Right.

"The relation between the Security Council and international law is complex. The Council is clearly a product of international law, but it is also the author of, and interpreter of, law."

Source: here, at the bottom of page 2


Do you actually think that only legally trained people create law? Are all politicians lawyers?
This might blow your mind, but law can be created by the legislator, the executive and the judicative.

Care to explain your layman's view on the difference between a "legally binding resolutions" and "law"?
Or will you stop talking about things that you clearly have no idea of?

Fine. I'll do that. FWIW, I'm not saying that Israel is unjustified in defending its citizens. The methods though seem excessive and counter-productive.

An obvious one: Hamas is a terrorist organization. Easily granted but then a lot of things follow, leading nowhere.

Sure, the paper you presented certainly repeats the same words you do. Except the context we are discussing is the determination of whether the settlements are illegal. And (surprise), your paper continues:
In respect of the issue of whether the settlements are illegal, the UN Security Council makes no such determination. In fact, any UN Security Council resolutions with respect to the settlements (i.e. 446), dealt with belligerent occupation of the West Bank from Jordan - which renounced claims to the West Bank in 1988. Meaning, of course, that the resolution no longer carries any legal meaning.

This leaves a situation where the only High Contracting Party of the "Geneva Conventions" (i.e. not "Palestine") to claim the West Bank as its territory is Israel. Therefore, the West Bank can not, under the definition currently in use by the Geneva Conventiona, be considered "occupied". And this is no longer an "international peace and security" issue.

lol, thanks, Captain 1L. It doesn't change that "the UN is not a parliament", which is what you initially took issue with.

Uh, legally binding resolutions are resolutions based on the powers of the body that so resolved. The powers of the UN Security Council do not allow it to make determinations of international law outside making recommendations or taking measures for "the maintenance of international peace and security." Further details are available here. Meaning they are more akin to regulations. Certainly the UNSC has pseudo-law making powers in limited contexts, but in no manner can that context be a determination of who has the best claim to a piece of territory. Indeed, the Charter specifically considers that possibility:
In other words, the SC can demand that parties do not build any more settlements in the meantime, but it cannot make a determination that the settlements themselves are illegal.

Also, in the kicker, you made a real ass of yourself using the word "layman".

Now that you agree I never supported "neutering Ethiopians", how about you renounce the claim that I think the Bible has any relevance to this conflict (beyond the fact that its continued usage is evidence of a long-term ongoing cultural claim to the land) or that I support "Israeli snipers shooting kids" or whatever nonsense you wrote?

No, I don't think they want to kill children. I think they know they will.

They want to minimize deaths balanced against their other goals. The balance seems completely unreasonable.

That's not the only alternative.

at least there's some reason in this post.

Do you believe that, in attempting to achieve the goal of not having rockets fired at your face, you ought to be permitted to take action against the governing entity that is firing the rockets? Even if it is known that some of the citizens of that governing entity will die?

To take an extreme example, are you saying that every German civilian death in WW2 was unacceptable? Has any just cause war been thereafter been retroactively labelled unjust by civilian deaths, other than in Israel/Gaza?

Here's a better question: what ratio of civilian:military deaths is acceptable in war? Where does Israel rank on the all-time list of civilian:military deaths?

Nonsense? You support medically removing their ability to give birth without their consent. "But they don't even know how to use electricity" position is so laughably bad.

Theres nothing to brag about on your position on the matter. Expose your racist bigotry even more.

Go ahead, keep defending it. It's fun to see you going to bat again on prior claims of idiocy.

Anyone still insisting Hamas didn't kidnap those teens?

Hamas Official takes credit for kidnap and murder of Israeli teens

Once again, we see that the IDF is a far more reliable source of information than even journalists.

Here's some from a unit in Gaza.

If anyone needs me to translate, ask for a timestamp.

Though I disagree, this is a basis for reasonable criticism cf. the majority of dreck itt.

As a native of the area, I'm aware of Hamas' many other activities, but the actions of the Iz ad Din al Kassam brigade, which doubtless takes orders from its political wing, most certainly, unequivocally, makes Hamas a terrorist organization and is designated as such by virtually the entire Western world. Not sure why this is even an issue.

This is inaccurate. An occupying power doesn't have a right to self defense under international law.

What country are they occupying?

Gambler , what's that video you posted?

Setting aside whether this is even an accurate assessment of international law (and without researching the issue, I strongly suspect you're misstating international law), Israel should simply allow rockets to be fired indiscriminately upon its civilians and face the threat of terrorist attacks via underground tunnels undeterred? Lol.

Israel also withdrew from from Gaza in 2005, so I'm not even sure it would meet the definition of an "occupying power" in any event.

Israel is an occupying power and Palestine is occupied territory according to UN.

Palestine as the occupied territory has the right to defend itself. Israel, as the occupier doesn't. Whatever force they use is to continue the occupation, not to defend themselves.

Airspace and borders continued under control of Israel. Being under control of an hostile army is occupation.

"In the resolution, adopted by a vote of 29 States in favour, 1 against and 17 abstentions, the Council strongly condemned the failure of Israel, the occupying Power, to end its prolonged occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem; and condemned in the strongest terms the widespread, systematic and gross violations of international human rights and fundamental freedoms arising from the Israeli military operations carried out in the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 13 June 2014 that may amount to international crimes, directly resulting in the killing of more than 650 Palestinians, most of them civilians and more than 170 of whom were children, the injury of more than 4,000 people and the wanton destruction of homes, vital infrastructure and public properties. "

http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news...2?OpenDocument

Also, that move was admitted by Israeli officials intended to block peace process:

"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde," he said. "It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."


http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...ocess-1.136686

Funny enough, that issue has been explored.

