Not 100% sure if it fits the “news” mandate of this community, but it is not “opinion”, but rather a nuanced explainer of the context of very recent news (by a scholar with expertise and lived experience on the subject) of the kind that would appear on the front page of a news outlet (the BBC for example had something similar on its front page yesterday).

I wonder what excuse conservatives in the west are going to use for climate inaction now that the “it doesn’t matter what we do, China has more emissions” line is going to become irrelevant.

In the western country where I live, riot cops don’t chase kids like that.

Removed by mod

Says who?

Not sure about that: https://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/13/world/reagan-demands-end-to-attacks-in-a-blunt-telephone-call-to-begin.html

Americans, leash your fucking dog.

Making South Africa’s case, the bastards.

Lol, ok so then answer my questions.

Nope, never did, I never questioned Israel proper. The discussion is about the occupied territories, that were the subject of this UN GA resolution, and that you specifically said are super duper legally owned by Israel.

Edit: and if the questions sound nonsensical (something that I myself pointed out in my original comment) it’s because they are questioning your deranged extreme-zionist assertions.

Edit2: wherever you see “greater Israel” I’m talking about the area currently under Israeli effective control: Israel proper+ West Bank +Gaza +Golan Heights +those Lebanese farms.

You didn’t really answer any of my questions.

I also clarified my point 3 in an edit that I was talking about the treatment of Arabs in Samaria and Judaea. Sorry about the confusion.

Edit, esp. for the first question, you’re blathering about Gaza, when I specifically asked about the occupied territories, which you said Israel holds super duper legally. Focus please.

1. If Israel is legally justly etc the holder of Judaea and Samaria, can you please clarify which scenario you are pushing for: a) giving full Israeli citizenship and rights to the Arabs who have lived in these lands for generations thus ending the Jewish ethno state, b) expulsing them from the lands, thus explicitly advocating for the crime of ethnic cleansing, or c) formally establishing in law an apartheid regime with a permanent underclass? Please clarify.

2. If Israel is the homeland of any Jewish-American rando from New York, with ancestry in Buttfuckburg East Prussia, whose family hasn’t set foot in the territory for 2000 years, then when do I as a Greek person get to assert my rights in beachfront property in Marseille and in Syracuse? Apollo promised it to me, we have a Delphic oracles and everything. Also, i have a Russian friend who says Kiyv was originally the homeland if the Rus people and therefore his country should get full rights to that land. Does he also get the privilege?

3. By your own reasoning, regarding the Arabs in the lands of greater Israel, I would like to bring up jewish people living in any other country that is not officially Jewish, where “even when they were there, they did not rule it”. Can you please clarify exactly what kind of antisemitic policies you are willing to endorse and accept? Should for example British Jews enjoy full rights in the UK? Do British Jews get to consider the UK their country, their home? Do they ever get to be full and equal UK citizens, whose allegiance, rights etc are not to be questioned by any special policy, institution or individual? Or should Jews outside Israel be subject to the kind of treatment Israel reserves for Arabs in Samaria and Judaea that you say it completely super-duper legally holds?

(To be clear, I don’t endorse any of this insanity. I’m just pointing out the absurdity of your extremist argumentation.)

This is in Canada.

Thanks!

Well, yea, even if we accept the fucking Times of Israel as an objective source (lol), what the article says is he wasn’t allowed to study the contract he was offered. That shows the Israelis were not negotiating in good faith.

No western government would ever agree to a territorial deal without being able to first study the fucking map. I mean, would you agree to buy a laptop if you weren’t allowed to see the spec? Much less end a decades old major global conflict.

Go as far back as you like, and we’ll be litigating the Islamic conquest from the Roman Empire. This is 2024. Palestine recognized Israel at Oslo. Since there Israel hasn’t offered any deal with the exception of the Camp David disaster. Daniel Levy, an Israeli negotiator at the time has explained was not a genuine attempt at peace, but to impose a conquest. And in any case the Barak government was an exception, a parenthesis from the successive right wing governments.

These right wing governments instead have systematically sliced up Palestine salami slice after salami slice and basically imposed an apartheid regime in greater Israel. This isn’t just some marginal movement, they are in government. Netanyahu has in fact been in government so long that it is basically Israeli state policy.

Holy bad faith interpretation of what I’m saying batman. I said nothing about justification. OP was talking about consequences. What I’m saying is that when it comes to international law, a sovereign UN member state might have better chances finding justice through international law mechanisms than an occupied territory. Not saying that’s right, only that it’s more likely.

We live in the post-Oslo Accords world. And Israel has been building facts on the ground since Oslo that make the two state(*) solution impossible.

(*) Where by “state” we mean an actual state, not some Bantustan.

The current Israeli government are evil fascists.

I don’t know by it might matter that Lebanon is an internationally recognized country in a way that Palestine isn’t.