"Israel seeks something more. It insists on firm guarantees as a condition to withdrawing its forces of invasion."

"This raises a basic question of principle. Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its own withdrawal?"

"If we agree that armed attack can properly achieve the purposes of the assailant, then I fear we will have turned back the clock of international order. We will, in effect, have countenanced the use of force as a means of settling international differences and through this gaining national advantages."

"I do not, myself, see how this could be reconciled with the Charter of the United Nations. The basic pledge of all the members of the United Nations is that they will settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and will not use force against the territorial integrity of another state."

"If the United Nations once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the very foundation of the Organization, and our best hope of establishing a world order. That would be a disaster for us all."

"I would, I feel, be untrue to the standards of the high office to which you have chosen me, if I were to lend the influence of the United States to the proposition that a nation which invades another should be permitted to exact conditions for withdrawal."

"Of course, we and all the members of the United Nations ought to support justice and conformity with international law. The first Article of the Charter states the purpose of the United Nations to be "the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes." But it is to be observed that conformity with justice and international law are to be brought about "by peaceful means."

"We cannot consider that the armed invasion and occupation of another country are "peaceful means" or proper means to achieve justice and conformity with international law."

"We do, however, believe that upon the suppression of the present act of aggression and breach of the peace, there should be a greater effort by the United Nations and its members to secure justice and conformity with international law. Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin."

"Perhaps the world community has been at fault in not having paid enough attention to this basic truth. The United States, for its part, will vigorously seek solutions of the problems of the area in accordance with justice and international law. And we shall in this great effort seek the association of other like-minded nations which realize, as we do, that peace and justice are in the long run inseparable."

"But the United Nations faces immediately the problem of what to do next. If it does nothing, if it accepts the ignoring of its repeated resolutions calling for the withdrawal of invading forces, then it will have admitted failure. That failure would be a blow to the authority and influence of the United Nations in the world and to the hopes which humanity placed in the United Nations as the means of achieving peace with justice."

"I do not believe that Israel's default should be ignored because the United Nations has not been able effectively to carry out its resolutions condemning the Soviet Union for its armed suppression of the people of Hungary. Perhaps this is a case where the proverb applies that two wrongs do not make a right."

Leadership

response to armed attack against their county eminating from those zones.

Force was actively being used AGAINST Israel, and the UN did nothing to stop it. Therefore Israel was well within the principals of the UN Charter for self-defense to take the actions they did.

They are well within their right of self defense to require conditions preventing future attacks from returned land.

"They are well within their right of self defense to require conditions preventing future attacks from returned land."

That is just the point, Berz, they haven't returned the land, the exact opposite, they continue, against international law, to occupy more, and more land.

I'd point out that many Israelis are also pissed off at the settlers, most of whom originate from the US!

to return more.

They are entitled to gaurantee's that they won't be attacked from those lands again.

History has shown however that even after they return land, they suffer attacks FROM the land they've returned.

Your country attacks another country and that country kicks your ass and occupys much of the land formerly yours, there is NO obligation to return the land. And attack can very well be defined by sending suicide bombers and rockets into their land. If you get your ass kicked, tough! If you win, other countrys can legally organize and clear you of your land AND your leadership.

berzerker:

to return more.

They are entitled to gaurantee's that they won't be attacked from those lands again.

History has shown however that even after they return land, they suffer attacks FROM the land they've returned.

What's that to do with international law? Isn't a catch 22 that they are being attacked because they are in occupation of lands that lawfully don't belong to them?

Lets face it, Jews should never have been given lands that belonged to someone else - what if the Mexicans, or the Spanish, decided that California was their homeland, and managed to get a foothold on it? Then behaved like the Israelis??

Jimminyc:

Your country attacks another country and that country kicks your ass and occupys much of the land formerly yours, there is NO obligation to return the land. And attack can very well be defined by sending suicide bombers and rockets into their land. If you get your ass kicked, tough! If you win, other countrys can legally organize and clear you of your land AND your leadership.

Grow up Jimmy.

the Israeli's were given...were given by the UN and are thus..."legal" according to the UN?

You can't very well use the UN Charter to support attacking those lands by outsiders, can you?

International law is on the side of the existance of Israel proper.

It is just quibbling about them occupying lands that were used to attack them from in the 47, 63, and 67 and 72 wars.

What are you talking about? Israel was over its borders.

You might try to read the history of Israel and their expanding beyond the borders kindly laid out for them as a means to have a "homeland" where it once was. SMACK DAB in the middle of Arab lands.

Balfour Declaration 1917:

"November 2nd, 1917"

"Dear Lord Rothschild,"

"I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet."

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

"I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation."

"Yours sincerely",

Arthur James Balfour

nations.

Not the other way around.

And after the Israeli's kicked the invaders out, they occupied "buffer" area's to prevent new attacks into Israel.

Egypt made peace, real peace....and got their land back.

If the others do so as well, they will get their land back.

Israel was outside of its borders. The buffers were not on their land, that was the reason for the U.N. Resolutions against them and the whole point of the above speech. It was about the Suez Canal

was a legal entity created by the UN. With all the rights of nations, including self defense.

And actions in the Suez were based on treaty violations by the Egyptians.

<link>

The war was over and Isreal had not drawn its forces back. THAT was by resolution of the same UN that recognized its independence. If you want to go on showing how ignorant you are, be my guest. Israel has not more rights tahn other nations and Isreal would not even exist if it werre not for the help they got initially in haveing a terrirotry set aside for them.

Tell me where you live and I will be glad to recommend your neighborhood be used as a return to a homeland for the descendents of people that lived there 500 years ago who wish to return.

to people who haven't lived there for over 60 years?

When is the "time" long enough?

And if you read the link, you'll see that that wasn't a security council "resolution". Because France and England would have veto'd it.

It was a lesser product. Not with the force of law. It was a "request" for a ceasefire.

......Not just Britain, France's and Israel's take on it.

As far as "returning land"? ANY part of the nation of Israel exists on what kind of land? Retuned?

I'm not asking for anything except that people who were helped in their quest recognize how they were helped and not fly in the face of it as they did regarding immigration and these words in the original Balfour Declaration.

"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"

Some reading material for you.

Maps

Sources