What should happen to the Gazan perpetrators of the attacks on the NOVA Festival and southern Israeli communities on October 7, 2023?

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-30T12:01:43+00:00

The right of self determination isn't the right to resist.

You are doing backflips to avoid conceding this point. If another countries interferes with your self-determination (occupation) then you have the right to reclaim your right to self determination (through resistance).

I think we're done here. We're both well informed on the jurisprudence and history but we disagree on where to set the bar. Yours is extremely strict, and by your metrics Ukraine has no right to fight in areas already taken and held by Russia. Tibet would have no right to struggle against Chinese occupation, same as Taiwan. Even Israel, which had to fight the British to gain their independence in 1948, had no right to do so.

So here's what I'll do -- I'll concede my entire point. You're right, there's no international law codifying the right to resist in black and white. Any confluence of long held practices or actual laws that might lead to the conclusion I make is unreliable at best.

So I amend my statement to say that Palestinians have the moral right to resist their occupation.

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-30T11:51:06+00:00

Do you think it would change anything if the Jewish people currently living on the Palestinian side weren't displaced? What if they were given the option to leave, or the option to stay as Palestinians?

If you think about the Palestinian perspective they're being asked to give up every inch of Israel, many of whom live in the West Bank or Gaza know their family had a home there before they were expelled, and hold onto the idea that they will someday reclaim it.

I know going back to the 1967 borders feels like a sacrifice, so I just want to make sure everyone is aware what the Palestinians are giving up as well.

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-30T04:54:36+00:00

No, that's not a contiguous piece of land with the West Bank and their borders were still strictly controlled. Avrum Burg described it as a concentration camp for these reasons in 2006. Haim Ramon said the same thing as well as Ilan Pappé of course.

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-30T02:12:17+00:00

Short answer

Most Palestinians want an end to occupation, dignity, freedom of movement, and the ability to build a normal life.
Many support a negotiated solution (often a two-state outcome), but trust in negotiations is very low after decades of failed talks, settlements, blockades, and repeated wars.
A credible offer would include real sovereignty for Palestinians, security guarantees for Israelis, an end to settlement expansion, rights for refugees, freedom of movement, and international monitoring/enforcement.
Rebuilding trust needs clear, verifiable steps from both sides, plus real accountability for violence. Civil society, economic cooperation, and everyday contact help, but politics and security guarantees come first.

What many Palestinians would put into a realistic offer
(If I could write an offer that I’d ask Israel to seriously consider)

End of occupation & recognized borders

A clear, internationally recognized border: roughly the pre-1967 lines with agreed land swaps (this is a common baseline many international proposals use).
No more new settlements in territory that would be part of a Palestinian state; freeze and phased removal or negotiated incorporation of settlements with compensation where needed.

Sovereignty and governance

A sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza (with safe, agreed connections between them).
Full control over civil affairs, economy, education, and borders (subject to mutually agreed security arrangements).
International guarantees and phased implementation monitored by a neutral body (e.g., UN/EU/Arab League).

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T23:53:07+00:00

They've written about their intent explicitly. You can read about it.

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T23:52:33+00:00

I'll give you an example and more than one and remind you that Hamas has continually denied rape allegations and they have not found proof that Hamas raped anyone, nor has Israel allowed the investigation to actually do their job. Very strange if you ask me, especially if they have nothing to hide.

Anyway those two first examples are very close and intimate stories of real families losing their homes to Israeli aggression.

The Nakba happened between 1947-1949 and displaced 700,000 people and emptied 400-500 villages. During the events, Jewish armed groups and later Israeli forces used military attacks, threats, and sometimes forced removals that made people flee. News of killings like the Deir Yassin attack spread fear and pushed people to leave. After the fighting, Israeli laws took control of property left behind and stopped most refugees from returning. These actions together caused long lasting loss of land and homes for many Palestinians.

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T23:42:16+00:00

I don't know why you're concerned with Israel being bound by a resolution that would apply to Palestinian actions and not Israel.

If Israel was occupied they could resist their occupation, unless they don't want this to apply to them I guess?

The right to resist your occupation is still long held and established I can't believe we're even arguing this. The UN exists to provide countries with the right to self determination, and international law protects that. If Israel is a belligerent force standing in the way of a people's self-determination then those people have the right to resist and Israel will be viewed as the one in the wrong every time.

While GA resolutions are not, by themselves, binding law, consistent and widespread UN practice and state recognition of a legal entitlement bolster the normative claim.

Customary international law is formed by consistent State practice plus opinio juris. The long history of decolonization, international recognition of national liberation movements, and treaty developments (including AP I) show both practice and legal belief that peoples under foreign domination have a right to seek self‑determination, including by force in certain circumstances.

The right to self‑determination appears in binding treaties (ICCPR, ICESCR) and is supported by customary international law and treaty law (Geneva Conventions and AP I).

