And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks

[_JS]

This is not a courtroom, where the prosecution is required to make a full disclosure to the defense. It's a debate club where both sides are expected to do the requisite research in support of their own position and are not required to provide support for their oppsition.

That's interesting, because in another thread Sirs accused me of "ommission and innuendo" for not providing a complete and detailed history of the Six Day War and for <gasp> accusing Israel of making a pre-emptive strike (which they did!).

Honestly, there is little point in debating this. The horse is dead and has been sufficiently flogged.

[Amianthus]

That's interesting, because in another thread Sirs accused me of "ommission and innuendo" for not providing a complete and detailed history of the Six Day War and for <gasp> accusing Israel of making a pre-emptive strike (which they did!).

Don't remember it. Feel free to use my quote if it happens again.

[sirs]

This is not a courtroom, where the prosecution is required to make a full disclosure to the defense. It's a debate club where both sides are expected to do the requisite research in support of their own position and are not required to provide support for their oppsition.

That's interesting, because in another thread Sirs accused me of "ommission and innuendo" for not providing a complete and detailed history of the Six Day War and for accusing Israel of making a pre-emptive strike (which they did!).

The difference being that A) I conceded a long time ago that Israel did pre-emptively attack Egypt & Co in '67, (so I'm puzzled as to why you're still hung up on that) and B) I never claimed Israel was as pure as winter driven snow, who could do no wrong.  I outlined the conditions as they've been historically established, and referenced summaries concluding what prompted Israel to act as they did, to which YOU yourself have conceded in not defending Egypt's rhetoric & actions.

Now, please make sure to add that to your collective thought making.

[domer]

In the midst of everybody's rhetoric about the genesis of the Six Days' War and who was, and was not, deceptive in the authority they cited, Michael's underlying points about the necessity of the occupation, and certainly its duration and character, are good ones. I suggest, in the face of forensic fatigue, that we nonetheless address these issues as they form part of the heart of the dispute, one of the ventricles, if you will.

[Amianthus]

I currently think - and I've voiced this opinion in the past - the US should follow a policy of isolationism for about the next 50 years or so.

Let the EU and China trade off decades being the world's police for a while.

We did it far too long. Bring back every soldier stationed overseas, close down every base outside of the US, stop all support payments to every other country. The only US presence (sans tourists) outside the US should be embassies.

We need to spend the money here for a while.

[sirs]

I agree the "occupation" is an issue as well Domer.  The point of confronation I do believe is in how to deal with it.  Tee advocates unilateral Israeli action & pull back, and then pray the killings of Israelis by terrorists and other Islamofascists, which even Tee concedes is likely to happen, having embolden the terrorists, I guess is not so bad, that Israel can absorb those deaths.  

Personally, I'm not of that mindset of gambling those Israeli lives, especially when the lands are largely the result of israel having taken them defensively in the 1st place (vs some cockmanine notion that they had always been "eyeing that land", and I guess just looking for an excuse to just up & take those lands, in this case the pledge of its neighbors in destroying Israel....Those selfish bastard Jews, always looking out for themselves  

[domer]

Sirs, I tend to agree with your sentiments to protect Israeli life and, beyond that, the viability of the Israeli state itself. All my arguments thus far on this matter have been delivered in that key. Yet, as JS and Michael have so manfully argued -- with the new "gloss" of the very propriety (read: degree of affront) of the occupation itself crystallizing previous arguments, for me at least -- there are terrible costs to the occupation, and they are severable from the core notion of the right of return in which much of our discussion here in the past has been cast.

[sirs]

It is quite the pickle, I concede, Domer.  No easy fixes, nor will there ever be.  Just putting it on record that while I can criticize Israel's apparent harsh immigration policies for non-Israelis, neither will I support any measure for Israel to unilaterally just give up land for a "promise of peace", nor will I condemn them for occupying lands they took in defense of their country.

