Is the Occupation of the West Bank Morally Justified?

[ding]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Adam did you occupy those territories?

The woman you made for me made me do it.

 

[Indeependent]

Rationalizing a wrong as a right was the original sin.

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

 

[irosie91]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Jordan said they didn't want the land.

So there was a transfer of title to Israel?

 

[ding]

",,,,,, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...