Middle East Defence & Security

[Feanor]

I'm going to refocus our discussion back on the original points because you keep trying to broaden it to bypass the issues at hand.

That's what happens when responding to the TLDR portion and not the full text. The UN is not a single body, and different agencies have diffeIt rent authority. WHO cannot comment on LOAC in matters not relevant to health, nor can UNHRC comment on LOAC/IHL (at all). And the single entity capable of passing judgment is the ICJ, whereas the ICC is its advisory counterpart.

Israel signed the UN Charter. Israel is obligated to abide by it. Article 2;

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. "

Nothing in there about being allowed to punish aggression by annexation of the aggressor's territory. You simply don't get to take another state's territory. Essentially under any circumstances. The only exceptions are the right of self determination which runs directly counter to this, and without the use of force. In other words, if a state agrees to let a territory secede, or be annexed by another state.

It is not Israel's responsibility to handle such matters. Israel was invaded, and now must care for its security needs. Gaza is part of the Palestinian territories, has been recognized as independent since 2005, and while Israel does has designated Hamas for destruction, it still recognizes Gazan independence and overall seeks an alternative civil government to Hamas.

Good point. Israel isn't responsible for the infrastructure as it stands. But if Israel were to force the population into an area that can't support that population, it would become Israel's responsibility. You can't take 2 million people, squeeze them into a tiny area that can't possibly support them, and then say "not our problem" while you annex their territory.

Recognition is not a hard prerequisite for independence or statehood. No scarcely recognized nation has ceased existence just because they're not recognized. Example: Taiwan. None can deny its independence and uniqueness.

Either Gaza is an independent nation state or it isn't. You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you want to. If it is, Israel has no right to engage in blockages of their territorial waters, and no right to take any of their territory without the consent of the inhabitants. *Deporting all the inhabitants and then annexing it does not create a magic bypass for the right to self-determination, and is in clear violation of the UN Charter Article 2.

*Sorry "evacuating"... "displacing"... which euphemism are we using for this now?

They in fact cannot. These areas are far too dangerous for residence and must be demolished. If a building isn't collapsed and removed by the IDF, it'll collapse on its inhabitants within months, all by itself. These areas also include significant military infrastructure such as tunnels and embedded weapons, so a military operation to remove them is warranted.

The issue here isn't Israel's behavior, it's your proposal to "remove" the population of northern Gaza and then annex it. I will only say this, the decision to demolish large chunks of Gaza was a decision that Israel made. Israel could also have not made that decision. You believe it was necessary, you're welcome to those beliefs. It was still a choice.

Yeah and? What's the problem?
Also displacement, not deportation.

See above.

Israel didn't annex northern Gaza.
Considering the annexation of the Golan has been legal, I see no reason to believe the same won't be true for northern Gaza. Can you provide a basis for your implication that it'll be illegal?

The annexation of Golan isn't legal. It's another example of an illegal annexation in violation of UN Charter Article 2.

Because in a democracy, the court supervises the legislative branch. If a parliament votes on an annexation law, the court must decide whether or not to approve it depending on whether it conflicts with any existing law.
That is literally my entire point about using the term "illegal annexation". Annexation is an entirely internal action. It is not judged by international authorities.
When it comes to international affairs, and other nations want to dispute it, they refer to it as occupation. Occupation itself also cannot be illegal, but at least in this case the international community can recognize the occupied party's claim to the land and support it by re-occupying it.
Has it not been abundantly clear by now that this is the sole issue with saying the word "annexation"?

A convenient but untrue proposition. There is an inherent conflict of interest. Take your logic and apply it to the actions of other states. Annexation is an entirely internal action that is not judged by international authorities, so Russia can annex whatever they want and as long as a Russian court says it's ok, it's no illegal? Ridiculous logic. Let's be clear, there aren't two sets of international laws and norms - one for democracies and the other for dictatorships. That's not how it works. The rules are the same for all nation-state actors (with some exceptions based on the treaties they signed).

To the contrary. I cannot think of another nation that has upheld the "rules based international order" like Israel does (through quantity), except the US.
Might makes right is not the point of my argument and it shows you have missed it entirely. To the contrary - might does not necessarily makes right, which is why I advocate for solutions that prioritize long term solutions and humanitarian and reconciliatory approach, than the forceful and inhumane ideas you and others here have proposed, such as keeping civilians within an active war zone and the 3D equivalent of a minefield.

The proposal isn't to forcefully keep civilians in a war zone. The proposal is to not forcefully remove them. They of course should be allowed to leave voluntarily if they so choose. You're intentionally creating a false dichotomy.

No, I literally only said terms like "annexation" and "occupation" cannot be prefixed with "illegal" because that's inappropriate terminology. You and others have turned this into a debate.
Also it's nice that it looks like things to you but appearance does not make reality, and it has no bearing on what is and will happen going forward.

They can be prefixed with the term illegal, and it is appropriate terminology. I explained above.

You don't really know what "occupation" and "imperial" mean, right?

Israel does not recognize Gaza as an independent nation-state, nor does Israel behave towards Gaza the way one independent nation-state behaves towards another. It's convenient for your argument to pretend otherwise, but it simply isn't true. At best Gaza is an occupied territory, at worst it's de-facto Israeli territory turned into a ghetto where ~2 million indigenous persons who are non-citizens are forced to reside.

This is not a war of conquest. Israel is the self-defending side to this conflict, which is an indisputable fact, and its goals do not include territorial aspects.

It does not matter what kind of war it is. See above. You don't get to threaten anyone's territorial integrity by force ever. You don't like that, you would like to have a system where if the other country is at fault, this somehow doesn't apply, but that simply isn't true.

Israel however is the last recognized owner of Gaza (til 2005), and it can certainly revoke Gaza's practical independence in part or in full.

If Gaza is a independent nation-state then under current international law nobody, except their own people through self-determination, can revoke their independence. Israel's previous ownership of Gaza is irrelevant. Can China, the last recognized owner of Taiwan, revoke their independence in part or in full? Can Russia, as the legal successor to the USSR, do so with former Union Republics? Can Sudan revoke the independence of South Sudan? You can't have it both ways. Either Gaza is an independent nation-state or it isn't. If it is, Israel can't take any of their territory or do anything with their independence without the explicit consent of the population. The actions of Hamas have 0 bearing on this. The actions of Gaza as a nation-state, or of the population that lives there, have 0 bearing on this.

Can you quote the section of the UN charter which prohibits military occupation? I'll make it easier for you - there is none. Only the legal definitions of how an occupation must take place.

Another irrelevant aside.

Military advantage is central to the aspect of proportionality in LOAC/IHL.

You keep trying to slip away into irrelevant discussions of tangents. Proportionality and military advantage do not give Israel the right to annex northern Gaza.

 

[Feanor]

And the Russian word for potato is Kartoshka. And?

If you suggest that instead of your earlier proposal of deporting the population and then annexing the territory of northern Gaza, Israel should rather focus on plating a bumper crop of potatoes, I can only applaud the good sense and reason that you display. If this is meant as sarcasm, then it misses the mark. You understand very well the point I was making, and are trying to side-step it. Your proposal is dangerously close to some very ugly historical events, and this is relevant to a consideration of its merits.

You are taking it a few extra steps and asserting that annexation means population. Can you provide any basis for your assertion? Because the counter-example to this is Golan, which remains largely closed as a military zone, with few pre-existing communities. Another counter-argument is the abundance of evidence that Israel is setting up a buffer zone, to which population runs counter.

No. I'm not taking any extra steps. You took the extra step of claiming that one of the benefits of annexation is the participation of the population in democratic institutions, a particularly hypocritical point to raise after you also advocated involuntary permanent expulsion of the population.

Which evidently is not the case here.

This is a response to your claim that an annexation can not be illegal. It can be, and you are wrong. This is not dependent on the case here, it is a separate argument. There is such a thing as an illegal annexation and an illegal occupation. These terms have meanings.

Intent is central to many criteria that would constitute violations of LOAC/IHL. Your implied intent is false. Israel did not initiate the 6 day war to "compromise the territorial integrity of another state". It was attacked, and decided against withdrawing from territories for a belligerent state.
Every piece of territory captured in 1967 was negotiated for non-belligerence. Egypt got theirs, Jordan too, Syria opted out.
Diplomatic solutions when possible IS however mentioned in the UN charter.

None of this has anything to do with the permissibility of annexing the territory of another state. Israel's intent in this war is irrelevant to that question. You flat out aren't allowed to threaten the territorial integrity of other nations by use of force. There is no carge-out or exception for self-defense cases.

Thing is, while wars of conquest are frowned upon, there is certainly nothing that guarantees an aggressor immunity from consequences, including territorial integrity, should they lose.

There is - Article 2 of the UN Charter.

We did all that. They attacked us, we responded like we would respond to any aggressor.
Lebanon invaded Israel on October 8th, 2023. Israel initiated a ground maneuver inside Lebanon, and for the sake of the security of northern communities, it maintained a buffer zone in Lebanon like 1982-2000.
Israel negotiated an agreement with the US, Lebanon, and Hezbollah.
When the Lebanese government stabilized and started acting against Hezbollah, Israel withdrew gradually from the buffer zone as per agreement, and provided the LAF assistance in disarming Hezbollah.

When Assad's government fell and rogue terrorist organizations exploited the situation on the border with Israel, Israel rushed to secure a buffer zone. Which is now the subject of negotiations with the new government, with Israel showing intent to withdraw, and Syria signaling it might be willing to withdraw claims to the Golan.

And when (hopefully soon) a ceasefire is negotiated in Gaza, a political solution will be involved and the buffer zones could either remain or shrink depending on how much Hamas is willing to offer, and how hostile they intend to remain going forward.

You see, what you called Lebensraum, in non-germanic cultures is called "Strategic Depth".
Israel is a weird mix of being the most powerful nation in the region, the most attacked nation in the region, and the only nation that lacks any form of strategic depth.
After giving Gaza chance after chance over decades, it's time Israel start working toward establishing at least some strategic depth.

An excellent argument for why it would be reasonable and practical for Israel to do this. To bad it's still illegal.

That was never done. Especially the last part.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

For the duration of presence of civilian population in an occupied area - it does.

Yes. So... is Gaza an independent nation-state or an Israeli occupied territory? Is it both?

If by "operate" you mean militant groups, then it certainly does. Every nation has the right to self defense, and that includes proactive action. As long as two parties are warring, it is absolutely permissible and encouraged to attack military targets in each other's territories.
It is the non-military targets that are usually frowned upon.

It does not include proactive action. The pre-emptive strike doctrine is a ridiculous mockery of international law and is generally not recognized, nor is it anywhere in the existing documents that govern international law. If Israel is at war with the state of Gaza, they can operate inside Gaza. If they are not, they can not.

So annexation - no, starvation - yes.
Did I get that right?

If Gaza is an independent nation-state, then feeding their people is their problem. Here's the thing, if Gaza is independent, Israel doesn't get to blockade their coastline either. And at that point you'd rapidly see other players stepping in. Israel wants to have no responsibility for Gaza but control over them. This is the key problem. But it does go somewhat beyond the scope of the discussion of your proposal. If Gaza is independent, then China, or Russia, or Iran, have the full right, with the consent of the government there, to set up a military base, embassy, aid depot, massive underground bunker complex, or giant pile of SRBMs in their territory, and Israel can not take military action against this. It would constitute a war of aggression.

Do you know why we insist on our humanity? Because we actually mean that. We don't starve people, we don't shoot innocent people by policy and we certainly work to catch and prosecute anyone who permits themselves to do that.

Of course. The humanity of mass deportations and illegal annexations.

It's funny, the amount of complaints I get for my ideas, but things like bombing indiscriminately, keeping civilians in extremely dangerous environments with active warfare, intentional starvation - that's fine.

You're intentionally misrepresenting the arguments that were made.

You know what Israelis consider the most popular and effective policy item employed in Gaza since October 2023? The GHF. A humanitarian aid mechanism that allows Palestinians to receive food aid for free and not pay exorbitant prices to UNRWA and Hamas, which by the way are required to distribute it for free.

Good for them. How is that relevant to your proposal to depopulate and annex northern Gaza?

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Nothing in there about being allowed to punish aggression by annexation of the aggressor's territory. You simply don't get to take another state's territory. Essentially under any circumstances. The only exceptions are the right of self determination which runs directly counter to this, and without the use of force. In other words, if a state agrees to let a territory secede, or be annexed by another state.

