Jewish Settler Attacks = Terrorism

Byrnzie

yosi said:

I believe you when you say that you don't hate Jews. That doesn't mean that you sometimes write things that strike me as antisemitic. You don't have to BE a racist to SAY something racist. I also don't think you realize how destructive your rhetoric is, which is why it is so frustrating for me that you aren't willing to be the slightest bit self-critical. For the umpteenth time, I'm not trying in any way to stifle your criticisms of Israel. I'm just trying to get you to realize that the manner in which you often couch your criticisms is problematic. I don't think this is your fault. I think it simply reflects a disturbing trend on the far left, and you're rhetoric is simply a reflection of that.

Except I've said nothing racist against Jews, or against anybody else.

Though if you can find something I've said that qualifies - other than part of an article out of three articles which mentioned something to do with organ extractions, and that I posted a few years ago in an effort to make a point about something completely unrelated - then be my guest and point it out to me.

Either way, is this even relevant? As Michael Neumann said, antisemitism isn't the issue. There's a far greater issue at hand - one in which hundreds of thousands of people are being oppressed daily, abused, beaten, and tormented.
So let's not allow ourselves to get distracted.
This thread is on the subject of Jewish settler attacks on Palestinians, not anti-Semitism. Feel free to start a thread on that subject if you wish. Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with extremist Israeli settlers attacking Palestinian civilians.

mattsl1983

I'll have a completely unpopular notion about this subject but,

1) from the deceleration of Israel after ww2, the Arab nations declared war on the state of Israel

2) any land that the Israel has aquired beyond the original stated borders, they have aquired not by invading a peaceful innocent population, but one that has always declared war and has acted violently towards them

3). I don't blame Israel for not taking any shit and standing up for themselves

4). Its a shitty situation, but I'm not going to be sympathetic and feel bad for any Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Sure there are innocent people caught in the middle, but look at the history of the Palestinians. They aren't as a whole this innocent group of people that some try to make them out to be

5) black September.

6) it doesn't matter. You think Muslims are just upset about the occupied territory. They were upset and willing to kill from day one. Let's not try and distort this about land occupancy. Look at history. It's beyond land occupancy.

badbrains

mattsl1983 said:

I'll have a completely unpopular notion about this subject but,

1) from the deceleration of Israel after ww2, the Arab nations declared war on the state of Israel

2) any land that the Israel has aquired beyond the original stated borders, they have aquired not by invading a peaceful innocent population, but one that has always declared war and has acted violently towards them

3). I don't blame Israel for not taking any shit and standing up for themselves

4). Its a shitty situation, but I'm not going to be sympathetic and feel bad for any Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Sure there are innocent people caught in the middle, but look at the history of the Palestinians. They aren't as a whole this innocent group of people that some try to make them out to be

5) black September.

6) it doesn't matter. You think Muslims are just upset about the occupied territory. They were upset and willing to kill from day one. Let's not try and distort this about land occupancy. Look at history. It's beyond land occupancy.

Dude, I respect your honesty in be

mattsl1983 said:

I'll have a completely unpopular notion about this subject but,

1) from the deceleration of Israel after ww2, the Arab nations declared war on the state of Israel

2) any land that the Israel has aquired beyond the original stated borders, they have aquired not by invading a peaceful innocent population, but one that has always declared war and has acted violently towards them

3). I don't blame Israel for not taking any shit and standing up for themselves

4). Its a shitty situation, but I'm not going to be sympathetic and feel bad for any Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Sure there are innocent people caught in the middle, but look at the history of the Palestinians. They aren't as a whole this innocent group of people that some try to make them out to be

5) black September.

6) it doesn't matter. You think Muslims are just upset about the occupied territory. They were upset and willing to kill from day one. Let's not try and distort this about land occupancy. Look at history. It's beyond land occupancy.

Sorry bro, you couldn't be more wrong. I respect your opinions on the matter but def dnt agree with any of it. Just imagine if someone came to America or wherever it is you live and started to dictate to you when you can eat/sleep/shit. When you can move around "your" own country. Dictate when food or humanitarian supplies are allowed in. Matt, let's be real here. It is a fucked up situation on BOTH sides but you can't honestly believe Israel to be innocent in this. I'll keep saying it, right is right and wrong is wrong. Everything about this situation is WRONG. I'm a Muslim, and I'm the first to jump in and say that a suicide bomber killing INNOCENT Israeli citizens on a bus/cafe, school, wherever is 100000% WRONG. But so is just about every humanitarian crisis Israel is causing over there. How come whenever the idf does some stupid shit like shoot and kill innocent 12 year old boys, no one who supports Israel here ever comes out and condems it? Or how about when they bulldozed an American citizen, I didn't really hear a pipe out of their supporters condeming them? Is a Palestinians life not worth an Israelis? I already know the answer to that.....

Byrnzie

mattsl1983 said:

I'll have a completely unpopular notion about this subject but,

1) from the deceleration of Israel after ww2, the Arab nations declared war on the state of Israel

2) any land that the Israel has aquired beyond the original stated borders, they have aquired not by invading a peaceful innocent population, but one that has always declared war and has acted violently towards them

3). I don't blame Israel for not taking any shit and standing up for themselves

4). Its a shitty situation, but I'm not going to be sympathetic and feel bad for any Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Sure there are innocent people caught in the middle, but look at the history of the Palestinians. They aren't as a whole this innocent group of people that some try to make them out to be

5) black September.

6) it doesn't matter. You think Muslims are just upset about the occupied territory. They were upset and willing to kill from day one. Let's not try and distort this about land occupancy. Look at history. It's beyond land occupancy.

Did you read that on the back of a box of cereal?

Byrnzie

mattsl1983 said:

1) from the deceleration of Israel after ww2, the Arab nations declared war on the state of Israel

Yeah, they did, but your cute little sound-bite leaves a lot out, such as why the Arab States declared war on the state of Israel. Also, your cute little sound bite neglects to mention that before the Arab states declared war on the state of Israel, the Israeli's had already invaded and occupied large areas of land alloted to the Palestinians under the U.N Partition plan, and had carried out ethnic cleansing and massacres, such as the massacre at Deir Yassin in which 600 unarmed men, women and children were systematically slaughtered.

mattsl1983 said:

2) any land that the Israel has aquired beyond the original stated borders, they have aquired not by invading a peaceful innocent population, but one that has always declared war and has acted violently towards them

This is just pure bullshit.

Let's take another example; the example of 1967. Israel attacked Egyptian and Syrian forces in 1967, not the other way around. And the land it stole during and after that war is illegally occupied territory stolen during, and after, a war of aggression.
But anyway, so what? Even if your self-serving fantasy were true and the Palestinians had in fact 'acted violently towards them', how does that legitimize excuse ethnic cleansing and the theft of their land?

...and the rest of your gibberish isn't worth responding to.

JK18472

Matts1983, thank you for the post, I think you are spot on!!

Why did Israel atack in 1967? Was it out of no where, or was it in response to something ? Was it an act if war or was it a ore emptive strike to defend the country from something coming based on Israeli intelligence?
I hope you understand the checkpoints and blockades are something new. They haven't been in place since 1967, they were set up recently to protect Israeli citizens. And by citizens I mean all Israeli citizens, Arabs, Christians, Jews, blacks, whites, Asian, Indian, gay straight or whatever. Its important to realize anyone can be a citizen of Israel not just Jews, so long as you don't blow anything up.
After thousands of missiles were fired into the country over a few years and many suicide bombings and If my memory serves the blockades were set up only after an Israeli solider was taken hostage. Held fir a number if years and finally returned to his family after Israel traded 1000 murderers/terrorists. Israel delivers tins if goods into Gazza every day. The only thing they don't allow is materials that can be used for rockets.
Since the so called "occupation" / check points there has nit been any suicide bombers. The check point soilders gave stopped many attempts if people trying to get into Israel with bombs straped to their body. They even stoped a child with a vest full of explosives. A child!!.
I have seen some posts quoting some of Israels early leaders stating that they must remove the Arabs. I think these words must be understood in the time they were spoken. Be ause news and Arabs have been at odds for 2000 years. Maybe the reason this statement was made is because the person believed the Arabs would always hate the Jews , based on the 2000 year history if violence, not because if "ethnic cleansing" but because if safety and peace. Maybe he was right to fear future violence. But maybe he was wrong because many hews and Arabs live and work together in Israel. Its just the ones who believe that all Jews must be wiped off the face of the earth that Israel has issue with. One Israeli leader once said there will only be peace when the Arabs , the ones who want to kill Jews, love their children more than they love killing Jews.

I was surprised no one mentioned this but 3 teenagers, not soldiers ir settlers or anything, just 3 kids on their way home from school were kidnaped by Hammas. The terrorist group voted into power by the Palestinians who's mission statement is clearly defined , to wipe the Jewish nation off the map. They are just kids and one is American here is a link

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-names-suspects-in-kidnapping-of-three-teens/

Another issue I want to add is this notion of ethnic cleansing. Look at a map from 50 years ago that shows Jewish population in mid east countries. Jews lived in Iraq, Iran, Israel, Turkey , Lebanon, and Syria. Then look at it 25 years ago and then 5 years ago . The numbers drop significantly, because its not safe. While in Israel today there ate almost as many Israeli arabs as Jewish Israelis.
Let me leave you with one thought if the rest if the world couldn't be lived in fir some reason, and only the middle eastern countries were left. Where would u want to live ? Where would u want to raise your children and bring your family? Which country would let you in? The answer us only one

badbrains

3 teenagers kidnapped but Hamas? Israel got lucky it was only 3. How many times have we seen the big bad ass idf go into a village and blindfold a shitload more then 3 teenagers an kidnap them. Oh wait, it's Israel and they're allowed to do whatever it is they want. Give me a fucken break. Again, RIGHT IS RIGHT and WRONG IS WRONG.

JK18472

How many times have YOU seen it?

badbrains

JK18472 said:

How many times have YOU seen it?

You're fucking kidding me right? Are u saying that it DIDNT happen? Please tell me you're not saying it DIDNT happen.

JK18472

That's really hurtful. They are just kids, not soldiers. They have nothing to do with anything. Israel is lucky? One is American is America lucky? I wish you could see how SOME of the Palestinians put their children in harms way, using them as shields, and shooting from behind them. Pushing out elderly men on wheel chairs waving white flags then opening fire with machine guns. Stock pilling weapons in hospitals and residential areas. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to defend a country against an enemy like that. Strapping bombs to vests and putting them on children.

badbrains

JK18472 said:

That's really hurtful. They are just kids, not soldiers. They have nothing to do with anything. Israel is lucky? One is American is America lucky? I wish you could see how SOME of the Palestinians put their children in harms way, using them as shields, and shooting from behind them. Pushing out elderly men on wheel chairs waving white flags then opening fire with machine guns. Stock pilling weapons in hospitals and residential areas. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to defend a country against an enemy like that. Strapping bombs to vests and putting them on children.

You're absolutely fucking lying. Stop already. You're doing more harm for your cause then good.

Ya just kids. How many Palestinian teenagers are in Israeli prisons? You know??? U seem to think you know so tell me. How many are from the ages of 10-17. But they're Palestinians so they dnt count. They're not humans right? I mean shit, Israel treats them like animals caged up in one big ass open prison.

