Israil oversteps the mark

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MrFun


Hey smart guy, they have a name for legitimate stealing of land and territory --- it's called warfare.

United States has kept land and territory she acquired from warfare.

Australia and New Zealand has kept land and territory she acquired from warfare with the natives.

Russia has kept land and territory she acquired from warfare.

and . . . . . . . so forth

Israel is merely one of the many, many nations that seeks to keep land that she seized during warfare. Nothing new.

[Rasputin]

perhaps israel should hold the territories until the pals show that they are no longer conducting terror activities, I would suggest a 2 month inactivity period. then the IDF withdraws slowly over a 6 month period provided no further activity is conducted. then when we get to the position we were in before this ridiculous intafada started nearly 2 years ago. The pals and israelis can go back to the peace table and discuss long term solutions. But if any terrorist activity takes place the israelis get to keep the west bank forever!!! That includes rock throwing idiots too !!!!

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Right now, the Palestinians have nothing, no state, no rights, no security. They've got nothing to lose, and so they can continue kamakazi-ing Israel until Israel gets sick of it and comes to terms. And the Palestinians aren't going to stop, until they have something to lose.

Besides, if Israel has "indefensible" borders, what will Palestine have?

This is truly unique: Chevitz and me agreeing on something!

Then there will never be peace, unless either the Jews or Palestinians are expelled or killed.

Excellent conclusion!
By the way, what surprises me enormously is that Israelis are not emigrating wholesale.
Is this the result of religious brainwashing?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
One quote from an insignificant leader of an insignificant military force gets blown up in to the entire reason that the Arab reasons ever have anything to do with Israel.

1948 was a war between Israel and the Arabs states, and the Arabs states with each other, ove the the division of Palestine.

How did Arab states fought each other?

On May 15, 1948, Israeli troops were already well beyond the UN designated Jewish territory, Making Israel one of the agressors in this war.

tsk tsk.

The war actually started in 1947, when local arabs organized into militia groups, and supported by arab states began harrassing jews much more seriosuly than before.

Infact, way before Israel's declaration of independance, undercover Iraqi troops were organizing resistance.

The fact that Israeli troops left the proposed borders to better defend against agression, and to repulse the agressors, doesn't make them agressors.

Israel, infact, didn't declare it's borders, but asked for them to be discussed with the Arab states, in the declaration of independance.

This call, naive as it may be, was sincere and expectedly ignored.

Furthermore, I find it difficult to relate to Israeli troops, as IDF didn't properly exist then... Most jewish towns had their local guarding militias, who protected them from arab agression.

True, there existed some 33 jewish towns in land designed to become part of palestine, and Israel did act to defend them, exactly because there was agression.

Israel, and all of the Arab states, launched a war of agression against Palestine.

What complete and utter nonsense, as there was no palestine, ever. The areas designated to be palestine, were never really palestine.

The Arabs launched a war against Israel, treating palestine as a territory part of the "pan arab" unity. Infact, they saw Israel, part of the same land.

Consider that nearly half of Egypt's army in Palestine was off fighting the Jordanians, or that the Lebanese merely occupied the Arab designated territory of West Galilee, without attack the Israelis at all.

I've never in my life heard of egupt and jordanians fighting one against the other.

I recently skimmed through a military history book, so I'll re-read it.

The lebanese sent troops and commandos against Jewish civilians in land designated to palestine, and Israel had to protect them.

Jordan only fought the the Israelis where they were attacked by them.

basis?

Both Syria and Egypt did attack the Israelis, but the Syrians were trying to catpure land they considered theirs (according to French maps).

Well gee, everyone considered Israel "theirs".

Does it make it just?

Only the Egyptians made any effort to attack the Israelis.

I'll prove you wrong tommorow.

Furthmore, after the first truce, it was always Israel who initiated hostilities against the Arabs.

False.

The first two truces were broken by the arabs.

The last two were broken by the Israelis, out of understanding that the truces were tactical, and decision of pre-emptive strikes.

You obviously don't wait for another person to back stab you, if you are in a cease fire and in a bad position.

The strategic decision of war, came from the Arabs.

They even assassinated the UN ambassador to the region who had come up with a new peace plan.

who is they?

It was some lunatic group who was little heard from since, calling themselves "defenders of zion" or some sh*t.

1967 was a War of Israeli Aggression. Israel had been encroaching on the nutral zone between Israel and Syria for years, and had been driving Arab farmers from the area, replacing them with Jewish immigrants.

Jewish immigrants are a threat to a neutral zone?

After some *** for tat shelling between Syria and Israel, Israel begain threatening Syria with invasion and having it's government toppled if it didn't aquience to Israeli land grabbing, i.e., stop fighting back.

what utter nonsense.

What right syria has to react to Israeli actions on it's land?

If Israel was entering syrian territories, then they'd have a case.

But the fact is, that syria used the "Israel is kicking out the arabs" excuse to bomb Israeli farmers and kibutzes from the Golan heights.

It's like Canada would shell america, claiming it does it because of "opression of the black people in america".

Obviously, USA would have every moral and political right to respond with a military action.

Syria, which had a military alliance with Egypt, asked for help, fearing imminent invasion. Egypt then created a military situation which was designed to get Israel to back down, since it would have been a two front war.

Sure, Israel was to back down, and peacefully allow Syria to keep shelling Israeli soil from the Golan Hieghts.

It's sickening that you try and make it sound perfectly moral.

Instead, Israel quickly shifted and launched a surprise attack against the more poweful country, then tricked Jordan into getting into the war (by sending their airforce at Jordan, Jordan responded with it's own mobilization which gave Israel the pretext for attack)

Again, I have no idea where you take this from.

Jordan's king was on the phone with Nasser when Nasser falsely reported to him that Egypt is winning and called him to join in. Jordan didn't want to at first, but when Nasser told them that he was winning.

Israel infact, sent a telegram to Jordan, warning it not to attack, promising Israel wouldn't attack first. Jordan attacked first by Shelling Jerusalem from Kalkilya.

It would be idiotic for Israel, to deliberately open a third front.

But it would be very logical for Nasser to trick Jordan into attacking, hoping this would wear Israel down.

, then dealt with the weakest country, Syria.

Poor syria... they just wanted to keep shelling Israeli towns and farms. *sob*.

They were shelling Israel and attacking it with Mig airplanes.

Only the 1973 War can be said to have been started by the Arabs alone, and in this case, the Arabs had been trying to negotiate peace with Israel two years prior.

Says homski, but there's no evidence for that.

Sadat first stated his land for peace deal in 1971

source?

In 1971 Sadat stated "I'm willing to give the lives of a million soldiers to free the territories conquered by Israel".

Nowhere was mentioned "land of peace".

It was in 26 of July 1972 that Golda Meir publically invited Sadat to meet, in a speech made in the Knesset, calling Sadat "a great leader of a great nation". This was after Sadat decided to kick the Soviet advisors out.

but of course the man who was trust worthy in 1977 wasn't trust-worthy in 1971.

People change and attitudes change.

Israel thought Arafat would be trust-worthy in 1993.

How wrong we were.

In any even, since Israel was occupying Arab terriroty, it was a legitimate war of self-defence started by the Arabs, under international law.

:rofl:

Then 1967 was a war of self-defense, since Jordan and Egypt and Syria occupied land which was designed to be Palestinian. Israel saw the agression, and decided to put an end to it, by liberating the land.

They were trying to drive out the foreign occupiers.

Israel has been the most aggressive state in the region since 1948. The actualy historical facts do not support a belief that Israel has only been defending itself.

Your facts can hardly be called historical.

The conversation between Nasser and King Abdullah was recorded and is archived with the IDF intelligence corps.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Then there will never be peace, unless either the Jews or Palestinians are expelled or killed.

Sadly, I feel the same way.

By the way, what surprises me enormously is that Israelis are not emigrating wholesale.
Is this the result of religious brainwashing?

Not at all.

It's the result of 2000 years of diaspora and persecution.

It's the knowledge that no one will defend us but ourselves.

It's the knowledge that we have no other place in the world.

It's the knowledge that for 5,000 years of jewish history, we lived here, saw Jerusalem as our capital for 3,000 years, and always mentioned Israel and Jerusalem in our prayer, literature and culture.

[CyberGnu]

Natan:
Regarding monolithic: I'll try again: what the hell are you talking about? How is it relevant that the arabs consist of many different groups to the statement 'I don't hold it against the palestinians that their arab neighbours attacked Israel in 1948'. Well, other than that it seems to CONFIRM what I'm saying. Geez, try to stick to point, will you?

I am saying that people shouldn't be exterminated because their dictatorial government is bad.

I'm not saying either that people should be exterminated because their govermnet is bad, but you apparently takes this as an excuse to give dictatorships a carte blanche to do whatever they please.

Let's say china invades Korea. should they, ideologically, be allowed to keep Korea only because opposing them would lead to civilian casualites?

Essentially, you are blaming Churchill for the civilian casualties in WW2... Isn;t that an offense according to Israeli law or something?

Maybe you should tell your parents your ideas of right and wrong... Hopefully they can sit down with you and explain that Hitler was bad man.

I guess the difference between you and me is that I don't view nations as people - for example, I don't think anyone should be taken to task for murdering the Soviet nation, or for crippling the German nation by lopping of its Prussian and Silesian legs. I think of nations as being made of people, but not people themselves. Sort of like families. Do you generally approve of killing the families of car thieves?

If a man steals a car and gives it to his wife, she is obliged to give back the car. If she refuses, she is guilty of theft as well.

Amazing how simple the concept of ownership is, isn't it? If I own it, it is mine. Not yours. And it is not yours to give away.

and in the macroscale, palestinian land is not yours. Nor it is the UN's to give away.

I don't understand why it's worse when nations violate their agreements to respect each others borders than when they violate their agreements to respect human rights. I don't think that's the position of the UN (the organization responsible for both documents) either.

so, you really don't think there is a difference between violating an agreement to give two weeks vacation and genocide? Huh, and this from the same man who screams like a stuck pig every time someone points out that Israel is a fascist state...

So how do you want it? Is there a gradual scale for violations of human rights or not?

Now, in line with your argumentative style, your next post would probably be about genocide, and why I consider genocide to fine and dandy or something equally pointless. By learning from experience, I surmise that I will have to remind you that we are currently referring to this particular post by you:

You know, they also agreed (UN declaration of human rights) that every person has a right to two weeks of paid vacation. Yet very few countries offer that right, are they all evil for violating the international community's will and their own agreements?

Now, a different question from this is whether genocide is worse than invasion followed by genocide. I think it is, and I think most of the world would agree with me. the difference might be slight, as they are both abhorrent, but there is still a difference.

The reason is the events leading up to the genocide. If internal, the citizens of that country does have some kind of responsibility in letting the siutation deteriorate to this point. In external, the citizens had absolutely no influence over the matter.

Now, I'm pretty sure you are going to willfully ignore one of the above sencetences, so I'm going to highlight it: they are both abhorrent. Keep that in mind. No one here, with the exceptions of some Israeli aplogists, claim that genocide is defensible.

So let's just not discuss it since you don't know anything about it? :Confused:

Well, since I adressed the ENTIRE point later, I doesn;t matter.

The international community could protest against China's occupation of these territories without a nuclear war (or any war) occuring, just as the UN can criticize Israel without that country resorting to its nuclear arsenal.

Actually, the international community DOES critise China. Unfortunately, the UN doesn;t because China has veto power...

I'm also reffering to the land taken from Poland in the East, and the annexation and colonization of the baltic states.

Which was in WW2.

You made a claim, specifically, that many/most people approve of the French Resistance because it fought to liberate its country. I responded by providing examples of other groups which fought to liberate their countries but which are not approved of or celeberated/praised. Do you believe that all evidence brought against point is inherently nit-picking? Would you prefer me to stick out my tongue, or maybe just to say "NO! My idea is the correct one, and don't bring any nit-picky facts or examples to show otherwise?"

OK, I assume some guilt here. I let you get away with a complete non-sequiteur, and I didn;t call you on it. As I said ebfore, this is your Modus Operandi, and I should have known better.

These are the posts where the logic disappears:

GNU: It's not an obsession, it just baffles me how someone could have come up with the notion that the french resistance worked to obtain land from germany... It is such an incredibly bizarre conclusion. Of course, there is the possibility that you know better, but are unwilling to admit it because it would who the legitimacy of palestinian freedom fighters...


NATAN: The point is that borders are essentially arbitrary. You've just picked a random point in time which happens to suit you, and said "the borders which existed on this date are the true and just borders, any nation which deviates from them can be struck by suicide bombers and any other weapons available to kill as many civillians as necessary."

Now, look at it this way:

How do you relate arguing about whether borders have changed in the last 50 years to whether the french resistance fought 'to gain land from germany'. I can't see the connection. Thus, your arguments seems to me like pointless nitpicking of details. Taken like a big whole, however, it does seem more likely to be a part of your non-sequiteur arguing technique.


However, you did bring up a good point, which I had missed earlier - The presence of restance/liberation movements that are not celebtrated. Your examples were the polisario front, hamas and the jaish muhammad.

Well, the polisario front IS celebtrated as freedome fighters. Take a look at , for example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_264000/264052.stm

Hamas is hardly an example, as they are part of the core argument...

Finally, jaish muhammad is a NON-kashmiri group, operating in Kasmir (and surrounding areas). Furthermore, the Kashimir themselves don't approve of the jaish muhammad. See, for example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/St...632023,00.html


So, do you have any real examples of liberation movements that are not celebtrated? With the qualification that they are liberation movements that are actually trying to liberate a population that DOES want to be free... Unlike the IRA, for example.

I don't see how the world is better off for it in any concrete way, especially if that principle makes us lax about human rights abuses.

Well, the first part makes you a very odd person... You don't care if the world experiences a third world war or not?

as far as the second one, it is again a non sequiteur. There is no connection between the two.

On the other hand, the growing influence of the global community does help PREVENT genocide, except in the moral abyss that is unflagging US support of Israel.

1) There are pretty much no areas on earth which are completely ethnically homogenous, so someone's going to get disenfranchised.
2) How do you define "Ethnic group?" Could say, Irish-Americans declare an independent state in Boston? Maybe Hassidic Jews could make Borough Park an independent country?

I don't think there is a clear cut formula. But I support the Kurdish peoples struggle for their own state. I support the right of the Quibecois to separate from Canada, if that is the peoples will. (I think the quibecois would be incredibly stipud to do so, but people have the right to be stupid, as long as it doesn;t hurt someone else).

So only democratically elected government's are legitimate? The United States maintained full rights and powers over Germany, was that country's government a puppet government?

Actually, yes. This is the position of the US goverment. However, there is again the ideology vs practicality question when it comes to dictatorships.

But no one, and I repeat NO ONE considers an occupying force a legitimate goverment.

Was the US the liegitmate goverment of germany? Nope, of course they werent, and I'd like you to find a text that states the opposite...

A temporary authority, for sure, but not a goverment.

Repeating your original claim isn't really a simplification. Redundancy is not synonymous with clarity.

Well, since you didn;t seem to get it the first time, and you since them mired us in plenty of side arguments, it IS actually a simplification to go back to the simple fact...

"Liberation" groups which fight against democratic countries are rarely celeberated.

Well, this implies that they are trying to 'liberate' a people who doesn't want to be liberated... Which negates the whole 'libration' label.

Well you said that the border change should be fought with all means necessary including extermination, but that killing of millions of people within the 1945 borders of a country should be met with non-violent pressures.

Amazing how much difference the word 'preferably' makes, doesn't it? You should check back to the original statement.

Your point is that demonization is good when done by your side but bad when done by another.

When did I argue that? My point has been the same for years, that demonization of your opponent is a natural course of actions in a war. I know I argued this with Siro when he whined about palestinian text books saying jews are bad, and I told him that this happens in EVERY conflict, and is not an inherent trait in arabs. I have posted numerous examples of how germans, russians and brits spent considerable effort in demoniszing each other during WW2, and how Israel textbooks demonize palestinians as well.

[quote]Israel will of necessity create a Holocaust, but contrary to their repeated stated intentions and actions, Arabs never intended to harm Israel or its population, just to start "a hugging war." And that view is rubbish.
[/quote[

You know, you really should leave statements to other people to them. I try to tailor my sentences to the recipient. I don't agree with Siros views, but I do know that he understands sarcasm and irony. You don't. If you really want to, I can explain the previous statement to you, or you could ask Siro.

GNU:You apparently think that if a nation is trong enough to take land from another, it is morally justified in keeping it. I'm just curious whether you are honest enough to allow that to go both ways: If it is morally just for Israel to occupy land, would it be moreally just for the arab nations to invade and dissolve Israel?

No, and that's not the question.

What do you mean, that's not the question?!!!! I asked it!!!!

So, is your 'no' actually the answer to the qustion, and you really show yourself as a racial supremacist?

Why don't you just answer the question with a 'yes' or 'no'? I'll try again:If it is morally just for Israel to occupy land, would it be moreally just for the arab nations to invade and dissolve Israel?
YES
NO

put a check after your response.


guardian, see one of my first repsonses to Natan.

Drake, I will have to get back to you later. You are right about the oil data, the LATimes articles I referred to was talking only about US Imports, not total consumption. I still don't agree on how much influece that has on politics, however. Oh, and if you have the time, how much ot total energy, not just oil, do the EU and US import from OPEC? (including nuclear and hydroelectric. Sweden, for example, produces all electricity by nuclear and hydropower, which means that the imported oil really isn;t that important).

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So the fighting between Egypt and Jordan was just an elaborate ruse to trick historians into believing that they really weren't out to committ genocide?

What incidents of such fighting can you bring?

Prior to the day the war started, Israel had already occupied territory outside the area they claimed (which was far in excess of the land they actually owned). This means that Israel was already invading Palestinian lands.

Israel couldn't have occupied anything since it didn't exist then.

There were jewish towns in areas which were meant to be palestinian according to the 1947 partition plan, which the arabs rejected.

What exactly is the rule, preventing jews from settling lands in mandatorial palestine, which they didn't own?

No such rule existed for the "palestinians", and together with no immigration barriers, thousands immigrated from "jordan" to "palestine" and then claimed to live there for ages.

I'm not holding it against the Jews for not abaiding by a non-agreement. I'm pointing out the actual history, to skewer the myth that Israel was an innocent victim of the Arabs. They were just as much an aggressor at the start of hostilities. And following the first truce (the fifth finally held after the UN threatened to intervene), they were the only aggressor in Palestine.

nopee.

2 first truces were broken by the arabs.
and you confuse tactical decision with strategical ones.

The actual history of the 1948 war does not support the myth that Israel was just minding its own business and the entire Arab world ganged up on it.

What is exactly your source of the "Actual" history?

It wasn't a state. That doesn't mean that it wasn't invaded by all sides.

It was a piece of land. "Palestine" is a name for a piece of land.

And it wasn't "invaded" by all sides.

Arabs invaded it first, attacking jewish towns in previously mandatorial palestine areas, and Israeli forces did their best to defend them, conquering territory as they went.

First off, the Soviets very likely believed that Israel was about to attack. Despite Western rhetoric, the Soviets weren't big on having their allies start wars. After all, up until that point, Israel had shown no inclination not to attack its neighbors.

That's a fuzzy statement.

Second, Nassar had just finished losing a war in Yemen. Unless he was an idiot, which no one says he was, he know that Egypt was in no shape to fight a new war.

Egypt + Syria + Jordan + Iraq >> Israel.

Read the statistics of troops and weapons (or let me bring them) and you'll see why Egypt had every chance of winning.

And remember, not only did the Israelis attack all of their neighbors, they also attacked an American warship. Despite Israel claims that they thought they were attacking an Egyptian horse carrier (which looked nothing like the Liberty and which was also flying a giant US flag), they knew damn well whom they were attacking.

Again, you would know it since you were there?

2 (or 3) American lead investigations into the matter concluded that this was done by Mistake.

Especially in light of the fact, that shortly Israel stopped attacking, when they got what has happenned, and sent rescue forces.

I have a feeling you've been reading a nazi pro-palestinian site as a source for your info.

I'll give you a source later. I'm too lazy to write it all down now.

Oh please do.

Was the West Bank, the Golan, and the Sinai part of Israel or part of Arab countries? Since Israel has returned the Sinai, and no country recongizes Israel's annexation of the Golan, and Israel doesn't claim the West Bank, we can only conclude that Israel was occupying the territory of sovreign states.

1. Golan was occupied as a result of it being used as a high ground for missile attacks.
2. Israel repeatedly offered the Golan back to Syria in peace negociations. Or rather, 99% of it, to protect the Lake Kineret.

3. Israel offered 95% of the west bank to the Palestinians.
4. The west bank & gaza were never sovreign states.

Since they were doing so, those states were legitimately able to use force to try and clear their lands of foreign troops. It's international law.

It's international law skewed by lies.

Destroying Israel would not be a legitimate use of foce, even if Arab countries claim Israel has no right to exist. Israel is a recognized member of the international community, and has right to exist under international law . . . at it's pre-1967 borders.

Too bad.

1967 borders proved to be too tempting for Arabs to attack - syria kept shelling us, and jordan & egypt kept sending terrorists.

Israel couldn't invade Lebabnon and push out the PLO while it was still at war with Egypt and occupying the Sinai. It needed a safe back area, and only reluctantly gave up the Sinai. As soon as the peace treaty was signed in 1977, Israel attacked Lebanon.

We attacked in 1977? Really?

Pushing out the PLO was exactly as legitimate as pushing out the Taliban & Al-Qaida.

Carter yanked Israel's leash, and they had to withdraw, but five years later, just as they were withdrawing from the Sinai, (and with a new American president) they again invaded Lebanon, killing more than 20,000 people.

tsk tsk.

Much of those 20K people actually died not from Israeli actions, but as a result of the civil war between the PLO and christian lebanese that was raging on, when Arafat tried to cease control of the land.

Look at the problem they have now, having to guard over three million Arabs. Multiply that by all of Jordan. That's why they didn't keep going. The Israelis aren't stupid. They don't bite off more than they can handle.

Well, according to your logic we could simply "kick out" the arabs again.

It has always been more than able to defend its borders.

You know as well as I do, that this is only due to Arab lack of training and effective military, which has changed much since.

They have missiles which can hit all of Israel.

Jordan & Egypt especially has modern armies.

Iraq sends commandos to the territories daily.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Which countries are still enemies of Israel? Syria, for one. Well, Syria could hit Israel easily without the Golan, and would get destroyed by Israel as a result. It is a fairly weak country, heavily reliant on old Soviet technology. Israel would be in Damascus within hours. That leaves what other country that Israel has a border with? . . . Lebabon, which is already at the 1948 borders.

Syria has nice little missiles which they give to Hezbulla, attacking Israel indirectly.

The other countries with which Israel is still at war share no border with Israel. If Iraq were going to launch an attack against Israel, it would have to go through it's enemy Syria, though Jordan, which would not agree to such an attack, or Saudi Arabia, which would result in a trouncing by US forces, if the Israelis left anything for them to do.

That's why they send commando units to train palestinian terrorists.

And have you never heard of "rockets"?

It's new stuff, invented some 60 years ago.

Lybia would have to go through Egypt, and isn't capable of it. Tunisia and Algera and Morroco have even farther to go. The Gulf States don't have the forces, Yemen doesn't have the forces, and the Sudan would have to go through Egypt.

They have rockets dear friend.

So, who is the great Arab threat that Israel must illegally hold on to Palestinian land in order to protect themselves? Only Iraq and Syria are marginal threats, and they would be woefully outmatched.

Egypt is a very serious threat.
Iraq & Syria & the rest can send rockets all over Israel, as they did on occasions.

I have yet to see any credible explanation of the nature of the threat to Israel that is more significant with a Palestinian state incorporating the entire West Bank and Gaza strip.

Then read about the daily terror attacks from the west bank and gaza, performed before 1967.

Israel's military strength, however is, as well as it's nukes.

It was never proven

And Egypt + Saudia + Iraq > Israel in terms of military strength.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Your mistake is in believing that there would have been a 1973 war if Israel hadn't been occupying those territories. The Arab states were quite clear in that the war was to recover their lost territories. Sadat had said to the Israels before hand that if the Israelis did not retun their land via peace treaties, the Arabs would be forced to go to war.

Your mistake is in believing that everything was handy dandy before 1967, and then, suddenly the Arabs began hating Israel, but only because of the occupation.

You yourself described (quite affectionately) Syrian shelling of Israel from the Golan.

You omitted terracts on a daily basis, - terrorists infiltrating from Jordan & Egypt & Syria and performing slaughter on innocent people - often at their homes, or in buses.

You omitted the shelling and shooting of Israel from the Judea & Samaria mountains as well.

You omitted the PLO was set up in 1964 to free "all" of "palestine".

[Sirotnikov]

Let's say china invades Korea. should they, ideologically, be allowed to keep Korea only because opposing them would lead to civilian casualites?

Essentially, you are blaming Churchill for the civilian casualties in WW2...

So you are justifying civilian casulaties in defensive war.
Excellent. I'll inform Sharon.

Amazing how simple the concept of ownership is, isn't it? If I own it, it is mine. Not yours. And it is not yours to give away.

Amazing how people tend to give "own" new meanings.

Most of the land in palestine under the turks was owned by landlords far away, from whom jews bought the land. The residents can't claim owenership.
Furthermore, in mandatorial palestine, the land was controlled by the government, and everyone could settle where they wanted to.
This means that if local residents owned their lands (which legally they didn't) Jews owned Gush-Etzion, (part of) Jerusalem, and all the settlements erected during the mandate.

Actually, the international community DOES critise China. Unfortunately, the UN doesn;t because China has veto power...

Which proves that UN is politicised and isn't the "neutral" and "objective" body it claims to be.

Which was in WW2.

So why is WW2 annexation legal, while Israeli 1967, 1948 annexation illegal?

Well, the polisario front IS celebtrated as freedome fighters. Take a look at , for example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wo...4000/264052.stm

BBC has a tradition of not calling terrorists by their name.
They even refused to call Al-Qaida terrorists for a while iirc.

and how Israel textbooks demonize palestinians as well.

Gee, really? teach me oh great one.

It's me who is studying here, not you.

Find anything slightly comparable to arab statements: "jews are sons of satan" "jews drink blood" "jews are natural enemies to islam" "jews want to take over the world".

, I can explain the previous statement to you, or you could ask Siro.

I wasn't paying attention.

Why don't you just answer the question with a 'yes' or 'no'? I'll try again:If it is morally just for Israel to occupy land, would it be moreally just for the arab nations to invade and dissolve Israel?
YES
NO

It is legitimate to keep land which you occupied in war.
All states did it, including Israel.

And yes, if Arabs had succeeded in conquering and dissolving Israel, it would be legitimate.

The point is, that had Arabs won, there wouldn't be any "peace process" or any "jewish autonomy". Arabs would have simply wiped the jews off the face of palestine.

[CyberGnu]

So you are justifying civilian casulaties in defensive war.
Excellent. I'll inform Sharon.

Excellent! So you have finally realized that palestinan suicide bombers are justified, since Israel is conducting a war of aggression!

I really didn't expect you to understand things so quickly, but sometimes people surprise you.

Good work, siro!


of course, your sudden enlightenment is clouded by this quote:

It is legitimate to keep land which you occupied in war.
All states did it, including Israel.

And yes, if Arabs had succeeded in conquering and dissolving Israel, it would be legitimate.

Again, hitler and Stalin would have been proud of you...

Sadly, you will most likely interpret this as base insults, and just shrug it off. But it is not an insult. Your view of this mirrors the Nietschevian philospohy that is the basis for nazism, where strength gives right to subjugate other races.

Come on, siro, you can be a better person than this. Don't let 100 years of social evolution just pass you by...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
This is truly unique: Chevitz and me agreeing on something!

Then there will never be peace, unless either the Jews or Palestinians are expelled or killed.

Excellent conclusion!

That's not really my conclusion. Rather I think that if the Palestinians had a state to lose, the Palestinian government would be much more inclined to crack down on Hamas and other terrorist groups. Once you have something, you don't want to lose it. Right now, the Palestinian Authority has nothing. Thye have nothing to lose by letting the terrorists have their way with Israel.

[Natan]

Regarding monolithic: I'll try again: what the hell are you talking about? How is it relevant that the arabs consist of many different groups to the statement 'I don't hold it against the palestinians that their arab neighbours attacked Israel in 1948'. Well, other than that it seems to CONFIRM what I'm saying. Geez, try to stick to point, will you?

That the arab neighbours went to war in 1948 I don't hold against them - The U.N. happily gave away land that wasn't theirs to give away, and the arabs only tried to retian what belonged to them.
Those are your words. My point is that the Arab stated were not trying to hold on to anything that belonged to them, they were trying to grab more land.

I'm not saying either that people should be exterminated because their govermnet is bad, but you apparently takes this as an excuse to give dictatorships a carte blanche to do whatever they please.

Let's say china invades Korea. should they, ideologically, be allowed to keep Korea only because opposing them would lead to civilian casualites?

Essentially, you are blaming Churchill for the civilian casualties in WW2...

Your claim is that any number of civillian casualties are acceptable, whether inflicted accidentally or intentionally, and that is not a claim many people acknowledge as just. For example, most people believe that NATO in Kosovo had an obligation to try to keep Serbian civillian casualties down. Even most of your fellow supporters of the Palestinian cause condem suicide bombings, not as inefficient, but as immoral. There’s a big middle ground between saying that you can kill as many people as convenient in the course of a war and saying that “dictatorships [have] carte blanche to do whatever they please.”

If a man steals a car and gives it to his wife, she is obliged to give back the car. If she refuses, she is guilty of theft as well.

Amazing how simple the concept of ownership is, isn't it? If I own it, it is mine. Not yours. And it is not yours to give away.

and in the macroscale, palestinian land is not yours. Nor it is the UN's to give away.

So I guess America isn’t mine either; it’s the indians. If you’re going to extend this simplistic analogy accross generations, I think you’ll have to get to work on that. And on expelling the Russian populations of the baltic states and Kazakhstan.

so, you really don't think there is a difference between violating an agreement to give two weeks vacation and genocide? Huh, and this from the same man who screams like a stuck pig every time someone points out that Israel is a fascist state...

So how do you want it? Is there a gradual scale for violations of human rights or not?

Your claim is that invasions are wrong because the International Community agreed, I assume through the UN since you place this agreement at the same time as the creation of the UN. Now it is your further claim that invasion is worse than genocide. So why is it that one UN agreement is more valid than that other? If you’re claim is that the UN makes things criminal, than what is it other than the UN which decides which crimes are more serious than others?

Now, a different question from this is whether genocide is worse than invasion followed by genocide.

You seem to be arguing that invasion without genocide is worse than genocide, because you said that aggression can always be fought with whatever means necessary, whereas genocide should first be fought with economic means.

The reason is the events leading up to the genocide. If internal, the citizens of that country does have some kind of responsibility in letting the siutation deteriorate to this point. In external, the citizens had absolutely no influence over the matter.

Which citizens? The victimized ones or the “aggressors?” (in quotes because you apparently include infants and opponents of the regime in that category)

Actually, the international community DOES critise China. Unfortunately, the UN doesn;t because China has veto power...

I don’t recall this criticism. I recall a visit to China by the American president, and I recall letting China into the WTO. China has not experienced anything like what Apartheid South Africa did, even though the latter was only persecuting its own citizens.

Which was in WW2.

Okay, although it was unrelated to the fight against Nazism.

Now, look at it this way:

How do you relate arguing about whether borders have changed in the last 50 years to whether the french resistance fought 'to gain land from germany'. I can't see the connection.

If there are no set borders, there’s no way to say whose land is whose. If border changes are allowed (as you say they were prior to the end of WWII), then Petain just made a border change, there was no rule against altering borders. If there are no set borders, than there’s no way to say whose trying to take what from who except in the physical sense of who was physical possession at the moment.

Well, the polisario front IS celebtrated as freedome fighters. Take a look at , for example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wo...4000/264052.stm

So in short, the UN decided that Morocco should hold a referendum, but that Morocco should be allowed to move in as many of its own citizens as it wants to vote. Now that Morocco has simply refused to do the UN’s will, the UN will withdraw all of the international observors there so that Morocco’s control can be completely uncontested. Yes, the world certainly does support the Polisario front in its struggle. Do you think the League of Nations would have called for a referendum on the future of France? Besides, the International Court of Justice decided that Western Sahara should be partitioned between Mauritania and Morocco, hardly a great acknowledgement of the legitimate right of resistance of the Sahrawi people.

Finally, jaish muhammad is a NON-kashmiri group, operating in Kasmir (and surrounding areas). Furthermore, the Kashimir themselves don't approve of the jaish muhammad. See, for example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/S...,632023,00.html

Touche. It was a bad example on my part and I concede the point as it relates to Jaish e Muhammed. There are, however better examples pointed out in the article. Hizbul Mujahadeen hasn’t been celeberated much either outside the Islamic world. In fact, I’m not aware of any non-Islamic nation (except perhaps China, which is Pakistan’s ally) which has called on India to leave Kashmir.

So, do you have any real examples of liberation movements that are not celebtrated? With the qualification that they are liberation movements that are actually trying to liberate a population that DOES want to be free... Unlike the IRA, for example.

Aggression should be accepted just because the locals in a particular area find it convenient? Isn’t that, from your perspective, like saying that you can negotiate with terrorists if the hostages want it?

Well, the first part makes you a very odd person... You don't care if the world experiences a third world war or not?

I don’t see how what you are so lauding makes one any less likely.

I don't think there is a clear cut formula.

Thank you, that’s what I think about all borders. And that’s why I’m reluctant to kill millions of non-combatants over them.
Also, there’s another issue, which is how to draw the boundaries fairly. I’ll take the Kurdish example, because we both agree that the Kurds deserve some sort of state. But the question becomes, what should its borders be? Most people would think it wrong to include the mostly Arab city of Mosul in Kurdistan, even though if the city was united with Kurdistan and a referendum held, the Kurds would have a big enough majority for independence. On the other hand, I think most people would take issue with making the Arab districts of Kirkuk part of Iraq, since they are so far in Kurdistan and so small in both geography and population. But where do we draw the lines through the grey areas, of which there are bound to be many in any such case?

Actually, yes. This is the position of the US goverment.

Firstly, the position of the US government is not that of the UN or the international community. Secondly, if that were the US position, we would not recognize the government of Syria, or China, or many other countries. Even when the US is at war with a country, it usually acknowledges that the government is in fact the government. We even fought to defend the non-Democratic Kuwaiti government, without securing any reassurances of democracy. In fact, I don’t know of any calls for democratization in Kuwait, or in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, or any of the other dozens of dictatorships the US has supported.

However, there is again the ideology vs practicality question when it comes to dictatorships.

Do you think the US really wants to have free elections in say, Algeria or Kuwait or Yemen or even Brunei? It’s not like we have some great obligation or pressing need for these countries friendships. It’s our doctrine that democratic governments are preferable, but I don’t think we say that non-democratic governments are puppets or pretenders; we only say that as part of the propaganda which accompanies our wars against governments which happen to be non-democratic.

But no one, and I repeat NO ONE considers an occupying force a legitimate goverment.

Tell me, does the US consider occupied Kashmir to be a part of India or Pakistan and not China? Do we refuse to cover such areas in our trade agreements? Does even the Polish government consider Vilnius to be ilegally occupied by Lithuania?

Was the US the liegitmate goverment of germany? Nope, of course they werent, and I'd like you to find a text that states the opposite...

So tell me, who was the legitimate government of Germany? Clearly, it was the allied occupation administration.

A temporary authority, for sure, but not a goverment.

Well we may have described it as temporary (do you have a source? I’m interested), it is noteworthy the Russian zone in the east, directly analogous to the American zone, was mostly gobbled up by other countries in a permanent occupation which doesn’t seem to bother you much.

Well, since you didn;t seem to get it the first time, and you since them mired us in plenty of side arguments, it IS actually a simplification to go back to the simple fact...

Well, this implies that they are trying to 'liberate' a people who doesn't want to be liberated... Which negates the whole 'libration' label.

Not true, because a democratic country may not allow parts of it to leave without the permission of the whole. For example, when the Freemen of Montana tried this, the federal government had a different take. On a larger scale, there was the American civil war, Basque separatists, and Chechneya.

Amazing how much difference the word 'preferably' makes, doesn't it? You should check back to the original statement.

Both are crimes, but they are different from each other.
the first one would entail a resistance movement, who is more than justified doing whatever it can to eliminate the occupying power.

The second is a crime against humanity, and the international community is morally obliged to stop it. Most likely by military intervention, but if possibly through non-violent means, such as the blockade of South Africa.
So we learn that:
Fighting against a border change can move directly to the nuclear weapons phase, but but fighting genocide should use non-violent means. You must understand that non-violent methods will give the killers more time to conduct genocide than violent methods. The state which changes borders however, can be fought violently and immediately, even though there may not be any risk to life or limb.

When did I argue that? My point has been the same for years, that demonization of your opponent is a natural course of actions in a war. I know I argued this with Siro when he whined about palestinian text books saying jews are bad, and I told him that this happens in EVERY conflict, and is not an inherent trait in arabs. I have posted numerous examples of how germans, russians and brits spent considerable effort in demoniszing each other during WW2, and how Israel textbooks demonize palestinians as well.

Yet you seem to think that Palestinian demonization and its effects will end with the war. I disagree, but in keeping with your past suggestion to limit our argument to one issue at a time, I’d like to drop this to concentrate on the issue of borders and how they are changed.

You know, you really should leave statements to other people to them. I try to tailor my sentences to the recipient. I don't agree with Siros views, but I do know that he understands sarcasm and irony. You don't. If you really want to, I can explain the previous statement to you, or you could ask Siro.

You respond to things I post in response to the statements of others, so I think it’s a bit silly to ask me not to speak unless spoken to.

What do you mean, that's not the question?!!!! I asked it!!!!

So, is your 'no' actually the answer to the qustion, and you really show yourself as a racial supremacist?

Why don't you just answer the question with a 'yes' or 'no'? I'll try again:If it is morally just for Israel to occupy land, would it be moreally just for the arab nations to invade and dissolve Israel?
YES
NO

put a check after your response.

Whether it’s morally justifiable depends on the circumstances, so I can’t “check one” any more than you can check one to the question “should a man have his money taken from him,” just as in the latter has a different answer depending on how the man got his money, who the taker is and what the taker intends to do with it, so in the former the question depends on a number of factors. Certainly though, I’m not arguing that it was unjust of Egypt and Jordan to grab Kfar Darom and Kfar Etzion from Israel in the 1948 war. I can’t answer your question any more than I can answer “would it be right for Israel to invade and dissolve an Arab nation,” in both cases it depends on exactly what is dissolved, how it is dissolved, and what is put in to replace it.

[Drake Tungsten]

Then there will never be peace, unless either the Jews or Palestinians are expelled or killed.

This wasn't Che's conclusion, it was mine in response to his belief that the Pals won't stop fighting until they get a state.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Your mistake is in believing that everything was handy dandy before 1967, and then, suddenly the Arabs began hating Israel, but only because of the occupation.

No, but it wasn't relavent. The Arab states had shown no inclination to try and invade Israel after 1948, and they didn't try all that hard in 1948.

You yourself described (quite affectionately) Syrian shelling of Israel from the Golan.

Yes, and I left out almost everything Israel did. Would you like a quote from former Minister of Defence, Moshe Dyan? When asked about the clashes in the Golan he stated,

I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some ... demilitarized [off-limits] area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was. (Tal, Rami, "General's Words Shed a New Light on the Golan,"New York Times, May 11, 1997, 3)

You omitted the PLO was set up in 1964 to free "all" of "palestine".

I also ommitted Israeli terror attacks on Palestinian refugee camps.