Which countries should the UN demand return land taken by military conquest?

Why does it matter what the ICJ says if they're not willing to invade, kill a bunch of Israelis, and occupy the territory? Words are meaningless.

 

One of the first observations that one can make about this thread is that it lacks a coherency to it that defines at what point of time that "statehood" or "ownership" would be set at. Depending on when that line starts from determines the perspective of the conversation. If we start early enough, for example, all land outside of the rift cradle would be considered conquered territory. All of it. Creating artificial starting point past that is simply arbitrary.

The assertion that now, based on which starting point countries aren't valid, seems disingenuous at best. Conquest of property is just that. If the land doesn't inherently belong to anyone, anyone can own it because there isn't a real basis from which that ownership can claim any different origin than from it's initial conquest in the first place.

 

Indeed. Facts on the ground count for far more than the whining of lawyers in a legal arena that has no means to enforce its opinions.

 

Speaking of zero sense.

The Balfour Declaration gave that land to both the Jewish and Palestinian population, and the Jews have been living there for as far back as recorded history. The Arab Nations have been trying to exterminate them, and the reason why Britain gave them Israel as their own was because of anti-Jewish violence.

The Palestinians have never accepted a two state resolution, and clearly, Israel has offered many. Israel even gave back the land they had taken from Egypt during one multinational invasion of Israel that had failed miserably. The Arabs however have never accepted the Jews in that area - even in places like Jerusalem, which is obviously of Jewish origin. The giant slap in the face is that they want to impose a two state division, although the Palestinians were never willing to accept one. They simply called for Jewish genocide.

Speaking of ethnic cleansing, since you want the phrase drug into this conversation, it was the Arab Nations who sided with Hitler about his treatment of the Jews. The Grand Mufti stayed with Hitler during WWII and even had his own Arab SS division. They've been preaching Jewish genocide ever since, and it's based on Nazi treatment of the Jews. They say, "The Jews are hated everywhere. Just look at the way that Europe treated them."

Israel will accept a land division, and Mr. Obama shouldn't play on the American Liberals with how they should view the Israeli Palestinian conflict. We all know they go up in arms of retarded crud the minute they hear it, and they refuse to hear anything else.

 

It is obviously problematic because there's a significant difference between the Right of Conquest where control of territory is based upon an act of aggression and the use of force where the people were "subjects" of the government and self-determination that based upon individual sovereignty of the person that cumulatively as citizens, as opposed to subjects, establish the sovereignty of the nation.

It's the fundamental difference between the top-down imposition of the authority of government (i.e. the power of government is inherent in the government) vs the bottom-up creation of government by mutual consent of the governed (i.e. the power of government is inherent the people).

Ideological the transition can easily be traced to John Locke in 1690 and others that more or less addressed it before. It's certainly reflected by the US Declaration of Independence in 1776 but wasn't actually put into practice in the United States (only White Protestant Male Property Holders have always had the right to vote in the United States). Over time, and due to the disastrous effects of European world colonialism as well as major wars over territory such as WW I and WW II the change from the tyrannical subjugation of people by government based the Right of Conquest upon people around the world became evermore repugnant and unacceptable until the ideology of the Right of Conquest was finally rejected in it's entirety at the end of WW II and the creation of the United Nations.

There are earlier examples where the principles of self-determination were applied. As noted this was every evident in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations related to the lands and people that were liberated from the oppression of government subjugation by the Turkish Empire prior to WW I.

Transjordan and Palestine are a perfect examples because the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (Transjordan) was created for the loyal subjects of the Hashemite emir Abdullah (the brother of Faisal that became the King of Iraq in 1921) based upon British promises to the Hashemite's revolt against the Turks during WW I (everyone knows the story of Lawrence of Arabia). Palestine, on the other hand, was not based upon loyal to any monarch and so it was set aside to be a nation of the (predominately) Arab people of Palestine with a Democratic government based upon the sovereignty of the People of Palestine.

A great example of the transitional phase between the Right of Conquest that has subjected the territories of Transjordan and Palestine under Turkish rule to independent nations based upon the sovereignty and collective will of the People.

But the transition from the Right of Conquest to Self-Determination was not complete as witnessed by the German invasions in Europe and the Japanese invasions of Asia. It was only at the conclusion of WW II that the transition was complete and the Right of Conquest was rejected totally with the Right of Self-Determination becoming the only manner in which a nation's territory could be established. The UN did draw the line in the sand at the end of 1945 that has, for the most part, remained intact.

It was certainly intact in 1948-49 when Israel "Declared Independence" and by military force secured territory within the established territorial borders of Palestine without the "consent" of the People of Palestine. It has been this fact that's plagued Israel because the territorial borders of Israel were not established by the Self-Determination of the People of Palestine. As I noted earlier since 1949 W Jerusalem has never been accepted as being the territory of Israel because it was occupied based upon an act of force which is why foreign embassies are not located in Jerusalem to this day.

So there is a hazy line in the sand because the actual change took time but by addressing the issue on a case-by-case basis we can sort it out.

