# Israel/Palestinians: Your Take **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 22, 2016, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840 "2016-03-22T07:26:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2016, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/441 "2016-07-12T13:01:39Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Jordan. Circa '67, they exercised sovereignty over the region; residents got Jordanian citizenship, elected representatives to Parliament, and so forth. It was de facto Jordanian territory for the purposes of war. Jordanian occupation of the WB was not recognized by any country save the UK. In any event, Jordan disclaimed any responsibility for the territory in the 1980s. The WB never was, and certainly is not now, “occupied” territory of Jordan as a “High Contracting Party”. Jordan never “owned” it (any more that Israel does now) and Jordan itself states it doesn’t wish to assume “ownership” of it in the future. It simply is not territory of another “High Contracting Party” that is “occupied”. Which is the test. Therefore, by any ordinary interpretation, on its face the Convention doesn’t apply. > [@](#): > > I disagree; and the alternative is too dreadful to tolerate. That’s not a good guide to interpreting a treaty. > [@](#): > > Israel interpret things in light of what’s best for Israel, like any other country (see the US’ torture memos, or legal reasoning for why invading Iraq was a-ok). Doesn’t mean the rest of the world has to pretend the Palestinians have no rights. I disagree that the document ought to be interpreted as conveying rights because that would be a good idea. Interpretation doesn’t work that way. Palestinians may have “rights” arising from common humanity and morality, but that doesn’t mean that a territory magically becomes subject to a particular treaty when the triggering conditions don’t apply. See, this is one of the reasons why such concepts as “international law” get discredited: they are misunderstood and twisted into something they are not. ---
**Author:** ![doubleminus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5daacb/32.png) [@doubleminus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doubleminus)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2016, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/442 "2016-07-12T17:01:33Z")
Bazil, I’m Israeli. It is normal for us to be mostly concerned with our own country. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2016, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/443 "2016-07-12T23:53:12Z")
> [@doubleminus](#): > > Bazil, I’m Israeli. It is normal for us to be mostly concerned with our own country. Yes, I agree. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/444 "2016-07-13T23:49:15Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Jordanian occupation of the WB was not recognized by any country save the UK. It was UK territory (a signatory), which was claimed by Jordan (a signatory) and then occupied by Israel (a signatory). By what alchemy could it transform into something other than the territory of a signatory? > [@](#): > > In any event, Jordan disclaimed any responsibility for the territory in the 1980s. I don’t see any mechanism in the Convention for a party to retroactively waive another party’s obligations. > [@](#): > > The WB never was, and certainly is not now, “occupied” territory of Jordan as a “High Contracting Party”. Jordan never “owned” it (any more that Israel does now) and Jordan itself states it doesn’t wish to assume “ownership” of it in the future. It simply is not territory of another “High Contracting Party” that is “occupied”. Which is the test. > > Therefore, by any ordinary interpretation, on its face the Convention doesn’t apply. If it wasn’t Jordanian territory (which it was, but for the sake of the point), then it was occupied UK territory. Again, there’s no way for territory changing hands between signatories to duck under the Convention. > [@](#): > > That’s not a good guide to interpreting a treaty. Disagree. If there are multiple plausible legal arguments that apply, then there’s no reason to go with the one with the most horrid outcome. See, for instance, the US torture memos. > [@](#): > > I disagree that the document ought to be interpreted as conveying rights because that would be a good idea. Interpretation doesn’t work that way. The treaty plainly applies, but see above. > [@](#): > > Palestinians may have “rights” arising from common humanity and morality, but that doesn’t mean that a territory magically becomes subject to a particular treaty when the triggering conditions don’t apply. Yours is the interpretation that requires magic. And the “common humanity and morality” obviously isn’t sufficient. > [@](#): > > See, this is one of the reasons why such concepts as “international law” get discredited: they are misunderstood and twisted into something they are not. It gets discredited because it doesn’t (reliably, at least) get enforced. As in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/445 "2016-07-14T00:53:48Z")
