Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians
Options
Comments
-
Isa 41:11-13 "Behold, all those who were incensed against you shall be ashamed and disgraced; they shall be as nothing, and those who strive with you shall perish. You shall seek them and not find them-- those who contended with you. Those who war against you shall be as nothing, as a nonexistent thing.
For I, the LORD your God, will hold your right hand, saying to you, 'Fear not, I will help you.'[/B]
And your opinion on this is?0 -
The point I am making is that it's irrelevant whether the rules of war are being respected, whether Israel is targetting civilians or not, whether illegal weapons are being used or not. Israel invaded Gaza. The attack on Gaza itself is one big terrorist attack, the minor details are irrelevant in my opinion. If there was no attack there'd be no deaths. The attack is illegal and immoral and so the deaths are illegal and the killing of civilians immoral. Full stop.
I was also saying that the level of pedantry employed is quite high and usually used to avoid blaming Israel for anything, whether it's shelling civilians or attacking the UN, which is quite absurd.concussion wrote: »It's not that absurd when it comes to dealing with things on a legal basis, which this may come down to if there the international community really push it. To address your points above:
Killing a soldier, militant or a civilian who takes arms to defend themselves is legal. Deliberately killing an unarmed civilian is not. If unarmed civilians are killed during hostilities accidentally due to their proximity to armed parties its an unfortunate and tragic consequence of war. Those are the realities. When civilians are killed, the reason why they died should be explored fully and that's whats happening on this forum -were Hamas firing from inside or near a school, etc. Questioning the events do not mean the person is condoning the act.
White phosphorus - yes it's dangerous. Is it legal to use in the way the Israeli's have used it - also yes. Is it therefore a criminal act - no.
Regarding the F16, you asked what else would it be doing but dropping bombs. I simply told you it could also drop leaflets. Incidentally, they can also carry reconnaissance pods. As I said, more than likely it was dropping bombs.
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could only be equated to the Israli actions of the last few weeks if -
Kuwaits democratically elected government was a terrorist organisation
Kuwait posed a security problem to Iraq
Iraqs neighbours supported Kuwaits fight against Iraq
All of Iraqs neighbours had invaded and almost eradicated Iraq in major wars during the last 60 years.
None of these are true, so they're not comparable
All those buildings which are protected by the convention lose their protected status if they are used for military use, ie storing weapons in mosqes etc.0 -
Isa 41:11-13 "Behold, all those who were incensed against you shall be ashamed and disgraced; they shall be as nothing, and those who strive with you shall perish. You shall seek them and not find them-- those who contended with you. Those who war against you shall be as nothing, as a nonexistent thing.
For I, the LORD your God, will hold your right hand, saying to you, 'Fear not, I will help you.'[/b]
Using religion as a justification for anything should have stayed in the Bronze Age. It's primitive. God doesn't exist, let alone exist AND favour one group of physiologically identical humans over another. Get over it.0 -
Ping Chow Chi wrote: »http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7818122.stm
It looks like both sides use civilian sheilds, nice bunch of people, I would hate to be caught in the middle of them. I really think that the IDF are just as bad as hamas, they just have a larger set of 'toys' to play with.
Keeping civilians in a house does not equate to using them as human shields.
Keeping them between you and the bullets would be.
Keeping them in the back with one soldier to guard them ensures they're not running out into the streets in the middle of a firefight. It also means they aren't running back toward your own supporting troops who may may not identify them as civilian, especially seeing as Hamas are wearing civilian attire.
The other thing, sending them forward to check houses, I don't agree with.0 -
The next person to post in this thread any kind of propaganda or prose without referencing it to the debate or including opinion will be taking a week off from the forum.0
-
Advertisement
-
concussion wrote: »Keeping civilians in a house does not equate to using them as human shields.
Keeping them between you and the bullets would be.
Keeping them in the back with one soldier to guard them ensures they're not running out into the streets in the middle of a firefight. It also means they aren't running back toward your own supporting troops who may may not identify them as civilian, especially seeing as Hamas are wearing civilian attire.
The other thing, sending them forward to check houses, I don't agree with.
Ummmm .... are you for real? This is the same IDF that tells civilians to leave an area because they're going in? And then holds families and prevents them from leaving? What exactly do the IDF think is going to happen?
