Then they hypocritically cry "civilians" and "genocide[sic]"

[Coyote]

Well, to be fair, the US is not currently emmeshed in an independence war.

I wouldn’t classify it as an independence war so much as a defensive war (Gaza) The “independence” part strikes me more as a territorial expansion war (West Bank) since Israel is already independent.

 

[AZrailwhale]

If it is not an occupation, then:

Why are the Israeli’s controlling it as an “occupation” when it was allotted to be an Arab state under the partition?

Did Israel state it was no longer occupying Gaza when it withdrew in 2005?

Why has the Israeli High Court referred to it in multiple rulings?

For example:

Israeli High Court Decision on Location of West Bank Barrier | ASIL

www.asil.org

The Arab/Muslim’s conduct invalidated the UN partition plan. They never accepted it and proved that by immediately attacking the nascent state of Israel. If both sides of an agreement don’t accept it, there is no agreement.

 

[Shusha]

I wouldn’t classify it as an independence war so much as a defensive war (Gaza) The “independence” part strikes me more as a territorial expansion war (West Bank) since Israel is already independent.

You misunderstand me. It is a war of independence for the Palestinians. The sad part is that they can have the independence without the war part. But they choose to kill Jews anyway.

 

[Shusha]

If it is not an occupation, then:

Why are the Israeli’s controlling it as an “occupation” when it was allotted to be an Arab state under the partition?

Israel is not controlling it as an "occupation". Israel is adhering to the mutual, legally-binding agreement she signed with the State of Palestine which outlines how the various areas of Judea and Samaria are to be administered.

Did Israel state it was no longer occupying Gaza when it withdrew in 2005?

It was never an occupation, so this is a false premise.

In order for an occupation to occur, a State must take the territory of another State. Otherwise, it is not an occupation. (Though it might certainly be a struggle for independence) So, which State was the "true sovereign" of the territories broadly described as Gaza and the West Bank in 1948? What are that State's boundaries? What document created that State?

 

[Shusha]

... when it was allotted to be an Arab state under the partition?

Well, now you are talking about something completely different. The partition boundaries have no legal force. The UN does not have the legal ability to create States or to delineate boundaries or create peace agreements between States.

 

[toomuchtime_]

If it is not an occupation, then:

Why are the Israeli’s controlling it as an “occupation” when it was allotted to be an Arab state under the partition?

Did Israel state it was no longer occupying Gaza when it withdrew in 2005?

Why has the Israeli High Court referred to it in multiple rulings?

For example:

Israeli High Court Decision on Location of West Bank Barrier | ASIL

www.asil.org

This is really all very simple. They don't have a state and they don't deserve a state because they won't make peace with Israel, and the state they are demanding includes all of Israel, so there is no reason to believe they will have a state or deserve a state in the foreseeable future.

 

[Lisa558]

I wouldn’t classify it as an independence war so much as a defensive war (Gaza) The “independence” part strikes me more as a territorial expansion war (West Bank) since Israel is already independent.

The Gazans are conducting a defensive war? Less than two months earlier, their Muslim terrorist leaders committed a massacre of barbaric cruelty against innocent Jews - including toddlers and babies! - and the barbarians have threatened to keep hunting down and torturing Jews to death until all them are wiped out.

Israel is defending itself against future massacres. And somehow you’re siding with the Gazans, as if they‘re such innocent victims? The majority support what HAMAS did on October 7.

As an example, are you aware that one of the hostages escaped, but that “innocent“ Gazans returned him to the terrorists?! These people despise Jews, have been taught to want them dead since they were 3 years old, and do NOT want peace with Israel.

 

[Coyote]

The Gazans are conducting a defensive war? Less than two months earlier, their Muslim terrorist leaders committed a massacre of barbaric cruelty against innocent Jews - including toddlers and babies! - and the barbarians have threatened to keep hunting down and torturing Jews to death until all them are wiped out.

Israel is defending itself against future massacres. And somehow you’re siding with the Gazans, as if they‘re such innocent victims? The majority support what HAMAS did on October 7.

As an example, are you aware that one of the hostages escaped, but that “innocent“ Gazans returned him to the terrorists?! These people despise Jews, have been taught to want them dead since they were 3 years old, and do NOT want peace with Israel.

No. You misunderstood. In my statement I was referring to Israel fighting a defensive war.

 

[rylah]

The sad reality

is that the "Arab world"
has too many Gazans to spare
for a populist item in the news feed.

After all, the biggest "Arab state" is literary starving,
seeing Gaza oligarchs in luxury sports cars didn't help.

 

[rylah]

Egypt, Al Sisi announces: "If the price of progress is hunger we will eat less"

Egypt, Al Sisi announces: "If the price of progress is hunger we will eat less" Read all the latest news in real time on Agenzia Nova

www.agenzianova.com

 

[Lisa558]

No. You misunderstood. In my statement I was referring to Israel fighting a defensive war.

Glad to hear you clarify that. Thank you.

