U.S. rejects Netanyahu's claims: "Golan Heights are not part of Israel"

[jimboa24]

It's a really convenient argument ''they where planning to attack us first'' without actually given proof to that claim and then claiming the other side are the aggressors.

Lets not forget that the whole initial argument Israel used was ''they attacked us first'' and that eventually got demoted to ''they where planning on attacking us''.

What do you want? It was imminent. It wasn't a question of if Egypt and its allies would strike the first blow, but WHEN. That much was beyond dispute; not even Syria or Egypt or Jordan denies that they were definitely going to attack. Israel just struck first, and struck hard.

Are you really arguing that if you know for a fact that an enemy is about to deliver a mortal blow to you, and if you don't strike first and fast you will die, that you are NOT justified in striking first?

[Soul Hermit]

I'm sure glad Israel exists.
It would be so hard blaming everything wrong in the world if it didn't.

[Deleted]

That much was beyond dispute; not even Syria or Egypt or Jordan denies that they were definitely going to attack.

and they get totaly suprised then Israel attack... so what you say are What if....

If you don't strike first and fast you will die, that you are NOT justified in striking first?

Imperial Russia did mobilized and Imperial German did strike first and fast (and started WW1) and became stigmatized for it.

No you try to use the old proven method, only the the loser do aggresive war, the winner do what was necessary.

[Mavett]

It's a really convenient argument ''they where planning to attack us first'' without actually given proof to that claim and then claiming the other side are the aggressors.

Lets not forget that the whole initial argument Israel used was ''they attacked us first'' and that eventually got demoted to ''they where planning on attacking us''.



SO Hamas is justified in attacking Israel? I mean their has been a blockade of gaza ever since Hamas took control over the region which prevents the import of Oil.

----------
What I hate the most of this discussion is the projecting I consonantly see.

As if they ever needed a justification for an attack, have you been living under a rock since late 80's or you weren't born yet?

[zorothusian]

If it is illegally occupied why should its status be determined through negotiation? It sounds to me as if it has already been determined: It does not belong the Israel. So what negotiating is there to do? Legally speaking the only conclusion to be drawn from saying "It's not yours." is to return it to whose it is.

In any case, it always nice to see Israeli claims to more land getting rebuffed.

LOL really than Syria shouldn't have invaded Isreal. Syria Egypt and Jordan invaded Isreal. If Syria wants there land back than negotiate a peace agreement like Egypt and Jordan did. Syria refuses to negoitiate with Isreal.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure glad Israel exists.
It would be so hard blaming everything wrong in the world if it didn't.

lol I totally agree. a bunch of hypocrites

[Easo]

I am fascinated by the people arguing about Israel being at fault in the Six-Day war.
It's like they are not from this world.

[caervek]

I am fascinated by the people arguing about Israel being at fault in the Six-Day war.
It's like they are not from this world.

Fault isn't the issue, the issue is they started the war and thus as it was an offensive action they cannot legally claim land seized as a result under international law because they were conducting offensive not defensive actions.

[Mavett]

Fault isn't the issue, the issue is they started the war and thus as it was an offensive action they cannot legally claim land seized as a result under international law because they were conducting offensive not defensive actions.

Blocking 90% of Israeli oil import through the straits was an act of war and a de facto declaration of one by Egypt, and the countries they had mutual cooperation/defense pact with.

But I guess such a piece of information is irrelevant and always brushed aside when the discussion about the six day war and territories involved are discussed, only the Israeli "aggression" should get the spotlight, right?

fucking a..

[caervek]

Blocking 90% of Israeli oil import through the straits was an act of war and a de facto declaration of one by Egypt, and the countries they had mutual cooperation/defense pact with.

Lol, no, not even close, so far from being close it's an example of not being close. Firsty Egypt have every right to control their own territory and who can access it, did you see Russia go to war with Turkey when they stopped their ships from using the Bosphorus Strait? No.

Secondly, your idea that being an ally with somebody means you automatically declare war on anyone they do even if they don't' actually declare it, it laughable, that's never been true and almost certainly never will. I.E Turkey shooting down a Russia fighter jet was an act of war but Russia let it slide, by your logic not only could they have bombed Turkey (and been in the right) but they could have legally bombed France too as they have a mutual cooperation/defense pact with Turkey >.>

[Mavett]

Lol, no, not even close, so far from being close it's an example of not being close. Firsty Egypt have every right to control their own territory and who can access it, did you see Russia go to war with Turkey when they stopped their ships from using the Bosphorus Strait? No.

Secondly, your idea that being an ally with somebody means you automatically declare war on anyone they do even if they don't' actually declare it, it laughable, that's never been true and almost certainly never will. I.E Turkey shooting down a Russia fighter jet was an act of war but Russia let it slide, by your logic not only could they have bombed Turkey (and been in the right) but they could have legally bombed France too as they have a mutual cooperation/defense pact with Turkey >.>

Egypt signed a mutual defense agreement with Syria in 1966, exactly 1 year prior to the war, what a timing...

Fantastic comparison right there pal, comparing a downed Jet worth 20-30 million usd to an act that would cripple a country and it's industry entirely, that's the only thing laughable here caervek.

[caervek]

Fantastic comparison right there pal, comparing a downed Jet worth 20-30 million usd to an act that would cripple a country and it's industry entirely

That wasn't the comparison, hence those things being in two different paragraphs discussing different things, careful you don't slip on the straw.

[Spectral]

I am fascinated by the people arguing about Israel being at fault in the Six-Day war.
It's like they are not from this world.

If someone sees all things political through the lens of oppressed-oppressor, Israel being the strong victor is enough to make them guilty.

[Mehrunes]

When China conquered Tibet, to destroy nationalism and any chance of independence, they settled the area with an overwhelming amount of Chinese people, so Tibet isn't Tibetan anymore, it is Chinese.

Except, not really.

[Berengil]

It's also funny to see the world as it acts today, as once Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, in the Bible, no force was able to remove them, except for God. Now that they are back in their land that was given to them, you really think anyone on the planet can remove them?

Learn from history.

You and I have differing definitions of what constitutes "history." What you are talking about there is scripture, and therefore scientifically unverifiable. And therefore irrelevant to civilized political discussion.

[Mehrunes]

That's not their justification; their justification is "we will be annihilated if our enemies attack us, and we're keeping these pieces of land as buffer zones and reminders of the cost of invading us to ensure that doesn't happen." Israel kept relatively small tracts of land; they didn't conquer entire countries like Egypt, Syria & Co. set out to do when they set their sights on Israel itself (twice).

Yeah, no. When you defend occupying land with "I guarantee you that Israel would have been carved up as spoils among the attacking Muslim countries, who would promptly tell the UN to go fuck themselves when the UN would have told them to give it back to Israel" you are engaging in a "they would do it too" argument. The only thing that changes is the scope, not the behavior itself. Speaking of scope, how much land you occupy and annex matters little in how illegal it is to do so under modern international law. And by trying to hide it behind "WE WILL BE ANNIHILATED QQ" you're also engaging in a hyperbolic fearmongering appeal to emotions. No, you would not be annihilated. Such claims have no basis in reality. You haven't been annihilated the last few times they attacked you (including, you know, the time when they controlled the Golan Heights) and the technological gap between Israel and neighboring countries only grew bigger since then. And said neighboring countries are going through a period of total clusterfuck. The doom is literally waiting at your gates /s

What's childish is the view that if Israel just gives up the Golan Heights, West Bank or Gaza strip all of a sudden everyone will sing kumbayah, hold hands and live in a happy land of sunshine and rainbows and forever peace will reign in the Middle East.

Then I guess it's really nice that view is only a straw-man of yours.

[Spectral]

What does it matter if this principle is modern or not? So are human rights and they are also pretty selectively applied. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be followed. The world has evolved since the notion of just war. Considering that this "basic principle" (what's with the quotation marks anyway?) is, as Schaefer pointed out, part of the UN charter, and Israel's existence and legitimacy stems from UN, undermining it undermines Israel itself. Even harder than disputing UN resolution 497 that @Kalis was talking about, or other individual laws of UN.

The scare quotes are because I find the idea of a "basic principle" in human relations that no one seemed to have discovered until the last century pretty silly. It must not be that basic of a principle.

Israel's existence and legitimacy is not a product of the UN, it's a product of its armaments and martial willingness to use them. If they didn't have the armaments and willingness to use them, 1967 would have been the end of Israel while the UN rung its hands about how inappropriate and illegal it is for the Arab states to tear Israel apart.

The UN's continued willingness to shit on Israel likely makes Israel disinclined to acquiesce to the UN's impotent demands.

Alternatively, "they have land that is rightfully ours", which is inescapable when one state takes land (be it aggressively or defensively), encourages fighting over that land till kingdom's come. Weirdly enough, Syria and Israel are still haven't signed a peace treaty since 1967. If taking land worked as you say, why would the international community bother to change it after WWII if it was the status quo on how things work since the creation of states?

I think the idea that an "international community" is going to stop two sides that want to fight over land is basically a fantasy. The best outsiders can hope for is being an intermediary where peace is desired. I don't believe, at all, that either side is willing to move to a peace where they don't have the land argued over.

[unbound]

It's a complicated history, but Israel has been slowly taking over more and more Palestinian territory in violation of agreements for a long time. Neither side has been acting particularly well, but, in reality, Israel is the worse actor in all of this. Basically, they are saying that Palestinians can do what they want as long as they do exactly as they are told and stop resisting Israeli efforts to settle Palestinian territory until there is no Palestinian territory left.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRYZjOuUnlU

[Mehrunes]

Israel delivered the first military blow, however the war pretty much started at May 22nd 1967, when Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran for Israeli shipping, pretty much all of the oil deliveries to Israel went through that sea passage, I would like to see a country that would sit idle when a hostile nation blocks their flow of oil.

It the blockade of Tiran pretty much started the war, then why did Israel at the time consider the act not as an act of war, but a casus belli for themselves?

[Mavett]

That wasn't the comparison, hence those things being in two different paragraphs discussing different things, careful you don't slip on the straw.

Are there resources vital to the existence of Russia's economy and industry going through the Bosphorus straits? no, therefor your comparison is a pile of rubbish at best case scenario.

I was talking about mutual defense agreement, and not your twisted understanding of it:

Secondly, your idea that being an ally with somebody means you automatically declare war on anyone they do even if they don't' actually declare it

One corrected though, the Syrians and Egyptians had a pact effective since '55, in '66 it was signed between Syria and Jordan.
But the concept remained the same, each side dedicates a % of forces and all fight under the same command during war with Israel.

How did shooting down a jet in any shape or form put Russia at a brink of an industrial and economic collapse?

Russia let it slide? Turkish produce in Russia and Russian tourists in Turkey are close to non existent sight, but yea sure let it slide ( It really hurts when a sizable chunk of the revenue is gone).

If Russia would face the same situation as Israel did when Nasser blocked the straits, they would act in the same manner Israel did, and in fact any country would have.

[Berengil]

Ha, funny. Seems to me the more the Bible is refused or taken out of our society the more uncivilized it becomes. Also funny how you chose to ignore the 1st part of my response only because you want to focus on someone's religious ideology. Like it or not, religion is part of any political discussion in the world as it stands and will become more so as this world continues.

Only in the worst parts of the world. The secular trend continues unabated in the West.

Our society is not a theocracy. It must embrace people of all beliefs and those of none at all.

" When public policy is being discussed, religion shouldn't have a place at the table." ----- Christopher Reeve