The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind.
Rhrosty.

Ah yes another Singer clone

Oh dear. Am I missing the irony.

Its when Ryvchin says "The notion of refugee status being inherited and passed down in perpetuity is without parallel in international law. It is not applied to nor is it claimed by any other people"

Inherited refugee status is precisely the claim of "The Children of Israel" to the "Promised Land" which for most Jews then and now means Israel.

Since most Jews were kicked out of Israel by the Romans (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora#Dispersion_of_the_Jews_in_the_Roman_Empire ) most Jews lived as an unwanted, persecuted, group suffering from "Inherited refugee status".

Israel's current Law of Return precisely recognises Inherited refugee status - if they have Jewish blood that is.

So why aren't Palestinian descendants of those cast out after 1947 allowed the same right of Return?

Two claims to the same land can't be tendentiously simplified by recognising one claim but not the other - even if one claimant is armed with nuclear weapons. Or does might makes right clinch it?

I agree Plantagenet. In Israel there is one law for Jews and another for goyim .. non jew. I am so tired of hearing the antisemite tag .. Israel is on stolen land apart from that which was given to them by the UN.

The practice of appartheid, home demolitions, theft of water resources to Jews only, dentention of children, torture of prisoners, land theft, ethnic cleansing and basic murder of Palestinians cannot be covered over by your simplistic understanding of the FACTS.

Gazans are kept on a special diet imposed by Israel.. that keeps them just above malnutritian. Gaza is the largest open air illegal prison in the world. Electricity is used as a punishment again the Pals. Potable water is a huge problem. After Israel committed the war crimes of bombing a captive population in their CAST LEAD attack and the bombing of the most important infrastructure including sewerage,I can no longer read the type of anti-palestinian propaganda you have spewed forth in your article. I have been there, I have seen with my own eyes the horrific conditions for the Palestinian people whom this land legally belongs to. There are many facts left out of your story so as to cover the truth, and yes I am a an activist. How dare you belittle the activists who have paid dearly for standing up to Israel. Israels behaviour will ensure that it will be a state, even though it has no borders through the continual removal of Palestinians from their land, that does not last long in the modern world of the 21st century.
Israels appartheid, war crimes and human rights abuses will be told by myself and many other activists who have seen for themselves. Let us hope that Australians will one day wake up to the fact that Israel is not one of our friends or allies. Bob Carr only said what alot of us already know to be true and factual. ISRAEL is a dangerous rogue state. Best we keep an eye on the lobbying being done in this country.

Alexander, you forgot to mention 'Mr opportunity' (Yasser Arafat) in that he never failed to miss an opportunity to reach a lasting just peace for his people. (98% of Palestinian claims were offered, and received a NO). As you say, the Palestinian people are real, genuine victims, victims of their own leadership.

The land conquered by Israel is now Israeli land virtue of the fact that the people who tried to exterminate Israel are still it's enemies. Taking land and resources from those who make no bones about their intent to wipe you out is smart and practical. Hearing the Arabs complaining about Israel taking "Arab" land equates to the Nazis complaining about the Red Army invading and occupying Germany in 1945.

Israel took Gaza from Egypt in the 1967 war, and then gave it back to Egypt when Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel. If the "Palestinians" want to stop the Israelis from taking any more "Palestinian" land from them, then the first thing they should do is recognise Israel's right to exist.

If they don't, then Israel is justified in taking more land from them and making them weaker.

Does the same logic apply in Ukraine at the moment LEGO?

Or is it just a disgusting justification for war and genocide?

Dear Mik

I have not studied the history of the Ukraine, or the role which Russia had in defining what is the Ukraine and what is not. I do know that Russia took the Ukraine from the Muslims in the late 1700's and they regard the Ukraine as their territory. Of course, you could say that the nasty Russians therefore stole the land off the poor Muslims, but since the Muslims stole the land from the former Byzantine Christian owners, their claim was through military conquest also, so they can hardly cry "foul."

The Soviet Premier Khrushchev gave the Crimea to the Soviet republic of the Ukraine, probably because at that time the Soviets thought that the Ukraine would forever be part of the Soviet Union. It had never occurred to them that the Ukraine would separate from Russia and that they would lose this very valuable Russian territory of the Crimea. They want it back and they are prepared to go to war to get it. You can compare it to the USA's interference in Cuba where the US considered their security would be threated by having a Communist state within 200 miles of Miami, so they armed Cuban exiles to take it back.

