[dotancohen]

Israel's internationally recognized borders are the borders of Mandatory Palestine. The 1948 borders were ceasefire lines - the fact that they were not internationally recognized borders was for decades the justification for cross-border attacks.

[BrenBarn]

The Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law.

[dotancohen]

The settlements were declare illegal by a UN resolution that did not specify what law was being broken.

[bawolff]

> The settlements were declare illegal by a UN resolution that did not specify what law was being broken.

I think this is a bit unfair. Whether you agree or disagree, opponents of Israel have been pretty clear that they think the settlements violate article 49 of the fourth geneva convention. Specificly "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Sometimes people also argue that the pipelining of Israeli law into settlements violates the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. I think the argument is that you can only distinguish between citizens and non-citizens on your own territory and thus the way Israeli law is applied in settlements but not outside them is a violation. I'm not super familiar with the argument so i might be mis-stating it. I also think its a bit of a catch-22 since Israel isn't allowed to legislate for the Palestinians either. Regardless it is a rule that they point to.

So i don't think its fair to say opponents of Israeli settlements just claim illegality without pointing to which laws. They do point to laws and rules.

[BrenBarn]

Who cares? My point is the international community regards the settlements as illegal and if Israel cared about that they would immediately and completely withdraw.

[dotancohen]

And my point is that the international community, which mostly comprise of Arab nations, Muslim nations, or nations that rely on Arab oil, has been shown to levy accusations and resolutions against the state that the Arab and Muslim nations are united to destroy.

If there was merit to the claim that Jews building houses in the West Bank is illegal, they would have stated which law is being transgressed.

[ta20240528]

Out of curiosity, do you think Israel could 'find a law being broken' if thousand of Palestinians started building houses, towns, farms, and exclusive roads inside Israel - all protected by Palestinian soldiers?

Or would it just be so obviously illegal to adults?

[dotancohen]

You leave me two things to address.

First, the easy one. The only exclusive roads are exclusive to Palestinians. There are no Jew-only roads, despite our enemies saying it again and again.

Second, the other easy one. Your question is predicated on the assumption that those building houses, towns, and farms are doing so against the will of the body which administrates the territory. Jews in the West Bank build in Area C - other than a tiny extremist minority whose structures are then wiped away by the Israeli authorities. I'm certain if you're partaking in this conversation then you are familiar enough with the administrative divisions of the West Bank to know that Area C was designated by agreement with the Palestinian Authority for Israeli civil development.

There's two ways you could counter my argument - I'm interested to see which one you choose! The Shabbat is coming in soon, so I'll answer you on Sunday or Monday. Shabbat Shalom.

[BrenBarn]

Are there any countries at all that recognize the West Bank settlements as legal?

[krageon]

AFAIK no but the person you responded to is dogwhistling by repeatedly referencing "arab" and "muslim". They're using it to imply that not only does the UN not matter, they're also positioning these words as the implicit enemy.

It's a bad faith way to approach this argument, so asking logical questions won't make a difference and will tire you out. That's the core strategy behind that behaviour.

[ThrowMeAway1618]

So those settlements were established under Rule .303, amirite?

[woooooo]

Literally no country has ever recognized Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank or Gaza. Even Israel hasn't annexed them just yet.

[dotancohen]

While that is true, it does not change the fact that the internationally-recognized borders are those of Mandatory Palestine. Those were the internationally-recognized borders even between 1948 and 1967, which is why the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank was not internationally recognized, and also why Egypt was able to squeeze all her refugees into the Gaza Strip before severing ties with the strip in 1956. Or did you not know why Egypt has no refugee camps and almost no refugees today?

[BrenBarn]

I think you're confusing "internationally recognized" with something like "there is an interpretation of international law that supports ..." (and it was unwise of me to use the term "international law" in an earlier comment because it contributes to this blurring, although I didn't realize that at the time).

If the borders were internationally recognized, it would mean that other countries agree that those are the borders. But as far as I know no country recognizes the borders of Mandatory Palestine as the borders of Israel, nor officially recognizes Israel's occupation of the West Bank as legal. I'm not talking about citing chapter and verse of some treaty or some principle like "Uti Possidetis Juris". If the fact of the matter is that other countries do not recognize those borders as the borders of Israel, then those are not the internationally recognized borders of Israel.

[woooooo]

Internationally recognized by zero nations.

[dotancohen]

Internationally recognized under Uti Possidetis Juris, the principal under which most of the world's international borders have been defined (I think slightly beating out war, but falling behind geography).

[bawolff]

I think this argument is a little difficult to make given Israel right now does not overtly claim that mandatory palestine's borders are its borders. If Israel openly claimed this consistently starting from its war of independence to present day, there would probably be a stronger argument, but its probably a bit too late at this point.

[dotancohen]

I am not making the argument that those should be the final borders. I'm responding to this quote:

  > If it respected international law it would withdraw to its internationally recognized borders.

I am demonstrating that the people who are calling for all types of solutions, are not familiar with the full situation and are calling for things that are the opposite of what they actually think should happen.

[m000]

Schrodinger's borders: both internationally recognized and internationally not recognized.

This just sounds like uncritical parroting.

[dotancohen]

The funny thing is, I agree with you about the contradictions in recognizing borders for the state of Israel, depending on what they're arguing at any particular time.

The borders of a potential Palestinian state and the state of Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan is one of the most difficult conundrums to consider. I can think of a few "resolutions", none of them really "solutions". I make a huge effort to understand the Israeli side, the greater Arab side, the general Muslim side, and the side of the Palestinians who actually live there. Very few people - from any of those categories - make any effort to understand anybody else's side.