Badassbab said:
1. They occupied West Bank and Gaza cause they wanted to expand their borders into 'Judea and Samaria'. The excuse was they were under mortal threat from Arab armies so launched a preemptive strike. However evidence has shown there was no mortal threat to Israel's existence and the Israeli leadership knew it. Just read Moshe Dayan quotes and historical studies by Benny Morris. They would intentially provoke the Syrians and the Egyptians so they could launch aggression. 2. Israel broke the ceasefire pre Op Cast Lead. It's standard knowledge in most parts of the world but I guess in the US certain news aren't given much airtime. Google it if you have to. It's not hard to find. And Israel blockaded Gaza not because of any rocket fire but becuase Hamas (who they used to support against the PLO in the 80's) won the election. As for most Corporate media being liberal...yeah I agree. Liberal to a certain point. There is a narrow spectrum of opinion tolerated. Conservative doesn't mean pro Israel nor pro Corporatism similalry liberal doesn't mean anti Corporate and anti Israel. Ron Paul is a classical fiscal isolationist conservative but anti-Corporate and anti-war. Most of the US media is kinda liberal but very pro-Israel. 3. There were no ridiculous pre-conditions it was UN 242, then Oslo and so on. And Israel is used to intense backlash but it doesn't matter cause it has the backing of the only power that matters which is to say the US. Pretty much everything Israel does is with the tactic backing of the US, if she goes too far then the US will step in but it's quite rare and never concerns Palestinian issues. Condi Rice even suggested the Pals emigrate to South American (which is where Zionists where thinking of settling at one point before Israel). The nerve of her. 4. I agree and the blockade should be lifted since that in itself is an act of war. I suggest you do a little research into who led Israel during it's founding and their history. You would probably classify them as terrorists (if your being fair that is). For example the notorious terrorist group Irgun became Likud one of the biggest parties in Israel and their Russian born leader became PM 5. But those countries have no reason to fire anything, I don't understand what you are trying to say. That's like saying if the US nuked Russia then Russia has every right to take appropriate measures but it's a pointless discussion cause right now as we speak the US has no reason to nuke Russia and Russia is not occupying the US. If the Russians occupied the US then maybe one could arge the US has a right to fight off the occupation with whatever means at their disposal. And the occupation is brutal (since 1967- first Qassam rocket fired is probably mid 2000) because they want the Pals to leave and the Pals aren't doing what they want them to do i.e stop resisting the occupation and accpet Israeli rule and land grab. Perhaps in your world resistence to occupation should be made illegal under international law but as it stands it's perfectly legal. Heck I guess occupied Europe should not have resisted the Nazis or Eastern Europe should've just accepted Soviet domination and get on with it. |
.
1) Again... after PLO guerllia attacks. The first city wasn't invaded until after people were killed.
2) If it's such standard knowledge, it shouldn't be so hard for you to provide it yourself. I'd suggest cross refrencing with the list of rocket attacks to make sure there isn't significant overlap. Which, considering the frequency of them... it'd be pretty hard for there NOT to be.
If we're using the June 18th ceasfire in 2008 as the basis then you'd have to prove that Israel broke the ceasefire before June 23rd.
As for the American media being pro-israel.... I don't think you watch much american media. Basically every story on TV is about something Israel did to the palestinians. Outside of political stories anyway about the campaign race.
3) Yet they aren't copping to the deal. If what's in the Palestine papers are true... then they made an offer that they couldn't even admit to their own people. Now tell me how they're supposed to make a deal they can't even talk about with their own people without there being huge controversy. Say Israel agreed to that deal... what do you think the reaction would of been?
4) First off, Igrun became Herut, which then merged into Likud. Though yeah, terrorists, and the UN should of demanded that those involved in terrorist attacks in the Herut be removed from the party and/or sent to England for trial. (I believe it was mostly the english they were targeting.) If this were 1970 we'd be having a different conversation. As it is now there are very few connectons.
5) There were other terrorist acts before the rockets... and the point is... as long as Palestine continues such acts, Israel is justified in what it's doing.
