Israel Should Just Employ the Geneva Conventions
- Thread starter Boston1
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #202
LMAO you are obviously desperate. I wonder what its like to never be able to admit when you are wrong. Sorta like whenever you discuss the middle east. For instance, the Arab League declared war in 1948 and a number of the Arabs and countries that joined in that war have yet to capitulate.
Israel for some reason failed to continue the fight until the final victory and now hosts countless hostiles mixed in with the Arab Muslim colonists from the early to mid 20 century Arab colonial period.
All Israel need do is employ the GC to the letter and its game over for the remnant Arab League armies that remain in Israel. That would be all of Israel by the way, everything west of the Jordan within the mandate area. ;--)
You were saying ;--)
Challenger
Gold Member
Only in your wildest dreams.
- Thread starter
- #204
Lets review
There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. The laws already spelled out. Beyond that, Israel's only responsible for the hostile Arab Muslims to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination. Lead them to the border and out they go.
As long as Israel followed the Geneva Conventions to the letter they'd be within their rights. Just like any other country.
What it boils down to is that Israel isn't responsible for or required to host, hostile foreign nationals. Just because Jordan stripped them of their citizenship doesn't mean Israel is stuck with them. The Geneva Conventions are really clear, enemy combatants may be detained and repatriated at any time.
III Geneva convention
Quote
Art 39. Every prisoner of war camp shall be put under the immediate authority of a responsible commissioned officer belonging to the regular armed forces of the Detaining Power. Such officer shall have in his possession a copy of the present Convention; he shall ensure that its provisions are known to the camp staff and the guard and shall be responsible, under the direction of his government, for its application.
End Quote
Which makes it very clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of POWs
So who's a POW
Quote
IV Convention
End Quote
Which clearly covers hostile Arab Muslims within Israel and leads to a very interesting article
Quote
Art 7. Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.
End Quote
Article 7 of the III Geneva Convention removes the right of the prisoner to renounce the laws and procedures set down in the Geneva Conventions. IE they don't get an option.
Israel may segregate combatants from non combatants
Quote
Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.
End Quote
And the grand finale'
Israel is only responsible for POWs up to the point of debarkation, and there is no restriction as to when a POW may be repatriated.
Quote
End Quote
Israel's legal right to detain and repatriate POWs is well established within the Geneva Conventions. Israel has only to execute its rights.
There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. The laws already spelled out. Beyond that, Israel's only responsible for the hostile Arab Muslims to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination. Lead them to the border and out they go.
As long as Israel followed the Geneva Conventions to the letter they'd be within their rights. Just like any other country.
What it boils down to is that Israel isn't responsible for or required to host, hostile foreign nationals. Just because Jordan stripped them of their citizenship doesn't mean Israel is stuck with them. The Geneva Conventions are really clear, enemy combatants may be detained and repatriated at any time.
III Geneva convention
Quote
Art 39. Every prisoner of war camp shall be put under the immediate authority of a responsible commissioned officer belonging to the regular armed forces of the Detaining Power. Such officer shall have in his possession a copy of the present Convention; he shall ensure that its provisions are known to the camp staff and the guard and shall be responsible, under the direction of his government, for its application.
End Quote
Which makes it very clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of POWs
So who's a POW
Quote
IV Convention
- Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
- Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
- Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
- (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
- (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
- (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
- (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
- (c) that of carrying arms openly;
- (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
- (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
- (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
- (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
- (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
- B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
- (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
- (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
- C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
- Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
- Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal
End Quote
Which clearly covers hostile Arab Muslims within Israel and leads to a very interesting article
Quote
Art 7. Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.
End Quote
Article 7 of the III Geneva Convention removes the right of the prisoner to renounce the laws and procedures set down in the Geneva Conventions. IE they don't get an option.
Israel may segregate combatants from non combatants
Quote
Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.
- Art 21. The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.
End Quote
And the grand finale'
Israel is only responsible for POWs up to the point of debarkation, and there is no restriction as to when a POW may be repatriated.
Quote
- Art 118. Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
- In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation in conformity with the principle laid down in the foregoing paragraph.
- In either case, the measures adopted shall be brought to the knowledge of the prisoners of war.