I've proferred my ideas and suggestions in which step by step peace can possibly be achieved, but that continues to be pfffft'd on, with the irrational return that this all pretty much lies at the feet of Israel to do something     

[Michael Tee]

<<Tee's just bent out of shape that no one is really buying this alternate version of history he's trying to sell, where it really is Israel who's the big bad meanie, and that Nasser was simply respondiing to the apparently occasional incursions by Israel, with his pledges of complete Israeli destruction.>>

The truth happens to be that Israel committed numerous acts of aggression against both Jordan and Syria prior to the start of the Six Day War, as outlined in the Wikipedia article.  (The full version, not your truncated version of it.)  The truth happens to be that Menachem Begin himself said that the Israelis did not have to pre-emptively strike Egypt and the truth happens to be that the Zionist movement always wanted the West Bank.  I wouldn't be "all bent out of shape" even is no one was really buying that, but a lot of people must be buying it or it wouldn't remain in Wikipedia.  The fact that you, Ami and a few other die-hards (who also aren't "buying" that Bush lied America into war) aren't convinced doesn't faze me one bit.  I've given up on convincing you, I am just determined not to let your lies stand.

<<  You've already nailed it many times over Ami, how BOTH wikipedia articles (the one with more detail, and the summary), as well as boatload of others, make it crystal clear what prompted Israel to pre-emtively attack messers Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon & Syria, and the lands taken in defense as a result. >>

Wow, what's that, a  trifecta of bullshit?  First of all, the Wikipedia articles, read in their entirety, make it crystal clear that the causes of the Six Day War are mixed and that Israel probably shares in a lot of the blame for the situation that resulted in the "pre-emptive" attack, as well as the possibility that it might not even have been genuinely pre-emptive.  Secondly, neither you nor Ami have pointed to any "boadload of others" and even if you had, the "boatload" could easily be found amongst the hundreds of Zionist propaganda pieces cluttering bookstores and remainder tables and signifying absolutely nothing.  And third, nothing in the articles even mentions how taking and holding and settling the West Bank constitutes any kind of defensive measure.

<< Even his own frellin article makes that conclusion.>>

My own fucking article if read in its entirety provides ample evidence to question or contradict the conclusion.

<<Your perservence in continuing to deal with Tee's template on this subject is to be commended>>

No more than your own perseverance in promoting your weird Zionist bullshit, sirs.

[Michael Tee]

sirs:  <<Ironically speaking, "if you knew anything about their history", you'd grasp that this so-called "occupation" begain when Israel had to take lands in defense of their country, as every one of their border neighbors, Jordan included was massing its military along their borders, and Egypt's President declaring their intentions of taking on Israel.  They didn't simply "occupy 3 million Arabs"  Everything that Israel has done has been in RESPONSE to something being done or about to be done to them.  Nearly every one of Israel's military incursions into Gaza or the West Bank was as a result of some attack directed at Israel.  What part of the math are you not understanding here, Tee?>>


Ami:  <<Perhaps you'd like to highlight where Sirs mentioned the Six Days War in there. I can't find it.>>

Let me help you, Ami.  I highlighted the words in red.  The occupation in question is the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.  That occupation began with the Israeli victory in the Six Day War.  The reference to the three million Arabs is a reference to the current Arab population of the West Bank, a figure which I had used several times previously in the thread.  The actual population at the time of the war may have been somewhat lower.  Nevertheless it's clear that in context we are talking about the three million Arabs of the West Bank and the Israeli occupation of them - - all dating back to the Six Day War.

[Amianthus]

Let me help you, Ami.  I highlighted the words in red.

Let me help you. You have assumed that those words refer to the Six Days War. And they might. But as I pointed out in my post, they could refer to several other periods in Israel's modern history, or they could refer to the entire period between 1948 and 1973.

[Michael Tee]

Ami, the only occupation this thread was referring to was the occupation of the West Bank.  The words "this so-called occupation" refer to the occupation of the West Bank.  Further clues are "every one of their border neighbors, Jordan included was massing its military along their borders" and "Egypt's President declaring their intentions of taking on Israel."

