Take Gaza Back Now

Talk about a twist of fate. Watching the frightening scenes on television the other day as the green flag of Hamas was raised triumphantly over Gaza, I couldn't help but think back to the Israeli elections that took place 15 years ago this week.

Still reeling from the brutal terrorist murder of teenager Helena Rapp of Bat Yam, Israelis went to the polls on June 23, 1992, and voted for Yitzhak Rabin, thanks in large part to his promise to "take Gaza out of Tel Aviv."

IDF may have to parachute food to Gaza Now, just a decade and a half later, Gaza is back, and with a vengeance. For far too long, Israel has been trying to run away from the Gaza problem, and that has gotten us nowhere. The time has come to stop fleeing and to face this threat head-on.

Indeed, thanks to the blundering of successive Israeli leaders, what was once just a thorny counterinsurgency problem has now become a full-blown strategic threat, as the rise of Hamastan before our very eyes makes abundantly clear.

The existence of a rogue, Taliban-style terrorist state along Israel's southern border is a recipe for disaster. If allowed to come to pass, the consequences will be felt far beyond the outskirts of Sderot and Ashkelon. Gaza will serve as a regional launching pad for terrorism, trouble and tribulation, and it will tempt the rest of our neighbors to think that the "liberation of Palestine" is near.

And if Hamas were to extend its rule to Judea and Samaria, it would place all of central Israel within striking distance of Muslim fanatics. It is therefore essential that Hamas's "experiment in Islamic rule" be shut down as quickly as possible, before the danger becomes even more pressing.

So let's finally shed our delusions that we can "take Gaza out of Tel Aviv," and let's just "take Gaza," once and for all.

Israel should reassert complete control over the area, topple the Palestinian Authority, arrest and try its leadership, and finally declare that this land is rightfully ours and we shall never again abandon it.

We should methodically uproot the terrorist infrastructure, and rebuild the rubble of Gush Katif and its once-thriving Jewish communities. In other words, take Gaza back, take all of it back, and don't ever give it up again.

LET'S BE honest: after 15 years of retreat, it is time to try something else. Those who preached concessions and withdrawal have been proven painfully wrong, again and again, and the people of Israel have suffered terribly for their shortsightedness and frailty.

The government needs to stop worrying about how Condoleezza Rice and Javier Solana will react, and start concerning itself a little more with the safety and security of its citizens. Leaving Gaza in the hands of Hamas and its supporters is simply not an option.

"But there is no military solution," shout the Left and much of the media, as Kassam rockets continue to slam into the Negev. "We must negotiate," they say, as the terror groups recruit Palestinian mothers with young children to serve as suicide bombers.

Pay them no heed. These are the same high priests of appeasement, after all, who got us into this mess in the first place. It was at their behest that Israel pulled out of Gaza nearly two years ago, expelling thousands of Jews from their homes and withdrawing the IDF. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan's famous 1980 query to Americans, "Are Israelis better off now than they were before the Gaza retreat?" It is evident that the answer is a resounding "no."

At the time, proponents of the move said it would wash Israel's hands of Gaza, strengthen Palestinian moderates and pull the rug out from under the extremists.

The pullout from Gaza has proven to be a disastrous mistake, one that has claimed numerous Israeli lives - and Palestinian ones, too.

So when the pundits and the talking heads now try to persuade us of the wisdom of supporting Fatah thugs against Hamas terrorists, or of inviting an international force into the area, let's just remember how effective their previous policy prescriptions turned out to be.

After all, it was the opponents of the pullout who have proven to be prescient. They predicted beforehand that an Israeli withdrawal would lead to a Hamas takeover in Gaza. That, of course, is precisely what has occurred. They warned that pulling the IDF out of Gaza would lead to intensified Palestinian rocket attacks on southern Israel, and that, too, has come to pass.

WE NEED not accept the present situation, nor should we. It is not too late to correct the error of withdrawal, and to declare at last an end to the delusions of reaching a false peace with those who seek our demise. So let's hit the collective rewind button, and take back control over the entire Gaza Strip.

