First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
The Wall
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 7/30/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

Now we’ve come full circle. Attaining land through means of war was made illegal by UN Resolution 242. Go ahead and reference Norman Finkelstein’s books or lectures. Hell, take a look at that lecture of his Drizza posted some time back. The attack on the legality of Israel’s presence in Westbank is concentrically engineered around Resolution 242. So, we can continue down this line but you’re going to have to address and refute my argument on 242.


242 was a resolution made after the war, it's not international law itself, it's just legally binding for Israel/Palestine. You can't use that resolution on other situations, and yet the Gulf War was started based on the idea that it is inadmissible to acquire land by war. Finkelstein describes it as being a tenet of international law that it is inadmissible for a country to acquire land through war. Resolution 242 was based on that tenet.

You're argument on 242 is basically that the Palestinians don't follow it, so Israel doesn't have to follow it? If one side violates the agreement, the other side would also be in violation if it stops following as well. I don't see how it suddenly means the rules change if one side doesn't follow it, so the ICJ is right.


The Palestinians elected Hamas, a terrorist organization, in June 2006. They democratically made their decision to support terrorism. Fine, but now they can democratically deal with the consequences of their cultural bigotry. Your suggestion has been tried, but again the Arabs don't want peace. They've said they don't want peace.


Isn't that generalizing a little? And I'm sure Ireland would have elected the IRA to run their government given the chance in the past, it's not a surprise Hamas won. When has my suggestion been seriously tried, the Oslo Accords? That was definitely not done properly. What other options are there? Just wait until terrorism picks up again and then massacre more Palestinians and repeat it over and over?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 7/30/09 , edited 7/30/09

Yei
242 was a resolution made after the war, it's not international law itself, it's just legally binding for Israel/Palestine. You can't use that resolution on other situations, and yet the Gulf War was started based on the idea that it is inadmissible to acquire land by war. Finkelstein describes it as being a tenet of international law that it is inadmissible for a country to acquire land through war. Resolution 242 was based on that tenet.

You're argument on 242 is basically that the Palestinians don't follow it, so Israel doesn't have to follow it? If one side violates the agreement, the other side would also be in violation if it stops following as well. I don't see how it suddenly means the rules change if one side doesn't follow it, so the ICJ is right.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_resolution#cite_note-0


Allowing the Security Council to adopt binding measures under Chapter VI would undermine the structural division of competencies foreseen by Chapters VI and VII, respectively. The whole aim of separating these chapters is to distinguish between voluntary and binding measures. Whereas the pacific settlement of disputes provided by the former is underpinned by the consent of the parties, binding measures in terms of Chapter VII are characterised by the absence of such consent. A further indication of the non-binding nature of measures taken in terms of Chapter VI is the obligation on members of the Security Council who are parties to a dispute, to refrain from voting when resolutions under Chapter VI are adopted. No similar obligation exists with respect to binding resolutions adopted under Chapter VII... If one applies this reasoning to the Namibia opinion, the decisive point is that none of the Articles under Chapter VI facilitate the adoption of the type of binding measures that were adopted by the Security Council in Resolution 276(1970)... Resolution 260(1970) was indeed adopted in terms of Chapter VII, even though the ICJ went to some length to give the opposite impression



In practice, the Security Council does not consider its decisions outside Chapter VII to be binding.


242 is a Chapter VI. It's merely advisory; moreover, as I pointed out before the resolution only advises Israel’s withdrawal under the cited conditions which have not been met; therefore, the ICJ is wrong. And in fact in many other cases they've ruled in agreeance with my postulate, see , International Economic Organizations in the International Legal Process, Sergei A. Voitovi. It's only when it comes to Israel that they changed their mind. Again, that's only because the Arabs have oil.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 7/31/09 , edited 7/31/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Yei
242 was a resolution made after the war, it's not international law itself, it's just legally binding for Israel/Palestine. You can't use that resolution on other situations, and yet the Gulf War was started based on the idea that it is inadmissible to acquire land by war. Finkelstein describes it as being a tenet of international law that it is inadmissible for a country to acquire land through war. Resolution 242 was based on that tenet.

You're argument on 242 is basically that the Palestinians don't follow it, so Israel doesn't have to follow it? If one side violates the agreement, the other side would also be in violation if it stops following as well. I don't see how it suddenly means the rules change if one side doesn't follow it, so the ICJ is right.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_resolution#cite_note-0


Allowing the Security Council to adopt binding measures under Chapter VI would undermine the structural division of competencies foreseen by Chapters VI and VII, respectively. The whole aim of separating these chapters is to distinguish between voluntary and binding measures. Whereas the pacific settlement of disputes provided by the former is underpinned by the consent of the parties, binding measures in terms of Chapter VII are characterised by the absence of such consent. A further indication of the non-binding nature of measures taken in terms of Chapter VI is the obligation on members of the Security Council who are parties to a dispute, to refrain from voting when resolutions under Chapter VI are adopted. No similar obligation exists with respect to binding resolutions adopted under Chapter VII... If one applies this reasoning to the Namibia opinion, the decisive point is that none of the Articles under Chapter VI facilitate the adoption of the type of binding measures that were adopted by the Security Council in Resolution 276(1970)... Resolution 260(1970) was indeed adopted in terms of Chapter VII, even though the ICJ went to some length to give the opposite impression



In practice, the Security Council does not consider its decisions outside Chapter VII to be binding.


242 is a Chapter VI. It's merely advisory; moreover, as I pointed out before the resolution only advises Israel’s withdrawal under the cited conditions which have not been met; therefore, the ICJ is wrong. And in fact in many other cases they've ruled in agreeance with my postulate, see , International Economic Organizations in the International Legal Process, Sergei A. Voitovi. It's only when it comes to Israel that they changed their mind. Again, that's only because the Arabs have oil.


The ICJ just says it is legally binding for oil purposes? Somehow the ICJ benefits?

Israel obviously hasn't followed the resolution in the first place so the wall shouldn't really be an issue if the resolution was the only thing making it illegal. And yet 13/14 judges agreed that it is illegal, and even if they are all corrupt and working for the Arabs, they still have a valid reason to come to their conclusion and it's in writing. Apparently George HW Bush referenced the tenet of it being inadmissible to acquire land by war and Iraq was expected to leave Kuwait. That by itself is probably the basis of their conclusion, but there's more to it than that.

Here's their conclusion: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

The Court considers that its conclusion that the construction of the wall by Israel in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory is contrary to international law must be placed in a more general
context. Since 1947, the year when General Assembly resolution 181 (II) was adopted and the
Mandate for Palestine was terminated, there has been a succession of armed conflicts, acts of
indiscriminate violence and repressive measures on the former mandated territory. The Court
would emphasize that both Israel and Palestine are under an obligation scrupulously to observe the
rules of international humanitarian law, one of the paramount purposes of which is to protect
civilian life. Illegal actions and unilateral decisions have been taken on all sides, whereas, in the
Court’s view, this tragic situation can be brought to an end only through implementation in good
faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (1967) and
338 (1973). The “Roadmap” approved by Security Council resolution 1515 (2003) represents the
most recent of efforts to initiate negotiations to this end. The Court considers that it has a duty to
draw the attention of the General Assembly, to which the present Opinion is addressed, to the need
for these efforts to be encouraged with a view to achieving as soon as possible, on the basis of
international law, a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems and the establishment of a
Palestinian State, existing side by side with Israel and its other neighbours, with peace and security
for all in the region.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.