7 ms·

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.
        BrenBarn 1y ago
        Are there any countries at all that recognize the West Bank settlements as legal?
        krageon 1y ago
        AFAIK no but the person you responded to is dogwhistling by repeatedly referencing "arab" and "muslim". They're using it to imply that not only does the UN not matter, they're also positioning these words as the implicit enemy. It's a bad faith way to approach this argument, so asking logical questions won't make a difference and will tire you out. That's the core strategy behind that behaviour.
        bawolff 1y ago
        I think a more charitable read would be they are claiming that Israel's geopolitical rivals have undue influence in certain UN organs and are using that influence to unfairly single out Israel. Its not exactly a crazy claim. The UN is a political entity, its not above the influence of geopolitics. The former secretary general of the UN, Ban ki moon at one point (quite a while ago now) said that "Decades of political maneuvering have created a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and committees against Israel".
        BrenBarn 1y ago
        The thing is that if not one single country agrees with you it kind of goes beyond just "undue influence".
        tguvot 1y ago
        If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions. Abba Eban Sometime between 1967 and 1975
        dotancohen 1y ago
        [flagged]
    - bawolff 1y ago
      > The settlements were declare illegal by a UN resolution that did not specify what law was being broken. I think this is a bit unfair. Whether you agree or disagree, opponents of Israel have been pretty clear that they think the settlements violate article 49 of the fourth geneva convention. Specificly "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Sometimes people also argue that the pipelining of Israeli law into settlements violates the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. I think the argument is that you can only distinguish between citizens and non-citizens on your own territory and thus the way Israeli law is applied in settlements but not outside them is a violation. I'm not super familiar with the argument so i might be mis-stating it. I also think its a bit of a catch-22 since Israel isn't allowed to legislate for the Palestinians either. Regardless it is a rule that they point to. So i don't think its fair to say opponents of Israeli settlements just claim illegality without pointing to which laws. They do point to laws and rules.
      - dotancohen 1y ago
        [flagged]
        bawolff 1y ago
        But see, we are already past the "they don't ever say which rule" and on to, they do say which rule but their interpretation is incorrect (and hey i even agree with you on that part some of the time). > The 49th article of the fourth Geneva convention is the usual answer to that question, but it is wrong. Israel does not "deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies", every single Jew in the West Bank got up and returned to or moved to the West Bank of their own accord. While i agree it is not clear cut in the geneva convention, generally the argument is voluntary transfer is still a transfer. The prohibition is not just about preventing people from being moved against their will but also about preventing attempts to change the demographic composition of an area. See also what the red cross says about it https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule130 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule130 I'm not really here to argue these points, i don't necessarily even agree with all of them, i just think you're being a bit straw-many. Arguments are more powerful if you engage with the strongest form of the counter-argument, not the weakest.
    - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
      So those settlements were established under Rule .303, amirite?
- woooooo 1y ago
  Literally no country has ever recognized Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank or Gaza. Even Israel hasn't annexed them just yet.
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    While that is true, it does not change the fact that the internationally-recognized borders are those of Mandatory Palestine. Those were the internationally-recognized borders even between 1948 and 1967, which is why the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank was not internationally recognized, and also why Egypt was able to squeeze all her refugees into the Gaza Strip before severing ties with the strip in 1956. Or did you not know why Egypt has no refugee camps and almost no refugees today?
    - woooooo 1y ago
      Internationally recognized by zero nations.
      - dotancohen 1y ago
        Internationally recognized under Uti Possidetis Juris, the principal under which most of the world's international borders have been defined (I think slightly beating out war, but falling behind geography).
        bawolff 1y ago
        I think this argument is a little difficult to make given Israel right now does not overtly claim that mandatory palestine's borders are its borders. If Israel openly claimed this consistently starting from its war of independence to present day, there would probably be a stronger argument, but its probably a bit too late at this point.
        dotancohen 1y ago
        I am not making the argument that those should be the final borders. I'm responding to this quote: > If it respected international law it would withdraw to its internationally recognized borders. I am demonstrating that the people who are calling for all types of solutions, are not familiar with the full situation and are calling for things that are the opposite of what they actually think should happen.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- m000 1y ago
  Schrodinger's borders: both internationally recognized and internationally not recognized. This just sounds like uncritical parroting.
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    The funny thing is, I agree with you about the contradictions in recognizing borders for the state of Israel, depending on what they're arguing at any particular time. The borders of a potential Palestinian state and the state of Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan is one of the most difficult conundrums to consider. I can think of a few "resolutions", none of them really "solutions". I make a huge effort to understand the Israeli side, the greater Arab side, the general Muslim side, and the side of the Palestinians who actually live there. Very few people - from any of those categories - make any effort to understand anybody else's side.
ukblewis 1y ago
Let’s your country do that first. Lead by example
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  I'm under no illusions that the US respects international (or even domestic!) law.
imtringued 1y ago
The point of making voting from occupied territories illegal is that this discourages settlers from the occupying nation to move into the occupied territories before the conflict is over. Otherwise the occupying power could send settlers into another country and pretend that it is merely defending its own citizens, when in reality it is still engaged in offensive war.

