Centre for Palestine Studies and UJIA swap roles on Israel for the night.

There must have been something in the London air last night. While the United Joint Israel Appeal, Union of Jewish Students and “Pro-Israel” Yachad hosted Israel boycotter Peter Beinart via Skype, further down the Northern Line SOAS’ Centre for Palestine Studies hosted Professor Jean-Pierre Filiu.

Beinart will have been trying his best to persuade his Jewish audience (the talk was restricted to Jewish students and members of Jewish youth groups only) to boycott the livelihoods of innocent Jewish families living in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).

Meanwhile, at SOAS’ usually anti-Israel Centre for Palestine Studies Professor Filiu gave an interesting talk on the history of Gaza. Not only did Filiu recognise Israel’s security needs but he attacked Hamas for its mistreatment of Palestinian women. There were no calls for boycotts.

Filiu’s main thesis was that peace in the Middle East would only come via Gaza as, historically, control of Gaza was pivotal to control of the Middle East. The most recent example was General Allenby who won control of Gaza a month before entering Jerusalem.

Filiu said the Muslim Brotherhood opened a branch in Gaza in 1946 and its founder, Hassan al-Banna, visited Nuseirat sometime before May 1948 to urge his followers to fight for Palestine.

Filiu described Gaza as a “Noah’s Ark” for 200,000 Palestinian refugees, but it was  the Sinai Desert that kept the refugees in Gaza otherwise they would have journeyed on to Egypt. Gaza’s original population was 80,000.

Filiu splits Gaza’s recent history into three 20 year cycles:

“1947 – 1967 Obliteration of Palestine” - Filiu claimed that during the winter of 1948/1949 many children died of hunger and cold and that the Quakers and Turks were the first in to offer tents. The only two political parties were the Muslim Brotherhood and the Communists.

In 1955 Ariel Sharon’s Unit 101 launched a raid into Gaza to attack terrorists. An Intifada soon followed. The battle cry of the Brotherhood and the Communists was “Nasser dictator, traitor of the Palestinian cause.”

During Israel’s short occupation of Gaza to try to destroy Fedayeen nests 1,000 Palestinians died out of a population of 300,000. (NB. there are no proper archives on Gaza’s history so figures may well be inaccurate)

After the 1956 Suez Crisis Israel withdrew from Gaza. Egypt took over. The Fedayeen weren’t allowed to operate. Many left Gaza for the Gulf and founded Fatah. The Muslim Brotherhood went underground.

“1967 – 1987 Reoccupation” – This period was characterised by Palestinian civil resistance to Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood’s continued oppression by Nasser, infighting between Palestinian Nationalists and the Muslim Brotherhood and a boycott by President Sadat when the Palestinians condemned Egypt’s peace agreement with Israel.

Islamic Jihad was formed and they regarded Palestine as a priority, but not its Islamisation. The 1987 Intifada took both the PLO’s external leadership and the Muslim Brotherhood by surprise. The Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza turned itself into Hamas.

“1987 – 2007 Cycle of Intifadas” – Filiu said this was a time of collective sorrow, desolation and Palestinian infighting. Hamas’ Al Qassam Brigades executed many Palestinians for being collaborators.

The peace process brought hope but when Arafat divorced himself from Gaza Palestinians living there felt they had paid the price for bringing him back from Tunis, especially when Palestinian police opened fire on their own people and many were tortured to death. Gaza totally lost out in the peace process.

Israel again withdrew from Gaza in 2005 but it was Fatah’s change of rules for the 2006 Palestinian elections, hoping to prevent a Hamas victory, that actually allowed Hamas to win. Hamas immediately offered a national unity government but Fatah wasn’t interested in Gaza. After the 2007 coup Hamas fully controlled Gaza.

Filiu said that Palestinians in Gaza are fed up with Fatah and Hamas’ petty war. He acknowledged Israel’s security concerns but said Israel “should deal with the people, not bomb and kill them”. He said there is no other way but for Israel to lift the “blockade” of Gaza, which he viewed as helping Hamas to build a police state and control the population, especially the women.

During the Q&A Filiu was asked about the possibility of a one state solution. Filiu said a two state solution was the only way forward and that this is what the PLO had just asked for at the UN and that this had been celebrated even in Gaza.

Apart from Filiu’s wanting Israel to lift all restrictions on Gaza, which would lead to increased suicide bombings in Israel, it was as objective and interesting a talk about the conflict and Hamas as I have heard from any non pro-Israel organisation.

109 responses to “Centre for Palestine Studies and UJIA swap roles on Israel for the night.

  1. Interesting to see that the radicals are hosted by UJIA (and pretend to be on Israel’s side) and the moderates are on the pro-Palestinian side (and don’t pretend to be on Israel’s side).
    If Jews are not on Israel’s side, who will be? And if not now, when?
    UJIA leadership should be ashamed. I would have pretty much preferred that they hosted Jean-Pierre Filiu. The discussion would have been more interesting.

    • Bonnie Prince Charlie

      UJIA will never receive another penny from me because of their support for what I regard as quisling groups. In future my contributions to Israel will be channeled through what I regard as reliable charities and through support for specific projects which benefit the citizens of Israel. I invite others who disapprove of the position taken by UJIA to follow my example.

  2. Has Jean-Pierre Filiu been speaking to Mudar Zahran?

  3. Richard
    to me it sounds like the guy is trying to find a publisher for his book and isn’t quite sure who is his most likely audience.

  4. ‘innocent’ Jewish families living in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank)?
    Did these families ‘innocently’ move to territory over the green line, or move there with intent to occupy land? I suppose we’ll never know without conducting a poll, but either way – as you well know Richard, ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law.

    • Antisemite Baruch doesn’t look like a lawyer though. Or maybe a Sharia judge? Of what are these families guilty. Baruch cannot say, except that they ‘occupy’ a land that they bought or belonged to no state before they settled it. Certainly a crime that deserves death penalty for adults, infants and babies in Baruch’s Sharia code!
      By the way, isn’t Baruch supposed to be a Jewish name? Why such Jew-washing pseudo?

      • Jose: by saying that criticizing people who choose to live in occupied territories is anti-Semitic,you’re also saying that choosing to live in occupied territories is a Jewish characteristic. I’m sure you didn’t mean to. But by playing the anti-Semitic card so quickly you also make the point perfectly that – from Richard’s previous blog entry (4. Mike Marcus has also fallen for the myth that “The Zionist lobby uses the label of anti-Semitism to silence their critics”) – it’s no myth.

      • ‘Baruch’ cut the strawman. You don’t “criticise” anyone here. You justify assassination of Jewish settlers’ children. By assassination, I mean “deliberate and planned murder”. And you wouldn’t find any trouble with Israelis of Arab descent settling in Judea Samaria. You would find it natural as they would have a right to ‘Palestinian’ nationality once ‘Palestine’ established.

        You are spreading “genetic guilt”, but only for Jews. It is these double standards that makes YOU an antisemite.

      • The Islamist Lobby have coined the term “islamophobia” in an attempt to silence opponents of

        - plane hijacking
        - cruise ship hijackig
        - Olympics hijacking
        - US Senator assassinating
        - Journalist beheading
        - 1,500 year old Buddah statue destroying
        - death fatwa on writers
        - death fatwa on cartoonists
        - stoning women to death over imagined “family honor”
        - brainwashing their children to refer to Jews in dehumanizing terms of “sons of pigs and dogs” – Where is UNICEF???
        - using poison gas, a WMD, on the Kurds of Halabja Iraq
        - bus and underground bombing by “asians” in London
        - rape gangs
        - pakistani terrorists killing 180+ people in Mumbai India.
        - $100 per barrel oil
        - ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims from the Middle East

        What is wrong with Barack? What culture was he raised in that made him an open racist?

