Forums → WEPR → You support Israel? I DO

I agree though, that a middle way should be made. I just don't see Israel as in anyway "illegal." (I dare you to argue back...I have quite an argument made up if you would like to hear it.)

you have to understand, you have a track record of being one-sided and quite bigoted. I'm going to take that comment with a grain of salt.

I agree though, that a middle way should be made. I just don't see Israel as in anyway "illegal." (I dare you to argue back...I have quite an argument made up if you would like to hear it.)

In israel, arabs are treated second class citizens

israelian

Hold on a second. I don't know how to do the whole quotes thing where it copies and you can answer below, so you'll just have to bear with me.

First of all, Nichodemus, your last argument, (because it was their home...) I am pretty sure that this has been said before (maybe not I don't remember) but by that way of thinking America should be given back to the Native Americans.

You call it land grabbing, but that's not really illegal, is it? I mean, at least not until very recent history. Colonies are land grabbing, and america was a colony. Throughout time lands have been invaded, taken back, and invaded again (haha...Poland...). So allowing the U.N. to vote on it was a simply more peaceful way to "take over" if you will. The other option, I guess, would have been to settle down, bring in more advanced weapons, better thinkers, more strategy and take over the land by force. And you can rest assure that no country (in Europe, Asia, or otherwise) would have stopped to help the Palestinians in the relatively unsettled Middle East.

In an attempt to answer every argument, so as not to be called a hypocrite or anything, your quotes. I am not saying that Israel did not hunger for more land. And yes, people were unhappy. But let me remind you who started the war. Israel and its people may have been unhappy, but they did not instigate as a reason to get more land. Once the palestinians did, however, they saw an opportunity. And like any country would, not just the jews, they took that opportunity.
Now I can't really account for what David Ben Gurion said, but I just want to draw attention to the word &quotolitically." There, he is talking, yes, but also explaining that in the world of politics, that is the argument that the palestinians will use. And while I can't say it is wrong, I can only return to my argument above about colonies. The difference is that most colonies were talking lands from uncivilized natives, and this instead has turned into a full blown, almost guerilla war between two people.

Blue rabbit I wish we could like posts...Israelian...

Oh yeah and sorry I missed your last post Nichodeus. I am not really sure why we are fighting here, I did think we were on the same side. How about this. You read what I said, then i'll read what you say back. Then, I will rebut your arguments and you will rebut mine. We'll call it: debating

You call it land grabbing, but that's not really illegal, is it? I mean, at least not until very recent history. Colonies are land grabbing, and america was a colony. Throughout time lands have been invaded, taken back, and invaded again (haha...Poland...).

So allowing the U.N. to vote on it was a simply more peaceful way to "take over" if you will.

The other option, I guess, would have been to settle down, bring in more advanced weapons, better thinkers, more strategy and take over the land by force. And you can rest assure that no country (in Europe, Asia, or otherwise) would have stopped to help the Palestinians in the relatively unsettled Middle East.

And yes, people were unhappy. But let me remind you who started the war. Israel and its people may have been unhappy, but they did not instigate as a reason to get more land. Once the palestinians did, however, they saw an opportunity. And like any country would, not just the jews, they took that opportunity.

Once the palestinians did, however, they saw an opportunity. And like any country would, not just the jews, they took that opportunity.

Now I can't really account for what David Ben Gurion said, but I just want to draw attention to the word &quotolitically." There, he is talking, yes, but also explaining that in the world of politics, that is the argument that the palestinians will use.

And while I can't say it is wrong, I can only return to my argument above about colonies. The difference is that most colonies were talking lands from uncivilized natives, and this instead has turned into a full blown, almost guerilla war between two people.

I am not really sure why we are fighting here, I did think we were on the same side.

How about this. You read what I said, then i'll read what you say back. Then, I will rebut your arguments and you will rebut mine. We'll call it: debating

Only bothering to answer your last point, mostly because I don't feel like typing that much because I am on my Iphone.

Israel does not continue blatant expansion. When the arabs attacked during the six day water, Israel used their military strength to take over. But they then proceeded to return much of that land to the Arabs as a peace treat.
That was not something they had to do, it was something they chose to do.

lol sorry about all that autocorrect

Fourth Geneva Accords. Need I say more? Read up on Mandates in the LoN, which basically state that the Palestine was almost a sovereign state and needed a period of administration by a foreign power before setting it free.

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.

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.

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.

The Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, since, under its Article 2, it pertains only to "cases ofâ¦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.

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....".

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."

Israel does not continue blatant expansion. When the arabs attacked during the six day water, Israel used their military strength to take over. But they then proceeded to return much of that land to the Arabs as a peace treat.

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.

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.

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 an 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.

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....".

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."

whether or not you will agree with this or not is debateable, but I think this is a suitable way to argue that israel isn't stealing land.

Conclusion: Israel still steals land, and tries to somehow justify it through warping international law.

Yes, sadly nothing we say here will. But it does make a fun thinking process.

Defensive War? Since when did the Arabs strike first in the Six Day War? As far as I know, and you should as well, Israel struck first, and it struck with the knowledge that the Arabs didn't want to attack.
''I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.''
Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
''Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make:
'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.'''
Noam Chomsky, ''The Fateful Triangle.''

If you are surrounded by hostile countries, and you saw them gathering their forces on three fronts of your border, what would you do?
Leave it to chance that the four armies (on three fronts) just feel like placing their forces there, or take the logical approach and take it as they are attempting to attempt a co-ordinated assault on Israel (after receiving extermination threats from Egypt, Iraq, Syria and other Arab countries).