# Is the Occupation of the West Bank Morally Justified?



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

The definition of ethics is  a moral principle that govern behavior or the conducting of an activity;  the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

The purpose of this OP is to discuss the morality/ethics of the occupation of the West Bank. 

"The world recently marked fifty years since the end of the 1967 Arab-Israeli “Six Day” War and the beginning of the indefinite military occupation of Palestinian West Bank. It was one of the shortest wars; it has been one of the longest occupations. The international community continues to ask, how much longer should it go on? When will it finally end?

Countries that support Israel with military aid, such as the United States, have a duty to question the validity of this ongoing intervention. Some question aspects of its legal validity—focusing on treaties between Israel and its neighbors or citing the Fourth Geneva Convention’s prohibition against transferring civilian population into occupied territories. However, it is also important to consider moral validity. Is Israel morally justified in continuing its indefinite military occupation of Palestine? If not, countries like the United States should exercise moral leadership in helping its ally end the occupation..."





__





						Is the Occupation of the West Bank Morally Justified? – KENNEDY SCHOOL REVIEW
					






					ksr.hkspublications.org


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 21, 2020)

Morals and ethics are those established by the guys with the biggest stick.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The definition of ethics is  a moral principle that govern behavior or the conducting of an activity;  the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
> 
> The purpose of this OP is to discuss the morality/ethics of the occupation of the West Bank.
> 
> ...



*Is Israel morally justified in continuing its indefinite military occupation of Palestine?*

Palestine? When did Israel start occupying that?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The definition of ethics is  a moral principle that govern behavior or the conducting of an activity;  the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
> 
> The purpose of this OP is to discuss the morality/ethics of the occupation of the West Bank.
> 
> ...



The Harvard article is stupid, they go on a premise that occupation is unjust, when they ignore WHY they occupy it in the first place. Not only that Harvard also ignores the Muslims long stated goal of eliminating Israel in the first place.

A TINY nation that occupies a sliver of land has always bothered clods like democrats, Muslims and and Jew haters. A nation that produce more Nobel Winners than all of the Middle East combined. It take a lot of bravery to beat up on the smallest child in the region.





LINK


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jun 21, 2020)

Is it ethical for antisemites to indulge in revisionist history in order to elicit prejudice against their targeted ethicity?

what became known as the West Bank in recent years was controlled by Jordan at the time when three counties including Jordan vowed to destroy Israel. There were no such people as "Palestinian" at that time as they had not yet been invented as a propaganda ruse to fool people of low IQ that Arabs were really the victim, when in fact they were the aggressor.


----------



## Mindful (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The definition of ethics is  a moral principle that govern behavior or the conducting of an activity;  the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
> 
> The purpose of this OP is to discuss the morality/ethics of the occupation of the West Bank.
> 
> ...



You mean Israel is occupying itself?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

The Just War Theory is a useful standard for judging the morality of military action, and we can use it to consider the morality of Israel’s military occupation.


----------



## Mindful (Jun 21, 2020)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Is it ethical for antisemites to indulge in revisionist history in order to elicit prejudice against their targeted ethicity?
> 
> what became known as the West Bank in recent years was controlled by Jordan at the time when three counties including Jordan vowed to destroy Israel. There were no such people as "Palestinian" at that time as they had not yet been invented as a propaganda ruse to fool people of low IQ that Arabs were really the victim, when in fact they were the aggressor.



Ding must have known he was going to stir things up.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 21, 2020)

If Israel had annexed all teritory taken in 1967, there would be far fewer problems today.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Debate is good.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

To be justified, military actions must meet seven criteria for determining why, when, and how nations can use military force: just cause, right intention, legitimate authority, hope of success, last resort, just means, and proportional force.


----------



## Mindful (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Debate is good.



Of course it is. When the premise is not contentious.


----------



## Mindful (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> To be justified, military actions must meet seven criteria for determining why, when, and how nations can use military force: just cause, right intention, legitimate authority, hope of success, last resort, just means, and proportional force.



Ding, this is drivel.

You’re out of your depth.


----------



## harmonica (Jun 21, 2020)

yes
....AND the Pals/etc should thank their lucky stars that the Israelis have shown IMMENSE restraint in not shoving them into the sea


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> To be justified, military actions must meet seven criteria for determining why, when, and how nations can use military force: just cause, right intention, legitimate authority, hope of success, last resort, just means, and proportional force.



They why do you focus on Israel, who doesn't plan on invading the middle East, while the countries surrounding the smallest nation wants to wipe it out?

Your ethics argument seems one sided and unfair.

Your LOADED question is also unfair:

* Is the Occupation of the West Bank Morally Justified?*


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Mindful said:


> Of course it is. When the premise is not contentious.


Isn't the point of debate supposed to be contention?

If everyone agreed there would be no need for debate.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

In using the Just War Theory to evaluate Israel’s occupation, we can distinguish between two of its actions: the initial military advancement into the West Bank during the 1967 War, and the ongoing occupation after the war officially ended.


----------



## Mindful (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Isn't the point of debate supposed to be contention?
> 
> If everyone agreed there would be no need for debate.



Go ahead with that. I’m out.

Good luck.


Nothing new under the sun.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people.


----------



## Mindful (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people.



But Jordan was?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Mindful said:


> But Jordan was?


Can you be more specific?


----------



## fncceo (Jun 21, 2020)

Let me know when the occupation of California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado is ended ... then we can talk.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The definition of ethics is  a moral principle that govern behavior or the conducting of an activity;  the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
> 
> The purpose of this OP is to discuss the morality/ethics of the occupation of the West Bank.
> 
> ...



Yes. And, the only other country it was formerly occupied by has conceded its claims over the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem, especially the Temple Mount. Hebron and other illegally occupied towns need to be returned to their rightful owners as well.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

fncceo said:


> Let me know when the occupation of California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado is ended ... then we can talk.


Are you making a two wrongs makes a right argument?


----------



## Mindful (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Can you be more specific?



Are you serious?  


fncceo said:


> Let me know when the occupation of California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado is ended ... then we can talk.



He doesn’t ‘get’ things.


----------



## Mindful (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Can you be more specific?



Are you serious?


----------



## Picaro (Jun 21, 2020)

fncceo said:


> Let me know when the occupation of California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado is ended ... then we can talk.



The populations of those states before the U.S. made them territories was nearly non-existent; there was no 'occupation' before the U.S. came along. Some dumbass Spaniards claiming land all the way to Alaska doesn't mean it all suddenly reverted to Mexico in 1821, especially since almost no Mexicans would be caught dead north of Tampico until long after the U.S. got rid of the filthy savages roaming around murdering and pillaging.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Are you making a two wrongs makes a right argument?



That would be six wrongs.  

If you're living on land anywhere in the world that  once belonged to another peoples, you need to move before you can become morally outraged at The Jews.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people.



Who else has a claim? No one legitimate; Jordan conceded its claims back in the 1990's. They lost the war, and bowed out.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 21, 2020)

Mindful said:


> Are you serious?



Not serious enough, he is ignoring my posts completely. I think he is a closet anti- Semite.

Post 4

Post 15


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Picaro said:


> Yes. And, the only other country it was formerly occupied by has conceded its claims over the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem, especially the Temple Mount. Hebron and other illegally occupied towns need to be returned to their rightful owners as well.


To be justified, military actions must meet seven criteria for determining why, when, and how nations can use military force: just cause, right intention, legitimate authority, hope of success, last resort, just means, and proportional force. 

In using the Just War Theory to evaluate Israel’s occupation, we can distinguish between two of its actions: the initial military advancement into the West Bank during the 1967 War, and the ongoing occupation after the war officially ended. For the sake of precision, this analysis will focus on the West Bank alone, apart from the other territorial occupations of Gaza or the Golan Heights. This analysis will also take as granted the sovereignty of Israel’s pre-1967 borders, even though many Palestinian refugees maintain valid land-claims within that territory. When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Mindful said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> 
> He doesn’t ‘get’ things.


Yes, can you be more specific.  I'd rather not assume I know what your argument is.  It's yours to make.


----------



## Mindful (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> To be justified, military actions must meet seven criteria for determining why, when, and how nations can use military force: just cause, right intention, legitimate authority, hope of success, last resort, just means, and proportional force.
> 
> In using the Just War Theory to evaluate Israel’s occupation, we can distinguish between two of its actions: the initial military advancement into the West Bank during the 1967 War, and the ongoing occupation after the war officially ended. For the sake of precision, this analysis will focus on the West Bank alone, apart from the other territorial occupations of Gaza or the Golan Heights. This analysis will also take as granted the sovereignty of Israel’s pre-1967 borders, even though many Palestinian refugees maintain valid land-claims within that territory. When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people.



There has to be a country, for it to be occupied.


----------



## Mindful (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Yes, can you be more specific.  I'd rather not assume I know what your argument is.  It's yours to make.



Go here. If you are serious.





__





						Myths & Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict
					

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.




					www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
				




I’m not going to give you a history lesson.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Sunsettommy said:


> Not serious enough, he is ignoring my posts completely. I think he is a closet anti- Semite.
> 
> Post 4
> 
> Post 15


I'm not anti- Semite, closeted or otherwise.

I didn't see a need to respond to your posts because it doesn't address the topic of the morality of Israel's continued occupation.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Mindful said:


> There has to be a country, for it to be occupied.


That's a losing argument, my dear.

In using the Just War Theory to evaluate Israel’s occupation, we can distinguish between two of its actions: the initial military advancement into the West Bank during the 1967 War, and the ongoing occupation after the war officially ended. For the sake of precision, this analysis will focus on the West Bank alone, apart from the other territorial occupations of Gaza or the Golan Heights. This analysis will also take as granted the sovereignty of Israel’s pre-1967 borders, even though many Palestinian refugees maintain valid land-claims within that territory. When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> To be justified, military actions must meet seven criteria for determining why, when, and how nations can use military force: just cause, right intention, legitimate authority, hope of success, last resort, just means, and proportional force.
> 
> In using the Just War Theory to evaluate Israel’s occupation, we can distinguish between two of its actions: the initial military advancement into the West Bank during the 1967 War, and the ongoing occupation after the war officially ended. For the sake of precision, this analysis will focus on the West Bank alone, apart from the other territorial occupations of Gaza or the Golan Heights. This analysis will also take as granted the sovereignty of Israel’s pre-1967 borders, even though many Palestinian refugees maintain valid land-claims within that territory. When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people.



Jordan had 'sovereignity' over the West Bank; they conceded that a long time ago, and no longer claim it. they are the Palestinian State. There are no 'Palestinian refugees'; they  left the country to join the losing side. The other states own them, not Israel; they're Syrian, Egyptian, and Jordanian 'refugees'. Jews are the land's people, not Jordanians, Egyptians, and Syrian squatters.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I'm not anti- Semite, closeted or otherwise.
> 
> I didn't see a need to respond to your posts because it doesn't address the topic of the morality of Israel's continued occupation.



Ha ha ha, actually it does, and it is impossible for you to address it, that is why you ignore it.

Before Israel came along, the region was loosely occupied by people, no actual nation there.

That is why your entire post is loaded and dishonest.


----------



## harmonica (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people.


keep living in fairytale land


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Mindful said:


> Go here. If you are serious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not asking for a history lesson.  I am asking for YOUR argument.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Sunsettommy said:


> Ha ha ha, actually it does, and it is impossible for you to address it, that is why you ignore it.
> 
> Before Israel came along, the region was loosely occupied by many people, no actual nation there.
> 
> That is why your entire post is loaded and dishonest.


In using the Just War Theory to evaluate Israel’s occupation, we can distinguish between two of its actions: the initial military advancement into the West Bank during the 1967 War, and the ongoing occupation after the war officially ended. For the sake of precision, this analysis will focus on the West Bank alone, apart from the other territorial occupations of Gaza or the Golan Heights. This analysis will also take as granted the sovereignty of Israel’s pre-1967 borders, even though many Palestinian refugees maintain valid land-claims within that territory. When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

It seems that no one can make a moral argument concerning the ongoing occupation after the 1967 war officially ended.

That's the argument this thread is about.  

What is Israel's moral argument concerning the ongoing occupation after the 1967 war officially ended?


----------



## Mindful (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> That's a losing argument, my dear.
> 
> In using the Just War Theory to evaluate Israel’s occupation, we can distinguish between two of its actions: the initial military advancement into the West Bank during the 1967 War, and the ongoing occupation after the war officially ended. For the sake of precision, this analysis will focus on the West Bank alone, apart from the other territorial occupations of Gaza or the Golan Heights. This analysis will also take as granted the sovereignty of Israel’s pre-1967 borders, even though many Palestinian refugees maintain valid land-claims within that territory. When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people.



Don’t you “dear” me.

You’re not historically informed, taking it back to the Ottomans, for a start.


----------



## Mindful (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I'm not asking for a history lesson.  I am asking for YOUR argument.



There is no argument.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

harmonica said:


> keep living in fairytale land


Look, if you want to argue there is no moral argument to be made for Israel's ongoing occupation after the 1967 war officially ended, that is perfectly valid.  

You can make the argument that it's not moral and you don't care that it isn't moral.  I am perfectly fine with you making that argument.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> In using the Just War Theory to evaluate Israel’s occupation, we can distinguish between two of its actions: the initial military advancement into the West Bank during the 1967 War, and the ongoing occupation after the war officially ended. For the sake of precision, this analysis will focus on the West Bank alone, apart from the other territorial occupations of Gaza or the Golan Heights. This analysis will also take as granted the sovereignty of Israel’s pre-1967 borders, even though many Palestinian refugees maintain valid land-claims within that territory. When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people.



Your argument is profoundly one sided and dishonest.

You ignore so many surrounding issues that lead to the brief war, a war that the Middle East prepared for, in their never ending effort to wipe out an entire tiny nation. That is why Israel one of the smallest nation on Earth has to make defensive decisions to stay alive in a hostile region.

