+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Congress: There is no legitimate form of Palestinian resistance

Congress uses U.S. trade policy to undercut European pressure against Israeli settlements. A new U.S. bill legitimizes Israeli settlements and delegitimizes Palestinian non-violent resistance to the occupation.

The U.S. Capitol building, Washington, D.C. (Shutterstock.com / Brandon Bourdages)

The U.S. Capitol building, Washington, D.C. (Shutterstock.com / Brandon Bourdages)

The United States Congress is about to pass a law that erases the Green Line and delegitimizes one of the most effective non-violent tools Palestinians have for fighting the 48-year-old Israeli occupation.

The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act legally authorizes the White House to negotiate and sign trade deals. An amendment in that bill now defines Washington’s principal objectives in those negotiations to include the discouragement of boycott, divestment and sanctions moves against Israel, including non-tariff barriers on Israeli goods, services or commerce.

The bill defines such boycott, divestment and sanctions actions as any actions “that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with Israel or persons doing business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories.”

The key term here is, “or in Israeli-controlled territories.” That term is specifically used in Israel to refer the Israeli presence in the West Bank, including the settlements. To put it simply, Congress is saying that as far as it is concerned, there is no difference between Tel Aviv and the West Bank settlement of Kiryat Arba.

Another point of immense importance is the inclusion along with BDS, “politically motivated non-tariff barriers.” Because the amendment specifically applies to trade talks with Europe, that wording should be understood as a response to increased efforts by the EU to ensure that its trade agreements and financial relationships with Israel do not cross the Green Line. That means labeling settlement products, limiting financial cooperation and lending to companies that operate in the settlements and the withdrawal of agricultural inspection certificates for Israeli goods produced in the West Bank.

Now the executive branch of the United States will be mandated “to discourage” such measures, which have become an increasingly central tenet of European foreign and economic policy vis-a-vis Israel. The measures are treated seriously because as a bloc, the EU is Israel’s single largest trading partner.

Settlement construction in Gilo, January 21, 2010. (Photo: Activestills.org)

Construction in the West Bank Israeli settlement of Gilo, January 21, 2010. (Photo: Activestills.org) All Israeli settlements are illegal under international law.

For over a decade the United States has consistently described Israeli settlements in the West Bank as “obstacles to peace,” “unhelpful” and “illegitimate.” In decades past, Washington joined the international consensus that settlements are illegal under international law.

The United States was single-handedly responsible for extracting commitments from late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat to disavow violent resistance to the occupation, essentially forcing his hand toward a non-violent path. Ultimately, that resulted in the appointment of Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas, who is fully committed to a non-violent path toward statehood and independence.

The central tenet of that path has been bilateral peace negotiations with Israel. But over the course of the last 20 years, as the peace process sputtered and eventually fell into a vegetative state, the Palestinian government has expanded its non-violent arsenal. Its most threatening tool is actually a civil society initiative: the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. (More recently it has taken other steps like joining UN bodies and the International Criminal Court.)

Short of group meditation and the power of positive thinking, there is no tactic more quintessentially non-violent than boycott. Furthermore, boycott epitomizes the free-market foundations of America’s economic and political ideology: it is not only non-violent, it is also democratic. Ideally, consumers choose with whom they wish to do business, and in doing so, encourage the adoption of their political beliefs and values.

But even more compelling, the boycott movement is largely credited with bringing down the closest known political system to the Israeli occupation: South Africa’s apartheid regime. BDS has a pretty strong track record for affecting political change.

BDS graffiti on Israeli separation wall, Bethlehem, West Bank, June 17, 2014. (Photo by Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Activestills.org)

Graffiti supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is seen on Israel’s separation wall, Bethlehem, West Bank, June 17, 2014. (Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Activestills.org)

The Israeli government knows how effective boycott, divestment and sanctions could be in forcing it to recalculate its interests vis-a-vis the 48-year-old military occupation. Israeli leaders have understood for decades that the world will no longer accept its occupation and denial of rights to an entire nation of people under its control.

The perpetuation of the peace process bought Israel a 20-year grace period from feeling the international consequences of the now-permanent occupation. But particularly with the re-election of a prime minister who has all but ruled out a two-state solution, most analysts expect the pressure to soon be ratcheted up a few notches, and that will likely come first from Europe.

Two weeks ago the Israeli High Court handed down a symbolic affirmation of efforts to counter the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. However, the court, which was asked to rule on the constitutionality of anti-boycott legislation, largely de-fanged the law and the ability to effectively use it as a counter-measure to boycott efforts.

Now, the United States is picking up where the Israeli Supreme Court left off. Determined and intransigent as its settlement policies may be, Israel has no way of actually stopping the rising tide of economic pressure heading east along the Mediterranean. The United States, however, is the only world power still willing to waste its soft power on sheltering Israel from the inevitable storm.

EU Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, July 11, 2014. (EU Photo)

EU Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini at a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, July 11, 2014. (EU Photo)

Despite its intentions, however, it is not clear exactly to what extent the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act will succeed in influencing U.S.-EU trade agreements, and eventually, EU trade policy with Israel.

What is clear is that American liberal Zionist groups attempting to lobby for a change in U.S. policy vis-a-vis Israel’s occupation are up against something far more powerful than most are willing to admit.

If, as many believe, international pressure is necessary for ending the occupation, it is almost certainly not going to come from Washington. Regardless of what Obama chooses to do — or abstain from doing — in his final two years in office, the United States’ unquestioning support of Israel’s occupation is only becoming more entrenched.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Yeah, Right

      The USA was also the very last nation on Earth to abandon the apartheid regime.

      But it is a mistake to think that these current moves represent the United States’ unquestioning support of Israel’s occupation becoming more entrenched.

      Far from it. It is a representation of over-reach by the Israel Lobby, King Canute-style.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Ginger Eis

      Mr. Michael Omer-Man,
      The “Oslo Accords” is an Bilateral Agreement that constitutes Customary International Law. Pursuant to the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian leadership recognized the State Of Israel and renounced all forms of violence – including “BDS” – to achieve political goals in exchange for (a) acceptance by, most importantly, the State Of Israel and then the International Community and (b) billions of dollars in economic aid. The Oslo Accords made the Palestinian leadership/PLO kosher! By virtue of what the Palestinians themselves signed unto, there can be NO legitimate form of “resistance” that manifests itself in the form of racist and anti-Semitic BDS that is meant to (a) target ordinary Jews, (b) accomplish what the Arabs could not accomplish militarily in 1948, 1967 and 1973 and thereafter, i.e. the demise of the Jewish State and (c) commit another Genocide on the Jewish People. Indeed, the State Of Israel, the United States America, the entire World Jewry and the rest of the civilized world are correct in telling the Palestinians (and their supporters who use them to mask their anti-Semitism) that there can be no legitimate form of “resistance” that targets ordinary Jews and their businesses and/or seeks the demise of the Jewish State. That, Mr. Michael Omer-Man, is what the legislation you are rioting against is all about.

      The only way to resolve the territorial dispute is through the “Negotiation Table”.

      Accordingly, the crux of this article fails.

      Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, Right

        “The “Oslo Accords” is an Bilateral Agreement that constitutes Customary International Law.”

        A bilateral agreement, by definition, can not constitute Customary International Law.

        It may “comply” with Customary International Law.
        It may “reflect” Customary International Law.

        But it can not “constitute” Customary International Law.

        Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, Right

        …”and renounced all forms of violence – including “BDS” – to achieve political goals”…

        And in what way is BDS “violence”, Ginger?

        “The Oslo Accords made the Palestinian leadership/PLO kosher!”

        Only w.r.t. the Government of Israel since – du’oh! – in that same paragraph you admitted that the Oslo Accords are a bilateral agreement between the Government of Israel and the PLO.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          1. It is not in dispute that all States (with the exception of Iran and possibly one or two others) have in practice adopted the Oslo Accords and apply it in their dealings re the Arab-Israeli conflict;

          2. It is equally not in dispute that those States who have in practice adopted the Oslo Accord regard said Accords as binding on the Parties and themselves;

          Accordingly the two constitutive elements for the existence of Customary International law: (a) State Practice and (b) Opinio Juris, are present. The Oslo Accords therefore constitute Customary International law. The mere fact that said Accords started off as a Bilateral Agreement between two Parties does not constitute an impediment to said Accords becoming part of Customary International law. To pompously assume otherwise is sheer demonstration of breathtaking ineptitude!

          (BTW: (a) BDS is “violence” if you know what violence means. Violence is not just knock off someone’s teeth from his mouth. Destroying someone’s business and means of livelihood is violence and I don’t care how you do it. Period! (b) BDS violates the Oslo Accords.)

          Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Sorry. Taking a bazooka to someone’s storefront and destroying their business is violence. Throwing a rock through the store’s window is violence. Conducting a cyberattack on their online storefront is violence. Choosing to boycott their goods offered for sale is NOT violence and saying it is does not make it so. (Breathtaking from someone whose heroes commit unrelenting daily actual violence on Palestinians, but hey they’re just ordinary Arabs, but never mind.)

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “Destroying someone’s business and means of livelihood is violence and I don’t care how you do it.”

            Such an extraordinary statement.

            Ginger, baby, business destroy other businesses all the time. It’s called “competition”.

            So saying “I don’t care how you do it” makes every business that competes in a competitive market into a violent enterprise and, axiomatically, means that nobody is allowed to compete with anyone, lest they take away the “means of livelihood” of those whose business is uncompetitive.

            So, clearly, you are incorrect in your histrionics: businesses don’t always get destroyed via “violence”, and to argue that they do is to argue against the very notion of capitalism.

