On Federal Taxation in the United States

Oct 22, 2014 20:38:42 GMT pjohns1873 said:

(1) The war we are currently discussing--the 1967 war--is an excellent example of a pre-emptive war that "wasn't based upon a rationalization." (You appear to harbor a desire for revisionist history, in an attempt to make it appear otherwise.)

(2) See #1.

(3) It is certainly true that any pre-emptive war is the result of a nation's having "the intent of preventing the necessity for a defensive war." So what? That is a bit like one's saying that receiving the annual flu shot has the intent of preventing the necessity for hospitilazition, due to a serious illness. Why should that be regarded as a bad thing?

(4) If the Palestinians really wanted a sovereign state, next to Israel, they could have already had it. Remember the negotiations featuring the late Yasser Arafat and then-American President Bill Clinton, in December 2000?  

(1) The 1967 6-Day war was never a "pre-emptive" war as it was based upon the Zionist agenda of ultimately acquiring all of Palestine and as a Jewish State. This Zionist agenda is documented in the Israeli Declaration of Independence where it (incorrectly) cites the Balfour Declaration that (the Zionists claim) established the foundation for a Jewish State in all of Palestine. They also (incorrectly) cite the British Mandate for Palestine that (the Zionists claim) established the foundation for a Jewish State in all of Palestine. Of course neither the Balfour Declaration or the British Mandate for Palestine called for a Jewish State in Palestine in the warped minds of the Zionists all of Palestine belongs to the Jews.

(2) Egypt had absolutely no intentions of invading Israel in 1967If and was militarily incapable of doing so.

(3) The "pre-emption" is at best based upon an conjecture as opposed to facts. They are always "offensive" and not "defensive" wars by nature. By analogy it's like walking into a bar and hitting another person you don't like over the head with a bar stool because that person might have started a fight with you later that evening. The so-called "pre-emptive" war is nothing but a pure act of aggression based upon conjecture and rationalizations.

As I've noted repeatedly, based upon the long-standing agenda of the Zionists, the 1967 6-Day war was a "Land Grab" rationalized based upon the pretense of the war being "pre-emptive" when we know that Egypt had no intentions whatsoever of attacking and invading Israel at all. It was a war of aggression by Israel.

(4) Never has Israel been willing to withdraw from the territories it militarily accupied in 1967 based upon the "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." 

Israel has never shown any inclination to allow a Palestinian State within the internationally recognized borders of Palestine.

That is why there is no peace.

Oct 24, 2014 23:45:07 GMT pjohns1873 said:

(1) The 1967 war was clearly not based upon some Israeli "agenda." 

(2) If Egypt harbored "absolutely no intention of invading Israel in 1967," it really should not have pretended otherwise. 

(3) As concerning your analogy: It is really more like a belligerent customer's picking up a bar stool and threatening to smash you in the face with it; and your hitting him first, instead of waiting to see if he really means what he just threatened.

(4) You still have not answered why the late Yasser Arafat rejected a peace deal in 2000, that would have given the Palestinians their own state. 

(1) You ask me to believe that the Zionist agenda of creating a Jewish State in ALL of Palestine that had existed since 1917 and the Balfour Declaration was somehow abandoned for a moment in 1967 while there are still Zionists today with that same agenda. Seriously? The leopard does not change it's spots.

(2) The Egyptian military was occupying defensive, not offensive positions, along the Israel border.

(3) Both the Israeli and Egyptian political rhetoric was threatening. When both sides are shouting threats at each other then whoever throws the first punch is in the wrong. The treaty between Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq was a mutual defense treaty established because of threats by Israel leading up to the war. Why do so many seem to forget that fact? Israel was "itching for a war" because it knew that Egypt, Jordan and Syria could not stand up to the Israeli military.   

(4) I believe the primary reason Arafat did not agree in 2000 was Israel was not willing to withdraw from all of the Palestinian territory it had occupied in 1967 (in compliance with the conditions of UNSC 242) and withdraw the Israeli settlements (in compliance with Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions).  Additionally Israel has always demanded that the Palestinians must formally declare that Israel is a "Jewish State" and that is a BS requirement. Additionally, while my memory isn't perfect, I believe that the peace agreement would have prohibited the "State of Palestine" from ever having a military capable of defending the nation. In short Israel wanted to always ensure that it could invade "Palestine" at will but the Palestine couldn't defend itself from Israel. 