Let the Left ridicule the idea of returning to Gaza as much as they please. They were wrong then and they are wrong now, and I'd rather be right and alive, than progressive and on the run.

What about the Palestinian population, you say? Sorry, but the Palestinians had their chance. They blew it. They could have had a state, they could have made a deal with Barak, with Peres, or with Rabin. But instead they chose the path of extremism and bloodshed. They have no one to blame but themselves for the outcome, and there is no reason why innocent Israelis should continue to pay the price for the Palestinians' ongoing obstructionism.

Will there be political and diplomatic fallout from an Israeli move into Gaza? For sure. The Europeans will spill their latt s when they hear the news, and the halls of the United Nations will echo with the drumbeat of outrage as the Jewish state is condemned for defending itself.

But as important as diplomacy is, it pales in comparison with protecting the lives of innocent Jewish men, women and children. When it comes to safeguarding the welfare of its citizens, Israel has no choice but to put aside all other considerations and to act to defend itself.

For no matter what Israel does, or does not do, the blame is inevitably hurled our way. So we might as well do what we must, and proudly raise the blue and white flag once again over the sand dunes of Gaza.

We should never have left in the first place, and the time has now come to return. Like it or not, the choice between Israel or Hamas ruling over the area really doesn't leave us with much choice at all.

"But your apparent implication was that defense is never a sufficient justification at all."

Well, your additional comment that seizing territory is not even controversial left me believing that seizing territory is the only rational solution. I guess you meant it was one possible solution to the problem. Then we agree.

"neither would I agree that at no time would it ever have been ok for Israel to invade and occupy those places"

Then certainly you would allow Jordan and Egypt to do the same if they decided it was in their interests. But given that peace exists, it's less likely that anyone is going to do anything.

Which is the nice thing about peace treaties.

"Why must Israel justify every move outside her national borders when no neighbor of Israel ever needs to?"

I wasn't aware that other countries were building settlements in Israel. Or that they were constructing a 25' high concrete wall miles into Israeli territory. That does seem to be interfering with negotiations a little bit.

Maybe it's me, but I'm getting the impression that it's a land grab rather than "temporary military outposts for security purposes, only in selected vulnerable areas".

"seemed to leave staging areas on Israel's border"

With Egypt and Jordan? I'm not aware that is being done. Do you have information I don't, or are you simply saying this is a possibility?

"The peace with Egypt, so I understand, is maintained in part by a hefty infusion of yearly funds from the United States to the Egyptian regime."

Measured in the millions of dollars. As opposed to the billions sent to Israel each year. With Egypt it buys us peace, yes. With Israel, we get what? A warm and cozy feeling?

"As an American, I would think I am therefore perfectly entitled to wonder if the "peace" in question has been such a good idea for all concerned, all things considered."

Oh, after 60 years of this bull$hit, I wonder the same. I'm perfectly content to pull out all support for everyone and let them go at it full bore.

We'll then deal with the winner.

"You were the one who (if I read your initial comment correctly) in effect made a definitive assertion, that seizing staging-areas outside one's borders is wrong, at least if your name is Israel"

You act as though everything is OK and everyone is happy in the Middle East when all of a sudden, for no reason whatsoever, some uppity Arabs start firing rockets into Israel! The nerve!

And when Israel, who did nothing at all to deserve that, retaliates, then they're the bad guy! The injustice! The unfairness of it all! The whole world hates Israel!

Me? I don't believe that everything is OK in the Middle East. I don't believe that everyone is happy. I don't know that everything has ever been OK in the Middle East, especially since 1948.

Give the Palestinians a state in the West Bank (along the Green Line) and Gaza, a right of return or compensation for their homes and lands lost, and a signed peace treaty. Then they have 12 months to figure out what to do with Jerusalem. If they can't agree by then, they'll both lose and it will become our 51st state. Or we'll give it to the UN and move their headquarters there.

Well, your additional comment that seizing territory is not even controversial left me believing that seizing territory is the only rational solution.

Then obviously you excluded a gigantic middle.

If I said "It's not controversial to eat a bag of potato chips" would you interpret that to mean that I advocate eating potato chips at all possible times, as the "only rational" thing to eat?

