Forums → WEPR → You support Israel? I DO

But the expulsion of UN Peacekeeping troops and having placed thousands of Egyptian troops on the border would place Israel in a place of needing to declare war.

Another issue which the Israeli apologists regularly trot out is Nasser's throwing out of the UNEF observers from his side of the frontier. However, those observers were only there with Egypt's consent in the first place. Israel had refused to allow any observers on its side of the frontier. The fact that Nasser permitted them, demonstrates his own sense of restraint. Would you care to elaborate why Israel refused to allow any observers on its side?

Also it was not a full removal which Nasser demanded, he allowed the observers to remain at Sharm Al-Shaikh, situated at the Gulf of Aqaba, which would allow the observers a view on any Israeli ships. However this offer was rejected by the UN secretary general U Thant, who insisted all or none.

I read it, and it doesn't actually quote international law. Those are just attempts at stopping conquest, but since UN Resolutions against this came after the 6 Day War, again, Israel's claims are valid.

Yes, but the build up was present, and either way the Resolution called for:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Essentially calling such conquest illegal.

Any dictator with a missile could target Tel Aviv. So, yes, they are capable of attacking Israel.

Given that it would just open up a second front with a foreign enemy, do you think even a dictator is mad enough to attempt so? I see no logic in attacking people when one is at its weakest and fighting for one's own survival.

if there is international involvement (which I suspect there will be)

No country has volunteered to do so, especially after Libya.

Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Define occupied.

Define occupied.

tr.v. oc·cuÂ&middotied, oc·cuÂ&middoty·ing, oc·cuÂ&middoties
1. To fill up (time or space): a lecture that occupied three hours.
2. To dwell or reside in.
3. To hold or fill (an office or position).
4. To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest.
5. To engage or employ the attention or concentration of: occupied the children with coloring books.

Number 4. That wasn't so hard was it?

To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest

I find issue with your definition of conquest. Israel did not seize the land in aggressive warfare. The only example of that in Israeli history is the taking of Jerusalem during the 6 Day War. Other than that, again, in defensive war, they had the right to take the land. And what do you think? That Israel should go back to the small tiny specks it would have been in 1948? You yourself said that Israel should exist, but the only way that it DOES exist is by maintaining its borders at the present.

Read my analogy of the father and the cake. Also, if your argument is that because Israel was created by the UN, it is illegitimate, than any Palestinian state would be illegitimate because it was initially founded by the UN.

I think I made my point clear in previous
discussion and I really dont want to do it all over again.

And what do you think? That Israel should go back to the small tiny specks it would have been in 1948?

You want an answer? Yes.

You yourself said that Israel should exist, but the only way that it DOES exist is by maintaining its borders at the present.

It did exist briefly as that. There might need to be changes now due to demographic changes, but at the very least I support a return to the 1967 borders. Just as Israel has a right to exist, the Palestinian state has a right to.

I find issue with your definition of conquest. Israel did not seize the land in aggressive warfare. Other than that, again, in defensive war, they had the right to take the land.

Conquest it still conquest, defensive or not as laid out by international law. Furthermore Egypt and Israel merely signed an armistice, which does not mean the war has ended, but rather a cessation of war. That's the same between North and South Korea, they are still at war technically. Hence ''not aggressive'' is still debatable.

You want an answer? Yes.

\\

Than you cannot support Israel in the sense of wanting it to exist. If Israel were to go back to the tiny specks of land they were before the ARAB WARS OF AGGRESSION, than Hamas and the PLO would probably say to hell with it, and just remove them. The Jewish homeland would be history. You cannot support Israel if you want them to have indefensible borders.

It did exist briefly as that. There might need to be changes now due to demographic changes, but at the very least I support a return to the 1967 borders. Just as Israel has a right to exist, the Palestinian state has a right to.

Yes, however they cannot ask for the moon, sun, and stars. They are asking for the impossible. When and if they get their own country, they still might demand Right of Return for refugees. They are the land grabbers, not Israel.

Than you cannot support Israel in the sense of wanting it to exist. If Israel were to go back to the tiny specks of land they were before the ARAB WARS OF AGGRESSION, than Hamas and the PLO would probably say to hell with it, and just remove them. The Jewish homeland would be history. You cannot support Israel if you want them to have indefensible borders.

You can either call in the UN to stay long enough just like what Sudan has done recently, or call in the US for help. I can support Israel in its 1948/1967 state; the 1967 state doesn't have the 9 mile wide thread that you complain about. Again, I have loaded links of surveys that showed Pal support for Israel to exist so long as 1967 borders are adhered to.

Yes, however they cannot ask for the moon, sun, and stars.

They are merely asking for what's theirs. The descendants of the fighters in a conflict do not deserve to be punished for the blood their parents shed. It was their land, and it is their land.

When and if they get their own country, they still might demand Right of Return for refugees.

When they have their own nation, they don't need a right of return.

They are the land grabbers, not Israel.

So.....if it's not called land grabbing, I don't know what to call annexing the Palestinian state and taking the Sinai.

