5 ms·

International law forbids the occupying power to give voting rights to occupied regions. Its also a bit unclear what you mean by "unambiguously under Israeli c

International law forbids the occupying power to give voting rights to occupied regions. Its also a bit unclear what you mean by "unambiguously under Israeli control" since Palestinians in occupied palestinian territories aren't unambigiously under Israeli control, they had little control over the inside of Gaza until recently, and have some power in the west bank that is shared with the PA. Neither is "unambiguous control". The only group unambigiously under their control are the Palestinians inside Israel proper who as far as i understand do have full voting rights. If you think military presence should equal voting rights, than i think that would imply that Iraq should be able to vote in US presedential elections.

Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 1y ago
Well the word "occupying" is doing the heavy lifting here.
- bawolff 1y ago
  How so? There are troops there, The troops are not present with the consent of the local governing powers, the area has not been annexed (has not been integrated into normal civil law of the country with the troops)*. That is a textbook definition of what an occupation is. * except for East Jerusalem, which would normally be considered annexed, but the UNSC has decided (with the binding force of international law) that it is de jure occupied. However Palestinians in east Juruselum can apply for citizenship and get voting rights.
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    > The troops are not present with the consent of the local governing powers Are the governing powers legitimate? Hamas banned elections after they won the 2006 election. Why should they be considered any more of a governing powers than Israel? Especially when literally the entire broader region was historically Jewish, long before the modern state of Israel, long before Islamic Arabs (now calling themselves Palestinian) were in the area? What I see is that the Islamic Arabs in Israel are living peacefully and are integrated into the “normal civil law”. But the residents of Gaza have been pro terrorism - which is why they voted for Hamas on a charter of committing genocide against all other beliefs.
    - ikr678 1y ago
      Why is 'legitimate' local government the hurdle here? Surely the presence of foreign troops killing civillians and destroying infrastructure counts as an occupation.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Surely the presence of foreign troops killing civillians and destroying infrastructure counts as an occupation The closest comparison would be domestic counter-terrorism, i.e. if one assumes Gaza is part of Israel. (Which, de facto, it is.)
        jhanschoo 1y ago
        Gaza was de facto administered by the civilian arm of Hamas on the eve of Oct 7, and throughout while there was still infrastructure to speak of, and this is the only sense I understand the term "de facto" to mean when used unqualified; what entity performs the day-to-day administration and security.
    - bawolff 1y ago
      It probably doesn't matter much. I agree that both the PA and especially Hamas are despotic dictatorships. So are a lot of countries. That's tragic for Palestinian citizens but ultimately doesn't matter much for determining if a piece of land is independent, occupied or annexed. Much of it just comes down to drawing a line in the sand at roughly the start of when the United Nations started, and saying this is what the borders are and no one is allowed to change them by force (one of the conditions of joining the UN is to give up the right to acquire territory by force). So from that view, it was egyptian and jordan territory who in turn, supported by the UN, gave it to the palestinian people as respresented by the PA. In a certain way that's pretty arbitrary but i guess its sort of an, it is what it is, sort of thing.
    - tzs 1y ago
      > But the residents of Gaza have been pro terrorism - which is why they voted for Hamas on a charter of committing genocide against all other beliefs The last election was in January 2006 and to vote you had to be 18+. That means anyone now alive who voted for Hamas has to be over 37. That's less than 20% of of the Gaza population. Furthermore, Hamas got a plurality in the 40-45% range, not a majority. That means it is very likely that under 10% of people who lived in Gaza at the start of the current war voted for Hamas. Probably closer to 7% because the turnout in 2006 was around 80%.
BrenBarn 1y ago
International law forbids a lot of things Israel already does. If it respected international law it would withdraw to its internationally recognized borders.
- dotancohen 1y ago
  Israel's internationally recognized borders are the borders of Mandatory Palestine. The 1948 borders were ceasefire lines - the fact that they were not internationally recognized borders was for decades the justification for cross-border attacks.
  - BrenBarn 1y ago
    The Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law.
    - dotancohen 1y ago
      The settlements were declare illegal by a UN resolution that did not specify what law was being broken.
      - BrenBarn 1y ago
        Who cares? My point is the international community regards the settlements as illegal and if Israel cared about that they would immediately and completely withdraw.
        dotancohen 1y ago
        And my point is that the international community, which mostly comprise of Arab nations, Muslim nations, or nations that rely on Arab oil, has been shown to levy accusations and resolutions against the state that the Arab and Muslim nations are united to destroy. If there was merit to the claim that Jews building houses in the West Bank is illegal, they would have stated which law is being transgressed.
holmesworcester 1y ago
I think "if their authorities can kick down the door of the house you were born in" is a good enough guide here to see the problem as distinct from other military interventions, not like the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. The US was not established in Iraq long enough for generations of adults born in Iraq to have grown up under US control. The border between US and Iraq is not like the border between two suburbs, and there were never Iraqis crossing that border daily to drive a taxi or clean someone's house or see a doctor. They had enough control over Gaza before October 7th to deny Gaza a port, an airport, and even the right to do peaceful commercial fishing without getting their boats lit up. And for whatever limited access their law enforcement institutions had to Gaza for kicking in doors, they just did missile attacks on cars or apartments instead of kicking in doors, because they had no reason to care how many bystanders they killed.
- bawolff 1y ago
  > I think "if their authorities can kick down the door of the house you were born in" is a good enough guide here to see the problem as distinct from other military interventions, not like the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. The US had troops in iraq that were going around kicking in doors. I'm not trying to make any claim as to wether the invasion was a good or bad thing (actually i think it was a bad thing), but it clearly meets your definition of when people should get a vote. At the same time i think most americans would view the proposition that iraqis should vote in us federal elections absurd. > The US was not established in Iraq long enough for generations of adults born in Iraq to have grown up under US control. This is a bit of a goal post move but what time frame do you think is relavent? America invaded iraq in 2003. They left briefly but then came back. They still have a small number of troops there right now. There is a generation of iraqis who have grown up never knowing a time where american troops werent in their country. > The border between US and Iraq is not like the border between two suburbs, and there were never Iraqis crossing that border daily to drive a taxi or clean someone's house or see a doctor. I'm not sure the relavence. Most borders in europe are like this, they dont vote in each others elections. I don't think at present this would describe the border situation in Israel/Palestine. > They had enough control over Gaza before October 7th to deny Gaza a port, an airport, and even the right to do peaceful commercial fishing without getting their boats lit up. Sure, and that's an argument people use to claim that the territory is under Israeli occupation (or sometimes they argue that would not be enough to start an occupation but its enouth to make the occupation not terminate). I think everyone agrees that Israel exerts significant military control over occupied Palestinian territories. That is why they are called "occupied".

Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 1y ago

Well the word "occupying" is doing the heavy lifting here.

bawolff 1y ago
How so? There are troops there, The troops are not present with the consent of the local governing powers, the area has not been annexed (has not been integrated into normal civil law of the country with the troops)*. That is a textbook definition of what an occupation is. * except for East Jerusalem, which would normally be considered annexed, but the UNSC has decided (with the binding force of international law) that it is de jure occupied. However Palestinians in east Juruselum can apply for citizenship and get voting rights.
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  > The troops are not present with the consent of the local governing powers Are the governing powers legitimate? Hamas banned elections after they won the 2006 election. Why should they be considered any more of a governing powers than Israel? Especially when literally the entire broader region was historically Jewish, long before the modern state of Israel, long before Islamic Arabs (now calling themselves Palestinian) were in the area? What I see is that the Islamic Arabs in Israel are living peacefully and are integrated into the “normal civil law”. But the residents of Gaza have been pro terrorism - which is why they voted for Hamas on a charter of committing genocide against all other beliefs.
  - ikr678 1y ago
    Why is 'legitimate' local government the hurdle here? Surely the presence of foreign troops killing civillians and destroying infrastructure counts as an occupation.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Surely the presence of foreign troops killing civillians and destroying infrastructure counts as an occupation The closest comparison would be domestic counter-terrorism, i.e. if one assumes Gaza is part of Israel. (Which, de facto, it is.)
      - jhanschoo 1y ago
        Gaza was de facto administered by the civilian arm of Hamas on the eve of Oct 7, and throughout while there was still infrastructure to speak of, and this is the only sense I understand the term "de facto" to mean when used unqualified; what entity performs the day-to-day administration and security.
  - bawolff 1y ago
    It probably doesn't matter much. I agree that both the PA and especially Hamas are despotic dictatorships. So are a lot of countries. That's tragic for Palestinian citizens but ultimately doesn't matter much for determining if a piece of land is independent, occupied or annexed. Much of it just comes down to drawing a line in the sand at roughly the start of when the United Nations started, and saying this is what the borders are and no one is allowed to change them by force (one of the conditions of joining the UN is to give up the right to acquire territory by force). So from that view, it was egyptian and jordan territory who in turn, supported by the UN, gave it to the palestinian people as respresented by the PA. In a certain way that's pretty arbitrary but i guess its sort of an, it is what it is, sort of thing.
  - tzs 1y ago
    > But the residents of Gaza have been pro terrorism - which is why they voted for Hamas on a charter of committing genocide against all other beliefs The last election was in January 2006 and to vote you had to be 18+. That means anyone now alive who voted for Hamas has to be over 37. That's less than 20% of of the Gaza population. Furthermore, Hamas got a plurality in the 40-45% range, not a majority. That means it is very likely that under 10% of people who lived in Gaza at the start of the current war voted for Hamas. Probably closer to 7% because the turnout in 2006 was around 80%.

BrenBarn 1y ago

International law forbids a lot of things Israel already does. If it respected international law it would withdraw to its internationally recognized borders.

dotancohen 1y ago
Israel's internationally recognized borders are the borders of Mandatory Palestine. The 1948 borders were ceasefire lines - the fact that they were not internationally recognized borders was for decades the justification for cross-border attacks.
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  The Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law.
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    The settlements were declare illegal by a UN resolution that did not specify what law was being broken.
    - BrenBarn 1y ago
      Who cares? My point is the international community regards the settlements as illegal and if Israel cared about that they would immediately and completely withdraw.
      - dotancohen 1y ago
        And my point is that the international community, which mostly comprise of Arab nations, Muslim nations, or nations that rely on Arab oil, has been shown to levy accusations and resolutions against the state that the Arab and Muslim nations are united to destroy. If there was merit to the claim that Jews building houses in the West Bank is illegal, they would have stated which law is being transgressed.

holmesworcester 1y ago

I think "if their authorities can kick down the door of the house you were born in" is a good enough guide here to see the problem as distinct from other military interventions, not like the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. The US was not established in Iraq long enough for generations of adults born in Iraq to have grown up under US control. The border between US and Iraq is not like the border between two suburbs, and there were never Iraqis crossing that border daily to drive a taxi or clean someone's house or see a doctor. They had enough control over Gaza before October 7th to deny Gaza a port, an airport, and even the right to do peaceful commercial fishing without getting their boats lit up. And for whatever limited access their law enforcement institutions had to Gaza for kicking in doors, they just did missile attacks on cars or apartments instead of kicking in doors, because they had no reason to care how many bystanders they killed.

bawolff 1y ago
> I think "if their authorities can kick down the door of the house you were born in" is a good enough guide here to see the problem as distinct from other military interventions, not like the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. The US had troops in iraq that were going around kicking in doors. I'm not trying to make any claim as to wether the invasion was a good or bad thing (actually i think it was a bad thing), but it clearly meets your definition of when people should get a vote. At the same time i think most americans would view the proposition that iraqis should vote in us federal elections absurd. > The US was not established in Iraq long enough for generations of adults born in Iraq to have grown up under US control. This is a bit of a goal post move but what time frame do you think is relavent? America invaded iraq in 2003. They left briefly but then came back. They still have a small number of troops there right now. There is a generation of iraqis who have grown up never knowing a time where american troops werent in their country. > The border between US and Iraq is not like the border between two suburbs, and there were never Iraqis crossing that border daily to drive a taxi or clean someone's house or see a doctor. I'm not sure the relavence. Most borders in europe are like this, they dont vote in each others elections. I don't think at present this would describe the border situation in Israel/Palestine. > They had enough control over Gaza before October 7th to deny Gaza a port, an airport, and even the right to do peaceful commercial fishing without getting their boats lit up. Sure, and that's an argument people use to claim that the territory is under Israeli occupation (or sometimes they argue that would not be enough to start an occupation but its enouth to make the occupation not terminate). I think everyone agrees that Israel exerts significant military control over occupied Palestinian territories. That is why they are called "occupied".