Israel is justified in attacking gaza

This is a falsehood. Check the UN partition plan of 1947. It called for Israel as well as Palestine.simple. Jordan and Egypt have nothing to do with this since the plan did not include them. http://www.mfa.gov.il... http://electronicintifada.net... Pal. statehood became a major priority back in 1948 by not only the palestinians, but the UN countries who voted PRO. Just because some countries acquire territory illegally, doesnt give Israel the right to do the same. Countries like Israel who repeatedly violate international law are legitimately subject to condemnation. Im sure this has been applied to other countries. This is the fundamental principle, israel knew this, but it went ahead and did it, knowing it had the backing of the west. You cant refute intl law. Israel must respect. The intl consensus was supported by arafat and the PLO, just like with camp david, taba talks, and others i mentioned. i have proven this already. You can laugh all you want, but one thing is for sure. You failed to refute this as I have provided several peace talks with the palestinians, regardless of any leadership, supporting it, and all ending when israel refused to accept such proposals.you wont be able to prove this wrong. Chomsky puts this perfectly in his book, "Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians" on page 3 on the intl consensus with arafat. http://books.google.com... Israel is trying to give..." Falsehood. If it wanted to give them a country, it would have respected and abided by the partition plan of 1947, which called for a palestinian state. If it wanted to give them a country, it would not have used the 1967 war as an advantage to illegally acquire gaza, the west bank, and j-lem, which israel knew went toward a palestinian state and was part of the partition plan. This plan is not controversial and is not disputable. I plead that you go back and learn the plan. This is a very important plan. It seems like you probably never heard of it. " The only thing required by the Palestinians is to show that they will not kill Israel or seek its destruction. This is not achieved by terrorist suicide bombings, rocket attacks on civilians populations, elections of groups who state clearly that they want to destroy Israel, or of leaders who hold by charters seeking to destroy Israel. " I have already proven that the Palestinians, on many occasions, recognized not only the two-state solution, but the Jewish state of Israel. You have failed to refute this, and instead have chosen to laugh about it, failing to provide counter evidence. I have also given you plenty of evidence. Whether you like it or not, the Palestinians have always supported the two- state solution. Now, it's israel's turn to do its part. One more time: the suicide bombings, rocket attacks, etc are a DIRECT response to the ongoing illegal military occupation and oppression, as well as the indiscriminate killing of palestinians in the occupied territories and the rejection of the palestinian right to self determination and statehood. They will not just sit there and offer their oppressors a plate of gold and this is certainly not what the americans did under british occupation. The only contact the palestinians have with the jews are the soldiers and the settlers (excluding j-lem), with the settlers being some of the most radical people, and the soldiers who get orders to provoke the palestinians and continue to harass them at checkpoints and in their homes. They are completely separated from israeli civilians. If Israel wanted peace and a palestinian state, it would have: 1. given back gaza, w. bank, and j-lem as specifically stated by 1947 plan, UN res. 242, ICJ ruling, articles of 4th geneva convention 2. halted the construction of settlements, which is not only illegal under intl law, but in the process, steals land that is supposed to go towards a palestinian state 3. taken down the separation wall which is in breach of intl law 4. taken out the checkpoints which limits the freedom of movement for the pals, and anything that limits anyone's freedom of movement, is a direct violation of intl law. 5. released the thousands upon thousands of prisoners who have been arrested w/o trial before a judge and jury. this is not justified under a TRUE DEMOCRACY 6. stopped its killing of innocent civilians 7. abided by international law and the major intl orgs. Please do not use wikipedia. Wikipedia is known in the U.S. as an unreliable source and anyone can go in and manipulate the information. This is obvious here in this country. There is so much info out there and the best you can do is provide wikipedia? Not smart. "according to President Clinton WHO WAS THERE, he places the blame squarely on Arafat." HAHA. What are you talking about? Arafat shook yitzhak rabin's hand right in front of clinton, which marked the acceptance of the peace solution. I would like to see some RELIABLE evidence on clinton actually saying such a thing. "perhaps there were reservations by Barak, but they never got a chance to be discussed as the deal was rejected." Yes, a TEN PAGE LETTER FULL OF RESERVATIONS. Perhaps, this is why the Pals rejected it in the end. What could you possibly right in ten pages that doesnt go against the peace process?? " In 1967, in a war that Israel did not want...." Wow, that doesnt make sense. Israel didnt want the war, but wanted to take more land. I dont know whether to laugh or cry at that. Taking more land, which is illegal in war, is going to cause more problems in the future. Use a little common sense, please. "As Gaza showed, settlers and settlements can be removed" The gaza settlements were removed in 2006 when israel w/drew its troops. this was because it would be too much of a burden for israel to keep protecting them w/o troops. Israel not only, as ive stated before, is obligated to w/draw settlements from gaza as it did, but also in the west bank. " Currently there is no more land to make new Israeli towns." Exactly, that is why israel is now using up even more palestinian land to build more settlements. Recently, Olmert has approved construction of even more. http://www.nytimes.com... "Israel controls Jerusalem. Its a physical fact." Yes, that is why israel has to give it back. And please, dont bring up and say it is the jews' holiest city. you can go debate religon somewhere else. Isr. captured j-lem after the '67 war, a war in which jordan was not a part of. The Palestinians will not accept a state on israel's terms but on INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED terms. I would actually like to see you refute finkelstein's claim, but as you have proven w/o evidence, you cannot. For israel to give up j-lem, this is an obligation by law. Hamas recognizes '67 borders. The most recent proof is 6 yrs ago when it signed the arab league document supporting two states. In the charter, it says that israel must leave the territory captured in '67. That is what they mean by not recognizing israel. http://www.washingtonpost.com... hamas never offered temp. truces like you said. I said that hamas has offered israel LONG TERM Truces. Israel never left gaza. It still occupies it by land and sea. Isr repeatedly said, "we gave land (gaza) for peace"the Isr. govt mentioned nothing about its "own terms" but repeatedly said it left and got rockets in return. Proof was already given on isr bombing civil infras. you didnt provide any counter-evid. 6,348 pals killed ifamericansknew.com I apologize. Shlomo ben-ami not Aben.