So.....if it's not called land grabbing, I don't know what to call annexing the Palestinian state and taking the Sinai.

Those were defensive measures to ensure the survival of a country. Israel only exists today because of its size, while relatively small to the other Arab countries. However the 1966 lines are indefensible against any competent military attack from a hostile nation (Iran comes to mind).

When they have their own nation, they don't need a right of return.

No, but along with their demands for a country, the Right of Return has been an issue that the Palestinians desperately want to swarm the demos of Israel with Arabs! Generous financial compensation has been offered, but declined!

They are merely asking for what's theirs. The descendants of the fighters in a conflict do not deserve to be punished for the blood their parents shed. It was their land, and it is their land.

You are starting to sound like punisher. Honestly, I thought we were on the same side! You are starting with the same claims that he made of "It was their land and is always their land."

Cuz simply you overtook arab land with british help.

U dont get it do U?
That Land Is NOT your's, it belongs to Palestinians.

all courtesy of punisher

Those were defensive measures to ensure the survival of a country. Israel only exists today because of its size, while relatively small to the other Arab countries. However the 1966 lines are indefensible against any competent military attack from a hostile nation (Iran comes to mind).

If that is the logic You put, then Israel is no better then nazi germany who ivaded belgium just to out flank frenches

Those were defensive measures to ensure the survival of a country. Israel only exists today because of its size, while relatively small to the other Arab countries. However the 1966 lines are indefensible against any competent military attack from a hostile nation (Iran comes to mind).

Size doesn't matter. I live in a dot, thousands of times smaller than my neighbours. We're not grabbing any land for security.

However the 1966 lines are indefensible against any competent military attack from a hostile nation (Iran comes to mind).

Seems to me that now you have more borders to patrol compared to the 1967 borders. Furthermore, any attack from Iran would have to be airborne given that its a few countries away, and no Arab state will let its armies past.

No, but along with their demands for a country, the Right of Return has been an issue that the Palestinians desperately want to swarm the demos of Israel with Arabs! Generous financial compensation has been offered, but declined!

And why should that be denied? As you said, Israel does not aim to impose Judaism as a state religion. I don't see any wrong in mass migration of Arabs. Of course, there will be regulations, no one will ever let a million Palestinians suddenly move in.

As mentioned earlier, the very notion of paying someone after chasing them off their homes and land is a very pathetic, to put it nicely, pathetic way of compensation. It completely demeans the dignity of a person to trade him some cash, cash that is not ample to pay for the years of time spent in a refugee camp. Frankly, it is insulting that Israel can actually put the years of exile and tears into monetary terms.

You are starting to sound like punisher. Honestly, I thought we were on the same side! You are starting with the same claims that he made of "It was their land and is always their land."

Unlike Punisher I don't deny that Israel has a right to exist. But unlike you, I support the fact that Palestine should exist, at least in the 1967 borders, which is fairer to both sides since it does give the Palestinians a home, but also gives Israel more breathing space.

Also, when I used the land argument, I am referring to the land given by the Partition that the UN imposed, the same Partition that gave birth to Israel, not a centuries old Arab claim like what Punisher issued. It's a clear difference between what Punisher has said, so let that sink in first.

I support the fact that Palestine should exist, at least in the 1967 borders, which is fairer to both sides since it does give the Palestinians a home, but also gives Israel more breathing space.

As do I. However you seem to be advocating for the unconditional returning to the pre-1967 lines. That doesn't work. Your point about living in a tiny island many times smaller than your neighbors is irrelevant because your neighbors have not repeatedly called for your nation's destruction.

If that is the logic You put, then Israel is no better then nazi germany who ivaded belgium just to out flank frenches

That wasn't a defensive war. That was a war of aggression, in which the purpose was to grab land. Israel's was to defend itself, and in the process, they took land. I see nothing wrong with having to pay the winner for losing, especially if you started that war. In no way is it Israel's fault for being in the predicament that it is in right now, as they just want peace. If it weren't for the incessant attempts by the Arabs to destroy Israel, yes, the country would be a few specks of land. However, you cannot deny that Israel is due some compensation of land for the wars that were all started by the Arabs.

As do I. However you seem to be advocating for the unconditional returning to the pre-1967 lines. That doesn't work. Your point about living in a tiny island many times smaller than your neighbors is irrelevant because your neighbors have not repeatedly called for your nation's destruction.

As far as I know their relations are not very well.

That wasn't a defensive war. That was a war of aggression, in which the purpose was to grab land. Israel's was to defend itself, and in the process, they took land. I see nothing wrong with having to pay the winner for losing, especially if you started that war. In no way is it Israel's fault for being in the predicament that it is in right now, as they just want peace. If it weren't for the incessant attempts by the Arabs to destroy Israel, yes, the country would be a few specks of land. However, you cannot deny that Israel is due some compensation of land for the wars that were all started by the Arabs.

So you think.

As far as I know their relations are not very well.

However they have not blatantly called out for the destruction of the nation.