Is the Occupation of the West Bank Morally Justified?

[ding]

you left out LOTS including the FACT that "borders" have never been established. -----the "WAR" initiated by arab aggression in 1948 was "stalled" by a TRUCE and no declared borders. The "WEST BANK" of the erstwhile Hashemite Kiingdom Jordan----was never JORDAN

uh huh. The pre and post boundaries of the 1967 war say otherwise.

Look, you guys can try to pretend there was no post 1967 war occupation until the cows come home for all I care.

That doesn't address the question the OP is asking.

 

[ding]

Military force is justified as a last resort when all other non-forceful alternatives have been exhausted.

Since Israel took the first strike (against Egypt) in 1967 as a preemptive move, it is fair to question whether it had waited for military action as a last resort or if it could have avoided war with further diplomatic efforts. Regardless, it saw itself as fighting a defensive war and only invaded the West Bank after being attacked on that front.

Military occupation is categorically difficult to judge under the criteria of last resort. Once established, a military occupation is no longer a matter of waiting to pursue other options first. However, the spirit of last resort implies that the occupying force do everything in its power to end the occupation. Israel does not seem to be following this course of action, but is instead putting its occupation on a path of further entrenchment. This decision to continue in occupation, rather than relinquish the territory, is a failure to embody the spirit of last resort.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Military force is justified as a last resort when all other non-forceful alternatives have been exhausted.

Since Israel took the first strike (against Egypt) in 1967 as a preemptive move, it is fair to question whether it had waited for military action as a last resort or if it could have avoided war with further diplomatic efforts. Regardless, it saw itself as fighting a defensive war and only invaded the West Bank after being attacked on that front.

Military occupation is categorically difficult to judge under the criteria of last resort. Once established, a military occupation is no longer a matter of waiting to pursue other options first. However, the spirit of last resort implies that the occupying force do everything in its power to end the occupation. Israel does not seem to be following this course of action, but is instead putting its occupation on a path of further entrenchment. This decision to continue in occupation, rather than relinquish the territory, is a failure to embody the spirit of last resort.

This decision to continue in occupation, rather than relinquish the territory,

Relinquish to what entity?

 

[ding]

This decision to continue in occupation, rather than relinquish the territory,

Relinquish to what entity?

That isn't the question the OP is asking.

The question the Op is asking is is the continued occupation moral?

 

[ding]

Military action must be targeted towards addressing a specific situation and carry a reasonable hope of success in its efforts.

If the goal of the initial West Bank occupation was to repel the Jordanian military force, the end result shows that Israel certainly met the criteria of reasonable hope of success.

However, there does not seem to be hope of success in the ongoing occupation of the West Bank. If success is determined by keeping Israel safe, it is doubtful that years of antagonizing Palestinians has led to safety for either group. Israel succeeded in defending itself in 1967, but has created an ongoing situation that is antithetical to its own self-defense and has no hope of success.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That isn't the question the OP is asking.

The question the Op is asking is is the continued occupation moral?

You won't say who they took it from or who they should give it to, what are you afraid of?

 

[ding]

You won't say who they took it from or who they should give it to, what are you afraid of?

No. I am saying that is irrelevant to your answer to the question. Unless of course you can explain it's relevance.

Is the Occupation of the West Bank Morally Justified? Yes or no?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. I am saying that is irrelevant to your answer to the question. Unless of course you can explain it's relevance.

Is the Occupation of the West Bank Morally Justified? Yes or no?

Israel is justified in keeping as much of that territory as they'd like.

 

[ding]

Israel is justified in keeping as much of that territory as they'd like.

Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why?

That depends on the 2 questions you're afraid to answer.

 

[ding]

That depends on the 2 questions you're afraid to answer.

Why does it depend upon the answers to your questions, I am ignoring?

Show me their relevance to the question I am asking.

 

[ding]

Is the Occupation of the West Bank Morally Justified? Yes or no?

 

[ding]

Prior to Israel attacking Egypt in 1967, Israel did not occupy the lands they are occupying now.

Why is Israel morally justified in occupying the post-1967 lands now?

 

[ding]

Who does Israel fear will attack them if they gave back the occupied lands?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why does it depend upon the answers to your questions, I am ignoring?

Show me their relevance to the question I am asking.

Why does it depend upon the answers to your questions, I am ignoring?

Did they take territory from someone or not?

Should they give territory to someone? Who?

 

[ding]

Why does it depend upon the answers to your questions, I am ignoring?

Did they take territory from someone or not?

Should they give territory to someone? Who?

Yes, they did, why does it matter who?

They should return back to their borders. It is the moral thing to do. They have no moral justification not to do so.

Unless, of course you would care to make a moral argument for why they should continue to occupy the lands they took after they attacked Egypt.

 

[ding]

Why does it depend upon the answers to your questions, I am ignoring?

Did they take territory from someone or not?

Should they give territory to someone? Who?

It's ok that you can't make a moral argument for why Israel is occupying those lands.

It's ok for you to admit that you believe it is ok not to do the moral thing.

 

[ding]

Th whole argument about who's land was it is intended to misdirect from the question. It wasn't Israel's land. That's all that matters. They took those lands under the pretense of defending their nation from an imminent attack which is questionable at best. Their continued occupation can't make that claim.

So giving it back to the people who occupied it when they took it is the moral thing to do today. They have no moral argument to continue to occupy it. All they are proving is the law of capture; the law of might makes right. It's not a good look.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, they did, why does it matter who?

They should return back to their borders. It is the moral thing to do. They have no moral justification not to do so.

Unless, of course you would care to make a moral argument for why they should continue to occupy the lands they took after they attacked Egypt.

Yes, they did, why does it matter who?

If it doesn't matter, why are you afraid to say who?

They should return back to their borders.

Why aren't current borders "their borders"?

If they decide to, who'd be getting the territory?

 

[irosie91]

uh huh. The pre and post boundaries of the 1967 war say otherwise.

Look, you guys can try to pretend there was no post 1967 war occupation until the cows come home for all I care.

That doesn't address the question the OP is asking.

just what is a "boundary" in law? The issue for international law is BORDER. Just what BORDER
existed between Israel and Jordan when Jordan attacked Israel in 1947 and 1967?. Did Jordan have a MORAL RIGHT to occupy east Jerusalem? how about Hevron? DID any entity in the world recognize a
"BORDER"? Did Jordan consider the west bank PART OF THE COUNTRY named JORDAN? ----what was it? a city dump?