The IDF knows full f*cking well what they're doing and it is appalling. Not to mention a blatant warcrime. Using people as human shields is a warcrime, no "did they didn't they shell a particular building" vague debate, but a clear tangible war-crime.
i've seen news footage (from several different sources) ove rthe last couple of days showing the IDF using human shields in a variety of situations, with one situation being challenged by a cameraman and ignoring him when he points out that they are committing a warcrime.0 -
Posts deleted.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Debate the issues, discuss the issues. Do not try justify them with religious texts.
If you want to do that, go to the religion forums.0 -
Id close the thread at this stage. All debate has been exhausted. Maybe we can have mini threads on seperate issues of the whole debate?0
-
-
concussion wrote: »Keeping civilians in a house does not equate to using them as human shields.
I would argue that keeping them in the house while you use it as a snipers nest, or to launch rockets is.*
*for both the IDF and Hamas0 -
Advertisement
-
youcrazyjesus! wrote: »Another one of your evasion tactics when found out. Hamas has stopped suicide bombings in the last 3 years. The original point was about wheter ROCKET ATTACKS which have killed people RECENTLY were enough justification for attacking Gaza like this. I pointed out that the IRA caused far more damage on the UK mainland on several different occasions than rocket attacks have done recently and asked you if the UK would have been justified in levelling West Belfast?
So, understanding that we are talking about rocket attacks in recent years, next to IRA pub bombings and almost wiping out the British Cabinet, would the British have been justified in levelling West Belfast in response to this terrorism, or not?
The problem with your logic is that you only consider the amounts of dead and physically injured when you try to quantify what Israelis are going through.
What about the psychological effects a constant bombardment has on people?
Over 3000 rockets in less than a year!
If the IRA was firing thousands of rockets into the UK, if they were saying that the UK belongs to the IRA and that all Brits should be kicked out of the country or killed, then the UK would have kicked some Irish butt, and would have had every right in the world to do it.0 -
Did you even read the article? Israel as a state right now cannot exist in its current format in the future. Hamas and fatah know this.
Where is the end game. Does Israel want an endgame?
The recent attacks against Hamas is just show boating to Iran that its still "lean and mean". Playground posturing. Egypt, Jordan and co, arent happy with Iran either but only the US can really deal with them and bring them to the table rather then exclude them.
It is time for some people to take a step back and think on whats going on rather then make fashionable judgements from the get go.
For example if Hamas is destroyed who will take their place? Hamas II more then likely. Look at the big picture.
Please do not be so patronizing, I am quite aware of the big picture, as I stated in one of my posts "the dynamic will stay the same and Israel will still endure the threat of terrorism". Perhaps I should add that the dynamic may change if some of its neighbours become equal or better militarily or gain nuclear weapons, which is a possibility.0 -
Ummmm .... are you for real? This is the same IDF that tells civilians to leave an area because they're going in?
It's a good thing to give them advance warning, but if they're still there when the troops arrive then they need to be taken out of the area safely. If they just run out of their homes away from the advancing troops they could get shot by the opposing side. If they run back past the troops, the ones coming up behind could view them as a threat, especially in an environment where militants are not wearing uniforms.
The first troops to arrive aren't able to handle civilians and carry out their orders so they contain them. They can then organise their safe extraction using their supporting troops.
Id wager that this practice is carried out by most armies.0 -
concussion wrote: »It's a good thing to give them advance warning, but if they're still there when the troops arrive then they need to be taken out of the area safely. If they just run out of their homes away from the advancing troops they could get shot by the opposing side. If they run back past the troops, the ones coming up behind could view them as a threat, especially in an environment where militants are not wearing uniforms.
The first troops to arrive aren't able to handle civilians and carry out their orders so they contain them. They can then organise their safe extraction using their supporting troops.
Id wager that this practice is carried out by most armies.
You would appear to be ignoring that the IDF is holding these people until they vacate. They do not vacate the hostages (because that's what they are) with them. So that flies in the face of "evacating later with support troops" theory you've just espoused.
Monkey see. Monkey doesn't do because Monkey is most definitely is doing something else.0 -
munchester29 wrote: »The IDF has released videos of a booby trapped school and a zoo.
Unverified and unsubstantiated video, which you haven't the courtesy to even link, from a combatant.....Very convincing.0 -
munchester29 wrote: »The problem with your logic is that you only consider the amounts of dead and physically injured when you try to quantify what Israelis are going through.
They are a nuisance, occasionally dangerous and if you have kids you'd worry. But 20 deaths from 8000 missiles? 1 in every 400 rockets results in a fatality? Hardly V2s. In the same period thousands of Palestinians will be killed and live daily in fear of shells being lobbed by Israel into Gaza (source: Guardian) and have Israeli jets breaking the sound barrier over their heads. So if you want to talk about constant terror we can talk about that too. And we can justify Palestinian rocket attacks based on this terrorism too and go around in circles until 10,000AD. So if terror justifies attack Palestinians are justified too surely in your opinion?What about the psychological effects a constant bombardment has on people?
Palestinians don't qualify for this fear though in your opinion.
Back to the point, the psychological impact of no-warning pub bombings can and should be, at least for the purpose of the debate, accepted as equivalent to rocket attacks from pub bombings. Factor in the carnage caused by pub bombings and you have something approaching close proximity. But as usual you refuse to even answer the question and evade a point. Which is. The Israelis are no more justified in levelling Gaza and murdering 1,000 people than the British would have been justified doing the same in West Belfast. You won't accept it and that's fine but it's a perfectly good analogy. What's unacceptable in this part of the world is unacceptable when Muslims are being killed, as you yourself say Palestinians are all to blame for voting for Hamas. So I think based on posts that's what pro-Israelis generally think. The Muslims deserve it.Over 3000 rockets in less than a year!
If the IRA was firing thousands of rockets into the UK, if they were saying that the UK belongs to the IRA
Or that Northern Ireland belongs to the Republic. Which is what Hamas' position is on West Bank and Gaza. They no longer want the whole of the mandate. They accept the 2-state principle (source: Jimmy Carter, Guardian).and that all Brits should be kicked out of the country or killed,
This is no longer Hamas' objective, no more than it was the IRA's objective.then the UK would have kicked some Irish butt, and would have had every right in the world to do it.
They would have been justified in killing "Irish" people would they? Where? In Dublin?0 -
munchester29 wrote: »If the IRA was firing thousands of rockets into the UK,
And the IRA were firing rockets from & within the UK (at other UK citizens).munchester29 wrote: »if they were saying that the UK belongs to the IRA and that all Brits should be kicked out of the country or killed, then the UK would have kicked some Irish butt, and would have had every right in the world to do it.
But the IRA were saying that part of the UK belonged to them! and they did indeed want the 'Brits Out', and in the end, diplomacy won-out over the rocket, the bomb & the bullit.
If only they could find the middle east versions of David Trimble & John Hume, then ............... ?0 -
I have been reading this thread for the last few days and i have just one thing to say in my opinion.
The israeli's wouldnt be half the bully's they are didnt have the united states standing behind them.
Its all politics, nothing more and its mostly innocent civilians, a lot of them poor defencless children paying the price. Its horrendous what is going on in Gaza.0 -
You would appear to be ignoring that the IDF is holding these people until they vacate.
I'm not ignoring the fact - I haven't seen anything that shows/says that they're holding people in their houses and not making any attempt to remove them from danger. I'd appreciate if you or anyone else can help me in that regard.
If they're holding them and making an effort to evacuate them safely - that's fine from where I'm concerned.
If they're holding them and not bothering to provide for their safety, that's just wrong.
Regarding the 'end game', Israel has been invaded by it's neighbours on several occasions. They have managed, each time to turn back these invasions but they have been close run things. A high military readiness seems to be the only thing that's protecting Israel and if its people relax and think they're safe their massive defence budgets and US investment may diminish, leaving them quite vulnerable and surrounded by enemies. Is it possible the constant tensions and violence help justify the maintenance of such an expensive defence force?
The top priority for Israels government is to ensure it's own people are safe - is what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank the price for this safety? Do the ends justify the means (from Israels perspective)
I don't think it does, personally, but I am not in the situation they are.0 -
youcrazyjesus! wrote: »They are a nuisance, occasionally dangerous and if you have kids you'd worry. But 20 deaths from 8000 missiles? 1 in every 400 rockets results in a fatality? Hardly V2s. In the same period thousands of Palestinians will be killed and live daily in fear of shells being lobbed by Israel into Gaza (source: Guardian) and have Israeli jets breaking the sound barrier over their heads. So if you want to talk about constant terror we can talk about that too. And we can justify Palestinian rocket attacks based on this terrorism too and go around in circles until 10,000AD. So if terror justifies attack Palestinians are justified too surely in your opinion?