The lesson for you is the dangers of multiculturalism. Multicultural states are unstable states because most people are intensely loyal to their skin colour and to the culture which they identify with. In every situation where two or more cultures and races exist within the same territory and population proportions change through birth rate differentials, or immigration, the result HAS ALWAYS BEEN serious civil strife, demands for separatism, high crime rates, terrorism, and finally, civil war.

I suspect that you are a young person who can only think immaturely, in moral absolutes. Well, here is a moral absolute which actually works.

"The history of the world,
Reveals a simple plan,
He takes who has the power,
He holds, who can."

The real problem is that when the moslems invaded Israel in about
1000 AD plus/minus some years, and ejected or murdered Jews and Christians,
they never expected that the Jews would come back and eject them.

That is the fundamental problem.
It seems the Jews have a longer memory than the Moslems.

Dear LEGO,

<<
"The history of the world,
Reveals a simple plan,
He takes who has the power,
He holds, who can."
>>

This is a short-sighted version of history.

Psalm 37:10 says: "But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace".

This was repeated by Jesus: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth".

In the Bhagavad-Gita, God declares: “For the protection of the good, for the destruc­tion of the evil, and for the establishment of righteousness, I am born in every age.”

The Jews of Israel were fortunate to win their land due to their moral superiority, compared with the savageness of the surrounding Arabs. But since 1967, this moral superiority is constantly deteriorating. As the morality of Palestinians was so low to begin with, it takes time for Israel to "catch up", but it surely goes in that direction and once it does, Israel will be no more. Still remaining one notch above the Syrian regime is not a great source of pride.

The tactical loss of the Arabs in 1967 proves to be their greatest strategic victory, by causing the Jews to swallow the poisonous bait of those cursed territories and become proud of themselves, trusting in the idol of militarism, now the remaining Jewish morality is being chipped away, rusted away by this acid.

Deuteronomy 8:17 warns against this attitude of "And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth.", concluding in verse 8:20: "As the nations which the Lord destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the Lord your God."

Morality, my dear Yuyutsu, is rarely absolute. And more often what is morally right and what is morally wrong, is a matter of culture, and point of view. Your vague post to me seemed to suggest that the Israelis are immoral for stealing Palestinian land. Do you really think that the average Israeli walks around thinking that his people are thieves?

The Jews have been persecuted by just about everybody for 3500 years. They have been the subjects of pogroms, ethnic cleansings, genocide, and have had their property and real estate routinely seized and stolen. They are a classic example of how vulnerable a people can be if they do not have a militarily strong state of their own to defend themselves. The Jews regard all of Israel as their ancestral lands, and it is the Muslims who ethnically cleansed them from all Muslim lands, including Israel, and occupied the Jewish homeland.

Self preservation is an extremely moral position.

My premise is, that the Arab position is extremely immoral. They regard Israel as land conquered from the infidels which is now Allah's land, and it can never revert back to the infidels. That was why they built that dirty great Mosque on top of the Temple of David. It is their way of saying "this is now Muslim land forever, the Jews are finished."

The purpose of Muslim hatred of Israel has nothing to do with the "poor" Palestinians. The Arab states could easily accommodate the "Palestinians" but they don't want to. Unlike Australia and western countries , They will not give Palestinians citizenship, allow them to open businesses, or give them any real government assistance. What they want, is for the Palestinians problem to never be resolved. They can then redirect the hostility of their own people to the Israelis, which should be directed at the greed, incompetence, and failure of their own leaders and their own religion

Dear LEGO,

Enough has been said about the immorality of Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims. That's a fact which neither of us can do anything about.

The question at hand is why should Israel "compete" with their atrocities, why should Israel insist on reducing itself so instead of being "a light unto the nations", it is morally only one notch above its opponents.

Surely Israel should defend itself, but some of its actions go well beyond defensiveness and are motivated instead by cruelty, hatred and greed.

Israel's army is strong enough, it even has nuclear capabilities (which should be retained): from a military point of view, Israel doesn't need any of those cursed territories for its defence against the weak Palestinians, whom Israel can easily defeat with its military brass band alone (in fact, from a military point of view, these territories are a burden because the need to protect the settlers draws much resources and detracts the forces from arming and training against more serious threats).

The arrogance due to the military victory of 1967 have corrupted Israeli society and does not stop with Arabs/Palestinians - it brought crime and violence, including on Israel's roads (many more Israelis are killed by road accidents than by wars and terrorism) and domestic violence. The once humble and peaceful nation is no longer a charitable society. This is something to weep about.

I think that your last post hit the nail right on the head, Yuyutsu.

Trendy lefties like yourself used to totally in support of Israel when it was just 2 million people, surrounded by 500 million people who loudly proclaimed that they were going to exterminate the Jewish state. The issue of morality used to look clear cut to people like yourself. People like yourself can only think in terms of "oppressors" and "oppressed", and Israel was once most definitely "the oppressed". Especially when every military pundit prior to 1967 confidently predicted that the Arabs with the huge armies, lavishly supplied by modern Soviet military equipment, would easily over run Israel. And everybody knew what Arabs and Muslims do, especially to females, when they conquer anybody.

But the Israelis lost the support of your caste for three reasons. First, they kept on winning. You automatically lose your "oppressed" status if you win. Second, they did so with the support of the most evil country in the world (the USA) which is a democracy which (unlike Australia) has freedom of speech, and its people support the death penalty. But lastly, the elites hated Israel because of a moral issue.

As the most racially victimised people in all of human history, the Jews had to be the one race on Earth that would support the new ideology of Saving the World by destroying racism. The trendies were absolutely shattered to realise that the Jews could be just as racist as everybody else. All of their theories on how they could Save The World by creating class and race blind societies were being destroyed by the very people they most expected to be their most ardent supporters.

That is why the trendies now support the Arab Nazis. Your forever moralising caste can redefine the "oppressed/oppressor theory of everything" to place the Arabs as the poor, peace loving victims. You can't get over the fact that the Jews can act on behalf of their own self preservation and do to their enemies what their enemies have been doing to them for 3500 years.

Dear LEGO,

I think for myself. Any correlation between my thoughts and those of "trendy lefties" are incidental.

I definitely want Israel to survive and be secure - and I have a very good reason for that: my family lives there. Just as you don't want to live under Shariah law in Australia, so I don't want my family to live there as Dhimmis, if at all.

Nevertheless, some of Israel's actions under the pretext of defence and preservation are too cruel and not truly motivated by security - it is those actions which I condemn, it is those actions that cause my family to live among unpleasant people, it is those actions that influence the mentality of Israel's younger generations, it is those actions that threaten the younger in my family to be ordered, as conscripts, to harm other people unnecessarily, it is those actions that cause my family to live in a country that is hated by the rest of the world.

I do believe that Israel's moral misfortunes originate in the 1967 war; that the territories 'gained' therein are no longer needed for security and are in fact a burden on Israel's security; and that the only way to restore Israeli society to its former humble and charitable past, making Israel again a place where it is pleasant and shameless to live, is to renounce all gains from that terrible 1967 war which poisoned Israeli society.

Alex - if you'd like more grist for your mill you would only need to read up on the anti-Hindu rhetoric that was blasted out from Pakistani radios and other media after the 1947 split from "Mother" England. I was in India in 1968, and it was still going strong, about how all the Hindus were going to be pushed into the ocean, beheaded, stabbed, etc. etc. Easily heard on any transistor radio, and strident in the manner of Hitler's most strident moments. When I began to tune in the the Palestinian mind-set it was strongly reminiscent. Regards, Glynne S.

You make a nice humanitarian pacifist Yuyutsu, but a poor military leader.

When you are surrounded by people who are determined to exterminate you, being humane to them is a stupid and inappropriate response. Taking territory from your enemies makes you stronger and them weaker. Israel would be utterly stupid to hand back the Golan heights to Syria because the Syrians (after they get through mass murdering each other with poison gas) will place the artillery, wheel to wheel on the Golan, and make a large part of Israel completely uninhabitable.

Even the return of the Sinai to Egypt is looking shaky when the majority of Egyptians in a democratic election elected a fundamentalist fruit cake "Islamist" (actually "true Islamic") party into power, and the yanks were stupid enough to sell them F-16's and to give them the technology to build a factory to make M1A1 tanks.

