angelo wrote:

duvduv wrote:The Palestinians definitely have a right to defend themselves. They don't want to end up like the Indians who were accused of not accepting the generous terms of the Great White Father. The Zionists are even more selfish, paranoid, neurotic and narcissistic.

What, and the Israelis don't have the right to defend themselves?

angelo wrote:Every single war there has been started by the terrorist.

Zeev Maoz wrote:Israel's war experience is a story of folly, recklessness and self made traps. None of the wars - with the possible exception of the 1948 War of Independence - was what Israel refers to as Milhemet Ein Brerah ("war of neccessity"). They were all wars of choice or wars of folly.

Maoz, Zeev (2009), Defending the Holy Land: a critical analysis of Israel's security and foreign policy, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, p. 35.

angelo wrote:Every single conquest by every single power in the word throughout history has never conceded the land conquered back to the vanquished! Why should Israel be expected to?

angelo wrote:Who was it that walked away from the offer put on the table by Israel of 90% of Palestinian demands?

angelo wrote:Every single conquest by every single power in the word throughout history has never conceded the land conquered back to the vanquished! Why should Israel be expected to?

Conquest, in international law, the acquisition of territory through force, especially by a victorious state in a war at the expense of a defeated state. An effective conquest takes place when physical appropriation of territory (annexation) is followed by “subjugation” (i.e., the legal process of transferring title).

Conquest is associated with the traditional principle that sovereign states may resort to war at their discretion and that territorial and other gains achieved by military victory will be recognized as legally valid. The doctrine of conquest and its derivative rules were challenged in the 20th century by the development of the principle that aggressive war is contrary to international law, a view that is expressed in the covenant of the League of Nations, the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, the charters and judgments of the international military tribunals created at the end of World War II to try those accused of war crimes, the Charter of the United Nations, and numerous other multipartite treaties, declarations, and resolutions. The logical corollary to the outlawry of aggressive war is the denial of legal recognition to the fruits of such war. This implication was contained in what became known as the Stimson Doctrine, enunciated in January 1932 by U.S. Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson and subsequently affirmed by the assembly of the League of Nations and by several conferences of the American republics. The Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, formulated in 1949 by the International Law Commission of the UN, contained (in Article XI) the rule that states are obligated not to recognize territorial acquisitions achieved by aggressive war.

Although conquest has been outlawed, states sometimes ignore this principle in practice. In 1975, for example, Indonesia invaded and annexed the former Portuguese colony of East Timor, and in 1990 the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein invaded and attempted to annex Kuwait. In the latter case, the response of the UN Security Council, which endorsed military force to remove Iraq’s troops from Kuwait, reinforced the unacceptability of conquest. In general, conquest is not as significant an issue in international politics as it once was, because territorial expansion is no longer a common ambition among states.

Spearthrower wrote:States can and probably will sometimes try to annex new territory, Angelo, but the world rightly condemns it and has done so as long as you've been alive.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:States can and probably will sometimes try to annex new territory, Angelo, but the world rightly condemns it and has done so as long as you've been alive.

The epic silence from the anti-Israel mob when Russia annexed Crimea presumably being the exception that tests the rule.

Spearthrower wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:States can and probably will sometimes try to annex new territory, Angelo, but the world rightly condemns it and has done so as long as you've been alive.

The epic silence from the anti-Israel mob when Russia annexed Crimea presumably being the exception that tests the rule.

Sorry, you've come to the wrong room for Chain-Yanking Diversions - that's the next door on the right.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:States can and probably will sometimes try to annex new territory, Angelo, but the world rightly condemns it and has done so as long as you've been alive.

The epic silence from the anti-Israel mob when Russia annexed Crimea presumably being the exception that tests the rule.

Sorry, you've come to the wrong room for Chain-Yanking Diversions - that's the next door on the right.

Pointing out that you are wrong in point of fact is not yanking anyone's chain.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:States can and probably will sometimes try to annex new territory, Angelo, but the world rightly condemns it and has done so as long as you've been alive.

The epic silence from the anti-Israel mob when Russia annexed Crimea presumably being the exception that tests the rule.

Sorry, you've come to the wrong room for Chain-Yanking Diversions - that's the next door on the right.

Pointing out that you are wrong in point of fact is not yanking anyone's chain.

Spearthrower wrote:Trying to derail a thread clearly about Israel and Israeli treatment of the Palestinians offers absolutely bugger all justification for bringing up random comments about Russia's annexation of Crimea, or any other atrocity in the world, unless of course you actively wish to derail the topic.

Agi Hammerthief wrote:Why don't you put a few specific names to those "most biased critics"
let's see if there is a peep to be found.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Agi Hammerthief wrote:Why don't you put a few specific names to those "most biased critics"
let's see if there is a peep to be found.

I think that really would be a derail. You can all do your own forum searches to determine if the word "Crimea" appears in someone's posts, then contrast that to how often they criticise Israel. I don't have anything further to add on the subject. My point is made.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Agi Hammerthief wrote:Why don't you put a few specific names to those "most biased critics"
let's see if there is a peep to be found.

I think that really would be a derail.

Strontium Dog wrote: You can all do your own forum searches to determine if the word "Crimea" appears in someone's posts, then contrast that to how often they criticise Israel. I don't have anything further to add on the subject. My point is made.