- The costs of repatriation of prisoners of war shall in all cases be equitably apportioned between the Detaining Power and the Power on which the prisoners depend. This apportionment shall be carried out on the following basis:
- (a) If the two Powers are contiguous, the Power on which the prisoners of war depend shall bear the costs of repatriation from the frontiers of the Detaining Power.
- (b) If the two Powers are not contiguous, the Detaining Power shall bear the costs of transport of prisoners of war over its own territory as far as its frontier or its port of embarkation nearest to the territory of the Power on which the prisoners of war depend. The Parties concerned shall agree between themselves as to the equitable apportionment of the remaining costs of the repatriation. The conclusion of this agreement shall in no circumstances justify any delay in the repatriation of the prisoners of war.
End Quote
Israel's legal right to detain and repatriate POWs is well established within the Geneva Conventions. Israel has only to execute its rights.
- Thread starter
- #205
Might also be entertaining to see Spiffy eating his hat over the declaration of WAR the Arab League presented to the UN in 48
Quote
On May 15 1948, as the regular forces of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and contingents from Saudi Arabia and Yemen invaded Israel to 'restore law and order,' the Arab League issued a lengthy document entitled "Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine."
End Quote
Quote
The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, was less diplomatic and far more candid. With no patience for polite or veiled language, on the same day Israel declared its independence on May 14 1948, at a Cairo press conference reported the next day in The New York Times, Pasha repeated the Arabs' "intervention to restore law and order" revealing:
"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." The League of Arab States continued to oppose peace after Israel's 1948 War of Independence:
"We, the kings, presidents, and emirs of the Arab states meeting in the Council of the Arab League Summit in Beirut, capital of Lebanon ... have conducted a thorough assessment of the developments and challenges ... relating to the Arab region and, more specifically, to the occupied Palestinian territory. With great pride, we followed the Palestinian people's intifada and valiant resistance. ... We address a greeting of pride and honour to the Palestinian people's steadfastness and valiant intifada against the Israeli occupation and its destructive war machine. We greet with honour and pride the valiant martyrs of the intifada."[14]
The Arab League, which has systematically opposed and blocked peace efforts for nearly 67 years, and is in a declared state-of-war with Israel, is now deemed by the U.S. States Department an organization that can contribute to peace in the Middle East.
This document uses extensive links via the Internet. If you experience a broken link, please note the 5 digit number (xxxxx) at the end of the URL and use it as a Keyword in the Search Box at www.MEfacts.com.
End Quote
While Spiffy gets a little more mustard and mayo on that hat of his lets define war according to the GC
Art 2 1st GC
Quote
End Quote
Lets see ole snake bait worm his way out of this one ;--)
Quote
On May 15 1948, as the regular forces of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and contingents from Saudi Arabia and Yemen invaded Israel to 'restore law and order,' the Arab League issued a lengthy document entitled "Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine."
End Quote
Quote
The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, was less diplomatic and far more candid. With no patience for polite or veiled language, on the same day Israel declared its independence on May 14 1948, at a Cairo press conference reported the next day in The New York Times, Pasha repeated the Arabs' "intervention to restore law and order" revealing:
"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." The League of Arab States continued to oppose peace after Israel's 1948 War of Independence:
- In July 15 1948, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 54 calling on Arab aggression to stop:
- In October 1949, the Arab League declared that negotiation with Israel by any Arab state would be in violation of Article 18 of the Arab League.[11]
- In April 1950, it called for severance of relations with any Arab state which engaged in relations or contacts with Israel and prohibited Member states from negotiating unilateral peace with Israel.[12]
- In March 1979, it suspended Egypt's membership in the League (retroactively) from the date of its signing a peace treaty with Israel.[13]
"We, the kings, presidents, and emirs of the Arab states meeting in the Council of the Arab League Summit in Beirut, capital of Lebanon ... have conducted a thorough assessment of the developments and challenges ... relating to the Arab region and, more specifically, to the occupied Palestinian territory. With great pride, we followed the Palestinian people's intifada and valiant resistance. ... We address a greeting of pride and honour to the Palestinian people's steadfastness and valiant intifada against the Israeli occupation and its destructive war machine. We greet with honour and pride the valiant martyrs of the intifada."[14]
The Arab League, which has systematically opposed and blocked peace efforts for nearly 67 years, and is in a declared state-of-war with Israel, is now deemed by the U.S. States Department an organization that can contribute to peace in the Middle East.
