Nazi Sharon Borrows Stalin's Idea

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Goat Fucker

No Future!
Aug 18, 2000
2,625
0
0
Denmark
Visit site
Quite right there MD, this wont end for centuries to come, the hate is passed down from one generation to the next, and neither side will admit that they are actually partly to blame.

That leaves us with only two outcomes:

1) a war of total anihilation.

2) Centuries pass like this, untill both sides are so sick of it that they just plain quit.

Unfortunately, #1 seems to be most likely to happen, more so considdering Israels escilating agressiveness (and yes i know the Palestenians arent any better, but its kinda hard to catagorize civilian militias).
 

Mad_Dog

Voice Of Reason
Mar 27, 2001
2,216
0
0
Soviet Canuckistan
www.planetunreal.com
Originally posted by RogueLeader
I am not anti-Israel in general, and unfortunately many Arabs have turned their hate of Israel's occupation into a hate of Jew's in general. Israel should stick to its borders, and everything would be fine. Palestine was actually getting back what was rightful theirs before; Israel was gradually scaling back what it had taken, so that both countries could exist in peace. Sharon changed all that (I would expect nothing more from a war criminal). In a way I am less sympathetic to Israel now; it's hard to be sympathetic when they have resumed mass killings.

Oh, and glad to you're back.;)
Cool, I see where you're coming from now. And I'm not really back... (although you can't ever reallyleave:).) I just wanted to say something ever since you started this thread... it was like a gnawing hunger in my mind.:D
 

})FA|Snake

New Member
Aug 5, 2000
1,661
0
0
Visit site
I'm pretty neutral in this, af far as i'm concerned both sides have equal claim to the land. However i'm a little partial to isreal because all the territory they've taken past their original border was taken in wars started by surronding muslim nations
 

RogueLeader

Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"
Oct 19, 2000
5,314
0
0
Indiana. Kill me please.
Actually Snake, it has been found recently that Britain and France, in league with Israel, instigated the wars. Britain and France wanted Isreal to counter Egypt's power when the canal was nationalized (at their expense).
 

Gholam

Sergeant (Reserve), IDF
Jun 19, 2001
862
0
0
Rehovot, Israel
Ahem, what borders might that be? 5-yard-wide strip of land along the coastline? Don't give me that bull**** about pre-67 borders, PLO existed back then, and terrorism was just as rampant as now.

Rogue, if you're talking about 1956 Operation Kadesh, there were several factors involved. Attacks by fedayeen terrorists out of Gaza strip have grown intolerable by that point, and Egypt nationalized Suez Canal, pissing off Britain and France (who built the damn thing) and they were looking to get back at Egypt - of course we used the opportunity where we could get back at terrorists while having international support. As for 1967 Six Day War, France and Britain were *not* involved in that - in fact, after the war, they put an arms embargo on Israel, with France going as far as to arrest a number of Mirage fighters and torpedo boats that were already paid for, and refusing to return the money.
 

mae2050

If U wanna know Y U get killed, ASK UR SELF
Mar 23, 2001
244
0
0
Members of Israeli Army Refuse To Follow Its 'Racist' Orders Regarding Palestinians.

Goto HERE for full article by the INDEPENDENT, not arabic.

See for yourself wat the Israeli army does, even its own soldiers say its wrong.

AS for ur post Gholam, the Suez Canal was built by egyptian slaves under the British Occupation. Second of all, how can egyptians be called terrorists? Israel, Britian and France attacked Egypt in 67 and again by Israel in 73, in the first Egypt prevailed and in the second we regained our rightfull land thru the UN.
 

Gholam

Sergeant (Reserve), IDF
Jun 19, 2001
862
0
0
Rehovot, Israel
Israel, Britian and France attacked Egypt in 67 and again by Israel in 73, in the first Egypt prevailed and in the second we regained our rightfull land thru the UN.

Mae2050, I have no idea what they teach you in Egyptian schools, but it looks suspiciously like Soviet school history. In 1967, Gamal Abdel Naser was preparing for an ATTACK. He officially declared that any Israeli ship trying to pass through Tirana straits will be shelled by coastal artillery, which was a direct violation of 1956 cease-fire agreement, which ruled that Tirana straits had to be open to all shipping. If you don't understand what this means, look at the map - it completely blockades Eilat, blocking Israel's access to Indian and Pacific oceans. He, along with other Arab leaders, also announced, in the clear, that he is going to destroy Israel.

