Does the current government of Israel (not Jewish people) even acknowledge international law?
[removed]
…and have been for the last few decades.
Haven’t most of Israel’s “settlements” been inconsistent with international law?
[removed]
This is a weird position. Now I know I’m going to be immediately downvoted, but let me explain why.
Before 1948, the land was controlled by the British, who were granted it by the League of Nations after the Ottoman Empire collapsed. The Ottomans had run it for hundreds of years.
The UN proposed a two state solution, which Palestinians rejected. They began a war to wipe Jews out instead, and Israel declared independence partway through that war.
After 1948, it was taken by Jordan, who invaded to seize it. Jordan annexed the land.
In 1967, Jordan attacked Israel while it was at war with Egypt and Syria, despite Israel begging it to stay out of the war. Israel recaptured that land in 1967.
Now, Israel is being told that building a house in the area the British once held, that the Jordanians seized, and which Israel controls now, is “inconsistent with international law”.
Even when the house is built and lived in by an Israeli-Arab.
Even if the house is bought perfectly legally, even if it’s bought directly from a willing Palestinian owner.
Even if it has been empty land since the Ottomans ran the territory.
All because, at some point in the past 75 years, the Palestinians somehow gained all land based on the borders that Jordan’s army was stopped at in 1949 during its invasion, which the Israeli-Jordanian armistice agreement said were **not** borders.
In no other conflict of similar nature are settlements called “inconsistent with international law”. There has never been a UN condemnation of Moroccan settlements in the Western Sahara, which it gained after Spain withdrew while Algeria/Mauritania/Sahrawis had competing claims. Or Armenian ones in Nagorno-Karabakh, which it gained by invading the area in the 1990s. Or Turkish settlements in Northern Cyprus, which it gained by invading in 1974. Or Indian ones in Kashmir, which it gained also after the British withdrew, despite competing Pakistani claims. Or countless others.
Only Israel is ever told it is acting illegally, based on the above.
What a weird world we live in.
Funny way of saying illegal
Not a thing will change until Israel itself is sanctioned
Does the “rules-based order” matter or not?
No such thing as international law. It’s inherently unenforceable as evidenced by Israel.
I wonder if that shooting had more to do with this than Gaza.
[deleted]
The only way Israel will care is when they are sanctioned.
The settlements are not illegal though – inconsistent is not illegal.
They are inconsistent because Israel had agreed to the borders of the erstwhile Palestinian state and these WB settlements are inside the area that was supposed to be given to the Palestinian state.
It is not illegal though because the PA chose to not live up to their obligations. It is unclear if that decision made Israel’s adherence to the same accords no longer binding. And Netanyahu and his posse are exploiting that ambiguity.
It also speaks to the fact that PA has put ideology above practicality and have consistently made choices that are demonstrably not in the best interests of the people that they supposedly represent.
13 comments
Does the current government of Israel (not Jewish people) even acknowledge international law?
[removed]
…and have been for the last few decades.
Haven’t most of Israel’s “settlements” been inconsistent with international law?
[removed]
This is a weird position. Now I know I’m going to be immediately downvoted, but let me explain why.
Before 1948, the land was controlled by the British, who were granted it by the League of Nations after the Ottoman Empire collapsed. The Ottomans had run it for hundreds of years.
The UN proposed a two state solution, which Palestinians rejected. They began a war to wipe Jews out instead, and Israel declared independence partway through that war.
After 1948, it was taken by Jordan, who invaded to seize it. Jordan annexed the land.
In 1967, Jordan attacked Israel while it was at war with Egypt and Syria, despite Israel begging it to stay out of the war. Israel recaptured that land in 1967.
Now, Israel is being told that building a house in the area the British once held, that the Jordanians seized, and which Israel controls now, is “inconsistent with international law”.
Even when the house is built and lived in by an Israeli-Arab.
Even if the house is bought perfectly legally, even if it’s bought directly from a willing Palestinian owner.
Even if it has been empty land since the Ottomans ran the territory.
All because, at some point in the past 75 years, the Palestinians somehow gained all land based on the borders that Jordan’s army was stopped at in 1949 during its invasion, which the Israeli-Jordanian armistice agreement said were **not** borders.
In no other conflict of similar nature are settlements called “inconsistent with international law”. There has never been a UN condemnation of Moroccan settlements in the Western Sahara, which it gained after Spain withdrew while Algeria/Mauritania/Sahrawis had competing claims. Or Armenian ones in Nagorno-Karabakh, which it gained by invading the area in the 1990s. Or Turkish settlements in Northern Cyprus, which it gained by invading in 1974. Or Indian ones in Kashmir, which it gained also after the British withdrew, despite competing Pakistani claims. Or countless others.
Only Israel is ever told it is acting illegally, based on the above.
What a weird world we live in.
Funny way of saying illegal
Not a thing will change until Israel itself is sanctioned
Does the “rules-based order” matter or not?
No such thing as international law. It’s inherently unenforceable as evidenced by Israel.
I wonder if that shooting had more to do with this than Gaza.
[deleted]
The only way Israel will care is when they are sanctioned.
The settlements are not illegal though – inconsistent is not illegal.
They are inconsistent because Israel had agreed to the borders of the erstwhile Palestinian state and these WB settlements are inside the area that was supposed to be given to the Palestinian state.
It is not illegal though because the PA chose to not live up to their obligations. It is unclear if that decision made Israel’s adherence to the same accords no longer binding. And Netanyahu and his posse are exploiting that ambiguity.
It also speaks to the fact that PA has put ideology above practicality and have consistently made choices that are demonstrably not in the best interests of the people that they supposedly represent.