So apparently Israel isn't an occupying force in the West Bank

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Israeli government is horrible only for not doing the things recommended by this commission already. I just hope Bibi grows a spine and follows the recommendations of the commission.

Not a very high opinion of the legal, moral, and logical problems with the recommendations?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Israeli government is horrible only for not doing the things recommended by this commission already. I just hope Bibi grows a spine and follows the recommendations of the commission.

Not a very high opinion of the legal, moral, and logical problems with the recommendations?

The committee thinks it is legal, but in any case, Laws should be changed to fit the wishes of the public (through elected officials) and that way made to fit in with government policy, not the other way round.

Rule of law, rule according to a higher law, or rule according to the law of nations don't do it for you? Also, what public? Certainly not that of the West Bank.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Define 'to occupy', as you understand it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Rule of law, rule according to a higher law, or rule according to the law of nations don't do it for you? Also, what public? Certainly not that of the West Bank.

Rule of law- Yes, rule of law as legislated by an elected legislative branch.

Rule according to higher law- No, this is either a form of dictatorship by whomever gets to decide what higher law is, or just forcing a old laws on the population.

Rule according to the law of nations- I am against this.

So you're in favor of a form of rule of law in which, uh, the Knesset can do whatever it wants? I don't think that's what the phrase 'rule of law' is supposed to indicate. I think it usually means something different, especially since the actions being suggested here are not exactly limited in their compass or import to people who the Knesset represents.

Rule according to a higher law just means that there are in fact constitutional or supraconstitutional principles that can't be changed on a whim to legitimate things that had previously been recognized as illegal under those principles (among other types of dick moves).

I'm not even going to get into how you apparently oppose the existence of international law, since if you really want to live in a geopolitical Mad Max (or Madlax, or both) I guess that's your prerogative.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Taking control of a territory that is not previously your's through force of arms and then ruling over it.
[/quote]

Are you disputing the 'ruling over it' part or the 'not previously yours' part or both?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nope, the Israeli government isn't horrible at all.  

No, it isn't!

Define 'to occupy', as you understand it.

To take control of land belonging to another nation by military force. The problem with this is that the West Bank has been under military control, of one kind or another, since 1917, and the nation that it belonged to before 1917 is gone. The land is terra nullis; it is disputed. Discounting East Jerusalem, the West Bank is perhaps 3/4 Palestinian and 1/4 Israeli. Forcing hundreds of thousands of people to leave their homes in the West Bank simply because they are Israeli is unjust (and you know it) -- the final peace settlement should keep this in mind. (I've already noted my views on how this might be achieved.)

Of course it's unjust and I never claimed otherwise. What was your idea for the final peace settlement?

I'm leery of accepting terra nullius as an argument here. The real issue is that this is an area that has at least two reasonably arguable indigenous populations, which do live in different areas, one of which is asserting varying levels of control over the other (which is also not run by hugely nice people, obviously).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Erm...yes, it's rather reasonable to suggest the Knesset or the U.S. Congress or the f**king Massachusetts state legislature can enact the laws that are the reason they were elected. There's a reason in the US, for instance, we can amend our Constitution. [/quote]

Okay, I'll let you know when the Massachusetts General Court starts amending the US and Massachusetts constitutions for reasons pertaining to an area that's 3:1 Rhode Islanders and Bay Staters.

I'm not even going to get into how you apparently oppose the existence of international law, since if you really want to live in a geopolitical Mad Max (or Madlax, or both) I guess that's your prerogative.

The reason someone from Israel might reasonably oppose the existence of international law is that the United Nations has pretty much consistently unfairly singled out Israel -- even if you do think that the 'occupation' of Palestine is a horrible, horrible crime, certainly it deserves at least as much attention as, say, the genocide in Darfur did, or the dictatorship in North Korea? Here's a convenient pie chart of UN resolutions in 2006/quote]

Bullsh**t. International law predates the UN and is the basis for its existence. The questionable priorities of the UN General Assembly notwithstanding, you can't just decide that the law of nations, which wasn't created ex nihilo by a single body in 1946, doesn't apply to you, lest other countries start to decide the same.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

BRTD has already done so.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

All of you people are ridiculous.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I oppose international law on principle, regardless of how it applies to Israel, and the Palestinians certainly have no problem breaking international law anyway.

Of course. As international law shouldn't apply to the superior "chosen ones", does it?

No, it shouldn't apply to anyone.

I'm genuinely baffled as to how you can possibly in good conscience believe this.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I oppose international law on principle, regardless of how it applies to Israel, and the Palestinians certainly have no problem breaking international law anyway.

Of course. As international law shouldn't apply to the superior "chosen ones", does it?

No, it shouldn't apply to anyone.

I'm genuinely baffled as to how you can possibly in good conscience believe this.

Really? Why so? I'm not saying one can't argue for international law or anything, but it is a bit of a silly concept.

We know what the alternative has historically looked like. It's called the right of the conqueror and if danny thinks that it's somehow more amenable to democracy and self-determination than is international law then I'd like to hear his argument.