Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:

wrote:
Change the date and ethnic group for a fun experience. Pre-World War 2
Germany did try to expel Jews.

Were the Jews, as a group, in pre-World War 2 Germany carrying out a
murderous terrorist campaign aganst the non-Jewish Germans?

- Jordan

Lyn David Thomas wrote:

This is off topic for soc.history.what-if as this is present/future not
past related.

Nothing is off-topic for soc.history.what-if; since it accepted Coyu's
tirades it has by implication declared itself to be the dumping-ground
for whatever crap _anyone_ chooses to post here.

Enjoy the environment you helped create

- Jordan

Lyn David Thomas wrote:

This is off topic for soc.history.what-if as this is present/future not
past related.

Hey, Lyn, shouldn't you be cowering in your basement in fear of the
feral dogs?

- Jordan

Andrew Venor wrote:
Ignoring inconvenient facts like the eighteen years of Syrian artillery
raining down from the Golan Heights on Israeli civilians just because it
doesn't fit your anti-Semitic view of the world tells us all we need to
know about what kind of person you are.

Oh, no, Matt doesn't _ignore_ it. He _celebrates_ it. He believes
that Israel is so inherently illegitimate as a nation that any and all
Arabs have the right to kill Israelis whenever they want to, for no
provocation other than Israel's own existence.

He's said so explicitly, more than once.

The thing that we should all be aware of is that this is _also_ the
official POV of pretty much every Arab country, even the so-called
"moderate" ones. It's what they teach in their schools, it's what they
grow up believing, and it's why Israel has to retain its defenses and
eschew liberal goodwill in its foreign policy if Israel is to survive.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

Andrew Venor wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:

Andrew Venor wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

Jordan wrote:

Dean A. Markley wrote:

Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.


True. The advantage of hitting Damascus, though, especially if it's
repeated and especially if collateral damage kills some rich Damascene
civilians, is that it brings home to Syria that there could be a _big_
personal cost, felt by the Syrian ruling elite, for supporting attacks
on Israel. Heck, I think that Israel should _target_ Assad, and then
others in the Syrian leadership, in the hopes of making that country
collapse into civil war as the hyena-like survivors struggle for
supremacy.
The Syrian elite has spent a good deal of the last few decades causing
chaos in Lebanon and death everywhere abroad. Let them have a
taste of
what it's like, at home. Couldn't happen to a nicer buncha guys



Don't you think it would help its international position for
Israel to end its occupation of southern Syria before making demands
on Syria? It has been well known for year in Israel, right from
Moshe Dayan, that it provoked Syria into defending itself during the
1967 war solely for the purpose of stealing the Syrian Heights.



Do you mean the Golan Heights, where the Syrian Army had been firing
artillery down on Israeli civilians for the eighteen years preceding
the 1967 war?

Actually I was refering to the shelling of Israelis who were
living on stolen Syrian land fronting the Sea of Galilee. Syria
certainly has a right to shell its own territory

I have similarly suggested Syria lease the Heights to Iran as a
down range missile test range.

If there was a dispute over the land in question then it could
certainly have been put to international arbitration.

In any event, despite the Israeli propaganda, Moshe Dayan give the
real and only reason for provoking Syria. To steal the land. That is
what he said. It has been confirmed by his daughter.

It was this revelation which shot down the Israeli propaganda. The
propaganda has been discredited. There is no point in trying to
resurrect it today.

Ignoring

Ignoring Moshe Dayan is truly incredible.

inconvenient facts like the eighteen years of Syrian artillery
raining down from the Golan Heights on Israeli civilians

If Israel was permitting its citizens to live on occupied Syrian territory that
means they committed a hanging offense as per the Nuremberg Tribunal. It is
crime against humanity.

And the civilians living on occupied Syrian land was also criminals as are
those today who are living on the Syrian Heights, in the West Bank and in East
Jerusalem. It is occupied territory. Both Israel's Attorney General and the
Chief Justice of Israel's Supreme Court agree they are occuppied territories.
That makes the squatters and those who permit them to squat are war criminals.

It is also the right of any country to attack anyone encroaching on its
sovereign territory. Even without pointing out the squatters were criminals it
is obvious they were choosing to put their lives in danger and Syria had every
right to use deadly force to drive foreigners out of Syrian territory. Syria has
no fewer rights because Zionists wanted to steal their land.

just because it
doesn't fit your anti-Semitic view of the world tells us all we need to
know about what kind of person you are.

The truth cannot be anti-semitic. Settling citizens on occupied territory is a
crime against humanity as per Nuremberg. It is also designated a war crime in
post war treaties and conventions Israel has signed.

