I notice that the column expressed support for the two-state solution. I'm not sure if that is Joshua or the dissenting judges' opinion. But it is noticeable that the only thing the Government of Israel and Hamas agree on, is their rejection of the two-state solution.
There were *dissenting* judgments in the Nuremberg War Trials but the bestial way that war was conducted saw a shift in the norms of law… understandably. Perhaps the ICJ ruling will impart a *sense of urgency* to the negotiations between the parties - something surely must?
Reading the “assumptions” reminds me of the old joke: if you ask a silly question you get a silly answer .
I notice that the column expressed support for the two-state solution. I'm not sure if that is Joshua or the dissenting judges' opinion. But it is noticeable that the only thing the Government of Israel and Hamas agree on, is their rejection of the two-state solution.
There were *dissenting* judgments in the Nuremberg War Trials but the bestial way that war was conducted saw a shift in the norms of law… understandably. Perhaps the ICJ ruling will impart a *sense of urgency* to the negotiations between the parties - something surely must?
It would seem that not only is the law an ass.
Well expressed helpful and persuasive.Thank you.