Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 446

Non-binding resolutions
FYI, the resolutions passed by the UNGA and UNSC (under Chapter 6 of the UN Charter) are non-binding. "The UN has never passed a binding, enforceable resolution against Israel". "All UNSC resolutions related to Israel were promulgated under Chapter VI." "None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven.". Here's another example:. Unless you can prove otherwise, please undo your changes to this and other similar articles. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You can compare S/RES/446 with resolutions that are adopted under Chapter VI, e.g. S/RES/1495 . It explicity state "Acting under Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations". While I am aware that several, usually pro-Israel commentators claim these resolutions are adopted under Chapter VI, and on that basis argue they are non-binding, I have yet too see any of them explain what they base this on. Simply put, they assume it, presuppose it in their line of arguments, without bringing any evidence of it. Their claims could be presented of course, but then as claims and with an explicit note that the resolution does not state it is adopted under Chapter VI. See also this article for a discussion of resolutions made outside of both Chapter VII and Chapter VI.
 * Further evidence of this can be found comparing other UNSC resolutions, e.g. S/RES/1559 . It does not mention neither Chapter VII nor Chapter VI (just as 446), yet both the French and the Russian position is that the resolution is binding.
 * What I can prove is that the resolution does not state it is adopted under Chapter VI, your sources prove someone claim it was, but not that it actually was. We cannot pass that off as a fact. --Cybbe 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct in pointing out that the Palestinemonitor page only mentions Res.478 but is devoted to other UNGA resolutions.
 * As to the Chapter under which this and other UNSC Resolutions were passed, let me try to find out more. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it unreasonable to edit, with sources, the article to reflect the points stated above: That some analysts consider, though it is not stated, that these resolutions were invoked under VI, and also that other analysts say it is "generally agreed" that VI is non-binding, etc. Also, we can note how the SC, when it wanted to make clear it was invoking VI in other resolutions, it did so explicitly.--AladdinSE 06:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This case is not about interpretations. We should state facts: the SC res. is either under Ch. VI or VII. I don't think in this case the facts should be hard to find. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is this resolution either chapter VI or chapter VII? Is it impossible to have elements of both, or fall outside of these two chapters? The UNSC did not state in the resolion that it was acting under a specific chapter, that is a fact. --Cybbe 20:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not so confusing if you look at the resolutions in context. UNSC resolutions are passed within the context of international law and the provisions of the UN Charter. That's why the statements in the preamble to UNSC 242 emphasize "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war " and emphasize further "that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter." In other words the principles are already established by international law and the provisions of the Charter. The remaining recommendations are non-forcible (rather than non-binding) because it's already perfectly clear that Israel is not permitted to retain the territory captured in the war, but agreements between the parties involving small territorial adjustments based on the exchange of territory of comparable size and value were envisaged during the UNSC deliberations. --Ian Pitchford 13:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been addressed and expanded at the Volokh Conspiracy here. Sandstein 19:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

(Syrian?) Golan Heights
The follwing goes for this article, and for UN Security Council Resolution 465 and UN Security Council Resolution 471 as well:

There is nothing "Syrian" about the Golan Heights. The Golan Height are occupied by Israel, they are not under Syrian control or governing. The fact that Syria once had owned them(/had control over them) is totally irrelevant, and is mentioned(along with the disputes regarding the Golan Height) in the appropriate place: The article about The Golan Heights.

Also, I see no evidence that:
 * "Syrian" is neutral because this is a UN resolution and the UN considers the Golan to be Syrian

What I do see is that S/RES/446,S/RES/465(also see here) and S/RES/471(also see here) don't mention anything about the Golan Heights being Syrian. They refer to the "Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem". This is the phrasing we should use, too.

The article at wikipedia is called "Golan Heights", not "The Syrian Heights" or "The Syrian golan Heights", and for a reason. The CIA World Factbook also calles them simply the "Golan Heights", without anything "Syrian"(CIA World Factbook: Israel, CIA World Factbook: Syria). This is the common name, and it is reasonable to use it, esspecially considering the international politcal dispute over the Heights. calling them the "Syrian Golan Heights" in any article besdies The Golan Heights itself is very POV. What would you say if I'd change it into "The Israeli Golan Heights"?...

