Skip to main content

View Diary: Ask Senators For Balance In MidEast "Dear Colleague" Letter (Updated) (235 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The court of justice was wrong (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    livosh1, oldskooldem

    First of all, its decision is counter to the UN partition plan. Second, Israel did not participate in the proceedings.  The ICJ made a political decision with no basis in law, kind of the like the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore...or is it your claim that if a court decides a case, then the court is always right?

    In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

    by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 07:42:29 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  can you hear yourself? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      capelza, corvo

      is it your claim that if a court decides a case, then the court is always right?

      by your standards israel cannot just decide that all of jerusalen belongs to them. there is no precedence in international law that allows for this just as there is no precedence that israelis can take over large swaths of land in the WB. except in the bible.

      •  Sweetheart, I'm a lawyer (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        livosh1, Karmafish

        So I know that (1) courts are often wrong, and (2) a case that is tried without one of the parties present is not truly adversarial, and therefore does not meet the standards of adjudication that are the foundation of a court system.  The ICJ was a kangaroo court, and everyone knew it. At least Bush v. Gore was contested, and it was still a political decision.

        In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

        by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 10:19:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  so who decided all of jerusalem (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          capelza, corvo

          belonged to israel? israel?

          a case that is tried without one of the parties present is not truly adversarial, and therefore does not meet the standards of adjudication that are the foundation of a court system.

          again

          by your standards israel cannot just decide that all of jerusalen belongs to them.

          was the 'other party' present when israel decided it was no longer negotiating wrt jerusalem? i'd say it was not truly adversarial and therefore does not meet the standards of adjudication that are the foundation of a court system. or are you asserting there needs no body of law to recognize this development and israel can unilaterally decide what is or is not by facts on the ground and the world community just has to shove it.

          btw, the sweetheart lingo does nothing for your argument.

          •  Now you're just talking gibberish (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            livosh1

            Come back when you have even a glimmer of understanding.

            In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

            by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 12:34:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  like shootin fish n a barrel using your own words (0+ / 0-)

              you don't like it when you have to abide by your own standards do you?

              gibberish my ass, you just got cornered.

              go ahead take the last word. i'm done trouncing you, AGAIN.

              •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Karmafish

                You really are delusional, as well as hateful.  You can hold an apple in one hand, and orange in another, and think you are holding onto a bicycle.  You have no clue what the adults are talking about here. Why don't you go back to your little Code Pink friends, and let the grownups continue without you.

                In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:51:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  I thought Israel submitted a written... (0+ / 0-)

          ...brief contesting the court's jurisdiction?

          In any event, the real power, as we all know, is at the Security Council.  That's where the the resolution was vetoed by the US.  But the General Assembly petitioned the court for the advisory opinion.  That doesn't strike me as any less legitimate per se as certifying legal questions for a state supreme court.  

          The GA has done it before in the past.  I read the decision a bit ago and I'll have to revisit it.  It might make a nice diary topic somewhere down the line.

          In any event, I don't think an advisory opinion is per se illegitimate.  This was more of an Andrew Jackson moment for the US than anything else: Let them enforce it.  

          What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.

          by Alec82 on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 06:16:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Like I say, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      callmecassandra

      people can go with the international legal consensus as expressed by numerous UN resolutions and the highest judicial organ of the United Nations, or they can go with the, uh, 'analysis' of an overtly partisan lawyer from Berkeley.

      Tough call.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site