Gaza Ceasefire Resolution Passes: Ceasefire NOW

[STrent]

https://aje.io/6telhh?update=2797199

14 for, none against, USA abstained.

Israel must now work towards a ceasefire.

Hostages must be released on all sides, unconditionally.

Humanitarian aid MUST get into Gaza.

Make it so.

 

[vietato]

there are hostages on only one side

 

[Philthy_Phil]

there are hostages on only one side

Bullshit, the Jews have been abducting Palestinians for years.

 

[Rotadom]

Bullshit, the Jews have been abducting Palestinians for years.

Jew know he's not to bright.

 

[Rightguide]

there are hostages on only one side

Minor detail.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Minor detail.

A lie like that is a major detail.

 

[butters]

https://aje.io/6telhh?update=2797199

14 for, none against, USA abstained.

Israel must now work towards a ceasefire.

Hostages must be released on all sides, unconditionally.

Humanitarian aid MUST get into Gaza.

Make it so.

unfortunately it's not a binding resolution, so neither side 'has' to abide by it.

 

[STrent]

unfortunately it's not a binding resolution, so neither side 'has' to abide by it.

UNSC resolutions have always been binding. They have been made international law since inception.

Just because an American representative made that claim today is not indicative of how seriously the rest of the world feels about this.

The claim it’s “not binding” is today’s biggest lie.

 

[butters]

UNSC resolutions have always been binding. They have been made international law since inception.

Just because an American representative made that claim today is not indicative of how seriously the rest of the world feels about this.

The claim it’s “not binding” is today’s biggest lie.

oh! i didn't know that.

 

[STrent]

oh! i didn't know that.

That’s why the US representative is getting a huge amount of flack the world over. It is unclear if she misspoke or not. We will know in the coming hours and days.

 

[butters]

UNSC resolutions have always been binding. They have been made international law since inception.

Just because an American representative made that claim today is not indicative of how seriously the rest of the world feels about this.

The claim it’s “not binding” is today’s biggest lie.

just went to have a brief look around and found this argument that it's all dependent on the specific wording in each case as to whether or not it is legally binding... now i will not claim to know anything at all about the topic, and this is just one of several i found on a quick search.

Rather, the key question for determining whether a particular provision of a Security Council resolution is legally binding on member states (i.e. whether the provision is a “decision” of the Security Council), including the specific addressee of the resolution, is whether the Council has chosen to use words within the provision indicating its intent to create a legally binding obligation.

The International Court of Justice made these points clear in its 1971 Namibia advisory opinion, in Paragraphs 108-114. There, the Court was considering the juridical implications of provisions of Security Council Resolution 276, which had similarly been adopted with no textual indication that the Council was acting in exercise of its Chapter VII powers.

The Court held that:

“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. . . It has also be contended that the relevant Security Council resolutions are couched in exhortatory rather than mandatory language and that, therefore, they do not purport to impose any legal duty on any State nor to affect any right of any State.

The language of a resolution of the Security Council should be carefully analysed before a conclusion can be made as to its binding effect. In view of the nature of the powers under Article 25, the question whether they have been in fact exercised is to be determined in each case, having regard to the terms of the resolution to be interpreted, the discussions leading to it, the Charter provisions invoked and, in general, all circumstances that might assist in determining the legal consequences of the resolution of the Security Council. (Para 113-114)”

Applying this test for determining bindingness, the Court determined that the provisions in operative paragraphs 2 and 5 of Resolution 276 were legally binding on all U.N. member states. This included the determination by the Council in operative paragraph 2 that the presence of South African forces on the territory of Namibia was unlawful, and the Council’s call in operative paragraph 5 for all states to refrain from any dealings with South Africa that were inconsistent with this determination.

so would the above be relevant (the information rather than the case) to this latest resolution?

https://www.ejiltalk.org/legal-bind...334-on-the-israeli-settlements-in-particular/

 

[butters]

and then there's this, which says it's binding "theoretically"

The resolution, like all those issued by the U.N. body responsible for world peace and security, is binding, which theoretically obliges the parties — Israel and Hamas — to abide by it. Its passage is a small milestone: countless resolutions failed over the course of the last six months due to the veto of three of the Council’s five permanent members.

https://english.elpais.com/internat...efire-resolution-after-six-months-of-war.html

so if it's deemed binding, no questions, what happens if its demands are ignored?

 

[Lazaran]

and then there's this, which says it's binding "theoretically"


https://english.elpais.com/internat...efire-resolution-after-six-months-of-war.html

so if it's deemed binding, no questions, what happens if its demands are ignored?

We will know how "binding" it is when Israel ignores it and nothing happens. (The U.S. isn’t going to stop providing aid to Israel, and no one in the UN is going to attack Israel, or impose draconian sanctions that would cripple Israel, imho.)

Israel may delay their Rafah invasion for a bit to appease certain quarters, but the invasion will (and should) happen, imho.

The resources should be put in place to meet the needs of the innocent Palestinians leaving Rafah (supply ships along the coast, air drops, and supply corridors into north central Gaza from Israel, should serve to attract innocent Palestinians away from Rafah when the date of the invasion is announced).



The Israelis are using these forced relocations of the population in Gaza as a way to filter out the Hamas animals from the innocent Palestinians, imho. - And it has been effective to a large degree: Some of the Hamas animals may embed themselves with the innocent civilians, but they can’t take their rockets and launchers, etc, with them, which makes them hesitant about leaving those weapons for the Israelis to find. The Hamas animals staying behind to fight and die, while the innocent Palestinians relocate to areas with established aid depots, would be optimal, imho.



The air drops and supply ships along the coast, and the opening of supply corridors into north central Gaza from Israel, would make the hardships of the relocation away from Rafah for innocent Palestinians worthwhile and relatively bearable , imho.



Ultimately, imho, there can’t even be a consideration of a permanent ceasefire or "peace" until the Hamas animals are eliminated as a military and governing force.(and that is in addition to the release of the hostages): After that happens, and conditions have stabilized, the Israeli people can deal with Netanyahu and the right wing cabal, and the U.S. can continue to deal with Israeli settler violence, etc, through sanctions, etc.



Side note:

Israel IS a sovereign nation that was mercilessly attacked by the Hamas animals to the tune of FIFTEEN 9/11s by an enemy located on a shared border. No one can TELL them how they should prosecute the war. (And let’s remember that the Hamas animals WANTED a massive Israeli response to their October 7th rape, torture, murder, and kidnapping operation, hoping that the Israeli response would trigger a worldwide Jihad.)



The Hamas animals aren’t concerned about the suffering of the Palestinian people, but rather, they’re focused on regrouping, rearming, and continuing to foment that wet-fever-dream of a worldwide Jihad.



JFC

SAD!!!

 

[RobDownSouth]

there are hostages on only one side

This is simply not true.

 

[STrent]

just went to have a brief look around and found this argument that it's all dependent on the specific wording in each case as to whether or not it is legally binding... now i will not claim to know anything at all about the topic, and this is just one of several i found on a quick search.










so would the above be relevant (the information rather than the case) to this latest resolution?

https://www.ejiltalk.org/legal-bind...334-on-the-israeli-settlements-in-particular/

and then there's this, which says it's binding "theoretically"


https://english.elpais.com/internat...efire-resolution-after-six-months-of-war.html

so if it's deemed binding, no questions, what happens if its demands are ignored?

Yes, good research. The answer to your question at the end is an enforcement of article 27 which is basically sanctions against Israel until they comply, which is what we saw with Russia in Russia/Ukraine, adopted almost immediately due to Russia vetoing any resolution brought against it.

Francesca Albanese’s report on Israel today is an eye opener and I recommend it to anyone who is on the fence about this issue.

For the pro-Israeli lobby that exists on this forum, you may as well read it if only to be aware that the evidence is mounting against you.

 

[Chobham]

https://aje.io/6telhh?update=2797199

14 for, none against, USA abstained.

Israel must now work towards a ceasefire.

Hostages must be released on all sides, unconditionally.

Humanitarian aid MUST get into Gaza.

Make it so.

Give them the middle finger Israel.

