(https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/634kfc....)
Notably:
The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that:
The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
Collective punishment is prohibited.
The taking of hostages is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
Cultural property must be respected.
People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charg ed with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.
None of which are being respected.... so I ask again, who is morally reprehensible? and if you are referring to the debunked lies about october 7th, I urge you to read up
Settling occupied territory is neither legal, nor moral. Bombing hospitals is both illegal and immoral, as so many other things the IDF has been doing for the past months. Then there are the crimes committed against Palestinians over the past 80 or so years - it's not because the government is different that your ownership rights can be ignored.
This becomes worse when the governing political parties in question, Hamas and Likud, have charters that exclude the possibility of peaceful coexistence.
Oh yes! Still, that's an untenable position. Israel was created so that all Jews could have a state of their own because of the suffering inflicted upon them. There really is no going back on that.
For me, a single democratic and secular state, with a legal framework that protects everybody's rights equally and fairly would be the best possible solution, but that would be a multi-generation effort (about 80 years too late, BTW).
What ruined everything was the Zionist project, which funded land purchases for farms and then only allowed Jews to work on those farms. Essentially, excluding the majority muslim and christian population from an equal opportunity to work.
These exclusionary measure created tension which resulted in the armed and terroristic attacks by the Zionist groups the Stern Gang and Irgun. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Stern-Gang)
So yes, they could have lived in peace and were living in peace, but Zionism...
If the majority between the river and the sea wanted a pluralistic, democratic and secular state it would have happened a long time ago. The status quo is what the people of Israel want (revealed preference by their votes). And Palestinians don't get a vote.
Gaza also has a political system - Hamas was elected, same as Likud. I'd say it's probably not working right now, for obvious reasons.
> The status quo is what the people of Israel want (revealed preference by their votes). And Palestinians don't get a vote.
Politics is rarely that clear-cut. The electorate was shaped by their environment and rarely sees what has been painted as impossible.
Hamas was elected almost two decades ago, and Palestinians in Gaza have been occupied ever since by Israel. Yes, they do have a political system, but said political system is not democratically driven. It is driven by the Israeli occupying forces, in ultimate control by Israeli voters. Both the military administration, Israeli politicians, and Israeli voters show no desire to change this.
Let the pot boil long enough, it will overflow.
I guess by obtaining a different citizenship and renouncing the original one, but tbh I expect parent poster meant folks who were born in another country from Palestinian parents.
I found the use of the term "Former Palestinian" offensive. It implies that you are no longer such. Regardless of your citizenship, your ancestry defines your ethnic group. Palestinians are an ethnic group. Those born by parents of said ethnic group are de facto of that ethnic group.
Statelessness is technically illegal according to international treaties, so the lack of specific documentation does not necessarily means lack of citizenship. Besides, acceptance for new citizenship is determined by the new country, not the old.