From: JNugent73@mail.com 
  
 On 15/08/2025 10:30 AM, Pamela wrote: 
 > On 10:28  12 Aug 2025, JNugent said: 
 >> On 11/08/2025 09:10 PM, Roger Hayter wrote: 
 >>> On 11 Aug 2025 at 20:20:17 BST, "JNugent" wrote: 
 >>>> On 11/08/2025 01:03 PM, Roger Hayter wrote: 
 >>>>> On 11 Aug 2025 at 12:23:45 BST, "The Todal" wrote: 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> [TRIMMED] 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> Point of order:  they have invaded Syria, which is more relevant 
 >>>>> to them. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> When was that? 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Are you sure you are not referring to the removal of threat to 
 >>>> Israel from within Syria? 
 >>>>> 
 >>> 
 >>> Yes I am sure. They had already annexed the Golan Heights, and now 
 >>> they have occupied a large swathe of Syria surrounding this. As well 
 >>> as bombing Damascus and various other places. The fact you didn't 
 >>> know this does not make it untrue. 
 >> 
 >> Attacking a neigbouring country (eg, by launching rockets and high 
 >> explosives from across the border) always carries the risk that the 
 >> territory used for the attacks will be annexed. We used to call it 
 >> "conquest", though it is a different matter from invading a state 
 >> with a view to taking it over. 
 >> 
 >> It happened to parts of Germany after WW2 and those territories are 
 >> still parts of Poland and Russia. 
 >> 
 >> What's the difference? 
 > 
 > This is surely the nature of conquest and it has been like this 
 > throughout history. The Germans didn't complain at the supposed 
 > inequity of that new border imposed upon them after WW2. Germany had 
 > triggered a war by a border incursion into Poland and, several years 
 > later, lost. 
 > 
 > Similarly with Gaza. Repulsed terrorists don't get to go back to life 
 > before their incursion and then later try again. 
  
 A very sensible answer. Actually, I think that some Germans never 
 accepted the UN-santioned loss of East Prussia and environs to Poland 
 and the Soviet Union, but in 1945, they were in no position to dispute it. 
  
 However, the more important point is that the United Nations did accept 
 and endorse the boundary changes, presumably on the very basis you 
 outlined: it is surely the nature of conquest and it has been like that 
 throughout history. 
  
 And where does it leave us vis € vis Israel and the ajoining states and 
 territories? They attacked Israel, across its UN-defined original 
 borders, time after time, starting in the late 1940s. In the end, how 
 can the UN make fish of Poland and Russia, and fowl of Israel? If it's 
 OK to annexe part of the territory of one defeated invader, it is OK to 
 annexe part of the territory of any defeated invader. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)