      • It is called “pseudo-cultural relativism”. Assassination is acceptable, but only if the victims are Jewish, including babies. On the other hand, killing accidentally or colaterally one ‘Palestinian’ is a “genocide”.

      • No, ‘Baruch’, I don’t want ANY answer FROM you. The question I asked is rhetoric and not prompting any impossible ‘answer’. Your antisemitism is evident and there is no way you can hide it behind a Jew-washing pseudo.

    • Barack and REAL Friends,

      Happy Chanukah AND Happy Eternal Nakba!

      • @TGIAI, until you have the basic decency to not twist my name then you’ll get no further response from me. It seems to be a perpetual habit of yours – replying with a twist on other peoples names – as if that’s somehow clever or derogatory. It’s a habit that you seem to take joy from, whilst all the time hiding behind an acronym. Bit sad that you get your energy that way.

      • On the other hand, who would wish an ‘answer’ from you? Apart from unsupported assertions, blatant racism and personal attacks, you don’t express much of any interest…
        Reminds me of someone. Maybe Mr. Millet forgot to chech the IP address?

      • Barack, YOU, of all people, demanding common decency. That’s CHUTZPAH.

        Every rocket fired from Hamasstan is another nail in the coffin of Peace.

        Every child killed in Syria by Islamists is another nail in the coffin of Peace and PROOF that Zion isn’t the problem – but World-wide Islamism and Jihad is the problem.

        Happy Eternal Nakba!

      • Jose: you, for one, would clearly like an answer from me – otherwise you’d not have used the question mark. If you’re not interested in the content of my posts then I suggest you simply move on to the next.
        Happy for you to point out 1. the unsupported assertions, 2. the blatant racism and 3 the personal attacks I’ve made. Ironically all 3 of your claims appear as unsupported assertions and personal attacks themselves.

    • richardmillett

      Did the children choose, Baruch?

      • Did the parents abdicate their parental responsibility when they decided to put their children in harms way?
        As this weeks parashah teaches, there are no victims. The consciousness we have when we undertake our actions dictate which forces then create our reality. No-one else but the parents created the current reality for their children.

      • richardmillett

        Either way you and Beinart are proposing the boycott of children who had, and have, no say in their situation.

      • Interesting concept: the ‘mistake’ of parents making the child guilty ! So, when the parents vote for the terrorist Hamas, the babies are guilty and can be butchered deliberately…
        Very interesting concept, ‘Baruch’!

        You see, that is why Tsahal is the most moral army in the world: it does not apply such stupidities.

      • Let’s put it more simply – the parents are responsible for any situation they choose to put their children in.

      • Let’s put it more simply – the parents are responsible for any situation they choose to put their children in.

        Interesting thought, if followed properly it means that all that special protection civilians should enjoy is void.

        And I refrain from taking that thought into conditions during the 3rd Reich. Even as a purely hypothetical thought it is too gruesome to even go near it.

        This Baruch has an exceptionally dirty imagination.

      • It is clear that, for Jews (and Jews only), Geneva Conventions don’t apply. Double standards have always been the best proof of antisemitism.
        By the way, no checking of the IP address of ‘Baruch’. Has he got special protection from Geneva Conventions, despite invading Zionist territory?

      • Jose: very poor attempt at twisting my words and then drawing a false analogy from it.
        Please point out where I use either of the words ‘mistake’ or ‘guilty’.
        Interesting that you yourself describe parents choosing to live and bring children up in occupied territory as a mistake though.

      • Nope ‘Baruch’, you are twisting my words, not me twisting yours at all. You support assassination of Jewish babies, that much is very clear, on behalf of their purported (not MY supposition) parents’ mistake (to live in Jewish land occupied or not by Arabs).
        Native American should also be assassinating WASP babies in America and native Australians should also be assassinating WASP Australian babies. Do not be ashamed of your ideas. Be proud of your baby-killing justifications and don’t limit it just to Jewish ones if you don’t want to be called an antisemite.

      • Jose: It’s telling that you think of Richard’s blog as “Zionist territory?” that I’ve “invaded” by attempting to take part in the debates that it stimulates.

