Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SHERWICK

Israel Withdrawing To 1967 Borders

Recommended Posts

Can anyone tell me what Israel withdrawing to 1967 borders has to do with a Palestinian state?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't those 1967 borders created when other Arab nations (not Palestine) attacked Israel, lost the battles, lost ground, and then withdrew - so now they want that land back?

I don't want to stir up a hornets nest (:rolleyes: ) but just asking politely....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If neither side can agree then it should all be took off them and they should sit in the corner of the room until they've learnt their lesson./

Isn't it Obama has suggested this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone tell me what Israel withdrawing to 1967 borders has to do with a Palestinian state?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't those 1967 borders created when other Arab nations (not Palestine) attacked Israel, lost the battles, lost ground, and then withdrew - so now they want that land back?

I don't want to stir up a hornets nest (:rolleyes: ) but just asking politely....

The 1967 borders would return the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to Palestinian control (strictly speaking West Bank was part of Transjordan (but Jordan ceded it's claim to the PLO in the eighties) and the Gaza Strip was initially run by the All Palestine Government, but had been occupied militarily for ten years by Egypt at the time of the six day war (although not annexed as part of Egypt).

The only other bit of land involved would be the Golan heights (Syria). The Sinai Peninsular has already been returned (Egypt).

So primarily it would benefit the Palestinian state I would have said (in that 76.9% of the land area returned under a withdrawal to 1967 borders would fall under Palestinian control).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And people criticized GW for being dumb. If Israel do this then Israel disappears off the map and many lives are lost.

A strict withdrawal to the green line would reduce the size of Israeli controlled areas by 28%, although it would only reduce the size of Israeli by 5.9% as the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are under Israeli control, but not legally (from the Israeli perspective) part of Israel.

It could be argued that giving the Palestinians what they want may allow the moderate majority to suppress the fanatics. It may be that this actually improves Israel's situation. I guess no one will know until hindsight becomes available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1967 borders would return the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to Palestinian control (strictly speaking West Bank was part of Transjordan (but Jordan ceded it's claim to the PLO in the eighties) and the Gaza Strip was initial run by the All Palestine Government, but had been occupied militarily for ten years by Egypt at the time of the six day war (although not annexed as part of Egypt)).

The only other bit of land involved would be the Golan heights (Syria). The Sinai Peninsular has already been returned (Egypt).

So primarily it would benefit the Palestinian state I would have said (in that 76.9% of the land area returned under a withdrawal to 1967 borders would fall under Palestinian control).

Yes, exactly the West Bank was part of Transjordan. In any case my point stands, why on earth should Israel give back land that they won when other countries attacked it and lost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, exactly the West Bank was part of Transjordan. In any case my point stands, why on earth should Israel give back land that they won when other countries attacked it and lost?

The history of Israel did not start in 1967.

The other countries had their reasons for striking back on behalf of those who, in their eyes, had had their land stolen from them when Israel was created a couple of decades previously. The fact that they were not successful does not mean that their cause was not just.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The history of Israel did not start in 1967.

The other countries had their reasons for striking back on behalf of those who, in their eyes, had had their land stolen from them when Israel was created a couple of decades previously. The fact that they were not successful does not mean that their cause was not just.

I agree with your analysis. Their cause may or may not be just - if it is just then Israel has no right to exist, which is what should be debated, not whether to withdraw to pre-1967 lines.

The fact is that they started a war, LOST GROUND, and now want the ground they lost back.

Is this correct?

Let me explain further, the arabs started a war in 1967 to take back land from a country that (in their eyes) stole land from them - this is the real issue at the heart of the problem (i.e. the arabs think that Israel does not have a right to exist), not the pre-1967 borders!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, exactly the West Bank was part of Transjordan. In any case my point stands, why on earth should Israel give back land that they won when other countries attacked it and lost?

I'm not arguing either way, although again in the name of accuracy, and quite aside that Jordan transferred it's sovereignty to the palestinians, the post '67 borders are not part of Israel under international law or the conventions of war, because whilst they are occupied under force of arms, territory can only be acquired under force of arms through a formal peace settlement, and not by a unilateral annexation.

Israeli itself holds the position that the West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel, as opposed to East Jerusalem which it annexed (on the basis of the fact that it was not a sovereign territory and was thus legally unowned, if occupied, land.

In the end though this is all fairly irrelevant. The only real questions are:

1) If Israel withdraws will the Palestinian (and other Arab/Islamic) movements leave them to get on with things in peace.

2) If Israel withdraws will Palestine allow access for Jews who wish to visit and/or live in the areas of the West Bank they consider to be holy.

3) Would Palestine consider a territory swap to allow Israel to retain the areas the ultra-orthodox want to keep in return for an equal amount of land elsewhere in Israel (preferably contiguous with the West Bank).

That's about it really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your analysis. Their cause may or may not be just - if it is just then Israel has no right to exist, which is what should be debated, not whether to withdraw to pre-1967 lines.

The fact is that they started a war, LOST GROUND, and now want the ground they lost back.

Strictly speaking Israel fired the first shots when it pre-emptively attacked Egypt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me explain further, the arabs started a war in 1967 to take back land from a country that (in their eyes) stole land from them - this is the real issue at the heart of the problem (i.e. the arabs think that Israel does not have a right to exist), not the pre-1967 borders!

The arabs agreed to the pre 1967 borders under the 1949 Armistice, after the 1947 Palestinian Civil war, and the 1949 Arab-Israeli war.

Don't forget that the Jewish people who formed Israel lived in Mandatory Palestine. The situation is not dissimilar to saying that if Scotland declares independence then it has been stolen from the French, the Dutch and the Italians.

It's also worth remembering that between 538 BC and 1917 the area was under colonial rule by a number of different empires. Prior to the setting up of the Mandates it was simply a region of other countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The arabs agreed to the pre 1967 borders under the 1949 Armistice, after the 1947 Palestinian Civil war, and the 1949 Arab-Israeli war.

Don't forget that the Jewish people who formed Israel lived in Mandatory Palestine. The situation is not dissimilar to saying that if Scotland declares independence then it has been stolen from the French, the Dutch and the Italians.

It's also worth remembering that between 538 BC and 1917 the area was under colonial rule by a number of different empires. Prior to the setting up of the Mandates it was simply a region of other countries.

I don't follow your analogy. The people claiming their land was stolen from them are the Palestinians who either fled or were driven out of Israel in the years following its creation.

It's more as though the Catholics of Scotland were to declare Scotland a catholic state before expelling or persecuting the Protestants living there who rebelled. At which point England attacks on behalf of the Scottish refugees, loses, and Northumberland is annexed. We'd still want Northumberland back again, but might now be prepared to concede Scotland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, exactly the West Bank was part of Transjordan. In any case my point stands, why on earth should Israel give back land that they won when other countries attacked it and lost?

I think it's called a reasonable compromise...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't follow your analogy. The people claiming their land was stolen from them are the Palestinians who either fled or were driven out of Israel in the years following its creation.

SHERWICK was talking about the other countries that came in on the Palestinian side as having the land stolen from them, hence my choice of countries that have supported Scotland against England in the past. Obviously the analogy is not perfect as they didn't all do it at once, or necessarily after Union.

It's more as though the Catholics of Scotland were to declare Scotland a catholic state before expelling or persecuting the Protestants living there who rebelled. At which point England attacks on behalf of the Scottish refugees, loses, and Northumberland is annexed. We'd still want Northumberland back again, but might now be prepared to concede Scotland.

It's actually more like if the Catholics of Scotland were to declare part of Scotland an independent state. Which of course they are perfectly entitled to do under international law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's called a reasonable compromise...

One of the problems is that there are areas in the occupied territories that are very holy to both the Jews and the Muslims, and the more orthodox amongst the religions will not countenance them being owned by someone else (even a neutral third party).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually more like if the Catholics of Scotland were to declare part of Scotland an independent state. Which of course they are perfectly entitled to do under international law.

Presumably the same international law would also permit the Muslims of Yorkshire to declare that part of the UK to be an independent Muslim state, should they so wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, exactly the West Bank was part of Transjordan. In any case my point stands, why on earth should Israel give back land that they won when other countries attacked it and lost?

sweat, does that mean we can have Germany?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is not a Jew / Muslim sectarian conflict, it is a pure "land grab" conflict. Well to be more precise it is not a "Muslims can't stand Jews being there conflict". The Palestine now fenced off as an apartheid Jewish state was inhabited by Jews, Christians and Muslims, then one day more Jews arrived and declared that it's all theirs now, forcing the other people out at gun point. How anyone can be unsure of the right or wrong of this is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sherwick - you are as thick as you are biased.

Go read the wikipedia article on UN resolution 242. Perhaps you can then explain why the whole world through the UN insists that Israel gives the land back to Palestinians.

