All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[rosends]

What attacks?

from the link I provided:

In addition to Nasser’s verbal threats, Israel was under attack by Arab terrorists. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched.12

Meanwhile, Syria’s attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967, during which Israeli planes shot down six Syrian MiGs.

 

[rosends]

In the old days conquest was considered a legitimate means of acquiring territory. Since the advent of international law it has become illegal. In the US, Canada, etc. it was not illegal. For Israel it was illegal.

BTW, conquerors cannot be considered native or indigenous.

Sadly, that doesn't answer my questions as Israel wasn't established by conquest but by international acclimation after being partitioned by the ruling force. The areas conquered during a defensive war are not illegal under international law.

But back to my questions, what if the conquerers had, themselves, been conquered when they were native? Shouldn't they have memorial claim? Who determines at what date we call a people indigenous?

 

[Sixties Fan]

from the link I provided:

You are discussing the subject with people who do not care and will never understand the issue.
Years have been spent with both, and others.
It will lead to nothing.

 

[Billo_Really]

from the link I provided:

Egypt was not attacking Israel!

 

[rosends]

Egypt was not attacking Israel!

Besides the closing of the straits (which was an act of war) there was the demand that UN peace keeping forces leave, there was also this statement, "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain anymore to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence"

 

[Billo_Really]

Besides the closing of the straits (which was an act of war) there was the demand that UN peace keeping forces leave, there was also this statement, "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain anymore to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence"

The closing of the Straits was not an act of war against Israel. Israeli tanks rolling into Egypt was an act of war. And there is nothing you can say to change this one historical fact! Everybody makes excuses for Israeli behavior. Well, not me! Fuck Israel! You don't deserve a country! You got one, but you don't deserve it!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Sadly, that doesn't answer my questions as Israel wasn't established by conquest but by international acclimation after being partitioned by the ruling force. The areas conquered during a defensive war are not illegal under international law.

But back to my questions, what if the conquerers had, themselves, been conquered when they were native? Shouldn't they have memorial claim? Who determines at what date we call a people indigenous?

Israel wasn't established by conquest but by international acclimation after being partitioned by the ruling force.

No it wasn't.

Who determines at what date we call a people indigenous?

A better question is who belongs to a territory or society. People move around all the time and intermix all the time. It would be impossible to separate all of that out.

However, belonging is a two part question.

1. A person goes to a place to become a member of a society.
2. That person is accepted as a member of that society.

If these two things are met, he becomes a member of that society. If they are not, he does not belong there.

 

[rosends]

No it wasn't.

well, that's not really persuasive in light of history.

A better question is who belongs to a territory or society. People move around all the time and intermix all the time. It would be impossible to separate all of that out.

However, belonging is a two part question.

1. A person goes to a place to become a member of a society.
2. That person is accepted as a member of that society.

If these two things are met, he becomes a member of that society. If they are not, he does not belong there.

defining society is not very useful here. I appreciate what you wrote but it doesn't address anything I wondered about.

 

[rosends]

The closing of the Straits was not an act of war against Israel.

Sure it was. It was casus belli under international law. Learn some history.

Israeli tanks rolling into Egypt was an act of war. And there is nothing you can say to change this one historical fact! Everybody makes excuses for Israeli behavior. Well, not me! Fuck Israel! You don't deserve a country! You got one, but you don't deserve it!

You can't just stamp your feet and think that that changes history and international law. Have fun trying, though.

 

[Billo_Really]

Sure it was. It was casus belli under international law. Learn some history.

You can't just stamp your feet and think that that changes history and international law. Have fun trying, though.

IHL says Israel started that war. Israel did not own the Straits.

 

[P F Tinmore]

from the link I provided:

Were those attacks by the neighboring states or by Palestinians trying to go back home?

 

[P F Tinmore]

well, that's not really persuasive in light of history.

defining society is not very useful here. I appreciate what you wrote but it doesn't address anything I wondered about.

defining society is not very useful here. I appreciate what you wrote but it doesn't address anything I wondered about.

It separates the immigrants from the invaders.

 

[rosends]

IHL says Israel started that war. Israel did not own the Straits.

Who said Israel owned them?
Here is some reading

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4330453

or you could just buy Bregmans "Israel's Wars"

 

[rosends]

Were those attacks by the neighboring states or by Palestinians trying to go back home?

are you refering to Syria's attacks or to the incursions by Arab terrorists from neighboring states?

Feel free to read up on it

One Long War: Netanel Lorch: 9780706515459: Amazon.com: Books

One Long War [Netanel Lorch] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. One Long War

www.amazon.com

 

[P F Tinmore]

are you refering to Syria's attacks or to the incursions by Arab terrorists from neighboring states?

Feel free to read up on it

One Long War: Netanel Lorch: 9780706515459: Amazon.com: Books

One Long War [Netanel Lorch] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. One Long War

www.amazon.com

I don't know. It was your post.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Israel cannot hold onto land it seized in the '67 war. Conquer by conquest has been outlawed since the end of WWII. To allow Israel to keep that land, is like saying it was okay for Germany to annex Poland.

Whose land did Israel seize in 1967?

 

[Billo_Really]

Who said Israel owned them?
Here is some reading

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4330453

or you could just buy Bregmans "Israel's Wars"

Your link doesn't work.

I have done a lot of reading on this topic and nothing changes the fact that Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt to start the war.

 

[rosends]

Your link doesn't work.

I have done a lot of reading on this topic and nothing changes the fact that Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt to start the war.

the link works just fine for me. Nothing changes the fact that there was an act of war before Israel rolled tanks anywhere.

 

[Billo_Really]

Whose land did Israel seize in 1967?

It doesn't matter. All that matters is, it was not Israel's.

 

[Billo_Really]

the link works just fine for me. Nothing changes the fact that there was an act of war before Israel rolled tanks anywhere.

Your link says you must log on through a library to 'continue reading'.

Closing the Strait, was not an attack on Israel