UN resolution

Home Forums Politics UN resolution

Viewing 22 posts - 1 through 22 (of 22 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #617840
    kvy613
    Member

    What would happen if the U.S. did not veto an anti-Israel resolution in the UN?

    #1155475
    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    Israel would be in violation of a un resolution

    #1155476
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    It has occured dozens of times.

    There have been occasions where the US voted to condemn israel too

    #1155477
    Avi K
    Participant

    Nothing. The UN is irrelevant. As Ben-Gurion said, Oom (the Hebrew acronym for the UN) schmoom.

    #1155478
    Joseph
    Participant

    The UN recognized the State of Israel. If it is irrelevant, then there is no State.

    #1155479
    zahavasdad
    Participant

    UN resolutions are only as strong as others are willing to enforce them

    If people obey and enforce them then they are powerful, if people ignore them, then they are useless

    #1155480
    allusernamestaken
    Participant

    kvy613:

    That depends on the resolution.

    General Assembly resolutions are merely recommendations; states can choose whether to abide by them or ignore them.

    The same is true for most Security Council resolutions. Only Security Council resolutions that are worded in a very specific manner are considered legally binding.

    If Israel violated a legally binding resolution, in a worst case scenario, the country would face international sanctions and/or international armed force.

    Joseph, you’re mistaken: The UN’s recognition of Israel allows Israel to participate in UN proceedings, but does not affect Israel’s status as a state.

    #1155481
    Joseph
    Participant

    allusernamestaken, if the UN had voted down approval of the State in ’47, it isn’t likely they’d have been a State.

    #1155482
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph

    Yes that is because the British turned over the “Palestine Question” to the UN.

    That doent mean they are relevant when it comes to opinions that arent asked of them. The UN has condmened Israel countless times (with and without the U.S.’s vote) while it doesnt look good it doesnt really matter.

    #1155483
    allusernamestaken
    Participant

    Joseph:

    From a legal perspective, the 1947 UN Partition Plan was irrelevant – it was a General Assembly resolution, which means it was only a recommendation, and it was rejected by the Arabs, which means it never went into effect.

    From a political perspective, the UN’s approval of the Plan certainly helped Israel’s international standing.

    Whether or not the individual countries would have recognized Israel without UN support is, of course, impossible to know, as many other factors would have come into play. The important thing to remember, though, is that Israel doesn’t draw its legitimacy from the UN, and its rights aren’t limited to those granted by the Plan.

    #1155484
    Joseph
    Participant

    ubiq: UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding under international law. And Israel has accepted that binding nature by ratifying its membership in the United Nations.

    #1155485
    allusernamestaken
    Participant

    Joseph:

    Only certain UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding.

    #1155486
    zahavasdad
    Participant

    There are states not recognized by the UN. Taiwan is more or less reconized throughout the world as a country, but its not in the UN.

    Switzerland was not in the UN until 2002

    #1155487
    Joseph
    Participant

    UNSC resolutions are legally binding. UNSC “presidential statements” are not.

    #1155488
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph

    do you guess your information?

    from The UN library website:

    “The nature of the resolution determines if it is considered binding on States…

    In general, resolutions adopted by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, are considered binding… Legal scholars have various opinions on this question… “

    So while “in general” security council resolutions are legally binding, clearly not all are.

    #1155489
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    For example in the id 80’s the UNSC declared the middle east a “nuclear free zone” Are you saying that would make it illegal for Israel to have nuclear weapons?

    #1155490
    Joseph
    Participant

    If the wording of the resolution itself states it is to be carried out, it is binding. If it is a recommendation, then obviously the resolution itself makes itself non-binding. But that power of making it binding under the relevant chapter of the UN charter lies in the hands of the UNSC itself.

    In any event all this is besides the point. We all agree the UNSC can make legally binding resolutions. Therefore they are, by definition, relevant.

    #1155491
    allusernamestaken
    Participant

    There is debate as to what constitutes a binding UNSC resolution, but it’s generally accepted that a UNSC resolution is binding if it states that there is a threat to or breach of the peace or an act of aggression; and/or the resolution cites Chapter VII of the UN Charter; and the resolution is a “decision” – that is, it includes the word “decide” (as opposed to “recommend,” “condemn,” “demand,” etc.).

    #1155492
    Avi K
    Participant

    Joseph, what is important is that Hashem recognized and continues to recognize it.

    #1155493
    charliehall
    Participant

    The really bad consequences would be if the UN SC then imposed sanctions on Israel for violating a resolution. The closest we came to this was in 1957 when Eisenhower threatened Ben Gurion with UN sanctions for not withdrawing from Sinai and Gaza in return for nothing. No less a figure than Lyndon Johnson, then Senate Majority Leader, wrote to Secretary of State John Foster Dulles to complain!

    #1155494
    Joseph
    Participant

    Charlie: Weren’t UNSC veto-bearing Britain and France on Israel’s side in that conflict?

    #1155495
    charliehall
    Participant

    ” Weren’t UNSC veto-bearing Britain and France on Israel’s side in that conflict?”

    True, but by that time the UK government had already changed as the result of the disastrous outcome (largely the result of the Eisenhower/Dulles policies).

    France’s socialist pro-Israel Prime Minister Guy Mollet was still in power, but in big political trouble as the Algerian War was started and the government’s main focus had shifted westward; Mollet needed all the support he could get to fight the Algerian NLF terrorist campaign (it wasn’t called that back then, but that was what it was). Unfortunately the French campaign degenerated into genocide and Algeria was lost anyway — a lesson for people who think Donald Trump’s similar ideas regarding what to do regarding Syria have any merit whatsoever. Mollet did, however, assist Israel in starting the Dimona nuclear reactor (and thus, nuclear weapons) before he was forced from power in June, eliminating the last barrier to the Eisenhower/Dulles sanctions plans. But by that time Ben-Gurion had been forced to cave.

Viewing 22 posts - 1 through 22 (of 22 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.