Again, why when an Israeli kills or murders innocent children (the bomb they dropped on that school couple years ago) I dnt see any of you that support Israel condeming the action? It's complete silence when it happens. Yet when 3 Israeli teenagers are abducted, it's all over the front pages? Why? Dnt bother answering, I already know the answer. Grow some fucken balls and question your country. (I'm taking it you're Israeli) grow some fucken balls and stand up and say, that shit is wrong. I've met a lot of cool people from Israel who have balls and say shits wrong over there. I've got 2 friends who've served in the idf who've said shits wrong. Most of the young idf soldiers want nothing to do with this conflict, actually hate the fact that this shits going on. But the people who sit behind a computer (myself inuded) have no problem with the conflict as long as they're not directly involved. Come on man, doesn't make you a self-hater if you dnt read from the governments transcripts. I just can't believe that people have ZERO problem with what's happening to the Palestinians in THEIR own country. This isn't about religion, it's about humanity and what we do to our own brothers and sisters. Amazing, WWII wasn't even that long ago. What was the famous quote? Never again? Ya rite, never again to them but everyone else is fair fucken game.

Edit-you mentioned 1 American, ok, I'll give you 1 American, Rachel Corrie. Ever heard of her. I have and so have many.

Byrnzie

JK18472 said:

Why did Israel atack in 1967? Was it out of no where, or was it in response to something ? Was it an act if war or was it a ore emptive strike to defend the country from something coming based on Israeli intelligence?

Why don't we see what the Israeli leadership themselves said about it?

'Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech delivered at the Israeli National Defense College, clearly stated that: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982).

A few months after the war, Yitzhak Rabin remarked: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it" (Le Monde, 29 February 1968).

'General Matityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli conquest, committed what the Israeli public considered blasphemy when he admitted the true thinking of the Israeli leadership: "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war" (Ha'aretz, 19

March 1972). Israeli Air Force General Ezer Weizmann declared bluntly that "there was never any danger of extermination" (Ma'ariv, 19 April 1972). Mordechai Bentov, a former Israeli cabinet minister, also dismissed the myth of Israel's imminent annihilation: "All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories" (Al Hamishmar, 14 April 1972).

After the 1967 war Israel, claimed it invaded because of imminent Arab attack. It claimed that Nasser's closing of the Straits of Tiran constituted an act of war. It also cited Syrian shelling on the demilitarized zone of the Syrian-Israeli border. The claim that the Arabs were going to invade appears particularly ludicrous when one recalls that a third of Egypt's army was in Yemen and therefore quite unprepared to launch a war.

JK18472 said:

I hope you understand the checkpoints and blockades are something new. They haven't been in place since 1967, they were set up recently to protect Israeli citizens.

They were set up at the beginning of the 1990's. 1991 to be precise, although restrictions on the movement of Palestinians have been in place since the 1950's.

http://www.jmcc.org/fastfactspag.aspx?tname=44
'It was only after Israel's establishment in 1948 that movement restrictions became a means of land confiscation. In 1950, the new Israeli government instituted military rule over Palestinian citizens of the state, including common martial law powers that regulated freedom of speech, movement, and assembly...

...Israel dispatched the Israel military's Frontier Corps (the precursor to today’s Border Police) to patrol border areas. These regulations and troop deployment further tightened the state’s hold on Palestinian villages depopulated during and after the 1948 War. These practices also paved way for settlement by new waves of Jewish immigrants.

Thus, approximately 1,500 residents of Palestinian villages inside the new Israeli border were removed from their homes and barred from returning. This change was facilitated by the Absentee Property Law of 1950, which meant that even “present absentees” could have their land confiscated by the state. Under this law, 40 percent of Arab land was confiscated from Palestinians who were living inside the new Israeli borders at the time. Areas where Palestinians lived were designated “closed areas,” and residents were restricted from leaving without a military permit. Jews living nearby, on the other hand, enjoyed freedom of movement.

One of the most important means of controlling the movement of the Palestinian population - and thereby their access to and ownership of the land under the law - was the military checkpoint system.'

JK18472 said:

Jews and Arabs have been at odds for 2000 years. Maybe the reason this statement was made is because the person believed the Arabs would always hate the Jews , based on the 2000 year history if violence, not because if "ethnic cleansing" but because if safety and peace.

Jews and Arabs lived perfectly well together for 1000 years until the Zionists moved in with their ideas of racial superiority and a divine right to occupy all of the land between the river and the sea.

And the illegal settlements aren't being built "because of safety and peace", they're being built as part of a concerted land grab.