**Human Action** : I’m confused. What treaty are you referring to? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/446 "2016-07-14T01:05:47Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > **Human Action** : I’m confused. What treaty are you referring to? The 4th Geneva Convention. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/447 "2016-07-14T13:40:23Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > It was UK territory (a signatory), which was claimed by Jordan (a signatory) and then occupied by Israel (a signatory). By what alchemy could it transform into something other than the territory of a signatory? Knowing some history of the region helps with these questions. It was never UK territory. It was administered by the UK under a league of nations mandate. The UK terminated that mandate, in accordance with a proposed UN partition plan. > **[Mandatory Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#Termination_of_the_Mandate)** > > Mandatory Palestine\[a\] was a geopolitical entity that existed between 1920 and 1948 in the region of Palestine under the terms of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. > After an Arab uprising against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War in 1916, British forces drove Ottoman forces out of the Levant. The United Kingdom had agreed in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence that it would honour Arab independence in case of a revolt but, in the end, the United Kingdom and France divided... More on the nature of the Mandate: > **[Mandate for Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument))** > > The Mandate for Palestine was a League of Nations mandate for British administration of the territories of Palestine and Transjordan – which had been part of the Ottoman Empire for four centuries – following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I. The mandate was assigned to Britain by the San Remo conference in April 1920, after France's concession in the 1918 Clemenceau–Lloyd George Agreement of the previously agreed "international administration" of Palestine under the Sykes–Picot... This plan was accepted by the proto-Israelis, but rejected by all Arab nations. The Arab nations invaded what had been, but was no longer, a territory administered by the UK (they had already unilaterally terminated their mandate). One of those invaders was Jordan; it took the WB. Another was Egypt: it took Gaza. In neither case were these takings recognized by the UN, or indeed anyone, with the sole exception that the UK recognized Jordanian taking of the WB. Egypt did not even attempt to have its taking of Gaza recognized. So it was never UK territory, and it was never Jordanian territory (any more than it is right now Israeli territory). Egypt never asserted that Gaza was part of its territory. Jordan did assert that the WB was, but that assertion was not recognized and so had no legal meaning, in terms of the Convention. By what alchemy can the Palestinians be transformed into nationals of the UK or perhaps Egypt or Jordan? > [@](#): > > I don’t see any mechanism in the Convention for a party to retroactively waive another party’s obligations. Irrelevant in this instance, as the Convention never applied. > [@](#): > > If it wasn’t Jordanian territory (which it was, but for the sake of the point), then it was occupied UK territory. Again, there’s no way for territory changing hands between signatories to duck under the Convention. Again, this is just plain wrong. It was never “UK territory”. It was administered mandatory territory. Expressly not owned by the UK, and no-one in history has ever asserted that the Palestinians were ever UK citizens. > [@](#): > > Disagree. If there are multiple plausible legal arguments that apply, then there’s no reason to go with the one with the most horrid outcome. See, for instance, the US torture memos. > > The treaty plainly applies, but see above. > > Yours is the interpretation that requires magic. And the “common humanity and morality” obviously isn’t sufficient. In this case, the text of the convention is there for all to read and the history is there for any to see. The Convention only applies to territories of “High Contracting Parties”. The WB and Gaza were never such territories, and still aren’t. > [@](#): > > It gets discredited because it doesn’t (reliably, at least) get enforced. As in this case. The problem is that many apparently have no idea how things like this convention actually were intended to work. The Convention is nothing like a nation’s constitutional laws or charters of rights. They are best thought of like contracts between nations, by which nations agree to abide by certain standards. Non-parties to a contract only have such “rights” as the contract chooses to give them. In this particular case, non-parties have no rights under this particular convention, which applies not to “occupied” peoples generally, but to territories of High Contracting Parties which become “occupied” in war. The only “magic” going on here is the attempt to make non-parties into parties by, I guess, a failure to understand the history of the region. ---
**Author:** ![1046190](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/f4b2a3/32.png) [@1046190](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1046190)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/448 "2016-07-14T15:23:09Z")
I support Palestine. The Palestinians have every right to defend themselves and the current Israeli government doesn’t want peace. They block Palestinian recognition in the UN and now Clinton says she wants to stamp out the BDS for being “anti-semetic”. Glenn Greenwald had it right. What the hell are they supposed to do? Not only does the Israeli gpvernment jeapordize the safety of the peace loving Israelis, but he’s inflamed anti Western sentiment in the Muslim world with their brutality against the Palestinians. The Palestinians have never been made a fair offer, but at this point the '67 borders are the best they’ve got and Netenyahu isn’t even for that. They’re building settlements to present a fait a compli and keep the Palestinians as eternally stateless refugees. Let’s stop calling it a peace process and call it what it is. Stalling for time. ---
