NationStates

Kaumudeen wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:The British didn't hand it to Israel. The United Nations did. I'll also point out this revanchist take just means we may as well hand the whole region over to the Greeks.

Balfour declaration (signed by a brit) basically guaranteed that Palestine would essentially be handed over to European Jews. Not to mention that the great powers did not consult with the local Arab population on the proposal.

No, it didn't. This is another common anti-british and anti-israeli lie.

The balfour declaration specifically avoids declaring the Jews will have a nation of their own. It merely asserts they will have a homeland in Palestine. This was deliberately chosen as the wording to appease the stated positions of all sides;

since "A homeland in palestine" leaves open the possibility of an Israel, or a United Palestinian Authority where both Arabs and Jews co-exist. That was a deliberate and carefully considered choice of wording.

The ultimate decision to divide the area was made by the United Nations.

Kaumudeen wrote:The Saudis have killed more labourers than Iran has killed women or prisoners, but no one cares about them because they are South Asian usually and not convenient for Western feminists.

I'm discussing statistics on executions and women's rights.

If you would like to bring up the mistreatment or killing of South Asian workers to defend Iran relative to Saudi Arabia, you could provide sources. This isn't an issue of South Asians being "not convenient" for "Western feminists." It's an issue of you repeatedly defending despotic regimes by alleging falsely that they're better than other despotic regimes.

SusScorfa wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Occupying the land of a nation that has invaded you until they negotiate a peace isn't illegal.

The courts seems to disagree with you.

They don't. They argue that the de-facto annexation of the territories is illegal. The occupation was perfectly legal. The illegality arises from the gradual integration of the territories into the territory of Israel proper in an act of annexation, without concurrent provisions for Palestinian residents to become Israeli citizens. Which is to say, occupying Palestine is perfectly ordinary. What is illegal is acting like it's part of Israel.

On the other hand, I would point out that just flatly refusing to recognize Israel and sue for peace for decades and decades made this outcome inevitable, and I disagree with rewarding that behavior by forcing a status quo ante bellum.

Ostroeuropa wrote:No, it didn't. This is another common anti-british and anti-israeli lie.

The balfour declaration specifically avoids declaring the Jews will have a nation of their own. It merely asserts they will have a homeland in Palestine. This was deliberately chosen as the wording to appease the stated positions of all sides;

since "A homeland in palestine" leaves open the possibility of an Israel, or a United Palestinian Authority where both Arabs and Jews co-exist. That was a deliberate and carefully considered choice of wording.

Subsequent white papers, issued beginning in 1929, safeguarded Arab economic rights and even limited Jewish immigration to Palestine. The idea that the British administration was adamantly or consistently Zionist is pseudo-historical nonsense that a cursory glance at available historical documents will swiftly discredit.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

SusScorfa wrote:
The courts seems to disagree with you.

They don't. They argue that the de-facto annexation of the territories is illegal. The occupation was perfectly legal. The illegality arises from the gradual integration of the territories into the territory of Israel proper in an act of annexation, without concurrent provisions for Palestinian residents to become Israeli citizens.

So the occupation is illegal, no? Per your logic other nations in the region have a mandate to civilize Israel then.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Kaumudeen wrote:
Balfour declaration (signed by a brit) basically guaranteed that Palestine would essentially be handed over to European Jews. Not to mention that the great powers did not consult with the local Arab population on the proposal.

No, it didn't. This is another common anti-british and anti-israeli lie.

Lol

The balfour declaration specifically avoids declaring the Jews will have a nation of their own. It merely asserts they will have a homeland in Palestine. This was deliberately chosen as the wording to appease the stated positions of all sides;

since "A homeland in palestine" leaves open the possibility of an Israel, or a United Palestinian Authority where both Arabs and Jews co-exist. That was a deliberate and carefully considered choice of wording.

The ultimate decision to divide the area was made by the United Nations.

Still, both Brits and the UN failed to consult the Arabs about the plan.

Kaumudeen wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
No, it didn't. This is another common anti-british and anti-israeli lie.

