Originally Posted by donsutherland1 Key point from the op-ed: This would indicate that Israel would admit all Palestinian refugees and all their descendants. Then, Israel would cease to be a Jewish majority state. Once that is achieved, the democratic process could be exploited to bring about Israel's political extinction. Those are the ugly terms of Mr. Marzook's seemingly soothing message.

Originally Posted by donsutherland1 Israel was attacked in 1948. Israel was illegally blockaded in 1956 and 1967 and had a right of self-defense to break out of attempts to strangle it. Israel was attacked in 1973. Had the UN responded to break the illegal 1967 blockade, one would not be discussing territories that were captured in that war today. Instead, the UN ignored Israel's plight. In all of these cases, Israel was the victim of aggression. That Israel successfully fought back does not change the reality that Israel was confronted with aggression.

You have well-established your personal opinion toward that end. That you hold such an opinion is not at issue. The legal and historical facts (jurisdiction, diplomatic process, United Nations proceedings, historic legitimacy shared by Arabs and Jews, inherent right of self-determination enjoyed by all peoples, etc.) argue against the "aggressive imposition" narrative that is held by the Arabs. That is their perspective to which they are entitled if they so choose. However, that perspective alone does not change the legal facts associated with Israel's re-establishment nor the reality that it was the Arabs who initiated aggression aimed at conquering the newly re-established Israel in 1948.

Incorrect. From the May 15, 1948 edition of The New York Times:

Air raiders bombed this all-Jewish city [Tel Aviv] at dawn today...

Cairo reported that Egyptian armed forces had been ordered to enter palestine. Arab armies moved from Trans-Jordan at 12:01 A.M. Saturday [May 15] to "liberate the Holy Land from Zionism," said a Trans-Jordan communiqué reported by The United Press from Amman...

The planes swooped over Tel Aviv little more than twleve hours after Jewish leaders proclaimed the existence of a new hebrew state of Israel...

In April 1948, the Arabs had threatened to invade the region once the British Mandate expired. The Arabs threatened aggression to impose their will and, once Israel was re-established, carried out their threat. No news story reported Israel's initiating an invasion of neighboring Arab lands to start the 1948 war.

Furthermore, it should be noted that naval blockades (as were imposed against Israel in 1956 and 1967) have long been considered an act of war. They are covered in such conventions as the Treaty of Paris of 1856. Not surprisingly, they are also specifically cited as an act of aggression by such instruments as a 1933 Convention between the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Turkey and UN General Assembly Resolution 3314.

Egypt engaged in aggression against Israel in imposing its blockades. Israel exercised its inherent right of self-defense to break those blockades. Therefore, Egypt and not Israel was the aggressor in those wars.

Fictitious accounts do not create "balance." If anything, they highlight the flimsiness of the opinion that Israel and not the Arabs initiated the aggression beginning in 1948 that led to today's situation.

Originally Posted by donsutherland1 [left] However, that perspective alone does not change the legal facts associated with Israel's re-establishment nor the reality that it was the Arabs who initiated aggression aimed at conquering the newly re-established Israel in 1948.

Originally Posted by Jenin Jewish militants and terrorists captured arab towns and villages and evicted their inhabitants before the arab armies entered palestine.

You argue that the right of return is againts the legal basis of partion plan, yet you fail to cite where it is that this plan stipulated the ethnic cleansing of palestinians to accomodate a jewish majority.

Originally Posted by Jenin These lawyer tactics of yours might impress and convince an American judge that knows little about the conflict, but it does not pass the test of facts continuing to emerge. Jewish militants and terrorists captured arab towns and villages and evicted their inhabitants before the arab armies entered palestine. Over 300,000 palestinian civilians fled for fear of their lives or were forced out of their homes by yishuv terrorists before a single arab soldier entered palestine. Before the "official" war even started, Israelis captured arab towns and villages outside the partition lines. You fail to mention these ugly truths. You fail to mention the different plans of "Transfer" and eviction the occurred. You argue that the right of return is againts the legal basis of partion plan, yet you fail to cite where it is that this plan stipulated the ethnic cleansing of palestinians to accomodate a jewish majority. The partition plan created a home land for jews but did not give the jews the right to expell and deny the majority owners of the land from their homes. In fact, countless resolutions had been passed explicitly calling for the right of return. The admittance of Israel as a member state to the united nations was conditional on Israel meeting it's legal obligations to allow the natives of palestine their freedom.

Originally Posted by donsutherland1 [left] You have well-established your personal opinion toward that end. That you hold such an opinion is not at issue. The legal and historical facts (jurisdiction, diplomatic process, United Nations proceedings, historic legitimacy shared by Arabs and Jews, inherent right of self-determination enjoyed by all peoples, etc.) argue against the "aggressive imposition" narrative that is held by the Arabs. That is their perspective to which they are entitled if they so choose. However, that perspective alone does not change the legal facts associated with Israel's re-establishment nor the reality that it was the Arabs who initiated aggression aimed at conquering the newly re-established Israel in 1948.

Incorrect. From the May 15, 1948 edition of The New York Times: Air raiders bombed this all-Jewish city [Tel Aviv] at dawn today... Cairo reported that Egyptian armed forces had been ordered to enter palestine. Arab armies moved from Trans-Jordan at 12:01 A.M. Saturday [May 15] to "liberate the Holy Land from Zionism," said a Trans-Jordan communiqué reported by The United Press from Amman... The planes swooped over Tel Aviv little more than twleve hours after Jewish leaders proclaimed the existence of a new hebrew state of Israel... In April 1948, the Arabs had threatened to invade the region once the British Mandate expired. The Arabs threatened aggression to impose their will and, once Israel was re-established, carried out their threat. No news story reported Israel's initiating an invasion of neighboring Arab lands to start the 1948 war.

Furthermore, it should be noted that naval blockades (as were imposed against Israel in 1956 and 1967) have long been considered an act of war. They are covered in such conventions as the Treaty of Paris of 1856. Not surprisingly, they are also specifically cited as an act of aggression by such instruments as a 1933 Convention between the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Turkey and UN General Assembly Resolution 3314. Egypt engaged in aggression against Israel in imposing its blockades. Israel exercised its inherent right of self-defense to break those blockades. Therefore, Egypt and not Israel was the aggressor in those wars.

Fictitious accounts do not create "balance." If anything, they highlight the flimsiness of the opinion that Israel and not the Arabs initiated the aggression beginning in 1948 that led to today's situation.

Originally Posted by donsutherland1 There was an ongoing low-level ethnic conflict between the area's Jewish and Arab peoples. I have mentioned this on numerous occasions. More importantly, UNSCOP also recognized this reality. In part, that conflict made partition necessary.

There was no ethnic cleansing. The term "ethnic cleansing" first gained international usage during the Balkans civil war (Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia) during the early 1990s. Andrew Bell-Fialkoff, formerly a Research Fellow at the Center for the Study of Small States, has extensively studied historic events that might fit the definition of ethnic cleansing. He provided the following definition:

At the most general level...ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these. Israel has not engaged in the expulsion of Arabs from its boundaries. It is not engaging in such practices. Most of Israel's non-Jewish population (now 1.5 million) is comprised of Arabs. Israel's Arab population enjoys the rights of Israeli citizens including but not limited to educational opportunities, employment, and political participation.

From today's edition of The Jerusalem Post:

"If you keep up the resistance you will succeed in being victorious," Larijani [incoming Iranian parliamentary speaker, Ali Larijani] told Haniyeh [Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh].

In response, Haniyeh asserted that "[Hamas] will never stop battling the Zionist enemy."

This latest expression of rejectionism by the Palestinian terrrorist organization underlines that Hamas remains unwavering in its desire to eliminate Israel.