This letter seems confused as to whether he should respectfully disagree or think you’re the devil.  Maybe I’d be able to figure this one out if he’d use more paragraph breaks.

Anyway, I think we’re hitting a point where every boobnick who writes an angry letter gets coverage.  Let’s move on.

Cindy Sheehan, for example, lambasted Hillary Clinton.  O’Reilly covered it on the Factor and I entered a phase in my life where I found myself flipping off the TV at someone calling Hillary a liar and so-forth.  That’s interesting.  These chuckleheads aren’t.  We need to leave them in the mailboxes where they belong.

Would a Yahoo email from australia have a .au in it?

Would a Yahoo email from australia have a .au in it?

no

A lot of the world hate isreal beacause they are “jews” sadly.
I saw a reportage made by swedish SVT,where they went to some muslims home,in countries like kuwait/beirut.
And the people there said to the camermans they where not allowed to come in if they was jews.
These was christian swedish people,so they said no we arn’t jews and isrealites,and the response was"like i care? i just dont wants jews dont care where they come from”.
Yes a lot of people had a very hostile approach to jews no matter where they orgirnally came from,in fact they did not care,just about that they where jews.

Its weird that they are so hostile about jews when in fact christian and islam comes originell from ...ahum forgot the english word for it,but the jew religion ^^

You in west Oz by any chance? am in Kambalda ( near Kalgoorlie) so if you want as base to tour round from let me know. Im away most of the time so you wouls have it to yourself. ( not all aussies are dicks)

I shouldnt type drunk!!!

Will, allow me to prove the statement that “Israel is an outpost of democracy in an oasis of authoritarianism”. Israel has a democratically elected government. Every country bordering Israel (Jordan, Egypt and Syria) does not have a democratically elected government. In fact, the only countries near Israel which have democratically elected governments are Iraq (which was recently liberated by the US) and Turkey (which unlike many other Middle Eastern countries resisted becoming a militaristic dictatorship).

Also, I find it telling that you are complaining about the “illegal” occupation of the West Bank, which Israel took after a defensive war, in this case the Six-Day War. Taking land in a defensive war is if I remember correctly, completely legal

These are actual facts-
Britain supported the National Home of Palestine in 1917. When Israel finally became an independant nation in 1948, it was attacked on all sides by Arab nations, who were roundly repulsed. Palestinian Arabs then settled into refugee camps on the Gaza Strip which was occupied at different times by the Egyptians and the Israelis. The PLO came into being in 1964 with the sole intent of overthrowing the state of Israel. Israel again had to defend itself during the Six Day War (I suppose it lasted six days because the other side laboured under the fatal misconception that fighting poorly was enough to defeat one’s enemies. I’m not a military strategist but this doesn’t sound smart to me). Israel and Israelis (as well as Palestinian Christians) have had to withstand attacks by the PLO and its ultra-militant wing, Hamas. Even when given generous concessions, Arafat (NOT a Palestinian in any respect)refused it. Even now, as the Israelis have pulled out, Hamas still threatens them.
I have no idea why people side with the Palestinians. It’s not their land and they want all of Jewry gone.

It never ends.

http://entertainment.sympatico.msn.ca/tv/articles/1318858.armx

presidnt, bespektickled, desicion, sugget, sensationalises isues, compulsary

I do not believe he has spelled these words incorrectly. I believe this is some sort of Australian grammar thing like the British putting the letter “u” in coloured/colored, honour/honor.

I do not believe he has spelled these words incorrectly. I believe this is some sort of Australian grammar thing like the British putting the letter “u” in coloured/colored, honour/honor.

Perhaps he’s just an idiout.

For those who believe in the Bible, it is clearly stated that Israel will be attacked by most nations in the end times, so it’s no secret that they are greatly hated by their neighbors and even most of Europe.  Israel will be attacked, but God will destroy those who attempt to come down on Israel.  Just hope that the U.S. does not switch sides and become an enemy of Israel.

The items you mention about Israel and Tony Blair are ADVERTISING.  Someone went to Blogads and purchased advertising space to put their message on this website.  Short of out and out rejecting an ad, we don’t have any say as to their content, and frankly, being proud capitalist whores, we’ll pretty much let anyone buy ad space for just about any message.

Say, Lee, whatever happened to that advertisement for the left wing t-shirts and other paraphernalia?  Have they already cancelled their advertising here?  They were mildly entertaining.  I suspect that, while they probably got a lot of traffic from here, it wasn’t very effective traffic, since probably no-one from here bought anything on their site, so I guess I wouldn’t blame them for cancelling their ad.

Do you think they bought the ad just to see if you guys would balk at the notion of selling ad space to THEM?  For some reason, I suspect that is the case.

I should clarify that I have no evidence of any kind to back up the [implied] assertion that:

they bought the ad just to see if you guys would balk at the notion of selling ad space to THEM

It is just a gut feeling.

like the British putting the letter “u” in coloured/colored, honour/honor.

Er, I think you mean ‘like the Americans taking the letter “u” out of coloured, honour’.
We were actually speaking English over here a long time before you guys, you know - ever heard of a bloke called Shakespeare? :)

Again with the blogosphere griping… what’s your issue, climbatze? You a “legitimate” journalist or something?

Lee, once again you’ve hit the nail on the head and through the five feet of lumber behind it. This is EXACTLY what Moore&Co;. are up to: Yell it loud and long enough, and then have enough people believe it, and it magically becomes true.  It’s all relative(ism) with these folks.

In college, working towards my Bachelors [and then on to my Juris Doctorate--7 YEARS of school!!!] I ran into a lot of sane Liberals as my professors; people who simply thought differently than me. The one thing I respect them for (even to this day), above even their intelligence and kindness & understanding (especially with my papers) is that they were FIRMLY grounded in reality and standards of proof. If you couldn’t back up what you said, even if they agreed with the end result, then they tore you apart intellectually.

To me, this demonstrates that the Moore&Co;. Extremist-Whacko-Fringe-Liberals are just that. It’s one thing to see the world differently than I do: it’s something else ENTIRELY to make up your reality from whole cloth.

The vast majority of people in the world believe in some kind of supreme being.  Is this inherent proof that there is indeed a Creator of some kind?  Or does the number of people who believe in a supreme being in no way validate the existence of one?

Exactly. Now, I understand that this is a “big tent” group in regards to disagreeing with Moore and his Mooreons, but whether an (intellectually honest) aetheist or a([n] equally intellectually honest) Bible-Thumping Christian like myself, a rational person wouldn’t make religious truth/conviction or any other fundamental beliefs a matter of consensus.

After all, there’s piles of evidence [witness accounts, physical evidence of miraculous events, various spiritual phenomenon, personal religious experiences, etc.] of a guiding spiritual force in humanity. You look it over and either buy it, or you don’t. You DON’T go, as a matter of general principal, take a poll to see what your fundamental spiritual beliefs are--unless you’re in with Moore&Co;. [I could go on for PAGES just regarding Gore’s and Kerry’s ‘pollster’ religiosity, but it’s a matter of public record].

Ultimately, it boils down to this: The Judeo-Christian God doesn’t need to rely on us to determine whether He exists or not [not that there’s a thing we could do either way]. Likewise, Conservative ideology in general exists and sustains itself just fine. However, Moore’s fantasy world only exists if we believe in it.

For those who believe in the Bible, it is clearly stated that Israel will be attacked by most nations in the end times, so it’s no secret that they are greatly hated by their neighbors and even most of Europe.  Israel will be attacked, but God will destroy those who attempt to come down on Israel.  Just hope that the U.S. does not switch sides and become an enemy of Israel.

This is where we give the Devil his due.
I don’t get Anti-Semetism. [I mean, I hate ME alot sometimes, but not because I’m descended from a Semetic people.] Maybe Will here HONESTLY believes that the same right that applies to Australians in possessing and occupying land stolen from the Aborigenee(sp?) doesn’t apply to Isreal’s taking of Jordanian land. Or maybe he’d be happy if I and my fellow Hebrews would just disappear.

