d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > October Invasion Of Israel
Prev1163816391640
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 56,264
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 575,205.03
Jun 9 2026 06:29am
Ferida, if you're going to educate yourself on the legal history, you need to read the actual rulings and treaties, not just partisan summaries. Your interpretation is completely backward.

You claim the Israeli Supreme Court recognizes the area as 'occupied territory under international law' to oppose the government. In reality, the Court defined the legal status as belligerent occupation (occupatio bellica).
Why? Because under international law, belligerent occupation applies when a sovereign state takes control of territory during a war of self-defense from a power that held it illegally (Jordan's unrecognized annexation from 1948 to 1967). The Court used this definition precisely to validate the IDF's legal authority to hold the territory, manage its security, and dismantle terror infrastructure until a final peace treaty is negotiated. It is a framework for temporary administration, not an admission of theft.

You claim 'disputed territory' is a phrase Israel invented out of thin air to bypass the Geneva Conventions. This is factually false.
The status of the West Bank as a legal dispute is explicitly codified in the Oslo Accords a binding international framework signed by the Palestinian leadership (Yasser Arafat) and witnessed by the US, the EU, and Russia.
By signing the Accords, the Palestinians mutually agreed to divide the territory into Areas A, B, and C, and explicitly agreed that the final status of the land and its permanent borders would be determined solely through bilateral negotiations. You cannot claim Israel is unilaterally acting outside the law when Israel is operating within a legal framework the Palestinians literally signed.

You point to coalition election pledges and preliminary readings in the Knesset from recent years as 'proof' of annexation.
A preliminary reading is a political statement, not a law. Under international law, territory is not annexed by political speeches or coalition agreements; it changes status through formal state declaration or a negotiated treaty. The legal reality on the ground today is exactly what it was before: the territory is managed under the framework of the Oslo Accords and military administration.
So, when I asked you to quote the law on disputed territories and you said 'there is no law,' you missed the entire point. The 'law' governing this dispute consists of UN Security Council Resolution 242 and the Oslo Accords. Both state that the final borders are unestablished and must be negotiated.
Israel's presence there isn't a violation of lawit is a legal, strategic holding action against Iranian-funded terror infrastructure, fully grounded in treaties the Palestinian leadership signed.


This is a complex matter. To simplify it, my understanding is (and again, I already laid this out):

Israel's argument is that the West Bank is not an "occupied territory," and therefore the laws applicable to occupied territories do not apply. Rather, the Israeli government has its own laws and, it has ratified or suggested laws which enforce the notion that what it is doing is legal. I am not arguing on the legality, I am outlining the position.

If you want to dispute/disagree/clarify that, you have your post above doing that.

What this is at the moment is a pivot away from the argument from yesterday and moving back to the notion of debate.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 9 2026 06:33am
Member
Posts: 39,626
Joined: Nov 16 2005
Gold: 13.37
Jun 9 2026 07:16am
Writing like an old playwright doesn't hide the fact that you're just copying Ferida's homework.

I explicitly called the death an absolute, heartbreaking tragedy. The fact that you two are treating a horrific loss of life as a linguistic game of 'gotcha' demanding a specific, politically loaded keyword before you'll allow a point to stand says a lot more about your debate tactics than it does about my humanity.
If you or Ferida want to actually address the Geneva Conventions, the concept of military intent, or the terrorist infrastructure in Jenin, I’m right here. If you just want to grade my vocabulary and post old memes, carry on


I shall, methinks, forbear the present course and instead discourse upon the origins of Likud, Jewish terror, and collaboration. And thou, if it please thee, mayst carry on.
Member
Posts: 56,264
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 575,205.03
Jun 9 2026 07:21am
The West Bank (continued)

In 1995 Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo Accord, agreeing to create a five-year plan for Palestinian Home Rule in the West Bank and Gaza. The West Bank was split into three areas: Area A (Palestinian cities), Area B (towns and villages), and Area C (sparsely populated land containing all Israeli settlements and the Jordan Valley). This split exists to this day. Under the agreement, Areas A and B were placed under varying degrees of Palestinian administration, while Area C remained under full Israeli control. The five-year plan was intended as a transitional period, after which a final peace agreement would be reached. In 1996, i.e. one year after Oslo, Benjamin Netanyahu came to power in Israel. Netanyahu had publicly opposed the Accords. Once in power, Netanyahu set about dismantling the peace process his predecessor had built. He halted further Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank and expanded settlements in Area C. Today no Palestinian state exists. The temporary or transitional agreement has simply...persisted. The "interim" arrangement became permanent. Area C — the 60% of the West Bank containing all settlements — remains under full Israeli control while the Israeli settler population has gone from 100,000 to over 400,000. Zone C was and remains predominant the area of conflict.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 9 2026 07:22am
Member
Posts: 17,994
Joined: Dec 3 2006
Gold: 0.00
Jun 9 2026 10:11am
"dismantling an ideology", that might be the worst vague propaganda phrase you've come up with yet.... we didnt do that in japan or germany, either. we just neutered them and babysat them. with a lot of context you simply cant apply to gaza. mainly disarmament. we forced both japan and germany to never rearm themselves, and depend on us for defense. gaza was already illegally making weapons from makeshift materials. they will not adhere to any demands israel has. germany and japan also surrendered, hamas wont, even if they sign something we both know its a fake surrender.

"utterly broke"? pathetic. its an awful comparison that is so far from valid its not worth addressing seriously.


