So, let's go ahead and go back to the '1967' borders and end the 'occupation'

[teddyearp]

About those 1967 borders. Why do we cling to this year, 1967? What was different about the borders in 1967? They were the same from 1949 through June 1967! Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.

I got the idea for this discussion from this thread here:

Israel's Occupation Is Morally Indefensible | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But it is talking about Israel's 'occupation' so instead of derailing that thread I thought I put out this question/food for thought.

OK. Then let's go back to the 1949 borders. Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied the West Bank. And though at first, Egypt and the Arab league put a party in power that made it seem as though there was a free and independent 'Palestine' in Gaza, it was still controlled by Egypt. And eventually, Egypt put their own governor in control over Gaza. Jordan made no bones. It took total and complete control of the West Bank and issued Jordanian passports, NOT Palestinian ones. With these facts in place, I wonder then if pbel would re-write his statement in the above thread quoted here:

There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

To say:

<snip>--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Egyptians and Jordanians the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

Wanna go back? Let's do it!

 

[CMike]

Also if it was all about the land Israel obtained after the 1967 war, why was there a 1948 war? Why were arabs attacking Jews in Israel before it even became a state.

The aim isn't obtaining land after 1967, it's about destroying all of Israel.

 

[pbel]

About those 1967 borders. Why do we cling to this year, 1967? What was different about the borders in 1967? They were the same from 1949 through June 1967! Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.

I got the idea for this discussion from this thread here:

Israel's Occupation Is Morally Indefensible | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But it is talking about Israel's 'occupation' so instead of derailing that thread I thought I put out this question/food for thought.

OK. Then let's go back to the 1949 borders. Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied the West Bank. And though at first, Egypt and the Arab league put a party in power that made it seem as though there was a free and independent 'Palestine' in Gaza, it was still controlled by Egypt. And eventually, Egypt put their own governor in control over Gaza. Jordan made no bones. It took total and complete control of the West Bank and issued Jordanian passports, NOT Palestinian ones. With these facts in place, I wonder then if pbel would re-write his statement in the above thread quoted here:

There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

To say:

<snip>--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Egyptians and Jordanians the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

Wanna go back? Let's do it!

Without being twerp about it, the 1949 borders did not contain E. Jerusalem within the Armistice lines for Israel, can you explain your confusion?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The so called'67 borders were never borders.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I think at this point we can all agree that the people who decided creating Israel after WW2 was a good idea really fucked up and wouldn't do it again if they knew the shitstorm it would start.

 

[USAF 2023]

The so called'67 borders were never borders.

The so called'67 borders were never borders.

Agree! Thats why Israel doesn't have to go back to them . Your You Tube Video talks about the destruction of Israel and the " One State Solution" which will never happen. The Palestinians are to blame for the failure of the " peace negotiations"

 

[Phoenall]

About those 1967 borders. Why do we cling to this year, 1967? What was different about the borders in 1967? They were the same from 1949 through June 1967! Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.

I got the idea for this discussion from this thread here:

Israel's Occupation Is Morally Indefensible | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But it is talking about Israel's 'occupation' so instead of derailing that thread I thought I put out this question/food for thought.

OK. Then let's go back to the 1949 borders. Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied the West Bank. And though at first, Egypt and the Arab league put a party in power that made it seem as though there was a free and independent 'Palestine' in Gaza, it was still controlled by Egypt. And eventually, Egypt put their own governor in control over Gaza. Jordan made no bones. It took total and complete control of the West Bank and issued Jordanian passports, NOT Palestinian ones. With these facts in place, I wonder then if pbel would re-write his statement in the above thread quoted here:

There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

To say:

<snip>--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Egyptians and Jordanians the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

Wanna go back? Let's do it!

There were two sets of ceasefire lines in 1967 ( never seen as borders by anyone ) the ones that were in place in 1949 before the arab states attacked in 1967 and those in place after Israel won that war in 6 days. So the loudmouths shouting for the 1967 borders should be more explicit on what they mean and state which set of ceasefire lines they mean. Then explain why they chose that set as the basis for the mutually agreed borders.

