Stan187
Quote:
|
I've supported no crimes. Such accusations will most likely get you banned soon.
|
Will they ban me for speaking the truth?
If you'd been reading what I've been saying, you'd have noticed that I said:
I am an American. I do not support Palestinian crimes, such as suicide bombings or the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel. I do, however, by virtue of being an American, support Israeli crimes. We support Israeli crimes financially, militarily, and diplomatically.
You're an American. Hence, by virtue of that fact, you support crimes. Do you pay taxes? Then you support criminal activity. Do you believe in democracy and the notion that the people are the government and have a responsibility for what their government does and a duty to ensure that their government is a lawful one? Then you either support criminal activity or believe in something other than the form of government espoused in the US Constitution.
Quote:
|
As far as offering a constructive solution, I think again, as it always is with you, it is a question of semantics.
|
Not at all. It's quite simple. You want to see violence end? Then end your support for violence. You want to see injustices stopped? Then stop injustices. It's elementary.
Quote:
|
You said withdraw to 1967 borders without any peace deal, without any end to rocket attacks and suicide bombings.
|
I never said any such thing. I said that withdrawal and an end to the occupation is a prerequisite for peace. Withdrawal would be a step towards peace. I also never suggested rocket attacks and suicide bombings shouldn't end. Quite the contrary, I've condemned such crimes repeatedly. Such crimes should end, whether there is an occupation or not. Similarly, the occupation and all the crimes and injustices it entails should end, whether Palestinian terrorism ends or not.
The occupation does not justify terrorism. Nor does terrorism justify the occupation.
There's an elementary moral truism I'm sure your mother taught you as a child that goes something like: "Two wrongs don't make a right".
Why you reject that elementary principle, I cannot fathom. Contrary to your false assertion, I don't argue that Palestinian terrorism should continue unless the Israeli crimes ends. You, however, argue that Israeli crimes should continue unless Palestinian crimes end. It is you, therefore, whose framework for analysis is both immoral and hypocritical.
shek
You said Egypt and Jordan began the war. That is false. As I observed previously, the 1967 war began on June 5 when Israel launched Mirage fighter jets in an act of premeditated aggresion which virtually annihilated the Egyptian air force while it was still on the ground.
ZFBoxcar
Quote:
|
Various Israeli leaders have recognized the right to a Palestinian state, starting with at the latest Barak, continuing with Sharon, and most recently Olmert.
|
That is incorrect. Israel has consistently implemented a policy of rejectionism. The occupation continued throughout their terms. Expansion of illegal settlements continued under each one of those men.
Quote:
You: A Palestinian state is not something which Israel can give. It's not theirs to give.
This implies that nothing any Israeli says about the situation matters.
|
No, it does not. It's simply an observation. The land does not belong to Israel. Therefore, it is not Israel's land to give. It's an elementary observation that says nothing about any Israeli "say" in the matter. An Israeli may "say" whatever they like, but it won't change that basic fact.
Quote:
|
Israel does not reject Palestinian self-determination...
|
Yes, Israel rejects Palestinian self-determination. That is perfectly self-evident. Continued occupation and settlement expansion is very much a rejection of the principle of self-determination. You can't work your way out of that fact with any "WAR = PEACE" Orwellianisms or double-speak.
Quote:
|
The deal offered was actually 94% of the West Bank (measured without including Jerusalem in it) plus 1-3% of Israel.
|
False.
Under the "offer" that was rejected Israel sought to retain nearly 40% of the West Bank. Oslo reaffirmed the provisions of the Cairo accords, under which Israel sought to retain exclusive authority in "legislation, adjudication, policy execution" and "responsibility for the exercise of these powers in conformity with international law" over the West Bank. The "offer" stipulated that Palestinians must accept the legality of existing Jewish settlements and any future ones (expansion continued during the talks), effectively demanding that Palestinians renounce their legal rights, reject UN resolution 242, recognize the occupation as legal and legitimate, and reject the for themselves the principle of self-determination.
The "offer" was anathema to any notion of an independent and viable Palestinian state.
Quote:
|
Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt's airforce fearing an imminent attack by Egypt.
|
False. For a counter-attack to be "pre-emptive" an attack must have been imminent. None was. Israel commited an act of aggression, "the supreme international crime", as defined at Nuremberg. There was no imminent threat from Egypt. That's long been acknowledged by Israel, so I don't know why you persist with the myth.
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficent to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." -- Yitzhaq Rabin
"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." -- Menachem Begin
"There was no threat of destruction against the state of Israel" -- Ezer Weizman
"The Egyptian buildup in Sinai lacked a clear offensie plan, and Nasser's defensive instructions explicitly assumed an Israeli first strike." -- Avraham Sela, Shalem Center