When did keeping land won in wartime become unacceptable? (1 Viewer)

[Goobieman]

We're told that the biggest problem in the Arab-Israeli conflict is that Israel continues to "occupy" the West Bank.

Israel won the West Bank in the 1967 6-day war when it took the land by force from Jordan after Jordan invaded Israel. We're told that Israel has to give up the land because you cannot keep land you win in wartime.

When did -that- happen?

 

[Morrow]

Perhaps when Rome tried to occupy Israel

 

[MSgt]

Since Jews did it.


America did this with Mexico in our pioneering days. But the "conquering" of land went to the way side with colonialism (though tell that to the French in western Africa). The fact that Germany is Germany and Japan is Japan and Iraq is Iraq is testament that "conquering" lands is no longer acceptable for the prize.

However, what is not acceptable is the giving back of established lands gained through enemy instigated war. How much of Europe belongs to the next bordering nation? How much of America belongs to Mexico? How about Asia? Let's not stop at casting bad grades towards Israelites who have always fought for survival. Why don't we all give our lands back to someone? To insist that Israel give back land is the same as Christian crusaders demanding the return of Damascus.

There can be no better peace than if the Muslim Middle East simply rolled up their sleeves and accepted history's turn out and their failed attempts to gain all of Israel at the expense of a few more acres.

Our critics word choice of "occupy" is merely a denial of reality. Americans occupy Germany, Japan, and Iraq. Israelites own the West Bank.

 

[Goobieman]

Since Jews did it.

Exactly.

Look at Europe in 1914 then 1918 then 1945.
Where did Poland come from?
Where did east Prussai go?
How did East Prussia get there in the first place?

The fact that Germany is Germany and Japan is Japan and Iraq id Iraq is testament that "conquering" lands is no longer acceptable for the prize.

Not so much. Both lost territory after WW2, Germany much more so than Japan.

To insist that Israel give back land is the same as Christian crusaders demanding the return of Damascus.

If Israel has to give back the West Bank, then Poland needs to give itself back to Germany and Russia.

 

[MSgt]

Not so much. Both lost territory after WW2, Germany much more so than Japan.

Well, that's true. I was more focused on the country itself, rather than outside territories.

 

[Goobieman]

Well, that's true. I was more focused on the country itself, rather than outside territories.

Even then -- Germany proper lost territory.

 

[Flea]

Originally Posted by GySgt
Since Jews did it.

Yeah, that. There is no debating that one. We still control Peurto Rico and Hawaii was taken by threat of force during Imperialism. There are plenty of current examples, but leta Jew do it and all hell breaks loose.

 

[Goobieman]

Yeah, that. There is no debating that one. We still control Peurto Rico and Hawaii was taken by threat of force during Imperialism. There are plenty of current examples, but leta Jew do it and all hell breaks loose.

Let us not also forget that Israel did not start the war.

 

[Flea]

Yes, that is important.

 

[Vader]

Yeah, that. There is no debating that one. We still control Peurto Rico and Hawaii was taken by threat of force during Imperialism. There are plenty of current examples, but leta Jew do it and all hell breaks loose.

Hawaii volutarily joined the union in 1958. There was no force involved.

:mrgreen:

 

[Hatuey]

America did this with Mexico in our pioneering days. But the "conquering" of land went to the way side with colonialism (though tell that to the French in western Africa). The fact that Germany is Germany and Japan is Japan and Iraq is Iraq is testament that "conquering" lands is no longer acceptable for the prize.

It's true we took land from Mexico and Mexicans are claiming all that **** back slowly. Starting with California.

There can be no better peace than if the Muslim Middle East simply rolled up their sleeves and accepted history's turn out and their failed attempts to gain all of Israel at the expense of a few more acres.

Agreed.

 

[Vader]

Essentially, what we have is a group of terrorists fighting for what is no longer theirs. Of course, they blame Israel for this even though it was Jordan and Egypt that caused the problem.

The refuse to blame their own people --- this is a religous bias which has been propagated since biblical times by social brainwashing, which in today's world occurs in large part in elementary schools. These people love to hate the jews more than they love thier own children...and that is just plain disgusting!! :shock:

These people refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and they openly support terrorist attacks on Israel and all other non-muslim states.