Israel's problem is that it is too nice to it's enemies. The Israelis should ethnically cleanse the Arabs by force from its lands, in the same way as the Arabs ethnically cleansed all the Jews from their lands. World opinion will not let them do it openly, so they are doing it the slow way by making it difficult for their Arab enemies to remain in Israel and make a living. Doing to your enemies, what they have done to you, is justice. Especially when they still demand your total extermination. Any references by the enemies leaders that they are now willing to negotiate to allow you to exist should be taken with suspicion and the deepest mistrust. The Arabs know that there are too many Yuyutsu's in the western world, and they know that you can be conned simply by pretending that they are the poor, oppressed victims.

People like yourself think that war can be solved by identifying who is greedy and who is oppressed. You can not seem to even fathom that war can have a religious cause and the Arabs see Israel as an affront to their God which nothing but Israel's complete extermination will resolve.

Dear LEGO,

<<People like yourself think that war can be solved by identifying who is greedy and who is oppressed.>>

"Like myself"? I never suggested anything of that nature.

The war in Israel has already been solved due to nothing but Israel's overwhelming military might. There is no peace, but no war either.

They say in Israel, "The Arabs are the same Arabs and the sea is the same sea" (referring to the Mediterranean in which the Arabs wish to drown all Israelis): well the sea is still the same sea, but the Arabs are no longer anywhere as strong and no longer pose a military threat. Without the Soviets behind them they are nothing.

While for Israel the Arabs remain an ongoing nuisance, a slight inconvenience, the biggest danger Israel is facing now is internal, being corroded from within in a process of moral degeneration that started with the 1967 war.

<<You can not seem to even fathom that war can have a religious cause>>

First there's no war, only a few minor skirmishes that do not resemble the past in either severity or frequency. Second, religion is never a cause for war: first come nationalism and territorial ambitions, then religion is added as a pretext in attempt to incite the masses, diverting their attention from internal problems. This is not religion, but sacrilege, using God's name in vain.

<<Syrians (...) will place the artillery, wheel to wheel on the Golan, and make a large part of Israel completely uninhabitable.>>

The cease-fire agreement forbids Syria to place artillery near the Golan. Syria is now broken and will take years to lick its wounds from their civil-war, then if they ever move their artillery forward, Israel could easily destroy it all in less than a day (better still, neutralise only the personnel without touching their pieces, then take over and turn that same artillery around), then advance towards Damascus. Israel has such advanced, sophisticated conventional and non-conventional weapons, beyond what any other country has, even the USA, including micro-robots which carry biological agents, making artillery a thing of the past.

I agree that Israel's military might is preventing Arabs from exterminating them, Yuyutsu. What I can't figure out, is why you think that they are wrong for the Israelis to be militarily strong in order to prevent themselves from being exterminated. At the moment, the Iranians are trying to build an atom bomb so that the "Palestinians" can sneak one or more into Israel (or New York) and set the damned thing off. That is hardly "a slight inconvenience."

The war is entirely religious. Islam is a warriors religion invented by a Jew hating genocidal warlord who wanted to rule the world. The Muslims will never accept that the Jewish homeland that they conquered for Islam would revert back to Judaism. Islam can only go forward, never backwards. For Islam to take a backward step is an affront to their non existent God. That is the ONLY reason why they want Israel destroyed.

Your seem to be suggesting that the Israelis should hand back the Golan because the Syrians would never place artillery on it again, and that if they did, Israel could easily destroy it. That is insanity. Without the Golan, Israel would have been over run on 1973 when the Syrians launched mass tank attacks all along the Golan. It was only because of the self sacrificing courage of a small number of Israelis tankers, who died in their tanks facing overwhelming odds rather than give ground until reinforcements arrived, that saved Israel from extermination that day. They would be suicidally stupid to give back the Golan. It is never going to happen.

If they were stupid enough to give back the Golan, they deserve to lose next time and be exterminated.

Dear LEGO,

<<What I can't figure out, is why you think that they are wrong for the Israelis to be militarily strong in order to prevent themselves from being exterminated.>>

On the contrary: I believe that Israel should remain militarily very strong, even retaining its nuclear weapons. I definitely don't want my family exterminated.

