By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 23 July 2008
Edit Thread
superchunk said:
Kasz216 said:

The 1967 borders were never offficially agreed on by the Palestinians. As such it was never officially there land... and instead they started a war with their allies. As such... they have no real legal claim except a revisionist history.

Palestine never having been an actual state never had any land to lose. Had they agreed to the boriders and an actual recognized palestinian state existed you'd have a point Superchunk.'

Any land Israel took from that was recognized as part of a foreign power... like the Suez Canal... you'd have a point. Palestine however... while occupied during a time of war was not gained through war. As said people were not part of any nation on which war could be declared. Despite there being people there... legally it would be no different if say the US colonized an uninhabited island when the war with iraq was going on.

You can argue other things... however the legal arguement is a poor one for the borders since palestine had no legal standing as a internationally recognized state. It could have, but it rejected such an offer in hopes of being greedy and grabbing more land then the UN decided. It's going to be hard to find anyone who isn't biased to support the 1967 borders in consideration of this.

Hence why the term "all territories" was rejected from UN resolution 242 on many occasions.

so, since the west, i.e. mostly Britian, fucked them over after WWII by not abiding by their (British) promises of allowing any Arab majority region to be self governed and thus never created a Palestine when it was nearly 90% Arab populated and instead offered them roughly 55% of the total land (in 1947) where it was only 20% of the total farmable land and that since they (the Arabs) justifiably declined this offer and instead tried to fight for what was legitimately their property they are know not even entitled to roughly 40% of their total land?

Yeah, that seems fair. Instead they should only get what the highly moral Israel decides is justifiable which is about 20 to 30% of their original land, of which a very small percentage is farmable.

That's alright. Since Israeli-Arabs have a much larger birth rate than their Jewish counterparts, most numbers show them being the majority again in the Israeli occupied areas. This combined with Israel having no constitution and being a democracy means that they can eventually vote on reunification with the rest of the land and have one large Arab 'Israel'.

Status quo will return. To bad the Hamas' and other groups couldn't see the eventual outcome for what it is and lay down arms and work on peace so the Arab populace can continue to dramtically out birth their Jewish counterparts and just take the land back by purely democratic means. It would be a lot easier.

Do you want to argue morals or legality here?

If your arguement is based on international law you need to follow the mandates of the international community. If someone attacks someone else because they were screwed out of their money by a lawyer. They still go to jail... they still pay a penalty.

Israel also was pretty screwed by britain at the time. Maybe England should give up some of it's land to the Isralei's and palestinians.

I do find it ironic and hypocritical that you claim the war was justified even though by your own admission any land gained would be illegal by international law. Arguements shouldn't be used for the mere justifcation of getting your way.