Israel does not exist

[Sixties Fan]

It is not occupied. It belongs to Israel. Israel is never returning it.

It IS occupied... Your denial won't change facts.

You stating that "Israel is never returning it"... Suggests that you know the truth.

What I know is that Syria is at war with Israel, like most Muslim countries are.
What I know is that Syria is very unstable right now, with a civil war of its own.
What I know is that many Syrian rockets have already found their way to Israel, or purpose or accidentally.
What I know is that there is no Peace treaty between Israel and Syria.
What I know is that lives are at risk in Israel, all of them, not only Jews, from Syria's civil war.
What I know, is if Israel were to even think of giving the Golan Heights to Syria, as it is in the middle and depth of a civil war - all anti Israel groups would take advantage of it and sniper kill as many Jews as they could and set up an attack on Israel from that Hill.

I know the truth that Syria was one of the Arab countries which CHOSE to attack Israel not only in 1948, but in 1967 as well.

Syria made the bad choice, just as Jordan made the bad choice. There is no going back to what it was.
There is no going back to being easy targets against Jordanians or Syrians.
It is enough that they continue to educate their generations to hate Jews and murder as many as they can.

Israel is NOT a suicidal nation, you understand this or not.

So you DO accept that it is occupied territory then...

Thanks for the clarification.

No, Humanity, it can be described as Disputed territory, but it is not occupied.
The only way to deal with the dispute is see that Syria does what Egypt and Jordan did.
Negotiate for peace. Israel ended up returning the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt because of negotiations.

Israel is not obligated to simply return any land won in a war it did not start and which would mean that the enemy would go back to killing all below the Golan Heights as it wished.

You are not clear as to what means what in this conflict.

This is not Tibet and China, or Western Sahara and Morocco, or Northern Cyprus and Turkey.

The Syrians declared war on Israel for the second time in 1967. They lost the Golan Heights where they had snipers hitting Israelis from above.

Let me repeat it again and make myself very clear.

Israelis are not SUICIDAL .

No SF... It is described as "disputed territory" ONLY by Israel and Israel supporters... That is a fact!

How is it NOT not Tibet and China, or Western Sahara and Morocco, or Northern Cyprus and Turkey?

The legalities of taking territory through conflict is better left for those who want to argue the legal jargon.

Annexation however, is NOT a right that Israel has! Unless you are Israel or an Israel supporter.

Did Tibet attack China and then lose the territory?
Did Cyprus attack Turkey and then lose territory?
What is going on with Morocco and Western Sahara?

Do you actually know the history of these conflicts?

If ever Syria goes back to normal and there is a legal government ready to negotiate Peace with Israel, that is when the issue will be resolved.
Until then Israel will keep the Golan Heights part it has, as agreed with Syria after 1967 or 1973 and will continue to make sure that the Muslims in Syria don't find great places to turkey shoot the Jews from up there.

Support what you want to support. The facts on the ground are far different than the fairy tale you seem to live in.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Case for Israeli Sovereignty in the Golan Heights

 

[Humanity]

Did Cyprus attack Turkey and then lose territory?

Excellent...

You chose my second favorite subject

I would love to hear your opinion on this particular conflict!

You are aware of why Turkey sent troops into Cyprus?

Don't worry I will continue to support who I want... I will also continue to say that it is only Israel and pro Israel supporters who believe that there is no "occupation"... Every other country believes it IS occupied territory under international law... You choose your fantasy and I will choose fact!

 

[Humanity]

The Case for Israeli Sovereignty in the Golan Heights

Trying to present a case for occupation and annexation of territory is pretty pointless, unless you believe that the territory is occupied!

 

[teddyearp]

I think the topic of 'occupied' vs. 'disputed' territories is a great topic for a brand new thread. Humanity I think I will ask in the 'higher council' how best to have that one member phrase it, lol.

 

[Linkiloo]

Isn't it true that all nearly all Arab and Muslim countries do not recognize Israel's legal right to exist because it is governed by Jews?

No, because they consider it an occupation.

