What's occupation?

[G-Man]

I've seen a lot of people attacking Israel becaus we "occupy" territories. Today Israel is the only country defined by the UN as an occupaying force. I just wanted to ask - can anyone give me a definition of "occupation" that makes Israel the only occupaying force in the world? I mean, the occupied territories were taken over during a war. I don't see other countries defined as occupaying forces on this fround. After all, the US is built on land once owned by the British, Indians and Mexicans. France has territories taken over from England. So in what point in time did these things began to be occupation?
Or maybe I'll take the most radical example I can take - China and Tibet.
China took over Tibet without being under any threat from them and without previously fighting with them. They murdered thousands of civilians and expelled religious leaders.
Israel took over the territories after months that Jordan, Egypt and Syria were putting forces near the borderes. Israel foguht Egypt only 11 years earlier and Jordan and Syria 19 years earlier. Israel didn't expel anyone. All Arabs and Palestinians were given full Israeli citizenship and were allowed to continue their lifes as before.
And still, who does the UN declares occupaying? Israel.
Even after the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, the Gaza strip and the west bank were still considered occupied from some reason.
Surprisingly enough, the Palestinians aren't declared occupaying, even though they sit on land that was previously Egyptian and Jordanian.

Thank you UN!

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

There is an UN resolution dating back to the late 40s or early 50s IIRC that then existing national border may not be changed by force. Since Israel occupies territory, with permenat settle ment and iddefinate control, taken by force, beyond these borders it is in violation of said resolution. It can not be in compliance until it gives up control of all that seized in the 67 war. Egypt and Jordan have agreed to contribute these territories to the palestinian state (I am not sure if this is done yet or to be done in the future), and syria owns the Golan. So as Israel cotinues to occupy across the borders protected by the resolution with apparent intent to control them idefinately, it is regarded as being in CRIMMINAL occupation of them.

 

[Eli]

Wait, and what about the 1947 borders? Does the land behind them also considered occupied?

It was also taken by force, and there is permanent settlement there.

 

[G-Man]

Lefty

So you're saying that, according to the UN, these countries can attack us, but whenver we win we have to go back to the original borders? I mean, for thousands of years countries fought and the country winning took over land, and no-one asked them to give up any area. Israel was formed in the 40s, but when the arabs took over territories that the UN said were ours or under international authority, nobody said a thing. Same for China crushing the Tibetian culture. But when we can finnaly win, the f*cking UN says we have to give it all back? That's so unfare! Other countries passed centuries of fighting before reaching their ideal size. We only had 2 years! And now the UN says we have to give up areas we earned in the battlfield, making Israel an extremly dense country. Thats not natural. Countries have to fight. Do the UN thinks they're god? They're trying to freeze the world.
Oh, well, the UN are known to do extremly stupid things. As far as my experiense goes, I'd rather believe to Saddam and Kaddafi then to Annan. The UN promised to watch our northern border - but let Hizbala build an army post 20 meters from Israeli soil, in th middle of the de-militarized zone. They said they fight terror but it took them 10 months to give Israel a tape of the kidnaping of 3 Israeli soldiers, and even then the tape was deliberatly damaged so we can't get any usefull information about the terrorists. They said they'll protect our cities, but let Lebanoneese planes fly over the border, heading towards Haifa, Natania and Tel Aviv.
In the 60s they said they'll protect us against an Egyptian attack, but ran away as soon as Nazzer told them to. In the 40s they said they'll divide Israel equaly between us and the Palestinians, but gave us the desert while the Palestinians got the fertile hills and the holy sites.


Eli
As we in Israel know, the UN thinks he's god and that whenever he decides to stop wars all the people in the world will hold hands and start singing "Imagine"...



For conclusion -
"Um shmum"
David Ben-Gurion

 

[Juize]

UN actually should get the role of god.
Otherways, well, League of Nations, example...
G-Man, actually, before I read your comments here, I believed that Israel should get
those lands. Now I'm not so sure about it... Israel looks to be a fascist-country if everybody
is alike with you...

 

[G-Man]

We're facists? I didn't know that. I'll be very happy if you'll tell me what gave you this idea

 

[Graeme the mad]

Im afraid your confidence in the Un is a bit overplaced: in the forites the US was lookign for posible allies against USSR and Israel seemed promising - especially with its rich oil fields so the UN overlooked this paticular discreppancy - at the time USSR and China were not taking part in the UN because of refusal of the UN to accpet the Peoples democractic republic.

Israel can occupy because it was overlooked: occupation is frowned on now because countries borders are pretty much set and most countries are against the increase in strength of any others. THe world situation at the minute is so different now than any other time in history so occupation isnt really allowed (like ne one can stop the US if they wanted to)

However the US is proposing setting up a government to replace the taliban in afghanistan - this is a basically good idea I think but is being done at the wrong time: im not sure whether this will count as an occupation.


