Then they hypocritically cry "civilians" and "genocide[sic]"

[Shusha]

I think you are both knowledgeable but I’d like a second verification since we are arguing very separate views here and without question, it has a complex and convoluted history.

RoccoR … is the West Bank occupied territory?

Alternative question RoccoR ... Does Israel have a legal claim to sovereignty over the entire Mandate for Palestine (excluding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan)?

 

[Lisa558]

There was no such thing as the "West Bank" in 1948. The "West Bank" was never a part of Jordan. Jordan has no legal claim to any territory on the west side of the Jordan River. Even IF Jordan had a claim to any territory outside its own sovereign borders (which it emphatically does not!), this has nothing to do with the dispute between Israel and a would-be State of Palestine and its civil war/war of independence from Israel.

I’m not saying Jordan has a claim to the West Bank even IF It had once been part of Jordan. They invaded…..they lost.

My opinion is that all this discussion trying to fault Israel for the current situation should be curtailed because:

1) The Palestinians had offers of their own land but rejected them because it was conditioned upon agreeing that Israel had a right to exist - which they refused.

2) The antisemites trying to pick apart Israel are intentionallt diverting from a) the fact that this war, which the HAMAS terrorists started, would be over immediately if the terrorists returned all remaining hostages and surrendered, and b) the pure evil that the Arabs perpetrated on innocent Jewish people.

The insistence on blaming Israel, which actually isn’t as bad in this particular thread, reveals a level of Jew-hate I never knew existed.

 

[Shusha]

There is nothing complicated about any of this. After Britain announced in 1947, that it would abandon its post in Palestine the next year, the UN made one last desperate attempt to bring peace to the region in the partition resolution, which also announced the UN would abandon the Mandate the next year.

The Jews accepted the UN recommendation for two states and the Arabs rejected it, so the Partition resolution became null and void, and since the League of Nations, and then the UN's Mandate superseded all previous treaties and laws, there was no legal basis for any country's claim to the 23% of the original Mandate left after Jordan was created.

Until Israel became a full member of the UN in 1949, there were not internationally recognized borders in this remnant of the former Mandate for Palestine, and Israel's borders were clearly defined at that time, but neither Jordan's nor Egypt's acquisitions of the territories, Gaza, Judea and Samaria were recognized by the international community or the UN.

As a result of the Six Day War, the Jordanian and Egyptian occupations of the territories were replaced by Israeli occupations and will remain so because neither Egypt nor Jordan wanted to take the territories back when they made peace with Israel, and the so called Palestinians won't make peace with Israel.

We largely agree, but two small, but important quibbles that I am trying to make clear in my posts.

1. Israel's international borders (with Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon) existed from the moment of Israel's independence. In the absence of a Treaty to the contrary, borders are transferred automatically from the previous administration to the new sovereign. This is confirmed in subsequent Treaties.

2. It is improper to use the language of "occupation" to describe Israel's administration of Judea and Samaria and Gaza, since one can not occupy one's own sovereign territory.

 

[Lisa558]

We largely agree, but two small, but important quibbles that I am trying to make clear in my posts.

1. Israel's international borders (with Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon) existed from the moment of Israel's independence. In the absence of a Treaty to the contrary, borders are transferred automatically from the previous administration to the new sovereign. This is confirmed in subsequent Treaties.

2. It is improper to use the language of "occupation" to describe Israel's administration of Judea and Samaria and Gaza, since one can not occupy one's own sovereign territory.

To your second point, “disputed territories” is more accurate.

 

[Shusha]

To your second point, “disputed territories” is more accurate.

I don't like "disputed" either. That terminology implies that there is some sort of grey area of the law. I don't think there is a grey area. There are two peoples who wish to have self-determination within a certain geographical area. One of these two peoples has achieved it. One is still working on it.

In my opinion, the correct terminology would be "territories to be negotiated culminating in a peace treaty between two sovereign States".


Edited to add: "negotiable territories" would be a more streamlined way to put it.

 

[Foxfyre]

What’s the solution then?

Everybody wants a two state solution except the Palestinians apparently. The world wants it. Israel wants it. The USA wants it. But Hamas and all other Islamic militant groups have rejected every suggestion that includes a right for Israel to exist.

