War in Israel

[FLGUY]

Check out UN Security Council Resolution 242, which is one of the keystones of this (very modern) history.
Security Council resolution, so it is considered to be binding international law. Preamble emphasizes the inadmissibility of territory gained in war, which is declared illegal in the UN Charter (and which we, the US, are upholding as a reason that Russia can't annex Ukraine).
UNSCR 242 demands (in English) that Israel withdraw "from territories" gained in the recent conflict (the 1967 war, in which Israel gained military control of Gaza from Egypt, the West Bank from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria), while I believe in French it says "from the territories" gained, which has been a point of contention among scholars, diplomats, and other people to whom words matter.

Fun fact for all you history buffs, btw: Egypt and Syria were, at the time, a single state called the United Arab Republic. So Israel seized Gaza and Golan from the UAR, which broke back up into Egypt and Syria in 1971-ish.

The point, though, was not to force a unilateral Israeli withdrawal, but to push towards a negotiated settlement.

Keep in mind, though, that the question at this point was "negotiated between whom?" Jordan and Israel? UAR/Egypt/Syria and Israel? Between Israel and the people living in the West Bank and Gaza, many of whom were refugees, and all of whom had been residents of another country up until that point?

The PLO, by the way, was a thing at the time--a creation of UAR (Egyptian) intelligence, based in Cairo. No skin in the game or boots on the ground. Long story, like many of these stories.

To me, this is one of the cores of this problem: who leads the Palestinians, speaks for the Palestinians, can make and enforce agreements for the Palestinians? The UN kind of chose the PLO to be the figurehead organization, but they never really had the legitimacy to make the deals. More recently, Hamas was elected in Gaza, but as soon as they were elected they ensured that they would never be un-elected, so they're basically a mafia/terrorist organization, curiously supported by both Iran and Netanyahu (until recently).

There's a lot more to be said about the issue of territory, but this post is too long already .

Ah. So would it be a fair assumption that the Israelis remain in the West Bank as a means of “ensuring stability” to put it nicely? And does Israel’s departure from its occupation of Gaza (until recent military action) indicate a step towards that UNSCR demand?

 

[Mirage]

Check out UN Security Council Resolution 242, which is one of the keystones of this (very modern) history.
Security Council resolution, so it is considered to be binding international law. Preamble emphasizes the inadmissibility of territory gained in war, which is declared illegal in the UN Charter (and which we, the US, are upholding as a reason that Russia can't annex Ukraine).
UNSCR 242 demands (in English) that Israel withdraw "from territories" gained in the recent conflict (the 1967 war, in which Israel gained military control of Gaza from Egypt, the West Bank from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria), while I believe in French it says "from the territories" gained, which has been a point of contention among scholars, diplomats, and other people to whom words matter.

Fun fact for all you history buffs, btw: Egypt and Syria were, at the time, a single state called the United Arab Republic. So Israel seized Gaza and Golan from the UAR, which broke back up into Egypt and Syria in 1971-ish.

The point, though, was not to force a unilateral Israeli withdrawal, but to push towards a negotiated settlement.

Keep in mind, though, that the question at this point was "negotiated between whom?" Jordan and Israel? UAR/Egypt/Syria and Israel? Between Israel and the people living in the West Bank and Gaza, many of whom were refugees, and all of whom had been residents of another country up until that point?

The PLO, by the way, was a thing at the time--a creation of UAR (Egyptian) intelligence, based in Cairo. No skin in the game or boots on the ground. Long story, like many of these stories.

To me, this is one of the cores of this problem: who leads the Palestinians, speaks for the Palestinians, can make and enforce agreements for the Palestinians? The UN kind of chose the PLO to be the figurehead organization, but they never really had the legitimacy to make the deals. More recently, Hamas was elected in Gaza, but as soon as they were elected they ensured that they would never be un-elected, so they're basically a mafia/terrorist organization, curiously supported by both Iran and Netanyahu (until recently).

There's a lot more to be said about the issue of territory, but this post is too long already .

