ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

I "double" rest my case.

Give up the Golan: a big mistake!

Staring at Syria
By Louis Rene Beres and Paul E. Vallely, Washington Times, June 19, 2007

Israel annexed the 452-square-mile Golan Heights in 1981. This was done after defeating Syrian aggression in June 1967, and after the Yom Kippur surprise attacks of October 1973. When Israeli opponents of the annexation argued that application of Israeli law did not apply sovereignty, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled otherwise.
....

Quote:

What Syrian "aggression"????? Israel premtoraly attacked Syria in 1967 - not the reverse.

Yet another tiresome application of the systematic deception practiced by Zionist advocates on this and so many other points. They tirelessly fault their Arab neighbors for 'failing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist', while at the same time denying the political and human rights of the Palestinian people whose land, property, country, and rights they took - by force. They then feed us with pithy phrases like "Palestine, a land without a people, for a people without a land". It is all very clever and the constant repetition does indeed have a cumulative effect on our consciousness - however it is a body of lies.

The problems in the ME and, specifically, Palestine, are mostly the fault of the vicious and self-destructive behavior of the Islamists. BTW, Israel has never sought the destruction or abject submission of the Pals. The opposite is true: Israel has always tried to help the Pals, and reach a reasonable and lasting accord with them. Any fair reading of history supports this.

Advocate wrote:

The problems in the ME and, specifically, Palestine, are mostly the fault of the vicious and self-destructive behavior of the Islamists. BTW, Israel has never sought the destruction or abject submission of the Pals. The opposite is true: Israel has always tried to help the Pals, and reach a reasonable and lasting accord with them. Any fair reading of history supports this.

Odd isn't it that this benevolent Israeli attitude has so far remained hidden from view.

I wonder what would be the reaction of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to that proposition. However their reactions should be ignored, because the experience of living for over 40 years under Israeli military occupation with no political or basic rights; continually subject to the steady expropriation of their land by Israeli zealots; capricious limitation of their commerce and daily movements at Israeli checkpoints; systematic isolation of their communities through limited access roads, armed settlements and military outposts; assasinations of their leaders, often with numerous collateral deaths -- all have evidently made them unable to appreciate the sweet reason and generous humanity of their Israeli masters.

Judging not by your rhetoric, but rather by the actions of Israel, the only "reasonable and lasting accord" they desire with the Palestinians is that of a master and a slave.

It might be enlightening for you to read some of the political rhetoric of Jan Smuts and the subsequent leaders of the former South African Nationalist Party. I suspect you would be struck by the similarity of the rhetoric put forward in defense of a permanently white South Africa to that we hear even today in defense of a permanently Jewish State in the Middle East.

George, occupations are tough. There would be none had not the Pals and neighboring countries attacked Israel lin '67. Before then, Israelis had not set foot in the WB and Gaza.

You probably know, but would not admit, that Israel employed many thousands of Pals before the suicide bombings began. Israel worked hard to reach accords with the Pals, but received bullets and bombs in return.

Advocate wrote:

George, occupations are tough. There would be none had not the Pals and neighboring countries attacked Israel lin '67. Before then, Israelis had not set foot in the WB and Gaza.

The prolonged occupation was the result of Israel's own choices. The difficulties, contradictions, and dilemmas were all of Israel's making - a result of its greed for more land (but no more Palestinians).

Immediately after the end of the hostilities in 1967, Israel announced its firm intent to (1) Retain the Golan Heights; (2) Build and retain a "buffer zone" along the border with Jordan, with a series of fortified settlements and military outposts on the western heights of the Jordan Valley; and (3)extend southward the kibbutz settlements on the west bank of the river just below Lake Tiberias. This forever severed the West Bank from Jordan (and with it the Israeli fiction that somehow Jordan is the real state of the Palestinians), and led to the prolonged occupation.

Even after all this there were still in late 1967 some rational solutions available. (1) Israel could have allowed or encouraged the formation of a government in the West Bank. However this ran counter to the desires of those who wanted more time to expand Israeli settlements and land grabs and drive out the local Palestinian populations. (2) Israel could have claimed the whole territory and begun the process of integrating the population as citizens of the Israeli state. However this ran counter to the fundamental principles of Zionism, which called for a perpetual Jewish state and limited tolerance for other peoples. Neither option was pursued, and a a few years later when the Likud party took power, Israeli policy became one of deliberate maintenance of the occupation (under the guise of holding land for a peace that could never come ) while, aided by new settlers from the USSR, the pace of Israeli settlement in the West bank accelerated.

Through all of this Israel had the chutzpa to assert that it was the unruly behavior and resistance of the Palestinians that was the cause of the problem. This rationalization would prove to be accepted only where the constant barrage of Israeli propaganda had dulled the sensibilities of the population to the reality of the situation.

Advocate wrote:

You probably know, but would not admit, that Israel employed many thousands of Pals before the suicide bombings began. Israel worked hard to reach accords with the Pals, but received bullets and bombs in return.

I know it and I readily admit it. Israel employed Palestinians as the hod carriers in their growing economy just as Aparteidt South Africa employed Zulu and Bantu as the labor force in their then growing economy. Masters have always found beneficial ways in which to employ their slaves. However I don't believe there is any particular virtue in that.

If Israel instead had not only employed the Palestinians in economic work, but also recognized their equal rights as human beings, then you would have a point. Instead you are merely reciting already discredited Israeli propaganda.

The Pals should have realized that the constant attacks on Israel since before even the formal state was created, as well as the massive attack on Israel in '67, would lead to border adjustments.

The Pals loved to work in Israel, where they made much more money than they could at home. They worked as chefs, mechanics, etc, as well as day laborers. They were excluded because of the suicide bombers.

Perhaps the Egyptians once said the same about their Jewish slaves. History suggests the Jews saw the situation differently. Recent history also suggests the Palestinians regard their Israeli overlords in much the same way as the Jews then regarded their Egyptian masters.

I find it remarkable that you are persuaded by these sappy sophistries.

...
I find it remarkable that you are persuaded by these sappy sophistries.