Israeli occupation of West bank and Gaza strip- for Gamblor

[hetron]

In many previous online posts re: the Israeli occupation of the west bank and gaza strip, 2+2's beloved Gamblor has always been quick to mention Israel's security whenever someone asks why the Israeli's are still occupying this land 38 yrs after they took it over.

The question to Gamblor (and to anyone else) is this: since 1967, has the occupation of these lands led to increased security of Israel?

I'll add my own comments later on.

[jaxmike]

Why call it an occupation? It was land that was legitimately acquired in a war of aggression started by those Israel defeated, quite handily...

[nicky g]

"Why call it an occupation? It was land that was legitimately acquired in a war of aggression started by those Israel defeated, quite handily... "

It is an occupation for the simple fact that the territories are not sovereign entities or part of the territory of any sovereign entity, they are under the ultimate control of the Israeli army while not having been annexed to Israel. If they were included in the territory of the state of Israel, regardless of the rights and wrongs of that, I would agree they would not be "occupied" territories. But they won't be, at least not while their longstanding residents remain in place, because the last thing Israel wants is to add 4mn Arabs to its population. Your argument would be like saying Iraq was not occupied prior to the hadnover because the war was justified. If a territory is subject to the rule of another sovereign state and has no sovereignty of its own, it is occupied. Regardless of the wrongs of your reasoning behind the legitimacy of the occupation, they territories are indeed occupied and will remain so until they become sovereign or are incorporated into a sovereign entity.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
why the Israeli's are still occupying this land 38 yrs after they took it over.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why hasn't the U.S. given back all of the land it's been occupying for the last 200+ years to the Native Americans?

[ QUOTE ]
The question to Gamblor (and to anyone else) is this: since 1967, has the occupation of these lands led to increased security of Israel?

[/ QUOTE ]
Give a mouse a cookie...

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
"Why call it an occupation? It was land that was legitimately acquired in a war of aggression started by those Israel defeated, quite handily... "

It is an occupation for the simple fact that the territories are not sovereign entities or part of the territory of any sovereign entity, they are under the ultimate control of the Israeli army while not having been annexed to Israel. If they were included in the territory of the state of Israel, regardless of the rights and wrongs of that, I would agree they would not be "occupied" territories. But they won't be, at least not while their longstanding residents remain in place, because the last thing Israel wants is to add 4mn Arabs to its population. Your argument would be like saying Iraq was not occupied prior to the hadnover because the war was justified. If a territory is subject to the rule of another sovereign state and has no sovereignty of its own, it is occupied. Regardless of the wrongs of your reasoning behind the legitimacy of the occupation, they territories are indeed occupied and will remain so until they become sovereign or are incorporated into a sovereign entity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, you are right. It technically is an occupation because they have not, as of yet, annexed the land. However, they are in control of the land, and rightfully so. If they wish to give the land back, for PLEDGES of peace, then thats fine.

[Gamblor]

Yes.

Instead of dealing with 5 nations-full of murderous enemies, they are dealing with only one territory-full.

Israeli soldiers/civilians killed in war (From March 5, 1991 Associated Press release)

1948: 6,200
1952: 172
1967: 777+721 in the aftermath vs. Egypt = 1499
1972: 2,569

Total: 10,440.

Now, let's examine the results of the Palestinian uprising.

According to B'tselem, who despite being unable to properly determine the cause of these deaths are actually quite good at counting bodies themselves, the total number of Israelis dead in the two intifadas, as of May 2003 (a bit dated, I agree) is 1,147.

End of story.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
Why call it an occupation? It was land that was legitimately acquired in a war of aggression started by those Israel defeated, quite handily...

[/ QUOTE ]
Because post establishment of the UN, that's not quite how it's supposed to work. War or no war, you can't just walk into territory and declare it to be your own if there are people there who don't want you there. It is called the right to self determination. Other instances where this has occurred since 1948 (notably the occupation of Northern Cyprus by a Turkish-backed state) have led to no recognition by the world body.

[hetron]

You are going to count 1972 (post occupation) as a "before" statistic? Why?

[adios]

hetron pwnd /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Cyrus]

...What a non sequitur answer!

I will let others elaborate.

[Gamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
You are going to count 1972 (post occupation) as a "before" statistic? Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the PLO, the self-declared representatives of the Arabs living in the areas taken under Israeli control in 1967, were not involved in the 1972 war.

The Arab States explicitly engaged in the 1972 war to get rid of the Israeli State not just the "occupation"