Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb

[NineseveN]

Resolution 242 simply declares all land seizure in 1967 illegal and demands that Israel return it.

Read it again (emphasis is mine):

U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242
NOVEMBER 22, 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the 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,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment 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:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement 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;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;


Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

Israel was to relinquish their occupation so long as hostilities ceased, which they did not.

Part of the problem is, the resolution is ambiguous, but why would Israel give up occupation if their enemies maintained hostilities? It makes no sense as there is no basis or credence for such a gesture of faith towards enemies that have sworn to rid the region of the Jews. If they give up those areas, the Jews lose an important buffer against further aggression, which is why they occupied and kept those lands in the first place...yet they gave so much land back to Egypt after Egypt agreed to end hostilities in the 1979 treaty.

It says nothing in that resolution about the occupations being illegal as you contend.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Pretending that the Chinese are too dependent to take advantage of such a situation is a dodge. What exactly would America do to a China that threatened its interests, under the proposed circumstances?

I yet have to hear a sensible proposition as to what exactly the Chinese would do and how and why. Nuke us? Attack us with conventional weapons? Invade us across the Pacific? If anything, using nukes rather than our conventional army is the least self-weakening thing we can do.

As for your nuke everyone idea...look at a map sometime. Do you realize how large a land area would have to be hit to make this plan work? From Morocco to Indonesia, in a continuous line. How do you propose so many nukes be launched without turning all those neighboring states against us as well?

Okay. Again. We have THOUSANDS of nukes, EACH with multiple warheads. The area you describe has that many major cities. One 30kt fission warhead per large city. One large fusion warhead per major city. Population and government centers destroyed. Infrastructure toast. Economy non-existent. Most population dead on the spot or dying. Conventional bombs for isolated dams, powerstations, and smaller military bases. Fast-burnout bacteriological weapons dispersed over agricultural regions.

And, it is not a requirement not to piss off other small countries in the region. If they "turn against us", iterate. Not that they will.

And you are dancing. You argued it could not be done. I explained (for the fourth time) it could and asked you to respond substantively. You give me back more international-politics arguments.

 

[shootinstudent]

I yet have to hear a sensible proposition as to what exactly the Chinese would do and how and why. Nuke us? Attack us with conventional weapons? Invade us across the Pacific? If anything, using nukes rather than our conventional army is the least self-weakening thing we can do.

Destroy our economic power by asserting control over South Korea, Southeast Asia, and Taiwan. Do you think all those places are unimportant?

Then there's the straits of Melacca...not at all an insignificant location.

Okay. Again. We have THOUSANDS of nukes, EACH with multiple warheads. The area you describe has that many major cities. One 30kt fission warhead per large city. One large fusion warhead per major city. Population and government centers destroyed. Infrastructure toast. Economy non-existent. Most population dead on the spot or dying. Conventional bombs for isolated dams, powerstations, and smaller military bases. Fast-burnout bacteriological weapons dispersed over agricultural regions.

Do you have any clue what kind of economic havoc destroying the economy that comes from most of the world's land mass would create? America is not an Island. Go to a store sometime and look at where the products are made. That will all be disrupted by such an attack, and it will leave us with absolutely no allies. I don't think even the Canadians would stick with us in that case.

Add the new class of unemployed and impoverished people your strike just created to those who righteously oppose genocide within the US, and I think your scenario is, as I said, a recipe for destroying the United States. You keep accusing me of saying it could not be done...no, that's not what I said. What I said was: It can't be done without ruining the United States.

It is hopelessly arrogant and unrealistic to think otherwise.

 

[Cousin Mike]

NineseveN

You seem like a good guy. I misunderstood some of the things you said. We agree on more than I thought. We still disagree on some stuff, but nobody is perfect


R.H. Lee

Nice way to go around the subject with the hyphenated American thing. Was that a poem? Tell me that crap again when people on T.V. stop calling me African-American everday.

Americans of Arab descent. Americans of Arab ancestry, cherry-pick all you like. American Muslims. Some of these same people serve our country in lots of ways, which was exactly my point. These people are as American as you or I. You can ignore that fact all you like by quoting Teddy Roosevelt. The fact is, you said some things that I thought were pretty wacko. In retrospect, I should have just ignored you.

I apologize (to all) for getting carried away. I'm new to this forum thing. Won't happen again. The thing is, R.H. Lee, some of the most general statements about Arabs in this thread have come from you. There was not much to debate with facts or articles, you simply gave your opinions about Arabs. I gave my opinions about you and the things you said. We all have our own opinions. But when you say things like "all arabs" are irrational, unreasonable, whatever other generalizations you made, you invite conflict. I kept my comments limited to the Israeli GOVERNMENT. But I don't have anything against the Israeli people. Maybe you have something against Arabs, maybe you don't, but if I were to bet the former, could you really blame me?

 

[CAnnoneer]

Destroy our economic power by asserting control over South Korea, Southeast Asia, and Taiwan. Do you think all those places are unimportant?

They did not do it in 1950 but would do it now? They would jeopardize the HUGE market for their goods that we are, to take back a couple of countries that are dwarfs by comparison? The Chinese are not stupid. All this saber-rattling over Taiwan is just to save face. If they really wanted to, they could have taken Taiwan at any time once they went nuclear.

Do you have any clue what kind of economic havoc destroying the economy that comes from most of the world's land mass would create?

Since when do arab muslims occupy "most of the world's land mass"? Maybe it is you who should buy an atlas.

Go to a store sometime and look at where the products are made.

So much the better for "Made in USA". Besides, you should really check out some maps of GNP across the globe. You will be unpleasantly surprised what huge areas produce how little. Btw, we were over this last time ...

That will all be disrupted by such an attack, and it will leave us with absolutely no allies. I don't think even the Canadians would stick with us in that case.

But having all these allies now has made such a world of difference...

Add the new class of unemployed and impoverished people your strike just created to those who righteously oppose genocide within the US,

Globalism and outsourcing gone, you will be surprised how well we will do. It will be 1945 all over again. Leftists will tear their clothes and sprinkle ashes on their heads, no doubt. So what else is new?

What you leftists do not understand is that the average American is a pragmatic tough person that would support hard decisions when the challenges faced are large enough. One has, one does, and one will.

 

[NineseveN]

NineseveN

You seem like a good guy. I misunderstood some of the things you said. We agree on more than I thought. We still disagree on some stuff, but nobody is perfect

I think I misunderstood you at some point as well, and you cleared that up here. Like you said, we still disagree on some things, but I can totally see where your argument is coming from. And I think we found one more thing to agree on, no, you're not perfect.

 

[R.H. Lee]

The problem is that most of the Palestinians have been there for much, much longer than most of the Israelis. The Palestinians generally see this as an exact repeat of the American campaign against the Indians.

It doesn't much matter what the 'Palestinians' think. They've been offered a homeland and self rule time and time again over many years. Instead, they've chosen aggression, hatred and murder; they're in a situation of their own making. Their own leader, Arafat, abused them much more than their gracious Jewish hosts ever have. He stole literally billions of dollars from them over the years; money that could have raised the 'Palestinian' people out of their self-imposed squalor and misery. Any claim the 'Palestinians' have on the land is tenuous and would in any case revert back to the original partition. Although a good argument can be made that even that is now forfeit, due to their long history of irrational behavior toward Israel and its people.

The Palestinians generally see this as an exact repeat of the American campaign against the Indians. Do you think that period was an example of the moral high ground?

Do you think strapping explosives to your children and sending them off to kill innocent Jewish women and children is an example of 'moral high ground'?

 

[shootinstudent]

The Chinese are not stupid. All this saber-rattling over Taiwan is just to save face. If they really wanted to, they could have taken Taiwan at any time once they went nuclear.

Ah, another opinion formed by long hours of study .

So much the better for "Made in USA". Besides, you should really check out some maps of GNP across the globe. You will be unpleasantly surprised what huge areas produce how little.

Low GNP's now don't mean there won't be disruption in International trade when they're gone.

Since when do arab muslims occupy "most of the world's land mass"? Maybe it is you who should buy an atlas.

Arabs occupy sites that are holy to virtually all Muslims. Destroying them would create a nice little belt of states dedicated to stomping the country that attacked their religion's ancestral home. "Oh, but they can't do anything!"...if they can't do anything to threaten the US, why are we so worried about these people right now that we'd contemplate nuclear attacks?

Globalism and outsourcing gone, you will be surprised how well we will do. It will be 1945 all over again. Leftists will tear their clothes and sprinkle ashes on their heads, no doubt. So what else is new?

How much has the US economy grown since 1945, the year our globalist policies really took off with massive foreign aid spending and trade plans with Europe and Asia?

Funny, the first thing we did after WWII was spend billions to rebuild Japan and Europe...yet you somehow have managed to view that as a time of isolation.

Back to the point...how we deal with the rest of the world matters to our pocketbooks, it matters to our military and political allies, and it matters in terms of morality. This includes how we deal with Iran, and how the Israelis deal with Iran. I know it's easier to turn all of our relations with the world into analogies where one country is the home invader and the other is the innocent homeowner, but that's a cartoon-version of reality and it's sure to produce cartoon-quality results if you rely on it.

 

[shootinstudent]

RH,

Let's try this:

Any claim the 'Palestinians' have on the land is tenuous and would in any case revert back to the original partition. Although a good argument can be made that even that is now forfeit, due to their long history of irrational behavior toward Israel and its people.

Back in 1948, when the Israeli immigrants rebelled, what do you think would've been a moral response on the part of the Arabs? Please detail what you think the appropriate Palestinian response would've been to Jewish immigration.

Do you think strapping explosives to your children and sending them off to kill innocent Jewish women and children is an example of 'moral high ground'?

No. But neither do I think assassinating UN mediators, British soldiers, and then grabbing land for religious reasons is moral. Even though Israel and its antecedents have certainly done those things, I don't think that entitles anyone to wipe out all of Israel and treat the residents like vagabonds.

If all the people who occupied the land that is now Israel in 1947 had taken a vote, what do you think the majority would've decided regarding the political situation?

 

[CAnnoneer]

Do you think strapping explosives to your children and sending them off to kill innocent Jewish women and children is an example of 'moral high ground'?

In a leftist's mind, yes. It is justifiable, because you see, well, we westerners are fundamentally evil white men that have oppressed the rest of the world with things like slavery (and others like medicine, science, education, transportation, hygiene, communications, modern agriculture...)

So you see, because we are evil sinful men, everything that is done to us is our rightful due, whereas everything we do in response is more of the same colonialist white racist oppression.

So you know, we should stop defending ourselves and our interests and get on with the program of saving the world to build a global kumbaya society where every man is equal(ly unfree and unrich).

Freedom=Slavery

I LOVE the Big Blue Brother double plus good. I truly do. The talking TV set too.

 

[BuddyOne]

Quoting Myself

Israel will handle the problem just fine. I anticipate impeccable timing and appropriate effect.

Students will not be happy.

Buddy

Buddy

 

[CAnnoneer]

Ah, another opinion formed by long hours of study .

Care to offer something substantive instead?

Low GNP's now don't mean there won't be disruption in International trade when they're gone.

Exactly how?

Arabs occupy sites that are holy to virtually all Muslims. Destroying them would create a nice little belt of states dedicated to stomping the country that attacked their religion's ancestral home.

Therein lies your fundamental misjudgment of the current situation. To all these people we are a joke exactly because they do not believe we would ever deploy. That is exactly why they think we are weak and decadent and therefore deserving to die. They are the little bullies on the block and we are the big strong sniveling weakling that mumbles about peace and exporting good will while he has his face boxed.

Funny, the first thing we did after WWII was spend billions to rebuild Japan and Europe...yet you somehow have managed to view that as a time of isolation.

The rebuilding was to avoid the repetition of the economic devastation that destroyed the Weimar republic and brought the Nazis into power. It was not done to create economic rivals, at least not intentionally (I hope).

I forgot, yes in 1945 we imported zillions of German cars, Japanese electronics, and Chinese plastic baubles. In an alternate commintern reality maybe.

Back to the point...how we deal with the rest of the world matters to our pocketbooks, it matters to our military and political allies, and it matters in terms of morality.

There we go again. Hollow generalist statements and moralizing sermons. But, then again you are Irish, right? They do make the best priests.

 

[shootinstudent]

The rebuilding was to avoid the repetition of the economic devastation that destroyed the Weimar republic and brought the Nazis into power.

And there we have it...do you see the problem with overdoing retaliatory strikes and taking too much from victory? That's a lesson we should remember.

As for the rest of your post, it was about on par with this:

There we go again. Hollow generalist statements and moralizing sermons. But, then again you are Irish, right? They do make the best priests.

I certainly have enough personal interest in this topic to debate your points, but not nearly enough interest to take cracks at other people's ethnic backgrounds or any other personal characteristics.

 

[Dannyboy]

Looks like TexasSIGman posted the resolution. What does
Quote:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
mean to you?

Considering there is more to it than that one line, I'll say it again. You obviously haven't read 242. Get past the arab propaganda and read the WHOLE thing next time. Unlike many other UN resolutions regarding Israel, this one was a 2 way street. Land for Peace, get it?

 

[NineseveN]

Considering there is more to it than that one line, I'll say it again. You obviously haven't read 242. Get past the arab propaganda and read the WHOLE thing next time. Unlike many other UN resolutions regarding Israel, this one was a 2 way street. Land for Peace, get it?

I don't think he does....


SS, see post #201 if you need some help.

 

[shootinstudent]

Dannyboy,

Which provision in the resolution legalizes the building of settlements, or in any way implies that permanent occupation is legitimate?

Nineseven: Same to you.

The resolution specifically notes:

Emphasizing the 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,

Where is the corresponding: "But that land doesn't have to be given back unless the Palestinians quit refusing to recognize Israel"?

 

[NineseveN]

Dannyboy,

Which provision in the resolution legalizes the building of settlements, or in any way implies that permanent occupation is legitimate? What text gives room for permanent Israeli settlements in the post 67 border?

Nineseven: Same to you.

Which provision in the resolution legalizes the nesting habitats of migratory birds, or in any way implies that migration is legitimate? What text gives room for permanent Canadian geese migration into Pennsylvania in the post 1988 winter seasons?

Yeah, I can do that as well. What I posted is as relevant to the specific UN resolution as what you posted.

The resolution had one goal, to attempt to stabilize the region. There were two conditions the resolution stated as primary necessities:

1. The Israeli's remove their occupation and control of so-called "occupied" areas.

AND

2. The hostilities between the two cease.


Not one, not the other, both. If Palestine had stopped the hostile rhetoric or had made an honest and visibly viable attempt at culling the violence and rhetoric and Israel refused to move out of contested occupied lands as described in the resolution and continued hostilities, there would be grounds for Palestine to go back to being hostile (hostile being refusing to accept and acknowledge the sovereign states of Israel and Palestine from both parties, physical attacks and/or violent and threatening rhetoric).

But what happened was, Palestine refused to cease hostilities, Israel did not give up the occupied territory and Israel was not recognized or acknowledged as a sovereign state.

I must have missed this if you disclosed the info, but are you an Arab or Muslim? What part of your background drives the nonsense and refusal to read and acknowledge reality. Surely something must be behind it, I cannot put my finger on it.

 

[shootinstudent]

But what happened was, Palestine refused to cease hostilities, Israel did not give up the occupied territory and Israel was not recognized or acknowledged as a sovereign state.

Well, Israel declared East Jerusalem its territory the day the war ended...do you consider that to be a violation of the resolution?

Why exactly would the Palestinians give something in return for a state that annexed territory the day the war ended in what was supposed to be only a defensive action (and one that, if you believe Menachem Begin, was a pre-emptive strike in the first place)?

I must have missed this if you disclosed the info, but are you an Arab or Muslim? What part of your background drives the nonsense and refusal to read and acknowledge reality. Surely something must be behind it, I cannot put my finger on it.

