Should All Occupied Territories Be Given Back?

That post is full of classic "false logic" of the "two wrongs make a right" variety. I am disappointed to see this from your pen

 

And that should stand for Arab and Muslim nations as well. It's time they gave back those lands to their original 'Roman' inhabitants, of the Eastern Roman Empire, (Byzantine). I mean come on now, I'm talking about occupied Anatolia, Egypt, Assyria, etc. Enough is enough!

 

Much of this discussion is pretty academic and not really to the point. Conflicts very often lead to border changes and the concept of "occupied territories" is not really helpful. Do we refer to Silesia, Posen and East-Prussia as "occupied territories"; do we refer to Tibet as "occupied territories"; do we refer to the Western sahara as "occupied territories"; Kashmir?; etc. The list is endless and pointless.
And when it comes to the territories that are usually meant by this description we should keep in mind that
-) some of them (i.e. Gaza) are not "occupied" at all, except by a terrorist organization
-) these territories were annexed by Jordan and Egypt in 1948 (who called them "occupied territories" between 1948 and 1967) and would have never come under Israeli control if the Arab countires and the Arab Palestinians had accepted the existence of Israel and sued for peace after 1948 or 1956
-) since both Jordan and Egypt have renounced their sovereignty over these territories, they legally belong to no country except the one exercising de facto control over them.

 

Yes absolutely.

But the question is where do you start?

Just the Middle East?

What happens when "America" has to be given back? And I think the Germans will kick and stomp their jack boots about giving up most of their "Liebenshrom" back to Poland.

and what to do about Japan..the indigenous people were systematically slaughtered?

 

Your reference in what should be considered occupied and what should not be considered occupied according to certain epochs, reminds me of a quote by Jack Kennedy, that it is impossible to talk to those who claim that what is yours is negotiable, but what is theirs is non negotiable.

 

A good dividing line would be when the conquering party agreed not to conquer per international law, and for those who won't agree, upon the international preponderance of recognition of that law as universal.

Take for example Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

That was in the early 90's, right? Israel have, more recently than this, kicked more Palestinians off of various pieces of land where they themselves have transferred their own colonists.

Excusing them on the same historical principles would have to at least excuse Saddam taking over Kuwait. And yet in that case, we decided that was NOT the right thing to be doing in the modern world. How could an even more modern usurpation of land be okay then?

 

You are comparing things that are not comparable. Iraq invaded another sovereign country and then lost the war it started. Israel defended itself against various countries that waged war on it and won these wars, in the process gaining substantial territories, the majority of which it has since evacuated.

 

Open a book on history first... for you do not know a darn thing about my country!!!

Second, read it and find out why the Arabs conquered other countries in the SEVENTH CENTURY

Third, who came first the chicken or the egg?????

Fourth, the thread's title is : Thread: Should All Occupied Territories Be Given Back?
I think the Arabs should cease and desist and return back ALL THE LAND THEY CONQUERED FIRST AND FOREMOST AND RETURN BACK FROM WHERE THREY CAME... A R A B I A

i.e. they were kicked out of Spain, they were kicked out of France (Charles Martel) and the shores of Europe, now is the turn of Israel to get rid of its Terrorists, Murderers, Rapists, Hijackers, thieves and the like...

 

Modern international and customary law accepts that populations moved around before it came into being. The point is that there were no restrictive laws then but there are now. Israel falls foul of them, of course, and its occupation is illegal.

 

I think it comes down to what we consider a threat, and what is not considered a threat. Israel is certainly not a threat, since it was established by Europeans and therefore are culturally similar to us, so they are free to do what they want. The Arab nations are not similar in their laws and institutions, so when Saddam tried to take over a wealthy territory like Kuwait with the intent of uniting all the Arab states, it became a threat.

 

Israel initiated all of its wars with the exception of the Yom Kippur War of 1973. It illegally occupies captured territories and it certainly hasn't withdrawn from Palestine , Lebanon or Syria. It still occupies all of Palestine and parts of the others. illegally.