 

[Phoenall]

About those 1967 borders. Why do we cling to this year, 1967? What was different about the borders in 1967? They were the same from 1949 through June 1967! Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.

I got the idea for this discussion from this thread here:

Israel's Occupation Is Morally Indefensible | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But it is talking about Israel's 'occupation' so instead of derailing that thread I thought I put out this question/food for thought.

OK. Then let's go back to the 1949 borders. Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied the West Bank. And though at first, Egypt and the Arab league put a party in power that made it seem as though there was a free and independent 'Palestine' in Gaza, it was still controlled by Egypt. And eventually, Egypt put their own governor in control over Gaza. Jordan made no bones. It took total and complete control of the West Bank and issued Jordanian passports, NOT Palestinian ones. With these facts in place, I wonder then if pbel would re-write his statement in the above thread quoted here:

There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

To say:

<snip>--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Egyptians and Jordanians the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

Wanna go back? Let's do it!

Without being twerp about it, the 1949 borders did not contain E. Jerusalem within the Armistice lines for Israel, can you explain your confusion?

But the 1949 borders are nonexistent as none where ever agreed between Israel and the Palestinians. Then in 1967 the arab armies attacked Israel and lost gaza and the west bank to Israel in the fight that followed. Then the ceasefire lines moved to encompass all of the west bank and all of gaza. Those are the 1967 "borders"

 

[Phoenall]

The so called'67 borders were never borders.

And arab Palestine was always going to be Jordan

I think at this point we can all agree that the people who decided creating Israel after WW2 was a good idea really fucked up and wouldn't do it again if they knew the shitstorm it would start.

True they would have done it 20 years earlier and put the arab muslims firmly in their place in the process

 

[Challenger]

About those 1967 borders. Why do we cling to this year, 1967?

Every now and then , a poster here comes up with a valid point. Why DO we cling to this year, 1967? Zionist Israel's borders were defined in 1948 when it declared independance, and most Western powers recognised these borders, so if anything, Zionist Israel should, by rights return to these, especially because acquisition of territory, even in a "defensive" war, is illegal.

 

[teddyearp]

Thank you Tinmore for your informative video. Informative to the point to show your true self in this debate. You truly want Israel wiped off the map. Now we know it for sure. You could care less about any peace. Now we know it for sure.

But on the other point I made in my OP, again no pro pal goes near it, as usual. The west bank and Gaza were still occupied from 1949 through 1967. Crickets . . . . .

 

[P F Tinmore]

Thank you Tinmore for your informative video. Informative to the point to show your true self in this debate. You truly want Israel wiped off the map. Now we know it for sure. You could care less about any peace. Now we know it for sure.

But on the other point I made in my OP, again no pro pal goes near it, as usual. The west bank and Gaza were still occupied from 1949 through 1967. Crickets . . . . .

Actually, the question I have is how did Egypt and Jordan Occupy Palestinian land? Neither of them were at war with Palestine.

 

[Programmer]

The so called'67 borders were never borders.

This shit is solved with guns and jets, not panels and boards.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The so called'67 borders were never borders.

This shit is solved with guns and jets, not panels and boards.

Not really. Duh bomb'em is old school. We live in a more civilized world now where we should abide by the rule of law.

 

[Programmer]

The so called'67 borders were never borders.

This shit is solved with guns and jets, not panels and boards.

Not really. Duh bomb'em is old school. We live in a more civilized world now where we should abide by the rule of law.

The rule of law in this situation took account of the fact that the Arab world lost their fight every time they've fought it. In this way the rule of law can only be so charitable. The reality remains that you have to choose strong allies, fight and win, or become accustomed to living in an alien society.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The so called'67 borders were never borders.

This shit is solved with guns and jets, not panels and boards.

Not really. Duh bomb'em is old school. We live in a more civilized world now where we should abide by the rule of law.