Whatever the reason, yes, 2/3 of the world is against the U.S. in it’s support of Isreal’s right to exist. [Mind you, we’re “BIASED” here for being EVENHANDED… I mean, D***!] Yes, I support Conservatism and it’s current political leader, George Walker Bush.  And yes, me and my Christian Coalition pals enjoy what meager [compared to the abortionists in the Democratic party] influence we have in the Republican party.

But you know what? For all the complaining this 2/3 of the world does about U.S. policy, the reality is we respect the right of the elected leaders of other nations to disagree. In turn, we expect our elected leaders to represent the views WE support and for other countries to respect THAT.

In short, we have the INTELLECTUAL HONESTY to say that people are going to disagree and that a country will do what its people thinks is right--and that when it does, other countries may oppose it. The problem is, that this 2/3 of the world doesn’t get that we’re entitled to be democratic. If they don ‘t like it, they can push for their own policy--they have no right to demand we acquiesce to or foot the bill for their bullhockey.

Sure, we MAY be wrong on any given policy. Right and wrong are right and wrong whether popular or pushed by a superpower. But, at the end of the day, we stand by our convictions--the core one in the U.S. is that the American people decide U.S. policy.

I find it fascinating that people in other countries find the US so intruiging.  They hate on America, but it’s at the front of their worries.  If they spent as much time worrying about their own countries as they did blogging their thoughts on ours, the world would be a better place.  Thanks for caring so much, world.

So in 1948 the thousands of Palestinians who lived there before the Isrealis came had no legitimate claim to the land, but Isrealis, who lost it in a war 2000 years ago and had just got off a boat to take it back, did.

Gee that sounds fair.

Under what grounds did the Palestinians who had lived in the area for generations not have some claim to the land on which they were born and raised? Was it the fact that they attacked Isrealis when they first started to settle the area? ‘Cause if that’s a justification for expulsion, then everyone in Texas who is opposed to Mexican immigration should be expelled from Texas. Mexico had the land first (did you think San Antonio was founded by some British puritan?) and it was taken from them, so why would that be any less reasonable than the Isreali claim over the land in Palestine in 1948?

Israel, where military service is compulsary

Hmmm.  Not too unlike Sweden.  Or Switzerland.  I suppose the difference lies in that the Isreali soldier is actually likely to get shot at.

Texas wasn’t taken from Mexico.  Texas became an independent republic in 1836 after the citizens of Texas told Mexico what to go do with itself.

So, Resro, you’re saying that the Jews living in the British Mandate of Palestine (or as the “Palestinians” would call it, Balestine) before 1948 had no right to live there?

They had every right to live there. They just had no more of a right to a state than the Palestinians.

"Texas became an independent republic in 1836 after the citizens of Texas told Mexico what to go do with itself.”

Texas became part of Mexico in 1821 and it was until 1823 that any Americans lived there (the Austin colony). In 1836, the American immigrants into the area forcibly took Texas from Mexico in the Battle of San Jacinto. Why did they do this? Because they opposed Mexican law prohibiting slavery. And these people were not “citizens of Texas” they were immigrants (mostly illegal) to Texas.

Why did they do this? Because they opposed Mexican law prohibiting slavery.

Actually it was because the Americans were invited to settle in Texas and were promised a republican government but it later turned into a military dictatorship.

Resro, the problem was that by 1948, the continued presence of Jews in the British Mandate of Palestine was incompatible with the relatively newfound desire of the Arabs to have the Mandate free of Jews. So, either the Jews or the desire to be rid of the Jews had to go. The way it ended up, the Arabs (and their expressed desire to be rid of the Jews) lost to the Jews.

First of all, spelling colour and honour with a u is acceptable. It’s the more obvious spelling errors we should worry about. Not even in Canada is bespectacled spelled with a k, or issues spelled with one s.
Screw the Palestinians. It isn’t their land and they have no desire to live in peace. What do you think Hamas and the PLO are for?