Someone needs to inform Israel and Russia that they're breaking international law. That'll solve both wars easily.

 

[Griz882]

Someone needs to inform Israel and Russia that they're breaking international law. That'll solve both wars easily.

You kind of beat me to it. The truth is that “international law” applies only to the losers - at least until the UN has the world’s largest and most capable military.

 

[IRfly]

Ah. So would it be a fair assumption that the Israelis remain in the West Bank as a means of “ensuring stability” to put it nicely? And does Israel’s departure from its occupation of Gaza (until recent military action) indicate a step towards that UNSCR demand?

So I forgot to mention that among the territories Israel captured in 1967 was the WHOLE Sinai peninsula up to the Suez. This is important and related to the idea of strategic depth.

Instead of doing another long post like the previous, I'll just say this for now--after the 1967 war Israel was in possession of the Sinai, Gaza, Golan Heights, and the West Bank. These added strategic depth, but the government of Israel, beginning with Eshkol, also pushed permanent civilian settlements into these areas for the purpose of creating "facts on the ground" that would complicate and perhaps kill efforts to return these areas. After the 1977 peace treaty with Egypt, Israel evacuated the settlements in Sinai (yes, Jewish soldiers dragging Jewish settlers from their homes). In 2006 when Israel "left" Gaza, same thing with evacuating settlements. Along the way, and especially in the last 15 years, settlement activity in the West Bank has greatly increased, and not just for strategic reasons. Ethno-religious nationalism has become a primary driver, especially in the funding of the settlements. Golan was annexed by Israel in 1981 and the US became the first country to recognize this annexation under the Trump administration.

Why doesn't Israel annex the West Bank and Gaza? Aside from the illegality of an annexation, it would add millions of people to Israel who are mostly not Jewish. So right now there are about 5 million (3 million in West Bank, 2 million in Gaza) people under the direct control of the Israeli government who have no citizenship and no rights, leading to a de facto apartheid. Ugly word, but that's it on it's face. So Israel is a democracy like Alabama was a democracy in 1860 (or 1960; or 2023). Israel wants the land (primarily of the West Bank and East Jerusalem) but not the people. There are regular opinion polls asking whether Israel should, in the future, be a Jewish state or a democracy, because right now it's looking very difficult for it to be both.

To answer your question about Israel leaving Gaza, I don't think it had anything to do with the USNCR; it was more because keeping soldiers in Gaza was expensive and a pain in the ass. In the early 2000s, people were refusing to do their mandatory military service and reserve duty because they didn't want to go to Gaza. It was a political stinker.

And this turned into another long post. Sorry

 

[IRfly]

You kind of beat me to it. The truth is that “international law” applies only to the losers - at least until the UN has the world’s largest and most capable military.

Yeah, to some extent I agree with you and @Mirage. But international law matters at least somewhat. Justice matters at least somewhat. As Mr. @Mirage reminded us in an earlier post, in politics, perception is very important. And to Israelis, their status as "good guys," etc, is important to them. If enough people in the EU care about international law, they can elect politicians who can do things to hurt Israel. After all, Israelis don't want to vacation in Sochi, but in Italy and Greece (and anyone who's not Jewish has to have somewhere to go to get married).

I posted an article about this earlier which the hive mind kind of shouted down, but I think that it's possible that Biden loses votes because of his Israel rhetoric and policy. Arabs in Michigan voted overwhelmingly for Biden in 2020; they probably won't go for Trump in '24, but they might sit it out. That would be an earthquake in American politics, where absolute support for Israel has been the "safe zone" since 1973.

Done here for the evening, but some key events in 1973 changed the whole US-Israel relationship.

 

[JTS11]

Interesting take from a Hamas spokesman (probably sitting in Qatar) about their roles and responsibilities in governing Gaza.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719119576435408941

 

[sevenhelmet]

Interesting take from a Hamas spokesman (probably sitting in Qatar) about their roles and responsibilities in governing Gaza.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719119576435408941

Sad, but true to brand.

But hey, Harvard loves them.

 

[IRfly]

Excellent article that nicely outlines the long-term problem facing Israel.