        You write “It is clear that, for Jews (and Jews only), Geneva Conventions don’t apply”. I’d put it another way – having signed up to the 4th Geneva Israel doesn’t appear to feel bound to abide by it.

      • You don’t stimulate any debate here. You just repeat your mantras justifying gruesome barbaric murder of Jews.
        Yes, Israel understand and FULLY APPLIES Geneva Conventions. Not what your friends of the PA and Hamas are doing. Not what you are advocating yourself.

    • Death is applicable to children as well as parents. It is called “genetic guilt” (even if it is totally imaginary guilt) and has been applied to Jews for nearly 2000 years. You didn’t think it would just stop because Jews now have a state to protect themselves, do you?

    • They moved into their own homeland. Piss off, Jew-hater.

    • Jose. Once again you find nothing in my words to criticize so you twist them to suit your movie, put them forward as mine and then criticize them.
      Appears you still didn’t find anything to justify your post accusing me of unsupported assertions, racism or personal attacks I see.

      • Baruch, everybody agrees here. You are a racist (antisemite), you use double standards and you made personal attacks for all to see.
        You pretend you did not refer to Jews, really? Well, bad faith hits a new high, these days! Of course, you don’t pretend that an Arab Israeli settling in Judea Samaria would run any risk from your terrorist friends. Or do you?
        So, cut the crap, we had enough of it.

      • What ‘Baruch’ is telling us is that an Israeli Arab ‘settler’ would be treated just as an Israeli Jewish settler, by Arabs in Judea Samaria.
        Wake up ‘(Arm)Ba(ruc)h’, this is not (yet) Israel and Jews are discriminated there.

  5. Must be the Zionist Psionics Program.

  6. Stunned to hear about the UJIA hosting Israel boycotter on skype and cannot fathom why any Jew would want to listen to someone who justifies his hatred of them!!!!. Are we insane!

  7. Almani Sleiman

    “Let’s put it more simply – the parents are responsible for any situation they choose to put their children in.”

    Baruch, are you suggesting that we should all leave the West Bank and Gaza because our children may be in danger? Where do you recommend we go?

    • Almani

      your children are not on Baruch’s radar i.e. he doesn’t care one way or another whether they are killed or not.

    • Don’t worry, Baruch applies only that to Jews. He certainly does not apply that to Gaza children that their parents put in harm’s way by electing genocidal Hamas. His double standards show all the way.

      • Richards question to me was “Did the children choose, Baruch?”
        I see no attempt to define which children he was referring to, do you?
        Was he applying it only to Jews?

      • How many Arabs in Judea Samaria would you call a ‘settler’? You are ridiculous. Try to find better arguments to save your sad face.

      • Once again Jose you twist my words to suit your agenda. Please point to one post of mine in this thread where I use the word ‘settler’.

      • Don’t even try that ‘(Arm)Ba(ru)ch’. You were talking of Jewish settlers, so was Richard. Bye, you’re too ridiculous.

    • Almani: As I wrote above in my original response to Richard when he introduced the subject of children into the topic, this weeks parashah teaches that there are no victims. The consciousness we have when we undertake our actions dictate which forces then create our reality. By choosing to live in occupied territory no-one else but the parents created the current reality for their children. To suggest otherwise is no better than using those children now as a human shield.
      Or are you suggesting that the simple act of having children puts the parents above both responsibility for their safety and the law?

      • Remember that the parents of Gaza children chose the Hamas democratically, therefore they exposed their children to the retaliations of the IDF and their inevitable collateral damages. Why don’t you blame Gazans and suggest them to move elsewhere? DOUBLE STANDARDS!

      • Jose: No doubt you’d be hard pressed to come forward with evidence to show that parents, forced to bring their children up in Gaza, live there of their own free will and have the freedom of movement necessary to relocate them out of harms way. Voting for the political party of their choice is not the root factor.

