I mean everything that the Israeli government did outside of the '67 borders is void...and the Israeli government is the one to petition for redress. A contract based on an illegal act being void is a basic part of law. There is no moral based claim to something immorally obtained. - ThreadSky

boyishman.bsky.social • 150 days ago

I mean everything that the Israeli government did outside of the '67 borders is void...and the Israeli government is the one to petition for redress.

A contract based on an illegal act being void is a basic part of law. There is no moral based claim to something immorally obtained.

Comments

boyishman.bsky.social•150 days ago

Israel made this mess, by choice, and they're the ones that have to fix it.

This entire facade of "it's complicated" is by design. It isn't a secret that the slow annexation has been the plan since 1967, and it's time we start accepting that.

pureronin.bsky.social•150 days ago

Sure but I don’t really see why you think that 1967 borders are the only ones on which compensation should be based. I kind of assumed that land over the 1967 would just be returned in the event of a two state peace deal. The compensation would be for land in Israel that doesn’t change hands in deal

boyishman.bsky.social•150 days ago

I'm not sure why the issue of the '67 border (obviously one of many) cannot be addressed on its own.

It's the most straightforward part of it but always seems to be mired in "complications."

pureronin.bsky.social•150 days ago

Accepting the 1967 border is contentious to some Palestinians. It’s not clear that the West Bank and Gaza represent a sustainable state. You can’t accept those borders on their own without understanding what economic support is forthcoming. As they sat “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”

boyishman.bsky.social•150 days ago

Is the occupation not "contentious?" Is it "sustainable?"

boyishman.bsky.social•150 days ago

Not enough and apparently so.

pureronin.bsky.social•150 days ago

Even if the two parties of the contract accept it? Who has standing to dispute it? I am unsure about sales that occurred post 1967, but I got the impression that it’s wasn’t Israel directly that bought the land. There are the post-1948 (and Mandate era) evictions too which follow this pattern.

boyishman.bsky.social•150 days ago

Israel has no right to land outside of the '67 borders, that means it can't make direct or indirect claims or enforce those claims.

The occupation is, and always has been, illegal. Israel knew this and pursued annexation since 1967 in order to maintain this veil of "complication."

boyishman.bsky.social•150 days ago

If course it's not officially annexation, it just looks virtually identical to it with a side of apartheid because we can't let those people be citizens.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply