Not. He gave his same circus act talking about Armenia instead of answering the fundamental question- what law DOES apply to West Bank Palestinians? He can’t answer that honestly because Israel routinely violates the rights of West Bank Palestinians, with segregation, harassment, surveillance state monitoring that would be the envy of East Berlin. Palestinian children get shot in the street - unarmed, by an IDF soldier, a direct hit, not collateral damage. Palestinian kids get locked up, no charges, no trial, no judge no jury. What law applies to them? Answer: whatever the IDF soldier on the ground feels like. He is the law. Eugene is a coward and an apologist for Netanyahu’s apartheid regime. Although many victims of apartheid find that offensive, because what Israel is doing is much worse and understates the horror.
did you find a source that debunks his argument? if so please share i actually found a video that has the same argument and it's not an israeli source at all: ruclips.net/video/4d2tHB_wM4c/видео.html
I found one article that attempted to refute the uti possidetis argument. Their main rebuttal was to state that the acceptance of this argument would mean that the winner of a war keeps all. However they did not really make a legal argument to counter Konotorovich's argument. I would argue that the winner of a war may in fact claim sovereignty over territory won where the war was not a war of aggression (as in the case of Israel who was defending itself from Arab aggression). Furthermore the Arabs did not raise the claim of self determination until after 1967.
Jueia and samaria was invented by Manahem Begen and the media took over. There was no such a thing Judea and Samaria the original people who lived in this area are Cananite not the Israelite that what history tells not glorify a history and claim otherwise
@@TodaySunrise How could Menahem Begin have invented it when already the UN Partition plan of 1947 used that phraseology? Did he travel back in time and altered that document?
@@TodaySunrise No historian of ancient history denies the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah existed. The only debate is whether there was ever a united kingdom like in the Bible. Both of the kingdoms were conquered by real empires of Babylon and Assyria. Judea was also a real place, it was a Roman province. The Roman province became Syria Palestine after the 2nd Jewish Roman war in the 2nd century ad.
@@TodaySunrise Most archeologists believe the Israelites were a Canaanite people. They spoke a Canaanite language, Hebrew, they worshipped the Canaanite God of YWHW, and El. The Israelites in the Tanakh assimilated the Canaanites into th themselves. The modern Jews still show 50% of the ancient Canaanite DNA even after 2500 years of diaspora.
While I understand 12 minutes is a short amount of time, there was a real missed opportunity here. Avidan spent most the time simply rehashing the history of various agreements and court's opinions on the matter but didn't really address the various legal arguments Kontorovich made into WHY a court might determine a legal conclusion one way or the other. Whether the UN "considers" it in an occupation is pretty clear to everyone but doesn't speak at all as to what their legal justification is for considering it an occupation.
Cover is simply out of his depth here: his intro and responses were meandering, frequently irrelevant and filled with condescending and preachy moralism.
To me Adrian Cover's argument were morally superior but the state of conflict, particularly since the second Intifada, means that practically speaking Israel and the Palestinians are in an ongoing state of war so sovereignty is decided by security needs rather than peace time international law
When Avidan starts his arguments by saying that we should not look to logic but to what is happening in practice I knew straight away his arguments would not be as solid.
He keeps slipping back to using annexation and occupation though it has been clearly shown that these legal terms dont apply to any territory in eretz israel.
I heard this video for 27 minutes, and it seems that Prof. Eugene tells story and presents policy options with very weak legal arguments in a sitting where we need to look at the issue from an international law perspective--interestingly, he tries to weave a cover for the domestic jurisprudence of Israel and how they had to tackle the issue knowing the reality, and also, at the same time, Prof. Eugene denies the resolutions of UNGA and other authoritative sittings but gives lot more value to the Nagorna Karabakh case while prof. Avidan has much stronger arguments siting international law cases, CIL, and even referring to the domestic jurisprudence of Israel.
Weak arguments….? There is one clear way of defining borders of a new country and it is ALWAYS applied >> you go by the former governing borders. This is to not give incentive for others to start a war to grab land! This is a default rule, which means that if there is no agreement between parties then this one applies. IF the Arabs would have accepted resolution 181 (or any other partition plan that the Jews accepted) THEN that would create new borders. However they REJECTED all of them and thus the last one to apply was the Mandate for Palestine. That a lot of people (including you) think this is not nice or right or whatever is LEGALLY not relevant. Legally this is a air tight case, and thus a very strong argument!
To make unbiased opinion about any issue to get two neutral opinions none biased at that point the answer will be clear and true not like what hear and see in this channel. Come on guys whom are you trying to fool?
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
Brilliant, short, clear, big picture, comparative explanation of the issue at hand from Professor Eugene Kontorovich.
Not. He gave his same circus act talking about Armenia instead of answering the fundamental question- what law DOES apply to West Bank Palestinians? He can’t answer that honestly because Israel routinely violates the rights of West Bank Palestinians, with segregation, harassment, surveillance state monitoring that would be the envy of East Berlin. Palestinian children get shot in the street - unarmed, by an IDF soldier, a direct hit, not collateral damage. Palestinian kids get locked up, no charges, no trial, no judge no jury. What law applies to them? Answer: whatever the IDF soldier on the ground feels like. He is the law. Eugene is a coward and an apologist for Netanyahu’s apartheid regime. Although many victims of apartheid find that offensive, because what Israel is doing is much worse and understates the horror.
Prof Kontorovich is excellent as always!
came here to see if Kontorovich's uti possidetis argument was going to be refuted rather than ignored... guess I'll just have to keep waiting/looking
did you find a source that debunks his argument? if so please share
i actually found a video that has the same argument and it's not an israeli source at all:
ruclips.net/video/4d2tHB_wM4c/видео.html
I found one article that attempted to refute the uti possidetis argument. Their main rebuttal was to state that the acceptance of this argument would mean that the winner of a war keeps all. However they did not really make a legal argument to counter Konotorovich's argument. I would argue that the winner of a war may in fact claim sovereignty over territory won where the war was not a war of aggression (as in the case of Israel who was defending itself from Arab aggression). Furthermore the Arabs did not raise the claim of self determination until after 1967.
its Judea and Samaria its was never called "West Bank"
Jueia and samaria was invented by Manahem Begen and the media took over. There was no such a thing Judea and Samaria the original people who lived in this area are Cananite not the Israelite that what history tells not glorify a history and claim otherwise
@@TodaySunrise How could Menahem Begin have invented it when already the UN Partition plan of 1947 used that phraseology? Did he travel back in time and altered that document?
@@TodaySunrise No historian of ancient history denies the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah existed. The only debate is whether there was ever a united kingdom like in the Bible. Both of the kingdoms were conquered by real empires of Babylon and Assyria. Judea was also a real place, it was a Roman province. The Roman province became Syria Palestine after the 2nd Jewish Roman war in the 2nd century ad.
@@TodaySunrise
Most archeologists believe the Israelites were a Canaanite people. They spoke a Canaanite language, Hebrew, they worshipped the Canaanite God of YWHW, and El.
The Israelites in the Tanakh assimilated the Canaanites into th themselves.
The modern Jews still show 50% of the ancient Canaanite DNA even after 2500 years of diaspora.
While I understand 12 minutes is a short amount of time, there was a real missed opportunity here. Avidan spent most the time simply rehashing the history of various agreements and court's opinions on the matter but didn't really address the various legal arguments Kontorovich made into WHY a court might determine a legal conclusion one way or the other. Whether the UN "considers" it in an occupation is pretty clear to everyone but doesn't speak at all as to what their legal justification is for considering it an occupation.
"International consensus" ie a load of islamists and other horrific dictators
Excellent Explanation on Claims , separating Moral and Historical.
You need to do a research for the fact to listen to some morals.
Cover is simply out of his depth here: his intro and responses were meandering, frequently irrelevant and filled with condescending and preachy moralism.
To me Adrian Cover's argument were morally superior but the state of conflict, particularly since the second Intifada, means that practically speaking Israel and the Palestinians are in an ongoing state of war so sovereignty is decided by security needs rather than peace time international law
When Avidan starts his arguments by saying that we should not look to logic but to what is happening in practice I knew straight away his arguments would not be as solid.
I don’t understand what prof. Cover ‘s argument for the law, all of his arguments are political not legal.
He keeps slipping back to using annexation and occupation though it has been clearly shown that these legal terms dont apply to any territory in eretz israel.
I heard this video for 27 minutes, and it seems that Prof. Eugene tells story and presents policy options with very weak legal arguments in a sitting where we need to look at the issue from an international law perspective--interestingly, he tries to weave a cover for the domestic jurisprudence of Israel and how they had to tackle the issue knowing the reality, and also, at the same time, Prof. Eugene denies the resolutions of UNGA and other authoritative sittings but gives lot more value to the Nagorna Karabakh case while prof. Avidan has much stronger arguments siting international law cases, CIL, and even referring to the domestic jurisprudence of Israel.
Weak arguments….?
There is one clear way of defining borders of a new country and it is ALWAYS applied >> you go by the former governing borders.
This is to not give incentive for others to start a war to grab land!
This is a default rule, which means that if there is no agreement between parties then this one applies.
IF the Arabs would have accepted resolution 181 (or any other partition plan that the Jews accepted) THEN that would create new borders.
However they REJECTED all of them and thus the last one to apply was the Mandate for Palestine.
That a lot of people (including you) think this is not nice or right or whatever is LEGALLY not relevant.
Legally this is a air tight case, and thus a very strong argument!
Legal? To the victor goes the spoils. I live on “conquered” land in California.
To make unbiased opinion about any issue to get two neutral opinions none biased at that point the answer will be clear and true not like what hear and see in this channel. Come on guys whom are you trying to fool?
Where was prof Kontorovich wrong in his argumentation please elaborate?