Oct 25, 2014 20:01:26 GMT pjohns1873 said:

(1) What I ask you "to believe" is any reputable history of this incident--not mere historical revisionism.

(2) That makes just about as much sense as it would for the US to place soldiers along the border with Canada for purely "defensive" purposes.

(3) This is surely the final, desperate attempt of those who have no better argument to make:  moral symmetry.  (It is as if one were to assert that both the Nazis and the Jews were at fault, as regarding the Holocaust.)

(4) Why shouldn't the Palestinians (and the entire world, for that matter) recognize Israel for precisely what it is: i.e. a Jewish state?  

Oh, and if the late Yasser Arafat were displeased with some of the terms of the proposed agreement--rather than his just being an obstructionist--he could have negotiated further... 

(1) The "Reputable history" of the 1967 6-Day war, after removing all political rationalizations, is that Israel invaded Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Israel was the aggerssor in 1967 as it launched the first strike and Egypt, Jordan, and Syria all responded to a vicious attack by Israel. There can only be one side defending itself and Egypt, Jordan, and Syria were all acting in self-defense in response to an Israeli invasion.

(2) We've stationed (National Guard) troops along the Mexican border. Was our intent to invade Mexico? We have US troops stationed in South Korea along the border with North Korea. Is our intent to invade North Korea?

(3) Hitler and the Nazis oppressed the Jews while today Netanyahu and the Zionists oppress the Arabs. The oppressed in Nazi Germany became to oppressors in Palestine. Sadly what I foresee in the future is that unless the Zionist Jews resort to the "final solution" (which is what the Nazis did) when the Arab citizens of Israel become the voting majority, which is predicted to happen, the "oppressed" today will also become the "oppressors" of tomorrow.

(4) The national character of Israel is a determination by the People of Israel and it has absolutely nothing to do with the recognition of the sovereignty of Israel and it's right to live without external threats within it's recognized (pre-1967) borders. No other nation has the right or the authority to define the national character of Israel, Palestine, Iran, the United States, or any other nation as that is solely the right of the people of their own country.

Oct 27, 2014 20:09:59 GMT pjohns1873 said:

(1) To what book do you refer, as a "reputable history," that claims that Israel was the aggressor in the 1967 war, if only we were to remove "all political rationalizations"?

(2) The troops stationed along the DMZ in South Korea--as you must surely be aware--are there to serve as a tripwire: North Korea (as unhinged as some of its leaders have surely been) would not likely invade the South, thereby assuring an American response.

(3) What is your evidence that the Israelis (through their prime minister) "oppress the Arabs" today?

(4) You appear to acknowledge that the Israelis have the authority to define Israel as a Jewish state, in accordance with their "national character."  Do you not further recognize that they should be acknowledged by others as precisely what they define themselves to be?   

(1) Below is a summary of the events leading up to the invasion of Egypt by Israel in 1967. No where in it does it even imply any intention of a invasion of Israel by Egypt (or Jordan or Syria). In this summary all political propaganda has been removed.

After the 1956 Suez Crisis, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Sinai to ensure all parties would comply with the 1949 Armistice Agreements.[2][3][4] Despite the overwhelming support for Resolution 1000 in the UN General Assembly, Israel refused to allow UNEF forces onto its territory.[5] In the following years, there were numerous minor border clashes between Israel and its Arab neighbors, particularly Syria. In early November, 1966, Syria signed a mutual defense agreement with Egypt.[6] On November 13, 1966, in response to PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) guerrilla activity,[7][8] including a mine attack that left three dead,[9] the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) attacked the village of as-Samu in the Jordanian-occupied West Bank.[10] Jordanian units that engaged the Israelis were quickly beaten back.[11] King Hussein of Jordan criticized Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser for failing to come to Jordan's aid, and "hiding behind UNEF skirts".[12][13] Israel was censured for this invasion in United Nations Security Council Resolution 228, being reproached by the US, the UK, France and the USSR.[14] On April 7, 1967 Israel invaded Syria.[15] The USSR urged that the collective defense agreement with Egypt had been triggered.[16] In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border.

Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[17][18] Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[19][20] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22–23. On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact. The following day, at Jordan's invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armored units in Jordan.[21] They were later reinforced by an Egyptian contingent. On June 1, Israel formed a National Unity Government by widening its cabinet, and on June 4 the decision was made to go to war. The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that launched the Six-Day War.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Six-Day_War

The National Unity Government decided to start the war, not the Egyptians. The 6-Day war was a war of aggression by Israel and not a war of aggression by Eygpt, Jordan, or Syria.

(2) North Korean leadership, as you correctly acknowledge, is "unhinged" as is very unlikely to invade South Korea even though is has massed troops along it's Southern border at all times. Egypt in 1967 was certainly far more rational that North Korea today and while it had moved troops into the Sinia in response to Israeli incursions into Jordan and Israeli provocations agianst Syria this was a defensive action based upon a mutual defense treaty. There was never any evidence that Egypt had any intention of launching an offensive military invasion of Israel. Even the political rhetoric from Egypt that it would wipe Israel off the map was prefaced by the "If Israel invades" although that was often omitted from the political rhetoric.

(3) www.palestinechronicle.com/palestinian-displacement-in-east-jerusalem/

(4) Israel can define it's own national character anyway it chooses and it is inappropriate for any other nation to formally declare Israel to be anything. It is also ironic that Netayahu has repeatedly stated that the peace talks carry no "preconditions" when Israel has never dropped the pre-condition that a peace accord is predicated upon a formal declaration by the Palestinians that Israel is the national Jewish Homeland. We know the nefarious reason for this is based upon the fact that the claim that the Jews have a "right" to Palestine because they happened to live there over 2,000 years ago is BS. That claim by the Zionists has no more validity than a Native-American claim today that all of the United States belongs to them and therefore all of European decent should be forced to return to Europe and a Native-American Homeland be established in the United States. Lest we forget Judea was also the homeland of Arabs 2,000 years ago as well.

Oct 29, 2014 20:51:03 GMT pjohns1873 said:

(1) According to your own source, "In early November, 1966, Syria signed a mutual defense agreement with Egypt. On November 13, 1966, in response to PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) guerrilla activity, including a mine attack that left three dead, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) attacked the village of as-Suma in the Jordanian-occupied West Bank."  (Bold added) 

You also cite "false reports" that Egypt received from the Soviet Union, thereby prompting its action.

How you have concluded from this that Israel was the aggressor, I have no idea.

(2) If there was "never any evidence" that Egypt intended to attack Israel, it seems passing strange that it did precisely that. (See #1.)

(3) I find it interesting that you have cited The Palestinian Chronicle as your source, as if it were a trustworthy, neutral source...

(4) I believe it is perfectly proper for the Israeli leader--whethe Benjamin Netanyahu or anyone else--to insist that Israel be recognized as the Jews' homeland.     

(1) The PLO was not the Jordanian military and the terrorist attack by a few radical Palestinians did not represent any threat to the national security of Israel by Jordan. Yes, there were "false" reports from the USSR that lead Egypt to believe Israel was about to invade prompting Eygpt to move it's troops into the Sinai but remember this was a defensive movement by Egypt in response to a preceived threat prompted by false intelligence. It actually explains why Egypt moved it's troops into the Sinai to defend against a possible Israeli invasion. Egypt had every right to act in this manner because it believed that Israel was going to invade. As the article notes there was a "mutual defense treaty" and not an alliance to attack and invade Israel by the Arab states.

Israel invaded Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967 and the invasion of another country is an act of aggression, PERIOD.

(2) There is absolutely nothing in your response #1 that relates to "invasions" of Israeli territory by Egyptian, Jordanian, or Syrian military forces. In fact there was never any movement at any time of Egyptian, Jordanian or Syria military forces into even one square foot of Israeli territory in 1967.

(3) Let's see, if I cite Mosha Dayan the source is unacceptable to you and if I cite the The Palestinian Chronicle the source is unacceptable to you. You've apparently been so sucked into believing Zionist propaganda that the "turth" is unacceptable to you because any source that disputes the Zionist propaganda is unacceptable to you.  

(4) I've already provided the evidence that the "European Jews" don't have an actual historical connection to the Middle East. Once again you're believing the Zionist propaganda and the "truth" is unacceptable to you.

Oct 31, 2014 19:37:49 GMT pjohns1873 said:

(1) You (apparently) find it morally acceptable for Egypt to have moved its troops into the Sinai--as if to invade Israel--just as long as it was vitimized by "false reports" from the USSR.

(2) The PLO may have been technically separate from the Egyptian government; but one should be able to see why Israel would have considered it a proxy for Egypt, especially considering Egypt's actions, which looked aggressive to many people at the time.

(3) I have noted, previously, that the citation of Moshe Dayan is trite, as it is trotted out by just about everyone who takes the anti-Israeli position. And it is entirely unrelated to your citation of The Palestinian Chronicle. which most neutral observers, I believe, would view a highly tendentious source.

(4) I have addressed this matter in another thread.  

Egypt, along with every other country on the planet, has the authority to move it's military forces anywhere it damn well pleases within it's territorial borders and can do so for any damn reason it pleases. As long as it doesn't move it's military forces into another country (i.e. invade another country) it has violated no international laws or conventions.

No, Israel could not consider the PLO to be a proxy for the Egyptian government and the PLO never at anytime represented any threat to the national sovereignty of Israel. By analogy al Qaeda and ISIS do not represent any threat to the sovereignty of the United States today. They can represent a criminal threat to the United States but not a threat against our sovereignty as a nation.

Living in the United States typically all we ever get is the regurgitated Israeli propaganda in our press. It is our responsibility to sort through all of the information available to remove fact from fiction and most of the Israeli (Zionist) propaganda is pure fiction. When "facts" are compared to the Zionist propaganda we truly find out how much of their propaganda is pure lies. Sadly you don't seem to be able to sort out the facts and the fiction when it comes to Israel.  

European Jews, the majority of which had no historical connection to the Middle East, did not have any right to displace the residents of "Palestine" to create a new nation. The rights of the existing population in "Palestine" were supreme over any claims made by Europeans.

Nov 10, 2014 22:04:54 GMT pjohns1873 said:

The Jewish people did not merely declare a right to the land once known as Palestine. The state of Israel was authorized after the end of WWII; it was not a mere fait accompli by European Jews.

I find it interesting that you believe that most of what is reported in the American press, as regarding Israel, is mere "propaganda."  How might anyone argue with someone who looks so askance at our common reporting?

There is a big difference between a "right" and comportment with international decency.  And what Egypt did--marshalling its troops along the border--was no more decent that Russia's doing so, in 2014, with regard to Ukraine.

I also find it interesting that you--like President Obama--consider ISIS and al-Qaeda to be mere "criminal threa," but not actual threats to our "national sovereignty"--even though they have declared war upon the US (unlike run-of-the-mill criminals).    

(For some inexplicable reason, part of this post has been struck; and I cannot seem to change it.  I really do not know what is wrong.) 

I assume that you're referring to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 in stating that the Jews were "authorized" a right of land in Palestine at the end of WW II. Unfortunately you've apparently not read the UN Charter as the role of the UNGA is limited to a advisory capacity and it can't "authorize" anything. It created a proposal for partition for those living in Palestine with UNGA 181 subject to the approval of those living in Palestine to resolve a civil war (started by the Zionists at the end of WW I). There should have been a vote of all those living in Palestine on the proposal made by the UNGA in Resolution 181 but instead the representative agencies addressed it. The Jewish Council, representing about 1/3rd of those living in Palestine ultimately accepted it while the Arab Authorty, representing about 2/3rds of the people living in Palestine rejected it. The last time I did the math 2/3rds is greater than 1/3rd so it wasn't even a "draw" as the proposal was rejected.

Only based upon a majority vote (which did not occur) or the mutual concurrence of the representative bodies (which did not occur) could the partition plan recommended by the UNGA have been adopted in Palestine. Only the People of Palestine (or their representatives) had the "authority" to do anything in Palestine.

Not even war threatens the sovereignty of a nation if the entity, be it another nation or ISIS or Al Qaeda, attacking the nation does not have the capability of actually taking physical possession of the country. Japan and Germany, for example, never represented an actual threat to the sovereignty of the United States as even combined they were incapable of invading and conquering the United States. They can certainly cause harm but harm alone does not create a threat to national sovereignty. Only conquest violates national sovereignty.

In a very real sense the Zionist take-over of part of Palestine in 1948 violated the sovereignty of the "Palestinian People" that were comprised overwhelmingly of Arabs with a significant minority population of Jews both of which were Palestinians at the time.