Fuck your ethics argument, it is stupid and dishonest, when you ignore the repeated attempts by surrounding nation effort to destroy Israel since 1948.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Mindful said:


> Don’t you “dear” me.
> 
> You’re not historically informed, taking it back to the Ottomans, for a start.


Then educate me on why it is moral for Israel's ongoing occupation after the 1967 war officially ended.

I'm all ears.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Sunsettommy said:


> Your argument is profoundly one sided and dishonest.
> 
> You ignore so many surrounding issues that lead to the brief war, a war that the Middle East prepared for, in their never ending effort to wipe out an entire tiny nation. That is why Israel one of the smallest nation on Earth has to make defensive decisions to stay alive in a hostile region.


The debate is pretty simple, really.

According to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people. 

What I am asking you is can you explain to me how  it is moral for Israel's to continue to occupy captured lands after the 1967 war officially ended?

There is no need for you to get upset over that question.  Either you can answer it or you can't.


----------



## harmonica (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Look, if you want to argue there is no moral argument to be made for Israel's ongoing occupation after the 1967 war officially ended, that is perfectly valid.
> 
> You can make the argument that it's not moral and you don't care that it isn't moral.  I am perfectly fine with you making that argument.


...why do you think there was a WW2?  and MANY Arab-Israeli wars??  because there was never an unconditional surrender....should've let the Israelis go to Cairo/etc......push the Pals into the sea/etc ....
blah blah blah 
the Israelis have every right to do whatever


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

harmonica said:


> ...why do you think there was a WW2?  and MANY Arab-Israeli wars??  because there was never an unconditional surrender....should've let the Israelis go to Cairo/etc......push the Pals into the sea/etc ....
> blah blah blah
> the Israelis have every right to do whatever


So you are arguing they can occupy those lands based on the rule of capture?  That morality does not enter into the equation.  That stronger nations have the right to conquer weaker nations.   

Is that correct?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

harmonica said:


> ...why do you think there was a WW2?  and MANY Arab-Israeli wars??  because there was never an unconditional surrender....should've let the Israelis go to Cairo/etc......push the Pals into the sea/etc ....
> blah blah blah
> the Israelis have every right to do whatever


I never realized you were Jewish, but now that I do, your behavior is starting to make a lot of sense to me.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> What I am asking you is can you explain to me how it is moral for Israel's to continue to occupy captured lands after the 1967 war officially ended?



Given that two Palestinian entities, Hamas and the PLO, maintain a state of armed conflict with Israel, you cannot say the hostilities have ended.

When Palestinians recognize Israel and desist from armed conflict, then we can examine the validity of your theory.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I never realized you were Jewish, but now that I do, your behavior is starting to make a lot of sense to me.



And .... there it is.  Thanks for coming out of the closet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people.



*When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory,*

Which borders?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

fncceo said:


> Given that two Palestinian entities, Hamas and the PLO, maintain a state of armed conflict with Israel, you cannot say the hostilities have ended.
> 
> When Palestinians recognize Israel and desist from armed conflict, then we can examine the validity of your theory.


The case for _just cause_ in the post-1967 occupation is much weaker. In the immediate aftermath of the war, U.N. Resolution 242 emphasized the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and called for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” Instead of complying, Israel unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem and maintained its armed forces throughout the entire West Bank. This action was not a matter of self-defense, since Jordan had cooperated with the U.N. ceasefire and was no longer an immediate threat. Now, fifty years later and especially after the 1994 peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, the country is no longer a threat to Israel. Thus, Israel’s refusal to end the occupation of the West Bank has no _just cause_ inherent to the conditions that led it to initially occupy the territory.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

fncceo said:


> And .... there it is.  Thanks for coming out of the closet.


Actually it was about his atheism and not his Jewishness, but see me how you will.  I'm pretty used to it here.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Israel unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem and maintained its armed forces throughout the entire West Bank.



And it's a good thing that the occupation of Jerusalem by Islamic forces has ended.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory,*
> 
> Which borders?


The pre-1967 war borders.  

So can you make an argument explaining the morality of  the ongoing occupation after that war officially ended?

Because it seems like you can't which is why you keep skipping that question.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

fncceo said:


> And it's a good thing that the occupation of Jerusalem by Islamic forces has ended.


Can you tell me how?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The pre-1967 war borders.
> 
> So can you make an argument explaining the morality of  the ongoing occupation after that war officially ended?
> 
> Because it seems like you can't which is why you keep skipping that question.



*The pre-1967 war borders. *

Explain further.
Israel on one side.....what's on the other(s)?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The pre-1967 war borders. *
> 
> Explain further.
> Israel on one side.....what's on the other(s)?


So you want to skip the question the OP asks?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So you want to skip the question the OP asks?



You don't know what was on the other side(s)?


----------



## fncceo (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So you want to skip the question the OP asks?



Like a dog with a bone.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The debate is pretty simple, really.
> 
> According to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people.
> 
> ...



Already told you that your question is loaded and dishonest, the many replies by others have similar thoughts I have.

Your entire narrative is one sided and unfair to Israel, you continually ignore the regional history of wars against Israel. You even ignore that the initial Jewish state was smaller than now, the expansion was due to being attacked over and over, thus acquired land as being the victor, Golan Heights was taken as a defensive measure.





You have NO MORAL/ ETHICS argument at all, just another anti Israel bullcrap. You are profoundly ignorant of the regions history.


----------



## Mindful (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The pre-1967 war borders.
> 
> So can you make an argument explaining the morality of  the ongoing occupation after that war officially ended?
> 
> Because it seems like you can't which is why you keep skipping that question.



No borders.

Armistice lines.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You don't know what was on the other side(s)?


I get that you want to distract from the question being asked.  

If you could make a moral argument for the ongoing occupation for captured lands you would.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Sunsettommy said:


> Already told you that your question is loaded and dishonest, the many replies by others have similar thoughts I have.
> 
> Your entire narrative is one sided and unfair to Israel, you continually ignore the regional history of wars against Israel. You even ignore that the initial 1948 Jewish state was MUCH smaller than now, the expansion was due to being attacked over and over, thus acquired land as being the victor, Golan Heights was taken as a defensive measure.
> 
> ...


So your moral argument is they continue to occupy those lands as a defensive measure?

Is that correct?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Mindful said:


> No borders.
> 
> Armistice lines.


So your moral argument is that they took back their lands?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I get that you want to distract from the question being asked.
> 
> If you could make a moral argument for the ongoing occupation for captured lands you would.



*If you could make a moral argument for the ongoing occupation for captured lands you would.*

They captured land? From which country?


----------



## Mindful (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So your moral argument is that they took back their lands?



I don’t have a moral argument.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Self-defense is the primary _just cause_ for war.

Since Israel initially acted in self-defense—invading the West Bank only after receiving fire from Jordanian troops—the initial 1967 occupation of the West Bank passes the test of _just cause_.

The case for _just cause_ in the post-1967 occupation is much weaker. In the immediate aftermath of the war, U.N. Resolution 242 emphasized the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and called for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” Instead of complying, Israel unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem and maintained its armed forces throughout the entire West Bank. This action was not a matter of self-defense, since Jordan had cooperated with the U.N. ceasefire and was no longer an immediate threat. Now, fifty years later and especially after the 1994 peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, the country is no longer a threat to Israel. Thus, Israel’s refusal to end the occupation of the West Bank has no _just cause_ inherent to the conditions that led it to initially occupy the territory.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Military action has _right intention_ when the use of force is not fueled by any ulterior motives apart from the circumstances that grant _just cause._


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

We can assume Israel fought the 1967 War with upstanding intentions of safeguarding its immediate and continued survival. However, evidence suggests that some Israeli commanders operated with the additional motive of land conquest. For example, reports suggest that military leaders asked the U.S. to delay the U.N. ceasefire until they had time to finish conquering the entire West Bank. This action belies an opportunism that puts the question of _right intention_ in doubt.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

The immediate annexation of East Jerusalem, including the Old City, reveals a prior intention of gaining and keeping this territory if given the opportunity to do so. The retention of the entire West Bank and the full military control of its borders speaks to similar motives. Most of all, the proliferation and protection of Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank reveal great intentions of land conquest. Whether or not this was the initial plan of the Israeli military, it has been the long-term reality. The land that Palestinians are allowed to live on is being reduced into ever smaller parcels while the Israeli military and settlement presence grows. Thus, the long-term occupation of the West Bank does not meet the standard of right intention.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So your moral argument is they continue to occupy those lands as a defensive measure?
> 
> Is that correct?



Your historical ignorance is getting tiresome, you keep ignoring the well known fact that Israel was attacked over and over, TWO times Syria attacked Israel through the Golan Heights region, Israel didn't keep it, but the third time they finally keep it because Syria nearly overran that area in 1973, it is a strong defense section Israel has established to protect themselves against further Syrian attacks.

You seem bothered by Israelis' desire to stay alive in a profoundly hostile region.

Your anti- Semitism grows more obvious.......


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *If you could make a moral argument for the ongoing occupation for captured lands you would.*
> 
> They captured land? From which country?



You mean which ATTACKING country?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Sunsettommy said:


> Your historical ignorance is getting tiresome, you keep ignoring the well known fact that Israel was attacked over and over, TWO times Syria attacked Israel through the Golan Heights region, Israel didn't keep it, but the third time they finally keep it because Syria nearly overran that area in 1973, it is a strong defense section Israel has established to protect themselves against further Syrian attacks.
> 
> You seem bothered by Israelis' desire to stay alive in a profoundly hostile region.
> 
> Your anti- Semitism grows more obvious.......





Sunsettommy said:


> You mean which ATTACKING country?



L_egitimate authority_ for taking action must be established before a nation acts.

The initial military conquest of the West Bank was conducted under the legitimate authority of the sovereign state of Israel defending itself from a foreign aggressor

The legitimacy of Israel’s authority to continue its occupation of these territories acquired during the war, however, is dubious. As already referenced, U.N. resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from these territories. Israel may be able to now claim that it has withdrawn from the 18% of the West Bank designated as “Area A” under the 1993 Oslo Accords, but that is far short of a complete withdrawal. Some claim that Oslo grants Israel the authority to occupy the West Bank as part of an agreement with the PLO. If this is true, then Israel would need to implement the phased withdrawal from the West Bank that Oslo enumerated. Israel cannot benefit from the legitimacy of Oslo without also beholding itself to Oslo’s standards for relinquishing territory. Israel does not hold _legitimate authority_ to an ongoing occupation of the West Bank.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> L_egitimate authority_ for taking action must be established before a nation acts.
> 
> The initial military conquest of the West Bank was conducted under the legitimate authority of the sovereign state of Israel defending itself from a foreign aggressor
> 
> The legitimacy of Israel’s authority to continue its occupation of these territories acquired during the war, however, is dubious. As already referenced, U.N. resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from these territories. Israel may be able to now claim that it has withdrawn from the 18% of the West Bank designated as “Area A” under the 1993 Oslo Accords, but that is far short of a complete withdrawal. Some claim that Oslo grants Israel the authority to occupy the West Bank as part of an agreement with the PLO. If this is true, then Israel would need to implement the phased withdrawal from the West Bank that Oslo enumerated. Israel cannot benefit from the legitimacy of Oslo without also beholding itself to Oslo’s standards for relinquishing territory. Israel does not hold _legitimate authority_ to an ongoing occupation of the West Bank.



*Israel does not hold legitimate authority to an ongoing occupation of the West Bank.*

Who holds _legitimate authority_ over the West Bank?


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people.



you left out LOTS including the FACT that "borders"  have never been established.   -----the "WAR"  initiated by arab aggression in 1948 was "stalled" by a TRUCE and no declared borders.   The "WEST BANK"  of the erstwhile Hashemite Kiingdom Jordan----was never  JORDAN


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Israel does not hold legitimate authority to an ongoing occupation of the West Bank.*
> 
> Who holds _legitimate authority_ over the West Bank?


The ones with the guns apparently.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> you left out LOTS including the FACT that "borders"  have never been established.   -----the "WAR"  initiated by arab aggression in 1948 was "stalled" by a TRUCE and no declared borders.   The "WEST BANK"  of the erstwhile Hashemite Kiingdom Jordan----was never  JORDAN


uh huh.  The pre and post boundaries of the 1967 war say otherwise.

Look, you guys can try to pretend there was no post 1967 war occupation until the cows come home for all I care.

That doesn't address the question the OP is asking.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Military force is justified as a _last resort_ when all other non-forceful alternatives have been exhausted.

Since Israel took the first strike (against Egypt) in 1967 as a preemptive move, it is fair to question whether it had waited for military action as a _last resort _or if it could have avoided war with further diplomatic efforts. Regardless, it saw itself as fighting a defensive war and only invaded the West Bank after being attacked on that front.

Military occupation is categorically difficult to judge under the criteria of _last resort._ Once established, a military occupation is no longer a matter of waiting to pursue other options first. However, the spirit of _last resort_ implies that the occupying force do everything in its power to end the occupation. Israel does not seem to be following this course of action, but is instead putting its occupation on a path of further entrenchment. This decision to continue in occupation, rather than relinquish the territory, is a failure to embody the spirit of _last resort_.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Military force is justified as a _last resort_ when all other non-forceful alternatives have been exhausted.
> 
> Since Israel took the first strike (against Egypt) in 1967 as a preemptive move, it is fair to question whether it had waited for military action as a _last resort _or if it could have avoided war with further diplomatic efforts. Regardless, it saw itself as fighting a defensive war and only invaded the West Bank after being attacked on that front.
> 
> Military occupation is categorically difficult to judge under the criteria of _last resort._ Once established, a military occupation is no longer a matter of waiting to pursue other options first. However, the spirit of _last resort_ implies that the occupying force do everything in its power to end the occupation. Israel does not seem to be following this course of action, but is instead putting its occupation on a path of further entrenchment. This decision to continue in occupation, rather than relinquish the territory, is a failure to embody the spirit of _last resort_.