I do however believe that the prolonged holding onto the territories taken in 1967 weakens Israel in three ways:

1) It corrupts Israel morally and splits it from within, thus reducing its morale and the desire of its citizens to remain and contribute.

2) It isolates Israel in the international arena.

3) It diverts large amounts of troops into policing duties in the West Bank, guarding the settlers instead of training and arming for more serious threats, such as Iran.

Yes, Iran is a serious threat and there's no easy answer. It's good that Israel at least has the 2nd-strike capability, so that if ever an Iranian bomb hits Israel, then within a few minutes Iran would cease to exist as well, probably half of the world also.

Note that the Iranians are not Arabs. Unlike the Arabs, Iran used to be Israel's best friend. The reason they hate Israel that much is because historically, Israel was the closest ally of the Shah, which they cannot forgive.

<<The war is entirely religious. Islam is a warriors religion>>

To that extent, Islam is not a religion at all, but a political movement. To think of those atrocities in terms of religion, is to agree with the perpetrators that they indeed are doing God's will. Of course they are not!

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<Your seem to be suggesting that the Israelis should hand back the Golan because the Syrians would never place artillery on it again, and that if they did, Israel could easily destroy it.>>

That's not the reason, that's the opportunity. I suggest that Israel should vacate the Golan for its own interests: both in order to recover from its 1967 moral wounds and in order to stop its isolation and gain respect in the international community. I also suggest that due to the Syrian civil-war, this is probably the safest time to do so, while the balance of power is extremely different now than in 1973. Should troubles ever arise again on Israel's north-eastern border, Israel could easily handle it, including by retaking that area if necessary, but this time without the corruption of 1967 and without the objection of the rest of the world.

You seem to think that if Israel returns to it's 1967 borders, that this would satisfy the Arabs and the Muslims. That is nonsense. Nothing but the complete extermination of Israel will satisfy those people because their objection to Israel's existence is entirely religious. How it weakens the Israelis "morally' to take back their own ancestral land from the people who conquered them is something I don't get. The only "isolation" that Israel suffers from is from those people in the west who dream of Israel's extermination, or from those who think that wars can be avoided if everybody just held hands and sang "Kumbaya." My own perception, at least among my own working class demographic, is that most people support Israel and despise the crazy Arabs. If your friends think differently, then it is time to find a better class of friend.

Using troops to guard against the enemy within is, I agree, militarily and economically wasteful. it would be far more effective for the Israelis to drive the enemy populations which reside within Israel back over the border into the lands of Israel's enemies. But the Israelis are just too damn nice to do what needs to be done. Although, making life miserable for the enemies who reside within your own lands could possibly do the job of making them realise that they have no future in Israel. And I think that this is what the Israelis are doing. Just keep squeezing your enemies by taking their more of the land that they once stole off you, and give them the hint to move on.

But this is the primary reason why the Arab nations will not allow the "Palestinians" to become citizens of their own counties. That would solve the problem of the poor oppressed Palestinians, but the Arab leaders could not give a damn about the poor oppressed Palestinians. They need an enemy to direct their own people's hatred from their sorry lifestyles and the complete failure of Islam to provide an acceptable standard of living compared to the western, Asian and Jewish civilisations

Dear LEGO,

<<You seem to think that if Israel returns to it's 1967 borders, that this would satisfy the Arabs and the Muslims.>>

Not at all. I have no expectations from them. If they are unsatisfied, then it's their own problem.

<<their objection to Israel's existence is entirely religious.>>

It is not, because it has nothing to do with God.
If you claim that it is religious, then you believe that this brings them closer to God - but it doesn't!

<<How it weakens the Israelis "morally' to take back their own ancestral land...>>

Even if one has a valid objective, achieving it by immoral means is still immoral. The means are at least as important as the goal.

The "6-day" war was a corrupt one, conducted by a corrupt regime. For you and me it was a relief that Israel survived, but the true historical motivation for the occupation was Moshe Dayan's desire to increase his private archaeological collection by venturing into previously-inaccessible areas full of archaeological specimens.

This particular war has ruined the moral fabric and humility of Israelis, introducing violence and militarism as the norm, so in order to recover Israel should stop enjoying its fruits. It's a totally internal Israeli matter that has nothing to do with Arabs.