Lol

The balfour declaration specifically avoids declaring the Jews will have a nation of their own. It merely asserts they will have a homeland in Palestine. This was deliberately chosen as the wording to appease the stated positions of all sides;

since "A homeland in palestine" leaves open the possibility of an Israel, or a United Palestinian Authority where both Arabs and Jews co-exist. That was a deliberate and carefully considered choice of wording.

The ultimate decision to divide the area was made by the United Nations.

Still, both Brits and the UN failed to consult the Arabs about the plan.

Arab representatives were consulted about both plans. They just weren't given 100% of everything they wanted, because Jews also lived there.

Senkaku wrote:See, the difference between us is just that I actually say what I think and mean. There is no such thing as a “partial” weapons ban...

I'm going to stop you right there. The British just implemented a partial weapons ban. So it's clearly possible, even if it doesn't go as far as you would like.

Fahran wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:No, it didn't. This is another common anti-british and anti-israeli lie.

The balfour declaration specifically avoids declaring the Jews will have a nation of their own. It merely asserts they will have a homeland in Palestine. This was deliberately chosen as the wording to appease the stated positions of all sides;

since "A homeland in palestine" leaves open the possibility of an Israel, or a United Palestinian Authority where both Arabs and Jews co-exist. That was a deliberate and carefully considered choice of wording.

Subsequent white papers, issued beginning in 1929, safeguarded Arab economic rights and even limited Jewish immigration to Palestine. The idea that the British administration was adamantly or consistently Zionist is pseudo-historical nonsense that a cursory glance at available historical documents will swiftly discredit.

Precisely. The idea that the British were pro-Jewish or anti-Arab is nonsense peddled to drum up a narrative of victimization on the part of Arabs. The British consistently attempted to balance the interests of Jews and Arabs in the region, more often to the Arabs favour.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Kaumudeen wrote:
Occupying the land is the aggression.

So to be clear, it is your position that the Arabs can start a genocidal war, lose that war, refuse to negotiate for peace and refuse to recognize Israel, but by virtue of Israel not surrendering the land back, Israel is the aggressor.

Is that the case?

I wonder why Israel hasn't "Started a war" with Egypt.



It's a mystery.

The mistake is trying to decide whose the fault is instead of trying to resolve this conflict. Now, you talk like you forgot how Israel was born, founded arbitrarily after WW2 taking the land from their previous owner without even trying to find a compromise.
I agree on the fact that the 7th October was one of the cruelest attacks of the last decades of Israel-Palestinian War, but now Israeli operation has become a revenge mission rather than a defensive war, causing 42.000 of civilians victims.
Hamas and Hezbollah’s action are inexcusable, but Israel’s action have become terroristic. Just think about the explosions of the walkie talkie, it’s a way to say to the civilians that their attacks can reach them everywhere. It’s terrorism.
Now Netanyahu is using this war also for maintaining his political role in matter of internal politics. His political support has sensibly decreased and war is the best way to distract the people and maintain the power.
I think this is one of the biggest tragedy of our times, and we cannot simplify it telling who the fault is, or who’s more wrong. There’s 80 years of mistakes that led us here. Now we must look forward and decide what to do. For the people and for the world.

SusScorfa wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
They don't. They argue that the de-facto annexation of the territories is illegal. The occupation was perfectly legal. The illegality arises from the gradual integration of the territories into the territory of Israel proper in an act of annexation, without concurrent provisions for Palestinian residents to become Israeli citizens.

So the occupation is illegal, no? Per your logic other nations in the region have a mandate to civilize Israel then.

No, the de-facto annexation is. And no, I don't particularly think mere illegality arises to the level of being uncivilized. As I said, I am calling these nations uncivilized in the most classical sense, in that they conduct border raids, the most basic tenet of international order is not to do that. Finally, i'd argue that the de-facto annexation has arisen due to such a unique circumstance that it was not foreseen when the laws were written. They were written to prevent nations just arbitrarily annexing parts of other nations without affording rights to those living there.

Israel hasn't done this arbitrarily. See for example; Sinai and the Golan Heights. The reason it has occurred is because the Palestinians have *refused to accept peace terms* despite being occupied for almost a century, which has functionally *necessitated* a continued Israeli administration over the territory and its gradual normalization into a civilian administration rather than military rule.

That isn't the reason those laws were made. It is illegal by technicality, not moral force.

Ifreann wrote:What's the plan here, Joe? Start a war for Kamala to win and secure a second term? Or just blood for the blood god?

Probably an attempt to YEET Hezbollah.

Ifreann wrote:One shudders to imagine the state the world would descend to if Iran were permitted to conduct such rampant slaughter with impunity.

We have let Iran engage in rampant slaughter with impunity. The IRI has spent the last year beating and murdering protestors and executing hundreds of people annually for low-level drug offenses or moral corruption. They've also supported two different military efforts that have killed 750,000 people and, before that, they exacerbated the sectarian civil war in Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of people.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

SusScorfa wrote:
So the occupation is illegal, no? Per your logic other nations in the region have a mandate to civilize Israel then.

No, the de-facto annexation is. And no, I don't particularly think mere illegality arises to the level of being uncivilized. As I said, I am calling these nations uncivilized in the most classical sense, in that they conduct border raids.

Oh, that makes it better. Let's quote the court

"Delivering the court's findings, ICJ President Nawaf Salam said it had found that "Israel's... continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal."
"The State of Israel is under the obligation to bring an end to its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible," he said."

I suppose technically you are right, the occupation is not the problem the continued Israeli presence in the OPT is. That makes the whole thing so much more civilized.

Kaumudeen wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
I personally wouldn't want to live next to civilizations that conduct constant border raids.

Hence why no one wants you Brits or Americans in their backyards.

Given that we only border Canada and Mexico, I would like to know when the last time we conducted border raids was? I believe it may have been 1917 against Pancho Villa, a very similar situation.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

SusScorfa wrote:
So the occupation is illegal, no? Per your logic other nations in the region have a mandate to civilize Israel then.

No, the de-facto annexation is. And no, I don't particularly think mere illegality arises to the level of being uncivilized. As I said, I am calling these nations uncivilized in the most classical sense, in that they conduct border raids, the most basic tenet of international order is not to do that. Finally, i'd argue that the de-facto annexation has arisen due to such a unique circumstance that it was not foreseen when the laws were written. They were written to prevent nations just arbitrarily annexing parts of other nations without affording rights to those living there.

Israel hasn't done this arbitrarily. See for example; Sinai and the Golan Heights. The reason it has occurred is because the Palestinians have *refused to accept peace terms* despite being occupied for almost a century, which has functionally *necessitated* a continued Israeli administration over the territory and its gradual normalization into a civilian administration rather than military rule.

That isn't the reason those laws were made. It is illegal by technicality, not moral force.

You see, I know that Isarel isn't doing it arbitrarily. You seem to struggle with the notion that the other side could have motivating historical and very real reasons for their actions instead of them just being savages. I gave you the main one.

SusScorfa wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
No, the de-facto annexation is. And no, I don't particularly think mere illegality arises to the level of being uncivilized. As I said, I am calling these nations uncivilized in the most classical sense, in that they conduct border raids.

Oh, that makes it better. Let's quote the court

"Delivering the court's findings, ICJ President Nawaf Salam said it had found that "Israel's... continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal."
"The State of Israel is under the obligation to bring an end to its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible," he said."

I suppose technically you are right, the occupation is not the problem the continued Israeli presence in the OPT is. That makes the whole thing so much more civilized.

You mean the court case that told them to leave by 2025? I'm sure that's not your best argument dude.

SusScorfa wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Occupying the land of a nation that has invaded you until they negotiate a peace isn't illegal.

The courts seems to disagree with you.

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" Andrew Jackson (apocryphal but appropiate)

Elwher wrote:Given that we only border Canada and Mexico, I would like to know when the last time we conducted border raids was? I believe it may have been 1917 against Pancho Villa, a very similar situation.

And the US organized a punitive expedition into Mexico with the objective of capturing or killing Pancho Villa.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

SusScorfa wrote:
Oh, that makes it better. Let's quote the court

"Delivering the court's findings, ICJ President Nawaf Salam said it had found that "Israel's... continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal."
"The State of Israel is under the obligation to bring an end to its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible," he said."

I suppose technically you are right, the occupation is not the problem the continued Israeli presence in the OPT is. That makes the whole thing so much more civilized.

You mean the court case that told them to leave by 2025? I'm sure that's your best argument dude.

