vetoed a resolution demanding that Israel end its military offensive in the Gaza Strip. Of the last 9 vetoes cast in the security council, seven have been cast by the US against resolutions critical of Israel.  </blockquote>
These vetoes have been criticized by many observers as representing unfair and unilateral support for Israel by the United States. Supporters of the vetoes claim that the resolutions are one-sided and do not do enough to condemmn Palestinian Terrorism. 
: I moved the preceding paragraph to talk. It does not belong here: see the article's title. And BTW, none of the sources is reputable. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it's not up to us Wiki editors to decide which sources to quote.  According to the Wikipedia policy for Weasel Words, "If we add a source for the opinion, the readers can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability".  Please do not remove any more unpalatable information. FightCancer 12:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  FightCancer, 1) the US vetoes section does not belong to this list. Check the title: this is not an article about the US activity in the UN. 2) you either misunderstand the guideline regarding weasel words or intentionally quote it out of context. See also WP:RS and WP:NOT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Vetoes moved to talk 

message: I removed this sentence from the intro as it believe it is the epitome of weasel words.
Both pro-Israeli Israel and the UN - An Uneasy Relationship (Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations) and anti-Israeli sources ifamericansknew.org noted the disproportionately high number of the United Nations resolutions against the State of Israel.
*Who says that? You? 
*When did they say it? 
*How many people think that? Just how many is "some"? "most"?? 
I suggest we add sources in the text and remove description "disproportionately high".  This description is the author's alone and does not reflect the opinions of anyone I know of. FightCancer 13:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Glad you asked. "No other nation or issue is accorded such scrutinizing treatment. Nineteen anti-Israel resolutions are adopted by the General Assembly annually." . The U.N.'s Israel Obsession, "The U.N. has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other nations combined, including Iraq." . Let me know if you need more. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, we should include the information above and list the source in the article. FightCancer 12:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It sounds credible. Was it ever included in the article? It is not there now. WikiHuda (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

text:  Added information given by Humus sapiens and approved by FightCancer. WikiHuda (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words 

message: Palffy, you removed these sentences noting "This is an incorrect statement from a biased source. See resolutions for yourself, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html".
According to IfAmericansKnew.org, "Israel is the target of at least 65 UN Resolutions and the Palestinians are the target of none" from 1955-1992.  They add, "These resolutions, which now number 66, contain the international community’s list of indictments against the Jewish state." 
Would you mind explaining how the two sentences were incorrect? FightCancer 14:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Statement 

message: This article has a number of problems:
* The lead contains a very unclear sentence: "During this time, in the UN General Assembly, 429 resolutions against Israel were passed, and Israel was condemned 321 times."  It is not apparent what the different is between a resolution that is merely "against Israel" and a resolution that "condemned" Israel.  "Against" and "condemned" read to be as near synonyms and thus it is not surprising that if a resolution can be characterized by one of these terms, it can likely be characterized by the other.
* There seems to be a misunderstanding of the purpose of UN Security Council resolutions.  The UN SC is a group that comes together and deals with international problems.  It proposes means to fix problems by recommending changes in behavior for involved participants as well as setting out mandates/plans for the involvement of neutral participants (peace keepers, negotiators, sanctions, aid, etc.)  Since Israel has been a participant in the very messy Israel-Arab conflict, Gaza-West Bank "occupation" and the general Israel-Palestinian conflict it has been a participant that has been scolded a lot.  The UN SC is a serious group and does not have time to hand out awards for good behavior.
* To make clear to the reader that Israel is singled out, which seems to be the implicit purpose of much of the lead, one should use better contextual comparisons.  I would be interested to know the following statistics:
:# How many resolutions has the UN SC passed in total and of that total, how many concerned Israel.
:# How many times has each international entities been scolded (which is a less paranoid way of saying "against") about behavior in UN SC resolutions -- one can either count the number of individual scolds (such that there might be multiple scolds of an entity per resolution) or the number of distinct UN SC resolutions contain one or more scolds of an entity.  Do the resulting statistics using either counting method result in Israel near or at the top of the list?
* The current list of numbered resolutions without explanation or descriptive titles is pretty uninformative.  Even worse is the short quotes ripped out of context.  Could I suggest that we try to eventually group the resolutions by topic?  I can imagine classifying resolutions using categories such as: "Israel's founding", "Suez Crisis", "Six Day War", "Yom Kippur War", "Gaza/West Bank", "1982 Lebanon-Israel War", "2006 Hezbollah-Israel War" and "Other" would be decent starters.  It may be necessary to use more than one category per UN SC resolution, but even so, categories would be more useful than paranoid viewing resolutions as either "against Israel" or "condemning Israel."
Those are my 2 cents.  --Ben Houston 01:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would also be useful to analyze the set of UN SC resolutions that concern the Israel-Arab conflict.  Get a count of how many distinct UN SC resolutions there are concerning the Israel-Arab conflict and which parties are involved and how many times has each involved party has been scolded.  --Ben Houston 01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues: Unclear lead, misunderstanding of SC, lack of context, uninformative list 

message: Do individual resolutions need to have there own articles in wikipedia or can we just wikisource them and put more encyclopedic detail about individual resolutions here? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging into this article?

message: I think this should be moved to a more suitable "israel at the un" page, which can then include lots of other issues like israel not getting on the security council and various other un bodies. including criticisms, etc. what do others think? 
there's a lot of matter here. Lihaas (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: israel at the un

message: The lede here is severely problematic. The calculation of what resolutions are "against" Israel derives from two sources: A website by "Christian Action for Israel," which is some obscure Canadian activist group, and an article published in a virtually unknown online-only "magazine" called Capitalism, which is devoted to popularizing the philosophy of a hack novelist who founded her own cult. There is also no reason to be using as sources, for example, speeches made by Australian and British politicians trying to justify an attack on Iraq in terms of enforcing Chapter VII resolutions, or incidental comments in op-ed pieces. You can equally cite other incidental comments to make a completely opposite point, but that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. People, please. We are dealing with international diplomacy at the highest level. There are academic sources, ie, articles in peer-reviewed scholarly journals in the field of international law.
I'll copy the offending paragraphs here to the talk page for now; perhaps they can be salvaged, perhaps not. <eleland/talkedits> 20:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of poor quality and/or partisan sources 

message: WP:OR permits the use of primary sources when they speak for themselves, or when the analysis is provided by a WP:RS secondary source. The Security Council Report is sponsored by several UN diplomatic missions. It says that UN Resolution 54 was adopted in accordance with the terms of Chapter VII (as outlined in the section above). The fact that it and subsequent resolutions which mention article 40 & etc were "Chapter VII" resolutions can be confirmed by checking the primary sources. 
The representative of Israel, Mr Eban, said that the resolution had been adopted under the terms of Chapter VII. His remarks are part of the verbatim record of the 340th Meeting of the Security Council. The meeting took place on the 27th of July, a week after the Security Council had adopted resolution 54. The Council was considering a request for an ICJ advisory opinion on the legality of adopting a Chapter VII resolution in regard to the Palestine Question. Mr. Eban said:
The theory was advanced the other day that a judgment of the Court might be of service to this Council, inasmuch as it would affect the determination of a threat to the peace or an act of aggression. The representative of China hinted that such a judgment might be necessary in order to determine whether Chapter VII of the Charter is applicable to the Palestine question at this or any future time. But the view that a juridical verdict must be preliminary to action under Chapter VII is completely disposed of by the fact that the Security Council has already taken action under Chapter VII, has determined the existence of a threat to the peace, and has, therefore, embarked upon a course which it must, if necessary, pursue throughout all the stages which follow that act of determination. It would certainly be remarkable if the Security Council, one week after applying Chapter VII of the Charter, were suddenly to find it necessary to have the views of another organ
of the United Nations on whether or not Chapter VII can be invoked.
The subsequent resolutions regarding the establishment of permanent cease fire and armistice lines, Resolutions 61 and 62, recalled resolution 54 and cited article 40 of the Charter (Chapter VII). Select a language to download a pdf of the verbatim record here: S/PV.340. 
I came across a veiled reference to this in the Foreign Relations of the United States several years ago in connection with the IDF withdrawal from the Sinai in 1956. PM Ben Gurion had unilaterally declared the armistice agreements null and void. A US State Department official questioned the legal standing of the parties to do that, and mentioned that the agreements were an international undertaking that were sanctioned under the terms of Chapter VII. I was reminded of that the other day when the EU Foreign Minister suggested that the Security Council impose a solution that included a withdrawal to the lines that existed on 4 June 1967. harlan (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary Sources UN Sec Res 54, 61, 62