You cannot justify a war crime no matter how hard you try.

To quote the late American Ambassador and Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not
entitled to their own facts."

And the facts are Moshe Dayan gave the only reason for picking a fight with
Syria during the 1967 war. And that also shows Israel was never in danger during
the 67 war giving the lie to another piece of Israeli propaganda.

I don't know how you got out of my kill file, but your going right back in.

That will save me a lot of time setting you straight on the designated war
crimes in this world and who is committing them.

--
Can anyone tell me the difference between Iraq with nuclear weapons and Iran
with nuclear weapons? The lies all sound the same to me.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3654
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3

Hey Matt, the laundry called while you were out. They want to know if
you want your brown shirts washed with or without starch.

ALV

Jordan wrote:
Andrew Venor wrote:

Ignoring inconvenient facts like the eighteen years of Syrian artillery
raining down from the Golan Heights on Israeli civilians just because it
doesn't fit your anti-Semitic view of the world tells us all we need to
know about what kind of person you are.

Oh, no, Matt doesn't _ignore_ it. He _celebrates_ it.

I recited the only reason Moshe Dayan gave for it. That Izziehuggers find the
truth inconvenient does not make the truth antisemitic. Dayan considered one of
the two greatest mistakes of his career.

He believes
that Israel is so inherently illegitimate as a nation that any and all
Arabs have the right to kill Israelis whenever they want to, for no
provocation other than Israel's own existence.

I have never said that. I have said Palestinians have ever right to reclaim
their private property and resist military occupation by any means available. I
have said other nations have every right to assist the Palestinians in their
fight for justice as the US has assisted so many other peoples in their fight
for justice and to end foreign occupation.

He's said so explicitly, more than once.

Again you lie about what I have said. You always do. And when challenged you
can never produce any post of mine which supports what you claim I have said.

And the reason you never produce any post of mine is that I always give the
legal basis for what I have said.

To date NO ONE has even bothered to try to challenge the legal basis for what I
say.

Why do not you be the first?

The thing that we should all be aware of is that this is _also_ the
official POV of pretty much every Arab country, even the so-called
"moderate" ones. It's what they teach in their schools, it's what they
grow up believing, and it's why Israel has to retain its defenses and
eschew liberal goodwill in its foreign policy if Israel is to survive.

Does a nation of war criminals have a right to survive? Or must the world
demand it cease its criminal activities as a condition of survival? The
occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Syrian Heights are
criminal as are all the citizens of Israel who live there, have lived there or
who support the occupation in any way such as with tax money.

--
There are two kinds of Europeans. Those who accept the holy holocaust and
those who are in prison.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3659
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1

Jordan wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Jordan wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Jordan wrote:
Don't you think it would help its international position for Israel to end its
occupation of southern Syria before making demands on Syria?
No. I think it would help its international position for Israel to
_annex_ the Golan Heights and then reply to all questions about their
future disposition with "They're Israeli national territory. What are
you offering us to purchase them?"

Formal annexation would be a hanging offense as a crime against humanity was it
was found to be at Nuremberg.

Nonsense. Formal annexation of territory captured in war is a _normal_
disposal of such territory. And this has been true even after World
War II: note the dispositions of Tibet and South Vietnam.

So you are saying Israel is no better than communist countries. South Vietnam
was scheduled for a reunification vote in 1956. The west refused to hold that
election as the people would have overwhelmingly voted for it. Keeping the two
separate was contrary to the will of the people. As for Tibet, that annexation
is still not recognized.

In fact membership in the UN requires a nation to foreswear gaining land by
war. When Jordan annexed the West Bank only one country in the world recognized
that action, Egypt. When Jordan annexed Jerusalem no country recognized it not
even Egypt.

Similarly no country in the world has recognized Israel's claim to have annexed
Jerusalem. Israel has not claimed to have annexed anything else so there is no
issue of recognition.

The issue here is settling civilian populations in occupied territory. That is
clearly a hanging offense and a crime against humanity as per Nuremberg, the UN
Charter and the Geneva conventions. If you hold that is not a crime then you
hold the Nazis did nothing wrong by moving Germans into ANNEXED Poland and
expelling Poles from it.

Again, when did you become a Nazi?

Do you
really believe that if the Arabs had won _any_ territory from Israel in
any of the Arab-Israeli Wars, the captured territory wouldn't have been
formally annexed by one of the victor Powers?

As above that was what Jordan tried and only one country recognized one of the
two announced annexations.

