(Vanity) Explain to me why it's "OK" for Israel to have settlements on The West Bank?

Nope, sonny. Egypt threatened to blockade Aquba but got word from DC to cool it. No way was Egypt capable of any tactical advantage in the Med.

1. No blockade.

The Syrians lobbed shells into the settlements after the settlers destroyed the Syrian crops.

2. No unprovoked attack.

As for the Jordanians? They offered the Allenby Bridge to Tel-Aviv and were dismissed.

3. No attack.

4. Go and sin no more...and if you ever call me a liar again, I'll kick your JKL arse back into the sewer.

If we maintained strict neutrality

Neutrality with the regards of an ally to exist? Why is it that Muslims think they can live anywhere in the world they wish, but Jews and others cannot live in the Mideast? There were Jews in the Mideast and Christians long before there was such a thing as Islam ---so Islam has no special ownership of the Mideast or anywhere else.

If we did maintain strict neutrality we would not have helped the Albanian Muslims against the Serbs --and I don't see Arab whining about our involvement in that. We should have let the Serbs do what they wished in their country if we should stay out of the Middle East affairs.

Conquest through colonization--same as the Mexicans are doing to the U.S. Southwest. It's OK only because they have the military might to do so, and boobs in the US are taught that might makes right, so Israel can do no wrong.

The US didn't just conquer and annex the southwest -- it gave resident Mexicans full rights of US citizenship, as was proper.

The demographics are against them, though, and the Moslems will win out in the end, just as the Mexicans will outbreed the passive Norteamericanos here.

Not entirely true. Intermarriage in the US is extensive. And America is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious democracy, and its assimilation is strong. Most Mexicans will assimilate and become Americans. If one or another race, religion, or ethnic group dominates, it doesn't matter. We're all still Americans.

Nope, sonny. Egypt threatened to blockade Aquba but got word from DC to cool it. No way was Egypt capable of any tactical advantage in the Med.
1. No blockade.
The Egyptians closed the Straites of Tiran (Gulf of Aquaba) and Suez canal to Israeli shipping. That is a blockade.

The Syrians lobbed shells into the settlements after the settlers destroyed the Syrian crops.
Just like Israel is currently lacing Egyptian chewing gum with pheremones.
There were no "settlers" in 1967. (Unless you consider any and all of Israel a settlement.) There were only Jewish communities in internationally recognized borders.

As for the Jordanians? They offered the Allenby Bridge to Tel-Aviv and were dismissed.

Who invaded whom? Jordan invaded Israel 2 days into the war. Try again.

3. Dream on

4. What does "JKL" mean?

Who invaded whom? Jordan invaded Israel 2 days into the war.

Ah, so now you admit Israel was not attacked; 'bout time.

JDL

Israel launched a pre-emptive strike.
Israel was not attacked.
Israel was hassled
Israel stunned the Arabs in retaliation; they deserved it...but Israel was not attacked...
Therefore the United Nations issued 242 and until Israel accepts that verdict there will be terrible atrocities on both sides.
Israel thumbs its nose. Arafat thumbs his nose and struts as if he actually has some Authority.
It is way past time for Israel to withdraw. It is time for Arafat to declare himself Chairman of the Central Committee again and allow the election of a Prime Minister who can talk to the Israeli PM and let Chairman Arafat talk to Israel's President.

If your crowd of zealots would tell the truth for a change then the world would be less inclined to believe the Arab lies. Counting bodies and playing victim will get you nowhere. Rewriting history won't even allow Israel moral supremacy.

Just in case you don't understand?

Israel launched a pre-emptive strike; Israel was not attacked and given the circumstances overplayed their hand, thus setting up decades of killing.

Did the Arabs instigate their own destruction? Yes, but the world doesn't accept it.

Close down the JDL and Hamas.
Gag the right and left wing zealots on both sides.

Don't try again, until you can tell the truth.

I wrote:
" Who invaded whom? Jordan invaded Israel 2 days into the war. "
Harrowup responded:
Ah, so now you admit Israel was not attacked; 'bout time.

It's not true. Syria attacked Israel and Egypt commited an act of war before Israel responded. (Although, as they composed the United Arab Republic, either would be legitimate reasons to attack both Cairo and Damascus.) Jordan was pressured into the war by Nasser.

JDL
Ah. That bunch of idiots give Right-wing Zionists a bad name.

Israel launched a pre-emptive strike.
Check your definitiuon of pre-emptive.
Israel was not attacked.
Silly me. I thought being shelled and having your trade cut off in a blockade (closing the straights of Tiran) were acts of war against Israel.
Israel was hassled
The terrorist attacks were hassles. The shelling and blockade on Elat were acts of war.
Israel stunned the Arabs in retaliation; they deserved it...but Israel was not attacked
Half right.

Therefore the United Nations issued 242 and until Israel accepts that verdict there will be terrible atrocities on both sides

1. The Arabs, epsecially the Palestinians want to destroy Israel. The true issue isn't Tulkarim, but Tel-Aviv.
2. Israel has given up most of the territory gained. Israel will end up giving up more territory. 242 does not call for Israel to give up evertyhing. Check the text.

It is way past time for Israel to withdraw.
To what borders?

It is time for Arafat to declare himself Chairman of the Central Committee again and allow the election of a Prime Minister who can talk to the Israeli PM and let Chairman Arafat talk to Israel's President.
Arafat comes from the same school of thought as Mugabe. He will not allow free election. He will allow no real opposition

Not if you only believe the Arab lies.

Israel launched a pre-emptive strike; Israel was not attacked and given the circumstances overplayed their hand, thus setting up decades of killing.

1. Israel was attacked and launchede a pre-empotion of an invasion.
2. The killing started in 1923. The Arabs have been at war with Israe from 1948. Only Jordan and Egypt have made peace, and both reserve the right to attack Israel.

Did the Arabs instigate their own destruction? Yes, but the world doesn't accept it.

There are 22 Arab countries, including 1 Palestinian one on the East Bank. What are you talking about?

Close down the JDL and Hamas.
Gag the right and left wing zealots on both sides.

Gag? Sorry, but I believe in free speech.

I do not agree with the reaction of the minority of Palestinians who participate in terrorism but to ignore one of the root causes, Israel's failure to abide by legitimate treaty, is ignorance.

First of all, it is not a minority of Palestinians, polls show over 80% of them support it.

Secondly, calling it a root cause of terrorism is nonsense. Let's follow the logic here, Israel expands settlements, so a Palestinian who is generally very peace loving, but cannot live in peace because of the terrible Israelis, decides to strap 50 pounds of explosives to his chest and blow himself in a night club where Israelis who know very little about politics and are not even of legal age to vote are dancing and listening to music.

Terrorism comes from evil people the majority of the Palestinians support terror; the majority of Palestinians are evil people. This may seem rather simple and black and white, but that's how I view the world.

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.