You've reached the point where you're basically saying international law doesn't matter, is that correct?

>The Palestinians dance in the streets after Jews are killed and make the terrorists hero's. When they love their children this practice will end, instead they teach them to kill

Lets not pretend that Israeli settlers and soldiers aren't guilty of killing innocent people, that they don't celebrate terrorists, or that they don't literally dance in the street when hearing about violence

There's no moral high-ground when it comes to violence here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settler_violence

>What further security justification is there for occupying the West Bank? What justification is there for settling Israelis citizens there

Still aren't answering my question. Its such a simple question too, why are you so afraid to give a direct answer?

> 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.

> Israel faces constant terrorist attacks they are making sure that all of its citizens are safe.

If they wanted to keep them safe, why are they allowing and encouraging them to settle outside Israeli's sovereign borders, beyond the security wall, and in very vulnerable locations?

>I think you're making excuses for the Palestinians inconsistent bullshit and those of its Arab allies who fund terrorism.

Oh the Palestinian authority government is an absolute disaster for the Palestinian people, and the funding of terrorism isn't helpful for anyone and certainly won't get Israel to withdraw from its illegally occupied territory.

Israel cannot be defeated militarily and its pointless and counter productive to try. Palestinians would be better served by following examples like Gandhi or Mandela in winning justice.

> Jerusalem has always been the capital of Israel East and West.

I mean... I understand that people feel that way but its not the truth of the matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Jerusalem

> Furthermore when Jordan controlled East Jerusalem they denied Israeli citizens access to the Western Wall. Any tourists who entered from Israel could not reenter Israel.

Which was obviously wrong but in no way justifies the occupation of the West Bank, settling Israeli Citizens in the West Bank, or annexing territory through force.

>As for the West Bank, when the Palestinians love their children as much as they hate Israel then they will have control over the West Bank.

This is some shit

>Territory C,.

I think its clear you've given up on attempting to make an argument for Israeli's behavior after its been shown to be inconsistent bullshit.

Just say how you really feel, I'm guessing something like "Arabs and Palestinians attacked Israel and Israel has every right to do whatever it wants in the West Bank regardless what the people living there before their occupation want"

Just say it

Again,

If you don't trust them why are you building settlements outside your state's sovereign borders, surrounded by them, and in violation of international law.

>What's the justification for those settlements again? What's the justification for violating international law and annexing territory by force and settling your citizens outside of your sovereign borders

Your lack of response is so telling, its like part of you knows there is no justification but you want Israel to have that land for some perverse reason

East Jerusalem was never part of the State of Israel post 1948 but has been de-facto annexed by Israel since 1967.

>What further security justification is there for occupying the West Bank? What justification is there for settling Israelis citizens there

Still aren't answering the question, come on dude give me your justification for the conquest of the West Bank

> After turning over Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinians

When was the West Bank ever turned over to the Palestinians. I'm getting the clear sign you'll just sat whatever random bullshit you can if it sounds good in the moment

>Palestinian school text books teach children that Jews are subhuman and should be killed.

Man sounds like good reason not to build settlements outside of your country's sovereign borders and surrounded by Palestinians.

What's the justification for those settlements again? What's the justification for violating international law and annexing territory by force and settling your citizens outside of your sovereign borders

> 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

> If territory by conquest is illegal, then why didn't the Arabs return the land they captured in the 1948 War of Independence

Bro what land? Israel controls all the territory it held in 1948. What land do you want them to return?

>. What further security justification is there for occupying the West Bank? What justification is there for settling Israelis citizens there

You're not answering the question

What does any of this have to do with the occupation of the West Bank? Israel's security situation is more secure than it has ever been. What further security justification is there for occupying the West Bank? What justification is there for settling Israelis citizens there?

For God's sake if they are so concerned about terrorism than why are they settling their citizens outside of their sovereign territory in the West Bank and the Golan Heights let's not forget that either

What about any of this changes the fact that annexation of territory through conquest is illegal as is settling your citizens outside of your borders in such land.

> 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?

> 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

> Which of those countries have signed treaties with Israel?

Egypt and Jordan. Why are you asking me questions about basic facts? You're tacitly admitting your opinion is uninformed if you don't know this.

>During the War of Independence the Arabs captured land without permission, should they have returned it to Israel?

I don't know what you're talking about. Israel has control of all territory it controlled at the start of the 1948 war

> After the 1967 War Israel made an offer to return land in exchange for peace. The Arab response was 9 Arab nations met in Khartoum and declared that there would be no peace.

You keep posting this as if nothing has changed in the last 56 years.

> 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

> 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

>Peace isn't occurring because of the Khartoum Conference in 1967 where 9 Arab nations declared there would be no peace

You're ignoring two facts 1) many of the states represented at this conference don't have the same governments.today they had 1967 and have subsequently signed peace treaties with Israel and 2) nothing you said says anything to do with that I said

Bonus third fact) annexing territory through conquest without the consent of the people living there is illegal under international law, and settling your citizens outside of your own territory is also illegal under international law

> Only thing that will fix this is good paying jobs and investment in the region so people care more about their futures than some bs blood feud.

The conflict is about LAND who owns it and who governs it. Right now there are large overlapping claims of not only sovereignty between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (not to mention Israel doesn't recognize a state of Palestine) but personal property claims dating back decades. Families who fled their homes or were forcibly removed decades ago in what's now part of Israel wants the right to return to that land and live on it. Problem is that as far as Israel is concerned that land is owned by someone else.

Peace isn't happening because Israel and the Palestinian Authority cannot agree on what land is is part of what country (or again if Palestine even is a country). And this already complex problem is being made even harder by Israel settling it's citizens on land which is undeniably not part of Israel and that Palestinians want for a future land. But of course other Palestinian groups like Hamas in Gaza don't recognize Israel's border either.

But ultimately this is about LAND not religion or blood fueds or whatever it's about who owns what land

I used to work in humanitarian aide on Afghanistan, yes they are very different

> You had to be pretty nuts to have been donating to them in the first place

If you read the first paragraph of the article it's about donations to people and causes in Afghanistan, not donating to the Taliban

Then you turn on your TV and watch Americans claim their country is freer than anywhere on earth

They don't care about the baby in the womb, they will provide and actively deny medical care to pregnant women.

What they want is to control people and to drive their ideology to such extremes as to create a canyon between themselves and the rest of America. Extremists are easier to control, they don't engage in critical thinking, they don't question, they believe and they do as they are told

Exactly and it's not like I should face consequences for what anyone else does with my gun that I just handed them without knowing what they were gonna do with it. I mean gun sellers do it all the time what's the problem

No not "responsible" as in he should face consequences responsible, "responsible" as in leave me alone I can do whatever I want responsible