Taiwan reports first bird flu case outside China

April 24, 2013

A 53-year-old businessman in Taiwan has the first case of the H7N9 bird flu virus outside mainland China, health officials there have confirmed. The man is in a serious condition in hospital days after returning from the Chinese city of Suzhou, officials say. China has confirmed 108 cases of H7N9 since it was initially reported in March, with at least 22 people dead. The World Health Organization (WHO) says this strain appears to spread more easily from birds to humans. The man in Taiwan was brought to hospital three days after he arrived from Suzhou via Shanghai, officials say.

He was not in contact with poultry, nor had he eaten undercooked birds while in Suzhou, Taiwanese Health Minister Chiu Wen-ta told local media. Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou has ordered the health department to step up prevention measures, says the country’s Central News Agency. Experts are still trying to understand the H7N9 virus, and it has not yet been determined whether it could be transferred between humans. “This is definitely one of the most lethal influenza viruses we have seen so far,” WHO flu expert Dr Keiji Fukuda said at a news conference in Beijing. “When we look at influenza viruses this is an unusually dangerous virus.”

He added that the WHO team was just beginning its investigation. But he said that based on the evidence, “this virus is more easily transmissible from poultry to humans than H5N1″, a strain which spread in 2003. Dr Fukuda led a team from the WHO on a one-week China visit to study H7N9, along with Chinese officials from Beijing and Shanghai. The WHO believes that poultry is still the likely source of the H7N9 outbreak in China.

Source = BBC NEWS

New bird flu strain ‘more easily caught by humans’ than 2003 outbreak

April 24, 2013

Preliminary Report: Epidemiology of the Avian Influenza A (H7N9) Outbreak in China

The first identified cases of human infection with a novel influenza A (H7N9) virus occurred in eastern China during February and March 2013 and were characterized by rapidly progressive pneumonia, respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and fatal outcomes.1 We analyzed available data from field investigations to characterize the descriptive epidemiology of laboratory-confirmed cases of avian influenza A (H7N9) virus infection in humans reported to the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) as of April 17, 2013. In this report, we summarize the preliminary findings of case investigations and follow-up monitoring of close contacts of persons with confirmed cases of H7N9 virus infection who have been identified to date. This is an ongoing investigation.

New bird flu strain called ‘one of most lethal’ viruses baffles scientists

A new bird flu strain that has sickened more than 100 and killed 22 in China is “one of the most lethal” of its kind, and has now spread to another country, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). A 53-year-old Taiwan businessman contracted the H7N9 strain of bird flu while travelling in China, Taiwan’s Health Department said Wednesday. This is the first reported case outside China’s mainland.  The man was hospitalized after becoming ill three days after returning from Suzhou on April 9, Health Department Minister Wen-Ta Chiu told a news conference. Chiu said the patient was diagnosed with the H7N9 virus and was in serious condition. Chiu said Taiwan will take appropriate measures, including opening a special out-patient clinic for H7N9 cases.

The Centers of Disease Control and Prevention is keeping a close eye on this virus, which may be resistant to some antibiotic drugs. The CDC received another sample of the virus from China this week, and Mike Shaw, who works at the CDC’s flu lab, said they found certain mutations of the virus, which had they mutated further, would have been rendered ineffective against antivirals, like Tamiful and Relenza.  Dr. Joseph Bresee, a flu expert at the CDC, said it is possible the flu is being transmitted from person to person, but it’s not yet been 100 percent confirmed. When two or three members of a household become sick with the same virus, it’s hard to know if they all acquired it from an infected bird they were exposed to, or if they passed the virus between them, Bresee said.

However, at this point, it’s not clear how exactly people are being infected. Experts maintain there is no evidence of sustained transmission between people. An international team of scientists led by the WHO and Chinese government spent five days in China investigating – - but were not able to determine if the virus was actually spreading between people. The CDC is racing to produce a vaccine for this new strain of bird flu, but it’s still several months out, and officials said it’s difficult to determine if the vaccine would even work. “The situation remains complex and difficult and evolving,” said Keiji Fukuda, the WHO’s assistant director-general for health security. “When we look at influenza viruses, this is an unusually dangerous virus for humans.” Fukuda said that although the current outbreak has a lower fatality rate than the previous type of bird flu, “this is one of the most lethal influenza viruses that we’ve seen so far.”

Source = FOX NEWS

Background and summary of human infection with influenza A(H7N9) virus– as of 5 April 2013

In the past few weeks, WHO has received from China reports of human infection with influenza A(H7N9) virus. The influenza A(H7N9) virus is one subgroup among the larger group of H7 viruses, which normally circulate among birds.

Human infections with other subgroups of H7 influenza viruses (H7N2, H7N3, and H7N7) have previously been reported in the Netherlands, Italy, Canada, United States of America, Mexico and the United Kingdom. Most of these infections occurred in association with poultry outbreaks. The infections mainly resulted in conjunctivitis and mild upper respiratory symptoms, with the exception of one death, which occurred in the Netherlands.

These recent reports from China are the first cases of human infection with H7N9 viruses.

Epidemiology

The reported laboratory-confirmed cases have come from several different provinces in eastern China and are not known to be linked. All patients so far have been severely ill, and some have died (for the latest information on cases and outcomes, see Disease Outbreak News.

Two family clusters have been reported. Beyond these two clusters, no cases have been reported among contacts or in health care workers associated with confirmed cases.

The source of infection and the mode of transmission are currently unknown. No association with outbreaks of disease among animals or clear exposure to animals has been established. Some of the confirmed cases had contact with animals or with environments in which animals were located. The virus has been found in a pigeon in a market in Shanghai. The possibility of animal-to-human transmission is being investigated, as is the possibility of human-to-human transmission. The family cluster raises the possibility of human-to-human transmission, but two of the cases in that cluster have not been laboratory confirmed and there is no other evidence pointing toward sustained transmission among people.

Clinical presentation

The main clinical feature among most patients is respiratory diseases resulting in severe pneumonia. Symptoms include fever, cough and shortness of breath. Patients have required intensive care and mechanical ventilation. Information is, however, still limited about the full spectrum of disease that this infection might cause.

Virology

The HA gene is genetically distinct from the HA gene of other H7 viruses. The six internal genes are derived from influenza A(H9N2) viruses circulating in birds in eastern Asia. The NA gene is similar to the NA genes from influenza A(H11N9) viruses detected in birds in previous years.
We do not know why cases of influenza A(H7N9) virus infection are being detected now , as we do not know how these persons were infected. Sequence analyses have shown that the genes of the influenza A(H7N9) viruses from the first human cases in China are of avian (bird) origin. However, these genes also show signs of adaption to growth in mammalian species. These adaptations include an ability to bind to mammalian cell receptors, and to grow at temperatures close to the normal body temperature of mammals (which is lower than that of birds).

Treatment

Laboratory testing conducted in China has shown that the influenza A(H7N9) viruses are sensitive to the anti-influenza drugs known as neuraminidase inhibitors (oseltamivir and zanamivir). When these drugs are given early in the course of illness, they have been found to be effective against seasonal influenza virus and influenza A(H5N1) virus infection. There is no experience yet with the use of these drugs for the treatment of H7N9 infection.

Prevention

No vaccine for the prevention of influenza A(H7N9) infections is currently available, although viruses have already been isolated and characterized from the initial cases. The first step in development of a vaccine is the selection of candidate viruses that could go into a vaccine. WHO, in collaboration with partners, will continue to characterize available influenza A(H7N9) viruses to identify the best candidate viruses. These candidate vaccine viruses can then be used for the manufacture of vaccine should this become necessary.

While the source of infection and the mode of transmission have not yet been determined, it is prudent to follow good hygiene practices to prevent infection. For advice on infection prevention, contact with animals and food preparation, see: http://www.who.int/influenza/human_animal_interface/faq_H7N9/en/. Guidance for infection prevention and control in health care settings is available at http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/swineflu/WHO_CDS_EPR_2007_6/en/index.html.

WHO recommendations

Based on the current situation and available information, WHO advises the following:

• When laboratories testing for influenza viruses detect an influenza A virus by RT-PCR assays using primers for the conserved M genes and then find that tests using currently available H1, H3 and H5 primers are negative, such unsubtypable influenza A viruses should be sent urgently to a WHO Collaborating Centre for further analysis (see http://www.who.int/influenza/gisrs_laboratory/collaborating_centres/en/).
• When a laboratory or Member State finds such an unsubtypable influenza A virus, the finding should be reported to WHO through the International Health Regulations national focal point as is required under the IHR.
• The same surveillance strategy applies as for human infections with highly pathogenic avian influenza A (H5N1) virus.
• Clinicians and laboratory specialists should consider the possibility of human infection with influenza in any person presenting with severe acute respiratory disease.
• Clinicians are reminded of standard guidance for infection control and contact tracing around such cases.
• Standard guidance should also be applied for vigorously investigating clusters of severe respiratory infections and such infections in health care workers who have been caring for patients with severe acute respiratory disease.
• WHO does not advise special screening at points of entry with regard to this event nor does it recommend that any travel or trade restrictions be applied.

Source = WHO

Taiwan confirms first H7N9 bird flu case outside China

AFP – Taiwan on Wednesday reported the first case of the H7N9 bird flu outside of mainland China. The 53-year-old man, who had been working in the eastern Chinese city of Suzhou, showed symptoms three days after returning to Taiwan via Shanghai, the Centers for Disease Control said, adding that he had been hospitalised since April 16 and was in a critical condition.

Source = France 24

China bird flu may be two mutations from a pandemic

April 10, 2013

In China, nine people have died and more than 20 are seriously ill in the latest outbreak of bird flu, H7N9. And there are fears that the death toll could rise much higher because the virus already has three of the five mutations that we know could allow another bird flu, H5N1, to spread between mammals. No one knows for sure if the five mutations discovered last year by Ron Fouchier and colleagues at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, will do the same thing in H7N9. But we do know that some of the mutations helped viruses from three other flu families go pandemic. For the moment, Chinese authorities tracing contacts of known cases say there is no evidence yet that the infection has spread between humans. Most recent pandemic viruses have been hybrids of bird and mammalian flu, and therefore relatively mild because mammalian flu tends to be less severe in people than bird flu. Pure bird flu viruses, like H5N1 and H7N9, are potentially more dangerous. The most lethal pandemic we know of, which spread across the world in 1918, was a pure bird flu that acquired mutations that allowed it to spread in humans. Virologists fear H7N9 could be doing that.

H7N9 might be unusually severe: it carries a mutation thought to promote deep lung infection, which is also in H5N1, the 1918 flu, and severe cases of the 2009 pandemic. But two known cases of H7N9 only show mild symptoms, so the Chinese authorities are trying to establish how often it makes people seriously ill, in order to estimate the number of unreported mild cases, and therefore the total number of human cases there have already been.  As for H5N1, despite spreading widely in birds in recent years, it has not evolved the ability to spread readily between mammals. Fouchier’s work – which came under fire because of fears that it would allow bioterrorists to engineer an H5N1 pandemic – shows that, in principle, it can spread between ferrets, and with no obvious loss of virulence. To get transmissible H5N1, Fouchier first had to prime the virus with three mutations known to adapt bird flu to mammals, then allow the virus to evolve the other requisite mutations while infecting the ferrets: as few as two more appeared to be needed.

Two of the three deliberately added mutations allow the HA surface protein from bird flu in the H5, H2 and H3 families to bind to cells in mammals’ noses. This is what allowed flu viruses carrying HA proteins from H2 and H3 bird flu to cause pandemics in 1957 and 1968. The pandemic virus that broke out in 1918 – from the H1 family – had similar mutations with the same effect. Such binding mutations have never been seen in wild H5N1 – but H7N9 already has one of the two. If H7N9 can bind to mammalian cells, it could adapt even further to mammals, just as Fouchier’s primed H5N1 did in his ferret experiments. We do not yet know for certain that the mutation has the same effect in H7 as in the other flu families, but researchers are gearing up to do the experiments.

Source = New Scientist

Bird Flu Crosses Strait to Taiwan

A Taiwanese man has contracted a deadly strain of bird flu once confined to mainland China, health officials said today. The man, 53, is thought to have imported the H7N9 virus to his native Taiwan after travelling to China’s Jiangsu Province, where bird flu has sickened at least 24 people and killed three, according to the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. He is said to be in “severe condition.” The latest case has lifted the tally of virus victims to 109, 22 of whom have died, according to the World Health Organization. It has also flamed fears that the deadly virus could spread beyond East Asia. “Given the extent of global travel, I expect that we will see cases in the United States,” ABC News chief health and medical editor Dr. Richard Besser said. “It’s so important that people who become ill tell their doctors if they have been traveling.”

The Taiwanese man developed flu symptoms April 12, three days after returning to Taiwan from Shanghai, health officials said. He was hospitalized four days later. But initial tests for H7N9 were negative, with official confirmation from Taiwan’s National Influenza Center coming more than two weeks after his trip April 24. “Physicians are once again reminded to report suspected cases to the health authority within 24 hours of detection according to the relevant regulation,” the Taiwanese CDC said in a statement, noting that suspected cases with severe respiratory infections should be hospitalized in isolation. The H7N9 virus is thought to pass from birds to humans. But many of its victims, including the Taiwanese man, reported no contact with birds, and few birds are testing positive for the disease. “There are so many unanswered questions about this disease,” Besser said. “Could there be another route of transmission? Are some people becoming infected from exposure to infected people?”

Source = ABC News

A more detailed press release will follow.

via Permission to Appeal Judicial Review Granted..

CLICK HERE to continue reading this article and other related articles.

West Bank cheers Mahmoud Abbas after UN vote

December 2, 2012

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has returned to a hero’s welcome in the West Bank after his successful move to upgrade the Palestinians’ UN status. “Now we have a state,” he told cheering supporters in Ramallah. “Palestine has accomplished a historic achievement.” On Thursday the United Nations General Assembly voted to recognise the Palestinians as an observer state. In response Israel halted the transfer of tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority (PA). The decision, announced on Sunday by the Israeli finance ministry, means 460m shekels ($120m; £75m) will be withheld in December. The PA, which governs in the West Bank, is heavily dependant on tax revenues Israel collects on its behalf. A ministry spokesman told the BBC the money would instead be used to offset the PA’s debts, which include millions owed to Israel’s electricity company.

The Israeli decision was announced as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas returned to the West Bank from the UN in New York. He told thousands of flag-waving supporters in Ramallah that the vote to upgrade the Palestinians’ status from “non-member observer entity” to “non-member observer state” had shown the international community stood behind the Palestinian people. “The march was a long one, and the pressures were enormous,” Mr Abbas added. “But we stood fast and we prevailed, because we are the voice of these people.” Mr Abbas also called for reconciliation between Palestinians – a reference to the split between the PA in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. On Friday Israel announced it would move ahead with building thousands of new homes in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, in another apparent response to the UN vote.

Source = BBC News

Palestinians win upgraded UN status by wide margin

November 30, 2012

The UN General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly to recognise Palestine as a non-member observer state – a move strongly opposed by Israel and the US. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said this was the “last chance to save the two-state solution” with Israel. Israel’s UN envoy said the bid pushed the peace process “backwards”, while the US said the move was “unfortunate”. The Palestinians can now take part in UN debates and potentially join bodies like the International Criminal Court.

The assembly voted 138-9 in favour, with 41 nations abstaining. Hundreds of Palestinians celebrated on the streets of Ramallah, in the West Bank after the result was announced. “Sixty-five years ago on this day, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 181, which partitioned the land of historic Palestine into two states and became the birth certificate for Israel,” Mr Abbas said shortly before the vote in New York. “The General Assembly is called upon today to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine,” he said.

Source = BBC News

Palestine seizes statehood

December 1, 2012

IN THE parallel universe of global diplomacy, Thursday was as remarkable and rare as it was grindingly familiar for Palestinians marking the 65th anniversary of the United Nations decision to carve out a new state called Israel in the Middle East. Amid jubilant cheers and waving of traditional chequered scarves, Palestine was embraced as a new ”non-member observer state” at the UN – the same deal as for the Vatican. There at the green-marbled podium was their nemesis, in the guise of Israel’s UN ambassador, taunting them about their own divisions and fractures. Yet in a war seemingly without end, the Palestinians had won a battle, staring down the considerable combined might of Washington and Israel to win more than 130 ”yes” votes for their elevation. There were 40-odd abstentions and, save for the votes of Canada and the Czech Republic, a motley crew of ”no” votes so small as to be meaningless (Micronesia, Nauru and the like), amounting to a total of just nine votes against.   The vote was never in doubt. But it was remarkable nonetheless to see the General Assembly’s electronic tally board ablaze in dominant green for ”yes” with a tinge of orange for the votes of abstainers, such as Britain, Germany and Australia, who would not express their reservations on the Palestinian move as ”no” votes that might have softened the edges of Israel’s defeat. Just nine votes against was proof that the Palestinian Authority (PA) had headed off a concerted Israeli-American diplomatic effort to rob them of a so-called moral majority endorsement of the UN’s implicit recognition of a sovereign state of Palestine. Led by France, a significant European vote in favour included Spain, Switzerland and Ireland. The single discernible advantage in this new standing for the Palestinians, which appears to be at the root of Israeli anger, is access to the International Criminal Court where they might mount cases against Israel for its conduct of the occupation and its treatment of Palestinians. Precisely how else it might change the dynamic of the conflict remains to be seen.   The US and Britain pleaded with PA President Mahmoud Abbas to include a clause in his draft resolution before the General Assembly, undertaking not to go to the ICC – he refused. Just 24 hours before the vote, senior Washington officials went to Abbas’ New York hotel, in a last, failed bid to turn him. British Prime Minister David Cameron joined the effort too, going so far as to offer a ”yes” vote had Abbas agreed. In the face of Abbas’ persistence, Israel backed away from a recent salvo of retaliatory threats – abandonment of the Oslo Accords, ousting Abbas as head of the PA and a clamp on the delivery of Palestinian tax revenue collected by Israel – to a more subdued wait-and-see stance. Israel’s response would be ”proportionate” to how the Palestinians acted after the vote, Israel’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Yigal Palmor, said – ”if they use it to continue confronting Israel and other UN bodies, there will be a firm response. If not, then there won’t.”   Struggling for relevance and respect amid the seeming failure of a so-called peace process that was launched on the back of the 1993 Oslo Accords and being eclipsed by his factional foes in the Hamas Islamist movement, the other half of the Palestinian political equation, Abbas concluded that traipsing to the UN bunker, on the banks of the East River in Manhattan, was possibly his last best option – particularly given the near adulation bestowed on his Hamas rivals in the wake of the Arab Spring and the latest fighting in Gaza. This is the new regional dynamic that may be superseding the Oslo Accords, which had managed to keep the likes of Egypt and Jordan as players in an aimless process and many other Arab states as passive observers, as Washington, Israel and the Palestinians went through the motions of stalling or failed negotiations, during which Israeli settlement of Palestinian land continued unchecked.   France and Spain, in particular, justified their ”yes” votes on Thursday as efforts to bolster Abbas, as he is overshadowed by the ascendant Hamas, which, in the eyes of many Palestinians, has proved that violent resistance gets better results than recognition of the state of Israel, the renouncement of violence, participation in almost 20 years of peace talks and co-operation with the US.

Source = The Sydney Morning Herald

Israel Retaliates for UN Vote on Palestine

December 2, 2012

JERUSALEM — Israel is retaliating for Thursday’s United Nations vote on Palestinian statehood, announcing it will withhold $120 million in taxes and customs collected for the Palestinian Authority to pay debts to Israeli companies. In a unanimous resolution passed Sunday, Israel’s Cabinet said it would not negotiate on the basis of the General Assembly’s recognition of a state of Palestine in the occupied West Bank,  East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip. “The unilateral step taken by the Palestinians at the United Nations violates peace agreements,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, justifying Israel’s rejection of the U.N. vote. The only way to Palestinian statehood and peace is through direct negotiations with Israel, he said.

Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said the government would use the money it was to transfer to the Palestinians to pay off their debt to Israel’s state-run electricity company and other Israeli firms. The Cabinet also approved a plan to build 3,000 new homes for Jews in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. Mr. Netanyahu said Israel would continue to build in response to the U.N. vote, which he described as an “attack on Zionism and the State of Israel.” Sunday’s move came as cheering crowds welcomed Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas back to the West Bank city of Ramallah following his diplomatic victory last week when the Palestinians won non-member state observer status at the U.N. General Assembly.

“The world said yes to the state of Palestine, yes to the freedom of Palestine, yes to the independence of Palestine, no to aggression, settlements and occupation,” Abbas told some 5,000 people to wild applause. The Palestinian president warned of “creative punishments” by Israel, referring to the latest settlement construction plans. Friday’s announcement of 3,000 new homes on Israeli-occupied land is especially contentious as building in the area near East Jerusalem known as E1 could obstruct the ultimate creation of a contiguous Palestinian state because it cuts through the West Bank.

The construction would connect the large Jewish settlement of Maale Adumim to Jerusalem, dividing the West Bank in two. The Palestinian cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem would be cut off from East Jerusalem. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Saturday Israeli plans for new settlements abutting East Jerusalem “set back the cause of a negotiated peace.” Britain and France urged Israel to rescind the decision, and other European states also denounced it.  Actual construction could be years away, if it takes place at all. Israeli Housing Minister Ariel Attias told Army Radio on Sunday, “There is no decision to build. There is a decision to plan. You can’t build an apartment without planning.”

Source = Voice of America

Resolution 471: ” … ‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

United Nations General Assembly resolutions

• 1947:
  • November 29: UN General Assembly Resolution 181: Recommending partition of the British Mandate for Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, and the City of Jerusalem.
• 1948:
  • November 19: UN General Assembly Resolution 212: Assistance to Palestinian refugees
  • December 11: UN General Assembly Resolution 194: establishes Conciliation Commission
• 1949:
  • May 11: UN General Assembly Resolution 273: admission of Israel to membership in the UN
  • December 8: UN General Assembly Resolution 302(IV): Assistance to Palestine refugees
  • December 9: UN General Assembly Resolution 303(IV): International Regime for Jerusalem
  • December 10: UN General Assembly Resolution 356: Jerusalem
• 1950:
  • December 2: UN General Assembly Resolution 393: Assistance to Palestinian refugees
  • December 14: UN General Assembly Resolution 394 (V): Calls for Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, and a solution for Palestinian refugees.
  • December 14: UN General Assembly Resolution 468: Reduces financing for an international regime in Jerusalem.
• 1952:
  • January 26: UN General Assembly Resolution 512: Report of the United Nations Concilation Commission for Palestine.
  • January 26: UN General Assembly Resolution 513: Assistance to Palestinian refugees.
  • November 6: UN General Assembly Resolution 614: Assistance to Palestinian refugees.
  • December 21: UN General Assembly Resolution 619: “Takes note” of Israel’s complaint against Arab ceasefire violations.
  • November 25: UN General Assembly Resolution 660: Report of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA).
• 1953:
  • November 27: UN General Assembly Resolution 720: Assistance to Palestinian refugees.
  • November 27: UN General Assembly Resolution 766: Accounts of UNRWA.
• 1954:
  • December 4: UN General Assembly Resolutiom 818: Assistance to Palestinian refugees.
  • December 4: UN General Assembly Resolution 879: Accounts of UNRWA.
• 1955:
  • December 3: UN General Assembly Resolution 916: Assistance to Palestinian refugees.
  • December 3: UN General Assembly Resolution 964: Accounts of UNRWA.
• 1956:
  • November 2: UN General Assembly Resolution 997: Called for an immediate ceasefire in the Suez Crisis, an arms embargo on the area, and condemned Israel’s participation in the conflict as a violation of the 1949 Israel-Egypt General Armistice Agreement.
  • November 4: UN General Assembly Resolution 998: Called for the Secretary-General to submit a plan for a United Nations peacekeeping force to secure and supervise a ceasefire in the Suez Crisis.
  • November 4: UN General Assembly Resolution 999: Reaffirmed UN General Assembly Resolution 997.
  • November 5: UN General Assembly Resolution 1000: UN Force for Sinai.
  • November 7: UN General Assembly Resolution 1001: UN Force for Sinai.
  • November 7: UN General Assembly Resolution 1002: Calls for an unconditional Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai.
  • November 10: UN General Assembly Resolution 1003: The Suez Crisis.
  • November 24: UN General Assembly Resolution 1120: The Suez Crisis.
  • November 24: UN General Assembly Resolution 1121: The Suez Crisis.
  • November 26: UN General Assembly Resolution 1122: The Suez Crisis.
  • November 26: UN General Assembly Resolution 1089: Regarding the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF).
  • December 21: UN General Assembly Resolution 1081: Accounts of UNRWA.
• 1957:
  • January 19: UN General Assembly Resolution 1123: The Suez Crisis.
  • February 2: UN General Assembly Resolution 1124: The Suez Crisis.
  • February 2: UN General Assembly Resolution 1125: The Suez Crisis.
  • February 22: UN General Assembly Resolution 1126: The Suez Crisis.
  • February 27: UN General Assembly Resolution 1090: Administrative and financial arrangements for the UNEF.
  • February 27: UN General Assembly Resolution 1091: Palestinian refugees.
  • February 28: UN General Assembly Resolution 1018: Palestinian refugees.
  • November 22: UN General Assembly Resolution 1151: UNEF.
  • December 12: UN General Assembly Resolution 1191.html: Palestinian refugees.
• 1958:
  • August 21: UN General Assembly Resolution 1237: The Situation in the Middle East.
  • November 14: UN General Assembly Resolution 1263
  • December 12: UN General Assembly Resolution 1315: Palestinian refugees.
  • December 13: UN General Assembly Resolution 1337: Cost estimates for the UNEF.
• 1959:
  • November 17: UN General Assembly Resolution 1365: Accounts of UNRWA.
  • December 5: UN General Assembly Resolution 1441: UNEF.
  • December 5: UN General Assembly Resolution 1442: Approvement of Major-General Gyani as commander of the UNEF.
  • December 9: UN General Assembly Resolution 1456: UNRWA.
• 1960:
  • December 18: UN General Assembly Resolution 1545: Accounts of UNRWA.
  • December 20: UN General Assembly Resolution 1575: Cost estimates for the UNEF.
• 1961:
  • April 21: UN General Assembly Resolution 1604: Palestinian refugees
  • October 30: General Assembly Resolution 1636: Accounts of UNRWA.
  • December 20: UN General Assembly Resolution 1725: Palestinian refugees
  • December 20: UN General Assembly Resolution 1733: Cost estimates for the UNEF.
• 1962:
  • December 11: UN General Assembly Resolution 1789: Accounts of UNRWA.
  • December 20: UN General Assembly Resolution 1856: Palestinian refugees
  • December 20: UN General Assembly Resolution 1864: UNEF.
• 1963
  • June 27: UN Special Assembly Resolution 1874.
  • June 27: UN Special Assembly Resolution 1875.
  • November 6: UN General Assembly Resolution 1890-C: Accounts of UNRWA.
  • December 3: UN General Assembly Resolution 1912: Palestinian refugees
  • December 17: UN General Assembly Resolution 1983 UNEF.
• 1965:
  • February 10: UN General Assembly Resolution 2002: Palestinian refugees
  • December 13: UN General Assembly Resolution 2047-C: Accounts of UNRWA.
  • December 13: UN General Assembly Resolution 2048-C: Accounts of UNRWA.
  • December 15: General Assembly Resolution 2052: UNRWA Report.
  • December 21: UN General Assembly Resolution 2115: UNEF.
• 1966:
  • October 26: UN General Assembly Resolution 2139-C: Accounts of UNRWA.
  • November 17: UN General Assembly Resolution 2154: Palestinian refugees.
  • December 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 2194: UNEF.
• 1967:
  • July 4: UN General Assembly Resolution 2252: Humanitarian assistance in the 1967 war.
  • July 4: UN General Assembly Resolution 2253 (ES-V): Condemns Israel’s measures to change the status of Jerusalem as invalid
  • July 14: UN General Assembly Resolution 2254: “Deplores” Israel’s failure to abide by UN General Assembly Resolution 2253 (ES-V)
  • July 21: UN General Assembly Resolution 2256: The Situation in the Middle East
  • September 18: UN General Assembly Resolution 2257: The Situation in the Middle East.
  • November 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 2264-D: Accounts of UNRWA.
  • December 13: UN General Assembly Resolution 2304: UNEF.
  • December 19: UN General Assembly Resolution 2341: Palestinian refugees
• 1968:
  • November 1: UN General Assembly Resolution 2380-D: Accounts of UNRWA.
  • December 19: UN General Assembly Resolution 2443: Establishes the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People.
  • December 19: UN General Assembly Resolution 2452: UNRWA Report.
• 1969:
  • December 5: UN General Assembly Resolution 2522-D: Accounts of UNRWA.
  • December 10: UN General Assembly Resolution 2535: UNRWA Report. “Reaffirms” the “inalienable rights” of the Palestinian people and requests the Security Council to take “effective measures” to force implementation of previous UN resolutions
  • December 11: UN General Assembly Resolution 2546: Condemns Israeli “violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms” in the occupied territories
• 1970:
  • November 4: UN General Assembly Resolution 2628: Urges the speedy implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 and recognizes that “respect for the rights of the Palestinians is an indisputable element in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East”
  • December 4: UN General Assembly Resolution 2653-D: Accounts of UNRWA.
  • December 5: UN General Assembly Resolution 2727: Calls on Israel implement the recommendations of the UN special committee investigating Israeli practices in the occupied territories
  • December 7: UN General Assembly Resolution 2656: Establishment of a working group for the financing of UNRWA.
  • December 8: UN General Assembly Resolution 2672: UNRWA Report.
  • December 15: UN General Assembly Resolution 2728: Report of the Special Committee to investigate Israeli practices affecting the Human Rights of the population of the Occupied Territories.
  • December 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 2729: Report of the working group on the financing of the UNRWA.
• 1971:
  • November 8: UN General Assembly Resolution 2756-D: Accounts of UNRWA.
  • December 6: UN General Assembly Resolution 2791: Working group for the financing of UNRWA.
  • December 6: UN General Assembly Resolution 2792: UNRWA Report. Calls for the implementation of UN General Assembly Resolution 194, stresses the “inalienable rights of the people of Palestine”, and calls on Israel to stop resettling the inhabitants of Palestinian refugee camps.
  • December 13: UN General Assembly Resolution 2799: The Situation in the Middle East.
  • December 20: UN General Assembly Resolution 2851: Report of the Special Committee to investigate Israeli practices affecting the Human Rights of the population of the Occupied Territories. Condemns Israeli practices in the occupied territories.
• 1972:
  • November 9: UN General Assembly Resolution 2912-D: Accounts of UNRWA.
  • December 8: UN General Assembly Resolution 2949: The Situation in the Middle East.
  • December 13: UN General Assembly Resolution 2963: UNRWA Report.
  • December 13: UN General Assembly Resolution 2964: Working Group on the financing of UNRWA.
  • December 15: UN General Assembly Resolution 3005: Report of the Special Committee to investigate Israeli practices affecting the Human Rights of the population of the Occupied Territories.
• 1973:
  • October 17: UN General Assembly Resolution 3053-D: Accounts of UNRWA.
  • December 7: UN General Assembly Resolution 3089: UNRWA Report.
  • December 7: UN General Assembly Resolution 3090: Working Group on the financing of UNRWA.
  • December 7: UN General Assembly Resolution 3092: Report of the Special Committee to investigate Israeli practices affecting the Human Rights of the population of the Occupied Territories.
  • December 11: UN General Assembly Resolution 3101: Financing of the UNEF.
  • December 17: UN General Assembly Resolution 3175: Permanent sovereignty over natural resources in the occupied Arab territories.
• 1974:
  • October 14: UN General Assembly Resolution 3210: Invites the PLO to participate in General Assembly deliberations on the question of Palestine.
  • October 31 and November 29: UN General Assembly Resolution 3211: Financing of the UNEF and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF).
  • November 12: UN General Assembly Resolution 3227-D: Accounts of UNRWA.
  • November 22: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3236: Recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights, including the right to self-determination and the right of return.
  • November 22: UN General Assembly Resolution 3237: Observer status for the PLO.
  • November 29: UN General Assembly Resolution 3240: Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.
  • December 9: UN General Assembly Resolution 3263: Calling for an establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
  • December 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 3330: Working Group on the financing of UNRWA.
  • December 17: UN General Assembly Resolution 3331: UNRWA Report.
  • December 17: UN General Assembly Resolution 3336: Permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied Arab territories.
• 1975:
  • October 30: UN General Assembly Resolution 3370-C: Accounts of UNRWA.
  • October 30, November 28 and December 2: UN General Assembly Resolution 3374: Financing of the UNEF and the UNDOF.
  • November 10: UN General Assembly Resolution 3375: Invitation to the Palestine Liberation Organization to participate in the efforts for peace in the Middle East.
  • November 10: UN General Assembly Resolution 3376: Founding of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP).
  • November 10: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379: equating Zionism with racism.
  • December 5: UN General Assembly Resolution 3414: Calls for economic sanctions and an arms embargo on Israel until it withdraws from all territories occupied in 1967 and grants the Palestinians their “inalienable national rights”.
  • December 8: UN General Assembly Resolution 3419: UNRWA report.
  • December 11: General Assembly Resolution 3474: Calling for an establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
  • December 15: UN General Assembly Resolution 3516: Permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied Arab territories.
  • December 15: UN General Assembly Resolution 3525: Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.
• 1976:
  • November 9: UN General Assembly Resolution 31/6-E: Condemnation of the collaboration of Israel and South Africa.
  • November 23: UN General Assembly Resolution 31/15: UNRWA Report.
  • November 24: UN General Assembly Resolution 31/20: Expresses deep concern that no “just solution” to the “problem of Palestine” has been achieved, refers to the problem as the core of the Middle East conflict, and reaffirms the “inalienable rights” of the Palestinians, including the right of return and the right to national independence.
  • November 29: UN General Assembly Resolution 31/22-F: Accounts of UNRWA.
  • December 1: UN General Assembly Resolution 31/5: Financing of the UNEF and the UNDOF.
  • December 9: UN General Assembly Resolution 31/61: Reaffirms previous condemnations of Israel, and calls for the Security Council to take “effective measures” against Israel, and requests sanctions on Israel.
  • December 9: UN General Assembly Resolution 31/62: Calls for an international Middle East peace conference under the auspices of the UN and co-chaired by the United States and Soviet Union.
  • December 10: UN General Assembly Resolution 31/71: Calling for an establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
  • December 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 31/106: Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Occupied Territories.
  • December 21: UN General Assembly Resolution 31/186: Permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied Arab territories.
• 1977:
  • October 25 and December 2: UN General Assembly Resolution 32/4: Financing of the UNEF and the UNDOF.
  • October 28: UN General Assembly Resolution 32/5: Reaffirms previous condemnations of Israel, and stresses the “urgent need” to achieve a “just and lasting peace in the Middle East”.
  • November 25: UN General Assembly Resolution 32/20: Reaffirms previous calls for a full Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and an international peace conference with PLO participation.
  • December 2: UN General Assembly Resolution 32/40: Reaffirms the “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people”, including the right to national sovereignty and the right of return.
  • December 12: UN General Assembly Resolution 32/82: Calling for an establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
  • December 13: UN General Assembly Resolution 32/90: UNRWA report.
  • December 13: UN General Assembly Resolution 32/91: Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories. Calls on Israel to respect the Geneva Conventions
  • December 15: UN General Assembly Resolution 32/111: Health needs of Palestinian refugee children.
  • December 19: UN General Assembly Resolution 32/161: Permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied Arab territories.
  • December 19: UN General Assembly Resolution 32/171: Living conditions of the Palestinian people.
  • December 21: General Assembly Resolution 32/212-III: Implications of extending to certain former staff members coverage by the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund for service with UNRWA.
• 1978:
  • November 3: UN General Assembly Resolution 33/13: Financing of the UNEF and the UNDOF.
  • December 7: UN General Assembly Resolution 33/28: CEIRPP report.
  • December 7: UN General Assembly Resolution 33/29: Reaffirms previous calls for a full Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and an international peace conference with PLO participation.
  • December 14: UN General Assembly Resolution 33/64: Calling for an establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
  • December 14: UN General Assembly Resolution 33/71-A: Expressing concern over military build-up and attemepts of acquiring nuclear weapons of Israel. Calling for arms embargo against Israel.
  • December 15: UN General Assembly Resolution 33/81: Health needs of Palestinian refugee children.
  • December 18: UN General Assembly Resolution 33/110: Living conditions of the Palestinian people.
  • December 18: UN General Assembly Resolution 33/112: UNRWA report.
  • December 18: UN General Assembly Resolution 33/113: Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.
  • December 20: UN General Assembly Resolution 33/147: Assistance to the Palestinian people.
• 1979:
  • January 24: UN General Assembly Resolution 33/183-D: Demanding that Israel terminate all form of collaboration with South Africa.
  • October 25, December 3 and December 17: UN General Assembly Resolution 34/7: Financing of the UNEF and the UNDOF.
  • November 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 34/29: Expressing concern over the deportation of the Bassam Shakaa, Mayor of Nablus, by Israel.
  • November 23: UN General Assembly Resolution 34/52: UNRWA report.
  • November 29 and December 12: UN General Assembly Resolution 34/65: CEIRPP report.
  • December 6: UN General Assembly Resolution 34/70: Reaffirms previous calls for a full Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and an international peace conference with PLO participation.
  • December 11: UN General Assembly Resolution 34/77: Calling for an establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
  • December 11: UN General Assembly Resolution 34/89: Israeli nuclear armament.
  • December 12: UN General Assembly Resolution 34/90: Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.
  • December 12: UN General Assembly Resolution 34/93-P: Demanding that Israel terminate all form of collaboration with South Africa.
  • December 14: UN General Assembly Resolution 34/113: Living conditions of the Palestinian people.
  • December 14: UN General Assembly Resolution 34/133: Assistance to the Palestinian people.
  • December 14: UN General Assembly Resolution 34/136: Permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied Arab territories.
• 1980:
  • November 3: UN General Assembly Resolution 35/13: UNRWA report.
  • December 1: UN General Assembly Resolution 35/45: Financing of UNDOF.
  • December 5: UN General Assembly Resolution 35/75: Living conditions of the Palestinian people.
  • December 5: UN General Assembly Resolution 35/110: Permanent sovereignty over national ressources in the occupied Arab territories.
  • December 5: UN General Assembly Resolution 35/111: Assistance to the Palestinian people.
  • December 11: UN General Assembly Resolution 35/122: Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.
  • December 12: UN General Assembly Resolution 35/147: Calling for an establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
  • December 12: UN General Assembly Resolution 35/157: Israeli nuclear armament.
  • December 15: UN General Assembly Resolution 35/169: CEIRPP report.
  • December 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 35/206-H: Demanding that Israel terminate all form of collaboration with South Africa.
  • December 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 35/207: Reaffirms previous calls for a full Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state.
• 1981:
  • October 28: UN General Assembly Resolution 36/15: Demanding that Israel desist any archeological excavations in the Temple Mount.
  • November 13: UN General Assembly Resolution 36/27: Condamns Israeli attack on Iraqi nuclear facilities and demands Israel to compensate Iraq.
  • Novemver 30: UN General Assembly Resolution 36/66: Financing of UNDOF.
  • December 4: UN General Assembly Resolution 36/70: Assistance to the Palestinian people.
  • December 4: UN General Assembly Resolution 36/73: Living conditions of the Palestinian people.
  • December 9: UN General Assembly Resolution 36/87: Calling for an establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
  • December 9: UN General Assembly Resolution 36/98: Israeli nuclear armament. Demands that Israel renounce possession of nuclear weapons and submit its facilities to inspection.
  • December 10: UN General Assembly Resolution 36/120: CEIRPP report.
  • December 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 36/146: UNRWA report.
  • December 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 36/147: Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.
  • December 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 36/150: Demands Israel to cease planning of a canal between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean.
  • December 17: UN General Assembly Resolution 36/172-M: Demanding that Israel terminate all form of collaboration with South Africa.
  • December 17: UN General Assembly Resolution 36/173: Permanent sovereignty over national ressources in the occupied Arab territories.
  • December 17: UN General Assembly Resolutions 36/226 A & B: Reaffirms previous calls for a full Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state.
• 1982:
  • February 5: UN General Assembly Ninth Emergency Special Session ES/9-1: The situation in the occupied Arab territories.
  • November 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 37/18: Condamns Israel refusal to implement Security Council resolution 487, and demands Israel to withdraw its threat to attack nuclear facilities of neighbouring nations.
  • November 30: UN General Assembly Resolution 37/38: Financing of UNDOF.
  • December 9: UN General Assembly Resolution 37/75: Calling for an establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
  • December 9: UN General Assembly Resolution 37/82: Israeli nuclear armament.
  • December 10: UN General Assembly Resolution 37/86: CEIRPP report.
  • December 10: UN General Assembly Resolution 37/88: Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.
  • December 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 37/120: UNRWA report.
  • December 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 37/122: Demands Israel not to build a canal between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean.
  • December 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 37/123: Condemnation of Israel on various topics including occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights, war in Lebanon and the annexation of Jerusalem.
  • December 17: UN General Assembly Resolution 37/134: Assistance to the Palestinian people.
  • December 17: UN General Assembly Resolution 37/135: Permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories.
  • December 20: UN General Assembly Resolution 37/222: Living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories.

• 1983:
  • November 10: UN General Assembly Resolution 38/9: Reiterates the demand that Israel withdraw its threat to attack nuclear facilities of neighbouring nations.
  • December 1: UN General Assembly Resolution 38/35: Financing of UNDOF.
  • December 5: UN General Assembly Resolution 38/39-F: Demanding that Israel terminate all form of collaboration with South Africa.
  • December 13: UN General Assembly Resolution 38/58: CEIRPP report.
  • December 13: UN General Assembly Resolution 38/64: Calling for an establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
  • December 15: UN General Assembly Resolution 38/69: Israeli nuclear armament.
  • December 15: UN General Assembly Resolutions 38/79: Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.
  • December 15: UN General Assembly Resolution 38/83: UNRWA report.
  • December 15: UN General Assembly Resolution 38/85: Demands Israel not to build a canal between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean.
  • December 19: UN General Assembly Resolution 38/144: Permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories.
  • December 19: UN General Assembly Resolution 38/145: Assistance to the Palestinian people.
  • December 19: UN General Assembly Resolution 38/166: Living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories.
  • December 19: UN General Assembly Resolutions 38/180: Calls all nation to suspend or sever all diplomatic, economic and technological ties with Israel. Condemnation of Israel on various topics including occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights, war in Lebanon and the annexation of Jerusalem.

• 1984:
  • November 23: UN General Assembly Resolution 39/14: Reiterates the demand that Israel withdraw its threat to attack nuclear facilities of neighbouring nations.
  • November 30: UN General Assembly Resolution 39/28: Financing of UNDOF.
  • December 11: UN General Assembly Resolution 39/49: CEIRPP report.
  • December 12: UN General Assembly Resolution 39/54: Calling for an establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
  • December 13: UN General Assembly Resolution 39/72-C: Demanding that Israel terminate all form of collaboration with South Africa.
  • December 14: UN General Assembly Resolutions 39/95: Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.
  • December 14: UN General Assembly Resolutions 39/99: UNRWA report.
  • December 14: UN General Assembly Resolution 39/101: Demands Israel not to build a canal between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean.
  • December 14: UN General Assembly Resolution 39/146: Reaffirmation of resolution 38/180 condemning Israel and calling all nations to cut ties with it.
  • December 17: UN General Assembly Resolution 39/147: Israeli nuclear armament.
  • December 17: UN General Assembly Resolution 39/169: Living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories.
  • December 18: UN General Assembly Resolution 39/223: Economic development projects in the occupied Palestinian territories.
  • December 18: UN General Assembly Resolution 39/224: Assistance to the Palestinian people.

• 1985:
  • November 1: UN General Assembly Resolution 40/6: Reaffirmation of the condemnation of Israel on its attack on Iraqi nuclear facility.
  • December 2: UN General Assembly Resolution 40/59: Financing of UNDOF.
  • December 10: UN General Assembly Resolution 40/64-E: Demanding that Israel terminate all form of collaboration with South Africa.
  • December 12: UN General Assembly Resolution 40/82: Calling for an establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
  • December 12: UN General Assembly Resolution 40/93: Israeli nuclear armament.
  • December 12: UN General Assembly Resolution 40/96: CEIRPP report.
  • December 16: UN General Assembly Resolutions 40/161: Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.
  • December 16: UN General Assembly Resolutions 40/165: UNRWA report.
  • December 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 40/167: Decides to monitor Israel decision to construct a canal between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean.
  • December 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 40/168: Reaffirmation of resolution 38/180 condemning Israel and calling all nations to cut ties with it.
  • December 17: UN General Assembly Resolution 40/169: Economic development projects in the occupied Palestinian territories.
  • December 17: UN General Assembly Resolution 40/170: Assistance to the Palestinian people.
  • December 17: UN General Assembly Resolution 40/201: Living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories.

• 1986:
  • October 29: UN General Assembly Resolution 41/12: Calling Israel to place its nuclear facilities under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
  • November 10: UN General Assembly Resolution 41/35-C: Demanding that Israel terminate all form of collaboration with South Africa.
  • December 2: UN General Assembly Resolution 41/43: CEIRPP report.
  • December 3: UN General Assembly Resolution 41/44: Financing of UNDOF.
  • December 3: UN General Assembly Resolution 41/48: Calling for an establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
  • December 3: UN General Assembly Resolutions 41/63: Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.
  • December 3: UN General Assembly Resolutions 41/69: UNRWA report.
  • December 4: UN General Assembly Resolution 41/93: Israeli nuclear armament.
  • December 4: UN General Assembly Resolution 41/162: Reaffirmation of resolution 38/180 condemning Israel and calling all nations to cut ties with it.
  • December 8: UN General Assembly Resolution 41/181: Assistance to the Palestinian people.

• 1987:
  • November 20: UN General Assembly Resolution 42/23-D: Demanding that Israel terminate all form of collaboration with South Africa.
  • November 30: UN General Assembly Resolution 42/28: Calling for an establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
  • November 30: UN General Assembly Resolution 42/44: Israeli nuclear armament.
  • December 2: UN General Assembly Resolution 42/66: CEIRPP report.
  • December 2: UN General Assembly Resolutions 42/69: UNRWA report.
  • December 3: UN General Assembly Resolution 42/70: Financing of UNDOF.
  • December 8: UN General Assembly Resolutions 42/160: Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.
  • December 11: UN General Assembly Resolution 42/166: Assistance to the Palestinian people.
  • December 11: UN General Assembly Resolution 42/190: Living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories.
  • December 11: UN General Assembly Resolution 42/209: Reaffirmation of resolution 38/180 condemning Israel and calling all nations to cut ties with it.

• 1988:
  • April 20: UN General Assembly Resolution 43/233: Expressing shock over killing of Palestinian civilians in Nahalin.
  • November 3: UN General Assembly Resolution 43/21: The uprising (Intifada) of the Palestinian people.
  • December 5: UN General Assembly Resolution 43/50-E: Demanding that Israel terminate all form of collaboration with South Africa.
  • December 6: UN General Assembly Resolution 43/54: Reaffirmation of resolution 38/180 condemning Israel and calling all nations to cut ties with it.
  • December 6: UN General Assembly Resolutions 43/57: UNRWA report.
  • December 6: UN General Assembly Resolutions 43/58: Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.
  • December 7: UN General Assembly Resolution 43/65: Calling for an establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
  • December 7: UN General Assembly Resolution 43/80: Israeli nuclear armament.
  • December 15: UN General Assembly Resolution 43/175: CEIRPP report.
  • December 15: UN General Assembly Resolution 43/176: International Peace Conference; principles for peace
  • December 15: UN General Assembly Resolution 43/177: Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine on 15 November 1988.
  • December 20: UN General Assembly Resolution 43/178: Assistance to the Palestinian people.
  • December 21: UN General Assembly Resolution 43/228: Financing of UNDOF.

• 1991:
  • December 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 4686: annulled Res. 3379

