Trump trashes internatioinal law

I Love America said:
I talk like someone who dislikes all muslimes and thing the Jews should be given free reign to clean out the arab filth from their land. Only then will there be lasting peace
Click to expand...

So you're a self -confessed ethnic cleansing fan looking for some fascist pals to hang out with. That's know as a 'loser ' in polite society.
 
Northwestman said:
That is your opinion. What "court" has convicted them? Show me that.

You probably think Bush committed war crimes to.
Click to expand...

Lol I knew it, that is why we aren't continuing this conversation, The international court was just fine when it was convicting Nazi's, but for some reason now it isn't a legitimate court.
 
goon2012 said:
So you're a self -confessed ethnic cleansing fan looking for some fascist pals to hang out with. That's know as a 'loser ' in polite society.
Click to expand...

13124547_10153675983077689_3524267840379970034_n.jpg


:dealwithit:
 
Rana said:
Lol I knew it, that is why we aren't continuing this conversation, The international court was just fine when it was convicting Nazi's, but for some reason now it isn't a legitimate court.
Click to expand...

RUN RANA, RUN

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
 
There are many murderers who have been ' forced to kill ' their victims. You've just publicized another one, Polly.
 
Rana said:
I don't see any use in debating people who don't recognize the international court about the international laws of which Israel has been accused of breaking and I believe found guilty of some of them.
Click to expand...

Translation:
I can't provide anything other then a blog site and therefore I need to run and hide now; before Grind and Damo point out my hypocrisy, again.
/translation
 
Rana said:
Lol I knew it, that is why we aren't continuing this conversation, The international court was just fine when it was convicting Nazi's, but for some reason now it isn't a legitimate court.
Click to expand...

Once again, you fail to read what I wrote. I even told you which international law I found acceptable and you wuss out with this nonsense.

I never once said ICC was not a legitimate court.
 
moon2012 said:
It's not 'opinion ' at all- it's fact. The Israeli occupation itself is illegal as is its transfer of populations. Are you considering denying that Israel transfers populations in contravention to the Conventions to which it is signatory ?



A court will decide that if he can be brought before one.
Click to expand...

So a court will decide for Bush, but you have decided against Israel when no court has done so.

Don't you think that is contradictory?
 
Rana said:
I don't see any use in debating people who don't recognize the international court about the international laws of which Israel has been accused of breaking and I believe found guilty of some of them.
Click to expand...

They don't even recognize the words ' international court ', let alone their processes. The evolutionary division is quite evident in the likes of Polly and Pooper.
 
Rana said:
Did I say that, or did I say UN Resolutions? It looks to me like I said, UN Resolutions.
Click to expand...

Maybe you ought to actually start reading those UN Resolutions especially 242.



Withdrawal from Territories

The most controversial clause in Resolution 242 is the call for the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." This is linked to the second unambiguous clause calling for "termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and the recognition that "every State in the area" has the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
​


borders.gif



The resolution does not make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisite for Arab action. Moreover, it does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from "all the" territories occupied after the Six-Day war. This was quite deliberate. The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant "that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands." The Arab states pushed for the word "all" to be included, but this was rejected. They nevertheless asserted that they would read the resolution as if it included the word "all." The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, Lord Caradon, declared after the vote: "It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear."

This literal interpretation was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those involved in drafting the resolution. On October 29, 1969, for example, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories." When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."

Similarly, Amb. Goldberg explained: "The notable omissions-which were not accidental-in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'....the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal."

The resolutions clearly call on the Arab states to make peace with Israel. The principal condition is that Israel withdraw from "territories occupied" in 1967, which means that Israel must withdraw from some, all, or none of the territories still occupied. Since Israel withdrew from 91% of the territories when it gave up the Sinai, it has already partially, if not wholly, fulfilled its obligation under 242.
Click to expand...

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/meaning_of_242.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top