Comment by selestify
2 years ago
By that logic, the US is an authoritarian country. There’s a meaningful distinction to be made between whether your own citizens have a direct say in their governance or not, regardless of how foreigners in foreign countries may be oppressed.
Are Palestinians citizens of Israel, or is it a foreign country that Israeli settlers are invading?
Palestinians who live in the lands that Israel has ruled since 1948 are citizens of Israel. The West Bank is not a foreign country, there was never an independent state/country established there. I do not know why the Arabs did not establish an independent Arab state in the West Bank in 1948. In any case, Jordan militarily occupied the area from 1948 to 1967 and Israel militarily occupies the area since. And Israel has been trying to pass off that occupation to an entity that would establish an independent state there for almost 30 years. But no such entity existed or exists today. The PA would be the first contender, but they are incapable of actually administrating the area, and also they rejected every single offer that Israel made to pass the duty of administering the land to them.
The Israeli settlers are not invading. I've repeated this a few times in this thread, so this is a copy-paste:
League of Nations (and UN) mandates can not change the laws of the lands they administer - then can only issue temporary orders (usually limited to three years). So British orders are not valid in the holy land today. Likewise, military occupation (Jordanian, Israeli) also can not change the laws but rather can issue temporary orders. So the law of the land in the West Bank even today remains Ottoman law, modulo "temporary" Israeli military orders that are actually renewed (for the most part) every three years or so.
Ottoman law since the 1850's stated that anyone who settles land (houses, farms, factories) owns it - Muslims and Jews and Christians alike. Their goal was to increase the population of the near-desolate holy land (which they called Greater Syria), and collect more taxes. Those laws still stand today, for better or for worse. There is nothing "illegal" about Israeli citizens building homes in the West Bank. What would be illegal would be if the Israeli state were to transfer its citizens - international law is binding on states, not citizens. But citizens moving is not banned by any international law, and settlement of the West Bank is actually encouraged by the laws in the West Bank dating over 150 years, because nobody since has had the authority to change those laws.
> And Israel has been trying to pass off that occupation to an entity that would establish an independent state there for almost 30 years.
I was thinking the other day, why doesn't Israel offer the west bank to Jordan?
I think that by permitting, providing security and infrastructure for, and aiding settlement activity, Israel demonstrates a lack of interest in actually passing off occupation. Because of the settlements already there today, it would be already very difficult to maintain the rights and security of Israeli citizens who live in the west bank without the military occupation.
So while I think your argument about Ottoman law is mostly sophistic (why is Ottoman law in 'force'? Because Israel has not allowed self-determination) I think it's really hard to argue that Israel has demonstrated any commitment to ending the occupation: rather, the settlement program makes the occupation a permanent necessity, even if the Israelis elected a government that had ending the occupation as a number one issue on the agenda.
4 replies →
Your copying and pasting of that collection of falsehoods is a bad contribution to the thread and you should stop.
1 reply →