Ever wonder why Israel doesn't just withdraw to its 1948 borders?

[Plane]

They want it all. That is their plan. Take it all. Israel proper is already overpopulated, and Netanyahu is inviting even more to come.

Doesn't seem like it. They gave away a chunk of Egypt as big as Israel just to have a treaty. I see there that their attitude is the opposite of your description.

Poland is impossible to defend,

Not true.

Northern Ireland is impossible to defend.,

Obviously Not true.

Over half of all the countries on this planet are impossible to defend.,

Not true.

That is a lame fucking excuse.

Nope, they have been attacked in just the manner they say that they are worried about being attacked ,their previous attackers are still there and they haven't even gotten an apology about it ever.
I think this excuse is quite solid.

[Xavier_Onassis]

How many times has Poland been attacked?

Has it ever actually won?

Not since maybe the Middle Ages.

Ireland would be impossible to defend if attacked by the UK.  If the Irish Republic had the resources, it would be impossible to defend the North from the Republic.

There are very few countries that actually have truly defensible borders: Chile, perhaps Ecuador, Australia, Greenland, Pitcairn's Island. The Palestinians are hostile to the Israelis because the Israelis have killed so many of them. Every year they kill some more of them. It goes on and on, and Netanyahu will never negotiate seriously. He always does the precise thing that causes the Palestinians to conclude that it is worthless to deal with his sorry ass.  The damned Israelis have even attacked an American ship, the Liberty, and killed Americans. 


Whatever the cause, this is not MY  concern as an American. No Palestinians has ever threatened me. My country has not treated Palestine fairly ajd equitably, it has always sided with Israel.

Come on God did not give them that country, That is just bullshit. 

Israel should defend its own fucking self, without any aid or tax breaks from me.  They are of no more concern to the average American gentile than Nepal, Kashmir or Armenia.

[sirs]

If I have to pay for Obamacare and Abortions, you're stuck paying for the PLO & Israel.  We'll call it.....paying your fair share

[Plane]

  Defensible is a relative term.

   It relates to who is doing the attacking.

   Israel has been attacked  and the attackers have not apologized.

     Having possession of greater depth makes them more defensible and this depth was captured from attackers so it seems quite fair.

      I think your characterization of the  attitude Israel has is practically opposite to  reality , didn't they give up nearly half of their size in return for Egypt's promise to be nice?

     

[Xavier_Onassis]

Egypt had no right to annex the Sinai, Gaza, or the Golan Heights. This is against the UN Charter, which Israel has signed.
There is no Hebrew precedent for Israelis occupying Sinai, the Golan or Gaza. These places were never controlled by Israel.

 No country has the right to annex territory without the consent of the inhabitants. Note that the people of Crimea were allowed a vote with regard to Russian annexation. The terms of the election are debatable, but the need for consent is not.

Officially, the West Bank and East Jerusalem have not been annexed. Officially, there are to be negotiations.

[Plane]

   You miss the point about the Sinai   , Israel did not give it up to war , they gave it up to a peaqce treaty.

    So you shouldn't characterize the Israeli attitude as incalsitrant , it is demonstrably not.   

[sirs]

That's the point so many else have made.....that if they "wanted it all", they wouldn't be giving up anything

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Israelis gave up Sinai because it was against international law for them to keep it. There was a lot of international pressure to reopen the Suez Canal and of course, Israel got paid a shitload of money for territory that that was a liability for them.  Egypt also got a shitload of money.

[Plane]

There is no Hebrew precedent for Israelis occupying Sinai, the Golan or Gaza. These places were never controlled by Israel.

Is the historical context important? If it is important then their right to all of Jerusalem would be pretty strong , west bank too.

 No country has the right to annex territory without the consent of the inhabitants. Note that the people of Crimea were allowed a vote with regard to Russian annexation. The terms of the election are debatable, but the need for consent is not.

Officially, the West Bank and East Jerusalem have not been annexed. Officially, there are to be negotiations.

   

    This works within what statute of limitations?

       Until pretty recently the opinion of the conquered was a low priority in the  estimation of the conquistador.

      When Jordan attacked Israel , Jordan was the custodian of the west bank area, but that war ended with the attackers driven back.

      Let us encourage further attacks , by telling the likely attackers that their losses if they attack will not be permanent.

[sirs]

The Israelis gave up Sinai because it was against international law for them to keep it.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways....you can't claim how Israel defies all these International laws, and "wants it all", then proclaim how they gave up what they did, because it was against international law for them to keep it.  There's just as much international pressure now, as was then.  And giving up more land won't bring any more peace to the region.  It only makes Israel less defensible.  No sovereign country, surrounded by enemies, would do that

[Plane]

The Israelis gave up Sinai because it was against international law for them to keep it. There was a lot of international pressure to reopen the Suez Canal and of course, Israel got paid a shitload of money for territory that that was a liability for them.  Egypt also got a shitload of money.

   I really see this as a poorly constructed argument.

    You are telling us that Israel is obedient to international law?

      You are maintaining that war booty land is a liability to Israel?

         Aren't these two points contrary to your earlier assertion that........

"They want it all. That is their plan. Take it all. Israel proper is already overpopulated, and Netanyahu is inviting even more to come.

[Xavier_Onassis]

War booty is prohibited by the UN Treaty.

I can have it any effing way I want it sirs.

I just do not want to have to support Israel any more. It is detrimental to this country to suck up to Israel and has been for decades.

[sirs]

I can have it any effing way I want it sirs.

Actually you can't.....and expect any credibility in what you claim

[Plane]

War booty is prohibited by the UN Treaty.

I can have it any effing way I want it sirs.

I just do not want to have to support Israel any more. It is detrimental to this country to suck up to Israel and has been for decades.

      Are the sort of attack that Israel has been subjected to against this treaty?

       
Who exactly does feel bound by this treaty at all?


     You may indeed argue against your own points, I like it fine when you do.

     

   

[Xavier_Onassis]

Egypt has not attacked Israel and vice versa since this treaty was signed. Suez has been operational since this time.

It was humongeously expensive, but the wars it prevented would have been vastly more expensive.

Egypt is the one ally that has the potential of actually being able to overrun Israel. Only the incredible incompetence of the Egyptian military saved this from happening. I think we can be grateful that this treaty exists.

Unfortunately, the Egyptian people have not enjoyed immunity from its military.