Terrorism via Suicide Bombing Is the ONLY Option

[Comprehend]

But it hasn't been condoned. It is still called the occupied territories and there is still an international call for Israel to return them. Just because Israel hasn't returned them yet doesn't mean the international community condones it; only that they aren't willing to go to war over it.

I disagree. What you mean is that it has not been universally condoned. It is called occupied territories by those who disagree.

Do you have a post WWII example of a country taking land in a defensive war that was not condoned other than our disagreement about Israel?

If not, do you have a pre-WWII example?

If not, then you only have one semi-situation where the defensive taking of land was not acceptable.


BTW - I used the term "acceptable" you are using "condoned", I never claimed it was condoned.

 

[Sunstone]

I agree that if the Palestinians ever adopt a sustained non-violent movement, Israel will be in hot water.

 

[Comprehend]

I agree that if the Palestinians ever adopt a sustained non-violent movement, Israel will be in hot water.

Why?

If the palestinians stopped killing Jews, then Israel would leave the Palestinians alone too. They could finally peacefully coexist.

How would that put Israel in hot water?

 

[Yerda]

I agree that if the Palestinians ever adopt a sustained non-violent movement, Israel will be in hot water.

I'd like to agree but I haven't spoken to a single person who's come back from the occupied territories without a story of the IDF interrupting, sometimes violently, peaceful protests.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Why?

If the palestinians stopped killing Jews, then Israel would leave the Palestinians alone too. They could finally peacefully coexist.

How would that put Israel in hot water?

....good question

 

[bflydad]

I disagree. What you mean is that it has not been universally condoned. It is called occupied territories by those who disagree.

Do you have a post WWII example of a country taking land in a defensive war that was not condoned other than our disagreement about Israel?
[\quote]

How about Morocco's attempt at annexing of the northern part of the Western Sahara

If not, do you have a pre-WWII example?
[\quote]

Let's see... limiting myself to just the U.S., Texas, New Mexico and Arizona during the Mexican War; Puerto Rico, the Phillipines, Guam and Cuba during the Spanish-American War;

BTW - I used the term "acceptable" you are using "condoned", I never claimed it was condoned.

I'm not sure if this is semantics or not, so let me define what I mean by condoned. When I say condoned I mean recognized by the international community. So, for instance, the UN still has a presence in Western Sahara to attempt to resolve this. I believe that the UN rejects any forced annexation of territory and the only permissible type is by referendum of the local populace. I'm not sure if this is what you meant by "acceptable" or not.

 

[Comprehend]

How about Morocco's attempt at annexing of the northern part of the Western Sahara

oh, did the northern part of the western Sahara attack Morocco? I said taking land in a defensive war.

Not simply attempting to take land.

Let's see... limiting myself to just the U.S., Texas, New Mexico and Arizona during the Mexican War; Puerto Rico, the Phillipines, Guam and Cuba during the Spanish-American War;

1. Was the United States the defending country or the offensive country in these wars?
2. Was the land taken not accepted by the world? I don't hear many people around the world saying that the US needs to give Texas back, do you? :sarcastic


I thought you were supposed to come up with examples when the defensive taking of land was not acceptable?

All of the examples above don't fit the criteria.

I'm not sure if this is semantics or not, so let me define what I mean by condoned. When I say condoned I mean recognized by the international community. So, for instance, the UN still has a presence in Western Sahara to attempt to resolve this. I believe that the UN rejects any forced annexation of territory and the only permissible type is by referendum of the local populace. I'm not sure if this is what you meant by "acceptable" or not.

ok. I would agree with "recognized by the international community" as a good definition to use.

 

[bflydad]

2. Was the land taken not accepted by the world? I don't hear many people around the world saying that the US needs to give Texas back, do you? :sarcastic
[\quote]

True, but it was pre-WWII. The "world" changed its mind after WWII. I completely agree that pre-WWII, annexation of land as a result of war was completely acceptable. However, post WWII it no longer is. I'm not saying that is right or not hypocritical but after WWII, the acceptability of annexation as a result of war went away.

I thought you were supposed to come up with examples when the defensive taking of land was not acceptable?

All of the examples above don't fit the criteria.

But every war is defensive for both parties. Polk claimed the Mexicans invaded Texas when they crossed the Rio Grande River (Mexico claimed that the U.S. invaded when they crossed the Nueces River). Morocco claims that the territory they occupy was taken away from them by Spain (albeit before Morocco was ever an internationally recognized country). That is why the U.N. has stated that any violent annexation is not acceptable and only a popular referendum can possiby be used to settle disputes (and why Morocco and Mauritania are still working on getting the populace to vote their way and why Israel flooded the occupied territories with settlers).

 

[Sunstone]

If the palestinians stopped killing Jews, then Israel would leave the Palestinians alone to.

I'm not so sure. Do you think the Israelies will dismantle their settlements on the West Bank just because the Palestinians cease to kill Israelies?

 

[Comprehend]

I'm not so sure. Do you think the Israelies will dismantle their settlements on the West Bank just because the Palestinians cease to kill Israelies?

of course. They already offered the Palestinains 94% of the West Bank in the Camp David talks when Clinton was president. Just a year or two ago, Israel forcibly removed it's own citizens from some settlements in order to give the land over to Palestinians. Israel has already shown it is quite willing to give up a lot if it would insure peace. Unfortunately, they have thus far not found their negotiating partners to be too willing at all.

Why?

Because the Palestinians do not want Israel to have one square inch of land. They do not want Israel to exist. That is the problem.

 

[Comprehend]

True, but it was pre-WWII. The "world" changed its mind after WWII. I completely agree that pre-WWII, annexation of land as a result of war was completely acceptable. However, post WWII it no longer is. I'm not saying that is right or not hypocritical but after WWII, the acceptability of annexation as a result of war went away.

I understand that is your argument, but you haven't provided any examples of that actually happening.

But every war is defensive for both parties. Polk claimed the Mexicans invaded Texas when they crossed the Rio Grande River (Mexico claimed that the U.S. invaded when they crossed the Nueces River).

I have to disagree, not every war is defensive for both parties. In reality, one party is the aggressor and one is the defendor regardless of the claims. Was Germany in a defensive war with Poland in WWII? Was Iraq in a defensive war with Kuwait?

Morocco claims that the territory they occupy was taken away from them by Spain (albeit before Morocco was ever an internationally recognized country). That is why the U.N. has stated that any violent annexation is not acceptable and only a popular referendum can possiby be used to settle disputes (and why Morocco and Mauritania are still working on getting the populace to vote their way and why Israel flooded the occupied territories with settlers).

ok, Morrocco may claim the territory was taken away, but Morrocco was admittedly not attacked in a war correct? If not, the situation does not apply to my comment.
Almost every country in the world recognizes and has normal relations with Israel. It is understood that the border is disputed by the palestinians and a few other countries but I have said that is always the case, those who lost the land are never very happy about it.

 

[love]

(quote)True, but it was pre-WWII. The "world" changed its mind after WWII. I completely agree that pre-WWII, annexation of land as a result of war was completely acceptable. However, post WWII it no longer is. I'm not saying that is right or not hypocritical but after WWII, the acceptability of annexation as a result of war went away.
You say the rules changed after WWII. How convenient they changed at the time Israel needed to go home. What other nation on earth has had to work as hard as tiny Israel just to have a little something. Even living in the constant shadow of death they have succeeded in many things. Is Jerusalem the prize? The only time the Prophet of Islam visited Jerusalem was when he flew there on a half ***/half donkey, yet the Doom of the Rock is third holiest place in Islam. Even though it sets on the ruins of Soloman's Temple aren't the Muslims allowed exclusive access to the Mosque? Muhammed laid claim to the Abrahamic faith almost 1400 years ago and in his version it cannot exist without him. Christianity would not exist without Jesus Christ. He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. That was a bloody day. Don't you think the ground remembers the blood it has absorbed? Why would anyone but Satan delight in the spillage of more?