IL: "the wall has saved many innocent people from being killed. If international law means innocent people hve to die, then it becomes an immoral law." No, because Israel ALSO had a legal alternative that was equally as security-effective: evacuate all of the settlements, then built the wall on the ISRAELI side of the Green Line. To ignore an equally-effective LEGAL course of action in favor of the ILLEGAL alternative is the immoral act here. IL: "law is meant to serve morality and human rights, not vice versa." You also don't choose an illegal policy over a legal one simply because it is cheaper and less disruptive to YOU. Such criteria are irrelevent to SECURITY, and therefore they can not be used to justify choosing the illegal policy when there is a perfectly legal alternative. IL: "In hitler`s germany"... The GCs date from 1949. A post-49 holocaust would be a "grave violation" and a war crime. BTW, you never heard of the Nuremberg Trials?
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Report: Russia's Lavrov says Syria's Assad is not an ally (Reuters)
from the article: Failed marks in comprehension