Probably yes. So what? It doesn’t change the fact that your argument is basically a false dilemma fallacy.
And again my question: If I can find a legal scholar with better credentials than Ban Ki-Moon (and/or access to top legal scholars) who says that the settlements are legal, will you abandon your argument?
Are you fucking kidding?
Someone perosnally attacks me, with deceptive, malicious slander about how I say that everybody who disagrees with me is “prejudiced”… and pointing that out is my fault? Where, exactly, is the cite or the rational argument to support that slander? Especially considering that not only have I not called any of the posters in this thread prejudiced, but I’ve even gone as far as to give a specific example of a poster who I have significant disagreements with on factual matters but who I went out of my way to applaud for his scrupulous integrity?
Bullshit, antechinus, bullshit.
You don’t get to make shit up about me in order to slime me, and then claim victimhood when I object to being slandered.
You’ll notice I only “attacked the poster” when he/she started in with the malicious slander about what I actually believe.
And no, you’re not entitled to “rational disagreement” about what I believe when that disagreement is based on making shit up about me that’s gainsaid by my actual words and which is designed only to insult me with untruth.
Right, that’s it. I realized that Kim’s malicious slander has simply sunk me. The ability to invent slanderous bullshit about me that has nothing to do with my factual claims, at all, has totally undone my factual case.
Spot on.
I haven’t paid much attention to this thread since page 1, but you do say everyone who disagrees with you vis-a-vis Israel is prejudiced.
Do not repeat malicious slanders as if they were true.
It’s disgusting behavior, RNaTB.
And you should be above rancid shit like that.
I have never said any such thing, nor could you provide a quote to back it up, because it’s a blatant fiction.
If you contend that it’s not a malicious slander that people are vomiting up to insult me personally, then please provide a cite for where I’ve said any such thing, ever.
You and I both know you’d never find any such cite, because it’s a malicious bit of deception.
Even more disgusting, as I just fucking pointed out, I’ve even given an example of a specific poster, by name, who I’ve had significant disagreements with on the interpretation of international law and tactics, etc… and who I not only don’t say is prejudiced, but applaud for scrupulous honesty.
Kindly stop making shit up about me.
My argument is simply that the International Court of Justice is in a better position to objectively reach a well informed decision on the legality of the Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories (e.g. West Bank) than a poster in Great Debates.
So what? I am sure you could also find a legal scholar who says the 1995 genocide in Srebrenica did not happen or that Saddam Hussein was a nice bloke.
Actually that’s not your argument. First your argument was that Ban-Ki Moon was the superior legal authority. When that argument didn’t stand up to scrutiny, you claimed that Ban-Ki Moon’s advisors were superior. Now your authority is the ICJ.
Anyway you slice it, you are just appealing to authority. If the New York City Parking Violations Bureau were to hold that the settlements are legal, would that change your mind? What if the Israeli Supreme Court did so?
Ummm, does that mean yes or no?
Obviously you haven’t if your position is that
Sorry, total garbage.
I bow out to your one-liner skills.
I mean the one line per sentence.
Or wait, I don’t.
My apologies for saying Geneva 3 when it was Geneva 2, but guess what? I was talking about the Nazis claiming that they weren’t bound to take care of Soviet POWs since
Any guesses on what happened when they tried to use that as a defense? It’s those icky bits like
that prevent you from letting millions of POWs die of neglect cos you didn’t think you needed to bother feeding them, since hell, the USSR didn’t sign Geneva 2. In any event, Israel signed Geneva 4 in ink on 08.12.1949, and ratified it on 06.07.1951. If you really need it, cite. The West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Israel in 1967 from Jordan and Egypt respectively. Guess what? Egypt ratified it on 10.11.1952; Jordan did on 29.05.1951. Since the issue is whether the settlements are an obvious violation of international laws that Israel has even signed on the dotted line – any obvious conclusions come to mind?
Wrong again. That IS my argument: post 161. It’s sad when you have to cite oneself to prove what you are saying.
Look, you can carry on all you like about parking rangers and continue to try to distort my argument - the fact remains, the settlements are illegal according to the UN.
