[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="themajormayor"] lulz what a piss poor analogy.themajormayor
Yeah, piss poor to compare a country that takes land that doesn't belong to them and puts restrictions on where the previous occupants can move and live to a country that takes land that doesn't belong to them and puts restrictions on where the previous occupants can move and live.
Let's see here the previous occupants were Jordan and Egypt who indeed OCCUPIED those areas. Israel was attacked from these areas and subsequentlyseized them. In other words a defensive action. And no Israel does not place any restrictions on Jordan or Egypt in that sense. And when did most if not all of the restrictions on the Palestinians came about (which is what I assume you are talking about)? After years of terrorism. Those lands are pretty much forced upon Israel.
So yes it is a piss poor comparision.
Seizing territory is not a defensive action, and since signing a treaty that ceded some of that territory they have continuously occupied it whenever it suits their fancy. I wonder how the U.S. would react if Mexico ever decided to deploy their military in Texas, it would just be defensive so no harm done, right?
Oh great, so any time militants use a country as a staging ground that gives other countries the right to forcefully restrict an entire population of people? Good to know, so if a U.S. citizen ever commits a terrorist attack against Canada they can just build a wall around us and restrict our travel, thanks for the precedent.
Also, similar arguments were used by European colonists to defend their aggression against Native Americans even though they were the ones who first seized the land, so again, apt comparison.
Log in to comment