The settlements are illegal regardless of whether Israel is recognized as a ‘Jewish state’

In the newest development concerning peace negotiations between Israel and the PA, Netanyahu has offered to partially extend the fake settlement freeze in exchange for recognition of Israel’s Jewish character. In a startling spectacle of rationality, the PA has rejected the offer in kind. BBC reports: 

The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said Mr. Netanyahu was “playing games” with his offer, and that there was no connection between settlements and the national character of Israel.

“I don’t see a relevance between his obligations under international law and him trying to define the nature of Israel,” he added. “I hope he will stop playing these games and will start the peace process by stopping settlements.”

He’s right. Settlement activity in the West Bank is illegal under international law regardless of Israel’s “Jewishness”. Perhaps Bibi Netanyahu forgot the following:


Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development [... and] have been established in breach of international law. -International Court of Justice Ruling, July 9, 2004

Or operative paragraph one of UNSC Resolution 242, in which the Security Council unanimously:

…Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of…the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict…

Or UNSC Resolution 446, which affirmed in explicit terms the conclusions of UNSC Resolution 242 (three abstentions) as did UNSC Resolution 452 (one abstention) UNSC Resolution 465 (unanimous), and UNSC Resolution 471 (one abstention)?

Or the portion of UNSC Resolution 252, passed with two abstentions, in which the Security Council:

…Considers that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status; [and] Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem…

Or UNSC Resolution 267, unanimously adopted, which affirmed the conclusions of UNSC Resolution 252, as did UNSC Resolution 298 (one abstention), UNSC Resoluition 476 (one abstention) and UNSC Resolution 478 (one abstention)? 

Maybe Bibi forgot that, unlike the General Assembly, resolutions passed by the Security Council are indeed binding?

Maybe he forgot that in 1993 the UNSC approved a report by the Secretary General which concluded beyond doubt that the law applicable in armed conflict as embodied in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Hague Convention (IV) of 18 October 1907 had become part of international customary law, and thus applied even if the other party was not a High Contracting Party (as is the case in Palestine)?

Did he simply imagine that at the end of each of these resolutions is the caveat “if and only if Israel is recognized as a Jewish state,” thus exempting Israel from its legal obligations?

Or perhaps Erekat is right, and Bibi really is just playing games. Setting aside the composition of Israel’s demand of recognition as a Jewish state (which is ridiculous in and of itself), the mere act of setting preconditions for compliance with international law attests to Netanyahu’s seemingly limitless arrogance. He honestly thinks he can shift the blame for the disintegration of peace talks by throwing bones to the PA, which already affirmed Israel’s right to exist (sans the racist classification) in 1993. He clearly believes that through slight of hand he can simultaneously eviscerate the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees, and strengthen the codification of Arab subjugation in Israel all in exchange for what exactly? “An additional suspension of building for a limited period of time,” says Bibi. Will this be the same kind of “suspension” that still allowed for unhindered construction in East Jerusalem, for the razing of Palestinian villages and confiscation of private Palestinian property, and for continued work on current projects which would most likely include the 3,000 that began as soon as the last “suspension” ended?

Let’s just hope this doesn’t constitute the kind of gesture Obama promised to prostitute US taxpayers in order to coax out of the Israeli government.

Maggie Sager is currently a student at Mills College in Oakland, California. You can find her work at http://www.resistingoccupation.com.

Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 23 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Kathleen says:

    “partially extend the fake settlement freeze” Bingo

    Was just going to link that International court of Justice decision on another thread. thanks

  2. Kathleen says:

    Maggie the folks who attended that conference say they will be “promoting the facts” They might want to read your post to start with

    link to jewishjournal.org

    “The cumulative impact of the biased campaigns against Israel has had a major negative impact on European views of Israel and could, in time, affect American attitudes,” said Andrea Levin, President of CAMERA. “This conference will provide a ‘boot camp’ experience for those who want to help: They will leave with a thorough level of knowledge of the key issues, and the tools they need to fight back — to expose the hypocrisies of Israel’s defamers and to promote the facts.”

  3. This is what intrinsically Netanyahu and his clique are about..Trickery, cunning and deceit..This is what is called being “clever” in this thug’s circle of right wing ideologues..

    • Citizen says:

      Netanyahu is beyond being “clever.” He’s not merely violating the spirit of the law like a “creative” Wall St lawyer trained at an elite US academic institution, but he’s violating, and directly enabling, the letter of the law itself. Of course I am referring to international law, not Israeli law/ethics.
      How do you all like the talmudic Israeli characterization of what it’s doing in the OT as not “occupation,” but “administration?” If memory serves, officially, Israel does not view all the settlements as legal, even under Israeli law; only the (mostly bigger) settlements Israel has selected unilaterally to be part of Israel are legally (temporarily) “administered.” The “hilltop” spots are viewed by Israel, it appears, as simply “extras,” exchangeable pawns on the chess board of negotiations for a (temporary?)
      “practical” Greater Israel. Someone please tell me if I am misinformed here. My memory is not what it use to be.

  4. Shingo says:

    It’s amazing that Nentyahu is getting away with making these demands, which are for permanent commitments from the Palestinians, in exchange for the Israelis offering nothign more than delayed gratification.

  5. Memphis says:

    Could someone help me out with this argument and why it matters, if, in fact it does. I have heard that because ‘the’ is not preceding ‘territories occupied…’ from section (i) of res 242 it does not mean that Israel must withdraw from all the territories. I fail to see the significance in this and why it matters at all. I have also heard that it was an act of ambiguity on part of the UN in order for the resolution to pass. I have also heard that in the french version, the french equilevant to ‘the’ does precede ‘occupied territories…’ If someone would be kind of enough to clarify this for me, it would be greatly appreciated, as I am in a loss to understand why ‘the’ would be so significant. It is clear to me, regardless that ‘the’ is missing to what is meant by that statement; Israel must withdraw from the west bank

    • Hostage says:

      The relations between States are governed by the rules of international law, not by the missing elements of English grammar. The UN Security Council is bound unconditionally by the norms of customary international law and the UN Charter. It cannot create loopholes to Israel’s benefit by failing to mention something in one of its resolutions.

      In any event, there is no rule of English grammar regarding the inclusion of the definite article. Israel certainly does NOT claim that resolution 242 only requires guarantees of freedom of navigation through (some, but not all) international waterways in the area.

      The US, UK, and Canada were the only English-speaking countries with seats on the Security Council during the deliberations on 242.

      Here is a link to a 1967 White House memo which advised President Johnson, that Secretary Rusk had explained to Mr Eban that US support for secure permanent frontiers doesn’t mean the US supports any territorial changes.

      Here is a link to a 1968 telegram in which Secretary of State Rusk said the US had advised the Israeli Foreign Ministry that it viewed the establishment of civilian settlements in the occupied territories as a violation of the principles contained in the Security Council resolution and article 49 of the Geneva Convention.

      The UK Foreign Secretary in 1967 was George Brown. He explained the negotiations regarding the resolution in an interview published by the London monthly, The Middle East, in 1978:

      It would have been impossible to get the Resolution through if the words “all” or “the” were included. But the English text is clear. Withdrawal from territories means just that, nothing more, nothing less. The French text is equally legitimate. In the French translation the word “des” is used before territories, meaning “from the”, implying all the territories seized in the ’67 war. The Israelis knew this. They understood that it called for withdrawal with only minor border changes from the old frontiers – just to straighten the lines. I told the Israelis they had better accept it, because if they didn’t they could be left with something worse, and with our version there would be something to argue about later. See Palestine and the law: guidelines for the resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict, by Musa E. Mazzawi, Ithaca Press, 1997, ISBN: 0863722229, page 209