            And if you allow for BUSINESSES to compete with each other (and, again, that’s something you have to concede) then you must also allow both the GOVERNMENT and the CONSUMER to make up their own mind if they wish to purchase goods or services from any business enterprise.

            That the businesses you don’t want to do business with subsequently go broke is bad news for those businesses, sure, it is.

            But it isn’t *violence*.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            GE: “It is not in dispute that all States (with the exception of Iran and possibly one or two others) have in practice adopted the Oslo Accords and apply it in their dealings re the Arab-Israeli conflict”

            That’s a political process, Ginger.

            Those states aren’t claiming they are under a LEGAL obligation to stick to their current policy position.

            After all, it is enough to point out that following the recent Israeli election the UK, France and (now, however meekly) the USA are all saying that they are reconsidering their position in the light of Netanyahu’s declarations.

            They can’t say that if the Oslo Accords place them under a LEGAL obligation, but they can say that if their current position is nothing but a POLITICAL decision.

            You. Are. Clearly. Wrong.

            GE: “It is equally not in dispute that those States who have in practice adopted the Oslo Accord regard said Accords as binding on the Parties and themselves;”

            See above. Those states clearly regard the Oslo Accords as binding upon Israel and the PLO, but they certainly do not regard those Accords as placing any LEGAL obligations upon their own policy viz. the “peace process”.

            Again, that is axiomatic, since we have seen several examples of those same states saying that *if* Netanyahu’s campaign rhetoric isn’t repudiated *then* those states will reconsider their current positions.

            And, again, this needs to be stressed: if Oslo imposed a LEGAL obligation on those states then they can’t say that. But they can flag that change if their policy position is merely POLITICS, precisely because that can be changed at the drop of a hat.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            I am certain even “yeah right” does not understand the incoherent mumbo jumbo “yeah right” is now spewing here, while deluding himself that he is saying anything meaningful and feeling important in his empty PLO-suit.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            *sigh*

            Another wannabe who thinks that ad-hom is a legitimate form of debate.

            Ginger said that “Destroying someone’s business and means of livelihood is violence and I don’t care how you do it.”

            She is, indisputably, wrong in that statement.

            Businesses drive each other to the wall all the time via competition.
            Governments shut down businesses all the time for violating laws.
            Consumers send businesses broke all the time because they don’t want what is being offered.

            Ginger also said this: “The “Oslo Accords” is an Bilateral Agreement that constitutes Customary International Law”

            The very notion that a Bilateral Agreement is a Customary International Law is, again, utterly and completely nonsensical, and Ginger’s attempt to “justify” her nonsense is equally nonsensical – no government Other Than the PLO and the Government of Israel is LEGALLY obligated to the terms of an agreement between…. the PLO and the Government of Israel.

            If they were to be LEGALLY obligated to that agreement then – du’oh! – their signature would be on the bottom of that agreement which – du’oh! – they are not.

            Now, BigCat, can you actually find something w.r.o.n.g. with that statement, or can’t you?

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Here is what is wrong with your post: it is mumbo jumbo – from A-Z! Ginger’s posts are very clear and supported by legal literature. Ginger told you two things that must be present in order for Customary International law to exist. Those are 1. “state practice” and 2. “opinio juris”. Ginger proceeded to make compelling arguments to support her claim. The first argument is that almost all states on earth have adopted and are practicing the Oslo accords. Right there you have the first requirement – i.e. consistent “state practice” – met. Besides that, the States that have adopted and put in practice the Oslo accords see it as binding, which is why they are upholding it and telling PM Netanyahu to ‘abide by it or else..’. There also you have the second and last requirement – i.e. “opinion juris” – met. The end result is this: Customary International law. The logic is actually very simple. You either understand it or you don’t – and you obviously don’t.

            You on the other hand are all over the map rambling and ranting. When it is pointed out to you that you are wrong, you start jumping up and down repeating yourself and the same mumbo jumbo over and over again in numerous posts, declaring self-victory, patting yourself on the back and congratulating yourself. You are delusional and ignorant, “yeahright”.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            “Ginger said that “Destroying someone’s business and means of livelihood is violence and I don’t care how you do it.” She is, indisputably, wrong in that statement. Businesses drive each other to the wall all the time via competition. Governments shut down businesses all the time for violating laws. Consumers send businesses broke all the time because they don’t want what is being offered.”

            I am certain Ginger was discussing using BDS to destroy the business and livelihood of others. I am also certain no one here was discussing “business competition” among business folks.
            You are really that inane, “yeahright”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Year, Right

            BigCart: “I am certain Ginger was discussing using BDS to destroy the business and livelihood of others”

            Ginger: “Destroying someone’s business and means of livelihood is violence and I don’t care how you do it.”

            And. I. Don’t. Care. How. You. Do. It.

            You are wrong, dude.

            Ginger claims that BDS is “violence”, and the only way she can support that claim is to argue that *any* act that leads to the demise of a business is “violence”.

            Honestly, sunshine, here’s a simple rule of thumb that will serve you well: every time Ginger opens her mouth she spouts nonsense.

            Let me make a guess: you are Ginger’s Mum, posting yet again under a different moniker.

            That’s right, isn’t it?

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            When you impose BDS on someone, you have targeted that person;

            When you destroy the person’s business and livelihood with the imposed BDS, you have done so by means of violence. Violence can be active or passive (as in active and passive aggression). Either way, violence is violence regardless of if it is passive or active or a combination of both.

            When the government closes down a person’s business, it is done either by use of violence or threat of violence. Actual violence or threat of actual violence are both violence. Violence can be legitimate (if authorized by law) or illegitimate. Either way both legitimate and illegitimate violence are violence.
            Lawful business competition among business folks is not violence.

            Ginger’s claim stands. Your idiotic claims fail. She is intellectually superior to you and it bothers you a lot as is manifest your numerous posts (you mention her in almost all of your posts, you seem unable to put her out of your mind and you exhibit a compulsive attitude in your responses to her). learn to deal with that fact.

            FYI. I am not “Ginger’s mum” as you stated, but rather your mum’s lover. Your mum can tell you all about that. Ask her, you delusional moron!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            BC: “Ginger’s posts are very clear and supported by legal literature.”

            Ginger’s argument is a nonsense. It amounts to arguing that because every country in “the West” supports the Oslo Accords then that makes that support into A BINDING LAW.

            It isn’t A BINDING LAW. It’s A POLITICAL POLICY that they all happen to support, and the fact that all the countries in “the West” profess to support the same political policy does not turn A POLITICAL POLICY POSITION into A LEGAL OBLIGATION.

            BC: “Those are 1. “state practice” ”

            *sigh*

            It’s like I’m talking to a child.

            The “state practice” must relate to an act that is governed or regulated by an international law.

            Political support for “two-states” is not governed by any international law, any more than support for “one-man-one-vote” or even “A Greater Israel From The River To The Sea”.

            Every state can hold its own policy position on that, and any state is perfectly at liberty to abandon *todays* support for “two-states” and *tomorrow* embrace “one-man-one-vote”, and if/when they do so they violate no international law.

            Those states – all of them – that are saying that it is a policy of their government to lend their political support to this accord between those two signatories of that bilateral agreement is merely a POLITICAL POLICY POSITION, it is not a “state practice”.

            Now, I understand that you do not understand the difference.
            Sure, I do.

            But what I can’t understand is why you can’t understand that there is indeed a difference between those two.

            Perhaps it would help if you did your own thinking for yourself, rather than letting Ginger do your thinking for you.

            After all, letting Ginger do the thinking is invariably A Bad Idea.

            BC: “and 2. “opinio juris”. ”

            OK, it should be enough to point out that in Ginger-world her (1) and (2) are tautological.

            And, again, I don’t expect you to understand what that means, precisely because I do not believe that you actually comprehend the plain meaning of “opinion juris”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Thanks for your endlessly patient and informative clarifications of international law in this context and your repeated crap detection in that context. This is like watching a patient special ed teacher explain and repeat, explain and repeat, until it becomes apparent to all that his unruly bullying charges are probably only pretending to be that dull. I say “probably.” It’s hard to tell. It’s amusing and illuminating and exposing all at the same time.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Well, well, well, check this out:

            1. “Ginger’s argument is a nonsense. It amounts to arguing that because every country in “the West” supports the Oslo Accords then that makes that support into A BINDING LAW.”

            No, it makes it “state practice” which is the first element of Customary international law, stupid!

            2. “Those states – all of them – that are saying that it is a policy of their government to lend their political support to this accord between those two signatories of that bilateral agreement is merely a POLITICAL POLICY POSITION, it is not a “state practice”.

            You are not exactly the brightest bulb in the box, are you? “State practice” is expressed in “POLITICAL POLICY POSITION”, moron.

            3. Apparently you also have no idea what “opinio juris” means, huh? “Opinio juris”, which is the second element, is “the acceptance of the practice as sufficient to create legal obligations”, idiot. The United States along with other nations have accepted that their Practice as expressed in their – and I quote you – “POLITICAL POLICY POSITION” creates legal obligations. That is the sole reason why they are upholding that Practice and telling PM Netanyahu to ‘do likewise, or else…”!

            “State practice” and “opinio juris” equals “Customary international law – as Ginger brilliantly stated. Google it, stupid, and stop jumping up and down rambling, ranting and repeating the same mumbo jumbo over and over again.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            OK, I’m going to try one more time to point out to BigCat where Ginger’s argument is utterly and completely circular.

            Dude, a Customary International Law comes about when:
            a) all countries “act” in the same way (“state practice”)
            BECAUSE
            b) they all insist that they are under a legal obligation to behave that way (“opinion juris”)

            Let’s leave aside for the moment that Ginger is wrong to claim that all states have the same policy viz. the “peace process” (she mistakes “the West” for “all states”).

            Put that to one side, though I’m happy to come back to that later.

            Where she goes all circular is her ridiculous claim that BECAUSE all the countries of “the West” support the “peace process” THEN that is all the proof she needs “prove” that they are under a legal obligation to have that policy.

            Get it?

            She is using (a) to “prove” that (b) is true, whereas in the non-Ginger-world the truth of both propositions have to be demonstrated in their own right.

            As in……
            1) You have to demonstrate that (a) is true.
            2) You have to demonstrate that (b) is also true, but
            3) You can’t use (a) to prove that (b) is true, and
            4) You can’t use (b) to prove that (a) is true.

            Ginger has to demonstrate that “the West” asserts that they are under a LEGAL obligation to support this farcical “peace process”, she can’t simply wave her hands about and claim that Of Course That Is True, Why Else Would They Support It!

            Now, she simply can’t demonstrate that “the West” asserts that there is a LEGAL obligation to support the “peace process”, precisely because the pronouncements from “the West” are saying quite the opposite:
            The French Foreign Minister is saying that France will reconsider its policy if Netanyahu doesn’t renounce his election rhetoric.
            The British Foreign Minister is saying that the UK will reconsider its policy unless Netanyahu disowns his own words.
            Even Wendy Sherman of the USA is now saying the same.

            They are all clearly flagging that they actually **are** contemplating doing exactly that.

            Those statements mean that their current unanimity is the result of them all having the same POLITICAL goal, not that they all currently believe that they are under a LEGAL obligation to hold the policy position that they currently hold.

            Now, honestly, I can’t make it any more explicit than that: Ginger is talking out of her backside, as she always does.

            That you think that she smells of Roses is a reflection on **your** ignorance.
            Nothing more.
            No less.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            “Dude, a Customary International Law comes about when:
            a) all countries “act” in the same way (“state practice”)
            BECAUSE
            b) they all insist that they are under a legal obligation to behave that way (“opinion juris”)”

            Finally you have started understanding it to a relatively satisfactory extent and supporting Ginger’s argument.

            Above Ginger told you that all countries with the exception of Iran and maybe one or two others have in their practice adopted the Oslo Accords – and I quote you – “act in the same way” re the Middle East Process as embodied in the Oslo Accords (“state practice”);

            She also told you that all of those countries feel that their practice places legal obligations on them, which is why they are upholding it and telling PM Netanyahu to “do likewise or else…”! (“Opinio juris”).

            End result: “customary international law”.

            BTW, the structure of your arguments places “opinio juris” before “state practice”. That’s like putting the cart before the horse and is unsupported by law literature. “State practice” is the first element and if it is absent, you don’t even get to “opinio juris”. Google it under law literature, or start citing your sources, moron!

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            “Dude, a Customary International Law comes about when:
            a) all countries “act” in the same way (“state practice”)
            BECAUSE
            b) they all insist that they are under a legal obligation to behave that way (“opinion juris”)”

            Finally you have started understanding the stuff to a little satisfactory extent and inadvertently supporting Ginger’s argument.

            Above Ginger told you that all countries with the exception of Iran and maybe one or two others have in their Practice adopted the Oslo Accords and – I quote you – “act in the same way” re the Middle East Process as embodied in the Oslo Accords (“state practice”);

            She also told you that all of those countries feel that their practice places legal obligations on them, which is why they are upholding their Practice and telling PM Netanyahu to “do likewise or else…”! (“Opinio juris”).

            End result: “customary international law”.

            By the way, the structure of your arguments places “opinio juris” before “state practice”. That’s putting the cart before the horse and is unsupported by law literature. “State practice” is the first element and if it is absent, you don’t even get to “opinio juris”, moron. Hundreds of online law literature are littered with that information. Google it!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            BC: “Above Ginger told you that all countries with the exception of Iran and maybe one or two others have in their Practice adopted the Oslo Accords”

            Actually, no, that is where all the countries in “the West” have signalled their POLITICAL SUPPORT for the Oslo Accords.

            But “political support” is not a “state practice”.

            BC: “She also told you that all of those countries feel that their practice places legal obligations on them”

            Annnnnnd, that is exactly where Ginger pontificates, since she gives absolutely no evidence to support that proposition.

            BC: ” which is why they are upholding their Practice and telling PM Netanyahu to “do likewise or else…” ”

            Annnnnnd, that is exactly where those countries are signalling that *their* support of the Oslo Accords is a POLITICAL POLICY POSITION that they are taking, it is not a LEGAL OBLIGATION that they feel compelled to take.

            Q: How do we know that?
            A: Because the “or else” that those countries are waving under Bibi’s nose is…. We Will Change Our Policy Position On This Matter.

            You still don’t get it, do you?

            If the “or else” involves them changing *their* policy position in response to Netanyahu’s intransigence then it tells you that *their* position is not driven by a LEGAL OBLIGATION.

            Q: How so?
            A: Because if it were a LEGAL OBLIGATION then they wouldn’t be able to change that policy position.

            But if it were merely “politics” then – du’oh! – of course they can that policy position at any time, and for any reason.

            Honestly, that’s not exactly rocket science.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Rattled and confused, you are still repeating yourself and the same old mumbo jumbo over and over again running in a circle and clogging this thread with the same old mumbo jumbo, moron. How about you start providing the source for your claim that “opinio juris” comes first before “state practice”? knowing which one comes first will go a very looong way to clear-up your confusion, moron. Start from there: providing your legal source or sources. The internet is littered with law literatures on the subject matter. Start googling now, moron!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            “How about you start providing the source for your claim that “opinio juris” comes first before “state practice”? ”

            *sigh*

            There, ladies and gentlemen, is proof that Big Cat has no idea what “opinion juris” means.

            Because it means “doing something because you are legally obliged to do it”.

            Look, it’s time for a recap.

            There is this thing, and it’s called “customary international law”.
            Both Big Cat and I agree that it exists, but we disagree on how it comes about.

            I SAY that a customary international law comes in to existence when:
            a) Every state behaves the same way (“state practice”)
            BECAUSE
            b) All the states believe they are under a legal obligation to behave that way (“opinion juris”)

            BIG CAT SAYS that a customary international law comes into existence when:
            a) all states behave the same way BECAUSE that then creates a legal obligation to always behave in that way.

            I am, very clearly, correct.

            And Big Cat is, very obviously, an ignorant tool who does not know what he is talking about.

            No surprises there: he’s been listening to Ginger.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            “How about you start providing the source for your claim that “opinio juris” comes first before “state practice”? ”

            *sigh*

            There, ladies and gentlemen, is proof that Big Cat has no idea what “opinion juris” means.

            Because it means “doing something because you are legally obliged to do it”.

            Look, it’s time for a recap.

            There is this thing, and it’s called “customary international law”.
            Both Big Cat and I agree that it exists, but we disagree on how it comes about.

            I SAY that a customary international law comes into existence when:
            a) Every state behaves the same way (“state practice”)
            BECAUSE
            b) All the states believe they are under a legal obligation to behave that way (“opinion juris”)

            BIG CAT SAYS that a customary international law comes into existence when:
            a) all states behave the same way BECAUSE the fact that they all behave the same way then creates a legal obligation to always behave in that way.

            I am correct, while Big Cat does not know what he is talking about.

            No surprises there: he’s been listening to Ginger.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Instead of providing your authoritative legal source as requested, you are still jumping up and down running around in an endless circle repeating yourself and the same old mumbo jumbo over and over again, patting yourself on the back, declaring victory and congratulating yourself for nothing other than your complete idiocy. You have to be a complete idiot to think that folks have not figured you out.

            Again:

            How about you start providing the source for your claim that “opinio juris” comes first before “state practice”? knowing which one comes first will go a very looong way to clear-up your confusion, moron, and demonstrate who is right and who is wrong. Start providing your legal source or sources. The internet is littered with law literatures on the subject matter. Start googling now, moron!”

            I will use your own source to destroy you once and for all. Why is providing your source soooooooooooo difficult, moron?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            BC: “How about you start providing the source for your claim that “opinio juris” comes first before “state practice”?”

            Let’s start by pointing out that I do not make that claim.

            What I claim is something quite different i.e. that a Customary Law exists when:
            a) All states behave the same way (“state practice”)
            BECAUSE
            b) those states believe that they are under a legal obligation to behave in that way (“opinion juris”)

            To ask “who came first?” is akin to asking which came first: the chicken, or the egg?

            As for my “sources”…. OK, fine:
            I’ll start with the Statute of the International Court of Justice.

            ICJ: “international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;”

            Got that?

            Customary International Law is “evident” (i.e. it exists) when we can point to “practices” that are “accepted as law”.

            That is not the same as claiming – as Ginger and you so laughably claim – that if we can point to the existence of “practices” then THAT CREATES THE LAW.

            Or perhaps the highest court on Planet Earth not good enough for you?

            Well then, how about a World Famous Jewish Lawyer who not only worked at Bar Ilan University but was also Israel’s Ambassador to the UN?

            Shabtai Rosenne: …”consists of rules of law derived from the consistent conduct of States acting out of the belief that the law required them to act that way. It results from a general and consistent practice of States followed out of a sense of legal obligation, so much so that it becomes custom. Customary international law must be derived from a clear consensus among States as exhibited both by widespread conduct and a discernible sense of obligation.”

            Got that?

            It isn’t just that the practice can be demonstrated to be wide-spread.

            That’s not enough.

            It must also be demonstrated that each states agrees that the reason why they are following that practice is because they are under a legal obligation to follow that practice.