      • I remind you that they were not forced to vote for genocidal Nazi party. THe Germans did that and were severely punished for it too. Their children died by the tens of thousands.

    • Almani, You can join your brothers and sisters in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, Kuwait,…

      I’m sure they’ll greet you with open arms. Hopefully not the Ballistic kind of arms.

  8. Remember that Americans live in occupied territory. So if a native American kills the child of an immigrant American, you will blame it on the parents of the immigrant American. Nice to know! Of course, all you say violates not only common decency, but also Geneva Conventions. ‘Settlers’ (civilians) and especially their children are protected from conflict parties.
    Not only you are wrong but you are also immoral.

    • Jose – your obtuse and quite frankly bizarre analogies appear to know no bounds. However – please continue with them. They only help to diminish the credibility of your posts.
      However – I must amplify one point you make – whilst the Geneva convention fundamentally proffers protection for civilians, it also proscribes those civilians whom you describe as settlers from living in the occupied territories in the first place. Seems you want to cherry-pick which parts of the Geneva convention applies, and to whom. How moral is that, one wonders.

      • Thanks for your personal attacks, at least you cannot deny them!
        American immigrants are much worse that Israeli Jews, who have an historical claim and sometimes lived there when Jordan ethnically cleansed Judea Samaria. No American immigrant can claim anything near.
        Yet, only Jews have not rights, no Geneva Conventions benefit, can be massacred. Fortunately, he (or she) has ‘(Arm)Ba(ru)chs’ to justify the crime.

      • Is the discussion you’re trying to initiate on Native American relevant to the blog entry, the thread or Israel? No. Like I said, an obtuse and bizarre analogy put forward by you in an attempt to diminish my position. My observation is based solely on what you’ve written, not a wild accusation. Apparently, according to you I “don’t look like a lawyer”. Quite how you’d know that is highly questionable. So is my mentioning that another ‘personal attack’.
        And you put forward ‘rhetoric’ questions when the rest of us use rhetorical ones. Is my pointing that out another ‘personal attack’.
        You’re still to point out the unsubstantiated facts or examples of racism you accused me of, and the personal attack I’m supposed to have made on the owner of the acronym TGIAI.

      • I’m showing how irrelevant and immoral you are when you speak of Jewish ‘settlers’ while totally silent when WASP settlers are concerned. Double standards is the proof of your blatant antisemitism. Understood?
        When you’ll be asking for non-native Americans and non-native Australians to leave for England, I’ll cease to call you an antisemite. Then you’ll only be a ‘normal’ racist.

      • ” it also proscribes those civilians whom you describe as settlers from living in the occupied territories in the first place”

        Fantasy planet.

  9. Remember that it is the Arabs that are the occupiers in that territory, btw. You seem to always forget that fact and reverse it.

  10. To whom did the UN allocate that part of Palestine in UNGA Res. 181 in 1947? Not the Jewish population.
    Did Ben Gurion include that land in his declaration as being part of the newly founded Israel in 1948? No.
    Has the UN or any other country recognised that land as being part of sovereign Israel. No.
    Seems the fact you suggest I’ve forgotten is not a fact after all.

    • richardmillett

      181 is a general assembly non-binding resolution which the Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected, remember? Therefore you have to look to other sources relating to the West Bank. These are UNSCR 242 and the British Mandate both of which give authority for the settlers’ presence.

    • The UN did not allocate any part of the Palestine Mandate. You must have been dreaming at the time. I remember a partition plan recommended by the UN in 1947. Maybe that is what you are referring to. Then it is irrelevant and was rejected anyway by Arabs themselves, including the ‘Palestinians’ and the Jordanians who seized it illegally in 1948.
      Then, no treaty nor binding UNSG resolution gave that land to anyone. When it was liberated by Israel in 1967, this made Israel the most legitimate state to be there. And that is a fact. Now you and other Arabs nationas can think the Earth is flat and you can even force a UNGA recognition of this ‘fact’. It won’t be so.