You are moving the goalposts so fast it’s giving me whiplash.
Your original argument was that it is mathematically impossible to stop a radicalized population from producing a loop of endless terrorism unless you kill or ethnically cleanse them all. Now that the historical examples of Germany and Japan completely shattered that theory, you're trying to pivot by saying, 'Well, Germany and Japan were different because we disarmed them.'
Exactly! That is my entire point. Thank you for finally agreeing with me.
You don't achieve disarmament by asking a fascist regime nicely to sign a piece of paper. You achieve disarmament by destroying their military and governing apparatus, taking total security control, and physically stripping away their ability to import weapons or build military infrastructure. That is precisely what 'neutering' a regime looks like, and it is exactly what Israel is doing to Hamas.
Your claim that 'Hamas won't surrender, so it's impossible' is a completely defeatist logic. The Allies didn't wait for every single Nazi holdout in the mountains to formally agree to a surrender before they began demilitarizing Germany. They broke the back of the regime, took control of the territory, and made it physically impossible for them to rearm.
You can call historical facts 'vague propaganda' all you want, but you just explicitly admitted that breaking a regime and enforcing disarmament is how you end a forever war. Israel is doing the heavy lifting of enforcing that exact disarmament on a genocidal terror network, whether Hamas likes it or not.

Member
Posts: 92,903
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Jun 9 2026 10:39am
You are moving the goalposts so fast it’s giving me whiplash.
Your original argument was that it is mathematically impossible to stop a radicalized population from producing a loop of endless terrorism unless you kill or ethnically cleanse them all. Now that the historical examples of Germany and Japan completely shattered that theory, you're trying to pivot by saying, 'Well, Germany and Japan were different because we disarmed them.'
Exactly! That is my entire point. Thank you for finally agreeing with me.
You don't achieve disarmament by asking a fascist regime nicely to sign a piece of paper. You achieve disarmament by destroying their military and governing apparatus, taking total security control, and physically stripping away their ability to import weapons or build military infrastructure. That is precisely what 'neutering' a regime looks like, and it is exactly what Israel is doing to Hamas.
Your claim that 'Hamas won't surrender, so it's impossible' is a completely defeatist logic. The Allies didn't wait for every single Nazi holdout in the mountains to formally agree to a surrender before they began demilitarizing Germany. They broke the back of the regime, took control of the territory, and made it physically impossible for them to rearm.
You can call historical facts 'vague propaganda' all you want, but you just explicitly admitted that breaking a regime and enforcing disarmament is how you end a forever war. Israel is doing the heavy lifting of enforcing that exact disarmament on a genocidal terror network, whether Hamas likes it or not.


you're just trying to twist my arguments to fit your narrative. i said specifically you wont be successful because you will invariably pull out of Gaza, i even said specifically you wont make it 10 years in a military occupation post war.

as to surrender its not about chasing down every militant in the mountains, its about the leadership will resume rearming them at the first opportunity. they're not in gaza, as you well know, and they can't be trusted, as you well know.

lets game it out.

war "ends" and occupation begins. israel will look to other nations to help rebuild and feed the people. a lot of aid will come from muslim nations, which will invariably have weapons and bomb materials hidden in them to try and arm guerilla forces in gaza. maybe israel finds 9 out of 10, or even 99 out of 100 caches. some slips in, fighters get it, attack occupation forces. death tolls will be low but blow up the press, costs of occupation will pile up over the years, eventually govt caves to pressure and pulls out just like in 2005. they try and set up some sort of new govt that is opposed to hamas and a puppet to israel. that govt is about as effective at fighting hamas as the US's puppets were in Iraq or Afghanistan. which is not effective at all. Israel enjoys a slight reprieve post-withdrawal, because infighting in Gaza is the focus and terrorist attacks are located there. Puppet govt invariably loses meaningful control, or gets hung in the street, Hamas or the same group under a new name retakes control of Gaza. then you're either in war again, or under threat again.

so you either get a war again, attacked again, or are under threat again. its just a matter of time. but please tell me about all of the guerilla insurgency groups the Allies had to fight in Germany or Japan post-ww2. please tell me about how the unconditional surrenders didn't hold. please tell me about the rich benefactors well out of reach of the allies that were bank rolling Germany and Japan. square the circle.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 9 2026 10:40am
Member
Posts: 56,264
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 575,205.03
Jun 9 2026 11:20am
The West Bank (continued)

In 2022 — one year prior to the October 7th Hamas attack — the Government of Israel made an election pledge to "promote and develop settlement in all parts of the Land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria (the West Bank)." What the government said explicitly was that the West Bank is not a disputed territory, but rather a part of Israel. Control of Area C was transferred to a civilian authority at this time. From a neutral perspective, what happened here was that Israel was staking its claim on Area C of the West Bank. By transferring authority from military to civilian control, Area C effectively came under the umbrella of Israeli domestic law — rather than Israeli military law applicable in occupied or "disputed" territory. This was basically "The End" of the two state solution noting the viability of a Palestinian state without Area C is simply not credible.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas led a coordinated attack on Israel from Gaza, killing approximately 1,200 people — mostly civilians — and taking over 250 hostages. Israel declared war on Hamas in response. This topic has discussed those events, and we are not going to go into them. Instead, we are focusing on the West Bank. At the time, Hamas urged Palestinians in the West Bank to rise up against Israel. In the weeks that followed, there was a marked increase in terrorist activities in the West Bank — but not to the degree that Hamas had hoped for. Israel responded swiftly, effectively locking down Areas A, B, and C with heightened security measures. Palestinian attacks included shootings, stabbings, and explosives targeting Israeli civilians and soldiers. Israeli forces responded with raids and airstrikes, while settler violence against Palestinians — including arson, assault, and land seizure — also surged. What began in 2022 — the transfer of Area C to civilian control, the election pledge to treat the West Bank as part of Israel — has only deepened since October 7th. Settlement planning has accelerated, land seizures have continued, and a viable, contiguous Palestinian state is no longer possible on the ground. The two-state solution is effectively dead.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 9 2026 11:49am
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1163816391640
Add Reply New Topic New Poll