"J. van Baardwijk" wrote:
>
> At 17:38 6-3-2003 -0500, John Giorgis wrote:
>
> >At 09:45 PM 3/6/2003 +0100 J. van Baardwijk wrote:
> > >Well, as Bush already sent 300,000 troops to the region anyway, he might as
> > >wll put them to good use and kick Israel out of the territories mentioned
> > >in Resolution 242. Ending the Israeli occupation would be a good starting
> > >point for peace talks.
> >
> >That would not be authorized under a Chapter VI UN Resolution, only under a
> >Chapter VII UN Resolution.
>
> Yeah, so? The US has already said it will go to war against Iraq, even if
> the UN doesn't support it. So, "it isn't authorised by the UN" is hardly a
> valid excuse for the US to not enforce Resolution 242.
The Chapter VII UN Resolution against Iraq allows for force to be used to
enforce it, in fact, I believe it explicitly authorizes force. (Someone who
knows a bit more about the UN than I do could maybe confirm or clarify for
me.)
A Chapter VI UN Resolution, such as the one you cite involving Israel, does
not allow for force to enforce it.
The two situations are very different. The US has made an effort to
encourage Israel to comply with the resolution you cite, but since it's a
Chapter VI resolution, nobody has the authority to use force to enforce it.
(And if they did, they'd have to enforce the part about Israel being allowed
secure borders, as well.)
If you really want someone to take military action against Israel regarding
Resolution 242, then go to the UN and ask them to make it a Chapter VII
resolution.
And if you can't understand the difference between the two types of
resolution when it's spelled out for you for the third time, I'm going to
conclude that you are incapable of constructively assimilating any
information that doesn't agree with your personal worldview, and will
discount any future argument you make in the area of international
relations.
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
