Israel is justified in attacking gaza

"I also know it was a plan rejected by the Palestinians then. " You have just concealed something important from yourself. Originally, the Palestinians, indeed, supported the Plan. It wasnt until former PM Ben-Gurion est. the policy of ethnic cleansing (b/c jews were the minority) and said the following that the pals, AFTER the plan was put in place, rejected it, and I am quoting Israeli writer Benny Morris, in his book, "Expulsion of the Palestinians" on pages 170-180: Feb 7, 1948 "The war (1948 war) will give us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are only concepts for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning." "We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area, even if only in an artificial way, in a military way. . . . I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of [Palestinian] Arab population." HE IS TALKING ABOUT ETHNIC CLEANSING, WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT THE JEWS OUTNUMBERING THE ARABS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN PALESTINE. ""Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. " That is why, IN THE END, did the Palestinians refuse to acknowledge it, but they overwhelmingly approved of it in 1947. still were gaza, the west bank and j-lem given to the pals under the plan. Ben-gurion and his policies of mass ethnic cleansing were what brought arab rejection in the end. The "push isr. into the sea" is the most popular prop. used by the zionists and has nothing to do w/ the pals. I have noticed that you really have nothing to prove that the pals were the ones who said this. You keep bringing up syria, egypt, etc. (npr) and these countries are completely irrelevant to this conflict. They had nothing to do w/ any peace agreements b/w isr and pal. or anything of that matter. The fact is that you have nothing negative to say about the pals, except that they "reject" the isr. state which i have already proven wrong in R3. You talk about pushing the jews but you ignore the fact that over a million pals. were forcebly removed from their native villages as a result of ben-gurion's policy of ethnic cleansing and now have to live as refugees in foreign countries just so that the jews of brooklyn, moscow, etc can live there and so that they could be a majority. I am attacking your sources b/c they are NOT reliable. Wikipedia is terrible and is easily altered by people. Its really not that difficult. There are many other sources you can use. Ad hominem would mean im attacking u personally, but im not. Once again, egypt and jordan are irrelevant to this subject. They have nothing to do with this. Keep it simple. The problem with your case is that you think there is only an occupation. There is more than that. There is also oppression. The pals may have been "occupied" by jordan but they certainly were not oppressed and were not kicked out of their land b/c of ethnic cleansing like what isr. did. Jordan did not kill thousands of innocent pals. This is the diff. b/w jordan and israel. Pals are occupied b/c land was finally given to them to est. their own state under the 1947 plan which was internationally recog., and it was illegally taken away from them. Simple. Go back to R3. I have already proven w/ several sources that the PLO and Arafat accepted the two state solution. (keep in mind that I quoted mostly israeli-affiliated politicians and writers) "We also have statements by Both Syria and Egypt stating their intentions to destroy all of Israel." Yes, but you have NOT A SINGLE SOURCE, that the palestinians, intended to do the same. The fact of the matter is, the palestinians always welcomed and supported peace plans for the benefit of their people, and israel rejected them. In reality, the only country we see on the map is israel, not palestine. mideastfacts.com is what you gave as proof: "it is impossible for a permanent and just peace to be established in the area unless our Palestinian people recover all their national rights and, first and foremost, their rights to return and to self-determination on the whole of the soil of their homeland; " Has Israel abided by this? All of this was stated in UN res. 242 and is acknowledged by intl law. Israel refused to accept this given the fact that just a few yrs after the '67 did isr. illegally acquire the land that was to go to the pal. state. This was demanded by isr. BEFORE the '67 and '73 war. I already explained to you the interpretation of the hamas charter. Go back to R4. "We Have Israel offering back all land conquered in 1967." You still dont understand. Israel MUST and has been DEMANDED by intl law to give it back. Has it given it back yet? NO. And then you sit around and wonder why the pals. are fighting. "agrees to give the Palestinians limited self rule" WHEN??! Do the pals have this? NO. "Israel then offers a full state to the Palestinians in 2000." Where's the state?? Arafat in 2000 DID ACCEPT the 2000 peace plan. This was proven even as he shook hands w/ rabin in front clinton in thw white house lawn. It wasnt until ISRAEL, after the 2 shook hands, that it refused to give the 9% of the west bank that it wished to keep, that isr. was running an annexation running east from j-lem, and that the pal. state would be crippled by a lack of water and energy, which it was obligated to do as part of the plan. This was all rejected by israel. Clinton wanted Arafat to accept it, b/c clinton himself was worrying about his credibility and popularity and wanted to be the 1st U.S. Pres. to achieve peace b/w the 2 parties. As israel refuses to adhere to the WHOLE plan, arafat begins to step away from it, right after he saw that israel did not abide by it any longer. http://www.theage.com.au... http://query.nytimes.com... Hamas accepts two states http://www.rockymountainnews.com... http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://www.christianpost.com... http://news.bbc.co.uk... I dont think you understand something. The main reason why the pals, have resorted to cucide attacks and such IS B/C OF THE ISRAELI OCCUPATION AND THE FACT THAT IT HAS NOT ABIDED BY ANY PART OF INTL LAW. its not the other way around. Perfect ex. is annapolis. isrl 's construction of settlements during the peace talks was at a much more rapid rate than ever and abbas himself said this was a major impediment to the peace process. Israel has given NOTHING to the palestinians. If it did, PROVE IT. The pals dont have to give anthing to anyone. they are not the ones who grabbed all the land. they are legally entitled to what intl law says. By the way, Dershowitz's book is a proven fraud. He playgarized from several different sources. He has no credibility. http://www.fpp.co.uk... http://developing-your-web-presence.blogspot.com... http://www.gregfelton.com... Meir asks jordan not to fight http://www.google.com... www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtStEngPE.jhtml?itemNo=1067582&contrassID=2...5...'Jordan's%20King www.sixdaywar.co.uk/timeline-concise.htm "liar" Whose going with the adhominems now?