Reply #45: Legal opinions are just that.

[msmcghee]

The US election of 2000 shows that even the most esteemed judges are fully capable of seeing the world through their own ideological lenses.

The World Court is an extension of the UN. In this case the UN General Assembly requested the "legal advisory" to bolster their previous but dubious assertion that Israel has no legal claim to the West Bank. If not Israel, then who does? The West Bank was taken by Israel in a defensive war. Like any other nation taking land in a defensive war from an attacker - Israel can annex the West Bank if it chooses. Those are the rules the nations of the world with large enough armies to enforce it - live by. That's why Germany was dismantled after WWII and why the allies imposed new governments on those nations with strict rules that they still live by.

It's a simple rule. Start a war. You could lose your nation if you have one. Your rights and freedom if you don't.

Israel has chosen not to take the West Bank and instead, hold it as a trading asset for a peaceful solution for the hopes of Arab Palestinians for an eventual state.

As you know, I place great importance on the principle that the only way that peace can exist is for states and parties to a conflict to not physically attack the other. Taken in a defensive war not of Israel's choosing - IMO Israel is fully justified in disposing of the West Bank in any way that suits the Israel state.

The attack against Israel that resulted in Israel's possession of the West Bank was a gross violation of this most fundamental international law. Israel's possession of the West Bank is based on the right of self-defense, as is the erection of the wall on the West Bank. Recognition of the pre-1967 border (which was not a recognized national border) would be a defacto reward for Arab Palestinians, in whose name the attack against Israel was made - and who have been attacking Israel ever since then from inside that zone. All that too is a violation of International Law and principle.

Whether the World Court, requested by the UNGA, constituted of many of the worlds worst dictatorships, says that Israel has no right of self-defense or not, is immaterial. Israel will continue to exercise that right.

While the UNGA will wring its hands over this, such hand-wringing is no more than political posturing. Israel will continue to defend itself - having learned long ago that the UN has no stomach for such things as actually preventing conflict. And having also learned that the UN will have no problem even denying Israel to the right to self-defense.

When push comes to shove this august world body will prove to be as impotent as it has always been. It will soon get back to wringing its hands over the 400,000 plus civilians killed in Darfur, and doing nothing about that either. And, it will do nothing for the same reason - violent Islamists are not to be confronted on their rampage to reshape the world, even if a small peace-loving nation needs to be sacrificed occasionally.