• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:58] US says Israeli settlements no longer considered illegal in dramatic shift

SheWolf said:
I am not sure the American right wing base respects international law or the UN. I started questioning this when GWB was in office. If every country goes rouge and suggests there are no international laws, we will have WWIII.
Click to expand...

They don’t and they never have.

The American reactionary right wing has always been stridently parochial and isolationist. It has also been jingoistic, isolationism’s ugly twin.

These are the grand children of folks who joined the America First movement (and in some cases the North American Bund), and who nodded appreciatively at Father Couglin’s racist rants on the radio.

Three children joined the John Birch Society,

Stick around here long enough, and one of our Trumpster friends will post a screed from the John Birch Society (it happened most recently just a couple of days ago).

This Administration plays to these notions constantly. Partly because this sort of jingoism and flat earth thinking plays to the base.

Partly because Trump is lazy and incompetence, and clearly is far out of his depth in just about any foreign policy question (except ones involving baksheesh).
 
Aberration said:
Do you not see the irony of Canada and the U.K. making such statements?

These organizations can have whatever opinions they want. The victor has always settled. The Jews rightfully bought back land they were themselves kicked off of. The Arabs got mad and fought over it. They lost. They are not victims. Israel had no obligation to return any land, and by not assimilating the territory and people now they must use military force instead of civil force against what otherwise would be rebellion.
Click to expand...

They aren’t “returning” any land.

They’re stealing more of it.

They’re taking land under Palistinian settlements, destroying the settlements, leveling the homes and building nice new ones for the “settlers”.

This has been doing on since 1947.
 
Aside from this being yet another example of the Trump Administration’s jingoistic isolationism, it probably doesn’t have much to do with that.

Rather, the Israeli government remains in flux following the last election in which Benny Netanyahu failed to gain a plurality strong enough to form a government.

The deadline is Wednesday. Gaelz has not been able to assemble a coalition, and neither has Netanyahu.

I suspect that Shelly Adelson or perhaps Netanyahu himself called Trump and asked for a big favor.

I doubt that Israel was particularly pleased at the way Trump has behaved in the region.

Russia and Syria have always been traditional enemies of Israel.

But Trump can’t do enough for both of them.
 
Aberration said:
The U.N. is not a law or treaty.
Click to expand...

The doctrine of conquest and its derivative rules were challenged in the 20th century by the development of the principle that aggressive war is contrary to international law, a view that is expressed in the covenant of the League of Nations, the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, the charters and judgments of the international military tribunals created at the end of World War II to try those accused of war crimes, the Charter of the United Nations, and numerous other multipartite treaties, declarations, and resolutions. The logical corollary to the outlawry of aggressive war is the denial of legal recognition to the fruits of such war. This implication was contained in what became known as the Stimson Doctrine, enunciated in January 1932 by U.S. Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson and subsequently affirmed by the assembly of the League of Nations and by several conferences of the American republics. The Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, formulated in 1949 by the International Law Commission of the UN, contained (in Article XI) the rule that states are obligated not to recognize territorial acquisitions achieved by aggressive war.
 
For goodness' sake.

No big deal.

President Biden (or President Pelosi) will reverse this decision as soon as he (or she) moves into the Executive Mansion.
 
Last edited:
Aristaeus said:
The doctrine of conquest and its derivative rules were challenged in the 20th century by the development of the principle that aggressive war is contrary to international law, a view that is expressed in the covenant of the League of Nations, the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, the charters and judgments of the international military tribunals created at the end of World War II to try those accused of war crimes, the Charter of the United Nations, and numerous other multipartite treaties, declarations, and resolutions. The logical corollary to the outlawry of aggressive war is the denial of legal recognition to the fruits of such war. This implication was contained in what became known as the Stimson Doctrine, enunciated in January 1932 by U.S. Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson and subsequently affirmed by the assembly of the League of Nations and by several conferences of the American republics. The Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, formulated in 1949 by the International Law Commission of the UN, contained (in Article XI) the rule that states are obligated not to recognize territorial acquisitions achieved by aggressive war.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant, it was a war of self-defense.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Moved to ME Forum.

In addition to the global Forum Rules, the Debate Politics Moderator Team manages the Middle East Forum under a regimen known as Martial Law (ML). This is a zero-tolerance ruleset coupled with enhanced consequences. It is strongly recommended that all members read this entire page before posting in the ME Forum.

Thanks.

ME Forum Martial Law Concordance
 
This action by Trump & Pompeo clearly demonstrates how they hold themselves above the law.

A Catholic and a Jew walk into a bar....:mrgreen:
 
Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged.
 
[W:54] US says Israeli settlements no longer considered illegal in dramatic shift

TomFitz said:
They aren’t “returning” any land.

They’re stealing more of it.

They’re taking land under Palistinian settlements, destroying the settlements, leveling the homes and building nice new ones for the “settlers”.

This has been doing on since 1947.
Click to expand...

Bull****. The so called occupied territories are not occupied and are governed by a government elected by the people.
 
NO1 said:
Irrelevant, it was a war of self-defense.
Click to expand...

Defending yourself doesn't give you the right to keep what doesn't belong to you.
 