  11. 181 was never repealed therefore it’s still valid. Even though Ben Gurion stated in the following September that Israel was no longer bound by it. Remember? Bit bizarre that – as 181 was the only thing that gave Israel any legitimacy at the time. But we all know the reason for not being ‘bound’ by the boundaries it dictated, don’t we.
    The British Mandate is irrelevant and lends no authority to the current day.
    So, simply put, did Israel include that land in its declaration of ‘independence’ in 1948. No. Has the UN or any other country recognised that land as being part of sovereign Israel either in 1948 or since. No.
    So it’s simply not part of Israel.
    If, on the other hand, it is part of Israel – as Jose states and you imply, then why hasn’t Israel formally annexed it?

    • richardmillett

      The irrelevant mandate is part of the UN Charter.

    • 181 is non-binding UNGA proposal. It was rejected by the same Arabs you pretend own the territory. Be realistic: Israel was created by Jews, after a war. Armistice line is the only borders that have ever been accepted. 1967 lines (including Sinai, Golan, Gaza and Judea Samaria) was the last one. Do you suggest Israel recover Sinai and Gaza?

    • You cannot ‘repeal’ a non-binding resolution that was rejected by the Arabs in any case. 181 has been dead since 1947.

  12. The British Mandate ended on midnight of May 14th 1948. 181 is still valid and it is the document which sets out the borders that Ben Gurion declared ‘independence’ against and which the UN and other countries formally recognised as being Israel. Those borders have not changed to this day, and the occupied territories were not included.
    If you’re saying otherwise then, I ask again, why hasn’t Israel formally annexed the territories?

  13. Almani Sleiman

    Baruch,

    I have no idea what “parsha” you cite.

    Are you suggesting that myself and all other Palestinians should remove their children from occupied territories because of potential danger and if they do not, the parents are responsible? Does that also mean that all Syrian parents should make their children leave Syria? Should all Egyptian parents evacuate their children from Egypt? Where are all these children supposed to go? The moon.

    • After his last ‘clarification’, I wonder if all Arabs should leave Egypt, Syria, Irak, Afghanistan etc. And all ‘non-native’ Americans and Australians, All lands they occupy without a UNGA plan to support their legal rights. Otherwise, the native’s would be morally right to violate every human decency and of course Geneva Conventions.
      But don’t worry about ‘(Arm)Ba(ru)ch’: his rants are totally devoid of any realistic support.

    • while bowing deeply before what those who managed to save all those lives achieved I link to it to give Almani an idea, of what numbers of rescues may be possible.

      Even if humanity should have evolved into the always righteous as compared to back then (as its high minded members claim day in day out) and even though your children may be more desirable than Jewish ones were I’d be surprised if you managed a total of a 100.000.

      As for the rest of your children, well, their parents will have to live with their guilt as concocted by Baruch.

  14. Almani Sleiman

    Actually, Jose, I was addressing my comment to Baruch.

    • Actually, I knew that, but as he will certainly not answer or go into a strawman again, at least you have an answer.

      • Almani Sleiman

        Jose,

        “If the stone fall upon the egg, alas for the egg! If the egg fall upon the stone, alas for the egg!”

      • In English, looks like “damn if you do, damn if you don’t”. Typically used by communists and now, ‘Palestinians’

      • ah that is interesting news for me

        now I am under suspicion of being a communist because I very very much like “damn if you do, damn if you don’t” and use it frequently, it being IMHO for example the best short summary of the miller’s daughter dilemma in Rumpelstilzken.

        Does that make anybody taking Grimm’s fairy tales seriously a communist too?

        Because besides being well told they deal with the dilemma or more broadly absurdity of life quite regularly and very enlighteningly. Maybe the Brothers Grimm were even the first communists ever and need to be banned.

      • I’d rather ban strawmen and idiots from this blog. That would save me some time.

      • ah how lucky the rest of us then is that this isn’t your blog – which me thinks you tend to forget only too easily once in a while

      • Which proves exactly my point.

