UN Resolutions are not International Law.
Yeah, right!...
========================================
Most experts[1] consider most General Assembly resolutions to be non-binding. Articles 10 and 14 of the UN Charter refer to General Assembly as "recommendations"; the recommendatory nature of General Assembly resolutions has repeatedly been stressed by the International Court of Justice.[2] However, some General Assembly resolutions dealing with matters internal to the United Nations, such as budgetary decisions or instructions to lower-ranking organs, are clearly binding on their addressees...
Under Article 25 of the Charter, UN member states are bound to carry out "decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter". Resolutions made under Chapter VII are considered binding, but resolutions under Chapter VI have no enforcement mechanisms and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law. In 1971, however, a majority of the then International Court of Justice (ICJ) members asserted in the non-binding Namibia advisory opinion that all UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding.[3] This assertion by the ICJ has been countered by Erika De Wet and others.[4] De Wet argues that Chapter VI resolutions cannot be binding...
In practice, the Security Council does not consider its decisions outside Chapter VII to be binding.[4]
It has been proposed that a binding triad of conditions—a supermajority of the number of nations voting, whose populations and contributions in dues to the UN budget form a majority of the total—make a General Assembly resolution binding on all nations; the proposal has gone nowhere...
United Nations resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
========================================
Yeah, right.
Thus endeth the lesson.
International Law
The body of law that governs the legal relations between or among states or nations[/I]
That's just the classical definition.
UN Resolutions are
not part of the body of law which governs the legal relations between or among states or nations.
No charge for reinforcing the lesson.
UN Resolutions oftentimes end-up carrying the same weight as a roll of toilet paper. Mocking the ineffectiveness and practical prejudices of the UN in the context of anti-Israel UN Resolutions is a far cry from mocking or disrespecting International Law.
The Axis Powers thought the same way.
The Axis Powers thought that UN Resolutions against Israel were a joke?
There are a great many people of goodwill and common sense who think that the UN in general is a joke, never mind those who think that the UN is inherently biased against Israel.
And none of them have anything whatsoever to do with fascism.
Disagreeing with your perspective on the United Nations does not equate to fascist behaviors nor inclinations; all disingenuous Godwin-isms to the contrary, notwithstanding.
Your inability to mark and acknowledge that distinction is your barrier to understanding, not mine.
Psychologists call that projection.
Immaterial. The observation stands.
Abiding by the laws of my native land, paying my taxes, etc. - sufficient for our purposes here.
But not sufficient for someone claiming to be an American.
Come back when you've got a DD-214 to back up your words, boy, and then I'll consider weighing your horseshit opinion on what constitutes being an American.
What law would that be? UN Resolutions are not International Law.
Oh really?
Really. Already addressed.
The UN Charter contains a supremacy clause that makes it the highest authority of international law.
Now what were you saying?
========================================
"...
The UN Charter contains a supremacy clause that makes it the highest authority of international law. The clause states that the UN Charter shall prevail in the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the United Nations under the present charter and their obligations under any other international agreement..."
International Law legal definition of International Law. International Law synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
========================================
Only with respect to the Charter itself, NOT with respect to UNGA Resolutions.
Only with respect to disputes between members, not members and non-members, or between members and pseudo-members.
Go back and re-read your own linked article more thoroughly.
Tee-hee.
Whenever someone uses abusive language, that means UN resolutions are not International Law? You call that logical?
Nope.
One need look no further than your abusive language and petulant, childish insistence on UN Resolutions equating to International Law, to reach the common-sense conclusion that DENYING such force of law to UN Resolutions aggravates you and those who think like you in this context.
It is mine whether you give it or not, but, for once, you get style-points for conceding same. And 'founded' was not, indeed, the best choice of words, just as equating UN Resolutions with International Law is not the best choice of positions from which to launch an amateur -caliber legalistic tirade against Israel.
Then what is?
You must figure this out for yourself. In an adversarial role, it is not up to me to do your homework for you.
