RE: Netanyahoo labels BDS a "strategic threat"

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Netanyahoo labels BDS a "strategic threat"

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Netanyahoo labels BDS a "strategic threat"

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Netanyahoo labels BDS a "strategic threat" - 6/10/2015 5:21:12 AM

tweakabelle

Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Let me explain something to you, the only people who pay attention to the Geneva convention are the people who lose wars and the lawyers sent in to follow US troops by lefty loonies. So, using the Geneva convention to justify your hate just makes you loony as well as racist. Had Isreal wanted to they could have rolled up the entire Middle East in 1967 and kept it all. They didn't.
[snip]
So, it's your contention that the only one that has to adhere to international law is Isreal.

That is because the Jews and Israel were supposed to DIE in 1967. They are not supposed to defend themselves. What are ya, dumb or sumpin'?

,

Aylee, rather than indulging in emotive, almost hysterical language ("the Jews and Israel were supposed to DIE in 1967"), looking at the cold hard facts of historical record reveals Israel's real intentions and goals in the '67 war and in its behaviour subsequent to the war. A more dispassionate approach reveals the truth of the matter:
Israel might have a legitimate case for arguing the 1967 war was a war of self defence if either: (a) it confined itself to protecting its then-existing borders rather than its actual strategy of aggressive expansion; or (b) it withdrew from lands conquered in the 1967 subsequent to hostilities ceasing. It did neither. Instead it occupied the lands it conquered and only withdrew from Sinai after another war and peace treaty with Egypt. Israel still occupies the West Bank today, refusing to cede it to its rightful owners and as we all know is colonising the West Bank as rapidly as it can. So the argument that Israel's 1967 war was a war of self defence fails, it is incompatible with the historical record and the facts on the ground that we can all see today.

OTOH: If we consider that facts that; (a) Israel by its own admission initiated hostilities; (b) according to Miko Peled, son of Israeli '67 war hero Gen Peled, the Israeli Defence Forces' (IDF) assessment was that the Arab armies in 1967 were "18-24 months [away from] battle readiness" and (c) Israeli post-war actions, behaviour and goals all indicate that there never has been any intention to withdraw from the West Bank. Thus it is crystal clear that the facts are all consistent with the 1967 war being a war of aggression by Israel with the intention of territorial expansion.

No amount of pro-Zionist spin, abuse or name calling or red herrings (hysterical or those of a less neurotic nature) can alter the facts or withstand scrutiny informed by the historical record, and dispassionate reason. The 1967 was an unambiguous war of aggression by Israel, sadly one of many wars of aggression launched by that ultra-aggressive terrorist racist State.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 6/10/2015 5:37:27 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Aylee)