Picture *Insert Country Here* invading Northern Israel – ignore reasons for a moment, just picture the situation of an occupied Northern Israel. *Insert Country Here* then starts Selling bits of Northern Israel off for cash, often to nationalistic settlers who claim to own Northern Israel for *insert historical reason* (or, if you prefer, grating ‘permits’ in return for ‘fees’). No law on earth outside *Insert Country* recognises any right to sell, or grant rights over, Northern Israel but still, it’s doing it. Peace talks start and Israel of course says “you must cease selling pieces of Northern Israel, not simply because you’ve previously said you would, because it isn't your land, you have no rights whatsoever to sell parts of Northern Israel, and by doing so you are setting up future conflict because many of those people claim they own these bits of Northern Israel and say they’ll fight for it. I fear, when violence erupts over land rights in future, when settlers kill and a few are killed, you won’t acknowledge this conflict was created by your unlawful selling off of Northern Israel, you’ll just point at the people who killed the settlers and say ‘terrorists. The war is on again’”. *Insert Country* says no, we are permitted to sell pieces of Northern Israel to our people and Insert Countryans are permitted to build homes in Northern Israel until we come to a peace agreement. But I might consider not selling any more bits for the next three months if *3rd Country* releases an Insert Countryan prisoner convicted of espionage (let’s call him Shanunu)… Does anyone pretend Israel would or should accept this argument? Or pretend that it is even slightly sensible? I think not, I think no one would imagine Israel should allow another country to sell bits of Northern Israel seized in armed conflict, regardless of what 3rd countries did at the time or since.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg to give away 99 percent of fortune ($45b) to charity (AP)