 

They got an equal to even more of a claim to that land.
You deliberately left out the Philistines in that list you somewhat copy pasted, so it fits your argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Neah. As long as you do not get any recognition, it still means you do not get any recognition.

 

Zionists are know for being dishonest...........

I stated "Everyone agrees that Israel exists" but I never stated that everyone agrees that Israel is a "State" (nation),

The criteria for being a legitimate "State" are different than for simply existing. If we were to accept the delusional Zionist claim that "Exists" equals "State" then the Islamic State, that exists, would have the same rights as any other nation.

Jordan did not "Annex" anything. Jordan declared that it "Annexed" the West Bank including East Jerusalem but it lacked any authority to do so. Only the Palestinian people have the sovereign right to the Palestinian territories.

Glad to you admit that Israel "Invaded" Palestinian territory because that automatically makes Israel guilty of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in their continued hostile occupation of the Palestinian territory. The Palestinians didn't have an army and didn't threaten Israel in 1967. Israel didn't even wage war against the Palestinians in 1967 but instead attacked Egypt, Jordan, and Syria instead but in the process of attacking these countries Israel also ended up occupying the territory of the Palestinians that were basically non-combatants in the 1967 War.

So why did Israel occupy the territory of the Palestinians that weren't even involved in the 1967 conflict between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, and Syria?

The "facts on the ground" is that Palestine was created as a nation from the territory previously under the authoritarian rule of the Turkish Empire in 1921 for the Palestinian People that were all of the Arabs, Jews, and others that lived inside of it's territorial borders that had the sovereign Right to the Nation of Palestine. There were no European Jews living in Palestine at the time and no foreigner ever has a sovereign right to a foreign territory.

Following the creation of Palestine for the People of Palestine, without the consent of the People of Palestine, the British Government under the authority of the League of Nations, invited and authorized the immigration of Europeans (Zionist) Jews, that were citizens of Germany, Poland, and other European Countries to move to Palestine and creating their own homeland within that sovereign Nation of the Palestinian People.

In 1948 the "Zionist" immigrants declared the "Paper Nation" of Israel and then by an armed insurrection of against the Nation of Palestine, using the "force of arms" they established the a rebel stronghold inside of the nation of Palestine. Lacking the "consent of the people with the sovereign Right of Territory to all of Palestine the legitimacy of the "rebel stronghold" inside of Palestine has been highly questionable since the beginning and those nations that aligned themselves with the Nation of Palestine initially sent their armies to suppress the insurrection of foreign European invaders holding the rebel territory inside of Palestine. The initial attempt to dislodge the rebels failed in 1948-49. Later attempts also failed. In 1967 the rebel army invaded the rest of Palestine and the United Nations finally stepped in and stated that the rebels would have to withdraw as well as agree to peace terms that would allow them to become a legitimate nation in the world community with respected and acknowledged borders by all other nations that can only be granted by the Palestinian People that have always held the sovereign Right of Territory to the territory of Palestine as established in 1921 when the Nation of Palestine was created as a sovereign political and territorial Nation of the World of Nations.

That's the "Facts on the Ground" in the nation of Palestine today and that Nation of Palestine includes all of the original territory including the territory that the non-Palestinian immigrant Zionist Europeans secured in 1948-49 by an act of war.

For any that support the Right of Israel to exist now is the perfect time for Israel to secure legitimacy as a nation by the consent of the resident Palestinians as opposed to being nothing more than a rebel force occupying part of a Nation that they don't have a legitimate claim to. Agreeing to peace based upon UNSC 242 with the Palestinians, and withdrawing to their previously established stronghold, will secure the legitimacy that Israel has lacked, that is the cause for all of the hostility to Israel that has existed since Day One, where Israel would finally become a recognized legitimate nation equal to all other nations and with the same rights as all other nations.

That's the "facts on the ground" regardless of what the Israeli Zionists believe or claim. If Israel does not secure the legitimacy that only the Palestinians can grant then the national security of Israel will always be in jeopardy because it will always be considered nothing more than a rebel uprising with a stronghold inside of the Nation of Palestine effectively making Israel no different than the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

With the "facts on the ground" now clearly defined I have no more time to waste on Zionist BS, propaganda, and lies related to Israel and the Palestinians.

 

The fact that Jordan annexed the WB is not dependent on anyone -- in fact, they did it.

 

That being the case, you're just lying to yourself.

Again, you're lying to yourself.

Yes again, you are lying to yourself.
Israel invaded Jordan, in a war that Israel did not start.

It didn't; Israel occupied Jordanian territory, until 1988.

The citation you provided earlier says no such thing. Feel free to try again.

 

Which is simply lazy intellectualism masked in tribalism or racism. The original point was that historically, the religious tribe of Israel populated this land well before any arab tribe thought about wanting it. So, artificially starting the timeline at 1921 doesn't seem to be the correct starting point for this conversation.

 

Jordan did not annex the WB according to the entire world. Hence it did not happen.

it did not happen according to Israel.

 

False premise: The world must approve of an annexation for an annexation to take place.
Thus, it happened, regardless of your refusal to accept that fact.