The extreme weakness of the Arabs now permits Israel to recover on its moral front.

<<Using troops to guard against the enemy within is, I agree, militarily and economically wasteful. it would be far more effective for the Israeli>>

I was referring to guarding the settlers in the West Bank, not within Israel itself.

<<Although, making life miserable for the enemies who reside within your own lands>>

Nobody should be made deliberately miserable if it can be avoided. The only valid reason for Israel to fight, is to defend its people from extermination.

You admit that if the Israel's is returned to the 1967 borders, you have no expectation that the Arabs would leave the Israelis alone. If the Israelis were stupid enough to do what you would like them to do, it would leave them wide open to attack. The Golan in particular has given them room to manoeuvre their armoured divisions, space to fight in before enemy armoured formations could reach the populated areas of Israel, and prevents the northern half of Israel from becoming uninhabitable through artillery bombardment.

Your position appears to be, that it is better to be exterminated while being moral, than defend yourself by being immoral. Cuckoo. Cuckoo. I think it was Socrates who said that the highest morality as "the protection of one's own people." You seem to have a rigid idea of what morality is involved here, with the Israelis the aggressors because they have stolen somebody else's land. My moral perception, is that there is nothing morally wrong with stealing land from people who stole it from you, and who have been exterminating or enslaving your people for 1,700 years, beginning with their own Prophet.

The Six Day War was begun by the Arabs who were flaunting their Soviet acquired military hardware and openly bragging about how easy it would be to destroy the Jews. So convinced of victory were they, that even Arab countries like Jordon, who wanted to keep out of it, felt that victory was so certain that they would look contemptuous in the eyes of their own people if they did not participate in the war. Nasser began the war with the blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat. A blockade is an act of war. Once war begins, then the aggressors who started it can hardly complain if the enemy they wanted to liquidate takes some of their territory, to make themselves more defensible.

Of course, this is what the Arabs are doing now. I find it incredible that people like yourself believe them, and cast them as the victims of the people they clamoured to wipe out.

Dear LEGO,

<<The Golan in particular has given them room to manoeuvre their armoured divisions>>

Armoured divisions are a weapon of the past. Anyway, the Syrian army no longer has available divisions for that, besides it's under obligation not to come close to the Golan, which is monitored by U.N. troops. If they come anywhere near, then Israel can retake the area in no time before Syria gets a chance to threaten anything.

<<Your position appears to be, that it is better to be exterminated while being moral>>

Extermination is not on the cards at the moment or for the foreseeable future - not because the Arabs wouldn't want to, but because they don't have the power to do so. Israel has recently obtained such new weapons that would crush any attempted attack faster than ever, including by Hezbollah.

As the people of Israel are already protected by their army well and beyond from any Arab threat, there is no need and no justification to use more force than required.

<<You seem to have a rigid idea of what morality is involved here, with the Israelis the aggressors because they have stolen somebody else's land.>>

Morality is involved in anything we do, but I didn't mention "aggressors" or "stolen land".

All I said is that holding onto those cursed territories is detrimental to Israel's well-being, that those territories are poisonous and ruin Israel from within. For years, while the Arabs constituted a tangible threat to Israel, one could argue that it is not safe to let go of those territories: now that the Arabs no longer threaten Israel (because they can't), Israel can afford to turn inward and repair the internal damage caused by the 1967 war - for its own good, not for the Arabs' sake.

If I were an Arab, then my best strategy would be to sit and do nothing, waiting patiently for Israel to be digested and disintegrated on its own by the trap it swallowed in 1967. Fortunately for Israel, it still exists because the continued foolish Arab provocations still keep it somewhat united.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<Of course, this is what the Arabs are doing now.>>

Are you referring to the international/diplomatic blockade?

Yes, some of the Arabs (not all) wisened up and reached the correct conclusion that there is no way they could obtain the destruction of Israel by military means.

Responding to a diplomatic attack by blind military force plays straight into the opponents' hands, proving their case - it's an "own goal".

<<I find it incredible that people like yourself believe them, and cast them as the victims>>

Are you perhaps confusing me for someone else? I don't believe the Arabs, nor have I written anything of such nature.

I love your wishful thinking and your determination to ignore reality in order for it to conform to your worldview.

