Supported by some Israelis and Jewish people. Remember, their Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated by the Israeli far-right because they were fiercely against the Oslo Accord negotiations with Palestinians. Netanyahu doesn't believe in a two-state solution, because Ben-Gvir is in his cabinet, he dismissed Gallant, a two-state moderate, and just promoted two fierce one-state supporters to the next highest levels in cabinet.
Israel is still on track to increase one-state annexation because there isn't a majority of Israelis who desire two-state enough to throw them out.
I don't disagree. But two wrongs don't add up to one right, so nobody is really looking at the current situation as a net-positive. Israel is a colonial state that currently has a long way to go in renouncing the territory they do not rightfully own. It's the majority opinion, not an extremist or misconstrued take. Nobody ever had to "develop the idea" because it has been said by every single country that is not Israel or the United States.
Israel is a member of the UN and the ICJ, the UN has several resolutions ordering Israel to stop their colonial conduct, and the ICJ has a couple of rulings ordering the same. Most relevant here is Israel’s participation of the fourth Geneva convention which forbids moving civilian populations to and from occupied areas, this makes all Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Golan Heights (and probably also East Jerusalem) illegal. The ICC does not need to rule on this as the criminal conduct here is government policy, and Israel needs to stop it.
Do you know what other countries are not respecting UN resolutions? So, Israel is part of many countries not accepting UN resolutions, and instead of saying "Israel needs to stop it" you should mention every country that is not respecting UN resolutions and acting similarly.
Nobody here is trying to appeal to higher authority, really. The UN is relevant insofar as it represents the concerns of the rest of the world, and the decorum they consider acceptable for international conduct. You don't have to defend Israel's digressions here, but it certainly would help make your argument more accessible. Defending everything Israel and the IDF has done is not something even the most die-hard Zionist apologists will do.
Israel has a responsibility to end their colonial ambitions regardless of how other nations feel about it. If they do not rise above the conditions of unjust political persecution that necessitated the creation of Israel in the first place, they are bound to succumb to it's failures as an unsustainable double standard.
I don't see the world in that way. I think that if you really want a change you should go and fight or be a political incumbent to influence on an outcome.
The thing about an occupation, is there is no political avenue for the occupied to get rid of the occupation, except via the UN through resolutions, or via an arbitration through the ICJ. The only other alternative here is direct action, including violent and non-violent resistance.
Israel is not abiding to UN resolutions, nor ICJ arbitration, and it is non-violent resistance have so far been met with violence by the occupier. That does not leave many option for Palestinians, does it. And I would certainly say Palestinians have fought, and tried to get rid of the occupation that way. Personally, I really wished Israel would have responded to the non-violent option. A lot of lives would have been spared. And, that is sort of the point of the UN in the first place.
Now, that it is clear that your arguments give the UN the top hand on international legal issues, I understand that you will support legal cases like this in case they win [1], is that right? One of the proof that the conflict goes beyond Palestinians and Israelis.
You've taken this discussion entirely off the rails. This started by you facetiously asking for an explanation of how Israel is a colonial power despite knowing fully well that it is one. When it was explained to you, you didn't try refuting the colonial accusations but instead tried to push the blame on the rest of the world. This is unacceptable; Israel is responsible for their own actions regardless of who they answer to.
Surely you must understand how this entitled anecdotal "whataboutism" doesn't revise or justify the nationalist actions Israel took. You haven't denied or even expressed regret at any of the relevant accusations made in this thread; if the UN Ambassador of Israel acted this way, their peers would probably take it as an admission of guilt.
I’m confused, this is a private suite filed at the US federal courts about alleged donations to a terrorist group. It is not an arbitration settling disputes between states where one state has violated multiple agreements they have signed.
Iran does not recognize Hamas as a terrorist group, they don’t have any laws nor international agreements where they promised they wouldn’t send Hamas money. They may be breaking US law by this, but that is not comparable to Israel breaking the fourth Geneva convention on the rights and obligation of occupied territories. Israel has signed the fourth Geneva convention and have promised not to move citizens to and from occupied territories, they have also promised to keep occupation as a temporary state.
And to stay on topic of colonization. Moving money to a terrorist group is not a colonial behavior. Prolonging occupation, annexing occupied territories, and settling occupied territories is textbook colonization through military conquest.
EDIT: And on the topic of funneling money to foreign agents. International law is pretty clear that you are supposed prevent genocide, and that complicity with genocide is punishable equal to genocide (1948 genocide convention; Article III (e)). The USA giving money and weapons to Israel is not only breaking the Genocide convention, but also several of their own laws, including the Leahy Law.
I think you were gonna try a gatcha with me and accuse me of a double standard, but it is hard to find a more clear case of double standard as withing USA, and how they apply their own laws in foreign policy.
