by jameshilliard | 2025-10-05 20:58:30+00:00
> Fascinating how these 2 posts came from the same person. You are so close to getting it, you just need to take your advice from the first quote there and apply it to the second quote there.

My point is that this conflict can be characterized heavily by back and forth attacks and retaliation from both sides.

> Notably, israel kills around a hundred innocent Palestinians in Gaza daily, unprovoked, while the Palestinians are queuing for food.

This claim is just wildly inaccurate, it's completely divorced from reality, nobody, not even the UN or the Hamas run Gaza Health Ministry claim that around a hundred Palestinians are killed a day while queuing for food(they claim around 20 on average per day are killed while queuing for food[0]). Keep in mind that these are claims made by the GHM without proving much evidence to validate the circumstances of the claimed deaths at aid distribution sites. These claims are especially suspect since the Hamas run Gaza Health Ministry has strong incentives make statements that discourage aid distribution mechanisms which bypass Hamas.

> israel also regularly stages settler terrorist attacks on innocent Palestinians in the west bank: killing Palestinians; burning Palestinian homes and cars and crops; often claiming Palestinian land as their own. When "the authorities" (the IDF) arrive, they often support the terrorists and join in the violence against Palestinians.

Did I ever defend this sort of thing? I agree there are significant issues with West Bank settlers/settlements.

> But of course, it was because those innocent Palestinians are "being aggressive" by living in the west bank, which israel says they want, right? (They call it "greater israel", just like how the kremlin calls Ukraine "greater russia"). Obviously israel's ethnic cleansing is justified, because they really want someone else's land and stuff, right?

You seems to be downplaying Palestinian terrorism in the West Bank by calling it "being aggressive". The term "greater israel" is also problematic in general since there's a wide range of claims people make regarding what that term even means.

Part of the problem here is that there is very little clear delineation regarding who's land it is, you're talking about a region where many borders were essentially armistice lines as opposed to clearly recognized borders. Keep in mind that Palestinians themselves largely reject even the 1967 borders as they believe all of Israel to be their land. This is one of the reasons attempts at a two state solution have likely failed.

The situation with Russia and Ukraine is not very comparable since there were mutually recognized borders[1] that Russia unambiguously violated.

> We really don't need to. We just need to go back to the point where international laws came into being, including israel agreeing not to expand their territory through violence (a prerequisite to joining the UN). It doesn't matter who used to own it, what matters is global, international consensus on who owns what now (and who should), and global, international consensus on the right way to behave (in accordance with international law, as judged by the designated international courts).

The issue here is international law is not remotely clear either, a real problem is a lack of peace agreements establishing recognized borders between parties, parties(i.e. Lebanon, Syria) that have so far refused to even sign peace agreements that would recognize Israel as a legitimate state.

The situation with Palestine is even more convoluted, since prior to 1967 Gaza Was Egyptian controlled territory and the West Bank had been annexed by Jordan. When Israel signed peace agreements with Egypt all territorial claims over Gaza were renounced by Egypt(despite Israel attempting to negotiate the return Gaza to Egypt). Jordan did sign peace agreements with Israel in 1994 and had officially abandoned all claims to the West Bank in 1988 prior to the peace agreements. So essentially we have ended up with a situation where there is land without an established recognized UN state being in control(the state of Palestine is not recognized by the UN).

> This goes even if israel strongly feels it is biased or unfair: after all, pretty much every criminal thinks the justice system that criticizes them is unfair. Like, of course criminals would say that, wouldn't they?

The issue is a lack of peace agreements establishing recognized borders, the UN/international law can not force peace agreements onto warring parties. Once Israel makes peace agreements establishing recognized borders(i.e. with Egypt/Jordan) they have not historically violated those borders. There are also numerous issues in general when it comes to enforcement of international law as UN courts don't really have independent enforcement mechanisms, the Security Council members effectively have veto power over ICJ rulings(which is one reason the UN is going to be incapable of enforcing rulings against Security Council members or their allies). Then there is the fact that Israel(similar to most countries) would be unlikely to follow an international court ruling if in their view the ruling would create an existential threat to their countries existence.

So no, saying we should let international law is the solution here isn't likely to be all that productive when it comes to resolving these issues.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Gaza_Strip_aid_distributi...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum