xigma-male

  • hexaflexagonbear [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    9 months ago

    I don’t think that applies for military conflict between states. Pretty sure the justification used there is another UN resolution that essentially freezes borders to what they were that year and doesn’t allow for territorial change using military conflict or something along those lines.

    • zifnab25 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      9 months ago

      Again, this seems like a pretty blatant contradiction. Not that it matters to a bunch of Settlers. But from the Unaligned perspective, it seems glaring.

      • hexaflexagonbear [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Oh yeah, it definitely is. The excuse I think is that “Israel was defending itself whenever it captured new terrotory so it doesn’t count”. Which is also Russia’s casus belli as well iirc lol

        • PolandIsAStateOfMind
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          9 months ago

          No it isn’t. Russia is intervening on behalf of the people of Donbas fighting for their selfdetermination and their right to not be murdered by Ukrianian nazis. It would be more similar if let’s say Egypt intervened in Gaza War by attacking Israel and you would defend Israel because of that.

    • StalinIsMaiWaifu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      Afaik the UN charter itself is the one that banned war between members and forbade annexation