Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
If a country cannot enforce its own laws effectively, and it leads to conflict across sovereign borders, the second sovereign actor has every right to occupy said country to provide for the defense of its people. The only legal obligation a state has is to its people, there is no higher order then the state, no international authority that makes "occupation" illegal or any other sovereign action as such.
|
Is the essence of what you are saying here that it’s not a matter of right and wrong in the eyes of the international community, because no one will have a countries best interest in mind other than the country itself? So then right and wrong out of it, does the bottom line represent when (as been the theme for much of history)- the one with the bigger guns is the one that’s right. I say this because occupants of the settlements- especially in the West Bank (I leave the label illegal / legal off) expand their lands via migration of temporary fencing. This will only accelerate as time goes on. Obviously the expansion is colliding with other indigenous occupants. One can only attempt to guess how either side will feel when approaching each other about this issue. The difference is- some (not all) possibly even far and few between. . . that because the country is that is going to contribute the kind of support I think you are mentioning happens to be Israel, the settler (many- immigrants) have the right to expand their land, the previous owner becomes labeled a terrorist if ANY resistance shown.
Are you stating the settlement expansion at the cost of indigenous occupants can’t be seen as illegal or legal by outside countries with any foundation because they are not Israeli? When conversing with others that have similar views the fact of the expansion remains a key issue that seems to be avoided. Do you think it’s because of the underlying nature of what it really means? Defining what "it" means is a cross between a mathematical equation (population growth vs. land /2) and a reflection of early American history perhaps.
Rockets hurling into towns is terrible. I've been in a couple of bomb shelters in that region (not during shelling), I can imagine how difficult it would be to be cooped up or getting flyers falling from the sky stating "get out were about to bomb the shit out of your house." Not taking any loss of life for granted, I don’t see what recently happened as "the big one". My question is if / when the "big one" happens what do you think the chances that will become WWWIII, if any?