So, let's go ahead and go back to the '1967' borders and end the 'occupation'

[Shusha]

Israel has no sovereign title to that land. None.

What, specifically, excludes Israel from sovereignty over that land?

 

[Shusha]

And quite frankly, all this talk about ancestral home seems a little hard to swallow in light of the fact that in its entire 5000 year history, only 414 years were spent under Jewish rule. That's 8%. Jews ancestral home makes up only 8% of the entire time that area had people living in it.

What's your point? That rights to the land should be given to the peoples who were sovereign the longest? So Rome? Please.

 

[Indofred]

Why were arabs attacking Jews in Israel before it even became a state.

Because they knew the Jews were a set of bastards out to steal their land.
That proved right.

 

[teddyearp]

But from whom? They did not 'seize' it from a sovereign nation called Palestine. It was territory under the complete control of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, respectively. So returning to 1967 and giving back land that "never will belong to Israel" means giving it back to who had it in 1967, doesn't it?

It doesn't matter who they seized it from. It was seized in a war. And it is illegal to hold onto land seized in a war.

What about the second half Bill? Too tricky for you to address? Again, if Israel returns to 1967 borders, that would mean they would have to give the territory back to Jordan, Egypt and Syria, wouldn't it?

Invading a sovereign nation...

Which sovereign nation did Israel invade in 1967?

Shusha, a late welcome to the fray. As Bill said, "It doesn't matter", but ultimately, the difficult questions seem to get ignored by the anti crowd.

 

[Shusha]

Shusha, a late welcome to the fray. As Bill said, "It doesn't matter", but ultimately, the difficult questions seem to get ignored by the anti crowd.

Thanks for the welcome. Of course its being ignored. They can't answer the question without destroying their own arguments. They know damn well that if they say that Jordan, Egypt and Syria had sovereignty that sovereignty had been gained through a war of aggression which is against their rules. They can't say that "Palestine" had sovereignty since "Palestine" didn't exist. They can't say that Israel had sovereignty because Israel must not be sovereign at all costs (even though Israel has a clear claim). What's left? A sovereign vacuum, which they know darn well can come under the authority of another sovereign if that sovereign exercises effective control over it. They're screwed.

 

[hadit]

Why were arabs attacking Jews in Israel before it even became a state.

Because they knew the Jews were a set of bastards out to steal their land.
That proved right.

And they got their butts thoroughly kicked. They're still ticked about it.

 

[hadit]

Shusha, a late welcome to the fray. As Bill said, "It doesn't matter", but ultimately, the difficult questions seem to get ignored by the anti crowd.

Thanks for the welcome. Of course its being ignored. They can't answer the question without destroying their own arguments. They know damn well that if they say that Jordan, Egypt and Syria had sovereignty that sovereignty had been gained through a war of aggression which is against their rules. They can't say that "Palestine" had sovereignty since "Palestine" didn't exist. They can't say that Israel had sovereignty because Israel must not be sovereign at all costs (even though Israel has a clear claim). What's left? A sovereign vacuum, which they know darn well can come under the authority of another sovereign if that sovereign exercises effective control over it. They're screwed.

That's really the bottom line here. That area was not home to a distinct, independent nation. The world created one there, and it's been successfully defending itself ever since.

 

[teddyearp]

They know damn well that if they say that Jordan, Egypt and Syria <snip>

I totally agree, but just for kicks, and I do not know why Bill mentioned the Golan, but I think we should keep the Golan out of the discussion. The PA doesn't lay any claim to it, it never had any, so why should it even be considered?

 

[CMike]

Claiming that people that lived on another continent somehow had a right to sovereinty in land already inhabited by other people over said native inhabitants is abrurd.

Those people already had two independent Jewish states in those areas. The "palestinians" never had one.

 

[rhodescholar]

About those 1967 borders. Why do we cling to this year, 1967? What was different about the borders in 1967? They were the same from 1949 through June 1967! Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.

I got the idea for this discussion from this thread here:

Israel's Occupation Is Morally Indefensible | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But it is talking about Israel's 'occupation' so instead of derailing that thread I thought I put out this question/food for thought.

OK. Then let's go back to the 1949 borders. Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied the West Bank. And though at first, Egypt and the Arab league put a party in power that made it seem as though there was a free and independent 'Palestine' in Gaza, it was still controlled by Egypt. And eventually, Egypt put their own governor in control over Gaza. Jordan made no bones. It took total and complete control of the West Bank and issued Jordanian passports, NOT Palestinian ones. With these facts in place, I wonder then if pbel would re-write his statement in the above thread quoted here:

There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

To say:

<snip>--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Egyptians and Jordanians the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

Wanna go back? Let's do it!

Because it gives the arab muslim filth and their anti-jew vermin allies something to attack the jews with. From 1948 - 1967 there was no Israeli presence in the West bank, but still the arab muslim human feces attacked Israeli jews via terrorism relentlessly, possibly even more than today.

