The Israeli "peace process" is over and the Palestinians are SOLEY to blame

[chequita guevara]

Given the stateless nature of the OTs (exclsuing the Golan), I actually don't have any problem with Israel annexing them. Of course, once that happens, three million Palestinians immediately become citizens of Israel and can vote. Maybe then they'd learn to get along.

[Last Conformist]

Since when does annexation automatically give citizenship to the population of the annexed territory?

[chequita guevara]

Since 1945. It's why Israel hasn't annexed the terrorites outright.

[Last Conformist]

So, if SA were to annex the UAE, all the Indians and Filipinos there would get Saudi citizenship?

Anyway, had the Americans supported them in it, I'm pretty sure they'd annexed them anyway without giving the Pals effective citizenship.

[Ramo]

One state, equal rights in it. That's my position and I'm sticking to it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
So, if SA were to annex the UAE, all the Indians and Filipinos there would get Saudi citizenship?

If the Indians and Filipinos were citizens of the UAE, then they would have a right to Saudi citizenship. As you note, however, having the right and being able to excercise it are two different things.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ramo
One state, equal rights in it. That's my position and I'm sticking to it.

Me too.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


If the Indians and Filipinos were citizens of the UAE, then they would have a right to Saudi citizenship.

They aren't. But the Pals weren't Jordanian or Egyptian citizens, if memory serves.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Given the stateless nature of the OTs (exclsuing the Golan), I actually don't have any problem with Israel annexing them. Of course, once that happens, three million Palestinians immediately become citizens of Israel and can vote. Maybe then they'd learn to get along.

Yes, I'm all for equal citizenship as well. But the extreme Palestinian terrorists are opposed to their own people having equal citizenship.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by MrFun
The aggressors had reaped what they had sown -- loss of territory that is crucial for Israel to occupy in order to retain its own sovreignty.

In 1972, Israel and Moshe Dayan thought that occupying the Sinai was crucial for Israel to retain its own sovereignty. In the words of Israeli playwright Joshua Sobol,

"On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, one of the radio stations played a tape of Dayan from the beginning of the 1970s, in which he said that if he had to choose between the Egyptian proposals and Egyptian fire, he would prefer the latter. Dayan spoke contemptuously, arrogantly, but in the end he got both the Egyptian fire and the Egyptian proposals. It's the same with Sharon. In the end he will also get both the Palestinian proposals and the Palestinian fire. Worse, if he continues to follow the path he has embarked on, he will be responsible for ongoing bloodshed here that will end in some terrible historical spasm."

Thus, Israel has also reaped what it has sown in terms of loss of territory that is crucial for Egypt to occupy in order to retain its own sovereignty.

Source:
http://www.israelblog.org/Articles/W...osecution.html

[MrFun]

Wasn't Egypt blockading Israel's access to the sea before Israel invaded the Sinai peninsula??

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Then Israel could have gone through Saudi Arabian waters. Economic hardship isn't a legit reason to go to war. Otherwise Cuba would have every right to attack the United States. Up until 1956, the Straights of Tiran were not recognized as international waters.

Cuba does have every right to attack the US

JM

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear
the holiest place in Judaism

How is Judaism relevant to this discussion? Stop threadjacking.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by MrFun
Wasn't Egypt blockading Israel's access to the sea before Israel invaded the Sinai peninsula??

America was enforcing an oil and steel embargo against Japan. The Japanese considered this embargo an act of war, which forced them to attack. So by Israeli logic,.... the United States started the war against Japan.

Consider the following quotes from various Israeli military and political figures:

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman stated that there was "no threat of destruction" but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could "exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies." Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." New York Times, August 21, 1982 and Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries, there is an excerpt from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows: "[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it must - invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge...And above all - let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space." Quoted in Livia Rokach, "Israel's Sacred Terrorism."

[DerSchwarzfalke]

There are significant differences between blockades and embargoes. The most notable and relevant one is that a blockade is an act of war, an embargo is not.