It makes no sense to me how the Palestinians, a group which only gains its identity in the 1960s, just magically have a right to the entire west bank. And of course the Jewish inhabitants of that region will be faced with genocide if such a thing actualized.

"Occupied territories" is itself a misnomer. It implies the palestinians are entitled to 100% of the west bank which is a ridiculous idea. — BitconnectCarlos

Incorrect.

Let's start with the most obvious: Syria and Israel has never signed a peace-agreement, thus Syria hasn't OK'd the annexation of the Golan Heights. Golan Heights is rather similar to Crimea. No other country has recognized the annexation of the Golan Heights than Trumpistan!

(Trump Heights, YEAH!)


For example the EU has declared that it doesn't recognize the Golan Heights to be part of Israel.

Then let's look at the West Bank (and Gaza).

First of all, Israel has basically (both de facto and de jure) annexed only Jerusalem. Israel hasn't actually annexed Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). Bibi naturally is very eager to do this, but it's been a bit difficult since the US isn't yet back to being Trumpistan again and Saudi-Arabia wouldn't be so eager to normalize the ties if Israel annexed the West Bank. And of course the Israelis know that there is the UN Security Council 242, so it wouldn't be a hugely popular move.

First let's take go through prior history:

Turkey did not legally surrender its sovereignty until 1923 when the Treaty of Lausanne was signed. Such detachment was primarily de facto and was a consequence of the British military occupation of Palestine and became de jure in 1923. The British military occupation did not bestow sovereignty to the United Kingdom, furthermore the military occupation did not affect any claim to sovereignty of the inhabitants.

Hence the reference to Mandatory Palestine. The British obtained this from the League of Nations to administer areas of the defunct Ottoman Empire "until such time as they are able to stand alone". Hence here already the Palestinians, then meaning both the Jewish and the Arabs living there, had a more legal grounds for the land than the "administrator", United Kingdom. Hence Palestine was never a British colony.

Then the UK gave up the land with the quarreling people and Israel declared independence and we had the UN partition plan. And we had the 1948 war and it's armstice.

From the UN site THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE WEST BANK AND GAZA

In 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and Egypt, Lebanon, Transjordan and Syria that followed the 1948 war meant territorial changes in Palestine. Israel secured control of all the territory allotted them in the Partition Plan and gained substantial additional portions in the West Bank area. The Gaza Strip was held by Egypt and the West Bank was united with Transjordan with no prejudice to the final settlement of its just cause within the framework of national aspirations.

These are the pre-1967 borders.

Do note that the Gaza Strip was first All-Palestine Protectorate and only was from 1959 annexed to be part of Egypt, but de facto was a military occupation area of Egypt. The people of Gaza couldn't for example move freely into Egypt.

What is called the West Bank is the area that Trans-Jordania occupied in the 1948 war, which by UN Resolution 181 was intended to be the Arab state alongside the Jewish part. In December 1948 in the Jericho conference Palestinian notables accepted Jordanian rule and recognized king Abdullah as their ruler. The Palestinians in the West Bank got Jordanian nationality and full citizenship rights. So how did Jordan view the Palestinians? Let's say they got over losing the West Bank to Israel quite quickly and saw the people being Palestinians, not Jordanians. King Hussein said the following in the UN in 1979:

“On 24 April 1950, the joint Jordanian Parliament, in taking its historic decision on unity, did not neglect to record Jordan’s unwavering stand towards the historic rights of the Palestinians and the support of Arab Palestinian rights in any future settlement in accordance with national aspirations and international justice. Thus when we speak today of the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people we do so because it is something we have always believed in and have always attempted to bring about within the framework of a just and comprehensive settlement.

And anyway, Jordan lost the West Bank and finally in 1988 Jordan shed all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank it claimed, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. So from 1988, nobody claimed that the people of the West Bank were Jordanians. This actually is important, because many Israeli politicians have simply hoped that Palestinians in the West Bank would move to Jordania.

Then how about the peace deals with Egypt and with later Jordan?

The Egyptian-Isreali peace treaty normalized the relations between the two countries, gave Sinai back (partly demilitarized), provided Israel free passage in the Suez canal and also the straights of Tiran and in the Gulf of Aqaba, but also called for an end to Israeli military rule over the Israeli-occupied territories and the establishment of full autonomy for the Palestinian inhabitants of the territories.

