|
Orange Devil posted:So do you not worry that this sets a standard where we all agree that it's acceptable for countries to use military force to annex territory? That's been the standard since before the stone age. Israel itself was created by terrorism and military force within living memory (just need to find some old people); so if you don't want to validate the standard you'd need to undo the existence of Israel.
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
Promoting ideals, progress is uncertain. With the facts on the ground, you know where you stand. Hopefully not in front of, or near, this guy. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
Or behind, those launchers have a large back-blast area.Orange Devil posted:So do you not worry that this sets a standard where we all agree that it's acceptable for countries to use military force to annex territory?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Therefore the Geneva Conventions are a sham and ethnic cleansing is fine, actually. Thanks for the authoritarian take.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
The Geneva Conventions relate to the treatment of the sick, wounded, shipwrecked, POWs, and civilians in war, and aren't relevant to whether a particular seizure of territory is justified. Your probably thinking of the non-intervention principle as articulated in Article 2.4 of the UN Charter, and yeah, I'd say that has been a joke since the day it was inked. Which UN members have stepped up to prevent the normalization of the status quo post bellum in Crimea? There are plenty of reasons an invasion or occupation can be wrong, but arguing that no country has the right to seize territory by force has been ridiculous for a while now. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Dec 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
it is remarkably illustrative how quickly authoritarians switch from "legality defines what is right" to "actually the larger world defines rightness" the split second the law becomes inconvenient to them
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:That's been the standard since before the stone age. Since WW2 it has not been the standard that we find annexation of territory by force *acceptable*. As with all discussions on I/P, I find that I really don't give a poo poo about what people did or thought 2000+ years ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
The standard is that annexation must be done with the consent of the country the land is being annexed from. They might be agreeing to give up the land at gunpoint, but they still agreed to give up the land, and there's a signed treaty that they voluntarily agreed to saying that yes, they're giving up the land. If you're merely occupying the land with military force, that doesn't transfer ownership - after all, there's plenty of historical cases where a victorious army occupied land and then gave part of it back later as part of the peace treaty ending the war, and there's also plenty of historical cases where an army occupied land only to be forced out later. The legal limitations on annexations are intended to protect the rights of the civilian population that lives there, to limit what the occupying army can do to them until the ultimate sovereignty of the territory is decided. It's designed to prevent the occupying country from imposing too much change on the area beyond the level of military necessity. The justification for this can be seen in, for example, World War II - where certain invading nations freely applied their own laws to civilian populations in areas they occupied, and left those areas devastated when their armies were later forced back and defeated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Since WW2 it has not been the standard that we find annexation of territory by force *acceptable*. Ze Pollack posted:it is remarkably illustrative how quickly authoritarians switch from "legality defines what is right" to "actually the larger world defines rightness" the split second the law becomes inconvenient to them
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Since WW2 it has not been the standard that we find annexation of territory by force *acceptable*. Israel was created after WW2...
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Or behind, those launchers have a large back-blast area. And its especially egregious to choose to arbitrarily draw that line to deliberately cut out the Jews, after the holocaust and the centuries and centuries of european brutality that lead up to it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:And its especially egregious to choose to arbitrarily draw that line to deliberately cut out the Jews, after the holocaust and the centuries and centuries of european brutality that lead up to it. the holocaust doesn’t mean israel gets to turn around and have an apartheid state
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Israel was created after WW2... Yes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Since WW2 it has not been the standard that we find annexation of territory by force *acceptable*. A number of annexations of territory by force during or shortly before WWII weren't considered to be acceptable either. Hell, that's the entire loving reason WWII was fought.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:And its especially egregious to choose to arbitrarily draw that line to deliberately cut out the Jews This is some impressive double think
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So every nation that has seceded from the territory of another without mutual consent since September 2, 1945 is illegitimate? Has every annexation of territory by force since 1945 been acceptable, in your view, and why? hakimashou posted:And its especially egregious to choose to arbitrarily draw that line to deliberately cut out the Jews, after the holocaust and the centuries and centuries of european brutality that lead up to it. Well unfortunately we can't undo most of history. We can come together and decide that we no longer consider something that was commonplace in the past acceptable going forward. I guess the precise moment in history where we've managed to come to this rather civilized conclusion is somewhat arbitrary, but better late than never, right? Or is your argument that annexing territory by force ought to be perfectly acceptable? Main Paineframe posted:A number of annexations of territory by force during or shortly before WWII weren't considered to be acceptable either. Hell, that's the entire loving reason WWII was fought. So is your argument here that annexing territory by force ought to be perfectly acceptable? (and by extension WW2 shouldn't have been fought maybe?) I'm inviting you guys to stop dancing around your actual positions and just say what you believe. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Dec 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:And its especially egregious to choose to arbitrarily draw that line to deliberately cut out the Jews, after the holocaust and the centuries and centuries of european brutality that lead up to it. Yeah, that's definitely the reason there was massive change in both legal recognition of and international attitude toward unilateral annexation of territory: because everyone wanted to prevent Jews from doing it. It surely couldn't have had anything to do with the fact that the world had just come out of literally the most cataclysmic war in human history and everyone desperately wanted to avoid a repeat. Of course, in reality it's even more complicated than that, because there were already rules and norms against what Germany, Japan, and others did during the war; but those rules and norms broke down wholesale in a way that hasn't happened to nearly the same degree in the post-war era. Seriously, you can talk about hypocrisy if you want (there's plenty of hypocrisy in how countries treat each other's actions on the world stage, though Israel tends to be a beneficiary more than a victim of this), but please don't try to act like the Second World War is an arbitrary place to divide things. It betrays your utter lack of knowledge of both international law and history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
So, after the day passed with relatively standard protests that didn't escalate into a full intifada in the past couple of hours three rockets were launched from the Gaza strip towards Sderot with the IAF bombing alleged Hamas targets in Gaza in the interim. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.827778
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I'm inviting you guys to stop dancing around your actual positions and just say what you believe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Would it have been morally acceptable for the US to annex Iraq in 2003, in your view?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Would it have been morally acceptable for the US to annex Iraq in 2003, in your view? Now you're getting me all  about what would happen if it were standing policy to grant statehood to "conquered" territories.The honorable senators from Japan, Iraq, Cuba, Puerto Rico...
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The date when a country kicked the previous sovereign off a piece of land is immaterial in determining the final status of the territory and must give way to the facts on the ground. Whatever claims Mexico, Spain, or various native tribes may have on the western United States are irrelevant. It's ridiculous to assert that Israel must return all land seized after 1967 as a moral imperative, but that it is morally acceptable for them to keep the land they seized in 1947. quote:And this right here is why basing your moral judgements on outcomes is incredibly stupid. An oncologist is going to end up with a lot more dead patients than a pediatrician, yet by your logic the oncologist must be doing something wrong, no matter their intentions and methods, because their patients just keep dying. There is a reason that liability and ethics in medicine are based on "an appropriate standard of care" not "did the patient survive."
