Has Israel ever specified its own limits?

[BrainGlutton]

@Alessan

It’ll eventually make us a minority to a majority that hates us and claims that we stole its land. It’ll put Hamas in our cities. There’s no way it won’t end in violence that’ll dwarf Bosnia or Sudan.

I remember people warning something like that would happen in South Africa if Apartheid were abolished, but it didn’t.

[Guinastasia]

@BrainGlutton

I remember people warning something like that would happen in South Africa if Apartheid were abolished, but it didn’t.

But IIRC, all the South Africans wanted was equal rights. In this case, the Palestinians want a state of their own. THEY don’t want to be part of Israel. They want Palestine. How to accomplish that and what that entails are the reasons for the big mess, and all the fighting and the killing and everyone freaking out and not playing nice.
(Would that be right, Alessan?)

[chappachula]

@BrainGlutton

I remember people warning something like that would happen in South Africa if Apartheid were abolished, but it didn’t.

Different cultures…you’re comparing apples and oranges.

South Africans don’t declare that jihad, “martyrdom” and terrorism are the highest values in life. They teach their children to respect the heroism of Nelson Mandella, not Osama Bin Ladin.

[XT]

@BrainGlutton

How so? I’m just talking about giving the Palestinians representation in the Knessit. What’s dangerous about that?

Good grief. This is a bit like saying ‘We just want to let the Nazi party have representation in the Knessit. What’s dangerous about that?’. Despite your silly apples to marbles comparison about South Africa, even you should realize that this would be a Bad Idea™.

Besides, the Palestinian’s don’t WANT to be part of Israel (with the large exception of those who already live peacefully in Israel).

-XT

[FinnAgain]

If you check the linked thread, we’ve gone over all of this. Numerous times. In depth. If Glutton is really clueless about why putting Hamas in rocket range of every single Israeli home is not a Good Idea, then I’m a nuclear powered wombat.

When I saw glutton, yet again posting his silliness about how removing Israel as a sovereign nation, denying Palesitnians their own state while simultaneously giving Hamas freedom of movement would have great resuts, I was tempted to post something along the lines of "countdown to ‘But it worked in South Africa!!!’ "

Of course, now Glutton is baffled, just baffled, as to what the objections would be and, lo and behold, the example used is South Africa and not, ya know. Zimbabwe. As long as we’re slinging analogies rather than taking the radical step of actually looking at this specific situation.

[Little_Nemo]

Getting back to the OP, my understanding is that specifying the outer theoretical limits to territorial claims is unusual for nations. The United States, for example, has never officially announced that it would not seek to expand by incorporating further states.

[Kobal2]

@chappachula

Different cultures…you’re comparing apples and oranges.

South Africans don’t declare that jihad, “martyrdom” and terrorism are the highest values in life. They teach their children to respect the heroism of Nelson Mandella, not Osama Bin Ladin.

You do realize Mandela was a violent guerilla/terrorist guy, don’t you ?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Little_Nemo

Getting back to the OP, my understanding is that specifying the outer theoretical limits to territorial claims is unusual for nations.

It’s not normally appropriate. Borders are not usually in question. One exception might be the German legislation, immediately after unification, confirming its border with Poland.

The United States, for example, has never officially announced that it would not seek to expand by incorporating further states.

All US borders are established by treaties, and therefore have the force of US law anyway. It isn’t an issue for the US, but it is for Israel and a few other places.
kobal2, it would be more accurate to say Mandela used the methods available to him to achieve the goals of democracy and peace. When there came a white government with whom negotiation and reconciliation was possible, he became a negotiator and a reconciliator. Before that, when force was the only language the whites understood, he used force.

[FinnAgain]

"What’s that you say? Jordan and Egypt could have handed over the West Banka and Gaza, at any time, for about 19 years, and could have refrained from preventing the formation of a Palestinian state in the first place? There is no evidence that the Three Noes were about establishing a Palestinian state and the very assertion that it was done for that reason smacks of revisionist absurdities? Oh, and I’ve made several other similar mistakes?

Hmmm.
So, about Mandela…"

[ElvisL1ves]

Finn, if that latest bit of incoherent splutter was intended to be a response to something someone here has actually posted, it should have had a quote or a link or something like that. Can you do that for us? Thanks.

[Little_Nemo]

All US borders are established by treaties, and therefore have the force of US law anyway. It isn’t an issue for the US, but it is for Israel and a few other places.

Please. Our borders are established by treaties? With the exception of Alaska, pretty much every expansion by the United States was a violation of a previous treaty. We just went ahead, took the land we wanted, and then wrote a new treaty to cover it afterwards.

[ElvisL1ves]

Look up the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the Gadsden Purchase treaty, then.

“Please”.

[Alessan]

So you are saying that the Israel should invade its neighbors, occupy their capitals, annex 2/3 of their land and then force them to sign a treaty establishing the new borders? You know, like the U.S. did with Mexico?

[ElvisL1ves]

See my reply to Finn, immediately above, regarding replying to what has actually been said. This topic is difficult enough without covering it with straw.

Now: How we, or any other nation, got to its borders, however bloodily is of historical interest. That they are now defined and agreed to by both bordering nations is the point. There are very few undefined, untreatied borders remaining in the world. Israel’s West Bank border is one of them, and AFAIK the only “hostile” one.

[XT]

@Alessan

So you are saying that the Israel should invade its neighbors, occupy their capitals, annex 2/3 of their land and then force them to sign a treaty establishing the new borders? You know, like the U.S. did with Mexico?

Don’t forget how we snagged Florida either. We seem to still be there, even after all these years, curiously enough. And look! We got some territory in the South West in the same sort of way!

-XT

[XT]

@ElvisL1ves

Now: How we, or any other nation, got to its borders, however bloodily is of historical interest. That they are now defined and agreed to by both bordering nations is the point. There are very few undefined, untreatied borders remaining in the world. Israel’s West Bank border is one of them, and AFAIK the only “hostile” one.

Um…the two bordering nations wrt the West Bank are Jordan and Israel…and Jordan has waved it’s claims to that land.

From Wiki:

The West Bank (Arabic: الضفة الغربية‎, aḍ-Ḍiffä l-Ġarbīyä) (Hebrew: הגדה המערבית‎, HaGadah HaMa’aravit)[1] is a landlocked territory and is the eastern Part of the “Palestinian territories”; on the west bank of the River Jordan in the Middle East. To the west, north, and south, the “West Bank” shares borders with the state of Israel, which maintains the security of this area. To the east, across the Jordan River, lies the country of Jordan. The West Bank also contains a significant coastline along the western bank of the Dead Sea. Since 1967, most of the West Bank has been under Israeli military occupation.

Prior to the First World War, the area now known as the West Bank was under Ottoman rule as part of the province of Syria. At the 1920 San Remo conference, the victorious Allied powers allocated the area to the British Mandate of Palestine which included modern day Jordan and Israel. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War saw the establishment of Israel in parts of the former Mandate, while the territory known as the "West Bank"area was captured by Trans-Jordan. Since it then controlled the territory on both sides of the Jordan river, Trans-Jordan renamed itself Jordan in 1949. Prior to its capture by Jordan and the subsequent renaming, parts of the West Bank had been called Judea and Samaria for more than 2000 years, according to the Torah. The 1949 Armistice Agreements defined its interim boundary. From 1948 until 1967, the area was under Jordanian rule, and Jordan did not officially relinquish its claim to the area until 1988. Jordan’s claim was never recognized by the international community, with the exception of the United Kingdom. The West Bank was taken control of by Israel, during the Six-Day War in June, 1967. With the exception of East Jerusalem, the West Bank was not annexed by Israel. Most of the residents are Arabs, although a large number of Israeli settlements have been built in the region since 1967.

The only think that Israel did wrong (IMHO) was that they never did annex it (not sure why, though at a guess they kept it as a future bargaining chip).

As for it’s (current) legal status (from the same Wiki article):

Legal status

The United Nations Security Council,[45] the United Nations General Assembly,[46] the International Court of Justice,[47] and the International Committee of the Red Cross[48] refer to it as occupied by Israel.

According to Alan Dowty,

"...legally the status of the West Bank falls under the international law of belligerent occupation, as distinguished from nonbelligerent occupation that follows an armistice. This assumes the possibility of renewed fighting, and affords the occupier "broad leeway". The West Bank has a unique status in two respects; first, there is no precedent for a belligerent occupation lasting for more than a brief period, and second, that the West Bank was not part of a sovereign country before occupation — thus, in legal terms, there is no "reversioner" for the West Bank. This means that sovereignty of the West Bank is currently suspended, and, according to some, Israel, as the only successor state to the Palestine Mandate, has a status that "goes beyond that of military occupier alone."

[49]

The current status arises from the facts (see above reference) that Great Britain surrendered its mandate in 1948 and Jordan relinquished its claim in 1988. Since the area has never in modern times been an independent state, there is no “legitimate” claimant to the area other than the present occupier, which currently happens to be Israel. This argument however is not accepted by the international community and international lawmaking bodies, virtually all of whom regard Israel’s activities in the West Bank and Gaza as an occupation that denies the fundamental principle of self-determination found in the Article One of the United Nations Charter, and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Further, UN Security Council Resolution 242 notes the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” regardless of whether the war in which the territory was acquired was offensive or defensive. Prominent Israeli human rights organizations such as B’tselem also refer to the Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza as an occupation.[50] John Quigley has noted that “…a state that uses force in self-defense may not retain territory it takes while repelling an attack. If Israel had acted in self-defense, that would not justify its retention of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war, even by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other states to Israel’s occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that even if Israel’s action were defensive, its retention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was not.”[51]

ETA: I’ll leave it to others to determine if this is ‘undefined’ and ‘untreated’ land…

-XT

[FinnAgain]

Here we go again.
Want to lay odds on whether or not Elvis will ‘understand’ what that was in response to?
Or do we get to see a repetition of “Jordan relinquished claims to it as part of supporting the creation of the independent nation of Palestine, as did Egypt with Gaza.” along with “Er… no speekee dah English. Me not understand what you respond to… you quote again and I ignore, okay?” when yet another factual refutation is offered?

Oh, it’s so exciting!

[ElvisL1ves]

@Alessan

That won’t lead to peace, other than the peace, to crib a cliche, of the grave.

Almost half the Knesset is proposing just that, though. Maybe they should first have asked Jordan if they *wanted *to be the new “Palestinian homeland”? Maybe a valide answer would be to propose Uganda as the new “Jewish homeland” instead?

We’re farther than ever from seeing peace there. And we don’t need to be.
xtisme, does that mean you don’t recognize even the *potential *existence of a nation of Palestine, much less the promise or commitment of one, either? That’s a pretty radical view, even though common.

[XT]

@ElvisL1ves

xtisme, does that mean you don’t recognize even the potential existence of a nation of Palestine, much less the promise or commitment of one, either? That’s a pretty radical view, even though common.

No, not at all. I’ve pretty consistently acknowledged the possibility of an actual, viable Palestine. Assuming they can ever get their shit together, which seems unlikely now, but then again so did peace in Ireland at one time.

No, what I was objecting to was this:

Now: How we, or any other nation, got to its borders, however bloodily is of historical interest. That they are now defined and agreed to by both bordering nations is the point. There are very few undefined, untreatied borders remaining in the world. Israel’s West Bank border is one of them, and AFAIK the only “hostile” one.

This really has no bearing on the current or historical question of the West Bank, since the borders are pretty well defined, there are treaties in place governing the current disposition of the WB, etc. It may be that someday the Israeli’s will choose to relinquish some or even most of that territory to a Palestinian state…but it will be Israel’s choice as that is, for all intents and purposes, Israel’s land. My guess is that they will probably do so…if the Palestinian’s ever stop being monumentally stupid and get control of the mad dogs among them. Until the Palestinian’s are ready to acknowledge that Israel is there to stay, and that the Palestinian’s are seriously ready to negotiate and to live peacefully with Israel, however, it’s never going to happen. The limiting factor here is not Israel…it’s the Palestinian’s. But then, it’s pretty much always been the Palestinian’s. Had they had the intelligence of rocks they would have taken the original UN deal in '47 and would have received at least half a loaf…instead what they have ended up with.

I will say that the Palestinian’s are more likely to get a good deal from Israel WRT land than they are from their old comrades in arms…which is always ironic, to me at least. YMMV

-XT

[ElvisL1ves]

@xtisme

No, not at all. I’ve pretty consistently acknowledged the possibility of an actual, viable Palestine. Assuming they can ever get their shit together, which seems unlikely now, but then again so did peace in Ireland at one time.

But meanwhile you don’t see any reason to set aside land for it, or even to recognize that Jordan long ago relinquished sovereignty in the area?

This really has no bearing on the current or historical question of the West Bank, since the borders are pretty well defined

Only by using the sophistry you just did. An interest in peace, and the justice that must underlie it, by comparison, wouldn’t get you to where you are, though.

that is, for all intents and purposes, Israel’s land.

*That * cherished illusion has to be dispelled if any real progress is to be made.

Until the Palestinian’s are ready to acknowledge that Israel is there to stay, and that the Palestinian’s are seriously ready to negotiate and to live peacefully with Israel, however, it’s never going to happen.

You can avoid recognizing the same obligation on the other side of the border only by using that same bit of sophistry.

Had they had the intelligence of rocks they would have taken the original UN deal in '47 and would have received at least half a loaf…instead what they have ended up with.

Now, how about you stop pretending history began in 1947?

I will say that the Palestinian’s are more likely to get a good deal from Israel WRT land than they are from their old comrades in arms.

Explain. Are you referring to the “Just let 'em all move to Jordan” plan linked to just above?