Originally posted by no1marauder The "innocent Israel was viciously attacked by Arab bullies in 1948" fairy tale is complete BS and you know it.
The Zionists self-declared themselves a State in the midst of a war they were waging against the majority of the population in Palestine. They had no legal authority to do either; the claim that the GA partition scheme "gave" them anything i ...[text shortened]... States and peoples and their ability to murder and oppress with impunity. That is pathological.
Of course the analogy is childish. It was't mine. It was swallow blue's. I don't think that complex geopolitical situations can be broken down into elementary school analogies, but if others are going to posit them, I can at least make them less ridiculous than they are as posited.
Israel may not be "innocent" but it was absolutely viciously attacked by Arab bullies in 1948, including several countries (e.g., Iraq and Saudi Arabia) that had no territorial claims at stake.
Your implicit claim that Israel has no legal right to a state is contrary to the position of essentially every western country and the implications of many UN Resolutions (e.g., 1397).
Originally posted by sh76 Obviously, Israel has no confidence in the ICC's objectivity. A quick look at the General Assembly's history of voting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should demonstrate why.
The General Assembly is a radically different organisation to the ICC and functions in a radically different way. Attempting to equate the one with the other is patently absurd. The General Assembly is a political institution and not a court of law.
In any case, as I have noted before, it is not necessary to allow any case whatever to be heard by the ICC as long as the state carries out its own investigations and prosecutions in line with international law. It is not the job of the ICC to displace well functioning national courts.
I refuse to believe that you lack the legal knowledge required to appreciate (or. if you wish, to refute or otherwise challenge in a rational way) what I say on this matter. I am no lawyer and you have the advantage over me here. Instead you just repeat a partisan argument without regard to the facts.
Originally posted by sh76 Of course the analogy is childish. It was't mine. It was swallow blue's. I don't think that complex geopolitical situations can be broken down into elementary school analogies, but if others are going to posit them, I can at least make them less ridiculous than they are as posited.
Israel may not be "innocent" but it was absolutely viciously attacked by Arab ...[text shortened]... n of essentially every western country and the implications of many UN Resolutions (e.g., 1397).
BS. The Zionists in Palestine were waging a war against their Arab neighbors the majority in that country. Those Arabs asked for foreign assistance against an enemy who outgunned them. The lack of any territorial claims by some of those States makes that intervention more, not less, morally justified against Zionist aggression.
Supporters of Israel trying to use UN resolutions to justify Zionist aggression is a sick joke; Israel is in blatant violation of dozens of UN Resolutions including 1397.
Originally posted by finnegan The General Assembly is a radically different organisation to the ICC and functions in a radically different way. Attempting to equate the one with the other is patently absurd. The General Assembly is a political institution and not a court of law.
In any case, as I have noted before, it is not necessary to allow any case whatever to be heard by the ...[text shortened]... advantage over me here. Instead you just repeat a partisan argument without regard to the facts.
In fact Zionists has opposed any intervention from the ICC since even before Israel's forcible creation. On February 6, 1948 the Arab Higher Committee, the leadership of the Arabs in Palestine, in a letter to the U.N. Secretary General stated:
The Arab Delegations submitted proposals in the Ad Hoc Committee in order to refer the whole legal issue raised for a ruling by the International Court of Justice.
So sh76's claim that Israel has only refused to accede to ICC jurisdiction because of hostility against Israel in the UN General Assembly is not only silly for the reasons you state (i.e. that they are different organizations) but is also historically inaccurate as most of his claims regarding Israel are.
Originally posted by finnegan The General Assembly is a radically different organisation to the ICC and functions in a radically different way. Attempting to equate the one with the other is patently absurd. The General Assembly is a political institution and not a court of law.
In any case, as I have noted before, it is not necessary to allow any case whatever to be heard by the ...[text shortened]... advantage over me here. Instead you just repeat a partisan argument without regard to the facts.
There's nothing to challenge about what you said. You said the GA is different from the ICC. Of course that's true.
Originally posted by no1marauder BS. The Zionists in Palestine were waging a war against their Arab neighbors the majority in that country. Those Arabs asked for foreign assistance against an enemy who outgunned them. The lack of any territorial claims by some of those States makes that intervention more, not less, morally justified against Zionist aggression.
Supporters of Israel tr ...[text shortened]... ssion is a sick joke; Israel is in blatant violation of dozens of UN Resolutions including 1397.
Does or does not Israel have the moral and legal right to exist as a sovereign state?
Originally posted by sh76 Does or does not Israel have the moral and legal right to exist as a sovereign state?
No.
As a matter of reality it does exist and will continue to exist. But it's creation was illegal and immoral a forcible seizure of other people's land and a denial of self-determination for the majority of the population of Palestine in 1948.
Originally posted by vivify Didn't a Israel remove the Palestinians due to fear of violence from angry Palestinians who made it clear they weren't happy with Isreal being given land by the U.N.? If so, that would mean the Israelis actions were justified. Since revolts had erupted, I don't see why Isreal is blamed for kicking them out.
A) Israel wasn't "given land" by the UN;
B) Zionists were performing "ethnic cleansing" in their aggressive military actions even before Israel's supposed declaration of independence:
Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.
Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state.
Originally posted by sh76 There's nothing to challenge about what you said. You said the GA is different from the ICC. Of course that's true.
Israel trusts neither.
A quick look at the General Assembly's history of voting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should demonstrate why.
Israel probably does indeed trust neither, but their distrust of the court of law does not follow from and is not explained by the voting behaviour of the General Assembly any more than your distrust of Congress or my distrust of Parliament might lead to or justify a distrust for the rule of law.
Originally posted by Quarl Do you realise you are verifying Suzianne's post. (Which I have taken liberty to cut & paste below).
Originally posted by Suzianne
And these could have been avoided mainly if Hamas had not placed their rocket launchers in schoolyards and encouraged Gaza families to camp near them.
[b]But then negative publicity for Israel, especially in the Isreali- ...[text shortened]... r their cause than just sending children strapped with bombs through the tunnels into Israel
so?
what is it you want to discuss.
"But then negative publicity for Israel, especially in the Isreali-favoring West, could only benefit Hamas."
only if hamas stops being hamas.
A quick look at the General Assembly's history of voting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should demonstrate why.
Israel probably does indeed trust neither, but their distrust of the court of law does not follow from and is not explained by the voting behaviour of the General Assembly any more than your distrust of Congress or my distrust of Parliament might lead to or justify a distrust for the rule of law.
Sorry, I had confused it with the International Court of Justice, which is a function of the UN Charter.
As a matter of reality it does exist and will continue to exist. But it's creation was illegal and immoral a forcible seizure of other people's land and a denial of self-determination for the majority of the population of Palestine in 1948.
Given the population dynamics as they are right now, does Israel or any of the Jewish people therein have any legal or moral right to a state on the land upon which Israel currently sits or any portion thereof?
Israels occupation of Palestine
15 Mar '15 20:50
Back to Top