Not sure whether I agree that Netanyahu *must* go. After all, he's a political chameleon.

 

[FLGUY]

Excellent article that nicely outlines the long-term problem facing Israel.

Not sure whether I agree that Netanyahu *must* go. After all, he's a political chameleon.

The article is very well-written and I think it does a great job of seeing the conflict with an empathetic view of both Israel and Palestine while highlighting the evils of Hamas. The author’s word choice does indicate a very strong bias against Netanyahu, however.

 

[sevenhelmet]

The article is very well-written and I think it does a great job of seeing the conflict with an empathetic view of both Israel and Palestine while highlighting the evils of Hamas. The author’s word choice does indicate a very strong bias against Netanyahu, however.

That author is not alone, and they're right; Hamas never should have had power over Gaza in the first place. I think Netenyahu's days are numbered. The X factor is how quickly a challenger could achieve sufficient political alignment to take over.

 

[Mirage]

Israel strikes on Palestinian refugee camp spark anger

Deadly strikes on a Palestinian refugee camp have fueled another wave of anger, renewed war crimes accusations and raised questions about the military strategy Israel is using as it prosecutes a wa…

thehill.com

Israel has been busy bombing refugee camps of late, prompting the UN to state they "have serious concerns that these are disproportionate attacks that could amount to war crimes". Seems like a good use of American weaponry.

I could be wrong, but I don't suspect these tactics will help Israel. They'll piss off Americans and other allies, which will put pressure on Biden's admin to stop aiding such slaughter, and further turn public opinion against Israelis.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Israel strikes on Palestinian refugee camp spark anger

Deadly strikes on a Palestinian refugee camp have fueled another wave of anger, renewed war crimes accusations and raised questions about the military strategy Israel is using as it prosecutes a wa…

thehill.com

Israel has been busy bombing refugee camps of late, prompting the UN to state they "have serious concerns that these are disproportionate attacks that could amount to war crimes". Seems like a good use of American weaponry.

I could be wrong, but I don't suspect these tactics will help Israel. They'll piss off Americans and other allies, which will put pressure on Biden's admin to stop aiding such slaughter, and further turn public opinion against Israelis.

I have no clue if this would work, but it is certainly different. Evidently Egypt has already flooded multiple tunnels.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2023/11/01/flood_the_gaza_tunnels_989879.html

 

[Flash]

Israel strikes on Palestinian refugee camp spark anger

Deadly strikes on a Palestinian refugee camp have fueled another wave of anger, renewed war crimes accusations and raised questions about the military strategy Israel is using as it prosecutes a wa…

thehill.com

Israel has been busy bombing refugee camps of late, prompting the UN to state they "have serious concerns that these are disproportionate attacks that could amount to war crimes". Seems like a good use of American weaponry.

Those aren’t refugee camps as most would understand them but long-standing neighborhoods in the urban landscape of Gaza with permanent buildings. They have remained as refugee camps for decades because there has been no permanent solution to resettling those Arabs who fled what is now Israel after the ‘47-48 war. These also exist at least in Lebanon and Syria as well, where the governments have refused to let Palestinian refugees fully settle and gain citizenship. It is purposeful on everyone’s part but for some of the refugees.

This isn’t just an Israel-caused problem but a regional one where everyone has let the problem fester for their own reasons, usually selfish. That includes Egypt, that steadfastly refuses to admit Palestinians to the country or open the Gaza border.

So ‘bombing refugee camps’ makes good press but the reality is a bit more nuanced.

 

[gparks1989]

Excellent article that nicely outlines the long-term problem facing Israel.

Not sure whether I agree that Netanyahu *must* go. After all, he's a political chameleon.

I think a lot of Israelis are rightly asking whether or not the guy who has held power since 2009 almost continuously doesn't deserve some blame for what is unfolding. He's likely an impediment to any resolution to the crisis long term.

 

[gparks1989]

Highly recommend this podcast for a good background on the conflict between Palestine and Israel. One of the most informed and even-handed presentations I've seen.