Should All Occupied Territories Be Given Back?

If occupied territories should be given back, then how far back should we go? Here's an interesting article:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


"Occupied Territories": What About Cyprus, Kashmir, Tibet?

What about Cyprus? That is just one of the questions that Israelis and Europeans should be pondering now that the European Union has again decided that it should dictate Israeli border and security policy.

Last week the European Union issued a ban on funding of, or cooperation with, any Israeli institutions that are shown to operate in what it calls the "occupied territories" – meaning the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria. Never mind that -- as Palestinian groups have already admitted -- the ban will affect Palestinians as much as Israelis. In its perpetual rush to find new double-standards to enforce, the EU has rushed straight in, regardless. Read on --

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/

 

The US is made entirely of occupied territories, as is Europe, Russia, China, Australia, New Zealand, etc. It would be interesting if we all dissolved our governments and became a planet of petty warlords scratching out small territories and building kingdoms and nations anew.

 

Yes but Israel are currently continuing to conquer and annex additional lands.

Who else among the free world is taking over neighbors right now?

 

Who else among the free (and not free) world is surrounded by 23 hostile countries rejecting their right to exist and outnumbering them by 75 to 1 ratio? Who else was invaded repeatedly with the stated objective of total annihilation in the last 65 years before the issue of occupation even existed? Who else has a country built on whopping 0.2% of the regional land while the rest of the region(99.8%) insists that that's 0.2% too many and is more then willing to wipe them off the map if the opportunity ever arises?

 

in many cases yes, for others it's far too late...tibet-definitely, cypruss-it was kind of an artificial state to begin with, letting the turks have their own state is not unreasonable they've been there for centuries...israel/palestine, israel needs to leave the occupied territories, the occupation is illegal/criminal...if not then accept a one state solution a permanent state of apartheid is unacceptable...

 

Of course. But it will never, ever happen.

- - - Updated - - -

Zionists love crunching numbers.

 

Which territories is the US currently occupying?

 

If you loved crunching numbers instead of praying 5 times a day and bleating non-stop about Zionism perhaps you'd have a shot at defeating them.

 

Uhhh, excuse me, only 17% of the people were Turkish, the rest of the people on Cyprus were Greek. It belonged to Greece according to the Treaty of Lausanne which was signed by Attaturk. Britain had control of it, and they promised it to Greece during WWI and WWII. It was not given because it was very strategic for Britain. When Cyprus went to the U.N. to gain its freedom, Britain began arousing the Turks to object. After the invasion by Turkey, they began shipping Turks from the mainland to occupy the Greek homes.

If it is an artificial state, then why is it recognized by the U.N. and why is it a member of the E.U. You're listening to too much Turkish propaganda. Oh by the way, the only artificial state is Turkey. It belongs to the Kurds, the Armenians and the Greeks. Check your history, and I don't mean the fairy tales taught in that part of the world.

 

New Mexico, California, Texas, actually we took over the whole area that is the U.S. from the Indians already living here! LOL!

AboveAlpha

 

One day someone will learn how to make plutonium out of common household items found in the kitchen and things will get very interesting.
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/music-videos/jibjab-weird-al-do-cnr-15590.html

 

We might have taken those states from the Mexicans, but I'm not sure because I'm and Easterner not a Westerner. Maybe that's why the Mexicans are going there en masse, to take them back. As for taking land from the Indians, well we weren't the first. All of Europe was taken over by one tribe or another.

 

Yes, but the US is not currently occupying any territory. The same can't be said about Israel.

 

what lands are they continuing to conquer?

 

It could be given if Israel would agree,
I don't think that the lands are occupied, but those are shared territories.

 

I think the reverse should happen. The U.S. should start annexing land by negotiating Statehood to areas adjacent to its borders. Once Canada and Mexico become U.S. territories, then we could have a good base to extend Statehood to places offshore that sorely need our assistance and places where we sorely need more resources. Heck we are already spending billions in foreign aid, might as well get some return for it.

Oh yeah, let's not forget South America...We've been playing around there so long, might as well just make it official.

 

http://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/TexasAnnexation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSnHQzryq8U

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Republic

Date

Territory

Area
(square miles)

Comment

1783

Former colonies

892,135

Treaty of Paris of 1783 following military victory

1803

Louisiana Purchase

827,987

Purchased from France for $15 million, including assumed claims

1819

Florida (East and West)

72,101

Purchased from Spain for $5 million in assumed claims under Adams-Onís Treaty

1845

Texas

389,166

Annexation of independent republic

1846

Oregon Territory

286,541

The Oregon Treaty with Great Britain

1848

Mexican Cession

529,189

Purchase from Mexico following military victory; $15 million plus 3.25 million in assumed claims

1853

Gadsden Purchase

29,670

Purchased from Mexico for $10 million

1857

Baker Island
Howland Island
Jarvis Island

.5
.6
1.7

Unincorporated territory claimed under Guano Act of 1856

1858

Johnston Atoll

1.1

Unincorporated territory annexed under Guano Act of 1856; chemical weapon disposal site

1867

Alaska

591,000

Purchased from Russia for $7.2 million; statehood 1959

1867

Midway Islands

2

Annexation of unoccupied area

1898

Hawaiian Islands

6,450

Annexation of independent republic; statehood 1959

1898

Philippine Islands

115,800

Purchased from Spain following military victory; independent in 1946

1898

Puerto Rico

3,508

Annexed following military victory over Spain

1898

Guam

209

Annexed following military victory over Spain

1899

American Samoa

76

Annexed in settlement with Britain and Germany

1899

Wake Island

3

Annexation of unoccupied area

1903

Panama Canal Zone

553

Leased from Panama for $10 million, plus $250,000 annually; ceded to Panama in 1999

1917

Virgin Islands

136

Purchased from Denmark for $25 million; currently an organized, unincorporated U.S. territory under jurisdiction of Office of Insular Affairs of the Dept. of the Interior

1922

Kingman Reef

.4

Annexed 1922; later airline refueling; currently uninhabited; National Wildlife Refuge

1938

Kanton and Enderbury islands

3.5
3.0

Joint occupation with Britain; independent as Kiribati in 1979

1947

Mariana Islands

179

United Nations Trust Territory; self-governing as Northern Mariana Islands

1947

Caroline Islands

500

United Nations Trust Territory; 1986 most islands adopt commonwealth status as Federated States of Micronesia

1947

Marshall Islands

70

United Nations Trust Territory; 1979 self-governing; 1986 independent as Republic of the Marshall Islands


AboveAlpha

 

I would have some measure including factors like current desire by a group for their own autonomy, indigenous claim, practicality.
Without knowing too much about the individual areas I would lean towards autonomy for Cyprus, Tibet , Palestine & Kashmir.
If indigenous populations in Australia and the Americas want their autonomy a solution for land and self-governance should be looked at. I wouldn't know where to start with tribal groupings in Africa but that should be covered too.

Seems to me though that corruption, greed and bulls**t are one of the unifying factors across every large organisation across the globe. So maybe fixing that and allowing the easy transition of the will of the people to come forth unfettered by special interests would greatly mitigate the sense of not having your life in your own hands.

As a final option, disputed zones with no resolution and ongoing violence will be emptied of their populations. Borders can be redrawn to give each a homeland separated by a couple of countries and then each can have autonomy somewhere and break the cycle of violence which goes round and round and round.

 

check my history... seriously you have no idea....Cyprus was part of the Ottoman empire it was annexed by Britain, and what right did Britain have to annex Cyprus??? none... it was pure imperialism the treaty was forced on turkey, your 17% is silly as the same can be said of the total greek population of turkey was even smaller so using your logic(or lack of) cyprus had no claim to independence, it certainly didn't belong to greece, it had greeks living on it but I can't recall it ever belonging to a nation of "Greece"...Cyprus had an agreement for power sharing between turks and greeks, the greeks screwed it up with a coup and turkey responded by invading to protect the ethnic turkish population, the state was dysfunctional/artificial separation is the best option...

artificial-the same way Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and dozens of other countries former colonial countries are artificial, when colonial/imperialist borders were drawn without concern for ethnic groups living in them, being recognized by the UN doesn't mean they're legitimate...history and politics is definitely not your forte...

 

why would canada want lower it's standard of living, raise it's crime rate, give up it's universal healthcare, and ruin it's economy by joining the the usa?

 

Canada might just as well be a U.S. State as the Canadian Economy is so tied into the U.S. Economy where one starts and the other ends if difficult to see.

The two countries are extremely close in everything form economies, culture, families, defense and when the Soviet Union and now Russia release their yearly threat assessment it states North American Offensive and Defensive Capabilities and does not separate the two countries.

AboveAlpha

 

Yes, according to modern international law.

Israel is clearly an offender and the law recognises it as such.
Tibet, unfortunately, didn't receive the protection of international law due to its reluctance to join the United Nations .
Cyprus is still UN-monitored and an ongoing case. Who is ' occupying ' it ? The Greeks launched a coup against its elected government and the Turks repelled them. That one is going to run and run.

Your quoted article, Jeanette, attempts to minimise Zionism's guilt by pointing the finger elsewhere. That boat won't fly.

 

I dont think Israel takes on MORE lands, the only place Arabs are being currently ethnic cleansed is East Jerusalem and the city as whole was already annexed, in the WB no new settelments are being built, whatever new houses are built its within the existing borders of that settelment, the burning of Olive trees etc' does not include an annexation of the land.

 

There is no way Israel will retreat from the Golan, I think it should be annexed for many reasons

WB is tricky but in general - yes we should retreat and make the Palestinain state

Jerusalem - dont think so and in any case will not happen regardless what the world thinks about it.

Gaza - Crap! -TAKE IT!, we'll even throw in a CD player !

 

Such arrogance only makes the world at large more determined to throw you out- one way or another.