JK18472 said:

I was surprised no one mentioned this but 3 teenagers, not soldiers ir settlers or anything, just 3 kids on their way home from school were kidnaped by Hammas. The terrorist group voted into power by the Palestinians who's mission statement is clearly defined , to wipe the Jewish nation off the map. They are just kids and one is American here is a link

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-names-suspects-in-kidnapping-of-three-teens/

What evidence is there that Hamas kidnapped these teenagers? None whatsoever.

JK18472 said:

Another issue I want to add is this notion of ethnic cleansing. Look at a map from 50 years ago that shows Jewish population in mid east countries. Jews lived in Iraq, Iran, Israel, Turkey , Lebanon, and Syria. Then look at it 25 years ago and then 5 years ago . The numbers drop significantly, because its not safe. While in Israel today there ate almost as many Israeli arabs as Jewish Israelis.

This is bullshit. Just the latest IDF.com/Hasbara talking point that you've obediently regurgitated.

As Jonathan Cook points out: "Many, if not most, Arab Jews left their homelands voluntarily, unlike Palestinians, to begin a new life in Israel. Even where tensions forced Jews to flee, such as in Iraq, it is hard to know who was always behind the ethnic strife. There is strong evidence that Israel’s Mossad spy agency waged false-flag operations in Arab states to fuel the fear and hostility needed to drive Arab Jews towards Israel."

It's just a cynical attempt to equate the exodus of Arab Jews from Arab countries with the forced expulsion of Palestinians from their lands in 1948.

Though here's what Yehuda Shenav, a professor of history at Tel Aviv University has to say on the matter:
"Any reasonable person, Zionist or non-Zionist, must acknowledge that the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Arab Jews is unfounded....Arab Jews arrived to Israel under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations. Some arrived of their own free will; others arrived against their will. Some lived comfortably and securely in Arab lands; others suffered from fear and oppression.

The State of Israel in many cases actively precipitated Jewish emigration, sending emissaries to Arab countries in order to persuade Jews to leave. Their methods often involved violence; for example, in Egypt, where the situation of Jews deteriorated significantly in 1954 after a group of local Jews was caught carrying out acts of terrorism and sabotage at the behest of Israel. Israel publicly acknowledged responsibility for this only in 2005. Similarly, Jewish emigration from Iraq accelerated in 1951 after the bombing of a synagogue; this act was blamed at the time on Zionist agents. A claim lent credibility by the recent admission by a former member of the Iraqi Zionist underground that members of his group did employ such tactics.

mattsl1983

Byrnzie said:

mattsl1983 said:

1) from the deceleration of Israel after ww2, the Arab nations declared war on the state of Israel

Yeah, they did, but your cute little sound-bite leaves a lot out, such as why the Arab States declared war on the state of Israel. Also, your cute little sound bite neglects to mention that before the Arab states declared war on the state of Israel, the Israeli's had already invaded and occupied large areas of land alloted to the Palestinians under the U.N Partition plan, and had carried out ethnic cleansing and massacres, such as the massacre at Deir Yassin in which 600 unarmed men, women and children were systematically slaughtered.

mattsl1983 said:

2) any land that the Israel has aquired beyond the original stated borders, they have aquired not by invading a peaceful innocent population, but one that has always declared war and has acted violently towards them

This is just pure bullshit.

Let's take another example; the example of 1967. Israel attacked Egyptian and Syrian forces in 1967, not the other way around. And the land it stole during and after that war is illegally occupied territory stolen during, and after, a war of aggression.
But anyway, so what? Even if your self-serving fantasy were true and the Palestinians had in fact 'acted violently towards them', how does that legitimize excuse ethnic cleansing and the theft of their land?

...and the rest of your gibberish isn't worth responding to.

1967, yes why did they do that? Maybe because the realized war was inevitable based on the Arab nations mobilizing on their borders for an attack. I guess you are right, Israel should have done nothing and saw that as a peaceful move. You are biased towards this issue. Israel has offered peace and left the territories as recent as the 2000's. It doesn't work. It's not about land, it's about ideology. Plain and simple.