So in 1948 the thousands of Palestinians who lived there before the Isrealis came had no legitimate claim to the land, but Isrealis, who lost it in a war 2000 years ago and had just got off a boat to take it back, did.

Gee that sounds fair.

This is so ON TOPIC to the original post and my earlier comment. Resro, appeals to “fairness” aside, you’ve left out some key facts here that, but for their existence, might make your thoughts on this reasonable. [I’ll answer the question later]

1) There WERE, as Capitalist Pete noted, Jews already living there. If THAT was the sole fact Resro, I’d agree with you when you said that “They had every right to live there. They just had no more of a right to a state than the Palestinians.”

But there’s one more fact to consider:

2) International Law gives Isreal 100% ownership of the land taken.

Under what grounds did the Palestinians who had lived in the area for generations not have some claim to the land on which they were born and raised?

I’d say the same grounds that the populations that the Americans (Too many tribes to name), Australians (Aboriginee), French (Corsicans), Spanish (ETA anyone?), Chinese (Tibet), and Canadians (more than a few tribes too) have in claiming lands they had lost through conquest: NONE. Under international law, once you conquer a country, you OWN it. [Now, if you--BY TREATY OR OTHER AGREEMENT--bind yourself to give that nation soveriegnty at a later time, or to do it under the auspices of the U.N. or some other limitation, that’s another story.]

This is why the U.N. was all over the U.S.-led Coalition in Iraq to step-up reconstruction of the country [admirable, but these calls were coming before major conflict had even ended]. The authority for this was that since the Coalition nations had conquered and thus owned the country under international law, they were responsible for it. And as U.N. nations, they were bound by treaty to do X, Y, and Z.

Like it or not, that’s the law. That’s why these peoples [minus some other treaty] can’t simply demand that people get off the land they had owned and have lived on. [Yes, I’m aware of the “Free Tibet” movement, but the fact is that, as a matter of international law, they’re no more than a glee club in terms of legal effect.]

Mexico had the land first (did you think San Antonio was founded by some British puritan?) and it was taken from them, so why would that be any less reasonable than the Isreali claim over the land in Palestine in 1948?

To answer this and your initial question:
In regards to international law, beyond a quote-"moral"-endquote claim, prior ownership means squat unless you go in and retake it. Then you get the legal ownership + “moral” thing going.

So then WHY Mr. Smartypants Stewart--y’all are probably asking [if not, just keep reading anyway. I’m lonely]--does everyone call the lands taken by Isreal occupied and not conquered?

ANSWER: Goes back to my last post and that 2/3 of the world that thinks supporting Isreal’s right to exist is bias on the part of the U.S. [and thus Lee’s original point about subjective truth]. While I can sit here and quote international law PRINCIPLES, the reality is that international law IN ACTION is whatever the world body politika decides it is. If they don’t like Isreal [for whatever reason], they can decide that, in that nation’s case, that the law will be different. And so long as they hold the pursestrings and/or have militaries to back their “legal opinions” up, that’s the law.

So I guess *I* have a question: Is it FAIR for these countries I mentioned to show such BLATANT HYPOCRISY [even America is being somewhat inconsistant in that it’s pushing for a Palestinian state as well]?

While I don’t know if it’s fair, but its the perogative of those nations [see my post above]. As Lee said, consensus can’t make a thing true or not.

But I guess consensus does make a thing legal.

As far as this relates to Mooreons like Will [the emailer], the 2/3 of the world defining the dialogue on the Isreal situation is yet another perfect example of the Moore mentality: Get enough people to agree, and it’s true--even if our belief in one area contradicts everything else.

I’d say the same grounds that the populations that the Americans (Too many tribes to name), Australians (Aboriginee), French (Corsicans), Spanish (ETA anyone?), Chinese (Tibet), and Canadians (more than a few tribes too) have in claiming lands they had lost through conquest: NONE. Under international law, once you conquer a country, you OWN it.

Whoops! *=}

Bad grammar: I meant the peoples those countries conquered [the ones in parenthases], not the nations themselves.

International Law gives Isreal 100% ownership of the land taken.

While I can sit here and quote international law PRINCIPLES, the reality is that international law IN ACTION is whatever the world body politika decides it is.

Funny, I thought international law was any law drawn up in an international agreement, like the Geneva convention, or any UN agreement. If so, I can’t think of any treaty or agreement that still recognizes forced annexation (specifically the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza) as legitimate, even in self defence. (It wasn’t in self-defence, by the way. Even Isreal regards the 1967 war as pre-emptive, ie., unprovoked.)

But even if you do stick to this definition of international law, doesn’t the world body politika refuse to recognize Isreal’s sovereignty over the West Bank, therefore making it illegal?

pre-emptive, ie., unprovoked

Pre-emptive doesn’t mean unprovoked .. certainly not in the case of Israel in 1967.  They were quite provoked.

Really? Then whos shot first?

Do I have to shoot you to provoke you?

To provoke me into a state of war, yes, you must first commit violence. Otherwise there’s no justification for war.

Even if you did commit violence against me, that wouldn’t necessarily justify a violent retaliation on my part if I had any other way of protecting myself.

That’s mighty noble, but not particularly practical for survival.  Personally, I think massing troops for an attack and cutting off shipping to a country constitutes a provocation.  Besides, it’s not like this thing started in 1967.

That’s mighty noble, but not particularly practical for survival.

That’s the philosophy that one India her independance.

The main problem, Resro, with negotiation (which is what I think you are advocating as a solution to the Six-Day War) is that there has to be common ground between the two parties which are negotiating.

The Arab states wanted Israel to be destroyed. This is quite obviously incompatible with the interests of Israel, so negotiation is quite difficult to say the least.

That’s the philosophy that one India her independance.

Ahhh, if we could all be like India.  Seriously though, one example from one country hardly proves a point.

Funny, I thought international law was any law drawn up in an international agreement, like the Geneva convention, or any UN agreement.

Nope. Though that’s a COMMON misperception, given that among signatories it can have the force of law.

[Bear with me: I just had my bottom left wisdom tooth removed. I’m in pain and doped up.]

International law is a generally agreed upon [I’ll get to this in a sec] set of practice that governs nation states. Think of it kind of like the laws out there against crime. International law includes the basic rights of states, warfare, and things like human rights and just how far a country can go before other states have a right to come in and do something about a nation’s actions [whether they do or not...]. NOTE, for later, how key an issue ENFORCEMENT is here.

The United Nations Charter and conventions like the Geneva Convention or the Hague Convention are agreements BETWEEN THE SIGNATORIES. Think of these like contracts between you and someone else. They add another layer of obligations on those that SIGNED the document, while having ZERO affect on people that don’t--much like a contract to buy a car only affects you and the dealership and not Sally down the road.

So how do those two levels of law work? Well, for example, take Hamas. This dichotomy of law is why groups like Hamas can’t violate the Geneva Convention--since it’s binding only on those that sign it, such an organization can neither VIOLATE its terms, nor can it seek ENFORCEMENT of it either. *HOWEVER*, under international law concerning Human Rights, the general consensus is that “mistreatment” of any person, whether a prisoner or not [in Hamas’ case, their gruesome executions] can warrant sanctions under pure international law.

But even if you do stick to this definition of international law, doesn’t the world body politika refuse to recognize Isreal’s sovereignty over the West Bank, therefore making it illegal?

This is where things get tricky, my HYPOCRISY charge pops up, and the 2/3 of the world doing as it wishes come into play. As I said, international law comes from settled and established practices that are (nominally) UNIVERSALLY applied and MUST be enforced by those countries wishing to use it. On top of this are agreements Isreal has signed.

Now, as you correctly note, 2/3 of the world is, in fact, saying that it’s an occupation vs. a normal conquest. However, NEITHER layer of international law quite go so far as “making [Isreal’s possesion of the West Bank] illegal.”

