I mean recognized as such by international authorities and dealt with in the same way as the UN deals with Israel.
The UN doesn’t “deal with Israel” - the specific point is systematic expansion through a sophisticated 20 year programme of settlement building and occupation, resulting in increased oppression of the occupied.
Here is a list of UN Security Council resolutions concerning Cyprus, specifically starting in 1974, the Turkish military occupation of eastern/North Cyprus.
Here is a list of UN Security Council resolutions dealing with Armenia and Azerbaijian, specifically dealing with its exclave’s, Nagorno-Karabakh, occupation and control of parts of Azerbaijian.
Anything involving Russia, such as the Georgian war and Russia’s recognition of breakaway parts of Georgia, or what is happening in Ukraine, would have been vetoed by Russia. The above situations are different than Israel and the West Bank, though, since the largely Turkish-descended people of Northern Cyprus seem to want the Turkish military there and similarly, the Armenian military and their partisan allies also seem to be wanted there in Armenian-majority Nagorno-Karabakh.
The No True ScottishOccuptation?
Of course in the cases like the Sahara, the country which does not have the Super Protector USA to veto everything annoying to it, has to accept the degree of the UN oversight including the UN peace keeping forces on the very terriroty disputed…
So in fact the Israel has some very special treatment, in the favorable and gets away with a much more aggressive and constantly refusing stance than the similar situations.
As the list of the resolutions around the Cyprus case as an illustration shows, indeed, to take the aggressive and provacative stance and engage in what is to everyone but the Americans a transparently Have it Both Ways Have the Cake and Eat it Too on the legal situation of the Territories.
But perhap a new round of a reframing of the Question for the True Case can be tried to try to get the answer desired…
There’s no such thing as “international law”. Laws require systematic enforcement, else it’s just bullshit. As it stands, “international law” is a veneer over “might and/or immediate economic interest makes right”. Plus the odd pissant dictator thrown to the wolves of the Hague to make us all feel righteous about it.
As for Israel specifically, fuck 'em. The settlement policy is a disgrace, and its on-the-ground daily realities are appalling.
All the more darkly ironic that modern Americans, who so like to bemoan their ancestral responsibility in fucking the natives over, or their former support of Jim Crowe and unilateraly condemn South Africa’s apartheid fall over themselves in unthinkingly defending the exact same shit in the Levant.
It’s not exactly the same, but I agree it’s ill advised and probably illegal. But it’s not South Africa either. Israel conquered it in a defensive war and then the powers that were intent on committing genocide against Israel decided it would be better to let those lands be a permanent headache for Israel than to just take those lands back. Originally, the idea was “land for peace”. Israel gives back the land to Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, and a permanent peace results. That obviously did not happen and since then Palestinian nationalism has grown to the point where they need to have their own state. But is such a state viable even if Israel were to give them everything they wanted? And would they ever live in peace with Israel?
You’re right. I mean, them Injuns have this nationalist ghost dance thing going on, it’s grown like wildfire for some reason I can’t quite put my finger on, and obviously these people are never going to live in peace with us despite everything we’ve done to promote such and it’s like they need their own state these days so we have no choice really, we just *have *to grind our boots into their faces.
Forever.
Maybe spray 'em with high pressure firehoses in the dead of winter, why not.
There’s no such thing as “conquered in a defensive war”, by the way. A defensive war defends, sort of by semantic definition. By the time you’ve moved on to conquering, you’re not exactly defending any more, are you ? Not that right of conquest justifies any fucking thing anyhow, but still, the semantics, man, they hurt me right in the brain.
Plus I’m sure you’d find an Apartheid group or two arguing the Netherlands just **had **to conquer South Africa and segregate them niggers, for their own safety and the ultimate betterment of all involved. Because of course that’s how it’d get justified these days.
Not like back then, when people were honest about their abject racism.
Even in a defensive war you’ll take territory if the other army is on the run. Arab armies run, that’s what they do. Not Israel’s fault.
(oh, for the record, and because I already got into trouble over this some time back : I’m specifically using the word “nigger” here as a rhetorical device to underline what Palestinian Arabs get to live through. And, hell, what South Africans had (and sometimes still have) to, too. It’s punchier to a US audience, is my point.)
Did France, or Russia, or Poland, or the UK take German territory back in WW2 ?
Yes, yes it’s Israel’s fault, inasmuch as it was its decision to claim the land. Much as a bar fight gone wrong for the drunk, they could have called them a cab back home and called it a day.
But ultimately, it’s not about what happened in the 50s. It’s about now. And I know the Old Testament is all about sins of the fathers, but that’s kind of the issue.
Kobal2, the United States was a major supporter of Apartheid South Africa. It was the CIA which tipped the Apartheid authorities off which led to Mandela’s arrest.
Hell, US policy (charmingly nicknames the “Tar Baby option”) was heavily predicated upon supporting White-minority populations in Africa.
Why willingly give up your security buffer when your enemies won’t make peace?
And yes, the allies took German land. Germany is a much smaller nation than it used to be. They also ethnically cleansed former German lands of Germans.
What are you talking about? Again, again:
Or is international law just whatever the security council says it is?
[/QUOTE]
yep, that pretty much sums it up
Are you under the impression that the West Bank is a security buffer against Jordan? Because I can’t figure out how the concept of a buffer works if you’re talking about Palestinians, because the Palestinians are in the buffer.
And doesn’t building settlements defeat the purpose of a buffer state? If the buffer is full of your own citizens, it’s not a buffer.
Oh, and saying that Egypt and Jordan “won’t make peace” is absurd.
LOL. Only in the real world.
If I recall correctly, the Soviet Union claimed at the time of its invasion that the Polish government had collapsed (due to the earlier German invasion) and therefore it wasn’t invading Poland; it was occupying territory that wasn’t under any national control.