RE:
Jewish settlers stay put says Jewish leaders, and Israeli ambassador David Friedman
⁜→ Coyote, SobieskiSavedEurope, et al,
International Law and the Ethics of the Law (today we say customary law) has become more confusing with time, not less. And the attempts to make it less confusing has added to the chaos.
There was a time when it was universally understood the nature and definition of "war." Today, that word is almost archaic. For the purposes of Customary and International Humanitarian Law, wars are defined in terms of the scope and geography of an Armed Conflict. And most people, even people with an advanced education, do not understand the new concepts.
Similarly, and I've seen it right here in this discussion group, a lack of understanding of the relationship between a protected person and the citizens of the occupying power.
And then again, many people do not understand the difference between situations in conflict: (For example)
◈ The targeting of a legitimate military objective which shielded by civilians not engaged.
◈ The indiscriminate firing upon which civilians not engaged are laced in jeoardy.
◈ The impact on using civilians to launch illegal incindiary devices and the effect is has on their protective status.
(COMMENT)
International Law has kept-up with the complexities of "rights" and the meaning of the preparatory phrase: "the right to" (something):
◈ Does that mean that there is an
obligation?
◈ Does it mean that there is a
privledge?
The SAME is TRUE relative to the understanding of "sovereignty;" and the "territorial acquisition of sovereignty." Some perspectives say, that once a governing power establishes supreme authority over a territory, beyond which no other entity can challenge and disestablish the self-governing jurisdiction, that is sovereignty → no matter how it is acquired.
International Law has not come to a point at which one governing authority and relinquish it to an authority that is less further along the Human Development Scale and may be a catastrophe by doing so.
This leads us to the questions:
◈ Should it be so, that the Israelis must relinquish sovereign authority of the higher developed country to a much less developed corrupt authority?
◈ Shoild it be so that, the "right" that the Arab Palestinian exercises, indeed a "right" that any peoples claim, is an obligation to an otherwise sovereign authority?
❖ The answer is simple: NO
! No Palestinian claim to a "right" establishes an "obligation' for the Israelis to fulfill when the Israelis exercise supreme authority. Not even a "right" understood by Convention can be enforced if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the "right" in question, jeopardizes the supreme interests of the State of Israel.
Most Respectfully,
R