Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

blahbleh112233 t1_ja5gtf4 wrote

Reply to comment by Fochinell in Israelis, Palestinians pledge to curb violence at Jordan meeting by Hiversitize

No viable peace is going to hold until Israel settles on formal boundaries that they won't violate. Hamas gets a lot of support because they can just point to the illegal Israeli settlement over yonder and tell you with 100% certainty that your house is gonna be on the next expansion list

11

MGD109 t1_ja5nsi1 wrote

Well that's true, but hasn't Israel already offered them multiple treaties that would give them ownerships of large sections (as in nearly 90%) of the disputed land, which Hamas has just rejected out of hand?

Trouble is I don't think their is going to be a viable peace until the people at the top of both nations no longer profit out of the war.

34

MeatsimPD t1_ja83ihg wrote

> hasn't Israel already offered them multiple treaties that would give them ownerships of large sections (as in nearly 90%) of the disputed land, which Hamas has just rejected out of hand?

No. You should provide sources for such a claim.

Here's the last peace deal offered and the only one to include formal borders. It was rejected by the Palestinians (who weren't invited to the meeting) and the Jewish settlers organization

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_peace_plan

Edit: Hamas has rejected peace offers, the Palestinian Authority has not rejected any offer for "90% of disputed territory" nor has such an offer been made

−2

burningphoenix77888 t1_ja6prvv wrote

“Nearly 90%”

Aka, not all. The West Bank should be entirely Palestinian. The “peace deals” have the most fertile land in the West Bank stolen from Palestine and would have left Palestine a dead and demilitarized husk.

If there is to be peace. It must be the pre67 borders straight up. No modifications. No “land swaps”. The pre67 borders straight up is the only fair solution

−9

JoeShmoAfro t1_ja7ne5i wrote

So in 48 Jewish leadership accepted the partition plan and established a new state. The Palestinian leadership rejected it, and together with the neighbouring arab states waged war on the new Jewish state. The newly declared state was not defeated.

Go to 1967, and Israel wins a defensive war against its neighbouring Arab states (including the state that had control of the West Bank - Jordan). Israel wins the war, is not annihilated, and gains territory.

Basically, you think that a state that has gained territory in defensive wars, wars in which it's enemies have tried to wipe it off the map, should just give back the land it gained?

Out of interest, why didn't the Jordanians let the Palestinians establish a state in the West Bank between 48 and 67?

13

try_another8 t1_ja8bj0c wrote

"Hey, we tried to genocide you, but we lost. It's only fair if we get to keep everything and suffer no consequences"

11

spicytunaonigiri t1_ja5s13v wrote

Israel doesn’t randomly seize or bulldoze Palestinian homes to build new settlements. It razes homes that are built illegally (ie, without a permit) in “Area C,” the mutually agreed to Israeli controlled section of the West Bank, and homes of terrorists. Israel only establishes new settlements in Area C, the borders of which were already agreed to in Oslo 30 years ago. But I agree Israel should have just clearly defined its borders in 1967 after the Palestinians refused to negotiate by annexing what it needed for its security and withdrawing from the remainder.

−11

mrfenderscornerstore t1_ja5upoa wrote

Yeah, except the agreed upon exchange of area c never happened and Israel continues nip at the heels of the Palestinians who live there by restricting their water, not allowing development, blocking trash removal, transplanting Israeli citizens into ever-expanding developments, building walls inside the 1967 border, and on and on. But they’re a democracy (/s), so the US allows it.

15

spicytunaonigiri t1_ja5wgem wrote

My comment was responding to a specific insinuation that Israel randomly seizes Palestinian homes whenever it wants to build settlements. It should not be read in any broader context than that.

−10

mrfenderscornerstore t1_ja5xzzx wrote

When you mention Oslo, it absolutely needs context. And for what it’s worth, settlements in the West Bank don’t happen without bulldozing homes and displacing families that have lived in those homes for generations.

11

spicytunaonigiri t1_ja63jum wrote

Not true. While some settlements are on demolished Palestinian structures that were built illegally, the vast majority of settlement homes are new constructions on previously unoccupied land

−7

burningphoenix77888 t1_ja6pyr7 wrote

The settlements are illegal. They are de facto annexation.

Excusing the settlements is supporting genocide.

6

spicytunaonigiri t1_ja6td0k wrote

This is not germane to the discussion though. I was correcting a fact, not stating an opinion on whether I agree with the settlements.

