[QUOTE="Cow4ever"]
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]
If Israel has a legal claim to the land then why hasn't one International court affirmed this? You can't show me one legal body of international standing that has ruled that these territories are a part of Israel. The law couldn't be more clearer on this matter. Per UN resolution 2625, "No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or the use of force shall be recognized as legal." Yes, Israel was attacked, but that doesn't justify anything as far the law is concerned. It is illegal to acquire territory through force.
As for the Jerusalem Embassy Act - it was passed in 1995. The US embassy was suppose to be moved to Jerusalem no later than 1999, per the act. It's now 2011. No president has actually implemented the law. The US embassy remains in Tel Aviv.
And to allow for the annexation for almost all of the settlements in East Jerusalem for absolutely nothing in return is a huge concenssion.
-Sun_Tzu-
International courts?? Didn't I just say this? They are clearly biased. Let's talk about something that isn't, international law itself. Show me where Israel breakes international law. YOU not some racist guy in some racist organization. And in addition do you really care about international law? I mean it good it exists but in a discussion like this I am more interested in your view not someone else's. Nevertheless I haven't seen any of these supposed laws. I see your UN resolution. Well first of all the UN is a big piece of **** But one thing is that the UNGA resolutions aren't legally binding according to the UN itself. I want more like geneva conventions, hague conventions. The actual LAW. Not interpretations by racist corrupt united dictatorships. Right but US nevertheless recognize Jerusalem as Israel's Capital. As does South Sudan and a bunch of other nations if I'm not mistaken. Israel's embassy to Georgia is in Yerevan. Does that mean Israel recognize Yerevan as Georgia's capital? Nothing in return? How about almost all of the West Bank and Gaza?? Anyway I'm sure Israel would accept these offers. At least Israel's previous government. How do we know this is true? It's from Al Jazeera afterall. It's true because these were leaked documents straight from the negotiations, commonly referred to as the Palestine Papers. Al Jazeera merely published the documents.And before a discussion can be had terms have to be defined. International law is what defines these terms. And if UN resolutions aren't enough for you, section 3, article 42 of the Hague convention states "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." No distinction is made between land acuired in a war of aggression or in a defensive war. If a country acquires land through force, that land is occupied territory.
Even Israel considers the land occupied, at least privately. They even gave an order immediately after the war that the Geneva conventions apply (this was shortly rescinded).Theodor Meron, who was legal counsel for the Israeli government at the time, issued a memo to the Prime Minister stating that that the building of settlements on the territory in question is in clear violation of the fourth geneva convention.
Ok ok now finally we have some international law, I have some points though: 1. It doesn't say an occupation necessarily is illegal. 2. Technically if for example Syria attacked Israel and took back the Golan then Syria would be occupying the Golan no? Cause if a country acquires land through force, that land is occupied territory right? 3. I'm not sure it's legally binding. 4. Regardless of this law, you think that any country can attack another country and then should be given territory back? That'd mean that there are no real consequences to wars of aggression.5. This is what Europe looked like after the hague convention
Although unrelated to Israel, doesn't this mean we have to make some changes to Europe?
Log in to comment