Israel Responds to UN Security Council

Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]Marauder: "Anyway I gave you the solution; have Hezbollah's armed wing be integrated into the Lebanese army. Would that make you happy, Ivanhoe?"

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 i ...[text shortened]... outh of the Litany river or not ? What does the latest SC resolution say about this issue ?[/b]

I fail to see how integrating the Hezbollah militia into the Lebanese army would constitute an "Islamist coup d'etat". Perhaps you could explain this odd claim.

If my claim is so "ridiculous", it should be easy for you to make a reasoned argument based on the text of the UN Charter that this is so. Please proceed.

Originally posted by chrissyb
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2305595

The above link just confirms what i mentioned about a process. Israel takes the resolution back to their cabinet to agree. From what Ivanhoe has said, Lebanon's govt. has already agreed to it.

(Shrug). The fact that Israel is treating the cessation of offensive actions by it as a "process" in the face of wording that calls for an "immediate end to hostilities" shows only the contempt Israel has for international law and nothing else. Israel has been an international outlaw for many years though, so this is hardly surprising.

Originally posted by no1marauder
(Shrug). The fact that Israel is treating the cessation of offensive actions by it as a "process" in the face of wording that calls for an "immediate end to hostilities" shows only the contempt Israel has for international law and nothing else. Israel has been an international outlaw for many years though, so this is hardly surprising.

They both were afforded the opportunity as part of the process to take it back to their respective governements. I'm sure they are well within their rights under international law to keep fighting until that process is complete 🙁 it is not surprising to expect either party or one party to do maximum damage in that time, thats war, unfortunately.

i don't know the history of the actions of Israel other than what i learn from you guys, however, i think most states to an extent are guilty of rogue behaviour. thats politics.

Originally posted by chrissyb
They both were afforded the opportunity as part of the process to take it back to their respective governements. I'm sure they are well within their rights under international law to keep fighting until that process is complete 🙁 it is not surprising to expect either party or one party to do maximum damage in that time, thats war, unfortunately.

i don guys, however, i think most states to an extent are guilty of rogue behaviour. thats politics.

You are wrong. Please cite to some wording in the resolution supporting such claims.

EDIT: Here's the relevant passages:

1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are wrong. Please cite to some wording in the resolution supporting such claims.

oh man, now i have to go back and do more reading. i don't mind but don't rush me. that would not be in the resolution, but it would be a matter of construction from the UN Charter. I'd understand the Charter is what gives states their rights until such time as the resolution comes into effect.

the text i am using as a resource is Anton, Matthew & Morgan, International Law, Cases and Materials in case you are interested.

Originally posted by chrissyb
oh man, now i have to go back and do more reading. i don't mind but don't rush me. that would not be in the resolution, but it would be a matter of construction from the UN Charter. I'd understand the Charter is what gives states their rights until such time as the resolution comes into effect.

the text i am using as a resource is Anton, Matthew & Morgan, International Law, Cases and Materials in case you are interested.

Good for you, but you have to look at the wording of the resolution for when it is supposed to go into active effect. "Immediate" means "immediate" not "whenever the parties get around to agreeing" - you hardly need a resolution for that.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Good for you, but you have to look at the wording of the resolution for when it is supposed to go into active effect. "Immediate" means "immediate" not "whenever the parties get around to agreeing" - you hardly need a resolution for that.

🙂 This is what i meant earlier when i said that something can appear to be clearly written but it may be subject to something else. so the definition of "immediate" to the lay person can be NOW, but in the context of the circumstances we are discussing (war, international law, UN resolutions, politics etc) i would define "immediate" as it appears in the resolution to be upon completion of the process we have talked about.

Originally posted by chrissyb
[b]🙂 This is what i meant earlier when i said that something can appear to be clearly written but it may be subject to something else.

Actually i'll give you an example of interpretation depending on circumstances.

"Imminent" danger. Imminent we would imagine to be highly likely that danger is going to happen very very soon. so we can claim self defense. but if a person in a domestic violence situation kills the partner whilst they are sleeping can they argue they were in imminent danger? yeah. coz in her mind (its referred to as battered womans syndrome) as soon as he woke up she truly believed he would carry out his threat. A Canadian case (Lavelle - sp?) and an Australian case (Secretary).

Originally posted by chrissyb
🙂 This is what i meant earlier when i said that something can appear to be clearly written but it may be subject to something else. so the definition of "immediate" to the lay person can be NOW, but in the context of the circumstances we are discussing (war, international law, UN resolutions, politics etc) i would define "immediate" as it appears in the resolution to be upon completion of the process we have talked about.

You rather clearly don't know what you're talking about; no rational person would interpret an "immediate cessation of hostilities" to mean "whenever the parties get around to it". Suppose one party NEVER agrees to "cease hostilities"? Apparently to you the resolution is OK with that. That is manifestly absurd.

Whenever someone would say to my Contracts professor "Well couldn't you argue ........." he'd immediately say "Yes" without letting them finish the sentence. So you can go ahead and argue that your contrived "definition" is what "immediate" means. But you might as well argue that the word "chair" means a transportation vehicle with an internal combustion engine; it makes equal sense.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What do these words mean to you "Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;"

Note the word "immediate".