That's in the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. So obviously that didn't give any leeway for Israel to annex the Occupied territories.

How about the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty of 1994?

Here we should remember that already in 1988 Jordan had relinquished any claims it had towards the West Bank and stated that the Palestinians lead by the PLO had the rightful claim.

Still, Here's the main principles of that peace treaty:

1) Borders: The international boundary between Israel and Jordan follows the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers, the Dead Sea, the Emek Ha'Arava/Wadi Araba, and the Gulf of Aqaba. The section of the line that separated Jordan from the West Bank was stipulated as "without prejudice to the status of [that] territory."
2) Diplomatic relations and co-operation: The Parties agreed to establish full diplomatic and consular relations and to exchange resident embassies, grant tourists visas, open air travel and seaports, establish a free trade zone and an industrial park in the Arava. The agreement prohibits hostile propaganda.
3) Security and defense: Each country promised respect for the sovereignty and territory of each side, to not enter the other's territory without permission, and to cooperate against terrorism. This included thwarting border attacks, smuggling, preventing any hostile attack against the other and not cooperating with any terrorist organization against the other.
4) Jerusalem: Article 9 links the Peace Treaty to the Israeli–Palestinian peace process. Israel recognized the special role of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem and committed itself to give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines in negotiations on the permanent status.
5) Water: Israel agreed to give Jordan 50,000,000 cubic metres (1.8×109 cu ft) of water each year and for Jordan to own 75% of the water from the Yarmouk River. Both countries could develop other water resources and reservoirs and agreed to help each other survive droughts. Israel also agreed to help Jordan use desalination technology in order to find additional water.
6) Palestinian refugees: Israel and Jordan agreed to cooperate to help the refugees, including a four-way committee (Israel, Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinians) to try to work towards solutions.

So here not only Israel recognized Jordan's claims on the muslim holy shrines in Jerusalem, but notice also the last part.

Yesterday, I received a disturbing email from my Senator (the less crazy of two from Texas): — Relativist

That is the way the US views this. So no wonder Bibi is extremely confident that his military operation will go through and achieve it's objectives.

That is the way the US views this — ssu

That is not the way everyone in the US views it.

That is not the way everyone in the US views it. — Relativist

Official US views it so. Bi-partisan support! And with that, in the tow many other Western countries issue something like that or then simply want to keep silent (simply as not to anger the Americans, but also not to anger their own voters either). It seems that you really have to be neutral like the Irish...

Yet I think times are changing. You don't rule the public discourse by fear, which seems to be the case.

Bibi and the far right in Israel are with eager determination marching Israel to the position of White South Africa. (But then of course, White South Africa endured on for many decades...)

it's called the right to self determination. Look it up.

According to wikipedia Palestine is a state. If so, it is a state that Israel is at war with. It is a state that claims all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

so occupied territories, yes?

Evidence points to systematic use of rape and sexual violence by Hamas in 7 October attacks
In videos from 7 October, the body of a young woman is lying face down in the back of a pickup truck, stripped to her underwear, one leg bent at an unnatural angle. One of the men sitting next to her pulls her long hair as armed men around him shout praises to God.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/evidence-points-to-systematic-use-of-rape-by-hamas-in-7-october-attacks

No sympathy for Hamas or the people who voted them into power. They're getting their just desserts.

So, do we research who each of the dead voted for to determine our level of concern?

Yours are just self-serving arguments which beg the question and add nothing to strengthen your argument. Indeed, you didn’t bring any independent IHL sources to support your claim and that is already enough to me. But since you want to talk the merits of your interpretation then I’d add that you offered an uncharitable interpretation of IHL 51-7 that not only contradicts IHL 51-6 and the IHL principle of distinction, not only it makes it redundant with other IHL rules, but also it betrays the spirit of the IHL as if it was meant to encourage civilian killings instead of restrain it.
If you brought Palestinian/Hamas sources or massacres in illegally occupied territories according to IHL (which is not the case of October 7th) you might have had a chance to at least score a point however INCONCLUSIVE to support your original statement (i.e. that the law or proportionality is "so effed up and ambiguous that Hamas could technically interpret all of Israel as legal targets."). You didn’t even do that.
Catastrophic and you wanna even brag about it. Now, tell me: why should I have pity for you? Why?