Going backwards, under the treaty layer, namely the U.N. [the Mooreon’s playground], Isreal’s holding of the land isn’t illegal despite being a signatory for two key reasons. On a strictly legal level, the U.N. charter doesn’t give resolutions the force of full law--that is, unlike law as we run into it, these are condemnations of action, NOT enforceable law. [Ex: You can find hundreds of condemnations of a U.N. member nation’s activity. How many of those can you remember coming to anything on their own?] In short, condemnations are persuasive only! Since all the U.N. has ONLY condemned the occupation, on the U.N. level Isreal can stay where it’s at.

As for the enforcement arm of the U.N., i.e. the practical level, until the U.N. Security Council decides to authorize a force to FORCE Isreal off the land, Isreal--under the U.N. charter--can stay right where it’s at.

As for the first layer of international law, the underlying law, Isreal has a “challenged” claim to the land, at best--not true illegality. This is for both a “moral” reason (I include this since “fairness” has crept into the discussion) and a practical reason.

The “moral” claim of legality lies in what we Americans liek to call Equal Protection of the laws. That is, the law is the law no matter WHO it’s applied against. Under this claim, the other 2/3 of the world can say what it likes, but no matter what the law will be applied EQUALLY.

A good example is in the treatment of whites v. non-whites in Western countries. While Sue[W] is allowed to use a fountain designated as WHITES ONLY by the folks around her, Isreal[B](the name of the receptionist at my graduating law school) may be restricted due to his color and the fact those whites around him don’t want him using the fountain.

In EITHER Isreals’ cases, the “moral” claim of Equal Protection steps in a politely tells the bigots [either the whites in the previosu example or the 2/3 of the world applyign different standards] to go to Hell. Either everyoen has the right the same way, or no one does.

Now, as I said previously, any “moral” claim is just soemthign to tack onto practical law, and Equal Protection is no different.

[Lee, if you’re reading this, I AM bringing this back to being on-topic: blame my medicine for my slow mental pace].

As a matter of practical law, what the 2/3 of the world say regarding Isreal’s “occupation” means, well, sh*t without something else. Under international law, you theoretically CAN B*llsh*t a reason together, as I said before--and, as I noted in the post before the last, that would make it legal IN THOSE NATIONS.

AFTER that, whether you B*llsh*tted something together or are relying on precedent, you need to suit up and go to war to enforce it.

That is, for example, until France decides to invade Isreal, what it says about anything inside Isreal’s borders isn’t worth the frenchperson saying it.

HOWEVER, and this is where the Mooreon mentality comes in, that 2/3 of the world CAN allow Isreal to rot on the vine, using their personal legal determinations to deny aid, etc. that they otherwise promised and/or obligated themselves to give.

THIS is why that 2/3 of the world is doing what it is: abandoning Isreal and letting it rot where it would otherwise owe a duty to prevent terrorism while, at the same time, trying to use the disorder as an excuse to in fact occupy Isreal. The IRONY here is that thise 2/3 of the planet would likely expect the UNITED STATES to actually do the occupying (one, if not the key, reason I think the 2/3 of the world is angry that we support their right to exist).

This, of course, is just ANOTHER telling part of the Mooreon mentality: The total lack of respect for settled precedent as well as equality before the law is appalling. If you don’t agree with Moore&Co;.’s brand of extremism [or, in this case, have the bad luck of being someone they don’t like, namely a nation of Jews], you can LITERALLY and DEMONSTRABLY expect to suffer and die regardless of what the law is or what you have otherwise agreed to.

TO SUMMARIZE: [this and my previous posts]

1) Under inetrnational law, whether pure or by agreement, Isreal’s posession of lands in only illegal to the extend that:

A) The international community (or those who’ve signed binding agreements with Isreal) are willing to enforce their legal interpretations; AND/OR

B) To the extend Isreal, under it’s own determinations, believes it to be.

2) Again, Lee hit this one on the head. Popularity doesn’t--NOR, as this case aptly demonstrates, SHOULD IT--determine right and wrong. For the Mooreone, however, popularity doesn’t just determine right and wrong, but the basis of reality itself. Even scarier, what we see as idiocy is Moore&Co;. determining who lives and dies on both the national and personal level.

Even if you did commit violence against me, that wouldn’t necessarily justify a violent retaliation on my part if I had any other way of protecting myself.

Hey, I know! Israel should have built a big wall around itself for protection. Oh, wait…

I never seen anything that defines international law solely as that which is enforcible. Some countries had laws against masturbation which were totally unenforcible, because that is something that can easily be done without getting caught. Now unenforcible laws like that tend to be stupid, but does that make one of them any less of a law?

I know that since the UN has no way of enforcing its resolutions, it is different from a state with a police force and military, but the idea that a law must have some kind of physical force behind it to make it valid sounds to me like you’re arguing that might makes right.
This would seem inconsistent with the view that right and wrong are concrete.

Hamas can’t violate the Geneva Convention--since it’s binding only on those that sign it, such an organization can neither VIOLATE its terms, nor can it seek ENFORCEMENT of it either.

That’s not really relevant when arguing the legality of annexing the West Bank. It was annexed from Jordan, not from Hamas. So while you make a point that Isreal’s attacks against members of Hamas likely aren’t under the jurisdiction of the Geneva convention, and other international laws, Isreal’s attacks against Jordan, Egypt and Syria do.

I mean are.

To understand the middle east and some of the world’s dislike for the Jews and Israel is to understand basic post WWII politics.  6 millions Jews died and the ones that lived had no home, no country and no place to go. So the world leaders of that time where ashamed and more importantly guilty of the tragedy and atrocities that happened and acted upon those emotions that thus leading up to current mess in the middle east and the dislike of Israel.

Wow… tooth feels much better today. =]

I never seen anything that defines international law solely as that which is enforcible.

Not to take you out to the woodshed too much, but enforcement is the key to building precedent in any area of law based on the practices of individuals. This is especially true of international law.

For example, I don’t know if you followed the [at the time] 29 member Coalition that toppled the regime in Iraq, but the general consensus was that it was illegal. However, after it was done, and the Coalition dotted some i’s and crossed some t’s, the action has now been generally accepted as a precedent in international law--with the 2/3 of the world disagreeing with it desperately trying to distinguish the action as to prevent reliance on it for a future action.

I hate to go into professor mode on y’all, but the one nugget you need to know to get international law is that it has to be enforced to be valid, because ONLY interpretations enforced by arms become settled practice.

Some countries had laws against masturbation which were totally unenforcible, because that is something that can easily be done without getting caught. Now unenforcible laws like that tend to be stupid, but does that make one of them any less of a law?

This is my fault. I’ve obviously confused the Hell out of you by using analogies to regular law. [In my defense, I was medicated (and the novocaine still hadn’t worn off) and making it simpler seemed like a good idea at the time].

But I’ll answer this anyway as it ties into what I was saying: as a matter of PRACTICE [important word from last post], YES, NON-ENFORCEMENT of a [prohibitory] law makes it effectively null because the prohibited activity is allowed.

This is important because, unlike LAWS ENFORCED BY A STATE, INTERNATIONAL LAW has no central authority to rely on save those who triumph over others. It’s not a very pretty system , which is WHY we have treaty law like the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Charter to soften its harshness. The idea is that if EVERY nation signs up, there can be a central authority [in this case, the U.N.--and I’ve already discussed their effectiveness by their own documents].

I know that since the UN has no way of enforcing its resolutions, it is different from a state with a police force and military, but the idea that a law must have some kind of physical force behind it to make it valid sounds to me like you’re arguing that might makes right.

Well, sorry but you heard wrong. I advise you to read my posts again and try to see them as a whole rather than rehashing what I’ve already discussed twice.

To reiterate though, when examining law, you have to look at the legal universe as it IS, not as it OUGHT when evaluating a situation. What that 2/3 of the world WANTS is different from what IS.

However, while my meds are still “on” and I’m conscious, let’s look at the “law” in the abstract: in reality, NO law is valid without force. I can write laws from my basement and they’d mean squat without an enforcement mechanism. The key to ALL law is whether it can be enforced.

At the nation-state level, the nation-state in question is what keeps enforcement going, even for old or outdated laws. At the international level, if something passes from grace it dies--a good example would be the illegality of targeting civilians in wartime. It used to be part of the strategy: today, treaty bound or not, a nation can be made to answer for Human Rights violations such as that.

This would seem inconsistent with the view that right and wrong are concrete.

Only if I had been arguing that LAW = MORALITY as opposed to merely explaining how Isreal’s possession of the West Bank was not illegal under international law despite 2/3 of the world holding a different standard to it, yeah. Hell, if you look at my last post, you can see making a seperate “moral” [i.e. right] determination about the situation directly refuting the “morality = consensus” argument by Moore&Co;.

[The Hamas Example]’s not really relevant when arguing the legality of annexing the West Bank.

Again, I think you’ve gotten confused--this time between my posts and those of others. The Hamas example was to demonstrate the levels of international law and treaty law and how they operated on non-signatories. What Hamas does or doesn’t do doesn’t mean a hill of beans regarding the legality of the posession of the West Bank by Isreal, regardless of how many Human Rights violations they commit.

the action has now been generally accepted as a precedent in international law

By whom?

OK, LAST one since this post is old and the answer is a quick one and I couldn’t answer before due to the pain meds from my wisdom tooth removal.

ME: For example, I don’t know if you followed the [at the time] 29 member Coalition that toppled the regime in Iraq, but the general consensus was that it was illegal. However, after it was done, and the Coalition dotted some i’s and crossed some t’s, the action has now been generally accepted as a precedent in international law--with the 2/3 of the world disagreeing with it desperately trying to distinguish the action as to prevent reliance on it for a future action.

Resro: By whom?

ANSWER: International Law Scholars and most International Law “lawyers” [technically advocates] admit that the action is a useable precedent for similair future actions.

Sadly, to stay on point, the precedent can be narrowed by the 2/3 of the world disagreeing with it--but that can only be done so if they USE the precedent (again, the role of enforcement looms large).

So why do we support Israel? Is it simply a case of an enemy of our enemy must be our friend. Israelis don’t like Arabs, we don’t like Arabs, means we must like Israelis? Since 9/11 conservatives saw an oportunity to steal some wind out of the Democrats sails in the way of Jewish votes. So now pro Israel stance had become a base board of Republican dogma. Is this the only reason?

Is it because Israel is the only democratic state in the region? Not like you think. For example; they do not vote for there prime minister, they have no constitution and not all citizens have an equal voice. This is not a bad system, it works for them, but it is not the Western Democracy infered when people call Israel a Democratic state.

So what else? They are our only ally in the region? Attacking our Navy, nuclear espionage and end use weapons deals which send US weapons to countries that shouldn’t have them. Truth is they are not that loyal.

How about there take no shit attitude? A Wahington Times article on Drudge today basicaly reads that if the US doesn’t do something about Iran, Israel will. Only if Israel has to do it there will be a big ol mess. So maybe the US should handle it. Has anyone looked into what this would take? There is a little more to it than another Ramon raid like they did over Iraq in 81. Yeah they don’t take no crap from no rack throwin rag heads, but when some one braks out the big guns better call big brother. Maybe there take no shit attitude is a little misplaced.

Or maybe we just love the sense of wellbeing that comes from helping poor Jews. Second only to Iraq at 18.5 billion in ‘04, Israel gets twice the aid alloted to the next two recipients on the list. 2 1/2 billion granted last year, 7 billion in loans, 45 billion of which have been waived to date. This must be the largest welfare state in world history. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. Maybe it has something to do with having the Diary of Anne Frank shoved down my throat every couple years until I graduated high school.

But I guess Israel can do whatever the hell it wants, because if we dare to turn against them, God will smite us. Hard to argue with that logic.