Then international law can go fuck itself.
While Captain Amazing puts in more crudly than I would, he’s not wrong - “international law” isn’t like domestic law, it has no power in matters of peace and war other than that enforced by its constituent states.
Whether the UN “recognizes” a state of affairs is of questionable relevance.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Whether Israelis will give up illegally occupied territory or not is irrelevant. International law doesn’t bend to popular consent in Israel.
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t? Well, whether it does or doesn’t is irrelevant, because it doesn’t DO anything…not unless the folks on the UNSC are in accord and want something done. Or unless a powerful country or countries decides to take whatever vague mouthings come out of the UN and act on their own. Countries, especially powerful countries, flaunt ‘International law’ all the time, if it suites their domestic or strategic needs or goals…or abide by it faithfully if that course suits those same agendas or goals.
Put it this way…this isn’t a new issue. It’s been going on for years, decades even. What has ‘International law’ done about it? How have they forced the Israelis to ‘give up illegally occupied territory’? How have they impacted the ‘illegal settlements’? Have they curtailed them? Stifled them? Halted them? Impeded them? Had any noticeable effect at all on them?
Assuming the latter, why do you think this will change in the future?
-XT
International law is reflective of world opinion and thus a non-starter. Unless something has been grounded in some observable human sciences theory, I don’t give a damn. Nor do member states of the U.N.
edit: 497 is more about population, less about land. It was intended to prevent the transfer of citizenship of persons.
It made the difference between the 67 war and the 73 yom kippur war. With the only top flight airforce in the region, it buys the time to get the reservists to where ever they need to get and to take the offensive.
Remove the air superiority this time, and the jericho option gets activated that much sooner.
Declan
The discussion shows the need for clarity and codification. The proper role of the UN is to keep a register of ethnicities and nationalities, who owing to incurable moral defects, cannot be expected to meet minimum standards of decency. By a fair summary of this discussion the Israelis are in.
How was Redfury to know Israel is viewed on par with the brute quadrupeds; dogs, sheep and swine? We need a register and a link to it.
I’m not sure you understand the limits of “international law.”
OK, let’s do that with the descendants of white settlers in North America. Since you care so much for legitimacy and all.
If you want to get loophole-y instead of considering what the statement really means, that says a lot, too. If the term “international law” gets your hackles up, how about “the general view of the civilized nations, most of whom have undergone and overcome similar strife of their own, and have some idea of what they’re talking about, and the objectivity to assess your own situation”? Can everyone else all go fuck themselves whenever you happen not to like what they’re telling you? Is that really where you want to hang your hat?
Going on past history, “Are you looking for trouble, asshole? Because you’ve come to the right place.”
To an Israeli, “civilized nations” means “nations that are really good at killing Jews”. Other than the U.S and a few others, we don’t trust these “civilized nations”.
And that attitude of exceptionalism is yet another obstacle to peace, isn’t it? Along with trapping oneself in a carefully-massaged view of the past, refusing to consider the possibility that the world today does not reflect that comfortingly repeated self-image if it ever did, that nobody has anything worthwhile to say to you that you do not already believe, that nobody else’s experiences have any applicability to yours …
IOW, get over yourselves already. Be part of the solution.
This is inflammatory and doesn’t belong in a reasonable discussion. If this is your idea of a contribution to a thread about Israel, you’re better off staying out of them. I’m giving you a formal warning here.
It is a fair summary of the discussion: To wit we cannot hold Israelis to the same standard as normal, civilized people. That being their conviction they should have the courage to say so.
It is not a fair summary: it’s intended to aggravate people who don’t agree with you. You can argue Israel isn’t being held to the same standard as other countries, but you can’t do so by comparing Israelis to animals - nor can you get away with it by saying it is the implication of someone else’s argument rather than your own opinion. I wouldn’t tolerate this kind of statement about other nationalities or groups, and I’m not making an exception for Israel. Don’t do it again.
If less than human, then what? The implication seems clear to me.
Edit: moreover I haven’t seen anyone disagree with me. Who are these people denying Israelis are held to a lower standard?
Obviously it does, because I didn’t say anything about humanity. I cut you a break by not warning you for your previous post, but I’m not doing it twice since you seem intent on continuing to make this comparison. Do not do it again. Otherwise you’ll be warned again and the staff may consider suspending your account.
What line do you, as an Israeli, think would be a good border between Israel and WB-Palestine? Assuming it has to be drawn somewhere, and (please don’t get cute) drawn somewhere between the Green Line and the Jordan.
I merely seek guidance to a better analogy.
Which was provided with my first warning: statements about Israel being held to a lesser standard than other countries would be allowed, and saying it’s “viewed on par with the brute quadrupeds; dogs, sheep and swine” is not. It’s not even close. As I said in my second warning message, if you want further clarification on what is allowed and what isn’t, you need to go to ATMB.
Turkey and Greece exchanged populations in 1923, forcibly resettling about 2 million people. Similar population exchanges occured between Romania and Bulgaria, Pakistan and India, etc. It was horrible in a lot of ways but it showed it can be done. It’s silly to say that the Israeli settlers *can’t *be resettled.