Judaism is an ethnicity... it's an ethno-religion. It accepts converts but does not actively seek them out. There are many different sects.

Then why the equivocation?
When I said the Jewish people I was referring to the ethnic group. Which should have been obvious to you.
This equivocation is used widely to accuse people critical of Israeli action of anti-semitism. The Jewish lobby around the world is using it as a smokescreen, a sleight of hand to excuse the Jewish people of accountability for the reckless behaviour of Netanyahu.

Cakeism again.

Would be Assad or Raisi be representative for Arabs? When Assad kills 500,000 of his own people does that represent Arabs around the world? Netanyahu is the head of state in Israel and nothing more. He is not a rabbi. He holds no religious post. Jews are not blameworthy through his actions.

Blah blah blah…. Netanyahu is nothing to do with the Jewish people. He’s just some despot in the Middle East, nothing to do with us.

Cakeism.

And yet we are left with a vacuum of leadership of the Jewish people. A people spread across the world, devoid of a homeland. A people who do now have a homeland thanks to it being accepted and recognised by the international community. But when it, the state of Isreal breaks international law, becomes an international pariah and indiscriminately slaughters a captive people of another ethnicity intending to annex their land.

Oh, it’s nothing to do with us, that land over there in the Middle East. That’s just some despot. Oh and by the way don’t criticise me for feeling insecure when someone points out I’m Jewish, or links me to this despot. You’re an anti-Semite.

Cakeism all the way.

According to wikipedia Palestine is a state. If so, it is a state that Israel is at war with. — BitconnectCarlos

Hamas isn't the Palestine state, just like Hezbollah isn't Lebanon.

Hamas feels Israel is an occupation state, thus viewing all of Israel as legal game, as per the LETTER OF THE LAW. — Vaskane

If you consider Israel a legitimate state ...
THAT'S BEGGING THE QUESTION ... which assumes several fallacious premises. — Vaskane

Not begging the question at all, since the legitimacy of a state either is established by IHL laws (and I doubt that is even possible because the IHL doesn't establish if states are legitimate, just what it is permissible during war!), then you should show me the IHL international tribunal legally establishing that the Israel state as a whole is illegitimate to have legal effect or relevance which again you didn't provide. What international tribunals have established is that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territories since the Six-Day War of 1967 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories), not that the whole Israel or the territories that Hamas as attacked in October the 7th are illegally occupied!
Or the legitimacy of a state is established by states (NOT ME, YOU TOAD!), so for all those states which acknowledged Israel as a legitimate state then Israeli is a legitimate state, and there is no IHL laws that can establish otherwise.
You are conflating political/ideological claims with legal claims (beside conflating different legal claims) hoping that the appeal to the word of a single law (IHL 51-7), as you understand it after extrapolating it from its legal context, would support your belief that the law or proportionality is "so effed up and ambiguous that Hamas could technically interpret all of Israel as legal targets."
Besides you didn't provide any proof that Hamas or Palestinians take Israel as a whole as illegitimate because that's what they are compelled to believe according to IHL laws as YOU understand them. Hamas or Palestinians may take Israel as a whole as illegitimate no matter what the words of the IHL laws say.

↪neomac
The IHL Laws that were created AFTER Israel — Vaskane

So what?

and hundreds of other states determines what is a state? — Vaskane

What is a legitimate sovereign state in interstate relations, it’s established by sovereign states, obviously.

According to the King-Crane commission of 1919 the sentiment for the Zionist program within Palestine was roughly 9/10ths of the population against the concept of Israel. And Palestinians never gave away their land freely. To which you completely ignore the catastrophic consequences of the 1948 Nakba cause by Israel. So you know what Nakba means?
According to Palestinians, "The Nakba, which means “catastrophe” in Arabic, refers to the mass displacement and dispossession of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Before the Nakba, Palestine was a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society." Israel represents the Nakba, of course you and your shit reading comprehension will take that to mean Palestinians cheer and prop up Israel as legitimate, rather than as a "catastrophe," that happened to their people.
Since Israel represents catastrophe, and 9/10ths of the Palestinain population were against it at inception, it's definitely safe to assume Israel as illegitimate. — Vaskane