This document uses extensive links via the Internet. If you experience a broken link, please note the 5 digit number (xxxxx) at the end of the URL and use it as a Keyword in the Search Box at www.MEfacts.com.
End Quote
While Spiffy gets a little more mustard and mayo on that hat of his lets define war according to the GC
Art 2 1st GC
Quote
- ARTICLE 2
- In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
- The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
- Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
End Quote
Lets see ole snake bait worm his way out of this one ;--)
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,422
- 4,684
- 1,815
On May 15 1948, as the regular forces of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and contingents from Saudi Arabia and Yemen invaded Israel to 'restore law and order,' the Arab League issued a lengthy document entitled "Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine."
Do you have a link for that?
Your statement contradicts itself.
Challenger
Gold Member
Most of his statements do. they tend to run into each other in order to create a fantasy world for him to inhabit. OK let's start:
Really? Care to provide a link to the May 15th 1948 New York Times article that states this?
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.
- Thread starter
- #208
No one on here more regularly makes a fool of himself than you Spiffy.
Here's your link
David Barnett and Efraim Karsh (2011). "Azzam's genocidal threat". Middle East Quarterly 18 (4): 85–88.
Quote
Yet, the original document does in fact exist. It has eluded scholars for so long because they have been looking in the wrong place.
In his account of Israel's birth, Stone alluded to the possibility that the threat was made on the eve of the U.N. vote on partition, with the aim of averting this momentous decision, rather than before the pan-Arab invasion of Israel six months later.[7] Following this lead, David Barnett found a Jewish Agency memorandum, submitted on February 2, 1948, to the U.N. Palestine Commission, tasked with the implementation of the partition resolution, and yet again to the U.N. secretary-general on March 29, 1948.
Describing the panoply of Arab threats of war and actual acts of violence aimed at aborting the partition resolution, the memorandum read:
(6) … The "practical and effective means" contrived and advocated by the Arab States were never envisaged as being limited by the provisions of the Charter; indeed, the Secretary-General of the Arab League was thinking in terms which are quite remote from the lofty sentiments of San Francisco. "This war," he said, "will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades."[8]
The Jewish Agency memorandum cites an October 11, 1947 article in the Egyptian newspaper Akhbar al-Yom as the quote's source. An examination of the original article readily confirms the quote's authenticity, laying to rest one of the longest running historiographical debates attending the 1948 war.
End Quote
Do you really not spend so much as one second doing your own homework before you break out in one embarrassing comment after another ?
The simple fact is that a judicious application of the GC would clear out the Arab Muslim rabble in a flash.
Here's your link
David Barnett and Efraim Karsh (2011). "Azzam's genocidal threat". Middle East Quarterly 18 (4): 85–88.
Quote
Yet, the original document does in fact exist. It has eluded scholars for so long because they have been looking in the wrong place.
In his account of Israel's birth, Stone alluded to the possibility that the threat was made on the eve of the U.N. vote on partition, with the aim of averting this momentous decision, rather than before the pan-Arab invasion of Israel six months later.[7] Following this lead, David Barnett found a Jewish Agency memorandum, submitted on February 2, 1948, to the U.N. Palestine Commission, tasked with the implementation of the partition resolution, and yet again to the U.N. secretary-general on March 29, 1948.
Describing the panoply of Arab threats of war and actual acts of violence aimed at aborting the partition resolution, the memorandum read:
(6) … The "practical and effective means" contrived and advocated by the Arab States were never envisaged as being limited by the provisions of the Charter; indeed, the Secretary-General of the Arab League was thinking in terms which are quite remote from the lofty sentiments of San Francisco. "This war," he said, "will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades."[8]
The Jewish Agency memorandum cites an October 11, 1947 article in the Egyptian newspaper Akhbar al-Yom as the quote's source. An examination of the original article readily confirms the quote's authenticity, laying to rest one of the longest running historiographical debates attending the 1948 war.
End Quote
Do you really not spend so much as one second doing your own homework before you break out in one embarrassing comment after another ?
The simple fact is that a judicious application of the GC would clear out the Arab Muslim rabble in a flash.
Last edited:
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,422
- 4,684
- 1,815
You missed the point, not to mention that you link to a propaganda site.