Just as the Jews (of Israel, and worldwide) have seen what happens when they put their trust in International Bodies and Law - 6,000,000 of them were slaughtered. Ever-so-slightly more impactful than simply living under a capricious monarchy.
And yet, you mock those international bodies that were created in response to that slaughter?
Yep.
I do not mock the concept.
I mock what the UN has become.
I mock the one-sided anti-Israel lobby within the UN General Assembly; fueled as it is by the various nations within the domain of Islam, and supported in whole or in part by those nations which must kiss Arab ass in order to obtain the oil they need.
I mock the outputs of an organization which tells Israel, for all intents and purposes: "
You must comply with our wishes or commands, even though this might result in national suicide - slowly or quickly - in order to remain in our good graces. And you must trust in our protection, to offset any dangers you might be exposed to, during the course of such compliance."
Just as I mock any fool who tries to sell that train-car full of horse manure, and actually thinks he'll find enough gullible sheep in order to make such an approach operative.
Perhaps. It's what oftentimes happens during the formative years of a new nation, which is where the Israelis are at now, on their own national timeline. Nobody interfered with us. The Ummah is attempting to interfere with Israel. And failing, miserably.
Like Nazi Germany in the '30's?
What does that have to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Nope. Solving differences peacefully in a manner acceptable to both sides is highly desirable. Let us know when the UN manages to float proposals that will do just that, in connection with this conflict.
And just what proposals would you float to solve the differences between Nazi Germany and Poland?
What does that have to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Nope. But when 'rights' and 'safety' are at-odds (such as they are in the context of Palestinian 'rights', versus the 'safety' of Israel), safety wins every time.
I agree. It's not very safe deliberately stripping others of their inalienable rights.
Quite possibly. Then again, granting a right (such as Right of Return) is tantamount to suicide. Danger is always preferable to actual death.
These things happen, when one carves-out a new nation, to fill a vacuum such as the practical political vacuum that existed in Old Palestine at the termination of the Mandate in 1948.]
Just like an East LA street gang moving into an Orange County neighborhood and realizing the local sheriffs have vacated the area and have no intention of returning. What do you think is going to happen to the residents of said area?
Any old resident with a lick of common sense and two quarters to rub together will get the hell outta there and stay outta there.
Small and impotent peoples get displaced from time to time during the course of such events. Best to hurry the process along and get it over with, rather than dragging it out.
Are you suggesting Palestinian's should be put on "trains", to hurry the process along?
Nope.
But an international humanitarian effort to relocate the Palestinians seems to be in order; finding them homes in countries willing to accept a number of them, helping them to relocate, and to set themselves up, to become productive in their new environments.
The Palestinians have lost, and we do them no favors in encouraging them to continue a hopeless struggle that they cannot possibly win, and thereby prolonging the agony.
Just like in sandlot ball... when you lose the coin-toss or bat-grab... Suckers Walk.
It has come down to that, for those poor bastards; they've lost; it's over; time to go.
This is being done by squeezing them off their remaining few slivers of land and forcing them to seek subsistence elsewhere...
Are you quoting heir Goebbels, or heir Herzl?
Neither. I am faithfully interpreting what is happening as we speak.
Resistance is not terrorism...
It is, when you, or your surrogates and sympathizers, kill athletes at an Olympic Games, or hijack a cruise ship and push old crippled folk over the siderails, or hijack an airliner and threaten to kill a subset of the passengers, or detonate a bomb in an airborne craft, or yadda, yadda, yadda... the reference was to their international terrorist operations, and not domestic resistance.
...so bombings are okay, as long as you don't kill yourself?...
Bombings directed against military targets are one thing. Deliberate targetings of civilians (by anyone) are quite another. And the Palestinians have shot themselves in the foot and forevermore soiled their image by launching such attacks against civilians.
...rocket-barrages started in 2001, 37 years after the occupation began...
Continuing to draw blood after you have lost is pointless and downright stupid.
