Resolution 242; 1967 Borders; "illegal" even "Occupied"

[creation]

It has no problem with conquering a land of a nation that has tried to conquer Israel's(Jordan), if that's what you mean.

Can you tell me what invasion Jordan made on Israeli territory and on what basis is one thus allowed to settle the enemy's land?

 

[Apocalypse]

Can you tell me what invasion Jordan made on Israeli territory and on what basis is one thus allowed to settle the enemy's land?

Jordan joined the Six Day war and attacked Israel without Israel attacking it.
It also was part of the Arab nations that have invaded Israel in 1948.
It has no right to complain on land it losses during a war it declares on Israel where it's trying to take Israeli lands.

E. Jerusalem was not Jordanian when Israelis have started living there, it was Israeli.
I would also like to remind you that Jordan doesn't ask for Jerusalem back or anything like that, and that when the peace agreement was signed with Jordan, it did not ask for E. Jerusalem, so it's now fully Israeli.

 

[Mira]

What makes the map of the Old City so decisive as to the holders of the Christian sites?
There are many important Jewish places in Europe, and yet Christians rule it and Jews have no problem or issue with it.
I can't see why would Jews ruling Christian sites be seen in any different light.

It is THE most important city of Christianity, THE most important for Judaism and the 3rd most important to Islam.

I can still only see Jerusalem as an international zone.

 

[Apocalypse]

It is THE most important city of Christianity, THE most important for Judaism and the 3rd most important to Islam.

I can still only see Jerusalem as an international zone.

I thought the place of birth of Jesus was more important(Bethlehem).

Anyway, it's under Israeli control and I see no Christian objection to it.
They can come and pray as they like, nobody is limiting them.

 

[Mira]

I thought the place of birth of Jesus was more important(Bethlehem).

Anyway, it's under Israeli control and I see no Christian objection to it.
They can come and pray as they like, nobody is limiting them.

Bethlehem is not THE most important place and you know it.

Why not an international zone ?

 

[creation]

Jordan joined the Six Day war and attacked Israel without Israel attacking it.
It also was part of the Arab nations that have invaded Israel in 1948.
It has no right to complain on land it losses during a war it declares on Israel where it's trying to take Israeli lands.

E. Jerusalem was not Jordanian when Israelis have started living there, it was Israeli.
I would also like to remind you that Jordan doesn't ask for Jerusalem back or anything like that, and that when the peace agreement was signed with Jordan, it did not ask for E. Jerusalem, so it's now fully Israeli.

Thank you.

So in fact Jordan has never set foot on Israeli territory and settled it. In fact even in 1948, when it had opportunity to move onto Israel territory it did not do so.

So its clear that settlement is not done on a reciprocal basis, so on what basis is settlement done? Might?

It would be fully Israeli if all parties, including the UN had agreed to annexation. Do you think it is wrong that the other parties do not see it your way?

 

[Mira]

Basically what I'm saying is that Jerusalem is a holy city for all 3 religions and it has seen enough bloodshed because of that.

Isn't it time to call it an international zone and end the bloodshed ?

If it remains divided, bloodshed is bound to happen again one day.

Let's get over with Jerusalem and make it a place of worship.

 

[Apocalypse]

Basically what I'm saying is that Jerusalem is a holy city for all 3 religions and it has seen enough bloodshed because of that.

Isn't it time to call it an international zone and end the bloodshed ?

If it remains divided, bloodshed is bound to happen again one day.

Let's get over with Jerusalem and make it a place of worship.

Jerusalem is already a place of worship for all religions, the issue of who has the control over it is an issue between Israelis and Palestinians.
Internationalizing Jerusalem solves not existing problem, as the problem is not with the entire world but simply between two people.

 

[Apocalypse]

Thank you.

So in fact Jordan has never set foot on Israeli territory and settled it. In fact even in 1948, when it had opportunity to move onto Israel territory it did not do so.

And how exactly did you draw that assumption from the text?
No, Jordan has indeed set foot in Israeli territory in 1948 and 1967.

So its clear that settlement is not done on a reciprocal basis, so on what basis is settlement done? Might?

