creation
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 1,618
- Reaction score
- 235
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
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?
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.
Jordan joined the Six Day war and attacked Israel without Israel attacking it.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?
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.
I thought the place of birth of Jesus was more important(Bethlehem).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.
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.
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.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.
And how exactly did you draw that assumption from the text?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.
Ownership.So its clear that settlement is not done on a reciprocal basis, so on what basis is settlement done? Might?
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.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?
And how exactly did you draw that assumption from the text?
No, Jordan has indeed set foot in Israeli territory in 1948 and 1967.
Ownership.
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.
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.
What do you mean, where?Really? Where?
You were not speaking about laws when you mentioned 'might'.As in legal property? Under what law?
It is a conquered land, like all of Europe.Your referred to the UK previously, re Ireland. Are you aware that Northern Ireland is held on the majority vote of its people?
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.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.
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'.
You were not speaking about laws when you mentioned 'might'.
It is a conquered land, like all of Europe.
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.
It did, in 1948.I was thinking that Jordan could have invaded Israeli territory if it had actually invaded the UN designated area of the Jewish state.
Yes, since the UN's partition plan was no longer relevant once the boundaries have changed.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?
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)?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?
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.By the definition commonly provided for ownership, I must refer to laws. Might may take account or law or it may not.
It is conquered, the people may be able to vote but the territory is conquered.It is subject to a free vote as to its status.
I do not believe in the legitimacy of conquest.Indeed, thus ownership, is given merely by right of conquest. Thus conquest is legitimate correct? Thus war is legitmate. Correct?
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)?
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 conquered, the people may be able to vote but the territory is conquered.
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.
In 1948 and 1967, Jordan has attacked Israel.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?
How not so?Really? How so?
It is part of the basis it is held on.Is that the basis it is held on?
You are speaking on legitimacy and war at the same time.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?
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.
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.
No.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?
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.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?
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.
You're speaking about centuries of time-passed, when the land is obviously no longer recognized with the territory-losing state.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.
Yes.like Israel? :mrgreen:
If I could redraw the maps of Europe, France and Germany would be a bit smaller :mrgreen:
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?