The only thing that drives my reading of this situation is lots of time spent reading about it. It's also the view that's been adopted by pretty much every single government in the world except for two: The United States and Israel.

But we couldn't have the wrong idea here, right?

Edit to add:

I think it's interesting that I'm being accused of ulterior motives here...I'm certainly not the one psychoanalyzing other peoples' self defense capabilities, attacking their ethnic backgrounds, or accusing them of being "driven to nonsense" by their backgrounds. Surely if there are any personal stakes influencing the viewpoints expressed here, it's present in those posts where the debate is taken so personally that the poster feels the need to turn the debate into a "You must be saying y because your mom is x" type discussion.

 

[NineseveN]

Well, Israel declared East Jerusalem its territory the day the war ended...do you consider that to be a violation of the resolution?

Why exactly would the Palestinians give something in return for a state that annexed territory the day the war ended in what was supposed to be only a defensive action?

It's a circular argument and it's simple, why can you not understand this?

Israel will not give away the occupied lands before the hostilities cease, the occupied lands serve as a buffer against attack. It's simple defensive military strategy.

Palestine will not stop its militant activities until Israel gives the occupied lands back.

All parties involved recognized the legitimacy of resolution 242, it took many years for Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) to actually put the resolution’s provisions into affect with Israel precisely because of the ambiguity. Egypt got the Sinai Penn back and withdrew claims to the Gaza strip, and the treaty with Jordan demarcated the borderline at the Jordan river.

Israel worked with those two, but failed to reach an agreement with Syria. The Palestinians weren't even represented in the talks of 242 which was one of the reason the PLO rejected the resolution anyway. Then in 1988, the PNC voted to recognize Israel within the pre-1967 boundaries. The negotiations eventually led to the Oslo Accords...yadda yadda yadda...

I think it's quite interesting that I'm being accused of having some ulterior motive or personal stake in this debate...I'm certainly not the one psychoanalyzing other peoples' odds of self defense, trying to attack them based on their own ethnic identity, or saying things like "your background is driving this nonsense" etc. It seems to me that if any have personal stakes in this debate that're influencing their viewpoints, it'd be those who are clearly taking it personally and lashing out in response.

I'm not lashing out, I clearly disclosed my disposition and my background, you have skirted the issue yet again. Fine, your background is your business, but it is relevant in my opinion due to your selective reading, far reaching assumptions and downright twisting of issues such as your statement that Resolution "242 simply declares all land seizure in 1967 illegal and demands that Israel return it." when it said no such thing. The word "illegal" does not appear in that section of text, nor is there a demand. There is a conditional agreement of returning the land in exchange for an agreement of peace, which the PLO rejected. It states no such thing as you indicated, therefore, you are wrong. That has to come from somewhere because it stinks of bias and propganda.

 

[shootinstudent]

Israel will not give away the occupied lands before the hostilities cease, the occupied lands serve as a buffer against attack. It's simple defensive military strategy.

You are dodging the question:

Was the annexation of East Jerusalem, and the declaration that it was part of Israel's capital, prohibited by Resolution 242?

Furthermore, did that action indicate that Israel actually ever intended to give the land back, regardless of what the Palestinians did or did not do?

Your history is one that's covered in the links I posted. If we stick to the two questions above, we'll have the root of our disagreement about the meaning of resolution 242 and the later politics. I myself fail to see how you can believe that Israel only intended to hold that land so long as Palestine was violent...if it did, why the permanent annexation of Jerusalem and immediate construction of civillian settlements in the rest of the territory?

I clearly disclosed my disposition and my background, you have skirted the issue yet again. Fine, your background is your business, but it is relative due to your selective reading, far reaching assumptions and downright twisting of issues such as your statement that Resolution "242 simply declares all land seizure in 1967 illegal and demands that Israel return it." when it said no such thing. The word "illegal" does not appear in that section of text, nor is there a demand.

I didn't skirt the question. I posted my background above to CAnnoneer, even though it's not relevant. I haven't asked for anyone else's background because it won't change the facts...all I like to see is some proof of the point.

