Vympel stance on Isreal / Palestine

[matus1976]

So Vympel, you seem to be pretty confident of the validity of your position and want a debate. Lets have one.

First lets identify the point of contention, before any debate is started, we must agree on what we disagree on.

The contention I will start out with is that in the vast majority of circumstances, Israel is morally justified in its actions.

Since this will be a discussion about the moral validity of the actions of Isreal, lets first get an understanding of your ethical principles.

Is it morally justified to;

1 - to defend you nation against the initiation of force from another nation

2 - to acquire land in said defence of nation from initiator of force

3 - to continue to hold and occupy land acquired in the defence of ones nation

4 - for how long is it morally justified to continue to hold land? Till the threat of force is gone? For a specific time period?

5 - under what grounds does a nation have a 'right' to exist

6 - does a nation that does not respect rights of an individual make any claim to the 'rights' of its own existence?

7 - is it moral to target civilians and non combatants

8 - is it moral to attack military targets and combatants even when they use civilians as sheilds

9 - is 'collatoral damage' (death to any non-combatants), ever morally justifiable?

I think thats good to start with. Please note I will only be responding to posts made by Vympel for now, since all of our times are limited Im sure.

Matus

[Sir Sirius]

If you wish to debate this privatly do so by E-mail, ICQ or some other private means, rather then bring the arqument to a public forum and then just cop out and state that you will not responde to posts made by others.

[matus1976]

If you wish to debate this privatly do so by E-mail, ICQ or some other private means, rather then bring the arqument to a public forum and then just cop out and state that you will not responde to posts made by others.

Other people can respond all they want to other posts. I only stated that I will be responding only to Vympel. This is not uncommon, Wong himself I believe has frequent debates with rabid trekkies in which only he and said trekkie post. I am only stating that for now I will only respond to Vampel comments, but other people may find the contents of the discussion interesting. If you do not, then dont read it or post. It is also not a copout, I have limitd time, and because of this I will only debate one person at a time. If your just upset because you wont get a chance to be proven wrong until later, dont worry I'll get to you.

Matus

[Colonel Olrik]

If you wish to debate this privatly do so by E-mail, ICQ or some other private means, rather then bring the arqument to a public forum and then just cop out and state that you will not responde to posts made by others.

Actually, this has happened before. It's common pratice here.

This is a debate between the two of them. Comment, if you want, but leave the thread free.

[HemlockGrey]

I would like to pursue this same debate, either now or in the future.

[Stormbringer]

From now on, it'll be Vympel versus matus. Any others will get deleted, got it?

[Vympel]

Wow, all those words and you didn't even state your position.

In fact, your little list looks more like trying to address Darth Wong's essay. Funny, you seem to be too much of a coward to challenge him directly. Fine by me.

My position is quite simple. Israel oppresses the Palestinians and keeps them subjugated, and the West should not support Israel in its efforts to do so, particularly with the substantial aid it gets every year from the US.

The origins of the terrorism on BOTH sides in this conflict is the direct result of the fundamentally immoral partioning in Palestine in 1948 and the wars in the following years, and continue to be exacerbated by the building of new Jewish colonies in the Occupied Territories.

This is what we are debating- that the way the Palestinian people are treated is 'morally justified'.

[matus1976]

Wow, all those words and you didn't even state your position.

Did you miss the part where I said "The contention I will start out with is that in the vast majority of circumstances, Israel is morally justified in its actions. " Try reading the post next time.

In fact, your little list looks more like trying to address Darth Wong's essay. Funny, you seem to be too much of a coward to challenge him directly. Fine by me.

because you were the ninny making an ass of yourself to me, not him. So I am a coward for debating you, I am a coward for not debating you, and I am coward for not debating wong?

Whats the matter, you too much of a coward to defend your own position and would instead have me debate Wong instead? Is this, perhaps, because your a trained monkey who read wong's essay after coming back from an anti globalization rally and going organic food shopping and really cant defend your position?

My position is quite simple. Israel oppresses the Palestinians and keeps them subjugated,

My position is that Isreal acquired the 'occupied territories' after defending themselves against an outright invasion, and are morally justified to A) aquire the land from an attacking nation and B) maintain that land until no threat remains. Which brings us back to the original questions I posed in an attempt to understand your ethical positions and principles, perhaps you dont really have any and just 'go with the flow' which is probably why you ignored the questions outright. So again...

Is it morally justified to;

1 - to defend you nation against the initiation of force from another nation

2 - to acquire land in said defence of nation from initiator of force

3 - to continue to hold and occupy land acquired in the defence of ones nation

And the palestinian people are oppressed more from their own corrupt despotic dictatorial governments then they are from the Isrealis. These countries do not recognize the rights of their own individuals, nor the citiziens of isreal. The true oppressors of the palestinian people are their corrupt despotic dictators who manipulate and brainwash them for their own agenda (the destruction of isreal)

Israel has the moral right to exist and to defend itself against acts of aggression.

When Arab authorities deny the most basic freedoms to their own people, it is absurd for them to start claiming israel is violiting the palestinians rights. Palestians who are oppressed should seek to overthrow their own oppressive governments, those governments of which are the moral motivation behind the terrorist attacks against isreali and the reason isreali must defend itself.

Isreali has the moral right to control as much land as is necessary to safeguard itself against attacks, especially if that land was acquired in self defense and was acquired from corrupt despotic dicatorial governemnts which did not even respect the rights of their own people. Since 1948 Israel has had to fight five wars, all in self defense, against hostile arab dictators.

If your goal is to help the palenstinians, then support the removal of arafat from his ruling position.

and the West should not support Israel in its efforts to do so,

The west should indeed support israel, as it is the only free democracy in a desert of despotic dictators. No nation can claim its 'right' to existence that doesnt recognize the rights of its own citizens. Nations are extensions of citizens, and thus when citizens have no rights, the state has none either. Which brings us back to your ethical foundation.

5 - under what grounds does a nation have a 'right' to exist

6 - does a nation that does not respect rights of its people have any moral right to its continued existence?

particularly with the substantial aid it gets every year from the US.

It should receive even more.

The origins of the terrorism on BOTH sides in this conflict is the direct result of the fundamentally immoral partioning in Palestine in 1948

What exactly was immorral about that partioning?

Only a state based on political and economic freedom has any 'right' to exist, as any other state is a tool of oppresion. Only Isreal can make that moral claim to legitimatacy. There is no 'right' to establish a dictatorial state.

and the wars in the following years,

And who was the aggressor in these wars? And who acted in self defense?

and continue to be exacerbated by the building of new Jewish colonies in the Occupied Territories.

back to the previous questions again

Is it morally justified to;

2 - to acquire land in said defence of nation from initiator of force

3 - to continue to hold and occupy land acquired in the defence of ones nation

4 - for how long is it morally justified to continue to hold that land, and for how long?

This is what we are debating- that the way the Palestinian people are treated is 'morally justified'.

Answer the questions, and then we will determine if their treatment is generally morally justified.


Regards,

Matus

[Vympel]

Whats the matter, you too much of a coward to defend your own position and would instead have me debate Wong instead? Is this, perhaps, because your a trained monkey who read wong's essay after coming back from an anti globalization rally and going organic food shopping and really cant defend your position?

Wow, a true mindless right-winger. This'll be fun.

My position is quite simple. Israel oppresses the Palestinians and keeps them subjugated,

My position is that Isreal acquired the 'occupied territories' after defending themselves against an outright invasion, and are morally justified to A) aquire the land from an attacking nation and B) maintain that land until no threat remains. Which brings us back to the original questions I posed in an attempt to understand your ethical positions and principles, perhaps you dont really have any and just 'go with the flow' which is probably why you ignored the questions outright. So again...

Is it morally justified to;

1 - to defend you nation against the initiation of force from another nation

2 - to acquire land in said defence of nation from initiator of force

3 - to continue to hold and occupy land acquired in the defence of ones nation

Irrelevant red herring. The particulars of how Israel acquired the Occupied Territories has precisely nothing to do with whether the oppression of the Palestinian people is justified, and what's more, to assert that Israel occupies the land to defend itself from a threat is one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard- if this was the case, explain the building of Jewish colonies (which you again ignore further on).

And the palestinian people are oppressed more from their own corrupt despotic dictatorial governments then they are from the Isrealis. These countries do not recognize the rights of their own individuals, nor the citiziens of isreal. The true oppressors of the palestinian people are their corrupt despotic dictators who manipulate and brainwash them for their own agenda (the destruction of isreal)

Are you a bit confused? You sound like it

1: Israel controls the occupied territories, no one else. Palestinians pay taxes, they live under Israeli control, and their water and electricity are rationed by Israel. They are subjects, but are not represented. This is apartheid. The Palestinian Authority has no power. Israel collects the taxes and then decides how much of that money to dole back to the PA.


2: Other countries have nothing to do with this debate, we are talking about whether Israel's policies of keeping the Palestinian people poor and stateless are morally justified. Unless it's your contention that because other countries do it, it is morally justified.

Israel has the moral right to exist and to defend itself against acts of aggression.

And this has what to do with anything? Hear that for the 50th time on Fox News and decided to take it to heart, did you?

When Arab authorities deny the most basic freedoms to their own people, it is absurd for them to start claiming israel is violiting the palestinians rights. Palestians who are oppressed should seek to overthrow their own oppressive governments, those governments of which are the moral motivation behind the terrorist attacks against isreali and the reason isreali must defend itself.

I'm not talking about the surrounding Arab countries- they have NOTHING to do with this.

Moronic Israeli apologist tactic 1:

"Other countries do it too!"

Hint, genius- you are nowhere close to moral justification by saying this- if anything, since you are admitting that this supposed shining beacon of democracy is nothing of the sort, why are we sending weapons to this side and not the other?

As usual, the reading comprehension of the average Israeli apologist is extremely poor. Since we agree that Palestinians should overthrow their oppressive governments, then we must also agree that the Palestinians should fight against Israeli oppression.

Isreali has the moral right to control as much land as is necessary to safeguard itself against attacks, especially if that land was acquired in self defense and was acquired from corrupt despotic dicatorial governemnts which did not even respect the rights of their own people. Since 1948 Israel has had to fight five wars, all in self defense, against hostile arab dictators.

What bullshit. A nation has a moral right to control enough land to safeguard itself against attacks? Tell me more about this "moral" right. This is the exact same bullshit justification used for the German annexation of the Sudetenland- international law would disagree with you.

As for your ludicrous self defense in all cases claim:

"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." Menahem Begin (from "The Fateful Triangle", Noam Chomsky)

"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 during the Six Day War), February 28, 1968

If your goal is to help the palenstinians, then support the removal of arafat from his ruling position.

No, I'd rather the Israelis totally withdraw from the Occupied Territories, remove all their colonies, and give the Palestinian people their own state, with compensation paid for the land stolen from them in 1948.