On June 5, however, we struck first - and saying that Egypt "prevailed" in that war is nothing but propaganda, as you guys have lost your entire air force within several hours, and the entire Sinai peninsula within several days. The war lasted six days only, ending in complete defeat of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, and Israeli capture of Sinai peninsula, West Bank of Jordan river, and Golan Heights.

As for "again by Israel in 73", that's an outright lie. On October 6th, 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a joint attack against Israel that was prepared in such secrecy, that most Egyptian officers in the rank of colonel didn't know about it until the morning of actual attack. It also "happened" to be on Yom Kippur, the Judgement Day, the holiest day of Jewish year, when IDF is at it's lowest state of alert - and unlike Egypt, that maintains one of the largest standing armies in the world, our standing army is very small, and we depend on reservists for our defense. In 1973, we barely managed to mobilize in time to contain Egypt and Syria's attack, and in the two week war, completely defeat them, pushing deep into Syria, and crossing Suez Canal, which resulted in complete surrounding and capture of Egyptian 3rd Army.

In 1978, however, US stepped in, as with Egyptians sitting on west bank of canal, and Israelis sitting on east, and waging a constant low intensity conflict, the canal was closed to shipping, and that was hurting international trade, so they arranged for Israel to give Sinai back to Egypt, in return for monetary compensation (provided by US - not Egypt - though now most have forgotten about it, and Americans are waving their "aid to Israel" like a flag).

the Suez Canal was built by egyptian slaves under the British Occupation.

More propaganda. The Suez Canal was a joint project of Britain, France, and Egypt - Egypt at the time was barely capable of digging a ditch, much less a canal between Mediterranean and Indian Ocean. Yes, Egypt supplied the workers, while Britain and France supplied the money, the equipment, and the qualified, professional engineers - all of which simply didn't exist in Egypt. Later, Egypt went into international debt, and sold it's shares of Canal to other shareholders - Britain and France. However, in 1956, Naser looked and thought: "hey, British and French have this canal on our territory, and are making big bucks from it - but hey, it's our territory, our canal, never mind that we don't own it!" - and seized it, rightfully pissing off it's owners.

As for that article you linked, this has been discussed already on another board, and I'm not going to bother retyping what I said there, so I'll just post a link.
 

mae2050

If U wanna know Y U get killed, ASK UR SELF
Mar 23, 2001
244
0
0
Yo, I told u man, they would say sumtin to us and make it look right and say sumtin to you and make it look right too.
 

RogueLeader

Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"
Oct 19, 2000
5,314
0
0
Indiana. Kill me please.
Nassar prepared for an attack because he knew the Israeli's would attack. And they did. The 1956 war was started BY Israel, when they made a "preemptive strike" (that's military euphamism for unprovoked) against Egypt. The 1967 war, unlike the 56 war that was started entirely by Israel with the support of Britain and France, was in fact started by Egypt, when they laynched their own unprovoke- err, preemptive strike. The Yom Kippur war was started by Isreal when it refused to give up the land it had taken in the past war, which it was supposed to have done.

As for the canal: Gholam, slaves were used in building it, notably in digging the initial ditch. The British and French had no right to something they didn't exert labor to build, and they had no right to the land of Egypt in the first place. You cannot simply say you own land people live on and then do what you want with it. Adam Smith was right when he said land lords "love to reap what they never sowed".
 

})FA|Snake

New Member
Aug 5, 2000
1,661
0
0
Visit site
No i disagree, just because Isreal struck first doesn't mean they started it. They learned about the preemptive attack that was planned by Egypt and Syria.

It would be like if we learned about the jappennese plan and sunk their carriers before they attacked pearl harbour
 

Gholam

Sergeant (Reserve), IDF
Jun 19, 2001
862
0
0
Rehovot, Israel
Originally posted by RogueLeader
Egypt wasn't planning an attack in '56.

Operation Kadesh was "unprovoked" by years of Egyptian commandos routinely raiding civilian targets across the border... for years, since the end of War of Independence (which you CANNOT accuse Israel of starting, unless declaration of independence equals declaration of war upon every single neighbor) we weren't able to do anything about it because of lack of international support - but in '56, Naser seized Suez Canal, so we had support from Britain and France, and damn straight we used it.

Nassar prepared for an attack because he knew the Israeli's would attack. And they did.

Well, when you break the rules of a cease-fire agreement and begin a naval blockade of a country, then yeah, I guess you should expect a strike...

The Yom Kippur war was started by Isreal when it refused to give up the land it had taken in the past war, which it was supposed to have done.

Now THIS is one of the biggest piles of bull**** I have ever seen. The goal of Egypt - the OFFICIAL goal of Egypt - until they recognized Israel's existance in 1978, was the destruction of Israel. It was their goal pre-67, it was their goal post-67. Sadat started 1973 war with the intention of destroying Israel, not gaining back his land. If, after 1967, we went back to square one, Israel wouldn't exist today, because only our possession of Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights gave IDF time to mobilize reservists (and inflict a defeat of the most humiliating sort on Egypt and Syria, I might add).

As for the canal: Gholam, slaves were used in building it, notably in digging the initial ditch. The British and French had no right to something they didn't exert labor to build, and they had no right to the land of Egypt in the first place.

I'll give you a simple analogy. United States Air Force has bases all over the world - in foreign countries. Suppose, in one of such countries, the government issues a declaration stating that, "Your AFB is built on our land. Our workers have paved the landing strip. Therefore, it's our AFB. All your plane are belong to us. Get your asses out, but don't forget to leave behind all the equipment". What would be the reaction of United States Air Force?
 

mae2050

If U wanna know Y U get killed, ASK UR SELF
Mar 23, 2001
244
0
0
As I said in my first post in this thread WE have been taught to THINK different, this side will say something and the other side will say something else. NOBODY will ever know wat REALLY happened.

PERIOD.
 

mae2050

If U wanna know Y U get killed, ASK UR SELF
Mar 23, 2001
244
0
0
Well, first of all most of my education before college was in Saudi Arabia for like 10 yrs, second I actually never heard my parents tell me about it or even from anybody else.

So I went online, yup the ARAB Union totally rejected the UN "resolution" to partition Palestine or WATEVER U WANNA CALL IT, then troops from Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan went to IT to help the palestinians, but the Israelis out-numbered the joint arab force and over-powered them.

Hey dats wat I understood from an article online.

Wat I dont understand is from when can the UN Partition up COUNTRIES for a "LARGE", so u dont get mad, group of displaced refugees,"The Jews" and second of all it teaches the world one thing the US Controls the UN.
 

RogueLeader

Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"
Oct 19, 2000
5,314
0
0
Indiana. Kill me please.
Operation Kadesh was "unprovoked" by years of Egyptian commandos routinely raiding civilian targets across the border... for years, since the end of War of Independence (which you CANNOT accuse Israel of starting, unless declaration of independence equals declaration of war upon every single neighbor) we weren't able to do anything about it because of lack of international support - but in '56, Naser seized Suez Canal, so we had support from Britain and France, and damn straight we used it.
Someone has been eating up the propaganda. The Egyptian government made no official military action against Israel. Israel also had not attacked the Egyptians. They made the first unprovoked (and there is really no way to say it was somehow provoked, given the extent of historical knowledge) strike at the prodding of the Brits and the French, who wanted to take back the canal.

As to your comment on its independence: I have said already I do not oppose Israel's existance. I only want to stop the illegal occupation of the Arab lands, and its continued fascist militarism that leads to imperialist foreign policies and suppresses the natural rights of its population. Israel like all nations (including the Palestinians) has a right to self determination.

Well, when you break the rules of a cease-fire agreement and begin a naval blockade of a country, then yeah, I guess you should expect a strike...
Are you aware of what a preemptive strike means? A preemptive strike be definition has no provocation. The Israeli government officially classified it as a preemptive strike, which makes since because the claim to the straight of Tiran was one that was ordered by the US and UN, not Egypt (and Isreal deserved ecnomic sanctions for its occupation of Arab lands illegally itself; you cannot say attacks on Egypt were justified when Egypt's actions were themselves justified). The Syrians however, were shelling Israeli villages, but Egypt was the primary target of Israeli aggression.

Now THIS is one of the biggest piles of bull**** I have ever seen. The goal of Egypt - the OFFICIAL goal of Egypt - until they recognized Israel's existance in 1978, was the destruction of Israel. It was their goal pre-67, it was their goal post-67. Sadat started 1973 war with the intention of destroying Israel, not gaining back his land. If, after 1967, we went back to square one, Israel wouldn't exist today, because only our possession of Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights gave IDF time to mobilize reservists (and inflict a defeat of the most humiliating sort on Egypt and Syria, I might add).
The official goal of Zionism was and still is the complete expulsion of all Arabs from Israel, so logically then, if Israel was justified in attacking Egypt for wanting to destroy it, then Egypt must have also been justified on humanitarian grounds. Your argument contradicts itself.

