ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-18d
The wholly holey olde Hasbara, is really weird
The Israeli narrative goes something like this: “The international court only gave an advisory opinion, not a binding legal decision” Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Request for advisory opinion)
Quite true and the court’s advisory opinion was that had they been asked to make a legal decision, binding law would not fall in Israel’s favour!
Only an idiot would proudly hold up the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice pointing to the illegality of Israel’s actions… while claiming it as some kind of evidence in one’s favour…
It’s
really
twisted.
A state which according to the UNSC is in breach of laws, the UN Charter and relative conventions adopted at the end of WWII in large part because of the treatment of Jewish folk under the Nazis is in respect to those laws behaving no better than the Nazis. That some folk seem to be as oblivious as the German population of their state’s crimes, should be ringing alarm bells.
It’s
really
twisted.
First, find out what isn't true... 
Hasbara. More like ‘hasbullshit’.
Comment by Anonymous — July 23, 2013 @ 2:39 am
Please try to keep comments informative…thx
Comment by talknic — July 23, 2013 @ 7:08 am
They do a similar thing with UN Security Council resolutions. “Resolution 242 is just a Chapter Six resolution, it is not binding, it is just a statement of opinion by the states who happened to be on the SC at the time.” But look at the wording of the resolution, it uses very strong language:
“the *inadmissibility* of the acquisition of territory by war…. application of Charter principles *requires*…. Member States have undertaken a *commitment* to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter… fulfillment of Charter principles *requires*…. the application of both the following *principles*…. *withdrawal* of Israeli forces from territory occupied…. *termination* of all claims or states of belligerency…. the *necessity*…. of achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.”
Or Resolution 452:
“the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories has *no legal validity* and constitutes a *violation* of the Fourth Geneva Convention…
calls upon the Government and people of Israel to *cease* on an *urgent* basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;
Nothing optional there. Member States of the UN are obliged to implement SC resolutions. Chapter VI status means only that the SC has not yet decided to enforce the resolution: but it is able to take such action if it decides to do so, by passing a Chapter VII resolution.
Comment by Walk Tall Hang Loose — March 27, 2013 @ 4:25 pm
Quite. Binding Laws, UN Charter and Conventions reaffirmed and/or emphasized and/or otherwise mentioned in any resolution, by any UN body, are by their nature, binding!
NB: the US has ‘abstained’ from voting on Chapt VI resolutions against Israel because it is illegal for any of the five veto wielding UNSC Members to veto reminders of ‘already determined’ Law, the UN Charter or relevant conventions. (UN Charter Chapt 1, Article 2, 2.). UN Member States cannot say the Law, UN Charter, relevant conventions are irrelevant.
They can however veto any ‘yet to be determined’ actions that might be taken under Chapt VII.
Comment by talknic — March 29, 2013 @ 2:44 am
Thanks for the NB. I had not understood that before.
Comment by Walk Tall Hang Loose — March 29, 2013 @ 11:44 am