Strangely enough you are BOTH wrong!

The Arabs and Muslims I have spoken to, in their own Arab/Muslim countries, don't actually have an issue with Israel existing. That is fact! Whether it is governed by Jews or Muslims. The fact that Israel exists, from my personal experience, is not the issue here!

Not ONE Arab/Muslim I have met has considered Israel as an "occupation" either!

If you believe wither of those two 'ideas' then you really have no experience of Israel/Jews or Arab/Muslims!

You have this extremely low level understanding of the situation and, sorry to say, neither of you are right!

I do not understand where you got the idea that if Israel is governed by Jews or Arabs/Muslims it is ok with the Muslim world.

Could you tell me what Muslims you have been speaking to?
Are they part of any of the Muslim governments? Have any one of them said that it is ok, after the wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and all the wars started from Gaza or Lebanon, that any one of these involved in trying to destroy Israel are going to be ok if Israel continues to exist?

Where did you get the idea that I have no experience of Israel/Jews or Arab/Muslims?

What is the experience you are coming from, exactly?

Have you met anyone in Gaza or Ramallah?
They are not telling you that Israel is occupying "their" land?

So, what are all of those videos, and news fromAl Jazeera, BBC, NYT, etc, calling Judea and Samaria and "East Jerusalem" as occupied Palestinian territories?

I think that Humanity exists in a fanstasy world where arabs do not have a problem with jews in the region. Strangely enough on this very thread we hear the opposite. Jews are clearly called occupiers and have no rights and never will.

Correct, Israel DOES occupy territory that is not theirs!

However, Israel, as a country, does exist and has as much right to exist as the US or any other country in the world. The Jews have every right to live peacefully in Israel!

Pity the Arabs don't agree and do not recognise Israel's right to exist, also prior to '67. How does that square with your insight?

 

[Humanity]

No, because they consider it an occupation.

Strangely enough you are BOTH wrong!

The Arabs and Muslims I have spoken to, in their own Arab/Muslim countries, don't actually have an issue with Israel existing. That is fact! Whether it is governed by Jews or Muslims. The fact that Israel exists, from my personal experience, is not the issue here!

Not ONE Arab/Muslim I have met has considered Israel as an "occupation" either!

If you believe wither of those two 'ideas' then you really have no experience of Israel/Jews or Arab/Muslims!

You have this extremely low level understanding of the situation and, sorry to say, neither of you are right!

I do not understand where you got the idea that if Israel is governed by Jews or Arabs/Muslims it is ok with the Muslim world.

Could you tell me what Muslims you have been speaking to?
Are they part of any of the Muslim governments? Have any one of them said that it is ok, after the wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and all the wars started from Gaza or Lebanon, that any one of these involved in trying to destroy Israel are going to be ok if Israel continues to exist?

Where did you get the idea that I have no experience of Israel/Jews or Arab/Muslims?

What is the experience you are coming from, exactly?

Have you met anyone in Gaza or Ramallah?
They are not telling you that Israel is occupying "their" land?

So, what are all of those videos, and news fromAl Jazeera, BBC, NYT, etc, calling Judea and Samaria and "East Jerusalem" as occupied Palestinian territories?

I think that Humanity exists in a fanstasy world where arabs do not have a problem with jews in the region. Strangely enough on this very thread we hear the opposite. Jews are clearly called occupiers and have no rights and never will.

Correct, Israel DOES occupy territory that is not theirs!

However, Israel, as a country, does exist and has as much right to exist as the US or any other country in the world. The Jews have every right to live peacefully in Israel!

Pity the Arabs don't agree and do not recognise Israel's right to exist, also prior to '67. How does that square with your insight?

I can only speak from my perspective...

Israel has EVERY right to exist... It does not have a 'right' to occupy territory outside of Israel...

That applies to ANY country!

 

[Shusha]

Israel has EVERY right to exist... It does not have a 'right' to occupy territory outside of Israel...

That applies to ANY country!

Actually the right to self defense is one of the few exceptions to the general prohibition against occupying territory under another's sovereignty. (And note the proper distinction -- the law does not say that one can not occupy territory outside one's own sovereignty, but that one can't encroach upon another's sovereignty. Its an important distinction.)

Sixties Fan and I are arguing that the circumstances surrounding Golan Heights are such that occupation (and possibly annexation) is legally supportable.

 

[Humanity]

Israel has EVERY right to exist... It does not have a 'right' to occupy territory outside of Israel...

That applies to ANY country!

Actually the right to self defense is one of the few exceptions to the general prohibition against occupying territory under another's sovereignty. (And note the proper distinction -- the law does not say that one can not occupy territory outside one's own sovereignty, but that one can't encroach upon another's sovereignty. Its an important distinction.)

Sixties Fan and I are arguing that the circumstances surrounding Golan Heights are such that occupation (and possibly annexation) is legally supportable.

The semantics of your argument are for the lawyers not for us to bat around like kids! In that... You accept you cannot "encroach" upon another's sovereignty but it's ok to "occupy"? How does one occupy WITHOUT encroaching?

That is a rhetorical question as I really do not want to get into a 'bat and ball' scenario over semantics.

And, as much as I love you Shusha...

Links please that legally support the occupation (Thank you at least for accepting it is occupation) and annexation are "legally supported"...

 

[Sixties Fan]

Israel has EVERY right to exist... It does not have a 'right' to occupy territory outside of Israel...

That applies to ANY country!

Actually the right to self defense is one of the few exceptions to the general prohibition against occupying territory under another's sovereignty. (And note the proper distinction -- the law does not say that one can not occupy territory outside one's own sovereignty, but that one can't encroach upon another's sovereignty. Its an important distinction.)

Sixties Fan and I are arguing that the circumstances surrounding Golan Heights are such that occupation (and possibly annexation) is legally supportable.

The semantics of your argument are for the lawyers not for us to bat around like kids! In that... You accept you cannot "encroach" upon another's sovereignty but it's ok to "occupy"? How does one occupy WITHOUT encroaching?

That is a rhetorical question as I really do not want to get into a 'bat and ball' scenario over semantics.

And, as much as I love you Shusha...

Links please that legally support the occupation (Thank you at least for accepting it is occupation) and annexation are "legally supported"...

In a previous post, an article referred to the Disengagement Agreement between Israel and Syria.

You may read it here:

Separation of Forces Agreement Between Israel And Syria (May 1974)

 

[teddyearp]

It does seem as though that agreement is being upheld as I saw U.N. peacekeepers on Mount Bental.

 

[Humanity]

Israel has EVERY right to exist... It does not have a 'right' to occupy territory outside of Israel...

That applies to ANY country!

Actually the right to self defense is one of the few exceptions to the general prohibition against occupying territory under another's sovereignty. (And note the proper distinction -- the law does not say that one can not occupy territory outside one's own sovereignty, but that one can't encroach upon another's sovereignty. Its an important distinction.)

Sixties Fan and I are arguing that the circumstances surrounding Golan Heights are such that occupation (and possibly annexation) is legally supportable.

The semantics of your argument are for the lawyers not for us to bat around like kids! In that... You accept you cannot "encroach" upon another's sovereignty but it's ok to "occupy"? How does one occupy WITHOUT encroaching?

That is a rhetorical question as I really do not want to get into a 'bat and ball' scenario over semantics.

And, as much as I love you Shusha...

Links please that legally support the occupation (Thank you at least for accepting it is occupation) and annexation are "legally supported"...

In a previous post, an article referred to the Disengagement Agreement between Israel and Syria.

You may read it here:

Separation of Forces Agreement Between Israel And Syria (May 1974)

I am aware of the agreement...

Though I am not sure how this goes anywhere to proving very much as far as occupation or not... This is a separation of "forces" not a delineation of borders.

Further, the agreement has been, as always, 'manipulated' by the signed parties to their own benefit causing confusion and further disagreement.

 

[Shusha]

The semantics of your argument are for the lawyers not for us to bat around like kids! In that... You accept you cannot "encroach" upon another's sovereignty but it's ok to "occupy"? How does one occupy WITHOUT encroaching?

Its not semantics, its law. Its important to view conflicts with respect to law and with objectivity, otherwise conflicts become no more than who can create the "best" story of victimization or the "best" demonization of the other. The reason I pointed out the distinction is because it does not apply to terra nullius. And that may be a relevant distinction with respect to certain aspects of the conflict.

It is absolutely permissible to conduct military operations and (temporarily) occupy another sovereign's territory if that sovereign has committed an act of war against you (jus ad bellum). UN Charter Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.

We agree so far, yes? That military requirements in the process of defending one's sovereignty and population permit the requirements of war to (temporarily) take precedence over territorial borders. That the conditions of battle will dictate where armies fight, as opposed to imaginary lines on a map. And height matters in war.

Links please that legally support the occupation (Thank you at least for accepting it is occupation) and annexation are "legally supported"...

Of course its an occupation/annexation. Israel never had sovereignty over that territory. Whether or not Israel meets the requirements for annexation is a much trickier subject. The requirements are stringent. However, I think it is justified.

If we are agreed on the principle that occupation can be legally permissible, I can move to the harder stuff.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel has EVERY right to exist... It does not have a 'right' to occupy territory outside of Israel...

That applies to ANY country!

Actually the right to self defense is one of the few exceptions to the general prohibition against occupying territory under another's sovereignty. (And note the proper distinction -- the law does not say that one can not occupy territory outside one's own sovereignty, but that one can't encroach upon another's sovereignty. Its an important distinction.)

Sixties Fan and I are arguing that the circumstances surrounding Golan Heights are such that occupation (and possibly annexation) is legally supportable.

The semantics of your argument are for the lawyers not for us to bat around like kids! In that... You accept you cannot "encroach" upon another's sovereignty but it's ok to "occupy"? How does one occupy WITHOUT encroaching?

That is a rhetorical question as I really do not want to get into a 'bat and ball' scenario over semantics.

And, as much as I love you Shusha...

Links please that legally support the occupation (Thank you at least for accepting it is occupation) and annexation are "legally supported"...

In a previous post, an article referred to the Disengagement Agreement between Israel and Syria.

You may read it here:

Separation of Forces Agreement Between Israel And Syria (May 1974)

I am aware of the agreement...

Though I am not sure how this goes anywhere to proving very much as far as occupation or not... This is a separation of "forces" not a delineation of borders.

Further, the agreement has been, as always, 'manipulated' by the signed parties to their own benefit causing confusion and further disagreement.

This is a separation of "forces" not a delineation of borders.

Indeed just like the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements.

 

[JoelT1]

Israel has existed dating back over 3000 years Who else can say this?

I was loathe to begin a new thread on this topic when it came up on another one, because, quite frankly, the claim is so ridiculous it does not deserve discussion, let alone its own thread. However, since it is likely to drive the other thread off-topic...

The claim made on the other thread was that Israel does not exist. The context of this assertion is the vile notion that it is not possible to commit a crime against Israel or Israelis (read: Jews), including war crimes and humanitarian crimes -- thus absolving Arabs of all wrong-doing when Israel (read: Jews) is the target.

It is a perverse and abhorrent corruption of humanitarian law to claim that crimes committed against a certain ethnic group are not crimes. And frankly, anyone in the US experiencing the horror in your country this past week should be ashamed to suggest such a thing.

The criteria for existence as a state, as provided by the claimant are as follows:

a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Clearly Israel has a permanent population, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states, I am going to assume the claimant has no quarrels with those three, though he is free to correct me if I am wrong. The supposed criteria that Israel is missing is a "defined territory".

I beg to differ. Israel has a clearly defined territory. It has a treaty with Egypt, defining its southern border. It has a treaty with Jordan, defining its eastern border. It has treaties of the Mandate documents defining its northern borders with Lebanon and Syria (with some disputes) which also confirms its eastern and southern borders. And, of course, it has the sea as its western border. Further, it has a treaty with the government acting on behalf of the Palestinian people that a future border between Israel and Palestine will come about after permanent negotiations.

