Originally posted by New
An I say it seems to suit some countries a whole lot more than others.
Or so you say.
It has when the international community wants it to. In some places, where only 50 years ago slaugthered each other, this seems to be working.
Are you talking about Europeans, who after causing two world wars are too exhausted to fight each other and so are now peaceful by default?
In certain cases, the UN can grant it's members the right, by international law, to intervene against countires, and take away their soverignity for a period.
Not according to the UN:Do countries surrender their sovereignty at the UN?
The members of the UN are sovereign nations, and the UN Charter is one of the strongest safeguards of sovereignty, enshrining that principle as one of its central pillars. At the same time, most of the problems the world faces today are of such complexity that they cannot be addressed by any single nation acting alone. The UN is where the world's countries come together to address common problems. Working with other countries is an exercise of sovereignty, not a limitation of it. By cooperating in specific areas through the United Nations, States build the structures that make international life possible. Countries voluntarily decide to work together because they feel it is in their best interest. The universality and impartiality of the UN provides the common ground where countries can achieve maximum benefits from cooperation, while guaranteeing that their sovereignty will be protected.
Since both where miserable failures,
Originally posted Immanuel Goldstein
Two examples [of Realpolitik]: the unileateral withdrawal from Lebanon, the evacuation of the Gaza settlers.
they hardly qualify as good examples of Realpolitik. They are actually better examples of Israel comming a bit closer to complying with international law.
Not really, nothing in international law says Israel should have withdrawn out of Lebanon without guarantees from Lebanon that no attacks against Israel would come from its territory, nothing in international law says Israel has to withdraw from Gaza.
With little good evidence.
I responded to your statemement of fact earlier.
I don't like to repeat myself but it is needed.
Of course it's practical to disregard international law when you plunder a people of their land.
To which I responded
Like getting out of the Sinai with a peace treaty?
Like getting out of Gaza and the northern West-Bank without a peace treaty?
Israel has quite an impressive military machine, if it were after tracts of lands to plunder it would be all over Syria, Egypt, Jordan, UAE
My evidence is Israel not being all over Syria, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, where's yours?
And this is a general rule? Was East Timor an exeption then?
And those who cannot help themsleves get no help from those international regualtions, which is why when faced with threats to their national security or interests, states might disregard those regulations.
See above about benevolent foreign states, it so happened some benevolent countries with means of actions were willing to help East Timor.
Your claim that as a general rule, settlements were built on stolen land is still unsubstantiated, and so it doesn't stand.
Jews mainly purchased land from  they are in the Geneva Convention.
You are still yet to prove that, as a general rule, settlements were built on stolen land.
Like I said; pestilence or colera. As an ideology, I still think Apartheid is worse.
Comapring the communism of the nineteen-eighties to the then apartheid, one notices that the USSR was killing more than a million Afghans in that decade and displacing some five millions of them, while South Africa was not; and that while there were Africans migrating to South Africa from neighbouring countries (voting with their feet) people in the Soviet bloc were dreaming of getting out of there, so I say communism was worse.
You are entitled to your opinion, and me to comparing these ideologies' actual respective deeds as done above.
That Saudi Prince did in 2002, This time Israel refused to negotiate.
So let them recognise Israel and negociate with it now. Yet they don't.
You claim now that Saudi Arabia actually and officially recognised Israel's existence, anything to back up that outrageous claim?
Sudan will face international action in the comming months.
Or so we're told, just around the corner.
What about france?
They often do their own thing in Africa.
Which is the base of the legality of your country.
Which is yours?
Which is Australia's?
Which is Iran's?
Which is Russia's?
Which is Brunei's?
Which kind of a question is that?
It remains that international law did nothing to build or defend Israel, Israel owes it nothing.
Yup, And thus,[some vague stuff I don't understand].
Lucky are those who have nations-states (or sometimes, benevolent foreign states eager to help) to protect them because international law can't, and so it won't.
So you basically agree? Fine.
International law is the only framwork on which we can build real coexistence, It's full of flaws (like any set of laws),
Not like any law, some rules of laws actually work moderatley well in some countries, it's the law between countries which doesn't work as shown above.
but without it genocides are bound to be repeated.
Since genocides were repeated, one is bound to assume international law is as good as without it; which I was saying all along.
and, once more, why are geoncides wrong?
Since you didn't understand the first time:
Genocides are murders of whole peoples, they are only wrong if one assumes that the murder of a single person is wrong, which I do.