Either Gaza is an independent nation state or it isn't. You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you want to. If it is, Israel has no right to engage in blockages of their territorial waters, and no right to take any of their territory without the consent of the inhabitants. *Deporting all the inhabitants and then annexing it does not create a magic bypass for the right to self-determination, and is in clear violation of the UN Charter Article 2.

Gaza is an exception to this rule.
While Hamas's status as the governor of Gaza for all matters civic was not disputed, even by Israel. It is not recognized as an independent Palestinian state, and only the PA is recognized as the political representatives of Palestinians.
Since Gaza technically lacks statehood, the last recognized state owner of Gaza is Israel. So there is no bilateral relationship.
In fact, it is legally not even annexation. Since Israel owns the land, it simply has to cancel the disengagement law of 2005.
Hamas and any other Palestinian faction cannot lay claim to Gaza or declare statehood there, and in fact in the J&S (aka West Bank) either, because Israel is also the legal owner of those lands.
Why, you ask? Because of Uti Possidetis Juris. A law that asserts that should a state withdraw from territory, the next claimant inherits all of it. Since the Palestinians refused the UN proposed Partition Plan, Israel's borders were not established within the territories of the former British Mandate of Palestine, sans territories ceded earlier, primarily to Jordan.

Good point. Israel isn't responsible for the infrastructure as it stands. But if Israel were to force the population into an area that can't support that population, it would become Israel's responsibility. You can't take 2 million people, squeeze them into a tiny area that can't possibly support them, and then say "not our problem" while you annex their territory.

International law only mandates an occupying party to administer the civilian population within the area it occupies.
But your scenario is detached from current reality. Israel set up the GHF distribution points and humanitarian zones in a way that allows Israel to provide optimal care and aid for the population there.
This is data on the previous aid program which still runs at decreasing capacity as GHF replaces it:

https://gaza-aid-data.gov.il/main/#AidData

There is still no updating data on GHF as far as I know, but a few days ago they've announced distribution of 50,000,000 meals.

The issue here isn't Israel's behavior, it's your proposal to "remove" the population of northern Gaza and then annex it. I will only say this, the decision to demolish large chunks of Gaza was a decision that Israel made. Israel could also have not made that decision. You believe it was necessary, you're welcome to those beliefs. It was still a choice.

But you are not proposing an alternative.
If Israel leaves that infrastructure intact, Israel cannot clear and prep the area for GHF sites and aid distribution, so people cannot return.
If it demolishes the infrastructure, people must evacuate, at least for a while.

The annexation of Golan isn't legal. It's another example of an illegal annexation in violation of UN Charter Article 2.

I concede on that. Upon further checking, I see that it was not done legally. But then, it's not relevant anymore because of the above.

Can Russia, as the legal successor to the USSR, do so with former Union Republics?

No. Uti Possidetis Juris is the legal framework for secessionists, which is what the former republics are.

You keep trying to slip away into irrelevant discussions of tangents. Proportionality and military advantage do not give Israel the right to annex northern Gaza.

They do mandate it to evacuate it though.

If you suggest that instead of your earlier proposal of deporting the population and then annexing the territory of northern Gaza, Israel should rather focus on plating a bumper crop of potatoes, I can only applaud the good sense and reason that you display. If this is meant as sarcasm, then it misses the mark. You understand very well the point I was making, and are trying to side-step it. Your proposal is dangerously close to some very ugly historical events, and this is relevant to a consideration of its merits.

You talk about side-stepping but always focusing on deportation, annexation etc, when the essence of the subject is strategic depth, which I mentioned many times can be achieved through military occupation, annexation, with population, without population, and with a lot of creativity in between.
You're married to one idea without seeing the bigger picture that keeping Gazans 100m from an Israeli town is untenable, while 2km is very much workable.
Your insistence on Israeli population entering and settling in northern Gaza is in direct contradiction to the point raised that Israel is sorely lacking strategic depth and should use this war as an opportunity to create some. If Israelis are allowed to settle there, we're in many ways back to square one.

No. I'm not taking any extra steps. You took the extra step of claiming that one of the benefits of annexation is the participation of the population in democratic institutions, a particularly hypocritical point to raise after you also advocated involuntary permanent expulsion of the population.

Did you forget for a moment that the population involved in democratic institutions are citizens of the state passing a law, and not the Palestinians?
When Frenchmen are able to vote for laws in the Bundestag, I'll concede to your argument.

It does not include proactive action. The pre-emptive strike doctrine is a ridiculous mockery of international law and is generally not recognized, nor is it anywhere in the existing documents that govern international law. If Israel is at war with the state of Gaza, they can operate inside Gaza. If they are not, they can not.

A state of war was pre-existing at the time.

Here's the thing, if Gaza is independent, Israel doesn't get to blockade their coastline either.

That is not true. A siege is certainly permissible under international law, including air and sea.
But in practice, Israel allows Gazans to fish in Israeli territorial water to maintain food security, and imposes only a partial siege related to smuggling and military operations only.

If Gaza is independent, then China, or Russia, or Iran, have the full right, with the consent of the government there, to set up a military base, embassy, aid depot, massive underground bunker complex, or giant pile of SRBMs in their territory, and Israel can not take military action against this. It would constitute a war of aggression.

Gaza is not independent, you asked this trivial about a dozen times already and I've already explained this.

Of course. The humanity of mass deportations and illegal annexations.

You argued why it is illegal. You haven't argued why it is inhumane.

You're intentionally misrepresenting the arguments that were made.

If you take my words at face value, why are you surprised the same happens to you?

Good for them. How is that relevant to your proposal to depopulate and annex northern Gaza?

You ask many unrelated questions, and are also surprised when you get an answer.
Don't propose GMLRSing launcher coordinates if you don't want to get a response to that.

 

[Feanor]

Gaza is an exception to this rule.
While Hamas's status as the governor of Gaza for all matters civic was not disputed, even by Israel. It is not recognized as an independent Palestinian state, and only the PA is recognized as the political representatives of Palestinians.
Since Gaza technically lacks statehood, the last recognized state owner of Gaza is Israel. So there is no bilateral relationship.
In fact, it is legally not even annexation. Since Israel owns the land, it simply has to cancel the disengagement law of 2005.
Hamas and any other Palestinian faction cannot lay claim to Gaza or declare statehood there, and in fact in the J&S (aka West Bank) either, because Israel is also the legal owner of those lands.
Why, you ask? Because of Uti Possidetis Juris. A law that asserts that should a state withdraw from territory, the next claimant inherits all of it. Since the Palestinians refused the UN proposed Partition Plan, Israel's borders were not established within the territories of the former British Mandate of Palestine, sans territories ceded earlier, primarily to Jordan.
View attachment 53131

Claiming Gaza was independent was your position, not mine. I have been skeptical of your claim that Gaza is an independent nation-state this entire time. The verbiage of annexation was also yours, not mine. I have repeatedly compared Gaza to a ghetto within Israel itself whose population are being treated badly by Israel.