Palestinians don't qualify for this fear though in your opinion.
I’m sure there are those who would be very happy if Israel waits until more Israeli citizens die in Hamas attacks before it acts against them.
There are people here that think a score should be kept – how many dead on each side, how many wounded, and Israel can only react to the attacks on its citizens if the dead Israeli number exceeds the dead Palestinians number.
An eye for an Eye, is the preferred approach here? Everything should be balanced?
The fact of the matter is, every sovereign country in the world has the right to defend itself. This is true if 1000 of its citizens are hurt, 100 of them or even just 1.
Israel has let Hamas do pretty much whatever they want since they took control in 2007, responding only to “ticking bombs” and attacks on Israel have only increased.
Israel is defending its citizens, and I don’t expect them to sit idly by until the time comes that Hamas can actually start killing Israelis by the hundreds, which will turn public support to Israel.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »Back to the point, the psychological impact of no-warning pub bombings can and should be, at least for the purpose of the debate, accepted as equivalent to rocket attacks from pub bombings. Factor in the carnage caused by pub bombings and you have something approaching close proximity. But as usual you refuse to even answer the question and evade a point. Which is. The Israelis are no more justified in levelling Gaza and murdering 1,000 people than the British would have been justified doing the same in West Belfast. You won't accept it and that's fine but it's a perfectly good analogy. What's unacceptable in this part of the world is unacceptable when Muslims are being killed, as you yourself say Palestinians are all to blame for voting for Hamas. So I think based on posts that's what pro-Israelis generally think. The Muslims deserve it
Or that Northern Ireland belongs to the Republic. Which is what Hamas' position is on West Bank and Gaza. They no longer want the whole of the mandate. They accept the 2-state principle (source: Jimmy Carter, Guardian).
This is no longer Hamas' objective, no more than it was the IRA's objective.
They would have been justified in killing "Irish" people would they? Where? In Dublin?
I think many others have already explained why the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not similar to the IRA/UK conflict. The sheer amount of attacks is not the same, the casualty amounts are not the same, the rhetoric used is not the same, etc.
As for Hamas intentions:
I still think the best source to comment on Hamas intentions are Hamas themselves. Not Jimmy Carter, and not the guardian.0 -
Advertisement
-
Unverified and unsubstantiated video, which you haven't the courtesy to even link, from a combatant.....Very convincing.
I didn't bother pasting links - videos made by the IDF, and they are available on utube.
The links I found would not have been acceptable by some people here.
Would have loved to see any of the major networks commenting on this, but so far none have.0 -
munchester29 wrote: »I’m sure there are those who would be very happy if Israel waits until more Israeli citizens die in Hamas attacks before it acts against them.
There are people here that think a score should be kept – how many dead on each side, how many wounded, and Israel can only react to the attacks on its citizens if the dead Israeli number exceeds the dead Palestinians number.
An eye for an Eye, is the preferred approach here? Everything should be balanced?
Nope. That's as far removed from what I'm trying to say as it's possible to be.The fact of the matter is, every sovereign country in the world has the right to defend itself. This is true if 1000 of its citizens are hurt, 100 of them or even just 1.
So Britain WOULD have been justified in attacking West Belfast with war planes?Israel has let Hamas do pretty much whatever they want since they took control in 2007, responding only to “ticking bombs” and attacks on Israel have only increased.
The New York Times reports Hamas led initiatives reduced attacks on Israel significanly.Israel is defending its citizens, and I don’t expect them to sit idly by until the time comes that Hamas can actually start killing Israelis by the hundreds, which will turn public support to Israel.
Basing Israeli reaction on hypothetical Palestinian responses which never happened is pathetic. Kevin Myers did the same thing last week.I think many others have already explained why the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not similar to the IRA/UK conflict. The sheer amount of attacks is not the same, the casualty amounts are not the same, the rhetoric used is not the same, etc.
They are similar enough to make comparison on very specific issues, namely, whether IRA pub bombings justified the same reponse on West Belfast as Israel has carried out on Gaza. If there were no rockets, for 12 months, no deaths, no rhetoric, no attacks. And in 12 months time Hamas blew up a nightclub. Would Israel be justified in doing the same things it is now or no?I still think the best source to comment on Hamas intentions are Hamas themselves. Not Jimmy Carter, and not the guardian.
As has been pointed out to you in painful detail, taking chestbeating statements while Hamas are being annihilated, propaganda statements from it's charter should not be taken seriously as a statement on intent. Certainly it's no reason to ignore their peace offerings, particularly when Shin Bet, Mossad, Israeli Ministers and Jimmy Carter agree. Actions, such as meeting with Jimmy Carter, offering Israel negotiations and 10-year ceasefires prove and making statements to media and officials that they are willing to accept a two-state solution should be taken seriously.
Denying this in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is silly.
You could argue your pro-Israeli case on so many other fronts and grounds, reasonably, but your inability to accept even the most minor points in the face of evidence destroys the credibility of any argument you are trying to make.0 -
munchester29 wrote: »3. The whole advisory opinion itself, by the way, was, and I quote:
“The case was viewed by many governments (including the United States and the European Union) as lacking standing, because the jurisdiction of the ICJ is limited to member states to the body, and the plaintiffs in the case lacked this designation”
So are you going to respond to my reply to your post on the ICJ?
Oh, and your point that the EU sees the ruling as lacking standing is a bit strange since every EU member state voted in favour of a General Assembly resolution in favour of the ICJ ruling.
http://www.logosjournal.com/un_doc.pdf0 -
youcrazyjesus! wrote: »So Britain WOULD have been justified in attacking West Belfast with war planes?
If the IRA were to fire 3000 rockets into UK cities and declared their intentions of subjugating, expelling and killing Brits? Yes. The IRA never did these things though.
Here is what the IRA have actually done, which pales in comparison to the quantity and damage of the Palestinian attacks on Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_the_United_Kingdomyoucrazyjesus! wrote: »The New York Times reports Hamas led initiatives reduced attacks on Israel significanly.
I’m assuming this is the article you are referring to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/world/middleeast/19gaza.html
A few other interesting facts are mentioned there, which basically show both sides were not happy with the other side’s actions.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »Basing Israeli reaction on hypothetical Palestinian responses which never happened is pathetic. Kevin Myers did the same thing last week.
The same can be said when Israel is expected to believe Hamas will go for peace if only Israel does this and that (remove the blockade, stop attacking tunnels, etc).youcrazyjesus! wrote: »They are similar enough to make comparison on very specific issues, namely, whether IRA pub bombings justified the same reponse on West Belfast as Israel has carried out on Gaza. If there were no rockets, for 12 months, no deaths, no rhetoric, no attacks. And in 12 months time Hamas blew up a nightclub. Would Israel be justified in doing the same things it is now or no?
If there were no attacks for even 6 months, and then Hamas blew up a nightclub, Israel would probably hit Hamas in a very limited fashion, as it had done prior to the current clashes. They wouldn’t have gone into Gaza all guns blazing because of one attack. It happened many times before.
This current attack is the result of thousands of rockets over a period of years, topped by a failed cease fire which was used by Hamas to prepare themselves better for future conflicts.
Different scenarios – different responses.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »As has been pointed out to you in painful detail, taking chestbeating statements while Hamas are being annihilated, propaganda statements from it's charter should not be taken seriously as a statement on intent. Certainly it's no reason to ignore their peace offerings, particularly when Shin Bet, Mossad, Israeli Ministers and Jimmy Carter agree. Actions, such as meeting with Jimmy Carter, offering Israel negotiations and 10-year ceasefires prove and making statements to media and officials that they are willing to accept a two-state solution should be taken seriously. .
So now, Mossad and Shin Bet agree that Hamas wants peace?
All they said was that Israel should talk to the Palestinians. You made a hugh leap of faith with your statement.
Statements from the Hamas charter should not be taken seriously? Instead I should listen to Jimmy carter? Sorry, I’m not that blind.
And I told you already – As long as they don’t act based on their words, all Hamas statements are not worth the paper they are written on.0 -
So are you going to respond to my reply to your post on the ICJ?
Oh, and your point that the EU sees the ruling as lacking standing is a bit strange since every EU member state voted in favour of a General Assembly resolution in favour of the ICJ ruling.
http://www.logosjournal.com/un_doc.pdf
Sorry, must have missed your reply... Happens. I'm too lazy to check backwards though, but if you want to submit it again, I will answer it.