... the Intifada's were the effect, not the cause...
Continuing to draw blood after you have lost is pointless and downright stupid.
fleeing a country to save your (and your family's) life, is wrong?...
Nope. But clearing-out at the behest or orders of the losing side in a war and siding with them puts you in a uniquely difficult position, in trying to return and to assert your claims. A difficulty that the Palestinians are simply not going to be able to overcome.
so if the Jews had chosen Germany...
Childish Godwin-esque analogy. The Muslim-Arab Palestinians who chose to stay, and who did not choose the wrong side, are now fully-fledged and vested Israeli citizens.
They are now dealing with the consequences of those poor choices.
Is that your Final Solution?
Nope. But we have no time machine with which the Palestinians can travel backwards in time to un-do the stupid decisions they've made in the past 66 years. The situation is what it is.
The only practical hope of breaking the deadlock is to mount that International Humanitarian Effort to Relocate the Palestinians; preferably under the auspices of the United Nations, et al., but without that body, if needs be.
No other solution will signify, in the long run.
Their problem, not Israel's.
You consider you building a fence across my driveway, preventing me access to my own car, my "choice" and my "problem"?
Indeed I do. The Palestinians are suffering the consequences of their own foolhardiness and intransigence. When your bombings and rocketry have forced me to take that approach, in order to keep my own family safe, and when you cannot stop me from building that fence, it is, indeed, your problem, not mine.
Absolutely. When they fail to take into account Cause and Effect.
Like when you strip others of their inalienable rights?
Yep. That too. But we get ourselves into a Chickend-and-the-Egg situation... which came first... and must establish a middle-ground or baseline, in order to untangle the knot. Starting from either polar-opposite simply will not do, regardless of how tempting that is or how righteous that sounds. Nor will a solution which endangers Israel. The Palestinians have a well-deserved reputation for an inability to find and work-with a middle-ground as a point of departure, or as an outcome, and, therefore, have blown one chance after another, over the decades, until, finally, they have run out of chances.
And when they are floated or supported or arm-twisted (for adoption) by nations and leagues of nations which routinely engage in repressive and egregious human rights violations themselves; in their cases, not as a matter of Safety or Survival Expediency, but as a matter of Religious or Cultural or Ethnic prejudice, or which, themselves, have long track records in exactly the same sort of repressive behaviors. Or much worse
So murder is not illegal, if the accuser happens to be another murderer?
I neither understand the reference nor how you derived that from its accompanying text.
Nope. The activism of the Arab League against Israel in the UN, in lining-up support for various UN Resolutions (which are not International Law) directed against Israel - cajoling other Muslim-dominated countries beyond the League, and arm-twisting the votes of other nations who are dependent upon Arab oil, is, ultimately, religion-based.
Then just what is "International Law"?
I neither understand the reference nor how you derived that from the accompanying text.
I see no such charges having been judged or in the process of trial by any Jursidictionally Competent legal authority, which speaks volumes about your allegations.
Like the ICC?
Sure. Are such charges being tried or are they scheduled to be tried by the ICC? Does the ICC have jurisdiction? Is Israel a current signatory to the Rome Treaty?
Never happened. That's where I tell you that such privately-funded (by Muslim funding, no less!) extra-judicial kangaroo courts like that - disavowed by the countries in which they are based, no less - have no competency at-law to try such matters; lacking the Jurisdiction and Authority to do so.
Coming from someone who supports a country practicing administrative detention. Gimme some of that justice!
Immaterial.
You made a false claim in connection with me supposedly telling you that a judge was incompetent, and were outed for that false claim.
My focus was always (and clearly) a matter of Competency At-Law; specifically, Jurisdictional Competency and Accountability and Neutrality.
Your continued inability to grasp that concept and to acknowledge its correctness is not my cross to bear.
But your inabilities are.
Damned weak mojo there, boy.
We can always hope against hope.
Go **** yourself!
Weaker still, boy.