[invade/occupy] Then certainly you would allow Jordan and Egypt to do the same if they decided it was in their interests.

First of all, what I will or will not "allow" has nothing to do with anything. Doesn't matter whether I "allow" some foreign country to do something or not, I am not so important :)

Second, and more to the point, as with any conflict whether I'm, let's say, "ok with" this or that particular act (if that's what you're really asking) obviously will depend on what I think of the two sides in question - their nature, their strategic relationship to me and mine, and their goals. In the Arab nations' various conflicts with Israel, IMHO their goal has been, more or less, to eliminate Israel. This is not a moral or defensible goal. Also, the people who rise to/keep power in these countries (and who generally engage in these geopolitical shenanigans) do so through violence & terror & proxy warfare. I am not ok with such people wielding let alone increasing the power and capital they command. Finally Israel has overall been more friendly, or at least less unfriendly, to the U.S. (my country) and her interests than have Arab nations who are generally backstabbing and double-dealing. That alone is a perfectly valid reason to favor Israel when all else is equal.

And so no, I am not ok with offensive actions (or proxy actions!) in pursuit of this goal, nor does the phony parallel you try to raise require me to.

But given that peace exists, it's less likely that anyone is going to do anything. Which is the nice thing about peace treaties.

Peace treaties seem to reduce outright invasion/occupation, true, but (alas) they don't appear to do all that much to prevent proxy warfare. So it's a tradeoff.

[Why must Israel justify every move outside her national borders] I wasn't aware that other countries were building settlements in Israel.

I said "every move" not "every building of settlements". There are other things one country can do to another besides build settlements. Building "settlements" is actually a fairly benign thing to do. Launching rockets is a little more offensive IMHO.

Or that they were constructing a 25' high concrete wall miles into Israeli territory. That does seem to be interfering with negotiations a little bit.

Into which nation's territory is Israel building a wall, in your opinion?

Maybe it's me, but I'm getting the impression that it's a land grab rather than "temporary military outposts for security purposes, only in selected vulnerable areas".

Taking land is a common result of winning wars. This has been true throughout human history; for some reason only in the single case when Israel has done it, have people decided it's somehow invalid. Why are Arab states allowed to wage eliminationist warfare against Israel and then get a "mulligan" if/whenever they fail?

With Egypt and Jordan? I'm not aware that is being done.

Gaza and the "Palestinian territories" are what I referred to as staging areas.

[peace cash to Egypt] Measured in the millions of dollars. As opposed to the billions sent to Israel each year.

You are wrong. The "aid" we give to Egypt is of the same order of magnitude as that we give to Israel, last I checked.

With Egypt it buys us peace, yes.

No, it does not, which is the point. Cf. my earlier comments re: 9/11 hijackers.

With Israel, we get what? A warm and cozy feeling?

The aid to Israel is not in the service of some specific peace plan. I suppose what we get is presumably that we help a free and democratic state continue to exist. However, I'm not sure that this aid-relationship is, in the long run, all that beneficial to Israel anyway. I have mixed feelings about it. But that has no bearing on the wisdom of this or that peace plan, which is what we were discussing. Because like I said, our aid to Israel is not part of some peace plan.

So let me agree with you that let's stop the aid to Israel. That doesn't help the case you were trying to make however.

Oh, after 60 years of this bull$hit, I wonder the same. I'm perfectly content to pull out all support for everyone and let them go at it full bore. We'll then deal with the winner.

Why would we be content to sit back and let whichever side win, though? Why not choose the preferable side to us?

You act as though everything is OK and everyone is happy in the Middle East when all of a sudden, for no reason whatsoever, some uppity Arabs start firing rockets into Israel! The nerve!

No, I do not act as though this.

Give the Palestinians a state in the West Bank (along the Green Line) and Gaza, a right of return or compensation for their homes and lands lost, and a signed peace treaty.

Why would we "give" the Palestinians these things?

Because they want them so badly they become barbarically violent? That's not a good reason to "give" people anything, in my book.

Do you understand what happens when you lose a war? Do they?

If they can't agree by then, they'll both lose and it will become our 51st state. Or we'll give it to the UN and move their headquarters there.

Ok, now you're just being so realistic I simply can't reply.

"Then obviously you excluded a gigantic middle."

Not I.

In 1962, the United States confronted Cuba over nuclear missiles located there. Now according to you, "when a strategic border territory (Cuba) is controlled by a terror gang (Castro) bent on your siege and destruction (arming himself with nuclear missiles aimed at Washington, DC), then sure, seizing it is important to defense."

If we did invade Cuba and seize it, you're saying that you wouldn't understand why this "would even be controversial"? Sure you would. We didn't do it because it was controversial.

"First of all, what I will or will not "allow" has nothing to do with anything."

Not what I meant by allow (allow for), but I'll rephrase: Then certainly you would understand Jordan and Egypt doing the same if they decided it was in their interests.

"So it's a tradeoff."

Certainly Israel is better off with a peace treaty with Jordan and Egypt than without one? You say it's a wash? You can't believe that.

"Into which nation's territory is Israel building a wall, in your opinion?"

Not their own -- and that's all that's important to the controversy. If they wish to build it on their side of the Green Line, I have no problem with that.(Other than they're using my tax dollars to do so.)

"Taking land is a common result of winning wars."

It used to be. But Israel agreed not to do that when they signed the 4th Geneva Convention.

"The "aid" we give to Egypt is of the same order of magnitude as that we give to Israel, last I checked."

" Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel has been given $240 billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel."
-- www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html

Plus, Israel was given lots more before 1973.

"Why not choose the preferable side to us?"

Ummmm. Because people fly airplanes into our buildings when we do?

"I suppose what we get is presumably that we help a free and democratic state continue to exist."

As I said, the warm fuzzies.

"Why would we "give" the Palestinians these things?"

For the same reason we gave the Israelis these things -- it was part of the original Resolution 181 partition plan.

["Then obviously you excluded a gigantic middle."] Not I.

Yes, you excluded a middle. I said doing X shouldn't be controversial and you thought that meant I was saying one should always do only X, & started arguing against that position. You excluded the middle case that I'm merely saying X is one of many possible uncontroversial options. This is very basic logic. Why are you even arguing with it? Do you understand it?

If we did invade Cuba and seize it, you're saying that you wouldn't understand why this "would even be controversial"? Sure you would. We didn't do it because it was controversial.

No, I wouldn't have really understood why that would've been controversial either, exactly. We did after all try to engineer the Bay of Pigs invasion, and it's generally seen as a cowardly disgrace that Kennedy abandoned them. Nor do I think we didn't invade Cuba "because" it would have been controversial, but because of various (good or bad) strategic, cost/benefit, etc. arguments against doing so.

...I'll rephrase: Then certainly you would understand Jordan and Egypt doing the same if they decided it was in their interests.

I would understand anyone doing anything - right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral, kind or evil - they deemed to be in their interests. But whether I "understand" has little to do with whether I approve/disapprove. I mean, I may "understand" why a psycho killer kills (for example, maybe voices in his schizophrenic head tell him to), but that doesn't make it ok. So the way you have rephrased it here makes your point meaningless.

Not their own -- and that's all that's important to the controversy.

Sure it's their own. Whose else is it? This is territory they occupied/seized following a war and no one else can defend a claim on it. So why isn't it their own? Whose else is it, the people that lost the war? Not anymore. Israel, by successfully holding it, is saying it is their own. So there. By your logic, the U.S. must give back all territory formerly occupied by the American Indians, as well as Alta California and Santa Fé de Nuevo México (taken from Mexico after the Mexican-American war) - i.e. the entire southwestern United States. But that's silly, right? You can see it's silly because I'm applying your logic to a non-Jewish state. That's because your logic has never, ever been used in relations among nation-states. Throughout all of human history people have generally understood that to the victors in a war go the spoils and the losers don't get to say "give it back because we lost but we want it back and other people should apply pressure against you to give it back". That is a new form of whiny, PR-based wussy "advocacy" warfare invented only in the last 50 years, specifically for use against Israel, and for some reason a large part of the world goes along with it. For some reason the existence of a nation-state of Jews changes the rules and suddenly the victors (if they are Jews) must obey the defeated; I don't understand why.

Also, you had made an analogy that (whatever bad thing Israel is doing) is comparable to if Arab nations had erected a wall into "Israeli territory". This analogy only works if Israel's (settlements, whatever) are now in ______ territory where ______ = some other nation. Which other nation? You can't say, apparently. Your analogy thus falls apart.

[taking land in war] It used to be. But Israel agreed not to do that when they signed the 4th Geneva Convention.

The 4th Geneva Convention is about treatment of civilians during war. It does not, as you seem to imply here, forbid taking land in war. In fact, it is largely about treatment of civilians under occupation, which would be rather absurd if it somehow forbade occupation.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians, in waging an ongoing murder-terrorism campaign against Israeli civilians, have placed themselves in violation of its provisions. So even if the 4th Convention were a useful razor, it is going to cut both ways.

Israel has been given $240 billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion

This is the situation you described as giving Israel billions but Egypt "millions"? Thanks for doing my work for me & debunking yourself. Unless by "millions" you meant "a hundred and seventeen thousand millions", I suppose.

Moreover, what you have found are estimated running totals with different starting times - Israel "since 1973" versus Egypt since... well, mostly, since the peace we're talking about, which was in the late 1970s, right? Apples/oranges. Nowadays on a year by year basis - a better comparison - it's basically like this: we give Israel 2.5-3 billion and Egypt 1.8-2 billion. Or in other words we give Egypt 2 dollars for every 3 dollars we give Israel. Not exactly the thousandfold-exaggerated "millions vs. billions" picture you were trying to paint.

["Why not choose the preferable side to us?"] Ummmm. Because people fly airplanes into our buildings when we do?

The 9/11 hijackers flew airplanes into our buildings "because" we supported Israel? That's not what they actually said. They said it was - primarily - because we had a military presence on "holy" land (Saudi Arabia), and also because of the sanctions which supposedly killed megazillions of Iraqi children every year. Other things commonly cited by bin Laden in the late 1990s include a laundry list of stuff like "Massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina". Israel is of course on the list of Al Qaeda grievances, but it is not anywhere near being the only item such that you can say they did it "because" of Israel. You seem to be engaging in psychological projection - just because it's (apparently) the main thing on your gripe list doesn't mean it was ever the main thing on Al Qaeda's gripe list.

Anyway, even if it were, you're now saying that we shouldn't support Israel because Arabs attack us when we do? So basically we should submit to extortion and toss Israel over the boat, obey the wishes of barbaric murderers that we can't support a democratic nation's attempts to defend itself? Dishonorable.

For the same reason we gave the Israelis these things -- it was part of the original Resolution 181 partition plan.

And then there was (more than one) war, to eliminate Israel, each of which Israel won. And Israel took territory they deemed important. (Some of it they've since ceded, deciding it's not worth the trouble.) So there. These things happen in war. If Arabs don't like that perhaps they shouldn't have started the wars. If they really want these territories maybe they should assemble armies capable of taking them back (and stop whining to, let alone extorting, US about it - which, unlike you, does not win me sympathy to their side). I still don't understand why Jews aren't allowed to take strategic territory after winning wars like all other nations in human history have. Actually it seems to me that Jews aren't allowed (in some peoples' eyes) to win wars, period. Why?

"I said doing X shouldn't be controversial and you thought that meant I was saying one should always do only X, & started arguing against that position."

You said seizing the territory of those who threaten you (analogous to what Israel is doing) wouldn't be controversial. You implied that that this action is a no-brainer. Completely understandable. Essentially asking, "What's the problem with that?"

So why should I assume from that statement that you would consider any other option? Why would you? After all, your option is (supposedly) uncontroversial.

"that I'm merely saying X is one of many possible uncontroversial options."

Yes it is -- and all the options are controversial. Even a peace treaty is controversial for some Israelis -- witness the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995.

"The 4th Geneva Convention is about treatment of civilians during war. It does not, as you seem to imply here, forbid taking land in war."

You can take land in a war. You can occupy land in a war with military forces. You can even occupy land after a war with military forces (until the threat subsides).

But you cannot transfer your civilians to that land. Don't change the argument.

Israel signed the 4th Geneva Convention in 1949. They are protected by it and they are bound by it. Article 49 states: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

UN Resolutions 242 and 338 called for Israel to withdraw. UN 446 did the same and specifically mentioned the 4th Geneva Convention. Plus probably another half-dozen resolutions that were also ignored by Israel.

"By your logic, the U.S. must give back all territory formerly occupied by the American Indians, as well as Alta California and Santa Fé de Nuevo México (taken from Mexico after the Mexican-American war) - i.e. the entire southwestern United States."

I believe all that happened before 1949. How can a 1949 document be applied retroactively to what happened in the 1840's? How does my logic lead you there?

Second, we signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo whereby, among other things, the United States purchased that land from the Mexican government. Why should we give it back?

If Israel signs a similar treaty for the part of the West Bank it occupies, they're welcome to it. Without a treaty, the Israeli settlers should pack up and leave. If Israel needs to maintain a military presence in the West Bank or Gaza, that is, of course, allowed.

"That's not what they actually said."

Ah, then I stand corrected. If bin Laden says he has no problem with the U.S. support for Israel, then that must be the truth. Stupid of me to to assume Al-Qaeda hated us because we've supported Israel over the years. What was I thinking?

"Anyway, even if it were, you're now saying that we shouldn't support Israel because Arabs attack us when we do?"

Nope. I said it's to be expected if we take sides. You want us to take sides. Then expect more of the same. That's all I said. I've wanted to pull our support when Israel started building settlements, which, obviously had nothing to do with 9/11.

"So basically we should submit to extortion and toss Israel over the boat, obey the wishes of barbaric murderers that we can't support a democratic nation's attempts to defend itself?"

You're starting to cross the line with your assumptions.

"Or in other words we give Egypt 2 dollars for every 3 dollars we give Israel."

Oh, gosh, Dr. Frank fan, not exactly the "same order of magnitude as that we give to Israel" -- unless 2 now equals 3. Thanks for doing my work for me & debunking yourself.

"And then there was (more than one) war, to eliminate Israel, each of which Israel won. And Israel took territory they deemed ... blah, blah, blah."

Yes. So?

You asked why would we "give" the Palestinians these things. I answered the question.

So what's your point, "That was then, this is now? All bets are off?"

"I still don't understand why Jews aren't allowed to take strategic territory after winning wars"

Sorry. I've explained it as best I could.

You said seizing the territory of those who threaten you (analogous to what Israel is doing) wouldn't be controversial.

No, I said I don't understand why it would be. Not that it wouldn't be. Lots of things are controversial that I don't think should be.

Are we going to descend into arguing over what I said earlier? It's right above us on this very thread and very easy to check.

You implied that that this action is a no-brainer.

No, I implied that it shouldn't be controversial. You still don't understand the difference, I guess.

Essentially asking, "What's the problem with that?"

Right. That is in fact what I'm asking. And you haven't given an answer.

So why should I assume from that statement that you would consider any other option? Why would you? After all, your option is (supposedly) uncontroversial.

Because (as I already explained) "uncontroversial" is not the same as "automatically the best option". There may be 17 uncontroversial possible options, and thus a reasonable debate over which one is optimal. But none of them, if adopted, would be controversial in the sense that "that's a horrible, immoral, evil choice!" Get it now?

[4th convention] But you cannot transfer your civilians to that land. Don't change the argument.

But you're the one who changed the argument; we were discussing the taking of land. I said this happens in war, and you said that the 4th convention forbids it. Turns out you were talking about a completely different thing ("transferring your civilians"). Why did you change the argument?

I believe all that happened before 1949. How can a 1949 document be applied retroactively to what happened in the 1840's? How does my logic lead you there?