As for the link - If you read the document you will see that there is another party mentioned in it - the Palestinians, which also didn't really comply with anything...
In any case, I’ve explained already on the jurisdiction issue with the ICJ.0 -
Are you serious? I went to the bother of replying to you. The least you could do is have the common courtesy to go back a few pages and look for it. It's not hard. If you went to the bother to read it you'd see that I have dealt with the justisdiction issue. I'll await your reply. You've also ignored the point where you said the EU said the ruling had no standing when every EU state voted in favour of it.munchester29 wrote: »Sorry, must have missed your reply... Happens. I'm too lazy to check backwards though, but if you want to submit it again, I will answer it.
As for the link - If you read the document you will see that there is another party mentioned in it - the Palestinians, which also didn't really comply with anything...
In any case, I’ve explained already on the jurisdiction issue with the ICJ.0 -
munchester29 wrote: »If the IRA were to fire 3000 rockets into UK cities and declared their intentions of subjugating, expelling and killing Brits? Yes. The IRA never did these things though.
Here is what the IRA have actually done, which pales in comparison to the quantity and damage of the Palestinian attacks on Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_the_United_Kingdom
ah your doco link there is excluding events in Northern Ireland –
last time i checked Belfast,Derry etc are UK cities also.0 -
Are you serious? I went to the bother of replying to you. The least you could do is have the common courtesy to go back a few pages and look for it. It's not hard. If you went to the bother to read it you'd see that I have dealt with the justisdiction issue. I'll await your reply. You've also ignored the point where you said the EU said the ruling had no standing when every EU state voted in favour of it.
Damn, made me go and search...
I read your reply, and even if you think that this is not a contentious case where both sides have to consent to the case being heard, it still doesn’t change the legal standing of an advisory opinion.
Just so we are clear, although I have said it in the past – I am against Israeli settlements in the west bank and Gaza.
That said, Israel has a claim to some of the settlements (East Jerusalem, for example). Like it or not – it does, or at least feels it does. And as I’ve said – the claim will be refuted or approved in full or in part when the time comes, and it won’t be through the use of an advisory opinion (Israel will have a chance to present its case, for example).
As for the Geneva Convention, I have no problem with what you quoted – I am against Israeli settlement in general.
In fairness though, I must say that both Israel & the Palestinians were never ones to be bothered by conventions.0 -
Jack Bauer999 wrote: »munchester29 wrote: »If the IRA were to fire 3000 rockets into UK cities and declared their intentions of subjugating, expelling and killing Brits? Yes. The IRA never did these things though.
Here is what the IRA have actually done, which pales in comparison to the quantity and damage of the Palestinian attacks on Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_the_United_Kingdom
ah your doco link there is excluding events in Northern Ireland –
last time i checked Belfast,Derry etc are UK cities also.
Here is a link to the number of suicide attacks in Israel, since 1993. This list is only for suicide attacks since 1993 - no other type of attack (rocket attacks alone are in the thousands), or other periods of time (1948 - 1993)
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Suicide+and+Other+Bombing+Attacks+in+Israel+Since.htm
The IRA/UK conflict doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what was done in Israel.0 -
Advertisement
-
OK. Once again. In an advisory opinion there are no sides. No consent is required to hear the case. You're talking about contentious cases where there are two sides party to a case. This does not apply to advisory opinions where the General Assembly asks the ICJ for legal clarification on a certain issue. What you say in incorrect.munchester29 wrote: »Damn, made me go and search...
I read your reply, and even if you think that this is not a contentious case where both sides have to consent to the case being heard, it still doesn’t change the legal standing of an advisory opinion.
You keep saying that Israel has a claim to settlements. You have provided no evidence for this besides what Israel and you say. I've provided authoritative sources that state that Israel has no claim to them under international law. This is clear from Security Council resolutions, General Assembly resolutions and the ICJ ruling. Also Israel submitted evidence to the ICJ in this case.munchester29 wrote: »That said, Israel has a claim to some of the settlements (East Jerusalem, for example). Like it or not – it does, or at least feels it does. And as I’ve said – the claim will be refuted or approved in full or in part when the time comes, and it won’t be through the use of an advisory opinion (Israel will have a chance to present its case, for example).
Now please provide some evidence to show that Israel has any legal claim to any of the settlements. If you can't, concede the point and move on.0
Advertisement