I told you i wasn't going to waste energy on reading the now proven to be useless references. So you don't like the score. It could be looked at as your score; 5 FD fuck ups for 5.
Hamas will NEVER accept peace (for flub)
- Thread starter basketcase
- Start date
And has Israel withdrawn from all Lebanese territory?Here is the text from the resolution that you obviously didn't read:
"Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the Government of Lebanon and UNIFIL as authorized by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout the South and calls upon the Government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel;"
So Israel is to withdraw as Lebanon takes over the territory.
Are they out of the Shebaa Farms?
And flyovers into Lebanese space are not defensive.Note too that the resolution requires a full cessation of ALL attacks by Hezbollah and Lebanon, but only a cessation of "offensive" attacks by Israel. Israel is entitled under the resolution to respond with defensive uses of military force, for example, taking out installations that are have attacked Israel is a defensive use of force.
Quite offensive, I'd say.
Whether it's Lebanese territory or not is disputed, and the UN has in the past agreed with Israel that withdrawl from Lebanon does not require withdrawl from Shebaa Farms.And has Israel withdrawn from all Lebanese territory?
Are they out of the Shebaa Farms?
Nope. Not if in response to an attack.And flyovers into Lebanese space are not defensive.
Quite offensive, I'd say.
Here is the demands of 1701 (from wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1701)...
And how about resolution 1701?
Another resolution Israel doesn't have to uphold?
...
My comments are in bold.
The Resolution demands:[1]
* Full cessation of hostilities (OP1) - done by both sides for now
* Israel to withdraw all of its forces from Lebanon in parallel with Lebanese and UNIFIL soldiers deploying throughout the South (OP2) UNIFIL has stated Israel has withdrawn
* Hezbollah to be disarmed (OP3) Nowhere near. In fact Hezbollah brags about how much better armed they are now
* Full control of Lebanon by the government of Lebanon (OP3) Hezbollah still controlls the south and parts of Beruit and has repeatedly threatened its own government with violence - including the current crisis over Hezbollahs assassinations which has essentially halted all parliamentary process for the past year.
* No paramilitary forces, including (and implying) Hezbollah, will be south of the Litani River (OP8). Not done - not anywhere near. Hezbollah routinely stop the UNIFIL patrolls from entering sensitive areas through the use of force and has fortified many civilian areas.
The Resolution at the same time also emphasizes:[1]
* The need to address urgently the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers, that have given rise to the current crisis. Hezbollah shipped back their dead bodies in exchange for child killers.
It could be argued that Israel still violates Lebanese air space but compared to the massive violations that Hezbollah creates, I don't think your argument holds weight (as usual)
Then since there hasn't been an attack from Lebanon in quite some time now, the flyovers are aggressive.Nope. Not if in response to an attack.
Which is why the UN was called on.
Glad we agree they were an aggressive act contrary to UN resolution 1701.
When the UN demarcated Israel's border with Lebanon, they determined that the Shebaa Farms were Syrian, not Lebanese.And has Israel withdrawn from all Lebanese territory?
Are they out of the Shebaa Farms?
...
The only territory is the northern part of one village that Israel is working with UNIFIL to coordinate on.
You can talk when Lebanon comes anywhere near implementing 1701 by disarming Hezbollah.Then since there hasn't been an attack from Lebanon in quite some time now, the flyovers are aggressive.
Which is why the UN was called on.
Glad we agree they were an aggressive act contrary to UN resolution 1701.
There have also been six incidents of rocket attacks on Israel from Lebanon since 2006.
p.s. Hezbollah is still armed (in violation of 1701) and is still active in the south (in violation of 1701) and still imports arms (in violation of 1701) and still impedes UNIFIL's work (in violation of 1701) and still uses the threat of force to interfere with the Lebanese political system (in violation of 1701).
I seem to recall that just recently a Lebanese sniper killed an Israeli well inside Israel's territory. Israel quite properly responded to this illegal, aggressive, and hostile Lebanese behavior with a flyover.Then since there hasn't been an attack from Lebanon in quite some time now, the flyovers are aggressive.
See basketcases's post above for a nice list of the various ways in which Lebanon is in complete and utter violation of resolution 1701: The requirement for Israel to withdraw has in fact not been manifested yet, per the resolution, although Israel, being a good and peaceful country, withdrew anyway even though the resolution didn't require it to do so until Lebanon achieved compliance.
Here is the demands of 1701 (from wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1701)
My comments are in bold.
Shall I go on to list the requirements that Israel has not fulfilled as well?
I could start with maps for the illegal cluster bombing, but I think I'll just add this list.
Complaints from Lebanon;
http://www.yalibnan.com/2010/12/19/lebanon-complains-to-u-n-about-israeli-spy-devices/
And a report on illegal goatnapping
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=114660#axzz1AglHHTXY
Compaints on the sea
http://blog.dailyalert.org/2010/07/19/lebanon-complains-to-un-about-israeli-sea-border/
Complaints in the air
http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/middle-east/un-israel-violates-lebanon-resolution
Complaints on the land
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/Newsdesk.nsf/Story/53E7D3B0696E7DE7C22571F80040FB0A?OpenDocument&PRINT
Complaints about raids (no goats involved)
http://articles.cnn.com/2006-08-19/world/mideast.main_1_israel-and-hezbollah-cease-fire-israeli-troops?_s=PM:WORLD
and finally, from the original article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110110/wl_nm/us_lebanon_unLebanon's prime minister urged the U.N. chief on Sunday to increase pressure on Israel to end all violations of Lebanese borders, and to help prevent it from exploiting Lebanese oil and gas, a Lebanese official said.