That the word "illegal" doesn't appear is irrelevant. "Illegal" doesn't appear in lots of the resolutions condemning Saddam's regime either...what's illegal is violating a resolution. And this one clearly says that territory captured by means of war is "inadmissible." I don't know how much more clear that can get. It doesn't make an exception to the principle, and it certainly doesn't say: "But its inadmissibility is conditioned on what the Palestinians do."

 

[NineseveN]

Was the annexation of East Jerusalem, and the declaration that it was part of Israel's capital, prohibited by Resolution 242?

It had already happened. The Air Strike against egypt occurred on June 5th. The original annexation legislation was passed on June 28th 1967 IIRC. You cannot really "prohibit" what has already happened. That's probably more semantics than anything. The annexation was not specifically targetted, however, international law had something to say about that in resolution 478 in 1980. Israel was at that time (1980) legally wrong according to international law, but I find it difficult to find much realistic fault in it. It's strategy, plain and simple, and no one over there is playing by the rules, if they were, none of this would be a topic of discussion now would it?

Furthermore, did that action indicate that Israel actually ever intended to give the land back, regardless of what the Palestinians did or did not do?

We'll never know because Palestine, who rejected 242 anyway, has not ceased hostilities and in 1980, the Jerusalem Law was passed. I seriously doubt Israel would give it back now, regardless of what their intentions might have been at the time of resolution 242.



A Quick quote from, of all places, Wikipedia:

Annexation of east Jerusalem

Under Israel, members of all religions were largely granted access to their holy sites, with the Muslim Waqf maintaining control of the Temple Mount and Muslim holy sites there. The old Mughrabi Quarter (Morrocan) neighborhood in front of the Western Wall was demolished and replaced with a large open air plaza.

Following annexation, Israel conducted a census in the annexed territory and granted permanent Israeli residency to those present at the time of the census (those not present lost the right to reside in Jerusalem). They were permitted to apply for Israeli citizenship on condition they swore allegiance to Israel and renounce all other citizenships, which most of them refused to do. Those rejecting Israeli citizenship can still vote in municipal elections and play a role in the administration of the city.

In 1980 Israel enacted its "Jerusalem Law" formally declaring East and West Jerusalem together, "whole and united" to be "the capital of Israel". In response the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 478 (the U.S. abstained), declaring the annexation to be a violation of international law. In 1988, Jordan, while rejecting Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem, withdrew all its claims to the West Bank (including Jerusalem). The Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles, signed September 13, 1993, leaves open the final status of Jerusalem, though Israel did not cede sovereignty until final negotiations on the city's status.

With the stated purpose of preventing infiltration during the Second Intifada, Israel has decided to surround East Jerusalem with a separation barrier. The planned barrier would cut off East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. The separation barrier has raised much criticism, and the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the alignment of sections of the barrier (including East Jerusalem sections) must be amended.

That the word "illegal" doesn't appear is irrelevant. "Illegal" doesn't appear in lots of the resolutions condemning Saddam's regime either...what's illegal is violating a resolution.

Then Palestine's continued hostilities are aslo illegal, and thus, again the circular argument...round and round we go, where we'll stop, I think we all know.

And this one clearly says that territory captured by means of war is "inadmissible." I don't know how much more clear that can get. It doesn't make an exception to the principle, and it certainly doesn't say: "But its inadmissibility is conditioned on what the Palestinians do."

No it does not. You are thinking of 478. The Jerusalem Law was not until 1980, Palestine (PLO) had long before that time rejected 242 (1967), which renders that point moot unless Nostradamus was an Arab working for the PLO at the time and knew of their intentions some 13 years after the fact.

Again, it's a circular argument. The reason I see more of Israel's side is that they have more to lose if they give blind faith where it is not due. None of Palestine's previous actions indicate that simply getting occupied lands back (e.j. for example) will make them cease hostilities. If Israel continues to ingore internationl law, they're wrong but they have their security buffer and perhaps the satisfaction that the annexation is a serious thorn in the side of their enemies...if they give it up, they're right according to international law, but now they have a serious security breach in thier defenses and they open themselves and their citizens up to a much easier attack that is quicker to mount and more difficult to defend against if Palestine goes through with their "wipe Israel off the map" doctrine. If it were me, I'd say, "To Hades with international law, I'm going to go with survival for $1000, Alex".

 

[Gary H]

Topic Lost..

A few months will pass before this thread gets back on topic. We can then look back and see what transpired.

I'm betting that little more than rhetoric will be aimed at Iran prior to March, 2006. Israeli conventional attacks seem unlikely in that they would not greatly hurt the Iranian program. An Israeli nuclear offensive would only take place when Israel had no other options. Such an attack would probably lead to eventual in-kind retaliation. The United States will only act overtly through the United Nothing. All real actions will either be bluster, or covert in nature. If covert, we won't be discussing them on this board. Of course, that assumes that the anti-U.S. New York Times doesn't reveal our actions in order to further hurt Bush and our military.

The Israelis are also worried about chemical and biologically tipped shorter range missiles. The Iranians have historically financed conventional missile attacks. The worry is that an all out attack by scores of missiles could overwhelm the Israeli Arrow defensive system. It seems to me that the Iranians could inflict a good bit of damage using third parties, without envoking an all out nuclear exchange.

 

[shootinstudent]

We'll never know because Palestine, who rejected 242 anyway, has not ceased hostilities and in 1980, the Jerusalem Law was passed. I seriously doubt Israel would give it back now, regardless of what their intentions might have been at the time of resolution 242.

Well, you've got Wikipedia...here's what the Government of Israel has to say about when East Jerusalem was incorporated into Israeli territory:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps/Jerusalem+After+the+Six+Day+War+-1967-.htm

Then Palestine's continued hostilities are aslo illegal, and thus, again the circular argument...round and round we go, where we'll stop, I think we all know.

Yes, they are. All terrorism is illegal, but the point is that there was no "conditional" language in that resolution. It didn't say "Land settlement is justified if part 2 of this is not followed."

No it does not. You are thinking of 478. The Jerusalem Law was not until 1980, Palestine (PLO) had long before that time rejected 242 (1967), which renders that point moot unless Nostradamus was an Arab working for the PLO at the time and knew of their intentions some 13 years after the fact.

Wrong. See above. Construction of settlements began immediately after the war. If you'd look through the links I already posted, you'll also see that Menachem Begin and the US state department viewed that war as a strike initiated by Israel against its neighbors.

The reason I see more of Israel's side is that they have more to lose if they give blind faith where it is not due. None of Palestine's previous actions indicate that simply getting occupied lands back (e.j. for example) will make them cease hostilities.

The Palestinians recognized Israel within the pre-67 borders. I think that's a previous action indicating what will make them cease hostilities. There are radicals of course...but then again there are also Israeli radicals who, via the government, have continued building settlements in order to try and displace 100 percent of the Palestinian claims. (I posted a link above to that case, also.)

If it were me, I'd say, "To Hades with international law, I'm going to go with survival for $1000, Alex".

And most Israelis aren't you, judging by the polls I posted. Pretending that the Palestinians have no legitimate gripe and saying "we need this for security!" is dangerous precisely because of all those states like Iran surrounding Israel. All it will take is a few years of US disinterest for the UN to impose sanctions or to at least ignore whatever the Arab states start doing...and that is bad news for everyone involved.

I think betting the security of your state on continued support from only one country is the greater danger here, and so it's time now to foster recognition and support from as many of Israel's neighbors as possible. If it's not possible, it's better to find that out while the US is still interested in guaranteeing Israel's existence. Otherwise, we might have to find out what negotiations will be like without any US interest, and then what?

 

[NineseveN]

Well, you've got Wikipedia...here's what the Government of Israel has to say about when East Jerusalem was incorporated into Israeli territory:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps/Jerusalem+After+the+Six+Day+War+-1967-.htm

Stop it, stop, stop, stop, stop. As I said, "the original annexation legislation was passed on June 28th 1967 IIRC", the izzy link states "A few days after the end of the Six-Day War, on June 27, 1967, the Israeli Parliament passed a law that Israeli administration and jurisdiction apply to all the territory of Jerusalem acquired in the war. The following day, the Jerusalem municipal boundaries were extended to include eastern Jerusalem, as well as Atarot and Neve Yaakov in the north and Gilo in the south."

