"Israel never attacks; Israel only retaliates" - challenged

Then why have you not been able to prove .... just for starters, of course ..... that Israel was not responsible for the Lavon Affair or for the 1956 attack on Suez (driven by Ben-Gurion's "fantastic plan"? Ever hear of it, Borat?

I challenge you to drop the tantrum and provide some facts on those two events (points up). When you have done with Kindergarten, we can progress to others.

This is hijacking this thread, I will start a new one, so as to give you lots of space.

 

OK, so that means that you can't refute the first two aggressions that I posed to you - the Lavon Affair and the 1956 Suez invasion.
Your protestations are personal, unsupported and, hence, *CLANG* empty.
Many thanks for making your debating style so obviouis. It makes my MYTH-busting job so much easier..
I will proceed to the following Israeli-triggered aggression.

Israeli initiated aggressions confirmed (lack of counter arguments):

1) The Lavon 'Affair' - confirmed - tick
2) The 1956 Suez invasion - confirmed - tick

Unless, of course Borat, you would care to use real facts instead of bombastic rhetoric as your only source of "rebuttal".

I could suggest that you check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_of_Sèvres. What do you think of Ben-Gurion's "Fantastic plan" as recorded by the IDF Colonel? Was it simply his defensive reaction to enemy attacks on Israel - like those of the fedayeen peasants? Sure sounded a whole lot grander and widespread to me. Or was it the 1955 arms deal. Should arms deals become international causus belli for "defensive" wars - all over the world? Love to hear your opinion on that.

Oh, and this one also: http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...t-wrong-in-lavon-affair-55-years-later-1.4385. Maybe you can extract Israel's innocence out of that recent investigation of Lavon's shenanigans. I sure couldn't.

 

It means I deal with serious claims and debate serious things provided by reputable sources. I have better things to do than debate all sorts of nonsense found on the internet, be that obscure websites, conspiracy theories or anonymous posters posting laughable fantasies that even most biased historians would be embarrassed to read. Sorry kk, bait someone as immature and with as much free time on your hands as yourself, I have goats to milk.

 

So, you don't stoop to debating what Avi Shlaim or Ilan Troen wrote, one for and one against, because neither are "reputable"? Are your serious?
You refuse to inform yourself as to the content of the detailed notes that Colonel Mordecai Bar-on made about the Sévres discussions, because that senior IDF officer is not to be trusted. Honestly? Is that what you are trying to convey to us?

If so, why am I not surprised?

I would love to know what you base your views on, given your disdain for the best commentary of the topic, one authorised by both Dayan and Ben-Gurion. Seriously, please let me know. Do you pluck your basic info out of the aura in the goat's pen? See visions? Oh, wait, you mean those two Zionist leaders are ALSO not reputable?

Come on, Borat, how can you have a view with zero facts? Tell us.

 

Seems to me that the adage a strong defense is a strong offense, seems an appropriate description of Israeli military strategy at various times.

In fact, I would hazard a guess that every major and minor military power has employed such a strategy at times.

I agree that many view Israelis history as constantly fighting defensive wars. And they'd be right if they only consider such a complex decision in one dimension. Since destruction of the nation of Israel was the overarching goal of ALL of their arab neighbors (Jordan perhaps excluded), any military action could be viewed as defending the nation.

What I find interesting is that both sides ignore significant chunks of history and contemporary circumstance as they point their fingers and scream at those they consider the evil doer enemy.

Klipkap, you are far too knowledgeable of the region's history to dismiss inconvenient fact.

For instance, in 1956, it wasn't Israel that wanted to go to war, it was France and Britain, using Israel as a proxy, because Nasser got it into his head that the Suez should be nationalized. Israel was a puppet in that "tripartite aggression".

But feel free to make the point that Israel didn't wait around (too often) to get attacked before responding.
Also feel free to make the point that Israel also used minor pin pricks to over react with sledge hammers.

Israel exists, it has paid for its existence in blood and sweat, and it will defend its existence to the last man.

Perhaps there will come a day when Palestinians can forge their own vision of a nation living in peace, prosperity and tolerance, side by side with Israel. And perhaps someday, the Israelis will embrace such a resolution. then again, maybe not.

 

Thank you for the pragmatic retort Jonsa. But what you envisage in the case of the Arab-Israel conflict will continue for years to come. The Arabs are reaping the fruit of a destroyed new Arab generation that has been brainwashed with falsehood.

Maybe at a later stage the Qu'an will be reformed and another opening for a rapprochement might be available.

 

That is the most well-reasoned and pertinent piece of debating that I have seen for a long time. My most sincere appreciation.
[I do not want to dilute this accolade so I will reply in a separate thread.]

 

1) Your response addresses mostly the ego and the wallet, instead of the mind. Indeed what you describe was the world norm until the early 20th C, and still is for some countries such as the UK, the US, and Israel. However, since then, most countries have grown up. The League of Nations was specifically created to stop "wars driven by the ego/wallet". The Charter of the UN followed suit in lockstep. But there are those cited countries that ignore the supreme laws of our global society, even while they pretend to be their most fervent sponsors. That is how the US/UK got to invade Iraq without returning the UN. Daddy’s “unfinished business”, the neocon (wallet) preoccupation with sourcing oil instead of conserving, and the general right-wing emotion of “(*)(*)(*)(*) the Arabs” got soundly in the way of the mind/legal side – laws crafted with great care for over 100 years, exactly so as to prevent emotive violence between states.

But let us be pragmatic, as HBendor suggests. Let us profoundly consider whether we all and forever want to return to the Middle Ages; return to the “(*)(*)(*)(*)-them” response AS A GLOBAL NORM; to tear up the “mind”-driven preventive legal craftings and to return to justifications for large-scale aggression based on the national ego.

I vote “NO”. The world would return to anarchy, plunder and a new virulent form of colonialism.

…. [to be continued] ….

 

…. [continued] ….

I would like to hear explicitly what you think ‘the one dimension’ is; the one that “justifies” that view of the “many”.
Is it ‘saving the country’s very existence’?
If so, then we have much to discuss. Saving WHICH country? The one with undefined borders? The one with settlements? The bits that have been "temporarily" occupied for nearly 60 years? The one with the ultimate goal of all of Eretz Yisrael? (for clarity see Ben-Gurion’s “fantastic plan” espoused by him and recorded in full detail by a senior IDF scribe, at Sevres in 1956).
Were these so-called defensive wars waged in protection of “that” country?

Exactly as I thought, and I promise you that I had not read ahead.
What follows is a classic case of that “one dimensional thinking” which you mentioned:
First, read the accounts in the bulk of the Western literature regarding the Yom Kippur war. It shows this grossly slanted one-dimensional bias perfectly “On October 6, 1973 Egypt and Syria launched a coordinated surprise attack against Israel” - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/73_War.html; “The Yom Kippur War began on October 6, 1973, when a coalition of Arab forces launched a surprise strike on Israel” - http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3621090,00.html; The Anti Defamation League writes: “Egypt and Syria jointly attacked Israel” - http://archive.adl.org/israel/record/yomkippur.html. Even the usually more balanced Aljazeera describes it as: “Egypt and Syria's lightning attack against an unprepared Israel” - http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2013/10/war-october-2013102172128280627.html

So when I write on this forum “Of all of the major conflicts, the Yom Kippur war is the one where Israel was clearly not the aggressor, but even this case is not quite so clear”, your side screams “Baloney!!!”; “dreamt up garbage”, “invention!!”; “based on Arab propaganda”, “read a history book”, etc. Yet it is true.

And the reason is that Egypt and Syria’s first strike in 1973 was NOT against Israel. In fact such a claim goes to highlight the very mind-set that bedevils the reaching of a peace settlement – and this negative mind-set is that the occupied territories are part of Israel!!, a very deep-seated delusion [see HBendor’s signature]

Egypt and Syria specifically and deliberately did not launch a first-strike against Israel, but against Israeli forces in the Occupied Territories.

And that inability to separate Israeli sovereignty from Israeli occupation manifests itself in the total distortion of “terrorist” attacks against Israel, with attacks against the settler community and against the IDF being classified as “against Israel”. I can just feel the mental waves washing towards me – “But such acts ARE against Israel.” Stop just for a moment; take a deep breath; exit from the cocoon of the MYTHs, and take a calm measured look at that opinion.

Still not able? OK, try this perfectly parallel analogy: “Iraqi terrorists attacked the USA”. Nope, not 911, but in Felujah, in Iraq, an attack on the US occupying forces. How ridiculous to claim that it is an attack against the US State. Exactly. "An attack against a US citizen is an attack against the USA". Crap!! Try this for universality - "An attack against an Austrian is an attack against Austria". Sound familiar? Archduke Ferdinand? The USA vigorously opposed that logic. See the inconsistency? So there we have the bias - Chomsky has written four books about it.

I find that inability to differentiate between the State and the Occupation to be at the heart of much of the illogical narratives that have become cemented as MYTHs. It is the prime reason why UNSC 242 has never been implemented.

And now one final observation that is selective repelled from the Zionist memory – the Yom Kippur war came about because Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan rejected three Sadat offers to undertake peace negotiations based on 242. Three times they declined not even to take the first step. I ask you, what option did Sadat REALLY have, also given that he had approached the UN on various occasions.

So, who was the peace seeker and who was the peace rejecter between 1971 and 1973, leading directly to "Yom Kippur", JONSA? And remember, that THIS is the major conflict for which Israel can least be blamed for its source.

EXACTLY!!!

…. [To Be Continued] ….

 

... (Continued) ...

Oh, I disagree, JONSA. Israeli was just itching to attack. I try not to dismiss inconvenient facts. Please check the reference - “The Protocol of Sèvres,1956: Anatomy of a War Plot“ by Avi Shlaim - http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The Protocol of Sevres 1956 Anatomy of a War Plot.html

1) General Dayan … had been pressing very persistently for a ‘preventive war’ against Egypt ever since the Czech arms deal was announced by Nasser in September 1955.
So is it OK as a universal law for the future, that, should a country make an arms deal with a potential attacker, that the country receiving the potential attack can launch a “defensive” preventive attack with impunity?
Let us for a brief moment consider the implications of this:

# India seals an arms deal with Russia for the delivery of 200 Sukhoi Su-30MKI air superiority fighter jets for delivery in 2019. That gives Pakistan the right to launch a “preventive” war on India, because it is the country against which those attack aircraft are most likely to be used.

# Ukraine acquires (I know - unlikely) 75 of the latest generation of Typhoon fighter jets from the EU. This gives Russia the right to knock the crap out of the Ukraine.

# South Sudan acquires a basket of arms from the Eu, including the latest Swedish AK 5C assault rifles and AT-4 anti-tank missiles. This entitles Muslim North Sudan to invade the South and (re)occupy it.

Do we really want to go there as a universal norm?

2) Operation Black Arrow – 25th February 1955 – One Israeli killed; Arik Sharon then attacks an Egyptian army base killing 37 Egyptian soldiers. The operation raised an outcry around the world. Nasser: “These days I see that Ben-Gurion is AGAIN taking steps to put his POLITICAL ideas into practice” – “Intelligence for Peace: The Role of Intelligence in Times of Peace” edited by Hesi Carmel, page 57. “The Israeli raid on Gaza town in 1955, an action that horrified Sharett, began the countdown to the 1956 war” – Avi Shlaim – “The Iron Wall”.

3) “Operational plans for attacking Egypt existed and had been proposed much prior to the Egyptian-Soviet weapons deal of September 1955. Second, the nature of the operational plan contradicts the fundamental logic of a preventive strike aimed at destroying Egyptian newly acquired capabilities” – Israeli historian Zeev Maoz in “Defending the Holy Land”.

Of course “Israel wanted to go to war”. Your view is unfortunately incorrect, JONSA, based on convenient facts (sorry, couldn’t resist my childishness - )

- - - Updated - - -

Sadly true. VERY sadly.

 

Your evaluation of international law is a tad flawed.

A law cannot be considered "supreme" if it cannot be enforced, and strictures against waging war for any reason other than self defense is merely a statement of ideals. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that because so much of these "international laws" do not prevent the very "crimes" they articulate, that they make a mockery of global jurisprudence. Witness the ineptitude of the ICC, the repeated failures of the UN to prevent or stop wars, the hypocritical handwringing of diplomats whose abstract world is only tenuously anchored in reality.

Ironically the most powerful deterrents to war such as self interest/preservation, the balance of military strength between opponents, money, and domestic salability also provide the most powerful impetus.

 

the country in question here is Israel. the jewish homeland, that after 65 years has firmly established itself.

It seems you would rather delve into what you perceive as "injustices" throughout the process. Pick any country on the globe and chances are one can create a long list of supposed injustices that occurred on the road to nationhood.

WOW!
Here you are excoriating the Israelis for their version of history and their evil machinations, and then attempt a truly ridiculous excuse for the Syrian and Egyptian attack in 73. OTOH, such facile and specious argument is characteristic of the on-going debate.

The nuance of the Arabs only attacking the IDF in the occupied territories is lost the instant one looks at a map. In order to attack Israel, the arabs HAD to go thru the occupied territories, or did this small strategic issue escape the apologists?

Red herring.

Yes, the arabs sure as hell couldn't tell the difference and regrettably, many still can't.

Sadat offered up what amounted to nothing in his "peace offers". He couldn't have waged real peace without getting assassinate... oh wait.

It sure as hell wasn't Sadat. IN fact there wasn't anyone on either side.

One degree of separation for blame is an American right wing tactic against Obama. At least you use two.

Please note I said both sides.

 

Hmmm. Ignoring contemporary circumstances, issues, and varying opinions is regrettably a weakness of historical accuracy. OF COURSE ISRAEL HAD WAR PLANS.

Of course the soviet re-armament of Egypt was deeply disturbing to Israel, especially since they yet to establish the military alliance with the US.

And then Nasser makes a huge ego driven mistake by attempting to nationalize the Suez Canal.
You want to discuss Money/ego motivations? that one was a doozy.

And in one of the last gasps of colonialism, France and Britain decided their imperial rights superseded all others and conveniently exploited Israeli fears of the certain lethal impact of an Egyptian army with state of the art Soviet weapons.

Seems the tit for tat machinations in such historic conflicts get lost in both sides insistence on blaming the other. Argumentation seems to revolve around selecting a particular tit or tat amongst the long lines of such.

Equal amounts trust, common sense, and self interest make for lasting peace.

there is lots of self interest, but trust and common sense appear to be in severely limited supply.

 

So you advocate a return to anarchy, where any nation or group can do what they want to.
I find that to be pessimistically primitive.

 

how you arrive at advocacy from an accurate observation is quite the leap.

Fact of the matter is that despite the best of intentions, application of international law is "hit but usually miss".

that is merely realism.

 

International scholars (can’t think of the reference immediately) define one of the key characteristics of a valid State as having defined boundaries. We have seen that Ben-Gurion’s “Fantastic plan” was all of Eretz Yisrael. That was the main motivation (recorded by Cnl. Bar-On of the IDF) for the invasion of Egypt. Your “homeland” is still a moving target. It is undefined. So, would it have been a defensive war to have protected a conquered Sinai? Or an occupied West Bank? You have still not recognised that an illegal occupation cannot call on legal justification for its defence – only on “occupation is right” I repeat; do you want this to become international law or accepted international practice?

I am sure that you are correct. But you base it on a fragile foundation that “two wrongs make a right”. That is easily rejected.
Regarding “injustices”, when a man lies in the street with a bullet hole in his head and a robber stands nearby holding a gun, it is silly to blame the laws should he be found not guilty, and not to blame the imperfections of the justice system.

So, you deny that the main cause and also the initial thrust by the Arabs were the occupied territories. That this naturally led to the involvement of Israel proper is not the point. I ask you, what led to Sadat attacking Egypt; was his initial battle plan in line with that. Also, please don’t cherry-pick the history – did Golda or did she not refuse Sadat’s overtures to peace negotiations on three occasions? Did Sadat then attack the Occupied Territories. Your pseudo-legal rhetoric won’t change the basic facts. PLUS – I also placed blame on both sides.

That shows you how little respect you have for world order and the laws (not their implementation and the mutant UN veto process) that underpin them.
The definition of “attacks on Israel” as including attacks on illegal occupiers in the Palestinian territories goes to confirm Israel’s utter disdain for the established peace processes. But you agree with that, so no debate.

And it is not the Arabs that propagate this false unity – it is you and the other nationalist Zionists who pursue the goal of Ertez Yisrael. We saw Ben-gurion confirming this in black-and-white in 1956. We saw Sharon confirming it. We see HBendor’s signature confirming it.

That is brutally cynical. He lost his life because he dared make those overtures to Israel. That is a FACT. And you belittle it.
Secondly, when someone opens the door a crack to a negotiation, is that meant to the the final offer. My apologies for rejecting your position as being silly, because I have been friends with many Jews throughout my life and that is NOT how they view negotiations.

It sure as hell was. Otherwise, why did he die for it?

So, in fact our only disputes are whether Sadat opened the door to negotiations, and when that was rejected on three occasions, his initial first strike was on the Israeli forces in the occupied territories in the Yom Kippur war. I have absolutely no reason to doubt my data, so I don’t intend to provide anything further given your lack of factual support for your position.

So we end up with me criticising Israel based on the International Laws at the time, WHICH ISRAEL HAD SIGNED, and you claiming that laws don’t matter and that “MIGHT IS RIGHT”.

Nothing further to debate. I assign blame for the Yom Kippur war to both parties:

The current status for responsibility for the triggering major conflicts is Israel 2 ½ - Arabs 1/2:

1) Lavon Affair: Israel’s guilt confirmed – tick.
2) Suez invasion: Israel’s guilt confirmed – tick.
3) Yom Kipper war – Israel/Arab shared guilt.

JONSA’s defence against this - no that is incorrect – it is his JUSTIFICATION for that score, is that laws don’t matter since MIGHT IS RIGHT.

Think of the consequences of such a position becoming the accepted international policy.
Think of what it could mean for justifying a future holocaust. Is that not a truly abhorrent prospect?
When people see international law being flouted or vetoed, they tend to fly planes into tall buildings - because they can = MIGHT IS RIGHT. Do you REALLY want to justify that?
In 1870 the futile thrust was to prevent the "redskins" from acquiring repeater rifles. In 2015 it is to prevent the Arabs from getting small modern suitcase nuclear devices. The former attempt failed.

 

I am still waiting Borat. Last time I just let the matter drop when you ran out of ammunition. This time I intend to drive the point home to conclusion, and then archive the final post, should you try this low trick again some time in the future. You have yet to respond.

You claim that my sources are not reputable; are nonsense; are conspiracy theories; are from anonymous posters; are fantasies; are an embarrassment. Let’s check:

Lavon Affair:
1) Was the official biographer for Ben-Gurion, Shabtai Teveth, Israeli historian and journalist for Ha’aretz, “an anonymous poster”, when he wrote about this Israeli terrorist venture and about Ben-Gurion’s shameful treatment of Israeli defence minister Pinhas Lavon?
2) Is it a “conspiracy theory” that the head of Operation Savannah was found guilty of perjury by an Israeli court?
3) Is it “false pretences” to state that the outcome of the Cohn enquiry was substantiated by yet another official enquiry?
4) Is it “nonsense” to quote YNetNews that the terrorists involved were granted ‘certificates of appreciation’ by Israel's President Moshe Katsav?

1956 Invasion of Suez:
5) Is it “not a serious claim” that the notes taken by Colonel Ben-On of the IDF represent the best records of the Sevres meetings and negotiations?
6) Is it “non-reputable” to state that both Dayan and Ben-Gurion had sufficient faith in these records that they urged Ben-On to compile them into book form?
7) Are the sources that I provided in this thread of Ben-On’s records “unreliable”?
8.) Did I “falsely” quote Ben-Gurion’s Fantastic Plan for acquiring Sinai, southern Lebanon, the Golan Heights, parts of Jordan, etc?
9) Did I use “unscholarly” sources to illustrate that Israel made plans to invade Sinai long before Sevres?

OK, never mind. I am confident of my data.

But YOU, Borat, in contrast claim to have “reputable sources”, without ever having produced them. I am still waiting to see them, and also to be shown that they are more “reputable” than those of an IDF scribe, than those in Dayan and Ben-Gurion’s diary, that those of the records of the Israeli courts, and the published finding of the Israeli Military Intelligence?

I am still waiting for you to provide your sources AND to show how they convincingly trump my unreliable ones, Borat. Can you deliver?

 

Lavon Affair wasnt a war, I would judge the Egyptian Fedayeen in at least the same severity as you judge this affair - so its 1 - 1 in my book
Suez - was an offense made by Egyptians - according to the law which you soooo respect - kicking the Brits and Frech from such an important strategic resource, closing it to Israeli ships and formelizing and training the Fedayeen - are the causes of war made by Egypt national leader Nasser. that's 1 on the Arabs.
1973 - ill agree to that 1-1 because the Israeli gov did made many mistakes to overlook, + Im going to use this guilt by refusing peace in your following survies.

So in my book its 2 - 3 on Arabs aggression on these 3.

 

You forgot the Arab worlds commitment to wipe Israel off the map that they made in 1948 and that's still their ultimate objective.

You forgot thousands of terror attacks, tens of thousands of Israeli civilians murdered and maimed by arab terrorists.

You forgot wars that combined Arab forces started in their attempts to annihilate the Jewish state.

You forgot endless Arab boycotts, blockages, provocations

You left out tens of thousands of rocket attacks.

You didn't mention that Israel is besieged and surrounded by 22 arab states rejecting Israel's right to exist, that tiny Israel occupies 0.15% of the regional land and is outnumbered 75:1 and that's not taking into account hostile non-arab Muslim state.

Sorry KK, you are getting an F. Your work is intellectually dishonest and academically inaccurate. Too many distortions, omissions and pseudo-historical conclusions to grade it any higher than that. Please,redo and resubmit if you're interested in a higher grade.

 

Israel attacked Egypt in 1967

 

Correct. It was an Israeli terrorist attack aimed at USA interests. Is that any better?

 

Respect my provision of facts, please. Respond likewise. Empty claims are sooooo boring. Where are your sources? When did the Fedayeen initiate terrorist attacks against USA interests? Please check Qibya - oh, and thank you - I will research that and perhaps add it to the list of Israeli over-the-top massacres since it caused an international outcry against Israel. Show me where any fedayeen was responsible for such slaughter - or even remotely close to it. Again, many thanks for the reminder. OMG - I forgot Operation Black Arrow in 1955. Wow, you sure have helped add to the Israeli attacks. Fabulous!!!

Regarding Suez - come on - your statements of faith alone don't wash. Try refuting Colonel Bar-On's records. Are you up to it? Do you have sources to prove that he lied? No? OK, here is the revised list therefore:

1) Lavon Affair: Israel’s guilt confirmed – tick.
2) Suez invasion: Israel’s guilt confirmed – tick.
3) Yom Kipper war – Israel/Arab shared guilt.
4) Qibya - to be researched
5) Operation Black Arrow - to be researched
6) Syria 1966-1967 - to be documented
7) Jordan December 1966 - to be refreshed
8.) Egypt 1967 - to be de-archived
9) Lebanon - the disgusting slaughter - to be de-archived
10) Lebanon - the REAL reason for the initiation - to be researched
11) Gaza - what was the start of the chain - to be researched
12) Gaza - November 2008 breaking of the ceasefire - to be de-archived
13) Gaza - November 2012 - who broke the truce and assassinated on opponent's leader
14) June 2014 - who killed the first set of teenagers

This is going to be interesting. All these innocent defensive Israeli actions.

 

Egypt broke every aspect of the standing armistice agreement, thus restoring the state of war preceding it, Egypt blockaded Israeli ports which is an unquestionable casus belli , trying to destroy Israel's economy, Egypt amassed troops on Israel's borders and the invasion was imminent, one was actually postponed due to its plans being revealed. Egypt by its actions and cancellation of standing armistice agreement declared war on Israel.

 

You forgot the Arab worlds commitment to wipe Israel off the map that they made in 1948 and that's still their ultimate objective.

You forgot thousands of terror attacks, tens of thousands of Israeli civilians murdered and maimed by arab terrorists.

