Is the Occupation of the West Bank Morally Justified?

[ding]

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]

So you want to skip the question the OP asks?

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

 

[fncceo]

So you want to skip the question the OP asks?

Like a dog with a bone.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

View attachment 353236

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

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

Is that correct?

 

[ding]

No borders.

Armistice lines.

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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]

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

I don’t have a moral argument.

 

[ding]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.......

You mean which ATTACKING country?

Legitimate 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]

Legitimate 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]

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]

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.