message: 1. Low quality sources. Noam Chomsky is hardly an authoritive source on the Mideast conflict, and the other book is not much better. If anyone seriously insists on using the "Uneasy neighbors" book as a reliable source, then at least do not use it selectively - what about including that the UN is "obsessively devoted to criticsm of Israel" and so on.
2. The entry is as POV as it can get here on Wikipedia. Regularly and international consensus are a weaselwords, in particular in light of that resolutions were vetoed only 15% of the time and international consensus can mean anything and nothing. That most of the resolutions did not even supported the PLO and or called for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rather counterfactual. The resolutions called for all kinds of things, as you can easily check if you look at some of the textx of some resolutions.
3. The article is about resolutions concerning Israel, not about the US. If the US needs to be included, what about the vetoes and abstantions of other council members? That is what NPOV would require. It would also require to look at the disproportionate number of resolutions levelled against Israel, compared to other, arguably worse human-rights abusers. But then, that is not the purpose of this article and is not within the article topic.
4. The lenghty discussions on this talk page suggest that consensus is that the article should stay as it is, so not to become another Drama magnet. The very least criterion any new addition should satisfy a wording that is as neutral as possible and that is based on very strong and reputable reference.
5. The edit summary "Here is another Ref. And this is a fact, I don't need a strong Ref" was quite humurous, especially in light of the fact that the promised other reference was "3. The US has periodically used its veto to block resolutions critical of Israel. [sic!]".  Stepopen (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Stepopen and welcome to Wikipedia. The text you removed reads as follows: The United States has regularly voted alone and against international consensus, using its veto power to block the passing of many proposed UN Security Council resolutions supporting the PLO and calling for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Pirates and emperors, old and new: international terrorism in the real world, Noam Chomsky, p. 168.The US has regularly used its veto to block resolutions critical of Israel. Uneasy neighbors, David T. Jones and David Kilgour, p. 235. While I am sure that it can be further improved, I do not see a compelling reason for its outright deletion. Regarding your claims in point #1, Noam Chomsky is a WP:RS for the purposes of Wikipedia. Further, should you wish to include the claim that the UN is biased against Israel in this article, per the second source cited, I see little problem with adding that. Regarding point #2, "regularly" is used by the sources cited, and "international consensus" is a paraphrase (I believe) which can bve rephrased should you find it objectionable. I see you are familiar with WP:WEASEL, but I do not believe it applies here. Regarding claim #3, when multiple reliable sources mention US vetoes with regard to UN Security resolutions, we should too. If you have sources that discuss the vetoes by other states in this regard, please present them. I have no problem including them if they exist. The sources indicate though that US vetoes are quite relevant to this topic and so should be included (in my opinion at least, and I believe Imad Marie agrees). Regarding point #4, drama can be avoided by not reflexiely reverting out information you are having difficulty with, but by working to improve it, or by presenting suggestions for improving it here, rather than accusing your fellow editors of "POV" editing when they are merely represneting what is written in reliable sources. Point #5 is largely irrelevant to the present discussion. I provided you with sources that are in fact reliable. If you would like to see more however, such a request can be obliged, if you ask nicely. Tiamuttalk 15:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has an NPOV policy that requires that mainstream majority viewpoints be included and presented as fairly as possible. The majority of UN member states have strongly deplored and condemned the actions of the United States in providing arms to Israel and in using its veto to prevent the adoption of sanctions. The US has adopted policies like the Negroponte doctrine in response. harlan (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent POV additions to the lead 

message: No, drama can be avoided by looking at the previous talk history, by using only undoubtly reliable sources and not Noam Chomsky, and by being as neutral and balanced as possible in ones own wording. Needless to say that one should also not introduce hoaxes in the article and misrepresent facts - if only roughly 15% of all resolutions have been vetoed by the US than this should not be hidden behind the weaselwords regularly and that the vast majority of all resolutions did not say anything about the PLO or the two state resolutions. That you come here and claim that you merely represent what reliable sources say is not very convincing, just look at how your sourcing works - you google "US veto Israel regularly" and then use whatever you find as a source. That doesn't make it look like you are overly concerned with facts, but more about what you think should be in the article. But then, as Humus sapiens said above, this article is about resolutions concerning Israel, and not about US activity in the security council. Stepopen (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: At the risk of precipitating a partisan debate (which is not my intention), I'm nevertheless compelled to raise the issue of
this article's inclusion in the category of "antisemitism."
Is there a genuine, no-BS, objective source to support this? To merely follow a list of resolutions and brief descriptions of them with a placement into this category comes off as more or less in line with the fringe-minority view of anything remotely critical of Israel as little better than thinly-veiled antisemitism, a view which is hardly universal enough to warrant the classification of any and all UN resolutions concerning Israel as such. 
I would like to get some feedback before eliminating the category listing, as I well understand that nearly everything concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is certain to be rife with controversy.--Apjohns54 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization of this article. 

