| Revision as of 10:48, 9 April 2002 editEd Poor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,217 edits thanks← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:43, 13 April 2002 edit undoTaw (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,615 edits "chapters" and UN Security CouncilNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| :Thanks for clarifying that, Danny. ] | :Thanks for clarifying that, Danny. ] | ||
| ---- | |||
| :These settlements have been declared to be illegal by the UN Security Council (Resolution 446), and Israel has been asked by that resolution to cease further settlement activity. Since resolution 446 was not made under Chapter VI or VII of the ] , Israel argues that it is purely an advisory request, and chose not to fulfill it. The issue of the legal status of resolutions of the UN Security Council not made under Chapters VI or VII of the Charter is controversial in international law -- some accept Israel's argument, others reject it, and consider the resolution to be legally binding on Israel. | |||
| What are these chapters ? | |||
Revision as of 06:43, 13 April 2002
I removed:
- As a means to legalise their position, the israelis have taken invading refugee camps Sabra and Chatila Massacre and vilages in an attempt to scare off Palestinians and claim the land as theirs.
The massacre in Sabra and Shatilla was not committed by Israel. Israel's responsibility, and for that matter Sharon's, was in not stopping their Christian Phalangist allies in Lebanon from committing the massacre. Nor was the massacre committed to legalize settlements. It took place in Lebanon, not the West Bank or Gaza. No Israeli government has ever made territorial claims on Lebanon, nor have any settlements been created there. Of course, a statement like this also merits an Israeli explanation of the actions if it is to be considered NPOV. According to Israel, refugee camps in the West Bank have Gaza have been invaded to stop thm serving as terrorist bases. It is not a question of agreeing with this or not. Personally, I do not, however, claiming that it is a policy intended to scare off the Palestinians requires some factual backing. I'd like to see that. Finally, it is Sabra and Shatilla (S and 2 l's).Danny
Let's improve the article by describing
- advocacy which opposes the settlemnts
- advocacy which supports the settlements
I presume Arabs are mostly against the settlements, because they regard the West Bank as properly belonging to a Palestinian state (de facto, de jure, or proposed) -- so the Israelis are trespassing, to say the least.
I presume the Israeli military wants radar installations that can see across the Jordan River, to get an extra 10 minutes' warning of enemy jets or missiles.
No doubt there are other issues as well. Please, someone who knows the area and the issues, write about this. Thank you. Ed Poor
- Ed, you are confusing several issues here. military installations are not settlements. Many people in Israel, perhaps the majority, support removing most of the settlement but keeping military installations in vital places. And it is actually 3 minutes, not 10. Danny
- Thanks for clarifying that, Danny. Ed Poor
- These settlements have been declared to be illegal by the UN Security Council (Resolution 446), and Israel has been asked by that resolution to cease further settlement activity. Since resolution 446 was not made under Chapter VI or VII of the United Nations Charter , Israel argues that it is purely an advisory request, and chose not to fulfill it. The issue of the legal status of resolutions of the UN Security Council not made under Chapters VI or VII of the Charter is controversial in international law -- some accept Israel's argument, others reject it, and consider the resolution to be legally binding on Israel.
What are these chapters ?