United Nations Security Council resolutions

• Resolution 42: The Palestine Question (5 March 1948) Requests recommendations for the Palestine Commission
• Resolution 43: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Recognizes “increasing violence and disorder in Palestine” and requests that representatives of “the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the Arab Higher Committee” arrange, with the Security Council, “a truce between the Arab and Jewish Communities of Palestine…Calls upon Arab and Jewish armed groups in Palestine to cease acts of violence immediately.”
• Resolution 44: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Requests convocation of special session of the General Assembly
• Resolution 46: The Palestine Question (17 Apr 1948) As the United Kingdom is the Mandatory Power, “it is responsible for the maintenance of peace and order in Palestine.” The Resolutions also “Calls upon all persons and organizations in Palestine” to stop importing “armed bands and fighting personnel…whatever their origin;…weapons and war materials;…Refrain, pending the future government of Palestine…from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community;…refrain from any action which will endanger the safety of the Holy Places in Palestine.”
• Resolution 48: April 23, 1948, calls on all concerned parties to comply with UNSC Resolution 46 and establishes a Truce Commission for Palestine to assist the SC in implementing the truce. Approved 8-0, abstentions from Colombia, Ukrainian SSR and USSR.
• Resolution 49: May 22, 1948 issues a cease-fire order to come into effect at noon, May 24, 1948, New York time. Orders the Truce Commission for Palestine previously set up to report on compliance. Adopted by 8-0, abstentions from Ukrainian SSR, USSR and Syria.
• Resolution 50: May 29, 1948, calls for a four week ceasefire covering Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Transjordan and Yemen. Urges all to protect the Holy Places and Jerusalem. Offers the UN Mediator as many military observers as necessary. Further violations and the Council would consider action under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Adopted in parts; no voting on the resolution as a whole.
• Resolution 53: The Palestine Question (7 Jul 1948)
• Resolution 54: The Palestine Question (15 Jul 1948)
• Resolution 56: The Palestine Question (19 Aug 1948)
• Resolution 57: The Palestine Question (18 Sep 1948)
• Resolution 59: The Palestine Question (19 Oct 1948)
• Resolution 60: The Palestine Question (29 Oct 1948)
• Resolution 61: The Palestine Question (4 Nov 1948)
• Resolution 62: The Palestine Question (16 Nov 1948)
• Resolution 66: The Palestine Question (29 Dec 1948)
• Resolution 72: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
• Resolution 73: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
• Resolution 89 (17 November 1950): regarding Armistice in 1948 Arab-Israeli War and “transfer of persons”.
• Resolution 92: The Palestine Question (8 May 1951)
• Resolution 93: The Palestine Question (18 May 1951)
• Resolution 95: The Palestine Question (1 Sep 1951)
• Resolution 100: The Palestine Question (27 Oct 1953)
• Resolution 101: The Palestine Question (24 Nov 1953)
• Resolution 106: The Palestine Question (29 Mar 1955) ‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid.
• Resolution 107: The Palestine Question (30 March)
• Resolution 108: The Palestine Question (8 September)
• Resolution 111: The Palestine Question (January 19, 1956) ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people”.
• Resolution 113: The Palestine Question (4 April)
• Resolution 114: The Palestine Question (4 June)
• Resolution 127: The Palestine Question (January 22, 1958) ” … ‘recommends’ Israel suspends its ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem”.
• Resolution 138: (June 23, 1960) Question relating to the case of Israel’s capture of Adolf Eichmann, concerning Argentina‘s complaint that Israel breached its sovereignty.
• Resolution 162: The Palestine Question (April 11, 1961) ” … ‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions”.
• Resolution 171: The Palestine Question (April 9, 1962) ” … determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria”.
• Resolution 228: The Palestine Question (November 25, 1966) ” … ‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control”.
• Resolution 233 Six Day War (June 6, 1967)
• Resolution 234 Six Day War (June 7, 1967)
• Resolution 235 Six Day War (June 9, 1967)
• Resolution 236 Six Day War (June 11, 1967)
• Resolution 237: Six Day War June 14, 1967) ” … ‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees”. and called on Israel to ensure the safety and welfare of inhabitants of areas where fighting had taken place.
• Resolution 240 (October 25, 1967): concerning violations of the cease-fire
• Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967): Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area. Calls on Israel’s neighbors to end the state of belligerency and calls upon Israel to reciprocate by withdraw its forces from land claimed by other parties in 1967 war. Interpreted commonly today as calling for the Land for peace principle as a way to resolve Arab-Israeli conflict
• Resolution 248: (March 24, 1968) ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan”.
• Resolution 250: (April 27) ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem”.
• Resolution 251: (May 2) ” … ‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250″.
• Resolution 252: (May 21) ” … ‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital”.
• Resolution 256: (August 16) ” … ‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation”.
• Resolution 258: (September 18) … expressed ‘concern’ with the welfare of the inhabitants of the Israeli-occupied territories, and requested a special representative to be sent to report on the implementation of Resolution 237, and that Israel cooperate.
• Resolution 259: (September 27) ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation”.
• Resolution 262: (December 31) ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport“.
• Resolution 265: (April 1, 1969) ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on Salt“.
• Resolution 267: (July 3) ” … ‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem”.
• Resolution 270: (August 26) ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon”.
• Resolution 271: (September 15) ” … ‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem”.
• Resolution 279: (May 12, 1970) “Demands the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory.”(full text)
• Resolution 280: (May 19) ” … ‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon”.
• Resolution 285: (September 5) ” … ‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon”.
• Resolution 298: (September 25, 1971) ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem”.
• Resolution 313: (February 28, 1972) ” … ‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon”.
• Resolution 316: (June 26) ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon”.
• Resolution 317: (July 21) ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon”.
• Resolution 331: (April 20, 1973)
• Resolution 332: (April 21) ” … ‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon”.
• Resolution 337: (August 15) ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and for the forcible diversion and seizure of a Lebanese airliner from Lebanon’s air space”.
• Resolution 338 (22 October 1973): ” …’calls’ for a cease fire” in Yom Kippur War and “the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts”, and “Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations shall start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.”
• Resolution 339 (23 October 1973): Confirms Res. 338, dispatch UN observers.
• Resolution 340 (25 October): “Demands that immediate and complete cease-fire be observed, per 338 and 339, and requests to increase the number of United Nations military observers
• Resolution 341 (27 October): “Approves the report on the implementation resolution 340
• Resolution 344 (15 December)
• Resolution 346 (April 8, 1974)
• Resolution 347: (April 24)” … ‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon”.
• Resolution 350 (31 May 1974) established the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, to monitor the ceasefire between Israel and Syria in the wake of the Yom Kippur War.
• Resolution 362 (October 23) decides to extend the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force for another six months
• Resolution 363 (November 29)
• Resolution 368 (April 17, 1975), called on the parties involved in the prevailing state of tension in the Middle East to immediately implement Resolution 338.
• Resolution 369 (May 28, 1975), expressed concern over the prevailing state of tension in the Middle East, reaffirmed that the two previous agreements were only a step towards the implementation of Resolution 338 and called on the parties to implement it, and extended the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
• Resolution 371, expressed concern at a lack of progress towards a lasting peace in the Middle East.
• Resolution 378, called for the implementation of Resolution 338 and extended the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force.
• Resolution 381, expressed concern over continued tensions, extended the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force, and scheduled a later meeting to continue the debate on the Middle East.
• Resolution 390, considered a report regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force and extended its mandate, noted the efforts to establish peace in the Middle East, but expressed concern over the prevailing state of tensions, and called for the implementation of Resolution 338.
• Resolution 396
• Resolution 408
• Resolution 416
• Resolution 420, regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
• Resolution 425 (1978): ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon”. Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon was completed by 16 June 2000.
• Resolution 426, established the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
• Resolution 427: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon”.
• Resolution 429
• Resolution 434, renewed the mandate of UNIFIL and called upon Israel and Lebanon to implement prior resolutions.
• Resolution 438
• Resolution 441
• Resolution 444: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces”.
• Resolution 446 (1979): ‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.
• Resolution 449, regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
• Resolution 450: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon”.
• Resolution 452: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories”.
• Resolution 456, regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
• Resolution 459, regarding UNIFIL.
• Resolution 465: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program”.
• Resolution 467: ” … ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon”.
• Resolution 468: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return”.
• Resolution 469: ” … ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians”.
• Resolution 470, regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
• Resolution 471: ” … ‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.
• Resolution 474, regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
• Resolution 476: ” … ‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claim to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’”.
• Resolution 478 (20 August 1980): ‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’.
• Resolution 481, regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
• Resolution 483, noted the continuing need for UNIFIL given the situation between Israel and Lebanon, and extended its mandate.
• Resolution 484: ” … ‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors”.
• Resolution 485, regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
• Resolution 487: ” … ‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility”.
• Resolution 488, regarding UNIFIL.
• Resolution 493, regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
• Resolution 497 (17 December 1981), decides that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.
• Resolution 498: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon”.
• Resolution 501: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops”.
• Resolution 506, regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
• Resolution 508: demanded an end to hostilities between Israel and the PLO taking place in Lebanon, and called for a cease-fire.
• Resolution 509: ” … ‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon”.
• Resolution 511, extended the mandate of UNIFIL.
• Resolution 515: ” … ‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in”.
• Resolution 516, demanded an immediate cessation of military activities in Lebanon, noting violations of the cease-fire in Beirut.
• Resolution 517: ” … ‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon”.
• Resolution 518: ” … ‘demands’ that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon”.
• Resolution 519, extended the mandate of UNIFIL, and authorized it to carry out humanitarian tasks.
• Resolution 520: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut”.
• Resolution 523
• Resolution 524
• Resolution 529
• Resolution 531
• Resolution 536
• Resolution 538
• Resolution 543
• Resolution 549
• Resolution 551
• Resolution 555
• Resolution 557
• Resolution 561
• Resolution 563
• Resolution 573: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
• Resolution 575
• Resolution 576
• Resolution 583
• Resolution 584
• Resolution 586
• Resolution 587 ” … ‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw”.
• Resolution 590
• Resolution 592: ” … ‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students at Birzeit University by Israeli troops”.
• Resolution 594
• Resolution 596
• Resolution 599
• Resolution 603
• Resolution 605: ” … ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
• Resolution 607: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
• Resolution 608: ” … ‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians”.
• Resolution 609
• Resolution 611: “… condemned Israel’s assassination of Khalil al-Wazir as a ‘flagrant violation of the Charter‘
• Resolution 613
• Resolution 617
• Resolution 624
• Resolution 630
• Resolution 633
• Resolution 636: ” … ‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
• Resolution 639 (31 Jul 1989)
• Resolution 641 (30 Aug 1989): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians.
• Resolution 645 (29 Nov 1989)
• Resolution 648 (31 Jan 1990)[1] The Security Council extends the mandate of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon until July 31, 1990.
• Resolution 655 (31 May 1990)
• Resolution 659 (31 Jul 1990)
• Resolution 672 (12 Oct 1990): ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for “violence against Palestinians” at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
• Resolution 673 (24 Oct 1990): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
• Resolution 679 (30 Nov 1990)
• Resolution 681 (20 Dec 1990): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
• Resolution 684 (30 Jan 1991)
• Resolution 694 (24 May 1991): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
• Resolution 695 (30 May 1991)
• Resolution 701 (31 Jul 1991)
• Resolution 722 (29 Nov 1991)
• Resolution 726 (06 Jan 1992): ” … ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians.
• Resolution 734 (29 Jan 1992)
• Resolution 756 (29 May 1992)
• Resolution 768 (30 Jul 1992)
• Resolution 790 (25 Nov 1992)
• Resolution 799 (18 Dec 1992): “. . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
• Resolution 803 (28 Jan 1993)
• Resolution 830 (26 May 1993)
• Resolution 852 (28 Jul 1993)
• Resolution 887 (29 Nov 1993)
• Resolution 895 (28 Jan 1994)
• Resolution 904 (18 Mar 1994): Cave of the Patriarchs massacre.
• Resolution 938 (28 Jul 1994): extends mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon until January 31, 1995.
• Resolution 1039 (29 Jan 1996)
• Resolution 1052 (18 Apr 1996)
• Resolution 1057 (30 May 1996)
• Resolution 1068 (30 Jul 1996)
• Resolution 1073 (28 Sep 1996)
• Resolution 1081 (27 Nov 1996)
• Resolution 1095 (28 Jan 1997)
• Resolution 1109 (28 May 1997)
• Resolution 1122 (29 Jul 1997)
• Resolution 1139 (21 Nov 1997)
• Resolution 1151 (30 Jan 1998)
• Resolution 1169 (27 May 1998)
• Resolution 1188 (30 Jul 1998)
• Resolution 1211 (25 Nov 1998)
• Resolution 1223 (28 Jan 1999)
• Resolution 1243 (27 May 1999)
• Resolution 1254 (30 Jul 1999)
• Resolution 1276 (24 Nov 1999)
• Resolution 1288 (31 Jan 2000)
• Resolution 1300 (31 May 2000)
• Resolution 1310 (27 Jul 2000)
• Resolution 1322 (07 Oct 2000) deplored Ariel Sharon‘s visit to the Temple Mount and the violence that followed
• Resolution 1328 (27 Nov 2000)
• Resolution 1337 (30 Jan 2001)
• Resolution 1351 (30 May 2001)
• Resolution 1397 (12 Mar 2002) the first resolution to explicitly call for a two-state solution.
• Resolution 1435 (24 Sep 2002) demanded an end to Israeli measures in and around Ramallah, and an Israeli withdrawal to positions held before September 2000.
• Resolution 1559 (2 September 2004) called upon Lebanon to establish its sovereignty over all of its land and called upon Syria to end their military presence in Lebanon by withdrawing its forces and to cease intervening in internal Lebanese politics. The resolution also called on all Lebanese militias to disband.
• Resolution 1583 (28 January 2005) calls on Lebanon to assert full control over its border with Israel. It also states that “the Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for the purpose of confirming Israel’s withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425.
• Resolution 1648 (21 December 2005)
• Resolution 1701 (11 August 2006) called for the full cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah.
• Resolution 1860 (9 January 2009) called for the full cessation of war between Israel and Hamas.

Israel’s Netanyahu urges ‘red line’ over nuclear Iran

Israel’s prime minister has urged the world to draw a “clear red line” over Iran’s nuclear programme. In a speech at the UN, Benjamin Netanyahu said time was running out to stop Tehran from having enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb. Israel and Western countries suspect Iran is seeking such a capability. Tehran says its programme is peaceful. Earlier, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas asked the General Assembly to upgrade the Palestinians’ UN status.

Mr Netanyahu told delegates at the annual meeting of the assembly that Iran could have enough material to make a nuclear bomb by the middle of next year, and a clear message needed to be sent to stop Tehran in its tracks. “Red lines don’t lead to war, red lines prevent war,” he said. “Nothing could imperil the world more than a nuclear-armed Iran.” He said sanctions passed over the past seven years had not affected Tehran’s programme. “The hour is very late,” he told delegates. “The Iranian nuclear calendar does not take time out.” He said he was convinced that faced with a “clear red line, Iran will back down”. He added that he was confident the US and Israel could chart a common path on the issue.

Source = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19746994

Do What Thou Wilt, But Be Prepared to Accept the Consequences

“Although I don’t believe for a second that Netanyahu and Barak are fools, to paraphrase Dave Chappelle they sure fit comfortably into fools’ uniforms.“

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey recently voiced
his strong opposition to an Israeli strike on Iran, explaining his reluctance to be “complicit” in the United States’ slated Iran War. The use of the term “complicit” is important as it is bookended by criminality or evil at the worst end, and wrongfulness at the best. His remarks come amid unconfirmed reports that the Obama administration approached the Iranian leadership through two aonymous European (state) intermediaries with the message that the  US will not back, or be complicit in, an “unilateral” Israeli strike if Iran does not attack US assets in response.

Dempsey

Commentators have naturally taken different positions on the implications with some claiming they will force Netanyahu to scale back his belligerence and others claiming they provide carte blanche to Israel. While I tend toward the first interpretation, the second does make some good points. If, and it’s a crucial if, the US made this overture to Iran it is at its heart predicated on an Israeli first strike, and it’s not like the Obama administration is leveling any concrete threats against Israel given such an attack. But more importantly the Iranians know what kind of jets the Israelis fly and who bought them. The nature of the “special relationship” puts some serious limits on how truthfully one can toss around the term “unilateral.” When you’re getting bombed by American planes it might prove tempting to attack American boats right off the coast or American troops right across the border.

As the geopolitical landscape shifts it’s necessary to return to basic assumptions underlying both the argument for and against war in order to come to an individual opinion based on facts. In an attempt to unpack this fascinatingly complex and dangerous situation dividing these assumptions into categories is helpful. So let’s dive in.

Cultural Assumptions

Your average American citizen has been convinced Iranians are crazy people. This is accepted in an offhanded way, as if the entire argument can be based on the implications of their “radicalism.” Although it’s true Iran/Persia has existed within (and without) its central homeland for thousands of years, and Iranians are a proud, nationalistic population, calling them a “people” (regardless of whether they consider themselves as such) makes them seem monolithic and shortchanges or completely overrides demographic complexity. As of 2011 the Iranian population reached around 75 million people. For comparison Iraq has a population of around 33 million, and Afghanistan of around 36. This relatively large population is only slightly more than half ethnic Persian, followed by around 20% Azeri with the remainder made up mainly of Kurds, Lurs, Turkmen/Turkic tribes, Arabs, and Baloch. On the subject of monoliths, the American view of Iranians is a subset of the American view of the Muslim world in general, which causes many to assume Arabs are our primary foe in Afghanistan. We too often lump issues together (instead of dividing them) in an attempt to understand the world. The simpler the better, but we all know we can clarify a situation without dumbing it down.