 

[ll74]

Posted this on

We will know how "binding" it is when Israel ignores it and nothing happens. (The U.S. isn’t going to stop providing aid to Israel, and no one in the UN is going to attack Israel, or impose draconian sanctions that would cripple Israel, imho.)

Israel may delay their Rafah invasion for a bit to appease certain quarters, but the invasion will (and should) happen, imho.

The resources should be put in place to meet the needs of the innocent Palestinians leaving Rafah (supply ships along the coast, air drops, and supply corridors into north central Gaza from Israel, should serve to attract innocent Palestinians away from Rafah when the date of the invasion is announced).



The Israelis are using these forced relocations of the population in Gaza as a way to filter out the Hamas animals from the innocent Palestinians, imho. - And it has been effective to a large degree: Some of the Hamas animals may embed themselves with the innocent civilians, but they can’t take their rockets and launchers, etc, with them, which makes them hesitant about leaving those weapons for the Israelis to find. The Hamas animals staying behind to fight and die, while the innocent Palestinians relocate to areas with established aid depots, would be optimal, imho.



The air drops and supply ships along the coast, and the opening of supply corridors into north central Gaza from Israel, would make the hardships of the relocation away from Rafah for innocent Palestinians worthwhile and relatively bearable , imho.



Ultimately, imho, there can’t even be a consideration of a permanent ceasefire or "peace" until the Hamas animals are eliminated as a military and governing force.(and that is in addition to the release of the hostages): After that happens, and conditions have stabilized, the Israeli people can deal with Netanyahu and the right wing cabal, and the U.S. can continue to deal with Israeli settler violence, etc, through sanctions, etc.



Side note:

Israel IS a sovereign nation that was mercilessly attacked by the Hamas animals to the tune of FIFTEEN 9/11s by an enemy located on a shared border. No one can TELL them how they should prosecute the war. (And let’s remember that the Hamas animals WANTED a massive Israeli response to their October 7th rape, torture, murder, and kidnapping operation, hoping that the Israeli response would trigger a worldwide Jihad.)



The Hamas animals aren’t concerned about the suffering of the Palestinian people, but rather, they’re focused on regrouping, rearming, and continuing to foment that wet-fever-dream of a worldwide Jihad.



JFC

SAD!!!

The problem has been that Israel has not only failed to address the movement and needs of civilians, it has blocked others from doing so. Until they stop doing that, having any political support is not going to change their direction.

And sure, Hamas should also be addressing Palestinian needs, but they aren't
And they are on the wrong side of this equation.... Everyone has such low expectations for them, they can get away with that.

I support the US position which has been a political tightrope for the administration. Support our allly and push for civilian aid and more restraint to allow for movement of civilians.

It's a lot easier in a huge country like Ukraine to have humanitarian corridors.

 

[STrent]

Yes, we should hold sovereign states to higher standards than terrorist groups.

That we even have to say this shows how utterly out of touch Israel and the United States of America are with the rest of the world.

At least the UK consistently refused to use its veto, even when it disagreed with the motion.

At this point, the gulf between Israel/USA and the rest of the world is extraordinary.

The US ambassador to the UN makes a claim that wasn’t true, everyone and their mother is forced to remind the USA that it’s exactly the opposite of her claim.

In the meantime, proponents of Israel’s assault genocide on Gaza should read this: https://reliefweb.int/attachments/f78b0a28-c3af-44ed-a010-9ba076814dc6/a-hrc-55-73-auv.pdf

And I have to say, if you read that document and come out the other side still supporting the actions of the IDF and Israel, then you only have yourselves to blame when the rest of the world condemns your complicity.

 

[ll74]

Yes, we should hold sovereign states to higher standards than terrorist groups.

That we even have to say this shows how utterly out of touch Israel and the United States of America are with the rest of the world.

At least the UK consistently refused to use its veto, even when it disagreed with the motion.

At this point, the gulf between Israel/USA and the rest of the world is extraordinary.

The US ambassador to the UN makes a claim that wasn’t true, everyone and their mother is forced to remind the USA that it’s exactly the opposite of her claim.

