I'm more worried of the nuclear weapons in the hands of Israel... given their impressive record of violating all sorts of human rights, and then feigning ignorance and playing victim.

Israel's had them for several decades now.

It's clear you are emotionally biased, enough to write such glaring non-arguments.

It's easy for a population to grow exponentially after it's been cornered into a tiny strip of land. But my point is that the Palestinian population is treated inhumanely by Israel. Pushed around, evicted from their homes, constantly put under fire and/or bombarded... It's of little wonder why Palestinians feel such vindictive animosity for Israel.

Threats of annihilating nations come from both sides - Israeli and Iranian. I remember General Moshe Dayan saying that 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I suppose Iran wants the same.

All Iran wants are their own nuclear deterrents - especially when every other country around them has them. It's apparent that both the US and Israel are frightened they will loose their ability to bully Iran as they wish, if Iran had their nuclear deterrents. I'm sure they'd be taken more seriously.

And you have to consider that the entire Iranian government would have to be mindlessly suicidal to even contemplate using a nuclear bomb - they would never be able to defend nor withstand a retaliatory attack. And I do not believe they are.

They are fighting they're Israeli oppressors, them same way that the Syrians are fighting their oppressive government.

For example:

On Nov 24, 2011, in the village of Umm Fagarah, Israeli defense(occupation) forces spray a girl in the face with tear gas; they demolish homes and a mosque.

On Feb 11, 2012, in Hebron, Israeli settlers confiscated 100 acres of land belonging to Palestinian families. They later proceeded to confine the Palestinians to their residential communities by the force of the Israel defense forces.

On Feb 22, 2012, in the village of Ramallah, the International Organization for the Defense of Children reported that the Israeli Occupation in that village, brutally beat up a child, breaking his legs. They then handcuffed him to a roadblock while he cried in pain. This is just one case among many.

And if you insist of talking about violence, hen how about Baruch Goldstein, an Israeli physician that perpetrated the 1994 Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in the city of Hebron, in which he shot and killed 29 Muslim worshipers inside the Ibrahimi Mosque (within the Cave of the Patriarchs), and wounded another 125 victims.

Or just look at the Columbine High School Massacre, or the Virginia Tech Massacre -- proof enough that violence by a few individuals in a society does not represent the sentiment of all members of that society.

So don't try to incriminate all Arabs by pointing out extreme examples that represent an extreme minority. Your argument is statistically bogus for its generalization (also known as Prejudice, or Racial Profiling).

On the other hand, I coul keep quoting news about instances of outright oppression committed by Israel on the Palestinians. Like I said, Israel knows how to play victim very well - and your argument enforces that view.

It's just me here at the blog. And of the options you've listed, scatological actually sounds like the best.

You are truly an imperious arrogant asshole, bigot and pro-Arab' propagandist. May G-d bless you with the inheritance of a hotel where you are found dead in every room.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is the reason why no country (least of all the USA) "declares war" on anyone.

After all, ask yourself why NO President post-1945 has gone to Congress and asked for a formal declaration of war, even though the constitution demands it.

A President can't do that, because Article 2(4) forbids "choosing" to go to war as an instrument of foreign policy.

LEGALLY (and that's what we are talking about here) in the post-WW2 world there are only "armed conflicts", and you are either engaged in an "armed conflict" or you aren't.

So there's no point "declaring war" if you aren't actually fighting: nobody cares.
Equally, there's no point splitting hairs about "this isn't a REAL war!": nobody cares.

All that int'l law cares about is that there is "armed conflict", and it regards that as A Bad Thing. So int'l law is geared towards trying (however ineffectually) to put a stop to that "armed conflict" as soon as possible.

So your point is pointless i.e. Ayatollah Khomeini circa 1979 could big-note himself as long and as loud as he liked, but if there wasn't an "armed conflict" (and there wasn't) then nobody cared.

There still isn't an "armed conflict", and if Israel starts one then Netanyahu Will Be The Man Who Started It.

No, give him his due: Bosco starts out by pointing out the suggestion of the Brazilian foreign minister that the UN Secretary General give an authoritative opinion on the legality of any Israeli attack upon Iran's nuclear facilities.

Whatever you might think, such an authoritative opinion would have a real and practical effect, however much Netanyahu and/or Barak would publically ridicule him.

In the most trivial of examples: Following such an illegal attack Netanyahu and Barak would have to avoid any travel plans that took them anywhere near The Hague, just as any country that had the concept of "universal jurisdiction" on their statute books would be crossed off their holiday list.

I wonder what would be the reprecussions of an Israeli strike in the UN? Short of a nuclear attack, I think the US would veto any UNSC resolution comdemning it. Israel does not seem to have many friends any way, they seem to be hated by virtually everyone in the region, so I doubt they would suffer much diplomatic blowback that they do not already receive. What depresses me is that a strike would be considered legal by those who support Israel, and illegal by those who oppose Israel. No considered legal opinion will change their minds.

If Israel do strike, whether it is legal or not would be far down on their list of problems. Not because it is not important that countries conduct themselves in accordance with international law, but because they may not care one way or the other if it is legal.

That would be a POLITICAL gesture. Because there is little doubt that there is no LEGAL basis for anyone launching a "preventive attack" on anyone.

"Pre-emptive", yes, there is plenty of precedence for that.
But "preventive"? No, none.

But it's notable that the Council said nothing when Israel struck what was likely a Syrian reactor.

Obviously I say that tongue-in-cheek, but the reality is, Syria itself didn't raise the issue with the UNSC and in fact, after the bombing, buried the site and put a military base on top of it forbidding the IAEA the permisssion to inspect the area.

That's of course because Syria wasn't supposed to have a nuclear reactor there, especially one that was being built with the help of North Korea.

If you are going to cut'n'paste someone else's work don't use the writings of William C. Bradford.

He kinda' lacks credibility, you know....

Well, at least that's progress of a sorts.... sort of....

AMOSYARKONI: "plagerized his work? by posting it on a comment section of a blog?"

Well, gosh!, I'm looking - yet again - to see if I am mistaken.

Nope.

I'm looking at text that was:
a) Written by William C. Bradford
but
b) Posted under the moniker AMOSYARKONI

So, yeah, unless y.o.u. happen to be Bradford then, yeah, you have just plagerized his work.

AMOSYARKONI: "LOL. Sorry, I didn't realize the rules of academia adhered to blog comment sections."

A remarkable (non)defense, because plagiarism is not just an academic concept. It does indeed have a role to play in the word of publishing and literature, and there is no question at all that publishing Someone Else's Work under your own name is unlawful.

Bosco, for example, would be in considerable trouble with the editors of Foreign Policy if he were to indulge in such things.

Absolutely right. This is why the less restrictive interpretation of 2(4) is so unappealing to most people. But Israel could claim that a litany of Iranian statements proclaim a general intent to interfere with Israel's territorial integrity and political independence (indeed, its existence), while Iran would have a much tougher time demonstrating that Israel has a similar intent.

==This is why the less restrictive interpretation of 2(4) is so unappealing to most people.==

It is because the last thing we want, is to give states cheap excuses to attack other states.

"The core [UN] Charter objectives is to prevent states from using force in international relations to promote their policy agendas no matter how just, except for the right of self-defense or a collective decision by the Security Council. Any state that seeks to invoke the right of self-defense should be required to furnish the international community with credible evidence that it has suffered an attack, that the entity against which the right of self-defense is exercised was the source of the attack, that the attack or threat of attack is continuing, and that the use of force is necessary to protect the state from further injury. To limit the use of force in international relations, which is the primary goal of the United Nations Charter, there must be checks on its use in self-defense...The alleged credibility of conclusory statements by a state's leadership should not be a sufficient basis for actions in self-defense since it would encourage abuse. When attacks on a state are so grave as to justify actions in self-defense, the supporting evidence would normally be readily available. Disclosure of that evidence should be required even if the state would wish to claim that classified information would be disclosed. The use of force in self-defense is limited to situations where the state is truly required to defend itself from serious attack. In such situations, the state must carry the burden of presenting evidence to support its actions, normally before these irreversible and irreparable measures are taken.", Charney, J. I. 2001. "The Use of Force against Terrorism and International Law". American Journal of International Law. 95 (4): 835-839.

"It is useful at this point to assess the juridical bases existing since 1945 for the assertions that the use of force or threat of force otherwise than in self-defence or with the authority of an organ of the United Nations is illegal, and that there is a presumption that this illegality can be given specific content in the ways discussed in Chapters VII and VIII. The foundation for this statement of the law is the customary rule which is considered to have existed in 1939 and which rests on state practice and, in particular, the Kellogg-Briand Pact. More recent developments support and maintain the customary rule.", Brownlie, I. (1981). International law and the use of force by states. Oxford University Press

"Take for instance D'Amato’s argument that an armed attack that does not compromise the territory or political independence of a state would be legal."

No, that's not what D'Amato said in his article.

What he said was that an armed attack that does not compromise the territory or political independence of a state would not necessarily be a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and, therefore, if you want to argue the illegality of that strike then you would have to look elsewhere to make that determination.

Or, put another way: D'Amato did not say "yeah, it was legal", just as he did not say "Of course it was illegal", he merely said that it was not quite as simple as it first appears.

Now, look at the texts.....

Article 2(4): "Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Note the "or in any other manner inconsistent" part, which D'Amato also noted.

Now, look at the UNSC Resolution regarding that IDF attack:
UNSCR487: "Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct;"

That appears to leave D'Amato without an argument i.e. the UNSC is anchoring its condemnation of that raid on
a) the "or in any other manner inconsistent" provision of Article 2(4), and
b) customary international law (which exists outside of the treaty law which is the UN Charter).

And, let's face it, if anyone is supposed to be competent to determine what is "inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations" then it's the UN Security Council.

"The UN security council is not competent enough to find its way out of a wet paper bag, let alone define just war doctrine."

The text is this:
"Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

The question therefore has to be this:
Q: Who has the authority to determine when "force" is being used in "a manner unconsistent" with the purposes of the UN?

I would suggest that this is the **only* conceivable answer:
A: Only the Security Council has the authority to make such a decision.

You believe otherwise, do you?

OK, then who do **you** think possesses that authority?

"Where was the Security Counsel in stopping Kosovo, Darfur, Rwanda, etc.? "

As statements go that is worthless i.e. if you reject the Security Council as being the body tasked with such decision-making then you have to tell us who is, and that you appear to be remarkably reluctant to do. How odd.

"Moreover, it is an entirely politicized body, with the 5 permanent members fighting for their interests and client states."

Hold onto you seat, because I am about to reveal something that will shock you to your core: the United Nations IS A POLITICAL BODY.

It isn't a "world government"
It ain't no "world legislature"
It Is A Political Body.

Shocking, isn't it?

Quite how a POLICTICAL body can avoid being POLITICIZED is, in all honesty, beyond me.

It comes with the territory.

Come on, just be honest for once: you had no idea what the United Nations is, did you...

A couple of responses:

--There's nothing ridiculous about the idea that a state can wage war via proxy forces funded by that state.

--Intervention in Kosovo was NOT authorized by the Security Council (although the post-conflict NATO force did have authorization).