"will of the people" argument

And also, International law doesn't forbids a country from annexing territory (occupied by another country) that was previously part of its administrative boundaries because that simply isn't the case. Annexing territory that wasn't part of the administrative boundaries is illegal but reclaiming territory that was part of the administrative borders at independence is allowed. Israel's borders were determined by Uti Posidetis Juris because the Palestinians wouldn't negotiate and started a war. Israel lost the West Bank when Jordan annexed it. In the war in 1967, Israel reclaimed the West Bank. Let's look at a very similar example. Ukraine’s borders at independence in 1991 were defined by the administrative boundaries of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (Ukrainian SSR) upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union (Uti Posidetis Juris). The recognized boundaries inherited from the USSR, including Crimea (transferred to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954) and all eastern/southern oblasts. However, in March 2014, Crimea was annexed by Russia. Now I am sure that everyone would not object to Ukraine reclaiming that territory. I would assume that that logic should also apply to the West Bank. If Jordan annexed the West Bank and Israel got it back, there should be no backlash, yet for some reason this double standard exists.

Also, Israel gave autonomy to the West Bank in 1994, transferring power to the PLO in 1994 with the Oslo accords. Israel maintains military presence because if a group of terrorists want to attack the capital via the West Bank, they don't want to give the aggressors a direct path to the capital city. Also, with a history of the PLO condoning terrorism, the Israeli government did not trust that the PLO would prevent such attacks on the capital.

And whether you like it or not, almost every country in the world formed with displacement of some people as a byproduct. India and Pakistan is a great example of this and if you go back in history far enough, almost every country was formed with the byproduct of some people getting displaced. The US was formed with the byproduct of displacing Indians further westward throughout the 19th century. Does that mean that every country shouldn't exist and we should give the land back to its original inhabitants? No, that would be absurd. Most displaced people have moved on. Millions of Germans were displaced during and after WW2 because of the retreating German army, the advance of Soviet forces (causing panic-driven flight), and a systematic, Allied-sanctioned post-war expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe. Another example was when Mexico lost the Southwest to the US in 1848. The Mexicans didn't want to lose it but you don't hear any Mexican chanting "from the Rio Grande to Portland Oregon (Oregon and Washington weren't separate at that time)". Displacement of people in the West Bank and Gaza occurred during wars. In 1948, the Palestinians started a war, and lost. In 1967, they started another war, and lost. This occurred again and again in 1973, 1982, 2000, 2006, 2008, 2012, 2014, 2021, and in 2023 (current conflict). I have never heard of a law that states that you can start a war, and when you are losing it, you can pretend as if you never started it. I mean what was Hamas thinking? When they crossed the border into Israel they killed 1200, wounded at least 2400 (lowest estimate I could find) and took hostages. Hamas knew that they couldn't overthrow Israel in the attack and they also knew that by taking more than 200 hostages, they forced the IDF to go after them. And by not returning the hostages, that prolonged the conflict.

Lastly, I just want to clarify that my main critique of your previous comment was about the enrichment. I did not intend to start debating about history.

""attacking a bus with Jewish civilians" * Yes, but the creation of the state of Israel was forced by a campaign of terrorism like the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946." It wasn't a campaign of terrorism. The attack was aimed at dismantling British control after Operation Agatha conducted by the British. The fact is that whether you like it or not, instead of starting a war of annihilation, the Palestinian authorities should have negotiated and proposed an alternative to the UN partition plan because otherwise, Uti Posidetis Juris would be the default rule that decides Israel's borders. And also, International law doesn't forbids a country from annexing territory (occupied by another country) that was previously part of its administrative boundaries because that simply isn't the case. Annexing territory that wasn't part of the administrative boundaries is illegal but reclaiming territory that was part of the administrative borders at independence is allowed. Israel's borders were determined by Uti Posidetis Juris because the Palestinians wouldn't negotiate and started a war. Israel lost the West Bank when Jordan annexed it. In the war in 1967, Israel reclaimed the West Bank. Let's look at a very similar example. Ukraine’s borders at independence in 1991 were defined by the administrative boundaries of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (Ukrainian SSR) upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union (Uti Posidetis Juris). The recognized boundaries inherited from the USSR, including Crimea (transferred to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954) and all eastern/southern oblasts. However, in March 2014, Crimea was annexed by Russia. Now I am sure that everyone would not object to Ukraine reclaiming that territory. I would assume that that logic should also apply to the West Bank. If Jordan annexed the West Bank and Israel got it back, there should be no backlash, yet for some reason this double standard exists. Also, Israel gave autonomy to the West Bank in 1994, transferring power to the PLO in 1994 with the Oslo accords. Israel maintains military presence because if a group of terrorists want to attack the capital via the West Bank, they don't want to give the aggressors a direct path to the capital city. Also, with a history of the PLO condoning terrorism, the Israeli government did not trust that the PLO would prevent such attacks on the capital. And whether you like it or not, almost every country in the world formed with displacement of some people as a byproduct. India and Pakistan is a great example of this and if you go back in history far enough, almost every country was formed with the byproduct of some people getting displaced. The US was formed with the byproduct of displacing Indians further westward throughout the 19th century. Does that mean that every country shouldn't exist and we should give the land back to its original inhabitants? No, that would be absurd. Most displaced people have moved on. Millions of Germans were displaced during and after WW2 because of the retreating German army, the advance of Soviet forces (causing panic-driven flight), and a systematic, Allied-sanctioned post-war expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe. Another example was when Mexico lost the Southwest to the US in 1848. The Mexicans didn't want to lose it but you don't hear any Mexican chanting "from the Rio Grande to Portland Oregon (Oregon and Washington weren't separate at that time)". Displacement of people in the West Bank and Gaza occurred during wars. In 1948, the Palestinians started a war, and lost. In 1967, they started another war, and lost. This occurred again and again in 1973, 1982, 2000, 2006, 2008, 2012, 2014, 2021, and in 2023 (current conflict). I have never heard of a law that states that you can start a war, and when you are losing it, you can pretend as if you never started it. I mean what was Hamas thinking? When they crossed the border into Israel they killed 1200, wounded at least 2400 (lowest estimate I could find) and took hostages. Hamas knew that they couldn't overthrow Israel in the attack and they also knew that by taking more than 200 hostages, they forced the IDF to go after them. And by not returning the hostages, that prolonged the conflict. Lastly, I just want to clarify that my main critique of your previous comment was about the enrichment. I did not intend to start debating about history.

Your network blocks the Lichess assets!