Author Topic: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks  (Read 116079 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #300 on: March 12, 2007, 12:55:00 AM »
<<With Palestine free and independant peace will ensue?>>
 
Israel would still have a legitimacy problem, at least for the foreseeable future.  Many Arabs would reject the "two-state" solution and press for a "one-state" [with Arab majority] solution.

The issue is, could this rejectionist faction come to power (democratically or otherwise) in the new Palestine?  In Jordan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia?  Odds in each case are better than 50% against, but who can really tell?  Ideally, the rejectionists could be kept out of power, if not in all of Israel's neighbours and Palestine itself, then at least in enough of them so that a working coalition of rejectionist states will not arise.

What I see as the likeliest scenario is that the rejectionists will be kept out of power in all or almost all of the Arab states (including Palestine) neighbouring Israel, limiting the rejectionist factions to guerrilla strikes and similar deadly but manageable incursions, which should diminish over time as Israeli defence tactics improve, as the peaceful relations and the benefits thereof begin to take hold, and as the passage of time lessens the anger and need for revenge that are so vivid today in the hearts of Israel's victims.  Again, and I keep coming back to new leadership, but new Israeli leadership is really crucial here - - it will have to take a credible role in bridge-building and reaching out, and these things, as intangible as they are, would be essential to the creation of a lasting peace.  All or most of the hostile action against Israel is fuelled by anger, anger generated by real grievances, and that anger has to be addressed, has to be acknowledged, has to be brought under a kind of control that will at the very least keep it from adding to the cycle of violence and hatred.   The dead can't be brought back to life, but visionary, eloquent, courageous leadership can make a start in reaching at least some of the persons whose actions fuel the violence.

<<With a Palestinian majority in Israel election the government peace will result?>>

A Palestinian majority in Israel would result either in the anihilation of the Jewish state or else in an apartheid Jewish state analogous to the Union of South Africa in its White Supremacist days. This is a totally different issue from the occupation.  If the occupation is ended, the day when a Palestinian majority in Israel threatens to anilhilate the Jewish State will be postponed, but the problem will nevertheless remain.  It is a problem to which I see no solution.

<<It isn't what I expect , I expect this is a formula for disaster.>>

I think you just failed to separate the issues properly.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #301 on: March 12, 2007, 02:51:19 PM »
<<Ironically speaking, "if you knew anything about their history", you'd grasp that this so-called "occupation" begain when Israel had to take lands in defense of their country, as every one of their border neighbors, Jordan included was massing its military along their borders, and Egypt's President declaring their intentions of taking on Israel. >>

You obviously know next to nothing about he Six Day War.  The events you are describing are a fairy tale.  I suggest you go to Wikipedia and look up "Six Day War."  The idea that you are trying to sell us on, that the Six Day War was a purely defensive war on Israel's part, is ludicrous.  

From your own wikipedia suggestion;
War of 1967
Main article: Six-Day War
The fighting in the Six-Day War of 1967 began with a strike by Israel, which many consider preemptive, against Egypt and Syria following the breakdown of international diplomatic efforts to solve the crisis begun by the Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran on May 21-22, 1957 (thus "blocking all shipping to and from Eilat ... a casus belli" according to a possible interpretation of international law),[3] expulsion of U.N. peacekeepers from the Sinai, stationing some 100,000 Egyptian troops at the peninsula, a public announcement by Nasser that he intended to destroy Israel [6], and a build up of troops along the Syrian border. Surprise Israeli air strikes destroyed the entire Egyptian air force while still on the ground. A subsequent ground invasion into Egyptian territory led to Israel's conquest of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. In spite of Israel's request to Jordan to desist from attacking it, both Jordan and Syria began to shell Israeli targets; Israel responded by capturing the West Bank from Jordan on June 7, and the Golan Heights from Syria on June 9.

Actual history for those that wish to check it out

Want a do over?


<<They didn't simply "occupy 3 million Arabs"  >>

Plain and simple, since the Six Day War ended, that is EXACTLY what they have done.    

And they did so 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


<<Everything that Israel has done has been in RESPONSE to something being done or about to be done to them.  >>

Well, once again you are fogging the issue, muddying the waters.  What do you mean by "Everything that Israel has done?"  Israel has done a lot of things.  

I thought I made that abundantly clear.  Not clear enough apparently.  Lemme quote myself "Nearly every one of Israel's military incursions into Gaza or the West Bank was as a result of some attack directed at Israel"  So when I say nearly everything Israel has done, its from a military & immigration perspective, & it means its in direct RESPONSE to some action that was taken on them, or was about to, i.e. the 6 day war, and Iraq's Nuclear program


I do not propose to discuss each and every one of them.

Good, since I was in no way referencing every policy decision, ever made, about every conceivable thing.  I'm referencing specific military actions, and the immigration polices aimed at non-Jews.   


Of all the things that Israel has done, ONE THING - - the 39-year occupation of the West Bank and its three million Arab inhabitants - - stands out massively over every other thing. 

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


If you mean to say that THE OCCUPATION "has been in response to something being done or about to be done to [Israel]" then that is a vertitable crock of shit and you ought to know that by now.  Israel was the aggressor in the Six Day War as the results clearly show and the history of it clearly demonstrates.

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.


<<Nearly every one of Israel's military incursions into Gaza or the West Bank was as a result of some attack directed at Israel. >>

I have already demonstrated that at least with respect to the original seizure of the West Bank and the very start of the occupation, that is just one big lie.

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.  You were raked over the coals with the Bush lied garbage, 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. 

No one's arguing that what Israel did was pre-emptive (the aggressor as you're trying to imply), the arguement is what prompted Israel to take such action.  And if you think some supposed Israeli shells into Jordan was the foundation for Nasser to make his pledge, and for everyone of Israel's border neighbors to mass their militaries on its border, in preparation of fulfilling that pledge, your more knute-like, than I thought.  Which is sad, because occasionally, some rationality does come from your keyboads.  Not often, and rarely objective, but occasionally.  Not something we can say about knute


« Last Edit: March 12, 2007, 03:01:13 PM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #302 on: March 12, 2007, 04:24:12 PM »
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?







sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #303 on: March 12, 2007, 07:17:36 PM »
Nice trick, sirs, ....

Yea, actually providing an objective summary of historical events, from your own wikipedia suggestion.  Yea, cute trick, in being able to refute the notion that Israel wasn't really provoked in any way, and just decided to attack all it's Arab neighbors, taking over lands & occupy Palestinians.......just for the hell of it apparently.     ::)


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,

Yours, perhaps.  For wikipedia and pretty much every other historical reference not directly associated with Israel or Palestine, history demonstrates precisely the order of events.  Even Js, one of our most stauchest Israeli critics went on record as not defending the actions took by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, that provoked Israel to act as it did, simply that Israel pre-emtively acted, which again has never been the issue.  You can keep trying to spin coat your twisted version of reality, but that won't negate the actions Israel took in RESPONSE to threat and attacks made upon Israel


"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #304 on: March 12, 2007, 11:06:18 PM »
sirs:  <<Yea, [my alleged "neat trick" was in] actually providing an objective summary of historical events, from your own wikipedia suggestion.>>

Oh sirs, you are much too modest!  Your neat trick was in proceeding to the Wikipedia article that I cited and then providing us with a version of it from which you or some other Zionist flack had cleverly cut out every reference to the Israeli acts of aggression that preceded the Six Day War; and then presenting the edited article as my own source.

<<  Yea, cute trick, in being able to refute the notion that Israel wasn't really provoked in any way, and just decided to attack all it's Arab neighbors, taking over lands & occupy Palestinians.......just for the hell of it apparently. >>

The cute trick was in presenting the Arab "provocation" for the Six Day War as something that originated from the Arab side alone without any initial Israeli provocation and/or escalation.  By going to my source and editing out all of the Israeli provocation and escalation.  That was the "neat trick."  And BTW sirs, there was nothing done "just for the hell of it."  The Zionists had their eye on that land from the very start of the Zionist movement - - as I'm sure even you must realize.

<< . . . that won't negate the actions Israel took in RESPONSE to threat and attacks made upon Israel>>

Bullshit.  The occupation has continued for thirty-nine years, long after Jordan has signed a peace agreement with Israel.  To pretend that the occupation today is still is "in response" to "threats and attacks made upon Israel" in 1967 (even ignoring the gross provocation and preceding attacks from Israel) is just self-seeking and unbelievable garbage.  You know better.  Or should.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #305 on: March 12, 2007, 11:30:54 PM »
sirs:  <<Yea, [my alleged "neat trick" was in] actually providing an objective summary of historical events, from your own wikipedia suggestion.>>

Your neat trick was in proceeding to the Wikipedia article that I cited and then providing us with a version of it from which you or some other Zionist flack had cleverly cut out every reference to the Israeli acts of aggression that preceded the Six Day War; and then presenting the edited article as my own source.

Well, since I simply copied, word for word what wikipedia summarized regarding the 6-day war, that knocks me out of the running for Israeli flacky.  So, the name of this nefarious zionist flack, who egregiously ommitted all these would be provocative Israeli acts would be.....?  What?....you mean, no name?  You mean it just has to be the case because......well, because it flies in the face of what Tee deems what is & what isn't, using his Tee leaf logic


<<  Yea, cute trick, in being able to refute the notion that Israel wasn't really provoked in any way, and just decided to attack all it's Arab neighbors, taking over lands & occupy Palestinians.......just for the hell of it apparently. >>

The cute trick was in presenting the Arab "provocation" for the Six Day War as something that originated from the Arab side alone without any initial Israeli provocation and/or escalation.  By going to my source and editing out all of the Israeli provocation and escalation.  That was the "neat trick." 

Actually, by going to multiple sources, way back when I was having this same conversation with JS, before I even checked out wikipedia demonstrated precisely the same historical sequence of events that your source as well summarized, is apparently the neat trick.  How dare I don't take Tee's word on this.  It's all a big massive Zionist conspiracy.  They've managed to alter all the records, those bastards


And BTW sirs, there was nothing done "just for the hell of it."  The Zionists had their eye on that land from the very start of the Zionist movement - - as I'm sure even you must realize.

And of course you have proof of this, as well, right?  No??  Say it ain't so


<< . . . that won't negate the actions Israel took in RESPONSE to threat and attacks made upon Israel>>

Bullshit.  The occupation has continued for thirty-nine years, long after Jordan has signed a peace agreement with Israel.  To pretend that the occupation today is still is "in response" to "threats and attacks made upon Israel" in 1967 is just self-seeking and unbelievable garbage.  You know better.  Or should.

Actually, I know better because I've read up on the history.  The history books & history links just happen to debunk your revision effort of it, I'm afraid big guy
« Last Edit: March 13, 2007, 03:38:13 AM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #306 on: March 13, 2007, 03:31:30 AM »
<<With Palestine free and independant peace will ensue?>>
 
Israel would still have a legitimacy problem, at least for the foreseeable future.  Many Arabs would reject the "two-state" solution and press for a "one-state" [with Arab majority] solution.

The issue is, could this rejectionist faction come to power (democratically or otherwise) in the new Palestine?  In Jordan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia?  Odds in each case are better than 50% against, but who can really tell?  Ideally, the rejectionists could be kept out of power, if not in all of Israel's neighbours and Palestine itself, then at least in enough of them so that a working coalition of rejectionist states will not arise.

What I see as the likeliest scenario is that the rejectionists will be kept out of power in all or almost all of the Arab states (including Palestine) neighbouring Israel, limiting the rejectionist factions to guerrilla strikes and similar deadly but manageable incursions, which should diminish over time as Israeli defence tactics improve, as the peaceful relations and the benefits thereof begin to take hold, and as the passage of time lessens the anger and need for revenge that are so vivid today in the hearts of Israel's victims.  Again, and I keep coming back to new leadership, but new Israeli leadership is really crucial here - - it will have to take a credible role in bridge-building and reaching out, and these things, as intangible as they are, would be essential to the creation of a lasting peace.  All or most of the hostile action against Israel is fuelled by anger, anger generated by real grievances, and that anger has to be addressed, has to be acknowledged, has to be brought under a kind of control that will at the very least keep it from adding to the cycle of violence and hatred.   The dead can't be brought back to life, but visionary, eloquent, courageous leadership can make a start in reaching at least some of the persons whose actions fuel the violence.

<<With a Palestinian majority in Israel election the government peace will result?>>

A Palestinian majority in Israel would result either in the anihilation of the Jewish state or else in an apartheid Jewish state analogous to the Union of South Africa in its White Supremacist days. This is a totally different issue from the occupation.  If the occupation is ended, the day when a Palestinian majority in Israel threatens to anilhilate the Jewish State will be postponed, but the problem will nevertheless remain.  It is a problem to which I see no solution.

<<It isn't what I expect , I expect this is a formula for disaster.>>

I think you just failed to separate the issues properly.


    Perhaps , but if the Palestinians get back exactly what they had in 1966 why should they like it better now than they did then?

    If they get that much or better by any means wouldn't  it be politically usefull to the violent to caim that the good is the result of violence , and that even more good can result from more violence?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #307 on: March 13, 2007, 12:38:58 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

THAT'S the link to the REAL Wikipedia article, sirs.  The garbage you posted was the same article with some heavy editing done either by you or some other Zionist flunky.  For example, the preceding incidents of the Samu Incursion and the National Water Carrier were not even mentioned in your fraudulent version of the Wikipedia article.  The  quote from Menachem Begin, <<"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." >> was also missing.  Your article was a fraud.

Sorry, sirs.  You are busted.  You are a fraud.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sirs:  <<Actually, by going to multiple sources, way back when I was having this same conversation with JS, before I even checked out wikipedia demonstrated precisely the same historical sequence of events that your source as well summarized, is apparently the neat trick. >>

Hilarious.  So you pulled the same stunt (misrepresenting the truth by suppressing some facts and publishing others) BEFORE you even did it with the Wikipedia article is supposed to prove you innocent of fraud?  All it proves is that you are a MULTIPLE fraudster.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proof that the Zionists wanted the West Bank BEFORE the Six Day War?  What's next?  Prove that the Pope is a Catholic?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sirs:  <<Actually, I know better [i.e. that the occupation IS continued today only because of an attack that occurred 39 years ago, WITH PRIOR PROVOCATION]  because I've read up on the history.  The history books & history links just happen to debunk your revision effort of it, I'm afraid big guy>>

Wonderful.  sirs has just found a new debating technique and it trumps everything:  facts, logic, common sense.  sirs' magic bullet:  "The history books said it.  I believe it.  That settles it."

sirs, this is particularly hilarious because when I referred you once to several sources of Middle East history, one by a former lecturer at the U.S. Naval War College, you rejected all of them as being "out of the mainstream."  Refused even to look at them.  Now we hear that you have "read up on the history."  Presumably the history as written by reliable mainstream types, not those far-out flakes who infest the U.S. Naval War College.






Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #308 on: March 13, 2007, 12:51:19 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

THAT'S the link to the REAL Wikipedia article, sirs.  The garbage you posted was the same article with some heavy editing done either by you or some other Zionist flunky.  For example, the preceding incidents of the Samu Incursion and the National Water Carrier were not even mentioned in your fraudulent version of the Wikipedia article.  The  quote from Menachem Begin, <<"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." >> was also missing.  Your article was a fraud.