The west should indeed support israel, as it is the only free democracy in a desert of despotic dictators. No nation can claim its 'right' to existence that doesnt recognize the rights of its own citizens. Nations are extensions of citizens, and thus when citizens have no rights, the state has none either. Which brings us back to your ethical foundation.

What is all this right of existence crap? That's not the fucking issue. Israel holds all the power in the region and its oppression of the Palestinians under its control does not lend it to being a 'free democracy' in any sense of the phrase, and you have tacitly admitted that Israel's actions are no better than its neighbours. So why should we support them?

pointless questions snipped

Irrelevant. We are talking about Israeli oppression of Palestinians, and whether it is morally justified. This has nothing to do with right of existence, retard.

It should receive even more.

Yes, so they can build even more invincible Merkarva tanks and ride around the Occupied Territories shooting children for violation curfew.

What exactly was immorral about that partioning?

Maybe someone should come knocking on your door and tell you to get the fuck out, if you need this explained to you.

Only a state based on political and economic freedom has any 'right' to exist, as any other state is a tool of oppresion. Only Isreal can make that moral claim to legitimatacy. There is no 'right' to establish a dictatorial state.

Not that I particularly care about this right to existence stuff, but since Israel oppresses the Palestinians under its control, you have just admitted that Israel is a tool of oppression, and has no claim to legitimacy. Thanks.

Edit: this is not my point of view. I believe in something called reform.

And who was the aggressor in these wars? And who acted in self defense?

What has that got to do with Israel oppressing part of its populace? You think I'm some sort of fucking fan of Syria Egypt and all those other fucked up countries? Regardless,

Considering that 1967 was Israeli aggression more, and 1972 was the attempt of Egypt and Syria to get their own land back, it ain't that hard to answer that question. I would also refer to the 1982 aggression against Lebanon, and the massacre under the auspices of Ariel Sharon that resulted.

back to the previous questions again

Oh no you don't, don't dodge the fucking question, I just mentioned Jewish settlements. Justify it.

[Vympel]

bump. still waiting for response.

[matus1976]

bump. still waiting for response.

Unlike you, apparently, I have a life. I dont spend 24/7 prowling this board hoping for another chance to impress lord wong.

But dont worry, your response will come, most likely later this afternoon.

Matus

[Vympel]

Oh, really? Is that why you posted this

And why was my Vympel debate left untouched?

So it's ok for you to complain about your post being untouched (even when it had been- compare the post times) but I can't bump a thread?

Fukcing hypocrite.

[matus1976]

Oh, really? Is that why you posted this

And why was my Vympel debate left untouched?

So it's ok for you to complain about your post being untouched (even when it had been- compare the post times) but I can't bump a thread?

Fukcing hypocrite.

What are you talking about?

I asked that in the post in which I mentioned that the other two isreal threads were deleted 'but my vympel debate was left untouched' Which meant I was wondering why the other two were 'deleted' (if thats what had happened, I know it was a bug now) yet this one was not. By 'untouched' I meant it was not 'deleted' not that it had not had anything added to it. If this one had been deleted, it would have been pretty reasonable evidence that all disenting isreal threads were being deleted, but it had not, which Is why I mentioned it.

Chill out dude.

Matus

[matus1976]

Whats the matter, you too much of a coward to defend your own position and would instead have me debate Wong instead? Is this, perhaps, because your a trained monkey who read wong's essay after coming back from an anti globalization rally and going organic food shopping and really cant defend your position?

Wow, a true mindless right-winger. This'll be fun.

Wow, a true mindless brainwashed left winger. Thisll be boring and uninsteresting. Besides of which I am not a 'right winger' I am in fact a registered libertarian, hardly a 'right winger'

My position is quite simple. Israel oppresses the Palestinians and keeps them subjugated,

My position is that Isreal acquired the 'occupied territories' after defending themselves against an act of aggression, and are morally justified to A) aquire the land from an attacking nation and B) maintain that land until no threat remains. Which brings us back to the original questions I posed in an attempt to understand your ethical positions and principles, perhaps you dont really have any and just 'go with the flow' which is probably why you ignored the questions outright. So again...

Is it morally justified to;

1 - to defend you nation against the initiation of force from another nation

2 - to acquire land in said defence of nation from initiator of force

3 - to continue to hold and occupy land acquired in the defence of ones nation

Irrelevant red herring. The particulars of how Israel acquired the Occupied Territories has precisely nothing to do with whether the oppression of the Palestinian people is justified,

It has everything to do if whether or not the presence of isreal in the occupied territories is morally justified. Answer the questions, unless you dont even know the foundation of your own ethical principles you should be able to answer them. Whether or not the actions of Israel are justified depends entirely on what you define 'justified' to be. So how are we to determine if thier actions are justified when you dont even know what you mean when you say 'justified' Have you just been too busy reading to think about your own ethical principles?

and what's more, to assert that Israel occupies the land to defend itself from a threat is one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard-

superceeded only of course by the jibberish that comes out of your mouth. Is that your counter argument by the way, that you feel it is 'ignorant'? care to make any better counter argument than that?

if this was the case, explain the building of Jewish colonies (which you again ignore further on).

This is why we have to ask these tough questions which you are so reluctant to answer (perhaps because youll realize the contradictions of your position you blank out the answer)

Is it morally justifiable for a nation to defend itself?

Is it morally jsutifiable for that nation to acquire land in that defense from the aggressor nations?

Is it morally justifiable for that nation to continue to hold that land?

Are settelments morally justifiable aspect of 'holding that land'? If not, what is? Occupation? Military presence? How long can they hold it?

Why dont you tell us what you believe is morally justified (as I have told everyone else what I think is) instead of just what you DONT think is morally justified. Talk about reluctance to state a position, you have a pyschological aversion to defining your ethical principles, I wonder why that is? Given you are liberal brainwashed automotan, you are probably a moral relativist. I pity you and everyone whom your vote has an influence over.

Yes, Israel has a right to occupy these territories because they were acquired in an act of self defense, Israel is a democratic and free society which respects individual civil liberties, the PLO is a corrupt dictatorial regime which does not respect the rights of individuals and thus can make no claim to legitimacy as a nation.

And the palestinian people are oppressed more from their own corrupt despotic dictatorial governments then they are from the Isrealis. These countries do not recognize the rights of their own individuals, nor the citiziens of isreal. The true oppressors of the palestinian people are their corrupt despotic dictators who manipulate and brainwash them for their own agenda (the destruction of isreal)

1: Israel controls the occupied territories, no one else.

Since the beginning of 1996, and certainly following the completion of the redeployment from Hebron in January 1997, 99 percent of the Palestinian population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have not lived under Israeli occupation. By no conceivable stretching of words can the anti-Israel violence emanating from the territories during these years be made to qualify as resistance to foreign occupation. In these years there has been no such occupation

Palestinians are still brainwashed and coerced by arafat and his despotic PLO regime into blaming isreal for everthing and convincing them to kill as many israel children as possible. Arafat is the dictator of the Palestinian Authority in everyway but in official title, palestinians live in constant fear of having their property arbitrarily confiscated by arafat's corrupt 'police' force, laws prohibiting free speech are enforced brutally.

For example, Mayor Zuhir Hamden publicly stated his villagers live not under Arafat but Under Isreal, he was subsequenty shot five times. Do you think he was shot by Isreal troops?

"Zuhair Hamdan, founder of the Movement for Coexistence in Jerusalem, was sitting on a chair outside his corner shop near Bethlehem in November when an official Palestinian Authority car drew up with a squeal of brakes. From the back window a gunman, who Mr. Hamdan says was a member of the gang, emptied 12 bullets from a M-16 rifle, hitting him five times in the abdomen, legs and neck."

from - http://www.likud.nl/extr200.html

Of course, that was probably left out of Chomsky's latest book. Gasp, some Palestinians WANT to live under Isreal!!! Could this be because Arafat is a despotic dictator, with the PLO as his gulag? And Isreal actually respects individual rights and freedom?

People such as yourself would prefer them live under a 'Palenstinian state' ruled by blood and torture by Arafat, and thats only until Arafat forces this palestinian state to attack isreal. In which case you would again come running claiming that Isreal has no right to defend itself.

Palestinians pay taxes,

Evidence please? Even so, I would harldy consider 'paying taxes' as 'oppression'

they live under Israeli control

With Arafats and PLO thugs holding guns to their heads at every corner, threatening to kill them if they speak out, and brainwashing their kids into strapping bombs onto themselves and running into busloads of Israelis. The places entirely under 'Israeli control' are free from such oppression, but are limited to less than 2% of those territories.

and their water and electricity are rationed by Israel.

And what do you think thier life would be like under the despotic thumb of Arafat? Try 'rationing' their water and electricity UNLESS they strap bombs to themselves and kill isrealis. Despotic dictators have no great historical track record of the way they treat their people, Palestinians, Israelis and any thinking man wouldnt hope any population be oppressed under a totalitarian despotic dictator. Besides by every measurable social and economic indicator, palestinians are far better off than they were before 'occupation' Compare thier growth in health, welfare, under Israel 'oppression' with the stagnation of every other Arab country.

The Palestinian Authority has no power

It is the right hand extension of a corrupt despotic dictator who cares more for perpetuating by force his own racist idealogies then he does the lives of the palestinian people. Palestine has no right to exist as a state under the rule of Arafat, Dictatorships can make no moral claims to ligitimacy of existence as they amount to nothing more than the elite few pointing guns at the masses and forcing themselves to consider themselves part of said nation. When they object, they are shot.

You still havent answered what criteria a nation need have to claim a moral right to exist. Apparently just having enough guns pointed at the people in the region gives them the moral justification in your eyes.

Try reading up on "Movement for Coexistence in Jerusalem"

Other countries have nothing to do with this debate,

Oh, sorry I wasnt aware that Isreal was the only country in existence. My bad. I guess they exist in there own spherical plain eh? I would expect nothing less from a liberal moral relativist such as yourself.

we are talking about whether Israel's policies of keeping the Palestinian people poor

I wasnt aware that it was Isreals policy to 'keep palestinian people poor' can you point that out in the IDF rules of operation? And if so, they are doing a poor job of it considering the economic growth the palestinian people have seen.

and stateless are morally justified.

Palestine under arafat has absolutely no MORAL CLAIM to statehood. Again, you have not acknowledged the moral requirements for a state, apparently you feel its ok for a corrupt despotic dictator to point enough guns at enough people to be up for statehood.

Israel has the moral right to exist and to defend itself against acts of aggression.

And this has what to do with anything?

it has a lot to do with everything, if you dont understand why then perhaps you should examine the situation with a little more effort than the latest noam chomsky quote.

When Arab authorities deny the most basic freedoms to their own people, it is absurd for them to start claiming israel is violiting the palestinians rights. Palestians who are oppressed should seek to overthrow their own oppressive governments, those governments of which are the moral motivation behind the terrorist attacks against isreali and the reason isreali must defend itself.

I'm not talking about the surrounding Arab countries- they have NOTHING to do with this.

Fine, 'When Arafat and the PLO deny even the most basic freedoms to their own people it is absurd for them to start claiming israel is violiting the palestinians rights'

And the surrounding Arab countries have a lot do with it, as they all want isreal wiped off the face of the earth. Again, what legitimate claim do you feel the palestinian people have to 'statehood' especially under Arafat, a known despot and dictator. These surrounding Arab countries never recognized palestinian claims to statehood either, probably because they dont want Arafat as a dictator. He did, after all, try to dispose King Hussein of Jordan's monarchy by sending in thousands of palestinians, between 3,000 to 5,000 of which never came home. Note that during three decades if Isreal 'occupation' far fewer palestinians were killed then in this sinlge month during this outward aggressive invasion of a neighboring nation. And you WANT These people to live under Arafat?

There never was such a thing as Palestinian Arabs, Arabs themselves never made such a distinction before the 1940s. They only did so after the Jews wanted to establish a state-hood. Second, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, respectively were under the control of Jordan and Egypt (West bank-Jordan===Gaza Strip-Egypt) but lost these territories after they initiated force against Israel. Why should Israel establish a Palestinian state when her Arab neighbors wish to do no such thing? Why should they establish such a state when it would be a despotic theocracy as opposed to a free democratic nation?

Hint, genius- you are nowhere close to moral justification

what do you know about 'moral justification' you cant even state your own ethical principles, not surprising from a liberal brainwashed moral relativist. The thought of 'ethical principles' probably has never even crossed your mind.

why are we sending weapons to this side and not the other?

Because the 'other side' is the one attacking and targeting civilians under the manipulation of Arafat and the PLO.

Since we agree that Palestinians should overthrow their oppressive governments, then we must also agree that the Palestinians should fight against Israeli oppression.

You need to consider what the average palestinain thinks about Isreal without a PLO gun aimed at their head, again, try reading up on the "Movement for Coexistence in Jerusalem" These are palestinians that PREFER to live under isreal. Considering their options are a corrupt despotic dictator or a democratic country that has individual and property rights, their preference is not surprising. If this oppresion is so terrible and entirely the fault of isreal, why would some palestinians want to live under it? And you assume in your 'we must agree' statement that I consider what Israel does as 'oppresion'

Isreali has the moral right to control as much land as is necessary to safeguard itself against attacks, especially if that land was acquired in self defense and was acquired from corrupt despotic dicatorial governemnts which did not even respect the rights of their own people. Since 1948 Israel has had to fight five wars, all in self defense, against hostile arab dictators.

What bullshit. A nation has a moral right to control enough land to safeguard itself against attacks? Tell me more about this "moral" right.

This would indeed confuse you because you have yet to make any kind of stance of your own ethical principles. It seems you simply pick and choose when to apply them, if you have them at all, which makes you a moral relativist. When a nation is ATTACKED by ANOTHER NATION, it has a MORAL RIGHT to keep the territory acquired when DEFENDING ITSELF from that OTHER NATION in order to protect itself from future ACTS OF AGGRESSION.

This is the exact same bullshit justification used for the German annexation of the Sudetenland- international law would disagree with you.

Germany was the AGGRESSOR, it did not acquire its land as a result of defending themselves against an aggressive act, GERMANY was ALSO a corrupt fascist totalitarian dictatorship which DID Not respect the rights of its own individuals, thus by my CLEAR criteria laid out they had NO moral right to existence as a state. Of course we know why this makes sense to you, because you think a dicatorship has a moral right to existence as a state, even though it founding principle is oppression. Moral relativists like you think any kind of state has a moral right to existence.

You would understand this had you bothered to lay down your ethical principles, but being a moral relativist that is obviously impossible.

Lets try 1 more time...

1) Does a nation have a moral right to keep land acquired in AN ACT OF DEFENSE from an AGGRESSOR NATION?

And now compare the difference between that question and this one

2) Does a nation have a moral right to initiate force, and acquire land under the claim of controlling land to safeguard itself?

You fail to see the difference between these two cases.

As for your ludicrous self defense in all cases claim:

Yeah, lets see about that, shall we...

"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." Menahem Begin (from "The Fateful Triangle", Noam Chomsky)

Chomsky, a linguistics expert, no doubt the source of much of your liberalized brainwashing. Well, no doubt you just took his word for it, funny he should chop of the very next sentance

"We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation."

And in that same speech

"The terrorists did not threaten the existence of the state of Israel; they 'only' threatened the lives of Israel's citizens and members of the Jewish people"

There is always a 'choice' to engage in a way, mr. moral relativist, a pacifist can simply sit back and let thier nation be destroyed and all their people slaughtered. Or one can only respond when the 'state' is at risk, and not its people (of course this would be morally unsound, as it would mean the state valued the existence of the state over the existence of its people) by this same criteria, the US had no right in retailiting against the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Since the Foundation of our country was not at stake, but only our 'people' were, we could have chosen to sit back and let the terrorist attacks continue. So Menahem Begin was admitting they had *chosen* to take part in a war of self defense. Sounds morally justified to me.

"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 during the Six Day War), February 28, 1968

In a recent New York Times article, dated 09 June 2002, however, Ariel Sharon directly contradicted his predecessor:

"Israel entered the West Bank only after its cities and airports had come under heavy fire. Israeli actions were legal — resulting from a clear-cut war of self-defense."

Your summation and view of the 'Six Day war' and the events leading up to it are severly naive, biased, and shortsighted. For an indepth look see "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East" By Michael B. Oren. For a short summary / review, see the Economist review at
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movabl ... 00136.html

and see also

The 1967 Six Day War

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/67_War.html

If your goal is to help the palenstinians, then support the removal of arafat from his ruling position.

No, I'd rather the Israelis totally withdraw from the Occupied Territories

And curse them to be ruled by a corrupt despotic regime instead of one that respects individual rights and freedoms? And sends them into wars with neighboring nations to be slaughtered by the thousands?
You care more about the perpetuation of your own idealogies than the well being of the palestinian people.

remove all their colonies, and give the Palestinian people their own state,

What makes you think they deserve their own state? They never had a state, no other arab nations never recognized their claim to statehood. So why should Isreal sponser a state that is a dictatoriship ruled by a despot and terrorist organization that is bent on the destruction of isreal? Seems like the only thing you want to see is the destruction of isreal, not a better life for the palestinian people.

Why should Isreal support the creation of a corrupt despotic dictatorship at its doorstep that is bent on its destruction?

Why do some palestinians WANT to coexist in Isreal?

The west should indeed support israel, as it is the only free democracy in a desert of despotic dictators. No nation can claim its 'right' to existence that doesnt recognize the rights of its own citizens. Nations are extensions of citizens, and thus when citizens have no rights, the state has none either. Which brings us back to your ethical foundation.

What is all this right of existence crap? That's not the fucking issue.

Whether the palestinian people have the right to create a state is not the issue? If thier state is ruled by a corrupt despot, known terrorist who rules at the end of a gun what makes you think that have a moral right to claim existence as a state? This again focuses on your vague moral notions. Basically, it seems, any group of people who want to be a state can, even if it is only only because an oppresive thugs holds a gun to their head and tells them they want a state. A state based on the flagrant disregard for rights can make no claim to the right to exist, it does not recognize rights, and can make no claim to them.

Israel holds all the power in the region

Since the beginning of 1996, and certainly following the completion of the redeployment from Hebron in January 1997, 99 percent of the Palestinian population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have not lived under Israeli 'occupation'

and its oppression of the Palestinians under its control does not lend it to being a 'free democracy' in any sense of the phrase,

Oh? First, its oppresion... Life expectancy for palestinian people is higher than it has ever been before, the number of Palestinians working in Israel rose from zero in 1967 to 66,000 in 1975 and 109,000 by 1986, accounting for 35 percent of the employed population of the West Bank and 45 percent in Gaza. Close to 2,000 industrial plants, employing almost half of the work force, were established in the territories under Israeli rule. During the 1970's, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world-ahead of such "wonders" as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself. Per-capita GNP expanding tenfold between 1968 and 1991 from $165 to $1,715 (compared with Jordan's $1,050, Egypt's $600, Turkey's $1,630, and Tunisia's $1,440). By 1999, Palestinian per-capita income was nearly double Syria's, more than four times Yemen's, and 10 percent higher than Jordan's (one of the betteroff Arab states). Mortality rates in the West Bank and Gaza fell by more than two-thirds between 1970 and 1990, while life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000. Israeli medical programs reduced the infant-mortality rate of 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000 (in Iraq the rate is 64, in Egypt 40, in Jordan 23, in Syria 22). And under a systematic program of inoculation, childhood diseases like polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles were eradicated. By 1986, 92.8 percent of the population in the West Bank and Gaza had electricity around the clock, as compared to 20.5 percent in 1967; 85 percent had running water in dwellings, as compared to 16 percent in 1967; 83.5 percent had electric or gas ranges for cooking, as compared to 4 percent in 1967; and so on for refrigerators, televisions, and cars. Compare this progress to all neighboring Arab states which are corrupt despotic theocracies. Why was terrorism sparse during the years of actual 'occupation', why did it increase dramatically with the prospect of the end of the 'occupation', and why did it escalate into virtual open war upon Israel's most far-reaching concessions ever?

Because it is Arafat and his PLO that are convincing through force and torture the palestinian people that they can not live under a democratic free nation that respects individual rights because it is a *jewish* nation, Arafat is the racist oppressor. What is the moral claim that Arafat has to make a state of the palestinian people, especially when the palestinian people see more freedoms and a higher standard of living under Isreal 'occupation' then they ever would under totalitarian despot arafat, who would isntead turn them around, and send them into isreal to attack it.

and you have tacitly admitted that Israel's actions are no better than its neighbours. So why should we support them?

I have admitted no such thing. Isreals actions certainly ARE better than its neighbors, and Arafats.

pointless questions snipped

Irrelevant. We are talking about Israeli oppression of Palestinians, and whether it is morally justified. This has nothing to do with right of existence, retard.

It has everything to do with the justification of Israels 'occupation'. But since you are a moral relativist and dont even have any ethical principles of your own, I wouldnt expect you to understand why declaring a foundation for ethical principles is important when determining if an action is ethical or not.

It should receive even more.

Yes, so they can build even more invincible Merkarva tanks and ride around the Occupied Territories shooting children for violation curfew.

Yes, because thats all the do. You would instead have Arafat raise all the children in government run terrorist training schools, brainwashing them to invade isreal or any other neighboring country he happens to not like, in an official Arafat run palestinian state.

What exactly was immorral about that partioning?

Maybe someone should come knocking on your door and tell you to get the fuck out, if you need this explained to you.

Do you typically resort to handwaiving when someone asks you to define your position? Of course your 'position' is probably just whatever happens to be what your feelings say at that moment. But perhaps you can point out what was immorral about the partioning and WHY it was immoral (this would require you to define some of your ethical principles, btw)

Only a state based on political and economic freedom has any 'right' to exist, as any other state is a tool of oppresion. Only Isreal can make that moral claim to legitimatacy. There is no 'right' to establish a dictatorial state.

Not that I particularly care about this right to existence stuff,

Truth comes out!!! so you dont care if palestine has any right to exist as a state, but you think it should. Seems you have thought your position out very clearly. You dont care what makes a state have the right to claim existence? If you dont care, why do you care that the PLO claims the right for a palestinian state and Isreal does not. If you dont care, what is the point of our discussion?

but since Israel oppresses the Palestinians under its control, you have just admitted that Israel is a tool of oppression, and has no claim to legitimacy. Thanks.

I have never admitted that Isreal is 'a tool of oppression' I said a dictatorial state that exists at the expense of its people is.

If you are claiming that a state that oppresses its people has no right to exist, and citing the alleged fact of israels oppresions of palestinain people and drawing the conclusion that isreal has no right to exist as a state, then you are a hypocrit to claim that the PLO and Arafat has a 'right to exist' because they, by defination, are a totalitarian dictatorial regime and are BUILT on oppressiing thier people. By YOUR OWN REASONING Palestine has no right to exist as a state.

this is not my point of view. I believe in something called reform.

ANd I believe in world peace and the end of oppression and starvation and suffering in the world. Good for you, but determing a path to reduce achieve said goals is the prudent course of action, and basing that path on an objective reality is the only moral way to achieve it. You are a moral realtivist, You seem to think whatever makes you feel good to be the correct moral approach, even when it will objectively result in more suffering of the very people you claim to be helping. No matter that, at least your intentions were morally sound, right?

And who was the aggressor in these wars? And who acted in self defense?

What has that got to do with Israel oppressing part of its populace? You think I'm some sort of fucking fan of Syria Egypt and all those other fucked up countries? Regardless,

Considering that 1967 was Israeli aggression more, and 1972 was the attempt of Egypt and Syria to get their own land back, it ain't that hard to answer that question.

A state has a moral right to acquire territory in an act of self defense, and in the six day war isreal was acting in self defense of its nation and its people. It was a pre-emptive strike against an enemy who daily reported that would attack irsael, continually provoked isreal, and was building up forces in a manner that suggested an attack, and even Sadat stated they would be attacking. What aspect of this was NOT in selfdefense? Should you actually wait for your neighbors death squad he is ammasing to actually start shooting at you before you can morally claim to be acting in self defense? With your logic, any country can just simply amass all of its troops and launch a massive aggression on any neighboring country without that target country having any moral claim to defend itself until the massive invasion is actually launched. Your concept of moral justification in war is as simple as a two year olds, which is what I would expect from someone who has no ethical principles.

Speaking of which, what do you mean when you say "considering it was Isreal aggresion more"

'More'?

PLease define your ethical principles which state that Isreal's attack in the six day war was not in self defense? Was it because they 'shot first'? Does that then mean that the only criteria for 'self defense' is who 'shoots first'? What if an armed thug is running at me, swinging a sword around wildly, acting in a threating manner, yelling "Im gonna kill you!" Do I have to actually wait for him to cut my head off before I act in self defense and shoot him? By your implied ethical principle, my actions of shooting first before him actually impaling me could not be considered self defense. So lets hear what your moral criteria for a 'self defense' justification is, anyway.

I would also refer to the 1982 aggression against Lebanon, and the massacre under the auspices of Ariel Sharon that resulted.

Well let Begin speak for himself on Lebanon

""As for the Operation Peace for Galilee [the invasion of Lebanon], it does not really belong to the category of wars of no alternative. We could have gone on seeing our civilians injured in Metulla or Qiryat Shimona or Nahariya. We could have gone on countering those killed by explosive charges left in a Jerusalem supermarket, or a Petah Tikvah bus stop. All the orders to carry out these acts of murder and sabotage came from Beirut .... True, such actions were not a threat to the existence of the state. But they did threaten the lives of civilians. whose numbers we cannot estimate, day after day, week after week, month after month...."

The fact remains, that during the two-and-a-half decades from the 'occupation' of the territories to the onset of the Oslo peace process in 1993, there was very little "armed resistance,", a significant increase in the standard of living of palestinians, and most terrorist attacks emanating from outsideof the palestinian areas-from Jordan in the late 1960's, then from Lebanon, where the PLO was headquarted until 1982. These outside attacks were perpetuated in the guise of 'freeing' the palestinian people form 'oppression', then why did virtually no palestinians take part in them? They were too busy holding jobs and living productive lives under a free democratic state to strap on bombs and run into crowded civilian areas.

But of course you resort to the typical liberal tactic of blaiming the nation that is defending itself for the deaths in the nation that initiated the acts of aggression. Lebanon had been ruled by the PLO which had amassed some 15,000 - 18,000 armed regulars, some 5,000 - 6,000 of them foriegn mercenaries. For Arab residents of south Lebanon, PLO rule was a nightmare. After the PLO was expelled from Jordan by King Hussein in 1970, many of its cadres went to Lebanon. The PLO seized whole areas of the country, where it brutalized the population and usurped Lebanese government authority.

Of course, there would have been zero dead or homeless and none 'massacred' in lebanon if the PLO hadn't used south Lebanon as a base from which to menace Israel with continual terrorist attacks and shellings of boardering Isreal towns, while simaltaneously torturing, oppressing, and expropriating property from residents of lebanon. Again, a state with no moral claim to the right to existence, based on a despotic fascist regime, iniatites acts of violence against a democratic nation, and that nation defends itself, and all you can do is blame isreal for defending itself, and not the PLO for taking over lebanon and using it as a base of terrorist operations and acts of violenece and aggresion against Isreal.

back to the previous questions again

Oh no you don't, don't dodge the fucking question, I just mentioned Jewish settlements. Justify it.

Whose dodging questions? I have answered everyone of your questions, yet you have not answered a single one of mine.

Now answer the questions. This debate will not continue until you either present your ethical principles, or acknowledge that you have none.

your suggestion for palestine would remove the palestinians from a progressive free democracy in which they have a better standard of living than ever before and revert them back to the rule of a corrupt despotic dictator who holds them at the point of a gun to stifle political freedom and brainwashed their children to strap bombs to themselves and commit suicide.

If the Palestinian people were so oppressed by Isreal, why did it take more than two decades for palestinians to attack isreal, instead of Arab outsiders of Jordan, syria, and Lebanon

So here you have the true history, Arab nations which never recognized the palestinian people as deserving of state hood attacked Isreal, Isreal acquired the now 'occupied territories' in this act of self defense, and subsequently increased every measureable standard of living for the palestinian people in this area. Not satisfied with this, neighboring arab nations attacked isreal through terrorist actions under the premise that the palestinian people should not live under isreali rule, and instead live under a corrupt despotic theocracy or dictatorship. But as it is difficult to get well off people to fight a war, the Palestinian people werent having it. The PLO did not even exist in the occupied territories even though Isreali made no attempt to censor thier publications or speeches, but even with that it was difficult for the PLO to drum up support. It was the neighoboring arab nations that refuse to allow the palestinian people to choose to live under isreali rule, and now the oppresive despot of Arafat and the PA brutally enforce the premise that no Arab should live under Isreali rule. How many Arab leaders working toward peace have been assasinated, and how many of them were assasinated by non Islamic Radicals? The GOAL of these neighboring arab nations and Arafat and the PLO / PA IS Aparthied and the oppresion of the palestinian people and destruction of the state of isreal. Caught in the middle are the palestinian people. Arab apologists like yourselves are serving to help this inhumane goal, actually hurting the palestinian people you think you would help. This comes from the moral relativism that you exhibit and the utter disregard for an objective reality.

Matus

[Vympel]

Wow, a true mindless brainwashed left winger. Thisll be boring and uninsteresting. Besides of which I am not a 'right winger' I am in fact a registered libertarian, hardly a 'right winger'

Yet you attempt to shoe horn me into a ridiculous vegan anti-globalization stereotype.

It has everything to do if whether or not the presence of isreal in the occupied territories is morally justified. Answer the questions, unless you dont even know the foundation of your own ethical principles you should be able to answer them. Whether or not the actions of Israel are justified depends entirely on what you define 'justified' to be. So how are we to determine if thier actions are justified when you dont even know what you mean when you say 'justified' Have you just been too busy reading to think about your own ethical principles?

Still dodging the issue I see. Where did I say when I stated my position that I was going to talk about the presence of Israel in the occupied territories being morally justified? I'm much more concerned over the PEOPLE in those territories.

and what's more, to assert that Israel occupies the land to defend itself from a threat is one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard-

superceeded only of course by the jibberish that comes out of your mouth. Is that your counter argument by the way, that you feel it is 'ignorant'? care to make any better counter argument than that?

Wow how stupid are you? You assert that the land was obtained to defend itself from a threat, and when I bring up the embarassing colonization that has been going on, you provide no refutation. Concession Accepted.

This is why we have to ask these tough questions which you are so reluctant to answer (perhaps because youll realize the contradictions of your position you blank out the answer)

You are fooling noone but yourself. There's a reason why I'm not answering your stupid questions- they are:

Is it morally justifiable for a nation to defend itself?

Is it morally jsutifiable for that nation to acquire land in that defense from the aggressor nations?

Is it morally justifiable for that nation to continue to hold that land?

VAGUE AND MISLEADING- you continue to harp on 'right to defense' when that's not what I'm talking about.

Are settelments morally justifiable aspect of 'holding that land'? If not, what is? Occupation? Military presence? How long can they hold it?

Settlements show the contradiction in the Israeli posiiton. Their colonies show that they believe it to be their land. Fine. In that case, stop treating the Palestinians there like shit. If it's not their land (i.e. so they don't have to grant representation to the Pals), then they shouldn't be building settlements there, and they certainly shouldn't be taxing the population.

Why dont you tell us what you believe is morally justified (as I have told everyone else what I think is) instead of just what you DONT think is morally justified. Talk about reluctance to state a position, you have a pyschological aversion to defining your ethical principles, I wonder why that is? Given you are liberal brainwashed automotan, you are probably a moral relativist. I pity you and everyone whom your vote has an influence over.

I have stated my position on the topic of debate quite clearly. You consistently attempt to make this about 'self defense'- hoping to steer away from the embarassing issue of how they treat the people in the Occupied Territories. How surprising.

Yes, Israel has a right to occupy these territories because they were acquired in an act of self defense, Israel is a democratic and free society which respects individual civil liberties, the PLO is a corrupt dictatorial regime which does not respect the rights of individuals and thus can make no claim to legitimacy as a nation.

