• How reasonable is the proposition for Palestine to be recognized 1967 borders?
    38 replies, posted
[QUOTE=wraithcat;32393060]A more correct analogy is - you set a small office up, then two of your colleagues with bigger offices barge in and want your office as well. You push them out and take control of the small anteroom next to your office and put a secretary in there. But leave a secretary working on a completely different agenda in there as well, just tell her she has to keep to your closing hours. otherwise can do her job in peace. A while later your boss comes along is surprised by the scene and goes back to the office allocation board.[/QUOTE]Your analogy is entirely different than his. You’re simply making an analogy about the six-day war and the occupation that led as a result, you also left out essential factors. How was this small initial office set-up? And that Israel actually attacked Egypt first, which led to Egypt’s allies to assist her. They didn't 'barge in' demanding for the office as you initially stated. His analogy was about how Israel continued to increase its presence info the occupied territories despite it already being internationally (including the U.S) established that those lands do not belong to Israel. It wasn’t matter of debate nor was there any uncertainty regarding the status of the lands, despite Trotsky claiming otherwise above. No one, except Israel, recognized those lands as Israel’s. Israel repeatedly ignored requests to withdraw from the territories and even lied about being “no plans to build settlements” Israel knew what it was doing when they started to invest in the West Bank, they knew what they were doing was in violation of international law and they also knew what the inevitable ramifications would be in future when they would be forced to withdraw. Israel shouldn’t ever be exonerated for it simply because “they’ve done for a while now so its to late”
No. Arabs don't deserve this land.
[QUOTE=pingvin99;32393949]No. Arabs don't deserve this land.[/QUOTE] Sounds pretty racist to me.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;32393438]Your analogy is entirely different than his. You’re simply making an analogy about the six-day war and the occupation that led as a result, you also left out essential factors. How was this small initial office set-up? And that Israel actually attacked Egypt first, which led to Egypt’s allies to assist her. They didn't 'barge in' demanding for the office as you initially stated. His analogy was about how Israel continued to increase its presence info the occupied territories despite it already being internationally (including the U.S) established that those lands do not belong to Israel. It wasn’t matter of debate nor was there any uncertainty regarding the status of the lands, despite Trotsky claiming otherwise above. No one, except Israel, recognized those lands as Israel’s. Israel repeatedly ignored requests to withdraw from the territories and even lied about being “no plans to build settlements” Israel knew what it was doing when they started to invest in the West Bank, they knew what they were doing was in violation of international law and they also knew what the inevitable ramifications would be in future when they would be forced to withdraw. Israel shouldn’t ever be exonerated for it simply because “they’ve done for a while now so its to late”[/QUOTE] Actually, Egypt made the first aggressive act in the war with the naval blockade of the Tiran straights to all Israeli ships. Egypt also sent two battalions near the border and repeatedly threatened to attack Israel. Israel's preemptive strike was justified due to these acts.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;32396637]Actually, Egypt made the first aggressive act in the war with the naval blockade of the Tiran straights to all Israeli ships. Egypt also sent two battalions near the border and repeatedly threatened to attack Israel. Israel's preemptive strike was justified due to these acts.[/QUOTE] If that is the case, and you consider it an "aggressive action", is it not also an aggressive action to have a naval blockade on ships bound for Gaza?
[QUOTE=Starpluck;32393438]Your analogy is entirely different than his. You’re simply making an analogy about the six-day war and the occupation that led as a result, you also left out essential factors. How was this small initial office set-up? And that Israel actually attacked Egypt first, which led to Egypt’s allies to assist her. They didn't 'barge in' demanding for the office as you initially stated. His analogy was about how Israel continued to increase its presence info the occupied territories despite it already being internationally (including the U.S) established that those lands do not belong to Israel. It wasn’t matter of debate nor was there any uncertainty regarding the status of the lands, despite Trotsky claiming otherwise above. No one, except Israel, recognized those lands as Israel’s. Israel repeatedly ignored requests to withdraw from the territories and even lied about being “no plans to build settlements” Israel knew what it was doing when they started to invest in the West Bank, they knew what they were doing was in violation of international law and they also knew what the inevitable ramifications would be in future when they would be forced to withdraw. Israel shouldn’t ever be exonerated for it simply because “they’ve done for a while now so its to late”[/QUOTE] To be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing some reparations paid out, but at the same I'd say that Israeli presence in the area is far too strong for them to relinquish it. Also as someone else said - preventive strikes are allowed under international law, though frowned upon. But well the US takes it even further via preemptive strikes which many have been heard to say are illegal which makes them dig out really old resolutions. My view though may be somewhat skewed since I would strongly not wish for Sudetenland reparations to happen as well as a number of different situations. So in that case I can concede that a number of my subjective views makes me see the original way Israel handled the situation as illegal and immoral but the long term de facto legal situation puts them somewhat in the right. In the same ways that debts as well as theft and other rights have limitation periods after which enforceable rights cease or become mere natural obligations.