+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

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

Israel’s High Court chooses occupation over international law

In at least two major decisions, Israel’s top court has shown it is prepared to uphold grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention amounting to war crimes, and to give its implicit endorsement to unlawful discrimination.

By Gerard Horton

Sitting as the High Court of Justice, Israel’s Supreme Court has heard thousands of petitions submitted on behalf of Palestinians living under military occupation since 1967. This gives rise to an unusual situation whereby the highest civilian court in Israel permits individuals, who could be considered as enemy aliens, to submit petitions challenging the actions of Israel’s military in occupied territory.

Some use this as evidence to argue that adequate domestic remedies are available to Palestinians, which in turn creates the impression that no international judicial scrutiny or intervention is warranted. The strength of this argument needs to be assessed with reference to  a number of the Court’s decisions.

Israel's Supreme Court sits as the High Court of Justice, April 1, 2014. (Photo by Oren Ziv/Activestills)

Israel’s Supreme Court sits as the High Court of Justice, April 1, 2014. (Photo by Oren Ziv/Activestills)

In 2010, the Court was petitioned in the case of Yesh Din v Minister of Defense on behalf of Palestinian prisoners from the West Bank who were transferred and detained inside Israel. The transfer and detention of Palestinian prisoners outside the West Bank is permitted under Israeli law (Regulation 6 of the Emergency Regulations) but prohibited under international law (Articles 49 and 76 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).

In upholding an earlier decision (the Sejadia case), the Court held that where primary Israeli legislation and international law directly contradict each other, domestic Israeli law prevails, making the transfer lawful. However, basic international legal principles establish that no state may invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty obligation (Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties reflecting customary law). Accordingly, provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention prevail over Israeli domestic law where the two are in conflict, making the transfer and detention of prisoners outside the West Bank illegal. Be that as it may, approximately 90 percent of Palestinian prisoners continue to be transferred and detained inside Israel.

In 2014, the Court was petitioned in the case of the Ministry of Palestinian Prisoners v Minister of Defense on, inter alia, the legality of applying different time periods within which a suspect in the West Bank must be brought before a judge, depending on whether he or she is Palestinian or an Israeli living in a settlement. The current Israeli legal regime operating in the West Bank applies military law to Palestinians and civilian law, with far greater rights and protections, to Israeli settlers.

Accordingly, the legal basis underpinning the petition was that no state is entitled to discriminate between those over whom it exercises penal jurisdiction based on race or nationality. In largely dismissing the appeal, the Court held that the differences in the laws applied to Palestinians and Israeli settlers were “fair and proportional” in the circumstances, in effect giving the Court’s imprimatur to a situation amounting to unlawful discrimination.

While it is true that Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation can access the Israeli civilian judicial system in certain circumstances, this is no guarantee that an effective remedy will be available in accordance with international law. On the contrary, as the two decisions referred to above illustrate, the Court is quite prepared to uphold grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention amounting to war crimes (in the case of transfer and detention inside Israel) and to give its implicit endorsement to unlawful discrimination based on race or nationality.

It should also be noted that although Arabic is an official language of the State of Israel, these decisions are only officially available in Hebrew, making them inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of Palestinians.

Gerard Horton is a lawyer and co-founder of Military Court Watch. Gerard has worked on the issue of children prosecuted in the Israeli military courts for the past seven years and is the author of a number of leading reports on the subject.

Related:
Israel’s High Court legalizes segregated communities
How Israel increases its odds of international prosecution
Israel’s new Supreme Court: Liberalism don’t live here anymore

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. Richard

      Lawyers spin webs of bullshit for a living when they aren’t even personally motivated. When one gets obsessed with Jews, the webs start to look like the ones spiders make after they’re given meth or PCP. “War crimes” when Palestinians can petition Israel’s high court? Someone here is lost inside a maze of semantics.

      Reply to Comment
      • Richard Lightbown

        I don’t get your drift Richard. Please explain how the original act cannot be a war crime simply because the person convicted (by a military court) can petition the Israeli High Court of Justice.

        Reply to Comment
        • Richard

          Lightbrown – My point is pragmatic. Humanitarian law was created to protect people from, genocide, mustard gas, mass civilian reprisal massacres and the like. Arguing that the Court’s behavior here is a “war crime” is absurd and very much against the spirit of the law. The conventions have been used against Israel so aggressively for so long using such tenuous arguments, that this pattern has trivialized what humanitarian law was supposed to be in the first place – a way to protect civilians from being intentionally massacred and tortured on a large scale. If you start passing out $10,000 tickets for turning without a signal, people aren’t going to respect the traffic police anymore and traffic law would become a joke. Same thing here.

          Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        Richard’s post is the very dictionary definition of an ad-hom argument.

        Richard makes attempt to address this articles observation that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties says that a domestic law can not be used to justify a state’s violation of an international law.

        Which, of course, makes a mockery of the Israel High Court of Justice’s ruling that Israeli domestic law overrides international law’s prohibition on the incarceration of the occupied inside the territory of the occupying power.

        Now, Richard, do you agree with the author on that score?

        And if you don’t then…. care to point me to the footnote in the Vienna Convention that says “Does not apply to the state of Israel”?