Going further, many Americans believe Iranians are a scary people. If you’re crazy and scary you don’t have much going for you as far as the “international community” is concerned. The media attacks. ICBMs! Nukes! America! Israel! Iran! Israel! Iran! Holocaust! Nukes! Holocaust denial! Iran! Israel! Gets annoying right?

Iranians are cast as antiwestern, antisemitic, backwardly fundamentalist lunatics bent on the destruction of everything we hold dear. They’ve held a grudge against Semitic-language speaking people since far before the creation of Israel, with a crucial aspect stemming from the Sunni/Shia (and the propensity of Arab states toward the former) schism which seems much more important with regard to Iranian antisemitism than the Muslim/Judeo-Christian gulf. Iran hasn’t had the best relationship with the Arabs over the years, and with regard to the Israel-Palestine/Arab conflict: everyone’s antisemitic if they unconditionally support one side.

So as far as the antisemitic claim goes there seems to be a strong basis for it. There’s little historical evidence to suggest the Sunni Arabs are looking out for the Shia Iranians’ best, or even mutually beneficial interests. If anything the Arabs, in this sense Saudi and other Gulf Arab states, are hedging their bets in an attempt to manage the eventual Iranian rise to regional power (accelerated by the Bush II administration’s idiotic Iraq War) during and after which they can maintain control over Mecca and Medina, good relations with global powerbrokers, avoidance of economic sanctions stemming from human rights abuses, avoidance of outright conflict with Israel, and above all a combined military superiority over Iran just in case it really comes down to it. People may lose interest when someone starts talking fighter jets but having access to F-15s and AWACS is no joke regardless of whether the Gulf Arabs have never fought a war with all their high technology.

The culturally backwards argument is destroyed immediately. But there is an argument to be made that Persia has one of the most richly compelling and at times enlightened pasts since humans started keeping track of this sort of thing. One of the first monotheistic religions (not that they’re perfect), Zoroastrianism, was born of Iran and attempted to find limits between good and evil. Cyrus the Great, one of the most praiseworthy conquerors of all time was Persian. Alexander virtually worshiped him. He released Jews under Babylonian slavery, decreed their temple rebuilt, offered to pay for it, and is described as a Messiah in Jewish histories. My favorite thing about Cyrus is the way he went out. He proposed to the warrior-queen of the Scythian Massagetae who spurned his advances, so he invaded her territory east of the Caspian. During the climax of the campaign she supposedly killed him in single combat. Who said history couldn’t be romantic?

To a great extent Western history relies on Persian history. How boring would the Macedonians have been without an original counterpart? Alexander might never have been great. The rich history of Persia bleeds into the modern Iranian understanding of the world and it’s necessary to approach the “people” as an extremely complex organism built of different parts that push different ways.

Read more at = http://policyonpoint.com/?p=778

Ex-CIA chief Michael Hayden: “Only the U.S.” can strike Iran nuclear sites
effectively

War With Iran: The Very Real Threat of WWIII Will Come Not From Iran, But From Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was in the United States over the weekend for a United N summit. Nothing out of the normal there. What is out of the normal is that he used his trip to go on television interviews telling demanding that the United States set specific conditions (red lines) on Iran that would trigger military action if crossed. Let me repeat, a foreign head of state came to the United States and demanded that we lay out on the table conditions in which we will with no uncertainty use our military if another nation meets those conditions. Was this completely out of line?

I think this move was completely out of line and is almost apology worthy. Why? Natanyahu is not talking about setting conditions like, “if you attack another nation, we will attack you” or “if you set off a nuclear weapon test, we will attack you.” Netanyahu wants us to lay out conditions that say we will attack you if you “come close” to developing a nuclear weapon. “Come close” are the key words. How do you define it? How do you check how close someone is? Do you demand weapons inspector access and if that is denied do you attack? Maybe that’s what Netanyahu wants. One thing is clear, Israel is preparing to attack Iran preemptively. Israel doesn’t want to (but will) do this alone and would prefer the United States help and support.

It is completely out of line as a head of state to go to a foreign country and use their airwaves to demand policy that involves military action, i.e. American lives, to support something that your country will do with or without their support. We are talking about a preemptive strike after-all, not responding to an attack or an invasion. Even worse, Netanyahu made the claim that if we had set these “red lines” up in the early 1990s that the first Gulf War could have been avoided. What?!

Israel will attack whether they have our support or not. They have shown in the past they don’t care if the world is against their preemptive strikes. The problem is the world has changed substantially since their last preemptive attack. Arab nations all over the Middle East have been going through massive political changes with the Arab Spring in full bloom. Historically, Arabs and Persians (Iranians) have not gotten along very well. This all goes back to the Sunni/Shia split in Islam and goes back centuries. But now with the Arab Spring, could an attack on Iran by Israel be seen as an attack on all of Islam? Could a preemptive attack on another Islamic nation set of the barrel of dynamite in the Middle East that ignites the next global conflict?

I don’t rule out that possibility. The war drums against Iran have been beating for a long time, but animosity against Israel in the Middle East has been going on for decades. It is that animosity that had the United States support a dictator in Egypt for 30 years. Now with Egypt in control by the people through democratic elections, we may discover that the majority in Egypt would rather not keep the peace with Israel like their previous dictator did. That’s the funny thing about democracy. Sometimes the will of the people support things that other democratic nations do not.

So how could that lead to a global conflict? If an attack by Israel is the catalyst that sets off the whole mess, then I see the attack uniting Islamic countries in the Middle East against Israel. This would lead to a massive build-up and attack on Israel by Middle Eastern countries. The United States at that point would have to get involved. That is where the whole mess boils out of control because with the United States entering the war zone, China and Russia decide they would rather back their Middle Eastern friends and start by providing weapons and artillery. China then uses the Middle East war as a distraction to invade and takeover disputed islands that Japan now owns. This sets off a ground conflict with Japan and China. Eventually Europe enters the theater to back the United States and Israel (and help get them out of the economic mess they’re in) and the war escalates into a new set of Axis and Allies, with the United States, Israel, most European countries, and Japan joining the Allies and China, Russia, and the Middle Eastern countries on the Axis side.

I am literally talking about WWIII.

I don’t normally make predictions because the fact is, I hate being wrong. While I am not predicting the above scenario, I do believe that within the next decade a global war, not unlike the above scenario, will be set off. What sets it off might be something minor or it might be something major. In any case, the water in the kettle is starting to boil. Many Western economies are struggling or are in shambles. One thing that history has taught us is that wars are a great way to get out of economic messes. I really hope I am wrong (something I rarely, if ever, say)!

Source = http://www.policymic.com/articles/14875/war-with-iran-the-very-real-threat-of-wwiii-will-come-not-from-iran-but-from-benjamin-netanyahu-and-israel

The Path to War With Iran

In an endless campaign season filled with forgettable speeches and debates, few Americans will recall March 4, 2012, as particularly noteworthy. On that Sunday afternoon, President Obama appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, where he was expected to give a boilerplate talk about close U.S.-Israeli ties. Instead, Obama announced a new policy that put the United States and Iran on a collision course from which neither side has veered.

Declaring that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be intolerable to Israel and run counter to U.S. security, Obama offered Tehran a stark choice: The regime could abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program and “choose a path that brings them back into the community of nations, or they can continue down a dead end,” said Obama, who then went further than any U.S. president had in describing what lay at the end of that road. “Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I have made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.”

In a stroke, Obama took off the table the policy of “containment” and deterrence of a new nuclear power that the United States adopted in response to the Soviet Union, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea all crossing the nuclear threshold. Either Tehran would have to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program, or the president was all but pledging a preventive war to destroy it. Seemingly disparate headlines of recent weeks—increasingly frenetic shuttle diplomacy to try and restart stalled talks with Iran over its nuclear program; an unusually public spat between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over “red lines”; the deployment of the largest U.S. naval armada to the Persian Gulf in years, to include two aircraft carrier battle groups—are all indications that Iran continues to hurtle down that dead end.

On Friday evening, the Senate passed a resolution, cosponsored by more than three-fourths of the chamber, ruling out a strategy of containment in response to Iran’s nuclear  program.

Dennis Ross was a former special adviser to Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Iran from 2009 to 2011. “Once President Obama made the decision that his objective was preventing Iran from getting a bomb, that put us in a different place diplomatically, because once diplomacy fails you really have no choice but to act,” Ross said on Friday in a conference at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “Obama doesn’t make impulsive decisions. There was a debate within the administration over prevention versus containment, and he made a very well-thought-through decision to adopt prevention. And as someone who has watched him in action in the national-security arena, I take his decision very seriously. There’s no question President Obama wants to give diplomacy every chance of working, but there is also no doubt in my mind that if diplomacy fails he is prepared to use force.”

The problem is that the diplomacy surrounding Iran’s nuclear program is failing, despite international isolation and crippling sanctions that have caused the Iranian currency to plummet in value. That failure was evident in a late August report by the United Nations nuclear watchdog. The International Atomic Energy Agency said that Iran had doubled the number of centrifuges enriching uranium at an underground facility protected from airborne attack, and had blocked the agency from inspecting a site where previous weapons-development work is suspected.

Last week, European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton met with Iran’s head nuclear negotiator to try and restart stalled talks, and to express serious concern that Iran is accelerating its suspected nuclear weapons program. Ashton is expected to deliver her findings to the P-5 Plus One (the United States, France, Britain, China, Russia, and Germany) this week at the U.N. General Assembly meetings in New York.

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent outburst against the Obama administration reveals the sense of urgency Israel feels as Iran continues to bury more centrifuges deeper underground, entering a “zone of immunity” from Israeli airstrikes. “The world tells Israel: ‘Wait, there is still time.’ Wait until when? Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have the moral right to place a red line before Israel.”

After Netanyahu’s comments caused a diplomatic dustup, he held an hour-long, private phone conversation with Obama that Ross characterized as very serious. Both sides narrowed differences, he said, over how long diplomacy should be given to work, whether some sort of ultimatum should be delivered to Iran to bring talks to a head, and at what point Iran’s program crosses a “red line” that might prompt Israel or the United States to strike.

An Iranian nuclear weapon is seen as an existential threat by Israeli leaders, none of whom believe “containment” of a nuclear-armed Iran is feasible, said David Makovsky, an Israel expert and senior fellow at the Washington Institute. Hard-wired into the Israeli DNA is an ethos of self-reliance, he noted, and an instinctive suspicion of security guarantees given by the international community, or for that matter by the United States.