message: I apologize, however the links I entered for 1982-83 GA resolutions do not work.  The UN site links to an intermediate site which then links to the final site with the resolution, either an html page or a pdf.  However, neither the html nor the PDF resolutions (nor the addresses of the intermediate sites which you have to capture very quickly as they go by) work when linked from Wikipedia.  If anyone knows how to fix them, please do so and/or post the solution here.  Thanks.  Jeisenberg (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Links 

message: While UN resolutions over Palestine and Israel issues are sometimes related they are deserving each a separate page. Many of the resolutions regarding Israel are nothing to do with Palestine, and many resolutions on Palestinians deal with status of refugees in Arab League countries, or with the Status of PLO in UN. I therefore suggest to split this page into List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel and List of United Nations resolutions concerning Palestine. Thoughts?GreyShark (dibra) 09:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason the split tag was removed, so i'm restarting the process.GreyShark (dibra) 19:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually i counted, and it seems approximately one third might overlap, which is in my opinion sufficient for split. In fact quite many resolutions concern Arab-Israeli issues, but not specifically Palestinians/Palestine. For instance many resolutions concern Israel & Lebanon or Israeli-Syrian cease fire line UN mission, general resolutions condemning Israel and more. On the other hand there are quite several resolutions regarding specifically Palestinians, which do not concern Israel directly - such as resolutions on Palestine refugees, resolutions on recognizing Palestine etc.GreyShark (dibra) 05:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you mostly but don't you think that the resolutions on "Palestinian refugees" or on "recognizing Palestine" concern Israel? I think both of these issues are of great concern for Israel. What do you say? Sohebbasharat (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not directly. You can also say that latest List of UN resolutions concerning Syria also concern all of Europe, because of the Syrian refugees and European involvement in the war, but this is simply an extrapulation. Same here.GreyShark (dibra) 22:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would in principle be in support of a split, however had, there should be a separate article or some kind of table/overview that also lists the specific historic dates too. 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?GreyShark (dibra) 06:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Opinions are welcome.GreyShark (dibra) 07:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: Several resolutions link to Jewishvirtuallibrary, where they are often preceded by heavily POV comments, making the links used strongly POV. W\|/haledad (Talk to me)  21:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: POV links are allowed per Wikipedia guidelines, as long as they are reliable and balanced.GreyShark (dibra) 22:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907164437/http://www.eyeontheun.org/browse-un.asp?ya=1&sa=1&u=344&un_s=0&ul=1&tp=1&tpn=Resolution to http://www.eyeontheun.org/browse-un.asp?ya=1&sa=1&u=344&un_s=0&ul=1&tp=1&tpn=Resolution
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Over the past few decades Israel has succeeded in stifling any and all criticism of Israel, Israel’s Holocaust of the Palestinians as being anti-Semitic. This is very true within the US and also across Europe. 
Israel has very powerful political lobbying groups and friends among elected officials ( US Congress and Senate) which helps kill any and all legislation critical of Israel and hence any attempt to reduce the level of financial assistance Israel continues to receive from the USA.  Adwisesf (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel equating anti-Israeli discussion as being anti-Semitic. 

message: Article says Israel has received "almost more" resolutions than other countries combined. Extremely vague and misleading. Please correct this to reflect facts. From this, nobody can tell. zeleftikam (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many is "almost more?"  

message: An article has been created on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 303. This article's current mention of Resolution 303 is an external link; I'd like to suggest that this be changed to a link to the Wikipedia article, like resolutions 181, 194 and 273. Erik de Wolf (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2021 

message: Who is the worst worldwide terrorist ? 2603:6000:D800:5344:6840:5C4B:5185:3871 (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the zionists objecting to this article in Wikipedia ? I think if they object they will be silenced by the facts that the free World knows. 

message: I'd like to suggest changing the following description of the latest UN General Assembly resolution from:
"2023
27 October: Resolution ES-10/21: Criticizing Israeli actions in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war."
To:
"2023
27 October: Resolution ES-10/21: Protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations in the 2023 Israel-Hams war.";
As this is more in line with the title and the content of said resolution. The current description refers to how the subject was called on the agenda, and not to the resolution as it was passed. 
During an ongoing conflict and this one especially it's hard to stay objective or even find objective information, and that's why I've attentively read the actual text of the the resolution where the linked article links to (https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N23/319/20/PDF/N2331920.pdf?OpenElement through https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%2FES-10%2FL.25&Language=E".
My apologies if this is the incorrect forum to suggest this correction. Jaap-073 (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pppery * it has begun... 02:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2023