Nice trick, sirs, quoting the summary of the article only, and none of the details in the full article indicating the real responsibility for the Six Day War. From Menachem Begin, for example:
<<In a speech before Israeli National Defense College, Menachem Begin stated that Israel was the one who made the decision to attack: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches
do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." >>
No mention of the earlier Israeli raid into Jordan with tanks and infantry, allegedly in retaliation for the planting of mines, which the UN had censured as excessive or disproportionate use of force.
The article is a long one; I don't propose to quote the whole thing here, the link was sufficient and those who choose to do a little independent reading can satisfy themselves as to the real cause of the Six Day War.
What was laughable was your attempt to pass off as "Actual history for those that wish to check it out" an obviously heavily-edited and censored page that appears to have been based on the original Wikipedia article but minus all of the facts and references which implicate Israel as contributing to the cause of the war.
The one-sided Israeli view of the causes of the Six Day War is totally out of joint with reality, although it may be overstating the case to say that it was all Israel's fault. Regardless of who shares how much of the blame for the war, the issue is something of an irrelevancy, since the parties today are not battling over the causes of past conflicts but over the ongoing occupation, which is illegal by every standard of international law, regardless of who would be found responsible for the beginning of hostilities.
sirs: <<And they did so [occupy the West Bank] IN DEFENSE of their nation......PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Not because of some radical hatred they all of a sudden had with Palestinians. and Palestinians are not being kept behind barbed wire. They can go anywhere at anytime. Have you grasped some of the immigration policies of other nearby Arab nations that PREVENT Palestinians from even entering their countries, much less gain citizenship?? Arguably harsher than even Israel>>
Here we can see sirs' versatility in debate. First, he had claimed "They didn't simply occupy three million Arabs." When it is pointed out to him that that is EXACTLY what they DID do, then without skipping a beat, he goes on to say, well they did it in defence of their nation.
It's hard to see how they are defending their nation by expanding it onto somebody else's land and grabbing it off one acre at a time for yourself, but as ludicrous as that explanation is, it would STILL be illegal by every single concept of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, which Israel itself has signed.
<<Yea. It's unfortunate Israel had to take those lands, but at the time had no choice with the actions that Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and yea, even Jordan were taking>>
Of course, every occupier has a choice - - occupy or not occupy. Thirty-nine years after the event, it's kind of ridiculous to claim, "We have to occupy, we have no choice - - it's because of something Jordan did 39 years ago." What kind of moron do you think would accept that kind of reasoning? They occupy the land because they want the land. What is so hard to understand about that?
<<As I said, you really should know our history a bit better before laying out claims of AMBE, when your own frellin source demonstrates the order of events.>>
My own source clearly demonstrates whatever you want it to demonstrate when you edit it, as you did, by cutting out every reference to Israeli culpability for the war. The link stands: Google "Six Day War" and click on the first Wikipedia reference, and you have it all - - not the chopped-up version you fraudulently post up here as "the real history."
Oh boy, now we're going to try pulling in an analogus "Bush lied us into war" tact, when it's clear how diametrically opposite the claim is. Look Tee, if you're going to sit there and with a straight face, try to re-write the events of 1967, in order to justify your version of what is is, deal me out.>>
Hey, I don't write the history, sirs, I just find it and post it. Unlike you, who finds it, chops out whatever the Zionists don't want to see in there, and then posts it.
<<You were raked over the coals with the Bush lied garbage . . . >>
I was? In your dreams and fantasies, sirs. I can't count the number of times I've substantiated that Bush lied you into war. There's a reason why most of your fellow citizens now believe that Bush lied you into war, and unless you want to claim that your country is populated mostly by idiots, you might as well admit now that their belief is perfectly rational and that Bush probably DID lie you into war.
<< . . . .and that didn't even have near as many actual dates of events, documented history, and public pledges, such as the one made by Egyptian President Nasser. >>
Wow. Are you claiming now that there's more hard evidence that Nasser threatened Israel than there is that Bush was honestly and sincerely mistaken rather than lying?
