I’m not. However, it must be said that, with Israel, it’s happening right now, not in the distant past. If a nation revived the institution of chattel slavery, would you defend it by saying that other countries once practiced it?
What does slavery have to do with borders?
That past indiscretions do not pardon current ones.
Yes, exactly.
We can start with Israel’s own high court.
Has there ever been an attempt to just tell settlers, “hey, you want to set up a home here, fine – you’re on your own. Don’t ask us to help you out?” I mean if I went and set up a home over the border of Canada, I don’t think I could ask the U.S. government to protect me if I ran afoul of Canadian law.
They in this thread are only presenting the ad hoc justifications without any internal logic, used at the same time as painting the Palestinians as savages to loudly proclaim the Israel role in 'western values’but then going back to any kind of historical abuse to excuse … (Drdeth ignoring of course even in the 17-18 centuries the Metropolitan rulers attempted to stop the willful violations of the treaties made with the Indian polities that were recognized. That it fell to the internal barbarism and lack of the controle does not mean that even 300 years ago the abuses of the colonization were not recognized as abuses.
Of course these are blind repetitions of hypocritical arguments, made perhaps in the complete ignorance.
there is in the same region the direct example - the Moroccan case for the occupation of the Western Sahara, where the Moroccan government (which at least has given the full citizenship and does not practice the apartheid) in the face of the UN declarations has had to accept the UN armed observer and separation force and some ongoing intrusive monitoring and oversight (it is not to pretend this is ideal, but it is a level that the Israel violently rejects…).
Of course the Moroccan case, they had to accept this. They had no Big Brother protector to veto every binding critical action and over the time enable more and more the self-defeating negative behaviors inside the Moroccan government and it has over time led to in fact a more compromising approach…
The US has not actually helped the Israel in the long run by providing its carte blanche defense. It has hurt the Israel as have the greater Israel political factions.
In any case, the idea frequently promoted that some how the Israel is really being very very differently treated, but the most fundamental difference is that a complete rejectionism is enabled entirely unconditionally by a super power with the full veto.
To spoil with complete indulgence is not a good thing for promoting the good behavior in any human being.
It isn’t “happening right now”. Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967. The West Bank was under Palestinian control for twenty years and has been under Israeli control for fifty years.
Every day that passes with no Palestinian state or civil rights is a tragedy. I assure you, for them, it’s happening right now - existing as stateless people under military occupation.
It’s never been under Palestinian control (except for a year, under conditions of civil war); it was under Jordanian control, then Israeli.
Note that when the Jordan annexed the West Bank, they granted the residents Jordanian citizenship. Israeli declined to do the same because, as I said, the residents were the wrong ethnicity.
Israel offered the Palestinians a deal. The Palestinians rejected the deal. Now the Palestinians are complaining that Israel isn’t abiding by the deal.
The Palestinians are going to have to deal with it.
Regards,
Shodan
Not exactly; it’s the Geneva Convention, not a proposed deal between Israel and Palestine, that makes the settlements illegal.
Are they signatories of the convention?
Yes.. Because of this, the pro-settlement argument is that the Convention doesn’t apply to the situation, rather than Israel not being bound by it.
Where in the Geneva Convention does it say that when you are attacked and win, you have to abide by deals the losing side rejected?
Regards,
Shodan
The Geneva Convention says not a thing about such fictions and massive straw men.
**The Geneva Convention does establish the standards for the treatment of the populations in any territories that are occupied by military force. ** And that covers the expropirations of the land and the treatment of the occupied populations.
the standards that arose directly out of the abuses of the Nazi regime.
It is ironical then you try to obfuscate.
Again, the settlements being illegal has nothing to do with any deals between Israel and Palestine. This line of argument is a strawman, no one has argued that settlements are illegal because Palestine asked Israel not to build them in a rejected deal. They argue that the settlements are illegal under international law, and an obstacle to an eventual two-state solution.
The relevant portion of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs protections for civilians in warfare, is in Article 49:
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
ETA: Also, Israel wasn’t attacked by the civilians that now occupy the West Bank and Gaza strip; but rather by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The losing side was those countries, not the Palestinian state.
Your marriage sounds nothing like my marriage.
I don’t like what Israel is doing but in international relations, might goes a long way towards determining what is right.
Keep in mind that Israel’s own courts have ruled many of the settlements illegal.