Yeah, still unlawful dude.

SusScorfa wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
You mean the court case that told them to leave by 2025? I'm sure that's your best argument dude.

Yeah, still illegal dude.

Had the attacks taken place when the deadline expired, you'd have an argument. They occurred almost a full year before that deadline. Israel's presence in the area was still recognized by international law as acceptable until the deadline.

An example here is a complicated and byzantine case over who owns a particular vase. The courts ultimately decide, controversially, that Party B owns it and Party A has a week to surrender custody of it.

Party B then loads up a truck and smashes it through the front doors of A's house with the intention of seizing it.

Only one of these shows contempt for the rule of law.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

SusScorfa wrote:
Yeah, still illegal dude.

Had the attacks taken place when the deadline expired, you'd have an argument. They occurred almost a full year before that deadline.

And? You don't seem to follow your own arguments. A state acts unlawfully thus it gives a mandate to other states to civilize them. Israel presence in OPT is unlawful. Thus other states have a mandate to civilize them.

Kaumudeen wrote:An ally that drags the US into wars of aggression and spies on the US and sells its military secrets? Any sane American president would cut them loose.

An ally and proxy that is currently battering a couple enemy proxies that have murdered hundreds of Americans and whose leadership have been on our naughty list since the 1980s. We're not cutting them loose because Israel murdering people who murder Americans advances our interests, even if we might wish they did it with fewer civilian casualties and at a different point in time.

SusScorfa wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Had the attacks taken place when the deadline expired, you'd have an argument. They occurred almost a full year before that deadline.

And? You don't seem to follow your own arguments. A state acts unlawfully thus it gives a mandate to other states to civilize them. Israel presence in OPT is unlawful. Thus other states have a mandate to civilize them.

That wasn't my argument. I argued that uncivilized states behaving unlawfully give others a mandate to civilize them. I did not claim acting unlawfully makes one uncivilized. I specifically pointed out that I'm using the term uncivilized because of the border raids, and noting that is a fairly classical way of understanding it. A society which does not respect borders and conducts constant low level warfare against their neighbours, including raids, has been classically understood as being "Uncivilized", because they can't co-exist peacefully, while civilized nations can.

Shrillland wrote:Lebanon as a state barely exists, I'm afraid. Even with Hezbollah's massive decimations, their army is much larger and better-armed than the Lebanese Army, they have a role in the cabinet, Lebanon's been without a President for over two years now and the deadlock isn't improving, and Beirut after the explosion has lost of lot of its prestige as poverty and crime are rising.

I know, I know - but wouldn't it make more sense to just strike their positions with rockets and drones? I just don't think that invading another country is the right thing to do (unless you're invaded by that country yourself). Yes Hezbollah might be in the governing coalition, but it still isn't equal to the whole state of Lebanon. I don't want to sound like a Russian whatabouttist, but what about the people of Lebanon that really don't support Hezbollah (aka the majority of the population) and just want to live in peace?

Besides, I'm quite sure Hezbollah would stop bombing Israel, if Israel ended the war in Gaza, which will have to end sooner or later and I don't think Israel will eliminate Hamas. There are no long-run goals and the decision to escalate with an invasion borders on insanity. Clearly the Likud government with its far-right partners is not acting reasonably - perhaps the Israelis are becoming more and more like Arabs in the sense that religious fundamentalism gets more and more mainstream in Israeli politics and foreign policy. Yes, I am aware of Hezbollah's horrible ideology and that they started bombing Israel, but they never escalated as much as Israel did now

Ostroeuropa wrote:

SusScorfa wrote:
And? You don't seem to follow your own arguments. A state acts unlawfully thus it gives a mandate to other states to civilize them. Israel presence in OPT is unlawful. Thus other states have a mandate to civilize them.

That wasn't my argument. I argued that uncivilized states behaving unlawfully give others a mandate to civilize them. I did not claim acting unlawfully makes one uncivilized. I specifically pointed out that I'm using the term uncivilized because of the border raids, and noting that is a fairly classical way of understanding it. A society which does not respect borders and conducts constant low level warfare against their neighbours, including raids, has been classically understood as being "Uncivilized".

You don't think the Israeli presence in the OPT constitutes Israel not respecting borders?