        Reply to Comment
        • Richard

          My comment described the substance of the argument as confused and the accusation of “warm crime” as absurd. That’s not ad hominem. You’re wrong, you don’t know how to use a dictionary, and sound like an adolescent and an imbecile so I won’t respond to you again.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Richard: “My comment described the substance of the argument as confused and the accusation of “warm crime” as absurd.”

            No, you did not address in any way the “substance of the argument”, you merely dismissed it as not worth addressing because the author is “obsessed with Jews”.

            Richard: “That’s not ad hominem.”

            Yes, it is.

            And, I’ll note this again because this never gets old: Richard STILL hasn’t addressed the substance of the article.

            Which is, once more, yet again, that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties says that a state can not use domestic legislation to override its commitments under international law.

            Now, Richard, is that “substance” in error? And if it is, then where?

            Reply to Comment
    2. Josh

      “Lawyers spin webs of bullshit for a living”
      They have that in common with hasbara clowns. And Bibi…

      Reply to Comment
      • Richard

        Josh – I speak for myself, I am not part of any Hasbara. The fact that you don’t understand that its anti-Semitic to accuse a total stranger of being part of a Jewish propaganda effort funded by the Israeli government shows that you should probably never comment here again to spare yourself embarrassment.

        Reply to Comment
    3. J.J.

      Goes to show: you can be a “lawyer” and still remain a complete moron who opens his big mouth when he should keep it shut. Israel has every right to remove terrorist suspects from the occupied territory under several provisions of the 4th Geneva Conventions pertaining to security. Somehow, this kind so-called lawyer always seems to miss these crucial articles. Also, since “Gerard has worked on the issue of children prosecuted in the Israeli military courts”, showing thereby a commendable concern for the fate of children, how many reports has he written on the large-scale abuses of children by Hamas, who violates every rule of every convention on the protection of children by drafting them into combat units well below the legal age recognized by every civilized country? No time for that, I assume? Only time to pounce on Israel, leaving the far worse violations committed by Hamas and Fatah unquestioned? That is what I call one useless lawyer.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Yeah, right

      Richard: …”its anti-Semitic to accuse a total stranger of being part of a Jewish propaganda effort funded by the Israeli government”…

      Ahem.

      That hasbarah is an ISRAELI propaganda effort is beyond dispute. Certainly ISRAEL doesn’t pretend otherwise.

      So I’m going to have to blow the whistle on Richard here, because he has just claimed that hasbarah is a “JEWISH propaganda effort”m when Israel admits that hasbarah is an “ISRAELI propaganda effort”.

      So Richard is clearly guilty of an anti-Semitic slur.

      Reply to Comment
      • Richard

        So you don’t think Israeli Jews are Jews? I feel sad for you know. Please don’t comment again I don’t respond.

        Reply to Comment
    5. Matt

      The author is lying.

      “The transfer and detention of Palestinian prisoners outside the West Bank is permitted under Israeli law (Regulation 6 of the Emergency Regulations) but prohibited under international law (Articles 49 and 76 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).”

      Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the transfer and detention of “protected persons.” Palestinian prisoners are not protected persons.

      Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        I see. Just because Israel SAYS they’re “not protected.” Hilarious. Abracadabra!

        Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        Matt: “Palestinian prisoners are not protected persons.”

        Geneva Convention IV: “Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.”

        Palestinians are, therefore, “protected persons” under the definition of GCIV.

        Now, do they lose that status because the occupying power convicts them of a crime?

        Geneva Convention IV: “Protected persons accused of offences shall be detained in the occupied country, and if convicted they shall serve their sentences therein.”

        So being convicted of a crime does not make someone an “unprotected person”, so I’ll have to say that Matt is blowing smoke from somewhere that the sun don’t shine.

        After all, a moment’s thought will tell you that Matt’s claim is manifestly absurd i.e. in Matt-World Israel has the ability to strip any Palestinian of any protection merely by dragging them before a Kangaroo Court.

        Reply to Comment
    6. CigarButNoNice

      Any law that obstruct the Jewish people’s unlimited inhabitation of their land, the Land of Israel, is illegitimate and should be declared null and void. International law is nothing but international busybodyism, a pretext for anti-Zionists to poke their insolent noses into the Jewish nation’s sovereign affair.

      National rights trump international law. All Arab in the Land of Israel are settler-colonists and should be forcibly expelled from the Jewish indigenous territory, the Land of Israel, no matter what international law says. End the illegal Arab occupation of Jewish land! No justice, no peace!

      Reply to Comment
      • Bruce Gould

        Some people may have difficulty understanding the logic here. Permit me to translate: God is a real estate agent who practices redlining.

        Reply to Comment
        • CigarButNoNice

          You can predicate Jewish national rights upon Holy Writ if you so wish, though the case is ironclad even from the secular point of view as indigenous people’s rights (the Jews are the indigenous of the Land of Israel; Arabs are indigenous to the Arabian Peninsula and settlers elsewhere).

          As for redlining, if you call the national right to demographic exclusivity on one’s own land an apartheid policy, then you might as well call familial exclusivity of one’s home the same. You’re going to invite a host of needy people to live as permanent residents in your home as in post-revolutionary Dr Zhivago, right, right? If not, then that’s racism and apartheid, baby!