In a one-hour meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at a New York hotel, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri insisted on the "full implementation of U.N. Security Council resolution 1701," a member of Hariri's delegation told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
U.N. Security Council resolution 1701 halted hostilities in the Israeli-Hezbollah war in 2006 and banned all unauthorized weapons between the Litani River and the Blue Line, the U.N.-monitored border between Israel and Lebanon.
How about you stick to resolution 1701 or admit that you lost that debate, before changing the topic?Shall I go on to list the requirements that Israel has not fulfilled as well?
Shall I go on and state that Lebanon has in no way come anywhere close to fulfilling the requirements of 1701. Only UN demand they complied with was hand over a few dead bodies (of people kidnapped from inside Israel).Shall I go on to list the requirements that Israel has not fulfilled as well?
...
Who changed the topic.How about you stick to resolution 1701 or admit that you lost that debate, before changing the topic?
All those are reports of Israel's infringement of resolution 1701, buddy.
You failed to address the point: Israel's not required to withdraw from Lebanon until Hezbollah is disarmed and Lebanese forces take over the area. How can there be any violation when Lebanon has yet to enact the preconditions required for an Israeli withdrawl?Who changed the topic.
All those are reports of Israel's infringement of resolution 1701, buddy.
The fact that Israel withdrew anyway, despite not having to, is irrelevant to that point--Israel's not required to do anything until Lebanon complies.
The Lebanese side bitching about shit when they haven't yet done their part is just a bunch of hogwash from them. The text of the resolution is clear enough.
No, the resolution clearly said in parallel, not Lebanon goes first and Israel waits.You failed to address the point: Israel's not required to withdraw from Lebanon until Hezbollah is disarmed and Lebanese forces take over the area. How can there be any violation when Lebanon has yet to enact the preconditions required for an Israeli withdrawl?.
And here, I have to have a small detour, relevant to the talk here.
In this resolution, the UN uses the term 'calls upon' repeatedly as the strongest language.
But Fuji has been repeatedly arguing that a UN SC Chapter VI resolution that uses the terms 'calls upon' is not binding.
So which is it?
Is Lebanon bound to disarm Hezbollah and Israel bound to allow its nuclear industry to be inspected by the IAEA?
or
Are they both free to do whatever they like?
It also says "as that deployment begins" requiring Lebanon to start first. Learn to read.No, the resolution clearly said in parallel, not Lebanon goes first and Israel waits.
No you idiot, it uses the term "decides". Why don't you actually READ the resolution before spouting off your mouth with bullshit? I notice you NEVER read things, you just make up shit and then post.And here, I have to have a small detour, relevant to the talk here.
In this resolution, the UN uses the term 'calls upon' repeatedly as the strongest language.
However as a chapter VI resolution sure it's likely not binding.
Oh goody, we're back to insults.No you idiot, it uses the term "decides". Why don't you actually READ the resolution before spouting off your mouth with bullshit? I notice you NEVER read things, you just make up shit and then post.
However as a chapter VI resolution sure it's likely not binding.
UN resolution 1701-
The only use of the word decides is with reference to UNIFIL, all other actions are either 'calls upon', 'requests', 'invites' or 'stresses'.
In all points requiring for action, the strongest wording is 'calls upon'.
UN resolution 486-
paragraph 5 -. "Calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards”.
As usual, you are wrong.
And by the way, the dog says the change was fake, and that your mother should stop trying to pass of canadian tire money as real, even a dog can tell.
Did I mention I know a doctor who can do something about your man boobs?
You really, really can't read can you?
Try again. Re-read the section that uses the word "decides". See if you can spot it. Hint: 11b.
Getting you to comprehend even one simple fucking document is like pulling teeth, you seem to be chronically unable to comprehend written English.
Try again. Re-read the section that uses the word "decides". See if you can spot it. Hint: 11b.
Getting you to comprehend even one simple fucking document is like pulling teeth, you seem to be chronically unable to comprehend written English.
As I said above, the word decides is used in reference to UNIFIL actions.You really, really can't read can you?
Try again. Re-read the section that uses the word "decides". See if you can spot it. Hint: 11b.
Getting you to comprehend even one simple fucking document is like pulling teeth, you seem to be chronically unable to comprehend written English.
paragraph 11, for your edification.
And then it goes on to list what the UNIFIL forces are to do.11. Decides, in order to supplement and enhance the force in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operations, to authorize an increase in the force strength of UNIFIL to a maximum of 15,000 troops, and that the force shall, in addition to carrying out its mandate under resolutions 425 and 426 (1978):
The specific actions called upon Lebanon and Israel are done with the terms 'calls upon', just as Israel is called upon to open up its nuclear industry for the IAEA. Same weight.
Once more, with feeling:
So which is it?
Is Lebanon bound to disarm Hezbollah and Israel bound to allow its nuclear industry to be inspected by the IAEA?
or
Are they both free to do whatever they like?
And once again, for clarification, I believe that all UN members are duty bound to respect all UN resolutions, as it says in the charter.
It depends on whether you think VI resolutions are always non-binding. If section VI resolutions are always non-binding then neither resolution is binding.Is Lebanon bound to disarm Hezbollah and Israel bound to allow its nuclear industry to be inspected by the IAEA?
or
Are they both free to do whatever they like?
If you think that some VI resolutions are binding, per the ICJ ruling, then 1701 is binding but the IAEA/Israel resolution is not, due to the different ways in which they make use of the word "decides".
It doesn't say that in the UN charter. Try reading article 25 again. Look at the word "decisions", the ICJ paid a lot of attention to that in the ruling you cited, you should too!And once again, for clarification, I believe that all UN members are duty bound to respect all UN resolutions, as it says in the charter.