 

[Goobieman]

Essentially, what we have is a group of terrorists fighting for what is no longer theirs. Of course, they blame Israel for this even though it was Jordan and Egypt that caused the problem.

More than that...
The West Bank used to be long to Jordan, and thus the people that lived there were Jordanians. Jordan has since given up claim on the land. If these Jordanians want their "own" land, then they can go back to Jordan, just as the Germans were forced back to Germany after WW2.

Thing is, Jordan doesnt want them...

 

[Cremaster77]

I think that Israel giving back the land because it was taken "unfairly" is a ruse. Israel was under threat of attack and launched a very successful preemptive attack. You don't want to lose your land, don't amass your armies on the borders of neighboring countries.

To play the devil's advocate, who's to say that the current war that Israel is embroiled in cannot result in the loss of land? Call it what you want, but Israel has been stuck in a smoldering war for the past few decades. Why would Israel giving up the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights not be akin to losing land in this war?

 

[Goobieman]

To play the devil's advocate, who's to say that the current war that Israel is embroiled in cannot result in the loss of land? Call it what you want, but Israel has been stuck in a smoldering war for the past few decades. Why would Israel giving up the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights not be akin to losing land in this war?

The argument against Israel all this time is that Israel doesnt have a right to keep the West bank in the first place, and so all the people there are justified in their continued slaughter of innocent Israeli civilians.

If the Palestinians want to openly rebel, thats fine -- but if they do indeed openly rebel, then one cannot chastize Israel for putting the rebellion down.

 

[Hatuey]

The argument against Israel all this time is that Israel doesnt have a right to keep the West bank in the first place, and so all the people there are justified in their continued slaughter of innocent Israeli civilians.

If the Palestinians want to openly rebel, thats fine -- but if they do indeed openly rebel, then one cannot chastize Israel for putting the rebellion down.

If Israel was to lose land to the Palestinians in some future war. Would your position be the same? Just a question.

 

[Cremaster77]

The argument against Israel all this time is that Israel doesnt have a right to keep the West bank in the first place, and so all the people there are justified in their continued slaughter of innocent Israeli civilians.

If the Palestinians want to openly rebel, thats fine -- but if they do indeed openly rebel, then one cannot chastize Israel for putting the rebellion down.

I agree with the first part of your statement. Israel has all the right to keep what it won from a war where they were threatened on multiple fronts. However, I disagree that the Palestinians are not openly rebelling. They elected a government that has openly said that Israel should be exterminated. If saying that a particular government should not exist is not open rebellion, I don't know what is.

Who cares if you are "chastized" for putting down the rebellion? Israel has been doing so for decades. Those check points, missile strikes, the open incursions into Palestinian dominated territory...it's all part of putting down the rebellion. No matter what, in a war, there are going to be people on each side blaming the other for "atrocities" and "crimes of war". Israel has been unable to put down the rebellion not because they are being "chastized" but because they are badly outnumbered and surrounded. If they think giving back the lands taken in 1968 will appease their enemies, then it seems to me that this is the same as losing land in war. Doesn't this losing land in a war thing go both ways?

 

[Goobieman]

If Israel was to lose land to the Palestinians in some future war. Would your position be the same? Just a question.

War is one of the ways borders change, and it applies to everyone. Just ask Germany.

The fact remains that Israel has a right to keep the land it won, and that it can keep that land until it decides to give it up or someone takes it from them. The fact also remains that the Palestinians, by virtue of their living in land that Israel took from Jordan, fair and square, do not deserve the special agrieved status they seem to enjoy.

One must wonder, however, if the people that argue that Israel cannot keep the West Bank would put op the same argument should the Arabs take part of Israel.

 

[Goobieman]

I agree with the first part of your statement. Israel has all the right to keep what it won from a war where they were threatened on multiple fronts. However, I disagree that the Palestinians are not openly rebelling. They elected a government that has openly said that Israel should be exterminated. If saying that a particular government should not exist is not open rebellion, I don't know what is.

I didnt say they werent openly rebelling, and I didnt say that giving back land was the solution.

My point is that the Palestinians are literally able to get away with murder by the rest of the world due to some special agrieved status based on the idea that, suddenly, its not OK to keep land won in wartime.

 

[Cremaster77]

My point is that the Palestinians are literally able to get away with murder by the rest of the world due to some special agrieved status based on the idea that, suddenly, its not OK to keep land won in wartime.

Why is it murder if it's a war? Personally, I don't think there's much difference between an Israeli warplane launching a missile into an apartment building and a suicide bomber detonating a bomb in a crowd. Regarding the "aggrieved" status of the Palestinians, I tend to agree, but it goes both ways. How do you condemn "terrorism" by the Palestinians but condone Israeli military tactics? Until the past 10 years, the Israeli military were killing Palestinians at a rate of 15 Palestinians dead to every 1 Israeli, and many killed were women and children. Were you complaining that the Israelis were "literally able to get away from with murder" then?

 

[Goobieman]

Why is it murder if it's a war?

Because its not war. And in ant case, intentionally targeting civilians just because they are civilians is against the rules of war -- but yet again, because of their perceived agrieved status, they get a pass.

Personally, I don't think there's much difference between an Israeli warplane launching a missile into an apartment building and a suicide bomber detonating a bomb in a crowd.

You're arguing that there's not much difference in a crimial putting a bullet in a hostage's head and a bullet from a policeman's gun passing thru said criminal and killing a bystander.
If that's the case, then you are lost.

Regarding the "aggrieved" status of the Palestinians, I tend to agree, but it goes both ways. How do you condemn "terrorism" by the Palestinians but condone Israeli military tactics?

Israelis target terrorists and sometimes kill civians; terrorists target civilians, period. Makes all the difference in the world.

 

[Red_Dave]

Yeah, that. There is no debating that one. We still control Peurto Rico and Hawaii was taken by threat of force during Imperialism. There are plenty of current examples, but leta Jew do it and all hell breaks loose.

Apples and organges. The majority of those in Peurto Rico and Hawaii are happy with the situation. Those in palestine are not. If those in Peurto Rico and Hawaii voted for indenpendance and this wasnt granted then it would be just as controversial.

 

[MSgt]

Apples and organges. The majority of those in Peurto Rico and Hawaii are happy with the situation. Those in palestine are not. If those in Peurto Rico and Hawaii voted for indenpendance and this wasnt granted then it would be just as controversial.

Not nearly, because Hawaii and Puerto Rico do not hold a monoploy on a single religion used to fuel hatred and anger. However, I know what your intent was.

 

[Flea]

Posted by Vadar
Hawaii volutarily joined the union in 1958. There was no force involved.

Correct and Incorrect. The Bayonet Constitution, dated July 6, 1887, was written by Lorrin A. Thurston and imposed on the Kingdom of Hawaii by foreign powers, mostly American.

In 1893, Liliuokalani threatened to throw out the "Bayonet Constitution" and draft a new constitution that would restore power to the monarchy.

The US organized in response to this and took over the government of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The US then sent American troops to Honolulu while businessmen, attorneys and politicians deposed Queen Liliuokalani.

The Hawaiians attempted a couple of armed rebellions, but failed. Queen Liliuokalani was placed under arrest, tried by the US Military and imprisoned in her own home.

Dole and other businessmen urged the US to take command in Hawaii for the sugar economy and Congress made it a Territory in 1898.

In 1958, the US made Hawaii a state after they (people with US Interests) volunteered to enter the Union.

All of this constitutes "Force".

 

[MSgt]

War is one of the ways borders change, and it applies to everyone. Just ask Germany.

The fact remains that Israel has a right to keep the land it won, and that it can keep that land until it decides to give it up or someone takes it from them.

Which is one of the many reasons the sentiment of anti-Americanism is so alive in much of the world. Our presence prevents all of those would-be-dictators and religious doctrines from acting on the traditional roles of conquest. We have denied two great powers in Europe their roles of power over others in just the last century. We denied a Japanese Empire its power in the Pacific. We denied an Arab dictator's power over the Middle East and a Shi'ite religious fanatic his hellish vision. "Stability" has brought with it some enemies. But, the furious pace of the information age has ushered in a new era. The conquests are over. And many, having their power denied, don't like it.