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

[Kondor3]

...It is the people of the place who have sovereignty...

True. And today, the 'people of the place' are called Jews, and Israelis.

 

[Coyote]

...It is the people of the place who have sovereignty...

True. And today, the 'people of the place' are called Jews, and Israelis.

and Palestinians.

 

[Kondor3]

...and Palestinians.

Not for long, the way things are going...

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is the people of the place who have sovereignty. Governments and states have sovereignty only as extensions of the people's sovereignty.

That's a nice, romantic notion, but not true. Sovereignty is not a individual or even a collective right of groups of peoples, per se. Even peoples who seek self-determination through secession can't necessarily achieve sovereignty. There are laws against changing the territorial integrity of an existing sovereign.

There are laws against changing the territorial integrity of an existing sovereign.​

That is true. It would be a violation of the rights of a people to their sovereignty in a defined territory. Territorial integrity is a basic right of the people.

 

[Coyote]

...and Palestinians.

Not for long, the way things are going...

Wishful thinking on your part sweetcheeks.

We have two peoples and they need to figure out a way to coexist.

One, two or three states?

 

[Shusha]

Status of territories captured by Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...

from same source

Disputed[edit]
The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Israeli government websites who support the view that the territories are not occupied argue that use of the term "occupied" in relation to Israel's control of the areas has no basis in international law or history,[6][7] and that it prejudges the outcome of negotiations. They regard the territories as "disputed" based on the following legal arguments:

• No borders have been established or recognized by the parties. Armistice lines do not establish borders, and the 1949 Armistice Agreements in particular specifically stated (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent or de jure borders.[6]

• In line with the above idea, the Israeli government has officially stated that its position is that the territories cannot be called occupied, as no nation had clear rights to them, and there was no operative diplomatic arrangement, when Israel acquired them in June 1967.[7]

• Territories are only "occupied" if they are captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign, but no state had a legitimate or recognized sovereignty over the West Bank, Gaza Strip or East Jerusalem prior to the Six-Day War.[6]
• The Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, since, under its Article 2, it pertains only to "cases of…occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party" by another High Contracting party. The West Bank and Gaza Strip have never been the legal territories of any High Contracting Party.[7][8][9]
• Even if the Fourth Geneva Convention had applied at one point, they certainly did not apply once the Israel transferred governmental powers to the Palestinian Authority in accordance with the 1993 Oslo Accords, since Article 6 of the convention states that the Occupying Power would only be bound to its terms "to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory....".[10]
• Israel took control of the West Bank as a result of a defensive war. The language of "occupation" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history. By repeatedly pointing to "occupation," they manage to reverse the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences. Thus, the current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision "to occupy," rather than a result of a war imposed on Israel by a coalition of Arab states in 1967. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."[6]

Though I agree with you that Israel did not especially want to exercise its sovereignty on the territories in question. And the Oslo Accords changed everything anyway. But in 1967 the choices were limited -- it was Israel's, it was Jordan's/Egypt's or it was a sovereignty vacuum.

​

 

[Shusha]

That is true. It would be a violation of the rights of a people to their sovereignty in a defined territory. Territorial integrity is a basic right of the people.

Well, its the rights of the sovereign, not the people, per se. But let's not get this too off-topic.

 

[Billo_Really]

Hey guys, how's everybody doing? I was in the neighborhood and thought I would pop in and say, "Hi".

Teddy, they're going back to the '67 borders, because that is the only option on the table. I don't know how many times people have to be told, you can't hold onto land seized in a war. Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem in the '67 war. That land wasn't Israel's. Is not Israel's now. And will never be Israel's.

It doesn't matter what name you call the Pals, they are the indigenous residents of this area and they have inalienable rights they can't give away or have them taken from them.

And an occupation doesn't require a state to be occupied, or a sovereign occupied state. The only requirement is that a foreign force is exerting effective control over an area it has no clear title to. Israel has no clear title to the areas listed above.