IMHO, that was a clear reference to the Six Day War.  If you don't see it that way, we have to agree to disagree.

[_JS]

Just putting it on record that while I can criticize Israel's apparent harsh immigration policies for non-Israelis, neither will I support any measure for Israel to unilaterally just give up land for a "promise of peace", nor will I condemn them for occupying lands they took in defense of their country.

What a bold stand. If there was any other way to straddle that fence I fear it might become impregnated with your child.

My problem Sirs is that I cannot justify racism and especially institutionalized policies. Here you ignore the fact that many of these policies affect those who live in Israel and are not just "immigration policies."

I'm not playing the justify bigotry game.

[sirs]

Just putting it on record that while I can criticize Israel's apparent harsh immigration policies for non-Israelis, neither will I support any measure for Israel to unilaterally just give up land for a "promise of peace", nor will I condemn them for occupying lands they took in defense of their country.

What a bold stand. If there was any other way to straddle that fence I fear it might become impregnated with your child.  My problem Sirs is that I cannot justify racism and especially institutionalized policies. Here you ignore the fact that many of these policies affect those who live in Israel and are not just "immigration policies."

If that's how YOU see it, fine, don't.  No one's demanding that you do.  My problem is that I can not support trying to erase a country from it's location, if not its very existance, especially when passes keep being given the core source of how those "racist policies" came to be.  Funny how one can't critize 1 aspect of X yet support another.  I guess we can no longer support any politicians unless they're fanatical zealots from 1 end of the spectrum or the other

[Michael Tee]

<<Tee advocates unilateral Israeli action & pull back, and then pray the killings of Israelis by terrorists and other Islamofascists, which even Tee concedes is likely to happen, having embolden the terrorists, I guess is not so bad, that Israel can absorb those deaths.>>

I don't believe I recommended prayer as a means of keeping down the killing of Israelis by "terrorists," and like most of your delusional bullshit, I'm sure you have no hope in hell of substantiating what you say I said. 

<<Personally, I'm not of that mindset of gambling those Israeli lives, especially when the lands are largely the result of israel having taken them defensively in the 1st place >>

Of course not.  Even if the Fourth Geneva Convention which the Israelis themselves signed prohibits the settlement of lands taken in war.  And BTW, you gamble with Israeli lives by continuing the occupation too - - the occupation could be the motivating factor behind most of the "terrorist" attacks.  That "gambling with Israeli lives" gambit of yours, like everything else you have to say on the topic, is pure unadulterated bullshit.

<<(vs some cockmanine notion that they had always been "eyeing that land",>>

Yeah, I guess you're right.  Cockamamie indeed.  Historically Zionism always made an exception for the West Bank.  They just didn't want it.  Zionism never was meant to include Hebron and Bethlehem.  They made special exceptions for the West Bank, it's just that sirs is the only student of Zionist history to have ever seen them.

<<and I guess just looking for an excuse to just up & take those lands>>

Yeah, what an outlandish thought . . . looking for an excuse, seizing the opportunity.  Who ever did that, anyway?  That's just not how people act.  sirs knows.  He's been studying people and their actions from a cave on Pluto for all of his adult life.

<< in this case the pledge of its neighbors in destroying Israel....>>

Which 39 years later and despite peace agreements with two of the neighbours, including the neighbour whose pledge to destroy Israel supposedly precipitated the war, is still given by sirs and anyone stupid enough to believe him as the reason why the occupation must continue.  Greed for the land?  Ridiculous.  Selfishness?  Nonsense.  Self-aggrandizement?  Impossible.  The Jews hold the land because the late Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt (which never owned the land anyway) promised in 1967 to destroy Israel.  Yeah, makes sense.

<<Those selfish bastard Jews, always looking out for themselves>>

Now, now sirs, calm yourself.  They surely aren't the first people in history to take other folks' land by force for themselves.  As an American, you can hardly fault them.