The Palestinians of 1967

[sirs]

What is a fact?

That the UN allowed Jews to return to a soverign homeland called Israel, following WWII.  That is a fact

Based on what authority?
Conversely how could the UN have stopped the migration of Jews to Palestine?

Good questions.....that still don't dispute the FACTS OF THE MATTER.  Who gave them authority?  Who says, what they say, goes?  As far as I'm concerned, and my OPINION, is the current incarnation of the UN, is no more than an antisemetic elitist debating society

[BT]

So in your opinion, and please correct me if i am wrong, Israel does not hold clear title to its lands.

[sirs]

In my opinion, they sure as hell do.  Many lives having been sacrified in the defense of those lands in fact.  There's a long term history of Israel, and its only appropriate they remain there, especially after the Holocaust.

Which brings us full circle....pity the Arab nations had to attack the tiny country of Israel, and as a consquence of those actions, messers Egypt, Syria, and Jordan lost lands, they could have simply provided for to the Palestinians, instead of using them to attack Israel from

Alas, they're just fodder to the rest of those folks in the region

[BT]

In my opinion, they sure as hell do.  Many lives having been sacrified in the defense of those lands in fact.

If title is validated by body counts wouldn't the Palestinians be the ones with the greater claim?
And didn't they die protecting their homeland?

[sirs]

Not with the fact that the UN allowed Jews to return to a soverign homeland called Israel, following WWII

(You'll also note that I never made claim that body count is the ultimate trump card either, so I'd appreciate you not pulling that that misrepresentation effort.  I merely pointed out yet another fact...that of Israelis dying in the defense and protection of their country.  Kinda hard, by the way) for Palestinians to claim the same since they didn't even have a country/land to die for)

[BT]

Not with the fact that the UN allowed Jews to return to a soverign homeland called Israel, following WWII

You keep bringing this up to show Israel has clear title to its lands. Are you saying the UN had the authority to give the land to them?

[sirs]

I keep bringing it us as a fact, nothing more

[BT]

I keep bringing it us as a fact, nothing more

So if the Arabs successfully conquered Israel, their claims on the land would be legitimate because I think what you are saying is possession is 90% of the law.

I think the constant mentioning of the UN in this story, is rather meaningless, because you seem to be unable or unwilling to bestow legitimacy on their actions.

[sirs]

I keep bringing it us as a fact, nothing more

So if the Arabs successfully conquered Israel, their claims on the land would be legitimate because I think what you are saying is possession is 90% of the law.

In that case, as abominable as it would have been to have had the Arabs push Israel into the sea, and abolish its existence, it would have indeed been theirs.........and they'd have to deal with the repercussions of those actions, from the rest of the international community.  My guess, is coming off Germany's WWII's efforts, a similar action (ridding the region of Jews) by the Arabs against the tiny country of Israel wouldn't have very good "reaction"

I think the constant mentioning of the UN in this story, is rather meaningless, because you seem to be unable to bestow legitimacy on their actions.

Who does (bestow UN legitimacy)?  It would appear you're in the same boat, as it relates to the UN.  The facts are still the facts, however

[BT]

In that case, as abominable as it would have been to have had the Arabs push Israel into the sea, and abolish its existence, it would have indeed been theirs.........and they'd have to deal with the repercussions of those actions, from the rest of the international community.  My guess, is coming off Germany's WWII's efforts, a similar action (ridding the region of Jews) by the Arabs against the tiny country of Israel wouldn't have very good "reaction"

Why would it be in the US's interest to defend Israel?

[sirs]

It isn't........its merely the moral thing to do.  Kinda like Lybia

[BT]

Who does (bestow UN legitimacy)?  It would appear you're in the same boat, as it relates to the UN.  The facts are still the facts, however

I don't know why you would say that. The US has a seat on the Security Council with a permanent veto. I doubt they would allow any meaningful resolutions to pass that were not in the country's best interest. So i do believe Resolution 181 was legitimate and did lawfully allow for the creation of the state of Israel. The problem is that the complete resolution has not been enacted.

[BT]

It isn't........its merely the moral thing to do.  Kinda like Lybia

Conversely if Israeli tanks rolled in the Gaza should the US intervene to protect the Palestinian civilians?

[sirs]

Depends entirely on the circumstances.  My guess is that if Israel felt a need to steamroll tanks into Gaza, it was in RESPONSE to some major attack upon them, with the source being terrorist elements within Gaza.  If that's the case, then absolutely not

[BT]

Depends entirely on the circumstances.  My guess is that if Israel felt a need to steamroll tanks into Gaza, it was in RESPONSE to some major attack upon them, with the source being terrorist elements within Gaza.  If that's the case, then absolutely not

So if Israel preemptively bombs an Iranian Nuclear facility and Iran in return invades Israel, who should the US back?