The rule of law in this situation took account of the fact that the Arab world lost their fight every time they've fought it. In this way the rule of law can only be so charitable. The reality remains that you have to choose strong allies, fight and win, or become accustomed to living in an alien society.

So you are still stuck in the duh bomb'em mode.

 

[Programmer]

The so called'67 borders were never borders.

This shit is solved with guns and jets, not panels and boards.

Not really. Duh bomb'em is old school. We live in a more civilized world now where we should abide by the rule of law.

The rule of law in this situation took account of the fact that the Arab world lost their fight every time they've fought it. In this way the rule of law can only be so charitable. The reality remains that you have to choose strong allies, fight and win, or become accustomed to living in an alien society.

So you are still stuck in the duh bomb'em mode.

I'm stuck in reality. Diplomacy is effective before and after warfare, but not without it. The diffuse military effect from terrorism or Iranian proxy clearly isn't enough to move two-state diplomacy, so it's not going anywhere. As the video describes, the two state issue is actually losing prominence among issues in the area.

What is old-school is that people in that region can't cohabitate with people from different religions. Giving them countries to satisfy that barbarism isn't advancing anything or making a better world.

 

[RoccoR]

TheOldSchool

I think at this point we can all agree that the people who decided creating Israel after WW2 was a good idea really fucked up and wouldn't do it again if they knew the shitstorm it would start.

(COMMENT)

This is one of those theoretical questions (calling for the hypothetical: "what if") where the answer is: "We'll never know now."

When I came back from Europe the first time, I had seen most of it through a 1970s version of a minds-eye; clearly not through the eyes of my father. The men and women who contributed to the WWII War effort were special, and had seen things and done things they would better left forgotten. The names and places like Monte Cassino, the Ardennes, Luzon, Normandy, Arnhem, Bastogne, provoked different memories for me then it did for them. The Battle of Bataan and Corregidor, Midway and Leyte Gulf --- all mean something more to them --- then it will ever will for me. They tackled and triumphed over two most powerful and ruthless military machines ever assembled.​

It is very difficult for me to guess what, as Tom Brokaw called them, the "Greatest Generation" would have thought about the today's plight of the Jewish People and the arrogance of the Arab-Palestinian, in an attempt to defy the establishment of a Jewish National Home, and engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the decision of the UN and the Allied Powers. I'm not sure how the would react to the complaints of the Arab Palestinian People given that many of the key leaders that fought to overrun Israel support the NAZIs. The policy of the day, was deNAZIfication.

When COL William Quinn, ACofS G-2 was compiling the CIC reports one finding in Dachau, he wrote these words:

Given that the two leads of the Arab-Palestinian Resistance Militia Units (Holy War Army and Arab Liberation Army) were both NAZIs: (i) Hasan Salama, a special commando unit of the Waffen SS in Operation ATLAS, which was jointly operated by German Intelligence and Grand Mufti al-Husseini; (ii) Fawzi al-Qawuqi, was a Colonel in the Wehrmacht. Even the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husayni, an Arab nationalist, opponent to the establishment of a Jewish National Home, and future First President of the All Palestine Government, had direct ties to NAZI Germany, and the Führer.

Yes, it would be hard to say if they would choose the Jewish side --- or --- Arab-Palestinian side that was a former enemy element (Germany was still Occupied by Allied Forces).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

Giving them countries to satisfy that barbarism isn't advancing anything or making a better world.

Another valid point. Thats what the West ultimately discovered when it allowed the Zionists to create their barbarous state; Zionist Israel, the cancer in the region, has grown since then and has become more and more malignant.

 

[Programmer]

Giving them countries to satisfy that barbarism isn't advancing anything or making a better world.

Another valid point. Thats what the West ultimately discovered when it allowed the Zionists to create their barbarous state; Zionist Israel, the cancer in the region, has grown since then and has become more and more malignant.

Israel is all wrapped up in this, but further to my point, they are better diplomats, soldiers and generals, and that makes all the difference.