          In addition, I have yet to see on 972Mag, on the part of either staff or left-wing posters, a condemnation of statements of Seri Nusseibeh and Mahmoud Abbas that their future Arab settler state in the Land of Israel would not allow any Jews as residents. You talk about redlining and apartheid? If that’s not an example then I don’t know what is. But nary a peep from the Western Left about it.

          Reply to Comment
      • andrew r

        National rights trump international law.

        Well, it’s nice how you support the Third Reich’s effort to expel its Jewish minority. The shoe-on-the-other-foot test is really lost on you shitheads, isn’t it.

        Reply to Comment
        • CigarButNoNice

          Stop pretending to love Jews, you who support the Islamic Fourth Reich’s war against the Jewish State every day with your anti-Zionist rhetoric.

          Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Translation: Our failing the shoe on the other foot test is quire alright with us. Anti-Jewish fascism is evil. Pro-Jewish fascism is holy, a good thing. It all depends on what side you are on. Any criticism of Israel is done by evil people.

            Reply to Comment
    7. Yeah, right

      Richard: “So you don’t think Israeli Jews are Jews?”

      Actually, I think what I think, and I say what I say.

      And what I said was that “Israel” is not “the Jews”, nor is “the Jews” a synonym of “Israel”.

      Richard: “I feel sad for you know.”

      Well, at least I know the difference between “now” and “know”, just as I know the difference between “Israel” and “Jews”.

      But you? No, you, not so much…

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        So yeah right

        Your obsession with what we supposedly do wrong is truly touching but I on the other hand am obsessed with what the Palestinian Arabs do wrong.

        Here is my suggestion. You fix up the Palestinian Arab war criminals and I might be willing to discuss what if anything WE do wrong.

        In the meanwhile, it is a stalemate. So long as you ignore THEM I will ignore US.

        And let’s not stop there. Let’s look for war criminals everywhere. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Serbia (you know – the bombing of Serbia by NATO), Russia, Georgia, China, Sri Lanka, Iran …

        Did I leave anyone out? I am sure I have. And you have too Mr Whatshisface because you are not the least bit interested in international law. You are interested in using LAWFARE to knock Israel. You are using law as a form of warfare to reach your political goals. It’s called LAWFARE. And people who practice LAWFARE are not qualified to preach about law.

        As for the rest of the world? Nothing is happening. Notice that? Why do you think it is so? May I humbly suggest that because sober people see it MY way NOT YOUR way. Please accept my solemn sympathy for your frustration. Better you be sorry than me …

        Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          The dead giveaway is that the one Bibi and you vilify the most and most work to delegitimize is the leader who has clearly foresworn violence. This is telling. People here at +972 are interested in finding solutions. You are interested in avoiding solutions. Like Ya’alon. That’s the simple truth. All else is a footnote.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Abbas names streets after war criminals. He calls them martyrs and he insists that Israel must release them from jail for him to “negotiate”. Then he still does not negotiate. Your Abbas revealed himself for what he is long ago. But you still stubbornly refuse to see him for what he is. Let’s be kind and call it your wishful thinking.

            Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, right

          Gustav: “Your obsession with what we supposedly do wrong”….

          And I can point out where Gustav goes wrong.

          Indeed, goes wrong in a way that invalidates the rest of his incoherently self-serving and ultimately meaningless screed.

          It’s where he uses the word “supposedly”, precisely because that word does not belong in that sentence.

          Read the article again, dude.

          Israel is the occupying power, and this occupying power is incarcerating prisoners inside its own territory.

          That’s nothing “supposed” about that being a grave violation of international humanitarian law.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I told you dude.

            I believe in laws, international laws too if they are consistently applied. Otherwise I am just not interested even in talking about it especially if you insist you only want to talk about what we do or don’t do.

            I said supposedly because Law is a serious thing. That’s why we have both persecution and defense attorneys. To look at both the pros and the cons of each case. Then there is a sentence by the judge. Till then whether you like it or not, Mr Whatshisface, everything is just an allegation a “supposedly” if you like …

            Domestic laws work reasonably, not perfectly, in democratic countries. You know why? Because by and large, laws are applied consistently without fear or favor. If it were not so, people would not respect the law and there would be anarchy.

            That is exactly the situation with international laws today. They are not applied without fear or favor. Nor are they applied consistently. That’s why there is anarchy and that is why I have no respect for international laws. And people like you who try to apply laws in a one sided way contribute to the problem because as I said, it is obvious that you have no respect for international laws. You believe only in LAWFARE.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Oops I meant prosecution not persecution. Now I probably gave some clowns an excuse to trivialise my point. Oh well, that’s life. Do your worst, fellas …

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            The impoverishment and/or dishonesty of this argument is nicely exposed by considering the risible absurdity of this sentence:
            “Israeli law (civil, criminal and military) with respect to Jews and Arabs, in Israel and in the occupied territories is dispensed without fear or favor.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yea like the laws which Hamas dispenses, right Brian?

            They arbitrarily label ordinary Palestinians who protest their policies as traitors and collaborators then summarily execute them in the streets and drag their bodies behind motor cycles.

            Who is calling for the Hamas criminals to be tried for crimes against humanity? I certainly did not hear your shrill voice demanding justice for those hapless ordinary Palestinians.

            Yes, I know Brian, you are too busy supporting lawfare against Israelis instead.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Yet again, your evasive non-answer simply tells me you have no answer.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            LOL.

