3 ms·

The Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law.

by BrenBarn 1y ago

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]
    - ta20240528 1y ago
      Out of curiosity, do you think Israel could 'find a law being broken' if thousand of Palestinians started building houses, towns, farms, and exclusive roads inside Israel - all protected by Palestinian soldiers? Or would it just be so obviously illegal to adults?
      - dotancohen 1y ago
        You leave me two things to address. First, the easy one. The only exclusive roads are exclusive to Palestinians. There are no Jew-only roads, despite our enemies saying it again and again. Second, the other easy one. Your question is predicated on the assumption that those building houses, towns, and farms are doing so against the will of the body which administrates the territory. Jews in the West Bank build in Area C - other than a tiny extremist minority whose structures are then wiped away by the Israeli authorities. I'm certain if you're partaking in this conversation then you are familiar enough with the administrative divisions of the West Bank to know that Area C was designated by agreement with the Palestinian Authority for Israeli civil development. There's two ways you could counter my argument - I'm interested to see which one you choose! The Shabbat is coming in soon, so I'll answer you on Sunday or Monday. Shabbat Shalom.
        mmustapic 1y ago
        > There are no Jew-only roads True, there are Israeli-only roads: https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/200408_forbidden_roads https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/200408_forbid...
        dotancohen 1y ago
        What's wrong with that? Does the United States not have US-only roads (that Mexican citizens in Mexico) can't drive on. Those roads link Areas C. Either you know what that means so I don't need to explain it, or you don't know enough about the agreements between the PA and the state of Israel to discuss this. Just in case you are in the later camp, as I stated, there are Palestinian-only roads in Areas A. Those are found throughout the West Bank, everywhere. Only in a single place exists the Israeli-only road. So the argument about "Jew-only roads" is not only a lie, it is an inversion of true state of affairs.
- 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?

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]
  - ta20240528 1y ago
    Out of curiosity, do you think Israel could 'find a law being broken' if thousand of Palestinians started building houses, towns, farms, and exclusive roads inside Israel - all protected by Palestinian soldiers? Or would it just be so obviously illegal to adults?
    - dotancohen 1y ago
      You leave me two things to address. First, the easy one. The only exclusive roads are exclusive to Palestinians. There are no Jew-only roads, despite our enemies saying it again and again. Second, the other easy one. Your question is predicated on the assumption that those building houses, towns, and farms are doing so against the will of the body which administrates the territory. Jews in the West Bank build in Area C - other than a tiny extremist minority whose structures are then wiped away by the Israeli authorities. I'm certain if you're partaking in this conversation then you are familiar enough with the administrative divisions of the West Bank to know that Area C was designated by agreement with the Palestinian Authority for Israeli civil development. There's two ways you could counter my argument - I'm interested to see which one you choose! The Shabbat is coming in soon, so I'll answer you on Sunday or Monday. Shabbat Shalom.
      - mmustapic 1y ago
        > There are no Jew-only roads True, there are Israeli-only roads: https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/200408_forbidden_roads https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/200408_forbid...
        dotancohen 1y ago
        What's wrong with that? Does the United States not have US-only roads (that Mexican citizens in Mexico) can't drive on. Those roads link Areas C. Either you know what that means so I don't need to explain it, or you don't know enough about the agreements between the PA and the state of Israel to discuss this. Just in case you are in the later camp, as I stated, there are Palestinian-only roads in Areas A. Those are found throughout the West Bank, everywhere. Only in a single place exists the Israeli-only road. So the argument about "Jew-only roads" is not only a lie, it is an inversion of true state of affairs.
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?