Anger at Israeli brutality grows

[Shusha]

You can deny, twist the facts, present ifs and buts all day, but internatiol law is international law and since you invoked international law in your early argument with me you can't reject it when it iconveniently undermines your own pesonal beleifs.

They are not my personal beliefs. They are the correct application of international law so as not to treat Israel differently.

More from Judge Sebutinde (emphasis mine):

A. Sovereign equality of States
64. Article 2, paragraph (1), of the Charter of the United Nations enshrines the idea that all Member States of the UN, regardless of their size, population, economic power or military strength, are considered equal under international law73. The principle of sovereign equality necessitates that international law be applied consistently across all States and situations. Yet, the application of international law to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems to diverge from this standard. For instance, the characterization of Israeli settlements in the post-1967 territories, including East Jerusalem, as illegal and a serious violation of international law, or the assertion that the borders as of 4 June 1967 serve as Israel’s de facto boundaries, or the prescription of a mandatory two-State solution — these are interpretations not uniformly applied to other regions deemed “occupied”, such as Crimea by Russia, Western Sahara by Morocco, or Northern Cyprus by Turkey. Israel, like any other State, is entitled to equal treatment under international law. Therefore, it is imperative that the rules and principles of international law are crafted and applied with objectivity, ensuring equal and non-discriminatory treatment for all States. As stated above, the General Assembly’s questions, and the whole approach in the Advisory Opinion are one-sided and imbalanced and ignore or downplay Israel’s existing territorial and sovereignty rights.

C. State consent is required before resolution of inter-State disputes
66. As a fundamental principle of international law, UN institutions (including the principal judicial organ) require the explicit consent of the involved State to mediate disputes between States or between States and nonState entities. The United Nations primarily operates on the principle of State sovereignty and typically cannot impose resolutions without the agreement of the State. Yet as observed above, the Advisory Opinion circumvents State consent by giving judicial opinions over matters that are clearly reserved for the UN and bilateral negotiation framework.

D. Borders, sovereignty, and precise scope of territorial claims cannot be presumed
67. The questions of Israel’s alleged occupation of certain Palestinian territories since 1967, or of its annexation of foreign territory, or of the alleged infringement of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, are all questions that cannot be answered without first determining the territorial scope (i.e. borders) of the State of Israel, a critical matter regarding which the Court has not received arguments or evidence. The borders, the territorial sovereignty of both Israel and Palestine, are another sensitive area the Court cannot simply presume to appreciate based on the one-sided narrative contained in the statements of the pro-Palestinian group of States.

 

[Churchill]

It fails everywhere.

What did it do in Nigeria? Nothing while ,thousands of Christians were murdered.

Was a UN resolution drafted? if so what was its number, we can see how each member voted.

Pfft

 

[Shusha]

Nothing can stop the UN in fomalizing borders,

The UN does not have the legal capacity or right to unilaterally change the borders of an existing State. That would result in absolute chaos and the dissolution of the accepted framework of international law, which is mutual State agreement.

if Israel borders are well defined

They are.

then by defintion an independent Palestine's borders become well defined.

Nope. Israel's borders with a future Palestine have yet to be determined because it is an internal State division, not an external one. Because Palestine does not yet exist.

If Israel's borders are not well defined then you will have to amdit that Israel isn't a real country since defined borders was (according to you) a condition for becoming an independent state.

Not to worry, as previously stated, Israel's borders are well established in international law.

 

[eagle1462010]

Was a UN resolution drafted? if so what was its number, we can see how each member voted.

I heard they were going to SCOLD THEM AGAIN.