Originally posted by no1marauderStop manipulating, Mr.Lawyer.
I should point out that only provision 3 of SC 1559 - the call for a disarming of Lebanese militias - is violative of international law as an interference with the internal affairs of Lebanon. As for the rest, a Resolution calling for withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon can hardly be considered support for a foreign invasion.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe link please ?
From cnn.com today:
Lebanese cease-fire plan
The Lebanese cease-fire plan, developed by Lebanese Prime Minister Siniora, will be presented to Rice. It calls for an immediate cease-fire, the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails and the return of two Israeli soldiers held by Hezbollah.
The plan calls for the return of displaced Leban " of international peacekeepers, the sources said.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThey retreated today from Jint Balil after taking heavy losses. Now they are trying to convince other foreigners to occupy Southern Lebanon and fight Hezbollah for them (that is Condi's "plan"😉. Unless they agree to Siniora's terms which are the only way to get a peaceful solution, however, I seriously doubt if anyone is going to bleed for Israel in Lebanon.
Maybe they made the same mistake, but this still remains to be seen. They will not retreat from Libanon after they have gotten hard guarantees that Hezbollah will not get the chance to become the security threat it was able to become despite the agreement laid down in the 2004 SC resolution 1559.
Anyway, Israel's actions show the difficult security situa ...[text shortened]... ael was being manouvered by Syria and Iran (in cooperation with its proxy Hezbollah of course).
Originally posted by no1marauderI didn't claim they were right. That's what you make of it.
Of course; whatever Israel decides is fine with you, no matter how many people die because of their irrational decisions.
What I am trying to do is understand the situation. I do not organise a trial, Mr Lawyer, in order to accuse one side of the conflict of the mess were in, as you always, yes always, are trying to do.
... and guess who are the guilty parties ... always ...... ?
One-dimensional thinking Mr. Prosecutor and completely unsuitable to look for ways to reach a just and lasting peace, as demanded by the 1967 SC resolution 242.
Originally posted by ivanhoeSupporters of Israel, like you, shouldn't cite to a SC resolution that Israel has been in blatant violation of for 39 years, Ivanhoe.
I didn't claim they were right. That's what you make of it.
What I am trying to do is understand the situation. I do not organise a trial, Mr Lawyer, in order to accuse one side of the conflict of the mess were in, as you always, yes always, are trying to do.
... and guess who are the guilty parties ... always ...... ?
One-dimensional thi ...[text shortened]... to look for ways to reach a just and lasting peace, as demanded by the 1967 SC resolution 242.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou haven't presented any facts, marauder. Merely your absurd and completely out of touch with political reality opinion about SC resolution 1559.
Would you care to actually present something refuting the facts I've given?
Who of the relevant UN parties involved share the stance you put forward here ?
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/29/mideast.main/index.html
From cnn.com today:
Lebanese cease-fire plan
The Lebanese cease-fire plan, developed by Lebanese Prime Minister Siniora, will be presented to Rice. It calls for an immediate cease-fire, the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails and the return of two Israeli soldiers held by Hezbollah.
The plan calls for the return of displaced Leban ...[text shortened]... banon, the group objected to "a robust force" of international peacekeepers, the sources said.
Originally posted by ivanhoeFrom my prior post:
You haven't presented any facts, marauder. Merely your absurd and completely out of touch with political reality opinion about SC resolution 1559.
Who of the relevant UN parties involved share the stance you put forward here ?
FACT #1: Hezbollah is composed of Lebanese nationals
FACT #2: Hezbollah is recognized as a national resistance movement by almost all of the governments of the Arab world.
Apparently Lebanon has not regarded SC 1559 as binding. Note also that contrary to your claims, the resolution does not call for the "disbanding" of Hezbollah but merely of its militia (though for the reasons I have stated this is beyond the legitimate powers of the Security Council).
Originally posted by ivanhoeFor some reason, the address of articles is not showing on the page opened on my computer. Anyway, the article makes clear that Hezbollah has signed on to Siniora's proposal regarding a ceasefire though they have reservations about certain details.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/29/mideast.main/index.html
Originally posted by no1marauderFrom SC Resolution 242:
Supporters of Israel, like you, shouldn't cite to a SC resolution that Israel has been in blatant violation of for 39 years, Ivanhoe.
Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
-Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
-Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1967/scres67.htm
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-- How come you and your political friends always manage to remind people of Israel's obligations in SC resolution 242 (withdrawal of occupied territories) and at the same time always manage to fail mentioning the part that deals with the obligations of Israel's foes ? (The recognition of the State of Israel and Israel's right to live within secure and recognised borders)
-- How come you always fail to mention that Israel is called by this resolution to withdraw from occupied territories in the context of a peace agreement which is supposed to include the obligations of Israel's foes mentioned in the same SC resolution 242 ?
-- How come you always fail to mention that Resolution 242 is one of the fundaments of the "Roadmap to Peace", which Israel has accepted as a basis for negotiations with the Palestinians aiming at this very peace agreement mentioned in SC resolution 242 ?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reading the above one cannot help reaching the conclusion that if you post this cliché:
"Originally posted by no1marauder
Supporters of Israel, like you, shouldn't cite to a SC resolution that Israel has been in blatant violation of for 39 years, Ivanhoe."
..... you do not wish to serve the truth. You are only trying to score points in favour of Israel's enemies. You are not trying to contribute to a just and lasting peace which is acceptable to all the parties involved. You are just fueling the conflict and hoping that Israel and the US, always the "guilty" parties in your eyes (and not surprisingly the US administration is your homeland political opponent), will lose.
Originally posted by ivanhoeBecause every one of Israel's "foes" who's land they are occupying has ALREADY ACCEPTED ALL THE OBLIGATIONS IN SC 242. It is only Israel that continues to refuse to abide by it by refusing to negotiate with the recognized leadership of their "foes" i.e. the Palestinians. You also always conveniently leave out the part which says that war cannot change territorial borders. But Israel has never accepted that it has an obligation to withdraw, IN FULL, from the territories it seized in 1967.
From SC Resolution 242:
Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of [b]both the following principles:
-Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
-Termination of all c ed as a basis for negotiations with the Palestinians aiming at this very peace agreement ?[/b]
EDIT: From 242: Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
Yet Israel has annexed areas of East Jerusalem and all of the Golan Heights in clear violation of SC 242.
Have you ever read SC 476, Ivanhoe:
1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;
2. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;
3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
4. Reiterates that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council;
5. Urgently calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy city of Jerusalem;
6. Reaffirms its determination in the event of non-compliance by Israel with this resolution, to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations to secure the full implementation of this resolution.
Read 1 very carefully.
Or Security Council resolution 497:
The Security Council,
Having considered the letter of 14 December 1981 from the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic contained in document S/14791,
Reaffirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, the principles of international law, and relevant Security Council resolutions,
1. Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect;
2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision;
3. Determines that all the provisions of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since June 1967;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of this resolution within two weeks and decides that in the event of non-compliance by Israel, the Security Council would meet urgently, and not later than 5 January 1982, to consider taking appropriate measures in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.