            Talking about non answers. Your above comment declares unilateral victory while you have not answered even one of my points which was a response to your one sided accusations.

            You should consider a change of career Brian. Maybe stand up comedy?

            Nah … on second thought, don’t. They will egg you off the stage.

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            “Yea like the laws which Hamas dispenses, right Brian?”

            Yea like the laws Hamas dispenses while under belligerent Israeli military occupation, hasbara-monkey.

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            “I told you dude.

            I believe in laws, international laws too if they are consistently applied…”

            I told you, hasbara-asshole.

            You believe in shitting and whacking off for Israel, hasbara-monkey.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “I told you, hasbara-asshole.

            You believe in shitting and whacking off for Israel, hasbara-monkey.”

            Oh dear. Poopsie forgot to take his medications again. He had a melt-down and blew a gasket.

            Medic!!!!! …. LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            “Oh dear. Poopsie forgot to take his medications again. He had a melt-down and blew a gasket.

            Medic!!!!! …. LOL.”

            Oh dear. Princess poopie-pants the hasbara-monkey whacking off and taking a dump again. She had a melt-down and shat her panties.

            Depend!!!!! …. LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Depend?

            Now poopsie has switched to speaking in tongues.

            Reply to Comment
    8. Gustav

      The practice of LAWFARE is like:

      – administering the law selectively.

      – a bit like looking to arrest only bank robbers who are under 150cms tall. Everyone else is immune from arrest after they rob banks.

      – allowing some drivers to commit road rage but if the attacked party responds to being attacked then he is automatically deemed guilty.

      – letting of the ruling elite from any scrutiny no matter what they do but if one is under 150cm tall then constantly accuse them and require them to prove their innocence.

      Get the picture, Mr Whatshisface?

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Just for the record:

        Mr Whatshisface = Mr Yeah, Right.

        Reply to Comment
      • MuslimJew

        The practice of HASBARAFARE is like:

        – administering the law selectively.

        – a bit like looking to arrest only bank robbers who are under 150cms tall. Everyone else is immune from arrest after they rob banks.

        – allowing some drivers to commit road rage but if the attacked party responds to being attacked then he is automatically deemed guilty.

        – letting of the ruling elite from any scrutiny no matter what they do but if one is under 150cm tall then constantly accuse them and require them to prove their innocence.

        (fixed it for you, hasbara-monkey.)

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          What about the practice of the Ummah?

          At best, Muslims sit on top of the food chain and below them sit the Dhimis who pay Jazyah:

          “Jaziyah is the protection tax that non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state have to pay to the Islamic government for their safety and wellbeing.”

          Or at worst, the non Muslims get their heads separated from their shoulders by the “holy warriors” of Islam. Which is what they do in Iraq and Syria as well as other parts of the Muslim world from time to time.

          But if they can’t get their way, they fly airplanes into twin towers. Or blow up piza parlors. Or blow up the underground with lots of people inside. Or blow up night clubs with lots of European holiday makers inside.

          Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            “What about the practice of the Ummah?”

            What about the practice of the hasbara-monkey?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            What about the practice of Teqiyah monkey? You monkey?

            Reply to Comment
    9. Yeah, right

      Gustav: “Otherwise I am just not interested even in talking about it”….

      There does appear to be a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

      Gustav: “Now I probably gave some clowns an excuse to trivialise my point.”

      No, you are doing just fine on your very own.

      So, please, do carry on with Not Talking About It in that incessant and trivial manner of yours.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        “Gustav: “Otherwise I am just not interested even in talking about it”….

        Whatshisface:”There does appear to be a mountain of evidence to the contrary.”

        You mean you have a problem with me putting your mountain of nonsense into perspective? OK, not my problem …

        Gustav: “Now I probably gave some clowns an excuse to trivialise my point.”

        Whatshisface:”No, you are doing just fine on your very own.”

        Yep, like I predicted. You could not resist being a clown. Enjoy …

        Whatshisface:”So, please, do carry on with Not Talking About It in that incessant and trivial manner of yours.”

        I said I wanted to talk about the war crimes of Palestinian Arabs. Any problems with that?

        Here, feast your eyes on this:

        http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4706/gazan-hamas-war-crimes

        And this too:

        “It was known in Gaza as “Operation Strangling the Necks,” but the 38 Palestinian men and women accused of collaborating with Israel during the recent fighting were actually gunned down on the street after being bound, blindfolded and forced to kneel.”

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, right

          Gustav: “You mean you have a problem with me putting your mountain of nonsense into perspective?”

          No, I mean that it’s damn amusing that you can’t stop talking about something that you say you don’t want to talk about.

          Gustav: “OK, not my problem …”

          Lucky you, but you appear to have plenty of other problems.

          Like…. not being about to follow a logical train of thought.

          Like…. not coping very well with English comprehension.

          You know, stuff like that….

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            If you say so, Whatshisface. But if you go back to my first post you’ll find that while you are obsessed with what Israel supposedly does wrong, I am interested in the war crimes of Arabs.

            So, you see? It is YOU who seem to have comprehension problems, you sad little clown.

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            hasbara-monkey, October 17: “Your obsession with what we supposedly do wrong is truly touching but I on the other hand am obsessed with what the Palestinian Arabs do wrong.”

            hasbara-monkey, October 18: “If you say so, Whatshisface. But if you go back to my first post you’ll find that while you are obsessed with what Israel supposedly does wrong, I am interested in the war crimes of Arabs.

            So, you see? It is YOU who seem to have comprehension problems, you sad little clown.”

            Do some more tricks for us, hasbara-monkey, before your master has you put down.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Do some more tricks for us, hasbara-monkey, before your master has you put down.”

            Oh goodie, Poopsie is back. He is here to demonstrate how Arabs hate Jews as well as the type of mindlessness that they use to justify their hatred of everyone who is non Arab and non Muslim.

            He is not here to present a coherent case. He is here to spew hatred and to dumb down the discussion.

            Then again I like him more than the likes of Whatshisface or Brian because this twit is at least not pretending to be clever. He knows he isn’t and he is proud to display his stupidity.

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            “Oh goodie, Poopsie is back.…”

            Oh goodie, the mock-Hebrew hasbara-monkey with the comprehension problems has gone and shat himself again. He is here to demonstrate the base stupidity of Zionist Jews as well as the type of mindlessness that they use to “justify” their hatred of anything and everyone who won’t whore themselves out in service of the apartheid state of Israel.

            He is not here to present a coherent case, or for a “debate”. He is here to whack-off and to shit out mindless hasbara in order to dumb down the discussion.

            Then again I like him more than the likes of JohnW or Kiwi because this twit is at least not pretending to be clever. He knows he isn’t and he is proud to display his stupidity.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            “Then again I like him more than the likes of JohnW or Kiwi”

            What? You like Gustav more than you like me? I am devastated. Go stick your head in the oven.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            No, Kiwi.

            Be nice to poopsie. If he tops himself, then what will we do without the entertainment that he provides?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustv: “I am interested in the war crimes of Arabs.”

            Which just goes to show that this article (you know, the topic of discussion) has flown way over your head.

            The author points out that int’l law does not allow a state to evade its responsibilities by “overriding” it with domestic legislation, even though the Israel High Court of Justice claims that Knesset legislation can do exactly that.

            That’s the topic.

            So my argumentative little friend is doing nothing more than attempting to Change The Subject every time he insists that all he wants to talk about are “the war crimes of Arabs”

            Sooooooo, why is that irrelevant to this topic?

            It is irrelevant because the IHCJ does not base any part of its decisions upon any reference to “What Arabs Do”.

            So Gustav has just spent several days and dozens of posts wasting everyone’s time by constantly pointing Over There! Over There!

            And he does that even though there is nothing going on in that direction that has any relevance to this article.

            So it beats me why he is even posting here.

            After all, if all he wants to do is to talk about Topics Of His Own Choosing then he should start his own blog site.

            Go for it, little man. You won’t be missed.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            The war crimes of Arabs are VERY relevant to this article. You know why, Mr Whatshisface? Because they don’t only committ them against each other but they committ them against us too.

            So if there is no law enforcement against THEM. Then I for one am against enforcement against us. Kinda you know … Mr Whatshisface … kinda quid pro quo. Or haven’t you heard of that concept?

            Well then let me give you an example again. If someone has a road rage against you and bashes you over the head with a baseball bat then attacks your kids too and you have the ability to stop him, you will stop him whatever it takes. Especially if you know that the laws of the land won’t protect you because you are less than 150cm tall. Then you won’t care about the law because you know that the law is not implemented to protect people like you. In such circumstances you will take the law into your own hands.

            Unless of course you are stupid in which case you will wait for the road rager to kill you and your kids. But we are not like that Mr Whatshisface. Get used to it …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “The war crimes of Arabs are VERY relevant to this article.”

            No, actually, it isn’t, and here’s why: The Israel High Court of Justice gave exactly Z.E.R.O. consideration to that argument when it was making its judgement.

            Z.E.R.O. consideration.

            Your “point” is therefore utterly pointless since – du’oh! – it isn’t about the “topic under discussion”.

            Gustav: “So if there is no law enforcement against THEM.”

            *sigh*

            Again: the Israel High Court of Justice gave exactly Z.E.R.O. consideration to that argument, so advancing that argument is irrelevant to any discussion of the fundamental error of law made by the IHCJ when it claimed (incorrectly) that a domestic law can override a commitment made under int’l treaty law.

            Get This Through Your Skull: the topic is the topic is the topic, and so any attempt by you to argue about Something Else Entirely is nothing more than an exercise in pointlessness.

            *sheesh*

            That isn’t a difficult concept to master, so why are you having such difficulty comprehending it?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Well then let me give you an example again”….

            No, actually, I’m going to stop you right there and give you an example that is actually r.e.l.e.v.a.n.t.

            You are a student, and your teacher sets you this essay topic: “Discuss the recent Israeli court ruling that a domestic law can be used to evade the provisions of an international treaty”.

            And for your essay you scribble out a long screed entitled “Don’t You Just Hate It When The Arabs Get Away With Murder”.

            Q: What mark would you get?
            A: 0/10

            Q: Why?
            A: Because that’s not the topic.

            Honestly, I can’t make that point any simpler, and anyone with a brain cell should be able to comprehend it.

            So, what’s your excuse for your inability to comprehend it?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Poor old Mr Whatshisface. You are trying sooooooo hard to persuade. But you are clueless about what I am saying or more likely you willfully ignore it. But considering that you try to belittle what I am saying, it seems to be worrying you. Otherwise you would not be trying sooooooo hard to negate what I say.

