Nathan: “Obviously, the legalistic argument that you present is based on the overall ideological position that Israel has no legitimacy, littoral or otherwise.”
Here we go again with empty idiotic phrases that can easily be reversed.
Obviously, the non-legalistic argument that you present is based on the overall ideological position that the Arab states and Palestine have no legitimacy, littoral or otherwise.
But I’m obviously basing my legalistic argument on international law and to be more precies on Article 51 of the UN charter. You can’t do that, because of your overall ideological position that Israel has the right to attack states whenever it feels like doing so.
Nathan: “However, the real issue is political, not legal.”
Nope, it’s legal. You want to turn the real issue into something political, because you know that what Israel did was a war of aggression. This is not your first time you want to deflect from the legal issue which shows that you don’t have any respect for international law and human rights when Jews violate them.
Nathan: “Was it wise on the part of Mr Nasser to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping?”
It is irrelevant, if Israel wants to attack.
Nathan: “Everyone at this forum seems to be eager to prove that Mr Nasser had no intention of going to war, but it’s simply untrue.”
Everyone is proving that Nasser wasn’t going to attack and that Israel chose to attack what was a “war of choice” (Begin).
Nathan: “He created a crisis that by definition was intended to provoke war. Was it wise?”
ROFL. And poor, poor, poor Israel fell for this provocation and hat no intention to finish in 1967 what it started in 1948, right?
Please explain why Israel suddenly stopped putting the Nonjews of Israel under martial law right before the war to implement the same permit system and martial law right after the war in the occupied territories? You know the answer, don’t you?! Otherwise Israel would have faced the accusation that it had put all Nonjews in historic Palestine under martial law.
Nathan: “I understand that in an anti-Israel website everyone is an apologist for the Arabs.”
Another empty phrase. I understand that in any anti-Nonjewish commenter is an apologist for the Jews. But I understand even more that your arguments are so weak you need to resort to your “anti-Israel” “grievances”.
Nathan: “The most absurd or idiotic policy will never merit even a raising of the eyebrow.”
Another empty phrase. The most absurd or idiotic Israeli policy will never merit even a raising of the eyebrow.
Nathan: “There is no reason to pretend that the issue was legalistic. The Arab world has its own agenda that you can’t understand. The legal argument is propaganda for your ears. And since you cannot bring yourself to express any criticism of the Arab world for fear that you’ll be making a pro-Israel statement, you are willing to repeat the propaganda nonsense.”
Another empty phrase. There is no reason to pretend that the issue was not legalistic. The Zionist world has its own agenda that you can’t understand. The political argument is propaganda for your ears. And since you cannot bring yourself to express any criticism of the Zionist world for fear that you’ll be making a pro-Arab statement, you are willing to repeat the propaganda nonsense.