 

"populations moved around"? That must be the best excuse for conquest and mass murder ever.
The territories you refer to were occupied and annexed by Jordan and Egypt who waged war against Israel and lost.

 

Another arbitrary line drawn in the sand....legalism.

The same issues apply, simply because the bullies redrew the rules after they won all the marbles does not make it moral nor right, merely legal in the eyes of those who write the rules.

 

This clearly illustrates that you are not interested in peace but only in the destruction of Israel.

 

And pray tell , who was the real ORIGINAL inhabitants
of those countries BEFORE it became part of the Eastern Roman Empire ?

Who did the Romans /Byzantines ) take the land from ?

Lets go dig up the Hittite/Phrygians/Phoenicians etc..
and restore the Pharaoh's Egypt + Achaemenid Empire, huh ?

Go on , see how far back we can turn the clock .

 

Absolutely not. Palestine existed as a discrete country prior to the 1948 War. The Arab League lost that war, certainly, but they didn't start hostilities. The Zionists ethnic cleansing operation was well under way before the Arab League attempted to intervene.

- - - Updated - - -

You certainly won't win any points by advocating criminality. Everybody is subject to the rule of law.

 

But wait, there's more!

What if the arbitrary law was written say in the 3rd century BC? Then it would be the entire Arab world, Rome, and the rest of the Universe who were in violation of said law.....all of them were either then, had, or were about to invade, torture, rape, and destroy "the land of milk and honey".

But, so long as we're going to see conquest, rape, murder, torture, mass destruction as "populations moved around" and justifying it with laws only the bullies agree on, well, then exterminate ANYONE who gets in your way..


But, in the end, I ask why is it any of America's business in the first place. Modern Israel was created by an act of the British Parliament, which the US wanted no part of at the time. The US only became involved after the second world war and Harry Truman found out he could keep his presidency by appealing to the Jewish vote.....

Typical American foreign policy to the end, only there for your own self interests, and gone when it no longer suits you.

 

It do ? Can I borrow your prism for a party ?

 

Strange that you would find the following I wrote illogical, when the logic is perfectly clear. But then again what is one to expect when talking to someone who feels that what is yours is negotiable and what is theirs is non negotiable. Seems your logic can only relate in terms of what falls within your benefit and what does not.

 

Ahhh, the second most quoted phrase of zionists.

 

Israel agreed to the rules.

 

Israel was created by Zionist s ( Jewish terrorists ) who destroyed Palestine , what's needed now is Justice for the Palestinian people , . acknowledgment of their legitimate rights.

====

 

Yes but these people became Christians, and they were there way before the Arab conquests, so why are they being persecuted and kicked out?

 

Nowadays it isn't even about race or religion, even though everybody makes it about that. That's not how the world works. We have geographically-defined, legally determined-borders. Land based on race has been worked out of the system, one of the latest remaining examples being South Africa.

You have a nation of Israel, and a nation of Palestine. You have legally-determined borders for both. And you have citizens of Israel, and you have citizens of Palestine.

And the armed forces of Israel are occupying the nation of Palestine, and kicking citizens of Palestine off lands in Palestine.

Nobody need mention the words "Jews" "Arabs" "Muslims" "Semites" "Byzantines" "Mongolians" or anything else. Everybody on the planet in every place on the planet have unique histories, blood-lines etc. It doesn't have bearing on today's system and how it works.

Everybody put away your eighth-century history books and take out your 2013 calendar and your atlas. Use these when referring to the UN Charter, and take note that the UN charter makes no rules or exceptions based on race or religion WHATSOEVER, unless it's for equal protection only.

 

For the same reasons that those who did not become /converted to Christianity - those who continued worshipping their ancient gods , were also persecuted/slaughtered/driven out by Byzantine Christian overlords/

Remember what Christian Byzantines did to the Jews before the Arab invasion of the Levant ?

----
I'm afraid so-called "Christians " did not always behave in Christ like manner. in the "Holy Land " -they often acted more like demons.

......