Again, I don't believe you really accept the flawed premises and counterfactual statements you are proposing.You seem to have great trouble believing anything that doesn't come directly from the mouth of an IDF or Israeli Government spokseman.
You state: "Your inference: Before occupation Israel was unsecure. After occupation Israel is more secure." That's not really my inference, but the proof is that a war hasn't been launched against Israel from the territories in that time. The facts you mention are indeed troubling, but they do not compare with war casualties, much less war casualties from before the territories were acquired. Before Israel occupied the territories, at least 3 wars were launched against from Gaza and the West Bank. Had Israel not held the territories, the subsequent two wars probably would have ended the country. That's why having the territories has made Israel more safe since 1967, despite recent terrorist attacks and deaths of soldiers in Jenin.
You're right. In 1973 the war came from outside the occupied territories. In fact the attacks came through the Sinai (oops, wasn't the Sinai occupied territory at the time?) and the Golan Heights (oh damn, the Golan Heights were under occupation too!).
By the way, if that was not your inference, why do you attempt to prove it (and fail by the way)?
Anyway, would you consider Palestinian suicide bombers an act of war? Sharon apparently did. But let's put that aside. Can you explain how a war on Israel could have been launched from land occupied by the IDF? Surely you are not suggesting the IDF would have launched a war on Israel? So any war launched on Israel would by definition have to come from territories not occupied by Israel! Isn't that obvious?
But to drive the nails even more firmly into the coffin of this argument, none of the Arab-Israeli wars were launched from the occupied territories!
In 1948, the Jews were nowhere near the occupied territories when the war broke out. In 1956 Israel (supported by France and Britain) attacked Egypt after it nationalised the Suez Canal. In 1967, Israel attacked Egypt, Syria and Jordan after hostile acts between all of the above nations. In 1973 Egypt and Syria attacked Israel from their own sovereign territory.
(All the details can be found at this page and pages linked from it: http://i-cias.com/e.o/yomkipwr.htm)
So considering these facts, exactly how can you use the argument that 'no war has been launched against Israel from the occupied territories since they were occupied'? In fact no war has ever been launched from the occupied territories! Well not unless you count terrorist acts, in which case your argument still fails for obvious reasons.
You state: "Nobody wants Israel to give up any territory it did not occupy in 1967." That's completely untrue. Many people want not only for Israel to give up more territory than that, but for the country not to even exist anymore. Remember bin Laden, for example? Again, I don't think you always believe what you're saying, and this statement is a good example of what I'm talking about. Then you say: "Or are you refering to Gaza and the West Bank as part of the Israeli "country"? If so, you have exposed yourself to be just as bad as any Palestinian who desires the eradication of Israel. After all, in one fell swoop you have declared the eradication of Palestine!" I referred to nothing of the sort, and you are again attributing to me things I neither said or meant.
Is Bin Laden Palestinian? Does he represent a Government? Does he represent anybody other than himself? What you said was "Cutting the country nearly in half and handing the neighboring area over to the Palestinians". Now, if nobody (except for obviously marginalised terrorists such as Bin Laden, and Israel has its own share of fundamentalist whackos) is asking for the Israelis to give up any of the land they occupied as of 1967, then how exactly are they "cutting the country nearly in half"? The "country", as you put it, would not be touched by the removal of illegal occupation forces from Gaza and the West Bank. If you are complaining about how small Israel is in certain areas, that is not the Palestinians fault. In fact the Palestinians will be getting much less in one of their territories.
By seemingly asserting that Israel has the right to annex lands that don't belong to it, just so as to have a wider nation in certain areas, then that is exactly the same as those Palestinians who wish to annex all of Israel in order to get their own version of a perfect state. Can't you see that?
You have over-reached in your assertions, especially in your suggestion (which is in extreme bad taste in a thread about a suicide bombing of Israeli civilians, btw) that Israel is an apartheid state. Not only have you not proven these assertions, but you won't accept--at least, you say you won't-- that they are incorrect, despite all the historical and current realities to the contrary. Your tirelessness is admirable, I suppose, but your adherence, actual or just feigned, to non-truths is troubling. You can refer to all the sources you like, pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian or Norwegian, but if you're not going to interpret them correctly they won't do you any good.
No, it is you who refuses to accept the truth. I have shown you multiple times that even the Israeli Supreme Court and Government say things that disagree with your assertions. I have proved time and again that Israel practices apartheid policies, and yet you refuse to accept the truth. In fact you then go on to suggest that it's all a matter of interpretation! I mean come on! A fact is a fact, it needs no interpretation. I did not interpret a thing, I just quoted the facts!
Again, I don't believe you're so unintelligent as to deliberately twist and misinterpret my comments to the gratuitous degree that you have. Maybe this is indeed how you really perceive the situation and my comments, but it's hard for me to believe you're thinking is so ineffective.
My thinking is not ineffective at all. I have shown plenty of evidence to support my assertions, and even though you deny that what I have said is true, it is nevertheless true.
And you're incorrect, again, when you say that I believe Israel can do no wrong and that the Palestinians are to blame for everything. Israel can do wrong, and the Palestinian are not to blame for everything: I have made many statements in these forums to just that effect. Now you're not only misinterpreting me, you're maligning me.
I perhaps overstepped the mark there, but you have definately given me that impression. In fact apart from saying "I do not say Israel can do no wrong", everything else you have posted to this thread does exactly that; deny that Israel has done wrong, even when faced with overhwelming evidence that is has indeed done wrong.
De omnibus est dubitandum. (Everything should be questioned) - René DescartesA conservative government is an organized hypocrisy. - Benjamin Disraeli
The Devil's Advocate
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
