Israeli-Palestinian conflict (87 Viewers)

[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

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[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

 

[Tomice]

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

Thanks.

I'll also add on top of that a extremely unique issue with the Palestinian right of return that makes this even a more complicated matter, legally and in practicality.

Palestinian refugees have a historically unprecedented hereditary status by the UN through UNRWA. It means millions of Palestinians are considered refugees while only around 30k that are still alive are actually refugees by any other legal standart.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/17/unrwa-has-changed-the-definition-of-refugee/

 

[Strickland]

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

UN hasnt recognized Hamas as a terrorist org, makes me very seriously doubt that they're anywhere close to objective.

 

[Tomice]

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

https://unwatch.org/exposed-top-human-rights-official-craig-mokhiber-deep-seated-anti-israel-bias/

I'm sure he is qualified. I'm also not saying non of his claims have merit. I've said before, I will also never argue against claims of ethnic cleansing, I can excuse small parts of it but will never argue against them in court.

With that said this guy is clearly biased. I would also say he is not a good professional. If I was he's employer I would fire him for hurting the organisation supposed impartiality.

The UN can very well be right on many issues including Israel, but it will never be able to claim impartiality on Israel. It's just facts

 

[Seven]

UN hasnt recognized Hamas as a terrorist org, makes me very seriously doubt that they're anywhere close to objective.

Do you realize Hamas are political leaders?

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk

 

[Seven]

https://unwatch.org/exposed-top-human-rights-official-craig-mokhiber-deep-seated-anti-israel-bias/

I'm sure he is qualified. I'm also not saying non of his claims have merit. I've said before, I will also never argue against claims of ethnic cleansing, I can excuse small parts of it but will never argue against them in court.

With that said this guy is clearly biased. I would also say he is not a good professional. If I was he's employer I would fire him for hurting the organisation supposed impartiality.

The UN can very well be right on many issues including Israel, but it will never be able to claim impartiality on Israel. It's just facts

I didn't claim he was objective and right.

But he was dismissed here as a fool and a clown. And when you look at his credentials that is odd.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk

 

[Tomice]

I didn't claim he was objective and right.

But he was dismissed here as a fool and a clown. And when you look at his credentials that is odd.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk

Well if he think there can be a single secular, democratic state in Palestine he is.

If he knows there can't be he is even worse

 

[Strickland]

Do you realize Hamas are political leaders?

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk

They are also quite obviously terrorists, included in the terrorist lists of the EU, US, UK, Canada and probably bunch of others. But not recognized by UN as terrorist group.

 

[campionesidd]

UN hasnt recognized Hamas as a terrorist org, makes me very seriously doubt that they're anywhere close to objective.

The UN is a joke bro.
At least NATO has some bite to their bark.

 

[Seven]

They are also quite obviously terrorists, included in the terrorist lists of the EU, US, UK, Canada and probably bunch of others. But not recognized by UN as terrorist group.

Palestine is recognized by 138 UN members. It is a non-member observer state of the UN.

It would not be easy for an international organisation to state the political leaders of a state that is pretty much part of their organisation are terrorists.

It would be like the EU saying Spain is run by terrorists.

But it is a moot point anyway as their acts of terrorism have been pointed out by the UN.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk