Is the Occupation of the West Bank Morally Justified?

[ding]

The Lord knows I wish all mankind would live in peace.
In fact, it's in our davening every day in Pesukah D'zimrah in the last 5 tehillim of Dovid Hamelech.

Your behaviors say otherwise.

 

[ding]

We all know where the Torah denying Ding{Bat} is coming from.
He's hoping the destruction of The Jews will bring his messiah.

Spreading more lies about me. Those are your true colors.

The righteous hate what is false, but the wicked make themselves a stench and bring shame on themselves.

 

[ding]

The victor defines the buffer zone.
You should complain to Egypt and Jordan for paying Israel to protect their borders from Gaza and the West Bank.
Yep, even their "brothers" don't want them.
Go ahead, start a Thread on the immorality of Egypt and Jordan since they set up their own to be trapped like rat.
And let's not forget Syria invading Lebanon and never leaving.
That's 3 Threads of Arab immorality right there.

But we know that Jews winning drives you insane.

The victor defines the buffer zone?

The conditions of 1967 are not the conditions of 2020.

 

[Indeependent]

Your behaviors say otherwise.

What behavior?
The fact that I and 99% of decent human beings recognize that evil nations should be barricaded from the neighbors they habitually invade?
You haven't address Muslim history at all because you can't without exposing how two faced you are.

 

[ding]

What behavior?

Your insults and lies.

 

[ding]

What behavior?
The fact that I and 99% of decent human beings recognize that evil nations should be barricaded from the neighbors they habitually invade?
You haven't address Muslim history at all because you can't without exposing how two faced you are.

You can't handle me believing that it is wrong for Israel to still be occupying Palestine so you attack me personally and spread lies about me.

 

[Indeependent]

The victor defines the buffer zone?

The conditions of 1967 are not the conditions of 2020.

Do you know why Israel is safer now than it was until about 4-5 years ago when Hezbollah threatened Israel with total annihilation?
Israel told Hezbollah they would nuke Lebanon.
And that's why Israel won't give an inch.

 

[ding]

Do you know why Israel is safer now than it was until about 4-5 years ago when Hezbollah threatened Israel with total annihilation?
Israel told Hezbollah they would nuke Lebanon.
And that's why Israel won't give an inch.

Don't really care at this point.

You couldn't have a civil discussion.

 

[Indeependent]

Your insults and lies.

The fact that you think Israeli soldiers should allow themselves to be stoned by Gazans?
You see how stupid you are?
Your rants belie the evil in your heart and then you pretend to be innocent.
But you're evil.

 

[Indeependent]

Don't really care at this point.

You couldn't have a civil discussion.

Yes, asking Jews to expose themselves to terrorists invites civil discussion.
You're a moron.

 

[ding]

The fact that you think Israeli soldiers should allow themselves to be stoned by Gazans?
You see how stupid you are?
Your rants belie the evil in your heart and then you pretend to be innocent.
But you're evil.

The conditions of 1967 are not the conditions of 2020.

Keep twisting my words, insulting me and lying about me.

You are only harming yourself.

 

[ding]

Yes, asking Jews to expose themselves to terrorists invites civil discussion.
You're a moron.

I ask that they do the right thing.

Everything else is you twisting this discussion because you don't want to hear the truth.

The conditions of 1967 are not the conditions of 2020.

 

[ding]

There is no moral argument for the continued occupation. Israel is only hurting herself.

 

[ding]

But you're evil.

I guess to not be evil in your eyes I would have to agree with everything you believed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no moral argument for the continued occupation. Israel is only hurting herself.

There is no moral argument for handing land over to an entity that wants to destroy Israel.

 

[ding]

There is no moral argument for handing land over to an entity that wants to destroy Israel.

Sure there is. It's called doing the right thing.

 

[ding]

Handing over the occupied territory does not increase the risk profile one iota.

In fact, it probably reduces it.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You can't handle me believing that it is wrong for Israel to still be occupying Palestine so you attack me personally and spread lies about me.

how could Israel be occupying a place that does not exist and did not exist at the time Israel was attacked?

 

[ding]

how could Israel be occupying a place that does not exist and did not exist at the time it was attacked?

In 1967 they made a preemptive attack on Egypt and took those lands by force and never gave them back.

I am only interested in the morality of that decision. In 1967 Israel could make a moral argument for occupying those lands. In 2020 they cannot.

I'm not interested in playing games.

 

[Ria_Longhorn]

The case for just cause in the post-1967 occupation is much weaker. In the immediate aftermath of the war, U.N. Resolution 242 emphasized the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and called for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” Instead of complying, Israel unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem and maintained its armed forces throughout the entire West Bank. This action was not a matter of self-defense, since Jordan had cooperated with the U.N. ceasefire and was no longer an immediate threat. Now, fifty years later and especially after the 1994 peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, the country is no longer a threat to Israel. Thus, Israel’s refusal to end the occupation of the West Bank has no just cause inherent to the conditions that led it to initially occupy the territory.

The 1967 Security Council Resolution 242 was not based on Chapter VII of the UN Charter -- which enables the Security Council to make binding resolutions -- but on article 36 of the UN Charter, which only allows the Security Council to make recommendations.

By referring to "the States concerned" in the resolution, UNSC Res 242 is directing its recommendations only to the states involved in the conflict, namely, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria.

There is no mention of "Palestine" or "Palestinians" in UNSC Res 242, which is quite understandable, seeing that as late as 1968, the United Nations in their resolutions on the Israel/Arab conflict, refer to the Arabs as "inhabitants", "the population", or "the Arab civilian population." Not once did it use the term "Palestinians."

Poster, it would interest you to know that:

-- Palestine never existed as a country.

-- Palestine is a geographical term, not a political one. (Should you gainsay my assertion, I challenge you to name one of its kings.)

-- Between 1922 - 1946, "100,000 Arabs entered the country from neighboring lands." (Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel, New York, 1996, p.167.) Winston Churchill added that, "[d]espite the fact that they were never persecuted, masses of Arabs poured into the country and multiplied until the Arab population grew more than what all of world Jewry could add to the Jewish population."

-- The last Muslims to occupy the land were the Ottoman Turks (1516-1917); the Muslims now suing for the land are Arabs.