On May 15 1948, as the regular forces of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and contingents from Saudi Arabia and Yemen invaded Israel to 'restore law and order,' the Arab League issued a lengthy document entitled "Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine."
Which is it and can you prove your point?
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
Generating politically acceptable cover stories ('restore law and order') are an art form; and very few are as skillful at as the Arabs.
Oh, this is as plain as the nose on your face. Both the Jordanians and the Egyptians had an agenda, and it wasn't about restoring law and order. Each country wanted to secure that targeted territory. That was their primary mission.
Egypt (in 1948) wanted to secure a secondary seaport and breakwater. To reduce cost and open new market routes; and the potential for opening new agricultural frontiers.
Jordan, by taking the West Bank, doubled its population and the PLO backed Annexation of the West Bank by Jordan (1950), set the stage for the a truncated Civil War in which the King was assassinated by the PLO (Black September) in 1951.
Of course, in Noam Chomsky's 2010 book (Hopes and Prospects), makes some suggestion that Israel was interested in the potential gas and oil finds (bleeding it off. But the current finds were not known in 1967.
Noam Chomsky: It cannot be too often stressed that Israel had no credible pretext for its 2008–9 attack on Gaza, with full U.S. support and illegally using U.S. weapons. Near-universal opinion asserts the contrary, claiming that Israel was acting in self-defense. That is utterly unsustainable, in light of Israel’s flat rejection of peaceful means that were readily available, as Israel and its U.S. partner in crime knew very well. That aside, Israel’s siege of Gaza is itself an act of war, as Israel of all countries certainly recognizes, having repeatedly justified launching major wars on grounds of partial restrictions on its access to the outside world, though nothing remotely like what it has long imposed on Gaza.
• June 19, 2008: Hamas agrees to a ceasefire with Israel, in a truce brokered by Egypt. However, there were renewed clashes between Hamas and Israel as the truce reaches the six-month mark, and the Israeli blockade of Gaza continues.
• November 4, 2008: The Israeli army enters the Gaza Strip to destroy a tunnel under-construction at the border which Israel said was used for abducting Israeli soldiers. The incursion killed at least six Hamas gunmen and one Islamic Jihad militant. In response to this ceasefire violation, Palestinian militants in Gaza fired dozens of Qassam rockets and mortar shells in the following days. Israel subsequently imposes a total blockade on the already besieged territory and closed all entry and exit points.
• December 19, 2008: Hamas’s six-month ceasefire with Israel ends. Gaza militants stepped up rocket attacks on Israel, causing few casualties but sowing fear among Israelis living in rocket range. Both sides signaled they did not want any escalation. But Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he would not hesitate to use Israeli might to crush Hamas if the rockets did not stop.
• December 27, 2008: The Israeli military launches massive airstrikes on dozens of targets in the Gaza Strip killing over 1,300 people and injuring over 5,300 more (with 70% estimated to be civilians), during the ensuing military phase of the 22-day siege through January 18th, 2009 — the highest death toll in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in decades.
No matter which side you are on, most will not listen to anything submitted by the other side in an objective fashion.
Most Respectively,
R
Generating politically acceptable cover stories ('restore law and order') are an art form; and very few are as skillful at as the Arabs.
(COMMENT)
Oh, this is as plain as the nose on your face. Both the Jordanians and the Egyptians had an agenda, and it wasn't about restoring law and order. Each country wanted to secure that targeted territory. That was their primary mission.
Egypt (in 1948) wanted to secure a secondary seaport and breakwater. To reduce cost and open new market routes; and the potential for opening new agricultural frontiers.
Jordan, by taking the West Bank, doubled its population and the PLO backed Annexation of the West Bank by Jordan (1950), set the stage for the a truncated Civil War in which the King was assassinated by the PLO (Black September) in 1951.
Of course, in Noam Chomsky's 2010 book (Hopes and Prospects), makes some suggestion that Israel was interested in the potential gas and oil finds (bleeding it off. But the current finds were not known in 1967.
