It’s not unlawful to take land during a war. It’s just shitty, in most instances.
This is why the settlements were (international viewed as) illegal (or, in the most generous of terms, of extremely questionable legality) prior to the war but aree authorized during the war specifically. Plays a lot better, in terms of international politics.
I would love to see the US make any aid to Israel conditional on a complete reversal of this policy and development of the West Bank in general. Would do a lot for the eventual peace process, as a nice side effect.
Edit: from the link in the article, about the background here
The deal would include gestures to the Palestinians. Among the suggestions has been a freeze in West Bank settlement activity, including the authorizations of outposts. Netanyahu’s government has been opposed to any such demand within the context of the Saudi deal or any other framework.
Prior to the war’s start, it was very politically unpopular for them to build settlements on outpost territory. Not the gloves are off, because they have plausible reasons in the international community.
The US has the power to take that plausible reason away, and should do so.
The people of the west bank (and Gaza) absolutely have the right to fight back right now. I wouldn’t recommend it as an outsider, because they’re going to lose, but I’d do it if I was there, because I’m an idiot.
They didn’t have the (internationally recognized) right to engage in hostilities, prior to the 10/7 terrorist attacks.
Worth noting this land is already Israeli land within the West Bank. They are outposts similar to US military bases.
You and I can disagree with Israel on the morality of that, but the international community absolutely recognizes this land as Israeli (outside the Muslim block of the UN, which doesn’t really recognize Israel as a state still.
This is why Hamas attacked Israel in October, to try to disrupt that normalization, because Israel’s “aggressive” strategies are as predictable as the tides.
There is no war in the west bank. They are involved in a drastic increase of settler violence, colonialist land grabs, judicial violence and ecocide. Behaviour that has been observed for decades and that has seen a significant increase even before the Gaza strip war, and has seen an outright explosion following Israel’s increase of wanton and indiscriminate violence in Gaza perpetrated by the IDF.
All of this violence in the west bank has been thoroughly documented by HRW and B’Tselem. The Israeli settler’s and the IDF’s behaviour is decidedly not a consequence of ‘the war’, and any claim made as such fails to take into account that this behaviour has seen an upwards trend for a decade at least, and is therefore merely a continuation, albeit a stark increase.
Per the article, Israel has declared war on the West Bank when they declared war against Hamas.
I find that declaration sweeping and a bit difficult to defend, but it has happened.
All of this violence in the west bank has been thoroughly documented by HRW and B’Tselem. The Israeli settler’s and the IDF’s behaviour is decidedly not a consequence of ‘the war’
This current violence is absolutely predicated upon the war legally, and more importantly in human terms, driven by hate - which is most assuredly because of the war.
Israel didn’t start that war btw. Jordan, Syria and Egypt dont want the land.
Kind of similar to how Palestine has never been a country throughout all of human history. The only country that ever reliably tried to create a state of Palestine was Israel.
Your personal beliefs can be anything. But according to how these terms are actually used in the real world (and not “kinda similar online pedantry”) it is not the same at all.
Politically motivated violence to exterminate an ethno-religious group sounds like terrorism to me. I think the difference you see vs most terrorist orgs is that Israel have the means to follow through on their genocidal intent.
The UN General Assembly’s definition of terrorism from a condensation of it:
Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes.
The US legal definition:
premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents
I think it meets the UN definition, but misses the US definition because it’s a national power that’s committing it.
Edit: The national power requirement would ironically mean the Holocaust wasn’t a genocide, so I think it’s better for everyone that we don’t rely on the US government’s definition that seems to throw the baby out with the genocidal bathwater in an effort to show that it’s impossible for them (or a certain strategic ally in the Middle East) to meet the definition of a genocide.
I took the definition and pointed out how it’s applicable to the situation - what have I missed about how the world actually works? So far, it looks a lot like your feelings to me.
Palestinian casualties in the “conflict” are pretty squarely in-line with the broader Palestinian population, making it pretty indisputable the IDF is indiscriminately killing Palestinians, not targeting Hamas.
The Netanyahu administration has been spouting all sorts of genocidal rhetoric.
The Netanyahu administration actively propped up Hamas over moderate orgs. Seems like someone needed a pretext for the thing they’ve been trying to do for decades.
The Netanyahu administration has indiscriminately halted the movement of Palestinians, and cut water, power, food, trade and aid. Some of these have been restored thanks to international pressure - open war crimes and whatnot.
The UN has characterised the Netanyahu administration’so management of Palestine as an open air concentration camp.
The IDF has killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians - a major share of those deaths were children.
The IDF lies relentlessly - tunnels built under the Al-Shifa hospital by the Israeli government? No - that was Hamas… But Hamas beheaded all those babies - trust us, bro - we’ve got the evidence, but can’t share it or have it verified. Then there’s the Arabic calendar nonsense, the “hospital” curtain bullshit, the list goes on.
Do you have a counter more substantive than “feels”, “we don’t want to kill thousands of children - Hamas made us” or “criticising genocide is antisemitic”?
I really would have liked to see their answer but it appears they’re unable to substantiate any of their argument. I’m not surprised, their criticisms seem to be entirely projection.
Thanks! The formatting could use some work if nothing else, but I appreciate it.
To be fair, it’s only hitting 8am in Israel now, so there’s still the possibility of some substantiation yet - though deflection, performative offence, claiming a lack of evidence, and whattaboutisms seem more likely - let’s see…
I find it inexcusable that we don’t use our power to rein in Israel. It’s not only morally repugnant (and I’m staunchly a defender of Israel’s right to exist and anti-Hamas), but it’s also just really shitty in terms of realpolitik.
There’s no justifiable reason the US can’t strongarm Israel into a two-state solution that guarantees a full pull back from the west bank. What’s Israel going to do, turn on the US? Will never happen.
Everything that doesn’t suit your agenda should be ‘reined in’. Hm, that looks similar to many things in the past, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea peninsula. What else I wonder, American?
These people are dangerous extremists and should be imprisoned wtf
The IDF is complicit too. Maybe it is time to label Israel a terrorist state?
This is very specifically not terrorism, so no?
Strongly in favor of US soft power being used to change Israeli leadership goals though
How is it not?
They’re using the threat of violence, and sometimes using violence, to push their agenda of Israeli expansion into Palestinian territory.
Ah, see it is lawful because Israel says so, therefore it doesn’t qualify as terrorism. /s
Israeli propagandists are trained to believe that whoever spams harder wins.
It’s not unlawful to take land during a war. It’s just shitty, in most instances.
This is why the settlements were (international viewed as) illegal (or, in the most generous of terms, of extremely questionable legality) prior to the war but aree authorized during the war specifically. Plays a lot better, in terms of international politics.
I would love to see the US make any aid to Israel conditional on a complete reversal of this policy and development of the West Bank in general. Would do a lot for the eventual peace process, as a nice side effect.
Edit: from the link in the article, about the background here
Prior to the war’s start, it was very politically unpopular for them to build settlements on outpost territory. Not the gloves are off, because they have plausible reasons in the international community.
The US has the power to take that plausible reason away, and should do so.
So, if this is a war, they basically have the same rights as Ukraine as they fight for the integrity of their land? Is that what you’re saying?
The people of the west bank (and Gaza) absolutely have the right to fight back right now. I wouldn’t recommend it as an outsider, because they’re going to lose, but I’d do it if I was there, because I’m an idiot.
They didn’t have the (internationally recognized) right to engage in hostilities, prior to the 10/7 terrorist attacks.
Worth noting this land is already Israeli land within the West Bank. They are outposts similar to US military bases.
You and I can disagree with Israel on the morality of that, but the international community absolutely recognizes this land as Israeli (outside the Muslim block of the UN, which doesn’t really recognize Israel as a state still.
Even Saudi Arabia is considering to normalize relationship with Israel.
This is why Hamas attacked Israel in October, to try to disrupt that normalization, because Israel’s “aggressive” strategies are as predictable as the tides.
Thank you for your reasonable voice. Reading comments here about this topic can be very frustrating.
There is no war in the west bank. They are involved in a drastic increase of settler violence, colonialist land grabs, judicial violence and ecocide. Behaviour that has been observed for decades and that has seen a significant increase even before the Gaza strip war, and has seen an outright explosion following Israel’s increase of wanton and indiscriminate violence in Gaza perpetrated by the IDF.
