Palestinians won't accept less than full U.N. seat

[kylebisme]

Again its interesting how you are re-writing history.....
The same way you re-wrote the 9/11 stuff and got caught using other peoples work to attempt to support your ill fated opinion ..............

How is the history I recounted in what you quoted any different from that on the the Wiki page which I linked in my previous post and it's cited references, and how exactly are you suggesting I "re-wrote the 9/11 stuff and got caught using other peoples work"?

Prior to '48...

Since I'm at a loss as to if you even intended this post to be an answer to my question. Again I ask:

How exactly were Palestinians supposed to live with the borders assigned when Israelis had driven over four hundred thousand Palestinians out of nearly two hundred towns and villages across both sides of the UN partition plan in the months prior to declaring statehood, and were showing no signs of intent to stop short of taking all of Palestine?

Would you please answer this question directly?

There was a civil war going on between '47 and '48 before the declaration of statehood. Violence between Arabs and Jews also dates back much further than that. I think you need to brush up on your history a bit.

I'm pretty sure Earl's comment was simply intended as a parody of Eagle's fanciful recounting of the history rather than as an accurate account by any stretch. That said, what sources would you suggest for brushing up on the origins of violence between Arabs and Jews?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Since I'm at a loss as to if you even intended this post to be an answer to my question. Again I ask:

How exactly were Palestinians supposed to live with the borders assigned when Israelis had driven over four hundred thousand Palestinians out of nearly two hundred towns and villages across both sides of the UN partition plan in the months prior to declaring statehood, and were showing no signs of intent to stop short of taking all of Palestine?

Would you please answer this question directly?

There were Palestinians inside the borders of Israel and Palestinians outside the borders of Israel.

It was in all intent a civil war before the establishment of the state.

After the state was established; Palestinians outside the borders of Israel sided with the Arab states to attack Israel.
there was no justification for that; they were whipped and deserved what happened afterwards for making continual war against Israel.

What happened before the state existed was multiple sides at war, attempting to control the area, with each other.

Neither group was innocent; yet what happens afterwards (the creation of the state) becomes the boundary time line.

Previous it is a civil internal conflict; afterwards it is a war between states and proxies.

Had the war between states and proxies not been initiated, the '48 borders may have been the line. The area assigned to Israel was small compared to the area assigned to the others (Arabs/Palestinians) Encroachment by Israel against peaceful neighbors would not be justified. And there would still not be a Palestinian state; that area would be controlled by Jordan.

Now the line is blurred because of actions.

Pandora's box was opened.

 

[kylebisme]

Had the war between states and proxies not been initiated, the '48 borders may have been the line.

How do you figure, considering the fact that Israelis had been driving Palestinians out and were showing no signs of intent to stop short of taking all of Palestine? Also, where are you getting your understanding of the history from? I've shown you my sources, can you show me yours?

 

[EagleKeeper]

How do you figure, considering the fact that Israelis had been driving Palestinians out and were showing no signs of intent to stop short of taking all of Palestine? Also, where are you getting your understanding of the history from? I've shown you my sources, can you show me yours?

Sources can not exists for an event that did not happen. We will never know what might had happened if Israel was not attacked in '48 AFTER she became a state. What is readily available is that Israel did not attempt to expand settlements into territory that she did not control. ie. start a war to expand territory.

For the events that did happen; the Palestinians made the wrong choices and are reaping such rewards.

 

[kylebisme]

I'm asking about the claims you make of what did happen. Specifically, you keep claiming "Israel did not attempt to expand settlements into territory that she did not control" even after I showed you sources which recount Israel was taking land from Palestinians across both sides of the UN partition plan before, during, and after declaring statehood. Then you go on to suggest "the Palestinians made the wrong choices" as if Israeli attacks on them hadn't deprived them of any choice in the matter. So again I ask, from what sources have you derived these claims of history?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Where are your sources for after she became a state and the '48 conflict was settled?
Where were settlements being started in territory controlled by Egypt, Jordan or Syria.

I am not denying that there was an equivalent to a civil war prior to the state declaration.
Both sides fighting for control and leverage. Neither side were angels.

After the state declaration, Israel was fighting against the Arabs and Palestinians.
Her boundaries were violated and she pushed the invaders back away from those boundaries; taking control of areas to act as a buffer.

