U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Frank · #10 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

Did Palestinian leadership issue a statement recognizing Israel's right to exist yet?

Has Israel withdrawn from the West Bank and East Jerusalem? Has Israel ceased the construction of the illegal Jewish settlements in said occupied lands? Have they torn down the colonial wall built on Palestinian land?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moon

How does everybody feel that Phase 1 ( 'Confidence-building' ) is coming along ?

The "Road Map" is a quartet created joke! The Palestinians are not going to stop resisting while the Israeli's occupy their land, expand their illegal settlements and colonising Palestinian land with a giant wall. The quartet clowns should have grasped the basic fact that people living under colonial expansion, Apartheid and belligerent military occupation are not going to give the occupier a "progress" in security while the conditions exist...

Second, the United Nations is a member of the quartet; why the hell is the UN not demanding that the "Road Map" be changed or at least guided toward meeting the legal standards set by its supreme court ruling of July 9th, 2004? International Court of Justice Ad Hoc Judge and UN Special Rapporteur Dr. John Dugard reported in January of 2008 (Report: A/HRC/7/17):

Quote:

VIII. International law, the International Court of Justice, the Quartet and the United Nations

50. On 8 December 2003 the General Assembly requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel in the OPT.22 Fifty States and international organizations gave written statements to the Court and 15 States and international organizations made oral statements before the Court. The Court provided an advisory opinion by 14 votes to 1, which answered many of the legal questions that have been raised over the past 40 years. The principal findings of the Court were as follows:

(a) The Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and the exercise of this right is violated by the construction of the wall;
(b) Israel is under a legal obligation to comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention in the OPT - a unanimous finding;
(c) Settlements are illegal as they violate article 49 (6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention - a unanimous finding;
(d) Israel is bound by international human rights conventions in the OPT - a unanimous finding - and consequently its conduct is to be measured against both international human rights conventions and the Fourth Geneva Convention;
(e) The regime in force in the closed zone between the wall and Green Line violates the right to freedom of movement contained in article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the right to work, health, education and an adequate standard of living contained in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;33
(f) The destruction of property for the construction of the wall violates article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and cannot be justified on grounds of military necessity or national security;
(g) The wall cannot be justified as an exercise in self-defence;
(h) The annexation of East Jerusalem is illegal;
(i) The construction of the wall by Israel in the OPT, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime are contrary to international law; and Israel is obliged in law to cease the construction of the wall, to dismantle it and to make reparation for the construction of the wall;
(j) All States are under a legal obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the wall and to ensure compliance by Israel with the Fourth Geneva Convention;
(k) The United Nations, especially the General Assembly and Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring an end to the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and associated regime, "taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion".

51. On 20 July 2004 the General Assembly adopted resolution ES-10/15 which called for Israel to comply with the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice. This resolution was adopted by 150 votes to 6 (Australia, Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States) with 10 abstentions. The Russian Federation and member States of the European Union voted in favour of the resolution.

52. Since 2004, the Advisory Opinion has been ignored by the Security Council. While the General Assembly40and Human Rights Council have passed several resolutions reaffirming the Opinion, no attempt has been made by the Security Council to compel Israel to comply with the Opinion or to remind States of their obligation to ensure compliance by Israel with the Fourth Geneva Convention. The reason for this is not hard to find. The Security Council is prevented from giving its backing to the Opinion by the United States which has refused to accept it. Similarly the United States prevents the Quartet from taking steps to implement the Opinion. No statement issued by the Quartet has ever acknowledged the Opinion.

53. Although the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice is an authoritative statement of the applicable law and is designed to contribute to the framework for peace in the Middle East, it is not legally binding on States. In law, the United States is well within its right to refuse to accept the Opinion in the Quartet. The same applies to the Russian Federation and the European Union - although both have compromised themselves by giving approval to the Opinion by supporting General Assembly resolution ES-10/15 and subsequent resolutions. The position of the United Nations is, however, very different. The International Court of Justice is the judicial organ of the United Nations. Moreover the General Assembly has by an overwhelming majority repeatedly given its approval to the Opinion. This means that it is now part of the law of the United Nations. As such the representative of the United Nations in the Quartet - the Secretary-General or his representative - is in law obliged to be guided by the Opinion and to endeavour in good faith to do his or her best to ensure compliance with the Opinion. If the Secretary-General (or his representative) is politically unable to do so he has two choices: either to withdraw from the Quartet or to explain to his constituency - "we the peoples of the United Nations" in the language of the Charter - why he is unable to do so and how he justifies remaining in the Quartet in the light of its refusal to be guided by the law of the United Nations. The first course is possibly unwise at this time as this would deprive the United Nations of a role in the peace process. This makes the second course essential.

54. For 40 years the political organs of the United Nations, States and individuals have accused Israel of consistent, systematic and gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law in the OPT. In 2004 the judicial organ of the United Nations, in its Advisory Opinion, affirmed that Israel's actions in the OPT do indeed violate fundamental norms of human rights and humanitarian law and cannot be justified on grounds of self-defence or necessity. If the United Nations is serious about human rights it cannot afford to ignore this Opinion in the deliberations of the Quartet, as it is an authoritative affirmation that Israel is in serious breach of its international commitments. Failure to attempt to implement, or even to acknowledge, an advisory opinion dealing with international humanitarian law and human rights law, brings the very commitment of the United Nations to human rights into question.