I also noted that no where in your response did you refute in any way my argument (besides calling it bull****) that Israel was still occupying Egypt's land illegally. I suppose if China occupied Virginia you would call it justified?

I'll give you a simple analogy. United States Air Force has bases all over the world - in foreign countries. Suppose, in one of such countries, the government issues a declaration stating that, "Your AFB is built on our land. Our workers have paved the landing strip. Therefore, it's our AFB. All your plane are belong to us. Get your asses out, but don't forget to leave behind all the equipment". What would be the reaction of United States Air Force?
Good for them, the U.S. has no right to use its military to occupy other countries. The USAF should stop attaking and start defendign.
 

Gholam

Sergeant (Reserve), IDF
Jun 19, 2001
862
0
0
Rehovot, Israel
Someone has been eating up the propaganda. The Egyptian government made no official military action against Israel. Israel also had not attacked the Egyptians. They made the first unprovoked (and there is really no way to say it was somehow provoked, given the extent of historical knowledge) strike at the prodding of the Brits and the French, who wanted to take back the canal.

So you refuse to acknowledge the existance of constant fedayeen raids out of Sinai and Gaza, fine... but if you read some history, you'll find out, that after two weeks, IDF withdrew from Sinai, because the goals had been achieved - terrorist infrastructure was dismantled, and United Nations sent in a force to keep Egypt away from Israel.

Are you aware of what a preemptive strike means? A preemptive strike be definition has no provocation. The Israeli government officially classified it as a preemptive strike, which makes since because the claim to the straight of Tiran was one that was ordered by the US and UN, not Egypt (and Isreal deserved ecnomic sanctions for its occupation of Arab lands illegally itself; you cannot say attacks on Egypt were justified when Egypt's actions were themselves justified). The Syrians however, were shelling Israeli villages, but Egypt was the primary target of Israeli aggression.

I'm not sure what to make of that... first, what Egyptian land were we occupying in, say, May 1967? Second, I think I'll quote the first few couple paragraphs of one of my books...

Originally written by Chaim Herzog
For three weeks in May and June 1967, the people of Israel lived through a trauma they would not easily forget. As Arab armies massed around their borders, the United Nations Emergency Force (which since the Sinai Campaign in 1956 had been dividing between the Israeli and Egyptian forces and manning the Straits of Tiran leading into the Gulf of Akaba) was ordered to withdraw by Presiden Nasser. United Nations Secretary General U Thant - without so much as consulting the Security Council or the General Assembly - agreed to the withdrawal without demur. Egyptian forces poured into Sinai, while Jordanians and Syrians concentrated along their frontiers with Israel; Iraqi and Kuwaiti units, as well as some from other Arab countries, moved towards Israel's borders. The country was ringed by a vast Arab army - outnumbered in troops, planes and tanks. The Soviet Union took its usual cynical part in playing down this escalation in the United Nations, an escalation which according to President Nasser had been instigated to no small degree by the Soviets themselves, who had falsely advised the Syrians about the concentration of Israeli forces on their borders.
As Arab hysteria rose and the Arab media promised the Israeli population - men, women and children - destruction and annihilation in the most brutal manner, the horrors of the Nazi holocaust rose to the fore in Jewish conciousness. The Jewish people knew that these were not mere words, recalling how many nations nurtured on the tenets of Christianity had either participated in that previous bloody massacre or had looked on. And indeed the world looked on petrified, incapable of taking action.
On the morning of 5 June Israel struck - and within six days had destroyed a great part of the force which had threatened it, occupying the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank of the Jordan and the Golan Heights.

I also encourage you to read Myths & Facts about Israel, particularly the sections about Operation Kadesh, Six Day War, and Yom Kippur War. Very interesting quotes from Arab leaders and Arab media there.

The official goal of Zionism was and still is the complete expulsion of all Arabs from Israel, so logically then, if Israel was justified in attacking Egypt for wanting to destroy it, then Egypt must have also been justified on humanitarian grounds. Your argument contradicts itself.