 

[kylebisme]

Where are your sources for after she became a state and the '48 conflict was settled?

You're speaking in vagaries and shifting your goalposts here, as previously you argued simply "We will never know what might had happened if Israel was not attacked in '48 AFTER she became a state", which I took to mean May 15, 1948, and for which again I cite this Wiki page and the cited references there. However, now you've added on "and the '48 conflict was settled", which I don't see one one could rightly contend that the conflict was ever actually settled, and hence am at a loss as to answering your question. So, please specify what date (day month, and year) are you referring to specifically, and I'll be happy to answer you question in detail.

As for your non-answer to my request for your sources, am I to take that to mean you are simply arguing based on impressions of the history you've gained in passing, and can't cite any actual sources to back your claims?

 

[EagleKeeper]

You're speaking in vagaries and shifting your goalposts here, as previously you argued simply "We will never know what might had happened if Israel was not attacked in '48 AFTER she became a state", which I took to mean May 15, 1948, and for which again I cite this Wiki page and the cited references there. However, now you've added on "and the '48 conflict was settled", which I don't see one one could rightly contend that the conflict was ever actually settled, and hence am at a loss as to answering your question. So, please specify what date (day month, and year) are you referring to specifically, and I'll be happy to answer you question in detail.

As for your non-answer to my request for your sources, am I to take that to mean you are simply arguing based on impressions of the history you've gained in passing, and can't cite any actual sources to back your claims?

It seems like you want to play semantics.

Cessation of the conflict was done in '49.

The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed during 1949 between Israel and neighboring Egypt,[1] Lebanon,[2] Jordan,[3] and Syria.[4] The agreements ended the official hostilities of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and established armistice lines between Israeli forces and the forces in Jordanian-held West Bank, also known as the Green Line. The United Nations established supervising and reporting agencies to monitor the established armistice lines. In addition, discussions related to the armistice enforcement, led to the signing of the separate Tripartite Declaration of 1950 between the United States, Britain and France. In it, they pledged to take action within and outside the United Nations to prevent violations of the frontiers or armistice lines. It also outlined their commitment to peace and stability in the area, their opposition to the use or threat of force, and reiterated their opposition to the development of an arms race. These lines held until the 1967 Six-Day War.

Problems that happened from the declaration of the state until hostilities were suspended, between the Arab states and Israel, were part of the war of self preservation (Arabs/Palestinians attacking Israel to destroy the country and Israel defending herself against the attacks and driving back the attackers to an acceptable defensive position); not of land acquisition. Had it been an attempt at land acquisition from the Palestinians/Jordan/Egypt; Israel would have driven all the way to the West Bank initially and taken over Gaza.

also from your wiki link

• Its factual accuracy is disputed. Tagged since May 2011.
• Its introduction may be too long. Tagged since May 2011.
• Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since May 2011.

There are three time points related to the creation of the state of Israel

• Pre '48 state creation by the UN
  
  
  Hostilities were equivalent to a civil war - try to obtain control; both parties (Palestinians and Israelis were attacking each other in order to get the upper hand)​
• 48-49 War
  
  Initial attacks by the Arab states supported by the Palestinians; Repelled eventually by Israel, pushing back the invading forces to boundaries that were accepted by the Arab states. They did not really lose any land of their own, just land that they were stewards for.
  
  The end result was that Israel had expanded her boundaries and kept them as a buffer against potential future threats (proved to be a wise move) :thumbsup:​
• Post armistice
  
  After the agreement to cease hostilities until the conflict with Egypt in '56 and the 6 day war in '67. Israel stayed within these boundaries. settlements were not created outside those borders. Had she attempted to do so; Jordan and Egypt would have screamed loudly​

If you want to merge the first two into one to justify your opinion of the Palestinians being driven out as a land grab, so be it.

Where did Israel build settlements outside of those boundaries at the end of the '48 conflict until the '67 conflict?

They did not.


Settlements outside the original boundaries were started up after Israel retained control of those areas; Israel had pushed back the relevant joint attacking forces from the Arab states that controlled those parcels previously.

such shows that Israel was willing to honor boundaries that they formally agreed to when a cessation of hostilities was done.