For the last time, they're not "settlements", they're suburbs....:roll:
 
TomFitz said:
They aren’t “returning” any land.

They’re stealing more of it.

They’re taking land under Palistinian settlements, destroying the settlements, leveling the homes and building nice new ones for the “settlers”.

This has been doing on since 1947.
Click to expand...

What nation did Israel "steal" land from?
 
Aristaeus said:
Defending yourself doesn't give you the right to keep what doesn't belong to you.
Click to expand...
So we agree it was a war of self defense, good.
Now, what exactly don't belong to Israel? Who owns it?
 
TomFitz said:
They’re taking land under Palistinian settlements, destroying the settlements, leveling the homes and building nice new ones for the “settlers”.
Click to expand...


People believe the craziest things.
Fake news generation.

Who told you that nonsense?
 
Aberration said:
The U.N. is not a world government.
Click to expand...

Yet the countries of the world - including the USA - got together and agreed conquest would no longer be a right. And when you think about it, it's a barbaric concept to begin with. It was a direct result of the two world wars which had been fought for just such reasons. Israel even benefited from UN recognition of its conquests at its inception before the world decided to say no more to land-grabbing.

Now Israel is just being greedy and the current US administration is supporting that greed because it plays well with Christian Zionist death cult that thinks it will bring about the end times, it plays well with chest beating wannabe macho militarists and it plays well with Muslim-hating rubes who don;t much like Jews either but are happy to see someone stick it to the Palestinians. All three of those groups loves a bit of conquest and plunder.

And that's the only reason really, that America makes exceptions to its usual stance on territorial conquest for Israel - just because Republican supporters and Trump fanbois get off on it.
 
uptower said:
Yet the countries of the world - including the USA - got together and agreed conquest would no longer be a right. And when you think about it, it's a barbaric concept to begin with. It was a direct result of the two world wars which had been fought for just such reasons. Israel even benefited from UN recognition of its conquests at its inception before the world decided to say no more to land-grabbing.

Now Israel is just being greedy and the current US administration is supporting that greed because it plays well with Christian Zionist death cult that thinks it will bring about the end times, it plays well with chest beating wannabe macho militarists and it plays well with Muslim-hating rubes who don;t much like Jews either but are happy to see someone stick it to the Palestinians. All three of those groups loves a bit of conquest and plunder.

And that's the only reason really, that America makes exceptions to its usual stance on territorial conquest for Israel - just because Republican supporters and Trump fanbois get off on it.
Click to expand...

Well, no. No one is to blame for this situation except the Palestinians themselves. Generations of political stupidity and military incompetence have a price, and the Palestinians are now paying it. As the late (and great) Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban once said: "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

When the Palestinians walked away from Oslo they took responsibility for every death and every loss of their territory since then. Had they accepted Oslo (flawed though it may have been) they would be vastly better off today.

And btw, every country on Earth is the product of conquest. No country's territory is today governed by its original inhabitants.
 
Jack Hays said:
Well, no. No one is to blame for this situation except the Palestinians themselves. Generations of political stupidity and military incompetence have a price, and the Palestinians are now paying it. As the late (and great) Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban once said: "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

When the Palestinians walked away from Oslo they took responsibility for every death and every loss of their territory since then. Had they accepted Oslo (flawed though it may have been) they would be vastly better off today.

And btw, every country on Earth is the product of conquest. No country's territory is today governed by its original inhabitants.
Click to expand...

Yes, conquest happened in the past and yes the Palestinians have made plenty of mistakes. But the result is not "If you screw up you lose your homes forever" or to put it more plainly "You snooze, you lose". Failing to reach a better deal at Oslo does not mean losing one's homeland. International law, as decided on by the UN to which the US was a party, no longer recognizes the right of conquest. The US is unilaterally making an exception for Israel to expand settlements.
 
uptower said:
. . . But the result is not "If you screw up you lose your homes forever" or to put it more plainly "You snooze, you lose". Failing to reach a better deal at Oslo does not mean losing one's homeland. . . .
Click to expand...

Yes, unfortunately, it does.
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes, unfortunately, it does.
Click to expand...

That might be the military reality of it when one side is stronger, but it is both immoral and defies international law. Sorry, the pro-settlement crowd cannot have it both ways. They can have their conquest, but they can't claim it's legal, fair or right.
 
uptower said:
That might be the military reality of it when one side is stronger, but it is both immoral and defies international law. Sorry, the pro-settlement crowd cannot have it both ways. They can have their conquest, but they can't claim it's legal, fair or right.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, they can and do. For an analogy: I doubt anyone is going to question the legitimacy of Vietnam, despite the fact that it's based on the North's conquest of the South.
 
Jack Hays said:
On the contrary, they can and do. For an analogy: I doubt anyone is going to question the legitimacy of Vietnam, despite the fact that it's based on the North's conquest of the South.
Click to expand...

The conquest you're referring to in Vietnam was the result of a civil war, not an on going invading force from another continent.
 
truthatallcost said:
The conquest you're referring to in Vietnam was the result of a civil war, not an on going invading force from another continent.
Click to expand...

One sovereign state disappeared and was absorbed into another. Under international law, that's conquest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom