Jimmy Carter announces he has cancer

[yos9694]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Where did he say they have no land? He *did* imply that giving land conquered in a war is not considered "losing anything" which implies that Israel *is* subject to different laws than any other nation in history. Take him up on what he says, not what you imagined him to say.

Are you being deliberately rude?

What land does Israel have that they did not conquer? Have, yes, but have the right to... well, that makes all the difference doesn't it?

[yos9694]

THEY HAVE LAND!

And 1 + 1 = 2

[ChaimMoskowitz]

And if you go back to 1948 - do you mean back to what was agreed to be given to them but refused by the Arab nations? Or what was won and lost in the war of 1948?

That

And why is land won in the 1967 war (started by the Arab nations) not considered "losing anything?" Is it not Israel's land?

Is land in wars that the US won theirs?

[jj1000]

Is land in wars that the US won theirs?

Uh ya...

They call the land the USA, heard of it?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Uh ya...

They call the land the USA, heard of it?

I was thinking more like Japan and a few others.

[jj1000]

I was thinking more like Japan and few others.

So you are using logic when it supports you, but not when it disproves your entire point.

Got it.

(Sounds like people telling Israel to show restraint right after a terrorist attack, can you imagine the headlines if Israel told the US to show restraint on 9/12? When it's someone else people see things differently.)

[ChaimMoskowitz]

So you are using logic when it supports you, but not when it disproves your entire point.

Got it.

My point was just because you conquered land in a war does make it automatically yours.

I am sure glad you never do what you just accused me of doing. 

[Yehuda57]

Is land in wars that the US won theirs?

International law has changed in the years since Israel was established a State. But in terms of a country's right to conquered land, it changes based on wars of aggression and defensive wars. So, no. in recent years, the USA would not have right to land conquered in the Middle East, for instance. Israel, on the other hand, would have that right in defensive wars, especially in regard to land that was not "owned" by a sovereign state (as is the case with most of the land conquered by Israel). And even wars of agression prior to 1974 would not be subject to these laws, and Israel would have had a right to the land.

[Yehuda57]

My point was just because you conquered land in a war does make it automatically yours.

In a defensive war, yes it does.

[aygart]

In a defensive war, yes it does.

Was Japan a defensive war or an offensive war?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

In a defensive war, yes it does.

Was our war against Japan a defensive war? Should we be occupying land we conquered in that war?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Was Japan a defensive war or an offensive war?

Was our war against Japan a defensive war? Should we be occupying land we conquered in that war?

Remind me never to debate you. 

[Yehuda57]

Was Japan a defensive war or an offensive war?

I do not not know how that would work according to laws today, but as for the laws then, if America would have set up shop in Japan, it probably could have become a soveriegn part of the USA. The Nuremberg principles were only written following the War.

I could be very, very wrong. But this is based on my limited knoweledge. It is also entirely possible that annexation of adjoining territory is subject to different laws than colonizing distant lands.

[jj1000]

Japans and the US have nothing to do with this conversation.

If a country chooses to give back land, good for them.

On the other hand the US keeping land from past wars is proof according to US standards it is acceptable to keep land. The logic only works one way.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I do not not know how that would work according to laws today, but as for the laws then, if America would have set up shop in Japan, it probably could have become a soveriegn part of the USA. The Nuremberg principles were only written following the War.

I could be very, very wrong. But this is based on my limited knoweledge. It is also entirely possible that annexation of adjoining territory is subject to different laws than colonizing distant lands.

You got me there. My statements are based on personal views.

[yos9694]

You got me there. My statements are based on personal views.

And now you should not have a hard time understanding why some feel the animosity to Carter that triggered this whole discussion. Their (our) opinion of Israel is different than yours, and therefore we see Carter's actions and statements through different lenses.

[ShlockDoc]

And now you should not have a hard time understanding why some feel the animosity to Carter that triggered this whole discussion. Their (our) opinion of Israel is different than yours, and therefore we see Carter's actions and statements through different lenses.

Do you hate CM and want him to die?  Why can't you strongly disagree with Carter and think he's wrong but just say that he's looking at it from a different perspective and not assign evil motives to his actions?

[yos9694]

Do you hate CM and want him to die?  Why can't you strongly disagree with Carter and think he's wrong but just say that he's looking at it from a different perspective and not assign evil motives to his actions?

WTH does that come from??? Who is comparing CM to Carter? Do you hate me and want me to die?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

And now you should not have a hard time understanding why some feel the animosity to Carter that triggered this whole discussion. Their (our) opinion of Israel is different than yours, and therefore we see Carter's actions and statements through different lenses.

I have an easy time understanding why most here dislike him. He is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

[yos9694]

He is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

Which is...?