Allowing Israel to keep any part of that land, is the same thing as saying it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland and that ain't gonna happen. It's been almost 50 years and there isn't one country on the planet that recognizes Israel's right to that land. Not one. I'll say this one more time...

Conquer by Conquest is illegal.



Conquer by Conquest is illegal.



Conquer by Conquest is illegal.

 

[Shusha]

Conquer by Conquest is illegal.

Irrelevant to the conversation. The correct question is whether or not acquisition of territory is legal under some circumstances in a defensive war. Or if Israel acquired any territory not already under its sovereignty.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That is true. It would be a violation of the rights of a people to their sovereignty in a defined territory. Territorial integrity is a basic right of the people.

Well, its the rights of the sovereign, not the people, per se. But let's not get this too off-topic.

popular sovereignty
1. the doctrine that sovereign power is vested in the people and that those chosen by election to govern or to represent must conform to the will of the people.

Doctrine of Popular Sovereignty
--------------------------
Recognizing that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
------------------------------
Hmmm, no mention of a state or government.

 

[montelatici]

Claiming that people that lived on another continent somehow had a right to sovereinty in land already inhabited by other people over said native inhabitants is abrurd.

 

[Billo_Really]

Irrelevant to the conversation.

You say it's irrelevant, but then in the very next statement, try to justify it.

The correct question is whether or not acquisition of territory is legal under some circumstances in a defensive war.

"...acquisition of territory...in a defensive war" , is just paraphrasing "conquer by conquest".

You cannot acquire territory at the point of a gun. It doesn't matter if that is an "offensive" gun, or a "defensive" gun. You cannot hold onto land seized in a war. And I think we all agree, what happened for 6 days in 1967, was a war.

Trying to say it was a defensive war, is like saying the Bush Doctrine is legal and it's not.

Or if Israel acquired any territory not already under its sovereignty.

You don't acquire territory that's already yours. You don't occupy your own home. International law clearly states an occupational force cannot take sovereignty over a territory it occupies.

 

[Billo_Really]

Claiming that people that lived on another continent somehow had a right to sovereinty in land already inhabited by other people over said native inhabitants is abrurd.

Exactly. You can't move into a neighborhood and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.

 

[Shusha]

Claiming that people that lived on another continent somehow had a right to sovereinty in land already inhabited by other people over said native inhabitants is abrurd.

Israel's right to sovereignty is rooted in the fact that the Jewish people had a existing claim to the land due to their historical national homeland there from which they were driven out and ethnically cleansed by force. This gives them the right of return.

This is NOT to say that the Palestinians people do not also have rights. They do. Of course. Again, my side, which is both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian, grants rights to BOTH people, not just one. And it grants those rights based on the exact same reason.

The anti-Israel side claims that conquest and ethnically cleansing a land and forcing people into a diaspora is a valid way of removing sovereignty from them. That the reason the Jewish people no longer have claim to the land is because they were successfully conquered and driven out. And if you believe that, it is fine. But it is hypocritical of you to then turn around and state that Israel cannot claim the territories by conquest and ethnic cleansing. And it is hypocritical for you to claim that those Palestinians who were conquered and expelled or driven out by war have the right to return through the generations. You can't play both sides of the coin depending on which group you are speaking of.

And yes, some Palestinians have been in the land for a very long time. So have the Jewish people. There has also been conquests (please note the change in language, religion, modes of dress, and a host of other cultural factors) and immigration, both of Jews from the diaspora and of groups from many other cultures and peoples. None of these things negates the rights of both peoples in land in question.

 

[teddyearp]

<snip> Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem in the '67 war.

But from whom? They did not 'seize' it from a sovereign nation called Palestine. It was territory under the complete control of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, respectively. So returning to 1967 and giving back land that "never will belong to Israel" means giving it back to who had it in 1967, doesn't it?

 

[Shusha]

"...acquisition of territory...in a defensive war" , is just paraphrasing "conquer by conquest".

Not. Defending your territory from aggression and then keeping territory which places you in a better defensive position against hostile neighbors is not "conquest". And it is entirely permissible, and expected, to do so. International law differentiates between wars of aggression and wars of defense.

You don't acquire territory that's already yours. You don't occupy your own home.

Exactly so.

International law clearly states an occupational force cannot take sovereignty over a territory it occupies.

Not so. International law states that an occupying force can not use aggression to strip sovereignty from another and forcibly transfer it to itself. However, the occupation of land which a sovereign permits, or occupation of a land which is a sovereignty vacuum or occupation of a land which already belongs to you carries different legislation.

And that is why the sovereignty of the territory in question is so key. But it seems no one else has the guts to take a position on that.

 

[Shusha]

But from whom? They did not 'seize' it from a sovereign nation called Palestine. It was territory under the complete control of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, respectively. So returning to 1967 and giving back land that "never will belong to Israel" means giving it back to who had it in 1967, doesn't it?

Teddy, I was hoping one of the anti-Israeli crowd would attempt to answer this. But apparently they can see the pitfalls of any answer they would be able to give.

Neither Jordan nor Egypt had any rights to sovereignty in these territories, to my knowledge. Egypt was not part of the Mandate process, so acquisition of territory and changing borders without a treaty would be a neat legal trick. Jordan's territory was clearly outlined geographically by treaty, so she has no claim (and she has since renounced it anyway).

The national homeland for the Jewish people (Israel), as outlined in the Mandate for Palestine and other instruments, included all the territory up to the border of Jordan. There was no other sovereign and there was no other provision for an additional sovereign. The only other choice is an absence of sovereignty,due to Israel not fully exercising her sovereignty under hostile conditions (read: wars of aggression).

 

[Billo_Really]

But from whom? They did not 'seize' it from a sovereign nation called Palestine. It was territory under the complete control of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, respectively. So returning to 1967 and giving back land that "never will belong to Israel" means giving it back to who had it in 1967, doesn't it?

It doesn't matter who they seized it from. It was seized in a war. And it is illegal to hold onto land seized in a war.

 

[Billo_Really]

Not. Defending your territory from aggression...

Invading a sovereign nation, is not defense, its aggression. Article 51 of the UN Charter states the only two ways one nation can attack another nation, legally. And rolling your tanks into Egypt, was not one of them.

and then keeping territory...

Keeping territory that you seized in a war, is conquest.

which places you in a better defensive position against hostile neighbors is not "conquest".

It doesn't matter what reason you make up, you cannot hold onto land seized in a war.

And it is entirely permissible, and expected, to do so. International law differentiates between wars of aggression and wars of defense.

In either one, holding onto land seized in a war was outlawed at the end of WWII. The reason it was outlawed, was a direct result of the actions taken by the Axis Powers.

Germany made up its own bullshit reasons why it had to go into Poland in order to defend the fatherland. Saying its okay for Israel to hold onto that land, is like saying it was okay for Germany to annex Poland.

Why do you wanna do the same thing the Nazis did?

Not so.

It is so and here's the link...

"Under occupation law, the occupying power does not acquire sovereignty over the occupied territory..."​

International law states that an occupying force can not use aggression to strip sovereignty from another and forcibly transfer it to itself. However, the occupation of land which a sovereign permits, or occupation of a land which is a sovereignty vacuum or occupation of a land which already belongs to you carries different legislation.

No, it doesn't say that at all.

And that is why the sovereignty of the territory in question is so key. But it seems no one else has the guts to take a position on that.

Israel has no sovereign title to that land. None.

And quite frankly, all this talk about ancestral home seems a little hard to swallow in light of the fact that in its entire 5000 year history, only 414 years were spent under Jewish rule. That's 8%. Jews ancestral home makes up only 8% of the entire time that area had people living in it.

 

[Shusha]

Invading a sovereign nation...

Which sovereign nation did Israel invade in 1967?