            So listen my clueless (or willfull) friend. What I say, has nothing to do with students in high school. It also has nothing to do with the Israeli high court. Instead, it has everything to do with my attitude to international law. And more importantly, it has everything to do with the attitudes of most people in the Middle East about international laws. And you know what? Not just us in the Middle East ignore international laws but even NATO forces do. And certainly China and Russia do too. And Sri Lanka and virtually everyone else ignores it except when they need to point the finger at their adversaries (for the purpose of LAWFARE). Or the side which they don’t like. For example, the author of this article who insists that the Israeli High court ignores international laws.

            Well, whoopie dooooo Mr Whatshisface, even if true, which it may or may not be, because there has been no proper ruling to verify such a claim, but even if true, who cares? Who cares since everyone else only implements international laws at best selectively as it suits them. Or at worst not at all. So the only people who rant, yelp and rave about international laws, do so because they believe in lawfare in order to advance their agenda. Like the author of this article who has an anti Israel agenda.

            Soooo Mr whatshisface, that’s why I comment on this article. To point that fact out to anyone who is not biased. You of course are not one of those. That’s why you are trying so desparately to silence me. But you can’t and you won’t silence me unless you manage to convince the powers to be on this site to ban me. Otherwise you have two choices. Either put up more convincing counter arguments than me (others can judge). Or ignore me. Either way, i won’t stay silent. Kapish?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “But you are clueless about what I am saying”….

            *sigh*

            I know exactly what you are trying to say.

            It is this: let’s not talk about the topic of this article, let’s all talk about Gustav’s favourite stalking-horse instead.

            Gustav: …”or more likely you willfully ignore it.”

            *sigh*

            I am addressing it in exactly the matter befitting it i.e. I am pointing out that you are attempting to divert attention onto your favourite stalking-horse.

            That’s exactly the limit of how much I am willing to engage you on Your Chosen Topic i.e. I point out to you that Your Chosen Topic is not the topic of this article.

            If you want to talk about How You Hate It That The Arabs Get Away With Murder then go and start your own blog, there to bloviate incessantly on that topic.

            Heck, for all I know (or care) it might become a big hit amongst your like-minded racist friends.

            But when the topic is a recent Israel High Court decision then the talkback posts should be about…. the recent Israel High Court decision.

            You, obviously, don’t agree.

            Big deal.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “It also has nothing to do with the Israeli high court.”

            Annnnnd, there you have it.

            My egocentric little friend has just admitted that all his posts have nothing whatsoever to do with this article.

            Dude, if you want to bloviate about Something Else Entirely then feel free but, please, go and do so in your own blog.

            Because all you are doing in **this** talkback thread is attempting to hijack it.

            Which is Hasbarah 101, I know, I know, but it is still nothing more – nor less – than an attempt to hijack a talkback because you don’t actually have anything constructive to contribute to it.

            Here, make yourself useful: the Israel High Court insists that Israeli domestic law trumps int’l treaty law, whereas the Vienna Convention says that the Learned Judges have just blown smoke out their nether regions.

            In your opinion who is correct, and why?

            Reply to Comment
    10. Gustav

      nsttnocontentcomment

      Reply to Comment
    11. Gustav

      No problems whatshisface.

      You successfully persuaded the powers to be not to publish my post.

      I will leave you with this thought though. Look at the topic on this thread. It includes the words:

      “INTERNATIONAL LAW”

      And i commented on the irrelevance of International lwas because everyone ignores them. Not the least, your racist Arab friends.

      Ponder that one while I’ll stop posting on this site unless they change their policy about censoring my posts.

      Reply to Comment
    12. Gustav

      This article in it’s title refers to “INTERNATIONAL LAWS”.

      As such, if I discuss International laws as they stand I am on topic.

      Get it, Mr Whatshisface? Good!

      Don’t get it Mr Whatshisface? Too bad. Shove it up your jumper!

      Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        Sooooo very boorish.

        The IHCJ says that Knesset legislation can override an int’l treaty, whereas the Vienna Convention says that a state can not claim the primacy of its own domestic legislation to evade its treaty commitments.

        Both can not be right, one of them must be wrong.

        Who do *you* think is in error: this Israeli court, or that international convention?

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          I am not interested in what you are trying to peddle, Whatshisface. Just as much as you are not interested in what I am saying.

          I am more interested about the current state of hypocrisy about International laws and how people like you abuse it by using it as lawfare rather than agitating to fix up a broken system.

          I’ll say it again. Attempts to only selectively apply International laws is Hypocrisy. Get it Mr Whatshisface?

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “I am not interested in what you are trying to peddle,”

            And Good For You.

            But I need to remind you (how many times now?) that what I am talking about happens to be the Topic Of This Article.

            So if you don’t want to talk about This Article then I have to question why you are posting in a talkback thread devoted to…. This Article.

            You know, the article that you don’t want to talk about.

            Gustav: “I am more interested about the current state of hypocrisy about International laws”

            And Good For You.

            That would make a splendid blog article for you to peddle in your own blog site.

            But this isn’t your blog site, and you certainly aren’t the author of this article.

            The author is Gerard Horton, and he is talking about the recent judgements of the Israel High Court of Justice.

            Which – du’oh! – is a topic that is quite different to your stalking-horse, so be a good chap and go stalk that nag somewhere else, Gustav.

            But not here, because this is an article about Something Else Entirely.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: The ant (Israel’s high court decision which allegedly contradicts international law) in the room is not the main mess in the room, there is an elephant (International law is broken) in the room which causes a bigger mess.

            WHATSHISFACE: You don’t know what you are talking about Gustav. The ant is the definite problem. We just cannot ignore it.

            GUSTAV: But Mr Whatshisface, what is the point in worrying about the ant when we have an elephant in the room?

            WHATSHISFACE: You are out of order. The topic is the ant. If you want to talk about elephants you need to talk to another pen pusher in another department.

            GUSTAV: I am not interested in talking to anyone else. There is no point in worrying about an ant causing a mess in a room while an elephant itself is causing enough of a problem and it’s droppings make things even more unpleasant.

            WHATSHISFACE: You are just trying to distract me from that dastardly ant. Stop pointing your fingers at other things.

            GUSTAV: No, I am just saying that if we are really serious about the mess, then we better get rid of the elephant first, then worry about the ant.

            WHATSHISFACE: There will be no talking about anything else other than ants.

            GUSTAV: I know you have it in for ants, Whatshisface, but I want to solve the real problem first.

            WHATSHISFACE: You are an agitator. I don’t want you here. Begone with you eeeevil creature.

            GUSTAV: Whatever …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            *sigh*

            And with that lamentable attempt at verballing me Gustav has shown – once more, yet again – that he does not understand what I have been saying.

            Which is not at all surprising, because throughout this entire boorish display Gustav has shown not the slightest indication that he understands what this article is about.

            He certainly hasn’t expressed any comment about the article, except to say – time after tedious time – that he isn’t interested in this article.

            So, once more, that makes one ask why he is posting his stuff in a talkback that is supposed to be a.b.o.u.t. this article.

            Answer: he does so to hijack it.

            Which as observations go is as obvious as Gustav is transparent.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            Yoh there Yeah Right,

            You are besotted with yourself aren’t you?

            Take a bit of time out and try to listen to other people’s point of view. You are not the brightest spark in the room. Gustav ran rings around you. He talks sense while you are just boringly repetitive.

            Get a life!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Kiwi: “Gustav ran rings around you.”

            I suggest you have another look at the post from Gustav that prompted your interjection.

            In it you will see that Gustav holds a conversation with… himself.

            And in that post he pretends that his conversation with… himself… amounted to a debate.

            There is a name that fits such tactics, but it isn’t “running rings”.

            It’s “erecting a straw-man”.

            No doubt you find the straw-man argument a compelling life-skill, but for the life of me I can’t understand why….

            Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            Poor poor Yeah Right.

            Gustav verballed you and he is having a conversation with himself.

            Except you forgot to mention the effective satire which he used in which every word which he put in your mouth you really uttered using different words but which captured what you really did say.

            In two words: he showed you up.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Kiwi: …”in which every word which he put in your mouth”…

            And, yep, there you have it.

            Q.E.D.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            “QED”

            Yeah, right. How old are you again? You sound like a teenager.

            Go read up on the word paraphrase.

            Gustav used humour to paraphrase you. And he did you a favour because he made you sound more interesting than you really are.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Sigh.

            How many times have you repeated yourself Mr Whatshisface? And not once have you listened to what I said. But here it is again. The subject of this article is:

            “Israel’s High Court chooses occupation over international law”

            So talking about International Law in general is not off topic.

            Get it? No of course you don’t. Oh well, your problem, not mine.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “How many times have you repeated yourself Mr Whatshisface?”

            Apparently as many times as it takes to point out where you go wrong.

            Gustav: “The subject of this article is ‘Israel’s High Court chooses occupation over international law’ ”

            Indeed it is.

            The ISSUE is therefore whether (or not) the IHCJ made a ruling that the judges knew was contrary to int’l law, and for the singular benefit of the settlers (discuss).

            Gustav: “So talking about International Law in general is not off topic.”

            Yes, it is.

            If that were “on-topic” then talking about, oh, the generalizations embodied in The Law Of The Sea would be a fit and proper topic for this talkback thread.

            Which is a manifestly absurd proposition, even though it is a proposition that is perfectly sound your ludicrous argument.

            One more time: the TITLE is “Israel’s High Court chooses occupation over international law”

            The TOPIC is therefore whether (or not) the court’s recent rulings amounted to a conscious decision by those judges to claim something (domestic legislation trumps a treaty obligation) that they know to be untrue.

            Talking about “International Law in general” is therefore to go off-topic.

            Why?

            Because that did not enter the reasoning of the court and, therefore, adds nothing to this question: “why did the court just claim that it lives in uppsy-down-town?”.

            Now, I know that you don’t get that. I know that.

            What I can’t understand is why you can’t get that singular point through your skull.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Gustav: “The subject of this article is ‘Israel’s High Court chooses occupation over international law’ ”

            Whatshisface:”Indeed it is.”

            Whatshisface:”The ISSUE is therefore whether (or not) the IHCJ made a ruling that the judges knew was contrary to int’l law, and for the singular benefit of the settlers (discuss).”

            The issue is that there is more than one issue.

