kyleb said:
I didn't expect it would be a point of contention...
You can't be serious.
...but I hope everyone here can abide the definition as explained in the dictionary.com entry I cited above.
Unlikely - it is a very weak and simplistic definition, which you yourself have already wavered from, using "flagrantly contravene international law" in another post...
You left out my "on the basis of international law" qualifier, which Israel's "two-state" terms consistently fall short of.
"On the basis of international law" isn't part of the dictionary definition... So you'll need to explain what you mean by "international law" and show how they "flagrantly contravene" it. Also, I'm sure you must know that the idea of "international law" is pretty loose.
I agree on the first part, but am at a loss as to how one could reasonably figure the latter. Any chance you'd explain the basis for your position here?
Sure. On the point you've already raised, the two-state solution, Israel is more willing to consider it than her neighbors. Arafat's statement aside, Israel's neighbors have been pretty consistent in
not recognizing Israel's right to exist. And talk is great, but actions are better: Israel has taken the action of ceding territory it won in a defensive war, without a promise of cessation of hostilities from the enemy in that war! Absurd, but it shows a commitment to peace that Israel's enemies have never come anywhere close to matching.
Second, Israel's neighbors consistently purposely target civilians (in short, it's that pesky terrorism thing - yeah, it really exists). Israel does not. And don't pull out the body count ratio argument: it's nonsense. It fails to recognize the reality of the tactical situation and the
intent of the actions being taken by both sides.
They flagrantly contravene international law by ignoring the rights of the refugees and by refusing Palestinians' right to sovereignty over various portions of the West Bank. This is evidenced by Israel's votes against the UNGA's Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine resolution, Israel having done so every year for decades.
So you are claiming a
reslution is a binding international
law? Really? Could you explain how that works, please? From the wiki definition: "In a house of a legislature, the term non-binding resolution refers to
measures that do not become laws." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_(law )
The beautiful thing - for Israel's enemies - about UN General Assembly resolutions is that all countries, rogue or not, stand on equal footing in the eyes of the UN and as a result, there have been a number of rediculously biased resolutions passed by it, including the one you linked.
If they were actually laws and
if they were actually legitimate, they'd be pretty damning. But they aren't either.
That the rogue states of the world can gang up on Israel (or anyone else) - that the inmates can take over the asylum - is the biggest flaw in the UN and will probably eventually be its downfall.
I don't see how one could rightly consider a state's conduct disrespectful if they do show regard for international law, so the messure is the same to me.
See: North Korea. Very little of what they have done could really be considered true violations of international law. What makes them rogue is more their
attitude, and that's what "respect" implies to me in that definition you first posted. But if violating international law was what you really meant, you should have explained it instead of posting the simplistic definition that just said "respect".