**Author:** ![1046190](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/f4b2a3/32.png) [@1046190](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1046190)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/449 "2016-07-14T15:43:28Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Not incontrovertibly. Arguably, but the argument can go both ways. Israel could take the entire West Bank by right of conquest. There is plenty of legal precedent for that. > > (I believe the settlements are a problem, a bad strategy, and an obstacle to peace. But NOTHING is the region is “incontrovertible.”) Under international law, you’re not allowed to conquer land. It’s illegal. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/450 "2016-07-14T17:23:33Z")
> [@1046190](#): > > I support Palestine. The Palestinians have every right to defend themselves Would that include the rocket attacks on civilians; the stabbings; and the use of their own people as human shields? > [@](#): > > . What the hell are they supposed to do? Give up on their dream of putting an end to Jewish Israel. > [@](#): > > The Palestinians have never been made a fair offer, What would you consider to be a “fair offer”? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/451 "2016-07-14T17:29:01Z")
> [@1046190](#): > > Under international law, you’re not allowed to conquer land. It’s illegal. Is that a general principle of international law? Or is it something specific which applies only to Israel? If it’s the former, would you mind quoting and linking to the specific provision of international law you are referring to? I am not aware of any general provision of international law which would prohibit Israel from simply annexing J & S. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/452 "2016-07-14T17:46:10Z")
> [@1046190](#): > > I support Palestine. The Palestinians have every right to defend themselves and the current Israeli government doesn’t want peace. They block Palestinian recognition in the UN and now Clinton says she wants to stamp out the BDS for being “anti-semetic”. Glenn Greenwald had it right. What the hell are they supposed to do? Not only does the Israeli gpvernment jeapordize the safety of the peace loving Israelis, but he’s inflamed anti Western sentiment in the Muslim world with their brutality against the Palestinians. The Palestinians have never been made a fair offer, but at this point the '67 borders are the best they’ve got and Netenyahu isn’t even for that. They’re building settlements to present a fait a compli and keep the Palestinians as eternally stateless refugees. Let’s stop calling it a peace process and call it what it is. Stalling for time. Please define “anti-semetic”(sic) and also please define a “Palestinian” and explain who is and isn’t. I ask because what is and isn’t a Palestinian is hardly agreed upon. There are people who’ve been living in Lebanon or Jordan now for four generations who insist they are “Palestinians” because they had an ancestor who was the children of Egyptian parents who left “Palestine” in 1948. So please, in your own words define as succinctly as you can and also explain if you think Jews can be Palestinians as well. Thanks in advance. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/453 "2016-07-14T19:40:25Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > . . . The Convention only applies to territories of “High Contracting Parties”. The WB and Gaza were never such territories, and still aren’t. . . . I’d be willing to accept the argument that the Geneva Conventions apply to the behavior of the signatories (is Israel a signer?) even in territories occupied that does not belong to a signatory. The G.C. could be seen as a kind of declaration of universal rights. You can’t shoot at an ambulance or bomb a hospital, even in a “no man’s land” or un-owned territory. The Palestinians should have basic universal rights, at least from nations that have agreed to the G.C. I do believe that some of the expansionist behavior of the Israeli settlements has been very wrong, and I don’t object to anyone citing the G.C. as a reason for this. On the other hand, treaty enforcement is a weak point in international law. Just ask Ronald Reagan. So if Israel says, “Yeah, we signed the Geneva Conventions, but we’re not applying them in this case,” they aren’t much worse than the Palestinians who chased Jews out of cities in the West Bank and destroyed religious shrines. Both sides have behaved poorly. (My opinion is that the Palestinians have behaved significantly worse than the Israelis. Seizing land is not as bad as destroying shrines or launching rockets. If the G.C. are considered to be “universal,” then boo on the Palestinians for violating their terms also.) ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/454 "2016-07-14T19:43:13Z")
