Rice suggested that the reason for the veto was due to the 'language' within the Resolution, specifically the use of the word 'illegal' with regard to Israeli settlements. She suggested that the US uses instead the word 'illegitimate' and therefore the US felt it necessary to veto this UN resolution. The US routinely uses its UN Security Council veto to block UN resolutions condemning Israel.
Ms. Rice might want to read the following excerpt from p. 10, paragraph 4 of the July 9, 2004 ruling by the International Court of Justice, entitled "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Request for advisory opinion":
The information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49,paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention which provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The Security Council has taken the view that such policy and practices “have no legal validity” and constitute a “flagrant violation” of the Convention. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.
The only one of the 15 members of the court to dissent was the one from the United States, not surprisingly.
But that doesn't change the fact that the court ruled: the Israeli settlements are ILLEGAL.
No comments:
Post a Comment