Sorry, let me restate myself:
First, the ICJ (and the UN?) was the source of your argument from authority. Then you switched to Ban-Ki Moon. Then his advisors. Now it’s back to the ICJ.
In any event, my point stands. Anyway you slice it, you are simply arguing from authority.
Assuming that’s true, so what? What if the settlements are legal according to some other authority?
Yet again my question:
If I can find a legal scholar with better credentials than Ban Ki-Moon (and/or access to top legal scholars) who says that the settlements are legal, will you abandon your argument?
And another question: If I can find a respected court or organization which says the settlements are legal, will you abandon your argument?
You misspelled “illegal according to non-binding opinions which have neither the force of law nor the power of enforcement behind them.”
Honest question here. Is your argument really dedicated to rhetoric divorced from reason that you’re claiming that something I’ve quoted is something I haven’t read… because of your act of deliberately ignoring the explicit distinctions it draws and the explicit circumstances under which Powers will be bound?
The fact remains, your bullshit argument is based upon pretending that “bound by” equals “respect” and that when the treaty specifically lists the situations in which nations will be bound, that you think you can pretend that means you can freely invent other situations in which they’ll be bound.
Rather pointless, then, all your babble about how I haven’t read it, if that claim is based on your game of let’s-pretend, eh?
Nice try, but I can quote you, you know?
Your actual claim was not about POW’s, but that the Nazis could have “shot Jews, Communists, Gypsies, and any other undesirables all day long, and it’d be OK since the USSR didn’t sign Geneva 3.”
But I suppose Jews, communists, Gypsies and other undesirables can equal Soviet POW’s as well as “respect” equals “bound by” and “bound by only if thus and such happens” equals “bound by always and in every situation.”
Yeah, the historical lesson I gave you, that you’re now ignoring?
The previous statutes were found to be wholly inadequate to conduct the trials and the Nuremberg Principles were created to inform and… well, you can just search for my quote, cantcha?
Again, instead of ignoring it (like you’re ignored the explicit difference between Powers that are bound and not bound), why don’t you at least try to rationalize away your continued act of ignoring why the Nuremberg Principles were created if prior international law was totally adequate to dealing with the issues before the court?
No?
I’ll have better odds of seeing you actually address why the GC would say that Powers were only bound in certain situations if they really meant to write (you assure us) that Powers were bound in all situations?
Go figure.
Are you now deep into Double Standard Theater, yet again?
Are you claiming that when Egypt and Jordan invaded and conquered Palestinians against their desire for self determination, that its occupation was totally legal and had the force of international law behind it and that even now, more than 60 years after their initial conquest, their rule is still the fact that Israel has to deal with instead of Palestinian claims to self-governance? And that, then Israel could do the exact same thing and simply claim as much of the West Bank as its own territory as it wanted? Or do you have one set of standards of Egypt and Jordan, and another for Israel?
And moving on from Double Standard Theater (boring play anyways, always goes the same way, very poor acting), are you honestly claiming that the contracting Powers Israel is obligated to deal with are the Egyptians and the Jordanians, and any and all claims of Palestinian independence and self determination are invalid and Palestinians are really just Egyptians and Jordanians? Israel shouldn’t even be negotiating with the PA at all?
Or is your argument just a tiny bit protean when you need it to be?
Here, I’ll have a bit of pity and help elaborate what your argument should be. Let me argue it for you, consider it an object lesson:
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.".
Looking at the historical usage, “in the hands of” was incorporated into international law after the US (and other Powers) treated German prisoners who were taken captive not on the battlefield, but in other conditions, as Disarmed Enemy Forces. This replaced the previous term in the 1929 Geneva Convention that stated soldiers were afforded protection if they were “captured”. This change closed the loophole that allied Powers had used to mistreat German prisoners of war.
So the GC clearly states that people who are nationals of states that aren’t bound by it are aren’t protected by it, but that anybody who falls into the hands of a signatory power is protected by it. Although the original language was used to close the loophole applied to German troops who weren’t captured in battle, it can be argued that all Palestinians have “fallen into the hands of” Israel, although it can also be argued that due to its historical use, that phrase only applies to those Palestinians who are arrested/held by Israel since the PA has executive/administrative/judicial authority within its own territories.
