Cart 0

On UN Security Council Resolution 2334

Posted by John Reed on

I just did something no one else in America has done apparently. I read the UN Security Council Resolution most Americans and Israelis are in a road rage about.
Most readers will probably find it easier to read the Wikipedia synopsis:
This is a non-binding censure of Israel for deliberately moving over 100,000 Israelis just since Obama’s 2008 inauguration and a total of 570,000 Israelis since 1967 into territory captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War.
That flagrantly violates international law, namely the Fourth Geneva Convention, Part III, Article III, Section 49 which prohibits an occupying power from the “transfer [of] parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
There is a little more to the resolution than that but that is its main point.
You can see the whole Fourth Geneva Convention here:
Both the U.S. and Israel are signatories to the Fourth Geneva Convention.
All discussion of this event on this wall and in the media should be about the accuracy of the accusation that Israel flagrantly violated 4th GC Part III, Article III, Section 49.
In fact, there is no factual question that they did that. They brag about it. They call it a “fact on the ground,” implying that if they give the Palestinians and the world a bum’s rush, the Israelis living in those occupied territories illegally will eventually be acquiesced to by the Palestinians and the world.
But both at this Wall and in the media, there is no discussion of the thesis of the resolution in the U.S. (or in Israel I assume). But in my posts, and in the rest of the world, Israel is guilty as charged.
What I get on this wall and they present in the media are things like:
• Israel is “our best friend and ally” in the Mid-East—neither true all the time nor relevant to the settlements—this is a mantra repeated like brainwashing to distract people from ever considering whether it’s true
• Israel is the only democracy in the Mid-East—4GC-III-III-49 makes no exception for democracies so irrelevant
• Six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust—irrelevant—4GC-III-III-49 does not say victims of one occupying force in one war are thereby allowed to victimize other persons in territory they subsequently occupy in a later war
• The Israelis have made the desert bloom—irrelevant
• Jews have lived the vicinity of the occupied territories for thousands of years—4GC-III-III-49 makes no exception for historical demographics of currently occupied territories so irrelevant
The list is longer than this, but essentially the same CHANGING THE SUBJECT as the above (#2 in my list of Intellectually-dishonest debate tactics
If there is an error or omission in my facts or logic with regard to my support of the U.K., France, New Zealand, Spain, Uruguay, Japan, and eight other countries who voted for UNSC resolution 2334, please point it out. If you’ve got nothing but irrelevant distractions to offer, you are being intellectually dishonest.
The subject of this post is whether Israel “transfer[red] parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” in violation of 4GC-III-III-49 to which Israel is a signatory.
I and the UNSC say the answers is yes, specifically, they transferred 570,000 of their own civilian population there.
You got a problem with that?

Share this post

← Older Post Newer Post →