This is also how Israel should have dealt with the issues of the West
Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

How would committing additional crimes against humanity have been a benefit?

Formal annexation of captured territory is not a "crime against
humanity," so your question is meaningless.

Have you never read the indictment or the judgements from the Nuremberg
tribunal? Why do you not read them some day and learn my basis for saying what I
say?

Are you saying the Nazi actions in Poland were lawful? That the expulsion of
Poles was lawful? That settling citizens of Germany in ANNEXED Poland was lawful?

When did you become a Nazi? When did you come to agree Nazi actions in Poland
were lawful?

Assuming that you meant
"How would annexing these territories have been a benfit?" the answer
is that the Israelis could then have deported the Palestinians from
this new Israeli territory. There would have been an international
outcry, calls for action and sanctions, and in a few years the issue
would have quietly died away.

As no country has recognized Israel's claimed annexation of Jerusalem what
makes you think any country would recognize its claim to have annexed anything
else?

And the deportation would be an additional crime against humanity as it was
when Germany expelled Poles from the part of Poland it claimed to have annexed.
Note also that annexation was recognized by members of the Axis and the Soviet
Union so it is far more than have recognized any annexation claims regarding
Palestine.

And that would result in millions more people with a lawful right to use deadly
force against those who drove them out as the Polish resistance was lawful.

If the Israelis had done this after 1967-72, there would have been _no_
"Palestinian issue," and by now there would be very little
international concern about the descendants of said "Palestinians," who
would have long since integrated into whatever countries they wound up
living in. Furthermore, if the Israelis had made plain that, if
attacked again, it would annex _more_ territory from the aggressor
states after beating them and expel _those_ inhabitants, I suspect that
the Arabs would have lost interest in actually attacking Israel.

You have gotten an overblown sense of your ability to predict an alternate
future from s.h.w-i. No country would have recognized the annexation nor the
legitimacy of the expulsion just as today NO country recognizes the legitimacy
of any of Israel's expulsions including those from 1947-48.

Why do you dream Palestinians would forget a real expulsion when Jews who were
never expelled from Judea developed an entire mythology to justify the atheist
Zionists returning nearly two millenia later?

You live in a fantasy world.

By failing to formally annex such territories, the Israelis create a
situation where they win nothing by winning any wars, but lose
everything if they lose any wars -- which tempts Arab aggression. They
are making the mistake of dealing with the Arabs as good-faith
negotiators interested in peace, when the Arabs are only interested in
destroying Israel and consider it totally acceptable to violate any
promises made to the Israelis.

Claiming to annex is something any country can do. The actual annexation has to
be recognized by other countries to be considered legitimate.

Israel is not considered legitimate by so many nations because the expulsion is
not recognized as legitimate by any nation nor by the United Nations. Israel's
right to exist has to be considered in light of the right of a nation of
criminals to exist.

When did you forget the libertarian principle of the absolute right to private
property? When did you forget the absolute right of the owners of property to
use any means available including deadly force to obtain the return of their
property? When did you forget that sovereignty does not mean ownership? When you
became a Nazi or when you became a communist?

--
When western nations renounce the right to resistance to foreign occupation
they can honestly demand Palestinians do so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3650
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11

Robert Kolker wrote:
Jordan wrote:

If the Israelis had done this after 1967-72, there would have been _no_
"Palestinian issue," and by now there would be very little
international concern about the descendants of said "Palestinians," who
would have long since integrated into whatever countries they wound up
living in.

In whatever country Palestineans dwell they are a pox and a nuisance.
Recall what happened in Lebanon. They were also a pain in the arse in
Kuwait where some of them worked. They were not particularly loved by
their Muslim "brothers".

Which is why they should be returned to their former homes in Palestine
including the part of it which is now called Israel.

--
There are two kinds of Europeans. Those who accept the holy holocaust and
those who are in prison.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3659
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12

Jordan wrote:
wrote:

Change the date and ethnic group for a fun experience. Pre-World War 2
Germany did try to expel Jews.

Were the Jews, as a group, in pre-World War 2 Germany carrying out a
murderous terrorist campaign aganst the non-Jewish Germans?

Their property had not been stolen at that time so they did not have the lawful
right to use deadly force to regain it.

You keep calling them terrorists when they have every right to kill Israelis
and destoy military assets. They have a lawful resistance movement.

If the world does not like it then the world should revert to the pre-WWII
rules where resistance to occupation was illegal.

--
During the Cold War anyone who supported Russia was justly considered
culpable in everything Russia did. Today anyone who supports Israel is
culpable in everything Israel does.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3664
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4