Thread: Resolution 242; What it REALLY means

Originally Posted by klipkap

By the way, is this part of an automated reply, Edwin, sent irrespective of the content of the rebuttal?

Rubbish. You have been pointed to the fact that both Rabin and Begin did not believe that Nasser wanted war. But then again they are not historians, only Prime Ministers of Israel. You have had the massive provocations by Israel pointed out to you - Samu: the Syrian water project; the well-documented Israeli provocations along Gaza (remember Dayan, Edwin), but you ignore them. All you do is repeat the Zionist mantra that Egypt did the provoking. In fact Egypt was remarkably restrained. [expects Edwin mantra to be returned with zero added value].


Rubbish. Moon is correct. UNSCR 338 made UNSCR 242 binding. Get over it. Drop the mantras, they are so boring and so *clang* empty.

338 is non-binding, too.

Pick your sources more carefully.

Why are you obsessing on a war that happened half a century ago? The Arabs started the war. Move on

Edwin, in the following two short statements, the true breadth of your knowledge about the Israeli-Arab conflict is exposed to full view. You have been arguing with The Judge and with Moon for weeks now on the topic of 242 being binding or not. You have used extremely condescending references to them. You have called yourself ever so knowledgeable, thanked yourself for the 'lessons' you gave them .... and you have been wrong all the way.

Originally Posted by Edwin30

338 is non-binding, too. Pick your sources more carefully.

I try to find the best sources that I possibly can, Edwin. Your style in contrast is to repeat *clang* mantras, not to provide support for your statements, and to pretend that you are having a constructive debate. And when do do provide a resource, you don't even read your own source, like the O'Brien quote where he ever so clearly writes that the Israelis never made their 1967 decision regarding a peace offer public. Yet you thundered on repeating the *clangs* for dozens of posts. So don't reproach me about resources.

So, UNSCR 338 is non-binding, is it? RUBBISH!! Your non-existent resources are wrong ... again. Have a look what the distinctly pro-Israeli professor of law and ex-Undersecretary of State in 1967, Prof. Eugene W Rostow has to say on the matter: http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal1.shtml
"Resolution 242, adopted after the Six-Day War in 1967, sets out criteria for peace-making by the parties; Resolution 338, passed after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, makes resolution 242 legally binding and orders the parties to carry out its terms forthwith. Unfortunately, confusion reigns, even in high places, about what those resolutions require."

Do we need to move on to the ultimate expert in these matters, Rosalyn Higgins? Yeah, why not? "The Court, in dealing with the Security Council Resolutions on Namibia, clearly regarded Chapters VI, VII, VIII and XII as lex specialis while Article 24 contained the lex generalis. Noting that Article 25 was placed not in Chapter VII, but next to Article 24, the Court asserted that resolutions validly adopted under Article 24 were binding on the membership as a whole. This writer believes that a reading of the Charter, its trauvaux and the limited subsequent practice, testify to the correctness of this conclusion."

Want the opinions of the ICJ? Nah, no need. I will keep that in my back pocket. After some responses far less weighty than that you often comment "Pwned!!" I won't.

Originally Posted by Edwin30

Why are you obsessing on a war that happened half a century ago? The Arabs started the war. Move on

Because, Pumpkin, I needed to set the scene for the next assault on the Myths, namely 1967, which I have only just started. It set the scene for 1967, which was the 'unfinished business' (Dayan). And that later consequence is without a doubt the single most important cause of the Palestinian conflict over the past 20 years, the greatest single stumbling block to peace, and the main reason for 9/11, as Osama so clearly spelled out this past week. If none of this matters to you, then you might be justified in querying my 'obsession'.

Originally Posted by klipkap

Edwin, in the following two short statements, the true breadth of your knowledge about the Israeli-Arab conflict is exposed to full view. You have been arguing with The Judge and with Moon for weeks now on the topic of 242 being binding or not. You have used extremely condescending references to them. You have called yourself ever so knowledgeable, thanked yourself for the 'lessons' you gave them .... and you have been wrong all the way.

I try to find the best sources that I possibly can, Edwin. Your style in contrast is to repeat *clang* mantras, not to provide support for your statements, and to pretend that you are having a constructive debate. And when do do provide a resource, you don't even read your own source, like the O'Brien quote where he ever so clearly writes that the Israelis never made their 1967 decision regarding a peace offer public. Yet you thundered on repeating the *clangs* for dozens of posts. So don't reproach me about resources.

So, UNSCR 338 is non-binding, is it? RUBBISH!! Your non-existent resources are wrong ... again. Have a look what the distinctly pro-Israeli professor of law and ex-Undersecretary of State in 1967, Prof. Eugene W Rostow has to say on the matter: http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal1.shtml
"Resolution 242, adopted after the Six-Day War in 1967, sets out criteria for peace-making by the parties; Resolution 338, passed after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, makes resolution 242 legally binding and orders the parties to carry out its terms forthwith. Unfortunately, confusion reigns, even in high places, about what those resolutions require."

Do we need to move on to the ultimate expert in these matters, Rosalyn Higgins? Yeah, why not? "The Court, in dealing with the Security Council Resolutions on Namibia, clearly regarded Chapters VI, VII, VIII and XII as lex specialis while Article 24 contained the lex generalis. Noting that Article 25 was placed not in Chapter VII, but next to Article 24, the Court asserted that resolutions validly adopted under Article 24 were binding on the membership as a whole. This writer believes that a reading of the Charter, its trauvaux and the limited subsequent practice, testify to the correctness of this conclusion."

Want the opinions of the ICJ? Nah, no need. I will keep that in my back pocket. After some responses far less weighty than that you often comment "Pwned!!" I won't.


Because, Pumpkin, I needed to set the scene for the next assault on the Myths, namely 1967, which I have only just started. It set the scene for 1967, which was the 'unfinished business' (Dayan). And that later consequence is without a doubt the single most important cause of the Palestinian conflict over the past 20 years, the greatest single stumbling block to peace, and the main reason for 9/11, as Osama so clearly spelled out this past week. If none of this matters to you, then you might be justified in querying my 'obsession'.

You're asking people to give you the titles of books so you can become knowledgeable of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Now, when can we expect one of those books to be cracked open?

LOL

UN Res. 242 is non-binding.
UN Res. 338 was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, therefore, it's non-binding.

Furthermore, ICJ rulings are non-binding.

Your posts are utterly embarrassing.

If you need to know anything, come to me.

Originally Posted by Edwin30

UN Res. 242 is non-binding.
UN Res. 338 was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, therefore, it's non-binding.

Furthermore, ICJ rulings are non-binding. Your posts are utterly embarrassing.

If you need to know anything, come to me.

Keep it up Ed. You show your inability to comprehend, your *clang* responses, your inflated ego and your lack of ability to respond to logic more and more each day.

I am a giver Ed. Resolutions dont have to be adopted under Chapter VII in order to be binding. The subtleties just keep on passing you by, don't they. Read the pro-Israeli Rostow. Oh I forgot. You can't.

Originally Posted by klipkap

Resolutions dont have to be adopted under Chapter VII in order to be binding. .

Absolutely incorrect. Only Chapter VII UN resolutions are binding.

Read, learn...

Resolutions made under Chapter VII are considered binding, but resolutions under Chapter VI have no enforcement mechanisms and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_resolution

Never contradict me.

Now, among the books you asked people to recommend in order to become knowledgeable about the Middle East, I recommend a few good books on international law.

Actually, I already gave you the titles of books on int'l law.

Moral of the story: Post less. Read more.

Originally Posted by Edwin30

Absolutely incorrect. Only Chapter VII UN resolutions are binding.

Read, learn...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_resolution

Never contradict me.

Now, among the books you asked people to recommend in order to become knowledgeable about the Middle East, I recommend a few good books on international law.

Actually, I already gave you the titles of books on int'l law.

Moral of the story: Post less. Read more.

Distracted by your egoistic instruction regarding contradictions? UNSCR 242 posted under Chapter VI was indeed non-binding; that is not under discussion. Capiche? However, UNSCR 338 was not worded as being posted under either Chapter VI or Chapter VII. So what is it. Let us check YOUR OWN REFERENCE .. reference 3:

^ Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971 at paragraphs 87-116, especially 113: "It has been contended that Article 25 of the Charter applies only to enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter. It is not possible to find in the Charter any support for this view. Article 25 is not confined to decisions in regard to enforcement action but applies to "the decisions of the Security Council" adopted in accordance with the Charter. Moreover, that Article is placed, not in Chapter VII, but immediately after Article 24 in that part of the Charter which deals with the functions and powers of the Security Council. If Article 25 had reference solely to decisions of the Security Council concerning enforcement action under Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter, that is to say, if it were only such decisions which had binding effect, then Article 25 would be superfluous, since this effect is secured by Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter."