* This decision to continue in occupation, rather than relinquish the territory, *

Relinquish to what entity?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> * This decision to continue in occupation, rather than relinquish the territory, *
> 
> Relinquish to what entity?


That isn't the question the OP is asking.

The question the Op is asking is is the continued occupation moral?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Military action must be targeted towards addressing a specific situation and carry a reasonable _hope of success_ in its efforts.

If the goal of the initial West Bank occupation was to repel the Jordanian military force, the end result shows that Israel certainly met the criteria of reasonable _hope of success_.

However, there does not seem to be _hope of success_ in the ongoing occupation of the West Bank. If success is determined by keeping Israel safe, it is doubtful that years of antagonizing Palestinians has led to safety for either group. Israel succeeded in defending itself in 1967, but has created an ongoing situation that is antithetical to its own self-defense and has no _hope of success._


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> That isn't the question the OP is asking.
> 
> The question the Op is asking is is the continued occupation moral?



You won't say who they took it from or who they should give it to, what are you afraid of?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You won't say who they took it from or who they should give it to, what are you afraid of?


No.  I am saying that is irrelevant to your answer to the question.  Unless of course you can explain it's relevance.

Is the Occupation of the West Bank Morally Justified?  Yes or no?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> No.  I am saying that is irrelevant to your answer to the question.  Unless of course you can explain it's relevance.
> 
> Is the Occupation of the West Bank Morally Justified?  Yes or no?



Israel is justified in keeping as much of that territory as they'd like.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Israel is justified in keeping as much of that territory as they'd like.


Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Why?



That depends on the 2 questions you're afraid to answer.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That depends on the 2 questions you're afraid to answer.


Why does it depend upon the answers to your questions, I am ignoring?

Show me their relevance to the question I am asking.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Is the Occupation of the West Bank Morally Justified? Yes or no?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Prior to Israel attacking Egypt in 1967, Israel did not occupy the lands they are occupying now.

Why is Israel morally justified in occupying the post-1967 lands now?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Who does Israel fear will attack them if they gave back the occupied lands?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Why does it depend upon the answers to your questions, I am ignoring?
> 
> Show me their relevance to the question I am asking.



*Why does it depend upon the answers to your questions, I am ignoring?*

Did they take territory from someone or not?

Should they give territory to someone? Who?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Why does it depend upon the answers to your questions, I am ignoring?*
> 
> Did they take territory from someone or not?
> 
> Should they give territory to someone? Who?


Yes, they did, why does it matter who?

They should return back to their borders.  It is the moral thing to do.  They have no moral justification not to do so.

Unless, of course you would care to make a moral argument for why they should continue to occupy the lands they took after they attacked Egypt.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Why does it depend upon the answers to your questions, I am ignoring?*
> 
> Did they take territory from someone or not?
> 
> Should they give territory to someone? Who?


It's ok that you can't make a moral argument for why Israel is occupying those lands.  

It's ok for you to admit that you believe it is ok not to do the moral thing.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Th whole argument about who's land was it is intended to misdirect from the question.  It wasn't Israel's land.  That's all that matters.  They took those lands under the pretense of defending their nation from an imminent attack which is questionable at best.  Their continued occupation can't make that claim. 

So giving it back to the people who occupied it when they took it is the moral thing to do today.  They have no moral argument to continue to occupy it.  All they are proving is the law of capture; the law of might makes right.  It's not a good look.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Yes, they did, why does it matter who?
> 
> They should return back to their borders.  It is the moral thing to do.  They have no moral justification not to do so.
> 
> Unless, of course you would care to make a moral argument for why they should continue to occupy the lands they took after they attacked Egypt.



*Yes, they did, why does it matter who?*

If it doesn't matter, why are you afraid to say who?

*They should return back to their borders.*

Why aren't current borders "their borders"?

If they decide to, who'd be getting the territory?


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> uh huh.  The pre and post boundaries of the 1967 war say otherwise.
> 
> Look, you guys can try to pretend there was no post 1967 war occupation until the cows come home for all I care.
> 
> That doesn't address the question the OP is asking.



just what is a "boundary"  in law?    The issue for international law is   BORDER.    Just what BORDER 
existed between Israel and Jordan when Jordan attacked Israel in 1947 and 1967?.      Did Jordan have a MORAL RIGHT to occupy east Jerusalem?    how about Hevron?       DID any entity in the world recognize a  
"BORDER"?      Did Jordan consider  the west bank PART OF THE COUNTRY named  JORDAN?   ----what was it?      a city dump?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Yes, they did, why does it matter who?*
> 
> If it doesn't matter, why are you afraid to say who?
> 
> ...


I just explained it.  

It's like you want to pretend they didn't take land from others.  That's OK, I get it.  Rule of capture and all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> It's ok that you can't make a moral argument for why Israel is occupying those lands.
> 
> It's ok for you to admit that you believe it is ok not to do the moral thing.



*It's ok that you can't make a moral argument for why Israel is occupying those lands. *

Who gets the lands to make Israel moral again?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> just what is a "boundary"  in law?    The issue for international law is   BORDER.    Just what BORDER
> existed between Israel and Jordan when Jordan attacked Israel in 1947 and 1967?.      Did Jordan have a MORAL RIGHT to occupy east Jerusalem?    how about Hevron?       DID any entity in the world recognize a
> "BORDER"?      Did Jordan consider  the west bank PART OF THE COUNTRY named  JORDAN?   ----what was it?      a city dump?


Rationalizing a wrong as a right was the original sin.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It's ok that you can't make a moral argument for why Israel is occupying those lands. *
> 
> Who gets the lands to make Israel moral again?


All they have to do is pull back to be moral.  

Then you won't have a moral dilemma anymore.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

Sunsettommy said:


> Not serious enough, he is ignoring my posts completely. I think he is a closet anti- Semite.
> 
> Post 4
> 
> Post 15


Ding is an overt Jew hater.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Th whole argument about who's land was it is intended to misdirect from the question.  It wasn't Israel's land.  That's all that matters.  They took those lands under the pretense of defending their nation from an imminent attack which is questionable at best.  Their continued occupation can't make that claim.
> 
> So giving it back to the people who occupied it when they took it is the moral thing to do today.  They have no moral argument to continue to occupy it.  All they are proving is the law of capture; the law of might makes right.  It's not a good look.



*It wasn't Israel's land.  *

Whose was it?

*So giving it back to the people who occupied it when they took it is the moral thing to do today.*

Jordan?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Adam did you occupy those territories?

The woman you made for me made me do it.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Rationalizing a wrong as a right was the original sin.


I guess the Catholics will have to move out of Italy.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Th whole argument about who's land was it is intended to misdirect from the question.  It wasn't Israel's land.  That's all that matters.  They took those lands under the pretense of defending their nation from an imminent attack which is questionable at best.  Their continued occupation can't make that claim.
> 
> So giving it back to the people who occupied it when they took it is the moral thing to do today.  They have no moral argument to continue to occupy it.  All they are proving is the law of capture; the law of might makes right.  It's not a good look.



",,,,,, giving it to people who occupied it...."        Jordan 
OCCUPIED IT MILITARILY from  1948 to 1967.    It was NEVER JORDAN LAND.    A truce line is not a  "BORDER"


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Ding is an overt Jew hater.


Not at all.  I don't like logic deniers.  

Maybe you can tell me their moral argument for continued occupation because everyone else wants to pretend like those lands were taken for the purpose of reclamation or that they don't know who to give the lands back to.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

There is a moral argument for Israel belonging to the Jews.
If the Jews stayed in Europe, the Muslims would have conquered Europe and the US by now because they wouldn't by busy trying to get their asses kicked by so few Jews.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I just explained it.
> 
> It's like you want to pretend they didn't take land from others.  That's OK, I get it.  Rule of capture and all.



Jordan said they didn't want the land.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> I guess the Catholics will have to move out of Italy.


Sure, why not.

But we both know you can't make a moral argument for the continued occupation by Israel.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Jordan said they didn't want the land.


So there was a transfer of title to Israel?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> ",,,,,, giving it to people who occupied it...."        Jordan
> OCCUPIED IT MILITARILY from  1948 to 1967.    It was NEVER JORDAN LAND.    A truce line is not a  "BORDER"


Was it Israel's land?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Self-defense is the primary _just cause_ for war.
> 
> Since Israel initially acted in self-defense—invading the West Bank only after receiving fire from Jordanian troops—the initial 1967 occupation of the West Bank passes the test of _just cause_.
> 
> The case for _just cause_ in the post-1967 occupation is much weaker. In the immediate aftermath of the war, U.N. Resolution 242 emphasized the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and called for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” Instead of complying, Israel unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem and maintained its armed forces throughout the entire West Bank. This action was not a matter of self-defense, since Jordan had cooperated with the U.N. ceasefire and was no longer an immediate threat. Now, fifty years later and especially after the 1994 peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, the country is no longer a threat to Israel. Thus, Israel’s refusal to end the occupation of the West Bank has no _just cause_ inherent to the conditions that led it to initially occupy the territory.


You realize a UN Resolution is how the UN shows it's pissed off and they write a nasty note having no legal bearing except that 3,000,000 Jews kicked 1 billion Arab asses without breaking a sweat.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

The OP is still waiting for that moral argument for Israel occupying the Palestine Territory.  

We can assume Israel fought the 1967 War with upstanding intentions of safeguarding its immediate and continued survival. However, evidence suggests that some Israeli commanders operated with the additional motive of land conquest. For example, reports suggest that military leaders asked the U.S. to delay the U.N. ceasefire until they had time to finish conquering the entire West Bank. This action belies an opportunism that puts the question of _right intention_ in doubt.

This doubt grows when we consider how Israel has managed the Occupied Palestine Territory in the years since the war. The immediate annexation of East Jerusalem, including the Old City, reveals a prior intention of gaining and keeping this territory if given the opportunity to do so. The retention of the entire West Bank and the full military control of its borders speaks to similar motives. Most of all, the proliferation and protection of Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank reveal great intentions of land conquest. Whether or not this was the initial plan of the Israeli military, it has been the long-term reality. The land that Palestinians are allowed to live on is being reduced into ever smaller parcels while the Israeli military and settlement presence grows. Thus, the long-term occupation of the West Bank does not meet the standard of _right intention._


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> You realize a UN Resolution is how the UN shows it's pissed off and they write a nasty note having no legal bearing except that 3,000,000 Jews kicked 1 billion Arab asses without breaking a sweat.


How is what Israel is doing moral?

It's a fair question.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

Jesus really screwed up------he actually thought that Bethlehem was in Judea----well---actually the people who wrote the  new testament got it screwed up----
Bethlehem is NOT THE CITY OF DAVID's birth-----it is an arab slum


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Sure, why not.
> 
> But we both know you can't make a moral argument for the continued occupation by Israel.


People get attacked all over the world.
They kick the enemies ass and eject them.
There's no nation on earth that has any moral justification for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants, etc...


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> How is what Israel is doing moral?
> 
> It's a fair question.


Israel created the technology that allows you to bitch about Jews believing in a Bible that you don't believe in.
Sadly for you, you're in a tiny minority.
Genesis Chapter 10...The current land of Israel was settled by Shem, not Cham.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> There is a moral argument for Israel belonging to the Jews.
> If the Jews stayed in Europe, the Muslims would have conquered Europe and the US by now because they wouldn't by busy trying to get their asses kicked by so few Jews.


I agree that there is a moral argument for the formation of Israel.

I don't agree that there is a moral argument for the continued occupation of Palestine.  Tell me that argument.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Was it Israel's land?



yes


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> People get attacked all over the world.
> They kick the enemies ass and eject them.
> There's no nation on earth that has any moral justification for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants for not giving it's land back to the people that conquered it from the prior inhabitants, etc...


So your moral argument is there is no moral argument?  I agree.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> yes


So they just took it back and that's why they attacked Egypt in 1967?  To take back their lands?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Israel created the technology that allows you to bitch about Jews believing in a Bible that you don't believe in.
> Sadly for you, you're in a tiny minority.
> Genesis Chapter 10...The current land of Israel was settled by Shem, not Cham.


Not sure what that has to do with anything, but if it makes you feel better, I couldn't be happier for you.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> Jesus really screwed up------he actually thought that Bethlehem was in Judea----well---actually the people who wrote the  new testament got it screwed up----
> Bethlehem is NOT THE CITY OF DAVID's birth-----it is an arab slum


Fascinating.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So your moral argument is there is no moral argument?  I agree.


Based on Genesis, Cham is a warmonger and a land grabber.
And only 99% of Jews and Christians believe that.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Not sure what that has to do with anything, but if it makes you feel better, I couldn't be happier for you.


You're never sure what anything has to do with anything.
I remember about 3 years ago before your mind started to disintegrate.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Israel created the technology that allows you to bitch about Jews believing in a Bible that you don't believe in.
> Sadly for you, you're in a tiny minority.
> Genesis Chapter 10...The current land of Israel was settled by Shem, not Cham.


Most Jews are atheists, so there's that.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> You're never sure what anything has to do with anything.
> I remember about 3 years ago before your mind started to disintegrate.


I'm the same as I ever was.  I love God.

It is wrong what Israel is doing.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So they just took it back and that's why they attacked Egypt in 1967?  To take back their lands?



Egypt attacked Israel in 1967  <<<  an historic 
fact.    Egypt blocked the strait of tiran,   ANNOUNCED ITS INTENTION of annihilating Israel,  massed its HIGHLY ARMED ARMY on the sinai border   etc etc ------
where do you get  "israel attacked egypt" ---you've been reading "stormfront"  again-----or you are parroting your sunday school whore?


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Most Jews are atheists, so there's that.



there's   WHAT?         borders are determined by "belief" ?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> You're never sure what anything has to do with anything.
> I remember about 3 years ago before your mind started to disintegrate.


So now you care what Christians believe.  Oy Vey!