            And to me, the main issue (the elephant in the room) is the fact that international law is broken. They are not enforced or they are selectively enforced which breeds disrespect and anarchy.

            To you, the issue is (what the ant is) that one small country does not comply with your ideas of international law. But since it is broken and no one else respects or complies with laws your ant of a problem is not the issue. The fact that International Law is broken IS THE ISSUE – the Elephant in the room if you please. That is the thing that needs to be fixed across the board. And then your ant of an issue will be fixed too.

            I know, now you are going to repeat yourself again. Yawn …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “The issue is that there is more than one issue.”

            Not according to the title, which is something that you keep pointing me to.

            Here, let me help you out again…

            The TITLE is this: “Israel’s High Court chooses occupation over international law”

            The ISSUE is therefore this: did the IHCJ just render a judgement where it knowingly prostituted int’l law on the altar of the settlers?

            Gustav: “The issue is that there is more than one issue.”

            Noooo, it isn’t.

            You – yourself, on your very own, without any prompting from me – pointed to that title and proclaimed it to be The Topic Of Discussion.

            You did so (apparently) without the slightest understanding of what that title was saying.

            Typical, I suppose, but nonetheless still side-splittingly funny….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Ok I get it, Mr Whatshisface, the title has the words “INTERNATIONAL LAW” in it but discussing the state of International Law is verboten.

            Give it a break little man. You are boring me.

            Yet …

            … at the same time, I am really intrigued how far and how long are you willing to stretch this discussion out. You know why? Because your line of attack is the bit that is off topic and comically trivial.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Ok I get it, Mr Whatshisface, the title has the words “INTERNATIONAL LAW” in it but discussing the state of International Law is verboten.”

            Laughable.

            No, you don’t get it.

            And, no, it appears that you will never get it.

            The TITLE is this: “Israel’s High Court chooses occupation over international law”

            Therefore you can’t choose just to snip Two Words out of that title and decide that those Two Words are the topic.

            Here, some examples:

            You can’t snip out “High Court” and then claim that this means that a discussion of the High Court of Australia is the topic of this talkback.

            You can’t snip “chooses occupation” and claim that this means that George Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq is the topic of this talkback.

            You can’t snip “international law” and claim that this means that the distinction between Int’l Treaty Law and Int’l Customary Law is the topic of this talkback.

            All may well be fascinating subjects. Maybe.

            But all would be quite off-topic, because the TOPIC is defined by the TITLE, and the title is “Israel’s High Court chooses occupation over international law”

            That’s a sentence, complete and whole, and it is a sentence in the way that “international law”… isn’t a sentence. It’s a phrase.

            Honestly, how hard is that to comprehend?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “The TITLE is this: “Israel’s High Court chooses occupation over international law”

            Therefore you can’t choose just to snip Two Words out of that title and decide that those Two Words are the topic.

            Here, some examples:

            You can’t snip out “High Court” and then claim that this means that a discussion of the High Court of Australia is the topic of this talkback.”

            Your examples are deliberately stupid so I will just rebut one of them which will rebut the rest of your silly examples too.

            QUESTION: How many high courts are there?

            ANSWER: Millions.

            QUESTION: How many sets of international laws are there?

            ANSWER: There should be one set of International laws applicable to everyone without fear or favor.

            Your article claims that Israel’s high court ignored International laws in it’s ruling.

            I can therefore discuss the fact that those International laws are a joke, that they are not worth the paper that they are written on because they are not enforced without fear or favor and most nations ignore some or all of those laws.

            And guess what, dude, that addresses the article. It is a direct rebutal to the point that the article tries to make.

            If you pick out a phrase like “High Court” from the title and try to make it the subject. You need to qualify which High Court. So In this case, in fact you could discuss THE ISRAELI High court and still be on subject because the article in fact was critical of THE ISRAELI High Court. But if you would try to make THE AUSTRALIAN High court the subject of your discussion, you would be drawing a long bow.

            I won’t even bother to debunk your other silly examples because they are silly. I already wasted too much of my time with you but so no use going overboard with one post. I’ll keep my strength up for your silly follow on posts because I know that you will be silly enough to post them …

            Reply to Comment
    13. Average American

      You guys don’t understand. Israel uses Jewish halaka law, not international law. Of course it does. It is The Jewish State. It has the Jewish religious emblem on its flag. Its leaders change their names to Jewish-sounding names from their Russian or Polish names. It renames land to Jewish names. It pursues a grand delusion of controlling all of The Land Of Israel For The Jews. It creates walls to keep their Jewish Race pure. You’re not Jewish? Oh, too bad for you.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kiwi

        “It creates walls to keep their Jewish Race pure. You’re not Jewish? Oh, too bad for you.”

        You are projecting again you Nazi. What you really mean to say:

        “You are Jewish? Oh, too bad for you.”

        I actually know people like you. That’s what they say to me about Jewish people because they know I am not Jewish and they think I don’t care and that I would support them. They get a shock when they find out otherwise because they think every non Jewish person thinks like them.

        Reply to Comment
        • Average American

          Are you joking? You don’t think Jews in Israel want to keep the race pure? Not even the haredi? Open your eyes. Call me a Nazi? Israel is doing Jewish Lebensraum instead of Aryan.

          Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            I am not in the habit of joking with people like you.

            Reply to Comment
    14. Click here to load previous comments