And even if the UN considers the Golan Height to be Syrian(unproven by AladdinSE yet), the UNSC did not say so in the resolutions we're talking about, so it is irrelevant. There is no reason to keep it. It is a major POV, and is backed by exactly ZERO evidence and no logical reasoning. conio.h • talk 17:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Arab territories occupied by Israel in 1967" explicitly means the UN considers the Golan to be Syrian, under Israeli military occupation. So does every country in the world, including the US. Israeli sovereignty there is recognized by NO ONE except the occupying power, Israel. Even the Wikipedia article on the Golan Heights explicitly says, more than once, that the UN and the international community considers the Golan to be Syrian. These are articles about UN resolutions, it is perfectly correct to and NPOV to list the Golan as Syrian, the UN's position.--AladdinSE 22:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I never claimed anyone to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. I stated they are occupied by Israel. Try not to put word is my mouth. That's not nice. I am offering the following compromise. Instead of writing:
 * I don't know what's the UN position(even if it's in bold...), but I do know what does the resulution text say. Nothing about Syria it says. Doesn't even include the word. Wikipedia calles them Syrian Golan Heights. So does the CIA World Factbook. You still haven't given a good source and reason for using this name. I could call them "Israeli Golan Heights" just as much(as they are occupied by Israel, and again - that's a fact).
 * United Nations Security Council Resolution 446 was concerning the issue of the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Syrian Golan Heights.
 * We'll say:
 * United Nations Security Council Resolution 446 was concerning the issue of the Israeli settlements in the "Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem". This referes to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem(still occupied by Israel up to February 2006), Gaza Strip(of which Israel has retreated in August 2005) and the Golan Heights(also occupied by Israel up to February 2006).
 * Or:
 * United Nations Security Council Resolution 446 was concerning the issue of the Israeli settlements in the "Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem". This referes to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank including East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. Israel has left the Gaza Strip on august 2005, and removed all of the settlements and military forces that were in it. The West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Height are still occupied by Israel as of February 2006.
 * Or anything alike. The second version looks better to me. conio.h • talk 00:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have offered a source, the Wikipedia article itself clearly articulates what the UN position is. Are you really claiming to be ignorant of the UN position on the Golan? It is the same as the rest of the world's. It's really this simple: The article is about a UN resolution. The UN considers the Golan to be Syrian. Stating this is NPOV. --AladdinSE 06:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * First, if we say the territories are occupied, there is no reason to add their "Syriaority". Your unwillingness to use an alternative phrasing, which is closer to the original text shows that the only thing you're realy interested in is having the word "Syrian" written here. No matter what. This is unacceptable.
 * Second, it's a pity you haven't read your own "source". The wikipedia article on the [strike]Syrian[/strike] Golan Heights says that:
 * Neither the UN nor any country has recognised the "annexation" and they officially consider the Heights to be Syrian territory under Israeli military occupation. This view was expressed in the unanimous UN Security Council Resolution 497 stating that "the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect." It, like other relevant UN resolutions takes care to not explicitly call it an "annexation", referring at most to Israel's "annexationist policies."
 * Now, UN Security Council Resolution 497 was adopted on 17 December 1981. The one we're talking about(UN Security Council Resolution 446) was adopted 2 years and 8 months earlier, on 22 March 1979. This is irrelevant. Actually, a search on the United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine shows us that this is the first occurance of the "Syrian Golan Heights". UN views don't work retroactively. You are welcome to use the "Syrian Golan Heights" on UN-related articles refering to events/documents/resolutions/etc. from 18 December 1981 and later on...
 * And let's put it in another way, the following phrasing is neutral, and is tight-coupled with the UNSC resolution text:
 * United Nations Security Council Resolution 446 was concerning the issue of the Israeli settlements in the "Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem". This referes to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank including East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. Israel has left the Gaza Strip on august 2005, and removed all of the settlements and military forces that were in it. The West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Height remain occupied by Israel as of February 2006.
 * Unless you can find that something is wrong with it, I'm using it. conio.h • talk 17:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Israel's Objections
The article states: ''Secondly, it is only intended to cover forcible transfers and to protect the local population from displacement. Article 49(1)of the Convention specifically covers "[i]ndividual or mass forcible transfers" whereas the Israelis who live in the settlements have moved there voluntarily, and argue that settlements are not intended to, nor have ever resulted in, the displacement of Palestinians from the area.''

