Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Reply to thread

Message

Well, its right there in your article -- what is the point of lending or withholding recognition in the face of de facto sovereignty? Wouldn't a kuwaiti legal claim be moot in this case? Unless the the international community, through the un security council (which is the same as its most powerful member, the us) deems it proper to evict the iraqi invaders, as what indeed happened, legal claims are pointless, no?

As for palestine, the legal claims of the palestinian arabs is based on the political realities of the ottoman empire. The jews' claim goes as far back as the establishment of the jewish monarchy.

All these claims are irrelevant to de facto ownership -- the state of israel owns the land it exercises sovereign power over. That goes for the occupied territories as well. The argument can be made that the continued occupation of the golan heights, gaza and the west bank are necessary for israel's defense.

What do you suppose is the weight of some legal point made in an international court against the very survival of israel itself, hmmm?

<blockquote data-quote="numinus" data-source="post: 138603" data-attributes="member: 537">Well, its right there in your article -- what is the point of lending or withholding recognition in the face of de facto sovereignty? Wouldn&#039;t a kuwaiti legal claim be moot in this case? Unless the the international community, through the un security council (which is the same as its most powerful member, the us) deems it proper to evict the iraqi invaders, as what indeed happened, legal claims are pointless, no?As for palestine, the legal claims of the palestinian arabs is based on the political realities of the ottoman empire. The jews&#039; claim goes as far back as the establishment of the jewish monarchy.All these claims are irrelevant to de facto ownership -- the state of israel owns the land it exercises sovereign power over. That goes for the occupied territories as well. The argument can be made that the continued occupation of the golan heights, gaza and the west bank are necessary for israel&#039;s defense. What do you suppose is the weight of some legal point made in an international court against the very survival of israel itself, hmmm?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="numinus, post: 138603, member: 537"] Well, its right there in your article -- what is the point of lending or withholding recognition in the face of de facto sovereignty? Wouldn't a kuwaiti legal claim be moot in this case? Unless the the international community, through the un security council (which is the same as its most powerful member, the us) deems it proper to evict the iraqi invaders, as what indeed happened, legal claims are pointless, no? As for palestine, the legal claims of the palestinian arabs is based on the political realities of the ottoman empire. The jews' claim goes as far back as the establishment of the jewish monarchy. All these claims are irrelevant to de facto ownership -- [B][U]the state of israel owns the land it exercises sovereign power over[/U][/B]. That goes for the occupied territories as well. The argument can be made that the continued occupation of the golan heights, gaza and the west bank are necessary for israel's defense. What do you suppose is the weight of some legal point made in an international court against the very survival of israel itself, hmmm? [/QUOTE]

Verification