In the meantime, proponents of Israel’s assault genocide on Gaza should read this: https://reliefweb.int/attachments/f78b0a28-c3af-44ed-a010-9ba076814dc6/a-hrc-55-73-auv.pdf

And I have to say, if you read that document and come out the other side still supporting the actions of the IDF and Israel, then you only have yourselves to blame when the rest of the world condemns your complicity.

Hamas has a responsibility here and they are a party to the conflict. Dismissing their role is stupid. When negotiations take place, they have a seat at the table. If they were just terrorists, this wouldn't be the case.

And if they have a seat at the table, they must be held to account as well.

I know you're biased as fuck here, but it's the reality of the situation. The two sides will negotiate a peace eventually and it won't just be that Israel stops attacking.

 

[Chobham]

"Genocide" What a loaded word being misapplied. There is NO genocide taking place but the word is being bandied about by people that have more in common with hysterical 7 year old girls than serious observers. A political entity is being removed from the face of the Earth not at all unlike what was done to Germany and the Nazi's during and after WWII. Those people are Arabs and there are multi-millions of them throughout that entire region. They are not culturally, linguistically, or racially unique. Screaming "genocide' like a little girl doesn't make it so.

 

[STrent]

Hamas has a responsibility here and they are a party to the conflict. Dismissing their role is stupid. When negotiations take place, they have a seat at the table. If they were just terrorists, this wouldn't be the case.

And if they have a seat at the table, they must be held to account as well.

I know you're biased as fuck here, but it's the reality of the situation. The two sides will negotiate a peace eventually and it won't just be that Israel stops attacking.

Stop being so bloody stupid.

I haven’t dismissed their role.

I am highlighting the double standard that somehow allows genocide to go completely unchecked by pro Israelis and Americans.

Of course Hamas must be held to account - but they are the ones who said yesterday that they would uphold the resolution:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middl...ch 25 (Reuters),swap of prisoners with Israel.

Whereas Israel have said they will not.

So who here do you have to push to get the resolution implemented?

Answer the question, please.

 

[ll74]

"Genocide" What a loaded word being misapplied. There is NO genocide taking place but the word is being bandied about by people that have more in common with hysterical 7 year old girls than serious observers. A political entity is being removed from the face of the Earth not at all unlike what was done to Germany and the Nazi's during and after WWII. Those people are Arabs and there are multi-millions of them throughout that entire region. They are not culturally, linguistically, or racially unique. Screaming "genocide' like a little girl doesn't make it so.

The UN have defined it as genocide. They are not a 7yr old girl. You can certainly disagree (as I do), but there is supporting evidence to the claim.

 

[ll74]

Stop being so bloody stupid.

I haven’t dismissed their role.

You are. By saying "nobody expects terrorists..."

You seem to ignore your own words on the regular.

I am highlighting the double standard that somehow allows genocide to go completely unchecked by pro Israelis and Americans.

It's not as simple as you make it. It's difficult and complex. It involves decades of allied relations and as you've pointed out, decades of conflict and war.

Of course Hamas must be held to account - but they are the ones who said yesterday that they would uphold the resolution:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-welcomes-un-security-council-resolution-calling-gaza-ceasefire-2024-03-25/#:~:text=CAIRO, March 25 (Reuters),swap of prisoners with Israel.

Whereas Israel have said they will not.

Of course it did. They have much more upside in the ceasefire. Israel, meanwhile, would have to deal with Hamas having time to restructure their defenses and move their personnel without fear of being attacked.

Keep in mind, the last ceasefire was broken because Hamas failed to live up to their promises of allowing the red cross to visit the remaining hostages. In addition, Hamas restarted attacks two weeks into it.

So who here do you have to push to get the resolution implemented?

Answer the question, please.

WTF does this mean? Israel and Hamas have to come to an agreement on terms.

 

[Chobham]

The UN have defined it as genocide. They are not a 7yr old girl. You can certainly disagree (as I do), but there is supporting evidence to the claim.

Fuck the UN. Worthless organization that it is.

 

[ll74]

Fuck the UN. Worthless organization that it is.

Nice deflection