      The US Secretary of State in 1967 was Dean Rusk. He wrote: There was much bickering over whether that resolution should say from “the” territories or from “all” territories. In the French version, which is equally authentic, it says withdrawal de territory, with de meaning “the.” We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be “rationalized”; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties. We also wanted to leave open demilitarization measures in the Sinai and the Golan Heights and take a fresh look at the old city of Jerusalem. But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war. On that point we and the Israelis to this day remain sharply divided. This situation could lead to real trouble in the future. Although every President since Harry Truman has committed the United States to the security and independence of Israel, I’m not aware of any commitment the United States has made to assist Israel in retaining territories seized in the Six-Day War. See Rusk “As I Saw It”, Dean and Richard Rusk, W.W. Norton, 1990, ISBN 0393026507, page 389

      The Legal Counsel of the Canadian UN delegation in 1967 was Sidney A. Freifeld. He wrote:

      Mr. Rostow describes as a “startling new proposition” a point that he discerns in Secretary Baker’s speech to AIPAC, “namely, that Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw to the armistice demarcation lines as they stood in 1967. . . .” That was not a “startling new proposition” but the intent and the language of 242 which specified, inter alia, the application of the following principle: “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” The word “territories” was deliberately not preceded by “the” or “all the,” thus leaving open the possibility of border rectifications. With that proviso, 242 indeed called for “Israel to withdraw to the armistice demarcation lines as they stood in 1967,” i.e., to relinquish (most of) the West Bank and Gaza.” See his letter to Commentary Magazine

      Noam Chomsky wrote:

      “One of the most respected advocates of Israeli rejectionism, Yale Law professor and former government official Eugene Rostow, claims that he “helped produce” UN 242, and has repeatedly argued that it authorizes continued Israeli control over the territories. David Korn, former State Department office director for Israel and Arab-Israeli affairs, responded that “Professor Rostow may think he `helped produce’ Resolution 242, but in fact he had little if anything to do with it.” He was an “onlooker,” like “many others who have claimed a hand in it.” “It was U.S. policy at the time and for several years afterward,” Korn continues, “that [any border] changes would be no more than minor.” Korn confirms that “Both Mr. Goldberg and Secretary of State Dean Rusk told King Hussein that the United States would use its influence to obtain territorial compensation from Israel for any West Bank lands ceded by Jordan to Israel,” and that Jordan’s acquiescence was based on these promises. Rostow’s evasive response contests none of these statements.” — Deterring Democracy Copyright © 1991, 1992 by Noam Chomsky. Published by South End Press, “Afterword”

      The UK Representative who introduced the drafted resolution, Lord Caradon, wrote a Chapter in “U.N. Security Council Resolution 242: A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity” for a Georgetown symposium. He said:
      *”At the same time scores of Israeli settlements have already been established on the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan. The process of colonisation of Arab lands goes rapidly ahead in disregard of objections from nearly every Government in the world, including’ even the American Government. These actions of the Israeli Government are in clear defiance of the Resolution 242.” p 12
      *”But it is very necessary to remember that when we drew up Resolution 242 we all took it for granted that the occupied territory would be restored to Jordan. I give my testimony that everyone, including the Arabs, so assumed.” p 13
      *”We all assumed that withdrawal from occupied territories as provided in the Resolution was applicable to East Jerusalem. This was not questioned at the time and has only much more recently been raised in fierce discussion.” p 14
      *”But, as I have said, when we passed the unanimous Resolution in 1967 we all assumed that East Jerusalem would revert to Jordan. East Jerusalem, as a matter of fact, had been occupied in the 1967 conflict and it therefore plainly under the terms of the Resolution came under the requirement for Israeli withdrawal.” p 14

      He offered more information in The Journal of Palestine Studies, “An Interview with Lord Caradon”
      Q. ”The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?”
      A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. … …So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to let’s read the words carefully “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side dominating the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

      Q. ”But how would one change the previous border without the acquisition of territory by war? Are you suggesting mutual concessions that is, that both Israel and the Arabs would rationalize the border by yielding up small parcels of territory?”
      A. Yes, I’m suggesting that.

