Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "'Serious concerns' about foreign policy decisions of the US" video.

@chriswatson7965 "With that opinion will come some element of judgement." True. "Australia is doing a lot better than israel...". In what way? "It doesn't seem to have a flagrant disregard for international law." What legal status does international law have?
1
@chriswatson7965 "...the same status any law has." No, it doesn't. Sovereign states are just that—sovereign. They decide their own laws. So-called International Law has no status except to the extent that sovereign states decide to abide by it. "The only thing special about Australian law for instance is that there are institutions and mechanisms for enforcing that law. International law doesn't have the same teeth, but it remains just as valid." No, it is not just as valid. Australian law has authority over people in Australia, whether they agree with it or not. International law has no authority over countries except to the extent that the countries allow it to have authority over them. "I'll also add that it hasn't had a terrorist group invade and kill 1000 civilians" Fair enough. Australia hasn't had that problem that Israel's had. "...that was answered in the next line." I don't know what Israel's position on international law is, but given the extreme bias shown against Israel in many quarters, I would not criticise Israel for not accepting 'international law' if it chose not to.
1
@chriswatson7965 "The term "sovereign state" is something as defined in international law." It's also defined in dictionaries. I don't see your point. And the concept predates any formal international law defining it. "Your whole argument that international law is less legitimate is based on international law being equally legitimate." False, given that the concept existed independently of international law. "There seems to be some mystical, nearly religious zeal to the concept of modern nationhood. But it is an invention, one that that has its origins in the Peace of Westphalia of 1648." What ancient countries ever considered themselves anything but sovereign? Rome? Egypt? China? "It is only international law that permits countries to have their own laws and boundaries" And yet they had them before there was international law, so that's clearly false. "Australia has laws because other countries permit it to." No, it has laws because it has the authority to make laws. True, in Australia's case (unlike most) Britain gave it authority, but since then it does not rely on Britain continuing to permit it. "...there has, over the last 80 years, profound bias in favour of Israel..." What bias? "...that has allowed it to behave in a manner that would not be tolerated by any other country." Such as? "Israel only exists because of the support of cooperation of other countries." True. If it didn't have the support of others, it would be wiped off the map by evil regimes. Which could be the case for many other countries also. France only exists because Britain and its allies freed it from Germany. Your point is correct, but not special to Israel. "International law was the basis of that support." Only in the sense that there was international agreement on providing that support. Law is something imposed on its subjects by a body with the authority to do so. International law has no such body. It exists on the basis of agreement between sovereign states.
1
@chriswatson7965 "Please cite one example of the concept of sovereign state prior to 1648 - note I am asking for the concept, not examples of states with de facto sovereign power." If they had sovereign power, they had the concept! "The point is that concept of sovereignty arose out of international law. Prior to that rulers organising forces to invade other territories was fair game." In what sense was it fair game? What made it fair? "" Rome? Egypt? China?" - no they didn't. They were simply entities that fought against other entities." No, they weren't "simply" that. They were countries (nations) that considered that they had the absolute right to rule their territories. "They existed, but there was no permission for their existence." Romans 13:1 (2000 years ago): "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." ""No, it has laws because it has the authority to make laws." - where does that authority come from?" See Romans 13:1 "What stops countries from invading or otherwise forcing Australia to enact laws in favour of those other countries?" It can be either the knowledge that invading Australia is the wrong thing to do, or the negative consequences of doing so. " "What bias?" the bias that allowed the country to exist,..." Okay, so a good bias. "...excused the multiple invasions of surrounding territory,..." What multiple invasions? Are you referring to pushing back against the invaders OF Israel? "...and excuses the continued illegal treatment of the palestinians." What illegal treatment? "Consider this scenario - Russia invades Australia, organises the mass migration of unwanted minority groups into the area around Sydney, it leaves and the Russian immigrants organise their own country, centred on Sydney, declare independence, and kick out any Australian's who disagree." Given that Israel was given some of their own land by the then-governing authorities, and didn't "invade", how is that a valid analogy? "exactly - this is an example of international law." Yes, but of it being an agreement by sovereign states, not because it has any authority over states that don't accept it. "that is what international law is. What did you think it was?" That's what I thought it was! But what you're claiming is more than that. You're claiming that it has authority over states that don't agree to it.
1