Sure, the state of Israel is/was widely perceived as illegitimate by the Palestinians (yet “The Palestine Liberation Organization is a Palestinian nationalist coalition that is internationally recognized as the official representative of the Palestinian people” In 1993, the PLO recognized Israeli sovereignty with the Oslo I Accord, and now only seeks Arab statehood in the Palestinian territories (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) that have been militarily occupied by Israel since the 1967 Arab–Israeli War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization). Who needs to deny that? Even if all Palestinians considered Israel as an illegitimate state now and forever, so fucking what? State recognition doesn’t depend EXCLUSIVELY on what Palestinians claim to be legitimate AT ALL, indeed they may very much need to fight for international recognition, including for recognition from Israel. Political recognition is what results from peaceful or violent political processes, and there is no reason to take the ideological assumptions of Palestinians (or the Israeli ideological assumptions for that matter!) as a premise to assess if the IHL law of proportionality or the legal notion of “human shield” are ambiguous. That would be an epic non sequitur, indeed.

Just because Britain didn't want to be a part of the headache anymore and just allowed Israel to happen doesn't mean the Palestinians wanted them there. Hence the Israeli Arab war of 1948 dumbass. Which apparently you think is just a celebration of the formation of a "legitimate" Israel. — Vaskane

The problem you are pointing at is ideological and political, not related to the semantic ambiguity of the IHL laws. And again the perceived illegitimacy of Israel by Palestinians may very much hold INDEPENDENTLY from what the IHL laws and IHL tribunals establish. On the other side, Hamas may look into what IHL laws state and IHL tribunals have established to turn the international community against Israel. So your questionable legal claim (the law of proportionality is “so effed up and ambiguous that Hamas could technically interpret all of Israel as legal targets”) has also very questionable explanatory power.

The fuck do I need to provide proof when that's literally what the whole fucking conflict is over? It's called common fucking knowledge. — Vaskane

What is common fucking knowledge? That the law of proportionality is “so effed up and ambiguous that Hamas could technically interpret all of Israel as legal targets”? That Israel has used its civilians as human shields in the massacre of October the 7th? Because that is what I’m questioning on legal grounds. And for these claims I need more than just you claiming so. BTW if it so common fucking knowledge why can’t you provide evidence from IHL experts, ONG investigators or even Palestinian/Hamas sources claiming that Israel was using its civilians as human shields by IHL laws in the massacre of October the 7th or in any other massacre, for that matter? Israel and IHL experts claim that Hamas is using Palestinian civilians as human shields, ONGs claim that Israel is using Palestinians as human shields. Yet nobody seems to claim that Israel is using Israeli civilians as human shields even though the IHL laws are so fucking ambiguous to making it an obvious successful accusation against Israel based on common knowledge. That's quite remarkable, innit?

You make no sense, dude.

No sympathy for Hamas or the people who voted them into power. They're getting their just desserts. — RogueAI

So, do we research who each of the dead voted for to determine our level of concern? — Echarmion

In the last election, in 2006, Hamas got 44.45% of the vote.

Let's apply that to the Israelis as well. They voted in Likud, who is now committing war crimes. Whatever happens to the Israelis, no matter how bad, is their just desserts.

You really don't understand how morality works do you? Only hate in your bones.

↪neomac
You're the one saying Law of Proportionality doesn't allow for states to kill innocent civilians — Vaskane

That’s a clamorous straw man, I didn’t claim anywhere the Law of Proportionality doesn’t allow states to kill innocent civilians, indeed you can not quote me claiming this. Of course the Law of Proportionality allows it (that’s my point too !), but also it restrains it through the notion of “proportionality” which must not be understood in terms of casualty comparisons between Palestinians and Israelis.

You're literally here defending Israel's wonton mass murder via bombardment. — Vaskane

That’s another calamorous straw man argument. As repeatedly stated, I’m questioning your claim that the law of proportionality is “so effed up and ambiguous that Hamas could technically interpret all of Israel as legal targets”.

And you're doing so because you're an emotional toad who thought my first comment replying to you was attacking you when it was literally, for the third time, attacking the law of proportionality. — Vaskane

Yet another straw man argument, a childish one. It’s me who is complaining about you complaining about the law of proportionality, as I stated, and I argued accordingly with pertinent reasons.

Well, let's hope people you're friends with aren't killed by Israel's wonton bombardment. That is if you even have any friends from that part of the world.

