12 Aug 06
Apparently Israel isn't even following what the Bush administration believed it would do:
Israel will have the right to respond militarily if it faces an imminent threat, a senior U.S. official said, adding that the United States expects "a dramatic reduction in large-scale violence. We're talking about a defensive response to Hezbollah and not to move any further north -- to stop where they are and the large-scale bombing to stop."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/12/AR2006081200
It took Israel about an hour to move north and bombing has not even slowed.
- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
12 Aug 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeMy understanding is that next week both Israel and Lebanon will consider the resolutions and if they both agree, then the cease fire will come into effect immediately. Immediately from that day, not the day of the UNSC's resolution.
Then why don't you complain about the Hezbollah actions ? Why aren't their actions a breach of the cease-fire ?
12 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by chrissybI suggest you actually read the resolution then. UN Security Council Resolutions regarding international peace are binding on member states; they do not require the approval of the states involved.
My understanding is that next week both Israel and Lebanon will consider the resolutions and if they both agree, then the cease fire will come into effect immediately. Immediately from that day, not the day of the UNSC's resolution.
- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
12 Aug 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI did. But from what i understood from watching the news is that there is a process, and that process is for those two to agree. Once war or the use of force takes place what's legal or not becomes redundant to an extent.
I suggest you actually read the resolution then. UN Security Council Resolutions regarding international peace are binding on member states; they do not require the approval of the states involved.
Your last line that they do not require the approval of the states involved i will check.
12 Aug 06
Originally posted by chrissybUN Charter, Article 25:
I did. But from what i understood from watching the news is that there is a process, and that process is for those two to agree. Once war or the use of force takes place what's legal or not becomes redundant to an extent.
Your last line that they do not require the approval of the states involved i will check.
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.
- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
12 Aug 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI understand that, and you may well be right. But what you see written in the Articles may look clear as day, but it is a matter of interpretation. so it is possible Article 25 may be subject to other Articles in the Charter. What also makes this difficult is because there is no definition of "use of force" or "self defense" in the Charter if i recall, therefore it has to rely on previous cases that have gone to an international court.
UN Charter, Article 25:
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.
But if you will allow me to get back to you on Article 25 i will.
12 Aug 06
Originally posted by chrissybI hope the marauder reads your post
My understanding is that next week both Israel and Lebanon will consider the resolutions and if they both agree, then the cease fire will come into effect immediately. Immediately from that day, not the day of the UNSC's resolution.
12 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeI read it; I do not agree with it given the wording of the resolution.
I hope the marauder reads your post
EDIT: To be more precise, a cease fire will occur when the parties agree to it obviously, but the resolution calls for an "immediate end to hostilities" so the parties are legally required to implement a cease fire immediately. They apparently won't, but that does not mean they are not in violation of the resolution.
12 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoe"in accordance with the present Charter." which SC 1559 is not for the reasons I have given previously.
Including the disarmament of Hezbollah called for in SC resolution 1559 ?
Anyway I gave you the solution; have Hezbollah's armed wing be integrated into the Lebanese army. Would that make you happy, Ivanhoe?
EDIT: To wit, Article 2, section 7: # Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
It was not claimed or nor could it be that SC 1559 was an "enforcement measure under Chapter VII".
- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
12 Aug 06
Originally posted by no1marauderSorry, trying to skim read this text book. I wanted to check if the Lebanon and Israel were part of the member states but it doesn't say, however, it does say that those states who are in conflict and who are members are excluded from the voting process.
UN Charter, Article 25:
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.
But the crux of your argument i think is in regards to the ceasefire becoming immediate upon the UNSC resolution. Without looking for references to that i maintain that there is a process but based on what i heard on the news not from what i have read. However, if your interpretation is correct then the UNSC has the power, not the States, to say whether either Israel or Lebanon are in breach of the resolution. So without referring to other texts it would be interesting to see if the UNSC states this in the next couple of days. If they do, then it is in all likelihood that the offensive will continue.
12 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: "Anyway I gave you the solution; have Hezbollah's armed wing be integrated into the Lebanese army. Would that make you happy, Ivanhoe?"
"in accordance with the present Charter." which SC 1559 is not for the reasons I have given previously.
Anyway I gave you the solution; have Hezbollah's armed wing be integrated into the Lebanese army. Would that make you happy, Ivanhoe?
EDIT: To wit, Article 2, section 7: # Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nat ...[text shortened]... not claimed or nor could it be that SC 1559 was an "enforcement measure under Chapter VII".
Then their Islamist coup d'état would be complete and you would be able to blame Israel for this.
It is a pity for you that only Syria and Iran agree with you on the ridiculous claim that 1559 is illegal.
Anyway, you do not want Hezbollah to disarm. You'll have it your way, because Hezbollah has already announced that they will not disarm its militia south of the Litany River .... and this announcement did NOT come from the legitimate Lebanese government.
The legitimate Lebanese government stated they would accept the resolution as it is.
Now what ? Should Hezbollah disarm south of the Litany river or not ? What does the latest SC resolution say about this issue ?