Quote:
|
No, it is not fact. What Palestinians call occupied territory, Israelis call disputed territory. There is no fact. It is only opinion.
|
It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. The occupied territories are legally the land of the Palestinian people. The Israeli occupation of those lands is illegal. That is a matter of fact, repeatedly reiterated by the UN, as well as by the World Court.
FACT: The Israeli occupation of and settlement of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is illegal.
Quote:
|
It is not at all unabmiguous. If it was, it would say "no cluster bombs".
|
The spirit of the law is perfectly unambiguous. It is designed to protect civilians.
a) International law forbids indiscriminate warfare and weapons which are inherently indiscriminate because they cannot be limited to military targets.
b) Cluster munitions are inherently indiscriminate weapons.
You can do the math. A + B = C. It's elementary logic.
If you want to dispute (a), see above. I've already cited relevant international law. If you want to dispute (b), you're welcome to try to explain how cluster munitions aren't inherently indiscriminate.
Quote:
|
Landmines are explicitly outlawed. You have to be signatory to the ban. Neither Israel nor Lebanon are signatories.
|
Nor the US, for that matter.
You must also be a signatory of the Geneva Conventions for them to apply to you, but this doesn't mean that if you haven't signed them, it's okay for you to commit what would otherwise be considered "war crimes".
Take a Biblical example. Cain was never shown the tablets upon which were enscribed the Ten Commandments. Yet it was still a crime for him to murder Able.
It's a matter of "customary international law" and of "common law".
The spirit of both is as unambigious as the commandment "Thou shalt not murder".
Quote:
|
The fact that you actually do bounce around between them at your own convenience makes you a CHERRY PICKER. The fact that you deny it after clearly showing throughout the discussion that you are, makes you an IDIOT.
|
As I've said, I don't "bounce around between" moral and legal standards, but accept them both.
Since you insist otherwise, please quote me where I ever rejected either a moral or a legal standard.
If you can produce such a quote, I'd be happy to acknowledge that you are correct.
If you are unable to produce such a quote, I'd be happy to accept your apology.