Hamas Leader Killed

[Shusha]

It is because Israel is an occupying power and international law is very clear about the duties expected from an occupying power.

Israel is not an occupying power. But even so, where is it written that it is a war crime to refuse to engage with an organization with ties to terrorism?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Israel is not an occupying power.

How do you know, what authority tells you this? just you?

But even so, where is it written that it is a war crime to refuse to engage with an organization with ties to terrorism?

It's easy to find.

 

[Shusha]

**** you!

They are NOT a terrorist organization!

You people are! **** you! **** your country! You go to hell!

They are an organization whose usefulness has long since passed, with members actively participating in the atrocities on and since October 7, with deep ties within its membership to Hamas, and with an education system designed to radicalize children into killing Jews.

There is no place for an organization such as this in a peaceful future.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

They are an organization whose usefulness has long since passed, with members actively participating in the atrocities on and since October 7, with deep ties within its membership to Hamas, and with an education system designed to radicalize children into killing Jews.

There is no place for an organization such as this in a peaceful future.

By what authority do you make these pronouncements? your own?

 

[Shusha]

An occupational force cannot claim self defense. That is a matter of international law.

An occupying power cannot claim self-defence according to the UN charter. Occupation Law prohibits an occupying power from initiating armed force against its occupied territory.

Absolutely false.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Absolutely false.

Again, by what authority do you make this claim?

 

[Shusha]

How do you know, what authority tells you this? just you?

International law and the lawyers who follow the law, instead of applying a different standard to Israel.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

International law and the lawyers who follow the law, instead of applying a different standard to Israel.

Does that authority (whatever it actually is) usurp the authority of the United Nations? is there a higher authority?

 

[Shusha]

Does that authority (whatever it actually is) usurp the authority of the United Nations? is there a higher authority?

The UN does not have the authority to abrogate international law.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Only the lowest crawling insect filth would attack people in a hospital

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The UN does not have the authority to abrogate international law.

Who do you think has power to enforce it Shusha? Is there a higher authority than the UN - that was my question.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Shusha

See? that wasn't too difficult was it?

 

[Shusha]

Who do you think has power to enforce it Shusha? Is there a higher authority than the UN - that was my question.

The concepts of international law, of themselves, are the authority. Treaties, Conventions, other legal instruments. The UN doesn't "make up" the law. It applies it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The concepts of international law, of themselves, are the authority. Treaties, Conventions, other legal instruments. The UN doesn't "make up" the law. It applies it.

You were asked if there was a higher authority, you've evaded the question several times but now I answered it for you.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territory ‘unlawful’: UN world court​

Since there's no higher authority than the UN, the UN's advisory opinion stands as the most authoritative opinion on the matter of occupation.

No other opinion, not yours, not the Knesset not Netanyahu, has greater authority.

Therefore it is the opinion of the highest authority in the world (and an authority that Israel fully acknowledges) that there is an occupation and that it is illegal.

 

[Shusha]

You were asked if there was a higher authority, you've evaded the question several times but now I answered it for you.

The highest authority are the Treaties and Conventions signed and agreed to by the Parties. The UN does not have a higher authority to abrogate these Treaties, Conventions, and other legal instruments. Thus, the legal instruments themselves have a higher authority than the UN.

Your five second google search does not trump an understanding of international law and how it works.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The highest authority are the Treaties and Conventions signed and agreed to by the Parties.

Which body's interpretation of these treaties and conventions carries the greatest authority?

The UN does not have a higher authority to abrogate these Treaties, Conventions, and other legal instruments. Thus, the legal instruments themselves have a higher authority than the UN.

Documents do not make decisions or issue opinions Shusha, courts do, institutions do, Judges do.

Your five second google search does not trump an understanding of international law and how it works.

What should I have searched for in your opinion?

 

[Shusha]

Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territory ‘unlawful’: UN world court​

Since there's no higher authority than the UN, the UN's advisory opinion stands as the most authoritative opinion on the matter of occupation.

No other opinion, not yours, not the Knesset not Netanyahu, has greater authority.

Therefore it is the opinion of the highest authority in the world (and an authority that Israel fully acknowledges) that there is an occupation and that it is illegal.

Not true. The ICJ has never been called on to opine on the lawful sovereignty of the territories in question. You really should read Sebutinde's opinion.

And again, the UN can not "make up" law as it goes along. It has to apply the existing customary laws and the legal instruments. Otherwise, there is no law, just people with opinions.

The issue is that the UN and its bodies do not apply law to Israel. They "make things up" and call it law. Would you not agree that law must apply equally to EVERY State?

 

[toomuchtime_]

In other words, their priority is to destroy Israel.

toomuchtime

"For a nation as powerful as ours to be waging a war against a bunch of
unarmed nomads is such a horrendous, immoral, shameful spectacle that
I'm sure it will still draw the ire of the Almighty against us and our descendants."​

Letter written by a US government agent and sent to President Lincoln (if I'm not mistaken) cited in the book "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee".

I cited that extremely moving letter to make clear that in most ethnocratic conflicts the native population's desire to "destroy" the ethnocracy (which is real) is absolutely irrelevant, immaterial because the natives simply do not have the power to do so.

In all conflicts between natives and settlers, the ethnocracy created by the latter is infinitely more powerful than the natives otherwise it wouldn't have been able to create and defend a separate, exclusionary society in the homeland of the natives in the first place.

In America, Canada, Latin America, Australia, etc... the ethnocracies defeated the natives' armed struggle and were subsequently peacefully dismanted by a long-term process of self-criticism and social evolution on the part of the dominant ethnic groups.

In South Africa there was no such evolutionary process and the english-afrikaner racial dictatorship was peacefully dismantled due to intense international pressure, economic isolation, etc...

I'm not saying the opposition of the discriminated groups to the ethnocracy played no part in its dismantlement.

The US civil rights movement obviously hastened the process of self-criticism of the anglo elites that led to the disappearance of the last vestiges of the ethnocratic state created by the founders of the Republic 200 years ago.

There would be no incentive to isolate SA internationally if the Bantu peoples were perfectly satisfied with Apartheid.

But in none of the examples cited above the supremacist states were militarily defeated by the natives and it won't be any different in Palestine.

The palestinian arabs don't have the power to defeat Israel and never will.

In the absence of a major nuclear conflagration, the jewish racial dictatorship will be either peacefully dismantled (by self-criticism or international pressure (the latter being much more likely, IMO) or it will defeat the natives and consolidate itself (highly unlikely in my personal opinion).

So we agree that for a hundred years the so called Palestinians' have been squandering all their resources and generations of their children to the impossible task of destroying Israel right down to today and only Israel's powerful military has prevented that from happening. So it seems you wrote this whole long post just for the pleasure of calling Israel an ethnocratic state and a racial dictatorship.

 

[Shusha]

What should I have searched for in your opinion?

I'm arguing that people who discuss this topic should have a higher level of knowledge than just googling and repeating soundbytes for which they have no knowledge of the underlying foundations and facts. This lack of information, and sometimes outright misinformation, is contributing to the conflict. When I ask questions like, "Where does Israel end and where does "Palestine" begin?", you should be curious. You should want to find out. How do emerging States get boundaries, anyway? What do the relevant legal instruments say? Instead, people resort to "everyone knows" which means that there is no application of law, there are only schoolyard popularity contests.