Expulsion of Arabs from Israel? Destruction of Egypt? Hello? The goal of Zionism is creation and maintaince of a state where Jewish people can freely come and live, and where they can defend themselves from antisemitic aggression such as Hitler's "final solution" - nothing more, nothing less. There are over a million Arabs living in Israel, nobody is "expulsing" them. Destroying/occupying Egypt is complete idiocy because 1) why the hell would we want to do it? and 2) how could we do it with Egypt being as huge as it is, and Israel being as small as it is?

I also noted that no where in your response did you refute in any way my argument (besides calling it bull****) that Israel was still occupying Egypt's land illegally. I suppose if China occupied Virginia you would call it justified?

Kindly please explain to me, what is the difference between "legal" and "illegal" occupation... or, more to the point, what for example makes USA's occupation of Mexican land in California legal?

Good for them, the U.S. has no right to use its military to occupy other countries. The USAF should stop attaking and start defendign.

So when someone robs you in a dark alley, you smile and say, while handing over your wallet, "great for you man, you're five hundred bucks richer now!" instead of pulling out your gun and marching the robber to nearest police station? How about if France decided to annex the Louisiana territories, or Russia decided to grab Alaska? Yeah, those lands were sold to US, but who the **** cares, THEY ARE OUR LAND ORIGINALLY THEY ARE OUR LAND NOW, so move over yanks!

So I went online, yup the ARAB Union totally rejected the UN "resolution" to partition Palestine or WATEVER U WANNA CALL IT, then troops from Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan went to IT to help the palestinians, but the Israelis out-numbered the joint arab force and over-powered them.

Well, the last passage is a face-saving measure after 5 states (Lebanon was in it too) managed to lose a war against one, which was a hundred times or so smaller, was one day old, and possessed no army to begin with.

Wat I dont understand is from when can the UN Partition up COUNTRIES for a "LARGE", so u dont get mad, group of displaced refugees,"The Jews" and second of all it teaches the world one thing the US Controls the UN.

Look a little deeper into history. The Ottoman Empire entered WWI on the wrong side, and lost. As a result, it was dismantled, and the newly formed League of Nations repartitioned the lands, both in Europe and the Middle East, where partitioning of former Turkish lands was mostly into British and French mandates, and a single Arab state (IIRC, it was Iraq). Eventually, independent Arab governments replaced the mandates - except in "Palestine", where United Nations (which successed League of Nations) decided to allow Jews to create a state of their own. It's what usually happens in history - after a war, winning side tells the losing side what to do.
 

Gholam

Sergeant (Reserve), IDF
Jun 19, 2001
862
0
0
Rehovot, Israel
Oh, and regarding the Sabra and Shatila massacre:

The Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia was responsible for the massacres that occurred at the two Beirut-area refugee camps on September 16-17, 1982. Israeli troops allowed the Phalangists to enter Sabra and Shatila to root out terrorist cells believed located there. It had been estimated that there may have been up to 200 armed men in the camps working out of the countless bunkers built by the PLO over the years, and stocked with generous reserves of ammunition.

When Israeli soldiers ordered the Phalangists out, they found hundreds dead (estimates range from 460 according to the Lebanese police, to 700-800 calculated by Israeli intelligence). The dead, according to the Lebanese account, included 35 women and children. The rest were men: Palestinians, Lebanese, Pakistanis, Iranians, Syrians and Algerians. The killings came on top of an estimated 95,000 deaths that had occurred during the civil war in Lebanon from 1975-1982.

The killings were perpetrated to avenge the murders of Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel and 25 of his followers, killed in a bomb attack earlier that week.

Israel had allowed the Phalange to enter the camps as part of a plan to transfer authority to the Lebanese, and accepted responsibility for that decision. The Kahan Commission of Inquiry, formed by the Israeli government in response to public outrage and grief, found that Israel was indirectly responsible for not anticipating the possibility of Phalangist violence. Israel instituted the panel's recommendations, including the dismissal of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon and Gen. Raful Eitan, the Army Chief of Staff.

The Kahan Commission, declared former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, was "a great tribute to Israeli democracy....There are very few governments in the world that one can imagine making such a public investigation of such a difficult and shameful episode."

Ironically, while 300,000 Israelis demonstrated in Israel to protest the killings, little or no reaction occurred in the Arab world. Outside the Middle East, a major international outcry against Israel erupted over the massacres. The Phalangists, who perpetrated the crime, were spared the brunt of the condemnations for it.

By contrast, few voices were raised in May 1985, when Muslim militiamen attacked the Shatila and Burj-el Barajneh Palestinian refugee camps. According to UN officials, 635 were killed and 2,500 wounded. During a two-year battle between the Syrian-backed Shiite Amal militia and the PLO, more than 2,000 people, including many civilians, were reportedly killed. No outcry was directed at the PLO or the Syrians and their allies over the slaughter. International reaction was also muted in October 1990 when Syrian forces overran Christian-controlled areas of Lebanon. In the eight-hour clash, 700 Christians were killed — the worst single battle of Lebanon's Civil War.
 

RogueLeader

Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"
Oct 19, 2000
5,314
0
0
Indiana. Kill me please.
Do you realize that you tried to prove my claim that you were victim of propaganda by quoting all of your books that are all pro-Isreali. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Herzog Isreal's ambassador to the UN? Do you not realize all your links link to a web site called "www.us-israel.org", and that in their description they even quote George Bush and Ariel Sharon to prove their point (both of those men are opposed to human rights and civil liberties, and both are war criminals).

The AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance — the values our nations share. Tangibly, this means developing social and educational programs in the U.S. based on innovative, successful Israeli models that address similar domestic problems, and bringing novel U.S. programs to Israel. These cooperative activities, which stem from our common values, are called Shared Value Initiatives.

Like I said, someone has been eating up the propaganda.

If you believe that Israel did not continue to occupy Egyption land it only proves my point. It is a well documented fact that Israel was there for quite a while before the UN peacekeepers came in. Furthermore, Israel's official stance up to this day (and its excuse for the brutality in Palestine) is that it "liberated" the land (which is moronic because it never had it to begin with), and it therefore has every right to violate the Geneva Convention's rules on occupation.

Expulsion of Arabs from Israel? Destruction of Egypt? Hello? The goal of Zionism is creation and maintaince of a state where Jewish people can freely come and live, and where they can defend themselves from antisemitic aggression such as Hitler's "final solution" - nothing more, nothing less. There are over a million Arabs living in Israel, nobody is "expulsing" them. Destroying/occupying Egypt is complete idiocy because 1) why the hell would we want to do it? and 2) how could we do it with Egypt being as huge as it is, and Israel being as small as it is?
Have you read some of the early Zionist literature? Have you read Nathan Birnbaum? The explicit purpose of Zionism is not simply a Jewish state but to create a Jewish Majority. Zionism proposes that Jews move into Palestine so that they will become the majority and thus it will be justified that they can rule. That is the reasoning behind putting settlements in land that is not legally part of Israel. Zionism is against anything that does not increase Jewish numbers againt Arabs.

I suggest you read Expulsion of the Palestinians. That book is based entirely on Israel's own declassified government documents.

Kindly please explain to me, what is the difference between "legal" and "illegal" occupation... or, more to the point, what for example makes USA's occupation of Mexican land in California legal?
Text of the Fourth Geneva Convention: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html
Amnesty International Report on violations of that agreement by Isreal: http://www.amnesty-usa.org/news/2001/israel12042001.html

So when someone robs you in a dark alley, you smile and say, while handing over your wallet, "great for you man, you're five hundred bucks richer now!" instead of pulling out your gun and marching the robber to nearest police station? How about if France decided to annex the Louisiana territories, or Russia decided to grab Alaska? Yeah, those lands were sold to US, but who the **** cares, THEY ARE OUR LAND ORIGINALLY THEY ARE OUR LAND NOW, so move over yanks!
Non sequitur. If someone robs me that money is mine. If I robbed someone and then they stole it back, it is acceptable. The Suez Canal is analagous to the later. And Russia sold the U.S. Alaska, we didn't steal it. Same goes with Lousiana. Therefore both party's in question were compensated for the exhange-value of the purchase. If the U.S. had marched into Alaska, and there were Russians working there and we made them slaves and made them setup oil drilling sites for us, they would have every right to take those back.

Well, the last passage is a face-saving measure after 5 states (Lebanon was in it too) managed to lose a war against one, which was a hundred times or so smaller, was one day old, and possessed no army to begin with.
Kind of similar to how that same one country was driven out of Lebanon by a small group that did not even have military equipment. I fail to see how insulting Arabs for losing the war makes Israel look less militaristic.