Think shabaa farms; in 2000 the UN certified Israel's exit from Lebanon, but that would leave the hezbollah/iran/arab muslim terrorist filth without a manufactured/artificial excuse to continue to attack Israel and dig for low IQ, uninformed, clueless supporters worldwide. Having the shabaa farm nonsense gives them a fig leaf with which to continue to pretend they are a "resistance" group, even if there is nothing legitimate about them.

 

[theliq]

But under international law - they've always been referred to as occupied territories - that's even upheld by Israeli courts.

Well, that sounds suspiciously like a logical fallacy, even if true and I doubt it is.

Who is sovereign over the territory, then? Who was the previous sovereign? What legal instrument transferred that sovereignty from the previous sovereign? In what year did that sovereignty come into effect?

Jews had no sovereign rights to any part of Palestine,but they did co-erse the UN and bribed others to support them.....Even after 1948 Israel were NOT A LEGAL ENTITY as this had to be ratified by the UN Security Council ..........WHICH IT NEVER WAS.

 

[theliq]

About those 1967 borders. Why do we cling to this year, 1967? What was different about the borders in 1967? They were the same from 1949 through June 1967! Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.

I got the idea for this discussion from this thread here:

Israel's Occupation Is Morally Indefensible | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But it is talking about Israel's 'occupation' so instead of derailing that thread I thought I put out this question/food for thought.

OK. Then let's go back to the 1949 borders. Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied the West Bank. And though at first, Egypt and the Arab league put a party in power that made it seem as though there was a free and independent 'Palestine' in Gaza, it was still controlled by Egypt. And eventually, Egypt put their own governor in control over Gaza. Jordan made no bones. It took total and complete control of the West Bank and issued Jordanian passports, NOT Palestinian ones. With these facts in place, I wonder then if pbel would re-write his statement in the above thread quoted here:

There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

To say:

<snip>--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Egyptians and Jordanians the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

Wanna go back? Let's do it!

Because it gives the arab muslim filth and their anti-jew vermin allies something to attack the jews with. From 1948 - 1967 there was no Israeli presence in the West bank, but still the arab muslim human feces attacked Israeli jews via terrorism relentlessly, possibly even more than today.

Think shabaa farms; in 2000 the UN certified Israel's exit from Lebanon, but that would leave the hezbollah/iran/arab muslim terrorist filth without a manufactured/artificial excuse to continue to attack Israel and dig for low IQ, uninformed, clueless supporters worldwide. Having the shabaa farm nonsense gives them a fig leaf with which to continue to pretend they are a "resistance" group, even if there is nothing legitimate about them.

I HAVE REPORTED YOU FOR FILTH,RACISM AND ANTI-SEMITISM.............SO MUCH FOR YOUR "VERMIN,HUMAN FECES,ETC.,AD-NAUSIUM.

U R A MORON

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenger, et al,

I would have agreed to this IF, and only IF, the Arab League forces had not violated Article 2 of the Charter.

So ... what borders should be used to define Israel?

The borders they themselves declared on 14th May 1948

(COMMENT)

But since the Arab Forces did advance into Israel, any territory the Israelis brought under control in the wake of an Arab Retreat, is newly acquired territory.

And until such time that the Arab League forces establish a Peace Treaty, Israel might still hold that territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

But since the Arab Forces did advance into Israel,...​

Do you have proof of that?

 

[Billo_Really]

What about the second half Bill? Too tricky for you to address? Again, if Israel returns to 1967 borders, that would mean they would have to give the territory back to Jordan, Egypt and Syria, wouldn't it?

They're not giving, they're leaving. You cannot give, what you don't have. All that is required for Israel to do, is leave. It needs to vacate the area it seized during the '67 war.

One thing is absolutely certain, Israel will not be allowed to keep that land. Any of it. You would think after almost 50 years, they'd would catch the clue. Unfortunately, much like a neutered dog, they don't get it.

 

[Billo_Really]

What, specifically, excludes Israel from sovereignty over that land?

The people that have been living there for the past 2000 years.

 

[Billo_Really]

I totally agree, but just for kicks, and I do not know why Bill mentioned the Golan, but I think we should keep the Golan out of the discussion. The PA doesn't lay any claim to it, it never had any, so why should it even be considered?

Because it is part of the area seized during the '67 war.

But that's Syria's deal, so if you like, we can exclude that from the discussion.

 

[Billo_Really]

That's really the bottom line here. That area was not home to a distinct, independent nation.

It doesn't have to be. It's home to an indigenous population of Arabs and they have an inalienable right to self determination.

The world created one there, and it's been successfully defending itself ever since.

An occupational force, cannot claim self defense.

 

[Billo_Really]

And they got their butts thoroughly kicked. They're still ticked about it.

You've seen too many episodes of Walker, Texas Ranger.

 

[Billo_Really]

Those people already had two independent Jewish states in those areas. The "palestinians" never had one.

The 2nd one was forced upon them without their approval.

 

[rhodescholar]

About those 1967 borders. Why do we cling to this year, 1967? What was different about the borders in 1967? They were the same from 1949 through June 1967! Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.

Why?

How will doing so have the slightest impact on the intolerant arab muslim diseased mind that only they can be sovereign in the mideast?