Because you weren't talking about the 4th Geneva Convention at that point. You complained that Israel was building a wall into territory that's "Not their own -- and that's all that's important to the controversy." You consider it "Not their own" because they took it in war. And if "Not their own" is "all that's important to the controversy" then the same should apply to land the U.S. took in wars. If you're being consistent.

It's very hard to pin you down though because you keep shifting the terms of what you're talking about. Well done, I suppose.

Ah, then I stand corrected. If bin Laden says he has no problem with the U.S. support for Israel, then that must be the truth.

You really are logically illiterate, aren't you? I didn't say he "has no problem with" US support for Israel, I said it wasn't the lone, or even primary, grievance he listed. Which is different. Why do I keep having to restate what I said?

[Arabs attack us] I said it's to be expected if we take sides.

Ok fine, "it's to be expected". That doesn't really settle anything. Now that I "expect" to be attacked by barbarians, it doesn't make me (1) any happier about it, (2) any more sympathetic to the barbarians' grievances, or (3) any more inclined to change my views. Why would it?

Oh, gosh, Dr. Frank fan, not exactly the "same order of magnitude as that we give to Israel" -- unless 2 now equals 3.

Sorry, I made some invalid assumptions there that you would be familiar with my lingo. In scientific lingo "order of magnitude" is terminology people use to discuss quantities. Typically an "order of magnitude" means, more or less, "roughly a multiple of 10". Thus, the number 323 differs from the number, oh, 52 by an "order of magnitude". It differs from 7 by "two orders of magnitude".

So while no, 2 doesn't equal 3, in that sense then yes, 2 is indeed the same order of magnitude as 3. The latter exceeds the former by a factor of 1.5 which is much less than 10 (and certainly much less than the 1000 you implied). That's all it meant.

You asked why would we "give" the Palestinians these things. I answered the question.

Not convincingly.

My understanding is that Japan is the same size today as is was before they commenced hostilities.

Heh. Even you must realize how silly you sound. Yes, "Japan" is the same size. But it is still not true that Japan lost no territory, and you know full well I have a point. Come on now. Here is a map of the Japanese empire in 1942 FYI. Really, what is your point here? Do you even remember?

The United States defeated Japan and took no territory from them.

Actually (1) the United States occupied and administered Japan itself, only giving it back when it was good and ready, (2) the United States occupied & backed South Korea (Soviets backing the North) where it remains to this day, (3) Guam was recaptured by the U.S. and remains a U.S. territory and the Northern Mariana islands (which had been a Japanese protectorate) now make up a U.S. Commonwealth. And that's only territory that the U.S. took. Obviously the French took back French Indochina, the Soviets & Chinese took/struggled over Manchuria, etc.

Again, my point being that land gets taken in wars. This happens in wars. This is one of the most noticeable and common effects of wars. That's how wars work. That's what wars do. That's a big reason people have always fought wars. Territory.

Only in the single, special, exceptional case of Israel are they somehow not allowed to take any territory in any war, whether they start it or not.

Now, your point was what? You're arguing the (rather absurdist) position that Japan lost no territory whatsoever as a result of WW2. You're claiming (incorrectly) that the U.S. took no territory from them. You rest this entire claim on the flimsy reed that "Japan" proper is the same size, which while true, is a rather irrelevant and silly thing to point out, since the whole point of an Empire is that your home territory is not the same as the territories you control, and even a 7 year old schoolchild can understand that Japan lost a huge amount of territories they had previously controlled.

But let's say you were right, let's say the US really had taken no territory from Japan, nor anyone else. Because after all, there have been wars where the participants didn't lose territory. But what would that even have proved? That no one else is ever allowed to take territory in any other wars ever again? No. It doesn't prove that.

Again, the transfer of territory as a result of wars is actually a very common thing and human history is replete with examples (whether or not Japan/ww2 is one such - it is, but you feel like pretending it's not, so whatever). Israel has fought several wars in defense of its very existence and in the process took some territory. You seem to think that's automatically wrong, and that merely pointing out that Israel has gained this territory constitutes a criticism of Israel. You are wrong, because it does not.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.