Are Israelis a bane on humanity?

They won it in war and have never been ejected from it for (pre 1967 borders) 65 years and (post 1967 border) 47 years.

The world does not like to endorse this and we make a show of saying that military conquest is not a legitimate method of defining territory...

...yet the land claims of virtually every nation on Earth are ultimately rooted in military conquest at one point or the other.

 

Hello?? Haven't you guys just been (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about the Crimea? And proclaiming the virtues of international law?

Silly generalisations from the 19th century don't work well any more. Except I suppose when it affects you.

 

That may have been the case historically, but since Hague, Geneva and other laws enshrined the inadmissability of the acquisition of territory through war within legislation, that is no longer a valid excuse. The Israelis are breaking the law, clear and simple, and have been doing so with apparent impunity since at least 1967.

 

You called my Religion ridiculous. You're an anti-Semite. Case
Closed.

 

'the jews' no. Many individual Jews, yes.

 

Most religions are ridiculous both in their laws and rituals. Any faith which worships archaic mythical deities is faintly absurd, frankly; and I don't care if you're a Jew, Muslim, Catholic or Baptist. This is 2014, not 14AD, and there are no dragons...

 

Yes, I am aware that many Israelis condemn what the Netanyahu regime is doing. But, like many Americans, they are impotent to do anything about it.

 

Many American Jews do too. Many British Jews do too.

 

Here is the excellent Gerald Kaufmann MP:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGuYjt6CP8

"They [the current regime] are not simply war criminals, they're fools".

 

So called "international law" is not law in the conventional sense that most people think of.

it is hardly like the New Jersey Criminal Code. It is more like a fraternity's code of conduct.

And none of that changes facts on the ground. Nor should the Palestinians be rewarded for a largely meaningless treaty they had no role in creating.

International law and treaties are mainly meant to give political cover to the more powerful nations that obsess over "legality" and shy away from admitting they are using force to promote their own interests.

 

you need to learn your history before you go around spewing your nonsense
all the land obtained by Israel was the result of someone's else aggression not theirs

 

The "largely meaningless" treaty, and others, were written into legislation thus allowing us to indict, prosecute and convict war criminals, which we have successfully done in many cases.
http://www.internationalpolicydiges...ailures-of-the-past-and-goals-for-the-future/

 

Makes no difference who did what. The simple fact remains that, in law, the acquisition of territory through war is illegal. Had the Arabs won in 1967 and claimed portions of Israel as their own that would have been equally illegal.

 

then all the land that was taken from Germany and Japan after ww2 should be given back?

 

Israel is an illegal and immoral welfare state. The Palestinians - be they Jew, Christian, or Muslim - are being denied their homeland.

Unfortunately the Palestinians are being occupied by Zionist Ashkenazis and Arab Muslims.

 

It is not binding upon the United States anyway. I do not know if Israel signed and ratified it or not.

 

Actually it is-except America refused to recognise its (the ICJ) last judgement against the United States. International law is binding upon everyone-hence the name; 'international', and as a founder member state of the United Nations the USA ratified all four Geneva conventions and is bound, as all member states are, by the rules, laws, treaties and conventions of that organisation. America cannot exempt itself from the laws it was instrumental in framing. The Fourth Geneva Convention was ratified by both Israel and Jordan.
http://www.eccpalestine.org/israels...ts-violations-and-implications-for-eu-policy/
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/human_rights

 

In disputes over territory like this I'm reminded of an episode of the western television series "High Chapparal"

A visiting U.S. Army officer who was sympathetic to the Indians referred to the Cannon family (the ones who own and run the ranch named in the title) as "thieves".

Buck Cannon replies: "My brother bought this ranch"

Officer "Who did he buy it from?"

Buck Cannon "The Spanish"

Officer "Did the Spanish buy it from the Apaches?"

The officer then directs that same question to Wind, the part Apache ranch hand of the Cannons.

Wind. "Not that I recall. But then again, the Apaches didn't buy it from the Navaho either".

 

Antisemitism attacks a group of people purely on ethic grounds, not necessarily religious grounds. Besides, I have always taken the stance not to condemn an ethic or national or even religious group simply because of those characteristics. I judge people by the way they behave, and as I have pointed out, there are Israelis who also condemn their own government for its human rights abuses - just as there are many Americans who condemn the US government's attacks on democratic and human rights at home and abroad.

Nor do I much care whether people are religious or not. I have a poor view of all religions but I can understand the good as well as the bad reasons they have needed to exist for some people throughout history. People can be as religious as they like provided they do not use their religious beliefs to abuse others.

 

I don't know but their cousins in the western nations are.

 

I realy like what near death experiencer Mellen Benedict was shown about the various religions.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation04.html#a09

The phrase…." The burden of the LORD" comes up often in the Jewish Bible…. it is a bit like G-d/HaShem gives a group of people a set of laws and statutes and judgments and rituals….. so after that…. those people become like actors playing out the role of the group of people who have been given laws and rules that separate them from the rest of the world!

 

No U.S. Senate ratification. Not binding. Case closed.

So to speak.

 

Doesn't matter a damn what the US Senate does or does not do. This is international law. Merely by being signatory to the UN Charter which embraces those treaties, laws and conventions, America is bound by them and American judges sit in the ICC in the Hague. Case closed.

 

Do you not understand that NO TREATY signed by the United States is considered binding without Senate ratification. It is black letter law in the U.S. Constitution. It is of no effect in regards to the United States without Senate ratification. No kind of treaty is exempt from this.

And

No ratified treaty is binding unless the U.S. congress passes accompanying legislation that authorizes the enforcement of those treaty provisions.

 

Unfortunately not. The Americans subscribe to only those international laws that suit them.

Many, like laws against torture, criminal international behaviour and various international treaties regulating stuff like climate change, are not things the Americans want to be held accountable for. Especially the ICC (International Criminal Court) where it would likely become its best customer.

In these respects it is much like North Korea.