> The Israelis withdrew from Gaza in 2005, forcibly removing the settlers, and were rewarded with 11,000 rockets
That wasn't because they removed the settlers, that's because they simply flat out withdrew.
> As for "didn't substantiate any of your claims" for Pete's sake open up a newspaper once in a while.
I know about the terrorist attacks, but that doesn't make the settlement land all "barren", it doesn't mean they "They have responded to every peace offering with horrific, murderous violence" -- it wasn't Palestinians who killed Rabin, you know -- and it doesn't fuse Palestinians into one monolith, something which you pointed out about Israelis but seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge here.
To what "peace offering" are the recent terrorist attacks a response? Who claimed they have "moral superiority", how is such a dichotomy be useful? Listing off instances of terrorism if I didn't know that, when I even said
> there's plenty of terrorism sold as "freedom fighting"
does not substantiate anything but one claim, one you didn't even make, namely "there is terrorism". I mean yeah, duh. My comment takes that into account from the get go. You claimed "there is terrorism in response to every peace offer", that's not the same thing.
> The so-called occupation is a military administration begun after retreating Arab armies ceded the territories in 1967. This arrangement is legal and covered under international conventions. The U.S. did it in Japan and Germany for five years; the Soviet Union did it in eastern Europe for 45 years.
Same here -- your point being? I know that, but since occupation can not forever, at least not as intention, and settlements are never okay, what I said is true now, where it's easy to justify occupation, and also when it might not be.
You can't talk peace while expanding settlements by force. Leibowitz was and remains right, it's just colonialism. And even if there is nobody to talk to atm, don't take what's not yours, and don't confuse self-defense and abuse. That goes for everybody at all times. I'm all for Israeli not taking shit, but to not see how driving out Palestinians also MUST be the intention of people who don't want them to have a state, that's just dishonest. To say "oh those are just far-right politicians, those don't count", isn't made up for with listing atrocities.
> Israelis are totally justified
With what, exactly? Just generally? Because they are "the victim"? I just explained why it doesn't work that way, if you want to dispute that, do so.
That wasn't because they removed the settlers, that's because they simply flat out withdrew.
> As for "didn't substantiate any of your claims" for Pete's sake open up a newspaper once in a while.
I know about the terrorist attacks, but that doesn't make the settlement land all "barren", it doesn't mean they "They have responded to every peace offering with horrific, murderous violence" -- it wasn't Palestinians who killed Rabin, you know -- and it doesn't fuse Palestinians into one monolith, something which you pointed out about Israelis but seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge here.
To what "peace offering" are the recent terrorist attacks a response? Who claimed they have "moral superiority", how is such a dichotomy be useful? Listing off instances of terrorism if I didn't know that, when I even said
> there's plenty of terrorism sold as "freedom fighting"
does not substantiate anything but one claim, one you didn't even make, namely "there is terrorism". I mean yeah, duh. My comment takes that into account from the get go. You claimed "there is terrorism in response to every peace offer", that's not the same thing.
> The so-called occupation is a military administration begun after retreating Arab armies ceded the territories in 1967. This arrangement is legal and covered under international conventions. The U.S. did it in Japan and Germany for five years; the Soviet Union did it in eastern Europe for 45 years.
Same here -- your point being? I know that, but since occupation can not forever, at least not as intention, and settlements are never okay, what I said is true now, where it's easy to justify occupation, and also when it might not be.
You can't talk peace while expanding settlements by force. Leibowitz was and remains right, it's just colonialism. And even if there is nobody to talk to atm, don't take what's not yours, and don't confuse self-defense and abuse. That goes for everybody at all times. I'm all for Israeli not taking shit, but to not see how driving out Palestinians also MUST be the intention of people who don't want them to have a state, that's just dishonest. To say "oh those are just far-right politicians, those don't count", isn't made up for with listing atrocities.
> Israelis are totally justified
With what, exactly? Just generally? Because they are "the victim"? I just explained why it doesn't work that way, if you want to dispute that, do so.