> [@1046190](#): > > Under international law, you’re not allowed to conquer land. It’s illegal. Tell that to Turkey (Cyprus) and Russia (Crimea.) There are other examples. The world doesn’t operate according to such ideals. (I’m actually in favor of a true one-world government with the real power to stop this from happening. I think both Israelis and Palestinians would not agree with that!) ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/455 "2016-07-14T20:18:56Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I’d be willing to accept the argument that the Geneva Conventions apply to the behavior of the signatories (is Israel a signer?) even in territories occupied that does not belong to a signatory. The G.C. could be seen as a kind of declaration of universal rights. You can’t shoot at an ambulance or bomb a hospital, even in a “no man’s land” or un-owned territory. > > The Palestinians should have basic universal rights, at least from nations that have agreed to the G.C. I do believe that some of the expansionist behavior of the Israeli settlements has been very wrong, and I don’t object to anyone citing the G.C. as a reason for this. > > On the other hand, treaty enforcement is a weak point in international law. Just ask Ronald Reagan. So if Israel says, “Yeah, we signed the Geneva Conventions, but we’re not applying them in this case,” they aren’t much worse than the Palestinians who chased Jews out of cities in the West Bank and destroyed religious shrines. Both sides have behaved poorly. > > (My opinion is that the Palestinians have behaved significantly worse than the Israelis. Seizing land is not as bad as destroying shrines or launching rockets. If the G.C. are considered to be “universal,” then boo on the Palestinians for violating their terms also.) It isn’t an issue of applying the “Geneva Convention” _as a whole_. It’s the interpretation of a very specific part of that convention, that applies to the “occupation” of the territory of a High Contracting Party that is occupied (temporarily) as a result of war. The turfing of Palestinians to make way for “settlers” is wrong - I’ve agreed with that. What it isn’t, is a violation of this _particular_ provision of this _particular_ treaty. Now, maybe a universally applicable declaration of rights in such matters would be a good idea (assuming some enforcement mechanism could be created), and depending on its details I’d support it. What is a bad idea, though, is to twist existing treaties into meaning something other than what they actually mean. That’s a bad precedent. What it states, is that the meaning of the text is basically irrelevant, that they mean whatever is expedient, at the moment, for people to say that they mean. This undermines whatever legitimacy they currently enjoy. If their meaning is so malleable, then it can be manipulated by the ‘bad guys’ just as easily as it can by the ‘good guys’ in any particular situation. What we currently think of as ‘international law’ in the realm of peace and war works in three ways in our world dominated by sovereign states - by compulsion (very rarely) in the form of sanctions or even UN-sponsored actions; by consensus, as represented by conventions; and through ‘compliance pull’ - meaning, the feeling within any given state that they ought to comply with standards of behavior that are expressed, fixed and understood. Manipulating existing conventions to mean something they don’t mean on their face - however laudable and good for increasing rights _in an individual case_ such a manipulation may be - undermines two of those three pillars of conformity with legal norms. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/456 "2016-07-14T21:28:01Z")
Fair enough. I can agree with all of this. Certainly the “no man’s land” status of the West Bank is a cause of significant complication. As I said earlier, things would be a bit simpler if Jordan were the sovereign possessor of the land. (Here is another stupid question, and I apologize, but I honestly do not know the answer: has the Palestinian Authority ever signed the Geneva Conventions?) (Are new nations even permitted to sign? Could South Sudan, one of the newest of the world’s nations, sign?) (This is why I participate in threads like this: in addition to the usual back-and-forth that enlightens no one, there are discoveries to be made, and things to learn!) ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/457 "2016-07-14T21:38:14Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Fair enough. I can agree with all of this. > > Certainly the “no man’s land” status of the West Bank is a cause of significant complication. As I said earlier, things would be a bit simpler if Jordan were the sovereign possessor of the land. > > (Here is another stupid question, and I apologize, but I honestly do not know the answer: has the Palestinian Authority ever signed the Geneva Conventions?) > > (Are new nations even permitted to sign? Could South Sudan, one of the newest of the world’s nations, sign?) > > (This is why I participate in threads like this: in addition to the usual back-and-forth that enlightens no one, there are discoveries to be made, and things to learn!) I didn’t know myself. Apparently, it is complex; the PA attempted to accede to the Conventions for years but was rebuffed, and declared that they would voluntarily abide by the conventions nonetheless; until recently, when UN provided them with the necessary status. They finally fully joined in 2015. > [@](#): > > The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) unilaterally declared itself bound by Conventions I-IV and Protocol I in 1982.