So to prevent many more Oct 6 as Hamas has promised there will be, Israel's only sensible course is to eliminate Hamas.

Opinion | Palestinians Still Aren’t Willing to Compromise

Every leader has rejected every offer of statehood, lest they have to accept a permanent Jewish state, Israel, in any form.

www.wsj.com

 

[Lisa558]

I don't like "disputed" either. That terminology implies that there is some sort of grey area of the law. I don't think there is a grey area. There are two peoples who wish to have self-determination within a certain geographical area. One of these two peoples has achieved it. One is still working on it.

In my opinion, the correct terminology would be "territories to be negotiated culminating in a peace treaty between two sovereign States".


Edited to add: "negotiable territories" would be a more streamlined way to put it.

I like “negotiable territories” too.

That said, I think it’s important for the anti-Israel contingent to acknowledge that Arabs have driven out nearly 1 million Jews from throughout the Middle East, rendering it essentially Judenfrei, and that the little Jewish state doesn’t account for even 1% of the land mass. To hear the Jew-haters complain, one would think Israel is encroaching on most of the land.

As a reminder to our anti-Israel enemies, here’s the map. I bet the pro-Palestinians marching around screaming “Death to Jews” couldn‘t even point to Israel!

 

[rylah]

Who understands that language in the Middle East?

Civilians, borders, sovereign nations...

A challenge can not be avoided,
and you show the cost to all.
There's no grey area.

Israelis don't have
other choice and neither
leave any to the government.

 

[Sayaras]

There. Is. No. Moral. Equivalence. Between. This. And. October 7. Stop trying to find one. While, I wholeheartedly believe that any violence committed by Israeli civilians on innocents is abhorrent, inexcusable, and should be met with the full force of the law, this is not the same as the existential threat and sheer brutality of the attack committed by Hamas. Stop.

Most "settlers" violence is retaliatory toward Arab attacks or after Atabs throw rocks on order to kill .


Besides, Oct 7 was an official Gaza Regime atrack

 

[toomuchtime_]

We largely agree, but two small, but important quibbles that I am trying to make clear in my posts.

1. Israel's international borders (with Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon) existed from the moment of Israel's independence. In the absence of a Treaty to the contrary, borders are transferred automatically from the previous administration to the new sovereign. This is confirmed in subsequent Treaties.

2. It is improper to use the language of "occupation" to describe Israel's administration of Judea and Samaria and Gaza, since one can not occupy one's own sovereign territory.

To say Israel occupies the territories does not imply they belong to someone else; it simply means Israel has not chosen to annex them at this time.

The Partition resolution was merely a recommendation, and had no legal force behind it, so the land Israel laid claim to on May 14, 1948, was merely a claim based on the UN's recommendation. It did not include Gaza, Judea or Samaria. Several nations, including the US and USSR quickly recognized the new State of Israel, and that gave its claimed borders some international legitimacy, but during the war of independence its borders quickly expanded, and when Israel accepted the UN's invitation to join on May 11, 1949, its new borders were clearly defined and were unchanged until the Six Day War, and they did not include Gaza, Judea or Samaria; these remained unincorporated remands of the former Mandate for Palestine under Egyptian and Jordanian occupation. When Israel acquired these territories during the Six Day War, they passed from Egyptian and Jordanian occupation to Israeli occupation, but saying they are occupied does not imply they belong to anyone else; it simply means Israel has not chosen to annex them.

The real reason the Palestinians can't have a state in the terrtories is that they won't make peace with Israel, and that consideration overrides any and all quasi-legal arguments or concerns about the quality of life of the Palestinians.

The Partition Plan Table of Contents

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

 

[Shusha]

To say Israel occupies the territories does not imply they belong to someone else; it simply means Israel has not chosen to annex them at this time.

The Partition resolution was merely a recommendation, and had no legal force behind it, so the land Israel laid claim to on May 14, 1948, was merely a claim based on the UN's recommendation. It did not include Gaza, Judea or Samaria. Several nations, including the US and USSR quickly recognized the new State of Israel, and that gave its claimed borders some international legitimacy, but during the war of independence its borders quickly expanded, and when Israel accepted the UN's invitation to join on May 11, 1949, its new borders were clearly defined and were unchanged until the Six Day War, and they did not include Gaza, Judea or Samaria; these remained unincorporated remands of the former Mandate for Palestine under Egyptian and Jordanian occupation. When Israel acquired these territories during the Six Day War, they passed from Egyptian and Jordanian occupation to Israeli occupation, but saying they are occupied does not imply they belong to anyone else; it simply means Israel has not chosen to annex them.

The real reason the Palestinians can't have a state in the terrtories is that they won't make peace with Israel, and that consideration overrides any and all quasi-legal arguments or concerns about the quality of life of the Palestinians.

The Partition Plan Table of Contents

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

For clarification, you see the borders of Israel to be the UN Partition Plan's suggested borders?

 

[toomuchtime_]

To your second point, “disputed territories” is more accurate.

Back in the 1990's when Israel and the PA were trying to negotiate the mythical two state solution, it made sense to call them disputed territories, but now that that nonsense had ended, there is no dispute: they belong to Israel and they remain occupied because Israel has chosen not to annex them.

 

[Shusha]

Who understands that language in the Middle East?

Civilians, borders, sovereign nations...

Yes. I just want to acknowledge this. Vastly different worldviews and concepts which seem basic and inarguable from the "Western" mind, don't translate readily into the Middle East. It's part of the foundation of the conflict.

 

[toomuchtime_]

For clarification, you see the borders of Israel to be the UN Partition Plan's suggested borders?

No, by the end of the War of Independence, Israel's borders were much expanded. It was these expanded borders that were recognized by the UN and most of the rest of the world up until the Six Day War, and since then Israel has annexed Jerusalem and more recently the Golan Heights, but not Gaza, Judea or Samaria.

 

[BS Filter]

 

[AZrailwhale]

Alternative question RoccoR ... Does Israel have a legal claim to sovereignty over the entire Mandate for Palestine (excluding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan)?

Well, since the original League of Nations established an Arab state, which became Jordan, and a Jewish state to be Israel, in my opinion yes. The Brits decided to subdivide Israel further into Jewish and Arab statelets with no defensible, or even obvious borders. More British just drawing lines on maps. The Brits had no legal right to divide what had already been divided by the League of Nations after WWI.

 

[Shusha]

No, by the end of the War of Independence, Israel's borders were much expanded. It was these expanded borders that were recognized by the UN and most of the rest of the world up until the Six Day War, and since then Israel has annexed Jerusalem and more recently the Golan Heights, but not Gaza, Judea or Samaria.

Gotcha. My position is that Israel's borders have always encompassed the entire Mandate of Palestine (minus Jordan). No expansion. No annexation required. We might just be quibbling that Israel had the right to (sovereignty over) that entire territory, but chose not to access that right. Though she can at any time. Which she has.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Gotcha. My position is that Israel's borders have always encompassed the entire Mandate of Palestine (minus Jordan). No expansion. No annexation required. We might just be quibbling that Israel had the right to (sovereignty over) that entire territory, but chose not to access that right. Though she can at any time. Which she has.

In a sense there are two Israels: one is aspirational and deals with all that Israel could be or should be, and the other is pragmatic and deals with what Israel can be given the political forces and legal environment it must deal with. I think you are speaking for aspirational Israel while I am talking about pragmatic Israel.

 

[rylah]

Yes. I just want to acknowledge this. Vastly different worldviews and concepts which seem basic and inarguable from the "Western" mind, don't translate readily into the Middle East. It's part of the foundation of the conflict.

The emir of the UAE referred to Wester willful denial,
or paralysis in facing such banal cruelty.

Hebrew law says the form of the state,
can change in accordance to time.

Most successful Arab states
are monarchies with no oil.
or very little resource,

Similar in Europe.

 

[luiza]

while I am talking about pragmatic Israel.

So have they brought back all of the Mossad operatives who gave you the Ukraine material, to your complete and continued embarrassment .
Do you remember all of those UAF advances you told us about into deserted villages , which had been flattened and had no defensive values ?
What a Card you were Toomuchbooze .

Are Mossad still feeding you some good material ? They made up nearly all of the Israeli Child Killing negotiating team so I am sure they will have invented some super Fake News telling you how those naughty Freedom Fighters ruined the cease fire .
Do tell .