Original sentence: Here, the Court asserted that "[i]t is not possible to find in the Charter any support for" the view that only enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter are binding.. The Internationally Court of Justice has found that Israeli actions did "contravene", inter alia, resolution 446, 452 and 465, a point legal scholars has taken as indication of their binding nature as, they argue, "[o]nly obligations, of course, can be contravened".It's been argued that the resolutions concerning Israeli settlements are binding even though were not passed under Chapter VII, citing the reasoning of the International Court of Justice in the Namibia-case.Others have asserted this is not correct, citing Security Council Resolution 54 where the Security Council determined that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace under Article 39 and where the Council acted under article 40 (both contained in Chapter VII).Some analysts have asserted that all resolutions criticizing Israel have been passed under Chapter VI, and are therefore non-binding recommendations
Edited sentence: The International Court of Justice has asserted in an Advisory Opinion that "[i]t is not possible to find in the Charter any support for" the view that only enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter are binding.These resolutions were made under Chapter VI, not Chapter VII, of the United Nations Charter; Chapter VI resolutions relate to "Pacific Settlement of Disputes" between parties, have no enforcement mechanisms, and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law,             and Israel has chosen not to heed them