3 ms·

> 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 di

> 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.
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    > Arguments are more powerful if you engage with the strongest form of the counter-argument, not the weakest. Your are correct, thank you. I'll emphasize that there was no international concern expressed when Jordan changed the demographic composition of Jerusalem and the West Bank by expelling the Jews. Only when Jews moved back to Jerusalem and the West Bank, after 19 years of absence, is there suddenly concern the demographic composition of of the city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusal... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Jerusalem#Islamization_of_Jerusalem_under_Jordanian_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Jerusalem#Isla...

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.
- dotancohen 1y ago
  > Arguments are more powerful if you engage with the strongest form of the counter-argument, not the weakest. Your are correct, thank you. I'll emphasize that there was no international concern expressed when Jordan changed the demographic composition of Jerusalem and the West Bank by expelling the Jews. Only when Jews moved back to Jerusalem and the West Bank, after 19 years of absence, is there suddenly concern the demographic composition of of the city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusal... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Jerusalem#Islamization_of_Jerusalem_under_Jordanian_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Jerusalem#Isla...