Breaking news - Arab's greatest fear "Sharon" is dead.

You see, Dusty, as is typical of many pro-Israeli's who uncrititically believe everything they read in the newspapers and in mainstream new bulletins, it's Israel that is deemed to be the victim attempting to claw back land stolen from them by the Palestinian's. The reality is that this depiction of events represents a distorted Orwellian inversion of history of the kind pumped out by the Zionist propaganda machine. In other words, in truth, as you know, it's the latter who are the real victims of aggression while the former are the perpetrators.

 

We have been talking about Israel, but so long as you brought up the more ancient history; why not? UK was supposed to have created the Jewish homeland. They didn't, so the attempts were made to force the issue. You object to that?

 

Nope!

My bigotry? Interesting, coming from an Islamist apologist.

- - - Updated - - -

 

Most of the world would favour a United Nations minus North America. Unfortunately, they are going to have to make the best of election victories by Democratic presidents.

 

Where was 'international law' when bush and blair invaded iraq, where was 'international law' when france invaded Ivory Coast?

 

Germany and Japan after WWII are good examples. Why shouldn't Israel occupy territory until after all the violence stops? That is the point of occupation. Once the conquered people recognized it lost and chose to exist peacefully the occupation ceased, just as it would in Israel. In my opinion the continued Islamist violence is justification to stay forever, or until the violence stops, which ever comes first.

 

obviously you weren't paying attention

 

Universally recognized? Only by a bunch of Islamist apologists.

 

Israel is allowed a military occupation of the West Bank until a peace treaty is signed.

what they cannot do, is build civilian settlements.

 

democratic..

 

International law is currently conditional. The condition being which nations have the most military and economic clout in the world. Thus endeth the lesson for the day in Reality 101.

 

Floundering tripe. You clearly have little comprehension of the machinations of the League of Nations, Britain's part in it, the Mandate for Palestine or the circumstances and aftermath of UNGA Resolution 181.

 

I just want to say something about the argument put forward that the orchestration of the massacre of around 2,000 old men, women and children and babes in the womb was justified because of the likes of Churchill's bombing of German cities attacking civilians in the hope they would influence Germany to give up.

It does happen that Bastards do such work because they have the kind of psychopathic personality which allows them to win a war and then of course they can save themselves from having to pay the consequences.

However, particularly when we are 'democracies' it is of far more importance what civilians think. British civilians were furious when they heard of the bombing of Dresden and other German cities and they made sure that was known. For that reason Churchill snuck away and pretended it was nothing to do with him. For that reason there was no memorial for these airmen or medals until a couple of years ago.

I accept that the men who took part had no choice. However what we see here is that British civilians did what civilians should do and stood up for other civilians. Now we have moved into a different era. One where war is mainly armies against civilians. When did we lose our conscience?

 

So? They are nothing but forward defenses.

It is no longer "Palestinian" land until all the Islamist terrorism stops.

So long as they realize they are continuing to lengthen the occupation time. Not too smart!

 

Quit clowning. The Israel judiciary recognises the circumstances as belligerent occupation. It's a matter of record.

 

You do know that propaganda can be factual as it is in the pieces I posted, right?

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -

You still do not understand the significance of the term "Islamist."

 

Quotes? How about a compilation of stuff I have accumulated over time. I suspect that if you googled the material I posted you may even come up with something I posted years ago. I have run into several pieces on one of the "Wikis" which are nothing more than my own research over time.

 

No. The occupation is illegal for several reasons and it is a fact of international law that self-defence cannot constitute an act of aggression in itself. Further, territory can never be gained by means of war and to stay on the right side of this fundamental truth the neoZionists would have to admit that their occupation was temporary.

That too.

 

I see you are committing the same BS you accuse others of.

- - - Updated - - -

Unfortunately? I think it fortunate we are electing members of my own party.

 

Do you really believe they are civilian settlements? I look at them like forward outposts, as the first line of defense in the event of STILL ANOTHER ISLAMIST ATTACK.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually I understand the intentions and the actual outcome a lot better than your ministrations on this thread.

 

IOW, they fought a war to win. What a novel idea!

- - - Updated - - -

So?

 

Occupying land as a result of capture until an enforceable peace treaty is not gaining territory. It is good common sense.

 

Your post , #605, is a direct steal from here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Israel

Anybody claiming such text as their own is what is known as ' a cheat ' .

Once more, you are obliged to link to the sources of your quotes. Anything less is intellectual dishonesty.

 

In the event anyone misunderstood one of the ramifications of our pulling out of the UN would be its total collapse as the rest of the world can't afford to finance its failures anymore.