International law only mandates an occupying party to administer the civilian population within the area it occupies.
But your scenario is detached from current reality. Israel set up the GHF distribution points and humanitarian zones in a way that allows Israel to provide optimal care and aid for the population there.
This is data on the previous aid program which still runs at decreasing capacity as GHF replaces it:

https://gaza-aid-data.gov.il/main/#AidData

There is still no updating data on GHF as far as I know, but a few days ago they've announced distribution of 50,000,000 meals.

Remember, you're proposing a permanent removal of population while simultaneously you stated that it's not Israel's problem that this would cause issues for the population. Now above you've backed off of your, I suspect, untenable position that Gaza is independent and conceded that it is in fact Israeli territory. So the arguments about military occupation are also irrelevant. This then isn't the case of Israel occupying another nation's territory during a war. It's Israel acting within its own borders. Israel's obligations to the Palestinians are therefore the obligations of any nation-state to its own population.

But you are not proposing an alternative.

I did. You didn't like it. My alternative is - give Gaza independence. Actual independence.

If Israel leaves that infrastructure intact, Israel cannot clear and prep the area for GHF sites and aid distribution, so people cannot return.
If it demolishes the infrastructure, people must evacuate, at least for a while.

Your proposal is a permanent depopulation, not a temporary humanitarian evacuation. There's a reason I asked those questions above.

I concede on that. Upon further checking, I see that it was not done legally. But then, it's not relevant anymore because of the above.

The primary objections to your proposal are that the removal of population is permanent and that annexing a piece of another state without the consent of the population, by use of force, is illegal. If you've retracted both of those elements, there's nothing left to argue about. I don't think anyone claims that temporary evacuations of civilians from a war zone, due to ongoing hostilities, is a problem.

No. Uti Possidetis Juris is the legal framework for secessionists, which is what the former republics are.

It's actually a bad example on my part, since the Soviet Union was arguably not a nation-state proper but a weird international arrangement, with all the Union Republics having their own sovereignty. Even in the General Assembly of the UN the USSR got multiple votes, though they only got "credit" for original treaty signatories like Ukraine and Belarus (the Transcaucus Republic had broken up into Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan by that point).

You talk about side-stepping but always focusing on deportation, annexation etc, when the essence of the subject is strategic depth, which I mentioned many times can be achieved through military occupation, annexation, with population, without population, and with a lot of creativity in between.

Strategic depth is an argument of practical expediency. The objections are all of a nature that isn't subject to these considerations. Of course it's nice to have strategic depth if you can get it. But if you can't get it lawfully it doesn't mean you get to take it by whatever means necessary.

You're married to one idea without seeing the bigger picture that keeping Gazans 100m from an Israeli town is untenable, while 2km is very much workable.

Is there a reason it can't the Israeli town that moves 2kms away? It has a much lower population density, and far more places into which the Israeli town could be relocated. It also has many more resources to effect the relocation.

Your insistence on Israeli population entering and settling in northern Gaza is in direct contradiction to the point raised that Israel is sorely lacking strategic depth and should use this war as an opportunity to create some. If Israelis are allowed to settle there, we're in many ways back to square one.

Well it would be nice if Israel prevented their citizens from trying to settle places they're not supposed to. There's a history there though that runs counter to this idea.

Did you forget for a moment that the population involved in democratic institutions are citizens of the state passing a law, and not the Palestinians?
When Frenchmen are able to vote for laws in the Bundestag, I'll concede to your argument.

Let's follow the logical thread here. One of the benefits of annexation vs occupation is that once Israel removes the population of northern Gaza, Israeli citizens, but not the population of northern Gaza, will get to participate in democratic processes and institutions. This is seriously your argument? Follow the thread through all the posts please.

A state of war was pre-existing at the time.

Correct, it was caused by the Hamas attack on Israel.

That is not true. A siege is certainly permissible under international law, including air and sea.
But in practice, Israel allows Gazans to fish in Israeli territorial water to maintain food security, and imposes only a partial siege related to smuggling and military operations only.

If Gaza is a separate sovereign state then, when not at war with Israel, there can be no state of siege. If they are at war, then the state of siege is not relevant to the discussion. My comments don't pertain to a temporary state of war but rather to the post-war arrangement.

Gaza is not independent, you asked this trivial about a dozen times already and I've already explained this.

You've recently changed your stance on this point.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Re: Operation Rising Lion Israel-Iran confrontation

Disregarding black projects, Israel is set to modernize ahead of the next confrontation. It should also take additional measures to ensure a gradual growth of capabilities.

1. IAMD - Integrated Air and Missile Defense
   1. David's Sling - Set to receive an RF seeker that will better allow it to do BMD in all weathers.
   2. Arrow 4 - Long lead components are being ordered and launchers are entering production.
   3. SkySonic - Not slated for integration into IAMD but it could change.
   4. Barak MX - Entered service recently, focused on cruise missiles but can also do BMD.
      
      
2. Long Range Aviation
   1. F-15 - 50+25 on order in F-15IA variant based on F-15EX. No disclosed range upgrade, but improved payload and engine. Could translate to larger EFTs and outsized payloads.
   2. F-35 - EFTs have been rumored for a while and now officially budgeted for the USAF (as I recall) based on new budget. If not in service then it is a priority item.
   3. B-21 - Being inherently less secretive, the B-21 is an option for Israel to consider solely for range and payload which Israel now needs for semi-regular missions.
   4. Refueling options - KC-46A on order but also more survivable and numerous options should be pursued. Buddy refueling and dedicated stealth refuelers are options, with the latter being in service with the USN and multiple CCA platforms available for refit for that purpose, and export.
      
