Originally posted by New
International law has as much sovereign authority as the international community wants to put into it.
When actual sovereign states decide to implement treaties, conventions, and customs which form international law, that is: when it suits those states..
But there's no sovereign authority above nations the way the state is asovereign authority above citizens, which is why international law (law between nations) is not equivalent to the law within states.
Look at the first Gulf War, the bombing of Serbia and the independance of East Timor.
It was the doing of sovereign states, with the international law as rubber stamp (it's not like Mr.Clinton went back and forth to the UN for a note saying he could bomb Serbia, as well he did).
Quite frankly, Realpolitik has never been a trademark of mid-eastern politics.
Israel owes its successes to having realpolitik and its enemies not enough.
But there is no contradiction between Realpolitik and International law. Actually, the way this world going, International Law is very relevant in Realpolitik.
It is in Israels long term interest to start bothering about international law.
If Israel's government was persuaded of that it would act accordignly. You can always try convincing them, hint: calling names like land pludererers and the such won't help.
So say You. I say that's crap. I feel an urge to use ideological comparisons that would probaby close this thread.
Since it's territory under Israel control (albeit temporary) the court that counts is that of the guy with the big club.
Perhaps you feel that law without sovereign authority, jurisdiction, or enforcement capability, is more relevant, I do not.
Well, arabs in the 30s didn't.
In France they have those strikes over anything, so what?
Perhaps they felt that Jews shouldn't be allowed to buy land freely. So what?
Your definition of Realpolitik is starting to stink.
So I suppose you'd want to blame the ANC for having had its own partnership in the nineteen-seventies and eighties with regimes far worse than South Africa's (the USSR comes to mind).
The right of Israel to exist, has hardly been a problem since the 60s.
It is a problem for Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and at least a two dozens other countries.
And if your gonna use religious puns, at least get your religions right. Especially in this conflict.
I don't have the slghtest clue what you're scribbling about.
When was this then? Show me?
Israel was ready to relinquish the Occupied Territories in 1967 in exchange for peace, but the actual problem is not about territory, it's about those countries refusing to accept Israel's existence.
Never heard of the Khartoum conference of 1967?
On June 19th 1967, the Israel government voted topropose a return of the Golan to Syria, the Sinai and Gaza to Egypt, and the West Bank to Jordan in return for peace treaties.
In September of that same year, the Arab League in conference in Khartoum voted a resolution rejection this proposal, known as the three nos: no peace, no recognition and no negotiation with Israel.
Once rejected, that proposal was no longer on the table.
Err... That sentance would only make sense is you said; "therefore one should be bound by it. Or those atrocities will happen again and again.
No, it makes international law irrelevent, since it didn't raise a finger to oppose the holocaust, or the 1994 gendocide in Rwanda.
Therefore one should not feel bound by it.
You are only bound by a law when you are forced to abide by it, if you can opt out it is not binding.
The fact that any country can opt out of international law proves it's not binding.
So explain to me the "no", if international law is not to be abided, why was the holocaust wrong?
The holocaust was wrong because genocides are wrong, irrespective of what intenrational law says.
Without international law, there wouldn't be any Israel.
Which international law built Israeli infrastructures and institutions? Which international law sent soldiers and weapons to oppose the five armies which ganged up to destroy Israel on its first day?
Is Nuremberg irrelevant too? Do you need more paint in that corner?
The Nurnberg trials were the prerogative of the righteous victors dispensing justice on the abominable vainquished.
And since you might actually ask, the victors aren't always righteous and the vainquished aren't always abominable, but in this case they bloody were.