Israel Bans Omar/Tlaib

[Dill]

(08-16-2019, 08:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: She has a right to travel anywhere she wants?  I don't think this is true.

Is that a binding resolution?  Also, how did the US vote on this non-binding resolution?

Can you please cite the law they are breaking in denying her access?  Also, what human rights are we talking about?  Where are these rights codified and under what authority?  I know about rights as a US citizen, something you seem to take an a la carte approach to, but I'm not familiar with the organ of governance that proclaimed these rights you claim are being violated.

Did you already know the answer to the "binding" question before asking me? If you know that much, you should also know the US voted for Security Council Resolution 242, which passed unanimously. And with the support of Israel at the time, whose representative to the UN explicitly disavowed any intent to annex the occupied territory.

You might also know that the foundation of the resolution was in international law, which, since the 1949 UN Charter, specifically forbids countries from acquiring new territory by force. It also forbids importing and settling the occupier's population in occupied territory. (See for example, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=77068F12B8857C4DC12563CD0051BDB0.)

International Law is not set down in a single "organ of governance."  It is affirmed in documents with international signatories, like the Geneva Convention, as well as foundational documents by organizations like the UN, the Organization of American States, and the Council of Europe. Individual members of such organizations are then bound then to uphold the law.

Hence the UN affirmation that sovereignty over the occupied territories resides with the Palestinian people, not the Israeli state.  (e.g., UN resolution 3236: http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20150614054045/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/738/38/IMG/NR073838.pdf?OpenElement.)  And that the administrative apparatus set up to control the occupied territories is illegal (e.g. UNSC Res. 476:  https://undocs.org/S/RES/476(1980).

If Israeli control of the West Bank is not legal, then it is not legitimate; their regulation of who may enter or leave is not legitimate. That decision should legally rest with the State of Palestine. (Israel disagrees, of course, disputing that the West Bank is "occupied territory" within months after the the vote on Resolution 242, arguing that the Geneva Conventions and UN Charter's definition only applied to already constituted states.)  

More later . . . .

*Further, even "customary" international practices may, after a time, be regarded as international law, even not actually written down anywhere.