She lied. The International Court of Justice did not rule that the wall and settlements are illegal, they delivered an advisory opinion saying so. There's a significant distinction between a legal ruling and an advisory opinion.
@OBZ You are correct, in that there is a difference. None the less, the "advisory opinion" was given in response to the UN's request for it. This was necessary for the UN to propose yet another resolution against Israel, which it would promptly ignore and claim that the world is antisemitic. Your defense lawyer tactic to somehow suggest that Israel's actions are not illegal, is absurd.
@steute2011 Israel's actions are totally not illegal (on the big picture), do you even understand that every UN resolution against Israel is non-binding? The UN is nothing but a mouthpiece for dictators and human rights violators. Take a close look at the countries sitting in the security council....
The UN anti-Israel resolution mill is worthless, has no binding effect, and is simply a result of hypocrites and dictatorships who hold the majority of votes in this corrupt organization.
@OBZ This is the same UN that recognized Israel as a state. The regardless to whether the UN has 1/4 Muslim states, which surely have a bias against Israel, international law is very clear on the principles of the matter and leave no room for doubt. If you look around the world, you will find that, while most people (including myself) support Israel within the 1967 borders, the world does not support the continue illegal occupation, illegal settlements and human rights violations.
@steute2011 Understandable, I believe that Obama's statement about the 1967 lines with land swaps is the most likely solution, but world opinion does not mean international law. UN general assembly resolutions are non-binding, as well as Chapter VI Security Council resolutions. I'm not sure if you are referring to UN resolutions when you talk about international law, but I'm wondering if you could be clear and specify specific Israeli violations and where they are shown to be illegal.
@OBZ When I said world opinion, I was referring to the worlds interpretation of international law and how it applies to certain actions taken by Israel, i.e.land acquired by war is inadmissible. With that as a premise, then everything else becomes a forgone conclusion. Although most UN resolutions are not binding, the member states are expected to abide by the resolutions passed. When I talk about human rights violations, I believe most are a direct result of the occupation, i.e.bulldozing homes
@OBZ I firmly believe that if Israel were to work within the framework that has been in place since Resolution 242, they would immediately win the world over and then if they were attacked, the world would support them without question. I realize that it's a bit of a gamble, but when you consider the technology and military might of Israel, I believe they would be able to thwart any potential attack before they suffered any significant damage.
@steute2011 Israel did abide by resolution 242. If you read it carefully, you will find that it called for Israel to return territory (notice it says "territory" and not "the" territory) in exchange for peace. Unfortunately, the Arab nations rejected it, went to the Khartoum Conference and declared their 3 no's against Israel: No negotiations, no recognition, and no peace with Israel. How was Israel supposed to abide by resolution 242?
Read my next comment, youtube only allows 500 characters..
@OBZ I believe this statement by Lord Caradon, the chief author of the resolution: It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt. As a matter of plain fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. It was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted. Sums up that question. Cont.>>
@OBZ The emphasis on the law "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war", without an exception for being the defender. There is also some question as to whether the the 1967 war was in fact considered defensive, since Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt and most Scholars do not consider a preemptive strike to be defensive. It assumes that the other side was going to attack without it having done so. Naturally the other side will say it was never going to attack.
@steute2011 Yes, inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war is highly stressed by Lord Caradon, but again you must look at the big picture. The resolution calls for peace and then return of land, not simply returning territory unconditionally. There were two peace treaties and neither Egypt nor Jordan wanted Gaza and the West Bank respectively, so Israel kept them.
@steute2011 Yes there are debates about who was the defender and aggressor. I look at it this way sometimes: Israel's pre-emptive strike began with Egypt. Jordan, being unharmed, attacked Israel following that and after two major warnings, they did not stop attacking. Therefore, Israel went in there and captured the territory following Jordan's aggression. I know it's probably not a proper way to look at it, but I feel like it's worth understanding.
@steute2011 Lord Caradon may have considered those territories to be occupied, but he continuously stressed looking at the resolution as a whole and not simply taking parts out. He stressed a withdrawal from territories rather than "the" territories, and if you read his interviews you will discover that he did not believe that Israel should return to the 1967 line because it is "just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948." Continued->
@OBZ Certainly the Arab Palestinians will need to give a promise of peace, negotiate in good faith and recognition, which I believe they are prepared to do. However, I think the biggest issue will be the Refugee question. This is the one issue where I completely side with Israel. There is no way they can accept 5 million Arabs into Israel proper. So, I think if they gave the occupied territories back and compensation for the refugees. Maybe it would work?
@steute2011 I agree, the Refugee issue is the biggest issue to deal with. Whatever becomes the Palestinian state will be the national home of the Palestinians, though I believe that compensation should be a collective effort by Israel and the Arab nations (since Israel did not initiate the war which led to their plight, and many refugees were encouraged to flee by the Arab governments). With that, I also believe that Jewish Arab refugees following 1948 should also get compensation for losses.
