Iran nuclear deal signed in Geneva

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

So, the Palestinians have no right to resist Israel's occupation?

Correct. The Palestinians are required to make peace with Israel and accept 1967 borders.

@oralloy,

So, if you are saying that Israel is not an occupying force, then it owns what is called Palestine. If that is true, then why isn't the Israeli regime forcing intruders off their land once and for all?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

They lost that land when they illegally attacked Israel and Israel defended themselves.

So, just for the record, who do you say started the 1967 war?

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

So, if you are saying that Israel is not an occupying force, then it owns what is called Palestine. If that is true, then why isn't the Israeli regime forcing intruders off their land once and for all?

"What land belongs to Israel" and "what land belongs to the Palestinians" is something that would be decided in peace negotiations.

In the absence of such peace negotiations, questions of "who owns what" are meaningless.

Glennn wrote:

So, just for the record, who do you say started the 1967 war?

Syria and Egypt started the 1967 war.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Don't waste your time. You're talking to the two most repulsive individuals on A2K. Coldjoint viscerally hates all Moslems, and Oralboy refers to the Palestinians as vermin. You can't reason with creatures like that.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

"What land belongs to Israel" and "what land belongs to the Palestinians" is something that would be decided in peace negotiations.

But you said that in the absence of peace, the Israeli regime is free to take what it wants. So, if they are being attacked, why don't they just take it all since you are saying that that is the way it works?

However, that point is neither here nor there, as you are mistaken as to who started the 1967 war:

Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) President Johnson was gratified that because of CIA analyses and Helms's tip, he could inform congressional leaders later in the day that he had been expecting Israel's move.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no1/html_files/arab_israeli_war_1.html

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Thanks. I believe you're right. I am wasting my time.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

It's still usefull to state the truth, even if nobody listens... Israel started the 6-day war, and that's a fact.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

True. But since the truth of the matter condemns Israel for appropriating territory through an act of aggression in contravention of international law, I don't expect the fans of the Israeli regime to concede the point any time soon.

3 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

of international law,

Israel is sovereign country, and international law is non binding.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

You're talking to the two most repulsive individuals on A2K.

So he should take advice from a whining coward who is watching his country circle the drain?

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

But you said that in the absence of peace, the Israeli regime is free to take what it wants. So, if they are being attacked, why don't they just take it all since you are saying that that is the way it works?

Settlement construction continues. Who says that Israel isn't going to take it all in the end?

Glennn wrote:

However, that point is neither here nor there, as you are mistaken as to who started the 1967 war:

Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) President Johnson was gratified that because of CIA analyses and Helms's tip, he could inform congressional leaders later in the day that he had been expecting Israel's move.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no1/html_files/arab_israeli_war_1.html

No mistake on my part. A preemptive self defense does not mean that the defender is responsible for starting the war.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Israel started the 6-day war, and that's a fact.

Not even remotely a fact. The war was started by Egypt and Syria.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

But since the truth of the matter condemns Israel for appropriating territory through an act of aggression in contravention of international law, I don't expect the fans of the Israeli regime to concede the point any time soon.

Hardly an act of aggression for a Jew to defend himself when attacked.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

No mistake on my part. A preemptive self defense does not mean that the defender is responsible for starting the war.

This is why this discussion is a waste of time. I have shown you that the Israeli regime started the war. In response, you claim that it was a preemptive action on the part of the Israeli regime. You allow for no other interpretation but your own when it comes to who started the war. Israel fired the first shot.

Therefore, since that makes it a war of aggression on the part of the Israeli regime, they were in violation of International Law when they decided to confiscate the land of others, and then call it rightfully won.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Hardly an act of aggression for a Jew to defend himself when attacked.

Yet another example of your denial of the proven facts. Israel was not attacked, and you continue to call their aggression a defense.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

This is why this discussion is a waste of time. I have shown you that the Israeli regime started the war.

When someone engages in preemptive self defense, the person who is attacking them remains the aggressor.

Glennn wrote:

In response, you claim that it was a preemptive action on the part of the Israeli regime.

Yes. I have this tendency to point out facts. People who dislike facts don't like it very much.

Glennn wrote:

You allow for no other interpretation but your own when it comes to who started the war.

Facts are facts.

Glennn wrote:

Israel fired the first shot.

That is the nature of preemptive self defense.

Glennn wrote:

Therefore, since that makes it a war of aggression on the part of the Israeli regime,

Engaging in preemptive self defense doesn't transform the defender into the aggressor.

Glennn wrote:

they were in violation of International Law when they decided to confiscate the land of others, and then call it rightfully won.

Oh well. The Palestinians were given plenty of chances to negotiate a peaceful return to 1967 borders.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Yet another example of your denial of the proven facts.

Nope. I've not denied any facts.

Glennn wrote:

Israel was not attacked,

Yes they were. Syria and Egypt attacked them.

Glennn wrote:

and you continue to call their aggression a defense.

Preemptive self defense is not in any way aggression.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Glennn wrote:
Yet another example of your denial of the proven facts.

Nope. I've not denied any facts.

Glennn wrote:
Israel was not attacked,

Yes they were. Syria and Egypt attacked them.

Glennn wrote:
and you continue to call their aggression a defense.

Preemptive self defense is not in any way aggression.

How was it preemptive if they were attacked?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

How was it preemptive if they were attacked?

It was preemptive by striking the attackers before they made their attack.

1 Reply

Iran nuclear deal signed in Geneva

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know