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> Egypt attacked Israel in 1967  <<<  an historic
> fact.    Egypt blocked the strait of tiran,   ANNOUNCED ITS INTENTION of annihilating Israel,  massed its HIGHLY ARMED ARMY on the sinai border   etc etc ------
> where do you get  "israel attacked egypt" ---you've been reading "stormfront"  again-----or you are parroting your sunday school whore?


Shhh....no facts...please!


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So now you care what Christians believe.  Oy Vey!


There are probably several million Christians today who are genetically Jews.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> Egypt attacked Israel in 1967  <<<  an historic
> fact.    Egypt blocked the strait of tiran,   ANNOUNCED ITS INTENTION of annihilating Israel,  massed its HIGHLY ARMED ARMY on the sinai border   etc etc ------
> where do you get  "israel attacked egypt" ---you've been reading "stormfront"  again-----or you are parroting your sunday school whore?











						Six-Day War
					

The Six-Day War was a brief but bloody conflict fought in June 1967 between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Following years of




					www.history.com
				



.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Six-Day War
> 
> 
> The Six-Day War was a brief but bloody conflict fought in June 1967 between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Following years of
> ...


See what happens when God compensates the Jews for the Holocaust?
Only 70 years and it's one of the most powerful nations on earth in every single area.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

*SIX-DAY WAR ERUPTS*
On June 5, 1967, the Israel Defense Forces initiated Operation Focus, a coordinated aerial attack on Egypt. That morning, some 200 aircraft took off from Israel and swooped west over the Mediterranean before converging on Egypt from the north.

After catching the Egyptians by surprise, they assaulted 18 different airfields and eliminated roughly 90 percent of the Egyptian air force as it sat on the ground. Israel then expanded the range of its attack and decimated the air forces of Jordan, Syria and Iraq.

By the end of the day on June 5, Israeli pilots had won full control of the skies over the Middle East.

Israel all but secured victory by establishing air superiority, but fierce fighting continued for several more days. The ground war in Egypt began on June 5. In concert with the air strikes, Israeli tanks and infantry stormed across the border and into the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip.

Egyptian forces put up a spirited resistance, but later fell into disarray after Field Marshal Abdel Hakim Amer ordered a general retreat. Over the next several days, Israeli forces pursued the routed Egyptians across the Sinai, inflicting severe casualties.

A second front in the Six-Day War opened on June 5, when Jordan – reacting to false reports of an Egyptian victory – began shelling Israeli positions in Jerusalem. Israel responded with a devastating counterattack on East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

On June 7, Israeli troops captured the Old City of Jerusalem and celebrated by praying at the Western Wall.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> See what happens when God compensates the Jews for the Holocaust?
> Only 70 years and it's one of the most powerful nations on earth in every single area.


I guess that justifies the continued occupation in your mind as being moral.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So there was a transfer of title to Israel?




_Jordanian disengagement from the West Bank (in Arabic: قرار فك الارتباط), in which Jordan surrendered the claim to sovereignty over the West Bank, took place on 31 July 1988.[50] On 31 July 1988, Jordan renounced its claims to the West Bank (with the exception of guardianship over the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem), and recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."[51][52]









						Jordanian annexation of the West Bank - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Military action must be targeted towards addressing a specific situation and carry a reasonable _hope of success_ in its efforts.

If the goal of the initial West Bank occupation was to repel the Jordanian military force, the end result shows that Israel certainly met the criteria of reasonable _hope of success_.

However, there does not seem to be _hope of success_ in the ongoing occupation of the West Bank. If success is determined by keeping Israel safe, it is doubtful that years of antagonizing Palestinians has led to safety for either group. Israel succeeded in defending itself in 1967, but has created an ongoing situation that is antithetical to its own self-defense and has no _hope of success._


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I guess that justifies the continued occupation in your mind as being moral.


Absolutely...In fact, I think you should personally visit the American friendly nations of Sudan, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Turkey to inform them of my opinion.
But name me as your Life Insurance beneficiary before you go.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Militaries must respond with _proportional force _commensurate to the force of aggression against them.

Israel could have defended its territory and pushed back the Jordanian forces without also taking control over the entire West Bank. However, it is also reasonable that the Israeli military would want to push the Jordanian army back as far as they could, to completely secure their sovereign territory from further attack. Thus, Israel’s 1967 actions receive the benefit of the doubt for the criteria of _proportional force_.

Once the war was over, however, the use of force inherent to the continued occupation was disproportionate to the level of ongoing threat. Even if the occupation provides some security to Israel, it comes at the expense of the lives and livelihoods of three million Palestinians living in the West Bank. There must be a different way for Israel to defend its own boundaries without forcing occupation upon its neighbors. By causing disproportionate harm to the Palestinians living under Israel’s control, the ongoing occupation is not a valid instance of _proportional force_.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made.


The Lord is merciful which is why He puts up with you.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Militaries must respond with _proportional force _commensurate to the force of aggression against them.
> 
> Israel could have defended its territory and pushed back the Jordanian forces without also taking control over the entire West Bank. However, it is also reasonable that the Israeli military would want to push the Jordanian army back as far as they could, to completely secure their sovereign territory from further attack. Thus, Israel’s 1967 actions receive the benefit of the doubt for the criteria of _proportional force_.
> 
> Once the war was over, however, the use of force inherent to the continued occupation was disproportionate to the level of ongoing threat. Even if the occupation provides some security to Israel, it comes at the expense of the lives and livelihoods of three million Palestinians living in the West Bank. There must be a different way for Israel to defend its own boundaries without forcing occupation upon its neighbors. By causing disproportionate harm to the Palestinians living under Israel’s control, the ongoing occupation is not a valid instance of _proportional force_.


I'm bored.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Military forces must employ _just means_ by following proper war conduct.

The Israeli army used _just means_ in the initial military operation of 1967. The only quarrel in this regard would be from Palestinians who were unnecessarily displaced during this time period. While displacement often happens during war, it’s possible that the Israeli army took extra liberties to displace locals during its initial advancements in the West Bank.

The ongoing occupation has displayed a disregard for _just means_, especially in the continued displacement of Palestinians from their homes. The Israeli Defense Force has been known to quell protests with lethal arms and overbearing military force, as well as kill and detain at will. These infringe upon the important principle of non-combatant immunity. Military force is supposed to do its best to spare civilians from harm, but the occupation targets civilians first instead. The separation walls and innumerable constrictive checkpoints are other examples of harming civilian life. None of this constitutes _just means_ in the ongoing post-1967 occupation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The OP is still waiting for that moral argument for Israel occupying the Palestine Territory.
> 
> We can assume Israel fought the 1967 War with upstanding intentions of safeguarding its immediate and continued survival. However, evidence suggests that some Israeli commanders operated with the additional motive of land conquest. For example, reports suggest that military leaders asked the U.S. to delay the U.N. ceasefire until they had time to finish conquering the entire West Bank. This action belies an opportunism that puts the question of _right intention_ in doubt.
> 
> This doubt grows when we consider how Israel has managed the Occupied Palestine Territory in the years since the war. The immediate annexation of East Jerusalem, including the Old City, reveals a prior intention of gaining and keeping this territory if given the opportunity to do so. The retention of the entire West Bank and the full military control of its borders speaks to similar motives. Most of all, the proliferation and protection of Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank reveal great intentions of land conquest. Whether or not this was the initial plan of the Israeli military, it has been the long-term reality. The land that Palestinians are allowed to live on is being reduced into ever smaller parcels while the Israeli military and settlement presence grows. Thus, the long-term occupation of the West Bank does not meet the standard of _right intention._



*The OP is still waiting for that moral argument for Israel occupying the Palestine Territory. *

And that's your mistake.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Let's face it, there really is no moral justification for the occupation or Palestine.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Not even one attempt was made to justify it.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Conclusion
According to this seven-fold analysis, the initial wartime occupation of the West Bank in 1967 satisfies the criteria of the Just War Theory, while the ongoing occupation does not. And even the initial occupation is made morally suspect by the unjust intention of land conquest present at the time. Over fifty years of military occupation, administrative control, and settlement proliferation in the West Bank suggest that this intention of conquest has come to fruition.

The occupation of the West Bank should have ended shortly after 1967. The continued occupation does not satisfy the criteria of the Just War Theory, and is therefore not morally justified.

_Charles Skold is graduating in 2019 with a Master in Public Administration from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and a Master of Theological Studies from the Harvard Divinity School. He’s from Freeport, Maine, and received a B.A. in Political Science from Tufts University in 2011. You can find him on Twitter at: @CharlesSkold._


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Militaries must respond with _proportional force _commensurate to the force of aggression against them.
> 
> Israel could have defended its territory and pushed back the Jordanian forces without also taking control over the entire West Bank. However, it is also reasonable that the Israeli military would want to push the Jordanian army back as far as they could, to completely secure their sovereign territory from further attack. Thus, Israel’s 1967 actions receive the benefit of the doubt for the criteria of _proportional force_.
> 
> Once the war was over, however, the use of force inherent to the continued occupation was disproportionate to the level of ongoing threat. Even if the occupation provides some security to Israel, it comes at the expense of the lives and livelihoods of three million Palestinians living in the West Bank. There must be a different way for Israel to defend its own boundaries without forcing occupation upon its neighbors. By causing disproportionate harm to the Palestinians living under Israel’s control, the ongoing occupation is not a valid instance of _proportional force_.



*Militaries must respond with proportional force commensurate to the force of aggression against them.*

Israel kicked Arab ass.....again.

*There must be a different way for Israel to defend its own boundaries without forcing occupation upon its neighbors.*

Maybe their neighbors should try peace?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Let's face it, there really is no moral justification for the occupation or Palestine.



The "Palestinians" should have all moved to Jordan in 1967.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> *SIX-DAY WAR ERUPTS*
> On June 5, 1967, the Israel Defense Forces initiated Operation Focus, a coordinated aerial attack on Egypt. That morning, some 200 aircraft took off from Israel and swooped west over the Mediterranean before converging on Egypt from the north.
> 
> After catching the Egyptians by surprise, they assaulted 18 different airfields and eliminated roughly 90 percent of the Egyptian air force as it sat on the ground. Israel then expanded the range of its attack and decimated the air forces of Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
> ...





ding said:


> *SIX-DAY WAR ERUPTS*
> On June 5, 1967, the Israel Defense Forces initiated Operation Focus, a coordinated aerial attack on Egypt. That morning, some 200 aircraft took off from Israel and swooped west over the Mediterranean before converging on Egypt from the north.
> 
> After catching the Egyptians by surprise, they assaulted 18 different airfields and eliminated roughly 90 percent of the Egyptian air force as it sat on the ground. Israel then expanded the range of its attack and decimated the air forces of Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
> ...



^^^^^^    MOST IDIOTIC POST OF THE 21st 
                                 CENTURY   
*    "After catching the Egyptians by surprise" *
                and now for a touch of reality---by mid-MAY 
                the UN was in EMERGENCY SESSION to deal 
                with CRISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST---Egypt 
                shut down the straits of Tiran and massed its 
                Russian trained and armed army which 
                included Russian Military men on the border 
                with Israel and had threatened DAILY 
                COMPLETE ANNHILATION of   "all da jooos"  
                                     (_dingbat forgot----the UN remained in daily EMERGENCY 
                                                                     SESSION for weeks -----until June 5 the egyptian 
                                                                     ambassador GRINNED ---then---he stopped smiling---
                                                                    then---he wept.     Nasser threatened resignation----
                                                                    until he dropped dead of a heart attack_


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> ^^^^^^    MOST IDIOTIC POST OF THE 21st
> CENTURY
> *    "After catching the Egyptians by surprise" *
> and now for a touch of reality---by mid-MAY
> ...


No.  I am fully aware of the history.  Clearly you didn't read what was written.  

The initial wartime occupation of the West Bank in 1967 satisfies the criteria of the Just War Theory, the ongoing occupation does not. 

You don't like that conclusion but those are the facts.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> *SIX-DAY WAR ERUPTS*
> On June 5, 1967, the Israel Defense Forces initiated Operation Focus, a coordinated aerial attack on Egypt. That morning, some 200 aircraft took off from Israel and swooped west over the Mediterranean before converging on Egypt from the north.
> 
> After catching the Egyptians by surprise, they assaulted 18 different airfields and eliminated roughly 90 percent of the Egyptian air force as it sat on the ground. Israel then expanded the range of its attack and decimated the air forces of Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
> ...



    you got a CITATION for that ^^^ perversion of history------ie---name the mosque or Imam


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> No.  I am fully aware of the history.  Clearly you didn't read what was written.
> 
> The initial wartime occupation of the West Bank in 1967 satisfies the criteria of the Just War Theory, the ongoing occupation does not.
> 
> You don't like that conclusion but those are the facts.



Arabs lost. No do overs. That's the fact.
If "Palestinians" want a country of their own, they should try peace.
Quickly, they're running out of time/land.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> you got a CITATION for that ^^^ perversion of history------ie---name the mosque or Imam











						Six-Day War
					

The Six-Day War was a brief but bloody conflict fought in June 1967 between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Following years of




					www.history.com
				




Who knew that history.com perverted history


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arabs lost. No do overs. That's the fact.
> If "Palestinians" want a country of their own, they should try peace.
> Quickly, they're running out of time/land.


That's a great moral argument you have there.

You must be from the alt right.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Six-Day War
> 
> 
> The Six-Day War was a brief but bloody conflict fought in June 1967 between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Following years of
> ...



who wrote the article?      were you surprised?   
Was Nasser "surprised" ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> That's a great moral argument you have there.
> 
> You must be from the alt right.



Here's your "moral" argument.

The Arabs got their asses kicked, yet again.
Israel should give all the land back, because Arabs are sad.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _Jordanian disengagement from the West Bank (in Arabic: قرار فك الارتباط), in which Jordan surrendered the claim to sovereignty over the West Bank, took place on 31 July 1988.[50] On 31 July 1988, Jordan renounced its claims to the West Bank (with the exception of guardianship over the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem), and recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."[51][52]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Here's your "moral" argument.
> 
> The Arabs got their asses kicked, yet again.
> Israel should give all the land back, because Arabs are sad.


