Hamas invaded Israel 2023

[Eaglelord17]

Israeli expansion? Remind what other country in the region has given up as much land during negotiations as Israel has?

They are actively annexing land outside their recognized international borders and have been for decades.

If your against Russia annexing parts of Ukraine you should be equally opposed to Israel annexing Palestinian land.

Actually no, House of Saud got Arabia, French got Syria, Lebanon and TransJordon went to the Hashemite. The Jews have the land they bought in blood.

Because killing, displacing, and stealing the land from the people who live in the land should be celebrated and applauded? This isn’t the 18th century, that behaviour is no longer acceptable on the world stage and hasn’t been since WWII.

Israel says no to a two-state solution. Wants security control. Seems reasonable.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israel-palestinians-netanyahu-two-state-solution-1.7087705

Almost as though my theory Netanyahu wants to annex Palestine and was using Hamas to do so is coming true. He is only getting more honest about it as the goals are closer to fruition.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Because killing, displacing, and stealing the land from the people who live in the land should be celebrated and applauded? This isn’t the 18th century, that behaviour is no longer acceptable on the world stage and hasn’t been since WWII.

Colonialism has some benefits

 

[Quirky]

Almost as though my theory Netanyahu wants to annex Palestine

Gaza.

Majority living in that strip wants to murder every Israeli. Netanyahu is doing what needs to be done to defend Israel from terrorism and a rape squad. Gaza must never be a threat. At any cost.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Gaza.

Majority living in that strip wants to murder every Israeli. Netanyahu is doing what needs to be done to defend Israel from terrorism and a rape squad. Gaza must never be a threat. At any cost.

Considering he helped fund Hamas he helped create that extremism to further his own goals.

 

[Good2Golf]

They are actively annexing land outside their recognized international borders and have been for decades.

If your against Russia annexing parts of Ukraine you should be equally opposed to Israel annexing Palestinian land.

Because killing, displacing, and stealing the land from the people who live in the land should be celebrated and applauded? This isn’t the 18th century, that behaviour is no longer acceptable on the world stage and hasn’t been since WWII.

By “displacing and stealing the land,” you mean the part where in 1994, Israel ceded administrative control of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority under president Mahmoud Abbas, and then in 2005, unilaterally withdrew all IDF from Gaza?

Your history is a bit flawed. Egypt actually administered the lands referred to as Palestine up until 1967, when Israel seized the land FROM Egypt (not ‘p’alestine) during the Six Day War.

Question for you - what do you think of Egypt’s part to play in the blockade of Gaza? Why do you criticize Israel only, when Egypt also blockades Gaza?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

They are actively annexing land outside their recognized international borders and have been for decades.

If your against Russia annexing parts of Ukraine you should be equally opposed to Israel annexing Palestinian land.


Because killing, displacing, and stealing the land from the people who live in the land should be celebrated and applauded? This isn’t the 18th century, that behaviour is no longer acceptable on the world stage and hasn’t been since WWII.




Almost as though my theory Netanyahu wants to annex Palestine and was using Hamas to do so is coming true. He is only getting more honest about it as the goals are closer to fruition.

You really need to stay up on events. Fighting and seizing land has been a constant since the end of WWII. They are not stealing the land in fact they won it in battle against a much larger army. In fact it was Egypt that did not want Gaza back during the peace talks, rightly figuring it was not worth the effort. Israel gave up Gaza in 2005 and it's been nothing but trouble since. As for the Golan heights and the West Bank, it would be suicide to give those pieces of land, which they also won in battle against equal and larger armies.

 

[brihard]

You really need to stay up on events. Fighting and seizing land has been a constant since the end of WWII. They are not stealing the land in fact they won it in battle against a much larger army. In fact it was Egypt that did not want Gaza back during the peace talks, rightly figuring it was not worth the effort. Israel gave up Gaza in 2005 and it's been nothing but trouble since. As for the Golan heights and the West Bank, it would be suicide to give those pieces of land, which they also won in battle against equal and larger armies.

Forcefully taking land by military invasion is stealing it. The size of the opposing military power is irrelevant to rightness or wrongness. By your exact same logic, Russia now owns substantial portions of Ukraine. Conquest is not a recognized legal means of territorial transfer. If Israel militarily seizing and then settling the West Bank is permissible, then there is no logic saying that Russia cannot legitimately do that in Donetsk, Luhansk, Zophorizhia, or Kherson.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Forcefully taking land by military invasion is stealing it. The size of the opposing military power is irrelevant to rightness or wrongness. By your exact same logic, Russia now owns substantial portions of Ukraine. Conquest is not a recognized legal means of territorial transfer. If Israel militarily seizing and then settling the West Bank is permissible, then there is no logic saying that Russia cannot legitimately do that in Donetsk, Luhansk, Zophorizhia, or Kherson.

