This issue is too big for "lawyers" . Lawyers basically nitpick the minutae , for BOTH sides.
When it comes to countries at war you look at the bigger picture and the moral values.
Like I said a Jewish Lawyer is hardly gonna come to any other conclusion is he ?
Also there is no counter lawyer arguing the other side in that article - like a normal lawyer would have to contend with in court.
Its getting harder to find articles on world opinion of Israel pre the current situation , but here's one from an INDENDANT unbiased organisation , exactly refuting what your lawyer has published in what is clearly a pre israel echo chamber media.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/01/chapter-3-israeli-settlements-and-international-law/
SUSTAINED INTERNATIONAL CONDEMNATION
Most states and international bodies have long recognized that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. The European Union (EU) has clearly stated that: “settlement building anywhere in the occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under international law, constitutes an obstacle to peace and threatens to make a two-state solution impossible.”
The settlements have been condemned as illegal in many UN Security Council and other UN resolutions. As early as 1980, UN Security Council Resolution 465 called on Israel “to dismantle the existing settlements and, in particular, to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.” The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention have reaffirmed that settlements violate international humanitarian law. The illegality of the settlements was recently reaffirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 2334, passed inDecember 2016, which reiterates the Security Council’s call on Israel to cease all settlement activities in the OPT. The serious human rights violations that stem from Israeli settlements have also been repeatedly raised and condemned by international bodies and experts.
reply
share
RustyShacklefurd (2039)
a year ago
Really? This issue is "too big" for lawyers? Who the hell do you think writes international law in the first place? This issue is certainly not too big for Eugene Kontorovich. I remind you that we're talking about international law and neither the "bigger picture" nor "moral values" are necessary indicators of international law.
Your absurdly prejudicial ad hominem attack on Kontorovich for being Jewish doesn't prove anything. What does the fact that there are Jews on the other side of this issue who claim that the settlements are illegal then prove? Complaining about the fact that he's Jewish is NOT in any way a refutation of his legal arguments.
Complaining that there isn't another lawyer in the same article arguing the other way doesn't prove anything either. That's the nature of articles written by a single person. It might interest you to know (which you don't because you haven't read the article) that this piece was actually a response to another article in Tablet Magazine arguing the opposite.
I don't know what the hell an "indendant" organization actually is but Amnesty International is certainly biased. You should already know this because I explained it to you a month ago. In 2013 the Amnesty International Secretary General falsely accused Israel of murdering Yasser Arafat. Last year the Amnesty International USA director said the organization is opposed to the very existence of Israel.
The Amnesty article does NOT actually refute Kontorovich's argument. It doesn't actually address any of his arguments and clearly wasn't intended to do so since it's 4 years older than his article. In fact, Kontorovich's article actually refutes the argument made by the Amnesty article. Kontorovich explains why Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention does not actually prohibit the settlements.
The last 2 paragraphs you copy-pasted from the Amnesty article don't prove anything. It's just a bunch of quotes from declarations from international bodies repeating the claim that the settlements are illegal. All it really amounts to are a bandwagon argument and an appeal to authority.
Kontorovich's article explains in detail how all these international bodies are actually wrong about the law on this. He explains that the legal interpretations made to declare the settlements illegal were all specifically crafted to deal exclusively with Israeli settlements. To prove that the Israeli settlements are really illegal you would first have to show that comparable conduct by other countries has also been declared illegal but that's literally NEVER been done. Please read the article to properly inform yourself about this issue.
reply
share
moviechatterer (16326)
a year ago
I have neither the time nor the inclination to dig into ambulance chasing scumbag lawyer excuses for Israel's behavior over the last 5 decades.
big International non profit organisations
THE UN
THE EU
amnesty
WHO
they are a million times more credible than a jewish Isralei lawyer trying to excuse Israels behavior.
reply
share
RustyShacklefurd (2039)
a year ago
You're being completely ridiculous. The article is a measly 16 paragraphs. You could read the entire thing in less time than it took you to type all your posts in this thread. Eugene Kontorovich is no "ambulance chaser". As far as I know he's never even worked as a trial lawyer. Your talk about Israel's "behavior" makes it sound like you don't actually care about the relevance of international law to the settlements. It sounds like you're just making your own personal judgment about Israel. It sounds like you know I'm right about this issue and you just don't want to admit it.
None of the international bodies you point to have more credibility on this issue than Kontorovich. You're still just making appeals to authority. You can't actually explain to me what makes any of them right rather than Kontorovich. All of these international bodies have their own agendas and biases. I already explained to you why Amnesty International is completely biased against Israel. Whatever credibility WHO may have once had was destroyed when it helped China cover up the start of Covid. In order to appease China, WHO has also denied membership to Taiwan.
The UN is the most biased of them all. It includes North Korea, China and Russia. China and Russia are both permanent members of the UN Security Council. How the hell does an international body that allows China and Russia to be permanent members of its Security Council have any credibility? The UN is nothing more than the sum of the biases of all its members, who all have their own political agendas. The same holds true for the EU.
reply
share