From your link:

Quote
Casus belli:    Egyptian naval blockade and military buildup in the Sinai Peninsula as well as Syrian support for Fedayeen incursions into Israel.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

domer

  • Guest
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #309 on: March 13, 2007, 12:59:37 PM »
   login | free membership | home | about us | feedback | contact us | site help      
 
 The Six-Day War
Israel, pushed to the brink by Egypt, declares war.
By Eli Barnavi
 

In the spring of 1967, Israel was threatened with annihilation, as her Arab neighbors began a series of strategic moves designed to destroy the Jewish state. American Jewry, fearing that they might once again serve as spectators to genocide, displayed unprecedented philanthropic, emotional, and physical support for Israel. Israel, in turn, enacted a swift victory, demonstrating to the world the strength and staying power of the Jewish state. The following article, which details the events of the Six-Day War, is reprinted with permission from A Historical Atlas of the Jewish People published by Schocken Books.
 

In the spring of 1957, the Israel Defense Forces withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip occupied since the Suez Cam­paign of the previous year. The United Nations sent an interna­tional Emergency Force (UNEF) to the Egyptian‑Israeli border and to Sharm el‑Sheikh. The great powers gave Israel assurances concerning the freedom of navigation in the Gulf of Eilat, and the government of Israel made it clear that any infringement of that freedom would be regarded as a casus belli.

 
 All these arrangements, however, did not secure peace in the region. The terror‑reprisal cycle continued on several fronts. The Fatah [the Palestinian group dedicated to obtaining Palestinian independence, founded by Yassir Arafat in 1951]went on sending its men from Jordan to carry out terrorist operations within Israel's borders. Syrian artillery on the Golan Heights frequently shelled settlements in the Upper Galilee and the Jordan Valley, forcing the Israeli air force to retaliate in operations that often turn­ed into mini‑wars. Moreover, al­though the Egyptian border re­mained relatively quiet, as Egypt was involved since 1962 in a civil war in Yemen, [Egyptian President] Gamal Abdul Nas­ser made no secret of his intention to destroy the State of Israel at the first opportune moment.
 

In the spring of 1967 it seemed as though that moment had come. In three weeks and by five impres­sive initiatives, Nasser managed to embroil the entire Middle East in a major war. First, Egyptian forces in the Sinai were considerably rein­forced, under the pretext of com­ing to Syria's assistance. Then Nas­ser demanded the evacuation of U.N. forces from Sinai and the Gaza Strip, and U Thant, the U.N. Secretary General, immediately acceded to his request. On May 20, Egyptian forces occupied Sharm el‑Sheikh, closing the Straits of Tiran two days later. While Egyp­tian propaganda was proclaiming the imminent and inevitable des­truction of Israel, the massive reinforcements of troops along the borders with Israel brought the numbers of Egyptian soldiers to 100,000 and tanks to 900. Once again, after ten years, Israel was directly confronted by Egyptian forces along the frontier. Finally, Nasser orchestrated a great Arab alliance: in addition to the Egyptian‑Syrian military agreement of November 1966, he now signed pacts with Jordan (May 30) and Iraq (June 4). Contingents arrived from other Arab countries, such as Kuwait and Algeria.

As Nasser had foreseen, Israel was forced to respond: the threat of annihilation could not be ignored. Accepting the closure of the Straits would have been interpreted as a sign of weakness and capitulation to Egyptian aggression; the economic strain of prolonged mobilization and the psychological effect of suspense and fear would have been unbear­able. After a "waiting period," requested by United States President Lyndon Johnson who wished to reach a peaceful resolution of the conflict, a "national unity" government was formed in Israel on June 1.
 

Bolstered by the support of world Jewry and the sympathy voiced by western public opinion, Israel attacked on the morning of June 5. Six days later, at the cost of 676 lives and over 3000 wounded, the Arab coalition formed against Israel was routed. The Israeli army occupied Egyptian Sinai, the Syrian Golan, the Jordanian West Bank, and Arab Jerusalem. The Egyp­tian and the Syrian governments accepted a cease‑fire agreement and U.N. observers were posted along the Suez Canal and on the Golan Heights. Nasser announced his resignation, but withdrew it in the face of mass demonstrations demanding his return. In his resignation speech he made clear the part the Soviets played in bringing on the war.
 

In the brief history of the State of Israel, the Six‑Day War constitutes amajor turning point. This swift and total victory saved the Zionist entity from destruction, ensured its physical existence, and disillusioned those of her enemies who had hoped that the Jewish State was just a passing phenomenon. On the other hand, these densely‑populated territories regarded as "liberated" by some Israelis and as "occupied" by others, created a whole series of insurmountable problems--political, social, economic, moral and religious--unresolved to this day. The future of the State of Israel, its character and its place among nations, now depends on their solution.

 

Eli Barnavi is the director of the Morris Curiel Center for International Studies and a Professor of Jewish History at Tel Aviv University. This article is reprinted with permission from A Historical Atlas of the Jewish People edited by Eli Barnavi and published by Schocken Books. © 1992 by Hachette Litterature.

 
 
 
 

Back To Top
 
 
 

 

 

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #310 on: March 13, 2007, 02:32:18 PM »
Ami:  <<From your [Tee's] link:  Quote
Casus belli:    Egyptian naval blockade and military buildup in the Sinai Peninsula as well as Syrian support for Fedayeen incursions into Israel.>>

That's a selective rendition indeed.  The same link cites numerous Israeli provocations including armed raids condemned by theg U.N.  and also quotes Menachem Begin to the contrary.  The summary as given, devoid of context, is meaningless.  Were the Egyptians and their allies blameless and innocent?  Of course not.  Nor was Israel.

The whole issue is a red herring raised by sirs because even if you accept the absurd hypothesis that Egypt, Syria and Jordan were alone responsible for the war, the continued military occupation of three million Arabs purportedly because of an event that occurred 39 years ago is absurd.  The one has obviously nothing to do with the other.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #311 on: March 13, 2007, 02:57:25 PM »
The summary as given, devoid of context, is meaningless.  Were the Egyptians and their allies blameless and innocent?  Of course not.  Nor was Israel.

I never said - and neither has Sirs - that Israel is totally innocent.

And the summary that I gave is in similar vein to many of your posts.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #312 on: March 13, 2007, 09:57:41 PM »
<<I never said - and neither has Sirs - that Israel is totally innocent.>>

Please.  I've got enough on my plate keeping track of what sirs said.  At some point I'm sure that both of you would have said Israel is NOT totally innocent.  Was that the point of this debate, whether or not Israel was totally innocent?

To backtrack a bit, sirs claims (a) Israel was merely defending itself in the Six Day War, without acknowledging the numerous provocations that Israel gave in the run-up to that war; and, much more importantly, claims that the occupation continues because of Arab actions that caused the Six Day War, which is patently absurd, given the time lapse, not to mention the flagrant breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention which Israel itself has signed over fifty years ago.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #313 on: March 14, 2007, 02:36:13 AM »
<<I never said - and neither has Sirs - that Israel is totally innocent.>>

sirs claims Israel was merely defending itself in the Six Day War, without acknowledging the numerous provocations that Israel gave in the run-up to that war; and, much more importantly, claims that the occupation continues because of Arab actions that caused the Six Day War, which is patently absurd, given the time lapse, not to mention the flagrant breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention which Israel itself has signed over fifty years ago.

Truely amazing, and yet not.  Actually, it's wikipedia and a boat load of other historical references/links that allude to such.  Tee, trying desperately to lay accusations that the 6 day war was really facilitated by Israel, claiming how myself, and Ami I suppose, keep ignoring some apparent provocations by Israel as supposed validation, never once referenced as Egypt & co's principle reasons for massing their military on Israel's borders, ALL THE WHILE, IGNORING PRECISELY THAT, in his own source for crying out loud, (and found in a plethora of other historical references) what actually led to the 6 day war, & what prompted Israel to take the lands in the West Bank/Golan Heights/Gaza Strip, and when not ignoring it, claim, without 1 shred of proof or evidence, how the conclusions found in wikipedia must have been doctored by some Zionist sympathizer, because...........well, because it had to be.     :-\
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #314 on: March 14, 2007, 11:22:58 AM »
<<Truely amazing, and yet not.  Actually, it's wikipedia and a boat load of other historical references/links that allude to such. >>

That's just not true.  Wikipedia (the real Wikipedia article I cited, not the truncated and obviously censored version quoted by sirs) gives as the background to the war various Israeli provocations and also quotes Menachem Begin's admission that the Egyptian troop movements in themselves did NOT leave Israel with no alternative but to attack.

<<Tee, trying desperately to lay accusations that the 6 day war was really facilitated by Israel, claiming how myself, and Ami I suppose, keep ignoring some apparent provocations by Israel as supposed validation, never once referenced as Egypt & co's principle reasons for massing their military on Israel's borders . . . >>

Hilarious.  Now sirs, desperate as ever, is introducing a new element into the debate:  Egyptian intentions, on which, being the mind--reader that he is, he must have a fully accurate read-out.  Nobody will ever know the real intentions of the Egyptians in moving troops to the border.  We can only speculate as to motive - - the FACTS are that Nasser did (and had every right to) move troops to the border, and that Israel had already attacked Egypt once without provocation (and been forced by Eisenhower to retreat.)  The Wikipedia article gives several other instances of Israeli aggression and provocation (in addition to the 1956 invasion of Egypt) against both Syria and Jordan in the months preceding the war.  In addition, the Zionist desire to annex the West Bank (the Biblical Judea and Samaria) and Jerusalem is (unlike Nasser's motives in moving troops to the border) well documented historically and beyond dispute. 

Nevertheless, sirs still attempts to peddle the story  that Israel, faced with imminent attack by its neighbours, struck out preemptively.  Nothing wrong with that picture, either - - except that he deliberately excises from the narrative that the motives for the neighbours'  attack may well have been caused wholly or partly by Israeli aggression.

<< . . . when not ignoring it [evidence that Israel's pre-emptive strike was defensive] claim, without 1 shred of proof or evidence, how the conclusions found in wikipedia must have been doctored by some Zionist sympathizer, because...........well, because it had to be.>>

Ahh, wrong again, sirs.  On two counts.  One, I don't quarrel with the conclusions of Wikipedia, I just disagree with your interpretation of them.  The conclusions (of the real Wikipedia article, not your censored/edited stump) were that the Israelis reacted to a perceived threat which they themselves may have had some hand in creating.  Further, by quoting Menachem Begin, they cast some doubt on the "perceived threat" justification commonly advanced by Zionist defenders and apologists such as yourself.  And two, it is not the conclusions but the facts that have been doctored, by the elimination of all reference to specific examples of Israeli aggression leading up to the war, which are possible explanations of the troop movements and other hostile acts of the Arabs often given as reasons  or justifications for Israel's commencement of hostilities.  As far as WHO doctored the Wikipedia article, that is just a conclusion based on reasonable circumstantial evidence and logic -- - if an article is doctored by the removal of some facts favourable to the Zionists and some favourable to the Palestinians, it would be hard to tell who doctored it; if all the facts removed are facts that favour the Arab side and discredit the Zionist side, I'm afraid, sirs, for most of us that would be a no-brainer.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2007, 09:11:11 PM by Michael Tee »