2

MeatsimPD t1_ja856uw wrote

> Israel only establishes new settlements in Area C

  1. that's not true https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esh_Kodesh

  2. if Israel was following the intent of the Oslo Accords (which creates the area A, B, C system) they wouldn't be building new settlements AT ALL.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/12/oslo-israel-reneged-colonial-palestine

Don't forget that right wing extremists (the same kind who run the government in Israel now) assassinated the Israeli PM who signed the Oslo Accords https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin

Right wing Israelis never had any intent to follow the Oslo Accords

6

spicytunaonigiri t1_ja88zzv wrote

Israel did not establish Esh Kodesh. It was founded by a small group of pariahs acting in violation of Israeli law. But granted they are protected by the Israeli army and you could say Israel implicitly approves it by not dismantling it. Which is a fair argument.

The Oslo Accords do not flatly ban new settlements. They envisioned the transfer of Area C to the Palestinians over time. Which started in 2005 when several West Bank settlements were uprooted and a couple of years later when Olmert offered the Palestinians 100% of the West Bank with land swaps. Circumstances in Gaza caused Israel to reverse course on unilateral uprooting of settlements without a peace deal.

1

MeatsimPD t1_ja8bbs7 wrote

> The Oslo Accords do not flatly ban new settlements. They envisioned the transfer of Area C to the Palestinians over time.

Which obviously would be made much harder if not outright impossible (as we've seen today) with new settlements being constructed there. You cannot honestly tell me Israel was following the intent of the Agreement when it allowed tens of thousands of its own citizens to build settlements outside its sovereign borders and in land it had agreed would be transferred to another sovereign government

>Circumstances in Gaza caused Israel to reverse course on unilateral uprooting of settlements without a peace deal.

What circumstances justify settling tens of thousands of your own citizens outside of your sovereign territory against international law? And don't say security reasons because by God if they were that worried about security they wouldn't be settling there in the first place.

No the intent is clearly to settle permanently in the the West Bank and to fight whatever fight needs to be fought to stay there

4

spicytunaonigiri t1_ja8dej8 wrote

Israel will never uproot the major West Bank settlements. The deal would be 100% of the land area of the West Bank with land swaps to make up for the settlements. They’re too engrained. But I agree it’s terrible policy to create new settlements.

Israel uprooted 100% of its Gaza settlements in 2005 (and at the same time uprooted several WB settlements) and was rewarded with Hamas. If Gaza had become a democracy, it’s logical to presume settlements would have continued to be uprooted in the WB. But Gaza became a terror state and since the WB is much closer to Tel Aviv than Gaza, here we are.

1

MeatsimPD t1_ja8ig9h wrote

> The deal would be 100% of the land area of the West Bank with land swaps to make up for the settlements.

Think for a moment about the practically of what you are asking: where is all this land going to come from ? Surely not where anyone is already living, otherwise Israel would have to displace the people there. That means it's going to be land that no one can live on or wants to live on.

Now think for a moment about why the settlers, most of whom have been there less than 50 years and some far less, are "too engrained" to be moved than people who have lived there for centuries?

I'd like a direct answer to both these questions please

>Israel uprooted 100% of its Gaza settlements in 2005 (and at the same time uprooted several WB settlements) and was rewarded with Hamas. If Gaza had become a democracy, it’s logical to presume settlements would have continued to be uprooted in the WB. But Gaza became a terror state and since the WB is much closer to Tel Aviv than Gaza, here we are.

You act as if nothing else happened since 2005. Israel and Egypt have actively blockades Gaza since 2005, people are not allowed to leave and are even shot if they approach the fence too closely. Think about that? Doesn't that sound more like a prison than anything else? You're forced to remain in this area and if you try to leave or even get too close to the border you're shot.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip

Is it any wonder that people who are forcibly cut off from the rest of the world turned to violence? Honestly what did Israel expect to happen? For 2 million people to just sit quietly in a fenced off 140 square mile piece of land, doing nothing with their lives, never allowed to leave, always dependent on the graces of Israel and Egypt to decide whether or not food or medical supplies are allowed to be shipped in?

2

spicytunaonigiri t1_ja8nfbd wrote

The land swaps are a very small fraction. Israel offered 94% of the WB in 2008. The land swaps are not to trick the Palestinians into taking worse land. It’s symbolic to show Israel wants to offer 100% of the land that comprises the WB.

The settlers don’t have to move because the Arabs started a war and lost. That’s a consequence of war. Countries are permitted to occupy and lannex land taken in defensive wars and necessary for self defense. And since the WB was illegally occupied by Jordan pre-1967 Israel’s case is all the stronger. The civilian victims have the aggressor to blame, not the responder.

