[JasonC]

They blew up hotels, civilians were killed, it was a terrorist war. They did not distinguish themselves as combatants, did not observe the laws of war, etc. Facts are stubborn things. I draw no greater conclusions from it, Israel is independent by right of conquest regardless of the crimes of some in the distant past. But there were such crimes at Israel's founding and before, and it is lying to maintain otherwise. Lying for which there is no need.

Yes the US attacked Iraq. No the UN doesn't have anything to do with any of it, being a toothless talking shop with no relevance to the control of territories or the safety of peoples. Israel, Britain, and France attack Egypt in 1956. Bare fact, nothing more to be read into it. Nowhere did I say or imply that attacking enemies is forbidden by anyone or anything. On the contrary, I explicitly said disputing the outcome of the last conquest is called waging war.

You appear rhetorically to buy into legalistic theories you don't not actually believe and that have no operative force in the real world. You also avoid, distort, or deny obvious historical facts for reasons apparently connected to apologetics about them. You impute inferences about rights of self preservation etc where none have been so much as hinted. To me, all are symptoms of the same underlying problem. A reluctance to live in the real world, taking facts as they are.

No doubt the legalistic fantasies involved weren't made by you, and you are kicking against them. Fine by me, but why live inside that straightjacket at all? Things are so much clearer out here. Where no man needs to ask for what he can defend with his own hands.

[dervish]

"They blew up hotels, civilians were killed, it was a terrorist war."

"Hotels?" Plural? One Hotel, The King David which happened to be MILITARY HEADQUARTERS for the British forces. It is you who are having trouble with historical facts and who are "lying" and or ignorant of such salient details. Further three separate advance warnings were given prior to the bombing but ignored by the British who were in denial about the threat from a bunch of Jews.

"You appear rhetorically to buy into legalistic theories you don't not actually believe and that have no operative force in the real world. You also avoid, distort, or deny obvious historical facts for reasons apparently connected to apologetics about them. You impute inferences about rights of self preservation etc where none have been so much as hinted. To me, all are symptoms of the same underlying problem. A reluctance to live in the real world, taking facts as they are. "

Uh, I'm not the subject here and spare me the psychobabble. Talk history and facts. Give references, but leave out the ad hominem signs that you have lost the debate.