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.
      - BrenBarn 1y ago
        Are there any countries at all that recognize the West Bank settlements as legal?
        krageon 1y ago
        AFAIK no but the person you responded to is dogwhistling by repeatedly referencing "arab" and "muslim". They're using it to imply that not only does the UN not matter, they're also positioning these words as the implicit enemy. It's a bad faith way to approach this argument, so asking logical questions won't make a difference and will tire you out. That's the core strategy behind that behaviour.
        bawolff 1y ago
        I think a more charitable read would be they are claiming that Israel's geopolitical rivals have undue influence in certain UN organs and are using that influence to unfairly single out Israel. Its not exactly a crazy claim. The UN is a political entity, its not above the influence of geopolitics. The former secretary general of the UN, Ban ki moon at one point (quite a while ago now) said that "Decades of political maneuvering have created a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and committees against Israel".
        BrenBarn 1y ago
        The thing is that if not one single country agrees with you it kind of goes beyond just "undue influence".
        tguvot 1y ago
        If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions. Abba Eban Sometime between 1967 and 1975
        dotancohen 1y ago
        [flagged]
  - bawolff 1y ago
    > The settlements were declare illegal by a UN resolution that did not specify what law was being broken. I think this is a bit unfair. Whether you agree or disagree, opponents of Israel have been pretty clear that they think the settlements violate article 49 of the fourth geneva convention. Specificly "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Sometimes people also argue that the pipelining of Israeli law into settlements violates the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. I think the argument is that you can only distinguish between citizens and non-citizens on your own territory and thus the way Israeli law is applied in settlements but not outside them is a violation. I'm not super familiar with the argument so i might be mis-stating it. I also think its a bit of a catch-22 since Israel isn't allowed to legislate for the Palestinians either. Regardless it is a rule that they point to. So i don't think its fair to say opponents of Israeli settlements just claim illegality without pointing to which laws. They do point to laws and rules.
    - dotancohen 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - bawolff 1y ago
        But see, we are already past the "they don't ever say which rule" and on to, they do say which rule but their interpretation is incorrect (and hey i even agree with you on that part some of the time). > The 49th article of the fourth Geneva convention is the usual answer to that question, but it is wrong. Israel does not "deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies", every single Jew in the West Bank got up and returned to or moved to the West Bank of their own accord. While i agree it is not clear cut in the geneva convention, generally the argument is voluntary transfer is still a transfer. The prohibition is not just about preventing people from being moved against their will but also about preventing attempts to change the demographic composition of an area. See also what the red cross says about it https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule130 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule130 I'm not really here to argue these points, i don't necessarily even agree with all of them, i just think you're being a bit straw-many. Arguments are more powerful if you engage with the strongest form of the counter-argument, not the weakest.
  - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
    So those settlements were established under Rule .303, amirite?
woooooo 1y ago
Literally no country has ever recognized Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank or Gaza. Even Israel hasn't annexed them just yet.
- dotancohen 1y ago
  While that is true, it does not change the fact that the internationally-recognized borders are those of Mandatory Palestine. Those were the internationally-recognized borders even between 1948 and 1967, which is why the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank was not internationally recognized, and also why Egypt was able to squeeze all her refugees into the Gaza Strip before severing ties with the strip in 1956. Or did you not know why Egypt has no refugee camps and almost no refugees today?
  - woooooo 1y ago
    Internationally recognized by zero nations.
    - dotancohen 1y ago
      Internationally recognized under Uti Possidetis Juris, the principal under which most of the world's international borders have been defined (I think slightly beating out war, but falling behind geography).
      - bawolff 1y ago
        I think this argument is a little difficult to make given Israel right now does not overtly claim that mandatory palestine's borders are its borders. If Israel openly claimed this consistently starting from its war of independence to present day, there would probably be a stronger argument, but its probably a bit too late at this point.
        dotancohen 1y ago
        I am not making the argument that those should be the final borders. I'm responding to this quote: > If it respected international law it would withdraw to its internationally recognized borders. I am demonstrating that the people who are calling for all types of solutions, are not familiar with the full situation and are calling for things that are the opposite of what they actually think should happen.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
m000 1y ago
Schrodinger's borders: both internationally recognized and internationally not recognized. This just sounds like uncritical parroting.
- dotancohen 1y ago
  The funny thing is, I agree with you about the contradictions in recognizing borders for the state of Israel, depending on what they're arguing at any particular time. The borders of a potential Palestinian state and the state of Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan is one of the most difficult conundrums to consider. I can think of a few "resolutions", none of them really "solutions". I make a huge effort to understand the Israeli side, the greater Arab side, the general Muslim side, and the side of the Palestinians who actually live there. Very few people - from any of those categories - make any effort to understand anybody else's side.

ukblewis 1y ago

Let’s your country do that first. Lead by example

BrenBarn 1y ago
I'm under no illusions that the US respects international (or even domestic!) law.

imtringued 1y ago

The point of making voting from occupied territories illegal is that this discourages settlers from the occupying nation to move into the occupied territories before the conflict is over. Otherwise the occupying power could send settlers into another country and pretend that it is merely defending its own citizens, when in reality it is still engaged in offensive war.