Gaza's Children Face "Bombs Disguised as Toys"

[AnOrangeCat]

Given the conditions prevailing in Gaza at present are you really surprised?

Why are those the conditions right now?

What happened that caused those conditions, and why do they persist?

 

[AnOrangeCat]

ook at the state of the region. It is hardly the proverbial walk in the park.

Well, from what I see with my own two eyes is Israel thriving and growing as a democracy, and every Muslim country either falling into an Islamist dictatorship, or already is one.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

That UN Statement is from 2021.

Yeah, and?

 

[AnOrangeCat]

You alleged there were child soldiers in the atrocity of 7 October 2023, hence my request for a link because I do not recall reading about such individuals in that massacre.

Sure did. Provided you with that earlier in the thread. You're welcome, by the way.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

Of course we can assume that they were present, but you seem rather averse to employing conjecture or assumptions.

We don't have to assume, we have photos, video, and witnesses.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

The only time the territory previously known as the Mandate for Palestine was occupied was between 1948 and 1967 when it was illegally invaded and occupied by Jordan and Egypt. That is what an occupation is. When a State overtakes the territory of another State. Neither Jordan nor Egypt had any legal sovereign claim to that territory and no consequences of the belligerent invasion can result in changes to the victimized State, except through agreement or treaty. The doctrine of the unacceptability of acquiring territory through aggression.

Israel is not required to "define its borders". Where that silly myth came from escapes me. Newly emerged States do not define or declare their borders. Their borders are either inherited (as was the case with Israel) or they are negotiated and agreed upon in treaties (as was the case with Turkey). Usually treaties of peace. (See the Treaty of Peace between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Treaty of Peace between the State of Israel and the Arab Republic of Egypt. Note where the borders are between these States.)

Should Israel agree to cede its sovereign territory to another State or to an emerging wanna-be State, such agreement will be formalized in a treaty which will delineate the new borders between the previous sovereign and the new one. Since Israel inherited her international borders in 1948, there has never been a treaty which ceded Israel's sovereign territory nor which has delineated new boundary lines. Israel remains one territorial unit. This is incompatible with the concept of "occupation".

There is an Interim Agreement which outlines separate and distinct territories to be administrated by Israel and/or by the newly-formed government of Palestine in Judea and Samaria. Those administrative territories are not borders, which were to be established in a final peace treaty. It is possible for them to become borders. (No one wants them as borders, they were never intended to be borders, and they are, well, awkward, at best.) Still, they functionally act like international borders in the interim. This is also incompatible with the concept of "occupation".

It is also my understanding there exists an MOU to the UN in which Israel renounces the territory of Gaza circa 2005. (I have not been able to source the primary document. If anyone has access to it, I'd love to see it, please share.) Yes, this is incompatible with the concept of "occupation". The territory was renounced and is no longer a part of Israel. (Yes. You can now argue that Gaza is occupied by Israel. But only since 2024).

Understanding that legal lens would be helpful in negotiating a new State from Israeli sovereign territory. Israel has shown willingness to cede territory to a newly emerging State of Palestine, conditional on peace between them. Documented evidence of word and deed. This is not always the case. There is an unresolved tension in customary international law between territorial integrity and self-determination through sovereign secession. So far, the law resides more firmly for territorial integrity, resulting in the struggles of various peoples such as the Kurds and the Catalans as examples. The fact that the Arabs refuse to take the territory offered to them suggests that the condition of peace is the point of rejection.

The Arab peoples of the territory are not indigenous. Their culture did not have its ethnogenisis in that place pre-colonization. They are colonizers and/or colonized. That said, their national identity did arise in that place and because of that I accept that they have a right of self-determination in part of that territory.

However, that right of self-determination does not grant the right to prevent another peoples (an actual indigenous peoples - the Jewish people) from also having self-determination. Israel exists. Am Israel Chai.

None of this matters to him because he is guided by what he feels is an occupation.

Just like how he feels that Israel committed genocide.

Or how he feels that Israel caused starvation or famine.

Or how he feels that Arabs were driven out in 1948.

It's all about feelings, and those feelings don't have to be rational so long as they're felt.

It's very MAGA-like.

 

[Shusha]

None of this matters to him because he is guided by what he feels is an occupation.

Just like how he feels that Israel committed genocide.

Or how he feels that Israel caused starvation or famine.

Or how he feels that Arabs were driven out in 1948.

It's all about feelings, and those feelings don't have to be rational so long as they're felt.

Agreed. Sadly, this "law by feels" has crept beyond lay-people public discourse to governments and their agencies, humanitarian organizations, the UN, and legal proceedings. And by "crept", I mean deliberately pushed.

It is a fundamental breakdown of critical thinking and the destruction of language meaning. The terms are redefined to meet the feelings. As are the facts.