            Annnnnnnd, if that’s not good enough for you then how about the International Committee of the Red Cross, who produced a landmark compendium of Customary International Humanitarian Law?

            ICC: “It is generally agreed that the existence of a rule of customary international law requires the presence of two elements, namely State practice (usus) and a belief that such practice is required, prohibited or allowed, depending on the nature of the rule, as a matter of law (opinio juris sive necessitatis).”

            Generally agreed, indeed.

            After all, it does appear that the only two people on Planet Earth who don’t agree are…… Big Cat and Ginger Eis, both of whom like is Whacky-World.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Yeah Right claimed”: “
            “The “state practice” doesn’t create the “legal obligation” but, rather, it is the “legal obligation” that leads everyone to have the same “state practice”.

            Right there and in his other numerous mumbo jumbos “yeah right” in his confusion consistently places the cart before the horse and was consistently told that law literature proves “yeah right” wrong. “Yeah right” was consistently taught that Customary International law consists of two elements:

            1. “State practice (a)” and 2. “opinio juris/sense of obligation (b)”.

            ”Opinio juris/sense of obligation: (b)” is “derived from” “State Practice: (a)”, not the other way around. But “yeah right” is too dumb to understand that. See Professor Jack L. Goldsmith and Professor Eric A. Posner of The Chicago School Of Law: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/63.Goldsmith-Posner.pdf (start from p.5): “CIL (Customary International law) is typically defined as the collection of international behavioral regularities that nations over time come to view as binding on them as a matter of law.8 This standard definition contain two elements. (…). Courts and scholars say that a longstanding practice among nations “ripens” or “hardens” into a rule of CIL when it becomes accepted by nations as legally binding.10”. Got that, moron? “State Practice (a)” exists first and may or may not eventually create “a sense of obligation/Opinio juris (b)”. “State Practice: (a)” does not require “opinio juris/sense of obligation: (b)” to exist. If “State Practice: (a)” overtime creates “a sense of obligation: (b)” then you have Customary International law. If the “State Practice: (a)” over time does not create “a sense of Obligation: (b), then no Customary International law comes into existence. That is what ALL other legal authorities on International law, incl. Shabtai Rosenne (and his book titled: Handbook on Criminal Justice Responses to Terrorism is not a research on International Public law), are telling “yeah right”, but “yeah right” mixes everything up and gets confused, because he lack a formal education in the issues he assumes to know and rants about. What a delusional moron!

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            1. Yeah Right:
            “The “state practice” doesn’t create the “legal obligation” but, rather, it is the “legal obligation” that leads everyone to have the same “state practice”.

            2. Yeah Right:
            “BC: “How about you start providing the source for your claim that “opinio juris” comes first before “state practice”?”
            Let’s start by pointing out that I do not make that claim.”

            Question:
            3. So, which one is it “Yeah right”? Which is the Cart and which is the Horse? Which one comes first, the Cart or the Horse, delusional moron?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            BC: “was consistently told that law literature proves “yeah right” wrong.”

            Whereupon BigCat’s “proof” that the “law literature” somehow “proves” his point consists of……. a “working paper No.63” from the Law School of the University of Chicago.

            A “working paper” that has the rather give-away label “cil\draftnov4”

            Look at me…. I’m shaking in my boots.

            Oh, no, actually, I’m not.

            My three sources do rather your one “working paper No.63” by the margin of, oh, I’d say something close to Infinity-to-Zero.

            But, please, do try again.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            BC: “Which is the Cart and which is the Horse? Which one comes first, the Cart or the Horse, delusional moron?”

            *sigh*

            I’m going to point out – one more time, yet again – that as far as International Law is concerned BigCat has just asked a question that is as irrelevant as asking whether the egg came before the chicken, or the chicken came before the egg.

            There is this thing, and it is called “state practice”, and it is What States Do.

            There is this thing, and it is called “opinion juris”, and it is What States Believe They Are Legally Obliged To Do.

            And there is this thing called “customary international law”, and it is said to exist when the evidence forces you to conclude that These States Are Carrying Out Those Practices Because They Believe That They Are Legally Obliged To Act That Way.

            Q: Which came first, The State Practice or The Opinio Juris?
            A: The Egg…no, wait, the Chicken. Or was it the egg? Maybe the Chicken?

            I’m saying – and I have always been saying – that the question itself is irrelevant.

            And I have produced as my “sources”
            a) The founding statute of the highest court on the Planet
            b) A landmark treatise by the world’s most authoritative humanitarian group
            c) A famous textbook by an esteemed Professor of Law, widely published and found in any Law Library worthy of the name.

            And not one of them – not a single, solitary one – cares in the slightest about whether the chicken preceded the egg, or vice versa.

            And against those three (remember, an founding statute, an ICC treatise, and a classic textbook on the subject) we find that BigCat triumphantly unveils…. well…. what, exactly?

            Why, heck, he yells “Gotcha!” as the pulls back the curtain on…. a DRAFT copy of a freely-downloadable (and completely un-refereed) University of Chicago Law School WORKING PAPER.

            Please, everyone, stop laughing. That’s just too cruel, even when it is Big Cat.

            I’m sure that Big Cat was pointed to that paper by someone else, and I’m certain that Big Cat wouldn’t know the meaning of a WORKING PAPER if someone rolled it up and hit him over the head with it.

            Dude. Sunshine. A WORKING PAPER is not “authoritative”.

            It certainly isn’t within a million miles of being as authoritative as, well, gosh….
            a) A founding statute of the highest court on the Planet
            b) A landmark treatise by the world’s most foremost humanitarian group
            c) A famous textbook by an esteemed Professor of Law, widely published and found in any Law Library worthy of the name.

            Honestly, this is getting way too easy.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            “I’m saying – and I have always been saying – that the question itself is irrelevant.”

            Oh, the question itself is the most rudimental question in the whole equation. The fact that you don’t know that is very, very telling: you have no formal education in law, moron. Get back to your PLO/Hezbollah organized “legal conferences”. That’s where you belong, idiot.

            Btw: Professor Jack L. Goldsmith and Professor Eric A. Posner of the Chicago School of Law are authoritative sources, moron. In their document, they cited other literatures and Court Ruling. Their writing is corroborated by the ICRC and Prof. Shabtai, whom you unsurprisingly, miserably failed to understand!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            BigCat: “Oh, the question itself is the most rudimental question in the whole equation.”

            No, sunshine, the essential question is this: what makes a “customary law”.

            And the answer is this: what makes a “customary international law” is
            a) the state practice that is well-nigh-universal
            BECAUSE
            b) all the state believe that they are under a legal obligation to “practice this” rather than to “practice that”.

            BG: “Btw: Professor Jack L. Goldsmith and Professor Eric A. Posner of the Chicago School of Law are authoritative sources”

            I’m not questioning their reputation, BigCat, I’m pointing out that a DRAFT version of a WORKING PAPER is…… a work in progress, because that’s precisely what a WORKING PAPER is.

            And, axiomatically, a WORKING PAPER can not possibly be an “authoritative” text.

            Oh, and BTW, you appear not to know the difference between a Professor and a Pope.

            Popes are infallible, Professors are not.

            The pontification of Popes must be accepted without question, but the pontification of Professors is…. well…. Professors, however eminent, can be wrong.

            Goldsmith and Posner are wrong.

            It happens, sunshine. I deal with lots of Professors, and let me tell you a secret: while they may certainly be “learned” they are very, very often “wrong”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            BC: “Their writing is corroborated by the ICRC and Prof. Shabtai, whom you unsurprisingly, miserably failed to understand!”

            Quite extraordinary. Both the ICRC and Shabtai are clearly saying that the existence of the state practice is not – in and of itself – enough for that state practice to be considered a “customary law”.

            There must be a conviction upon the part of the state that the reason why *this* practice is adhered to is because the state believes itself to be under a legal obligation to adopt *this* practice and not *some* *other* practice.

            Neither give even the slightest hint that they believe that the practice itself begat the legal obligation. Not once. Not ever.

            Yet there BigCat, quite adamant that they do claim exactly that.

            Based upon….. well…. nothing, really.

            Shabtai: “It results from a general and consistent practice of States followed out of a sense of legal obligation”

            Nup. Not there.

            ICRC: “namely State practice (usus) and a belief that such practice is required, prohibited or allowed, depending on the nature of the rule, as a matter of law.”

            Nope, not there either.

            Neither is asserting – or even hinting – that it is the practice that begets the legal obligation.

            Be honest with yourself, BigCat, even if you can’t be honest here: do you really think that you have even the faintest idea what you are talking about?

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            “Quite extraordinary. Both the ICRC and Shabtai are clearly saying that the existence of the state practice is not – in and of itself – enough for that state practice to be considered a “customary law”. There must be a conviction upon the part of the state that the reason why *this* practice is adhered to is because the state believes itself to be under a legal obligation to adopt *this* practice and not *some* *other* practice.”

            Finally you have tailored your position well enough to almost match what Ginger and I have been telling you. indeed, “state practice is not – in and of itself – enough for that state practice to be considered a “customary law”. A second element is required i.e. opinio juris, which is dependent on several factors such as that “State practice has to be virtually uniform, extensive and representative. Although some time will normally elapse before there is sufficient practice to satisfy these criteria, no precise amount of time is required. As stated by the International Court of Justice in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases”. This is what Professor Jack L. Goldsmith, Professor Eric A. Posner, Professor Shabtai and the ICRC are all saying. The quote is from ICRC: https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_in_asofcuin

            And exactly that is what Ginger and I have been telling you, moron. You have tailored your position and abandoned your implied claim that Opinio juris precedes State practice. But there is still a problem: you have not tailored your position well enough. You seem to imply that State practice and Opinio juris exist simultaneously, which is not possible, because “some time will normally elapse before there is sufficient practice to satisfy the criteria” (quote from ICRC) for the existence of Customary International law.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            BC: “Finally you have tailored your position well enough to almost match what Ginger and I have been telling you”

            Finally?!?!?!?