[29] > In 1989, the PLO submitted a letter to the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs which stated in part that the State of Palestine had decided to “adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto.”[30] However, the Swiss Government, which acts as the depositary for the Conventions, responded by stating that it was “not in a position to decide whether this communication can be considered as an instrument of accession” due to “the incertainty [sic] within the international community as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine.”[29][30] In 1990, the PLO submitted a “Memorandum on the accession of the State of Palestine to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949” to the depository and requested that the issue be reconsidered. However, the Swiss Government reiterated its prior conclusions.[31] > Following the United Nations General Assembly passing a resolution granting non-member observer state status to Palestine in November 2012, Palestine acceded to Conventions I-IV and Protocol I in April 2014.[32] In January 2015 Palestine acceded to Protocols II and III.[33] > **[List of parties to the Geneva Conventions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions)** > > The Geneva Conventions, which were most recently revised in 1949, consist of seven individual treaties which are open to ratification or accession by any sovereign state. They are: > The four 1949 Conventions have been ratified by 196 states, including all UN member states, both UN observers (the Holy See and the State of Palestine}, as well as the Cook Islands. The Protocols have been ratified by 174, 169 and 79 states respectively. In addition, Article 90 of Protocol I states that "The High C... ---
**Author:** ![1046190](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/f4b2a3/32.png) [@1046190](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1046190)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/458 "2016-07-14T21:48:21Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Is that a general principle of international law? Or is it something specific which applies only to Israel? > > If it’s the former, would you mind quoting and linking to the specific provision of international law you are referring to? I am not aware of any general provision of international law which would prohibit Israel from simply annexing J & S. What kind of question is that? It applies to everyone. What do you think World War 2 was about? ---
**Author:** ![1046190](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/f4b2a3/32.png) [@1046190](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1046190)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/459 "2016-07-14T21:51:03Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Please define “anti-semetic”(sic) and also please define a “Palestinian” and explain who is and isn’t. > > I ask because what is and isn’t a Palestinian is hardly agreed upon. There are people who’ve been living in Lebanon or Jordan now for four generations who insist they are “Palestinians” because they had an ancestor who was the children of Egyptian parents who left “Palestine” in 1948. > > So please, in your own words define as succinctly as you can and also explain if you think Jews can be Palestinians as well. > > Thanks in advance. That’s an old and pathetic argument. This argument that Palestinians don’t exist i complete nonsense. The Palestinians exist in the same way that Italians exist and Greeks exist and Germans exist. If anything, this argument would work better for Israel since the Israelis come from all over the world (although mostly Europe). ---
**Author:** ![1046190](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/f4b2a3/32.png) [@1046190](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1046190)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840/460 "2016-07-14T21:53:08Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I’d be willing to accept the argument that the Geneva Conventions apply to the behavior of the signatories (is Israel a signer?) even in territories occupied that does not belong to a signatory. The G.C. could be seen as a kind of declaration of universal rights. You can’t shoot at an ambulance or bomb a hospital, even in a “no man’s land” or un-owned territory. > > The Palestinians should have basic universal rights, at least from nations that have agreed to the G.C. I do believe that some of the expansionist behavior of the Israeli settlements has been very wrong, and I don’t object to anyone citing the G.C. as a reason for this. > > On the other hand, treaty enforcement is a weak point in international law. Just ask Ronald Reagan. So if Israel says, “Yeah, we signed the Geneva Conventions, but we’re not applying them in this case,” they aren’t much worse than the Palestinians who chased Jews out of cities in the West Bank and destroyed religious shrines. Both sides have behaved poorly. > > (My opinion is that the Palestinians have behaved significantly worse than the Israelis. Seizing land is not as bad as destroying shrines or launching rockets. If the G.C. are considered to be “universal,” then boo on the Palestinians for violating their terms also.) The irony is wonderful. The Palestinians are condemned for launching rockets at their brutal military occupiers, but the brutality met out by the occupiers on the victims of occupation are justified? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-palestinians-your-take/749840.md?page=24)