-->
@Benjamin
Israeli intel knew that Egypt did not plan to go to war. The Israeli military knew they were not going to be annihilated.
The Israeli-Arab conflict
Posts
Total:
109
-->
@zedvictor4
What about pre-David
I said
land that had been Abraham's, Grandfather of Jacob.
What I did not mention is that Isaac, not Ishmael, was given the birthright. In the next generation, Isaac gave Jacob [the second-born of twins], not Esau, the birthright.
What blame? Should anyone but we who try to interpret without the only record in existence attempt to find blame? Maybe the record ought to be given more credence than it is.
And all land ownership, is expropriation or theft anyway.
That is a gross simplification which the record does not berar out. The land in question was sold by Araunah, who owned it, to David, and there is a record of that sale, but who can produce a record of subsequent sale? If they could, don't you think it ought to be produced?
Because the U.S. and it's allies have and never will be able to settle the issue.
That's probably true, So, in the end, the one who will settle it, ultimately, with a concession that "every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ" is Christ, himself, upon his return. "And lo, I come quickly." Well, that was given 2,000 years ago, and has not happened, yet, but then, "quickly" must be interpreted the way God interprets time; much longer than we do.
-->
@Benjamin
What is important about the Six-Day War is this: Nowhere within it did Palestinians consent to their land being settled in and wiped out. And, for that reason, how can you cast doubt the legitimacy of every organization currently within the PA but not do the same for the Israelis, who have settled in and wiped out the Palestinian presence in the West Bank since '67?
-->
@Username
So, is your conclusion that since Israel knew it would not be annihilated, this time, Israel has no right to defend itself? Let us recall the mantra of much of the Arab world: to wipe Israel, a sovereign nation, off the map. Israel has no such designs on the Arab world, and that is demonstrated by the three treaties Israel signed with Arab nations last year, under the Trump administration, so, let's consider just who are the aggressing actors, here. Meanwhile, what do you think are Biden's intentions in that regard; more peace treaties?
-->
@fauxlaw
WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BIDEN?!!?!?!?!??!
-->
@Username
Because it seems Democrats cannot forget that Trump is no longer the President, because Biden is such a disappointment to those same Democrats.
-->
@fauxlaw
I am not a Democrat partisan. I will not step up to defend Biden's actions every time he acts, and especially not when he hasn't even acted yet and ESPECIALLY not when the conversation was not about him.
-->
@Username
Fair enough.
-->
@fauxlaw
Multiple things I should also note:
You can't justify what is going on in Israel and Palestine by citing the Bible.
Whether or not the Arab nations support Palestinian statehood is irrelevant to whether or not the Palestinians should be sovereign over the West Bank.
I am not implying that Israel did not have the right to defend itself in 1967. I stated:
I do not interpret Israel as the entirely faulty party when I say that they have initiated the war. But I am saying that for that reason it can hardly be constituted as a one-sided aggressive war to the 1948 War and for that reason cannot at all justify the current prolonged state of the occupation.
Israel has had no intention of wiping out the Arab nations, you're right. Though whether the Arabs are really the aggressing actors in the conflict is unclear, especially since it seems like Israel maintained the Jewish majority in the early 20th century by expelling them from their homes. But since 1967 Israel has shown that they do have the intention of wiping out Palestine.
-->
@Username
But since 1967 Israel has shown that they do have an intention of wiping out Palestine.
By what Israeli policy is wiping put Palestine evident? Palestine can be somewhere else. Palestine is not recognized by the UN as a sovereign nation of a particular locale. Israewl is so recognized. And, nice job of completely ignoring the Israeli occupation of the West Bank by a defensive war in 1967. Since the Arab world occupied the temple mount 1400 years ago, what's the difference? As I said, possession of the land is had both biblically, which you discount, and by occupation, which you accept only by one side.
-->
@fauxlaw
By what Israeli policy is wiping put Palestine evident?
Settlements are not a policy.
Palestine can be somewhere else. Palestine is not recognized by the UN as a sovereign nation of a particular locale.
Palestine is a UN observer state. Even if that was not true, Israel and the West Bank were clearly culturally separate areas prior to the occupation.
If your go-to source on all things international is the UN, then you should be aware that Israeli settlements are illegal under UN international law.
Since the Arab world occupied the temple mount 1400 years ago, what's the difference?
That it happened 1400 YEARS AGO??????????
Don't you realize that every plot of land was owned by someone else thousands of years ago?????? For that matter, I don't even know if the Jews were the first people to inhabit Palestine. Maybe we should try to find who the descendant of the first man to step foot on the land was and kick everyone out so his kids can hang out in Palestine.
-->
@Username
Settlements are not a policy.
The physical evidence of settlements are based upon the age-old belief that occupation of land, and declaration of sovereignty, is policy. Most of you accept that action on policy by Arabs. IS Israel exempted by some resolution of which I am unaware?
-->
@fauxlaw
Once can logically be fine with 1.4k year old Arab settlements but oppose modern Israeli settlements, if that's what you're getting at here.
-->
@Username
Israel occupied land in a war they did not start and to which they retaliated in opposing force and managed to defeat their attackers on all sides, in six days. Decisive victory that overwhelmed 1.4k years of bickering back and forth. So, suddenly their occupation carried less legitimacy than the Arabs? Tell me why. Not to mention a purchase of land much older than that 1.4k years. Tell me why a purchase, with lack of subsequent sale, carries less legitimacy.
Meanwhile, you will notice that the Arab world is not falling over themselves to give land to Palestine to establish sovereignty. Why not? Aren't they brothers in arms? Wouldn't that solve the problem? Or isn't a sovereign nation of Palestine the real Arab intent?
-->
@fauxlaw
What if you were in a town, a bunch of people from Canada came to your house, said that America took their land from them 1.4k years ago, and are now going to buy out your landlord and then evict you in your own country?
-->
@Username
I'd 'understand Native Americans trying to reacquire their land.
Their motivations and 'idea of right.
Though that doesn't necessarily mean I'd support or oppose such.
-->
@Lemming
I'm sure there are native americans living in the US. The same cannot be said of the middle east; there are no jews in arab countries.
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Personally, I think both sides in the conflict are just screwed.
-->
@Benjamin
I doubt that there will ever be peace in the middle east while the Muslim mosque remains slap bang on top of the site of Solomon's temple.