New York Times columnist Bret Stephens defends Israel’s occupation of Palestine by regurgitating Zionist propaganda about who started the 1967 Six Day War.
“In June 1967,” Bret Stephens writes in the New York Times for the 50th anniversary of the Six Day War, “Arab leaders declared their intention to annihilate the Jewish state and the Jews decided they wouldn’t sit still for it. For the crime of self-preservation, Israel remains a nation unforgiven.
“Unforgiven, Israel’s milder critics say, because the Six-Day War, even if justified at the time, does not justify 50 years of occupation.”
Stephens disagrees, asserting that the view that Israel’s ongoing occupation is unjustified “is ahistoric nonsense.”
In fact, it is Bret Stephens who is demonstrably guilty of that charge, as his article, titled “Six Days and 50 Years of War”, does nothing more than regurgitate standard Zionist propaganda.
Distorting the 1967 War
Stephens proceeds to blame the “Six Day War” of June 1967 on the Arabs by noting that a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai Peninsula was withdrawn at Egypt’s insistence and referring to an “Egyptian blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat.”
Then Stephens writes, “On June 5, the first day of the war, the Israeli government used three separate diplomatic channels to warn Jordan—then occupying the West Bank—not to initiate hostilities. The Jordanians ignored the warning and opened fire with planes and artillery.”
By this means, Stephens disgracefully deceives his readers into believing that Jordan fired the first shots of the war.
In truth, the Six Day War was begun by Israel on the morning of June 5 with a surprise attack on Jordan’s ally Egypt that obliterated its air force while most of its planes were still on the ground.
It is true that Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had instructed the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) to evacuate Egyptian territory. The conclusion readers are evidently supposed to draw is that Egypt, in partnership with Jordan, was preparing to invade Israel.
The UN peacekeeping force was “intended as a buffer with Egypt”, Stephens states. This is true, but the implication, given his provided context, is that its purpose was to protect Israel from Egyptian aggression—which is a distortion of history.
What Stephens declines to inform readers is that UNEF was established after Israel conspired with Britain and France to wage a war of aggression against Egypt in 1956, following Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal. UNEF’s purpose was not only to secure the cessation of hostilities and serve as a buffer to prevent future aggression, but also to supervise the required withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the occupied Sinai.
To lead readers to the desired conclusion, Stephens omits additional relevant context, such as how Nasser had been accused by its allies Syria and Jordan of hiding behind UNEF—such as failing to come to Jordan’s assistance when Israel on November 13, 1966, invaded the West Bank to collectively punish the civilian population of the village of Samu for the killing of three Israeli soldiers by the Palestinian group al-Fatah two days earlier.
Israel’s assumption was that by terrorizing the villagers, they would appeal to King Hussein of Jordan—which administered the West Bank in the wake of the 1948 war and ethnic cleansing of Palestine—to clamp down on Fatah. After rounding up villages in the town square, Israeli forces proceeded to engage in wanton destruction that included the razing, according to UN investigators, of 125 homes, a village clinic, and a school. Three civilians were killed and ninety-six wounded, and the UN Security Council condemned Israel for its “violation of the UN Charter and of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan”.
By omitting the context of Nasser’s humiliation in the face of such Israeli aggression, Stephens leaves his readers with the impression that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel—rather than Nasser ejecting UNEF to save face in the wake of accusations that he was hiding cowardly behind the UN peacekeepers.
In fact, UN Secretary-General U Thant, after Nasser requested its evacuation from Egyptian soil, proposed repositioning UNEF on the Israeli side of the border, but this proposal was rejected by Israel.
It’s also true that Egypt had announced the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. In Egypt’s view, the straits were its territorial waters. Israel considered this announcement a casus belli—a justification for war—but was repeatedly warned by the US government that its grievance with Egypt over the use of the straits would need to be resolved through diplomacy, not military force.
Stephens’ reference to Egypt’s closing of the straits occurs in the context of his characterization of France and the US as having abandoned Israel in its time of need: “France, hitherto Israel’s ally, had imposed an arms embargo on it; and … Lyndon Johnson had failed to deliver on previous American assurances to break any Egyptian blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat.”
While Stephens offers no explanation for France’s refusal to supply Israel with addition arms (it was already recognized as the most formidable military power in the region), it is relevant that France had been censured along with Israel by the international community—including the US—for their joint aggression against Egypt in 1956.
Presumably an oversight, Stephens does not mention the movement of Egyptian armed forces into the Sinai Peninsula prior to the June war—a fact usually cited in such Zionist propaganda accounts as proof of Nasser’s intent to invade Israel. In fact, Israel’s own intelligence had assessed, following the Egyptian movement of troops, that Nasser had no intention of attacking Israel (they judged him not to be insane), which was an assessment shared by the US intelligence community.
The CIA observed that Egypt’s forces had taken up defensive positions after having received an intelligence report from the Soviet Union that Israel was amassing forces on the border with Egypt’s ally, Syria. (“The Soviet advice to the Syrians [sic] that the Israelis were planning an attack was not far off,” State Department Middle East analyst Harold Saunders subsequently assessed, “although they seem to have exaggerated the magnitude. The Israelis probably were planning an attack—but not an invasion.”)
The CIA also accurately predicted and warned President Lyndon Johnson that the war was coming, and that it would be Israel who would start it. The documentary record of diplomatic cables during this time (i.e., the State Department’s Foreign Relations of the United States collection) is replete with warnings to Israel that it would not be politically feasible for the US to intervene on Israel’s side—as Israel was pushing the Johnson administration to do—if it was the party responsible for firing the first shot of the war.
“As your friend,” President Johnson wrote in a letter delivered to Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol on May 28, for example, “I repeat even more strongly what I said yesterday to Mr. [Abba] Eban [Israel’s ambassador to the US]. Israel just must not take any preemptive military action and thereby make itself responsible for the initiation of hostilities.” (Emphasis added.)
Having omitted all of this relevant context and deceiving readers into believing that the first shot of the war was fired by Jordan, Stephens proceeds to characterize Israel as the party seeking peace, while the recalcitrant Arabs rejected its reasonable overtures. His evidence for this is the decision by the Israeli cabinet on June 19, nine days after the end of the war, to “offer the return of territories conquered from Egypt and Syria in exchange for peace, security and recognition.”
Had Israel wanted peace with its Arab neighbors, however, it could have simply chosen not to launch the six-day war in the first place and instead heeded the Johnson administration’s advice to seek a resolution to the escalating tensions through diplomatic means in accordance with Israel’s obligations under the UN Charter.
Cautioning his readers to not “fall prey to the lazy trope of ’50 years of occupation,’ inevitably used to indict Israel”, Stephens argues that “There would have been no occupation, and no settlements, if Egypt and its allies hadn’t recklessly provoked a war.”
Needless to say, there would be no ongoing occupation after 50 years, and no illegal Israeli colonization of the occupied West Bank, if Israel hadn’t started the 1967 war with its act of aggression against Egypt and used the opportunity to engage in land-grabbing in pursuit of the Zionist dream of establishing Jewish control over all of the territory of historic Palestine.
“In 1967”, Stephens concludes, “Israel was forced into a war against enemies who then begrudged it the peace.”
In 1967, rather, Israel chose to wage war against its neighbors and then attempted to use occupied territory as a bargaining chip to draw concessions from Egypt and Syria, such as acquiescence to Israel’s rejection of the right of Palestinians who were made refugees by the Zionists’ ethnic cleansing of Palestine to return to their homeland.
In the words of Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, just as in 1956, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. 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.”
Defending Israel’s Occupation Regime
Stephens rounds out his retelling of how the 1967 war was begun by summarizing the history since then with repetition of additional standard talking points of Zionist propaganda.
“In 1973 Egypt and Syria unleashed a devastating surprise attack on Israel,” he writes—by which he means that Egypt and Syria attacked Israeli forces occupying, respectively, the Egyptian territory of the Sinai Peninsula and of the Syrian territory of the Golan Heights.
He then rolls out the lazy trope (to borrow his phrase) that the Palestinians have nobody to blame but themselves for Israel’s ongoing occupation because they have rejected repeated Israeli offers of statehood under what is euphemistically dubbed the “peace process”.
Stephens characterizes “the Oslo Accords of 1993”—(the second Oslo Accord was signed in 1995, actually, not the same year as the first)—as a “serious” effort to reach a peace agreement. In reality, as I document in my book Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the US-led so-called “peace process” is the means by which Israel and its superpower benefactor have long blocked implementation of the two-state solution, in favor of which there is otherwise a consensus in the international community.
To illustrate, Stephens writes that, “In 2000, at Camp David, Israel offered [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat a state. He rejected it.”
In fact, what Israel “offered” the Palestinians at Camp David fell far short of sovereignty and Israeli respect for their right to self-determination. Within the proper framework of what each party has a right to under international law—as opposed to the framework adopted under the “peace process” of rejecting the applicability of international law and replacing it with what Israel wants—Israel made precisely zero concessions at Camp David.
Every single concession demanded and made rather came from the Palestinian side, which had already conceded to Israel the 78 percent of the former territory of Palestine on the Israeli side of the 1949 armistice lines (also known as the pre-June 1967 lines or the “Green Line” for the color with which it was drawn on the map).
What Arafat was seeking at Camp David was an agreement that would allow the Palestinians to establish their state in the remaining 22 percent of the territory comprising the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. (Israel’s moves to annex East Jerusalem have been repeatedly recognized by the UN Security Council as illegal, null and void; and it remains under international law “occupied Palestinian territory”, to quote the International Court of Justice on the matter.)
Israel’s “offer” at Camp David included the demand that the Palestinians give up even more of their land by acquiescing to Israel’s annexation of about 9 percent of the occupied West Bank—including East Jerusalem and some of the best land where Israel had established settlements in violation of international law.
Another non-starter for the Palestinians was Israel’s demand that they surrender the right of refugees from the Zionists’ 1948 ethnic cleansing to return to their homeland.
“Our people will not accept less than their rights as stated by international resolutions and international legality”, a frustrated Arafat told US President Bill Clinton.
Contrary to Stephen’s characterization, Israel’s supposedly generous offer at Camp David fell far short of Israeli compliance with international law and respect for Palestinians’ rights.
In the same vein, Stephens writes that, “In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered a Palestinian state in Gaza and 93 percent of the West Bank. The Palestinians rejected the proposal out of hand.”
He doesn’t bother to explain to readers why the Palestinians should have agreed to accept Israeli annexation of 7 percent of the occupied West Bank, including of course East Jerusalem, as well as the surrender of Palestinian refugees’ internationally recognized right to return to their homeland. (Olmert’s “offer” also consisted of the demand that the Palestinian Authority—the administrative body established under the Oslo Accords to effectively serve as Israel’s collaborator in enforcing the occupation regime—oust Hamas and regain control of Gaza. Limited in the extent of his own collaboration with Israel by the will of the people he claimed to represent, Mahmoud Abbas justifiably dismissed the series of ultimatums dubbed an “offer” as a “waste of time”.)
“In 2005,” Stephens continues, “another right-wing Israeli government removed its soldiers, settlers and settlements from the Gaza Strip. Two years later Hamas seized control of the territory and used it to start three wars in seven years.”
In reality, Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, masterminded by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, was simply a means of gaining the political leverage required to expand and further entrench its illegal settlement regime, including the illegal construction of an annexation wall within the occupied West Bank.
It’s true that Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007, but what Stephens declines to inform Times readers is that this was a consequence of a joint effort by the US and Israel to overthrow the Hamas-led government after it legitimately gained power through democratic elections the previous year.
To punish the civilian population of Gaza for having voted the wrong way, Israel then implemented a siege of the territory, severely restricting the movement of goods and people into and out of Gaza.
The purpose of Israel’s illegal blockade of Gaza was summed up by Sharon’s senior advisor Dov Weissglass thus: “It’s like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won’t die.”
The US government was well aware of Israel’s intent to collectively punish the civilian population of Gaza. A cable from the US embassy in Tel Aviv to senior Bush administration officials including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice relayed that “Israeli officials have confirmed to Embassy officials on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis”—with “humanitarian crisis” being used euphemistically to mean the point at which Gazans would begin to drop dead from outright starvation.
As for the three “wars” Stephens refers to, this is his euphemistic description for Israel’s military assaults intended to inflict further punishment on the defenseless civilian population of Gaza: Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09, Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012, and Operation Protective Edge in 2014.
In fact, prior to each of these attacks on Gaza, it was Israel that violated ceasefire agreements with Hamas.
In 2008, for example, while Hamas strictly observed a ceasefire that had gone into effect that June, Israel routinely violated it with its continuation of the blockade, cross-border shootings, and a November 4 incursion that killed six Hamas members.
Its 2012 assault was launched the day after Hamas had again persuaded other military factions to abide by a ceasefire agreement, which Israel used to draw a senior Hamas official out of hiding in order to assassinate him at the start of its planned operation.
And in 2014, by the time the Hamas launched its first rocket attack against Israel, on July 6, Israel had already been bombing Gaza for a week (and rejected Hamas’s efforts through Egyptian mediators to reestablish a ceasefire).
In each of these military assaults on the defenseless Gaza Strip, Israel effectively implemented what its military establishment has dubbed the “Dahiya doctrine”—a reference to the leveling of the Dahiya district of Beirut to collectively punish its civilian population during Israel’s 2006 war on Lebanon.
Conclusion
It requires a great deal of chutzpah for Brett Stephens to accuse others of “ahistoric nonsense” while himself doing nothing more than regurgitating standard Zionist propaganda and deliberately misleading readers of his New York Times column into believing that it was not Israel that started the June 1967 war.
He reinforces this deception by falsely characterizing Israel as also not having been the party responsible for violating ceasefire agreements with Hamas prior to its operations in Gaza in 2008-09, 2012, and 2014.
And while Stephens tries to defend Israel’s ongoing occupation by characterizing the Palestinians as unreasonably rejecting its supposed offers of peace, the reality is that the Palestinian leadership has long accepted the two-state solution, which has since its inception been rejected by Israel and its superpower benefactor, the government of the United States of America.
ZIONIST ISRAELI OCCUPATION OF THE WEST BANK IS ALL ABOUT WATER.
A well written and accurate representation of events which “the West” has no real interest in hearing, the Zionist myths are far more preferable to Western ears
Not so for the people of the Middle East, Zionist Israeli propaganda, smoke and mirrors, is not aimed at the intrinsic M.E. population who, in the main, have a deep and informed interest regarding the situation for Palestine and the Palestinians, knowledge that pre-dates the creation of a European Zionist Colony on Palestinian land.
During the British Mandate, the British became aware that it would be impracticable to create two autonomous and economical viable states out of Palestine.
In 1922, Winston Churchill, himself a Zionist, issued a Government “White Paper” that pointed out that The Balfour Declaration “Did not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a home should be founded in Palestine”.
Moreover, while maintaining the principle of the right of Jewish immigration, Churchill established the sensible concept of “Economic Absorptive Capacity” to limit the number of Jewish immigrants to a level where they could reasonably be absorbed into Palestinian society.
Indeed during this time there were far more Jewish immigrants to Britain and America, despite the limitations on immigration that were also imposed by the USA at that time.
In 1939, The St James`s Palace Conference met officially from 7th February to 17th March, consisting of representatives of Arabs states, the Zionist delegation was led by Weizmann and Ben Gurion of the Palestinian Zionist Agency, plus leaders of Jewish communities in Britain and the USA.
The resulting White Paper envisioned a Palestine with an Arab majority and guaranteed rights for Jewish immigrants. The emphasis was on one complete viable state with Jewish immigration set at a level that could be accommodated and absorbed.
This was a compromise that did not completely satisfy all parties and was completely rejected by the Zionist Agency who refused all further discussions with Britain and in particular the Palestinian representatives.
From this time the Zionist focus was on influencing American Government and public opinion, presenting an emotional picture that avoided the fundamental issue that two states within the borders of Palestine were not economically viable.
Today Zionist Israel takes 80% of all annual water supplies from the West Banks 3 main aquifers, with no financial recompense to the Palestinian Authority. The annexed Syrian Golan Heights also provides 15% of Zionist Israels annual water consumption, Syria, also receives no compensation.
A separate Palestinian State in the West Bank would control the the supply of water that Zionist Israel could not live without.
While it would appear that a (future) Palestinian West Bank State would be advantaged by continuing to supply Zionist Israel with water, on a commercial base, it would also appear that Zionist Israel has no intentions of releasing control of West Bank sourced water supplies.
Nor the important water resources obtained from the Golan Heights.
As was first demonstrated during the St James`s Palace Conference of 1939, the Zionist Agency refused a reasonable compromise to build a future by sharing Palestinian land with Palestinian people.
Instead Zionist Israel has pursued a policy of total control of Zionist interests, while at the same time promoting a picture of innocent Jewish Israeli victims – If it were a comic book story, it would not be believed!
Zionist Israel hides behind the skirts of the well respected religion of Judaism.
Zionist Israel relies on and needs ignorance for it`s support.
Zionist Israel brings shame upon Jews
Rain that falls in another country cannot be considered that country’s water unless they properly collect it. The aquifir along the cost provides less than 10% of Israel’s water. If the PA wanted to collect that water, they could so with the billions of dollars in aide they receive instead of teaching hate in their school curriculum they could enrich their children’s education to find solutions to ongoing issues. In any case the PA receives ample fresh water from their illegally dug wells and supplemented by Israel who no longer has a water shortage due to modern technologies it has developed. There is no need for the rain that falls in Judea and Samaria to flow to the Mediterranean any longer.
Since there never was a ‘Palestinian land’ not a ‘Palestinian people’ it would be very difficult to share anything with such an entity. The Arabs are sharing Israel with the sovereign State of Israel and without the interference of foreign ignorant people things would be a bit more normal.
But you are correct in your assumption that the water shortages of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan are a big part of the hatred of Israel. Israel has done something about her water shortages and Jordan is now under the wing of Israel in this respect. The other countries want freebies without having to work.
You provide an excellent confirmation, norek, of my comment that Zionist Israel provides propaganda that is aimed a “The West”. You are simply repeating the nonsense contained in the Hasbara archives that is aimed to deflect and divert from the reality of Zionist Israeli Apartheid policies.
Zionist Israel controls all aspects of water supply, The Zionist Israeli Government provided the Israeli water company Mekorot with the exclusive assignment for water sources in The occupied West Bank. Mekorot has admitted it regularly cut`s water supplies to Palestinian W.B. districts as “Punishment” on the instructions of the Zionist Israeli Government.
The Palestinian authority is prevented from using a water supply system that existed long before Zionist Israel did, and any Palestinian attempting to dig a well will find it is quickly destroyed by Zionist Israeli occupational forces.
At Least 45% of annual Israeli water water consumption is taken, without financial compensation, from the occupied Palestinian West Bank and Syrian Golan heights.
As for your strange and inaccurate claim of no “Palestinian people”, while Israelis share “A Sovereign state with Arabs”, is complete self delusion! There are 5 million United Nations Registered Palestinian refugees, all denied the right of return to their homeland, simply because they are Christians and Muslims.
Despite, norek, a promise given by David ben Gurion in 1948 that,as a condition of United Nations membership, displaced Palestinians would be allowed to return.
To claim Palestine and Palestinians did not exist is as farcical as to claim the Sun does not exist, the only people who could believe such stupidity would have to be blind.
You may fervently need to believe the superficial deflective Zionist propaganda, but you would be far better to actually know what you are claiming.
If, as you claim, Zionist Israel has no need for this water, then your intelligence is severely restricted or you choose to ignore the reality.
Your claim that Zionist Israel supplies water to Jordan is a total fiction, with no basis in fact, another example of Hasbara smoke and mirrors, why do you need to resort to outright lies, if not to divert from the reality?
Ignorance is not Bliss, norak, it`s simply ignorance.
Zionist Israel brings shame upon Jews.
Mike Thompson “Israeli Apartheid policies”.?Who and cleansed Jews from East Jerusalem , from Judea and Samaria in1948 ? Who forbiden to jews to settling in Jordan ? What do faith of became of Arabs that stayed In Israel ? Did not arabs stayed in israeli territory became full Israeli citizen?
How many jews stayed in Jerusalem in Judea and Samaria -no one! They were all expelled or killed ! The same had hapenned in Gaza ! So cut of your lies !
There is no “Full Israeli Citizenship” available to Palestinian Arabs who stayed in their homes after the Zionist expansion of Israeli borders, Yefim. Instead they are classified as “Residential Citizens” who can be, and are, regularly deported, apart from Palestinian Arabs who follow the Jewish faith.
Nor is it possible, in Zionist Israel, for non-Jewish Palestinians to marry Jewish Israeli citizens, those that marry in say Cyprus, and return to Israel (None in the past 8 years) where their “Israeli” partners are reclassified as “Residential Citizens”, and children born from such “Mixed Marriages” are liable for deportation when reaching the age of 12 (With or without their parents).
Palestinian Israeli Residential Citizens are subject to over 60 Zionist laws that apply only to Palestinian Residential Citizens. Palestinian villages and schools in Israel receive 25% of the funding provided to Zionist Israeli villages and schools, despite Palestinians paying the same taxes as Zionists.
Interestingly, the last Israeli Government figures published (2014) revealed that some 70 Jewish Israelis converted to Islam or Christianity in that year and 7 Christian or Muslim Palestinians converted to Judaism, marriage was the most prevalent reason given.
As for your claim that all Jews in Jerusalem, and the West Bank were expelled or killed – this is in direct opposition to the Hasbara archives that claim Jews have always resided in those places.
You note I emphasise “Zionist” policies, not Jewish policies. Zionism is a European Nationalistic Racist Political movement, no different from the European Nazi Racist political movement, particularly in Zionist emulation of Nazi racial superiority.
Zionism brings disgrace to Judaism – Zionist Israel brings shame upon Jews – the evidence is overwhelming – If you look!
Mike Thompson ,A Jew can not marry a Fakestinian woman in the first place, because she will be killed by her family by honor killing! Check Honor killings!
Second the Fakestinians were Jordanian and Egyptian citizens before Defencive Six Day’s war in1967 were they became Israeli resedents.
The Israel give them self goverment In PA and Arabs State in Gaza!
Gaza they turned to Iranian arm base and made constant terorist attack on israel!
So only idiot could propose such noncence as Israeli citisenship to fascist hostile Fakestinians!
Neo Nazis Palestinehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMjUszoBYGc
Palestine Nazie de 1935 à 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgfDQElo1xo&feature=share
It is not legally possible for non-Jews to marry Jews in Zionist Israel, Yefim, don`t try to blame Palestinians!
Your remaining comments are lifted strait from the Hasbara archives and are simply Zionist propaganda designed to deflect from the realities of Zionist policies.
For the 600 years of Ottoman occupation there was a Palestinian Vilayet (Region of State) with Al Quds (Jerusalem) as the Liwa (Capital) with a Mutasafifiya (Governor) having a seat in the Turkish Parliament.
The M.E. system was not unlike the USA to-day, with the exception that borders did not exist. You are assuming the borders we see today are historical, when in fact they were artificially imposed by the British and French post WW1.
You also seem unaware that the annual average of Israelis murdered by Israelis is 29, much higher than the annual average number of Israelis murdered by Palestinians. As for Gaza, since the arrival of Hamas, the total number of Israelis killed by rockets from Gaza is 27 and included 4 fatal heart attacks attributed to rockets.
Interestingly, since September 2000, Palestinian`s are responsible for the deaths of 134 Israeli children (non in the past 4 years), while at the same time 2,167 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis (400 in the past 4 years) – A ratio of 16 to 1.
As for Iran supplying weapons to Gaza, the number of Israeli fatalities would be very much higher if that were the case, according to Netanyahu, Iran has rockets with sophisticated guidance systems, much more accurate than the crude unguided rockets that are fired from Gaza.
Best in my opinion to reinforce your opinions with verifiable facts, rather that the nonsensical fiction that you have provided.
Were Israel to actually treat Palestinians as equals, the problems we see today would not exist, but of course the Zionist aims would not exist either!
Mike Thompson, who are Palestinians and who are Fakestinians! Are Arab invaders Palestinians?
Jews did not took Land of Israel it from Arabs, it it was not Arabs states it this time! The Land not was in Arab possession but was in possession of Ottoman Empire the winners Britain and Allies after won in WW1 transferred their power to League of Nations, League of Nations give all Palestine to Jews as legal heir! League of Nation signed Britain to execute the transfer to Zionist organization the Power to build Jewish National Home in Palestine and gave all legal Right to Jews immigrate to Palestine not to Arab invaders!
‘Could [the UN Partition Plan Vote] been a day of celebrations for both peoples?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGBzVCuE1oA
Mark Twain’s Palestine – Orientalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xnX-_kGjLY
Adriani Relandi Visit to Palestine 1699
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2xmmOmHqCU
“Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata” – a detailed geographical survey of Palestine in 1696 written in Latin by Adriaan Reland published by Willem Broedelet, Utrecht, in 1714. Residents of the REGION mainly concentrated in cities: Jerusalem, Acre, Safed, Jaffa, Tiberias and Gaza. In most cities, the majority of residents are Christians, Jews and others, very few Muslims who generally are Bedouin, who came to serve as Seasonal workers in agriculture or building. Nablus: 120 muslims, 70 Samaritans Nazareth: 700 people – all Christians Umm al-Fahm: 50 people-10 families, ALL Christian Gaza: 550 people- 300 Jews,250 Christian(Jews engaged in agriculture Christians deal with the trading and transporting the products) Tiberias: 300 residents, all Jews. Safed: about 200 inhabitants, all Jews Jerusalem: 5000 people, most of them (3,500) Jews, the rest – Christian (1000) Muslim (500) Please, enlighten me, how many Muslims were in Jerusalem? 500, wow, sure seemed important when there were 3,500 Jews and 1000 Christians. And the rest of the land that was so important, please tell me how many were in Gaza? WHAT ZERO, how could that be? But lets blow this open shall we, lets see what all the explorers had to say when they visited the area. “There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent (valley of Jezreel, Galilea); not for thirty miles in either direction… One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings. For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee… Nazareth is forlorn… Jericho lies a moldering ruin… Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation… untenanted by any living creature. – Mark Twain, “The Innocents Abroad”, 1867 – “There are many proofs, such as ancient ruins, broken aqueducts, and remains of old roads, which show that it has not always been so desolate as it seems now. In the portion of the plain between Mount Carmel and Jaffa one sees but rarely a village or other sights of human life. There some rude mills here which are turned by the stream. A ride of half an hour more brought us to the ruins …” – B. W. Johnson, in “Young Folks in Bible Lands”: Chapter IV, 1892 – “The land in Palestine is lacking in people to till its fertile soil”. – British archaeologist Thomas Shaw, mid-1700s – “Palestine is a ruined and desolate land” – Count Constantine François Volney, XVIII century French author and historian – “The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population”. – James Finn, British Consul in 1857 – In 1844, William Thackeray writes about the road from Jaffa to Jerusalem: “Now the district is quite deserted, and you ride among what seem to be so many petrified waterfalls. We saw no animals moving among the stony brakes; scarcely even a dozen little birds in the whole course of the ride.” “In Judea it is hardly an exaggeration to say that for miles and miles there was no appearance of life or habitation.” Penrhyn Stanley, British cartographer, 1881 Photos of the Temple Mount (1877) http://smoothstone.blogspot.Co.Il/2005/12/photos-of-temple-mount-1877.html In 1866, W.M. Thomson writes: “How melancholy is this utter desolation. Not a house, not a trace of inhabitants, not even shepherds, to relieve the dull monotony … Much of the country through which we have been rambling for a week appears never to have been inhabited, or even cultivated; and there are other parts, you say, still more barren.” “Outside the city of Jerusalem, we saw no living object, heard no living sound … a complete eternal silence reigns in the town, in the highways, in the country.” Alphonse de Lamartine, travel book, 1835 In 1874, Reverend Samuel Manning wrote: “But where were the inhabitants? This fertile plain, which might support an immense population, is almost a solitude…. Day by day we were to learn afresh the lesson now forced upon us, that the denunciations of ancient prophecy have been fulfilled to the very letter — “the land is left void and desolate and without inhabitants.” (Jeremiah, ch.44 v.22) “The area was under populated and remained economically stagnant until the arrival of the first Zi0nist pioneers in the 1880’s, who came to rebuild the Jewish land. The country had remained “The Holy Land” in the religious and historic consciousness of mankind, which associated it with the Bible and the history of the Jewish people. Jewish development of the country also attracted large numbers of other immigrants – both Jewish and Arab. – The report of the British Royal Commission, 1913 –
“Second the Fakestinians [sic] were Jordanian and Egyptian citizens before Defencive [sic] Six Day’s war in1967 were they became Israeli resedents.[sic]”
Pure bunk!!!
Reality:
It seems like many others, you have been duped by Joan Peters’ long since debunked mountain of mendacity, “From Time Immemorial…”
To wit:
Professor Porath, one of Israel’s leading demographic historians, called Peters’ book a “forgery… [that] was almost universally dismissed [in Israel] as sheer rubbish except maybe as a propaganda weapon.”(New York Times, Nov.28, 1985)
Rabbi Arthur Herzberg, vice-president of the World Jewish Congress, agreed: “I think that she’s cooked the statistics…. The scholarship is phony and tendentious. I do not believe that she has read the Arabic sources that she quotes.”(ibid)
To again quote Professor Porath: “The precise demographic history of modern Palestine cannot be summed up briefly, but its main features are clear enough and they are very different from the fanciful description Mrs. Peters gives…. [S]he has apparently searched through documents for any statement to the effect that Arabs entered Palestine. But even if we put together all the cases she cites, one cannot escape the conclusion that most of the growth of the Palestinian Arab community resulted from a process of natural increase.” (“Mrs. Peters’ Palestine” New York Review of Books, 16 January 1986.)
GET EDUCATED!!!
Sometimes I feel sorry for them – and then I remember .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGteUMIyZ_E
Mike Thompson,Palestinian Arabs follow the Jewish faith? Or Arabs have freedom of their faith and stayed in their Faith! There are about 2 million of Arab Citizen in Israel today! How many Jews Citizen of Arab states there were more then million all they were expelled after 1948!
You are clearly suffering from conformation bias, Yefim, and your beliefs are based on inaccuracies (Or Zionist propaganda).
There was no “Arab expulsion” of Arab Jews, but there was “Operation Magic Carpet) in 1947 and 1948, where Israeli aircraft flew to RAF airfields throughout the M.E. to fly Arab Jews to Israel with the promise of free furnished homes and a cash lump sum to compensate for the fact that no luggage was allowed to be taken on flights.
If you think about it, there was no other way for Arab Jews to enter Israeli held land! Official Israeli Government figures report betwee 200,000 and 250,000 Jewish Arabs immigrated this way.
Ariel Sharon wrote that Mossad had to “It was worth the burinig of a Few Synagogues in Baghdad” to encourage Jewish Arab immigration.
Iran to-day has some 30,000 Iranian Jews (one is part of the Iranian UN delegation), at least 14 Synagogues in Tehran alone, a Jewish library and three Kosher resraurants. Those Iranian Jews have a permanent Israeli offer of $60,000 if they immigrate to Israel.
Iranian Jews and some 300,000 Iranian Christians are protected by the Iranian constitution and provided with seats in the Iranian Parliament without standing for election.
All very easy to verify and confirm!
Water is only a small part of the agenda.
It`s the main reason for the military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, CumExApostolatus.
Gaza has a serious water shortage problem, Zionist Israel withdrew it`s Gaza settlements and moved those inhabitants to the occupied West Bank.
HA! HA! HA!So for you Zionist Israel withdrew it`s Jewish Gaza settlements because of serious water shortage problem ?
That`s one reason that was given by Ariel Sharon in the Knesset, in 2005, Yefim.
In his announcement he stated that new settlements “could” be created in the (illigally) Occupied West Bank.
To-day Illigal Zionist settlements in the West Bank consume 300 liters of water per person, in Israel itself water consumption id 240 liters per person per day.
Palestinian West Bank water consumption is 73 liters per person per day – while in Gaza water consumption is only 30 liters per person per day, and according to the United Nations, Gaza water is unfit for humanconsumption.
Thank you, Yefim, for providing me with the opportunity to provide the facts.
Mike Thompson, all Jewish settlement are legal by International law!what is illegal is Arab fakestinians are illegal! All Judea and Samaria in cluding East Jerusalem was part of Jewish state because Arab Fakestinians did not agreed To UN proposal plan and started the civilian war in November 1947
What Are Israel by International Law?
http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/palestinians-are-anti-semitic-myth/#xLGxvWtcdkqwBSZK.01
The 1947 UN vote partitioned the territory which the British, in 1921, had baptized “Palestine” into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews living there accepted this legally and internationally agreed-to partition proposal. The Arabs did not. The Arab population living in British Mandate “Palestine,” under the leadership of the former Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al Husseini, declared war, as did the Arab states. And this was not to be just any war – the Arabs promised to finish Adolf Hitler’s job and exterminate the Jews living in the Middle East. Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, announced:
“This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”[19c]”Arab leaders, including the Arab League and the (Palestinian) Arab Higher Committee categorically rejected the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and said they would make every effort to prevent its implementation. So, Jamal al-Husseini, the acting chairman of the Arab Higher Committee, November 24, 1947 threatened that “Palestine will be covered with fire and blood, if the Jews will have at least some part of it”
The arabs regected proposition of United Nations Palestinian Partition plan in 1947 and started civilian war. It is the Arab followers of the Mufti [Hajj Amin], and not the Jews, who are engaged in a war of aggression, and who are defying the United Nations.”[19cc]
That is not all. Simultaneously, Britain was doing everything in its power to help the Arab armies.
“The first large-scale assault began on January 9, 1948, when approximately 1,000 Arabs attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine. By February, the British said so many Arabs had infiltrated they lacked the forces to run them back. In fact, the British turned over bases and arms to Arab irregulars and the Arab Legion.
…The Arabs had no difficulty obtaining the arms they needed. In fact, Jordan’s Arab Legion was armed and trained by the British, and led by a British officer. At the end of 1948 and beginning of 1949, British RAF planes flew with Egyptian squadrons over the Israel-Egypt border. On January 7, 1949, Israeli planes shot down four of the British aircraft.”[19d]
Never mind that it was barely three years since the Jews had finished suffering the Nazi Final Solution; the British aid to the Arabs included sending captured German Nazi officers to lead the Arab armies that had openly pledged themselves to wipe out the Israeli Jews
Sixty two Jews have been killed by Arabs on the first week after the United Nations Palestinian Partition proposal plan , and by May, 15th 1948, in total 1 256 Jews have been killed, the majority of them civil inhabitants….
The fact – 1 256 Jews, have been killed for in five months. Even before the first Arabian village have been captured in April, 924 Jews have been already killed. These Jews murdering were committed by Arabian militias, brigades terrorists and army units which have attacked each place of the Jewish residing in Palestine.
Attacks have succeeded that have placed Jerusalem under siege and finally have cut of water supply. All the Jewish villages in Negev have undergone to an attack, and Jews should go about the country in escorts. In each main city where Jews and Arabs lived in mixed neighborhoods , the Jewish areas have got under bombardment. It was correct in Hadar Haifa Hacarmel just as Old City of Jerusalem.
Slaughter was business rather usual.
THIRTY NINE Jews have been killed by the Arabian rebels in a factory on clearing oil of Haifa on December, 30th on January, 1947.16th 1948, 35 Jews have been killed, trying to defending Etzion Bloc. on February, 22nd, 44 Jews have been killed in bombardment on Rehove Ben-Yehuda Ierusalima. And on February, 29th, 23 Jews have been killed all across Palestin, eight of them in iron manufacture Hayotzek.
Thirty five Jews have been killed during Fastening slaughter of an escort during the Mount Scopus on April, 13th. And 127 Jews have been destroyed in Kfar Etzion on May, 15th 1948 after others 30 have died, protecting Block Etzion.
In the Arabian countries also killed more than 100 Jews, and synagogues have been burnt in Aleppo and Aden, has led to that that thousand Jews have l abandoned their houses.
Back in Palestin a lot of small kibbutzs have been subjected to attacks, including Gvulot, Ben-Shemen, Holon, Safed, Bat Yam and Kfar Yavetz – all in December. In January and February, it was the turn of Rishon Lezion, Yehiam, Mishmar Hayarden, Tirat Zvi, Sde Eliahu, Ein Hanatziv, Magdiel, Mitzpe Hagalil and Ma’anit
In March and April these attacks reached the culmination with an attack on Hartuv 400 Arabs based in village Ishwa and an attack on Kfar Darom by members of a Muslim Brotherhood.
Arabs attacked also bombed the Palestinian Post in February. In March, the Jewish Agency, Solel Boneh building in Haifa and bus Egged also bombed.
Arab leaders, including the Arab League and the (Palestinian) Arab Higher Committee categorically rejected the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and said they would make every effort to prevent its implementation. So, Jamal al-Husseini, the acting chairman of the Arab Higher Committee, November 24, 1947 threatened that “Palestine will be covered with fire and blood, if the Jews will have at least some part of it”
The arabs regected proposition of United Nations Palestinian Partition
plan in 1947 and started civilian war .
Sixty two Jews have been killed by Arabs on the first week after the United Nations Palestinian Partition proposal plan , and by May, 15th 1948, in total 1 256 Jews have been killed, the majority of them civil inhabitants….
The fact – 1 256 Jews, have been killed for in five months. Even before the first Arabian village have been captured in April, 924 Jews have been already killed. These Jews murdering were committed by Arabian militias, brigades terrorists and army units which have attacked each place of the Jewish residing in Palestine.
Attacks have succeeded that have placed Jerusalem under siege and finally have cut of water supply. All the Jewish villages in Negev have undergone to an attack, and Jews should go about the country in escorts. In each main city where Jews and Arabs lived in mixed neighborhoods , the Jewish areas have got under bombardment. It was correct in Hadar Haifa Hacarmel just as Old City of Jerusalem.
Slaughter was business rather usual.
THIRTY NINE Jews have been killed by the Arabian rebels in a factory on clearing oil of Haifa on December, 30th on January, 1947.16th 1948, 35 Jews have been killed, trying to defending Etzion Bloc. on February, 22nd, 44 Jews have been killed in bombardment on Rehove Ben-Yehuda Ierusalima. And on February, 29th, 23 Jews have been killed all across Palestin, eight of them in iron manufacture Hayotzek.
Thirty five Jews have been killed during Fastening slaughter of an escort during the Mount Scopus on April, 13th. And 127 Jews have been destroyed in Kfar Etzion on May, 15th 1948 after others 30 have died, protecting Block Etzion.
In the Arabian countries also killed more than 100 Jews, and synagogues have been burnt in Aleppo and Aden, has led to that that thousand Jews have l abandoned their houses.
Back in Palestine a lot of small kibbutzs have been subjected to attacks, including Gvulot, Ben-Shemen, Holon, Safed, Bat Yam and Kfar Yavetz – all in December. In January and February, it was the turn of Rishon Lezion, Yehiam, Mishmar Hayarden, Tirat Zvi, Sde Eliahu, Ein Hanatziv, Magdiel, Mitzpe Hagalil and Ma’anit
In March and April these attacks reached the culmination with an attack on Hartuv 400 Arabs based in village Ishwa and an attack on Kfar Darom by members of a Muslim Brotherhood.
Arabs attacked also bombed the Palestinian Post in February. In March, the Jewish Agency, Solel Boneh building in Haifa and bus Egged also bombed.
It is the Arab followers of the Mufti [Hajj Amin], and not the Jews, who are engaged in a war of aggression, and who are defying the United Nations.”[19cc]
Great Britain could not prevent the re-establishment of jewish state Israel.
But as a result of the UK action, restored in 1948, the State of Israel has received an extremely small part of the territory of the Ottoman Palestine, and immediately turned the victim of aggression of Islamic countries, is dependent on Britain, started an unprovoked war against Israel, that is, committed an act of aggression, with the covert support of Great Britain
Great Britain founded of the armed forces of Transjordan (Jordan) was formed by the British Arab Legion, commanded by British officers who, led by General Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb, , known as Glubb Pasha, who led and trained Transjordan’s Arab Legion. Jordanian budget is largely covered by the British “financial aid.” Those. Great Britain has not only created the military forces of aggression, but also financed the aggression and annexation of the territory of the State of Israel, under its guarantees.
“The first large-scale assault began on January 9, 1948, when approximately 1,000 Arabs attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine. By February, the British said so many Arabs had infiltrated they lacked the forces to run them back. In fact, the British turned over bases and arms to Arab irregulars and the Arab Legion.
.The Arabs had no difficulty obtaining the arms they needed. In fact, Jordan’s Arab Legion was armed and trained by the British, and led by a British officer. At the end of 1948 and beginning of 1949, British RAF planes flew with Egyptian squadrons over the Israel-Egypt border. On January 7, 1949, Israeli planes shot down four of the British aircraft.”[19d]
On February 22, 1948, Palestinian Arab terrorists, with the help of British deserters, bombed Ben Yehuda Street in Jerusalem. It was the first of many that would occur over the years in that location.
http://unitedwithisrael.org/this-week-in-israels-history-palestinian-arab-terrorists-and-british-deserters-bomb-ben-yehuda-street-in-jerusalem/
israelOccupied Lelally Judea Samaria Not (West Bank Namehat was given by Jodanian invaders East Faketinians)
Well thanks for that Yefim, lifted straight from the Hasbara Archives and the sort of misleading Zionist propaganda that is believed only by the ignorant.
It`s a very simple matter for anyone to simply “Google” any of the assertions you make and find out the reality for themselves, for example the “episode” in 1834 that you mention as a “Massacre of Palestinian Jews” was nothing of the sort.
The Ottoman occupiers of the M.E. announced al Palestinian males, above the age of 22, woud be conscripted into the Turkish Army. This resulted in what became known as “The Peasants Revolt” which started on the 15th June, 1834 and was an armed resistance that lasted 33 days, after which the conscription order was scrapped.
During that time some 1,000 Palestinians died, of which 11 were Jewish Palestinians, fighting side by side with Christian and Muslim Palestinians against an injustice.
It is a perversion of history for Zionists to claim this was a “Arab massacre of Jews”, but it is standard Zionist propaganda to present selective one sided interpretations of historic reality, which is accepted as accurate only by the ignorant.
If you are concerned about “Massacres in Palestine” then all you need do is “Google “Tantura Massacre”,one of some 600 examples that are readily verified.
Mike Thompson, Martin Sicker is Zionist?
Arab invasion to Holy Land: Read the book by author Martin Sicker.From Muhamed Ali to the British Mandate.
http://books.google.co.il/books?id=TWBxUi5fVS0C&pg=PA13&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
a)The Jewish Population of Palestine declined in years 1832-1840 decreased to half as result of Muslim, Arabs massacres.
b.The year 1838 Muslim and Arab mobs attack Safed. Arab rebels and Muslim mobs plundered Jewish quarters for three days. http://books.google.co.il/books?id=TWBxUi5fVS0C&pg=PA13&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
c. The year 1834 looting of Safed 1834 Safed by Arab rioters that originally was anti-Egyptian revolt turn as pogroms, killing, detail torture and mass-rape of the Jewish population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1834_looting_of_Safed
c. .Egyptian invasion to Holy Land at the year 1832-40
.Arab revolt began against Egyptians occupation of Palestine began in 1832 and lasted until 1840
The year 1834. Hebron massacre by Egyptian troops killed Over 500 people did not distinguish
between inhabitants; for three hours, troops plundered, killed, raped and maimed Muslim and Jew alike .1834 Hebron massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1834_Hebron_massacre
5.There are no real figures to determine exactly how many immigrants entered Palestine during the Nineteenth Century.However, it is on record that in1882 there were141,000 Muslims living in all of Palestine( it mean Jordan too), of whom at least 25 percent were newcomers or descendants of those who arrived after 1832
so you’re saying it is, acceptable to you for the american indians to steal the land back that your ancestors stole from them?
or that it, was acceptable to you for islam to steal and occupy land from southern europe, and southern asia and Yesrael?
when according to the 1910 census, the only ones living permanently in Yesrael were jews. and temporary residence called bedouins (decedents of Lot). the rest of the arab nations, considered the land uninhabitable. can even read, Samuel Clemens accounting of Yesrael, after the civil war when he visited there.
You seem to have a highly selective, and quite inaccurate version of history, Jimmy.
The Hebrews originated in Iraq, when it was Egypt of course, Abraham was born in the ancient city of Ur, close to to-days Basra, that would make Abraham and the Hebrews what we would call today “Arabs”.
“Arab” was a word first used by the Assyrians, some 1,200 B.C. to describe the people living within Assyrian rule, which covered all of Arabia, with the exception of Hijaz – where Islam was founded in the 7th century, Hijaz was renamed (in the West) as Saudi Arabia in 1934.
There was no 1910 census, the only Ottoman census that detailed religion of Palestinians was in 1854, revealing that Palestinian religious following was 85% Muslim, 10% Christian and 5% Jews. Your claim that “Arab Nations” considered Palestine inhabitable is so incorrect as to be laughable, Mark Twain was a writer of fiction, you would do better to read the description by Herodotus (The Father of History) written in 450 B.C. Or the annual British reports to the League of Nations, both described a vibrant abundant part of the M.E.
Invasions and occupations are a part of history, and the M.E. has has almost continual occupation by foreigners, almost without exception those M.E. occupiers made very sure that they provided an advantage to Arabs of the M.E. (Alexander the Great is still venerated in the M.E. for the advantages he provided).
There are two exceptions, the first was the Crusaders, who refused to integrate and after almost 200 years they were driven out), the second is Zionist Israel, consisting of some 6 million Jews of mostly European origin who subjugate by force of arms, some 12 million Palestinians, of whom 5 million are UN registered refugees, all denied the right of return to their homeland, simply because they are non Jewish, 2 million Palestinians in the Gaza Ghetto, 3 million West Bank Palestinians under military occupation and 2 million Palestinians as Residential Citizens of Zionist Israel.
There are many examples of occupation and integration – Not one single example of a minority subjugating a majority by force of arms permanently – and Zionist Israel will not be the first, demographics will ensure that.
What a shame that Zionist immigrants demanded, and still demand, exclusive use of Palestinian land, and part of Syria and the Lebanon. If they had only integrated into M.E. society with equal rights for all, what a far far better place we would now see – but of course that would need Zionism to be abandoned.
And it`s a simple reality that the large majority of the worlds 15 million or so followers of Judea have neither the need nor the desire to live on occupied Palestinian land, they live in their own respective lands where they are successfully integrated into those societies as valuable members.
Zionism is a disgrace to Judaism – Zionist Israel brings shame upon Jews.
“The CIA also accurately predicted and warned President Lyndon Johnson that the war was coming, and that it would be Israel who would start it. The documentary record of diplomatic cables during this time (i.e., the State Department’s Foreign Relations of the United States collection) is replete with warnings to Israel that it would not be politically feasible for the US to intervene on Israel’s side—as Israel was pushing the Johnson administration to do—if it was the party responsible for firing the first shot of the war.”
‘“As your friend,” President Johnson wrote in a letter delivered to Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol on May 28, for example, “I repeat even more strongly what I said yesterday to Mr. [Abba] Eban [Israel’s ambassador to the US]. Israel just must not take any preemptive military action and thereby make itself responsible for the initiation of hostilities.” ‘(Emphasis added.)
The above excerpt from the article puts the lie to the new book by Phillip Nelson titled, “Remember the Liberty” in which Nelson tries to lay the blame on Lyndon Johnson for the deliberate attack on the USS Liberty, by the Jews (a.k.a. Israeli Defense Forces) on the fourth day of the so-called ‘six day war’, killing 34 U.S. servicemen, maiming and wounding more than 170 others, and nearly sinking the ship in international waters. The IDF straifed life boats being lowered into the water with survivors (another war crime). The intention of the Jews was to sink the Liberty and to ensure no survivors, in order to blame Egypt and to draw the United States into a war in the Middle East. Johnson and McNamara recalled US jets and rescue personnel because they didn’t want to “embarrass” their ally, the Jews. Russia had sent jets to the area (since Syria was a Russian ally) but heard there were, in fact some survivors, which may prevented a confrontation between the US and Russia at that time. The Jews have been itching for a confrontation between the US and Russia for decades.
The large majority of the worlds 15 million or so followers of Judaism, CumExApostolatus, have neither the need nor the desire to live on occupied Palestinian land, they are successfully integrated into their homelands where they contribute successfully as minority citizens.
The Israel we see to-day is a result of the European Zionist Racist Political movement which demanded exclusive occupation of Palestine (and part of Syria and The Lebanon).
Zionism is little different from the European Nazi Racist Political movement, particularly with Zionisms emulation of the Nazi racial superiority ideals.
Hitler was a Christian (Catholic) and the German people were overwhelmingly Christians (mostly Protestants) and hugely supportive of Nazi ideals (and the Concentration camps).
Zionism has been very successful in hiding behind the skirts of Judaism, something Hitler never attempted!
When we rightly condemn Nazi atrocities, we don`t condemn the Christians who carried them out, pretty much as we should not condemn Jews for the atrocities carried out by Israeli Zionists.
Zionism is a disgrace to Judaism – Zionist Israel brings shame upon Jews.
hypocrites! 440 years of european occupation of north america. 500 + years of spanish occupation in south and north america. 70 years of russian occupation, of eastern europe and southwest asia under the ussr. 400 years of french occupation, of indochina and north africa. 300 years of german occupation, of north and centeral africa. 1500 years of roman occupation of eastern europe and the middle east. 2000 years, of occupation of the middle east and africa by egypt. 400 years of ottoman empire occupation of southern europe and southern asia. etc…etc…etc… now just because it is the alleged as jews, returning to reoccupy their homeland it becomes unacceptable. and the area in mid-transjordan designated for the alleged as palestineans was stolen by the king of jordan then.
so! are any of you living in reality, about occupied lands? do any of you, expect me to move off this occupied land i am living on to suit your bogus mental magic reality? when the chances are if you call yourself, a south or north american your living on occupied land. and everyone on earth are occupiers and/or caretakers of the land we all live on. and The Multitude of all known nations, were given the command from ELOHEEM to occupy the land known as Yesrael. can any of you say the same, for your nations or states?
Nothing wrong with occupation per se, Jimmie, it`s how the occupiers conduct themselves.
And Zionist Israel applies a policy of Genocidal Apartheid with the aim of removing the intrinsic Palestinian population.
Zionist Israel is in violation of 78 United Nations resolutions – an all time record.
The USA has vetoed a further 31 UN Security Council Resolutions critical of Zionist Israel – An all time record.
The USA has threatened to veto (since 1972) a further 42 UN security Council resolutions critical of Zionist Israel, so preventing debate – An all time record.
In September 2016, Ehud Barak and Moshe Yaalon, both spoke in the Knesset saying: “(Zionist) Israel is acting like and becoming a Fascist State”.
When two leading Israeli figures compare Zionist Israel with Nazi Germany, the world should be concerned and Zionist Israelis should be very concerned.
Hasbara propaganda is wearing very thin.
Quite an old post- but the amount of Anti-Semitism here is crazy (and by that I mean the traditional definition which termed the hatred for people who speak Arabic, Hebrew and (Latin) due to their religious connotations, not the modern definition us westerners have catered to the Jewish only). So I thought I’ll say a few things no one else wants to admit.
1. The Arab world has abandoned Palestine. Palestine have a heavy Shia population, and after the Shia terrorists attacks in Saudi between the 80s and 90s- the Arab League want to ignore Palestine save for Qatar, and this is the real reason why Qatar is also becoming a victim of the prejudice in the Arab League. All the while Israeli-American relations grow stronger and stronger- just need to look at Trump and UNESCO. People failed to appreciate that Palestine is in a conflict by itself, while Israel is backed by most of the world, and a growing number of Arab states,
It’s sad to think Arabs and Jewish used to live in peace. Some scholars, even say that the Prophet PBUH stated that the Jewish are as much of the Ummah as any muslim, after a Jewish maid attempted to poision him, and was expelled by her Jewish leader.
Asking who started this war, or what this war is about is the wrong question. We need to start asking how (if ever) can we end it
I agree with your final premise — that we ought to start looking for ways to end this conflict, but doing so when when group will not end its fight for the area between the Med Sea and the Euphrates River, no matter what, then you will agree, the Palestinians are going, eventually, to lose out.
However, I disagree with your thought that ” Israel is backed by most of the world, and a growing number of Arab states.” Isreal has had a number of accusations placed against it in the UN, mostly with accusations that Israel has, once again, committed crimes against its Palestinian subjects. With votes of eg. 50 to 3, the sanctions were brought to the Security Council and would have passed had they not been vetoed by the US.
Israel has few friends among the democratic nations. And if it came right down to it, it would only have one friend — the USA.
Ik on the face of it Arab countries seem not to be best of friends with Israel. Recent Arab policy in particular Saudi policy on Israel has been effected by the pressure of Muslims in the West. Saudi is caught in a paradox ; maintain it’s cosy friendship with the US and preventing Muslims in the West from boycotting them. The only Arabian countries that have made sustained and credible commitments to Israel are Qatar and Algeria (let’s avoid the debate on whether we should include Algeria as an Arab country).