 

[Coyote]

Israel is not controlling it as an "occupation". Israel is adhering to the mutual, legally-binding agreement she signed with the State of Palestine which outlines how the various areas of Judea and Samaria are to be administered.

It was never an occupation, so this is a false premise.

The State of Palestine?

Israeli courts have stated in multiple rulings that it IS occupied territory as have international courts. It seems to be only be Israel now trying to redefine it is a political one, in order to justify keeping it.


Was the West Bank given fully to Israel as part of its territory? Jordan held it, and in 1988 ceded it to the PLO as a future state. At no point was it part of an Israeli state. Israel continues to treat it and it’s native population as an occupation.

According to the UN:

1947 – 1977: Partition plan, 1948, 1967, 1973 wars, inalienable rights
After looking at alternatives, the UN proposed terminating the Mandate and partitioning Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two envisaged States proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war involving neighbouring Arab States expanded to 77 percent of the territory of mandate Palestine, including the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half of the Palestinian Arab population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt controlled the rest of the territory assigned by resolution 181 to the Arab State. In the 1967 war, Israel occupied these territories (Gaza Strip and the West Bank) including East Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. The war brought about a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at half a million. Security Council Resolution 242 (1967)formulated the principles of a just and lasting peace, including an Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the conflict, a just settlement of the refugee problem, and the termination of all claims or states of belligerency. The 1973 hostilities were followed by Security Council Resolution 338, which inter alia called for peace negotiations between the parties concerned. In 1974 the General Assembly reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence, sovereignty, and to return. The following year, the General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and conferred on the PLO the status of observer in the Assembly and in UN conferences. Read more.


I’m not an expert in these things (I’ve always looked to RoccoM to explain what is a very tangled and complicated history in his debates with Tinmore.)

In order for an occupation to occur, a State must take the territory of another State. Otherwise, it is not an occupation. (Though it might certainly be a struggle for independence) So, which State was the "true sovereign" of the territories broadly described as Gaza and the West Bank in 1948? What are that State's boundaries? What document created that State?

At the time two states were invisioned right? A Jewish state and an Arab state. What were the borders? Was that territory ever within Israel’s borders? Did Israel govern it before it took it in war? Did Israel extend citizenship to the native population? Did they accept Israeli control?

Jordan occupied and then annexed the West Bank and gave citizenship and representation to the local population. Israel took it in the 6 Day War and occupied it. Jordan ceded it to the PLO then, not Israel, right?

At no point was it fully part of Israel’s territory as in within it’s borders. Throughout its occupation Israel has treated it as an occupation and administered it as an occupation including putting the Palestinians under military law. It seems to want to have its cake and eat it too with this indefinate and loosely defined arrangement that exists as an occupation in its own courts and under international law but is now being wiggled out from under by it’s political class.

 

[Shusha]

Was the West Bank given fully to Israel as part of its territory?

(No one "gives" States territory, it doesn't work like that.)

There was no such thing as the "West Bank" in 1948. The remaining part of the Mandate for Palestine (after Jordan was partitioned away) was one contiguous territory. Israel inherited that territory when it declared independence. The specific customary international law which applies in every single case throughout the world is that of uti possidetis juris - the new State inherits the existing administrative boundaries.

Jordan held it,

Jordan illegally and belligerently crossed international boundaries to conquer and occupy territory that it did not have a claim of sovereignty to.

and in 1988 ceded it

Jordan can not cede territory for which it has no sovereign claim.

to the PLO as a future state.

States can not cede territory to an unknown future. Jordan went back to its sovereign borders, as it was legally obliged to do, without prejudice to the future of the territory. The border between Israel and Jordan, as confirmed in the peace treaty between them, is the border of the partition of the Mandate of Palestine. Israel on one side, Jordan on the other.

At no point was it part of an Israeli state.

Incorrect. It was part of the State of Israel from Israel's inception, and nothing has legally changed that.

At the time two states were invisioned right?

Well, technically three, since two, Jordan and Israel (one Arab, one Jewish), were already established.

What were the borders?

Exactly my point. The borders between Israel and an eventual State of Palestine have not yet been established. It remains one contiguous territory, under the legal sovereignty of Israel. This can easily be changed with a treaty of peace between Israel and Palestine. The border can be drawn anywhere the Parties to the Treaty mutually agree.

Was that territory ever within Israel’s borders?

Yes, since 1948.

At no point was it fully part of Israel’s territory as in within it’s borders.

If you have an alternate explanation of Israel's borders, please provide. Date. Borders. Document.

 

[Shusha]

I’m not an expert in these things (I’ve always looked to RoccoM to explain what is a very tangled and complicated history in his debates with Tinmore.)

We could always summon him if you trust him more than me. Grin.

 

[Coyote]

We could always summon him if you trust him more than me. Grin.

I think you are both knowledgeable but I’d like a second verification since we are arguing very separate views here and without question, it has a complex and convoluted history.

RoccoR … is the West Bank occupied territory?