“The debate in Israel at the elite policy level is not about American capabilities, but about American resolve if diplomacy and sanctions fail,” he said. “It’s no secret that Israel would prefer if the United States was involved in a military strike, not only because it would be more effective, but also because Washington would be critical in maintaining sanctions on Iran even after a strike.”

As Washington and Jerusalem try and synchronize their timeline for action, Israel will be under intense pressure by the Obama administration to stay its hand and give diplomacy time to work. The Obama administration, or for that matter a Mitt Romney administration, will be under intense pressure from Israel to either green light an Israeli strike that would almost certainly draw U.S. forces into the conflict, or else specify as clearly as possible what “red line” would prompt the United States to fulfill Obama’s pledge and launch its own strike.

“Israel and the Obama administration are already deeply involved in a wide-ranging campaign of cyberattacks and sabotage against Iran’s nuclear program,” said Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert and director of research at the Washington Institute. Coming up with a final offer that gives Iran what it says it wants in terms of a civilian nuclear program might be useful in clarifying the situation, he said, “because right now we are headed towards war.”

Source = http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/the-path-to-war-with-iran-20120924

Geoengineering would turn blue skies whiter

June 1, 2012

Blue skies would fade to hazy white if geoengineers inject light-scattering aerosols into the upper atmosphere to offset global warming. Critics have already warned that this might happen, but now the effect has been quantified.

Releasing sulphate aerosols high in the atmosphere should in theory reduce global temperatures by reflecting a small percentage of the incoming sunlight away from the Earth. However, the extra particles would also scatter more of the remaining light into the atmosphere. This would reduce by 20 per cent the amount of sunlight that takes a direct route to the ground, and it would increase levels of softer, diffuse scattered light, says Ben Kravitz of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California.

That would have knock-on effects for life – and human technology. The reduction in direct sunlight would impact the solar industry, which relies on direct sunlight to generate much of its power. But the increased indirect sunlight would boost photosynthesis beneath tree canopies. The most visible effect, though, would be above us.

The blue colour of the clear sky comes from light being scattering by molecules in the air. The scattering is much stronger for short blue wavelengths than for longer red wavelengths. Aerosol particles are much larger than molecules in the air, however, and they scatter red light more strongly, which washes out the blue light scattered by smaller molecules and makes the sky brighter and whiter.

Kravitz calculated how scattering from particles ranging from 0.1 to 0.9 micrometers in diameter would affect the spectrum of the scattered light, and how that would affect the colour of the sky. He found the sky would appear paler for all potential diameters. Particles with diameters in the middle of the range would make for much whiter skies.

The effect would be most visible in the countryside, where air pollution is generally lower, says Kravitz. “All you’d have to do to see it is to step outside.”

Important uncertainties remain, including what size aerosols would be used for geoengineering and how their sizes might change over time as particles stick together. But Craig Bohren, a meteorologist and expert in atmospheric scattering at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, who was not involved in the research, says “it’s difficult to argue against the claim that increasing the concentration of particles in the atmosphere will change the colour and brightness of the sky”.

(Journal reference: Geophysical Review Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2012gl051652)

Source = New Scientist

 Source = BBC News

Geoengineering for Global Warming: Increasing Aerosols in Atmosphere Would Make Sky Whiter

May 31, 2012

One idea for fighting global warming is to increase the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere, scattering incoming solar energy away from Earth’s surface. But scientists theorize that this solar geoengineering could have a side effect of whitening the sky during the day. New research from Carnegie’s Ben Kravitz and Ken Caldeira indicates that blocking 2% of the sun’s light would make the sky three-to-five times brighter, as well as whiter. Their work is published June 1st in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas have been increasing over the past decades, causing Earth to get hotter and hotter.

Large volcanic eruptions cool the planet by creating lots of small particles in the stratosphere, but the particles fall out within a couple of years, and the planet heats back up. The idea behind solar geoengineering is to constantly replenish a layer of small particles in the stratosphere, mimicking this volcanic aftermath and scattering sunlight back to space. Using advanced models, Kravitz and Caldeira — along with Douglas MacMartin from the California Institute of Technology — examined changes to sky color and brightness from using sulfate-based aerosols in this way. They found that, depending on the size of the particles, the sky would whiten during the day and sunsets would have afterglows. Their models predict that the sky would still be blue, but it would be a lighter shade than what most people are used to looking at now.

The research team’s work shows that skies everywhere could look like those over urban areas in a world with this type of geoengineering taking place. In urban areas, the sky often looks hazy and white. “These results give people one more thing to consider before deciding whether we really want to go down this road,” Kravitz said. “Although our study did not address the potential psychological impact of these changes to the sky, they are important to consider as well.” There are several larger environmental implications to the group’s findings, too.

Because plants grow more efficiently under diffuse light conditions such as this, global photosynthetic activity could increase, pulling more of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. On the other hand, the effectiveness of solar power could be diminished, as less sunlight would reach solar-power generators. “I hope that we never get to the point where people feel the need to spray aerosols in the sky to offset rampant global warming,” Caldeira said. “This is one study where I am not eager to have our predictions proven right by a global stratospheric aerosol layer in the real world.”

Source = Science Daily

Reblogged from Get Glenn Mobile!:

2012 Security Workers Suspended Over Made-Up Bomb Checks

June 22, 2012

Two senior members of London 2012′s security firm have been suspended after reports suggested they didn’t carry out a number of security checks in the Olympic Park. The security workers, whose sniffer dogs were used to search for explosives during the building of the Olympic Park, are alleged to have said that they carried out security checks that never happened over a three-month period. G4S, the security company who holds the £250m security contract for London 2012, has told LBC 97.3 a full review of its canine operation is now taking place and safety and security of the venue remains their primary focus.

A statement read: “Two senior members of our dog team working on the Olympic Park have been suspended from duty while an investigation takes place into allegations of irregularities. “A full review of our canine operation on the Olympic Park is being undertaken, and if any shortcomings in the system are uncovered they will be corrected. “We take breaches of working practices extremely seriously and if our investigations reveal evidence of malpractice we will take appropriate action against those responsible. “While enquiries take place we are unable to go into further details  The safety and security of the Olympic Park remains our primary focus.”

Source = LBC News

Olympics bomb scandal

May 6, 2012

A TERRIFYING flaw in London’s Olympic Park security was exposed last night after a worker smuggled a fake BOMB inside. He sailed past TWO checkpoints without being stopped — just hours before the Olympic Stadium officially opened. These pictures show the dummy Semtex device inside a heavily-guarded ring of steel — just yards from the showpiece Olympic Stadium.

It looks like a bomb, it’s wired like a bomb and it has a timer like a bomb. But incredibly a worker carrying it in his digger was simply allowed to drive in UNCHALLENGED. This is a taste of Britain’s worst Olympic nightmare — that extremists such as al-Qaeda could stage a terror spectacular to stun the world. The Sun had earlier passed the worker the package after he called us worried about gaping security loopholes at the East London site.

Source = The Sun

Cllr Jane Kenyon

“THE MULBERRY BUSH”

By Nigel Ward

Further to my article on Councillor Jane Margaret Kenyon recently – and I am much heartened by the unprecedented public endorsement (800+ FaceBook ‘Likes’) – describing my attempts to have both elected representatives and paid public servants held to account, I hope readers will be interested in some of the background details.

Readers of my first article on this subject will recall that I conclude by calling upon Councillor Kenyon to openly and transparently address the following question:

• “How can it be that the Chair of a British Police Authority can also be the Chief Financial Officer of a Corporation suspended for non-payment of debts who has concealed this and other interests and abused a position of trust to effectively censor legitimate scrutiny – yet remain Chair of the North Yorkshire Police Authority, Chair of the NYPA Management Board, Director of the Association of Police Authorities Ltd., and Scarborough Borough Councillor Portfolio Holder for Finance, Procurement and Legal?

Or to resign . . .

I have, of course, meanwhile addressed that question to Councillor Kenyon through the auspices of the Senior Solicitor at SBC and Ms Kenyon’s Personal Assistant in her rôle as Chair of the NYPA.

I have received neither acknowledgement  nor response from either.

Entirely resulting from an examination of hundreds of documents (Registers of Interests, Minutes of Meetings, correspondence, Companies House reports, Court summonses and submissions, etc), the following concerns have become clear:

• that Councillor Kenyon is presently an Officer of a still extant bankrupt corporation in the United States – Belvedere Computers Inc. (BCI) – which information she has for three decades wittingly to declare in her Register of Interests. Why?

• that her life-partner, former elected member for NYCC, NYMNPA and SBC, Thomas William “Bill” Miller, is also presently an Officer of a still extant bankrupt corporation in the United States (BCI), which he himself also wittingly failed to declare in his Register of Interests – nor did either of them declare their respective life-partner’s status as an Officer of a still extant bankrupt corporation (BCI). Why?

• that Councillor Kenyon was Company Secretary of Dales Timber Limited (DTL), a company that went bankrupt for circa £200,000, which information she has also wittingly withheld from declaring in her Register of Interests

• that, as Company Secretary of DTL – a company enjoying a trading relationship with Ryedale District Council, the NYMNPA and NYCC – Councillor Kenyon failed to declare that conflict of interests. (There presents itself, therefore, the obvious suspicion that Councillor Kenyon’s failure to declare (and former Councillor ‘Bill’ Miller’s failure to declare) may have been motivated by a desire to benefit from the trading relationship between DTL and the three local authorities).

• that Councillor Kenyon’s life-partner “Bill” Miller was a Director of Dales Timber Limited (DTL) and also failed to declare his interest or to separately declare his interest in a company that enjoyed a trading relationship with two authorities for which he was an elected member – and, as noted above, Councillor Kenyon similarly withheld that information, too; she had a duty to declare her relationship with ‘Bill’, and his interest in DTL (as well as, and separately to, her own), just as with BCI.

• that in response to an entirely lawful question concerning these matters at a NYPA public meeting, Councillor Kenyon abused her position as Chair of that authority, making no response to the question (she should, of course, have ensured that the question was minuted, placed on the record her reasons for disregarding it, and moved on with the meeting) – instead of which, she evaded public scrutiny by having the questioner removed from the meeting by the police, on pain of arrest.

• that the Minutes of that meeting do not record the form of words of the question (and are therefore not a true record) and that Councillor Kenyon, as Chair of the meeting, bears full responsibility for that deception by omission.

Let us be very clear, for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, that these concerns are in no sense frivolous and they are very far from trivial. They stand at the root of integrity in public life.

Councillor Kenyon’s political and administrative experience spans four decades (the Poulson affairs – about which, more I due course – was in 1972) ; she has without any shadow of a doubt played a leading rôle in the decision-making processes of several local authorities (and is, at this moment, and amongst other positions of responsibility, the Chair of the NYPA, the NYPA Management Board, Director of the Association of Police Authorities Ltd., and Portfolio Holder for Finance, Procurement & Legal at SBC) that have each disbursed, over the years quite literally millions and millions of pounds from the public purse, yet the record indicates that she has been fundamentally dishonest for at least the last thirty years. And she cannot plausibly claim ignorance – which, in any case, forms no defence in law.

Click here to read the full article

Jane Kenyon – Some Things You May Not Know !!