• The first boundaries were the establishment of Israel in '48. those were agreed to by Israel - they did not say that they will take that areas but reserve the right to take over parts of Trans Jordan at a later date.
• The second example was at the end of hostilities along boundaries agreed to in '49. again they did not say that they would reserve the option to setup settlements outside the boundaries; nor did they. the surrounding Arab states would not have tolerated such, especially after being whipped and embarrassed by little fledgling Israel.
• The third example was at the end of hostilities after '67. Israel has not attempted to setup settlement in territory controlled by any of the Arab states.

Such seems to demonstrate that Israel acknowledges her boundaries as agreed to formally.

So my original point is that Israel would not have expanded settlement (in land grabs) outside of the original zone HAD she not been attacked by the Arab states and the Palestinians. She probably would have negotiated some deal to obtain additional land; but not by initiated conflict.

Contrary to the Arabs/Palestinians that wanted complete removal of Israel back then and the Palestinian leadership (and some Arab states) which still do.

 

[kylebisme]

also from your wiki link

See the discussion page, and note that none of the disputes are to the thoroughly referenced facts I have been citing.

If you want to merge the first two into one to justify your opinion of the Palestinians being driven out as a land grab, so be it.

No, I simply want you to come to terms with some facts, such as:

• Pre '48 state creation by the UN
  
  
  Contrary to your characterization that "Palestinians and Israelis were attacking each other in order to get the upper hand", the (soon to be) Israelis by far had the upper hand, and used it to grab land from hundreds of thousands of Palestinian on both sides of the UN partition plan, which again is recounted on this Wiki page and the cited references.​
• 48-49 War
  
  Contrary to your characterization that "Initial attacks by the Arab states supported by the Palestinians", in reality Palestinians were fleeing from Israel's ongoing land grab, and the Arab states stepped into support the Palestinians.​

The first boundaries were the establishment of Israel in '48. those were agreed to by Israel - they did not say that they will take that areas but reserve the right to take over parts of Trans Jordan at a later date.

Prominent Israeli leaders had long been saying exactly what you claim they weren't, one particularly explicit example being the man who became Israel's first Prime Minster, who in 1937 responded to the Peel Commission's attempts at partition by stating:

The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today, but the boundaries of the Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.

Now, I don't suppose you can cite any sources to justify your contention that Israel wasn't engaged in a land grab, can you?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Where/when did Israel create a settlement outside their agreed on boundaries?

The Palestinian forces numbered about 20,000 who sided with the Aarb forces of about 20,000.

That does not seem like running from the Israeli's.

Some did and some fought. those that fought and continue to fight want to destroy Israel.

And you want to reward them for doing so. 😕

 

[Nebor]

Well, looks like you boys have this whole thing about worked out.

 

[kylebisme]

Where/when did Israel create a settlement outside their agreed on boundaries?

All these settlements are ongoing examples of that, and the years they were started are listed on the chart.

As for your arguments, you're going to have to cite your sources before I bother taking the time to respond to them, as this continuum of; you making outsourced claims, me citing sources to refute them, and you responding with more outsourced claims, is getting old.

 

[Lemon law]

Why I ask, should the Pals accept less than full UN Seat?

After all its still a continual progression of blaming the unarmed Pals, for the sins of the Arabs.

First we had the 1948 borders of Israel, in which the Pals owned at least 65% of the the land. It may be correct to blame combined Arab armies for attacking Israel, but all the unarmed Pales did is fled. And once the Arabs were repulsed by Israel, they went home, and the unarmed Pals, being weak paid the price as they were robbed of their land by armed Israelis and forced out a a point of a gun.

19 years later, as many Palestinians fled to the West Bank and Gaza, Again the Arabs armies made military noises against Israel, and because Israel could not stay on infinite standby, Israel attacked first in the 1967 war that over ran East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. As well as capturing large parts of the Egyptian Sinai desert. Not the fault of the Pals in anyway. With the 1973 war being another rehash.

Finally the US brokered a peace, Egypt got the Sinai back, but the Pales were still screwed.

But meanwhile back at the UN, the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, is all land the State of Israeli can never own. Because its all land by conquest by UN doctrine.

But meanwhile, and for 44 years, in the absence of a peace treaty, between Israel and the Pals, the the Israeli military occupation is still the semi-legitimate means Israel uses to still retain and administer a military occupation of lands it can never own.

Once the Pals gain full UN recognition, Israel will have no choice to get their shit and git, and go back to their pre 1967 borders.