More mindless blather. Your including your conclusion as a premise in your argument is quite pathetic. If Israel is democratic and free, justify the discrimination against the Palestinian people- considering that I have already established just WHO is in control in the Occupied Territories (hint- it sure ain't the PA).

Since the beginning of 1996, and certainly following the completion of the redeployment from Hebron in January 1997, 99 percent of the Palestinian population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have not lived under Israeli occupation. By no conceivable stretching of words can the anti-Israel violence emanating from the territories during these years be made to qualify as resistance to foreign occupation. In these years there has been no such occupation

They're no longer occupied? Could've fooled me. Regardless, they still live under Israeli control- including Israeli taxes. The 'stretching of words' is quite conceivable.

Palestinians are still brainwashed and coerced by arafat and his despotic PLO regime into blaming isreal for everthing and convincing them to kill as many israel children as possible. Arafat is the dictator of the Palestinian Authority in everyway but in official title, palestinians live in constant fear of having their property arbitrarily confiscated by arafat's corrupt 'police' force, laws prohibiting free speech are enforced brutally.

Irrelevant red herring. We are talking about Israel. Where have I supported the PA? Considering that Israel is also big on land confiscations and property seizures, you have yet again established that Israel ain't exactly a paragon of virtue.

Why are you repeating moronic Israeli apologist tactic #1? Other countries/PLO does it too is not moral justification. Jeez how hard is this to understand.

For example, Mayor Zuhir Hamden publicly stated his villagers live not under Arafat but Under Isreal, he was subsequenty shot five times. Do you think he was shot by Isreal troops?

"Zuhair Hamdan, founder of the Movement for Coexistence in Jerusalem, was sitting on a chair outside his corner shop near Bethlehem in November when an official Palestinian Authority car drew up with a squeal of brakes. From the back window a gunman, who Mr. Hamdan says was a member of the gang, emptied 12 bullets from a M-16 rifle, hitting him five times in the abdomen, legs and neck."

from - http://www.likud.nl/extr200.html

That's interesting. It's also totally irrelevant. Do you always throw this useless nonsense around in a debate? And the Likud Party is a great source to have

Of course, that was probably left out of Chomsky's latest book. Gasp, some Palestinians WANT to live under Isreal!!! Could this be because Arafat is a despotic dictator, with the PLO as his gulag? And Isreal actually respects individual rights and freedom?

Yes, respects individual rights and freedoms- that must be why the Palestinians live as second class citizens with inferior housing, education, health care, get their land confiscated, have jack all representation despite their numbers- all while paying tribute.

People such as yourself would prefer them live under a 'Palenstinian state' ruled by blood and torture by Arafat, and thats only until Arafat forces this palestinian state to attack isreal. In which case you would again come running claiming that Isreal has no right to defend itself.

More strawmen. You are fucking pathetic, you little shit. Please demonstrate where I said that they should live under 'blood and torture' under Arafat. Morons like you can't comprehend well can they?

Evidence please? Even so, I would harldy consider 'paying taxes' as 'oppression'

Standard bullshit delay tactic #2- demand evidence of everything, like a fucking 4 year old who says "says who!" to everything.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/D ... 63036.html

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk010223/1adilemma.shtml

As any idiot knows, Israel taxes the Palestinians and then doles back the amount of money it sees fit to the PA.

Do you know what no taxation without representation means?

With Arafats and PLO thugs holding guns to their heads at every corner, threatening to kill them if they speak out, and brainwashing their kids into strapping bombs onto themselves and running into busloads of Israelis. The places entirely under 'Israeli control' are free from such oppression, but are limited to less than 2% of those territories.

More red herrings. What does the PLO have to do with this? Do you even know what the fuck we're debating, you demented turd?

The places under Israeli control are free from such oppression? You must not mean the oppression whereby they are taxed and their resources controlled by Israel while they live in the world's biggest ghetto.

Their lives are under Israeli jurisdiction- as I demonstrate further in the line below. therefore Israel is required to care for them as stated by the UN charter- which Israel voluntarily signed.

And what do you think thier life would be like under the despotic thumb of Arafat? Try 'rationing' their water and electricity UNLESS they strap bombs to themselves and kill isrealis. Despotic dictators have no great historical track record of the way they treat their people, Palestinians, Israelis and any thinking man wouldnt hope any population be oppressed under a totalitarian despotic dictator. .

More red herrings. What part of "other countries are irrelevant" do you not understand? You truly are a retard- you think moral justification flows from "well it's better than these guys!" As if being better than say Iraq is really hard!

Besides by every measurable social and economic indicator, palestinians are far better off than they were before 'occupation' Compare thier growth in health, welfare, under Israel 'oppression' with the stagnation of every other Arab country

There were rising standards of living in slave societies, is that an argument for slavery?
There were rising standards of living under Stalin, is that an argument for totalitarian communism?

It is the right hand extension of a corrupt despotic dictator who cares more for perpetuating by force his own racist idealogies then he does the lives of the palestinian people. Palestine has no right to exist as a state under the rule of Arafat, Dictatorships can make no moral claims to ligitimacy of existence as they amount to nothing more than the elite few pointing guns at the masses and forcing themselves to consider themselves part of said nation. When they object, they are shot.

Instead of ranting about your views of the PA, why don't you address the point? The PA has no power, it depends on Israel, therefore Israel is in control. Concession Accepted.

You still havent answered what criteria a nation need have to claim a moral right to exist. Apparently just having enough guns pointed at the people in the region gives them the moral justification in your eyes.

Where in my position did I try and deny Israel's right to exist? Your bringing up this point again and again is a transparent attempt to try and make me out to be an anti-semite by denying that Israel has a right to exist, when I'm talking about the oppression of the Pals. Learn the fucking difference, you mindless knee-jerk moron.

Other countries have nothing to do with this debate,

Oh, sorry I wasnt aware that Isreal was the only country in existence. My bad. I guess they exist in there own spherical plain eh? I would expect nothing less from a liberal moral relativist such as yourself.

You fucking moron. I'M the moral relativist? Unless I'm mistaken, it is you who repeatedly has brought up other countries in an attempt to compare Israel to them and claim moral justification, instead of adhering to an absolute moral standard- which is what I am doing by declaring what other countries do, irrelevant.

By your bullshit reasoning, because the Soviet Union under Stalin wasn't as bad as the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, it is morally justified in the oppression of it's people. See the problem?

I wasnt aware that it was Isreals policy to 'keep palestinian people poor' can you point that out in the IDF rules of operation? And if so, they are doing a poor job of it considering the economic growth the palestinian people have seen.

http://www.arabhra.org/- Arab Human Rights Association. Based in Nazareth.

You should also look up Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. This is not rocket science- your claims of happy Palestinians working in the prosperous West Bank is clearly disconnected from reality. Do you read anything else besides the Likud Party homepage?

And economic growth? Was that before or after Israel rolled in and destroyed all that infrastructure during the last uprising?

and stateless are morally justified.

Palestine under arafat has absolutely no MORAL CLAIM to statehood. Again, you have not acknowledged the moral requirements for a state, apparently you feel its ok for a corrupt despotic dictator to point enough guns at enough people to be up for statehood.[/quote]

Strawman. Where did I say it should be under a criminal like Arafat?

it has a lot to do with everything, if you dont understand why then perhaps you should examine the situation with a little more effort than the latest noam chomsky quote.

Why don't you learn about how to debate? Where did I talk about the right to exist? WHERE you little hatfucker? I'm sorry if you don't like it, but I don't believe in the destruction of Israel.

Fine, 'When Arafat and the PLO deny even the most basic freedoms to their own people it is absurd for them to start claiming israel is violiting the palestinians rights'

Why is it absurd? Is there a heirarchy they have to go through now? Complain about Arafat and then complain about Israel? Will that make complaints legitimate?

And the surrounding Arab countries have a lot do with it, as they all want isreal wiped off the face of the earth. Again, what legitimate claim do you feel the palestinian people have to 'statehood' especially under Arafat, a known despot and dictator. These surrounding Arab countries never recognized palestinian claims to statehood either, probably because they dont want Arafat as a dictator. He did, after all, try to dispose King Hussein of Jordan's monarchy by sending in thousands of palestinians, between 3,000 to 5,000 of which never came home. Note that during three decades if Isreal 'occupation' far fewer palestinians were killed then in this sinlge month during this outward aggressive invasion of a neighboring nation. And you WANT These people to live under Arafat?

Strawman. Where did I say they should live under Arafat? Just what the fuck is your problem? You really can't read can you?

And no, surrounding countries don't have anything to do with it, because we are discussing Israel. By repeatedly bringing up other countries, you put your moral relativism on display.

Your bait and switch with 'Palestinian people' having a right to statehood and 'surrounding arab countries' was quite transparent. Please explain why the Palestinian people (without Arafat) have any less right to statehood than Israel (without Sharon ).

There never was such a thing as Palestinian Arabs, Arabs themselves never made such a distinction before the 1940s. They only did so after the Jews wanted to establish a state-hood. Second, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, respectively were under the control of Jordan and Egypt (West bank-Jordan===Gaza Strip-Egypt) but lost these territories after they initiated force against Israel. Why should Israel establish a Palestinian state when her Arab neighbors wish to do no such thing? Why should they establish such a state when it would be a despotic theocracy as opposed to a free democratic nation?

Oh it all makes sense now, the Arab majority living in Palestine weren't called Palestinian Arabs at the time, so they don't deserve a state as much as Jews.

- Justify your assertion that any Palestinian state would be a despotic theocracy
- Explain, if there is to be no Palestinian State, your plan for the Occupied Territories.

what do you know about 'moral justification' you cant even state your own ethical principles, not surprising from a liberal brainwashed moral relativist. The thought of 'ethical principles' probably has never even crossed your mind.

Concession Accepted, bitch. Your moral justification is entirely based on 'other countries are worse'. You really do suck ass.

Because the 'other side' is the one attacking and targeting civilians under the manipulation of Arafat and the PLO.

And of course the IDF NEVER attacks civilians ...

You need to consider what the average palestinain thinks about Isreal without a PLO gun aimed at their head, again, try reading up on the "Movement for Coexistence in Jerusalem" These are palestinians that PREFER to live under isreal. Considering their options are a corrupt despotic dictator or a democratic country that has individual and property rights, their preference is not surprising. If this oppresion is so terrible and entirely the fault of isreal, why would some palestinians want to live under it? And you assume in your 'we must agree' statement that I consider what Israel does as 'oppresion'

Wow, some Palestinians prefer to live under Israel in comparison to Arafat. Moral justification for Israel has just arrived.

This would indeed confuse you because you have yet to make any kind of stance of your own ethical principles. It seems you simply pick and choose when to apply them, if you have them at all, which makes you a moral relativist. When a nation is ATTACKED by ANOTHER NATION, it has a MORAL RIGHT to keep the territory acquired when DEFENDING ITSELF from that OTHER NATION in order to protect itself from future ACTS OF AGGRESSION.

Germany was the AGGRESSOR, it did not acquire its land as a result of defending themselves against an aggressive act, GERMANY was ALSO a corrupt fascist totalitarian dictatorship which DID Not respect the rights of its own individuals, thus by my CLEAR criteria laid out they had NO moral right to existence as a state. Of course we know why this makes sense to you, because you think a dicatorship has a moral right to existence as a state, even though it founding principle is oppression. Moral relativists like you think any kind of state has a moral right to existence.

You would understand this had you bothered to lay down your ethical principles, but being a moral relativist that is obviously impossible.

Except Israel WAS the aggressor, dumb ass. See below.

There is always a 'choice' to engage in a way, mr. moral relativist, a pacifist can simply sit back and let thier nation be destroyed and all their people slaughtered. Or one can only respond when the 'state' is at risk, and not its people (of course this would be morally unsound, as it would mean the state valued the existence of the state over the existence of its people) by this same criteria, the US had no right in retailiting against the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Since the Foundation of our country was not at stake, but only our 'people' were, we could have chosen to sit back and let the terrorist attacks continue. So Menahem Begin was admitting they had *chosen* to take part in a war of self defense. Sounds morally justified to me.

Of course it sounds morally jusitified to you, because you have no fucking idea of the history behind the matter, nor the supposed 'magnitude' of the threat (2 egyptian divisions). Israel attacked, and greatly expanded it's territory, including building settlements/colonies. See below.

In a recent New York Times article, dated 09 June 2002, however, Ariel Sharon directly contradicted his predecessor:

"Israel entered the West Bank only after its cities and airports had come under heavy fire. Israeli actions were legal — resulting from a clear-cut war of self-defense."

I think I'll stick with the Chief of Staff during the war, not the current leader and a man responsible for a massacre in Lebanon.

Your summation and view of the 'Six Day war' and the events leading up to it are severly naive, biased, and shortsighted. For an indepth look see "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East" By Michael B. Oren. For a short summary / review, see the Economist review at
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movabl ... 00136.html

and see also

The 1967 Six Day War

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/67_War.html

Bullshit. I suggest you read Norman Finklestein's "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict", and then get back to me.

And curse them to be ruled by a corrupt despotic regime instead of one that respects individual rights and freedoms? And sends them into wars with neighboring nations to be slaughtered by the thousands?
You care more about the perpetuation of your own idealogies than the well being of the palestinian people.

Arafat should go. However, Israel holds the power, not Arafat, so it is incumbent upon Israel to take the first step.

What makes you think they deserve their own state? They never had a state, no other arab nations never recognized their claim to statehood. So why should Isreal sponser a state that is a dictatoriship ruled by a despot and terrorist organization that is bent on the destruction of isreal? Seems like the only thing you want to see is the destruction of isreal, not a better life for the palestinian people.

Why must it be either a dictatorship ruled by a despot, OR second class citizens living in a ghetto under Israel? Israel has made it clear they don't give a fuck about the Palestinians, so clearly we need another soltion.

Your blatant strawman at saying I want the destruction of Israel is getting on my nerves.

Why should Isreal support the creation of a corrupt despotic dictatorship at its doorstep that is bent on its destruction?

False dilemma. Why is this the only option?

Why do some palestinians WANT to coexist in Isreal?

How many out of the millions of Palestinians, hmmm?

Whether the palestinian people have the right to create a state is not the issue? If thier state is ruled by a corrupt despot, known terrorist who rules at the end of a gun what makes you think that have a moral right to claim existence as a state? This again focuses on your vague moral notions. Basically, it seems, any group of people who want to be a state can, even if it is only only because an oppresive thugs holds a gun to their head and tells them they want a state. A state based on the flagrant disregard for rights can make no claim to the right to exist, it does not recognize rights, and can make no claim to them.

You are so pathetic. How does the right of Israel's existence become inextricably linked to a Palestinian State? The only racist here is you- you have repeatedly stated your belief that any Palestinian stat would be a corrupt despotic regime that would attempt to destroy Israel, rather than a democracy where the Palestinians could live in peace, which is my ideal. A Palestinian State does not HAVE to be under Arafat.

Since the beginning of 1996, and certainly following the completion of the redeployment from Hebron in January 1997, 99 percent of the Palestinian population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have not lived under Israeli 'occupation'

Repeating yourself now?

Oh? First, its oppresion... Life expectancy for palestinian people is higher than it has ever been before, the number of Palestinians working in Israel rose from zero in 1967 to 66,000 in 1975 and 109,000 by 1986, accounting for 35 percent of the employed population of the West Bank and 45 percent in Gaza. Close to 2,000 industrial plants, employing almost half of the work force, were established in the territories under Israeli rule. During the 1970's, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world-ahead of such "wonders" as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself. Per-capita GNP expanding tenfold between 1968 and 1991 from $165 to $1,715 (compared with Jordan's $1,050, Egypt's $600, Turkey's $1,630, and Tunisia's $1,440). By 1999, Palestinian per-capita income was nearly double Syria's, more than four times Yemen's, and 10 percent higher than Jordan's (one of the betteroff Arab states). Mortality rates in the West Bank and Gaza fell by more than two-thirds between 1970 and 1990, while life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000. Israeli medical programs reduced the infant-mortality rate of 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000 (in Iraq the rate is 64, in Egypt 40, in Jordan 23, in Syria 22). And under a systematic program of inoculation, childhood diseases like polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles were eradicated. By 1986, 92.8 percent of the population in the West Bank and Gaza had electricity around the clock, as compared to 20.5 percent in 1967; 85 percent had running water in dwellings, as compared to 16 percent in 1967; 83.5 percent had electric or gas ranges for cooking, as compared to 4 percent in 1967; and so on for refrigerators, televisions, and cars. Compare this progress to all neighboring Arab states which are corrupt despotic theocracies. Why was terrorism sparse during the years of actual 'occupation', why did it increase dramatically with the prospect of the end of the 'occupation', and why did it escalate into virtual open war upon Israel's most far-reaching concessions ever?

As I said before- there were rising standards of living in slave societies, is that an argument for slavery?

Also, you would do well to stop putting your moral relativism on display by asserting because Israel treats its second class better than *shitty Arab country here* it is morally justified.

Because it is Arafat and his PLO that are convincing through force and torture the palestinian people that they can not live under a democratic free nation that respects individual rights because it is a *jewish* nation, Arafat is the racist oppressor. What is the moral claim that Arafat has to make a state of the palestinian people, especially when the palestinian people see more freedoms and a higher standard of living under Isreal 'occupation' then they ever would under totalitarian despot arafat, who would isntead turn them around, and send them into isreal to attack it.

Arafat arafat arafat. You really don't like him do you? Neither do I. How amusing, you think it's all his fault that Palestinians don't like living under Israel ... I guess the occupation has nothing to do with it.

I have admitted no such thing. Isreals actions certainly ARE better than its neighbors, and Arafats.

And are still far below the standards expected by civilized countries- as shown by repeated condemnations from human rights organizations.

It has everything to do with the justification of Israels 'occupation'. But since you are a moral relativist and dont even have any ethical principles of your own, I wouldnt expect you to understand why declaring a foundation for ethical principles is important when determining if an action is ethical or not.

Suit yourself. I take it you will persist in your ridiculous attempts to tie how Israel treats the Palestinians to a country's right to defend itself?

Yes, because thats all the do. You would instead have Arafat raise all the children in government run terrorist training schools, brainwashing them to invade isreal or any other neighboring country he happens to not like, in an official Arafat run palestinian state.

Wow, you are paranoid aren't you. Maybe if Israel funded the schools better:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/

There wouldn't be this problem of these government run terrrorist schools where children are taught to throw rocks at tanks, endangering the lives of brave IDF soldiers who must shoot back with lethal force at these insidious toddlers of terror.

Do you typically resort to handwaiving when someone asks you to define your position? Of course your 'position' is probably just whatever happens to be what your feelings say at that moment. But perhaps you can point out what was immorral about the partioning and WHY it was immoral (this would require you to define some of your ethical principles, btw)

I am a secular humanist. I there's a particular 'name' for my beliefs on this issue, I don't know it, but it is one of my ethical principles that noone should be allowed to kick you off your own land and tell you to get the fuck out by force.

However, I'm sure your morally bankrupt mindlessly pro-Israel views see this as perfectly justified.

Truth comes out!!! so you dont care if palestine has any right to exist as a state, but you think it should. Seems you have thought your position out very clearly. You dont care what makes a state have the right to claim existence? If you dont care, why do you care that the PLO claims the right for a palestinian state and Isreal does not. If you dont care, what is the point of our discussion?

The existence of the right of Israel to exist has never been disputed. You have attempted to make it an issue in order to make it out that I want Israel destroyed. Justify why Israel has any more right to exist than a democratic Palestinian state.

I have never admitted that Isreal is 'a tool of oppression' I said a dictatorial state that exists at the expense of its people is.

Of course you don't admit it. You just stick your fingers in your ears and say 'lalalalalal im not listening!'

If you are claiming that a state that oppresses its people has no right to exist, and citing the alleged fact of israels oppresions of palestinain people and drawing the conclusion that isreal has no right to exist as a state, then you are a hypocrit to claim that the PLO and Arafat has a 'right to exist' because they, by defination, are a totalitarian dictatorial regime and are BUILT on oppressiing thier people. By YOUR OWN REASONING Palestine has no right to exist as a state.

Except as I said, it's not my point of view. And if in the next post you assert that I want Arafat in charge, your dishonest debating tactics will be clear to all.

ANd I believe in world peace and the end of oppression and starvation and suffering in the world. Good for you, but determing a path to reduce achieve said goals is the prudent course of action, and basing that path on an objective reality is the only moral way to achieve it. You are a moral realtivist, You seem to think whatever makes you feel good to be the correct moral approach, even when it will objectively result in more suffering of the very people you claim to be helping. No matter that, at least your intentions were morally sound, right?

Bullfuck- I think oppression is a morally incorrect approach. The only moral relativist here is you, consistently comparing Israel to other unsavory regimes and proclaiming justification by virtue of not being as bad. Pathetic. Tell me the huge problem Israel faces in reforming it's policies towards the Palestinian people?

A state has a moral right to acquire territory in an act of self defense, and in the six day war isreal was acting in self defense of its nation and its people. It was a pre-emptive strike against an enemy who daily reported that would attack irsael, continually provoked isreal, and was building up forces in a manner that suggested an attack, and even Sadat stated they would be attacking. What aspect of this was NOT in selfdefense? Should you actually wait for your neighbors death squad he is ammasing to actually start shooting at you before you can morally claim to be acting in self defense? With your logic, any country can just simply amass all of its troops and launch a massive aggression on any neighboring country without that target country having any moral claim to defend itself until the massive invasion is actually launched. Your concept of moral justification in war is as simple as a two year olds, which is what I would expect from someone who has no ethical principles.

