Obviously it's not legal to use military force against a state due to the behavour of a private group or individuals; you can't hold an entire nation responsible for acts by priv. groups or people. Only the culprits themselves. An 'armed attack' in Article 51 of the UN Charter is the conventional armed forces of state attacking another state. Nothing more. Otherwise, RG: the UK should invade the US for hosting IRA collaborators & financiers. Doesn't happen because it holds ALL of the US resp.
The problem with international law is that if Israel obeys it then they wont be able to steal Palestinian land and water, build illegal settlements for Jews from Russia and New York, kill Palestinians freely like the Israeli terrorist military likes to do, and Israel would have to behave like a good neighbor for once.
163 views for this video.......you guys should see a trend that the rest of the world sides on applying the same standards of the law to every country.
The Holocaust doesn't give Israel moral and ethnic immunity when clear war crimes are committed...
Read the Goldstone Report....at this moment you can evern see theUS possibly considering to distance itself from Israel because it's becoming harder to defend the illegal actions of a terror state.
The reason for difference between the recent UN condemnations of Israel and the far more balanced UN document you site is not that Israel fought armies then and non-state groups now.
I think there are two main reasons. The first is the change of the world and the UN itself over all those years. Compare composition of UN in 1953 and now, and the growth of Arab power within the UN.
The second reason is the "peace process," which has shown Israel as yearning for peace, which is internationally equated with being weak and without a backbone. Whether it is or not. When it is not, there is a myth of "just a little more pressure, and it will fall."
Think of it this way, if we would have abided to international law completely and utterly, our victory on Nazi Germany would have been a lot harder, not to mention for the Soviets who completely disregarded it.
Human suffering, if avoidable should be avoided. But collatoral damage should be accepted if it creates security for an entire nation. Also the Lebanese government is responsible for Hezbollah's actions, but certainly not all Lebanese civilians. There are many many good Lebanese.
Obviously it's not legal to use military force against a state due to the behavour of a private group or individuals; you can't hold an entire nation responsible for acts by priv. groups or people. Only the culprits themselves. An 'armed attack' in Article 51 of the UN Charter is the conventional armed forces of state attacking another state. Nothing more. Otherwise, RG: the UK should invade the US for hosting IRA collaborators & financiers. Doesn't happen because it holds ALL of the US resp.
Redcarpet01 4 months ago
This is one of the smartest guys on YouTube with respect to the Israel/Arab conflict. To bad he seems to be MIA for about a year
gkraychik 9 months ago
@gkraychik I'm here. Just busy.
mbrown0315 9 months ago
THE PROBLEM WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW
.
Written by a Zionist.
.
The problem with international law is that if Israel obeys it then they wont be able to steal Palestinian land and water, build illegal settlements for Jews from Russia and New York, kill Palestinians freely like the Israeli terrorist military likes to do, and Israel would have to behave like a good neighbor for once.
.
Israel will never allow such rubbish!
.
ballsauce666 1 year ago
@ballsauce666 "and Israel would have to behave like a good neighbor for once"
Written by moron.
Are Arabs such a great neighbors?
Obviously not and that's the root of problem.
Greywind30 10 months ago
163 views for this video.......you guys should see a trend that the rest of the world sides on applying the same standards of the law to every country.
The Holocaust doesn't give Israel moral and ethnic immunity when clear war crimes are committed...
Read the Goldstone Report....at this moment you can evern see theUS possibly considering to distance itself from Israel because it's becoming harder to defend the illegal actions of a terror state.
LSRochon 2 years ago
Sorry, this time I disagree.
The reason for difference between the recent UN condemnations of Israel and the far more balanced UN document you site is not that Israel fought armies then and non-state groups now.
I think there are two main reasons. The first is the change of the world and the UN itself over all those years. Compare composition of UN in 1953 and now, and the growth of Arab power within the UN.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 years ago
The second reason is the "peace process," which has shown Israel as yearning for peace, which is internationally equated with being weak and without a backbone. Whether it is or not. When it is not, there is a myth of "just a little more pressure, and it will fall."
As Israelis say, "It's murderous peace."
Kurtlane 2 years ago
your videos are interesting
codyN97 2 years ago
All in all good vid.
ParadiseZion 2 years ago
Think of it this way, if we would have abided to international law completely and utterly, our victory on Nazi Germany would have been a lot harder, not to mention for the Soviets who completely disregarded it.
Human suffering, if avoidable should be avoided. But collatoral damage should be accepted if it creates security for an entire nation. Also the Lebanese government is responsible for Hezbollah's actions, but certainly not all Lebanese civilians. There are many many good Lebanese.
ParadiseZion 2 years ago
@ParadiseZion Ik heb geen idee waar je het over hebt.
Maar laat maar, je bent een mafkeeeeez.
The88Nomad 1 year ago