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32397277]If that is the case, and you consider it an "aggressive action", is it not also an aggressive action to have a naval blockade on ships bound for Gaza?[/QUOTE] No, because Hamas made the first aggressive move by attacking Israel with rockets and suicide bombers.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;32396637]Actually, Egypt made the first aggressive act in the war with the naval blockade of the Tiran straights to all Israeli ships. Egypt also sent two battalions near the border and repeatedly threatened to attack Israel. Israel's preemptive strike was justified due to these acts.[/QUOTE]Before I begin, in Egypt's defense, the battalions were sent to the border not to prepare for an attack but to defend an incoming attack from Israel. The Soviet Union's intelligence picked up that Israel was preparing for an impending strike on Egypt so Egypt sent those two battalions in border, not to attack but for defensive/scouting measures evidenced by the fact only two battalions were sent. The 1967 war is no different than Operation Barbarossa or Pearl Harbor, it was justified in same manner as Germany and Japan did. Israel claimed it "would only be a matter of time" before the Arabs attack Israel, so they attacked first. Hence, by Israeli logic the Arabs "started the six day war against Israel" This was the same logic Hitler used when he attacked the Soviet Union. German propaganda claimed the Red Army was preparing to attack them, and their own invasion was thus presented as pre-emptive. So according to Israeli logic, the Russians "started the war against Germany" Israel considered the blockade of Eilat as an "act of war" and that Israel was forced to attack, which meant that the "Arabs started the six day war" The U.S. was enforcing an oil embargo against Japan and Japan considered this embargo as an "act of war" and thus launched the deadly attack on Pearl Harbor. [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;32423991]No, because Hamas made the first aggressive move by attacking Israel with rockets and suicide bombers.[/QUOTE]No, the blockade was placed directly after Hamas gained power. The U.S. and Israel lauded efforts to install a democratic government in Gaza, unless however, it was not "who they wanted to win" Israel implemented the blockade to "punish" the Palestinians indiscriminately for voting the "[URL="http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20090119.htm"]wrong way[/URL]" (I know you're not going to accept Chomsky as a valid source so I'll link you to Israel claiming the same) [release]Israel's policy was summed up by Dov Weisglass, an adviser to Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, earlier this year. 'The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,' he said. The hunger pangs are supposed to encourage the Palestinians to force Hamas to change its attitude towards Israel or force Hamas out of government. [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/16/israel"]Source[/URL] [/release] They wanted Fatah to win the elections, when they didn't, the blockade was placed.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;32424724]Before I begin, in Egypt's defense, the battalions were sent to the border not to prepare for an attack but to defend an incoming attack from Israel. The Soviet Union's intelligence picked up that Israel was preparing for an impending strike on Egypt so Egypt sent those two battalions in border, not to attack but for defensive/scouting measures evidenced by the fact only two battalions were sent. The 1967 war is no different than Operation Barbarossa or Pearl Harbor, it was justified in same manner as Germany and Japan did. Israel claimed it "would only be a matter of time" before the Arabs attack Israel, so they attacked first. Hence, by Israeli logic the Arabs "started the six day war against Israel" This was the same logic Hitler used when he attacked the Soviet Union. German propaganda claimed the Red Army was preparing to attack them, and their own invasion was thus presented as pre-emptive. So according to Israeli logic, the Russians "started the war against Germany" Israel considered the blockade of Eilat as an "act of war" and that Israel was forced to attack, which meant that the "Arabs started the six day war" The U.S. was enforcing an oil embargo against Japan and Japan considered this embargo as an "act of war" and thus launched the deadly attack on Pearl Harbor.[/quote] Except Egypt has made plenty of threats against Israel in the weeks prior to the six-day war. The Egyptians also forced out all UNEF forces in the Sinai which were part of the 1956 war peace agreements. Egypt also signed a defensive agreement with Jordan while large numbers of Iraqi troops were sent to strengthen Jordan. Add the blockade of the Straights of Tiran to that, which Israel declared such an act would mean war in 1957 and reminded Egypt of that statement shortly after the blockade, and you'll see that Egypt has done more than enough to be considered the aggressor in this war. [quote]No, the blockade was placed directly after Hamas gained power. The U.S. and Israel lauded efforts to install a democratic government in Gaza, unless however, it was not "who they wanted to win" Israel implemented the blockade to "punish" the Palestinians indiscriminately for voting the "[URL="http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20090119.htm"]wrong way[/URL]" (I know you're not going to accept Chomsky as a valid source so I'll link you to Israel claiming the same) They wanted Fatah to win the elections, when they didn't, the blockade was placed.[/QUOTE] No, Israel could blockade Gaza even earlier due to all of the attacks made against it, it was just easier to justify the blockade once Hamas got control of Gaza, since then Gaza was in a de-facto state of war against Israel.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.