Ownership.

It would be fully Israeli if all parties, including the UN had agreed to annexation. Do you think it is wrong that the other parties do not see it your way?

Yes, I believe it's hypocrisy seeing how all of those nations have conquered other nations' lands in a crusade of aggression while Israel has gained its own by fighting against aggressors.
But that's my own personal opinion.

The international groups (UN, International community) do not recognize Israel's sovereignty over E. Jerusalem, but that does not change the on-ground facts, and that is a full Israel control over the whole of Jerusalem.

 

[creation]

And how exactly did you draw that assumption from the text?
No, Jordan has indeed set foot in Israeli territory in 1948 and 1967.

Really? Where?

Ownership.

As in legal property? Under what law?

Yes, I believe it's hypocrisy seeing how all of those nations have conquered other nations' lands in a crusade of aggression while Israel has gained its own by fighting against aggressors.
But that's my own personal opinion.

The international groups (UN, International community) do not recognize Israel's sovereignty over E. Jerusalem, but that does not change the on-ground facts, and that is a full Israel control over the whole of Jerusalem.

Your referred to the UK previously, re Ireland. Are you aware that Northern Ireland is held on the majority vote of its people?

You are correct, Israel does control the territory. However, the distinction you make seems to be that by it thus owns it. Surely the only basis one can use for that is Israel's own.

 

[creation]

Please Apocalypse can you enlighten me as to where Jordan set foot on israeli territory.

I am sure that as an israeli you will be better able to answer this than others.

Many thanks

 

[Mira]

Jerusalem is already a place of worship for all religions, the issue of who has the control over it is an issue between Israelis and Palestinians.
Internationalizing Jerusalem solves not existing problem, as the problem is not with the entire world but simply between two people.

I suppose I'm just a tree-hugging pacifist then

I might as well step aside and watch more blood being spilled over a holy city

Yerushalayim shel zahav
Veshel nechoshet veshel or
Halo lechol shirayich Ani kinor.

for the English speakers

Jerusalem of gold,
and of light and of bronze,
I am the lute for all your songs.

 

[Apocalypse]

Really? Where?

What do you mean, where?
Where else could this be?
In the area where the boundaries between Israel and Jordan were, near what is today the 'west bank'.

As in legal property? Under what law?

You were not speaking about laws when you mentioned 'might'.

Your referred to the UK previously, re Ireland. Are you aware that Northern Ireland is held on the majority vote of its people?

It is a conquered land, like all of Europe.

You are correct, Israel does control the territory. However, the distinction you make seems to be that by it thus owns it. Surely the only basis one can use for that is Israel's own.

It owns the territory because it conquered it, it's really quite simple, I could give you quite a lot of examples for territories that were conquered by a nation that holds them till today.

 

[creation]

What do you mean, where?
Where else could this be?

In the area where the boundaries between Israel and Jordan were, near what is today the 'west bank'.

Given that Israel agreed to its own area given by the UN, I was thinking that Jordan could have invaded Israeli territory if it had actually invaded the UN designated area of the Jewish state.

But it turns out you think it has invaded israel even if it sets foot on the area designated by the UN for the Arab state, correct?

If so, in 1948 were the israelis entitled to be outraged at Jordanian advances across the Palestinian border long before they ever reach the UN designated area for the new Jewish state?

It seems that you think that the moment the arabs did not agree to the partition that both of the new areas became Israel in Israeli eyes.

You were not speaking about laws when you mentioned 'might'.

By the definition commonly provided for ownership, I must refer to laws. Might may take account or law or it may not.

It is a conquered land, like all of Europe.

It is subject to a free vote as to its status.

It owns the territory because it conquered it, it's really quite simple, I could give you quite a lot of examples for territories that were conquered by a nation that holds them till today.

Indeed, thus ownership, is given merely by right of conquest. Thus conquest is legitimate correct? Thus war is legitmate. Correct?

 

[Apocalypse]

I was thinking that Jordan could have invaded Israeli territory if it had actually invaded the UN designated area of the Jewish state.

It did, in 1948.