I think it needs to be made clear that this clause of Article 49 actually refers to the forcible transfers of those living in the Occupied Territory, ie the Palestinians. Whether or not Israel has done this through mass house demolitions/arrests is a different debate. I think the more salient clause in A49 is the last one: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

This, surely, is what Israel is in contravention of, and there is no mention of the transfers being forcible or not.

I've added in a short sentence to this effect ("However, Article 49(6) also prohibits the 'transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies', which would cover the Israeli settlements."), and put in a reference to the text of the convention. 86.156.238.219 10:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Israeli MFA website has been updated to reflect the fact that the Supreme Court considers the Fourth Geneva Convention and portions of Additional Protocol 1 to be binding customary law. Like the Hague Convention, they do not require enabling legislation from the Knesset. harlan (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed editorial change of order, for clarity: the seventh-from-last paragraph in this section summarized the international consensus on the issue, and should logically appear at the end (the section currently ends with a series of paragraphs stating various Israeli objections, as if these were the "final word"). NPOV would be better served if the final paragraph were instead the text currently in the seventh-from-last paragraph, i.e.:

Israel's positions have not been accepted by the International Committee of the Red Cross, nor has it been endorsed by the other High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 1 of the Convention states that "The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances" (emphasis added).[9][10]

Note also that it makes more sense to refer to "Israel's positions" *after* they are stated, rather than before. DavidHeap (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this the first UN resolution against the Israeli settlements?
I tried to find an earlier UNSC resolution concerning the settlements without success. If this is the first such resolution, that would be a notable point perhaps worth mentioning in the article. Factsontheground (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not completely sure, but I think this was the first one because the USA vetoed earlier resolutions. An example is here. Zerotalk 01:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing Occupation despite Unilateral "withdrawal" from the Gaza Strip
The current wording: Israel left the Gaza Strip in September 2005, and removed all of the settlements and military forces that were in it. Parts of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights remain under control of Israel as of today. Israel remains in control of Gaza's airspace and territorial waters. It has not controlled the Rafah crossing into Egypt since the unilateral disengagement plan of 2005 took effect.

might lead readers to conclude that Gaza is no longer considered occupied by Israel under international law, which is not the case. As the Gaza Strip article makes clear, Israel is still considered the occupying power in Gaza, by all relevant international bodies. In order to reflect this overall international consensus, the third and fourth sentences should be replaced with text that reflects these facts: "Because Israel exerts direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza, the United Nations, the UN General Assembly, the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza, International human rights organisations, US Government websites, and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office all consider the Gaza Strip to be occupied by Israel, including effective security control of the Rafah crossing on the Egyptian border." see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip#cite_note-occ-22

DavidHeap (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * A few (not intended to be belligerent) thoughts on this:
 * 1) Concern about conclusions a reader may or may not draw from reading a Wikipedia article might be valid when content is ideologically biased or unnecessarily incomplete. But is it a duty to insist that a reader draw a preferred conclusion (e.g. the need for a reader to conclude that "Israel occupies Gaza")? Check for false consensus effect.
 * 2) Concluding that Israel occupies Gaza based on "overall international consensus" might be Argumentum ad populum fallacy.
 * 3) You suggest that additional amendments be inserted, the language of which are basically verbatim summaries from the Gaza article that you cite. But, why insert only the points of view of those entities which make the claim for "occupation," since the same article goes further and cites opinions that there is no Gaza occupation. For example, Hanne Cuyckens, Avi Bell , Alex Stein , and Yuval Shany make reasonable legal arguments that Israel does not occupy Gaza, because "the effective control test at the core of the law of occupation is no longer met." giggle (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Nations Security Council Resolution 446. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100204104301/http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal2.shtml to http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal2.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)