Does Israel Own the "Occupied Territories"

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ArchAngel, Mar 10, 2003.

  1. A simple question that will probably kick up a hornet's nest - but that's what these threads are for :)

    Do you think that Israel now owns the land outside their recognized borders that they captured after the war back in the 1960s and that they've been building settlements on - the so-called "occupied territories" (Amnesty International's term, not mine)?

    Answer "Yes" if you think they get to claim and appropriate that territory because of the 1960s war and that the world should redraw Israel's borders accordingly and let them do with it as they may.

    Answer "No" if you think they should eventually evacuate back inside their official borders and any settlements they've built will ultimately fall under whatever government is established for the evacuated zone.

    Answer "No and No Settlements" if you think they should eventually evacuate back inside their official borders and they should also pullout all settlements they've built outside those borders.

    Note that what should eventually happen to the zone, if Israel doesn't keep it then who gets the land, whether the Palestinians should get their own country, whether Arafat and the other terrorist leaders should be shot, how to assure Israel's security, etc. is NOT part of this.

    The sole purpose of this simple question is trying to determine whether or not people here believe that Israel has the right to claim the land they captured in the 1960s as now part of Israel and remap their borders accordingly.
     
  2. I voted Yes, since technical possession is nine tenths of the law...

    However, morally, I would like to see Israel hand back significant chunks of the Occupied Territories once the conditions are right...

    Optimal conditions would include a replacement of Arafat by a more moderate leader (perhaps an academic) and replacement of Likud's Ariel Sharon by someone like Amran Mitzna of Labor...

    But a hand back of the terrorities must come with strong security guarantees for Israel...

    Nothing would please me more than to see Christians and Muslims in a newly created Palestine living side by side in peace with the people of Israel...
     
  3. NYNY

    NYNY

    Egypt Syria and Jordan got their asses kicked fair and square.

    They should just be happy they got the Sinai Peninsula back.

    I would like to see the settlements removed for now, but the West Bank should still be part of Israel(for now)but should have a local Palestinian Gov't.

    The Golan Heights and Gaza Strip are 100% Israeli. (IMO)

    As for Arafat...he is the biggest problem. I still don't know why he didn't take that deal a few years ago. They will NEVER get a deal like that ever again.
     
  4. My opinion, is that neither the government and leadership of Israel or Palestine deserve to be living in the "Holy Lands."

    They both act like children and sinners, neither side practicing a religion of peace and harmony.

    My solution?

    The USA takes over all the land, like a parent takes a toy away from children who can't learn to share and play nice together.
     
  5. Agree


    Agree


    Agree


    Agree on the Golan... we need the Golan as a defense mechanism against the Syrians... disagree about the Gaza strip... Gaza is wasteland... the Palestinians are welcome to it...

    Both Arafat and Sharon must go and be replaced by moderate leaders capable of a rational conversation... I agree with you on the deal... Ehud Barak put on the table something very good... I don't understand why the Palestinians didn't snap up that deal...
     
  6. LOL...grow up...
     
  7. traderJ

    traderJ

    Those occupied territories are as occupied as America occupying Indian territory. The book From Time Immemorial, writen by Joan Peters, a number of years ago, shows in depth how the Arabs basically have no political or other, to any part of the land of Israel. It is all a bid con job. The Arabs are their own worst enemy. They have land 100 times the size of Israel and enough money to build each arab a townhouse, but they would rather keep them in refugee camps to wave the flag of Israeli discrimination. Besides people do not realise that Israel is the size of New Jersey, which is not very big.It takes a jet fighter no more than 4 minutes to fly from north to south of the country.To give back any land would be a disaster,especially since the arabs cant promise any type of peace as witnessed this week. The arabs were celebrating and giving out candies on the street the day of Sept. 11, how quickly we forget, and lets not get too confused with the facts.
     
  8. I gotta agree with the thrust of your sentiments... nevertheless, I am in favor of moving the peace process forward, if only to see Jewish, Muslim and Christian kids grow up in peace... the ball is primarily in the court of Arafat...
     
  9. Each side in the argument has their own self-rationalizing logic but without change on BOTH sides it will continue to spiral the region into the abyss with no chance of ever having peace.

    As far as the US occupying Indian (BTW, proper term is Native American, Indians are from INDIA) territory. The biggest mistake my ancestors and the rest of the tribes made was allowing open immigration by all those lying and thieving White Eyes. They should have butchered them all and left their heads on stakes as a warning!!!

    History is unfortunately filled with such examples. Perhaps England should have simply kept control of the whole area then??
     
  10. I knew this would kick up some dust, so here's some more :)

    As I said in the opening post - the question is whether Israel has the right to claim land that's outside the borders that were drawn up when the country was formed and recognized.

    Having current physical possession doesn't convey "right". If you take a swing at me in a bar and I deck you and your wallet falls out of your pocket and I pick it up, do I now own your wallet?? How about your girlfriend (only if she's good looking though)?? By that logic, the League of Nations and later the UN shouldn't have interfered with the UK's possession of that whole area - of course had that been the case, no Israel.

    Also, whether it would be nice for Israel to have some additional land that's not part of their official borders is NOT the question. Do they have the RIGHT to it just because they CLAIM they need it for protection? What if my neighbor has a mean dog - can I just redraw the property line to add 10 feet from their lot to mine because I need it for added protection from their dog??

    And for those who believe that because the land was lost in a battle that "to the winner goes the spoils" - presumably you also believe that the Soviets were right in keeping East Germany under their thumb after WWII and that the US should have kept ownership of West Germany and Japan. But again, applying that that logic, there wouldn't be a country of Israel right now.

    Maybe Optional777 is on to something :)
     
    #10     Mar 10, 2003