But it turns out you think it has invaded israel even if it sets foot on the area designated by the UN for the Arab state, correct?

Yes, since the UN's partition plan was no longer relevant once the boundaries have changed.

If so, in 1948 were the israelis entitled to be outraged at Jordanian advances across the Palestinian border long before they ever reach the UN designated area for the new Jewish state?

Why would they be outraged at the Jordanian advance across the Palestinian border when they can be outraged at the Jordanian advance in Israeli territory(That was designated by the UN)?

By the definition commonly provided for ownership, I must refer to laws. Might may take account or law or it may not.

The Israeli ownership over Jerusalem is in no way different than the rest of the European ownerships over modern territories that they have achieved by conquest.
The list is quite long.

It is subject to a free vote as to its status.

It is conquered, the people may be able to vote but the territory is conquered.

Indeed, thus ownership, is given merely by right of conquest. Thus conquest is legitimate correct? Thus war is legitmate. Correct?

I do not believe in the legitimacy of conquest.
I believe that conquering a territory from a nation that tries to conquer yours is completely legitimate.

 

[creation]

It did, in 1948.
Yes, since the UN's partition plan was no longer relevant once the boundaries have changed.
Why would they be outraged at the Jordanian advance across the Palestinian border when they can be outraged at the Jordanian advance in Israeli territory(That was designated by the UN)?

Yes exactly. When and where did this occur? was it when they crossed the palestinian border or when they crossed the new israeli border? If ther latter when and where did this occur?

The Israeli ownership over Jerusalem is in no way different than the rest of the European ownerships over modern territories that they have achieved by conquest.
The list is quite long.

Really? How so?

It is conquered, the people may be able to vote but the territory is conquered.

Is that the basis it is held on?

I do not believe in the legitimacy of conquest.
I believe that conquering a territory from a nation that tries to conquer yours is completely legitimate.

Then is it legimate for a resident of a nation that tried to conquer your nation and was conquered to try to again conquer your nation such that they may re-gain their territory conquered by you back for themselves?

 

[Apocalypse]

Yes exactly. When and where did this occur? was it when they crossed the palestinian border or when they crossed the new israeli border? If ther latter when and where did this occur?

In 1948 and 1967, Jordan has attacked Israel.
It has attacked Israeli territory in both of the cases, in 1948 it was a UN designated area and in 1967 it was an Israeli territory that was conquered as a result of the 1948 war.

Really? How so?

How not so?

Is that the basis it is held on?

It is part of the basis it is held on.

Then is it legimate for a resident of a nation that tried to conquer your nation and was conquered to try to again conquer your nation such that they may re-gain their territory conquered by you back for themselves?

You are speaking on legitimacy and war at the same time.
Legitimacy is attacking the aggressor.
If you have lost a land to the defender you were trying to attack and take the lands from, you are responsible for the lost.
If you wish to get back the land you've lost by attacking the nation again, you are again the aggressor and in the case the defender takes more of your lands, it is again your responsibility.
This cycle could go on and on until the entire region would have belonged to the defender, but the Arab nations have finally understood that this is not the way after 1973, and peace agreements were signed.

 

[creation]

In 1948 and 1967, Jordan has attacked Israel.
It has attacked Israeli territory in both of the cases, in 1948 it was a UN designated area and in 1967 it was an Israeli territory that was conquered as a result of the 1948 war.

Thank you. Ill restrict our conversation to the most interesting parts.

You keep saying that Jordan has attacked Israeli territory. Yet you seem unwilling to specify what Israeli territory it has even stood upon and on what grounds it is Israeli territory.

I was hoping you could tell me about Jordan's aggression at least at the basic level of standing on the Israeli territory designated by the UN.

Are you willing to do that?

You are speaking on legitimacy and war at the same time.
Legitimacy is attacking the aggressor.
If you have lost a land to the defender you were trying to attack and take the lands from, you are responsible for the lost.
If you wish to get back the land you've lost by attacking the nation again, you are again the aggressor and in the case the defender takes more of your lands, it is again your responsibility.
This cycle could go on and on until the entire region would have belonged to the defender, but the Arab nations have finally understood that this is not the way after 1973, and peace agreements were signed.

