Very interesting discussion about international law here. I really don’t have time to examine all the documents referenced here. But this very learned discussion does confirm my belief that the concept of interanational law is controversial and that its relevance to our discussion is dubious.
Having said that, and with the goal of returning to the OP, I would say that even if international law does not exist, international morality does. And therefore it is important to for all of us to develop opinions on basic issues of right and wrong with regard to the way nations conduct themselves.
In my opinion, and to the best of my knowledge of the facts, the lands upon wich the settlements were built were not stolen from anyone. There may be arguments as to the validity of military rule over the areas. But in terms of the land upon which the settlements were built, this land aquisition did not displace previous residents. Even today, you can clearly see that newish settlements stand along side olderish and newish Arab towns and villages. In general, they were built on public land former army bases and Jewish owned land, not privately owned land.
Despite all the violence of the past few years, I see no reason why Jews and Arabs cannot live respectfully, and peacefully side by side. As long as the Arabs get rid of their hate ideology and currupt political leadership.
I would also agree with some other posters here that until Jews can live safely in Arab controlled areas, there can be no real peace. And I beleive that this is a valid moral yardstick for Israel’s obligation to make concessions for peace. Today, Arabs live in Israel without fearing for there lives while I know that if I take one wrong turn on my way home from work, I’m a dead man.
I figured you were, but I’ve seen tempers flare in threads of this topics and silly things said.
As for the US, I believe NATO obligations would force them into it. But it would be interesting to see whether the US would actually go to war, or just provide supply and transport support. I don’t think we’ll ever get to see an experiment, though.
I was not referring to the Agranat comittee but to the UN civil case brought by Sharon against Time magazine.
I do not belive Sharon was investigated under international law but Israeli law (he was not even put on trial), clearly the descision of that comittee is invalid when they have failed to take appropiate action against Sharon or any of the others involved in the Sabra and Shatila massacre. Much of the concept of “crimes against humanity” is clearly designed for cases such as this, where a government does not take the appropiate measures itself. To this end it (the caterogory of crimes against humanity) includes crimes such as murder and rape, crimes which would normally be dealt with under the law of that country but are included in the catergory so that when a country fails to deal with them itself international law can step in.
At the end of the day Israel fails to reach even the bare minimum requirments under international law and it has consistently not done over a period of 35 years, failing to take any action about this sends out completely the wrong message for other would-be human rights abusers.