On the matter of america owwning bits belonging to britain - did u know that we (british) still technically own arizona
Iyt was never signed away.

LETS TAKE IT BACK (whats in arizona ne way)

and to everyone whos going to correct me about whch state it is that was in fact owned by britain

 

[Eli]

The UN is full of Arab, Muslim and Third World countries, thus making it automatically anti Israeli.
That's why we could see in the Yom Kippur war the UN sitting quietly while Israel was attacked, but when we started the offensive they started screaming for cease fire.

The UN is an anti Israeli political organization and should be treated as such.

And "um shmum" indeed.

 

[SuperR]

So you are saying that there shouldn't be Arabs, Muslims and representatives of the Third-World states in the UN?
I don't think so...

 

[Graeme the mad]

'The UN is full of Arab, Muslim and Third World countries, thus making it automatically anti Israeli. '

I may be mad but it appears from this post to me that since you r israeli you r anti arab and muslim

 

[SlowwHand]

You're full of beans, Graeme.
I don't want to fan those ignorant flames between USA and Britain, but Britain didn't give us a thing, and retains no claim on anything associated with the USA.

Valiant effort though.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Graeme the mad
Im afraid your confidence in the Un is a bit overplaced: in the forites the US was lookign for posible allies against USSR and Israel seemed promising - especially with its rich oil fields so the UN overlooked this paticular discreppancy - at the time USSR and China were not taking part in the UN because of refusal of the UN to accpet the Peoples democractic republic.

Our rich oil fields? You're kidding me. Our richest oil fuel had almost enough oil in it to activate the pumping machine...

But just the fact that the UN is able to overlook things makes it a worthless orgenization.


About the UN
Israel is not against Islam or arabs, but you can't excepect us to be happy with them automatically voting against us.
And what Eli had to say makes sense too - How can countries that has strong connectins to the Israeli arab conflict have the right to decide what will happen there? Almost all muslim countries always work together. In no court in the world judjes can judje in cases that are related to them. If the UN acts as a court to countries, it should work like a court.

 

[Eli]

What I wanted to say is that many of the United Nations countries are blatantly biased against Israel, and that in general the UN is not a real justice making organization but a political organization with a significant anti Israeli part.

 

[Juize]

*sigh*
G-Mannn...
The Israel is possibly not fascistical.
Youre just been proving since 9/11, that YOU are.
So get some sense to your posts... And this is a FRIENDLY tip.

[EDIT/PS: Hey, congrulations, Graeme, u got your pic!]

 

[G-Man]

Oh, I'm a facist? And you say that based on?..... (that's where you should give me a proof)

 

[Graeme the mad]

Oooohh ladies

Handbags out!!!!


(he ws trying to say fascist was he? - u sure?)

I dont think G-Man's a fasicist

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by G-Man
Lefty

So you're saying that, according to the UN, these countries can attack us, but whenver we win we have to go back to the original borders?

Yes, that is the rule since that resolution was passed.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

What needs to be thought of is the notion that 'can Israel afford to give up these territories?' Given the current developments, and geopolitical situation, one would think twice about surrendering the Golan and Samaria, given what they allow.

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by G-Man
Oh, I'm a facist? And you say that based on?..... (that's where you should give me a proof)

Oh, youve edited your past posts when I was gone?...
Oh jesus. Oh jesus. Oh jesus. Real sorry. I thought that your posts then
were your thoughts still... *Shoots himself and that mustard who invented to put
stuff with these thingies, because it looks stupid*

 

[allan]

"On the matter of america owwning bits belonging to britain - did u know that we (british) still technically own arizona"

Huh? Arizona used to be part of Mexico....

And to G-man (and Eli):

I share a lot of the same sentiments about the UN--it seems to be a "tyranny of the majority" more than a governing body based on principle. But take heart--without the US, they're irrelevant... and the US is your friend.

Yeah no one says anything about China taking Tibet, either. And that TOO was after the UN's founding....

I say the agreement on the partition of Palestine was made null and void the second Arab troops walked into your part of the partition, intending to "drive you into the sea". Oh well they lost later? TOO bad. Once a treaty is violated by EITHER party, it becomes null and void (at least its protections for the violator)--and the Arabs originally violated it when it used the Palestinians as pawns. And anyone reasonable would see that if Israel gave up the main base of old Arab attacks, the West Bank (Samaria), then Israel would be almost divided in two and quite vulnerable.

I guess the last few days my heart's grown pretty callous to the Palestinians--dancing in the streets INDEED--well by celebrating the WTC attack they've damned their cause in my book.... I don't care WHAT you do with them now.

The Palestinians may have been used by the Arabs as a political tennis ball, but they LET themselves be used that way....

P.S. G-man, another "Hebrew lesson" for me--what does "Um Shmum" mean?