@steute2011 It turned out that Egypt agreed to sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1979 in exchange for territory (Sinai but not Gaza, since Egypt did not want it) and then again with Jordan in 1994, both in accordance to Resolution 242. Now we have yet to negotiate with Syria regarding the Golan Heights.
True, Israel is a strong nation technologically and militarily, but it is still very easy to harm its citizens without causing significant damage to the state(i.e. qassam rockets from Gaza)
@steute2011 But one thing I do agree with is that Israel should not have built and grown settlements, they are extremely politically contentious and as you said, would have helped Israel gain world support whereas now I think most nations are opposed to the settlements.
@steute2011 Land acquired by war is inadmissible, but in Israel's case it was acquired in a defensive war against an enemy who was unwilling to negotiate and make peace following the war, therefore giving Israel the right to sovereignty over that land. You say that member states are expected to abide by resolutions, but you admitted it yourself that 1/4 of the UN are Muslim states with a bias towards Israel. I'd recommend the documentary U.N. Me, exposes the U.N. for what it really is.
@steute2011 Bulldozing homes comes after building those homes without the proper permit, but I'm more on your side on that issue because I know it is difficult to acquire a permit.
When I refer to international law, I refer to binding documents (such as the San Remo Manual, Geneva Conventions, etc.). The U.N. may give its opinions, but it is way too corrupt to be the deciding factor on what Israel should and shouldn't do.
israel in here place with 26 Muslim Arab country around here and its time to let here grow and stop b s about Palestinian -its "Jordanian" as well as Palestinian ,
She lied. The International Court of Justice did not rule that the wall and settlements are illegal, they delivered an advisory opinion saying so. There's a significant distinction between a legal ruling and an advisory opinion.
OBZ 1 year ago
@OBZ You are correct, in that there is a difference. None the less, the "advisory opinion" was given in response to the UN's request for it. This was necessary for the UN to propose yet another resolution against Israel, which it would promptly ignore and claim that the world is antisemitic. Your defense lawyer tactic to somehow suggest that Israel's actions are not illegal, is absurd.
steute2011 8 months ago
@steute2011 Israel's actions are totally not illegal (on the big picture), do you even understand that every UN resolution against Israel is non-binding? The UN is nothing but a mouthpiece for dictators and human rights violators. Take a close look at the countries sitting in the security council....
The UN anti-Israel resolution mill is worthless, has no binding effect, and is simply a result of hypocrites and dictatorships who hold the majority of votes in this corrupt organization.
OBZ 8 months ago
@OBZ This is the same UN that recognized Israel as a state. The regardless to whether the UN has 1/4 Muslim states, which surely have a bias against Israel, international law is very clear on the principles of the matter and leave no room for doubt. If you look around the world, you will find that, while most people (including myself) support Israel within the 1967 borders, the world does not support the continue illegal occupation, illegal settlements and human rights violations.
steute2011 8 months ago
@steute2011 Understandable, I believe that Obama's statement about the 1967 lines with land swaps is the most likely solution, but world opinion does not mean international law. UN general assembly resolutions are non-binding, as well as Chapter VI Security Council resolutions. I'm not sure if you are referring to UN resolutions when you talk about international law, but I'm wondering if you could be clear and specify specific Israeli violations and where they are shown to be illegal.
OBZ 8 months ago
@OBZ When I said world opinion, I was referring to the worlds interpretation of international law and how it applies to certain actions taken by Israel, i.e.land acquired by war is inadmissible. With that as a premise, then everything else becomes a forgone conclusion. Although most UN resolutions are not binding, the member states are expected to abide by the resolutions passed. When I talk about human rights violations, I believe most are a direct result of the occupation, i.e.bulldozing homes
steute2011 8 months ago
@OBZ I firmly believe that if Israel were to work within the framework that has been in place since Resolution 242, they would immediately win the world over and then if they were attacked, the world would support them without question. I realize that it's a bit of a gamble, but when you consider the technology and military might of Israel, I believe they would be able to thwart any potential attack before they suffered any significant damage.
steute2011 8 months ago
@steute2011 Israel did abide by resolution 242. If you read it carefully, you will find that it called for Israel to return territory (notice it says "territory" and not "the" territory) in exchange for peace. Unfortunately, the Arab nations rejected it, went to the Khartoum Conference and declared their 3 no's against Israel: No negotiations, no recognition, and no peace with Israel. How was Israel supposed to abide by resolution 242?
Read my next comment, youtube only allows 500 characters..
OBZ 8 months ago
@OBZ I believe this statement by Lord Caradon, the chief author of the resolution: It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt. As a matter of plain fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. It was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted. Sums up that question. Cont.>>
steute2011 8 months ago
@OBZ The emphasis on the law "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war", without an exception for being the defender. There is also some question as to whether the the 1967 war was in fact considered defensive, since Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt and most Scholars do not consider a preemptive strike to be defensive. It assumes that the other side was going to attack without it having done so. Naturally the other side will say it was never going to attack.
steute2011 8 months ago
@steute2011 Yes, inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war is highly stressed by Lord Caradon, but again you must look at the big picture. The resolution calls for peace and then return of land, not simply returning territory unconditionally. There were two peace treaties and neither Egypt nor Jordan wanted Gaza and the West Bank respectively, so Israel kept them.
OBZ 8 months ago
@steute2011 Yes there are debates about who was the defender and aggressor. I look at it this way sometimes: Israel's pre-emptive strike began with Egypt. Jordan, being unharmed, attacked Israel following that and after two major warnings, they did not stop attacking. Therefore, Israel went in there and captured the territory following Jordan's aggression. I know it's probably not a proper way to look at it, but I feel like it's worth understanding.
OBZ 8 months ago
@steute2011 Lord Caradon may have considered those territories to be occupied, but he continuously stressed looking at the resolution as a whole and not simply taking parts out. He stressed a withdrawal from territories rather than "the" territories, and if you read his interviews you will discover that he did not believe that Israel should return to the 1967 line because it is "just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948." Continued->
OBZ 8 months ago
@steute2011 That's generally where the idea of land swaps comes in, and I think that's the likely solution.
OBZ 8 months ago
@OBZ Certainly the Arab Palestinians will need to give a promise of peace, negotiate in good faith and recognition, which I believe they are prepared to do. However, I think the biggest issue will be the Refugee question. This is the one issue where I completely side with Israel. There is no way they can accept 5 million Arabs into Israel proper. So, I think if they gave the occupied territories back and compensation for the refugees. Maybe it would work?
steute2011 8 months ago
@steute2011 I agree, the Refugee issue is the biggest issue to deal with. Whatever becomes the Palestinian state will be the national home of the Palestinians, though I believe that compensation should be a collective effort by Israel and the Arab nations (since Israel did not initiate the war which led to their plight, and many refugees were encouraged to flee by the Arab governments). With that, I also believe that Jewish Arab refugees following 1948 should also get compensation for losses.
OBZ 8 months ago
@steute2011 It turned out that Egypt agreed to sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1979 in exchange for territory (Sinai but not Gaza, since Egypt did not want it) and then again with Jordan in 1994, both in accordance to Resolution 242. Now we have yet to negotiate with Syria regarding the Golan Heights.
True, Israel is a strong nation technologically and militarily, but it is still very easy to harm its citizens without causing significant damage to the state(i.e. qassam rockets from Gaza)
OBZ 8 months ago
@steute2011 But one thing I do agree with is that Israel should not have built and grown settlements, they are extremely politically contentious and as you said, would have helped Israel gain world support whereas now I think most nations are opposed to the settlements.
OBZ 8 months ago
@steute2011 Land acquired by war is inadmissible, but in Israel's case it was acquired in a defensive war against an enemy who was unwilling to negotiate and make peace following the war, therefore giving Israel the right to sovereignty over that land. You say that member states are expected to abide by resolutions, but you admitted it yourself that 1/4 of the UN are Muslim states with a bias towards Israel. I'd recommend the documentary U.N. Me, exposes the U.N. for what it really is.
OBZ 8 months ago
@steute2011 Bulldozing homes comes after building those homes without the proper permit, but I'm more on your side on that issue because I know it is difficult to acquire a permit.
When I refer to international law, I refer to binding documents (such as the San Remo Manual, Geneva Conventions, etc.). The U.N. may give its opinions, but it is way too corrupt to be the deciding factor on what Israel should and shouldn't do.
OBZ 8 months ago
israel in here place with 26 Muslim Arab country around here and its time to let here grow and stop b s about Palestinian -its "Jordanian" as well as Palestinian ,
dave2317147 1 year ago
Israel is a nazi state
rencrow 2 years ago
Israeli occupation to Palestine is one of the very few cases of occupation nowadays.
The are occupying Palestine since more than 60 years and cheating the world they are a democratic country.
They also, cheating the world by saying they seek peace in the time they love to kill Palestinians on daily basis.
hamdyasem 3 years ago
Stories that DID NOT make the NY Times:
75% of Hamas Voters Oppose Destruction of Israel (Jan. 2006):
jpost . com / servlet / Satellite?cid=1138622512446&pagename=JPost / JPArticle / ShowFull
Hamas Offers to End Armed Struggle on Condition of Israel's Withdrawal From Territories Occupied in '67 (Feb. 2006):
forbes . com / home / feeds / afx / 2006 / 02 / 12 / afx2519867 . html
So I guess not negotiating - but wiping out 1200 people in the Gaza Strip - was the only possibility...
inbrooklyn2008 3 years ago