            Dude, I said what I have been saying from the very beginning.

            Here, I’ll Say It One More Time:
            A Customary International Law comes about when:
            a) all countries act in the same way (“state practice”)
            BECAUSE
            b) they all insist that they are under a legal obligation to behave that way (“opinion juris”)

            When, exactly, did I “finally” come to that conclusion?

            BC (quotes): “State practice has to be virtually uniform, extensive and representative. Although some time will normally elapse before there is sufficient practice to satisfy these criteria, no precise amount of time is required.”

            Oh, fer’ cryin’ out loud!

            All that quote is telling you is that there must be common agreement that the state practice so widespread as to be well-nigh universal i.e. it is a comment that relates to (a) above, not to (b).

            BC: “And exactly that is what Ginger and I have been telling you, moron.”

            Dude, what you and Ginger have been saying is that the existence of a widespread state practice BEGETS a legal obligation i.e. you are both claiming that the legal obligation is CREATED FROM the state practice.

            The quote of yours above simply does not support that argument, no matter how many times you claim that it does.

            It merely says that the state practice must be well-nigh universal before we accept that we have satisfied the *first* part of the two-part requirement of a “customary international law” i.e. the “state practice part”.

            Honestly, are you really that dense?

            BC: “You have tailored your position and abandoned your implied claim that Opinio juris precedes State practice.”

            I “implied” that, did I? Or is it that you “misunderstood” what I have been telling you from the very beginning?

            Hint: It’s the latter, dude. The latter.

            BC: “You seem to imply that State practice and Opinio juris exist simultaneously,”

            Even a moment’s thought (I know, I know, I’m talking to BigCat) should be enough to make any thinking person (I know, I know) realize that both state practice and opinion juris exist simultaneously, because both involve an iterative process i.e. a state’s “practices” are constantly being reviewed by the state itself, just as a state will constantly review its understanding of what its legal obligations are as an international entity, and all states will constantly look over the shoulder of All The Other States to see what Those Other Dudes are doing and saying on this matter at hand.

            To suggest otherwise leads to manifestly absurd results e.g. in Ginger-world a state will decide upon its “state practices” WITHOUT GIVING ANY CONSIDERATION to its legal obligations (after all, in BigCat-Land those legal obligations don’t exist yet).

            And yet – and how coincidental is this!!!!!! – all those states just happen to simultaneously and independently come to the same conclusion about how they should conduct themselves simply because…. well…. because.

            No reason, it just, you know, happened that way.

            And that sounds plausible to you, does it?

            Apparently you believe in a Year Zero, where every state starts with a blank sheet upon which it scribbles out just how it plans to behave, and then all the states compare their scribbled notes to see where they all Just Happened To Write The Same Things Down, whereupon – viola! – we dun’ did got ‘urselves some o’ them-thar’ New-fangled Legal Obligations.

            BC: “which is not possible, because “some time will normally elapse before there is sufficient practice to satisfy the criteria” (quote from ICRC) for the existence of Customary International law”

            *sigh* You quote something you don’t understand, and then parade your ignorance.

            Repeat after me….. The ICRC is pointing out that:
            The “Criteria” is “the near-universality of the state practice”
            The “Criteria” is not “the legal obligation that BigCat just spun out of thin air”.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            You are digging yourself into even more dipper holes, moron. You just posted a lot of mumbo jumbo up there and we will take them one by one, step by step to deconstruct you – using your own source:

            1. ICRC (“yeah right’s” source)

            “The SECOND requirement for the existence of a rule of customary international law, opinio juris, relates to the need for the practice to be carried out as of right. (…). WHEN there is SUFFICIENTLY DENSE PRACTICE, an opinio juris is generally contained within that practice and, AS A RESULT.” (capitalization is mine) https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_in_asofcuin

            2. “Yeah Right” in his own words:

            “It merely says that the state practice must be well-nigh universal before we accept that we have satisfied the *first* part of the two-part requirement of a “customary international law” i.e. the “state practice part”.

            3. Question:

            Can you explain this to us:

            a. “(…). WHEN there is SUFFICIENTLY DENSE PRACTICE, an opinio juris is generally contained within that practice and, AS A RESULT.”, you delusional moron?

            b. What happens IF ‘there is INSUFFICIENTLY DENSE PRACTICE’?

            Pls. answer only the questions without repeating what you have been repeating over and over again (we know what they are already). When you have answered the question, it will become apparent to you how confused you are, moron.

            Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        Your premise fails, Eis (the premise that a boycott against the settlements is violence). The occupation, however, is a massive form of violence. What is clear is that boycott truly scares you and others precisely because it is non-violent and potentially very effective, and Israel only knows how to handle violence. It is very comfortable with violence. Effective, democratic non-violence makes the hair stand up on the back of the settlement enterprise’s collective neck however. Which is why the IDF ferociously shuts down non-violent protest by any means necessary. If you really are honest with yourself, Eis, you’ll admit that your deeper wish, short of total capitulation by the Palestinians, is that they continue with violent methods. Because once you can’t legitimately call them terrorists, then out come the ridiculous and desperate inventions: “economic terror, diplomatic terror, etc.” And what you are especially scared of is a boycott effort by moderates that politically differentiates itself from the categorically anti-Israel crowd (that’s what I mean by an effort that is “non-violent and effective”). Israel’s refusal, over decades, to utilize “the Negotiation Table” as anything but a deceptive ploy, is the reason moderate people are starting to swing behind the effort to boycott. Now you and I others here will disagree about that refusal (no need to plow that old ground) but increasingly the outside world agrees with me. And boycott is a democratic non-violent collective effort comprising the individual efforts of many persons making free, individual ethical choices.

        P.S.: in the context of the occupation and the results of the democratic popular Israeli election results just returned, please define “ordinary Jews”? And please defend the propositions that (1) boycotts against Israeli goods are a boycott against Jews whereas boycotts against South African goods were not boycotts against Boers or Dutch people and (2) that a boycotter must intrinsically be against Jews and not settlers and their actions on the ground? Thanks.

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          Well, Ben, rest assured that Ginger will deliberately fail to acknowledge the “belligerent” part in the phrase “belligerent occupation”.

          Reply to Comment
    3. Pedro X

      Both Americans and Israelis should be shouting Hoorah.

      Hoorah for AIPAC.

      Hoorah for Congress.

      Hoorah for Netanyahu.

      And Hoorah for Israel.

      Omerman clearly does not understand the import of this bill.

      Reply to Comment
      • Danny

        Let’s see now… Aipac, Congress, Netanyahu and Israel. What’s the common thread between these 4 things?

        Ah, yes. These are perhaps 4 of the most loathsome and corrupt elements who control American Middle East policy. Throw Sheldon Adelson into that mix and you have the Middle East Royal Flush (no pun intended re Adelson). Israel certainly finds itself in very good company being in bed with Congress (the latter being perhaps one of the most despised institutions in America).

        Reply to Comment
    4. If the right to peacefully resist the occupation is denied Palestinians and their supporters, then this will only strengthen the hands of those who favor nonviolent resistance.

      This legislation both squanders U.S. goodwill amnongst Europeans and makes the U.S. a target for sanctions by the European countries. If we try to coerce then in how they run their business then we shouldn’t be surprised if they ban together and return the favor.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        Oh, quit hallucinating – for goodness sake!

        BTW

        1. Almost half of EU-countries does not even support labeling products from Judea & Samaria and certainly no EU-country to date has come out in support of total boycott of Judea & Samaria, let alone the Jewish State. So, who exactly are those “Europeans” you are talking? The poor little racist Robin Messing? Or the coalition made up of (a) Muslim-immigrants to Europe, (b) far-leftists and their political NGO’s and (c) neo-Nazi groups? I doubt that. But hey, keep hallucinating. Hallucination is the ultimate refuge for the empty-minded incapable of elementary logic.

        2. Additionally, “Europeans” can’t even save themselves from Russia (and China) and have constantly needed and depended on the United States to maintain peace within Europe itself. But somehow you think that “Europeans” are in any position to “sanction” the United States? Gee, I am sure hatred of Jews will blind you into sacrificing the last European just to give Israel a black eye (that’s what Hezbollah, Hamas et al do with the Arab populations!). But “Europeans” aren’t that stupid – just so you know.

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          From Barak Ravid: “U.S. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman on Monday warned Jewish leaders that if the new Israeli government does not demonstrate its commitment to the two-state solution, the U.S. will have a difficult time continuing to assist its efforts to halt international initiatives on the Palestinian issue at the United Nations.”

          Understand what that means, Ginger.

          The USA has spent over two decades carefully crafting and nurturing a farce whereby it justifies supporting Israeli war crimes in return for an Israeli kabuki dance about the “two-state solution”, precisely because the USA knows that without that dance the USA is reduced to defending the indefensible.

          And…. Netanyahu is too venal and too lazy to dance that dance.

          He. Just. Can’t. Be. Bothered.

          The flip-side will be, of course, thatthe US Administration will conclude that they can’t be bothered playing their part either.

