At 01:40 PM 1/24/02 +0100 Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLWPD/RZO/BOZO wrote:
>You really need to dig out your history books on this. Israel was not
>attacked by an entity known as "Palestine", it was attacked by entities
>known as (and commonly referred to as the countries) "Egypt", "Jordan",
>"Syria" and "Lebanon"
No, Jeroen, it is you who is in need of the history books. At the time,
the entity now known as Palestine was part of Egypt and Jordan. The
entity now known as Palestine completely cooperated in all attacks,
however, and Egypt and Jordan subsequently ceded territory to "Palestine"
and recognized it as an independent country.
>> In my mind, entities that engage in a war of agression and then are
>> defeated have a duty to sign a peace treaty, not a duty to continue
>> waging that war by any means possible until they win.
>
>So, they should *accept* living under Israeli occupation and oppression?
>They should stop fighting a country that is not their own but nevertheless
>imposes its will on them?
Absolutely not. Indeed, Israel has demonstrated complete willingness to
stop occuping Palestine. All Palestine has to do is agree to a peace
treaty! Palestine, however, has still not proposed a peace treaty that
does not involve the destruction of Israel! Not one proposal!!!!!
That is what is so absurd, here, Jeroen. One side has put a serious peace
proposal on the table. The other side, however, has on four occasions
aggressively tried to attack and destroy the other, and now targets the
other side's children and civilians in attacks.
Which side are you on?
John D.
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Our campaign against international terrorism does not represent some
sort of 'clash of civilizations.' Instead, it is a clash between
civilization and those who would destroy it." -Amb. Richard N. Haass
