US passes UN vote banning Israeli settlements

[Ifreann]

Pretty much, yeah. Obviously the instances of "can" and "cannot" need qualification, but to put it simply, Israel doesn't get a bigger country because their neighbours attacked them.

Some logic

What's wrong with it? It is the position of the UN, and of anyone with a lick of sense, in my opinion, that acquisition of territory by force is not legitimate. Why should there be an exception for nations who were attacked?

---

Pretty much, yeah. Obviously the instances of "can" and "cannot" need qualification, but to put it simply, Israel doesn't get a bigger country because their neighbours attacked them.

Maybe next time they should have been successful at "driving the Jews back to the sea" instead of opting for complete failure by military operation standards and getting their ass kicked by a little tiny country.

I don't know if that would really have solved anything.

---

Any land taken during a war, rightfully belongs to the nation who took it, especially if the nation did not start the war.

Sorry, the world has largely moved passed notions like this. Turns out that thinking that way just leads to more wars of conquest, and war is really shit and generally best avoided.

So what you are saying is that:

Arabs can go to war against Israel
Israel can defend itself, but cannot keep the land it takes doing so.

It's not really a matter of can or cannot, though, is it?
There's nothing really stopping them from taking and keeping land apart from the military force of the opposing side.
Whether or not their claim to the land is internationally recognised is a different matter altogether.

This is why I said that qualifications were needed to the instances of "can" and "cannot".

[Ifreann]

Trump has apparently told Israel to stay strong until he is president. Though who knows what the hell that means.

I doubt Trump even knows what that means.

[Uxupox]

Some logic

What's wrong with it? It is the position of the UN, and of anyone with a lick of sense, in my opinion, that acquisition of territory by force is not legitimate. Why should there be an exception for nations who were attacked?

---

Maybe next time they should have been successful at "driving the Jews back to the sea" instead of opting for complete failure by military operation standards and getting their ass kicked by a little tiny country.

I don't know if that would really have solved anything.

---

It's not really a matter of can or cannot, though, is it?
There's nothing really stopping them from taking and keeping land apart from the military force of the opposing side.
Whether or not their claim to the land is internationally recognised is a different matter altogether.

This is why I said that qualifications were needed to the instances of "can" and "cannot".

If the Arabs were successful in the initial wars the problems that arose by the Israeli question would have never appeared.

[Ifreann]

What's wrong with it? It is the position of the UN, and of anyone with a lick of sense, in my opinion, that acquisition of territory by force is not legitimate. Why should there be an exception for nations who were attacked?

---

I don't know if that would really have solved anything.

---

This is why I said that qualifications were needed to the instances of "can" and "cannot".

If the Arabs were successful in the initial wars the problems that arose by the Israeli question would have never appeared.

And instead of Israel illegally occupying territory there'd be various other nations illegally occupying Israel and there'd be a similar but different problem.

[Uxupox]

If the Arabs were successful in the initial wars the problems that arose by the Israeli question would have never appeared.

And instead of Israel illegally occupying territory there'd be various other nations illegally occupying Israel and there'd be a similar but different problem.

Not at all. The nation of Israel wouldn't exist and either their population destroyed or made to run.

[Ifreann]

And instead of Israel illegally occupying territory there'd be various other nations illegally occupying Israel and there'd be a similar but different problem.

Not at all. The nation of Israel wouldn't exist and either their population destroyed or made to run.

Well if you want to take that view of it, if the right ape had been eaten by a lion then there wouldn't be a human race and there'd never be any political problems anywhere.

[Saiwania]

Why should there be an exception for nations who were attacked?

There is an exception in practice generally speaking, so that war has at least some consequence depending on which side wins and loses. What is the incentive for a more aggressive nation to use diplomacy instead of war, if they know that they can get off without consequence or ones with which they can easily tolerate even if they went ahead and used military force as their primary means to resolve disputes?

In the aftermath of most wars, the territory which is exchanged is usually only the land which actually changed hands during battle at most. A losing country is almost never completely annexed because the occupying nation usually doesn't want to have to govern the losing nation or perhaps take them on as citizens and etc. Through diplomacy or preexisting leverage, only a portion of land is taken by the victor. It is usually no loss that a defeated nation can't bear.

[Uxupox]

Not at all. The nation of Israel wouldn't exist and either their population destroyed or made to run.

Well if you want to take that view of it, if the right ape had been eaten by a lion then there wouldn't be a human race and there'd never be any political problems anywhere.

Just saying what the overview was in the initial wars of Mandatory Palestine.

[Ifreann]

Why should there be an exception for nations who were attacked?

There is an exception in practice generally speaking, so that war has at least some consequence depending on which side wins and loses. What is the incentive for a more aggressive nation to use diplomacy instead of war, if they know that they can get off without consequence or ones with which they can easily tolerate even if they went ahead and used military force as their primary means to resolve disputes?

It makes sense for there to be consequences for the governments who initiate wars of aggression. It does not make sense for those consequences to be imposed on people who happen to live near the wrong border.

[Uxupox]

There is an exception in practice generally speaking, so that war has at least some consequence depending on which side wins and loses. What is the incentive for a more aggressive nation to use diplomacy instead of war, if they know that they can get off without consequence or ones with which they can easily tolerate even if they went ahead and used military force as their primary means to resolve disputes?

It makes sense for there to be consequences for the governments who initiate wars of aggression. It does not make sense for those consequences to be imposed on people who happen to live near the wrong border.

Gentleman's war are non-existent.

[Novus America]

I mean, didn't the Soviets take control of the land they conquered in world War 2, isn't Pakistan controlling land it took over in Kashmir, and isn't Russia keeping the land it took from Ukraine.

The Soviet Union fell, Kashmir is disputed to this day, and we're honestly unsure if the west will have to fight a war in Eastern Europe over that last one.

None of them are accepted by the international community.

The international community has excepted the right of Russia to control East Prussia. Of Belarus and Ukraine to control Eastern Poland. Of Poland to control parts of Eastern Germany. Borders move.

Why are the 1967 borders so special? And if we return to 1967 well there was no Palestinian government in 1967 and the West Bank was part of Jordan and Gaza part of Egypt. Palestine being independent in its 1967 borders is anachronistic as Palestine did not exist as a state in 1967...

[Novus America]

Then why doesn't the Gaza Palestinians accept the peace initiative while the West Bank Palestinians and the Israeli government accept it?

I'm going to assume it has something to do with the two recent wars Israel waged in Gaza.

Umm Hamas started those wars...

[Ifreann]

The Soviet Union fell, Kashmir is disputed to this day, and we're honestly unsure if the west will have to fight a war in Eastern Europe over that last one.

None of them are accepted by the international community.

The international community has excepted the right of Russia to control East Prussia. Of Belarus and Ukraine to control Eastern Poland. Of Poland to control parts of Eastern Germany. Borders move.

Sure, borders moved a lot in the past. Then we decided that all these wars to move borders are really shitty and we should probably stop doing that, and we made this "United Nations" thing and agreed that acquiring territory by force isn't legit. Then Israel went and acquired some territory by force and, surprise sur-fucking-prise, the UN doesn't think that's legit.

Why are the 1967 borders so special? And if we return to 1967 well there was no Palestinian government in 1967 and the West Bank was part of Jordan and Gaza part of Egypt. Palestine being independent in its 1967 borders is anachronistic as Palestine did not exist as a state in 1967...

As much as I'm sure some people might quite like to go back to the 60s, I believe the idea is to create a just and lasting peace now.

[Gauthier]

Trump has apparently told Israel to stay strong until he is president. Though who knows what the hell that means.

I'm guessing Trump is implying Israel could outright ethnically cleanse all Palestinians and he would have the U.S. recognize all the annexed land

[Ostehaar]

Kerry's speech... magnificent. Basically repeats one-by-one the arguments of the Israeli left, including the relevant statistics and historical references. It's a shame that this statement is completely irrelevant, given the fact that's he's on his way out.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm going to assume it has something to do with the two recent wars Israel waged in Gaza.

Umm Hamas started those wars...

It wasn't Hamas that pasted the power stations, hospitals, schools and houses. Or shot or bombed children in Gaza.

Tell me why the population of Gaza might tend to be more pro-Hamas than pro-Israel.

[PaNTuXIa]

I'm surprised that the US okayed this. I thought the Israel lobby was more powerful.

[Alvecia]

I'm surprised that the US okayed this. I thought the Israel lobby was more powerful.

The US representative abstained as I understand it.

[Ifreann]

I'm surprised that the US okayed this. I thought the Israel lobby was more powerful.

Kinda hard to lobby a man who's leaving office in January no matter what.

[Uxupox]

Umm Hamas started those wars...

It wasn't Hamas that pasted the power stations, hospitals, schools and houses. Or shot or bombed children in Gaza.

Tell me why the population of Gaza might tend to be more pro-Hamas than pro-Israel.

It wasn't the Macheteros that experimentend on Puerto Ricans nor it was the Macheteros that killed Ojeda Ríos.

Why is it that population of Puerto Rico sometimes tends to be Pro-Macheteros than Pro-American?

[Novus America]

The international community has excepted the right of Russia to control East Prussia. Of Belarus and Ukraine to control Eastern Poland. Of Poland to control parts of Eastern Germany. Borders move.

Sure, borders moved a lot in the past. Then we decided that all these wars to move borders are really shitty and we should probably stop doing that, and we made this "United Nations" thing and agreed that acquiring territory by force isn't legit. Then Israel went and acquired some territory by force and, surprise sur-fucking-prise, the UN doesn't think that's legit.

Why are the 1967 borders so special? And if we return to 1967 well there was no Palestinian government in 1967 and the West Bank was part of Jordan and Gaza part of Egypt. Palestine being independent in its 1967 borders is anachronistic as Palestine did not exist as a state in 1967...

As much as I'm sure some people might quite like to go back to the 60s, I believe the idea is to create a just and lasting peace now.

Thing is lasting peace is going to no doubt require an adjustment of the West Bank's 1967 borders.
Israel is not going to go back to the 1967 borders. Negotiation is not just about making demands, you have to make some concessions. And the Palestinians are going to have to concede some of the land controlled by Jordan in 1967 or else the Israelis will not agree.

Yes I understand that we do not move borders as much as we once did, but borders do still move.
And have moved since the UN was created. And people do obsess over the Isareali Palestinian issue while overlooking other conflicts. Based on the press and attention it receives the fate of you would think the entire fate of the world hinges on this dispute, when it is just another territorial dispute. One of many.

[Novus America]

I'm surprised that the US okayed this. I thought the Israel lobby was more powerful.

The Arab lobby is more powerful. Or at least much better funded even if lacking popular support.

[Ifreann]

Sure, borders moved a lot in the past. Then we decided that all these wars to move borders are really shitty and we should probably stop doing that, and we made this "United Nations" thing and agreed that acquiring territory by force isn't legit. Then Israel went and acquired some territory by force and, surprise sur-fucking-prise, the UN doesn't think that's legit.


As much as I'm sure some people might quite like to go back to the 60s, I believe the idea is to create a just and lasting peace now.

Thing is lasting peace is going to no doubt require an adjustment of the West Bank's 1967 borders.
Israel is not going to go back to the 1967 borders. Negotiation is not just about making demands, you have to make some concessions. And the Palestinians are going to have to concede some of the land controlled by Jordan in 1967 or else the Israelis will not agree.

It is obviously not just for Israel to acquire land by force.

Yes I understand that we do not move borders as much as we once did, but borders do still move.
And have moved since the UN was created. And people do obsess over the Isareali Palestinian issue while overlooking other conflicts. Based on the press and attention it receives the fate of you would think the entire fate of the world hinges on this dispute, when it is just another territorial dispute. One of many.

I'm given to understand that some people do believe that the fate of the world hinges on this. Some Christian apocalypse myth or something like that.

[Gondolaulus]

Kerry's speech... magnificent. Basically repeats one-by-one the arguments of the Israeli left, including the relevant statistics and historical references. It's a shame that this statement is completely irrelevant, given the fact that's he's on his way out.

Melania Trump isn't the only one copying speeches it seems.

[Novus America]

Umm Hamas started those wars...

It wasn't Hamas that pasted the power stations, hospitals, schools and houses. Or shot or bombed children in Gaza.

Tell me why the population of Gaza might tend to be more pro-Hamas than pro-Israel.

It was Hamas who bombed Israeli villages using rockets fired from said hospitals, schools and houses.

And Hamas has shot plenty of people in Gaza.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Ha ... ce_in_Gaza
Hamas only supports democracy as a tool to gain power, not on principle.
Hamas kills political rivals.

And I do not expect the people of Gaza to support Israel.
But opposing Israeli policies does not require supporting Hamas.

The Palestinian people can have peace. OR have Hamas. They cannot have both as the two are mutually exclusive.

And they chose Hamas, well as much as the choice in Gaza was free and fair, but certainly despite its oppressive measures Hamas does have a lot of popular support.

So they chose no peace. Which was their choice to make, but they are going to have to live with the consequences.