Here’s Natasha Hausdorff (legal director of the UK Lawyers for Israel) explaining, in an 11-minute video, the U.N. Security Council’s resolution approving Trump’s plan for ending the war in and reconstructing Gaza. She notes that this approval is not legally binding, but goes through the most important of the plan’s 20 provisions.
Some of the problems I’ve mentioned before, including the difficulty of bringing Arab neighbors aboard and constructing an international peacekeeping force, finding a decent transitional government to run Gaza, and the insoluble problem of disarming Hamas (a provision of the plan that Hamas of course rejects). She notes that the UN resolution clearly states that a “state of Palestine does not yet exist,” which embarrasses not only Palestinians, but also the many countries like France and the UK who have already recognized such a state. (5:05). (She notes that the UK decision has been applauded by Hamas, and thus is good for the terrorist group.)
She doesn’t mention the difficult issue of the West Bank. That’s not part of the U.N. resolution, but I’d like to hear her views on it, anyway.
Yes. I watched her last night and thought a real highlight of her presentation was pointing out that implicit in the wording of the resolution was the view that Palestine is NOT a state…yet.
Ms. Hausdorff is a skillful advocate, but her presentation fails to address the full scope of UNSCR 2083’s legal import. Although the resolution does not expressly invoke Chapter VII of the UN Charter (enforcement actions), it does contain language associated with Chapter VII. For example, it “[a]uthorizes Member States” to establish an International Stabilization Force and “[a]uthorizes” that force “to use all necessary measures”. Further, it both “[e]ndorses” the so-called Comprehensive (i.e. Trump) Plan and “[c]alls on all parties to implement it”. I did not hear Ms. Hausdorff address these points.
Additionally, pursuant to Article 25 of the UN Charter, “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present charter.” Except to the extent that portions of UNSCR 2083 may not constitute decisions, but rather, for example, recommendations, the resolution would appear to be binding upon Israel and other member states. I did not hear Ms. Hausdorff address these points.
Ms. Hausdorff likely has more to say. And I don’t claim in advance that what she might say would be wrong. After all, she apparently has two law degrees, from Oxford and Tel Aviv universities, while I have only one, from Harvard. But whatever she, or any partisan advocate, may have to say, I would not be fully satisfied until I’d heard, or read, both sides of the issue and read the key judicial opinions, if any, on which they rely. During my career as an appellate lawyer, I often found the strongest cases for my client’s position were to be found in my adversary’s brief.
It seems to me that the fact that these are recommendations rather than decisions, which you admit, means that they are not binding in the sense that there is no official punishment if they are not implemented.
Perhaps I was unclear. I did not say that any part of the resolution merely recommend. To the contrary, I quoted language that sounds decision-like: authorizes, endorses, calls upon. I simply acknowledge that other, as yet unidentified, aspects of the resolution may be recommendations and, if so, they would not be binding. If Ms. Hausdorff wants to try to make that case, I’ll do the best I can to evaluate it.
Sorry but I have again read the text of the resolution, which you can find here: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/full-text-us-resolution-gaza-approved-un-security-council
. . . and there is nothing binding. It authorizes, recommends, endorses, underscores, welcomes, and so on. So no, everything is an authorization or a recomendation but there is nothing that is a requirement or a demand. So I do not agree with you.
We have both had our says so I do not think we need to continue argung about this.
It’s too bad the UK lacks a version of Japan’s Living National Treasures.