They are not occupied territories ??????????

Only complete imbeciles try to underline their prejudice with lots of question marks.

Just what the JC needds, another Jewbaiter.

And the answer is

no.

Perhaps, Armbach, you can tell me who they are occupied from?

Amber,Iam sure if Dayan, the paediatrician that kept Israel alive during the first 20 years or so of it's life, were he still with us, would bow to your greater knowledge and wisdom.

They hate it when you quote Israelis at them, especially since people like Amber have much more military experience than the likes of the mere Moshe Dayan

"Occupy from" is a nonsense expression. One doesn't occupy from, one merely occupies a space. From the space I'm occupying, Posner's dress looks way too short.

The ever watchful with the ever assinine comment. Judging by the nature of your comments it is obvious your mind occupies empty space.
Mr Dayan was entitled to call Judea and Samaria whatever he wanted - however he was wrong to term them occupied. Occupation typically refers to foreign control of an area that was under the previous sovereignty of another state. In the case of Judea and Samaria, there was no legitimate sovereign because the territory had been illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967. Only two countries — Britain and Pakistan — recognized Jordan's action. The Palestinians never demanded an end to Jordanian occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state.
It is also important to distinguish the acquisition of territory in a war of conquest as opposed to a war of self-defense. A nation that attacks another and then retains the territory it conquers is an occupier. One that gains territory in the course of defending itself is not in the same category and is entitled to administer that territory until such time as a peace agreement is implemented with a sovereign entity with a legal claim to the land in question as happened to Germany after WW2. And this is the situation with Israel, which specifically told King Hussein that if Jordan stayed out of the 1967 war, Israel would not fight against him. Hussein ignored the warning and attacked Israel. While fending off the assault and driving out the invading Jordanian troops, Israel came to control Judea and Smaria. However that situation no longer applies because the PA now administers most of Judea and Samaria.
As to this blogger's post about the 1949 Armistice Line -the so-called ”Green Line“ was not and is not an internationally recognized border, it was an armistice line between Israel and Jordan pending the negotiation of a final border.

Oh dear, Advis3r. Dayan recognised that the territories were/are occupied, irrespective of who held them before. The fact that two countries recognised the Jordanian occupation (that's two more than recognise Israel's) is irrelevant.
And he was right to point out that the Green Line is a border, irrespective of what those extremist Jews and Arabs who want a single state between the River and the Sea say. But you keep on doing Hamas's work for them.

Well, if that was a quote and not made up, Moshe Dyan, who negotiated the armistice, obviously thought it was meant to be a recognised border.

Moshe Dyan is wrong, and Advis3r is right. That's an interesting proposition.

Watchful, you notice, I hope, Advis3r's use of words. Do they remind you of those once used by a Blacklisted Dictator?

It seems Mr. Posner is a busy boy.

Or girl.

The fixated watchful and millis are at it again - surely your lives cannot be that wretched, or are they?

Comments for this page are now closed.