      • Sumud says:

        That’s a pretty solid answer Hostage!

        One more thing Memphis, that zionists will never mention, is the preamble for UNSC242, which set the background and tone for the resolution (my emphasis):

        The Security Council,

        Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

        Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

        Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

        Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: …

        Another argument you might hear is that territory can be acquired in a “defensive” war; this is TOTAL bunk. Ask anybody who says that to quote the relevant text in international law. They won’t, because they can’t. Even if they could, Israel attacked Egypt first on June 5, 1967. Jordan and Egypt had a mutual defence treaty which drew Jordan into the conflict.

        The wikipedia page on UNSCR 242 also has a fairly good write up of the various arguments. The final paragraph in the ‘Removal of U.N. peacekeepers from Egypt’ section of the wiki page on the 1967 war outlines later statements made by Israel’s various leaders that they knew, despite the blockade of the Straits of Tiran and overheated rhetoric, that Nasser had neither the capability nor intention to attack Israel.

        The Six Day War was a war of choice for Israel.

  6. ckeeler says:

    Maggie,

    Unfortunately, this is a pretty shrewed – if transparent – move by Netanyahu. The PM knows that such a trade off would never be accepted (the real trade is recognition of a Jewish state for the possibility of an extension of a partial freeze), but made the offer anyways. Many, particularly in the US, view Israel as a Jewish state to begin with. Ignoring the massive nuances of Bibi’ offer, it paints Palestinians as irrational rejectionists while Israel comes off as though it is searching for a solution.

    While an absurd offer, . The bad news is that the US is pushing for Palestinian compromise on the issue.
    Chris

  7. Citizen says:

    PLO chief says we will recognize and call Israel anything it wants to be called, even “China”if that’s what they want us to call their state–so long as the US gives us a map clearly indicating what land we are getting as our state in return, that is, so long as that map demarcates the 1967 borders.
    link to haaretz.com

  8. AreaMan says:

    Only some Security Council resolutions are binding.

    In any case, Israel was given sovereignty over Palestine by the League of Nations, through various legal instruments, and once given, it cannot be taken away.

    One could argue the West Bank is somehow ‘less sovereign’, or ‘ambiguous’, or at least ‘different’, but still there is no other sovereign power recognized there. So the settlements cannot be in violation of international law.

    The International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over the issue and merely issued an advisory ruling, as you or I could issue an opinion. Likewise, the Security Council resolutions mentioned are not clearly under “Chapter 7″, which could make them binding international law.

    Since there is no agreed-on legal authority, or court, to pass a final ruling, anybody can say anything, and Ms. Sagger’s article is a fine example of that.

    • eljay says:

      >> Israel was given sovereignty over Palestine

      maxNarr has similarly asserted that “the Jewish people are the legal sovereign over the entire Mandate Palestine”, and I’ve asked him to provide one link to one piece of valid, international (and internationally-accepted) legislation that unambiguously supports his claim. He hasn’t bothered (or hasn’t been able) to do so yet.

      So I’ll ask you to please provide a link to such a piece of valid and unambiguous of legislation. Thanks.

    • potsherd says:

      Funny how AM and hophmi log on at the same time to say the same thing.

      • eljay says:

        >> Funny how AM and hophmi log on at the same time to say the same thing.

        Yeah, and funny how none of them can provide a single link to a single piece of valid, international (and internationally-accepted) legislation that unambiguously supports their claim that “Israel was given sovereignty over Palestine”.

        Maybe they’re busy “forming a view” with RW… :-)

  9. hophmi says:

    “Netanyahu has offered to partially extend the fake settlement freeze in exchange for recognition of Israel’s Jewish character. ”

    It’s not fake for my friends who want to build a house in Neve Daniel, part of the Gush Etzion bloc that everyone agree will become part of Israel when there is an agreement.

    Maggie, you’re going to have to learn that international law is not worth much when it’s the creation of non-democratic states with vested interests. It’s not worth much when enforcement is non-existence almost everywhere besides Israel. It’s politics, not law.

    Neither is every UNSC resolution binding. Only Chapter 7 resolutions are.

    The two-state solution presumes a Jewish state and a Palestinian Arab state. I happen to think it’s rather meaningless whether the PA recognizes Israel as a Jewish state or not, because not much of what they say is trustworthy to begin with. Israel accepts that the Palestinian state will be a Palestinian state. If the Palestinians can’t accept that Israel is going to be a Jewish state, then there may not be much point in negotiating.

    • Mooser says:

      “It’s politics, not law.”

      And, as usual, it takes a Zionist to provide any state that wants one with a pretext for dis-enfranchising, dis-possessing, or even killing all the Jews within its borders.
      So hophmi thinks Jews can be treated as Israel treats the Palestinians if “politics, not law” finds it advantageous.
      Thanks, hophmi!
      Gee, I guess the only possibility is to scurry over to Israel where I can be safe, with big tough Zionists like hophmi to protect me!

    • potsherd says:

      Unfortunately, because of Israel international law has been rendered next to worthless. Another victim of Zionism.

    • talknic says:

      hophmi October 13, 2010 at 9:53 am

      “..will become part of Israel when there is an agreement”

      Meanwhile it’s ILLEGAL. Try keeping a car from a car lot BEFORE you’ve bought it. Then try offering the spare tyre in order to keep the rest of the car.

      “…learn that international law is not worth much when it’s the creation of non-democratic states with vested interests.”

      The majority of UN Member States are democratic. Conventions become International Law when the majority of States have ratified them.

      “It’s not worth much when enforcement is non-existence almost everywhere besides Israel. “

      Strange, the Law was enforced on Nazi Germany. Iraq/Kuwait. Indonesia/East Timor. Afghanistan. Numerous other instances.

      It has NOT been enforced on Israel.

      “Neither is every UNSC resolution binding.”

      All law is binding. Chapter Six resolutions are according to law and call for pacific (peaceful) adherence to the law.

      Chapter Seven resolutions call for ACTION to be taken against entities who do not abide by the law and who have not peacefully resolved their issues. Chapter Seven resolutions are binding on the nations participating against entities who do not adhere to the law or abide by Chapter Six resolutions.

      “not much of what they say is trustworthy to begin with.”

      All they have ever asked is that Israel adhere to the laws it obliged itself to. How is this untrustworthy? Meanwhile link to wp.me 62 years of sh*te.

      “Israel accepts that the Palestinian state will be a Palestinian state.”

      Impossible to be an independent state whilst ANY aspect of an entity is under the control of another entity.

      “If the Palestinians can’t accept that Israel is going to be a Jewish state, then there may not be much point in negotiating.”

      A) ‘is going to be’? It is a state! Whatever kind of state a sovereignty wishes to be is no one else’s business. When it acts OUTSIDE of it’s sovereign territories, IS other folk’s business.

      B) ‘a Jewish state’ Israel’s OFFICIAL name is : “the State of Israel”. No nation has given official recognition to Israel other than as “the State of Israel”

      C) There is no legal obligation on anyone to recognize any state. The UN has numerous UN Member State who do not recognize each other. It is not a legal obligation. It is a purposeful obstruction. A demand without any legal basis.

  10. If the PA accepts Israel as Israel, as it has, that should be enough.

    The further “clarification” is not necessary.

  11. talknic says:

    UNSC Res 242 is quite simple, extremely well crafted and must be read exactly as written. The discussions preceding and after the final draft, do not change the final draft.

    In explaining any point in law, one can only explain the actual words. “in other words” are not ‘the words’. You cannot just add ‘negotiate borders’ to UNSC res 242.

    The omission of the word ‘the’ does not change the meaning. (This can be shown by any number of grammatical exercises)

    The debate over ‘the’ was likely introduced in order to purposefully delay the final draft until Israel was ready to cease operations.

    To put it simply: “territories occupied” and not withdrawn from, remain ‘occupied territories’, their status is unchanged unless they are legally annexed. Legal annexation requires an agreement with the entity whose territory is being annexed (note: Jordan’s annexation was not condemned by the UNSC, Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem was condemned by the UNSC). Recognition of annexation by other states is not obligatory or binding. The law is.

    UNSC Res 242 addresses only ‘states’

    The UN/UNSC cannot censure or demand of Non Members, it can only tell UN Members how they may act towards non-states/non-members. (A football club cannot censure or demand a non-member abide by the football club rules. It can only tell it’s Members how they are expected by the club, to behave towards non-members). There are no resolutions against the Palestinians because only states can become UN Members. It has nothing to do with the UN being biased. Furthermore, the vast majority of UN/UNSC resolutions against Israel are reminders. If you don’t pay your telephone bill, you get a reminders. The telephone company is not biased against you.

    All the ‘states’ involved in UNSC Res 242 were High Contracting Powers. They all had defined sovereign boundaries prior to the conflict. The resolution does not mention any negotiation over their boundaries.

    It calls for “…respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”

    ‘..respect for and acknowledgement of … (whatever follows in the sentence)’

    Not ‘recognizable’ boundaries or ‘negotiated’ boundaries, but ‘ recognized boundaries’ … past tense.

    The ‘states’ boundaries were previously ‘recognized’ in order to be acknowledged as Independent Sovereign States. (Sovereign States must have defined boundaries so the extent of their sovereignty can be acknowledged). Israel’s recognition was based on within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947 according to the Provisional Government of the State of Israel.

    “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”

    ‘acquisition’ = acquiring something. I.e., not previously the property of the acquirer.

    After his tenure as a Judge of International Court of Justice, Stephen M. Schwebel tries to assist the Israeli narrative in typical Ziofied Hasbara legalese by shifting the focus to ‘unlawful’, changing ‘acquire’ to ‘ territorial change” before finally falling over at ‘restore the lawful sovereign’. A sovereign does not ‘occupy’ or ‘acquire’ it’s own sovereign territories.

    Stephen M. Schwebel – ex Judge of International Court of Justice ““The state of the law has been correctly summarized by Elihu Lauterpacht, who points out that:

    ‘ territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the unlawful use of force. But to omit the word “unlawful” is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor’s charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign ‘ “

    UNSC Res 242 was between states

    It left Israel as the Occupying Power ONLY, over the territories of a non-state entity that it controlled at the end of hostilities.

    UNSC Res 242 was brought to closure between the ‘states’ of Jordan and Egypt through their Peace Agreements. It has yet to comply with UNSC Res 242 in respect to Syria and Lebanon.

    Meanwhile the occupation of non-state territories is a position of TRUST. The Occupying Power’s DUTY per the UN Charter, is to PROTECT the occupied, their property and their territory.

  12. talknic says:

    UNGA resolutions although non-binding, often reiterate, affirm and remind folk of laws, (all law, by it’s very nature IS binding), conventions, (if ratified by the entities referred to, ARE binding) and previous UNSC Resolutions (which, if they refer to law and binding conventions are of course, binding).

    UNSC Chapter Six resolutions cite law and conventions which are binding. They require the parties to seek pacific (peaceful) closure according to those binding laws and conventions. They do not advocate enforcement.

    Chapter seven resolutions are binding either A) ON THE PARTIES tasked with enforcement or B) on the belligerent on threat of enforcement.

    The laws, conventions, USNC resolutions and breaches, are not made void by a Chapter Seven veto vote. The law, conventions and USNC resolutions and breaches still stand, only enforcement has been circumvented.