Try reading an account of the 50 years of occupation: https://ramseyhanhan.org/

"Born in Palestine ‘on the “wrong” side of the border,’ Sameer finds his way to America to rebuild his life. His immigrant experience in post-9/11 America is laced to the ongoing conflict at home with the common threads of school shootings, police violence, human rights abuses, activism, and walls. For the sake of his daughter, he decides he must do something." — Vaskane

Are you crying, dude? Do you want a hug?

↪neomac
You do realize I read about the first few sentences then ignore the rest of what you write right? of course it's a strawman, — Vaskane

You do realize that I have no pity for you, right?

It's particularly silly because it's been pointed out several times that:

A. Hamas won 44% of the vote in that election, not even a majority. They beat Fatah by a whole 2%.
B. They rule Gaza unilaterally not because of that election but the 2007 Gaza War they fought with Fatah where they essentially threw a coup and murdered the Fatah members still in the Strip.
C. They haven't allowed for anything like democracy ever since, repress protests, disappear/torture dissidents, etc.
D. Up through 2022, they polled fairly terribly, with north of 73% saying Hamas should be forced to hold election and that their military wing should be disarmed and disbanded.

Also ironic is that a key campaign promise was to stop hiding military assets/forces in civilian areas and using "human shields." Hamas pronouncements that all of Gaza is "eager to become martyrs," for them should be taken with a grain of salt. It hardly seems fair to hold the general population accountable, especially since the 10/7 attack was planned in secret, hidden even from the Hamas political leadership and their allies. Israelis have far more say in their government.



---
Anyhow, Israel's unity government seems to be begining to crack up. There seems to be growing recognition that totally removing Hamas and returning the hostages alive are mutually exclusive goals.

Totally removing Hamas requires taking Rafah, which requires some sort of understanding with the Egyptians. This is lacking precisely because Israel has no clear vision for what comes next. As much as Egypt might love to be rid of Hamas, obviously they don't want to write a blank check (or take in refugees, or be forced into a position where it looks very bad for them not to take refugees.

It's really unclear what the plan is supposed to be.

Why would I want that? Pity persuades to extinction — Vaskane

Signed, der Gekreuzigte.

frankly, not as terrible as your arguments. Ba dum tsss.

No sympathy for Hamas or the people who voted them into power. They're getting their just desserts. — RogueAI

Yeah, those 10,000 babies should have known better.

You’re a sick guy.

Lol, it's too ripe... It's cute that you try to use "begging the question," fallacy yet don't even know how it's applied. — Vaskane

I, and many others, have already pointed this out on the Ukraine thread. Just do what everyone else has learned to do: ignore him.

Yeah, those 10,000 babies should have known better. — Mikie

Reread what I said. Babies did not vote Hamas into power. I have sympathy for them.

Oh, I see. So just no sympathy for those who voted for Hamas 17 years ago and who happened to be murdered now.

I stand corrected about your humanity.

↪neomac
Your argument against my argument was even worse "but who cares about the wording of the law, we should only care about how the west interprets the law to exploit the middle east!" — Vaskane

Thus spoke the self-deprecating Westerner. You shouldn't feel alone though: Mikie is so excited to invite you to his information bubble, you lucky boy!

Oh, I see. So just no sympathy for those who voted for Hamas 17 years ago and who happened to be murdered now. — Mikie

I don't care if it was 10, 20, or 30 years ago. They chose to get in bed with Hamas, and now they're in a war and getting the shit kicked out of them. Live and learn. Next time don't vote for terrorists.

They chose to get in bed with Hamas, and now they're in a war and getting the shit kicked out of them. Live and learn. Next time don't vote for terrorists. — RogueAI

There is a moral (but not legal) argument to be made that the citizens of a democracy are responsible for the actions of their rulers, and therefore are morally legitimate targets in a war. I don't know how much of a democracy there was in the region at the time. I live in the uk and we have a shit democracy here. We have a choice of two due to the gaming mechanics of the first past the post system. I certainly don't think I'm personally responsible for anything the current government does. Do you feel the same about those who didn't vote for Hamas? What about the children of Hamas voters? Do your think international law should be changed to allow targeting of civilians in a democracy? If so, how direct should the democracy be?

So you’re also OK with what Hamas did, provided the victims voted for the current terrorist regime in Israel? Good — at least you’re consistent.