Skip to main content

View Diary: Baker Schools Huckabee on Israeli Settlements (290 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Legitimacy of borders (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sandbox, wbramh

    is a funny thing when it comes to Jews.
    Considering the fact that nearly every country's borders have been determined and redetermined through warfare, it's curious that Israel would be denied the same legitimacy afforded the rest of the World.

    And unlike other countries (ie: the United States) who invaded and stole other people's land, the Israelis were the ones who were invaded. They had every right by International law to hold every inch of land they fought over - whether within their pre-existing borders or within the invading armies borders. Yet, Israel voluntarily returned land to those who made peace with them (namely Egypt. The Israelis held only the Golan as a DMZ from a still-hostile Syria along with Jerusalem, a city that belonged to the Jews 1,600 years before Mohammad was born and contains the holiest of Jewish shrines. Additionally, the Jordanians had illegally kept Jews out of Jerusalem despite the 1949 accord signed by Jordan that was supposed to give them open access.

    Throw the Muslims out of Mecca and see how they react.

    •  Correct (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sandbox, barbara318

      I agree with you totally on the subject of Israel's legal right to ANY land won back, or from, the countries that invaded them.
      I also made your exact point concerning the historical legitimacy of Jerusalem as a Jewish city.  Israel has both the international legality through precedent to reclaim Jerusalem and the sovereign right to make Jerusalem their capital.
      The rest of the World panders to oil. Hardly a surprise when they jump to second the anti-semitic sentiment perpetually spewing out from Israel's arab neighbors.

    •  It's fascinating to read the writings of (10+ / 0-)

      people who believe international law was the same in 1492 and 1967.

      My first choice is a strong consumer agency My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.~E. Warren

      by JesseCW on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 06:16:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And people who continue (8+ / 0-)

        To believe that Palestine was "empty" until the future-Israelis showed up in the 20th century...

        "If you can't lower heaven, raise hell!" - Mother Jones

        by al ajnabee on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 07:19:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Indeed. As if the Thirty Year's War (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah

        and the ius publicum europaeum never happened.

        John McCain: Life begins at inheritance

        by Berliner2 on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 07:33:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure which year (0+ / 0-)

        you believe is the one that Israel follows, but today's International laws allow an invaded country to seek both compensation in land and money.

        •  Seek? Certainly. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          capelza, simone daud

          Gain territory by conquest?

          Not at all.

          My first choice is a strong consumer agency My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.~E. Warren

          by JesseCW on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 05:29:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again - ISRAEL was invaded (0+ / 0-)

            They happened to win the war.
            Their sole compensation was the creation of a buffer (the Golan) between themselves and a still-hostile Syria. The Israelis had pleaded with the Jordanians to not join the Syrian, Lebanese and Egyptian armies in their attack on Israel.  The Jordanians refused and attacked, anyway.
            The capture of Jerusalem, the holiest of Jewish cities, was mild compensation for Jordan's blatant aggression and for the damages against their people and property - especially since the city had originally been stolen from the Jews.
            And you call that conquest?
            Unlike Jordan, which reneged on the 1949 Agreement to allow Jews access to the holy sites in Jerusalem, the Israeli's not only allow access to Muslims - they allow them to live in Jerusalem as well as through the rest of Israel.  Over 20% of Israelis citizens are Arabs. There are hundreds of mosques in Israel and Arabs hold elective office in the Knesset. Additionally, there are now Arabs in Israel's ambassadorial corps.  Can you say the same for Jews in Arab countries? There are no Synagogues in Saudi Arabia and Jews are not allowed to live there. Much of the rest of the Arab nations are similar in their treatment of Jews or not much better.
            And the Jews are accused of Apartheid.
            What a joke - and an ugly one, to boot.

            •  Good lord. You may actually be the most long (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              capelza, simone daud

              winded diseminator of intentional dishonesty I've ever encountered in an IP diary, and I've encountered some doozies.

              You're still implying Egypt attacked Israel?

              Babbling about completely irrelevant subjects, like access to "holy places"?  Issues that you must know have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand - the naked illegality of gaining territory by conquest?

              Pushing talking points about Saudi anti-semitism (and the House of Saud is certainly anti-semitic) as if it had a thing to do with whether or not a naked land grab and attempt to annex parts of the West Bank utterly unrelated to even the old city should be treated as somehow legitimate?

              Millions of people are laughing at you.  I am but one of them.

              Scientologists would be ashamed to push such poorly constructed attempts at distraction and such obviously morally relativist excuses for wrong doing.

              BTW - this is an old diary.  No one else is reading your Leon Uris version of history.

              My first choice is a strong consumer agency My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.~E. Warren

              by JesseCW on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 06:22:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Millions of people are laughing at me? (0+ / 0-)

                Is that  example of your impeccable honesty?
                Or an example of how a true blowhard actually tries to win an argument.
                You're pathetic.
                Bye.

                •  I know you think hitting all the talking (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  capelza, simone daud

                  points is the same as having a point, but it really isn't.

                  Yes, hundreds of millions around the world, including all of Europe, are laughing at the insane propoganda you're trying to pass off as history.

                  My first choice is a strong consumer agency My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.~E. Warren

                  by JesseCW on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:01:00 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  So you think the world community's (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      capelza, Uberbah

      refusal to recognize Israel's claims to territories beyond the borders of 1967 is based on anti-Semitism?

      John McCain: Life begins at inheritance

      by Berliner2 on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 07:41:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well (0+ / 0-)

      Yes and no. First of all, the territory that has been occupied since '67 was indeed taken from nations that invaded, but was not actually territory of those nations (Golan Heights aside). The West Bank and Gaza were PALESTINIAN territory occupied by Jordan and Egypt. So Israel took land from Jordan and Egypt that Jordan and Egypt took from Palestine. So really, they don't quite fit your description. The Golan Heights does.

      Ancient claims aren't really valid in modern times. Let's stick with the fact that the UN created two independent nations of Israel and Palestine and the surrounding nations invaded. Israel defended itself. Palestine was conquered by the Muslim neighbors and then occupied by Israel.

      •  Growing up in Europe in the 1970ties (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah, wbramh, al ajnabee

        I seem to remember that the general attitude in this matter was decidedly pro-Israel. While refraining from legally recognizing Israel's seizure of the West Bank and Gaza, it was pretty much assumed that Israel's presence in these territories was politically legitimate in terms of strategic self-defense. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was seen as a tragic necessity, and temporary in nature. It had to last as long as a peaceful solution could not be negotiated, but no one assumed that it would last forever. Perceptions began to shift with Arik Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. That war blow a big hole in the strict self-defense rationale. The whole Eretz Israel thing didn't help. But the self-defense rationale still held firm, and to some extent it still does. Consider this: When Saddam invaded Kuweit, Bush I and his European allies kicked him out on grounds that he had annexed a sovereign state. Nobody ever even remotely considered military action against Israel over the seizure of the Westbank and Gaza – because the West recognized, however implicitly, the strategic necessity of Israel's presence in these territories. And everyone knew that the party that held the Golan heights was in a position to bomb the other's capital (or was in that position until the emergence of new tactical missiles in the 1980ties, wich rendered the Golan heights strategically obsolete), so no one really expected Israel to move out of there either.

        John McCain: Life begins at inheritance

        by Berliner2 on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 08:17:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that and Israel starting the 1967 war blows a... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          al ajnabee, thethinveil

          ...hole in the self-defense rational as well.

          I'm a part of the reality-based community, not the personality-based community.

          by Uberbah on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 01:46:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's the most outrageous (0+ / 0-)

            comment of the day.
            Syria and Egypt had moved their armies to Israel's borders and there was, and is, no serious historical doubt that they were intending to attack Israel.  At no time did those countries attempt to hide their  ultimate intentions. What the Arabs didn't expect was Israel decimating their air support before the enormous Arab armies could advance across the border.

            •  Well, destroying (0+ / 0-)

              the Arab air forces on the ground on June 5 was seen as a legitimate act of self-defense where I grew up. It was a pioneering effort in preemptive warfare, if you will, but it was the little guys beating the shit out of the big guys. Think David and Goliath: There was a biblical template for what Israel achieved, and that certainly did not hurt the country's image in the West. In terms of starting the war, there had been skirmishes leading up to the outbreak of the six days of open hostility, and when Nasser closed the Suez canal for Israeli ships he was not exactly extending a hand of peace to his neighbors, either.

              John McCain: Life begins at inheritance

              by Berliner2 on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:18:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  that and it was Israel that started the 1967 war, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        capelza, thethinveil

        Israel that launched attacks on it's neighbors, so even the 'taking land from invaders' bit is a canard.

        Israel defended itself.

        No, they attacked.

        I'm a part of the reality-based community, not the personality-based community.

        by Uberbah on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 01:45:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Israel uses the Golan as a DMZ (0+ / 0-)

        It is a strategic neutral zone. It was also the high ground used by the Syrians to mount an effective rocket attack on Israeli towns. Unlike Egypt, the Syrians have maintained hostilities, so while the Golan is different, Israel's security is very much tied into denying the Golan from Syrian artillery and tanks.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site