Reply #150: Yeah, that's what I thought you'd say.

[msmcghee]

You say, "And in the case of the I/P conflict, there's good and bad on both sides. What sickens you exactly about me saying that?"

What I said was, "Those who start wars are bad people. Those who defend themselves and their nations against the bad people - are good people. That we are even having such an absurd discussion on a liberal forum sickens me."

If you want my responses don't play word games. This is not a game for me.

Charter of the United Nations:

Chapter 1, Article 2, para 3: All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

Chapter 1, Article 2 para 4: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

I note that Palestine is neither a state nor a member. I include these first two to show that the world holds the principle of non-violence in international relations in high regard. Also, that since the UN has fully engaged the I/P conflict that all parties to that conflict that command military forces or militias are generally obligated to adhere to the basic principles of the Charter - regardless of their current status as a state or member. Especially since statehood for Palestine is a goal for all parties in terms of a long range solution.

Chapter 7, Article 33 para 1: The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

This (above) seems to make no exception for non-members.

Chapter 7, Article 51, para Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


Name one time since the birth of the state of Israel when Israel clearly attacked its neighbors with the intent to take something that it wanted. It never happened. All of Israel's actions have been defensive in nature - responding to attacks from its neighbors - or is some cases the imminent threat of attack.

Name me one time when Israel's neighbors clearly attacked Israel when the overall nature of the conflict was to defend against Israel's aggression. It has never happened. Every attack against Israel has been offensive - primarily terrorism.

Of course, each separate attack on Israel and each defensive attack by Israel has been characterized by the Israel's as the opposite of what it was. Still, the vast majority, like the present rocket attacks on S. Israel or the Hisb'allah attacks on N. Israel - are clear cut and obvious. For a few others, the facts are disputed.

In those disputed cases it is necessary to look at patterns of conduct and at stated intentions - as well as comparing past actions against those stated intentions.

I don't even think Israel's enemies dispute that the vast majority of conflicts have been initiated by them against Israel - and the vast majority of actions by Israel have been defensive against those attacks. This is a well established pattern.

That pattern fits perfectly with the stated intentions of the parties. Hisb'allah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. refuse to even recognize the state of Israel and repeatedly pledge the destruction of the current state of Israel and the expulsion and/or murder of its citizens.

Israel has never stated such an intention and has repeatedly called for negotiations and peaceful solutions to differences since 1948.

- - - - - - -

I have nothing against Arabs or Palestinians. I have something against those who attack others and are the cause of unnecessary death and destruction in the world. There is no question who is the aggressor and who is the defender in the PT and Israel. It's not even close.