Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? (long)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Who exactly has the authority to declare the actions of a sovereign nation are legal or illegal? Certainly not the UN.

Uhhh, remember Iraq? The UN certainly does have the authority, if those actions violate some established norm of international law. And Israeli sovereignty isn't legally recognized beyond the 1948 borders - Israel (legally, not de facto) only has occupying power status beyond those borders.

[Az]

yep.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
You mean like China has invalidated it by not withdrawing from Korea or Tibet like the UN ordered? Or what about how Zimbabwe, Congo, Rowanda, Yugoslavia and a million others? The Un has never had the force of law it is and always has been nothing more then window dressing for the Great Powers.

BTW Show me the UNSC (not general assembly which is a total joke) resolution which ORDERS Israel to do anything as opposed to requests, asks, or calls for. I'll give you a hint...It doesn't exist.

"Force of law" and "force necessary to enforce the law" are two different things. Let's say you live in a very small town in a rural county and 15 squatters with fully automatic weapons move into your house. The local law dogs might not have enough power to enforce trespassing, burglary and assault laws until the Feds or state troopers show up, but they are still valid laws.

[Az]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


"Force of law" and "force necessary to enforce the law" are two different things. Let's say you live in a very small town in a rural county and 15 squatters with fully automatic weapons move into your house. The local law dogs might not have enough power to enforce trespassing, burglary and assault laws until the Feds or state troopers show up, but they are still valid laws.

So, where are the feds?

[MichaeltheGreat]

The UN doesn't have any unless we provide them, and we're your boys, so you don't have to worry about it.

[Az]

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Uhhh, remember Iraq? The UN certainly does have the authority, if those actions violate some established norm of international law. And Israeli sovereignty isn't legally recognized beyond the 1948 borders - Israel (legally, not de facto) only has occupying power status beyond those borders.

when and by what document were the 1948 ceasefire lines recognized as legal boundaries???? UNSC 242 stated that all states in the region (including Israel) were entitled to secure and recognized boundaries, implicitly acknowledging that Israel did not have recognized boundaries with the West Bank or Gaza.
The UN may refer to Israel as occupier, but that contradicts their own position on Israels boundaries, IIUC. In fact the territories are "disputed", and final disposition awaits a negotiated settlement. The US has opposed settlement expansion not because the settlements are illegal under international law (which they are not) but because by unilaterally establishing facts on the ground, they (arguably) make discussions of territorial compromise more difficult, and thus are "obstacles to peace"

[GePap]

Given that israel denies citizenship to the vast majority of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza, perhaps even they know that they are currently occupiers, not the legal owners of that land.

[Edan]

Yeah, the '48 borders were never recognized as permanent borders but cease fire lines.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


"Force of law" and "force necessary to enforce the law" are two different things. Let's say you live in a very small town in a rural county and 15 squatters with fully automatic weapons move into your house. The local law dogs might not have enough power to enforce trespassing, burglary and assault laws until the Feds or state troopers show up, but they are still valid laws.

but the local law dogs could at least issue an order that the squatters depart. In this case no such order has been issued - cause the relevant legal body - the UNSC has NOT determined that this is a case of squatting, rather than a case of disputed possesion.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
Given that israel denies citizenship to the vast majority of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza, perhaps even they know that they are currently occupiers, not the legal owners of that land.

Well, Israel offered citizenship to the Palestinians living in east Jerusalem when it annexed it, but most places don't recognize east Jerusalem as part of Israel.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Given that israel denies citizenship to the vast majority of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza, perhaps even they know that they are currently occupiers, not the legal owners of that land.

no they are disputed territories - to which Israel has a claim - however in view of the dispute, and the need to achieve peace by a territorial compromise, they have refrained from annexing the land, and have administered it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


when and by what document were the 1948 ceasefire lines recognized as legal boundaries???? UNSC 242 stated that all states in the region (including Israel) were entitled to secure and recognized boundaries, implicitly acknowledging that Israel did not have recognized boundaries with the West Bank or Gaza.
The UN may refer to Israel as occupier, but that contradicts their own position on Israels boundaries, IIUC. In fact the territories are "disputed", and final disposition awaits a negotiated settlement. The US has opposed settlement expansion not because the settlements are illegal under international law (which they are not) but because by unilaterally establishing facts on the ground, they (arguably) make discussions of territorial compromise more difficult, and thus are "obstacles to peace"

They were recognized in 1950. And the US postion has been that settlements are a violation of the Geneva conventions, which do prohibit an occupying power from resettling its population into occupied territory. Israel is the only state that claims that the Geneva convention does not hold for the occupied territories. Your reading of 242 is rahter incomplete, givenm the call for Israel to withdraw from territories it occupied. Both Jordan and Egypt passed the buck to the Palestinians as far as resolving the territorial status of the West bank and Gaza, but the deals they made with Israel did not grant Israel a final claim over Gaza or teh west bank. Until israel has a piece of paper in it, and agreement signed with the Palestinians, about borders, then it is an occupying power, and subject to the geneva conventions, wihch clearly outlaw something like settlements.

[Eli]

Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura?

Skanky! Get him boys!

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


no they are disputed territories - to which Israel has a claim - however in view of the dispute, and the need to achieve peace by a territorial compromise, they have refrained from annexing the land, and have administered it.

No,a s i post above, they are occupied. israel has no civil authority over them, only military. That means it's axtions are ot be judged using the Geneva conventions, which make settlements illegal.