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:with the IAF bombing alleged Hamas targets in Gaza in the interim. It has been so long, they must have been afraid they were getting rusty. dont even fink about it posted:Now you're getting me all That depends. Would they have voted for Trump?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:Now you're getting me all
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:So is your argument here that annexing territory by force ought to be perfectly acceptable? (and by extension WW2 shouldn't have been fought maybe?) Try taking a deep breath and calm down, because that's the exact opposite of what I was arguing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Or behind, those launchers have a large back-blast area. But something being not okay after a certain date is how laws work everywhere. It's not a strange and alien concept to we decide at some point that a thing is no longer okay going forward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The Geneva Conventions relate to the treatment of the sick, wounded, shipwrecked, POWs, and civilians in war, and aren't relevant to whether a particular seizure of territory is justified. So because nobody wanted to attack a nuclear power that means conquest is morally okay now? In other words might makes right and the only crime the Nazis committed was losing the war, Coolio thanks for this fresh and new take that authoritarian dipshits haven't posted a thousand times before to justify apartheid and ethnic cleansing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
The problem is it's not applied consistently, if you look at Russia in multiple cases, the most recent being Ukraine, Turkey in Cyprus, etc... Nor is that fair to Kurds, Uyghurs, and other groups, whose marginalization is somehow okay because it magically happened pre-1948. That means in practice we have a standard that's only applied to nations that aren't a global power, or can fall back on a bloc of votes in the international community to stave off censure. The impulse to end war for colonization was a good one, but it shouldn't have been applied in a way that meant it was a game of global hot potato, and anyone who's left without a chair when the music stops is screwed. It should have either been self-determination for EVERYONE (so gently caress anyone who says they want to liberate Palestine "from the river to the sea", or cleanse all non-Arabs from Al Quds, just as gently caress anyone who says the contrary), or set things up in a way where all marginalized peoples actually had a say in representative government, instead of the current system where pretty much everywhere, majorities gently caress over minorities and treat them like utter poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Funny thing about Jerusalem being the de facto capital, by the way: while the Knesset (parliament), Prime Minister's Office, President's Residence, and a couple more are there, only 9 out of 140 government units moved from Tel Aviv as a result of the 2007 decision requiring it. This was supposed to happen by May 2015, but the government gave itself an extension until 2019. Defense ministry, for example, got an exemption, so it is not leaving its cushy location in the middle of Tel Aviv, right by the Azrieli mall. The truth is that Tel Aviv is way more convenient to get to and fun to work in than Jerusalem is, for most Israelis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:It has been so long, they must have been afraid they were getting rusty. This is a really long Harry Turtledove book series.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:The problem is it's not applied consistently, if you look at Russia in multiple cases, the most recent being Ukraine, Turkey in Cyprus, etc... Reducing the total amount of war and genocide is a good thing, you lunatic. If your reaction to Turkey mass murdering Cypriots is "well now it's only fair that we increase worldwide mass murder as much as possible so everyone gets another turn" then you are bad at reasoning and bad at morality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:The problem is it's not applied consistently, if you look at Russia in multiple cases, the most recent being Ukraine, Turkey in Cyprus, etc... It doesn't seem inconsistent to me. There's limp-wristed international condemnation but no real plan to put an actual end to the occupation. Just like in Israel!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
speaking of toothless international condemnation, does the UN have the power to reform the security council without vetoes from the permanent members? or is the danger of the US pulling a samson on the organization enough to quash any potential change?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:The problem is it's not applied consistently, if you look at Russia in multiple cases, the most recent being Ukraine, Turkey in Cyprus, etc... Literally no country other than Turkey recognizes Turkish Cyprus. Only a handful of countries have recognized Russia's annexation of Crimea, mostly close Russian allies, and the majority of the UN General Assembly voted in favor of a resolution supporting Ukrainian territorial integrity, while the US and EU imposed sanctions on Russia in response.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:So do you not worry that this sets a standard where we all agree that it's acceptable for countries to use military force to annex territory? Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:The problem is it's not applied consistently, if you look at Russia in multiple cases, the most recent being Ukraine Oh, so you want the international community to treat Israel the way they treated Russia over things like Crimea? Really? That seems weird because you get all upset over a private entity with literally no power calling for a boycott of Israel, but now you think Israel should have official sanctions from the global community? Or did you forget that the world sanctioned the gently caress out of Russia and it's actually Israel getting preferential treatment that is the difference?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:speaking of toothless international condemnation, does the UN have the power to reform the security council without vetoes from the permanent members? or is the danger of the US pulling a samson on the organization enough to quash any potential change? Not that I'm aware of. Its likely that any (and probably every member) of the security council would put up a fuss if their veto power was threatened. Even if they were how would you effectively chastise major nuclear powers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
The permanent security council members have a veto in the UN because they have a veto in reality. The UN wouldn't work anymore if it pretended it was some other way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:Not that I'm aware of. Its likely that any (and probably every member) of the security council would put up a fuss if their veto power was threatened. Even if they were how would you effectively chastise major nuclear powers? The League of Nations didn't have veto power for the Big Kids. As a result, the USA and the USSR didn't join, and we've seen how well the LN worked out from not having them onboard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This is some impressive double think He's a troll.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 12:43
|
|