All of this violence in the west bank has been thoroughly documented by HRW and B’Tselem. The Israeli settler’s and the IDF’s behaviour is decidedly not a consequence of ‘the war’, and any claim made as such fails to take into account that this behaviour has seen an upwards trend for a decade at least, and is therefore merely a continuation, albeit a stark increase.
Per the article, Israel has declared war on the West Bank when they declared war against Hamas.
I find that declaration sweeping and a bit difficult to defend, but it has happened.
This current violence is absolutely predicated upon the war legally, and more importantly in human terms, driven by hate - which is most assuredly because of the war.
It is illegal to take land during a war. Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation
Boy someone better tell literally every country on the planet
They did, that’s why it’s illegal now.
Hey broski, you should’ve clicked some links in your Wikipedia article.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cession
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
Israel didn’t start that war btw. Jordan, Syria and Egypt dont want the land.
Kind of similar to how Palestine has never been a country throughout all of human history. The only country that ever reliably tried to create a state of Palestine was Israel.
seems to me israelis are using terror to achieve their goals. death threats supported by the idf seem pretty terrifying to me.
Artillery fire is also terrifying and is not terrorism
are you sure? the israelis call the palestinian rockets terrorism.
You have got to be kidding.
That is literal terrorism by literal terrorist groups, yes.
according to whom? seems to me they are fighting a terrorist state.
How can people actively defend terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah? Absolutely crazy.
Your personal beliefs can be anything. But according to how these terms are actually used in the real world (and not “kinda similar online pedantry”) it is not the same at all.
Why were Israel sponsoring Hamas, a terrorist group, to displace the moderate PLO-aligned orgs then?
Irredeemable stupidity?
Antisemitism?
Manufacturing a pretext for the genocide they’re now committing, perhaps?
We’ve established elsewhere that Israel meets the UN definition of terrorism.
As always, when something truly terrible happens, it’s this.
Giant LOL here.
Hamas is running a government too, so I guess they’re not either. Problem solved everyone, Israel can go home now.
Politically motivated violence to exterminate an ethno-religious group sounds like terrorism to me. I think the difference you see vs most terrorist orgs is that Israel have the means to follow through on their genocidal intent.
The UN General Assembly’s definition of terrorism from a condensation of it:
The US legal definition:
I think it meets the UN definition, but misses the US definition because it’s a national power that’s committing it.
Edit: The national power requirement would ironically mean the Holocaust wasn’t a genocide, so I think it’s better for everyone that we don’t rely on the US government’s definition that seems to throw the baby out with the genocidal bathwater in an effort to show that it’s impossible for them (or a certain strategic ally in the Middle East) to meet the definition of a genocide.
That’s not happening.
I’m sure you have lots of opinions on this, but I’m not talking about how I feel. I’m talking about how the world actually works.
If you aren’t going to discuss reality there’s not much point in us continuing.
I took the definition and pointed out how it’s applicable to the situation - what have I missed about how the world actually works? So far, it looks a lot like your feelings to me.
Do you have a counter more substantive than “feels”, “we don’t want to kill thousands of children - Hamas made us” or “criticising genocide is antisemitic”?
Edit: Formatting & clarity.
I really would have liked to see their answer but it appears they’re unable to substantiate any of their argument. I’m not surprised, their criticisms seem to be entirely projection.
Great job laying out your case, by the way.
Thanks! The formatting could use some work if nothing else, but I appreciate it.
To be fair, it’s only hitting 8am in Israel now, so there’s still the possibility of some substantiation yet - though deflection, performative offence, claiming a lack of evidence, and whattaboutisms seem more likely - let’s see…
It’s terrorism
It’s not a rising democracy in a central American country so the US won’t care to intervene
I find it inexcusable that we don’t use our power to rein in Israel. It’s not only morally repugnant (and I’m staunchly a defender of Israel’s right to exist and anti-Hamas), but it’s also just really shitty in terms of realpolitik.
There’s no justifiable reason the US can’t strongarm Israel into a two-state solution that guarantees a full pull back from the west bank. What’s Israel going to do, turn on the US? Will never happen.
The sense of invader is so strong with this guy.
Everything that doesn’t suit your agenda should be ‘reined in’. Hm, that looks similar to many things in the past, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea peninsula. What else I wonder, American?
What? Are you high?
No, you are.
Not yet. It’s 8am. Later today tho
This is how Israeli settlers are. Welcome to the West Bank.
deleted by creator