Israeli-Palestinian conflict (18 Viewers)

[Tomice]

Non sequitur

It show a clear genocidal intent towards Israelis if he understand what he is saying.

If he doesn't then it shows he's an idiot.

Either way his opinion or interpretation of international law should never be taken seriously. And that's what it is, interpretation.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Post Ironic]

Can you remind me of the last ethnostate that restricted citizenship based on genetic criteria?

Indigenous nations do it all the time with full support of the UN

As well, almost every nation in the Middle East is an ethnostate at this point, regardless of citizenship restrictions.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

It show a clear genocidal intent towards Israelis if he understand what he is saying.

If he doesn't then it shows he's an idiot.

Either way his opinion or interpretation of international law should never be taken seriously. And that's what it is, interpretation.

Non sequitur still

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Indigenous nations do it all the time with full support of the UN

As well, almost every nation in the Middle East is an ethnostate at this point, regardless of citizenship restrictions.

Not one argument answered

 

[Tomice]

Are you an intl law lawyer?

Well I'm humble enough not to pretend I am.

If it was such a clear cut case then we wouldn't be having this discussions wouldn't we?

 

[Post Ironic]

Either you believe in and adhere to international law or you don't. If you do, everything he says is in line with intl law statutes, so it doesn't really matter if you think he's a dumbass.

And it's not a matter of agreement is a matter of law, in which case indigenous demands would be ex post facto.

Oh please. He’s giving his interpretation of international law on genocide. And you support it when it’s convenient to your argument and ignore it otherwise. As does the entire Arab and Islamic world.

Remind me of all the Arab nations that have recognized the Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek Christian genocide by the Ottomans? That killed a couple million.

Crickets.

 

[Tomice]

Non sequitur still

Sure

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Well I'm humble enough not to pretend I am.

If it was such a clear cut case then we wouldn't be having this discussions wouldn't we?

We are only having this discussion because the US has your back. There's no legality or morality to your position: 0.

 

[Seven]

Are you an intl law lawyer?

There are very few such lawyers.

At least I'm a lawyer and one of my professors actually was an ICC judge, who did teach me international criminal law. This is a subject most aren't even taught in law school.

This makes me feel somewhat confident in expressing an opinion.

But you have to understand that law is very often about proving an opinion. And really only experience teaches you what it takes to prove a case in court. And then there's the legal term 'genocide' that carries an almost impossible burden of proof with it.

As someone who does not practice international criminal law that makes me cautious.


Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk

 

[Seven]

We are only having this discussion because the US has your back. There's no legality or morality to your position: 0.

I actually agree with you here and this is what I expressed a couple of days ago.

The hubris on Israel's part is crazy.

At some point that support will be gone.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk

 

[Enron]

This one?

yeah that’s the one

 

[Enron]

Are you an intl law lawyer?

a man has many faces

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Oh please. He’s giving his interpretation of international law on genocide. And you support it when it’s convenient to your argument and ignore it otherwise. As does the entire Arab and Islamic world.

Remind me of all the Arab nations that have recognized the Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek Christian genocide by the Ottomans? That killed a couple million.

Crickets.

The points you mentioned in your posts weren't even about genocide. You said the guy is a dumbass for presenting the legal ground of the right of palestinians for return and compensation. I am not going to engage in mud slinging or get dragged into talking about my motives or the silliness of equating me with the arab and islamic world, please keep this about the subject or our convo ends here.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

There are very few such lawyers.

At least I'm a lawyer and one of my professors actually was an ICC judge, who did teach me international criminal law. This is a subject most aren't even taught in law school.

This makes me feel somewhat confident in expressing an opinion.

But you have to understand that law is very often about proving an opinion. And really only experience teaches you what it takes to prove a case in court. And then there's the legal term 'genocide' that carries an almost impossible burden of proof with it.

As someone who does not practice international criminal law that makes me cautious.


Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk

Fair enough, but would you say the guy said anything that goes beyond the legal framework? To the extent of calling him clueless, especially coming from someone with no legal training?

 

[Tomice]

We are only having this discussion because the US has your back. There's no legality or morality to your position: 0.

I have no idea what you are on about here.

The discussion we were having and I was clearly referring to was limited to the use of the word genocide and it's legal applicability.

The rest is irrelevant, here and in the real world

 

[Post Ironic]

The points you mentioned in your posts weren't even about genocide. You said the guy is a dumbass for presenting the legal ground of the right of palestinians for return and compensation. I am not going to engage in mud slinging or get dragged into talking about my motives or the silliness of equating me with the arab and islamic world, please keep this about the subject or our convo ends here.

There is no legal ground for compensation and right of return from 1948. It’s a UN declaration from the end of 1948, in December, after most of the Palestinians had already bern expelled or left. The settlements in the West Bank post-1967. Sure. Then you have an argument. You’d also have an argument for the Jews expelled all across the Arab and Islamic world post-1948. Compensation and right of return (none would take the latter obviously). 900,000 Jews left or were expelled around the Muslim world.
https://azure.org.il/include/print.php?id=581

But there are also arguments against the “right of return” and whether it even applies for mass population displacement. None of this is settled and has rarely been tried in international courts.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1459&context=mjil

The last article comes to the conclusion that “right of return” does apply to mass population displacement even within the original UDHR and ICCPR frameworks and legal definitions. There have been arguments made against this from a legal standpoint, but mostly from Israeli sources, so while they can make the argument, the biased position they are starting from makes it hard to consider them a good source.

So post-1948 it probably does apply. But a diplomatic solution is probably the only real possibility here. Enforcing what that guy talks about is an impossibility on many levels imo

 

[GordoDeCentral]

There is no legal ground for compensation and right of return from 1948. It’s a UN declaration from the end of 1948, in December, after most of the Palestinians had already bern expelled or left. The settlements in the West Bank post-1967. Sure. Then you have an argument. You’d also have an argument for the Jews expelled all across the Arab and Islamic world post-1948. Compensation and right of return (none would take the latter obviously). 900,000 Jews left or were expelled around the Muslim world.
https://azure.org.il/include/print.php?id=581

But there are also arguments against the “right of return” and whether it even applies for mass population displacement. None of this is settled and has rarely been tried in international courts.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1459&context=mjil

I'm about to hit the gym I'll check it out when i am done.

 

[Seven]

Fair enough, but would you say the guy said anything that goes beyond the legal framework? To the extent of calling him clueless, especially coming from someone with no legal training?

Well.

Nothing what he claims sounded that outlandish to me.

And here is his profile:

https://sdgs.un.org/panelists/mr-craig-mokhiber-29717

It would look like his knowledge about the subject is vastly superior to ours.

I understand people have little faith in the UN, but it is the only somewhat objective organisation right now.

At some point it could become a situation the ICC looks into though and then the ICC Prosecutor will do his own investigation. I believe that is probably a stronger and less political researcher.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk

 

[ALC]

I actually agree with you here and this is what I expressed a couple of days ago.

The hubris on Israel's part is crazy.

At some point that support will be gone.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk

I agree that the hubris is crazy but why do you keep saying their support will be gone?

I don’t see the US turning against them or dropping support anytime soon.

 

[Seven]

Because Israel had the popular vote in the US and America for decades. Probably since they existed.

Maybe I shouldn't speak for the US, but in Europe the sentiment is very much against Israel right now. Our elected politicians almost all implied at some point they will back Israel, but it will cost them votes if they do. All of this has been a PR disaster for Israel and I believe Europe and the US will be less inclined to help.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk