ZFBoxcar

It is not absurd. Most Israelis support the existence of a Palestinian state that recognizes Israel's right to exist. Given the simplicity of the act of recognition, it is ridiculous to defend the idea that it should not be done just because you consider it to be hypocrisy (even though in reality it is just beginning a process which would result in reciprocity). The "greater Israel" agenda you fear is not the dominant political force in Israeli politics. The Knesset has more members in favour of withdrawal than opposed to it, but it would be political (and real) suicide for them to withdraw without assurance that they are not leaving the country more vulnerable to suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and kidnappings.

I consider Palestinian opinions to be important. The fact that you consider Israeli opinions to be irrelevant to any considerations of the political solution is a sad example of your bias.

More Israelis were killed during the Oslo peace process than during the first Intifadah. This in itself is proof that withdrawing with no agreement on mutual recognition will not stop the violence.

Ah, I see. The Jewish-controlled media made it up.

I remind you of how Israel came to be in possession of the territories in the first place: Egypt and Jordan launched an unjust war. If someone tries to kill you and you take their weapon away (the territory from which they launched the war), would you give it back? Israel did in fact try to give them back to Egypt and Jordan but by that point they no longer wanted them. The point is, there are injustices a plenty, and the fact that Israel wants to keep bits of the West Bank (a territory in which no state previously existed) where its people live is not the worst of them. The Israeli's did not take the dollar from the Palestinians, they took it from the murdering thugs who tried to kill them. Egypt and Jordan took the dollar from the Palestinians. Yeah, I would let the guy who returned the 95 cents keep the nickel. Not that it is the Palestinians decision to "let" anymore than the Israelis to decide whether or not the Palestinians are a nation.

Yirmeyahu

ZFBoxcar,

I am curious. Why do you think Palestinians, who have no state, should recognize the "right to exist" of Israel before the state of Israel recognizes the "right to exist" of a Palstinians state, while in fact engaging in policies of rejectionism of that same right? It's grossly hypocritical.

You said I "consider Israeli opinions to be irrelevant", but failed to provide any example wherein I demonstrated any such thing. If you somehow got this impression from anything I've said, it's incorrect.

You said that "withdrawing with no agreement on mutual recognition will not stop the violence". The corollary is that there should be an "agreement on mutual recognition" before any withdrawal. Well, the PA has long recognized Israel within the "green line". Israel, on the other hand, rejects the right of Palestinians to self-determination. The solution, therefore, to create the prerequisite for withdrawal, the prerequisite to end the violence, is obvious.

As for the "offer" you spoke of, I don't know who made it up. I never suggested it was "The Jewish-controlled media". But the fact is that no such "offer" as you have described was made. Whether you yourself made it up or simply parroted what you'd heard elsewhere, I know not.

Your history, that "Israel came to be in possession of the terrories" because "Egypt and Jordan launched an unjust war" is equally false. Perhaps another myth, the origins of which I likewise know not. The 1967 war, from which resulted the occupation, was launched by Israel on June 5, when they commited commenced with a war of aggression against Egypt.

Israel fired the first shot.

Stan187

I've supported no crimes. Such accusations will most likely get you banned soon.

As far as offering a constructive solution, I think again, as it always is with you, it is a question of semantics. When I said that you presented no viable solution, I was right. You said withdraw to 1967 borders without any peace deal, without any end to rocket attacks and suicide bombings. That is not viable. I asked for something that can be agreed upon and can solve the undercurrent issues. You've not offered any of that. And, judging by your baseless accusations, and general display of a lack of intellect, I'd be very surprised if you could ever even accept such solutions, LET ALONE suggest them.

Shek

And Egypt was arrayed peacefully in their forward Sinai positions (after evicting UNEF in its peacekeeping observation role) while Radio Cairo was blaring away its peaceful rhetoric towards the beloved Jewish state? BTW, the first move was the blocking of the Straits of Tiran, a known and explicit causus belli. The Egyptians made the first moves.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

ZFBoxcar

Various Israeli leaders have recognized the right to a Palestinian state, starting with at the latest Barak, continuing with Sharon, and most recently Olmert.

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.

Hamas recognizes no such agreement. In Arabic, Arafat renounced the agreement he made. Israel does not reject Palestinian self-determination, they reject a phased attempt to replace their state with a Palestinian one. Therefore what Hamas and Islamic Jihad must do to get a Palestinian state is obvious.

I realize I made a slight error. After doing a bit more research I realized the deal was actually as follows. The deal offered was actually 94% of the West Bank (measured without including Jerusalem in it) plus 1-3% of Israel. As well, they would have custodianship (though not sovereignty) over the Temple Mount, the single most important place to Jews, and sovereignty over much of the rest of East Jerusalem. This is fact.

The war started because Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from the Sinai Peninsula, increased its military activity near the border, and blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt's airforce fearing an imminent attack by Egypt. If you are Britain and France says they will open fire on any British ships moving through the English channel, that is an act of war against you. If you are Israel and Egypt blocks the Straights of Tiran that is an act of war against you. And in the battle between Israel and Jordan, Jordan fired the first shot.

troung

From the article; the major crux is the Palestinians dropping the right of return. The offer was so vague (what territory for Israel to withdraw from and so forth) it looks like it has been dropped by Hamas but Abbas has mentioned it was a good start.

__________________
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

Asim Aquil

It\'s a good thing man, don\'t diss it just like that.

A lot of variables though. How much land and how many prisoners?

__________________
-- Administrator @
Pakistan Defence: Defence.pk

Yirmeyahu

Stan187

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

ZFBoxcar

The only places that have the "quotes" you gave are either blogs or marxist.com, aqsa.org, and ussliberty.org. Clearly no agenda there.

Your statement about the offer was also false. And whether it was true or false, Arafat gave no counter offer, he just refused and went back to Ramallah to start the Intifadah.

And you basically repeated your statement that anything an Israeli proposes that is less than capitulating entirely to Palestinian demands is meaningless.

As well, your quoting me selectively and not responding to my post in the other thread shows the bankruptcy of your arguments and the fact that you would rather score debate points through a slimy style of debate than be right. You remind me of someone I used to argue with on Network54. I eventually gave up because he was impervious to reason. I see you are the same.

Stan187

Congradulations, you've just earned the Nobel Idiot Prize.

That's not elementary at all or simple in the least.

troung

Look I am generally thought around here to be the least pro-Israel person to say it very lightly; but Egypt did provoke the war. They shut off the Straights of Tiran to shipping to Israel. Nasser wanted the rights of belligerancy without the costs but that was basically an aggressive action. Yes he did want want a war but that action provoked a war. Along with forcing the Egyptian army to move closer to the border and away from their orginal defensive plans (which was for a deeper mobile defense) made it appear that they were massing to attack. Cut off an internation waterway and massing troops gets one a war.

If Israel and Egypt were already in a state of war then Israel's attack was warranted and if they were not cutting off the straights of Tiran provoked it. Nasser wanted his cake. Later on it was clear that he didn't want a war and didn't plan for one but acting the fool can sure provoke one.

Stan187

To add onto what Troung said, Israel also publically declared many times that to them, shutting off the Straights was casus belli for war, was tantamount to an act of war and be considered as such. If Nasser didn't want to believe this, that's his stupid choice.

Yirmeyahu

ZFBoxcar

The quotes don't come from those sources. They come from Yitzhaq Rabin, Menachem Begin, Ezer Weizman, and Avraham Sela. The fact that they have been repeated on websites you regard as biased is irrelevant to the point, which is that it's long been acknowledged by Israel that there was no imminent threat of attack from Egypt.

On the contrary.

Stan187

I see your argument has been reduced to ad hominums. That's instructive.

troung

There was no imminent threat from Egypt. Israel, by attacking Egypt, commited an act of aggression, "the supreme international crime" as defined at Nuremberg. Those are the facts.

Closing the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping had little impact on Israel. But your argument is that the Israeli surprise attack was justified because Egypt embargoed Israel.

By this logic, the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor was justified. In fact, the US embargo of Japan had a far more devastating economic impact, so even more so.

Stan187

The US also knew that embargoing Japan, alongside other steps, would be regarded by the Japanese as an act of war.

Again, by this logic, the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified. By this logic, is was Roosevelt's own "stupid choice" to provoke the Japanese attack.

troung

Cutting off the straights (international waters), massing troops and firery speaches make for an imminent threat. Doesn't matter if Nasser in his mind wasn't looking for a real conflict he did create the situation and tensions for the war.

If they were already in a state of war and then Nasser blocked the straights then Israel was ok to attack them because they were already in a state of war and if they were not in a state of war and Egpyt blocked the straights then that creates a state of war. It's one or the other; Nasser wanted a state of war and the rights of belligerency without a war.

That's an act of war; cutting off international waters. It's not a trade embargo from Egypt but blocking access through international waters which is an act of war.

Egypt wanted a state of war without the shooting but ****ed up. That and massing their troops near the border sealed the deal.

Stan187

The US did not block Japanese shipping lanes. The US also did not mass troops on a border with Japan. The Japanese did not declare the prior to the fact that a US embargo was casus belli for war.

Your argument is a simile. Comparing two unlike things. It is funny seeing you did yourself deeper and deeper into a logic hole. Keep going, really, we're all laughing!