When your opponents issue your death sentence and vow to crush you and drive you into the sea and then fail because they put Muppet's into Command and they lose that territory, then is it stealing? The only ones who have a peace treaty is Jordan and Egypt and they settled land issues mostly then. Technically Syria and Israel are in a State of war still. Israel has held the Golan longer than Syria did. Jordan did not own the West Bank, but had seized via warfare in 1948. Prior it was part of the British Mandate and before that it was part of the Ottoman Empire. So who did they steal the land from?
Going by your statement, likley the land you lived on was illegally seized by force, that state of affairs certainly applies to my house. Who wants to bet that either of us will give up our house willingly?

 

[brihard]

When your opponents issue your death sentence and vow to crush you and drive you into the sea and then fail because they put Muppet's into Command and they lose that territory, then is it stealing? The only ones who have a peace treaty is Jordan and Egypt and they settled land issues mostly then. Technically Syria and Israel are in a State of war still. Israel has held the Golan longer than Syria did. Jordan did not own the West Bank, but had seized via warfare in 1948. Prior it was part of the British Mandate and before that it was part of the Ottoman Empire. So who did they steal the land from?
Going by your statement, likley the land you lived on was illegally seized by force, that state of affairs certainly applies to my house. Who wants to bet that either of us will give up our house willingly?

But I’m not arguing the points you made about self defense. That has greater validity. You, however, were defending the conquest of land won in battle ‘against a much greater army’, as if that legitimizes it. It does not. I was arguing against the legitimization of plain conquest.

Israel has a right to defend itself, and I believe that extends to defensive occupation of certain strategic territory. Golden is a good example. It does not extend to driving Palestinians forcefully out of the West Bank and annexing civilian settlements.

 

[Fabius]

Forcefully taking land by military invasion is stealing it. The size of the opposing military power is irrelevant to rightness or wrongness. By your exact same logic, Russia now owns substantial portions of Ukraine. Conquest is not a recognized legal means of territorial transfer. If Israel militarily seizing and then settling the West Bank is permissible, then there is no logic saying that Russia cannot legitimately do that in Donetsk, Luhansk, Zophorizhia, or Kherson.

Completely aside from Israel and Hamas, the entire course of human history does not support rightness, wrongness, legal or illegal territorial transfers. The last 80-100 years have only done a marginal job of convincing the entire human race that seizing ground by force is illegal according to the UN. In the grand scheme of history that is merely a blink and it honestly doesn’t seem to hold much sway in some quarters.

International affairs remain a realm that does not necessarily agree with conceptions of legal or illegal in the same manner that domestic legal structures govern affairs inside states where a state maintains a monopoly on power and force.

To think otherwise, in some sense may be in keeping with a desire to evolve humanity, but it bears little resemblance to how the world works.

 

[FJAG]

But I’m not arguing the points you made about self defense. That has greater validity. You, however, were defending the conquest of land won in battle ‘against a much greater army’, as if that legitimizes it. It does not. I was arguing against the legitimization of plain conquest.

Israel has a right to defend itself, and I believe that extends to defensive occupation of certain strategic territory. Golden is a good example. It does not extend to driving Palestinians forcefully out of the West Bank and annexing civilian settlements.

Correct me if I'm wrong but both those wars were defensive wars on Israel's part when Israel was attacked and then counterattacked to success. The status quo comes from the secession of those wars and in some case through peace treaties. That's considerably different than Russia's modus operandi which is to invade and seize territories.

 

[brihard]

Correct me if I'm wrong but both those wars were defensive wars on Israel's part when Israel was attacked and then counterattacked to success. The status quo comes from the secession of those wars and in some case through peace treaties. That's considerably different than Russia's modus operandi which is to invade and seize territories.

To an extent, yes. But again- Israel’s jamming a stick in its own spokes through the cleansing of Palestinians from West Bank territories, and settling it with its own people. That is in no way shape or form justifiable, and it’s a hindrance to a lasting peace.

To reiterate: my post was primarily to knock down any concept that conquest itself is a legally or morally valid legitimization of seizing territory. Israel’s case is of course very complex. Some of what they do is justified by legitimate security needs. Some - annexation of West Bank settlements and repopulating with Israelis - is definitely not.

 

[suffolkowner]

Is there a "legal" owner of Gaza and the West Bank? The nation of Palestine doesnt really exist and to the extent that it does it can thank Israel

 

[FJAG]

To an extent, yes. But again- Israel’s jamming a stick in its own spokes through the cleansing of Palestinians from West Bank territories, and settling it with its own people. That is in no way shape or form justifiable, and it’s a hindrance to a lasting peace.

To reiterate: my post was primarily to knock down any concept that conquest itself is a legally or morally valid legitimization of seizing territory. Israel’s case is of course very complex. Some of what they do is justified by legitimate security needs. Some - annexation of West Bank settlements and repopulating with Israelis - is definitely not.

I'll agree to an extent in that I can see the difference between one country taking over a part of the territory of another. That can be a legitimate act or an illegitimate one.

I think that even when a country takes control over a territory by legitimate means, there is still the question of the rights of individual property owners within that territory. I think a country taking control must respect the rights of such prior property owners at least to the extent of its own laws and fundamental human rights. While any country has the ability to take property for public use it must do so through proper expropriation proceedings for fair market value. It is not public use when you expropriate property to give it to other settlers for private use. I too have issues with how Israel does that.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

To an extent, yes. But again- Israel’s jamming a stick in its own spokes through the cleansing of Palestinians from West Bank territories, and settling it with its own people. That is in no way shape or form justifiable, and it’s a hindrance to a lasting peace.

To reiterate: my post was primarily to knock down any concept that conquest itself is a legally or morally valid legitimization of seizing territory. Israel’s case is of course very complex. Some of what they do is justified by legitimate security needs. Some - annexation of West Bank settlements and repopulating with Israelis - is definitely not.

Israel is facing a demographic bomb on the WB, and the fact that most Palestinians there would vote in Hamas, means that a Two State solution is off the table. Israel is very good to it's Israeli-Arab citizens, so it's less about race and more about politics and religion. I will agree it's been not so nice to the Palestinians. I don't see much choice in the future for Israel other than to reduce the Palestinian population in the WB and now Gaza. Israel could adopt the Arab solution and expel them, but at least let them take their money and assets with them and perhaps a lump sum payment.

 

[brihard]

I don't see much choice in the future for Israel other than to reduce the Palestinian population in the WB and now Gaza. Israel could adopt the Arab solution and expel them, but at least let them take their money and assets with them and perhaps a lump sum payment.

“Reduce the Palestinian population in WB and Gaza”? That sounds pretty ethnically cleansey. We have various language for when a country expels an ethnic population from the lands it lives and was born and raised in. None of those terms are complimentary.

 

[Good2Golf]

“Reduce the Palestinian population in WB and Gaza”? That sounds pretty ethnically cleansey. We have various language for when a country expels an ethnic population from the lands it lives and was born and raised in. None of those terms are complimentary.

Like “reduce the non-Franco population via prescriptive language laws…”?

 

[Quirky]

A two-state solution is fantasy when you have a population that overwhelmingly supports terrorism and the destruction of it's neighbor. Gaza was left to rule in 2005 and they used that time to build tunnels, stock weapons and rockets. Israel must never let Gaza, or the west bank for that matter, be governed and occupied by a population that seeks its destruction. The thought that if gaza or the west bank become a self-governing state there would be peace in the region is pure ignorance.

 

[brihard]

A two-state solution is fantasy when you have a population that overwhelmingly supports terrorism and the destruction of it's neighbor. Gaza was left to rule in 2005 and they used that time to build tunnels, stock weapons and rockets. Israel must never let Gaza, or the west bank for that matter, be governed and occupied by a population that seeks its destruction. The thought that if gaza or the west bank become a self-governing state there would be peace in the region is pure ignorance.

This locks us into a situation where the status quo is the best case. Demographically and politically, time is not on Israel’s side in the long term. Their Arab population has a higher rate of growth than their Jewish population. A permanently ghettoized Gaza will just continue to get more and more radicalized, in a denser and denser civilian population. That doesn’t bode particularly well for the viability of the same repeated military options over future decades.

Both groups are living in a permanent homeland. Neither is going anywhere. Neither can or will be driven out. Any long term solution has to reconcile itself to that immutable fact. History shows that you cannot keep a people down indefinitely; not in the numbers we’re talking here. Palestinians have to have something to hope and strive for if we want something other than “martyrdom” to appeal as a career path. At present they have practically nothing- a largely destroyed open air prison and nowhere else for most of them to go. So it’s fine for you to declare something fantasy, but I don’t see you proposing anything better in the totality.

 

[Good2Golf]

The irony is that Palestinians had the closest they were likely ever going to have a two nation solution in 2005…full control of their territory in Gaza AND no IDF in Gaza. It only took until…checks second had in stopwatch…2006 to screw that up, depowering the Palestinian Authority and supporting Hamas, as though that was going to give them a better life than having the PA support them.