Armoured divisions are not "obsolete." Where on Earth you got that one from is beyond me. Twenty years ago, idiots proclaimed that aircraft carriers were "obsolete", with the USA the only naysayer. Now Japan, China, Korea, Spain, Britain, and Italy are acquiring aircraft carriers.

The fact that Syria is engaged in a civil war only reduces the threat to Israel while that civil war rages. The winner may well be an even more anti Israel regime determined to crush Israel at any cost. UN "peacekeepers" have done a dismal job of ever keeping peace. The fact that you are claiming that if hostilities begin again, Israel could reoccupy Golan quickly, simply points out why they should never leave it in the first place. Golan was captured in 1967 more through luck and exceptional self sacrifice by Israeli paratroopers. They may not be that lucky again, and why should soldiers give their lives taking extremely important strategic positions just so some stupid peacenik politician can give it back?

The Arabs can't crush Israel because the Israelis have armoured divisions and room to manoeuvre them in the Golan. The southern Sinai border is looking shaky. The Israelis probably should have held onto Sinai and stayed at war with Egypt. The election of a Muslim Nazi regime under Morsi highlights the fact that most Egyptians want war with Israel anyway.

Now we get down to the "moral" question. You keep referring to the concept that what Israel is doing is "immoral". That holding the captured territories is "corrupting" Israel. Any reasonable person would consider this line of argument consistent with the idea that Israel has "stolen" Arab land. which is "immoral". But when I framed my last post to conform to what I thought was your position, you disowned it.

Alright then. explain to me how it is "immoral" for the Israelis to hold onto their own ancestral land that they have recaptured from their conquerors, who are still plotting their total extermination?

Dear LEGO,

<<Armoured divisions are not "obsolete." Where on Earth you got that one from is beyond me.>>

Even before, when one controlled the skies, nothing on the ground could move. The new high-tech weapons which Israel devloped recently, which no other country has, renders armoured-vehicles even more useless and clumsy.

<<The Arabs can't crush Israel because the Israelis have armoured divisions>>

Armoured-divisions are of no use in the diplomatic-front, and the Arabs are gradually discovering that. Had they forsaken armed-resistance altogether, Israel would have been crushed by now. Lucky for Israel to have such foolish enemies.

<<that most Egyptians want war with Israel anyway.>>

The Arabs are only puppets, sent to remind Israel of its moral deficiencies:

"O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.": Isaiah 10:5-6

<<Alright then. explain to me how it is "immoral" for the Israelis to hold onto their own ancestral land that they have recaptured from their conquerors, who are still plotting their total extermination?>>

I wasn't saying that.

It is the specific 1967 "6-day" war which was conducted in an immoral spirit and the arrogance in which it was conducted resulted in the corruption of the Israeli psyche and infected every aspect of Israeli society with violence. Israel should not enjoy the forbidden fruits of that particular war and, subject only to pure security-demands, should withdraw from all it had taken at the time, restoring its spirit of humility and reliance on God rather than on the strength of its arms.

Now that the balance-of-power is so extremely in favour of Israel, there are no longer such security-demands for Israel to remain in the occupied territories.

Should new circumstances force Israel to re-occupy this territory or another, it may-or-may-not be moral to do so, depending on the spirit in which Israel conducts that war.

Every significant military on planet earth has armoured divisions, brigades, or battalions. Every significant military on Earth has tanks. That is because tanks and armour are not obsolete. There may be new weapons that make armour more vulnerable, but armourers and tacticians soon figure out countermeasures. Your claim is wishful thinking with no basis in fact.

Your claim that Israel is now so strong that it need not remain in the "occupied" territories is an interesting opinion. My opinion is that it is nonsense. Your claim that the Six Day War was 'conducted in an immoral spirit" is bizarre. The Arabs started a war to wipe out Israel and you think it is "immoral" for the Israelis to fight back , win, and take territory from it's enemies.

Get it through your head that there is no way in the world that Israel will ever hand back the Golan. The Golan is a knife in Israel's back. Handing it back to Israel's enemies as some sort of gesture to a superior morality is not just militarily stupid, it is military insanity.

I always knew that you had a puritanical moral streak in you, Yuyutsu, but I did not realise that you were so fundamenalist that you had lost all touch with reality.