RoccoR
Gold Member
Beelzebub, et al,
Thank you for the kind words.
Actually we are close to a Two-State Solution (State of Israel --- State of Palestine). As I said, there is no colonization; merely aberrations of the Oslo Accords.
Implementation is a subjective evaluation. The UNPC said "implemented." There are Two-States (a Jewish State and an Arab State). In the UN Decision "to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations" (December 2012), it recalls "its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947."
For the International Criminal Court to sit in judgement, it must have jurisdiction. Israel has to agree to this foreign jurisdiction. Hence the reason for the Treaty Arrangement.
It is how the Rule of Law works.
Most Respectfully,
R
Thank you for the kind words.
(COMMENT)And yes, the combination of language of one state and two state and of a continuing war is confusing.
"Nationalisation" in the English language context would only work if it were one state.
It would be annexation in a two state.
And during war, or occupation, colonising the land would be a war crime.
Actually we are close to a Two-State Solution (State of Israel --- State of Palestine). As I said, there is no colonization; merely aberrations of the Oslo Accords.
(COMMENT)The two state solution looks to be dead. But at the very least is not implemented.
The one state solution looks to be a trap whereby apartheid rules would mean it were no better for Palestinians. And in any case is not implemented.
Occupation and war are the state of play. And as such this is a war crime.
Implementation is a subjective evaluation. The UNPC said "implemented." There are Two-States (a Jewish State and an Arab State). In the UN Decision "to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations" (December 2012), it recalls "its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947."
(COMMENT)I don't believe a state needs to sign up to any rules to be accountable for its war crimes. I could be wrong there, but it would sound an odd state of affairs. Human rights are universal, and as such, you don't ask "Has the state infringing my human rights got a licence to do so."
For the International Criminal Court to sit in judgement, it must have jurisdiction. Israel has to agree to this foreign jurisdiction. Hence the reason for the Treaty Arrangement.
(COMMENT)I enjoy your suggestion that retrospective agreement to the land theft might make it NOT a crime, but it is much more likely that a court will convene and pass judgement than Israel would change its policy and actually allow for a final state agreement to be implemented.
But you are right that the legal system can be thwarted. And I am sure you have teams of lying thieving dishonest lawyers more than willing to frustrate justice. But they will only be looking to get off on a technicality or two.
You're not fooling anyone but yourselves.
It is how the Rule of Law works.
Most Respectfully,
R