Read carefully what the above says regarding the otherwise superfluousness of article 25.

This is why pro-Israeli Eugene Rostow concludes: "This is the ultimate thrust of Resolution 338, a binding decision of the Security Council, with all the power and prestige of the decisions of the International Court of Justice in the Namibia case behind it. "Decisions" of the Security Council, like those for Rhodesia and Namibia, are rare and not lightly voted. Under article 25, they are legally binding on all member states. ---The Illegality of the Arab Attack on Israel of October 6, 1973, by Eugene V. Rostow The American Journal of International Law © 1975, p. 287

Furthermore, article 3 of UNSCR 338 uses the word "decides" regarding the need to embark on negotiations. A decision is absolutely binding in UN-speak. There is no debating this part at all.

You need new law books Edwin. To point me to a reference that proves that UNSCR 242 is non-binding is laughable, since the whole world agrees to that. However, it takes on a different tenor when combined with 338. Rostow remains the most widely respected view on UNSCR 338 since he has been supported in it by ICJ opinions made by very senior legal authorities (which has NOTHING to do with ICJ judgments being binding as you mistakenly concluded).

Conclusion: The weightiest legal opinions view UNSCR 338 as being binding. Regarding clause 3, there is absolutely no doubt that this is binding.

Originally Posted by klipkap

Distracted by your egoistic instruction regarding contradictions? UNSCR 242 posted under Chapter VI was indeed non-binding; that is not under discussion. Capiche? However, UNSCR 338 was not worded as being posted under either Chapter VI or Chapter VII. So what is it. Let us check YOUR OWN REFERENCE .. reference 3:

^ Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971 at paragraphs 87-116, especially 113: "It has been contended that Article 25 of the Charter applies only to enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter. It is not possible to find in the Charter any support for this view. Article 25 is not confined to decisions in regard to enforcement action but applies to "the decisions of the Security Council" adopted in accordance with the Charter. Moreover, that Article is placed, not in Chapter VII, but immediately after Article 24 in that part of the Charter which deals with the functions and powers of the Security Council. If Article 25 had reference solely to decisions of the Security Council concerning enforcement action under Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter, that is to say, if it were only such decisions which had binding effect, then Article 25 would be superfluous, since this effect is secured by Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter."

Read carefully what the above says regarding the otherwise superfluousness of article 25.

This is why pro-Israeli Eugene Rostow concludes: "This is the ultimate thrust of Resolution 338, a binding decision of the Security Council, with all the power and prestige of the decisions of the International Court of Justice in the Namibia case behind it. "Decisions" of the Security Council, like those for Rhodesia and Namibia, are rare and not lightly voted. Under article 25, they are legally binding on all member states. ---The Illegality of the Arab Attack on Israel of October 6, 1973, by Eugene V. Rostow The American Journal of International Law © 1975, p. 287

Furthermore, article 3 of UNSCR 338 uses the word "decides" regarding the need to embark on negotiations. A decision is absolutely binding in UN-speak. There is no debating this part at all.

You need new law books Edwin. To point me to a reference that proves that UNSCR 242 is non-binding is laughable, since the whole world agrees to that. However, it takes on a different tenor when combined with 338. Rostow remains the most widely respected view on UNSCR 338 since he has been supported in it by ICJ opinions made by very senior legal authorities (which has NOTHING to do with ICJ judgments being binding as you mistakenly concluded).

Conclusion: The weightiest legal opinions view UNSCR 338 as being binding. Regarding clause 3, there is absolutely no doubt that this is binding.

You need to learn to accept defeat graciously and move on. Your posts are embarrassing.

UN Res. 242 is non-binding.

UN resolutions don't equate to trouser elastic , Edwin. They are all based upon the law.

Originally Posted by moon

UN resolutions don't equate to trouser elastic , Edwin. They are all based upon the law.

242 is non-binding.

It does not constitute law.

Originally Posted by moon

UN resolutions don't equate to trouser elastic , Edwin. They are all based upon the law.

That's why thiis string was posted.

So we know what the Law is.

INCOMPLETE Withdrawal to NEW "Secure and Recognized borders"
-