HR 7256U.S.-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act
This bill requires the President to make determinations about the relationship between the United States and South Africa.
No later than 30 days after this bill's enactment, the President must certify to Congress a determination whether South Africa has undermined U.S. national security or foreign policy interests. This determination must also be released publicly.
The President must also report to Congress a comprehensive review of the U.S.-South Africa bilateral relationship.
2) aren't we long past pacific settlements of disputes (it's occupation) - into Chapter VII from the charter itself, Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression? https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter
And
3) what does that really accomplish for immediate need against aggression? Did the ceasefire actually happen? And the US immediately undermined the resolution it abstained from, calling it 'nonbinding,' not true say I because it was about aggression not a pacific settlement (nonbinding is Chapter VI pacific not VII. And he uses the term 'massacre' as opposed to self-defense. See https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/aggression/ "Nonetheless, resort to armed force is authorized under two circumstances:
In the case of self-defence, individual or collective, authorized by article 51 of the UN Charter;". . . "For an act to be considered “aggression,” three criteria must be met. The act must: (1) be perpetrated by a State; (2) involve the use of armed force; and (3) reach a level of sufficient gravity, as defined by the UNSC and must give rise to reactions of self-defence or sanctions imposed by the international community.")
But cut to the chase: who supplies solid legal arguments to contest Dr. Ralph Wilde's "The international law of self-determination and the use of force requires an immediate end to the occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza"? If the ICJ would rule yes to that, doesn't that cut through everything? Israel needs to be gone. IMMEDIATELY. UNSC sends in the troops to enforce. Like they should have already sent the troops to stop the genocide?
If we follow international law, how is it politics seems to rule? Or is my vast legal ignorance on public display (if so, please post correcting facts)?
Official statements as durable as the pier in Gaza.. what a spectacular commitment to lies!
Attempted regime change?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/01/world/africa/south-africa-election-results.html
Proposed US retaliation against S. Africa?
HR 7256U.S.-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act
This bill requires the President to make determinations about the relationship between the United States and South Africa.
No later than 30 days after this bill's enactment, the President must certify to Congress a determination whether South Africa has undermined U.S. national security or foreign policy interests. This determination must also be released publicly.
The President must also report to Congress a comprehensive review of the U.S.-South Africa bilateral relationship.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7256?loclr=cga-bill
Sam, you may have seen this on Consortium News. Do you think it has merit to force a US abstention?
https://consortiumnews.com/2024/06/10/gaza-un-veto-power/
Sorry, not Sam here but
1) conflict of interest, yes? sounds right but
2) aren't we long past pacific settlements of disputes (it's occupation) - into Chapter VII from the charter itself, Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression? https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter
And
3) what does that really accomplish for immediate need against aggression? Did the ceasefire actually happen? And the US immediately undermined the resolution it abstained from, calling it 'nonbinding,' not true say I because it was about aggression not a pacific settlement (nonbinding is Chapter VI pacific not VII. And he uses the term 'massacre' as opposed to self-defense. See https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/aggression/ "Nonetheless, resort to armed force is authorized under two circumstances:
In the case of self-defence, individual or collective, authorized by article 51 of the UN Charter;". . . "For an act to be considered “aggression,” three criteria must be met. The act must: (1) be perpetrated by a State; (2) involve the use of armed force; and (3) reach a level of sufficient gravity, as defined by the UNSC and must give rise to reactions of self-defence or sanctions imposed by the international community.")
But cut to the chase: who supplies solid legal arguments to contest Dr. Ralph Wilde's "The international law of self-determination and the use of force requires an immediate end to the occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza"? If the ICJ would rule yes to that, doesn't that cut through everything? Israel needs to be gone. IMMEDIATELY. UNSC sends in the troops to enforce. Like they should have already sent the troops to stop the genocide?
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/sites/laws/files/ralph_wilde_palestine_policy_brief.pdf
If we follow international law, how is it politics seems to rule? Or is my vast legal ignorance on public display (if so, please post correcting facts)?