Noam Chomsky: It cannot be too often stressed that Israel had no credible pretext for its 2008–9 attack on Gaza, with full U.S. support and illegally using U.S. weapons. Near-universal opinion asserts the contrary, claiming that Israel was acting in self-defense. That is utterly unsustainable, in light of Israel’s flat rejection of peaceful means that were readily available, as Israel and its U.S. partner in crime knew very well. That aside, Israel’s siege of Gaza is itself an act of war, as Israel of all countries certainly recognizes, having repeatedly justified launching major wars on grounds of partial restrictions on its access to the outside world, though nothing remotely like what it has long imposed on Gaza.
• November 4, 2008: The Israeli army enters the Gaza Strip to destroy a tunnel under-construction at the border which Israel said was used for abducting Israeli soldiers. The incursion killed at least six Hamas gunmen and one Islamic Jihad militant. In response to this ceasefire violation, Palestinian militants in Gaza fired dozens of Qassam rockets and mortar shells in the following days. Israel subsequently imposes a total blockade on the already besieged territory and closed all entry and exit points.
• December 19, 2008: Hamas’s six-month ceasefire with Israel ends. Gaza militants stepped up rocket attacks on Israel, causing few casualties but sowing fear among Israelis living in rocket range. Both sides signaled they did not want any escalation. But Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he would not hesitate to use Israeli might to crush Hamas if the rockets did not stop.
• December 27, 2008: The Israeli military launches massive airstrikes on dozens of targets in the Gaza Strip killing over 1,300 people and injuring over 5,300 more (with 70% estimated to be civilians), during the ensuing military phase of the 22-day siege through January 18th, 2009 — the highest death toll in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in decades.
Most Respectively,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,422
- 4,684
- 1,815
Interesting, but it sidestepped my post.
Challenger
Gold Member
Clearly you've not read up on UN Security council resolutions.
Even UN general Assembly resolutions are binding if they encompass existing international law. Typicab Bison1 making things up again.
RoccoR
Gold Member
Challenger, et al,
No General Assembly Resolution is binding; unless it is brought into force. The resolution will directly stipulate the requirements. For instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) never was accepted as law; however the CCPR and CESCR were on different days:
Even when a GA Resolution encompasses an existing International Law, it is not the Resolution that is binding, but the international law itself. The GA Resolution may not lend interpretation, alter, extend or otherwise add and change an existing law.
And, while UN Security Council resolutions have the force of law within the UN membership, it depends on the wording as to the ability to enforce compliance; and the intention of the framers. UNSC Resolution 242 is an example where the ambiguity was intentional.
Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.
• Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:
Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.
• Journal of Palestine Studies, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:
Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?
A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.
We must be careful of what we say is enforceable.
Most Respectfully,
R
No General Assembly Resolution is binding; unless it is brought into force. The resolution will directly stipulate the requirements. For instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) never was accepted as law; however the CCPR and CESCR were on different days:
(COMMENT)
Clearly you've not read up on UN Security council resolutions.
Even when a GA Resolution encompasses an existing International Law, it is not the Resolution that is binding, but the international law itself. The GA Resolution may not lend interpretation, alter, extend or otherwise add and change an existing law.
And, while UN Security Council resolutions have the force of law within the UN membership, it depends on the wording as to the ability to enforce compliance; and the intention of the framers. UNSC Resolution 242 is an example where the ambiguity was intentional.
Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.
• Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:
Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.
Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?
A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.
We must be careful of what we say is enforceable.
Most Respectfully,
R
Challenger
Gold Member
Exactly my point. If a GA resolution says stop doing this because it's a breach of so and so international law, the resolution becomes binding on the infringer of that law. GA resolutions also indicate how customary internatioal law is interpreted and how it evolves amongst member states; a sort of world "public opinion".
Challenger
Gold Member
What's "binding" and what's "enforceable" are two differeing kettles of fish. Zionist Israel can confidently ignore international law and international condemnation due to the American veto in the U.N.
Untold damage has been done to the prestige of both the U.N. and the U.S. because of this. While most nations accept that the permanent members on the Security Council will use their vetos when their own vital national interests are involved, few accept the continual abuse of the veto in favour of the national interests of another state.
Challenger
Gold Member
Excellent! this gives me the opportunity of demonstrating how Bison1 takes information and twists it to suit his own agenda, in other words he makes things up.
