I like to point to California, which we stole outright from Mexico. U.S. Grant, a hero of the war, said it was “one of the most unjust ever waged on a weaker country by a stronger.”
This doesn’t justify anybody else doing it. It does, however, answer the silly question of whether others have done it.
Actually what happened was the vulgar militarized oppressor attempted to take everything for itself and lost.
Also:
Band name!
Yes, another nation that was founded on genocide and ethnic cleansing. But that was back in the colonial era. I’m talking about today, with today’s standards of international law and what’s considered acceptable behaviour, today’s agreement on human rights and so on. Any democracy out there doing anything comparable to what israel is doing?
Egypt qualifies under this definition but Israeli officials call it a “terrible dictatorship” amongst other things. They don’t consider it a democracy because they think some if its policies are undemocratic. You can’t make the same argument about israel?
This is the story of Israel in a few years’ time.
It certainly does not. The U.S. may have troops stationed on Japanese soil, but Japan is not militarily occupied. That ended decades ago.
I would say it depends on the definition of “occupation.” But anyway there’s no need to quibble about that definition since it is pretty much indisputable that the US occupied Japan from 1945 to 1951. Therefore, if “occupation” is illegal, the US acted illegally in occupying Japan.
Israel must withdraw all settlers from the West Bank or potentially face a case at the international criminal court (ICC) for serious violations of international law, says a report by a United Nations agency that was immediately dismissed in Jerusalem as “counterproductive and unfortunate”.
All settlement activity in occupied territory must cease “without preconditions” and Israel “must immediately initiate a process of withdrawal of all settlers”, said the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Israel, it said, was in violation of article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention, which forbids the transfer of civilian populations to occupied territory.
[…]
The settlements were “leading to a creeping annexation that prevents the establishment of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state and undermines the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,” it said.
The UNHRC report broadly restated international consensus on the illegality of Israeli settlements. But its conclusions are likely to bolster the Palestinians following their admission last November to the UN as a non-member state, which potentially gives them recourse to the ICC.
“The Rome statute establishes the international criminal court’s jurisdiction over the deportation or transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying power of parts of its own population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory,” said the UNHRC report .
It added: “Ratification of the statute by Palestine may lead to accountability for gross violations of human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law and justice for victims.”
[…]
Israel refused to co-operate with UNHRC investigators over the report, barring them from access to the West Bank. Investigators conducted more than 50 interviews in Jordan with Palestinians about the impact of settlements, the confiscation of and damage to land, and violent attacks by settlers.
[…]
“The report concludes that the goal behind the terror and violence of the Israeli settlers is to expel the Palestinians from their lands in order to expand illegal settlements; this is a clearly a form of forced transfer, and a proof of Israel’s policy of ethnic cleansing,”
Again, the U.N. is not a world government, nor is it a legislative body. It cannot “pass laws.”
Suing Israel in the International Court will have about as much effect as Nicaragua suing the U.S. (Or Orly Taitz suing Barack Obama…)
The U.N. can say “It is illegal,” but they do not have any meaningful enforcement power. The U.N. is a treaty organization. It doesn’t have an army, nor even a Marshal’s Office.
I actually do wish that there were a meaningful world government, but it will have to wait a while. (I’m simply hoping the EU will hold together!)
Israel should seize the opportunity and make their case in Court, instead of responding poorly and dismissing altogether. Apparently, the UN is only a useful tool to bash Iran on the head, everything else about the organization is discarded. What I can’t stand about Israel is they are seemingly incapable of self-reflection and insist on passing the blame to their Arab neighbors living in mud hovels.
Well, a lot of Israel supporters put a lot of blame on the Saudi oil-billionaires, and on Egypt and Jordan, for keeping the Palestinians living in mud huts. The refusal to allow Palestinian integration is (in the opinion of many) a deliberate tactic, to keep the wounds from healing.
ETA: actually, I agree: Israel should argue the case in the International Court. It can always reject a ruling that goes against them, but it gives them a chance to make their case in a public way.
I disagree, since any international court would be biased against Israel.
Would you care to provide a specific example of this seeming incapability of self-reflection?
And do you hold all countries to the same standard of self-reflection? Or do you have a special standard for Israel?
It’s a deliberate tactic to undermine Israel.
By the way, Israel has a high court which regularly rules against the government; Israel has numerous opposition parties which regularly criticize government policies; Israel’s newspapers can criticize the government without fear. This is in contrast, of course, to Israel’s neighbors.
So I am very interested to learn the basis of Honesty’s apparent claim that Israel is uniquely incapable of self-reflection.
Certainly. Off the top of my head I can think of two.
Turkey regarding the occupation of Northern Cyprus and Armenia regarding Nagorno-Karabakh.
Why is it shocking that democracies can do horrible things. Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip stopped being justified decades ago, but that doesn’t mean they’re not a democracy.
Nobody argued that the British and French governments weren’t democracies in the 1930s even though they held most of the world under their thumb.
Which of their neighbors are “living in mud hovels”?
You’ve never heard of Hovel Nagila?
Please, no reasonable person actually believes your definition of what constitutes an “occupation”.
By such standards, most of Western Europe is “occupied” by the US since so many NATO countries have US troops there.
For that matter, according to brazil84, Cuba is currently occupied by the US since we have troops stationed at Gitmo.
Perhaps you can explain to us why you think the land of Fidel Castro is currently occupied by the US government.
I’d love to hear your explanation.
Exactly, which was my point. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If Israel can use the UN as a blunt instrument to beat Iran into submission, surely, the Palestinians can use it as a bargaining chip to coerce Israel to stop the expansion of settlements (which are an impediment to peace). The idea of the Palestinian-Israel conflict going from the battlefield to the Court Room should be celebrated and encouraged.