Submitted by Hiversitize t3_11cq47n in news
spicytunaonigiri t1_ja8u20y wrote
Reply to comment by MeatsimPD in Israelis, Palestinians pledge to curb violence at Jordan meeting by Hiversitize
Scholars disagree on when annexation is permissible. I would imagine you would side with the scholars against it and I would side with the scholars who support it. But it’s vague enough that you (and I) should avoid using absolute language
FYI, Israel has not annexed the WB other than East Jerusalem. It’s not even clear that it’s occupied since it’s not being occupied from any other nation. But certainly nations are permitted to occupy (if not annex) land held after a defensive war. I believe Israel should have annexed a buffer zone it deemed necessary for its defense in 1967 after the Arabs refused to negotiate and withdrawn from the rest. But hindsight is 20/20
MeatsimPD t1_ja8viit wrote
> Scholars disagree on when annexation is permissible. I would imagine you would side with the scholars against it and I would side with the scholars who support it.
Well okay but this isn't about what "scholars" think its about the law says. And you haven't actually showed me any scholar or law that supports your position so lets not pretend you're not full of shit.
>FYI, Israel has not annexed the WB other than East Jerusalem.
No but it has every intention to do so, and meanwhile its continued occupation and settling of citizens is clearly illegal.
>It’s not even clear that it’s occupied since it’s not being occupied from any other nation.
This isn't the 1600s, there's no "free real estate" that just "doesn't belong to another nation" that anyone can settle in. Under this logic a state like Jordan, across the river, could send its own citizens into the territory to settle. Is that what you're saying? Just any country could go to the West Bank and claim territory.
>But certainly nations are permitted to occupy (if not annex) land held after a defensive war.
Cite a source.
spicytunaonigiri t1_ja8x5x8 wrote
Scholars disagree on what the law says. I don't normally like to block quote but since you requested:
"The ILC (International Law Commission) repeatedly recognized that not all territorial changes in war are illegitimate. Not all annexations were bad... All agreed that post-war frontier adjustments were justified to help protect the victim of aggression. There was broad consensus territorial change was only impermissible in a war of “aggression.” Thus the final document provided that
states have a duty “to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another State acting in violation” of the U.N. Charter or other international law rules. But Israel’s use of force in 1967 was defensive... and thus explicitly lawful under the Charter. Thus there is no obligation to refrain from recognizing" it.https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20180717/108563/HHRG-115-GO06-Wstate-KontorovichE-20180717.pdf
>No but it has every intention to do so
Israel has no serious intention of annexing the WB because if it did it would make Jews a minority in Israel.
>Is that what you're saying? Just any country could go to the West Bank and claim territory.
No. There's a difference between acquisition of land as the aggressor and defensively. Jordan acquired the land as the aggressor. Israel acquired it defensively. Typically occupied land that is not needed defensively is to be returned to the host country. In the WB, there is no host country. That's why some prefer to use the term "disputed land" rather than "occupied land." It's not being occupied from any other country. And which is also why the normal laws of occupation don't necessarily apply.
MeatsimPD t1_ja8xuo3 wrote
Thanks for providing a source, I actually appreciate it. Not sure if this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Kontorovich is the best legal mind on the subject but at least its a source. I mean he's been involved in drafting laws for state legislatures that make it illegal to boycott Israel, yikes.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments