(...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.