2 ms·

> you can't start a war lose and then cry that you lost territory. ... That's how countries form, that's how borders are made. Actually, according to internati

by Udik 5y ago

> you can't start a war lose and then cry that you lost territory. ... That's how countries form, that's how borders are made. Actually, according to international law, you cannot lose territory by war, even if you started it. I'm sure you think this is absurd, but it really is necessary. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24716&LangID=E https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N... “Without this absolute prohibition, acquisitive states would have a strong incentive to obfuscate the origins of the territorial acquisition, leading us backwards to the days when borders were impediments to overcome, rather than frontiers to respect.” Also, once you occupied someone else's territory (necessarily for a temporary period) to transfer your own civilian population in it is a war crime: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule130 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul... "The prohibition on deporting or transferring parts of a State’s own civilian population into the territory it occupies is set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention.[1] It is a grave breach of Additional Protocol I.[2] Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts." > They didn't want a Jewish state at all, or be under Jewish rule. Let's not be disingenuous here. Palestinians could never be part of a Jewish state, because Israel is a Jewish nation and a democracy. It simply cannot include millions of Palestinians as citizens- and I don't mean it as a critique (I also come from a national state formed out of a preexistent ethnic, linguistic and religious unity). It's a matter of fact. Israel wanted the land but not its original population ("the bride and the dowry" - https://www.amazon.com/Bride-Dowry-Israel-Palestinians-Aftermath/dp/0300171943 https://www.amazon.com/Bride-Dowry-Israel-Palestinians-After... ) > it's just that most of those countries annihilated the other side long ago so there is almost no one left to hear their voice... So you think that Jews now have a right to do the evil they didn't get to before, because they didn't have a nation when conquers and pillage were still accepted?

TheGuyWhoCodes 5y ago
I'm not going to debate International law on HN, it's a complicated issue with a lot of details and I'm not an International law lawyer and interpreting the law at face value without going back the intent of the law when it was formed is wrong but then I'm sure you agree with every law your country pass without judgment right? > Israel wanted the land but not its original population It's probably true that the founders didn't want to control the Arab population (not out of racisms) but as it turns out they have 2 million Arab citizens. I do agree that a one state solution couldn't work now demographically as that would be an apartheid state. > so you think that Jews now have a right to do the evil Who is dehumanizing who now... The point was the formation of Israel in 48, the parent talked about territories other than gaza and the west bank, It's just that it's disingenuous to pick on Israel at that time saying they are the baddies just because they won, they were fighting for survival and against the annihilation of the Jews in that region and that one of the reasons that this still an issue because unlike other countries Israel did not annihilate their enemies, if the Arabs won in 48 there wouldn't be a debate because all the Israeli Jews would be dead and the world would go on like it's another day and just mark it in the footnote of history as the 2nd Jewish holocaust and that's it. I do think the west bank occupation is wrong and should be "solved" but it's far from evil because intent matters, why there is an occupation matters, they reasons behind Israel actions matter, actions Israel don't make as the occupying force matter. But I'm closing this discussion because it leads to nowhere and the bots downvoting me within 1 minute of commenting needs a break, have a good day.
- Udik 5y ago
  > I do think the west bank occupation is wrong and should be "solved" but it's far from evil because intent matters I think the intent (insofar as it's the result of planning and not simply the result of multiple individual initiatives) is clear: to create an irreversible situation on the ground so that, if the time comes, there will be no viable solution to give those territories back. That said, Israel is also very careful to avoid full scale ethnic cleansing and genocide, partly for ethical and cultural reasons (they're modern Europeans after all, and they want to be considered as such) and partly because ambiguity is what keeps the occupation sustainable. It cannot be done if they alienate the support of the western nations. > the bots downvoting me within 1 minute of commenting needs a break, Yep, true about the bots, I was upvoted within a few seconds for my last submissions. So it's either a bot or someone who has an alert set up on new comments in this subthread. Maybe @dang could give it a look.

by Udik 5y ago

TheGuyWhoCodes 5y ago

I'm not going to debate International law on HN, it's a complicated issue with a lot of details and I'm not an International law lawyer and interpreting the law at face value without going back the intent of the law when it was formed is wrong but then I'm sure you agree with every law your country pass without judgment right? > Israel wanted the land but not its original population It's probably true that the founders didn't want to control the Arab population (not out of racisms) but as it turns out they have 2 million Arab citizens. I do agree that a one state solution couldn't work now demographically as that would be an apartheid state. > so you think that Jews now have a right to do the evil Who is dehumanizing who now... The point was the formation of Israel in 48, the parent talked about territories other than gaza and the west bank, It's just that it's disingenuous to pick on Israel at that time saying they are the baddies just because they won, they were fighting for survival and against the annihilation of the Jews in that region and that one of the reasons that this still an issue because unlike other countries Israel did not annihilate their enemies, if the Arabs won in 48 there wouldn't be a debate because all the Israeli Jews would be dead and the world would go on like it's another day and just mark it in the footnote of history as the 2nd Jewish holocaust and that's it. I do think the west bank occupation is wrong and should be "solved" but it's far from evil because intent matters, why there is an occupation matters, they reasons behind Israel actions matter, actions Israel don't make as the occupying force matter. But I'm closing this discussion because it leads to nowhere and the bots downvoting me within 1 minute of commenting needs a break, have a good day.

Udik 5y ago
> I do think the west bank occupation is wrong and should be "solved" but it's far from evil because intent matters I think the intent (insofar as it's the result of planning and not simply the result of multiple individual initiatives) is clear: to create an irreversible situation on the ground so that, if the time comes, there will be no viable solution to give those territories back. That said, Israel is also very careful to avoid full scale ethnic cleansing and genocide, partly for ethical and cultural reasons (they're modern Europeans after all, and they want to be considered as such) and partly because ambiguity is what keeps the occupation sustainable. It cannot be done if they alienate the support of the western nations. > the bots downvoting me within 1 minute of commenting needs a break, Yep, true about the bots, I was upvoted within a few seconds for my last submissions. So it's either a bot or someone who has an alert set up on new comments in this subthread. Maybe @dang could give it a look.