And for that matter: read the Haj and Exodus by Leon Uris (a moderate jew with a soul and conscience). He makes it clear how the land was stolen from the Arabs and Christians following the second world war. Israel's claims on the land are base on biblical nonesense in the Old Testament. As an atheist I see little justification for the shameful response of the US and Britain when they all rejected jews requests to leave Germany and travel to both countries. Instead they used the notion of divine right to the land to cheat their Arab allies (try watching Lawrence of Arabia for a simple and entertaining view of history)

And test your reasoning, are americans going to give the United States back to the Indians?

I agree with your analysis. Their cause may or may not be just - if it is just then Israel has no right to exist, which is what should be debated, not whether to withdraw to pre-1967 lines.

The fact is that they started a war, LOST GROUND, and now want the ground they lost back.

Is this correct?

Let me explain further, the arabs started a war in 1967 to take back land from a country that (in their eyes) stole land from them - this is the real issue at the heart of the problem (i.e. the arabs think that Israel does not have a right to exist), not the pre-1967 borders!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel.

A puppet state of mercenary goons, currently on retainer to the Americans. Propped up for the singular purpose of keeping the greater Arab states from getting together and becoming a super state.

Be sure that they will annex all the remaining 'Palestinian' land in due course, but there is a caveat; what you have is a recipe for a localised apocalypse because of the thug mentality prevalent in their Zionist tainted government, and the culture of mindless brutality in their military command.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A strict withdrawal to the green line would reduce the size of Israeli controlled areas by 28%, although it would only reduce the size of Israeli by 5.9% as the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are under Israeli control, but not legally (from the Israeli perspective) part of Israel.

It could be argued that giving the Palestinians what they want may allow the moderate majority to suppress the fanatics. It may be that this actually improves Israel's situation. I guess no one will know until hindsight becomes available.

Or it is a show of cowardice which will be repaid by blowing up more Israelis and demanding that Israel be dismantled which is the real objective and always has been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is not a Jew / Muslim sectarian conflict, it is a pure "land grab" conflict. Well to be more precise it is not a "Muslims can't stand Jews being there conflict". The Palestine now fenced off as an apartheid Jewish state was inhabited by Jews, Christians and Muslims, then one day more Jews arrived and declared that it's all theirs now, forcing the other people out at gun point. How anyone can be unsure of the right or wrong of this is beyond me.

Agreed. Which is why I said that the real issue is Israel's right (or not) to exist, and NOT the handing back of land from the 1967 conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

israel.jpg

Who cares. Arabs and Jews hate each other by religious edict. Let them blow each other up and enjoy the profits made by selling them both arms.

Western intervention keeps the geopolitical pot stirred and stops the Muslim world from getting their act together through this rather gory puppet show.

The Israelis will continue to murder and terrorise the Arabs in own version of the Warsaw slums.

The Arabs will continue to store up venom for the eventual and inevitable dismantling of the Israeli state.

It's work a treat for five decades now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sherwick - you are as thick as you are biased.

Go read the wikipedia article on UN resolution 242. Perhaps you can then explain why the whole world through the UN insists that Israel gives the land back to Palestinians.

And for that matter: read the Haj and Exodus by Leon Uris (a moderate jew with a soul and conscience). He makes it clear how the land was stolen from the Arabs and Christians following the second world war. Israel's claims on the land are base on biblical nonesense in the Old Testament. As an atheist I see little justification for the shameful response of the US and Britain when they all rejected jews requests to leave Germany and travel to both countries. Instead they used the notion of divine right to the land to cheat their Arab allies (try watching Lawrence of Arabia for a simple and entertaining view of history)

And test your reasoning, are americans going to give the United States back to the Indians?

Oher than the horrendoes and painful personal insults directed at me (:( ) I agree with you (:D).

This is why I said that what should be debated, is Israel's right to exist not whether to withdraw to pre-1967 lines.

My point specifically asked about the 1967 lines (athom correctly said that we 'gave back Garmany', though of course, we actually split it up and then gave it back).

Historically, it is very rare indeed for nations to give back land that they've won in war (particularly when the original country it was taken from doesn't exist anymore or doesn't want it back).

Yes, land was 'stolen' (i.e. won in a war) from the arabs and christians following the 2nd world war, HOWEVER, jews aren't the first in history to do this are they?!?! We aren't asking all other countries across the globe to give back 'stolen' land are we?! And if we are asking this, then when do we start? 2000 BC?

So, getting back to the point about the 1967 lines, why on earth should Israel give this back when they won it after they were attacked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.