This is what Shahid Bolsen tells us, in line with Wang Ye, regarding the law and the United Nations:
“When you're talking about Israel Palestine, for example, you'll notice that they always try to keep the conversation towards subjective senses of moral Justice, like do you condemn Hamas? And so forth. This is irrelevant and in fact both sides do it. We focus on the evil of Israel's actions rather than on the illegality and that's exactly the way that the zionists want the conversation to be because it is subjective. As long as it's a subjective dispute it goes nowhere, it's just everyone has their own opinion, and so on. But if you're talking about the law it's incredibly clear. If the legal frameworks that the world claims to uphold international law were to be enforced on Israel the way that it's enforced against other nations, well, there would be no ambiguity whatsoever about this situation. This isn't speculation, this is not opinion, this is simply what the law states, this is what the law dictates. So, for example, there would never even be any question about an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. In fact, an unconditional ceasefire would have been imposed on Israel under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Collective punishment, indiscriminate bombing and targeting of civilians, these are war crimes. Meanwhile this is exactly how Israel has conducted its military campaign in Gaza, that's literally their approach, entire families wiped out, hospitals bombed, food supplies blocked and so on. These are not just tragedies, these are crimes under the law and it's not ambiguous and it's not open to debate, it's literally what they have been doing and of course by law the occupation itself is illegal. Israel must withdraw under the law. Again, that's not an opinion. United Nations security Council resolution 242 demanded that Israel withdraw from the territories that it occupied in 1967, that was nearly 60 years ago. The occupation is illegal under article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which explicitly prohibits any occupying power from transferring its own population into the occupied land. Every settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is a war crime. This is not an opinion. If international law were applied then all of Israel's settlers would be forcibly removed, the Israeli military presence in the West Bank would have to end immediately and Palestine would have full control over its land because that's the law. For over 17 years the Gaza Strip has been under siege; Israel controls its borders, its airspace, its coast line. Again, the Fourth Geneva Convention makes it very crystal clear: blockading a civilian population, depriving them of food, depriving them of water, depriving them of medicine, depriving them of energy, these are war crimes. The UN has described Gaza as an open air prison. As we all know, the International Criminal Court has already stated that the blockade of Gaza is a crime against humanity. Acording to international law Israel should be compelled to lift the siege against Gaza immediately. Not an opinion, we don't need more investigations, we don't need more reports, the evidence of war crimes is overwhelming: hospitals bombed, entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble, journalists, doctors, children killed in indiscriminate air strikes. Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court these are not just military actions, again, they are crimes. Israeli leaders Netanyahu, Galant and others, every General who has ordered attacks on civilians should be indicted and prosecuted at the of International Criminal Court. Under universal jurisdiction any country could arrest Israeli officials and hold them accountable. The force displacement of Palestinians is not just a moral outrage, it's a violation of international law. UN resolution 194 guarantees the right of return for refugees to their homes. The universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the rights of all people to return to their homeland, yet Palestinians are denied this right while Israel brings in settlers from all across the world. That's against the law, period. Not an opinion. Palestinian refugees should be allowed to return home and Israel should be required to compensate those who have suffered generations upon generations of displacement, because that's the law. I mean, what happened when Russia annexed Crimea? Immediate sanctions. What happened when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Well, there was a full-scale international military response. What happened when South Africa was under apartheid? A global movement of boycotts, a global movement of divestment and sanctions. Yet when Israel violates every principle of international law, instead of being punished it's rewarded with billions of dollars, billions in military aid, billions in trade agreements and diplomatic protection. Well, this is a double standard. If international law were to be applied fairly, Israel would face a total arms embargo, all economic and Military ties would be severed until it complied with the law. So, again, you can have whatever opinion you want to have about this, but it is the law. If your opinion does not align with the law, well this is where you prove whether or not you want to belong to the law abiding nations of the Civilized world or you want to be an outlaw, you want to be a renegade, you want to be a criminal. This is where that becomes clear, because you can agree or not agree, but when it comes to the law you're supposed to adhere to it. Either way, Israel's violations of international law are not just about crimes of war, they're about preventing the very existence of Palestine. But the law again is clear: Palestine has a right to statehood under Security Council resolution 242 and 338. Palestine is entitled to sovereignty. Under the ICJ's ruling in 2004 Israel's wall in the West Bank is illegal and Palestinian land must be returned. These are not opinions, this is legal justice. Under the law, Palestine should be immediately recognized as a fully independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital. There should be no negotiations on this in fact, just enforcement of the law. None of this is radical, none of this is controversial, it's simply what international law demands, it's what international law states and we should always focus on this when we talk about Palestine, when we talk about Israel. In my opinion, we should focus on legal justice instead of on moral arguments.”
Your citation provides the reason WHY I stress the LAW and note the Outlaws. No member of the UNSC ought to be allowed to use their veto to prevent the application of the LAW, which is precisely what the Outlaw US Empire's been doing and will continue to do as Trump is merely another in a long string of Outlaws--and he was an Outlaw during his first term.
Almost every aspect of the UN is a sick joke, from its title, its head office location, its head(s) and the make up of its security council, veto powers. What security?
The Outlaw US old empire even making access for Russia to attend its meetings. Why Russia remain in it under such duress I find embarrassing for them.
That the terrorist state of Israel is a member.
That these minnow/micro states can vote or abstain on important issues at the whim of said outlaw US empire.
I could go on and on but lastly China, Wang, need to do more of the 'heavy lifting' and quit hiding behind Russia's coattails.
I've taken both the Chinese and Australian mining companies into Africa enjoying good success with both. The resentment of the Australian executives towards the Chinese is immense, scary in fact.
I am less enamoured with the CCP. They talk a good kumbaya, brotherhood of nations game, but my country has been subject to punitive economic measures and sabre rattling from them. They come across as hypocritical at the moment.
I will continue to watch what they do, rather than give much credence to what they say.
China has an integrity problem at EVERY level - 65M unoccupied apartments in ghost cities, new buildings literally falling apart before construction even finishes, the need to keep billions of people serviced & working due to their communist policies - the only thing going for them is their size. But then again, too big to fail? Hardly. Just takes longer. And now, their latest strategy to be dominant is to be servants to the UN. Too bad the Islamic world has already beat them to the punch (and yet another reason for the US to pull out of the UN).
The US sovereignty was done with in 1913 when Warburg/Morgan/Schiff/ Loeb et al. emissaries of the City of Looters snatched US purse. The assassination of JFK, the USSLiberty “event,” the triumph of Straussians in the US State Dept. and the aipac-occupied US congress of compradors are the effect of the 1913 financial operation. China can take care of herself. As for the US, the congress’ genuflections for the criminal bibi (so much “liberty!”) are not good for the American liberty and American citizens.
That is one side of the coin. As for China taking care of itself, multiple facets are only dominoes for problems once their isolation becomes moot, such as live organ harvesting that is rampant and not even close to being reined in. THAT is not taking care of itself
I wouldn't trust anything Wang Yi says any more than any other Western politician. China did nothing to help Russia in Ukraine and it refuses to pay a fair price for Russian oil futures. So nothing gets done. China uses unfair business tactics like flooding the market of a product with cheaper prices causing competitors to fail so it can be a monopoly. China infiltrates governments like it got caught doing in Canada with cunning and deceptive trickery. China won't fight. Instead, it waits like a shark circling its prey until two enemies are exhausted then steps in to reap the rewards. Nice meaningless words, Wang Li. You no fool me, China. Ok? lol
Again, like the other poster...this is all screed and invective. Where is the evidence supporting your outrageous statements?
It should be easy for you to provide multiple examples backing up your claim "China uses unfair business tactics like flooding the market of a product with cheaper prices causing competitors to fail so it can be a monopoly." What does this even mean? The ideas are so conflated as to be unparsable. Seriously, I don't mean to be rude, but this is Kamala level word salad.
"China did nothing to help Russia in Ukraine and it refuses to pay a fair price for Russian oil futures." A) huh? B) whut?
Thanks for the link; it does emphasise the difference in outlook between 'win win' and 'I want it all' foreign policy. I imagine that the economic vampirism of the last half millennium has become addictive or at least habit forming here in the West.
This is what Shahid Bolsen tells us, in line with Wang Ye, regarding the law and the United Nations:
“When you're talking about Israel Palestine, for example, you'll notice that they always try to keep the conversation towards subjective senses of moral Justice, like do you condemn Hamas? And so forth. This is irrelevant and in fact both sides do it. We focus on the evil of Israel's actions rather than on the illegality and that's exactly the way that the zionists want the conversation to be because it is subjective. As long as it's a subjective dispute it goes nowhere, it's just everyone has their own opinion, and so on. But if you're talking about the law it's incredibly clear. If the legal frameworks that the world claims to uphold international law were to be enforced on Israel the way that it's enforced against other nations, well, there would be no ambiguity whatsoever about this situation. This isn't speculation, this is not opinion, this is simply what the law states, this is what the law dictates. So, for example, there would never even be any question about an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. In fact, an unconditional ceasefire would have been imposed on Israel under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Collective punishment, indiscriminate bombing and targeting of civilians, these are war crimes. Meanwhile this is exactly how Israel has conducted its military campaign in Gaza, that's literally their approach, entire families wiped out, hospitals bombed, food supplies blocked and so on. These are not just tragedies, these are crimes under the law and it's not ambiguous and it's not open to debate, it's literally what they have been doing and of course by law the occupation itself is illegal. Israel must withdraw under the law. Again, that's not an opinion. United Nations security Council resolution 242 demanded that Israel withdraw from the territories that it occupied in 1967, that was nearly 60 years ago. The occupation is illegal under article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which explicitly prohibits any occupying power from transferring its own population into the occupied land. Every settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is a war crime. This is not an opinion. If international law were applied then all of Israel's settlers would be forcibly removed, the Israeli military presence in the West Bank would have to end immediately and Palestine would have full control over its land because that's the law. For over 17 years the Gaza Strip has been under siege; Israel controls its borders, its airspace, its coast line. Again, the Fourth Geneva Convention makes it very crystal clear: blockading a civilian population, depriving them of food, depriving them of water, depriving them of medicine, depriving them of energy, these are war crimes. The UN has described Gaza as an open air prison. As we all know, the International Criminal Court has already stated that the blockade of Gaza is a crime against humanity. Acording to international law Israel should be compelled to lift the siege against Gaza immediately. Not an opinion, we don't need more investigations, we don't need more reports, the evidence of war crimes is overwhelming: hospitals bombed, entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble, journalists, doctors, children killed in indiscriminate air strikes. Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court these are not just military actions, again, they are crimes. Israeli leaders Netanyahu, Galant and others, every General who has ordered attacks on civilians should be indicted and prosecuted at the of International Criminal Court. Under universal jurisdiction any country could arrest Israeli officials and hold them accountable. The force displacement of Palestinians is not just a moral outrage, it's a violation of international law. UN resolution 194 guarantees the right of return for refugees to their homes. The universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the rights of all people to return to their homeland, yet Palestinians are denied this right while Israel brings in settlers from all across the world. That's against the law, period. Not an opinion. Palestinian refugees should be allowed to return home and Israel should be required to compensate those who have suffered generations upon generations of displacement, because that's the law. I mean, what happened when Russia annexed Crimea? Immediate sanctions. What happened when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Well, there was a full-scale international military response. What happened when South Africa was under apartheid? A global movement of boycotts, a global movement of divestment and sanctions. Yet when Israel violates every principle of international law, instead of being punished it's rewarded with billions of dollars, billions in military aid, billions in trade agreements and diplomatic protection. Well, this is a double standard. If international law were to be applied fairly, Israel would face a total arms embargo, all economic and Military ties would be severed until it complied with the law. So, again, you can have whatever opinion you want to have about this, but it is the law. If your opinion does not align with the law, well this is where you prove whether or not you want to belong to the law abiding nations of the Civilized world or you want to be an outlaw, you want to be a renegade, you want to be a criminal. This is where that becomes clear, because you can agree or not agree, but when it comes to the law you're supposed to adhere to it. Either way, Israel's violations of international law are not just about crimes of war, they're about preventing the very existence of Palestine. But the law again is clear: Palestine has a right to statehood under Security Council resolution 242 and 338. Palestine is entitled to sovereignty. Under the ICJ's ruling in 2004 Israel's wall in the West Bank is illegal and Palestinian land must be returned. These are not opinions, this is legal justice. Under the law, Palestine should be immediately recognized as a fully independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital. There should be no negotiations on this in fact, just enforcement of the law. None of this is radical, none of this is controversial, it's simply what international law demands, it's what international law states and we should always focus on this when we talk about Palestine, when we talk about Israel. In my opinion, we should focus on legal justice instead of on moral arguments.”
Your citation provides the reason WHY I stress the LAW and note the Outlaws. No member of the UNSC ought to be allowed to use their veto to prevent the application of the LAW, which is precisely what the Outlaw US Empire's been doing and will continue to do as Trump is merely another in a long string of Outlaws--and he was an Outlaw during his first term.
Thank you
Testify my Brother! Well said.
Almost every aspect of the UN is a sick joke, from its title, its head office location, its head(s) and the make up of its security council, veto powers. What security?
The Outlaw US old empire even making access for Russia to attend its meetings. Why Russia remain in it under such duress I find embarrassing for them.
That the terrorist state of Israel is a member.
That these minnow/micro states can vote or abstain on important issues at the whim of said outlaw US empire.
I could go on and on but lastly China, Wang, need to do more of the 'heavy lifting' and quit hiding behind Russia's coattails.
" but lastly China, Wang, need to do more of the 'heavy lifting'...."
They have started, they are still trolling the fascist Australian regime with their warships. FAFO is the message.
Perverse really when China is the largest trading partner of said British colony by far, even enjoying a trade surplus of $60 billion.
It’s the descendant of the officer class in charge. And a few ethnics.
I've taken both the Chinese and Australian mining companies into Africa enjoying good success with both. The resentment of the Australian executives towards the Chinese is immense, scary in fact.
Yep brainwashed Chyna, Chyna, Chyna. Jealousy is the reason I reckon.
They can’t compete so they attempt to drag down those that are better. The Australian way.
Yes, but the scum at the top are trained poodles and slit their own throats on command.
Yes we here in the UK sent them our best of the best but it didn't do them any good. lol
And even up until the 80ies quite few Sec Gens were bonafide NAZis.
Easy to say. Get in there and particpate.
I am less enamoured with the CCP. They talk a good kumbaya, brotherhood of nations game, but my country has been subject to punitive economic measures and sabre rattling from them. They come across as hypocritical at the moment.
I will continue to watch what they do, rather than give much credence to what they say.
Do please, cite some facts to back your assertions.
China has an integrity problem at EVERY level - 65M unoccupied apartments in ghost cities, new buildings literally falling apart before construction even finishes, the need to keep billions of people serviced & working due to their communist policies - the only thing going for them is their size. But then again, too big to fail? Hardly. Just takes longer. And now, their latest strategy to be dominant is to be servants to the UN. Too bad the Islamic world has already beat them to the punch (and yet another reason for the US to pull out of the UN).
The US sovereignty was done with in 1913 when Warburg/Morgan/Schiff/ Loeb et al. emissaries of the City of Looters snatched US purse. The assassination of JFK, the USSLiberty “event,” the triumph of Straussians in the US State Dept. and the aipac-occupied US congress of compradors are the effect of the 1913 financial operation. China can take care of herself. As for the US, the congress’ genuflections for the criminal bibi (so much “liberty!”) are not good for the American liberty and American citizens.
That is one side of the coin. As for China taking care of itself, multiple facets are only dominoes for problems once their isolation becomes moot, such as live organ harvesting that is rampant and not even close to being reined in. THAT is not taking care of itself
Oh, you mean Ukraine and NATO's side business?
We're here playing chess, not checkers...
"And now, their latest strategy to be dominant is to be servants to the UN."
Please provide non anecdotal evidence supporting this claim.
I wouldn't trust anything Wang Yi says any more than any other Western politician. China did nothing to help Russia in Ukraine and it refuses to pay a fair price for Russian oil futures. So nothing gets done. China uses unfair business tactics like flooding the market of a product with cheaper prices causing competitors to fail so it can be a monopoly. China infiltrates governments like it got caught doing in Canada with cunning and deceptive trickery. China won't fight. Instead, it waits like a shark circling its prey until two enemies are exhausted then steps in to reap the rewards. Nice meaningless words, Wang Li. You no fool me, China. Ok? lol
Still China has some way to go to catch up with American or Canadian duplicity.
Again, like the other poster...this is all screed and invective. Where is the evidence supporting your outrageous statements?
It should be easy for you to provide multiple examples backing up your claim "China uses unfair business tactics like flooding the market of a product with cheaper prices causing competitors to fail so it can be a monopoly." What does this even mean? The ideas are so conflated as to be unparsable. Seriously, I don't mean to be rude, but this is Kamala level word salad.
"China did nothing to help Russia in Ukraine and it refuses to pay a fair price for Russian oil futures." A) huh? B) whut?
I'm not asking you to believe me. Bark up another tree.
Then why post? Surely you're trying to communicate, or is that just barking?
The person of limited outlook/bored attention seeker in question has a substack and the entirety is summed up so: 'Coming Soon'.
Nothing substantive there "move along please"...
Wang Yi had more to say at that press conference, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202503/1329686.shtml
Thanks for the link; it does emphasise the difference in outlook between 'win win' and 'I want it all' foreign policy. I imagine that the economic vampirism of the last half millennium has become addictive or at least habit forming here in the West.
Oddly, your post does not connect to my comment—bot obfuscation. lol