@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:The illegality came when, soon after the war, Israel announced that it would forever control the eastern boundary of the West Bank (along the Jordan valley), thus cutting the entire west Bank off from any independent direct contact with the external world. Israel then went on to control movement across the land, water and air rights, and all elements of the civil society of the West Bank, without giving the population of the land any rights whatsoever, and no voice at all in the action of the government that was controlling their lives Israel abused this power by systematically driving Palestinians off their land to make way for israeli settlements and further isolate the Palestinians in numerous disconnected enclaves in which they could be easily controlled. In short they created a ghetto into which the population was confined, much as the former European oppressors of Jews had done to them. In this action the crimes of the Israelis were every bit as illegal and evil as were the similar crimes inflected on the European Jews by the Nazis.
You are overlooking the peace process. The Palestinians were given autonomy over their own areas back in the 1990s, when people still foolishly believed they were interested in peace.
The Palestinians would have also been given their own state had the peace process continued, but they torpedoed the peace process by murdering people until it collapsed.
georgeob1 wrote:Thus you are merely evading the obvious legal and moral issue here.
That is because it doesn't exist. The Palestinians were offered a peaceful path to their own state. They decided that they'd rather murder people.
Whatever happens to them now is just a result of them refusing to make peace. There are no legal or moral issues involved.
georgeob1 wrote:History is not with you on this point. The Oppressive Orange government of Northern Ireland was backed up by the Power of the British Empire for three centuries in the face of a growing Irish (Catholic) population in the territory (The British exterminated most of the Irish population in the 17th century when they gave the land to an imported population, but, like Palestine, the opporssed population was much more fertile than its oporessors.) As time passed the Power of the British Empire waned and its willingness to aid its client syate in Northern Ireland was finally exhausted. The same is happening to Israel today in that the popular and political committment of the United States to sustain Israel's growing intransigence and continued oppression is quite obviously waning.
There is no "growing intransigence" or "continued oppression" on the part of Israel. They have been entirely reasonable.
And the US willingness to help Israel is also not waning.
georgeob1 wrote:Israel's weapons will not be able to save it under these conditions.
I disagree. I think Israel's weapons could save them even without the US.
Israel might have to be more proactive about bombing their neighbors if they did not have US weapons, but they could do that.
georgeob1 wrote:oralloy wrote:And if Israel ever faced a threat that could not be eliminated by the combined forces of the Israeli and US military, Israel could just take care of it by popping off a few atomic shells.
A delusion.
No. Israel has atomic artillery shells ready for just that purpose.
georgeob1 wrote:Israel is surrounded by people it has oppressed and misused.
All they do is defend themselves. That is not oppression or misuse.
georgeob1 wrote:It's enemies are hundreds of yards away, not thousands of miles. Such an action would start a bloodbath from which Israel is not likely to emerge.
Israel's nearby enemies are never going to be so big a threat that they cannot be handled by conventional means. The atomic shells are for something that Israel cannot handle conventionally.
There is no chance of Israel's neighbors causing a bloodbath that Israel will not emerge from. If they try, the bloodbath will primarily be focused on the people attacking Israel.
georgeob1 wrote:Do you really beliece our president means his words when he piously asserts our "unwavering" committment to aid Israel? Do you really believe that most Americans support such a policy?
Of course. We're the good guys. So are the Israelis. We'll always help each other.