P01135809 goes after "Liberal Jews" on Jewish New Year

[Dill]

(09-29-2023, 10:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Had the US driven hundreds of thousands of Japanese from Hawaii and then occupied it? Until you can factor that into your counter-history, the analogy is pretty one-sided.
.... 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).

According to international law, it does matter. Especially if "who once occupied the land," the original owners, were driven from it by force. 

(09-29-2023, 10:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: EB says "Prior to the start of the war." Then clearly identifies Israel's "pre-emptive attacks" against Egypt and Syria as the start. You want to argue that "irregular forces/fledgling Palestinian guerilla groups" really started the war, even though Israel clearly struck first. But if you are correcting the record out of "basic fairness," can you explain why should those fledgling guerillas want to do that? What was their motivation? Israeli provocation doesn't count?

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.

Was Moshe Dayan an "Israel hater"? in post #28 above I quote his account of how the IDF provoked Syians into "aggression" so they could respond with air strikes. He seems to think Israel was the aggressor there. 

The motivation of the "irregular forces" in this case is rather like that of the Sioux at the Little Bighorn. In 1876, the US government clearly viewed THEM as the aggressors, though not everyone agreed. They were defending their land from an aggressor who was taking it. In such cases, motivation is only irrelevant to the aggressor, but not to international law. You complain of "lying by omission," but this is a pretty big omission. The Palestinians had been driven from their homes by force. Anyone who buys a gun for home defense should understand their motivation to regain their homes.

(09-29-2023, 10:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Did Poland seize Danzig and East Prussia in an aggressive war?
Before the war they weren't part of Poland, after the war they were.  Germany lost, Poland gained territory from Germany.  I guess consistency is not your strong suit.

So you are saying it doesn't matter if Poland didn't seize Danzig and East Prussia? The case is the same as Israel's illegal annexation of the Golan? 

Of course, no one else sees it that way. Poland didn't decide what territory it gained. The US, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union did. Well, mostly the Soviet Union as both the Anglo countries protested at Potsdam, but couldn't really challenge it given the Soviet's de facto control of the territory. There was no UN yet. In any case, the cession of territory was not permanent until 1990, when Germany, finally fully independent, assented to its permanence. (Article 1
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201696/volume-1696-I-29226-English.pdf.)

Your conflation of these very different cases in defense of Israel's illegal seizure is a very common defense of Israeli aggression--listing all the times and places where countries have seized other's territory and gotten away with it. So just let Israel ignore the law too. But you ARE arguing against international law when you do that--either in principle or in pleading that Israel be excepted from it. 

What you call "deliberate misrepresentation" is just insistence on a broader comprehension of both historical fact and the framing of international law in opposition to a narrow, Israel-centric view of the Golan which accepts the Israeli version of the war without question and excludes all injury to Arab victims.