It was bad enough in 1948 when Israel stole all Palestinian land, but to gag a maggot, Israel wants to screw the Pals again. As they embargo their economy, treat them as subhuman, and then pretend Israelis are the victims.

France has it right, Bozo Netanyuhu is a liar.

 

[JEDIYoda]

See the discussion page, and note that none of the disputes are to the thoroughly referenced facts I have been citing.


No, I simply want you to come to terms with some facts, such as:

• Pre '48 state creation by the UN
  
  
  Contrary to your characterization that "Palestinians and Israelis were attacking each other in order to get the upper hand", the (soon to be) Israelis by far had the upper hand, and used it to grab land from hundreds of thousands of Palestinian on both sides of the UN partition plan, which again is recounted on this Wiki page and the cited references.​
• 48-49 War
  
  Contrary to your characterization that "Initial attacks by the Arab states supported by the Palestinians", in reality Palestinians were fleeing from Israel's ongoing land grab, and the Arab states stepped into support the Palestinians.​

Prominent Israeli leaders had long been saying exactly what you claim they weren't, one particularly explicit example being the man who became Israel's first Prime Minster, who in 1937 responded to the Peel Commission's attempts at partition by stating:



Now, I don't suppose you can cite any sources to justify your contention that Israel wasn't engaged in a land grab, can you?

You honestly believe wikipedia to be an accurate source or are you that daft?

Why do you think that at most major colleges wikipedia is not allowed to be a source of reference???

What is the wikipedia disclaimer??

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on the internet that is edited by anyone who wants to help. The way it works means that anyone with who can view the internet can change what is written. When you read Wikipedia, you should remember that we cannot make sure that our information is checked by people who can make it complete, accurate or reliable.
That does not mean that there is not useful, correct information in Wikipedia; there is lots. However, Wikipedia cannot make sure the information here is correct. Any article may have been changed or vandalized by someone who thinks they know what is correct, but is not aware of the current facts of the topics they are writing about.
No system of checks by experts
We are developing ways to find versions of articles which are more correct, and show them to our readers. The people who help make Wikipedia use up-to-date lists like the Special:Recentchanges and Special:Newpages to watch new and changing pages. However, Wikipedia is not all checked by experts. Although readers might correct errors and some experts may check some articles, the law does not make them do this and so, just because we have information here, this does not mean that we think it is all true, or useful for anything you want to do with it. Before you think that something might be correct, remember that all articles might have been badly changed to be wrong just before you see them, even ones that had - before - been checked by experts or chosen as very good articles.
None of the editors, sponsors or administrators of Wikipedia, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way at all can be responsible (their fault) for any information which is not correct. It is also not their fault if you use any of the information which is either at Wikipedia, or information on a page somewhere else which we have a web link to.



I sure hope wikipedia was not the source of information you used in other threads....................

 

[Siddhartha]

If I were a Palestinian I would want as much representation and recognition I could get. But then I was never a Zionist.

 

[EagleKeeper]

All these settlements are ongoing examples of that, and the years they were started are listed on the chart.

As for your arguments, you're going to have to cite your sources before I bother taking the time to respond to them, as this continuum of; you making outsourced claims, me citing sources to refute them, and you responding with more outsourced claims, is getting old.

Thank you for proving my point. :thumbsup:

None of those settlements were started prior to the '67 day war.
Settlements were only started on areas that she controlled. That was land obtained as a result of whipping the Arabs/Palestinians in the '67 war. The Arab states that controlled that land previously.

Therefore my statement stands - Israel honored the boundaries that she agreed to. Had she not been attacked, those settlements would not have been started outside the boundaries. the Palestinians and Arabs have brought this mess on themselves and you still want to reward them for it.:hmm:

 

[EagleKeeper]

Why I ask, should the Pals accept less than full UN Seat?

After all its still a continual progression of blaming the unarmed Pals, for the sins of the Arabs.

First we had the 1948 borders of Israel, in which the Pals owned at least 65% of the the land. It may be correct to blame combined Arab armies for attacking Israel, but all theunarmed Pals did is fled. And once the Arabs were repulsed by Israel, they went home, and theunarmed Pals, being weak paid the price as they were robbed of their land by armed Israelis and forced out a a point of a gun.