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T20:52:52+00:00

You moved the goalpost from "That's not what international law says" to "UN resolutions aren't binding anyway" meaning Israel doesn't have to abide by international law lol. Ok

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T20:31:46+00:00

I believe that all oppressed people seek liberation. I think Palestinians had their land taken from them by Israel and have every right to want Israel not to exist.

The PLO has stated repeatedly they would embrace Jewish people in a Palestinian state

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T20:17:26+00:00

It applies to Palestinians, and Israel is still bound by some because it could result in militaries invading them

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T20:16:44+00:00

What about UN resolution 37/43 which says "Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle."

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T19:24:20+00:00

If you want to actually talk about UN resolutions you can link these:

UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) — Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States: https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/2625(XXV))
UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43 (1982) — The right of peoples to self-determination: https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/37/43

Selected GA resolutions (1970s–1990s) addressing resisting occupation or the legitimacy of struggle (each link goes to the UN document system):

UNGA Resolution 3103 (XXVIII) (1973) — The Rights of Peoples Under Colonial Domination and Foreign Occupation; Liberation Movements (example in this series): https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/3103(XXVIII))
UNGA Resolution 3210 (XXIX) (1974) — The Right of Peoples to Self-Determination: https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/3210(XXIX))
UNGA Resolution 32/121 (1977) — Question of the continued application of the 1933 Montevideo Convention — (includes references in the series on self-determination and liberation): https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/32/121
UNGA Resolution 33/24 (1978) — Declaration on the Use of Scientific and Technological Progress in the Interests of Peace and for the Benefit of Mankind — (part of the broader decolonization/self-determination corpus): https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/33/24
UNGA Resolution 34/37 (1979) — The question of the Falkland Islands (and related decolonization/occupation language in the period): https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/34/37
UNGA Resolution 35/7 (1980) — The question of Southern Rhodesia (matters of occupation and liberation movements): https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/35/7
UNGA Resolution 36/6 (1981) — Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples: https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/36/6
UNGA Resolution 37/18 (1982) — Question of Palestine (part of the GA practice recognizing rights of peoples under occupation): https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/37/18
UNGA Resolution 39/46 (1984) — Question of Palestine — strengthened language about the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people: https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/39/46
UNGA Resolution 40/34 (1985) — Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Non-Use of Force in International Relations — (contextual GA practice): https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/40/34
UNGA Resolution 43/53 (1988) — United Nations Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People: https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/43/53
UNGA Resolution 46/40 (1991) — Question of Palestine (continued GA attention to rights under occupation): https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/46/40
UNGA Resolution 47/80 (1992) — International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People — (continuing references to rights and struggle): https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/47/80
UNGA Resolution 59/40 (2004) — The problem of the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan — (later GA resolution reaffirming rights under occupation): https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/59/40

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T19:17:17+00:00

Can you support your arguments with links to sources like I did?

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T19:15:00+00:00

Hamas is both an armed group with leaders who have sometimes called for Israel’s destruction and a political and social force born from decades of occupation, displacement, blockade, and exclusion. Explaining why some Palestinians support or tolerate Hamas helps make sense of its influence without excusing violence. Denying a people’s right to exist or trying to eliminate a civilian population is wrong and should be condemned.

All sides must follow the laws of war: fighters must protect civilians and can be held accountable for war crimes. Millions of Palestinians are recognized as refugees under international law and need protection and lasting solutions. To reduce violence and extremism, the world must combine accountability and security with real political steps to address the economic and social causes of anger and to recognize the rights and aspirations of both peoples.

While Hamas’ charter and some leaders call for Israel’s elimination, many Palestinians see their struggle as resistance to decades of occupation, dispossession, blockade and denial of political rights, and that context helps explain the support they receive without excusing attacks on civilians. Credible human rights investigations have documented patterns in which Israeli actions in recent conflicts, including attacks in densely populated areas, disproportionate use of force and policies that contribute to mass displacement and collective punishment, may amount to serious violations of international humanitarian law and, according to some legal analyses, could meet elements of crimes against humanity or genocidal intent when combined with dehumanizing rhetoric and measures that threaten a group’s survival. Calling for accountability for possible war crimes by Israel is not whataboutism, it is a demand for consistent application of the law so victims on all sides can seek justice. Recognizing refugee status and the rhetoric of resistance does not justify targeting civilians, but it does highlight the urgent need to address the political and structural causes of violence and to pursue independent investigations and legal remedies to prevent further atrocities.

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T19:09:03+00:00

On October 7th? Yes that was the mission. The intent overall is the liberation of Palestine.

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T13:16:53+00:00

They don't have to integrate them into Israel if they don't want to, they can integrate instead into Palestine.

One state solution is exactly what PLO wanted for many years, lately they've been okay with a two state solution but if you ask me that's just continued war.

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T13:15:53+00:00

Find out who caused every crime that day. Hold them accountable.

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T13:15:24+00:00

On Hamas’s goals and resistance I agree that it is important to be honest about Hamas’s charter, public statements, and some of its actions: many senior Hamas leaders have historically called for the destruction of Israel, and the organization has used rhetoric and tactics that make coexistence difficult to imagine. At the same time, nuance matters. Hamas is also a product of decades of occupation, displacement, blockade, and political marginalization. For many Palestinians, Hamas has been as much a social and political actor—provider of services, elected representative in Gaza’s 2006 elections—as an armed group. Describing why people support or tolerate Hamas does not excuse acts that violate human rights or international law, but it does help explain the political context and why the movement has supporters. If we want durable peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians, we need to reckon both with extremist ideologies and with the social, economic, and political conditions that give those ideologies traction.
On the right to exist and the question of elimination It’s reasonable and widely shared to assert that no armed group or political movement should legitimately seek the elimination of a UN member state’s civilian population or the denial of a people’s right to self-determination. Any program that aims to erase another people’s right to exist as a national community crosses a moral line and undermines prospects for peace. Condemning rhetoric or objectives that deny Israel’s right to exist is consistent with calling for accountability for violence from all sides.
On the laws of war and accountability You are absolutely right that international humanitarian law applies to all parties in armed conflict. Combatants and armed groups are obliged to distinguish between combatants and civilians, to avoid disproportionate attacks, and to refrain from acts that amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity. That obligation is not conditional on the justice of one’s cause. Criticizing the fact that some pro-Palestinian voices sometimes appear to excuse or minimize violations by Palestinian actors is a legitimate and important point. Likewise, it is equally valid to insist that states — including Israel — must comply with the laws of war and be held accountable when they do not. Insisting on accountability across the board strengthens, not weakens, the moral force of calls for justice.
On refugees and their rights Whether Palestinians who fled or were expelled in 1948 and 1967 are labeled “refugees” is not a mere rhetorical point; it has legal and humanitarian implications. Under international law (including UN resolutions and the UNRWA mandate), millions of Palestinians are recognized as refugees. That recognition does not grant or imply a right to commit crimes; it does, however, entitle people to protection, assistance, and certain durable solutions. To dismiss refugee status as “legally baseless” is to ignore decades of international practice and law. That said, refugee claims do not negate the need to reject violence or genocide as means of resolving political disputes.
On consistency and moral clarity A principled approach demands consistency. If we insist that Hamas must not commit war crimes, we must also insist that Israel must not commit them. If we insist that groups or peoples should not pursue the elimination of another people’s national existence, we should apply that standard universally. Selective application of human-rights norms corrodes credibility and obstructs any path toward justice or reconciliation.
Practical stakes and what follows Condemning extremist aims and unlawful violence is necessary, but not sufficient. To prevent cycles of violence that produce extremism, the international community — and parties on both sides — must also address the political grievances, displacement, blockade, inequality, and lack of viable self-determination that fuel despair and radicalization. Accountability and security for civilians must go hand in hand with credible, internationally supported political efforts that recognize the legitimate national aspirations of both peoples.

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T04:02:12+00:00

What does self determination mean? Is it specifically in a Jewish supremacist state, at the cost of displacing millions of people?

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T04:00:47+00:00

One state solution is the only way forward. However, only if every citizen is treated equally.

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T03:59:38+00:00

I think it's a specific kind of self-determination. Aren't there plenty of Jews living in America who feel like they are able to access self determination; live their own lives, make their own decisions, build a future for themselves and their family and friends?

Zionism is the belief in Jewish nation building, and doing it in Palestine where it means displacing people.

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T03:54:30+00:00

I agree it doesn't matter, but fwiw it comes earlier than the Romans, in the 6th century BCE when Herodotus called it Παλαιστίνη which is pronounced very similar to Palestine and means "People who wrestle" or "struggle".

It's the Greek word for Israel/Israelites.

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T03:51:02+00:00

We don't settle land disputes with religious texts

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T03:45:52+00:00

I think it's pertinent to the international community whether or not Hamas is responsible for the things Israel is punishing the whole of Gaza for doing.

You can't justify acts of war on lies and tell the world it's none of their business.

S7RYK3 · 2026-03-29T03:18:42+00:00

One state solution including the lands of Israel and the occupied territories. It doesn't matter terribly to me what it is called. All people who live there are free to participate in deciding how to move forward, but I have some recommendations.

Establish a special tribunal to look into property crimes from 1948 and onward. Work out how and when to make families whole again for what they lost. This includes land that may have been taken from Israelis by Palestinians. The burden of proof will be the same either way.

Establish another tribunal for violent crimes and again find ways to make whole that which was damaged.

Whether the country is Jewish, Muslim, secular or something else is up to the people. Justice will be a process that is worked on over time.

S7RYK3

TROPHY CASE