> From: Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLWPD/RZO/BOZO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Nitpick: it is impossible to attack suicide bombers. By the time you know > there is a suicide bomber, he has already blown himself up and therefore is > already dead. And you use this twisted rationalization to argue that no one should respond anywhere to these attacks, in America, in Russia, in Israel, in India, in Europe, etc. A suicide bomber is a finger. He does not think, he does not plan, he does not know anything except what they want him to do, he is disposable. You cannot defeat these mass murderers by attacking the 'fingers'. You have to attack the head. If you do not attack the head, the body will keep throwing disposable fingers indefinitely. > > > > Other example. The Dutch/German border is more or less a straight line > > running north/south. However, some way down from the top it looks as if > > Germany has taken a bite out of The Netherlands, which resulted in a > > more or less rectangular piece of Germany that is surrounded on three > > sides by The Netherlands. Would you find it acceptable if the Dutch > > would occupy that area because it would make the Dutch border better > > defensible? Again, a yes/no question. > > > > Me: > > I'm so glad you said that, Jeroen. After the defeat of Germany in 1945 > > the victorious allies redrew the map of Europe. One of the things they > > did was take Alsace-Lorraine (previously disputed French-German > > territory) and make it exclusively French. They took a large part of > > Germany's Eastern border and ceded it to Poland. I believe that the > > Netherlands picked up some territory in this process, although I'm not > > sure about that. Why were these things morally justified? Because > > Germany had attacked its neighbors repeatedly, so its neighbors had to > > have borders that they could defend against Germany. So the answer to > > your question is that no, it's not okay to conquer someone else to give > > yourself defensible borders. But that's not what happened in the > > Middle East, nor is it what happened in Europe. > > You are contradicting yourself here. You say in the above paragraph that > border adjustments through conquest did not happen, but earlier on in the > same post you say: > > > Israel's 1948 borders were established by conquest. The pre-war of > > pre-war of independence borders were indefensible. When every Arab > > state attacked with the explicit and declared purpose of eradicating > > the state of Israel - they were smashed by Jewish forces and the size > > of Israel was doubled. So the borders of Israel - like those of pretty > > much every other state in the world - were decided by force of arms. > > I also note that you did not answer that other yes/no question, the one > about a Palestinian state attacking its neighbours because it was not happy > with the borders it was given. > > > > I don�t hear you complaining about the injustice of the German border > > adjustments. Why not? > > Why should I? Unlike Israel, Germany is not waging war against its > neighbours. But _IT DID_ __TWICE__! The two bloodiest conflicts known to man. The second one with the express goal of mass genocide. So under your twisted form of logic, a state which was defeated but will not again engage in these actions (without becoming glass), who had it border forcibly modified by the victors is _OK_? So what of the Israel situation? Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, etc. attacked Israel __THREE TIMES__, with the express goal of mass genocide. These countries will not engage in these actions again without becoming glass, and two of them have peace treaties (like France/Germany, Poland/Germany, NL/Germany, etc. ad nauseaum). So Explain how you can say that the German border is OK when the Israel border is not? > Yet, despite all the money you spend on it, all the troops you send there, > and all the bombs you dropped (and are still dropping) you still have not > managedf to capture the one man you were after... > > > > You appear to feel that if terrorists attack a country then take refuge > > in another that refuses to extradite them, then the attacked country > > should do nothing. > > I do not believe it would be justified to attack a country for that, no. You > would be dragging the population of two countries into a war, just to > capture a few terrorists. To me, that is like blowing up your house to kill > a mouse. > > Let�s say a bunch of Israeli�s with a hatred of Arabs cross the border with > Jordan, blow up something (or some people) and then return to Israel. Jordan > then rightfully sees this as an act of terrorism and demands that the > terrorists be extradited. Israel refuses to do so. Jordan then invades > Israel to destroy the Israeli government and get the terrorists. > > You yourself say that it would not be immoral, and that a country has the > right to do that. Yet, do you really believe that the US would allow that to > happen? Do you really believe that the US would either stay out of it > altogether, or join forces with Jordan? Jordan has in the past expressed desire to commit mass genocide against the Jews. Israel on the other hand has had a long time to perpetrate mass genocide against the Palestinians, but hasn't. The U.S. will never back a state that expresses the desire the do such things. > > The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are not part of another country. The > > most you can say is that Israel has launched attacks in disputed > > territory to which it also has a claim and over which it has de facto > > authority. > > Wrong. The Gaza Strip belonged to Egypt, the Golan Heights belonged to Syria > and the West Bank belonged to Jordan. All three were occupied by Israel in > 1967. And Alsaice/Lorraine belonged to Germany. It was occupied in 1944. Those other bits that were Germany have also been occupied since 1944. > Those territories do therefore not belong to Israel. Besides, if they would > belong to Israel, why would the rest of the world call them "Occupied > Territories", huh? Your last statement is logically unsound.