 

[Coyote]

(No one "gives" States territory, it doesn't work like that.)

There was no such thing as the "West Bank" in 1948. The remaining part of the Mandate for Palestine (after Jordan was partitioned away) was one contiguous territory. Israel inherited that territory when it declared independence. The specific customary international law which applies in every single case throughout the world is that of uti possidetis juris - the new State inherits the existing administrative boundaries.

Jordan illegally and belligerently crossed international boundaries to conquer and occupy territory that it did not have a claim of sovereignty to.

Jordan can not cede territory for which it has no sovereign claim.

States can not cede territory to an unknown future. Jordan went back to its sovereign borders, as it was legally obliged to do, without prejudice to the future of the territory. The border between Israel and Jordan, as confirmed in the peace treaty between them, is the border of the partition of the Mandate of Palestine. Israel on one side, Jordan on the other.

Incorrect. It was part of the State of Israel from Israel's inception, and nothing has legally changed that.

Well, technically three, since two, Jordan and Israel (one Arab, one Jewish), were already established.

Exactly my point. The borders between Israel and an eventual State of Palestine have not yet been established. It remains one contiguous territory, under the legal sovereignty of Israel. This can easily be changed with a treaty of peace between Israel and Palestine. The border can be drawn anywhere the Parties to the Treaty mutually agree.

Yes, since 1948.

If you have an alternate explanation of Israel's borders, please provide. Date. Borders. Document.

You said: Incorrect. It was part of the State of Israel from Israel's inception, and nothing has legally changed that.

According to what? Who?

 

[Lisa558]

A better term would be “disputed territories.” The word “occupied” is loaded and conveys the impression that this is not Israel’s land.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the West Bank part of Jordan before the Arabs initiated a war to try to wipe Israel off the map? If countries can invade their neighbors to attempt to eradicate them, there’s no disincentive to starting a war if you know any land lost by your aggression will be returned to you when the country you invaded triumphs over you.

 

[toomuchtime_]

We could always summon him if you trust him more than me. Grin.

There is nothing complicated about any of this. After Britain announced in 1947, that it would abandon its post in Palestine the next year, the UN made one last desperate attempt to bring peace to the region in the partition resolution, which also announced the UN would abandon the Mandate the next year.

The Jews accepted the UN recommendation for two states and the Arabs rejected it, so the Partition resolution became null and void, and since the League of Nations, and then the UN's Mandate superseded all previous treaties and laws, there was no legal basis for any country's claim to the 23% of the original Mandate left after Jordan was created.

Until Israel became a full member of the UN in 1949, there were not internationally recognized borders in this remnant of the former Mandate for Palestine, and Israel's borders were clearly defined at that time, but neither Jordan's nor Egypt's acquisitions of the territories, Gaza, Judea and Samaria were recognized by the international community or the UN.

As a result of the Six Day War, the Jordanian and Egyptian occupations of the territories were replaced by Israeli occupations and will remain so because neither Egypt nor Jordan wanted to take the territories back when they made peace with Israel, and the so called Palestinians won't make peace with Israel.

 

[Shusha]

You said: Incorrect. It was part of the State of Israel from Israel's inception, and nothing has legally changed that.

According to what? Who?

I've named a number of customary international law concepts, applied universally (except Israel). I've named a number of legal documents which support my position. I've requested facts which disprove my understanding (no response). Do you want me to name individual legal experts? I could do that too. There are quite a lot of them. I could link you a video or two. Would that make a difference?

Let me see if I can articulate why this matters so much to me. The world has adopted a narrative (and it is a narrative, in the sense that it is a story) that paints Israel as continually being on the wrong side of the law. And not just on the wrong side of the law, but chronically, deliberately, and with malice being on the wrong side of the law. It is a narrative that harms everyone - the Jewish people, because it paints them as irrevocably evil; the Palestinian people, because it traps them in perpetual helplessness and bricks them into an unnecessary corner; and the international community because they are required to navigate a minefield that shouldn't exist. And not just on the wrong side of the law, but accused of the most vile and egregious humanitarian crimes.

But what if the law is ACTUALLY on Israel's side? What if Israel is in the right? What if we (the international community) applied the law to Israel exactly as it has applied it to all other States and cases? This very strongly appears to be the case, in point of evidence. The fact that people (normal, regular people; protesters; governments; the UN) resist this evidence - resist even learning about this evidence - is STRIKING.

The easiest place to start with this is the "1967 borders". There is absolutely NO interpretation of international law that would give any value to this concept. And yet. And yet.

 

[Shusha]

And correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the West Bank part of Jordan ....

There was no such thing as the "West Bank" in 1948. The "West Bank" was never a part of Jordan. Jordan has no legal claim to any territory on the west side of the Jordan River. Even IF Jordan had a claim to any territory outside its own sovereign borders (which it emphatically does not!), this has nothing to do with the dispute between Israel and a would-be State of Palestine and its civil war/war of independence from Israel.