I'm going to point out that a disputed border is NOT cause to dissolve a nation nor to prevent its formation. There are literally dozens and dozens of disputed borders in the world. If a disputed border is the only criteria for "non-existence" then Syria and Lebanon do not exist. Canada does not exist. The US does not exist. Nor any of the dozens of other nations with border disputes.

A "defined territory" is a general term, and not one that depends on uncontested boundaries. It is very easy, in practical terms, to define Israel's sovereign territory.


If it walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck -- you can be certain its a duck.

And, I'm just going to drop this here:

IF it is true that no crimes can be committed against a peoples if their nation does not exist -- then Israel has committed no crimes against the Arab Palestinians and have absolutely no need to "adhere to international law". Indeed, Israel is free to carry out whatever deeds it likes upon the Arab "Palestinian" people.

Further, it has a treaty with the government acting on behalf of the Palestinian people that a future border between Israel and Palestine will come about after permanent negotiations.

This is a truth that is always ignored. As the citizens of Palestine, the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity. As implied above, and the right under international law, the Palestinians are the only ones who can cede land or change borders. Only a treaty with Palestine can cede land or change borders. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements noted that Palestinian land and international borders remained unchanged since 1922.

So, as of 1949 Palestine and its international borders were still intact. Have there been any treaties with Palestine since 1949 that have changed that status?

Further, it has a treaty with the government acting on behalf of the Palestinian people that a future border between Israel and Palestine will come about after permanent negotiations.

This is a truth that is always ignored. As the citizens of Palestine, the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity. As implied above, and the right under international law, the Palestinians are the only ones who can cede land or change borders. Only a treaty with Palestine can cede land or change borders. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements noted that Palestinian land and international borders remained unchanged since 1922.

So, as of 1949 Palestine and its international borders were still intact. Have there been any treaties with Palestine since 1949 that have changed that status?

 

[fanger]

Immigration to Israel during the late 1940s and early 1950s was aided by the Israeli Immigration Department and the non-government sponsored Mossad LeAliyah Bet ("Institution for Illegal Immigration") Israel - Wikipedia
israel is 70 years old established by illegal immigrants into palestine the illegal immigrants should get free swimming lessons

 

[JoelT1]

Immigration to Israel during the late 1940s and early 1950s was aided by the Israeli Immigration Department and the non-government sponsored Mossad LeAliyah Bet ("Institution for Illegal Immigration") Israel - Wikipedia
israel is 70 years old established by illegal immigrants into palestine the illegal immigrants should get free swimming lessons

Um, Israel dates back over 3000 years, verified by archaeology. Jesus is King of Israel in the Bible. Which other countries are that old?

 

[fanger]

The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government during World War I announcing support for the establishment of a Jewish "national home" in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a minority Jewish population. It read:

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine

 

[fanger]

Immigration to Israel during the late 1940s and early 1950s was aided by the Israeli Immigration Department and the non-government sponsored Mossad LeAliyah Bet ("Institution for Illegal Immigration") Israel - Wikipedia
israel is 70 years old established by illegal immigrants into palestine the illegal immigrants should get free swimming lessons

Um, Israel dates back over 3000 years, verified by archaeology. Jesus is King of Israel in the Bible. Which other countries are that old?

The illegal immigrants took over

 

[JoelT1]

Immigration to Israel during the late 1940s and early 1950s was aided by the Israeli Immigration Department and the non-government sponsored Mossad LeAliyah Bet ("Institution for Illegal Immigration") Israel - Wikipedia
israel is 70 years old established by illegal immigrants into palestine the illegal immigrants should get free swimming lessons

Um, Israel dates back over 3000 years, verified by archaeology. Jesus is King of Israel in the Bible. Which other countries are that old?

The illegal immigrants took over

Arabs would be the Illegal immigrants. Jews are the indigenous People of Israel. Ever hear of the Hebrew Bible?