      
3. Naval arena
   1. Surface vessels - should increase in quantity to take more proactive role in IAMD.
   2. Accessibility - Red Sea and up to Persian Gulf should become more normalized arenas to monitor for threats and interdiction.
   3. Submarines - Traditionally special operations oriented. Should gradually improve to take on more conventional missions.
      
      
4. Space
   1. Recon - More assets needed, not necessarily increased quality. More arenas means more strain on existing assets.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Claiming Gaza was independent was your position, not mine. I have been skeptical of your claim that Gaza is an independent nation-state this entire time. The verbiage of annexation was also yours, not mine. I have repeatedly compared Gaza to a ghetto within Israel itself whose population are being treated badly by Israel.

Sorry "evacuating"... "displacing"... which euphemism are we using for this now?

Do you not see the irony here?
I use comfortable language and shorten my case to make it more accessible, or I use more complicated language and explain nuance, and you always take issue with it no matter which I pick.
I never said Gaza was fully independent. I said it was practically independent. In fancier terms: De facto, not de jure.

Remember, you're proposing a permanent removal of population while simultaneously you stated that it's not Israel's problem that this would cause issues for the population. Now above you've backed off of your, I suspect, untenable position that Gaza is independent and conceded that it is in fact Israeli territory. So the arguments about military occupation are also irrelevant. This then isn't the case of Israel occupying another nation's territory during a war. It's Israel acting within its own borders. Israel's obligations to the Palestinians are therefore the obligations of any nation-state to its own population.

That is perversion of the facts. You need to stop being offended by nuance. Because here is some:
Israel owned Gaza until 2005, when it enacted the Disengagement Plan, backed by the Disengagement Law.
The law gave Gaza de facto autonomy under PA rule, which it later didn't dispute when Hamas overthrew the PA. But it did not make Gaza a de jure independent and recognized state. Nor did it negate Israel's right to the land should it choose to roll back the disengagement plan.

Israel did not occupy Gaza until after the October 7th attack. But even now it only controls between 50-75% of Gaza. Between 2005-2023 Israel did not have any obligation as an occupier. It allowed Gaza to trade, access Israeli waters for fishing, and let aid in, despite having 0 obligation to do so. In hindsight it was a bad decision but at the time it was logically sound.
Now, Israel has obligations to the civilian population in areas that it occupies in Gaza. And no obligation to civilians living outside these areas.

I did. You didn't like it. My alternative is - give Gaza independence. Actual independence.

The quoted segment referred to your comment about the demolition operation. This has no relation to it, nor is it feasible. Why propose a non-feasible solution?
The only way Gazan independence would become feasible is if a political replacement to Hamas emerges, be it local or international or other. The conditions for that have not ripened.

Your proposal is a permanent depopulation, not a temporary humanitarian evacuation. There's a reason I asked those questions above.

I have yet to hear an actual argument about why that would be a problem.

If you've retracted both of those elements, there's nothing left to argue about.

It's not illegal to annex a territory you already own.
Golan? Sure.
Gaza and J&S? Nope.

The purpose of the Oslo Accords was to prepare the Palestinians for statehood and later a seccesion of these territories for Israel for a recognized Palestinian state, also via the Uti Possidetis Juris principle. But the Palestinians halted the process shortly after, and they do not seem intent on continuing it. Hence, cancelling the Disegagement Law and automatically returning Gaza to Israel's official, declared borders, is perfectly legal.

Strategic depth is an argument of practical expediency. The objections are all of a nature that isn't subject to these considerations. Of course it's nice to have strategic depth if you can get it. But if you can't get it lawfully it doesn't mean you get to take it by whatever means necessary.

As explained, it can be achieved lawfully. And if it ever comes to security vs external threats vs international law, I'd choose security. But that is evidently not the case here.

Is there a reason it can't the Israeli town that moves 2kms away? It has a much lower population density, and far more places into which the Israeli town could be relocated. It also has many more resources to effect the relocation.

That's called Ethnic Cleansing. You're essentially proposing a permanent deportation and depopulation. That's illegal.
Did I do it right?

Well it would be nice if Israel prevented their citizens from trying to settle places they're not supposed to. There's a history there though that runs counter to this idea.

And there's also history that supports that idea. Isn't it fun when there are nuances and information can be obtained not from tabloids?
The Israeli government, via its judicial branch, investigative and operative arms like the police and Shin Bet, and sometimes the IDF and Gendarmerie, are involved in investigating and prosecuting settlers who build and live in undeclared and unauthorized "outposts" (Israeli term for illegal settlements), and finally demolish said outposts. They are also involved in frequent violent events.
Just recently a group of extremists torched an IDF surveillance server room and attacked IDF soldiers who then had to return fire.

Right-wing rioters torch IDF facility in West Bank

The NIS 3 million facility, used to thwart terror attacks, was set ablaze after settlers, joined by far-right activists, tried to storm a brigade HQ, IDF says

www.ynetnews.com

Of course you wouldn't hear that, because MSM typically portrays the IDF as guardians of violent settlers and accomplices in abuse of Palestinians, when the reality is that the IDF faces about as much friction with local Jewish extremist population as they have with Palestinians.

But what can we do about the issue escalating and growing out of our control? We're already maintaining the largest army (relative to population) in the world, with one of the highest defense budgets (8% of GDP), while complaining about a massive manpower shortage.
The blanket is short, and settler violence is currently at the bottom of our concerns.

Let's follow the logical thread here. One of the benefits of annexation vs occupation is that once Israel removes the population of northern Gaza, Israeli citizens, but not the population of northern Gaza, will get to participate in democratic processes and institutions. This is seriously your argument? Follow the thread through all the posts please.

Do you understand that when I said "democratic institutions" I simply meant that a state's parliament votes on annexation? I don't know what process you are talking about.

You've recently changed your stance on this point.

No I have not. Feel free to go back to my earlier posts. You'll also see that I did not edit them.
Notice that all my statements are consistent with the idea that Gaza is independent de facto but not de jure.

 

[swerve]

That is perversion of the facts. You need to stop being offended by nuance. Because here is some:
Israel owned Gaza until 2005, when it enacted the Disengagement Plan, backed by the Disengagement Law.

Israel did not own Gaza. It has never owned Gaza. It occupied Gaza. That is not the same thing.

Do you think Germany owned France in 1943? Or Norway from 1940 to 1945?

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Israel did not own Gaza. It has never owned Gaza. It occupied Gaza. That is not the same thing.