          Winter is coming, Ginger, and nothing is going to stop it.
          You should start stocking up now, before the rush.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            1. To date, Israel has twice offered a State to the Palestinians;

            2. To date, the Palestinians have twice rejected the State offered to them by Israel;

            3. In the future, Israel will continue offer the Palestinians their own State, because we neither want them nor does our Jewish Values allows us to expel them from Judea and Samaria (if they pose no threat to our physical existence);

            4. The Palestinians are more than free and in fact are most welcomed to accept- or continue to reject the State Israel offers them;

            Accordingly, the entirety of your rants is a perfect example of “much ado about nothing”/seeing a conflict where none exists, because Israel has been offering the Palestinians their own State and will continue to do so. The Community Organizer knows that to be very true.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Yeah, Netanyahu government coalition member Yinon Magal’s rhetoric (see Michael Schaeffer Omer-Man’s article today) will go over really well with Ms. Sherman. Lol!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Be honest for once, Ginger. You and I both know that you are spouting untruths.

            You only difference is that you think people will fail to see that you are lying or, at the very least, will have a vested interest in playing pretendies by agreeing to accept your falsehoods.

            Nobody – least of all the Israel Firsters in the USA – believes that Israel has genuinely offered a viable state Now Or Ever, or that Netanyahu will ever do so in the future.

            They all know that’s simply a lie – a kabuki dance that Israel has been doing for more than two decades now.

            It’s now come to the farcical state where even Netanyahu himself has publically acknowledged the falsity and the utter pointlessness of a “peace process” where Israel is calling all the shots.

            Which only leaves…. you, Ginger. Did you sleep through that recent Israeli election?

            Apparently so, but rest assured that everyone else was jolted wide awake by it.

            It’s not just that “the West” knows that Israel has no intention of allowing a Palestinian state – they’ve always known that, even when they have pretended otherwise – but that they have been shocked to see that the Israelis are no longer willing to even *pretend* that they have that intention.

            Only you, Ginger. Get with the program, luvvie.

            Reply to Comment
      • Hannah G

        And US goodwill is dropping steadily…
        … Boehner: Republicans would lack the votes to overcome an Obama veto on Iran … U.S.: It will be hard to support Israel in UN if it steps back from two-state solution … Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman says U.S. will be ‘watching very closely’ what happens on Palestinian issue once new Israeli government formed …

        Reply to Comment
        • BigCat

          Robbin Messing’s post is about “American good will amongst Europeans”, not ‘American goodwill vis-à-vis Israel’. Read and comprehend what you want to comment on first before actually commenting.

          Reply to Comment
    5. Bruce Gould

      There is no longer any such thing as the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict”, if there ever was; it’s morphed into a conflict between different views of human rights, and any resolution will involve actors outside the borders of Greater Israel. There is no longer any such thing as an isolated nation-state, if there ever was.

      What happens in the U.S. will affect the situation as much or more than what happens in the Knesset.

      Reply to Comment
    6. Average American

      Actually I’m more concerned with what this means for my own country USA, since I really don’t give a shit about Israel, the forked-tongue leaches. I don’t like the concentration of power to the executive branch. I don’t like trade or businesspeople jerked around by political whim. I don’t like military occupation being supported by trade policy.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        What a beast!

        Reply to Comment
    7. Yeah, Right

      BigCat: “Apparently you also have no idea what “opinio juris” means, huh? “Opinio juris”, which is the second element, is “the acceptance of the practice as sufficient to create legal obligations”, idiot. ”

      Oh, please, spare me.

      It is the acceptance by all states that their “state practice” is required by legal obligations.

      Get it?

      No, of course you don’t.

      That All The States All Act The Same Way doesn’t “create” the legal obligation.

      But if All States All Act The Same Way Because They All Believe That They Are Under A Legal Obligation To Act That Way then, heck, what we have here is something upon which we can hang the label “Customary International Law”, precisely because the two necessary elements exist:
      a) Everyone acts the same (“state practice”) because
      b) Everyone claims they are legally obliged to act that way (“opinion juris”).

      You really are that ignorant, are you?

      The “state practice” doesn’t create the “legal obligation” but, rather, it is the “legal obligation” that leads everyone to have the same “state practice”.

      And if everyone does *this* because everyone believes that International Law says that they must all do *this* then – du’oh! – International Law does indeed say that you must do *this* i.e. we have what we call a “Customary International Law”.

      But it is the presupposition that the custom exists that creates and defines the “state practices” and not – as you and Ginger believe – vice versa.

      Reply to Comment
      • BigCat

        Same old, incoherent, scurrilous screed even “yeah right” don’t understand. Rattled and confused you are now swinging blindly and chaotically in all directions repeating yourself and the same old mumbo jumbo over and over again, patting yourself on the back declaring self-victory for nothing other than your complete idiocy. What is the source for all of the garbage you spewed above? Give me that source and I will use it to destroy you once and for all, you delusional moron!

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          Annnnnd, there it is – Big Cat is doing what a hasbarist always does, he reaches for the ad-hom arguments.

          Well done, Big Cat.

          After all, it’s such a novel approach, isn’t it?

          Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Source, moron, source! Give me the authoritative legal source for the mumbo jumbo you spewed above and I will use it to destroy you once and for all. That’s all I asked for. That’s not “hasbara”, you delusional moron!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Big Cat: “Source, moron, source! Give me the authoritative legal source for the mumbo jumbo you spewed above and I will use it to destroy you once and for all.”

            The most laughable thing about that is that the gauntlet is being thrown down by someone who parades Ginger Eis as his legal advisor.

            But, regardless, what underlies Big Cat’s challenge is a demand that I let someone else do my thinking for me – just like he does.

            No, sorry, I’ll do my thinking for myself.

            I have no need to quote any “authoritative legal source” for my contention that
            a) customary international law is said to exist when
            b) all states act in the same way
            BECAUSE
            c) all states believe that they are under a legal obligation to act that way.

            Your job is not to identify how I came by that notion.
            Your job is to demonstrate any errors in either (a), (b), or (c).

            Go to it, sonny.

            And…. good luck, because you’re gonna need it.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Finally you are acknowledging that – despite the hundreds of available sources – you have no single legal source for the mumbo jumbo you have been spewing on this site.

            I rest my case.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Finally you have acknowledged that – despite the hundreds of available sources – you have no single legal source for the mumbo jumbo you have been spewing on this site, moron.

            I rest my case!

            Reply to Comment
        • Ben

          “incoherent, scurrilous screed”

          Well, you know, you gave the game away right there. Whatever else YR is, he is admirably clear and organized and meticulous in his argumentation, which is always laid out step by careful step. He should write a book: “The Occupation for Dummies.” And he is exceedingly patient with the likes of you. Way beyond the call of duty. (And by the way there is no logic to connecting this manufactured complaint of yours, Perfessor GrossKatze, with a need for “sources.” Because they are two separate things: argumentative coherence and source documentaion.)

          Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Another pathetic gibberish from the Brian…eh…”Ben” in an effort to rescue his friend from the jaws of death. It ain’t working, jerk!

            By the way:

            If you are to be taken seriously as an honest person, explain to us why you use multiple identities (i.e. Brian alias “Ben” alias “Michael’s Mind” alias “A Conscientious Objector” alias etc.) on this site. Sometimes you were even posting under at least two of those alias on the same thread! Can you do that for us, Brian?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            You have a blessed day too, sweetheart.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Big Cat: “Another pathetic gibberish from the Brian”
            Big Cat: “in an effort to rescue his friend from the jaws of death”
            Big Cat: ” It ain’t working, jerk!”

            Let me give you a useful tip, Big Cat.

            If you have to insult and denigrate at the same time that you are claiming Ultimate Victory then, so sorry, it’s a dead-set giveaway that you think that the game is slipping away from you.

            Here, one more time:
            A customary international law comes in to existence when:
            a) Every state behaves the same way (“state practice”)
            BECAUSE
            b) All the states believe they are under a legal obligation to behave that way (“opinion juris”)

            Discuss.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ben: “Because they are two separate things: argumentative coherence and source documentation”

            Thank you Ben, that is exactly correct: the argument is either coherent (e.g. mine) or it is incoherent (e.g. BigCat), but that is a completely different thing to the question of Where Did You Come By That Notion?

            After all, there is no need for “source documentation” then what I am trying to explain to Big Cat is “common knowledge”, not to mention “common-sense”.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Finally you are acknowledging that you have no legal source for the mumbo jumbo you have been spewing on this site. I rest my case.

            If you do have a legal source to support you claim, then this sentence stands:

            “Source, moron, source! Give me the authoritative legal source for the mumbo jumbo you spewed above and I will use it to destroy you once and for all. That’s all I asked for. That’s not “hasbara”, you delusional moron!”

            (Brian/“Ben” does not have what it takes to save you from me. You might stop seeking help and emotional comfort from him, because it makes you look even more pathetic).

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Finally you are acknowledging that you have no legal source for the mumbo jumbo you have been spewing on this site. I therefore rest my case.

            If you do have a legal source to support your mumbo jumbo, then this sentence stands:

            “Source, moron, source! Give me the authoritative legal source for the mumbo jumbo you spewed above and I will use it to destroy you once and for all. That’s all I asked for. That’s all you have to do. That’s not “hasbara”, you delusional moron!”

            Why is providing your source soooooooooooo difficult?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Big Cat: “Finally you are acknowledging that you have no legal source for the mumbo jumbo you have been spewing on this site.”

            SOURCE NUMBER ONE: Shabtai Rosenne, Israel Ambassador to the UN and Professor of International Law at Bar Ilan University.

            Shabtai Rosenne: [Customary law] “consists of rules of law derived from the consistent conduct of States acting out of the belief that the law required them to act that way. It results from a general and consistent practice of States followed out of a sense of legal obligation, so much so that it becomes custom. Customary international law must be derived from a clear consensus among States as exhibited both by widespread conduct and a discernible sense of obligation.”

