Abloy Locks Pulls Out of West Bank Industrial Park of Barkan Due to Swedish Leftist Christian Orgs Misreading of International Law…….

The Swedish Leftist Christian organization, Diakonia, and the NGO Swedwatch, have managed to hornswoggle the Swedish lock manufacturer Assa Abloy, into pulling out of the Israeli Barkan industrial park in the West Bank.
The two organizations targeted Abloy because it’s supposedly in violation of international law. Reports at the websites of Diakonia and Swedwatch make the erroneous claim that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank have been deemed illegal by the UN Security Council, while no such thing has actually taken place. It’s a pure fabrication and a bald faced lie.
But wait there’s more!
While its true that a majority of the non-permanent members of the UNSC, indeed voted against the legality of Israel’s settlements in the WB, both of the UNSC’s permanent “veto” members, USA and UK abstained. Since there is absolutely no mention anywhere in UNSC Resolution 446 of it being a chapter seven resolution, it is then rendered, by default, as a chapter six non-binding resolution. Period, no further discussion is needed, Israel is not in violation of the council.
If anyone can spot a reference to “chapter seven” in document UNSC 446, you’ll win a hundred Euros from the Tundra Tabloids!
Abloy has been sold a bill of goods by a couple of ignorant or disingenuous minded groups that actually care little for international law, for if it did matter to them, they would have seen that the issue is a straight forward one, and that Israel is not in violation of any international agreement. It’s just a matter of politics on their part, the people who usually shout about “INTERNATIONAL LAW” where Israel is concerned, know absolutely nothing about it themselves, or care very little about it all.
Anther nail in the coffin for those who cry “INTERNATIONAL LAW”, is that the logic and reason behind UNSC 446 rests squarely on Geneva Conventions 49(6):
  1. Article 49 (6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949, states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”
But it’s talking solely of the actions between two “High Contracting Powers”, in other words, states. Neither at the time it was drafted, not presently, has there been more than one High Contracting Power, which is Israel. Article 49(6) couldn’t be applicable to the situation in the WB even if all the Arabs and their supporters got down on bended knee and wished it to be so.
It’s all about politics. It’s about how the anti-Israel crowd can try con others into believing their
anti-Israel nonsense, that other wise, would never have a chance of winning a case in an honest court of law. Shame on the Christian organization Diakonia, it’s now obvious that they’re unshamed about being in the business of telling falsehoods.
We can all thank the US’s worst president ever, Jimmy Carter, for his hand in keeping the US from vetoing the stupid vote. His actions then has only served to further cloud the waters of the conflict, regardless of how clear the language and readings of international law are.
Israel is not in violation of international law, no matter how much they whine and stamp their feet. KGS
UPDATE: It couldn’t be any more clear!
(UNSCR or here in HTML)Voting procedures

Officially, to pass a resolution nine members including the five permanent members must vote in favour. Voting against the resolution by a P5 member constitutes a veto. The literal wording in the UN Charter implies that a veto is also constituted when a member of the P5 abstains from voting.
MORE INFO: Palestine Facts: By insisting that the Palestinians negotiate with Israel, the Security Council Resolution implicitly agrees that the occupation itself does not violate international law. Later Security Council resolutions – numbered 446, 452 and 465 – do indeed condemn Israel’s policy of building settlements in the occupied territories and declare that these settlements have “no legal validity.” However, these are political statements reflecting the balance of power in the UN and not a reasoned legal analysis. The Resolutions are not binding on Israel and do not of themselves create illegality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.