Originally Posted by senojekips

How much further do you want to go back?...

That was one of my very first questions on this forum. And what also is important, who has the authority to decide how far we can go back?

If we go back to the first walking human beings then the whole world belongs to them and their ancesters (you, me, Jews, Palestinians....) and it was divided by leaders (governments) who decided who was able to get what (rule of law). So, if you claim a piece of land belongs to you you'll have to prove it to the one who has the authority.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

That was one of my very first questions on this forum. And what also is important, who has the authority to decide how far we can go back?

If we go back to the first walking human beings then the whole world belongs to them and their ancesters (you, me, Jews, Palestinians....) and it was divided by leaders (governments) who decided who was able to get what (rule of law). So, if you claim a piece of land belongs to you you'll have to prove it to the one who has the authority.

Whether it be International or local law, you can only go back to when an alleged crime or act took place and judge it by the laws and social standards in place at that time. Unless of course retrospective laws have been passed, but there are very few of them and rarely if ever in International law.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Whether it be International or local law, you can only go back to when an alleged crime or act took place and judge it by the laws and social standards in place at that time. Unless of course retrospective laws have been passed, but there are very few of them and rarely if ever in International law.

That's right.
Jews immigrated to the Ottoman Empire legally according to local laws.
Jews immigrated to the British mandate legally according to local laws.
Immigrated jews became the same citizenship as the people who were already living there, legally according to local laws.
The first attack by muslims on Jews was a crime according to the local laws of the British mandate.
Israel was founded and recognised as a souvereign country according to international law.
After that, what happens in Israel is subject to local Israeli laws.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

After that, what happens in Israel is subject to local Israeli laws.

Unless,.... it transgresses International law.

e.g. What was done to the Jews in 1933 - 1945 was quite legal under local law. The recent acts of Robert Mugabe are legal under local law.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Unless,.... it transgresses International law.

e.g. What was done to the Jews in 1933 - 1945 was quite legal under local law. The recent acts of Robert Mugabe are legal under local law.

Much of the time, people like Mugabe ignore not only international law, but local law as well.

Sometime ago I wrote to Interpol asking why a "Red Notice" hasn't been issued against Mugabe for the murder of 13 British Missionaries at Elim Mission Station Zimbabwe including a 3 week old baby girl bayoneted to death on 23rd June 1978 by Mugabe's Patriotic Front. I received an answer stating they don't get involved with political murders. I always thought murder was murder, political or otherwise.

Why has Europe become so reflexively anti-Israel? Europe has no equivalent of America's powerful AIPAC Israeli lobby, and it also has a disgruntled (and growing) Muslim population. But neither is enough to explain all the difference in attitude. Indeed, many Muslims in Europe now feel beleaguered and can only dream of wielding AIPAC's clout.

Some Americans blame rising anti-Semitism in Europe, which they also attribute in part to its growing Muslim population. But there is a difference between being anti-Semitic and being anti-Israel. And in any case, it is not obvious that anti-Semitism is a big factor. In central Europe, for example, there seems to be both greater anti-Semitism and more support for Israel. And some polls suggest that more Americans think Jews have “too much influence” in their country than do Europeans.

It is also often the right in Europe, linked with anti-Semitism in the past, that is most supportive of Israel today. Britain's Conservative Party, for instance, not always known for its admiration of Jews or Israel, is now the most pro-Israel party. In Italy, which invented fascism, Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia and Gianfranco Fini's formerly neo-fascist National Alliance, are more pro-Israel than the government. In Spain, the centre-right opposition was highly critical of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the Socialist prime minister, when he donned an Arab headscarf to show solidarity during the Lebanon war.

Countries that were most culpable in the Holocaust tend to be stauncher supporters of Israel—especially Germany. What was then West Germany became the main financial backer of the new Jewish state six decades ago, with a first payment of $865m in 1952. Aid continued throughout the 1960s, long before America became Israel's main source of outside support.

If the right (and the Germans) are doing penance, the left, which now controls many of Europe's chanceries, and certainly much of its media, feels a sense of betrayal—which is why many now attack Israel with all the zeal of the convert. Until the 1960s European socialists championed the cause of the Jews and Israel. Mid-century socialists saw anti-Semitism and fascism as products of the right, so they became instinctively pro-Israel. In the 1950s it was left-wing French governments that provided Israel with nuclear power and a modern air force.

This changed with the six-day war in 1967, when Israel launched a pre-emptive strike to defeat the Jordanian, Egyptian and Syrian forces that seemed about to invade. It was a stunning victory, but it led to the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and Sinai. To European socialists, who had rallied to the underdog Israel in 1967, the Palestinians were now the oppressed and displaced. Israel came to be seen as a neo-colonial regional superpower, not the plucky survivor of the Holocaust keeping powerful neighbours at bay.

Attitudes to America have also clouded European views, especially on the left. As Israel has drawn closer to America in the past few decades, the left's antipathy towards the behemoth of capitalism has spilled into dislike of Israel. Public opinion in Turkey, the one Muslim country that was once pro-Israel, has turned against it in parallel with its turn against America, especially over the war in Iraq.

Emanuele Ottolenghi, an expert on Israel and Europe at Oxford University, argues that “Europeans see Israel as the embodiment of the demons of their own past.” The European Union is supposed to have traded in war, nationalism and conflict for love, peace and federalism. But Israel now reminds Europeans of darker forces and darker days.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Unless,.... it transgresses International law.

e.g. What was done to the Jews in 1933 - 1945 was quite legal under local law. The recent acts of Robert Mugabe are legal under local law.

You don't get it do you. For the people who live in a country (whatever country) they have to abide by local laws or they run into trouble. International law transgressed or not.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

You don't get it do you. For the people who live in a country (whatever country) they have to abide by local laws or they run into trouble. International law transgressed or not.

What "don't I get"? The answer for any person with a bit of backbone, is very simple. If you find yourself in that position, you had better be prepared to be judged and pay the penalty,... or get out of that country.

The precedent was set in Nuremburg, "Befehl ist befehl," is no defense, and I have no doubt that you are well aware of that.

Originally Posted by senojekips

What "don't I get"? The answer for any person with a bit of backbone, is very simple. If you find yourself in that position, you had better be prepared to be judged and pay the penalty,... or get out of that country.

The precedent was set in Nuremburg, "Befehl ist befehl," is no defense, and I have no doubt that you are well aware of that.

Superior orders and the International Criminal Court: Justice delivered or justice denied

On 17 July 1998, the Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted in Rome. Nestled in Part 3, “General Principles of Criminal Law”, was Article 33, entitled “Superior orders and prescription of law”. Article 33 reads :

“1. The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless :

(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the superior in question ;

(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful ; and

(c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.

2. For the purposes of this article, orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful.”

The Nuremberg Charter says:

The true test, which is found in varying degrees in the criminal law of most nations, is not the existence of the order, but whether moral choice was in fact possible...A soldier could be relieved of personal responsibility for the soldier's acts only if the soldier could show that he or she did not have a moral choice to disobey his or her superior's orders.

It's not all black and white.

A lot of women in muslim countries get convicted by local laws that transgress international ones. What is their benefit of international law? What does the ICC do about it? Do those women have to disobey and get killed because international law backs them?

Originally Posted by VDKMS

S
It's not all black and white.

You have answered it yourself, because a moral choice is possible just as it was for those hung at Nuremburg.