LOL. You proclaim that a state has a moral right to annex territory when acting in self defense (by that reasoning, Iraq can annex Florida because it is threatened with war by the US) and in the same breath say that I have no ethics? Most amusing.

And despite your revisionist claims, Israel was the aggressor. Your claims of 'death squads' and 'massive aggression' are blatantly contradicted by primary historical sources.

PLease define your ethical principles which state that Isreal's attack in the six day war was not in self defense? Was it because they 'shot first'? Does that then mean that the only criteria for 'self defense' is who 'shoots first'? What if an armed thug is running at me, swinging a sword around wildly, acting in a threating manner, yelling "Im gonna kill you!" Do I have to actually wait for him to cut my head off before I act in self defense and shoot him? By your implied ethical principle, my actions of shooting first before him actually impaling me could not be considered self defense. So lets hear what your moral criteria for a 'self defense' justification is, anyway.

When there is a clear and present danger to the nation and an attack is imminent, then you are justified in a pre-emptive strike to eliminate the threat.

I'll tell you what it isn't:

The quotes I provided above, and this source below (Norman Finklestein's work), puts the lie to the ridiculous notion that Israel was in any mortal danger whatsoever.

Diplomacy

In mid-November 1966, Israel embarked on its largest military action since the Suez war. An armored brigade of nearly 4,000 men attacked the West Bank town of Samu in the Hebron hills, methodically destroying 125 homes, a clinic, a school and a workshop, and killing eighteen Jordanian soldiers as well (one Israeli soldier was killed). This raid was strongly condemned by US ambassador Arthur Goldberg.

The ostensible purpose of the Israeli attack was to punish King Hussein for, and force him to curb, Palestinian infiltration. Guerrillas operating from Jordanian territory had killed three Israelis in October and early November. Odd Bull, Chief of Staff of UN forces in the ME at the time, recalled ”…the Jordanian authorities did all they possibly could to stop infiltration”. A UN military observer on the Israel-Jordan border noted even more emphatically that ”…Jordan’s efforts to curb infiltrators reached the total capabilities of the country”. Indeed, until the June 1967 war, more Palestinians were killed by Jordanian soldiers attempting to enter Israel than by the Israelis themselves. And, only a few months before the Samu attack, King Hussein had taken the extraordinary step of arresting most of the PLO staff in Amman and closing its offices.

The effect of the raid had provoked rifts among the Arab nations, radicalized opinion, and set its lamentably weak and hopelessly quarrelsome neighbors lurching amid mutual plots and accusations. In particular, Radio Jordan taunted Nasser for his empty rhetoric in not rising to the Kingdom’s defense and for using the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) stationed in the Sinai and Gaza as a pretext for not confronting Israel.

In early April, a border incident between Israel and Syria climaxed in a major aerial engagement. Six Syrian planes were shot down, one over Damascus. In the second week of May, Israeli officials threatened to launch a full-scale attack on Syria. General (later PM) Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of Staff, announced on Israeli radio that ‘the moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian government’. The Israeli chief of military intelligence menacingly warned of a ‘military action of great size and strength’ against Syria. Prime Minister Levi Eshkol declared that Israel ‘may have to teach Syria a sharper lesson’ than that of early April. The New York Times and the Jerusalem Post reported that ‘a major military clash with Syria seemed inevitable’. Secretary General U Thant observed that ”…in recent weeks, reports emanating from Israel have attributed to some high officials in that State statements so threatening as to be particularly inflammatory to the sense that they could only heighten emotions and thereby increase tensions on the other side of the lines.”. U Thant later recalled that ”…rumors of an impending blow against Syria were current throughout Israel. They reached Cairo and other Arab capitals, where they generated the belief that Israel was about to mount a massive attack on Syria….bellicose statements by Israeli leaders created panic in the Arab world.” The US State Department ‘cautioned’ Israel against the ‘unsettling effects’ of its ‘threatening statements’, and the US charge d’affaires in Cairo advised Egypt’s Foreign Minister that the Israeli threats should be taken most seriously.

Michael Brecher states flatly in his authoritative study that Israel’s Cabinet had decided in early May that if noncoercive methods of persuasion against Syria faild, it would launch a limited attack against Syria.

Coming fast on the heels of the Samu raid and the aerial battle over Syria, the Israeli threats against the Damascus regime compelled Nasser to act. Egypt had entered into a military pact with Syria the previous November. Syria was now calling on its ally to respond with more than fiery rhetoric. Radio Jordan was again mocking Nasser’s pretensions, daring the Egyptian leader to close the gulf of Aqaba.

On 14 May, Nasser moved Egyptian troops into the Sinai and subsequently requested the complete withdrawal of UNEF from Sinai, the Gaza and Sharm-el-Shayk overlooking the straits of Tiran. Nasser then announced that the Straits would be closed to Israeli shipping. Nasser wanted only that UNEF readjust its deployment in the Sinai but did not desire a UNEF withdrawal, especially from Sharm-al-Shayk. Confronted with an all-or-nothing ultimatum from UN Secretary General U Thant that left him with no ‘face saving’ device, Nasser opted for a complete withdrawal.

Moshe Dayan declared afterwards:

”…the nature and scale of our reprisal actions against Syria and Jordan had left Nasser with no choice but to defend his image and prestige in his own country and throughout the Arab world, thereby setting off a train of escalation in the entire Arab region…”

Acknowledging its legality, U Thant nonetheless expressed ‘deep misgivings’ about Nasser’s decision to terminate the UNEF mission, especially in light of ‘the prevailing tensions and dangers throughout the area’. The Secretary-General did not, however, reserve criticism for Egypt alone. First, he recalled that the Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission (EIMAC), established as part of the agreements that ended the 1948 war, had been requested by Egypt as a viable mechanism to undertake UNEF’s responsibilities. The Israeli Cabinet in late May officially rebuffed any and all such proposals. U Thant also proposed that Israel allow the UNEF to be repositioned on its side of the border. Indeed, the Secretary General pointedly recalled that the original February 1957 General Assembly resolution mandating deployment of the UNEF envisaged that it would be stationed on both sides of the Egyptian-Israeli armistice demarcation line. Egypt had acceded to the General Assemhly request, Israel had not. Israel dismissed as entirely unacceptable U Thant’s suggestion that UNEF redeploy on the Israeli side of the line. Repeated entreaties by the US, Great Britain and Canada fell on deaf ears. Even an alternative proposal at the end of May to reactivate UNEF on both sides of the Egyptian-Israeli frontier and along the Gaza Strip was peremptorily dismissed by Israel.

In late May, the UN Secretary-General journeyed to Cairo personally to mediate the crisis. His minimum aim was to get both parties to agree to a ‘breathing spell’ which would allow tension to subside and give the Security Council time to deal with the underlying causes and seek solutions. In this spirit, U Thant presented Nasser with a proposal reportedly backed by the United States. Essentially, it called for a two-week moratorium in the Straits of Tiran similar to the one that U Thant had arranged during the Cuban missile crisis – Israel would refrain from sending and Egypt from inspecting ships – and a renewed effort at diplomay. A special UN representative would be appointed for the area. Egypt assented, Israel did not.

Brian Urquhart, senior UN official and WWII veteran, concluded in his memoir that:

”…Israel, no doubt having decided on military action, turned down U Thant’s ideas…”

The United States also tried its hand at mediation. Robert Anderson (former Treasury Secretary), and Charles Yost (retired ambassador), met with Egyptian officials in late May and early June. A ‘breakthrough in the crisis’ – in Neff’s words – was apparently reached. Nasser indicated that he was open to World Court arbitration of the dispute over the Straits of Tiran, and to easing the blockade that would allow for the passage of oil pending the Court’s decision. Crucially, the Egyptian leader agreed to send his vice-president to Washington by week’s end to explore a diplomatic settlement.

The Washington meeting never happened, Israel struck two days before the meeting was to take place.

Dean Rusk, then Secretary of State writes in his memoirs:

”…we were shocked…and angry as hell when the Israelis launched the surprise offensive. They attacked on a Monday, knowing that on Wednesday the Egyptian vice-president would arrive in Washington to talk about re-opening the Strait of Tiran.”

Deception

The central rationale Israel adduced for preemptively attacking Egypt was that it faced imminent destruction, lets examine the facts. Aba Eban (Israel’s Ambassador to the UN) enumerates three threats to Israel’s “National Existance” on the eve of the June war: 1) Syrian based terrorism 2) Egyptian troop concentrations in the Sinai after the departure of UNEF 3) The blockade of the Straits of Tiran.

Syrian based terrorism

Syrian terrorism assumed two forms, bombardment of northern settlements and terrorist raids. The combined effect of these attacks was purportedly to render the ‘security predicament’ of Israel ‘acute’. Syrian shelling from the Golan Heights of Israel’s northern settlements had its provenance in the Israeli-Syrian armistice agreement that ended the 1948 war. The accord established demilitarized zones (DMZs) between the two countries. According to Odd Bull:

”…The situation deteriorated as the Israelis gradually took control over that part of the demilitarized zones which lay inside the former national boundaries of Palestine in blatant violation of the UN-brokered accord. Arab villagers residing in the DMZs were evicted and their dwellings demolished, as the status quo was all the time being altered by Israel I her favor.”

The Security Council called on Israel to let the villagers return, but Israel held fast.

”…In the course of time all the Arab villages disappeared in wide swaths of the DMZ…”

Major-General Carl Von Horn, who served as chief of staff of the UN forces before Bull, similarly recalled that, inside the Syrian-Israeli DMZs;

”…property changed hands, invariably in one direction…” so that before long ”…Israel was claiming the right to exploit all the land. Gradually, beneath the glowering eyes of the Syrians, who held the high ground overlooking the zone, the area had become a network of Israeli canals and irrigation channels edging up against and always encroaching on Arab-owned property. This deliberate poaching was bitterly resented by the Syrians. Israel’s premeditated policy was to get all the Arabs out of the way by fair means or foul.”

US consular cables from Jerusalem told much the same story. On from July 1964 stated that ”…Arabs concerned themselves basicallywith preservation situation envisioned in the UN armistice agreements while Israel consistently sought gain full control. Israel was emerging victorious largely because UN never able oppose aggressive and armed Israeli occupation and assertion actual control over such areas, and Arab neighbors not really prepared for required fighting.” The cable concluded that UN observers generally credited Syria for ”…restraint over long period in face Israel seizure control in DMZs by force or constant threat using it.”

Syrian backed Palestinian commando raids against Israel began in earnest after a radical coup in Damascus in February 1966. Incendiary rhetoric emanating from Syria – fueled by inter-Arab rivalries – urged that a “people’s war” be mounted to liberate Palestine. Yet, the basic motive behind Syrian support of the Palestinian guerrillas seems to have been rather more prosaic – the Israeli incursions in the DMZs. UNEF head Rikhye reports that the intensification of Palestinian attacks on Israel ”…resulted from the controversy over cultivation rights in the DMZs between Israel and Syria.”. Indeed, General Aharon Yaariv, head of Israeli military intelligence, frankly acknowledged a few weeks before the June war that Syria

”…uses this weapon of guerilla activity because we are bent upon establishing…certain facts along the border..”

As for the magnitude of the threat itself, in a notably sober analysis soon after the June war, former chief of Israeli military intelligence Yehoshaphat Harkabi concluded that:

’…the operational achievements in the thirty months from its debut to the Six-Day war, are not impressive by any standard, and certainly pose no danger to Israel’s national life.”

He reports that there were all of 14 Israeli casualties, 4 civilians, 4 policemen and 6 soldiers for the entire two and a half year period. Indeed, in that same time span there were more than 800 Israeli fatalities in auto accidents. Conceding – with inimitable hyperbole – that the guerrilla attacks did not affect thousands of lives or bring about a collapse of national life. Even Aba Eban goes on to acknowledge that it would be absurd to imagine that they could have endangered anything as solid as the State of Israel.

Egyptian troops in the Sinai

In the midst of its June offensive Israel informed the Security Council that it had ‘documentary proof’ that Egypt ‘had prepared the assault on Israel in all its military details’. Yet, all the available evidence at the time pointed to the conclusion that Egypt did not intend to attack. In late May, Rabin (then Chief of Staff, later Prime Minister), told the Israeli Cabinet that the Egyptian forces in the Sinai were still in a defensive posture. An exhaustive US intelligence review at the end of the month could find no evidence that Egypt was planning to attack. US President Johnson told Eban that even after instructing his ”…experts to assume all the facts that the Israelis had biven them to be true, it was still their unanimous view that there is no Egyptian intention to make an imminent attack” - a conclusion, also according to Eban, also reached by Israeli intelligence. Rikhye, who toured the Egyptian front, confirms that Egyptian troops were not poised for an offensive. Reporting from Cairo for the New York Times on the eve of Israel’s assault, James Reston observed that Egypt ”…does not want war and it is certainly not ready for war…”. Reston’s assessment was so widely held that it was echoed by Mossad chief Meir Amit in almost identical terms:

’…Egypt was not ready for a war, and Nasser did not want war.”

”…I did not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive. He knew it and we knew it.”

- Yitshak Rabin.

“…we 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

Blockade of the Straits of Tiran


One of the central claims is that Egypt’s blockade of the Straits of Tiran, preventing access to the port of Eilat was an attempt at strangulation. Israel tried to pry open the Straits in the course of the 1956 invasion when it occupied Sinai and Sharm-el-Shaykh. However, it was compelled to terminate the occupation withouth international sanction of its right of passage. Then UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold could not ’…condone a change of the status juris resulting from military action contrary to the provisions of the Charter”. Indeed, president Eisenhower had delivered perhaps the most impassioned defense of the principle that Israel’s withdrawal must be without conditions, asking rhetorically if:

”…a nation which attacks and occupies a foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval should be allowed to impose conditions on its withdrawal?”

Israel claimed that it had come to be mortally dependent on trade through Eilat. In a Knesset speech on the morrow of Nasser’s announcement, Prime Minister Eshkol pointed to Eilat as the port of ‘hundreds of sailing ships under dozens of flags’ and the hub of ‘a far flung network of commerce and transport’. Israel’s UN ambassador, Gideon Rafael, described Eilat as a ‘thriving port and industrial center’ with ‘considerable trade passing through this essential maritime route’. Without free passage through the Straits, Eban asserted, Israel would be ‘stunted and humiliated’. In a yet more vivid image, Eban charged that Israel was being ‘strangled’ by Nasser’s blockade as it was condemned to ‘breathe with a single lung’. ‘The choice for Israel’, Eban perorated, ‘was drastic – slow strangulation or rapid, solitary death’.

In the real world, the picture was rather less forbidding, The official terms of the blockade barred all Israeli-flagged vessels, and non-Israeli-flagged vessels carrying strategic cargo, form passing through the Straits. Yet, according to the UN Secretariat, not a single Israeli-flagged vessel had used the port of Eilat in the previous two and a half years. Indeed, a mere 5% of Israel’s trade passed through Eilat. The only significant commodity formally affected by the blockade was oil from Iran, which could have been re-routed through Haifa.

Israel faced no significant threat, let alone mortal danger, in June 1967. Furthermore, diplomacy seemed – despite Israel – to be working.

"As for the Operation Peace for Galilee [the invasion of Lebanon], it does not really belong to the category of wars of no alternative. We could have gone on seeing our civilians injured in Metulla or Qiryat Shimona or Nahariya. We could have gone on countering those killed by explosive charges left in a Jerusalem supermarket, or a Petah Tikvah bus stop. All the orders to carry out these acts of murder and sabotage came from Beirut .... True, such actions were not a threat to the existence of the state. But they did threaten the lives of civilians. whose numbers we cannot estimate, day after day, week after week, month after month...."

How convenient, you ignore that the invasion of Lebanon was carried out in response to an act of violence that wasn't even carried out in Israel.

The fact remains, that during the two-and-a-half decades from the 'occupation' of the territories to the onset of the Oslo peace process in 1993, there was very little "armed resistance,", a significant increase in the standard of living of palestinians, and most terrorist attacks emanating from outsideof the palestinian areas-from Jordan in the late 1960's, then from Lebanon, where the PLO was headquarted until 1982. These outside attacks were perpetuated in the guise of 'freeing' the palestinian people form 'oppression', then why did virtually no palestinians take part in them? They were too busy holding jobs and living productive lives under a free democratic state to strap on bombs and run into crowded civilian areas.

Hello unsubstantiated claim.

But of course you resort to the typical liberal tactic of blaiming the nation that is defending itself for the deaths in the nation that initiated the acts of aggression. Lebanon had been ruled by the PLO which had amassed some 15,000 - 18,000 armed regulars, some 5,000 - 6,000 of them foriegn mercenaries. For Arab residents of south Lebanon, PLO rule was a nightmare. After the PLO was expelled from Jordan by King Hussein in 1970, many of its cadres went to Lebanon. The PLO seized whole areas of the country, where it brutalized the population and usurped Lebanese government authority.

And this justifies the massacre that Sharon presided over how?

Of course, there would have been zero dead or homeless and none 'massacred' in lebanon if the PLO hadn't used south Lebanon as a base from which to menace Israel with continual terrorist attacks and shellings of boardering Isreal towns, while simaltaneously torturing, oppressing, and expropriating property from residents of lebanon. Again, a state with no moral claim to the right to existence, based on a despotic fascist regime, iniatites acts of violence against a democratic nation, and that nation defends itself, and all you can do is blame isreal for defending itself, and not the PLO for taking over lebanon and using it as a base of terrorist operations and acts of violenece and aggresion against Isreal.

Oh look, I've become a PLO supporter now.

Whose dodging questions? I have answered everyone of your questions, yet you have not answered a single one of mine.

Because they're irrelevant. Despite your dishonest bait and switch tactics, your fantasy of making this about Israel's right to exist will not be fulfilled.

Now answer the questions. This debate will not continue until you either present your ethical principles, or acknowledge that you have none.

*yawn*- just keep on insisting that I announce my views on questions framed in such a way as to totally derail the debate, especially considering they are based on the entirely false premise that it's all done in 'self defense'.

your suggestion for palestine would remove the palestinians from a progressive free democracy in which they have a better standard of living than ever before and revert them back to the rule of a corrupt despotic dictator who holds them at the point of a gun to stifle political freedom and brainwashed their children to strap bombs to themselves and commit suicide.

No, that's your pessimism, not my views. As for your continual blowing of sunshin up Israel's ass, I suggest you actually research the topic by going to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other organizations instead of just straight cut and paste propaganda from apologist web sites.

If the Palestinian people were so oppressed by Isreal, why did it take more than two decades for palestinians to attack isreal, instead of Arab outsiders of Jordan, syria, and Lebanon

Reference Amnesty International/ Human Rights Watch/ UNRWA/ etc. for Israeli attitude to the Palestinians. Your fantasy about happy free Palestinians in the propserous lovely West Bank is revisionist lies at their worse.

So here you have the true history, Arab nations which never recognized the palestinian people as deserving of state hood attacked Isreal, Isreal acquired the now 'occupied territories' in this act of self defense, and subsequently increased every measureable standard of living for the palestinian people in this area. Not satisfied with this, neighboring arab nations attacked isreal through terrorist actions under the premise that the palestinian people should not live under isreali rule, and instead live under a corrupt despotic theocracy or dictatorship. But as it is difficult to get well off people to fight a war, the Palestinian people werent having it. The PLO did not even exist in the occupied territories even though Isreali made no attempt to censor thier publications or speeches, but even with that it was difficult for the PLO to drum up support. It was the neighoboring arab nations that refuse to allow the palestinian people to choose to live under isreali rule, and now the oppresive despot of Arafat and the PA brutally enforce the premise that no Arab should live under Isreali rule. How many Arab leaders working toward peace have been assasinated, and how many of them were assasinated by non Islamic Radicals? The GOAL of these neighboring arab nations and Arafat and the PLO / PA IS Aparthied and the oppresion of the palestinian people and destruction of the state of isreal. Caught in the middle are the palestinian people. Arab apologists like yourselves are serving to help this inhumane goal, actually hurting the palestinian people you think you would help. This comes from the moral relativism that you exhibit and the utter disregard for an objective reality.

Matus

Are you always this fucking long-winded? Fucking Darkstar clone. Time to deconstruct this long ass paragraph, which is basically a typical pro-Israel rant proclaiming the superiority of Israel over neighbouring Arab shitholes (like that's hard) and totally absolving Israel for treating the people in the Occupied Territories like shit.

Reduce the length of your posts btw. You should be able to actually summarize your cut and pastes.

[Vympel]

A week with no reply from moron1976.

That was too bloody easy- but it was fun.

[Crown]

You do realise that he will just claim that he was too busy with the festive season and all? He might even try and paint you like an over-eager-no-life-soul for being so excited about an internet debate for good measure.

[Vympel]

He might. If he comes back

As for seeing no reply for an entire week being evidence of being excited- think that'll convince anyone ?

[Sir Sirius]

I betting that he just slinked away in shame.

[Vympel]

I betting that he just slinked away in shame.

Which is why I originally bumped the thread- it had gone down all the way to somewhere in page 2.

Actually, it seems that both those idiots (Nixon and matus) buggered off back to the hole they came from.