Still, I find the occupation of the West Bank to be of such a nature that all Palestinians can be considered to be within the hands of the Israelis and find that interpretation more persuasive even though the argument that those who aren’t “in the hands of” the Israelis aren’t protected would adhere to the letter of the law.
Whether or not the legal argument applies, a moral argument must be made that the 4th GC dictates the standards of acceptable conduct and that they cannot be ignored if Israel has a pretense to morality.
Further, while the 4th GC clearly states that Powers will not be bound in their relation to other states if those other states aren’t likewise signatory nations who adhere to the 4th GC, the above interpretation of “in the hands of” would tend to support a view that they are bound in relation to the citizens of occupied territories if they fall ‘into their hands’, even if they’re not bound in their relation to the state, itself.
See? That wasn’t so hard.
Where did you get that quote from that I misspelled? Could you provide a cite? I don’t disbelieve you - just want to check that it is from an authoritative source.
Oh, are we back to actual paragraphs now? Sorry, you must not understand your citations if you misrepresent them so badly. Need I actually quote how they read and how they have historically been interoperated to you again? It only applies between signatories was tried by the Nazis, and didn’t work.
Very let’s pretend, I mean you keep ignoring the fact that ‘it only applies between signatories’ didn’t work as a defense at Nuremburg. Oh and that inconvenient line of
Nice try sparky, but can I quote you what my actual claim was? Something like "that’s actually the excuse that Nazis on the docks in Nuremburg tried to use to explain away why they could do anything they wanted to Soviet prisoners since the USSR hadn’t signed Geneva 3(sic)." Do I need to actually cite to you how many Soviet POWs died from neglect because the Germans didn’t bother to feed them, since they didn’t feel bound by the convention they had signed? Hint: It’s about 2,000,000.
Gee, you seem to have such a deep understanding of history, forgive me for not groveling at your feet and thanking Jesus that you deign to give me historical lessons. :rolleyes:
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m claiming. :rolleyes: When exactly did Egypt and Jordan conquer the Palestinians? Nice dodge to avoid the issue that Israel, Egypt, and Jordan had all signed Geneva 4, so your lame ass defense that the conventions only apply between signatories is kind of moot. I mean all the parties signed it, and Israel sent settlers. Or are we back to the dance of the meaning of the word transfer?
Wasn’t the original basis of this thread the absurd argument that settlers being removed or left to their own devices is somehow ethic cleansing? Who only are there because of the military occupation of the land? And who are widely acknowledged by the majority of Israelis themselves to be counter-productive to trying to resolve the mess of a situation?
I don’t know why I bother even responding to you or reading you; you’re just a more verbose Sevastopol. Erm, thanks for making an entire post where you actually use paragraphs (see, you can use them! Gonna give you a big gold star on your homework for it!) to make a huge strawman? And while ignoring my actual argument is, telling me what it should be and why the strawman you decided was my position is wrong?
Jesus, at least Sevastopol doesn’t babble on forever and occasionally decide that each sentence needs its own line.
That would be the 1948 war. Perhaps you missed it?
Mmm hmmm.
I sure do misrepresent my own cite.
You dun caught me!
Your ability to pretend that “respect” = “bound by” has proven that I misrepresent the fact that they are different phrases.
They are, in fact, the same word. Er, phrase. Er, word. Well, the fact that they are different doesn’t matter, they’re still fungible.
And the GC delineates between them, and situations in which nations shall be bound and shall not be bound, simply so I can so deviously misrepresent them by claiming that “respect” =/= “bound by”. The GC and I are in cahoots.
You have caught me.
I surrender to your ability to invent definitions for words and deliberately ignore the actual text of the 4th GC.
Just so we’re clear, though, you’re never going to address the massive hole in your argument whereby you pretend that “respect” equals “bound by”, and will in fact just keep repeating “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” as if, if you say it enough, it’ll suddenly morph into “bound by”. Further, you will never address the hole in your argument that claims that Israel is bound by the GC in its dealings with the PA, even though the 4th GC specifically enumerates the only circumstances in which a nation will be bound and cites already provided, not to mention very basic history, show why the Israeli government cannot be said to be bound by the GC in relation to the PA. You will, in fact, deliberately ignore that, and simply repeat “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” “respect” until it becomes “bound by”, via magic.
Right?
Along the same lines, you will continue to claim that the legal statute which informed the Nuremberg Trials was the Geneva Convention of 1929, and not, in fact, the Nuremberg Principles which were specifically drafted to inform and give validity to the legal proceedings. You will, further, continue to avoid addressing why such Principles would have had to be created in the first place if the 1929 GC was totally adequate to deal with the charges levied. You will not, at any point, address why the NP’s were created, what function they served, or why they were used at all if they were totally superfluous, previous international law being totally suited to the task.
You certainly won’t address the fact that the 1929 GC did not deal with the protection of civilians during war time, and the NP’s creation of a statute for “crimes against humanity” was what informed much of the NT’s. You won’t address why the NP’s contain the phrase “The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:” if they were already punishable under international law all along.
Correct?
Here, I’ll try even harder, and elaborate more so maybe you can understand.
Your claim that I was responding to was, actually,the claim that I just quoted to you.
I know, who’d a thunk it?
The clue is in the fact that I responded to it and quoted it. I’m sorry, but I’m not sure how to explain it any better to you. Anyways… your actual claim was that the Nazis could have shot Jews, Gypsies, and any other undesirables if the 3rd GC wasn’t obeyed. I know this, because it’s what I quoted to you.
You know that, because it’s what I responded to and it’s what I quoted to you.
I can’t quite understand how you’d get confused, though.
Now, I know you can’t tell the difference between the word “respect” and the phrase “bound by”, let alone “bound by if” and “bound by always and in all circumstances no matter what”, so you may have some difficulty here.
I’ll go slow, and we’ll see if that helps you.
Are “Jews, Gypsies and undesirables” the same group as “Soviet POW’s?” Was there, in fact, any but a small degree of overlap between the two groups?
You might want to draw a Venn Diagram at this point.
As should be clear once you get done drawing, the answer is “No, Jews, Gypsies and undesirables is not the same group as Soviet POW’s.” So when I responded to your claim about Jews, Gypsies and undesirables, I was not, in fact, responding to a separate claim about Soviet POW’s.
You can now feel free to totally ignore the role of the NP’s in setting international law on crimes against humanity, which was the law which was actually used to punish folks like the Einstzgruppen for murdering civilians.
Along the same lines, you could fail to address the massive inconsistency in your argument and its failure to even mention the history and precedent that I specifically pointed out to you.
You could fail to address why the language about protections applying to soldiers who were captured was changed to soldiers who “fell into the hands of” a Power.
I know that you’re aware of that distinction and the change in international law, because I quoted it to you specifically before you went on to ignore it and talk some more about Soviet POW’s.
I could also point out, again, that you’ve ignored why it was changed and the fact that the Allies were not charged with war crimes precisely because of of the ambiguity in previous international law which caused it to be changed to read “fall into the hands of” . I could point out that roughly 1 million plus German POW’s ‘disappeared’ from allied internment facilities, that the French sent unequipped and underequipped Nazis prisoners into mine fields to clear them, and that no war crimes were ever charged, but that those disappearances caused the shift in legal terminology to extend the protections of the 1929 GC to all soldiers who “fell into the hands of” a Power as the 1929 GC was revised to become the Third Geneva Convention in 1949.
But you probably won’t address the use of language as it takes away from your point.
That’s Glory for you.
So not only are you ignorant of history (a fact which even Tom, who probably wishes I’d be run over by a Zamboni which was dragging a dozen angry porcupines, felt like pointing out) , but you are indeed echoing the far right partisan claims that there is no such thing as a valid PA, and the people who Israel should be negotiating with are Egypt and Jordan, because Israel is bound by its relations to them as they are the true owners of the disputed territories, and the PA has no legal standing.
Fascinating.