It means exactly the same as every other U.N. resolution that's ever been passed... absolutely nothing.

Of course, they could always pass another resolution, compelling both sides to comply with the resolutions they've already passed...and if both sides don't comply, then the U.N. will get really tough, and pass even stronger resolutions.

But you might as well argue that the word "chair" means a transportation vehicle with an internal combustion engine; it makes equal sense.[/b]

Put up a good enough argument, you could probably pull it off too 😀

You know rather than say "you are wrong" or "you clearly don't know what you are talking about", you would be better served waiting until i come up with that reference. and if i'm wrong, i'll admit it. can i expect the same courtesy from you?

contracts - you have a meeting of the minds, you have both agreed to perform whatever obligations are required by each party within the specified timeframe. BUT that is after it has undergone the process of offer, acceptance, consideration etc. etc.

this resolution - wouldn't the meeting of the minds occur once Israel agrees. because then like the contract situation, all parties have agreed and will now undertake to perform their obligations.

Originally posted by chrissyb
Put up a good enough argument, you could probably pull it off too 😀

You know rather than say "you are wrong" or "you clearly don't know what you are talking about", you would be better served waiting until i come up with that reference. and if i'm wrong, i'll admit it. can i expect the same courtesy from you?

contracts - you have a meeting of the m ...[text shortened]... situation, all parties have agreed and will now undertake to perform their obligations.

A Security Council Resolution is not a contract between the Security Council and the nation states that are told what they are required to do by it. Israel's state of mind is absolutely irrelevant in the context of a Security Council Resolution; they are not a member of the Security Council. The US view was given above; it is hardly consistent with Israel tripling its force level
inside Lebanon and bombing all through the country AFTER the resolution calling for an immediate end to hostilities was passed.

The terms of a Security Council Resolution are to be interpreted according to their common usage unless a contrary meaning is clearly intended by the members of the Council by the context of the resolution. In this case, immediate has a clear meaning and there is nothing in the text of the resolution, which was subject to extensive negotiations, to indicate a meaning contrary to common usage was intended.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A Security Council Resolution is not a contract between the Security Council and the nation states that are told what they are required to do by it. Israel's state of mind is absolutely irrelevant in the context of a Security Council Resolution; they are not a member of the Security Council. The US view was given above; it is hardly consistent with Israe ...[text shortened]... subject to extensive negotiations, to indicate a meaning contrary to common usage was intended.

i didn't say it was. i used the contract situation as an analogy about an agreement process.

If you are right, then why are they waiting around for Israel to agree? (unless they have made their decision by the time this has been posted). Why didn't they go in immediately as you suggest the words to mean?

Hindsight will decide if the UN action/inaction was wrong or right. little comfort to the victims.

The Charter was developed after the cold war?? Without reading its history i am thinking it was based on States fighting States, not States fighting terrorist groups. This is not some riot involving A & B you just go in there and stop it. This is a war that can have serious repercussions and every actor in this process is no doubt pushing their own political agenda.

i maintain my position as you will yours about the definition of "immediate". any continuation of our disagreement will be repetitive.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I fail to see how integrating the Hezbollah militia into the Lebanese army would constitute an "Islamist coup d'etat". Perhaps you could explain this odd claim.

If my claim is so "ridiculous", it should be easy for you to make a reasoned argument based on the text of the UN Charter that this is so. Please proceed.

marauder: "I fail to see how integrating the Hezbollah militia into the Lebanese army would constitute an "Islamist coup d'etat". Perhaps you could explain this odd claim."

Please read the thread called "A message from a Lebanese journalist"

By the way I did not claim that the mere integrating of Hezbollah in the Lebanese army alone would constitute this coup d'état.

Marauder: " If my claim is so "ridiculous", it should be easy for you to make a reasoned argument based on the text of the UN Charter that this is so. Please proceed."

Your claim about 1559 being illegal isn't just silly it is also completely mute since the overwhelming majority of the countries of the United Nations and all the countries in the Security Council do not support Syria in this ridiculous claim.

It is simply a waste of time discussing this non-issue.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
marauder: "I fail to see how integrating the Hezbollah militia into the Lebanese army would constitute an "Islamist coup d'etat". Perhaps you could explain this odd claim."

Please read the thread called "A message from a Lebanese journalist"

By the way I did not claim that the mere integrating of Hezbollah in the Lebanese army alone would constitute th ...[text shortened]... n this ridiculous claim.

It is simply a waste of time discussing this non-issue.

I stated a solution would be for Hezbollah's armed wing to be integrated into the Lebanese army and you claimed:

Ivanhoe: Then their Islamist coup d'état would be complete and you would be able to blame Israel for this.

So all that is missing in your view for Lebanon's "Islamist coup d'etat" is for Hezbollah to be a part of the Lebanese Army. Please explain why you think this; if some "Lebanese journalist" wants to post his views in this thread that's OK with me, but if you personally don't want to debate what are you doing in the Debates forum?

If it's a "waste of time" discussing SC 1559, why do you keep bringing it up?