You forgot wars that combined Arab forces started in their attempts to annihilate the Jewish state.

You forgot endless Arab boycotts, blockages, provocations

You left out tens of thousands of rocket attacks.

You didn't mention that Israel is besieged and surrounded by 22 arab states rejecting Israel's right to exist, that tiny Israel occupies 0.15% of the regional land and is outnumbered 75:1 and that's not taking into account hostile non-arab Muslim state.

Sorry KK, you are getting an F. Your work is intellectually dishonest and academically inaccurate and you show no improvement.

 

Firstly, it isn't MY homeland in any way shape or form. You knew but obviously forgot along the way that I am not Jewish.

Second, the argument wrt "borders of a valid state", is without substance in this regard. The defacto borders were the armistice lines. The inability to negotiate any resolution to such, and thereby establishing a Palestinian state in the process was exacerbated by the Palestinian's arab brethren masters insistence that Israel should not be allowed to exist in the first place.

Attempting to use such a semantic definition to defy what is an uncomfortable reality for many anti-Zionists speaks to the difficulty of accepting the reality that Israel exists as a sovereign nation.

Two wrongs rarely make a right.

OTOH, this "justice system" you refer to, isn't really one, as the history of the last 100 years or so attests. Laws without enforcement and punishment aren't laws, they are in reality nothing more than guidelines.

To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a single nation established that didn't involve moral and legal injustices to some or all constituencies involved.

To argue that this reality shouldn't apply to such a long standing conflict absurdly ignores our basic human nature

"initial thrust"? Cute semantics.

The peace offers from Sadat were designed to be rejected. Once again the arabs thought that as losers they should reap the benefits of peace in defeat.

I don't deny the offers were made. I deny that they were sincere.

I don't deny that in order to defeat Israel, Egypt and Syria were forced to invade the occupied territories first. The map does not lie.

Respect is earned. Get back to me about respecting "world order and laws" when that world order and those laws will prevent genocide, rape and pillaging on even a small scale, let alone the long list of major human tragedies brought about by ignoring both the world order and its supposed "laws". The track record to date since the establishment of the UN and expansion of "international law" is pathetic, morally indefensible, and at times criminal in the truest sense.

Marvelous example of "its not me, its you".

Do you deny that in many arab eyes when excoriating the "occupation" they mean of all of historic Palestine, including the current state of Israel?

First, being a realist requires a degree of cynicism to assist in understanding the nature of said reality.

Second, Sadat was assassinated for waging peace after yet another humiliating military defeat. That he had brass balls and a different vision for Egypt is an historic given.

Third, please don't confuse the sequence of events. Sadat essentially merely endorsed Jarring's suggestions. IIRC, in all three limp wristed "offers", there was NO explicit recognition of Israel and NO direct negotiations.

For some reason, you seem to insist that arab political machinations were all sincere attempts and all of Israel's were not.

He didn't become a sincere peace maker until he was once again humiliatingly defeated on the battlefield.

And he sure as hell wasn't during the war of attrition despite your flawed interpretation of his actions.

Sadat didn't open the door, he merely placed his hand on the door knob. You know that as well as I.

I totally agree that his initial first strike was into the Sinai. While Syria dicked around on the Golan for a few days.


I have no reason to doubt your data, merely your interpretation.

I didn't claim that laws don't matter. Not even remotely.

What I claimed is that any law that is not accompanied by enforcement, due process and punishment, is nothing more than a guideline, despite the pompous rhetoric that accompanies such.

And when it comes to international affairs, you are damned right that might makes right, even when the "right" is totally wrong. The history of our civilization has proven this repeatedly.

Your "scoreboard" is a cute method of cherry picking and of course totally arbitrary.

Only thing wrong with your analogy is that the redskins were motivated by preventing their own genocide, while the arabs looking for suitcase nukes are supposedly wholly motivated by perpetrating genocide on dar el harb.

Get back to me when "international law" actually does prevent genocide, starvation, rape, mutilation and pillaging.
As to justification for future holocaust, it won't have anything at all to do with "international law". It will have everything to do with some sick and twisted manifestation of the depths of human hatred and sociopathy.