Do you think Germany owned France in 1943? Or Norway from 1940 to 1945?

I was talking about pre-2005. Obviously since 2023 Israel is occupying most of it but that's not the time I was referring to.

In case you were also talking about pre-2005:
Under international law and norms, Israel in 1948 inherited territory from Britain.
Egypt occupied Gaza between 1949-1967. Israel reoccupied Gaza in 1967.
Political control was gradually transferred to the PA under the Oslo Accords until the disengagement plan in 2005 although by then the Oslo Accords implementation was frozen and ownership of Gaza was not legally transferred and Gaza not legally ceded.

 

[swerve]

I know the date you gave. It seems you didn't read what I wrote. What part of "Israel did not own Gaza. It has never owned Gaza" did you not understand?

Gaza has never, legally, been part of Israel, even under Israeli law. It was under Israeli military occupation from 1967 to 2005.

Why do you disagree with the Israeli courts, & successive Israeli governments?

 

[Feanor]

I know the date you gave. It seems you didn't read what I wrote. What part of "Israel did not own Gaza. It has never owned Gaza" did you not understand?

Gaza has never, legally, been part of Israel, even under Israeli law. It was under Israeli military occupation from 1967 to 2005.

Why do you disagree with the Israeli courts, & successive Israeli governments?

Interesting. I actually didn't know this. So which country is it actually a part of? Egypt? Some sort of independent Palestine?

Do you not see the irony here?
I use comfortable language and shorten my case to make it more accessible, or I use more complicated language and explain nuance, and you always take issue with it no matter which I pick.
I never said Gaza was fully independent. I said it was practically independent. In fancier terms: De facto, not de jure.


That is perversion of the facts. You need to stop being offended by nuance. Because here is some:
Israel owned Gaza until 2005, when it enacted the Disengagement Plan, backed by the Disengagement Law.
The law gave Gaza de facto autonomy under PA rule, which it later didn't dispute when Hamas overthrew the PA. But it did not make Gaza a de jure independent and recognized state. Nor did it negate Israel's right to the land should it choose to roll back the disengagement plan.

Israel did not occupy Gaza until after the October 7th attack. But even now it only controls between 50-75% of Gaza. Between 2005-2023 Israel did not have any obligation as an occupier. It allowed Gaza to trade, access Israeli waters for fishing, and let aid in, despite having 0 obligation to do so. In hindsight it was a bad decision but at the time it was logically sound.
Now, Israel has obligations to the civilian population in areas that it occupies in Gaza. And no obligation to civilians living outside these areas.

The word games continue. I specifically asked you whether Gaza was an independent country or not. Your response, if this is your position, should have been a firm no. Instead you repeatedly tried to argue that it was de-facto independent while carefully ducking any attempt to clarify. Hence why my response was to your position on relations between Gaza and Israel as being two independent countries. The nature of Israeli obligations and authority is derived fundamentally from whether Gaza is a piece of Israel or not.

The quoted segment referred to your comment about the demolition operation. This has no relation to it, nor is it feasible. Why propose a non-feasible solution?
The only way Gazan independence would become feasible is if a political replacement to Hamas emerges, be it local or international or other. The conditions for that have not ripened.

One thing about independence is that other countries don't get to dictate their internal politics. Independence is about letting people decide for themselves what they want, even if you consider their decision unacceptable. Granting Gaza independence would be also granting them the right to elect Hamas if they so choose, and dealing with them as anyone would with another independent country.

I have yet to hear an actual argument about why that would be a problem.

You have heard many argument and have hand-waved them away. I think repeating this would be pointless.

It's not illegal to annex a territory you already own.
Golan? Sure.
Gaza and J&S? Nope.

It's not illegal, it's impossible. It's like purchasing something you already own. You can't do it, literally, making your earlier suggestion actually impossible. But again to me this shows you flipping back and forth on the question of whether Gaza is independent. If you had all along meant that Gaza was a piece of Israel, you wouldn't have brought up annexation. You would have immediately argued that Israel can do what it wants within its own sovereign borders. Instead you ran face first into the wall of the UN Charter to which Israel is a signatory, and decided to change tactics.

The purpose of the Oslo Accords was to prepare the Palestinians for statehood and later a seccesion of these territories for Israel for a recognized Palestinian state, also via the Uti Possidetis Juris principle. But the Palestinians halted the process shortly after, and they do not seem intent on continuing it. Hence, cancelling the Disegagement Law and automatically returning Gaza to Israel's official, declared borders, is perfectly legal.

Not familiar enough with the details to dispute any of this.

That's called Ethnic Cleansing. You're essentially proposing a permanent deportation and depopulation. That's illegal.
Did I do it right?

I think you're moving the goalposts again. 2kms is a very different number from North Gaza, which isn't just a geographic term but to the best of my knowledge refers to specific area more like ~6 kms deep. In principle if Israel was forcibly deporting population from an area that's almost exclusively of one ethnic group, that would be ethnic cleansing, so sure. You can make that argument on some level. Is the Israeli population living 100m from Gaza ethnically homogenous? The size of the area you're expelling population from matters, the realtion between the size of the area they're being expelled from to the general area they inhabit also matters. You can reduce anything to an absurdity, evicting a single ethnically homogenous family is ethnic cleansing (for example). But there's a difference between depopulating a substantial portion of Gaza (one of it's 5 provinces if I understand correctly, ~60 sq km), and creating a military zone withing Israel of ~ 2kms deep from the border for the safety of your own population.

And there's also history that supports that idea. Isn't it fun when there are nuances and information can be obtained not from tabloids?
The Israeli government, via its judicial branch, investigative and operative arms like the police and Shin Bet, and sometimes the IDF and Gendarmerie, are involved in investigating and prosecuting settlers who build and live in undeclared and unauthorized "outposts" (Israeli term for illegal settlements), and finally demolish said outposts. They are also involved in frequent violent events.
Just recently a group of extremists torched an IDF surveillance server room and attacked IDF soldiers who then had to return fire.

Right-wing rioters torch IDF facility in West Bank

The NIS 3 million facility, used to thwart terror attacks, was set ablaze after settlers, joined by far-right activists, tried to storm a brigade HQ, IDF says

www.ynetnews.com

Of course you wouldn't hear that, because MSM typically portrays the IDF as guardians of violent settlers and accomplices in abuse of Palestinians, when the reality is that the IDF faces about as much friction with local Jewish extremist population as they have with Palestinians.

But what can we do about the issue escalating and growing out of our control? We're already maintaining the largest army (relative to population) in the world, with one of the highest defense budgets (8% of GDP), while complaining about a massive manpower shortage.
The blanket is short, and settler violence is currently at the bottom of our concerns.

I certainly don't consume MSM so I can't speak to that. But there is a history of Israeli settler expansion you can't deny, which raises issues as mentioned above. And the fact that it's at the bottom of Israeli concerns probably leads to it being allowed to go on more than it should.

Do you understand that when I said "democratic institutions" I simply meant that a state's parliament votes on annexation? I don't know what process you are talking about.

You wrote;

"5. Annexation has an added benefit over occupation, being that it involves all democratic institutions in territorial decision-making and not just the executive, which in turn increases stability. "

Was your entire point that it's better for Israel to annex Gaza because the Israeli people would get to decide on this through their elected respresentatives? If so, the argument is absurd. The reason you can't just annex northern Gaza is because it's either already part of Israel and therefore can't be annexed by Israel, or it's not part of Israel and is therefore the sovereign territory of another state whose territorial integrity Israel is obligated to respect by virtue of the UN Charter.

No I have not. Feel free to go back to my earlier posts. You'll also see that I did not edit them.
Notice that all my statements are consistent with the idea that Gaza is independent de facto but not de jure.

What is it de jure?

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Interesting. I actually didn't know this. So which country is it actually a part of? Egypt? Some sort of independent Palestine?

The only possible option is Britain, but it ceded this territory as well, so it cannot be.

The word games continue. I specifically asked you whether Gaza was an independent country or not. Your response, if this is your position, should have been a firm no. Instead you repeatedly tried to argue that it was de-facto independent while carefully ducking any attempt to clarify.

I did explain why. Half a dozen times by now. But you did not ask any follow-up questions. You just ignored the explanation.
It is de facto independent for the purpose of internal affairs. But it is not a sovereign state with recognized borders.

Do you need a refresher on the Oslo Accords of 1993, the Disengagement Plan of 2005, and the Hamas uprising in 2007?

Hence why my response was to your position on relations between Gaza and Israel as being two independent countries.

Gaza is not an independent country, emphasis country.

Granting Gaza independence would be also granting them the right to elect Hamas if they so choose, and dealing with them as anyone would with another independent country.

Israel has dealt with them as though they were an independent country. From the perspective of international law, that would be following legal guidelines not in technicality but in spirit.
But Gaza is technically not a state.

You have heard many argument and have hand-waved them away. I think repeating this would be pointless.

You just said it's illegal but that's not a complete argument for why it shouldn't be done.
Israel evacuated its citizens from Gaza in 2005. Technically to avoid it being labeled ethnic cleansing, it must grant them the right of return.

It's not illegal, it's impossible. It's like purchasing something you already own.

It's technically not impossible. Annexing is to add something. Gaza is formally not within Israel's declared borders. Therefore the action of re-adding it, would literally be annexation.
But instead of following a proper annexation law, it could simply be done by nullifying a withdrawal law.

If you had all along meant that Gaza was a piece of Israel, you wouldn't have brought up annexation.

Annexation is the most commonly recognized word for adding territory to state borders.
Which euphemism would you prefer?

I think you're moving the goalposts again. 2kms is a very different number from North Gaza, which isn't just a geographic term but to the best of my knowledge refers to specific area more like ~6 kms deep.

Northern Gaza is generally recognized as the area between Gaza's northern border and Wadi Aza, a small river running across Gaza's width, splitting it.
It is 16-17km deep.
2km is a perimeter set around Gaza from every direction, not just north.
But the northern Gaza is important to Israel for several reasons:

1. Distance between Gaza and major cities Ashkelon and Ashdod.
2. Keeping them safe not only from artillery but also infiltration.
3. Changing the formula with Palestinian terrorism.
4. If death and destruction won't deter them, perhaps losing territory will.
5. Having less territory means higher risk and vulnerability to civil unrest.
6. It also means it's easier to monitor Hamas.
7. And finally lower manpower cost.

I certainly don't consume MSM so I can't speak to that. But there is a history of Israeli settler expansion you can't deny, which raises issues as mentioned above. And the fact that it's at the bottom of Israeli concerns probably leads to it being allowed to go on more than it should.

Then why was the last territorial change in 1993?

Was your entire point that it's better for Israel to annex Gaza because the Israeli people would get to decide on this through their elected respresentatives? If so, the argument is absurd

No, my argument is that it's always better to pass decisions through parliament and not through an executive decision (presidential or prime minister's order) because it is more difficult to overrule and gives an actual framework to things.
In this case it'd be better for the Knesset to nullify the 2005 Disengagement Law, instead of a cabinet decision to just keep troops there.

The reason you can't just annex northern Gaza is because it's either already part of Israel and therefore can't be annexed by Israel, or it's not part of Israel and is therefore the sovereign territory of another state whose territorial integrity Israel is obligated to respect by virtue of the UN Charter

You should realize that these are not the only 2 states of being of a territory.
Bir Tawil for example is a territory between Egypt and Sudan not claimed by any country.

What is it de jure?

De facto and de jure are respectively "in fact" and "by law".
In fact, I am having a BBQ on my front lawn.
By law, this lawn is listed as municipal, not individual, property, and they can turn it into parking space if they want.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The permanent occupation and annexation of northern Gaza is the centerpiece of a plan presented and articulated by retired general Giora Eiland.
Its main purpose was a pressure campaign against Hamas and an exit from the stalemate. If Hamas agrees, we get the hostages. If they don't, we at least get strategic depth while they get cramped, pressure cooking them until they finally relent.

Now that a deal is seen as feasible within the next days-weeks, Eiland proposes the lower bar of acceptable conditions Israel could set:

1. Financial pipeline to Hamas be shut down.
2. Egypt to lead reconstruction.
3. Coalition of Arab states to aid in setting up local government and civic services.
4. Gaza to remain demilitarized.

He did not elaborate on the level of Israeli involvement, but it is implied that Israel would enforce #4.

GHF has been the best leverage against Hamas. But evidently not enough. The IDF has amassed 5 divisions including 15 brigade combat teams for a complete occupation of Gaza and a pressure campaign ahead of negotiations.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Footage showing IDF airstrikes in Iran during ORL.
We see 1 munition and 2 impacts.
First in distance shows a horizontal blast column coming from a building, indicating shallow angle of entry, detonation inside building, and blast contained in a single floor.

Second is some form of penetrating munition, could be a 2,000lbs BLU-109.
This rules out the possibility of targeting VIPs inside the cars.
The natural assumption might be a bunker, but it is also possible the target was some kind of communications node or junction.
Classified information is typically transferred over cable, even for long distances.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1940726940530524402

EDIT: Speculation online about this being a JDAM, not a SPICE. In that case it could be a miss, which is unlikely but requires more info.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Outline of the American proposal as published in media:

Israeli side:

1. Day 1 - 8 living hostages.
2. Day 7 - 5 hostages' bodies.
3. Day 30 - 5 hostages' bodies.
4. Day 50 - 2 living hostages.
5. Day 60 - 8 hostages' bodies.

This is approximately half of the remaining hostages in Gaza.

Palestinian side:

1. Day 1 - IDF withdrawal from northern Gaza.
2. Day 7 - IDF withdrawal from southern Gaza.
3. Post-deal negotiations will resume about withdrawal borders.
4. Israeli commitment to provide information on Gazan prisoners arrested since October 7th 2023.
5. American commitment to resume negotiations to achieve permanent ceasefire.
6. GHF replaced with UNRWA and ICRC.

 

[SinisterMinister]

Interesting. I actually didn't know this. So which country is it actually a part of? Egypt? Some sort of independent Palestine?

It is occupied Palestinian territory (set aside for the creation of a Palestinian state by the UN partition plan and upheld as thus ever since) from which Israel has been legally obligated to withdraw since 1967 per security council resolution 242

Resolution 242 (1967) /

digitallibrary.un.org

Recently reaffirmed by the ICJ in 2024, along with the continued conclusion that Israel is and has been the occupying power in Gaza

Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024 | INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

www.icj-cij.org

Egypt occupied it in 1948 with the full recognition that they were doing so on behalf of the Palestinian people.

Israel's borders in general are quite murky legally since they have never been established properly via treaty, apart from the borders with Jordan and Egypt. But the Oslo accords make quite clear that Israel itself recognizes that Gaza and the West Bank are Palestinian territory. Israel to my knowledge has never made any formal claim on Gaza or the West Bank as Israeli territory.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

@SinisterMinister The UN Partition Plan of 1947 is a bilateral plan which was only accepted by Israel and rejected by Palestinian leadership.
Treaties require the agreement of involved parties. Therefore it never went into effect.

Israel's borders can only be set by international law, or via treaty. Since Israel never signed any such treaty that involves Gaza, its borders are set by international law. Which is inheritance.

 

[John Fedup]

I have come to the conclusion that a law degree is required for this thread but my time would better spent at the pub rather than returning to Uni.

 

[Feanor]

@SinisterMinister The UN Partition Plan of 1947 is a bilateral plan which was only accepted by Israel and rejected by Palestinian leadership.
Treaties require the agreement of involved parties. Therefore it never went into effect.

Israel's borders can only be set by international law, or via treaty. Since Israel never signed any such treaty that involves Gaza, its borders are set by international law. Which is inheritance.

Except UN Security Council resolutions are binding on all members. As far as any UN member states are concerned, they are international law.

 

[SinisterMinister]

@SinisterMinister The UN Partition Plan of 1947 is a bilateral plan which was only accepted by Israel and rejected by Palestinian leadership.
Treaties require the agreement of involved parties. Therefore it never went into effect.

Israel's borders can only be set by international law, or via treaty. Since Israel never signed any such treaty that involves Gaza, its borders are set by international law. Which is inheritance.

From the perspective of international law, the partition plan establishes the precedent that has clearly been upheld by numerous ICJ rulings and UN resolutions ever since. It is claimed by the Palestinians. It is not claimed by Israel. "Inheritance" has little to do with international law regarding this matter. The ICJ on the other hand, has much to do with it.

“The Court considers that the violations by Israel of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force and of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination have a direct impact on the legality of the continued presence of Israel, as an occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying Power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful.
This illegality relates to the entirety of the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel in 1967. This is the territorial unit across which Israel has imposed policies and practices to fragment and frustrate the ability of the Palestinian people to exercise its right to self-determination, and over large swathes of which it has extended Israeli sovereignty in violation of international law. The entirety of the Occupied Palestinian Territory is also the territory in relation to which the Palestinian people should be able to exercise its right to self-determination, the integrity of which must be respected.
Responding to an argument made by three participants, the Court observes that the Oslo Accords do not permit Israel to annex parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory in order to meet its
security needs. Nor do they authorize Israel to maintain a permanent presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory for such security needs.”

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Except UN Security Council resolutions are binding on all members. As far as any UN member states are concerned, they are international law.

Binding resolutions are the exception, not the rule when it comes to UNSC.
AFAIK there are multiple debate items where resolutions are issued, and binding ones are only in one of these items.

Also the resolution itself, if binding, must have an operative clause. What is the operative clause of the given resolution?

From the perspective of international law, the partition plan establishes the precedent that has clearly been upheld by numerous ICJ rulings and UN resolutions ever since. It is claimed by the Palestinians. It is not claimed by Israel. "Inheritance" has nothing to do with international law. The ICJ on the other hand, does.

“The Court considers that the violations by Israel of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force and of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination have a direct impact on the legality of the continued presence of Israel, as an occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying Power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful.
This illegality relates to the entirety of the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel in 1967. This is the territorial unit across which Israel has imposed policies and practices to fragment and frustrate the ability of the Palestinian people to exercise its right to self-determination, and over large swathes of which it has extended Israeli sovereignty in violation of international law. The entirety of the Occupied Palestinian Territory is also the territory in relation to which the Palestinian people should be able to exercise its right to self-determination, the integrity of which must be respected.
Responding to an argument made by three participants, the Court observes that the Oslo Accords do not permit Israel to annex parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory in order to meet its
security needs. Nor do they authorize Israel to maintain a permanent presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory for such security needs.”

What precedent?

Inheritance is enshrined in the principle of Uti Possidetis Juris, through which states defined their borders both before and long after Israel did. Ukraine and Jordan are examples that were raised and explained here.