Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

muriel_volestrangler

(103,644 posts)
11. And what has that to do with the 1952 paper?
Sat Jul 20, 2024, 10:53 AM
Jul 2024

Was that just a random selection from your bookmarks to make it look like there was a historical case?

Yes, Sebutinde dissented. One judge out of 15, who belongs to an evangelical sect that sees Israel as God-decreed owner of the area.

If the settlements are illegal, then saying that all settlers should leave is not "biased against Israel"; it's the fair result of the settlements being illegal. International law says occupations should not be permanent, and since the occupation has gone one over half a century, and produced the illegal settlements (and is trying to build more), it's being administered illegally.

Now, pragmatism may end up giving the illegal settlers something - that's politics - but wanting international legal principles to be followed is not "unserious". You say "Arab maximalist position" as if that automatically makes something bad. But that cannot be right, because that would be biased against Arabs.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Top UN court says Israel'...»Reply #11