Is the Occupation of the West Bank Morally Justified?

[ding]

Ha ha ha, actually it does, and it is impossible for you to address it, that is why you ignore it.

Before Israel came along, the region was loosely occupied by many people, no actual nation there.

That is why your entire post is loaded and dishonest.

In using the Just War Theory to evaluate Israel’s occupation, we can distinguish between two of its actions: the initial military advancement into the West Bank during the 1967 War, and the ongoing occupation after the war officially ended. For the sake of precision, this analysis will focus on the West Bank alone, apart from the other territorial occupations of Gaza or the Golan Heights. This analysis will also take as granted the sovereignty of Israel’s pre-1967 borders, even though many Palestinian refugees maintain valid land-claims within that territory. When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people.

 

[ding]

It seems that no one can make a moral argument concerning the ongoing occupation after the 1967 war officially ended.

That's the argument this thread is about.

What is Israel's moral argument concerning the ongoing occupation after the 1967 war officially ended?

 

[Mindful]

That's a losing argument, my dear.

In using the Just War Theory to evaluate Israel’s occupation, we can distinguish between two of its actions: the initial military advancement into the West Bank during the 1967 War, and the ongoing occupation after the war officially ended. For the sake of precision, this analysis will focus on the West Bank alone, apart from the other territorial occupations of Gaza or the Golan Heights. This analysis will also take as granted the sovereignty of Israel’s pre-1967 borders, even though many Palestinian refugees maintain valid land-claims within that territory. When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people.

Don’t you “dear” me.

You’re not historically informed, taking it back to the Ottomans, for a start.

 

[Mindful]

I'm not asking for a history lesson. I am asking for YOUR argument.

There is no argument.

 

[ding]

keep living in fairytale land

Look, if you want to argue there is no moral argument to be made for Israel's ongoing occupation after the 1967 war officially ended, that is perfectly valid.

You can make the argument that it's not moral and you don't care that it isn't moral. I am perfectly fine with you making that argument.

 

[Sunsettommy]

In using the Just War Theory to evaluate Israel’s occupation, we can distinguish between two of its actions: the initial military advancement into the West Bank during the 1967 War, and the ongoing occupation after the war officially ended. For the sake of precision, this analysis will focus on the West Bank alone, apart from the other territorial occupations of Gaza or the Golan Heights. This analysis will also take as granted the sovereignty of Israel’s pre-1967 borders, even though many Palestinian refugees maintain valid land-claims within that territory. When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people.

Your argument is profoundly one sided and dishonest.

You ignore so many surrounding issues that lead to the brief war, a war that the Middle East prepared for, in their never ending effort to wipe out an entire tiny nation. That is why Israel one of the smallest nation on Earth has to make defensive decisions to stay alive in a hostile region.

Fuck your ethics argument, it is stupid and dishonest, when you ignore the repeated attempts by surrounding nation effort to destroy Israel since 1948.

 

[ding]

Don’t you “dear” me.

You’re not historically informed, taking it back to the Ottomans, for a start.

Then educate me on why it is moral for Israel's ongoing occupation after the 1967 war officially ended.

I'm all ears.

 

[ding]

Your argument is profoundly one sided and dishonest.

You ignore so many surrounding issues that lead to the brief war, a war that the Middle East prepared for, in their never ending effort to wipe out an entire tiny nation. That is why Israel one of the smallest nation on Earth has to make defensive decisions to stay alive in a hostile region.

The debate is pretty simple, really.

According to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people.

What I am asking you is can you explain to me how it is moral for Israel's to continue to occupy captured lands after the 1967 war officially ended?

There is no need for you to get upset over that question. Either you can answer it or you can't.

 

[harmonica]

Look, if you want to argue there is no moral argument to be made for Israel's ongoing occupation after the 1967 war officially ended, that is perfectly valid.

You can make the argument that it's not moral and you don't care that it isn't moral. I am perfectly fine with you making that argument.

...why do you think there was a WW2? and MANY Arab-Israeli wars?? because there was never an unconditional surrender....should've let the Israelis go to Cairo/etc......push the Pals into the sea/etc ....
blah blah blah
the Israelis have every right to do whatever

 

[ding]

...why do you think there was a WW2? and MANY Arab-Israeli wars?? because there was never an unconditional surrender....should've let the Israelis go to Cairo/etc......push the Pals into the sea/etc ....
blah blah blah
the Israelis have every right to do whatever

So you are arguing they can occupy those lands based on the rule of capture? That morality does not enter into the equation. That stronger nations have the right to conquer weaker nations.

Is that correct?

 

[ding]

...why do you think there was a WW2? and MANY Arab-Israeli wars?? because there was never an unconditional surrender....should've let the Israelis go to Cairo/etc......push the Pals into the sea/etc ....
blah blah blah
the Israelis have every right to do whatever

I never realized you were Jewish, but now that I do, your behavior is starting to make a lot of sense to me.

 

[fncceo]

What I am asking you is can you explain to me how it is moral for Israel's to continue to occupy captured lands after the 1967 war officially ended?

Given that two Palestinian entities, Hamas and the PLO, maintain a state of armed conflict with Israel, you cannot say the hostilities have ended.

When Palestinians recognize Israel and desist from armed conflict, then we can examine the validity of your theory.

 

[fncceo]

I never realized you were Jewish, but now that I do, your behavior is starting to make a lot of sense to me.

And .... there it is. Thanks for coming out of the closet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory, this analysis finds that Israel was morally justified in its initial wartime occupation of the West Bank, but is not morally justified in its continued occupation of that land and its people.

When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory,

Which borders?

 

[ding]

Given that two Palestinian entities, Hamas and the PLO, maintain a state of armed conflict with Israel, you cannot say the hostilities have ended.

When Palestinians recognize Israel and desist from armed conflict, then we can examine the validity of your theory.

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.

 

[ding]

And .... there it is. Thanks for coming out of the closet.

Actually it was about his atheism and not his Jewishness, but see me how you will. I'm pretty used to it here.

 

[fncceo]

Israel unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem and maintained its armed forces throughout the entire West Bank.

And it's a good thing that the occupation of Jerusalem by Islamic forces has ended.

 

[ding]

When evaluating Israel’s transgression of those borders according to Just War Theory,

Which borders?

The pre-1967 war borders.

So can you make an argument explaining the morality of the ongoing occupation after that war officially ended?

Because it seems like you can't which is why you keep skipping that question.

 

[ding]

And it's a good thing that the occupation of Jerusalem by Islamic forces has ended.

Can you tell me how?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The pre-1967 war borders.

So can you make an argument explaining the morality of the ongoing occupation after that war officially ended?

Because it seems like you can't which is why you keep skipping that question.

The pre-1967 war borders.

Explain further.
Israel on one side.....what's on the other(s)?