      • Almani Sleiman

        Jose,

        “damned” not “damn”. It’s the Past Participle.

      • Impressive! Anything more useful?

      • richardmillett

        Anyone seen Baruch? Come back, Baruch! I’m sorry, I promise not to ask difficult questions in future. Please come back.

      • Richard, you are an angel

        but please, please don’t start to feel guilty over what you did to Baruch

        It isn’t your fault – nobody could have foreseen that Baruch was hypersensitive

  15. i AM SURPRISED that no one thought to mention Res. 242 except in passing. While Res. 181 was non-binding, Res.242 ,because it is a Security Council resolution, has the force of international law. 242 was accepted by Israel and rejected by the Arabs, the Arab League’s rejection
    being phrased as the notorious “3 Nos of Khartoum”–no recognition of Israel,no negotibation with Israel, and no peace.” In other words, the Arab polity was operating an illegal program for all the years it maintained this stance, a stance with even less validity than the rejection of 181, and despite the flagrantly-illegal act, expect(probably correctly)that they will not be penalized for this intransigence. And indeed they have not been penalized, while 242,with its own rejection of total Israeli withdrawal, is being reversed before our eyes.

    • Not all UNSC resolutions are binding. Here is the discussion about that in Wikipedia (UNSC entry).

      In exercising its powers the Security Council seldom bothers to cite the particular article or articles of the UN Charter that its decisions are based upon. In cases where none are mentioned, a constitutional interpretation is required.[19] This sometimes presents ambiguities as to what amounts to a decision as opposed to a recommendation, and also the relevance and interpretation of the phrase “in accordance with the present Charter”.[20]

      So, if the article of the Charter is not mentioned, what should be the legal interpretation of it? Here is Wikipedia’s explanation:

      Security Council Resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the Charter.

      There is a general agreement among legal scholars outside the organization that resolutions made under Chapter VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes) are not legally binding.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] One argument is that since they have no enforcement mechanism, except self-help, they may not be legally binding.[32]

      So, unless an ambiguous resolution (not mentioning article 7) mentions an enforcement mechanism, it is legally non-binding. Or that they are binding but no sanctions will ever be applied to those who don’t respect it. So who cares?

    • “because it is a Security Council resolution, has the force of international law” -

      I am afraid that is still a myth. SC resolutions are not ‘law’ for any number of reasons, incl.

      1. The SC is not a sovereign body, esp. not one superordinate to sovereign states;

      2. as a corrolary of that (or maybe vice versa), the UN is a voluntary body, hence it cannot pass laws.

      3. There is no sovereign enforcement mechanism, such as police and courts.

      Call SC resolutions what you like, but they are not ‘law’ and cannot enjoy or exhibit the characteristics deriving from something being a ‘law.

      The whole thing is a polite fiction, and frankly Israel should not pay attention to it except where pragmatic. Which most of the time means that since its safety is paramount, and more often than not SC resolutions undermine its safety, it should tell the SC where to get off.

      • Right on Leah, except I’d like to tell the UN where to stick their resolutions, rather than where to get off.

  16. the question to baruch was a good question but it wasn’t a hard one quit preaning yourself its embarrassing.

  17. ok Well I have a more pressing issue at the mo, something to get out in the next hour or so ( it will be of great interest to you Richard ) I will answer the question tomorrow.

    • richardmillett

      A biopic of Leeds United?

    • Don’t forget to tell which of your pseudos you will use for that! We’ve lost the count.
      In fact, don’t bother to answer: we already know the blah-blah you’ll use. Blah-blah “international law”, blah-blah “United Nations”, blah-blah whatever…

  18. Best leave my next communication in an hour or so awaiting moderation.

  19. I am kind and helpful like that.

  20. Ha ha no Hull City

  21. Understand this was very poorly attended (Yachad ). Did you get any feedback on the evening?

    Happy Chanukah

    Loretta

    • richardmillett

      No feedback. I saw Yachad thanked everyone on twitter for an interesting evening with lots of debate. Happy Chanukah to you too.