His initial statement:
I asked for the following:
...but instead of providing the requested link, he comes up with:
This has been around since 2011 (when I first came across it, it's how I knew BS1 wouldn't be able to provide the link I requested) and it directly contradicts BiSon1's assertion that, "...on the same day Israel declared its independence on May 14 1948, at a Cairo press conference reported the next day in The New York Times, Pasha repeated the Arabs' "intervention to restore law and order" revealing:
"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."
What Azam Pasha actually said (indebted to Professor Ephraim Karsh's translation) was:
"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine's Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine … You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews.
"This war will be distinguished by three serious matters. First—faith: as each fighter deems his death on behalf of Palestine as the shortest road to paradise; second, [the war] will be an opportunity for vast plunder. Third, it will be impossible to contain the zealous volunteers arriving from all corners of the world to avenge the martyrdom of the Palestine Arabs, and viewing the war as dignifying every Arab and every Muslim throughout the world …
"The Arab is superior to the Jew in that he accepts defeat with a smile: Should the Jews defeat us in the first battle, we will defeat them in the second or the third battle … or the final one… whereas one defeat will shatter the Jew's morale! Most desert Arabians take pleasure in fighting. I recall being tasked with mediating a truce in a desert war (in which I participated) that lasted for nine months…While en route to sign the truce, I was approached by some of my comrades in arms who told me: 'Shame on you! You are a man of the people, so how could you wish to end the war … How can we live without war?' This is because war gives the Bedouin a sense of happiness, bliss, and security that peace does not provide! …
"I warned the Jewish leaders I met in London to desist from their policy, telling them that the Arab was the mightiest of soldiers and the day he draws his weapon, he will not lay it down until firing the last bullet in the battle, and we will fire the last shot …"
He [Azzam] ended his conversation with me by saying: "I foresee the consequences of this bloody war. I see before me its horrible battles. I can picture its dead, injured, and victims … But my conscience is clear … For we are not attacking but defending ourselves, and we are not aggressors but defenders against an aggression! …"
Far from being a "declaration of war" as BiSon1 would have us believe, this was a bombast laden warning and attempt to deter Zionist agression along with a doom laden warning to the U.N. against voting for partition. The interview also occurred, not in May 1948 as BiSon1 would have us believe, but in October 1947, seven months earlier and a month before GA resolution 181.
See what I mean? I won't accuse BiSon1 of being a ZIO-NAZI LIAR, as Phoney would do, that's just rude and childish, but next time anyone reads a post by Bison1, I'd recommend checking his "facts". More often than not, I suspect you'll find he just makes things up.
His initial statement:
I asked for the following:
...but instead of providing the requested link, he comes up with:
This has been around since 2011 (when I first came across it, it's how I knew BS1 wouldn't be able to provide the link I requested) and it directly contradicts BiSon1's assertion that, "...on the same day Israel declared its independence on May 14 1948, at a Cairo press conference reported the next day in The New York Times, Pasha repeated the Arabs' "intervention to restore law and order" revealing:
"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."
What Azam Pasha actually said (indebted to Professor Ephraim Karsh's translation) was:
"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine's Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine … You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews.
"This war will be distinguished by three serious matters. First—faith: as each fighter deems his death on behalf of Palestine as the shortest road to paradise; second, [the war] will be an opportunity for vast plunder. Third, it will be impossible to contain the zealous volunteers arriving from all corners of the world to avenge the martyrdom of the Palestine Arabs, and viewing the war as dignifying every Arab and every Muslim throughout the world …
"The Arab is superior to the Jew in that he accepts defeat with a smile: Should the Jews defeat us in the first battle, we will defeat them in the second or the third battle … or the final one… whereas one defeat will shatter the Jew's morale! Most desert Arabians take pleasure in fighting. I recall being tasked with mediating a truce in a desert war (in which I participated) that lasted for nine months…While en route to sign the truce, I was approached by some of my comrades in arms who told me: 'Shame on you! You are a man of the people, so how could you wish to end the war … How can we live without war?' This is because war gives the Bedouin a sense of happiness, bliss, and security that peace does not provide! …
"I warned the Jewish leaders I met in London to desist from their policy, telling them that the Arab was the mightiest of soldiers and the day he draws his weapon, he will not lay it down until firing the last bullet in the battle, and we will fire the last shot …"
He [Azzam] ended his conversation with me by saying: "I foresee the consequences of this bloody war. I see before me its horrible battles. I can picture its dead, injured, and victims … But my conscience is clear … For we are not attacking but defending ourselves, and we are not aggressors but defenders against an aggression! …"
Far from being a "declaration of war" as BiSon1 would have us believe, this was a bombast laden warning and attempt to deter Zionist agression along with a doom laden warning to the U.N. against voting for partition. The interview also occurred, not in May 1948 as BiSon1 would have us believe, but in October 1947, seven months earlier and a month before GA resolution 181.