Then you should have no complaint when it is done to you.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> who wrote the article?      were you surprised?
> Was Nasser "surprised" ?


I am only surprised that you take exception to history, Rosie.  Actually, I'm not surprised.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

I love how this thread has proven that man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept he rationalizes that he didn't do wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Thanks for proving my point.



Glad to reduce your ignorance.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Glad to reduce your ignorance.


Not possible.  You are from Chicago.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Then you should have no complaint when it is done to you.



Maybe the Arabs have learned their lesson, eh?

Fight Israel and you're going to lose territory.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I love how this thread has proven that man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept he rationalizes that he didn't do wrong.



But Israel is mean......Wah.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> But Israel is mean......Wah.


Most atheists dismiss that.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Maybe the Arabs have learned their lesson, eh?
> 
> Fight Israel and you're going to lose territory.


Maybe.

The question is will you recognize the irony when it happens to you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Maybe.
> 
> The question is will you recognize the irony when it happens to you.



Someone going to invade Chicago?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Someone going to invade Chicago?


The rule of capture takes many forms, Toddster.

Normalization of deviance leads to predictable surprises.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The rule of capture takes many forms, Toddster.
> 
> Normalization of deviance leads to predictable surprises.



*Normalization of deviance*

Enough about Islam.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I am only surprised that you take exception to history, Rosie.  Actually, I'm not surprised.



Of course not----you are not surprised that I am RIGHT------I know the history  FIRST HAND.    You prefer 
the  REVISED version------kinda like the version of reality invented by the Nicean Council.     Of course---you may be right-----it is possible that  NASSER was insane all along-----as were  the ambassadors to the UN who parroted him.       uhm.....     are you very young,    dingy?     _or just stupid?_


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Normalization of deviance*
> 
> Enough about Islam.


As if you actually knew what normalization of deviance was.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> Of course not----you are not surprised that I am RIGHT------I know the history  FIRST HAND.    You prefer
> the  REVISED version------kinda like the version of reality invented by the Nicean Council.     Of course---you may be right-----it is possible that  NASSER was insane all along-----as were  the ambassadors to the UN who parroted him.       uhm.....     are you very young,    dingy?     _or just stupid?_


Not sure what you are getting at, Rosie, Israel made a preemptive attack.  While the initial occupation can be justified as moral, the continued occupation can't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> As if you actually knew what normalization of deviance was.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 353276


All good patriots understand that standards are more important than blind allegiance.

Good luck, Jake Spooner.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Not sure what you are getting at, Rosie, Israel made a preemptive attack.  While the initial occupation can be justified as moral, the continued occupation can't.



I am getting at  FACT  ----the war of 1967 was THE AGENDA of Gamal Abdul Nasser in conjunction with 
Russia ------as to Jordan------Nasser dragged that country into the Fray.    Nasser's telephone call to King 
Hussein was intercepted.    The preemptive strike to which you gleefully refer happened   AFTER  Nasser blocked the Straits of Tiran and massed the Russian armed and trained and DIRECTED army on the border with Israel and dismissed the UN peace keeping troops and issued mob cheering rants about  "KILLIN' DA JOOS"     The aggression was  ALL EGYPT until Syria HAPPILY joined up-----Lebanon a bit less enthusiactically,  and  Jordan sorta dragged in.  Logically it could be called  the 1967 Russian, Nasser War of Aggression.    (russia was a very big factor----
the russians, at that time, LOVED BAATHISM)


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

PS    "occupation" of what?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> I am getting at  FACT  ----the war of 1967 was THE AGENDA of Gamal Abdul Nasser in conjunction with
> Russia ------as to Jordan------Nasser dragged that country into the Fray.    Nasser's telephone call to King
> Hussein was intercepted.    The preemptive strike to which you gleefully refer happened   AFTER  Nasser blocked the Straits of Tiran and massed the Russian armed and trained and DIRECTED army on the border with Israel and dismissed the UN peace keeping troops and issued mob cheering rants about  "KILLIN' DA JOOS"     The aggression was  ALL EGYPT until Syria HAPPILY joined up-----Lebanon a bit less enthusiactically,  and  Jordan sorta dragged in.  Logically it could be called  the 1967 Russian, Nasser War of Aggression.    (russia was a very big factor----
> the russians, at that time, LOVED BAATHISM)


Sure and Israel fired the first shot.

What does that have to do with the continued occupation?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> PS    "occupation" of what?


I guess it was Jordan at the time but now it is Palestine.

Does it matter?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Why is it that people need to rationalize the occupation as good and moral and just?

Why can't they just say it is bad and immoral?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

What's so wrong with being unlawful and unjust occupiers?


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Sure and Israel fired the first shot.
> 
> What does that have to do with the continued occupation?



when was the  "first shot"   in the conflict between 
muslims  and jews in the Levant FIRED  ??


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

I guess people just need to see themselves as good.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> when was the  "first shot"   in the conflict between
> muslims  and jews in the Levant FIRED  ??


Don't know and don't care.  

I only care that you need to see Israel's actions as moral and just when they aren't.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Why is it that people need to rationalize the occupation as good and moral and just?
> 
> Why can't they just say it is bad and immoral?



what occupation?  -----is that like the jewish crucifixion of some guy named Jesus?


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

Is the US occupation of CHAZ morally justifiable?

A friend wants to know...


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Don't know and don't care.
> 
> I only care that you need to see Israel's actions as moral and just when they aren't.



You  "CARE" ???       I never see actions that are not moral and just as moral and just.    I do recognize 
propaganda from people who are so idiotic that they believe that  the US congress passed a SPECIAL LAW  
conferring Israeli citizenship on all american jews who are now called     "DUALIES"    in various churches in the USA and people who are so bereft of brain that 
they are easily convinced that the word  phonetically 
pronounced  as   "goy"  is a hebrew word meaning 
"animal"     See? ----I know your reading material


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> Is the US occupation of CHAZ morally justifiable?
> 
> A friend wants to know...



can we hit you up for a little contribution for a bowling alley for   CHAZ?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> You  "CARE" ???       I never see actions that are not moral and just as moral and just.    I do recognize
> propaganda from people who are so idiotic that they believe that  the US congress passed a SPECIAL LAW
> conferring Israeli citizenship on all american jews who are now called     "DUALIES"    in various churches in the USA and people who are so bereft of brain that
> they are easily convinced that the word  phonetically
> ...


You don't know my reading material.  You are playing a movie in your head that is pleasing to your itching ears and eyes.  

My turn... you turn your back on truth and logic whenever it creates conflict in your beliefs.  You  are no different than any far left or far right idiot who pledges allegiance to his team rather than God.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> Is the US occupation of CHAZ morally justifiable?
> 
> A friend wants to know...


Create a thread.  This ain't that thread.


----------



## theHawk (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The definition of ethics is  a moral principle that govern behavior or the conducting of an activity;  the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
> 
> The purpose of this OP is to discuss the morality/ethics of the occupation of the West Bank.
> 
> ...


Of course it’s justified.  They won all wars against them and are able to hold onto the lands they own by force.  Other have tried to take it from them, and failed.

Who else would be “justified” in occupying it?

Every peace initiative offered by Israel to the Palestinian people have been utterly rejected by the Palestinian Authority.


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> can we hit you up for a little contribution for a bowling alley for   CHAZ?



I save it for the day when Gaza opens an embassy in CHAZ(A)
and both celebrate their 25th anniversary of joint Space Program.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> what occupation?  -----is that like the jewish crucifixion of some guy named Jesus?


Not exactly, but your denial is literally proving my point.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

theHawk said:


> Of course it’s justified.  They won all wars against them and are able to hold onto the lands they own by force.  Other have tried to take it from them, and failed.
> 
> Who else would be “justified” in occupying it?
> 
> Every peace initiative offered by Israel to the Palestinian people have been utterly rejected by the Palestinian Authority.


So rule of capture is moral?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

This keeps getting better and better.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> You don't know my reading material.  You are playing a movie in your head that is pleasing to your itching ears and eyes.
> 
> My turn... you turn your back on truth and logic whenever it creates conflict in your beliefs.  You  are no different than any far left or far right idiot who pledges allegiance to his team rather than God.



your orientation is revealed in your writings.    As to left and right-------I am a registered democrat but actually vote independently.    I have never been a  "joiner"  ----
even in the acid galvanized 60s-----I carry NO CARD.   
YOU,  have the orientation of a middle class WASP--
do you drink beer at least four times per week?   ----
do you attend church with the kids?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> your orientation is revealed in your writings.    As to left and right-------I am a registered democrat but actually vote independently.    I have never been a  "joiner"  ----
> even in the acid galvanized 60s-----I carry NO CARD.
> YOU,  have the orientation of a middle class WASP--
> do you drink beer at least four times per week?   ----
> do you attend church with the kids?


Not a WASP.
Don't drink beer except on rare occasions.
Don't attend church.

You are 0 for 3, Rosie.

Now it's my turn, both Toddsterpatriot and the Hawk are far right wing alt righters that support your position.  If that doesn't give you pause for concern, nothing will.


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So rule of capture is moral?


Do as I say, not as I do...

You don't liberate a nation by turning the other cheek,
who if not the Christian nations to know this better than anyone.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> your orientation is revealed in your writings.    As to left and right-------I am a registered democrat but actually vote independently.    I have never been a  "joiner"  ----
> even in the acid galvanized 60s-----I carry NO CARD.
> YOU,  have the orientation of a middle class WASP--
> do you drink beer at least four times per week?   ----
> do you attend church with the kids?


Not to mention that more often than not you side with atheists and never defend God from the godless atheists.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> You don't liberate a nation by turning the other cheek,
> who if not the Christian nations to know this better than anyone.


Give me a break.  When the US defeated Mexico we gave back Mexico.

And Israel isn't liberating Palestine.  They are subjugating them.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

When the US defeated Japan.  The US gave back Japan.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

When the US defeated Germany.  The US gave back Germany.


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Not to mention that more often than not you side with atheists and never defend God from the godless atheists.



Have you ever pondered on the idea that atheists might be correct being atheists
around delusional fanatics like you?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Not to mention, the US rebuilt Japan and Germany.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> Have you ever pondered on the idea that atheists might be correct being atheists
> around delusional fanatics like you?


You mean delusion beliefs like God created the universe and man is a product of that creation?


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> When the US defeated Germany.  The US gave back Germany.



And when Arabs lost control over the land of Israel,
they lost it.

Need that math explained?


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Not to mention that more often than not you side with atheists and never defend God from the godless atheists.



I neither argue with atheists or defend atheists.   
What does  "defend God"  mean?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> Have you ever pondered on the idea that atheists might be correct being atheists
> around delusional fanatics like you?


Or maybe my belief that everything God created is good?


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> You mean delusion beliefs like God created the universe and man is a product of that creation?



No I mean the obsessed bible thumpers with deficiencies in reading comprehension...


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> I neither argue with atheists or defend atheists.
> What does  "defend God"  mean?


You just keep standing idly by like the German citizens did.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> No I mean the obsessed bible thumpers with little reading comprehension...


I see it the other way around.  Any fool who believes that God gave man an evil inclination has no reading comprehension.  

Which probably explains why you think the continued occupation is morally justified but can't explain why.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Or maybe my belief that everything God created is good?



dingy----you attached a question mark to a declarative 
sentence in the subjunctive tense


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> And when Arabs lost control over the land of Israel,
> they lost it.
> 
> Need that math explained?


Ummmm... it was Christians who gave it back.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> dingy----you attached a question mark to a declarative
> sentence in the subjunctive tense


If only you examined your conscience as closely.


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I see it the other way around.  Any fool who believes that God gave man an evil inclination has no reading comprehension.
> 
> Which probably explains why you think the continued occupation is morally justified but can't explain why.



What is unjustified about a nation liberating its land?
Go on set a standard that you yourself don't defy, and then let's discuss.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> You just keep standing idly by like the German citizens did.



what is remarkable about German citizens not getting into theological discussion?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> What is unjustified about a nation liberating its land?
> Go on set a standard that you yourself don't defy.


So it was a lie that Israel made a preemptive attack to defend themselves?

Are you saying their firing the first shot was all about taking back their land?


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Ummmm... it was Christians who gave it back.



And it were them who were kicked out...


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> what is remarkable about German citizens not getting into theological discussion?


Rosie, the comment was about not following one's conscience.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> If only you examined your conscience as closely.



You have provided a good example of THE 
SUBJUNCTIVE  in a nonsense statement


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> And it were them who were kicked out...


That's stupid.  The state of Israel only exists today because of the goodwill of Christians.

Israel's occupation of Palestine is not morally justified.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> You have provided a good example of THE
> SUBJUNCTIVE  in a nonsense statement


You should worry about your conscience more.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> That's is stupid.  The state of Israel only exists today because of the goodwill of Christians.
> 
> Israel's occupation of Palestine is not morally justified.



Have you explained yet who Israel should hand any territory?


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Give me a break.  When the US defeated Mexico we gave back Mexico.
> 
> And Israel isn't liberating Palestine.  They are subjugating them.



subjugating whom?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Have you explained yet who Israel should hand any territory?


Palestine.  Isn't that who Jordan deeded the title to?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> subjugating whom?


The inhabitants of the occupied lands that aren't Israeli settlers.


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So it was a lie that Israel made a preemptive attack to defend themselves?
> 
> Are you saying their firing the first shot was all about taking back their land?



Israel was already attacked prior to that,
our grandparents dug mass graves in preparation, for themselves.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Palestine.  Isn't that who Jordan deeded the title to?



no     Jordan did not hold the deed


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> Israel was already attacked prior to that,
> our grandparents dug mass graves in preparation, for themselves.


They dug their graves after they were attacked?


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The inhabitants of the occupied lands that aren't Israeli settlers.



what are the "occupied lands"   and what are  
"israeli settlers"  ?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Give me a break.  When the US defeated Mexico we gave back Mexico.
> 
> And Israel isn't liberating Palestine.  They are subjugating them.


The Palestinians will really appreciate being pushed into Gaza when Jordan is given the land and kicks them out.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> no     Jordan did not hold the deed


Who do you think did?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> They dug their graves after they were attacked?


The Arabs were broadcasting their impending attack on the radio.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> The Palestinians will really appreciate being pushed into Gaza when Jordan is given the land and kicks them out.


Give back the land and let's find out.

Because Israel has no moral argument to continue their occupation.  It's not their land.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> The Arabs were broadcasting their impending attack on the radio.


The initial occupation isn't in question.  The continued occupation is.


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Give back the land and let's find out.
> 
> Because Israel has no moral argument to continue their occupation.  It's not their land.



Jews have no moral argument for occupying Judea?

The guy who brags about his logic...


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So it was a lie that Israel made a preemptive attack to defend themselves?
> 
> Are you saying their firing the first shot was all about taking back their land?



It is true that Israel's attack on the Egyptian airfields was a  DEFENSE  against  Egypt's  aggression and declaration of war against Israel.   It was not an issue of taking back land.   Taking back land was an issue between Jordan and Israel.    Jordan continued to hold Israeli land since the   1948 armistice.     You figured out when that  "first shot"  happened?


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The initial occupation isn't in question.  The continued occupation is.




Occupation by whom on what?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> Jews have no moral argument for occupying Judea?


Correct.  

I'm all ears if you want to make one.  That's kind of the point of this thread.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The initial occupation isn't in question.  The continued occupation is.


You start a war; you get your ass kicked; you don't get to pass Go and collect anything.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> The Palestinians will really appreciate being pushed into Gaza when Jordan is given the land and kicks them out.



good point-----Turkey does not want them


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> Occupation by whom on what?


Ding hates Jews so this Thread is not a shock to me.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> It is true that Israel's attack on the Egyptian airfields was a  DEFENSE  against  Egypt's  aggression and declaration of war against Israel.   It was not an issue of taking back land.   Taking back land was an issue between Jordan and Israel.    Jordan continued to hold Israeli land since the   1948 armistice.     You figured out when that  "first shot"  happened?


The first shot doesn't matter.  I have absolved Israel for the initial occupation.  It is the continued occupation that is being questioned.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> good point-----Turkey does not want them


In fact, most of the Arab world wants Israel to officially take over Jordan's West Bank.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> Occupation by whom on what?


You can pretend there is no occupation but reality says otherwise.

It's you denial of an occupation which proves you know the continued occupation is immoral.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> In fact, most of the Arab world wants Israel to officially take over Jordan's West Bank.


Not their call.  

But your statement proves there is an occupation.


----------



## theHawk (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So rule of capture is moral?


Rule of capture is human history.

It’s ridiculous to hold Israel to some higher standard than isn’t held to any other nation on the planet.


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Correct.
> 
> I'm all ears if you want to make one.  That's kind of the point of this thread.



Is there a moral standard by which you measure?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Ding hates Jews so this Thread is not a shock to me.


I don't.  

I love God.  So I speak truth that is uncomfortable to you to hear.  If you loved God you would speak the truth too.  

You have literally just born false witness against your neighbor.  Me.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

theHawk said:


> Rule of capture is human history.
> 
> It’s ridiculous to hold Israel to some higher standard than isn’t held to any other nation on the planet.


Sure, so is that your moral argument?  That taking from others because you can is moral?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> Is there a moral standard by which you measure?


Yes.  Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.  Morals are given to us from God.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> You start a war; you get your ass kicked; you don't get to pass Go and collect anything.


So it was a land grab and nothing else?


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> You can pretend there is no occupation but reality says otherwise.
> 
> It's you denial of an occupation which proves you know the continued occupation is immoral.



sheeeesh    dingy----you have devolved into nonsense sentences-------along with the 

*Jabberwocky’.*

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Yes.  Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.  Morals are given to us from God.



No actually try saying something specific,
you were asked to set a moral standard for the discussion.

Let's see if you're not just another hypocrite.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So it was a land grab and nothing else?



no----it was an escape from oppression and a reclamation of nation


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> sheeeesh    dingy----you have devolved into nonsense sentences-------along with the
> 
> *Jabberwocky’.*
> 
> ...


I wouldn't expect you to see it any other way because you have no moral argument for the continued occupancy of Palestine.  If you did, you would make that argument instead.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> No actually try to say something specific,
> you were asked to set a moral standard for the discussion.
> 
> Let's see if you're not just another hypocrite.


The standard is they should withdraw back to their legal boundaries.  There's your standard.  

Next time be more specific with your question then you won't have to try to make it look like my fault for you not being specific enough.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> no----it was an escape from oppression and a reclamation of nation


If that were the case there would have been no opposition to their occupation, Rosie.


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The standard is they should withdraw back to their legal boundaries.  There's your standard.
> 
> Next time be more specific with your question then you won't have to try to make it look like my fault for you not being specific enough.



What legal boundaries would those be,
because sovereignty in all of Palestine was legally vested with the Jewish nation.

That's exactly the argument that makes the case for Israel.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Ding hates Jews so this Thread is not a shock to me.


I bet if you had been around back in the days of the prophets you would have criticized them for speaking out against the behaviors of your people.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> What legal boundaries would those be,
> because sovereignty in all of Palestine was legally vested with the Jewish nation.
> 
> No Arab nation was mention.


The one in place before Israel made their preemptive attack.   

It is quite comical how you guys will say anything not to acknowledge that the continued occupation is immoral.


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The one in place before Israel made their preemptive attack.
> 
> It is quite comical how you guys will say anything not to acknowledge that the continued occupation is immoral.



By what moral standards do you judge?
I've asked you to set any, but you keep refusing.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I wouldn't expect you to see it any other way because you have no moral argument for the continued occupancy of Palestine.  If you did, you would make that argument instead.



Of course I argue against
 "OCCUPANCY OF 'PALESTINE' ".    IT has always been   immoral.    The Romans had no right to be there and  to change its name and character 
and murder its jewish citizens and defile its land with 
ROMAN  filth and myths and circuses.   The arabs 
had no right to invade and impose their filth and neither did the "crusaders"


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> Of course I argue against
> "OCCUPANCY OF 'PALESTINE' ".    IT has always been   immoral.    The Romans had no right to be there and  to change its name and character
> and murder its jewish citizens and defile its land with
> ROMAN  filth and myths and circuses.   The arabs
> had no right to invade and impose their filth and neither did the "crusaders"


Move into the 20th century Rosie.  

Unless of course you are arguing God told you to take that land in 1967.  Is that what you are arguing?

Did God tell Israel to take the West Bank in 1967?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> Of course I argue against
> "OCCUPANCY OF 'PALESTINE' ".    IT has always been   immoral.    The Romans had no right to be there and  to change its name and character
> and murder its jewish citizens and defile its land with
> ROMAN  filth and myths and circuses.   The arabs
> had no right to invade and impose their filth and neither did the "crusaders"


Did God tell you that Israel should occupy those lands now?

When did God tell you this?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> By what moral standards do you judge?
> I've asked you to set any, but you keep refusing.


That it is wrong for Israel to now occupy the lands they took by force in 1967.

Is that clear enough for you?


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> If that were the case there would have been no opposition to their occupation, Rosie.



another nonsense sentence with a mystery pronoun.  
To what does  "that"  refer  ----to whose "opposition" 
do you refer and what is  "their occupation"  ??


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> another nonsense sentence with a mystery pronoun.
> To what does  "that"  refer  ----to whose "opposition"
> do you refer and what is  "their occupation"  ??


Did God tell you that Israel should continue to occupy the lands they took by force in 1967?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Palestine.  Isn't that who Jordan deeded the title to?


*Palestine.  *

What's that?

*Isn't that who Jordan deeded the title to?*

Nope. To Israel.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Palestine.  *
> 
> What's that?
> 
> ...


The lands Israel took by force in 1967, Karl.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nope. To Israel.


Not what the link you provided said, Karl.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Did God tell you that Israel should occupy those lands now?
> 
> When did God tell you this?



The civilization of INDIA  developed in the INDUS VALLEY.    ---art, religion, customs, language.   
The civilization of ISRAEL  developed in the land west of the Jordan river and east of the Mediterranean ---art, religion, customs and language.    The civilization of egypt developed along the Nile River----art, religion 
customs, language.    That's how nations are made.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> The civilization of INDIA  developed in the INDUS VALLEY.    ---art, religion, customs, language.
> The civilization of ISRAEL  developed in the land west of the Jordan river and east of the Mediterranean ---art, religion, customs and language.    The civilization of egypt developed along the Nile River----art, religion
> customs, language.    That's how nations are made.


In 1967 Israel used a different method to expand their boundaries.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The lands Israel took by force in 1967, Karl.



Arabs keep starting wars, keep losing.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Not their call.
> 
> But your statement proves there is an occupation.


My favorite part of the 6 Day War was when every single Arab nation, including Jordan, got wiped out, everyone of their leaders, including Jordan, was swearing by Allah that they would attack Israel again as soon as possible.
Yes, Jordan should definitely get "their" West Bank again after promising to attack again.
Your stupidity is *ass*tounding.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I don't.
> 
> I love God.  So I speak truth that is uncomfortable to you to hear.  If you loved God you would speak the truth too.
> 
> You have literally just born false witness against your neighbor.  Me.


You're not my neighbor but you are an idiot.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arabs keep starting wars, keep losing.


What's your point?  









						Jews are the genetic brothers of Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese, study finds
					

If a common heritage conferred peace, then perhaps the long history of conflict in the Middle East would have been resolved years ago. For, according to a new scientific study, Jews are the genetic brothers of Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese, and they all share a common genetic lineage that...



					www.sciencedaily.com


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> You're not my neighbor but you are an idiot.


That would be you rationalizing that you didn't bear false witness against me.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Not their call.
> 
> But your statement proves there is an occupation.





Indeependent said:


> My favorite part of the 6 Day War was when every single Arab nation, including Jordan, got wiped out, everyone of their leaders, including Jordan, was swearing by Allah that they would attack Israel again as soon as possible.
> Yes, Jordan should definitely get "their" West Bank again after promising to attack again.
> Your stupidity is *ass*tounding.


Not sure what that had to do with the post you were replying to but I do hope it made you feel better, brother.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Not sure what that had to do with the post you were replying to but I do hope it made you feel better, brother.


You are very Christian so you would give a weapon to the guy who has just sworn to try and kill you again.
Jews don't play that game.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The lands Israel took by force in 1967, Karl.



there was a state of war in the Levant that had not ended for many centuries.    It became inflamed in 
1967 by Russian/Baathist interests led by Gamal Abdul 
Nasser whose interest was a UNITED BAATHIST empire in the Levant.   Russian interests also included SPHERE OF INFLUENCE  over the nascent Baathist empire.   
Israel was slated for annhilation by the BAATHIST 
CULT------but fought back and survived.    dingy wept


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> there was a state of war in the Levant that had not ended for many centuries.    It became inflamed in
> 1967 by Russian/Baathist interests led by Gamal Abdul
> Nasser whose interest was a UNITED BAATHIST empire in the Levant.   Russian interests also included SPHERE OF INFLUENCE  over the nascent Baathist empire.
> Israel was slated for annhilation by the BAATHIST
> CULT------but fought back and survived.    dingy wept


Ding isn't *playing *dumb, he *is* dumb.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> You are very Christian so you would give a weapon to the guy who has just sworn to try and kill you again.
> Jews don't play that game.


If you want to make the moral argument that Israel is occupying Palestine to protect themselves, but that seems like a weak argument.  Israel is pretty damn powerful relative to the Palestinians.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Ding isn't *playing *dumb, he *is* dumb.


I understand that you are upset because there is no moral argument to be made for the continuing occupation so you need to lash out at me, but that's only harming your soul.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> If you want to make the moral argument that Israel is occupying Palestine to protect themselves, but that seems like a weak argument.  Israel is pretty damn powerful relative to the Palestinians.


Israel was not threatened by the Palestinians after Israel defeated the 5 Arab armies; Israel was threatened by every one of those nations.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> there was a state of war in the Levant that had not ended for many centuries.    It became inflamed in
> 1967 by Russian/Baathist interests led by Gamal Abdul
> Nasser whose interest was a UNITED BAATHIST empire in the Levant.   Russian interests also included SPHERE OF INFLUENCE  over the nascent Baathist empire.
> Israel was slated for annhilation by the BAATHIST
> CULT------but fought back and survived.    dingy wept


So your argument is that it was a continuing war and Israel must still occupy those lands, why?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I understand that you are upset because there is no moral argument to be made for the continuing occupation so you need to lash out at me, but that's only harming your soul.


Being threatened by your mortal enemy right after winning a war is reason enough to remove their strategic ground.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> In 1967 Israel used a different method to expand their boundaries.



what  "method"  was that?       what boundaries?  
Do you know what a  TRUCE LINE is?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Israel was not threatened by the Palestinians after Israel defeated the 5 Arab armies; Israel was threatened by every one of those nations.


So there is no concern about their safety if they give back the lands they took in 1967.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So your argument is that it was a continuing war and Israel must still occupy those lands, why?


Are you retarded?
Are you even reading my posts?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So there is no concern about their safety if they give back the lands they took in 1967.


Being that Arabs start wars with each other all the time I would hesitate to yield ground.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Being threatened by your mortal enemy right after winning a war is reason enough to remove their strategic ground.


Sure.  But not decades later.  That's the point.  The initial occupation was justified.  Today's occupation is not.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Are you retarded?
> Are you even reading my posts?


Yes, I am.  Are you reading mine.

The initial occupation was justified.  The current occupation is not.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Sure.  But not decades later.  That's the point.  The initial occupation was justified.  Today's occupation is not.


Do you follow the Middle East?
Are you retarded?
Do you realize how Arab countries are murdering their own citizens?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Being that Arabs start wars with each other all the time I would hesitate to yield ground.


There is no risk from the Palestinians and the buffer they provide offers no strategic value.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> What's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*What's your point? *

When idiots start wars, and lose, they need to pay for their stupidity.
It helps them learn, so they're less likely to do something stupid in the future.


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

*Miracles: Purim, Hanukkah, Six Day War*


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Yes, I am.  Are you reading mine.
> 
> The initial occupation was justified.  The current occupation is not.


Goodbye; I've had enough of your Muslim ass kissing.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Do you follow the Middle East?
> Are you retarded?
> Do you realize how Arab countries are murdering their own citizens?


Is Israel not strong enough to defend themselves from attack?

How does the West Bank improve that ability?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> There is no risk from the Palestinians and the buffer they provide offers no strategic value.


When's the last time you were there?


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So your argument is that it was a continuing war and Israel must still occupy those lands, why?



for the same reason that India "must"  "occupy"   
the Indus valley and the  "UNITED STATES"  must 
occupy Texas and Brooklyn.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Is Israel not strong enough to defend themselves from attack?
> 
> How does the West Bank improve that ability?


I have an idea; the next time Israel is attacked, which won't happen again, Israel will wipe the attacker off the face of the earth.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Goodbye; I've had enough of your Muslim ass kissing.


I'm not kissing Muslims asses.  I am telling you the truth you do not want to hear.  

There is no military threat from Palestine.  The conditions which led to the occupation no longer exist.  If anything Israel is at greater risk by continuing the opposition.

Israel can hold no moral high ground by continuing the occupation.

It is in Israel's best interest to give back the seized lands.


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

*Six Days of Miracles*

An exciting and uplifting historic short movie, highlighting the miraculous events of the Six Day War, and emphasizing the Divine hand orchestrating these remarkable events from behind the scenes.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> for the same reason that India "must"  "occupy"
> the Indus valley and the  "UNITED STATES"  must
> occupy Texas and Brooklyn.


So no moral argument for Israel to occupy Palestine.  Got it.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I'm not kissing Muslims asses.  I am telling you the truth you do not want to hear.
> 
> There is no military threat from Palestine.  The conditions which led to the occupation no longer exist.  If anything Israel is at greater risk by continuing the opposition.
> 
> ...











						Ayelet Shaked - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



You may be right because she has told every Arab neighbor that if they attacked the IDF will respond with zero mercy because she doesn't care about world opinion.
She is not religious; she grew up in Israel and doesn't take crap from anyone.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So no moral argument for Israel to occupy Palestine.  Got it.


Preserving educated Jews is a moral imperative; just not to you.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Ayelet Shaked - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know I'm right.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Preserving educated Jews is a moral imperative; just not to you.


Giving back the lands taken in 1967 will not lead to the destruction of Israel.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I know I'm right.


I'm sure you went into your local White Supremacist bar and after they kicked the shit out of you, you went back.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Giving back the lands taken in 1967 will not lead to the destruction of Israel.


Is that Why India and Pakistan and all the Balkans are at war with each other?
They were moral and they have lots of people being murdered every day.
Check the news.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I'm not kissing Muslims asses.  I am telling you the truth you do not want to hear.
> 
> There is no military threat from Palestine.  The conditions which led to the occupation no longer exist.  If anything Israel is at greater risk by continuing the opposition.
> 
> ...



*It is in Israel's best interest to give back the seized lands.*

Not to an entity that wants to destroy Israel.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> I'm sure you went into your local White Supremacist bar and after they kicked the shit out of you, you went back.


No.  I burned it down and then went on about my business.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Is that Why India and Pakistan and all the Balkans are at war with each other?
> They were moral and they have lots of people being murdered every day.
> Check the news.


Are you making a two wrongs makes a right argument?


----------



## Alan Stallion (Jun 21, 2020)

As long as the people who identify themselves as "Palestinians" continue to be violent and a hostile, murderous people, and continue to train the next generations in such evil mindsets, Israel has every right to defend itself including "occupying" any such lands of hostility. Thus, they should never feel obligated to give any of it back.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> No.  I burned it down and then went on about my business.


Giving back land after a war simply doesn't work and your knowledge of world affairs is zero.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I'm not kissing Muslims asses.  I am telling you the truth you do not want to hear.
> 
> There is no military threat from Palestine.  The conditions which led to the occupation no longer exist.  If anything Israel is at greater risk by continuing the opposition.
> 
> ...




"give back"   to whom?       there is no threat  "from palestine"       ----wrong again dingy----there is no 
"palestine"       "PALESTINA"  is just a name forced 
onto   JUDEA  by Roman invaders-----occupiers.    
In fact before the romans forced the name Palestina---
the Romans used the name JUDEA   in some latinized 
form.   for the unified KINGDOM OF JUDAH and ISRAEL.     -----now all called   "ISRAEL"  <<<  the modern form.    simple.       Your difficulty here is that 
you adhere to the roman cult.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It is in Israel's best interest to give back the seized lands.*
> 
> Not to an entity that wants to destroy Israel.


They have had over 50 years to destroy Israel.  So I don't really see the risk there.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Are you making a two wrongs makes a right argument?


I'm making a "preventing people from being murdered is a moral imperative" point.
You are the ever suffering Christian.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Giving back land after a war simply doesn't work and your knowledge of world affairs is zero.


US gave Mexico back to Mexico after we won that war.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> I'm making a "preventing people from being murdered is a moral imperative" point.
> You are the ever suffering Christian.


So giving back the West Bank will be the downfall of Israel?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> I'm making a "preventing people from being murdered is a moral imperative" point.
> You are the ever suffering Christian.


Who is going to get murdered?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So giving back the West Bank will be the downfall of Israel?


Are you autistic?
The land mass between Israel and Jordan is like a pixel on a screen compared to the land mass between the US and Mexico.
You are dumb as dogshit.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Are you autistic?
> The land mass between Israel and Jordan is like a pixel on a screen compared to the land mass between the US and Mexico.
> You are dumb as dogshit.


So Israel will crumble if they give back the occupied lands?

Exactly how sensitive is the the occupation of the West Bank for the continued well being of Israel?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Who is going to get murdered?


Why don't you ask people who live in the Christian and Muslim countries where there are no borders and lots of terrorist attacks?
Arabs in the Middle East are trained to be proud of dying and getting their virgins.
You can't really be this stupid.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So Israel will crumble if they give back the occupied lands?
> 
> Exactly how sensitive is the continued well being of Israel is the occupation of the West Bank?


Why don't you visit and find out for yourself because nothing anyone posts here will convince you that Jews aren't sneaky and evil.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jun 21, 2020)

harmonica said:


> yes
> ....AND the Pals/etc should thank their lucky stars that the Israelis have shown IMMENSE restraint in not shoving them into the sea


^^^Thank you^^^


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Are you autistic?
> The land mass between Israel and Jordan is like a pixel on a screen compared to the land mass between the US and Mexico.
> You are dumb as dogshit.


So those Palestinians yielding sticks and throwing stones are a threat to Israel?


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> US gave Mexico back to Mexico after we won that war.



And if Arabs follow your standards they return Medina to Jews...


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So those Palestinians yielding sticks and throwing stones are a threat to Israel?


Give us your address and I'll pay some guys to go to your house and throw stones at you.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Why don't you visit and find out for yourself because nothing anyone posts here will convince you that Jews aren't sneaky and evil.


I never said Jews are sneaky or evil.  Get a grip.

I am saying the continued occupation can't be morally justified.  Stop being so emotional.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> So those Palestinians yielding sticks and throwing stones are a threat to Israel?



did you mean   WIELDING sticks  .. ???          yielding 
sticks would be ok


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> And if Arabs follow your standards they return Medina to Jews...


Sure, how long have you guys been asking for that?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I never said Jews are sneaky or evil.  Get a grip.
> 
> I am saying the continued occupation can't be morally justified.  Stop being so emotional.


What's you address?
I was serious; I will pay some guys to go to your address and throw stones at you.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> did you mean   WIELDING sticks  .. ???          yielding
> sticks would be ok


You guys are super paranoid.  

If the IDF were everything you said it was, then you shouldn't be worried about sticks and stones.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> You guys are super paranoid.
> 
> If the IDF were everything you said it was, then you shouldn't be worried about sticks and stones.


PM me your address.
I will pay some guys to go to your address and throw stones at you.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> What's you address?
> I was serious; I will pay some guys to go to your address and throw stones at you.


I have no doubt that if you could you would.  You are way too emotional about a discussion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> They have had over 50 years to destroy Israel.  So I don't really see the risk there.


*So I don't really see the risk there.*

No one cares what you see or don't see.
If the "Palestinians" want land, they need to make peace with Israel.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> PM me your address.
> I will pay some guys to go to your address and throw stones at you.


Would you like to hurt me?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I have no doubt that if you could you would.  You are way too emotional about a discussion.


I think you're the one with the emotional disturbance.
All global evidence points to never ceding land after winning a war.
PM me your address.


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Sure, how long have you guys been asking for that?


For independence?
Pretty much since G-d spoke to Avraham Avinu A"H.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> did you mean   WIELDING sticks  .. ???          yielding
> sticks would be ok


Yes, my bad.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Would you like to hurt me?


I want you to experience what you wish on others and see how tough you are.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> And if Arabs follow your standards they return Medina to Jews...



I don't want Medina------but I would like to have Baghdad.       Excavation rights in Medina would be 
good but only if you know who could be exhumed 
and moved to--------some unknown place


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> I think you're the one with the emotional disturbance.
> All global evidence points to never ceding land after winning a war.
> PM me your address.


I'm not the one threatening violence, brother.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> I want you to experience what you wish on others and see how tough you are.


I don't wish it on others.  Do you wish subjugation on others?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I'm not the one threatening violence, brother.


You just posted that Jewish soldiers shouldn't be offended by having stones thrown at them.
Let's see if such activity offends you.


----------



## Death Angel (Jun 21, 2020)

Israel should end the Arab Occupation of the Land of Israel


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I don't wish it on others.  Do you wish subjugation on others?


What subjugation?
Be specific.
Most Arabs would rather live under Jews than under Arabs.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> I want you to experience what you wish on others and see how tough you are.


I never claimed to be tough.  You seem to be the one using tough talk, brother.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> What subjugation?
> Be specific.
> Most Arabs would rather live under Jews than under Arabs.


The occupation of their lands, brother.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I don't wish it on others.  Do you wish subjugation on others?


I have a gemara class.
PM me your address.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I never claimed to be tough.  You seem to be the one using tough talk, brother.


You just posted that Jewish soldiers shouldn't be afraid of having stones thrown at them.
You must be autistic.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> For independence?
> Pretty much since G-d spoke to Avraham Avinu A"H.


They have been asking for their lands back since 1967.


----------



## Death Angel (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The occupation of their lands, brother.


Arabs OCCUPY large portions of the LAND OF ISRAEL.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> I have a gemara class.
> PM me your address.


Make sure and tell the Lord what a good person you have been during this discussion.


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> I don't want Medina------but I would like to have Baghdad.       Excavation rights in Medina would be
> good but only if you know who could be exhumed
> and moved to--------some unknown place



Gaza beaches are especially beautiful at night,
when lit by Israeli electricity.

Archaeological excavation rights in Median...hm... I like the idea very much.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> You just posted that Jewish soldiers shouldn't be afraid of having stones thrown at them.
> You must be autistic.


I posted that the threat Israel faces today is not the same threat they faced in 1967, Karen.

Stop being a drama queen.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The occupation of their lands, brother.



arab lands are in  ARABIA   ---(today mostly 
saudi arabia)       the civilization called  "arab"  
developed in "arabia" ---language, religion, 
art and customs.    Some places that were invaded 
by arabs became "arabized"  ----language, custom, 
religion, art. but jews are not "arabized"----even those who speak arabic are not  "arabized" thus  Israel is 
not  "arab land"


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

The tribal lot in which I live extends all the way to Sidon,

just sayin'...


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> Gaza beaches are especially beautiful at night,
> when lit by Israeli electricity.
> 
> Archaeological excavation rights in Median...hm... I like the idea very much.



Gaza would be a really nice resort town----like a 
Las Vegas or a Coney Island


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> Gaza would be a really nice resort town----like a
> Las Vegas or a Coney Island



Songs about return to Gaza reach top charts...


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> I posted that the threat Israel faces today is not the same threat they faced in 1967, Karen.
> 
> Stop being a drama queen.


You just posted that Jewish soldiers shouldn't be afraid of having stones thrown at them.


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

*"Ydidi Roe'e Mkimi"* is a traditional piyut written by Rabbi Yisrael Najara,

once the chief Rabbi of Gaza,
where he is buried.





__





						Israel ben Moses Najara - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> arab lands are in  ARABIA   ---(today mostly
> saudi arabia)       the civilization called  "arab"
> developed in "arabia" ---language, religion,
> art and customs.    Some places that were invaded
> ...


DNA says you are all related.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> You just posted that Jewish soldiers shouldn't be afraid of having stones thrown at them.


That's how your brain processed it.  You will say out of one side of your face that no one can defeat the Israeli army and out of the other side of your face that Palestinians are an existential threat to the security of Israel.  You can't have it both ways, pal.

The reality is that this is not 1967.  That threat is gone.  At this point it's just a land grab.  No different than what I would imagine gangsters would do.  

You have no moral argument for occupying the lands you took by force.  What Israel is doing is immoral.


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> That's how your brain processed it.  You will say out of one side of your face that no one can defeat the Israeli army and out of the other side of your face that Palestinians are an existential threat to the security of Israel.  You can't have it both ways, pal.
> 
> The reality is that this is not 1967.  That threat is gone.  At this point it's just a land grab.  No different than what I would imagine gangsters would do.
> 
> You have no moral argument for occupying the lands you took by force.  What Israel is doing is immoral.


No land was taken by force that wasn't allotted for Jewish sovereignty
by actual international law.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> That's how your brain processed it.  You will say out of one side of your face that no one can defeat the Israeli army and out of the other side of your face that Palestinians are an existential threat to the security of Israel.  You can't have it both ways, pal.
> 
> The reality is that this is not 1967.  That threat is gone.  At this point it's just a land grab.  No different than what I would imagine gangsters would do.
> 
> You have no moral argument for occupying the lands you took by force.  What Israel is doing is immoral.


The victor defines the buffer zone.
You should complain to Egypt and Jordan for paying Israel to protect their borders from Gaza and the West Bank.
Yep, even their "brothers" don't want them.
Go ahead, start a Thread on the immorality of Egypt and Jordan since they set up their own to be trapped like rat.
And let's not forget Syria invading Lebanon and never leaving.
That's 3 Threads of Arab immorality right there.

But we know that Jews winning drives you insane.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> No land was taken by force that wasn't allotted for Jewish sovereignty
> by actual international law.


We all know where the Torah denying Ding{Bat} is coming from.
He's hoping the destruction of The Jews will bring his messiah.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Make sure and tell the Lord what a good person you have been during this discussion.


The Lord knows I wish all mankind would live in peace.
In fact, it's in our davening every day in Pesukah D'zimrah in the last 5 tehillim of Dovid Hamelech.


----------



## rylah (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> We all know where the Torah denying Ding{Bat} is coming from.
> He's hoping the destruction of The Jews will bring his messiah.



I'll send my condolences to the Muslim and Christian theologians,
for the brain-freeze they've been experiencing since we liberated to Jerusalem.

That trauma should be recognized a DSM disorder,
and I guess the prescribed healing is returning Madrid to the Caliphate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Not a WASP.
> Don't drink beer except on rare occasions.
> Don't attend church.
> 
> ...



*Now it's my turn, both Toddsterpatriot and the Hawk are far right wing alt righters*

What's a "far right wing alt righter"?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Now it's my turn, both Toddsterpatriot and the Hawk are far right wing alt righters*
> 
> What's a "far right wing alt righter"?


Righter In The *Storm*?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Righter In The *Storm*?



Squirmin' like a toad?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

rylah said:


> No land was taken by force that wasn't allotted for Jewish sovereignty
> by actual international law.


The UN disagrees with you.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> The Lord knows I wish all mankind would live in peace.
> In fact, it's in our davening every day in Pesukah D'zimrah in the last 5 tehillim of Dovid Hamelech.


Your behaviors say otherwise.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> We all know where the Torah denying Ding{Bat} is coming from.
> He's hoping the destruction of The Jews will bring his messiah.


Spreading more lies about me.  Those are your true colors.

The righteous hate what is false, but the wicked make themselves a stench and bring shame on themselves.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> The victor defines the buffer zone.
> You should complain to Egypt and Jordan for paying Israel to protect their borders from Gaza and the West Bank.
> Yep, even their "brothers" don't want them.
> Go ahead, start a Thread on the immorality of Egypt and Jordan since they set up their own to be trapped like rat.
> ...


The victor defines the buffer zone?  

The conditions of 1967 are not the conditions of 2020.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Your behaviors say otherwise.


What behavior?
The fact that I and 99% of decent human beings recognize that evil nations should be barricaded from the neighbors they habitually invade?
You haven't address Muslim history at all because you can't without exposing how two faced you are.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> What behavior?


Your insults and lies.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> What behavior?
> The fact that I and 99% of decent human beings recognize that evil nations should be barricaded from the neighbors they habitually invade?
> You haven't address Muslim history at all because you can't without exposing how two faced you are.


You can't handle me believing that it is wrong for Israel to still be occupying Palestine so you attack me personally and spread lies about me.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The victor defines the buffer zone?
> 
> The conditions of 1967 are not the conditions of 2020.


Do you know why Israel is safer now than it was until about 4-5 years ago when Hezbollah threatened Israel with total annihilation?
Israel told Hezbollah they would nuke Lebanon.
And that's why Israel won't give an inch.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Do you know why Israel is safer now than it was until about 4-5 years ago when Hezbollah threatened Israel with total annihilation?
> Israel told Hezbollah they would nuke Lebanon.
> And that's why Israel won't give an inch.


Don't really care at this point.  

You couldn't have a civil discussion.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Your insults and lies.


The fact that you think Israeli soldiers should allow themselves to be stoned by Gazans?
You see how stupid you are?
Your rants belie the evil in your heart and then you pretend to be innocent.
But you're evil.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Don't really care at this point.
> 
> You couldn't have a civil discussion.


Yes, asking Jews to expose themselves to terrorists invites civil discussion.
You're a moron.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> The fact that you think Israeli soldiers should allow themselves to be stoned by Gazans?
> You see how stupid you are?
> Your rants belie the evil in your heart and then you pretend to be innocent.
> But you're evil.


The conditions of 1967 are not the conditions of 2020. 

Keep twisting my words, insulting me and lying about me.

You are only harming yourself.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Yes, asking Jews to expose themselves to terrorists invites civil discussion.
> You're a moron.


I ask that they do the right thing.  

Everything else is you twisting this discussion because you don't want to hear the truth.

The conditions of 1967 are not the conditions of 2020.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

There is no moral argument for the continued occupation.  Israel is only hurting herself.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> But you're evil.


I guess to not be evil in your eyes I would have to agree with everything you believed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> There is no moral argument for the continued occupation.  Israel is only hurting herself.



There is no moral argument for handing land over to an entity that wants to destroy Israel.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> There is no moral argument for handing land over to an entity that wants to destroy Israel.


Sure there is.  It's called doing the right thing.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Handing over the occupied territory does not increase the risk profile one iota.

In fact, it probably reduces it.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> You can't handle me believing that it is wrong for Israel to still be occupying Palestine so you attack me personally and spread lies about me.


how could Israel be occupying a place that does not exist and did not exist at the time Israel was attacked?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2020)

Dogmaphobe said:


> how could Israel be occupying a place that does not exist and did not exist at the time it was attacked?


In 1967 they made a preemptive attack on Egypt and took those lands by force and never gave them back.

I am only interested in the morality of that decision.   In 1967 Israel could make a moral argument for occupying those lands.  In 2020 they cannot.  

I'm not interested in playing games.


----------



## Ria_Longhorn (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> The case for _just cause_ in the post-1967 occupation is much weaker. In the immediate aftermath of the war, U.N. Resolution 242 emphasized the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and called for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” Instead of complying, Israel unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem and maintained its armed forces throughout the entire West Bank. This action was not a matter of self-defense, since Jordan had cooperated with the U.N. ceasefire and was no longer an immediate threat. Now, fifty years later and especially after the 1994 peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, the country is no longer a threat to Israel. Thus, Israel’s refusal to end the occupation of the West Bank has no _just cause_ inherent to the conditions that led it to initially occupy the territory.


The 1967 Security Council Resolution 242 was not based on Chapter VII of the UN Charter -- which enables the Security Council to make binding resolutions -- but on article 36 of the UN Charter, which only allows the Security Council to make recommendations.

By referring to "the States concerned" in the resolution, UNSC Res 242 is directing its recommendations only to the states involved in the conflict, namely, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria.

There is no mention of "Palestine" or "Palestinians" in UNSC Res 242, which is quite understandable, seeing that as late as 1968, the United Nations in their resolutions on the Israel/Arab conflict, refer to the Arabs as "inhabitants", "the population", or "the Arab civilian population." Not once did it use the term "Palestinians."

Poster, it would interest you to know that:

 -- Palestine never existed as a country.

 -- Palestine is a geographical term, not a political one.  (Should you gainsay           my assertion, I challenge you to name one  of its kings.)

-- Between 1922 - 1946, "100,000 Arabs entered the country from                             neighboring lands." (Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel,  New York, 1996,       p.167.)  Winston Churchill added that, "[d]espite the fact that they were never    persecuted, masses of Arabs poured into the country and multiplied  until the    Arab population grew more than what all of  world Jewry could add to the          Jewish population."

-- The last Muslims to occupy the land were the Ottoman Turks (1516-1917);           the Muslims now suing for the land are Arabs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Sure there is.  It's called doing the right thing.



Handing territory to an entity that wants to destroy you is stupid, not right.


----------



## Ria_Longhorn (Jun 21, 2020)

ding said:


> Was it Israel's land?


Here's Greco-Roman historian, Cassius Dio (164 c.235) on the matter as to whom the land belongs to: "At Jerusalem, Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the TEMPLE ... he raised a new temple to Jupiter.

This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, for the JEWS deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in THEIR city and foreign religious rites planted there." [All emphases mine] (From Cassius Dio, Roman History 69.12.1-14.3)

Poster, where were the "Palestinian" when the Jewish People were  defending their land? Cassius Dio makes no mention of them.


----------



## Ria_Longhorn (Jun 22, 2020)

ding said:


> There is no moral argument for the continued occupation.  Israel is only hurting herself.


One of the oldest extant bible is the *4th Century CE* Codex Sinaiticus (its usage here is the saliency of its date composition,* 4th Century CE*, and not necessarily its theology).  In it you will read:

"But after Herod had died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, 'Arise, and take the young child [Jesus] and his mother, and go into the* land of Israel* ..." -- Matthew 2: 19, 20

And:
"[Y]ou [gentiles] were at that time without Christ, alienated from the* polity of Israel *..." -- Ephesian 2:12

Nope, no mention of any Palestine.  It would interest the reader to know that in the New Testament, there is no mention of Palestine nor Palestinians.  That's right, Jesus never met an "Palestinian".  In the Hebrew bible, "Philistia is mistranslated as Palestine.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jun 22, 2020)

ding said:


> In using the Just War Theory to evaluate Israel’s occupation, we can distinguish between two of its actions: the initial military advancement into the West Bank during the 1967 War, and the ongoing occupation after the war officially ended.


But the war was not officially ended. They didn't sign a peace treaty yet.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jun 22, 2020)

Ria_Longhorn said:


> Here's Greco-Roman historian, Cassius Dio (164 c.235) on the matter as to whom the land belongs to: "At Jerusalem, Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the TEMPLE ... he raised a new temple to Jupiter.
> 
> This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, for the JEWS deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in THEIR city and foreign religious rites planted there." [All emphases mine] (From Cassius Dio, Roman History 69.12.1-14.3)
> 
> Poster, where were the "Palestinian" when the Jewish People were  defending their land? Cassius Dio makes no mention of them.


Actually, "Palestinians" were called "Pelasgians" in the Greek tradition, and in the Greek tradition, they were described as ancestors or forerunners of the Greeks.
In the Jewish tradition they were called as Philistines, and they came there just before Jews.


----------



## Mindful (Jun 22, 2020)

Israel: The World's Most Moral Army | PragerU
					

Is the Israeli military a paragon of morality and wartime ethics? Or is it an oppressive force that targets innocent Palestinian civilians and commits war…




					www.prageru.com


----------



## rylah (Jun 22, 2020)

ding said:


> The UN disagrees with you.


Thank G-d,
means we're doing right then.

Tried to ask the logical followup question - does the UN have any legal authority?

What the UN is bound by, is the inherited charter from the League of Nations,
that specifically forbids negation of any national rights of the Jewish people in that territory.

In fact the liberation of Jerusalem and Judea by the Jewish nation,
set a historic precedent for all indigenous nations seeking re-constitution.

That's called historic justice.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 22, 2020)

ding said:


> The UN disagrees with you.





ding said:


> DNA says you are all related.



you met up with some talking DNA    dingbat?    
ALL HUMANS are related.     Can you come up with anything worth posting?


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 22, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> You just posted that Jewish soldiers shouldn't be afraid of having stones thrown at them.



the best answer to stone throwing is  THROW THEM BACK        There are places on the head that a stone--
thrown expertly, can be deadly.    People should be trained in stone throwing.    Even BETTER!!!   The answer to incendiary devices should ALSO be    THROW THEM BACK   -----a barrage of gasoline filled 
balloons should answer every  "molotov balloon" launched from Gaza.     It's good to get back to basics.     **rise up early in the morning and do unto them 
  before they do it unto you AGAIN** 
   uhm......KOOM BA BOKER.....???          this way, dingbats of the world cannot complain --- 
   "DA JOOOS HAVE BETTER WEAPONS"


----------



## rylah (Jun 22, 2020)

irosie91 said:


> the best answer to stone throwing is  THROW THEM BACK        There are places on the head that a stone--
> thrown expertly, can be deadly.    People should be trained in stone throwing.    Even BETTER!!!   The answer to incendiary devices should ALSO be    THROW THEM BACK   -----a barrage of gasoline filled
> balloons should answer every  "molotov balloon" launched from Gaza.     It's good to get back to basics.     **rise up early in the morning and do unto them
> before they do it unto you AGAIN**
> ...



WTF don't I have better work to do BA BOKER ...??
I prefer the _"don't bring a stone to a gun fight"_ and the sevenfold response.

Even granny said :


----------



## Ria_Longhorn (Jun 29, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Ria_Longhorn said:
> 
> 
> > Here's Greco-Roman historian, Cassius Dio (164 c.235) on the matter as to whom the land belongs to: "At Jerusalem, Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the TEMPLE ... he raised a new temple to Jupiter.
> ...


the Philistines were, a non-Arabic, non-Semitic people from the Greek Isles who invaded the southern coast of the Land in the 2nd half of the 12th Century BCE.
We know from the 13th Centur


Silver Cat said:


> Ria_Longhorn said:
> 
> 
> > Here's Greco-Roman historian, Cassius Dio (164 c.235) on the matter as to whom the land belongs to: "At Jerusalem, Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the TEMPLE ... he raised a new temple to Jupiter.
> ...


The Philistines were a non-Arabic, non-Semitic people from the Greek Isles who invaded the southern coast of the Land in the 2nd half of the 12th Century BCE.
We know from the 13th Century BCE Merneptah Stele, that mentions Israel, 
that the Children of Israel preceded the Philistines.


----------

