Zach Fiksel

I'm the best thing ever. Or not. I forget which.

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@Hiddengems506 Canadas recognition of Palestinian statehood has explicit caveats that must first be met - NONE of which have. As such, Canada has not fully recognized Palestine and the flag raising is therefore an illegal display of support for a terrorist organization.

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@EPoliciesE @Reuters obviously you didn’t study very hard then. Because people who really DID study, like John Spencer, know the truth, and I quote, “Israel Implemented More Measures to Prevent Civilian Casualties Than Any Other Nation in History” he wrote in Newsweek. Maybe you need to get a clue

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@HarebellCa @ariellakimmel @JPTasker 16 So, through the lens of international law and the laws of armed conflict, Israel and the Jewish people have every right to the land in Israel proper, as well as Gaza, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as well as all of Jerusalem.

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@HarebellCa @ariellakimmel @JPTasker 15 As such, when they renounced claim to it when they made peace with Israel, it became sovereign Israeli territory according to international law. It therefore cannot be considered occupied as the uncontested previous owners gave it up.

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@HarebellCa @ariellakimmel @JPTasker 14 The same with Jordan making peace with Israel in ‘94. Jordan’s control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem form 1955-1994 was uncontested.

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@HarebellCa @ariellakimmel @JPTasker 13 Because Egypt was the previous holder of that land, and because they held that land uncontested, it was Egypt’s protective and legal right to do with it as they pleased. So Gaza cannot be occupied because the previous undisputed owners of the land renounced their claim to it.

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@HarebellCa @ariellakimmel @JPTasker 12 It is also important to note that when Egypt and Jordan controlled Gaza, East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, there was no claim that that land belongs to a people referred to as Palestinians. As well, when Egypt made peace with Israel in ‘79, Egypt renounced claim to Gaza.

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@HarebellCa @ariellakimmel @JPTasker 11 So the fact that Israel preemptively struck Egypt’s airforce instalments was not actually the beginning of hostilities. As such, the territory gained from the war of ‘67 was also legal according to international law.

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@HarebellCa @ariellakimmel @JPTasker 10 Further, the UN peacekeeping force on the frontier that was placed to maintain the peace was ordered out of the country by Egypt’s president. It was abundantly clear that war was afoot, and the actions in the strait of tiran already constituted an act of war.

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@HarebellCa @ariellakimmel @JPTasker 9 As such, Egypt’s actions constitutes an act of war. Further, Egypt amassed a huge military buildup on the frontier with Israel and repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map and force the Jews into the sea.

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@HarebellCa @ariellakimmel @JPTasker 8 After the military flare up between Egypt and Israel in the 50s, conditions of the end of hostilities stated that Egypt could not prevent Israel and its shipping from accessing the Straits of Tiran. However, in ‘67 that is exactly what Egypt did.

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@HarebellCa @ariellakimmel @JPTasker 7 Fast forward to ‘67 - people argue that Israel was not in a defensive position because they launched a preemptive strike. However, in this situation Israel was again in a defensive war and they were not the aggressors.

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@HarebellCa @ariellakimmel @JPTasker 6 Israel was therefore engaged in a DEFENSIVE WAR. According to the rules of armed conflict, land can be acquired in war, provided the nation is not the aggressor. Israel’s borders at the end of the war of independence is perfectly legal according to international law.

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@HarebellCa @ariellakimmel @JPTasker 5 The result was that in ‘48 the Jewish people declared independence in accordance with the UN partition plan - which was legal as it was previously ratified by the UN. The moment that happened, the surrounding Arab nations launched a genocidal war against the Jewish people.

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@HarebellCa @ariellakimmel @JPTasker 4 The UN, rather than granting the Jews the land earmarked for them, decided to FURTHER PARTITION the land and split the remaining 22% into 2 parts (with Jerusalem as an international city). even though the land was now smaller, the Jews agreed, yet again the Arabs did not.

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@HarebellCa @ariellakimmel @JPTasker 3 78% of the mandate became Jordan and was taken over by the hashemites. The remaining 22% was for the Jewish people, but the Arabs would not accept that, the issue was never resolved and Britain eventually handed the responsibility over to the UN in the 40s.

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@HarebellCa @ariellakimmel @JPTasker 2 After WW1, the ruling power of the area became Britain. At the San Remo conference Britain decided to partition the land in 2 parts, one for Arabs and one for the Jewish people. The ottoman’s lost the land and Britain had control, so in the scope of this argument, it was theirs

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@HarebellCa @ariellakimmel @JPTasker 1 - if you look at land rights through a different lens, such as how the rest of the entire world’s borders were created: through conflict, war and, eventually, negotiation, Israel too in this situation is legitimized.

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@HarebellCa @ariellakimmel @JPTasker Ok so let's base the claim on something more tangeable. I agree with you. The "who was there first" argument is only one facet supporti g Israel's legitimacy. Let's look at another perspective (see my forthcoming responses):

[Zach Fiksel @TheFiks]

@HarebellCa @ariellakimmel @JPTasker Ok bud. I can say the same to you. You're full of shit. This is a waste of time.