Quote from a_person:
...Israel, which some believe is actually a theocracy, is not the only democracy in the middle east...
As I said before "some" who believe that Israel is a theocracy are uber-leftist idiots, islamo-nazis and antisemites. Others know that Israel (unlike england, vatican, monaco, finland, norway or dozens of muslim states) does not have official religion and has two official languages - Hebrew and arabic.
Quote from Mom0/pH0x:
so by this flimsy deffinition, the USA is also a rogue nation.... and nearly every nation for that matter, in some way doesn't respect other nations... so nearly every nation is a rogue nation by your doctrine... pretty unproductive... we here in the real world have a different notion of that term\
Rogue state is a term applied by some international theorists to states considered threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction.[5] The term is used most by the United States, though it has been applied by other countries.[6]
In virtually all international foreign policy circles, rogue states are considered to be those nations utterly ruled by individuals (rather than subject to a popular electoral process) and whose legitimacy, intentions, and notions of the process of legitimate succession (if any) is highly suspect. Furthermore, rogue states (as opposed to nominal non-newsworthy dictatorships which pose no external threat) typically become consequential due to their engagement in the threat - or conduct of - war, particularly against neighbor states, without regard to international law.
Rogue states can also be differentiated from 'pariah states' such as Burma (Myanmar) and Zimbabwe who allegedly abuse the human rights of their populations while not being considered a tangible threat beyond their own borders, although the terms have been used interchangeably.
* States currently considered "Rogue States" by the United States:
1. Iran
2. Sudan[1]
Quote from Mom0/pH0x:
so every nation should have to have the approval of most of the world to make decisions for their own country?? israel should let it's citizens get bombed day in and day out until the rest of the world decides it should take up for itself?
No nation is as scrutinized as Israel is. the UNHRC has passed zero resolutions on Sudan where 500,000 people were murdered by muslim fundamentalists or the US/the coalition of the willling invasion of Iraq that you resent so much and where also hundreds of thousands have died. But it has passed 20 resolutions on Israel.Quote from OPTIONAL777:
So every nation should just claim "self defense" for everything they do, proclaim innocent victim status and never have to prove the nation is actually an innocent victim acting only out of self defense...
Quote from a_person:
No nation is as scrutinized as Israel is. the UNHRC has passed zero resolutions on Sudan where 500,000 people were murdered by muslim fundamentalists or the US/the coalition of the willling invasion of Iraq that you resent so much and where also hundreds of thousands have died. But it has passed 20 resolutions on Israel.
Given that Israel is surrounded by 20+ states rejecting it's right to exist, that it was the victim of thousands of terror and thousands of rocket attacks its "self-defense" status is obvious beyond any reasonable doubt.
Sure, no problem. After the court prosecutes Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Lybia, the US, the UK, France, the coalition of the willing (all 30 states), somalia, argentina, Iraq, Iran, hamas, hezbollah, Sudan, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, China, Russia, India and all other states that have been involved in some kind of a military conflict, insurgency or human rights violations - as soon as these trials are over Israel will be happy to appear. But if Israel is the only state on the planet that you want to prosecute, and if you want to prosecute Israel's acts of self-defense while ignoring anti-Israeli military/terrorist activities by its neighbors in the context of which the self-defense took place - forgedaboudid!!Quote from OPTIONAL777:
If an "innocent" verdict is a forgone conclusion based on the "obvious" as you suggest, why not have Israel appear at the Hague for a trial on war crimes so that all critics of Israel and all claims of war crimes by critics of Israel's actions can be easily silenced...
Quote from a_person:
Sure, no problem. After the court prosecutes Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Lybia, the US, the UK, France, the coalition of the willing (all 30 states), somalia, argentina, Iraq, Iran, hamas, hezbollah, Sudan, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, China, Russia, India and all other states that have been involved in some kind of a military conflict, insurgency or human rights violations - as soon as these trials are over Israel will be happy to appear. But if Israel is the only state on the planet that you want to prosecute, and if you want to prosecute Israel's acts of self-defense while ignoring anti-Israeli military/terrorist activities by its neighbors in the context of which the self-defense took place - forgedaboudid!!
Quote from Mom0/pH0x:
that's a different discussion entirely but in israels case there's ample proof for anyone who wants to verify it... which is of course why it's never gone to any war crimes trial, and probably never will...because despite all of the antisemitic ranters who just can't stand the fact that jews have a functional, prosperous, free nation everyone knows what a laughable crock of horse shit the accusations really are
Why not. Why aren't other nations prosecuted? A court that does not prosecute everyone equally is called a kangooroo court and its attempts to go after one state on the planet only are appropriately equated to bias and lynching.Quote from OPTIONAL777:
If there is no problem, then why on earth bring up other nations...