Your position is that conquest, getting land and keeping it for your people, is not legitimate policy except if you are the one who is attacked first.

So, if nation A, who is attacked, takes nation B's land. Then later nation B takes back that land that A has taken. Is that legitimate? Or should B simpy forget about ever getting that land back that A has taken and consider it to now belong to nation A?

 

[Apocalypse]

Thank you. Ill restrict our conversation to the most interesting parts.

You keep saying that Jordan has attacked Israeli territory. Yet you seem unwilling to specify what Israeli territory it has even stood upon and on what grounds it is Israeli territory.

I was hoping you could tell me about Jordan's aggression at least at the basic level of standing on the Israeli territory designated by the UN.

Are you willing to do that?

No.

Your position is that conquest, getting land and keeping it for your people, is not legitimate policy except if you are the one who is attacked first.

So, if nation A, who is attacked, takes nation B's land. Then later nation B takes back that land that A has taken. Is that legitimate? Or should B simpy forget about ever getting that land back that A has taken and consider it to now belong to nation A?

If nation A attacks B in a war that is started by nation A and its intent in the war is to conquer nation B or parts of its land, then yes, nation B can legitimately take its lands back by attacking the aggressors and in the case it goes further and takes nation's A own lands, it is not immoral.

 

[bub]

No.
If nation A attacks B in a war that is started by nation A and its intent in the war is to conquer nation B or parts of its land, then yes, nation B can legitimately take its lands back by attacking the aggressors and in the case it goes further and takes nation's A own lands, it is not immoral.

Can Belgium invade northern France then? Until 1650, Artois and Hainaut were part of the XVII Provinces. What about the coast of Turkey? Couldn't the Greek occupy it? This coast has been Greek in the past! And Schesling Holstein! That used to be Danish! Or Pula! It has been Italian!

 

[Apocalypse]

Can Belgium invade northern France then? Until 1650, Artois and Hainaut were part of the XVII Provinces. What about the coast of Turkey? Couldn't the Greek occupy it? This coast has been Greek in the past! And Schesling Holstein! That used to be Danish! Or Pula! It has been Italian!

You're speaking about centuries of time-passed, when the land is obviously no longer recognized with the territory-losing state.
I am speaking about the same war.

On a side note, Belgium could invade France for all I care.

 

[bub]

You're speaking about centuries of time-passed, when the land is obviously no longer recognized with the territory-losing state.

like Israel? :mrgreen:

I am speaking about the same war.

then yes, you're right

On a side note, Belgium could invade France for all I care.

If I could redraw the maps of Europe, France and Germany would be a bit smaller :mrgreen:

 

[Apocalypse]

like Israel? :mrgreen:

Yes.
Which is why the Jews did not attack mandate Palestine, and got their land by civil ways.

 

[mbig]

If I could redraw the maps of Europe, France and Germany would be a bit smaller :mrgreen:

As a matter of fact the Maps of Europe were redrawn Many times in the 20th century.. including the last time in 1945 when Germany lost the Sudeten and 2 million ethnic Germans had to move from what became Czechoslavakia.
Those refugees were accepted and settled.

Just like 10 million+ more in the 1947 Inida/Pak Partition.

And yet the planet has made a cause celeb of Only one group - a fraction of those amounts of refugees who the arabs refused to absorb.
-

 

[creation]

No

Ok, then if not the Israeli state do you claim it has invaded Israel on the basis of having moved its forces onto territory designated for the new Arab state?

If nation A attacks B in a war that is started by nation A and its intent in the war is to conquer nation B or parts of its land, then yes, nation B can legitimately take its lands back by attacking the aggressors and in the case it goes further and takes nation's A own lands, it is not immoral.

Ok, lets switch A and B around if you wish.

Is this taking of land by B from A in your example. Is it punishment? Reparations for loses sustained? Or a buffer?

Also, if after losing land to B. A then later conducts a successful campaign and re-takes the land it has lost such that both sides then sit on their original borders. Does B have any further complaint against A? In fact morally should B then not seek to regain the territory it had taken from A?