Bopa:

Please take your attitude and shelve it. I noted to Griz that the doctrine of "by conquest" HAD -- please note the tense -- a general "acceptance" in international relations. I was suggesting that to dismiss the concept entirely was therefore innacurate. I was careful to note that most nations have repudiated this notion (by virtue of their membership in the UN if nought else).

In short, I was bringing up an analytical point that bears relevance to the larger issue. If you had paused in your vitriolic response, you might have noted that:

1) as Israel draws its legitimacy from the 1947 UN decision to establish that state, Israel is a product of the organization whereby most nations have forsworn conquest but has itself -- at least twice (1948 and 1967) -- acquired territory in conflict and
2) Israel is currently in possession of territories that were set aside for an arab state in the 1947 UN decision;

you could thereby make an argument that Israel de-legitimated itself from the outset. Of course, you chose more a more "strident" response instead.


On your other "barb:"

You have a right to consider the USA to be an imperialist nation -- you're entitled to hold whatever opinions you wish.

I, myself, DREAM of a world for me and for my children in which the United States, with its current outlook on the world, is the MOST imperialist/aggressive state out there.

Israel our proxy? Chat with Krook if you want to hear about life as a "proxy" hewing wood and hauling water for someone else's agenda. Ally, yes. Take the opportunity to test out weapons systems with live fire, yes. Beg Mossad for humint we were dumb enough to discard or not develop in the region, yes. But a proxy? Don't think so.