Recent comments in /f/news

MeatsimPD t1_ja8xuo3 wrote

Reply to comment by spicytunaonigiri in Israelis, Palestinians pledge to curb violence at Jordan meeting by Hiversitize

Thanks for providing a source, I actually appreciate it. Not sure if this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Kontorovich is the best legal mind on the subject but at least its a source. I mean he's been involved in drafting laws for state legislatures that make it illegal to boycott Israel, yikes.

1

spicytunaonigiri t1_ja8x5x8 wrote

Reply to comment by MeatsimPD in Israelis, Palestinians pledge to curb violence at Jordan meeting by Hiversitize

Scholars disagree on what the law says. I don't normally like to block quote but since you requested:

"The ILC (International Law Commission) repeatedly recognized that not all territorial changes in war are illegitimate. Not all annexations were bad... All agreed that post-war frontier adjustments were justified to help protect the victim of aggression. There was broad consensus territorial change was only impermissible in a war of “aggression.” Thus the final document provided that
states have a duty “to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another State acting in violation” of the U.N. Charter or other international law rules. But Israel’s use of force in 1967 was defensive... and thus explicitly lawful under the Charter. Thus there is no obligation to refrain from recognizing" it.https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20180717/108563/HHRG-115-GO06-Wstate-KontorovichE-20180717.pdf

>No but it has every intention to do so

Israel has no serious intention of annexing the WB because if it did it would make Jews a minority in Israel.

>Is that what you're saying? Just any country could go to the West Bank and claim territory.

No. There's a difference between acquisition of land as the aggressor and defensively. Jordan acquired the land as the aggressor. Israel acquired it defensively. Typically occupied land that is not needed defensively is to be returned to the host country. In the WB, there is no host country. That's why some prefer to use the term "disputed land" rather than "occupied land." It's not being occupied from any other country. And which is also why the normal laws of occupation don't necessarily apply.

1

MeatsimPD t1_ja8wna7 wrote

Reply to comment by magellan315 in Israelis, Palestinians pledge to curb violence at Jordan meeting by Hiversitize

You've reached the point where you're basically saying international law doesn't matter, is that correct?

>The Palestinians dance in the streets after Jews are killed and make the terrorists hero's. When they love their children this practice will end, instead they teach them to kill

Lets not pretend that Israeli settlers and soldiers aren't guilty of killing innocent people, that they don't celebrate terrorists, or that they don't literally dance in the street when hearing about violence

There's no moral high-ground when it comes to violence here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settler_violence

>What further security justification is there for occupying the West Bank? What justification is there for settling Israelis citizens there

Still aren't answering my question. Its such a simple question too, why are you so afraid to give a direct answer?

1

magellan315 t1_ja8wh29 wrote

Reply to comment by waiv in Israelis, Palestinians pledge to curb violence at Jordan meeting by Hiversitize

U.N. Peacekeepers are lightly armed and would have done nothing to stop the Egyptian military which was already massing on the border. In 1956 Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships. Egypt hadn't learned its lesson the last time.

Jordan had been a base of operations for the PLO who was engaging in terrorist attacks. The Israeli's sent a message to both parties about what would not be tolerated.

2

MeatsimPD t1_ja8viit wrote

Reply to comment by spicytunaonigiri in Israelis, Palestinians pledge to curb violence at Jordan meeting by Hiversitize

> Scholars disagree on when annexation is permissible. I would imagine you would side with the scholars against it and I would side with the scholars who support it.

Well okay but this isn't about what "scholars" think its about the law says. And you haven't actually showed me any scholar or law that supports your position so lets not pretend you're not full of shit.

>FYI, Israel has not annexed the WB other than East Jerusalem.

No but it has every intention to do so, and meanwhile its continued occupation and settling of citizens is clearly illegal.

>It’s not even clear that it’s occupied since it’s not being occupied from any other nation.

This isn't the 1600s, there's no "free real estate" that just "doesn't belong to another nation" that anyone can settle in. Under this logic a state like Jordan, across the river, could send its own citizens into the territory to settle. Is that what you're saying? Just any country could go to the West Bank and claim territory.

>But certainly nations are permitted to occupy (if not annex) land held after a defensive war.

Cite a source.

1

magellan315 t1_ja8vcdi wrote

Reply to comment by MeatsimPD in Israelis, Palestinians pledge to curb violence at Jordan meeting by Hiversitize

The U.N. is a joke when it comes to Israel, remember when the Arabs and their allies passed a resolution equating Zionism with Racism. There is a joke about how the U.N. closes on Christian and Muslim holidays and on Jewish they pass a resolution against Israel.

As for your using a GIF instead of using your words, you just proved you are just another basement dwellers. The Palestinians dance in the streets after Jews are killed and make the terrorists hero's. When they love their children this practice will end, instead they teach them to kill

1

waiv t1_ja8v4se wrote

Reply to comment by magellan315 in Israelis, Palestinians pledge to curb violence at Jordan meeting by Hiversitize

Yeah, same peacekeepers who offered to be relocated on the Israel side of the border but were refused, if the Israeli government was really worried about Nasser attacking, why didn't they allow them to take new positions?

Meh, they were worse causus belli before and cooler heads prevailed, for instance the IDF invaded Jordan, destroyed a jordanian town and attacked their army in 1966 and that didn't led to war.

It's not like the blockade of a port that was barely used back then required an urgent action without resorting to diplomacy.

Anyway, seems silly to blame the Arab countries for all the wars when clearly Israel started at least half of them.

−3

MeatsimPD t1_ja8us2j wrote

Reply to comment by magellan315 in Israelis, Palestinians pledge to curb violence at Jordan meeting by Hiversitize

> Israel faces constant terrorist attacks they are making sure that all of its citizens are safe.

If they wanted to keep them safe, why are they allowing and encouraging them to settle outside Israeli's sovereign borders, beyond the security wall, and in very vulnerable locations?

>I think you're making excuses for the Palestinians inconsistent bullshit and those of its Arab allies who fund terrorism.

Oh the Palestinian authority government is an absolute disaster for the Palestinian people, and the funding of terrorism isn't helpful for anyone and certainly won't get Israel to withdraw from its illegally occupied territory.

Israel cannot be defeated militarily and its pointless and counter productive to try. Palestinians would be better served by following examples like Gandhi or Mandela in winning justice.

1