P01135809 goes after "Liberal Jews" on Jewish New Year

[Dill]

(09-26-2023, 05:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course, you ignore that this war was started by the other side, with the intent to destroy the state of Israel (a goal still claimed by the current terror state of Iran).  Hence you are flat out lying when you label Israel as the "aggressor nation".  Comparing Israel to the Axis powers in this regard is peak disingenuous behavior from you.  And I'm not a fan of Israel's foreign policy, at all.  

(09-29-2023, 10:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: First off, congratulations on finally getting your post right on the seventh try.  Truly impressive.  As usual, your counter question is typically disingenuous.  Who once occupied the land doesn't change whether a sovereign nation was being attacked.  You're trying to justify aggression after being correctly called out for incorrectly labeling the aggressor nation(s).
Uh, yeah.  This question wasn't needed because I said exactly that.  Israel's enemies were directly using and aiding irregular forces to attack Israel, constantly.  The motivation for the irregular forces is entirely irrelevant and just further evidence of your desire to justify the attacks on Israel in the first place.  Hence you being correctly labeled an Israel hater and your desire to label them as the aggressor when they clearly were not.  You even lied about the UN resolution, making it sound like it labeled Israel the aggressor in the war when it was passed fourteen years later.  In short, you have nothing but lies and deliberate obfuscation.
Actually, my defense of Israel is solely in response to your entirely biased attacks on them and your lies about the war.  You lie, I call out your lies.  In this case that amounts to defending Israel as they were the ones you lied, and continue to lie, about.
Your entire premise is based on deliberate misrepresentation.  Your posts are so poor in this regard it takes you multiple times to get your BS straight before you don't delete what you just posted.
Then why did you frame it as the UN condemning Israel as the aggressor in the Six Days War?  Because you are disingenuous and hope you won't get called out.  These conversations tickle me as they consistently melt away at your façade of impartial intellectualism.  
You're disingenuous as you consistently ignore the aggressive vitriol directed against Israel, all the while trying to spin them as the aggressors.  I have to reiterate, I'm not even a fan of Israeli foreign policy, but your arguments against them are so flawed and biased that any fair minded person would feel compelled to correct them
A lie by omission is a lie.  You consistently omit provocations against Israel, hence you are lying by omission.  So yes, deal with it.  Take another seven attempts at a response before finally getting it right.  I'll still be here.

In case someone just happened on this thread and wonders what all the smoke is about, here is the original "lie": 

2) Why is recognizing Israeli sovereignty of the Golan Heights a bad thing? Because seizing another country's sovereign territory in war and claiming it for your own has been against international law since WWII, when the Axis powers set the standard for appropriating and occupying land of other nations. As I just reminded OtherMike, the US usually goes to war to stop that kind of thing. "Buffer zone" for the aggressor nation is not an acceptable reason for breaking an international law supposed to protect everyone.

My reference here is to the 1981 UN Resolution 497, which condemns Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights, which is sovereign Syrian Territory. The original wording included this: "Israel's decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, constitute an act of aggression under the provisions of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations." U.N. RESOLUTION ON GOLAN - The New York Times (nytimes.com).
The reference to "aggression" was stricken from the final version, apparently to get the US to sign on to the rest of the condemnation, which it did. Resolution 497 (unscr.com). 

This is another RULE OF LAW issue, only at the international level. So far as I know, the US is the only country to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. LSUfan saw this as positive Trump accomplishment, though the rest of the world disagrees.

Israel argues that it was fighting a "defensive war" when it attacked Egypt in 1967, and so it is exempted from a law which it claims only applies only to "aggressor" nations. This is a contested definition of both the war and the law, though, even by many Israeli historians. 

What's hyperbolically called a "flat out lying lie" here is simply the rejection of Israel's self-definition as non-aggressor.

It is still the position of the entire UN, including allies like Britain and Canada, that the annexation is against international law, and sets a terrible precedent which may encourage nations to concoct "defensive" wars to acquire territory, as Putin is now doing. 
Security Council Members Regret Decision by United States to Recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over Occupied Syrian Golan | UN Press

So my original complaint to LSUfan was that US recognition of the annexation goes against international law, and makes the US the first country to endorse it and the moral hazard which follows if "defensive" wars can be used to gain territory. Mine is actually quite a respectable position in international debates over the annexation.  

Trump's scorn of international law here is  another reason why, in the coming presidential election, rule of law is at stake both at home and in our foreign policy. I take time to work through these legal and historical precedents because I am concerned that many voters may not recognize the stakes.