19 years later, as many Palestinians fled to the West Bank and Gaza, Again the Arabs armies made military noises against Israel, and because Israel could not stay on infinite standby, Israel attacked first in the 1967 war that over ran East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. As well as capturing large parts of the Egyptian Sinai desert. Not the fault of the Pals in anyway. With the 1973 war being another rehash.
The Arabs were within hours of attacking Israel and by some accounts Egypt had already infiltrated special forces. Egypt/Nasser felt that they had the support of Russia and were lining up forces in the Sinai; Jordan was lined up and also Syria.

blaming Israel for defending itself - typical from you.

go back to your US politics - at least there you have some knowledge of what you are talking about. Your track record on the ME area is completely shattered

Finally the US brokered a peace, Egypt got the Sinai back, but the Pales were still screwed.

But meanwhile back at the UN, the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, is all land the State of Israeli can never own. Because its all land by conquest by UN doctrine.

But meanwhile, and for 44 years, in the absence of a peace treaty, between Israel and the Pals, the the Israeli military occupation is still the semi-legitimate means Israel uses to still retain and administer a military occupation of lands it can never own. {b]Says who - the Palestinians do not want peace; they want it all[/b]

Once the Pals gain full UN recognition,WHEN Israel will have no choice to get their shit and git, and go back to their pre 1967 borders. Who is going to make them pack it up, the Palestinians? - those that have the power to force the issue have stated that the borders will be NEGOTIATED, not forced.

It was bad enough in 1948 when Israel stole all Palestinian land, but to gag a maggot, Israel wants to screw the Pals again. As they embargo their economy, treat them as subhuman, and then pretend Israelis are the victims.
The Palestinians have done this to themselves; just like Kyle and others, you desire to reward them for their flawed choices. After all the Israeli's are reciprocating to the way the Palestinians consider the them.

France has it right, Bozo Netanyuhu is a liar.

Unarmed Pals - whos smoke is that.

The Palestinians made up close to half of the forces that have attacked Israel in '48.

They also continued attacks on Israel through '67 in attempts to get Israeli into new state conflicts with the host countries.

They also have been responsible for multiple attacks on Israel and also abroad against Israeli citizens and Jews.

And you say they are unarmed?:whiste:

as JediYoda states; please identify the source of your 'shrooms

 

[Whiskey16]

Settlements were only started on areas that she controlled. That was land obtained as a result of whipping the Arabs/Palestinians in the '67 war. The Arab states that controlled that land previously

Repeatedly citations have been presented to you unequivocally displaying international law that has been signed and ratified by Israel where the annexation of territory via warfare is a high crime. You erred in past threads stating Israel is "just."

Eagle Keeper, on this topic of Israeli expansion. you have no moral nor legal standing. As a moderator on this forum, out of political bias, may you act abusively upon another member or are you held by standardised rules? I see you respectfully abide by the latter, so why do you not see the social disconnect when you are an advocate of high crimes of aggression by Israel and the extreme bigotry that are the Israeli state policy of lebenstraum?

 

[EagleKeeper]

For Israel to initiate annexation via conflict; I would condemn.


Her opponents have shown a willingness to continually violate her borders to attack her.
From the birth of the state in '48 though the present time.
Those attacks are very seldom condemned and never punished.
She has the right to defend herself. For Israel to take territory in defense, I support.


I have yet to see Jordan or Egypt ask for that territory back. they, not the Palestinians were the ones assigned to such.

 

[EagleKeeper]

w/ respect to Moderation; you will never find any member that I have performed moderation on that is based on political views.


EK
Admin

 

[JEDIYoda]

Repeatedly citations have been presented to you unequivocally displaying international law that has been signed and ratified by Israel where the annexation of territory via warfare is a high crime. You erred in past threads stating Israel is "just."

Eagle Keeper, on this topic of Israeli expansion. you have no moral nor legal standing. --- actually Eagle Keeper is 100% right on, in every way. I find him to be very moral and to understand the legalities very well!!


As a moderator on this forum, out of political bias, may you act abusively upon another member or are you held by standardised rules? -- what does this have to do with anything? When Eagle Keeper posts he is posting as a member of these forums. Not as a mod! He know the very well the separation between Mod and member.

I see you respectfully abide by the latter, so why do you not see the social disconnect when you are an advocate of high crimes of aggression by Israel and the extreme bigotry that are the Israeli state policy of lebenstraum?--It`s plain goofy that you would try claim the mods should see things your way because they are mods!! Mods are entitled to their opinions!!

What a goofy post!! There are some goofy mods but there are also bright and intelligent mods like EagleKeeper!!

 

[kylebisme]

Thank you for proving my point. :thumbsup:

None of those settlements were started prior to the '67 day war.

The only thing of yours being proved here is your ignorance of the history of the conflict. You asked about "settlements", so I answered in that regard. As for Israelis violating the bounties they agreed to prior to to the '67 war, that wasn't done in the form of settlements, but rather by running Palestinians out of their homes and destroying them, or by repopulating them with Jews. Again see this wiki page for some notable examples. Also, for detailed examples, seehis Wiki page which goes addresses cases of Lydda and Ramle,

Had she not been attacked, those settlements would not have been started outside the boundaries.

Again you show your ignorance of history. Israel made the first attack of the '67 war by bombing Egypt air force to pieces while it was sitting on the ground, as recounted here.

 

[Lemon law]

w/ respect to Moderation; you will never find any member that I have performed moderation on that is based on political views.


EK
Admin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although I almost always disagree with the Views of EK, I have to say, as far as I have seem. that EK has not used his moderator power to abuse or punish those that disagree with him.

But I predict this thread, like many similar posts before it, will turn out to be another ineffectual P&N debate, as the same old arguments are restated.

However in the grander scheme of things, I doubt Israel can forestall the creation of a Palestinians State much longer, even in the 2 year foreseeable future.

 

[Whiskey16]

Eagle Keeper, I apologise if confusion was present after my previous post. I praised Eagle Keeper upon his detachment of political bias as a moderator and of laudably being an example to this forum and of its rules.

For demonstrative purposes, I attempted a comparison/contrast of forum society to that of the world stage.

Why may Israel be praised for the aggressive and destabilising conduct of its high crimes?

For Israel to initiate annexation via conflict; I would condemn.

Eagle Keeper, there is no disconnect between action nor reaction in warfare upon the concerning laws.

Israel continues to do and is upon the record of criminal mis-conduct of territorial acquisition that continues and you continue to refuse to condemn.

Repeatedly, I have corrected you. Here is a reminder of international law that has been ratified by Israel and of United Nations Security Council resolutions condemning Israel for doing exactly what you unsuitably deny:

Definition of Aggression, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX).
Article 5:
3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.
Article 7
Nothing in this Definition, and in particular article 3, could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right and referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination: nor the right of these peoples to struggle to that end and to seek and receive support, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration.

United Nations Resolution 242 (November 1967) - The situation in the Middle East:
..
Emphasizingthe inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Eagle Keeper, you continue to fail to recognise the facts of Israel having, maintaining, and retaining an intention to annex territory that is not legally nor morally theirs. Such unilateral acquisition of territory, is by definition, aggression.

Expanding beyond their borders is aggression. Not complicated stuff, here.

You may attempt all of the wiggling you desire to proclaim rational that Israel only acts in defence, but that offers no legal basis for expansion. You are on record for agreeing that this was territory annexed via warfare:

That was land obtained as a result of whipping the Arabs/Palestinians in the '67 war.

Only when called out upon the lack of any moral nor legal standing for such action, your rebuttal was of a nonsensical about-face composed of doublespeak:

For Israel to initiate annexation via conflict; I would condemn.

A demonstrably full disconnect in your inconsistent argument, Eagle Keeper.

You are in fact upon a clear and concise record of being an advocate for the high crimes of aggression and the illegal annexation of territory via warfare by the state of Israel. Fine. Now, be straight-up with that.

Nebor is fairly alone upon such frank honesty.

Simply come out and state such reality rather than providing failed positions that Israel is "just" in what it does. Israel is unjust, thereby you and others support that criminal and unjust position of territorial expansion.

 

[Nebor]

Nebor is fairly alone upon such frank honesty.

Simply come out and state such reality rather than providing failed positions that Israel is "just" in what it does. Israel is unjust, thereby you and others support that criminal and unjust position of territorial expansion.[/FONT][/COLOR]

I think Israel has proven well and thoroughly that you don't have be just, well liked or fair as long as you can kick the snot out of everyone that hates you.