See what I mean? I won't accuse BiSon1 of being a ZIO-NAZI LIAR, as Phoney would do, that's just rude and childish, but next time anyone reads a post by Bison1, I'd recommend checking his "facts". More often than not, I suspect you'll find he just makes things up.
Challenger
Gold Member
Really? Care to provide examples of this remakable skill the arabs have over and above, say America or the west in general?
- Thread starter
- #219
Yikes, OK well try reading it a few times and see if you comprehend it them.
NO GA resolution is binding unless its concerning house policy. Things like budget and how to divvy up power internally.
Quote
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]
End Quote
ONLY security council resolutions are binding and ONLY if passed under tittle 7 of the charter.
Quote
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.
End Quote
So I guess if the UN itself says its not binding. Its not binding ;--)
- Thread starter
- #220
What color is the sky in your little world Spiffy ?
I love it. So I prove that the scum who authored the Arab Leagues declaration of war against Israel both intended it as a declaration of war and a declaration of genocide.
And rather than concede that the quote was accurate, or that the declaration of war was also one of genocide, you argue about where the quote can be found. As its commonly reported to be from one source although its original source is the one I linked to.
And you want to think anyone is fooled by that rather pedestrian effort to obfuscate.
And just for fun lets review that quote again
Quote
Yet, the original document does in fact exist. It has eluded scholars for so long because they have been looking in the wrong place.
In his account of Israel's birth, Stone alluded to the possibility that the threat was made on the eve of the U.N. vote on partition, with the aim of averting this momentous decision, rather than before the pan-Arab invasion of Israel six months later.[7] Following this lead, David Barnett found a Jewish Agency memorandum, submitted on February 2, 1948, to the U.N. Palestine Commission, tasked with the implementation of the partition resolution, and yet again to the U.N. secretary-general on March 29, 1948.
Describing the panoply of Arab threats of war and actual acts of violence aimed at aborting the partition resolution, the memorandum read:
(6) … The "practical and effective means" contrived and advocated by the Arab States were never envisaged as being limited by the provisions of the Charter; indeed, the Secretary-General of the Arab League was thinking in terms which are quite remote from the lofty sentiments of San Francisco. "This war," he said, "will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades."[8]
The Jewish Agency memorandum cites an October 11, 1947 article in the Egyptian newspaper Akhbar al-Yom as the quote's source. An examination of the original article readily confirms the quote's authenticity, laying to rest one of the longest running historiographical debates attending the 1948 war.
End Quote
And since this seems to be a problem for you Spiffy lets look at a few other sources
Quote
The source of the quote was traced by the Computer Scientist Brendan McKay to an October 11, 1947 article in the Egyptian newspaper Akhbar al-Yom, titled "A War of Extermination", which included the quote, with the added words "Personally, I hope the Jews do not force us into this war, because it would be a war of extermination and momentous massacre ...".[1][2] The historian Efraim Karsh considers this quote a "Genocidal threat".[1]
End Quote
So who's to say it wasn't also reported in the source originally quoted ? No one is saying it was never reported or repeated, just that the original quote was as noted above ;--)
So if the US publication isn't good enough for you, and the Israeli note at the UN isn't good enough for you, then maybe the Arab league members themselves publication of it will satisfy you. Or is this another case of cognitive dissonance ?
Cheers
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Harvard’s unofficial copy of Magna Carta is actually an original- Started by egp320i
- Replies: 2
-
-
Why genocidal palestime "Gaza health ministey" wants the war to continue- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 1
-
-
What do you think of the tariffs increasing the price of items at Trader Joe's upsetting affluent liberals?- Started by JakeWIlls92
- Replies: 2
Latest Discussions
-
No Nation should Get U.S. of American Foreign Aid, Unless they Openly Profess that . . .- Latest: John Edgar Slow Horses
-
-
-
-