I’m reading this Spanish dissertation, and I’m thinking that my thesis advisor would have rightfully murdered and dismembered me if I’d produced such a wordy, repetitive 520-page-long tome. Would have been acquitted, too, in all probability.
The dissertation is not bad, actually, even though the author is far far FAR left. But it is ever so repetitive, God, I read the exact same sentence about how “we don’t live in the best of possible worlds” at least 6 times already.
Spanish-speakers, have you considered that everybody prefers to read Anglo authors not because of “cultural hegemony” but because you can’t get to the goshdarn point?
Clarissa's Blog 
Send it back and tell the student to cut the length of it in half. Just that simple.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Expunge the passive To-Be verbs.
LikeLike
In the future demand to see a working outline of the research paper.
LikeLike
Latest thesis: UNSCR 242 a Legal Fraud
UNSCR 242 has no connection whatsoever with international law?
More guilt trip “He died 4 you” Sanda Claus bull shit. Blood Libel slander, Goyim have no shame. UN-nations accuse Israel of “poisoning the wells”!
UNSCR 242 was sponsored by British ambassador Lord Caradon and was one of five drafts under consideration. Its preamble emphasizes the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”.
While UN Security Council Resolution 242 (UNSCR 242) holds significant importance in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is indeed distinct from legally binding treaties like the Rome Statute.
UNSCR 242 was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council in 1967. While it outlines principles for resolving the conflict, it does not have the same legal force as a treaty. The resolution operates under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. Unlike Chapter VII resolutions, which have binding enforcement measures, Chapter VI resolutions focus on recommendations and dialogue.
Treaties are formal agreements between sovereign states. They are legally binding and create specific rights and obligations. The Rome Statute, for example, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), an example of a treaty as opposed to a UN Security Council or General Assembly Resolution. It defines crimes within the court’s jurisdiction (such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes) and outlines procedures for prosecution.
Unlike UNSCR 242, the Rome Statute has the force of law and can be enforced through legal mechanisms. The UN replacement theology attempts to superimpose the propaganda of “international law” with a model “framework” for negotiations and diplomatic efforts. This perverted substitute theology directly resembles the perversion of the infallibility of the Pope.
It’s essential to recognize that the UN’s authority is derived from its member states, and its decisions are often the result of complex negotiations. International law isn’t monolithic; it’s a patchwork quilt stitched together by treaties, conventions, customary practices, and court decisions.
Frameworks like UNSCR 242 serve as reference points for negotiations. They don’t replace national sovereignty but aim to provide a common ground for dialogue. The Pope’s infallibility is a fascinating theological concept within Catholicism.
Whether we’re talking about international law or religious dogma, interpretations vary widely. Some see these frameworks as essential guides, while others view them skeptically or even cynically.
The UN-nations UN Resolution 242 does not determine “international law” despite all later UN condemnations against Israel based upon the false premise of “illegally occupied territories”, such as UN 338, 446, and 2334.
UNSCR 242 does not qualify as a legally binding international treaty, despite the pretense that the UN has the infallibility of Pope Pius XIIth. Despite the fact that UNSCR 242 falls under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which deals with peaceful resolutions of disputes, it does not have the legal force of a Treaty. Treaties are formal agreements between sovereign states. They carry legal weight and create specific rights and obligations. UNSCR 242, on the other hand, is more of a diplomatic framework—a guidepost for negotiations and dialogue.
A starting point for face to face negotiations does not equal a dictate. French interests as the author of UNR 242 simply do not compare to not Israeli interests nor Arab interests. Negotiation starting points are like the opening moves in a chess game—crucial for setting the tone, but they don’t dictate the entire match. Starting points are like opening statements in court—they set the stage but don’t predetermine the verdict.
“Illegal occupied territories” has absolutely no international law and only exists as hostile anti-Israel propaganda. UNSCR 242 serves as a diplomatic tool. It reflects the consensus of the Security Council States, specifically France, Britain, Russia, and the United States, while it operates under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which deals with peaceful resolution of disputes.
The term “Occupied Territories” implies that Israel’s presence in these areas is temporary and lacks legal legitimacy. Israel outright rejects the European bigoted prejudice language of “occupied territories” as on pare with the Xtian slander: the Jews poisoned the wells fomenting the Black Plague pogroms or the Blood libel slander which resulted in the annual Christ killer pogroms.
The 4th Geneva Convention prohibits the transfer of an occupying power’s civilian population into the occupied territories. But the German lands of Prussia the post war Allied powers made a forced population transfer of 10s of millions of Germans and awarded the heart of the 2nd Germanic empire to Poland.
The Mexican-American War (1846–1848) arose from the United States’ annexation of Texas in 1845 and a dispute over the Texas-Mexico border. U.S. forces were consistently victorious, leading to the acquisition of more than 500,000 square miles (about 1,300,000 square kilometers) of Mexican territory. The illegal land grab, according to the terms of UNSCR 242 extended westward from the Rio Grande to the Pacific Ocean, encompassing present-day Arizona, California, western Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah!
In conclusion, this article argues: a strong opinion against the use of the term “occupied territories” and argues that UNSCR 242, despite its influence, is not a legally binding treaty. It also criticizes the UN’s authority and its resolutions, comparing them to religious dogma and highlighting the subjectivity of interpretations. The term “occupied territories” is a biased and inaccurate label, drawing parallels to historical anti-Semitic accusations like “poisoning the wells” and “blood libel.” The transfer of populations, which is often cited as a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, has occurred in other historical contexts, such as the post-WWII displacement of Germans.
This article expresses skepticism about the UN’s authority, suggesting that its resolutions are often driven by political agendas and do not represent a true reflection of international law. The UN’s approach to the “infallibility of the Pope,” implying that the UN operates with a similar level of perceived authority; that international law is not a monolithic system but rather a patchwork of treaties, conventions, and interpretations. This highlights the inherent subjectivity in how different actors perceive and apply international law. The Mexican-American War and the annexation of Mexican territory as an example of a historical land grab that contradicts the principles outlined in UNSCR 242. This serves to further illustrate my point about the inconsistent application of international law and the potential for political bias in its interpretation.
The term “Occupied Territories” implies a temporary and illegitimate presence, which Israel rejects. The language is seen as biased and comparable to historical Christian slanders against Jews. The 4th Geneva Convention prohibits civilian population transfers into occupied territories. However, historical examples, such as the population transfers in post-war Germany, demonstrate the complexity and sometimes contradictory nature of international law. UNSCR 242, while an important resolution, does not carry the same legal weight as a treaty. It serves as a diplomatic tool, providing a framework for negotiations. The discussion surrounding “occupied territories” and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict highlights the intricate nature of international law, where interpretations and historical context play significant roles.
UNSCR 242 is not applicable to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because it was drafted in the context of the 1967 Six-Day War and does not address the unique historical and legal complexities of this conflict. The use of language like “blood libel” and “poisoning the wells” to describe the term “occupied territories” may seem extreme, but it is important to note that the historical context of anti-Semitic tropes cannot be ignored. The forced population transfer of Germans after World War II and the annexation of Mexican territory by the United States are examples of historical hypocrisy when it comes to territorial disputes. The use of loaded terms and a lack of recognition of Israel’s sovereignty can hinder progress towards a peaceful resolution. It is also important to recognize the inconsistent application of international law and the potential for political bias in its interpretation.
LikeLike
During my dad’s thesis defense, the words “you told me to cut out all the bullshit—so I cut out all the bullshit” were said.
Maybe the student needs a reminder that they aren’t being paid by the word (or the page).
LikeLiked by 1 person