So Black September, that's just gibberish?

Israel standing up for themselves because since it's foundation the Arab nations declared war on them, that's just gibberish?

Go ahead hit me with a page full of links and quotes from whateverer resources you will find, including comments taken out of text, ignoring history ect ect.

mattsl1983

Plain and simple, the bully got beat down, and is now grounded. Maybe if they didn't mess with Israel from the foundation, they wouldn't be in the situation they are in. It's like you want me to be sympathetic to an old man that's been in prison for the past 50 years. It's easy to forget why he is in prison because 50 years ago isn't relevant, but 50 years ago he murdered and declared war on his neighbor. I can't sympathize for him, especially since every time he goes before a parole hearing he states how he doesn't regret it, and that he can't wait to kill his neighbor given the chance.

Byrnzie

mattsl1983 said:

1967, yes why did they do that? Maybe because the realized war was inevitable based on the Arab nations mobilizing on their borders for an attack. I guess you are right, Israel should have done nothing and saw that as a peaceful move. You are biased towards this issue. Israel has offered peace and left the territories as recent as the 2000's. It doesn't work. It's not about land, it's about ideology. Plain and simple.

So Black September, that's just gibberish?

Israel standing up for themselves because since it's foundation the Arab nations declared war on them, that's just gibberish?

Go ahead hit me with a page full of links and quotes from whateverer resources you will find, including comments taken out of text, ignoring history ect ect.

It's pretty obvious that you have zero interest in the facts. Not only that, but you clearly have a problem with facts, per se, and prefer instead to wallow in personal fantasies. Why is that? Why do you have such an aversion to facts? What is it that makes you prefer personal opinions and fantasies over facts? Is it because the facts don't fit in your scheme of things?

Are you really so deluded that you think something can become 'true' just because you say it, or if you repeat it often enough?
I asked you in another thread if you're egocentric. I think I know the answer to that question now.



I already addressed your gibberish above. I explained why the Arab States declared war on Israel in 1948. And I addressed your bullshit about Israel allegedly defending itself in 1967. As for the quotes being out of context, maybe you can show us how they are out of context? Or maybe you can't, because you just thought you'd say it because it sounded good?

Here they are again:

"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (Prime Minister Menachem Begin,, Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982).

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it" (Yitzhak Rabin, Le Monde, 29 February 1968).

"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war" - 'General Matityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli conquest (Ha'aretz)



As for Israel 'offering peace' and 'leaving the territories' as early as 2000, please give me an example. And I mean an example based in reality, and not one based on your own personal fantasies.

Byrnzie

mattsl1983 said:

Plain and simple, the bully got beat down, and is now grounded. Maybe if they didn't mess with Israel from the foundation, they wouldn't be in the situation they are in. It's like you want me to be sympathetic to an old man that's been in prison for the past 50 years. It's easy to forget why he is in prison because 50 years ago isn't relevant, but 50 years ago he murdered and declared war on his neighbor. I can't sympathize for him, especially since every time he goes before a parole hearing he states how he doesn't regret it, and that he can't wait to kill his neighbor given the chance.

Is your favourite movie 'Alice in Wonderland'?

I think you may be confusing the Moving Train with the Mickey Mouse Club. Here you go: http://disneyjunior.com/mickey-mouse-clubhouse Enjoy!

mattsl1983

You edit every post you make, and you rely on quotes from other people that are taken out of context.

Look at history, offers
67
82
93
94
05
08

But of course you will not look at the real history, you take sides with an ideology that says it's okay to put a bomb on and blow yourself up in the name of Allah. Obviously you will find every reason to justify you interwebs ideology. If you want to have a real conversation about the issue, stop ignoring history, and be honest. I know you enjoy your google machine, but google will tell you whatever you want to hear.

Heck at this point I'm still waiting for you to justify black september.

badbrains

Matt, you said.

,"If you want to have a real conversation about the issue, stop ignoring history, and be honest."

Maybe you should take your own advice.

Byrnzie

Here are some more inconvenient facts relating to the 1967 war and Israel's seizure of Palestinian land:

Norman Finkelstein - 'Knowing Too Much'
P. 205: [At the] U.N General Assembly Fifth Emergency Special Session after the June [1967] war [...] the only country in the World that maintained Israel had acted in self-defense against Egyptian aggression was Israel.

[Regardless], Prior to as well as immediately after the June 1967 war leading authorities in international law rejected the proposition that a state can aquire legal title to territory in a war of self-defence:

Ian Brownlie (1963) - "lawful belligerants should not be permitted to act ultra vires [i.e, beyond their power] by acquiring territory as a result of a lawful war"
R.Y Jennings (1963) - "the suggestion that the state that does not resort to force unlawfully, e.g., resorts to war in self-defence, may still aquire a title by conquest...is to be regarded with some suspicion. It seems to be based upon a curious assumption that provided a war is lawful in origin, it goes on being lawful to whatever lengths it may afterwards be pursued...Force used in self-defence...is undoubtedly lawful. But it must be proportionate to the threat of immediate danger, and when the threat has been averted the plea of self-defence can no longer be available...It would be a curious law of self-defence that permitted the defender in the course of his defence to seize and keep the resources and territory of the attacker".

D.W Bowett (1971) - "there is virtually universal acceptance of the principle...that states cannot acquire territory by resort to force...It is impossible to conceive self-defence as justifying the acquisition of title to territory. One can conceive of self-defence justifying the temporary occupation of territory but never the permanent acquisition of title and there is no system or principle of law which conceives of such a thing."

These conclusions have been reiterated in recent scholarly studies. Sharon Korman finds that the U.N Charter, as well as the league of Nations Covenant before it, "prohibit all acquisitions of territory by force, irrespective of the lawfulness of the cause of war," while John Dugard finds that " the United Nations expressly refuses to accept the argument that territory may be acquired as a result of action taken in lawful self-defence," and that "larger majorities in the General Assembly in support of this principle [prohibiting acquisition of territory by means of the lawful use of force] and the failure of any major power to veto it in the Security Council must surely provide prima facie evidence that this principle is part of the International public order, and, by implication, a peremptory norm."

Byrnzie

mattsl1983 said:

Please explain how and when Israel 'offered peace'. Thanks, I'm waiting.

Meanwhile, read on...

As for Israel's 'disengagement' from Gaza, shall we see what the Israeli's had to say about that?

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass:

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.

The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.

You know, the term `peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen...what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did."

Sharon, he said, could also argue "honestly" that the disengagement plan was "a serious move because of which, out of 240,000 settlers, 190,000 will not be moved from their place."
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/top-pm-aide-gaza-plan-aims-to-freeze-the-peace-process-1.136686

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/08/isra-a29.html
In the immediate aftermath of Israel’s evacuation of 21 Zionist settlements in Gaza and 4 in the West Bank, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has promised to step up construction in other West Bank settlements. The provocative remarks, made to the Jerusalem Post on August 22, confirm the reality that Sharon’s “unilateral disengagement” scheme has nothing to do with alleviating the oppression of the Palestinian people, and is instead aimed at consolidating a massive Israeli land grab in the Occupied Territories.

Some of the nearly 9,000 settlers removed from Gaza have simply shifted to the West Bank. According to Haaretz, at least 212 settler families have moved to the illegally occupied Palestinian land. Sharon made clear that he does not oppose such movement: “We don’t move anyone, people can go wherever they want,” he declared.

Despite the pullout from Gaza, there will still be more Zionist settlers at the end of 2005 than there were at the start of the year, according to the Peace Now organisation. Annually, some 10,000 Israelis join the approximately 200,000 settlers already living in East Jerusalem and 250,000 in the West Bank.


So much for Israel's magnanimous gesture of 'disengaging' from Gaza! The Gaza pullout was simply a huge public relations ploy aimed at diverting attention from Israel's increased settlement expansion, and further annexation of, the West Bank.