I was off by ONE day on the law, going from memory. That wasn't even from the wikipedia link. I thought the wiki link was a nice write-up, I am in no way basing my opinion on that. You are splitting hairs over one day. Stop it. I won't discuss this with a jerk. Do you even read the links you post?

Yes, they are. All terrorism is illegal, but the point is that there was no "conditional" language in that resolution. It didn't say "Land settlement is justified if part 2 of this is not followed."

Yes there is ,read it again. The term both is conditional. It means not just one, not just the other, but that criteria 1 AND ("and" being the operator here) criteria 2 must be satisfied. As I said, in case you missed it, that did not make what Israel did right, but there goes the circular argument again. Do you read?

Wrong. See above. Construction of settlements began immediately after the war. If you'd look through the links I already posted, you'll also see that Menachem Begin and the US state department viewed that war as a strike initiated by Israel against its neighbors.

What are you talking about? Read what I said again. Once more, I will not discuss this with someone who either cannot read, or is taking things out of context and retorting with something that has NOTHING to do with what was quoted. If that's how you want to discuss things, have fun on your own.

The Palestinians recognized Israel within the pre-67 borders. I think that's a previous action indicating what will make them cease hostilities. There are radicals of course...but then again there are also Israeli radicals who, via the government, have continued building settlements in order to try and displace 100 percent of the Palestinian claims. (I posted a link above to that case, also.)

Yes they did (PNC), in 1988, 21 years after the resolution...all the while committing exactly how many attacks, or supporting them, or funding them, or condoning them? Right. Thanks, case closed.

And most Israelis aren't you, judging by the polls I posted. Pretending that the Palestinians have no legitimate gripe and saying "we need this for security!" is dangerous precisely because of all those states like Iran surrounding Israel.

First of all, I recognized the gripe of the Palestinians. Read. Read again, if you still don't get it, sue your school district. I simply find the concerns of the Israeli's more serious because they have more to lose by giving that land up than to continue until a show of good faith in ceasing hostility can be shown. It hasn't, don't say it has, it hasn't. The families of suicide bombers being paid does not make a good show of faith. Statements of genocide does not make good faith.


I'm done. I cannot discuss this with someone who's head is so far out of reality and who responds to statements I make with statements about unrelated issues as if I asked a question. This might work in high school debate classes, you have a long way to go in the real world my friend. Your retarded worldview is not justified simply because you can become so absurd that you frustrate people out of the argument. I know it feels like you've won, but you must realize, you have caused a lot of intelligent folks to tune you out because you can't seem to make sense. If I say I think geese migrating in large numbers from Canada is a dtrain on Pennsylvania agriculture, you respond with a link showing what CBS says about what Cuban geese do in Scotland in the spring and whether or not they migrated first. I'm done, have fun, you win the internet.

Anyone who reads this thread with an objective mind will see right through your dime bag debate tactics and your lack of a viewpoint grounded in reality. Thanks for playing, I enjoyed it up until the end there.

 

[CAnnoneer]

I'm done. ...This might work in high school debate classes, you have a long way to go in the real world my friend. Your retarded worldview is not justified simply because you can become so absurd that you frustrate people out of the argument. I know it feels like you've won, but you must realize, you have caused a lot of intelligent folks to tune you out because you can't seem to make sense.

Anyone who reads this thread with an objective mind will see right through your dime bag debate tactics and your lack of a viewpoint grounded in reality. Thanks for playing, I enjoyed it up until the end there.

+1

But I am not done yet. We must expose and refute leftists at any opportunity we have if we are to keep our freedoms and America strong.

Here are some selected readings:

SS post #165:

I think these visions of grand genocidal capabilities are a good example of Americans needing to come to grips with reality: we are powerful, but killing that many people isn't feasible.

SS post #178:

Right, but graphic doesn't mean more possible.

SS post #203:

You keep accusing me of saying it could not be done...no, that's not what I said. What I said was: It can't be done without ruining the United States.

...pants on fire.