The Mythical Post-2005 Israeli Occupation of the Gaza Strip

Instead of appealing to a lolthority, why don't you take us through the legal analysis? The law, as applied to the facts? Like normal people who are not propagandizing.

To discuss quotes of Bar Ilan's fanatic's opinions would be to give them a lot of undue weight when we consider we are talking about UN resolutions here.

Sweet hand waving there.

But I'm way ahead of you.

This statement:
is profoundly, absurdly incorrect.

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations

The Geneva Conventions, even in the interpretation by the International Committee of the Red Cross, requires that ground forces exercise “control within” the territory.

It is clear that an occupying power must be in a position to operate as a governmental authority i.e. not simply control the borders and airspace. The Hamas government rules Gaza without Israeli influence on its political process (for clarity, Israel does not tell the Hamas government how to govern). It makes and sets laws and more importantly, enforces them (with its typical murderous iron fist).

Furthermore, Israel does not control all of the borders of Gaza - Egypt runs the southern border.

No-fly zones and other blockades in rogue countries, like Libya, Bosnia, Iraq before 2003, a potential no-fly zone over Syria, and even back when Kennedy blockaded Cuba, have never been considered occupations by the UN, even though there was clearly control of those countries' borders and airspace.

So all that UN resolution really means is that - as usual - there is one law for Israel and one law for the rest of the world.

Lol, reading this link gave me quite the chuckle when you see the countries that comprise the U.N.'s Human Rights Council. Let's have a look to see who sits in judgment of Israel, shall we?

Syria, Sudan, Iran, Libya, Jordan, Afghanistan, Chad, Djibouti, Lebanon, Bolivia...

These are just some of the countries that are condemning Israel's human rights abuses?? Talk about hypocrisy. How the **** does Sudan or Syria of all countries have a seat at the table? It's kinda difficult to take anything this council says at face value when Sudan and Syria are on this council.

In any event, Israel has long been the U.N.'s punching bag, but this isn't an analysis of international law. It's a bunch of hypocrites with horrible human rights records in their own right looking to draw attention away from themselves, so forgive me if I don't take the labels they attach to their resolutions as gospel.

News report featuring GoPro footage from a soldier in the op in Gaza.

I opened this thread to lose my faith in humanity. It delivered

Gamblor, let me suggest a thought experiment: imagine that you are now a Palestinian living in Gaza and you read this thread. Does PalestinianGamblor agree with everything Gamblor has been saying in this thread?

My personal intuition is that a palestinian-you would be justifying every escalation from the palestinian side just like you seem to be justifying every escalation from the israeli side. I also think that this conflict could never end if the two sides were composed entirely of gamblors. But feel free to convince me otherwise.

Gamblor can speak for himself but I have some thoughts:

You are making the traditional 'I think you'd do the same if you were in their place' argument. But rather than say 'PalestinianGamblor' the answer really lies in what happens if he is 'PalestinianJewGamblor', IOW, switching the sides entirely. I can tell you this: If JewPalestinians in Gaza were offered everything they are asking for right now, w/ satisfactory guarantees in exchange for laying down their weapons, they would accept. IMO, of course, but it's a strong opinion.

I think you should read Gamblor more carefully. He is very particular when it comes to facts. You can argue all you want w/ him but he'll provide links for every position he takes bec he's done the research. ITT, he's said that if the Palestinians want peace they can have it. But more importantly I pressed him on what he thought a future peace deal would look like and despite his support for the settlements, and what I consider his main weakness of completely not understanding their significance, he admitted that most settlements would have to go (while calling it ethnic cleansing).

Your thought experiment doesn't compute bec you are not switching like minded sides as if everybody thinks the same way. The Palestinians have not been practical and by their inaction have let a radicalized Jewish movement develop that would not have gained traction if a peace deal were reached long ago. But that was in Arafat's time and he would never give up the romance of the struggle.

Now it's a question as to whether it's too late or not. A lot of ppl think the Israelis don't really want peace and they may be right. But of a certainty there won't be peace w/ rockets flying into Israel and infiltration tunnels designed for the sole purpose of killing/kidnapping Israelis. They indicate a clear intent to carry on an attack no matter how ineffectual and it demonstrates the Hamas mind-set. As long as Hamas is in charge of Gaza nothing is going to change.

That's absolutely not the argument I'm trying to make because I dont think "they" make any sense there. Not all Palestinians do or think the same, not all Israeli do or think the same.

My point is that I think Gamblor would not have the same opinion at all if he lived on the other side of the border, and therefore he cannot claim to be objective or unbiased.

There is not a palestinian way of thinking and an israeli way of thinking.
imo extremists on both sides are very similar. people who just want the violence to stop on both sides are very similar. extremists and people who want the violence to stop are quite different.

Arguing that Israel and Palestine are two homogeneous groups, one being good and the other being evil, is stupid and toxic. Unfortunately these debates are almost always poluted with such arguments.

"you're biased" and "not all palestinians are terrorists".

how original.

Why? Did Tien embarrass you so badly that you had to pretend not to notice?

Sometimes Gamblor's irony is revolting. Sometimes it is comical:







I'll take your non-response as an indication that you've been educated and you won't advance that particular falsehood any longer.