            SOURCE NUMBER TWO: Statute of the International Court Of Justice.

            ICJ: “b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law”

            SOURCE NUMBER THREE: International Committe of the Red Cross, “Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume 1”.

            ICC: “It is generally agreed that the existence of a rule of customary international law requires the presence of two elements, namely State practice (usus) and a belief that such practice is required, prohibited or allowed, depending on the nature of the rule, as a matter of law (opinio juris sive necessitatis).”

            Big Cat: “I therefore rest my case.”

            Nooooo, actually, I think you need to get off your Big Fat Arse, because you have quite some work to do if you want to discredit those sources.

            Again, good luck, because your gonna’ need it.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Well, well, well, moron, check this out:

            “Yeah right” claimed:
            “The “state practice” doesn’t create the “legal obligation” but, rather, it is the “legal obligation” that leads everyone to have the same “state practice”.

            Right there and in his other numerous mumbo jumbos “yeah right” in his confusion consistently places the cart before the horse and was consistently told that law literature proves “yeah right” wrong and consistently taught that Customary International law consists of two elements:

            1. “State practice (a)” and 2. “opinio juris/sense of obligation (b)”.

            ”Opinio juris/sense of obligation: (b)” is “derived from” “State Practice: (a)”, not the other way around, moron. See Professor Jack L. Goldsmith and Professor Eric A. Posner of The Chicago School Of Law: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/63.Goldsmith-Posner.pdf (start from p.5): “CIL (Customary International law) is typically defined as the collection of international behavioral regularities that nations over time come to view as binding on them as a matter of law.8 This standard definition contain two elements. (…). Courts and scholars say that a longstanding practice among nations “ripens” or “hardens” into a rule of CIL when it becomes accepted by nations as legally binding.10”. Got that, moron? “State Practice (a)” exists first and may or may not eventually create “a sense of obligation/Opinio juris (b)”. “State Practice: (a)” does not require “opinio juris/sense of obligation: (b)” to exist. If “State Practice: (a)” overtime creates “a sense of obligation: (b)” then you have Customary International law. If the “State Practice: (a)” over time does not create “a sense of Obligation: (b), then no Customary International law comes into existence. That is what ALL other legal authorities on International law, incl. Shabtai Rosenne (and his book titled: Handbook on Criminal Justice Responses to Terrorism is not a research on International Public law), are saying. That is what we have been trying to ram through your thick skull for two days now. That is what you have been contesting for two days now and are apparently yet to understand. You need to get a formal education on issues you pretend to know and rant about, otherwise you continue making a public fool of yourself, moron.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Yeah Right:
            “The “state practice” doesn’t create the “legal obligation” but, rather, it is the “legal obligation” that leads everyone to have the same “state practice”.

            Yeah Right:
            “BC: “How about you start providing the source for your claim that “opinio juris” comes first before “state practice”?”
            Let’s start by pointing out that I do not make that claim.”

            So, which one is it “Yeah right”? It became quite obvious long ago that you – having no formal legal education in law – are confused and stupidly assume to know and rant about legal stuff you have a fussy understanding of. When caught in your usual idiocy, you either deny your earlier claims completely or tailor them to match the correction of your idiotic claims. It is reoccurring movie we always watch whenever you are involved, moron.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            “So, which one is it “Yeah right”?”

            The two propositions are not mutually excusive, Big Cat.

            That’s what I keep attempting to drum into you: the state practice has to be in accordance with the legal obligation, it is not the CAUSE of that belief that there is a legal obligation.

            You keep insisting that this must mean that I am claiming that the “opinion juris” somehow “comes first”.

            No, it doesn’t. The state forms its opinion of what international law obliges it to do AT THE TIME THAT the state mulls what its “practices” will actually be.

            A state would be utterly reckless not to.

            There is no “before” and there is no “after”, and it is actually the very high of pointlessness to insist on asking the question “which one came first?”.

            Ginger insists that the “state practice” comes first, and then insisting that the practice THEN creates the legal obligation.

            You insist on arguing against a straw man i.e. you insist that I am claiming that the “opino juris” comes first, and that then CREATES the “state practice”.

            But that’s a straw man. That’s not what I am claiming, and it is not something that I have ever claimed.

            Me: “The “state practice” doesn’t create the “legal obligation” but, rather, it is the “legal obligation” that leads everyone to have the same “state practice”.

            Understand what I am saying there, because it has very obviously flown over your head.

            I am not saying that the “opinion juris” comes “first”. I’m saying that IF everyone holds that there is a legal obligation THEN it is obvious that every state will have the same – or at least similar – practices.

            But the reverse is not true i.e. that everyone has the same practice does NOT in any way “prove” that they all adopted that practice BECAUSE they believed they are under a legal obligation to act in that way.

            *sheesh*

            It’s like I’m trying to explain quantum mechanics to a chimp…..

            Zionism: the place where everything – absolutely everything – has to be viewed as a zero-sum game.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            No, they “are mutually exclusive” and your numerous mumbo jumbos show how badly you mixed up the issues and got confused. The Horse is “State Practice”, while the Cart is “sense of legal obligation/Opinio juris”. The Horse comes before the Cart. The Horse is the ‘prime-mover’ and, if sufficient, creates the Cart. If insufficient the Horse will not create the Cart. Without the Cart there still will exist the Horse. Without the Horse there will be no Cart. The Cart “is derived from” the Horse, not the other way around. The Horse and the Cart together make Customary International law, moron. That’s what ALL legal literature say.
            When, you claimed that – and I quote you: “The “state practice” doesn’t create the “legal obligation” but, rather, it is the “legal obligation” that leads everyone to have the same “state practice” – you put the Cart before the Horse.

            When it was pointed out to you that you have no understanding of what you are talking about and that the law literature says that you are wrong, you denied your idiotic claim and exclaimed: “Let’s start by pointing out that I do not make that claim.”! Quite extraordinary, isn’t it?

            Even your latest tailoring of your idiotic claims to match what the law literature says, is incorrect according to law literature and shows how confused you are. Check this out, moron:

            “Opinio Juris Definition:
            Latin: the sense of legal obligation. In international law, acceptance of a practice as sufficient to create legal obligations”. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/O/OpinioJuris.aspx

            Again:
            It is “the practice” that creates “legal obligations/opinio juris” and not the other way around – as you stupidly claimed, you delusional moron.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            BigCat: “The Horse comes before the Cart.”

            I give up. I keep trying to point out to BigCat that we are supposed to be talking about What Makes A Customary International Law, not “who’s on first base, what’s on second, I dunno who’s on third”.

            And instead I keep getting these ignorant rants from BigCat that demonstrate nothing more than that he doesn’t know the meaning of the phrase “opinion juris” and, therefore, wouldn’t know a “customary international law” if it jumped up in front of him and tried to shake his hand.

            He doesn’t get it.
            He will never get it.

            Dude, a customary international law comes into existence when:
            a) all the states have the same “state practice”
            BECAUSE
            b) all the states agree that they are under a legal obligation to “practice this” rather than “practice that”.

            To argue – as you keep arguing – about “what came first, (a) or (b)?” is to argue about an irrelevancy.

            International law simply doesn’t care.

            Not only that, but I’ve “sourced” for him three authoritative texts that clearly show that International Law simply doesn’t care “what came first, (a) or (b)”, and his response was to quote from an un-refereed working paper.

            His second attempt was to quote from a web page a definition:
            “the sense of legal obligation. In international law, acceptance of a practice as sufficient to create legal obligations.”

            Unfortunately for BigCat that definition is actually contradicted from the source upon which that definition is derived:
            “Oppenheim’s elegant definition of opinio juris as state practice under the aegis of conviction that the practice is according to international law, obligatory or right”
            and this:
            “The idea of opinio juris is mysterious because the legal obligation is created by a state’s belief in the existence of the legal obligation.”

            So we can now add the word “aegis” to the growing list of latin phrases that BigCat does not understand.

            Dude, bot of the sources for your latest “gotcha!” are actually agreeing with me, and disagreeing with you, and the funniest thing about that is that you are way, way too dense to even comprehend that point.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Yeah Right: “Ginger insists that the “state practice” comes first, and then insisting that the practice THEN creates the legal obligation”.

            Int. Comm. Of the Red Cross (the source from “yeah right)says:

            “The second requirement for the existence of a rule of customary international law, opinio juris, relates to the need for the practice to be carried out as of right. (…). When there is sufficiently dense practice, an opinio juris is generally contained within that practice and, as a result.” This is exactly what we have been telling you above (re-read the posts again!) https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_in_asofcuin

            Again,
            It is the “State Practice” that gives rise to “legal obligation/opinion juris” which is the SECOND element, moron, not the other way round! “State Practice” is the first element that must be present and, if it meets several conditions, creates “legal obligation/opinion juris”. Obviously you don’t and cant understand. To understand, you would need a formal education in law which you obviously lacks.

            All your sources support Ginger’s claim. Problem is this though: you don’t even understand what your source is saying and you continue jumping up and down, rambling and ranting and repeating yourself and the same mumbo jumbo over and over again, you delusional moron.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Yeah Right: “Ginger insists that the “state practice” comes first, and then insisting that the practice THEN creates the legal obligation”.

            Int. Comm. Of the Red Cross (the source from “yeah right).says:
            “The second requirement for the existence of a rule of customary international law, opinio juris, relates to the need for the practice to be carried out as of right. (…). When there is sufficiently dense practice, an opinio juris is generally contained within that practice and, as a result.” This is exactly what we have been telling you above (re-read the posts again!) https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_in_asofcuin

            Again,
            It is the “State Practice” that gives rise to “legal obligation/opinion juris” which is the SECOND element, moron, not the other way round! “State Practice” is the first element that must be present and, if it meets several conditions, creates “legal obligation/opinion juris”. Obviously you don’t and cant understand. To understand, you would need a formal education in law which you obviously lack.

            All your sources support Ginger’s claim. Problem is this though: you don’t even understand what your source is saying and you continue jumping up and down, rambling and ranting and repeating yourself and the same mumbo jumbo over and over again, you delusional moron.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Are you on the run, “Yeah right”? We are just getting started. Check this out:

            Yeah Right claimed:
            “Those states – all of them – that are saying that it is a policy of their government to lend their political support to this accord between those two signatories of that bilateral agreement is merely a POLITICAL POLICY POSITION, it is not a “state practice”.

            But ICRC (“yeah right”s source) says that “yeah right” is very wrong. Check this out:

            “Both physical and verbal acts of States constitute practice that contributes to the creation of customary international law. (…) Verbal acts include (…) diplomatic protests, opinions of official legal advisers, comments by governments on draft treaties, executive decisions and regulations, pleadings before international tribunals, statements in international organisations and at international conferences and government positions taken with respect to resolutions of international organisations.” https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_in_asofcuin

            Question, “yeah right”:

            (a) Do you still stand by your idiotic claim, or
            (b) Would you like to withdraw your idiotic claim completely, or
            (c) Would you like to tailor that idiotic claim to match what your own source and law literatures are saying?

            What is it gonna be, moron?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            BC: “But ICRC (“yeah right”s source) says that “yeah right” is very wrong. Check this out:”

            *sigh*

            I have seen this hasbarah tactic so many times before, which is why I was so reluctant to get into a dick-fight about My Sources Are Way Better Than Your Sources.

            It is a tactic that goes like this: if the hasbarah hack can force the debate into an argument about minutiae then (hopefully) everyone will lose sight of the Big Picture, and by doing so the hasbarist can hope that everyone will fail to notice that his interpretation of that Big Picture is manifestly absurd.

            Because (and I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve said this) the Big Picture is this: Ginger claimed that the Oslo Accords have now become part of the canon of Customary International Law purely because “everyone” (actually not, it’s “the West”) says that they support those Oslo Accords.

            One more time, yet again, a Customary International Law exists when:
            a) Everyone acts the same way
            BECAUSE
            b) They all agree that they are under a legal obligation to act in that way.

            The question therefore isn’t
            Q: Do all the countries of “the West” currently support the Oslo Accords?

            The real, important, Yes/No question is this:
            Q: Do they all support the Oslo Accords BECAUSE they believe that they are under a legal obligation to support those accords?

            The answer to that latter question is, unquestionably, “No”.

            And the reason why it must be “No” is precisely for the reason that I have always given i.e. the Big Three of “the West” (USA, UK and France) are all now saying that they are contemplating abandoning their commitment to this process.

            QED.

            If their support to the Oslo Accords derived from a LEGAL OBLIGATION to support those accords then they can’t “reconsider” their support for that process, any more than you or I could “reconsider” our legal obligations.

            They’re not called “obligations” for nothing, dude.

            Honestly, this is getting beyond a joke.

            You are wrong. Ginger is wrong.

            You are both arguing something that is manifestly absurd i.e. that “state practices” exist first, and the existence of those then creates the “legal obligation”.

            That is manifestly absurd because the inescapable corollary is that those “state practices” must come into existence in the absence of any “legal obligations”.

            That defies all common-sense to the point of being utterly nonsensical.

            A state doesn’t go into a small room and stare at a blank sheet while it mulls over How It Is Going To Behave.

            The very first question that any responsible state will ask itself is this: what am I legally obliged to do?

            After all, it is axiomatic that a responsible state will wish to behave responsibly i.e. in accord with its legal obligations as an international entity.

            Hmmmm, that’s what a responsible state would do.

            Hmmmm, I think that might explain why a committed Zionist like yourself struggles so much to comprehend these issues……

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            ICRC: ““The second requirement for the existence of a rule of customary international law, opinio juris, relates to the need for the practice to be carried out as of right. (…). When there is sufficiently dense practice, an opinio juris is generally contained within that practice and, as a result.” ”

            BC: “This is exactly what we have been telling you above (re-read the posts again!)”

            OK, we can add the phrase “as of right” to the list of things that BigCat does not understand.

            It means They Are Doing This Because They Believe They Are Under A Legal Obligation To Do It That Way.

            What BigCat has done is a classic logic fallacy called a “converse error”.

            ICRC: “When there is sufficiently dense practice, an opinio juris is generally contained within that practice”

            That is indeed true i.e. if there is a legal obligation then you WOULD expect that all the states would “practice” the same thing, precisely because all the states will have the same recognition of how they are meant to behave.

            That’s obvious, because the alternative would be a farcical situation where all the states know that they are under a legal obligation to do **this**, but instead practice **that**.

            But saying that
            IF there is a legal obligation
            THEN we would expect near-universality of state practice
            is not the same thing as say that
            IF we can demonstrate a well-nigh-universal practice
            THEN we have created a legal obligation.

            That a logical fallacy.

            Here, a simple example so you might understand what I am saying: it is a universal practice that all diplomatic correspondence between the USA and All Other Countries are conducted in the English Language.

            Everyone does that, even America’s bitterest rivals and enemies.

            It is u.n.i.v.e.r.s.a.l. practice.

            Q: But is it a legal obligation?
            A: No.

            Nothing stops France from addressing its diplomatic notes to Washington in French.

            Heck, there is no law – customary or treaty-based – that says that France can’t write out its diplomatic messages in Swahili, and putting the address on envelope in Sanskrit.

            It would be *unwise*, no question, because the Americans would be mighty pissed off.

            But there is no – absolutely no – legal obligation to address the Americans in the English language.

            Yet, undoubtedly, the writing all Foggy-Bottom-Bound correspondence in the English language is a universal “state practice”.

            How odd, heh?

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            If you don’t know what “State practice” is, how are you able to debate the ilk of Ginger, you delusional moron? I We will take one by one, step by step. We will get to all aspects of the points you raised and destroy you using your own source(s). Right now you are clearly dogging and avoiding the questions by hiding behind what you call “hasbara technique” and your usual convoluted mumbo jumbo. I will put the question again to you:

            Yeah Right claimed:
            “Those states – all of them – that are saying that it is a policy of their government to lend their political support to this accord between those two signatories of that bilateral agreement is merely a POLITICAL POLICY POSITION, it is not a “state practice”.

            But ICRC (“yeah right”s source) says that “yeah right” is very wrong. Check this out:

            “Both physical and verbal acts of States constitute practice that contributes to the creation of customary international law. (…) Verbal acts include (…) diplomatic protests, opinions of official legal advisers, comments by governments on draft treaties, executive decisions and regulations, pleadings before international tribunals, statements in international organisations and at international conferences and government positions taken with respect to resolutions of international organisations.” https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_in_asofcuin

            Question, “yeah right”:

            (a) Do you still stand by your idiotic claim, or
            (b) Would you like to withdraw your idiotic claim completely, or
            (c) Would you like to tailor that idiotic claim to match what your own source and law literatures are saying?

            Start from there. What is it gonna be, moron?

            Reply to Comment
    8. dekkers

      “Destroying someone’s business and means of livelihood is violence”. Israel is doing exactly that for decades to the Palestinian people. You could even include land, resources, houses, lives. I wouldn’t like to do business with anyone who supports this madness. There are even illegal settler businesses who label their product “Made in Palestine”. Disgusting! So if nobody likes the product, the business goes bankrupt. The sooner the better!

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        Arabs and Jews are in a conflict in which the Jewish State has fought for her survival even before she was born. The war of 1948 was a war of annihilation against the Jewish People by the Arabs. In this conflict both Arabs and Jews have inflicted unbearable pain to one another as happens in all armed conflict-situations where two or more parties are involved – regardless of their nationality, ethnicity or race. If and when the Arabs lay down their arms, there will be peace. If the Jewish State lays down her arms, there will be no more Israel and you have another Genocide. The violence and the destruction of lives and means of livelihood is thus mutual in the instant case.

        Good people make good efforts to resolve the problem by peaceful means. They do not single out one party (the Jewish State) for constant blame and punishment, while willfully blind to the atrocities of the other party to the conflict (the Arabs).

        Hateful and envious anti-Semites fantasize about the economic collapse of the Jewish State and employ, inter alia, “BDS” to achieve that goal, while masquerading as “human rights” activist, pretending to care about “human rights”, but yet NOT involved in other conflict-situations around the world where the scale of human suffering makes the situation in Judea & Samaria look like a children’s picnic! You are one of these hateful people and your rants are wholly and utterly inconsequential.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ben

          1. “If and when the Arabs lay down their arms, there will be peace.”

          Sorry, this won’t wash. Abu Mazen not only has laid down arms he has taken up arms to defend Israelis and done it very well but gets no credit.

          2. “Good people make good efforts to resolve the problem by peaceful means. They do not single out one party (the Jewish State) for constant blame and punishment, while willfully blind to the atrocities of the other party to the conflict (the Arabs).”

          Good people make good efforts to resolve the problem by peaceful means. They do not single out one party (the Arabs) for constant blame and punishment, while willfully blind to the atrocities of the other party to the conflict (Israel).

          3. “Hateful and envious anti-Semites fantasize”

          With equal justification one could call the your fantasy

          4. “the situation in Judea & Samaria look like a children’s picnic!”

          Typical disdain for Arab versus Jewish suffering

          Reply to Comment
    9. Click here to load previous comments