The permanent blockade started in 2007 after Hamas was elected. Israel didn’t unilaterally withdraw from Gaza because it wanted to create a state it had to police. That’s totally illogical because withdrawing from the land made Israel far more vulnerable to attacks. The plan was to wind down control of the border; Israel initially opened its land border with Gaza to encouraged trade. It was making the way for an independent Palestinian state with which to cooperate. And it was doing the same in the West Bank. It was only after terrorist attacks at the land border that it was closed.

1

MeatsimPD t1_ja8qdtw wrote

> The settlers don’t have to move because the Arabs started a war and lost. That’s a consequence of war.

That's bullshit and absolutely not how international law governs the resolution of conflicts.

>Countries are permitted to occupy and lannex land taken in defensive wars and necessary for self defense.

Absolutely 100% positively false. Prove me wrong and cite the international law that allows this

>The permanent blockade started in 2007 after Hamas was elected.

Also absolutely false. Here's the French Foreign minister in 2005 saying Gaza was at risk of becoming an "open-air prison" https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-196496/

That's two years before the takeover by Hamas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007) after Farah lost the 2006 elections

>The civilian victims have the aggressor to blame, not the responder

My dude. Forcibly occupying and annexing territory of another sovereign state IS AN ACT OF AGGRESSION. https://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/explore/icc-crimes/crime-aggression

1

spicytunaonigiri t1_ja8u20y wrote

Scholars disagree on when annexation is permissible. I would imagine you would side with the scholars against it and I would side with the scholars who support it. But it’s vague enough that you (and I) should avoid using absolute language

FYI, Israel has not annexed the WB other than East Jerusalem. It’s not even clear that it’s occupied since it’s not being occupied from any other nation. But certainly nations are permitted to occupy (if not annex) land held after a defensive war. I believe Israel should have annexed a buffer zone it deemed necessary for its defense in 1967 after the Arabs refused to negotiate and withdrawn from the rest. But hindsight is 20/20

1

MeatsimPD t1_ja8viit wrote

> Scholars disagree on when annexation is permissible. I would imagine you would side with the scholars against it and I would side with the scholars who support it.

Well okay but this isn't about what "scholars" think its about the law says. And you haven't actually showed me any scholar or law that supports your position so lets not pretend you're not full of shit.

>FYI, Israel has not annexed the WB other than East Jerusalem.

No but it has every intention to do so, and meanwhile its continued occupation and settling of citizens is clearly illegal.

>It’s not even clear that it’s occupied since it’s not being occupied from any other nation.

This isn't the 1600s, there's no "free real estate" that just "doesn't belong to another nation" that anyone can settle in. Under this logic a state like Jordan, across the river, could send its own citizens into the territory to settle. Is that what you're saying? Just any country could go to the West Bank and claim territory.

>But certainly nations are permitted to occupy (if not annex) land held after a defensive war.

Cite a source.

1

spicytunaonigiri t1_ja8x5x8 wrote

Scholars disagree on what the law says. I don't normally like to block quote but since you requested:

"The ILC (International Law Commission) repeatedly recognized that not all territorial changes in war are illegitimate. Not all annexations were bad... All agreed that post-war frontier adjustments were justified to help protect the victim of aggression. There was broad consensus territorial change was only impermissible in a war of “aggression.” Thus the final document provided that
states have a duty “to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another State acting in violation” of the U.N. Charter or other international law rules. But Israel’s use of force in 1967 was defensive... and thus explicitly lawful under the Charter. Thus there is no obligation to refrain from recognizing" it.https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20180717/108563/HHRG-115-GO06-Wstate-KontorovichE-20180717.pdf

>No but it has every intention to do so

Israel has no serious intention of annexing the WB because if it did it would make Jews a minority in Israel.

>Is that what you're saying? Just any country could go to the West Bank and claim territory.

No. There's a difference between acquisition of land as the aggressor and defensively. Jordan acquired the land as the aggressor. Israel acquired it defensively. Typically occupied land that is not needed defensively is to be returned to the host country. In the WB, there is no host country. That's why some prefer to use the term "disputed land" rather than "occupied land." It's not being occupied from any other country. And which is also why the normal laws of occupation don't necessarily apply.

1

MeatsimPD t1_ja8xuo3 wrote

Thanks for providing a source, I actually appreciate it. Not sure if this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Kontorovich is the best legal mind on the subject but at least its a source. I mean he's been involved in drafting laws for state legislatures that make it illegal to boycott Israel, yikes.

1

Dr_Phag t1_ja8j5mk wrote

And you were downvoted for saying this. Multiple posts discussing and criticizing Israeli policy regarding settlements, but you are downvoted for describing Hamas taking over Gaza and how that changed Israel’s approach.

It really does say a lot.

0