For the record:
At 7:45 AM on 5 June 1967, Israel attacked Egypt and thereby, Jordan and Syria who each shared a mutual defense pact with Egypt. The attack took place just hours before Egypt’s VP Mohieddine was to fly to Washington for a prearranged June 7th meeting with the Johnson administration to defuse the crisis between Egypt and Israel based on an agreement worked out in Cairo between Nasser and Johnson’s envoy, Robert Anderson. In a cable sent to Johnson on May 30, Israel’s PM Eshkol promised not to attack Egypt until June 11 to give diplomacy a chance to succeed. However, on June 4, when it heard about the June 7th meeting and the distinct possibility that it would rule out war, Israel’s cabinet ordered its armed forces to attack Egypt the next day. In short, the war was another massive land grab by Israel.
Prime Minister Menachem Begin, former Minister without portfolio in PM Levi Eshkol’s cabinet, while addressing Israel’s National Defence College on 8 August 1982: “In June, 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” (New York Times, 21 August 1982)
Meir Amit, chief of Israel’s Mossad: “Egypt was not ready for a war and Nasser did not want a war.” (Dr. Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality…, p. 134);
Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.” (Le Monde, 25 February, 1968)
Prime Minister Eshkol: “The Egyptian layout in the Sinai and the general military buildup there testified to a military defensive Egyptian set-up south of Israel.” (Yediot Aharonot, l8 October 1967)
Robert McNamara, U.S. Secretary of Defence: “Three separate intelligence groups had looked carefully into the matter [and] it was our best judgment that a UAR attack was not imminent.” (The Vantage Point, Lyndon Johnson, p. 293)
An article published in the New York Times (4 June 1967) just hours before Israel attacked notes that Major General Indar Jit Rikhye, Commander of UNEF in the Middle East, “who toured the Egyptian front, confirms that Egyptian troops were not poised for an offensive.”
On May 26, in reply to Israel’s Foreign Minister Abba Eban’s assertion that according to Israeli intelligence, “an Egyptian and Syrian attack is imminent,” Secretary of State Dean Rusk dismissed the claim and assured Eban that Israel faced no threat of attack from Egypt. On the same day, during a meeting at the Pentagon, Eban was also told by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and his aides that “…Egyptian forces were not in an aggressive posture and that Israel was not opening itself to peril by not attacking immediately. The contrary was true, Eban was told.” (Donald Neff, Warriors for Jerusalem, pp. 140-41)
As the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) Commander, Major General Idar Jit Rikhye, revealed, Nasser was not enforcing the blockade of the Tiran straits: “[The Egyptian] navy had searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation.” (Dr. Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality…, p. 139)
According to Patrick Seale, highly regarded historian and journalist, Israel had been meticulously preparing for another war against the Arabs since its 1956 invasion of Egypt: “In the decade since the Suez campaign Israel had built up forces that could move fast and hit hard: mobile armoured units able to cover long distances, mechanized infantry, heliborne and naval paratroopers for use behind enemy lines, and above all an air force of Mirage and Super-Mystere interceptors and Mystere fighter-bombers of unchallenged superiority. The main lesson Israel had learned from the [1956] Suez war was the importance of air dominance not only to neutralize Arab air forces but also for use as flying artillery against infantry and tanks.” (Patrick Seale, Asad…, p. 117)
Ezer Weizman, former commander of Israel’s Air Force confirmed in his memoirs that Israel spent years meticulously planning the attack against Egypt: “For five years I had been talking of this operation, explaining it, hatching it, dreaming of it, manufacturing it link by link, training men to carry it out.” Recalling how he felt at 7:30 A.M. on 5 June 1967, Weizman wrote: “Now in a quarter of an hour, we would know if it was only a dream or whether it would come true….” (Donald Neff, Warriors for Jerusalem…, p. 202)
About Six Day war watch documentary video:Six Day War – Israeli victory – Documentary 1- 14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGLVgW5FLUA&list=PLcvv03ugfC_EDRr–QtaoPhxkgq5-hTDS
Six Day War – Israeli victory – Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxEXGA0RU5c
Six Day War – Israeli victory – Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xO5Sv3sNZ8&index=5&list=PLcvv03ugfC_EDRr–QtaoPhxkgq5-hTDS
–the reality is that the Palestinian leadership has long accepted the two-state solution, which has since its inception been rejected by Israel and its superpower benefactor, the government of the United States of America–
For how long American gurus will ‘participate’ in this bloodshed of humans living on their land – AND still claiming themselves to be the human rights advocates – they should know that their time is also up!
I am absolutely horrified at the prejudice contained in this article. But then, it seems its standpoint is similar to that of the UK, which is openly antisemitic. Although my ancestors were from England, Scotland and Europe, I had no idea that antisemitism has raged in these areas for many generations – that is, until I delved into European history more thoroughly. I have studied the history of the modern State of Israel, as well as its more ancient history, and this has resulted in my becoming a strong supporter of this little nation with such far-reaching significance. Why is it that the UN is so prejudiced against Israel? And the UK, of course, as well! Sometimes it pays to search harder for the truth rather than accept the lies and propaganda of the popular media!
It is instructive that you level the charge of prejudice and anti-Semitism, yet don’t even so much as attempt to identify any factual or logical errors in the article.
Which is also a violation of the terms of use of this website.
Its kind of obvious who took off from boat from Europe; amassed arms and dispossessed the Palestinians of their homeland.
Oh you poor thing getting all hysterical over the truth. WE all know who took off on boats from Europe and amassed arms to dispossess the Palestinians of their homeland. Enough of this victim playing already
Mike Thompson has been patient and polite with you, after reading your diatribes I am not, you sir are full of shit.
My comment is directed to “Yefim” the stupid.
Just an observation: None of the comments I’ve read from those defending Israel offered a rebuttal to the fact that Israel started the ‘56 Sinai Campaign or the the 6-day War, nor did they contest the Oslo Accord claims, the Nakba or the UN-condemned occupations. These were the foci of the article and the current points of contention, not the origination of Israel, marriage laws in Israel, the events in the nineteenth century or the Arab opinion of Palestine.
Palestine was not a desolate land when Israel began its occupation schedule. Hezbollah’s terrorism and the Arab states’ military campaigns against Israel are inaccurately recorded to make Israel into the victim. These truths seem to be evaded by those defending israel. Staying on topic seems a more difficult task than I thought.
But what do I know.
You say “Contrary to Stephen’s characterization, Israel’s supposedly generous offer at Camp David fell far short of Israeli compliance with international law and respect for Palestinians’ rights.”
There is no such international law that Israel has to accept all Palsetinian refugees and their descendants. Un res. ga 191 does not speak about refugees’ descendants.
In fact, every Palestinian has an inherent right to return to their homeland, from which their families were ethnically cleansed barely seven decades ago in order for the Zionists to establish their “Jewish state”, and the right of refugees to return to their homeland is specifically recognized under international law.
If you have a problem with the Palestinians’ growing numbers, you should direct your criticism toward the Israeli government for having so longed refused to respect international law and Palestinians’ fundamental human rights by refusing to permit the families who were expelled to return to their rightful homeland.
Perhaps you could link to the relevant international law that says descendants of refugees who were born in foreign countries have the right to return to the country of their parents’ origin as I was not aware of any such law.?
The children and grandchildren of those who were ethnically cleansed from Palestine 71 years ago are also refugees, not merely “descendants of refugees”.
2 points.
(1)In the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, it gives the definition of refugees, nowhere does it define descendents of refugees as refugees.
(2) The Convention ceases to apply if the refugee “has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality” which would mean the many Palestinian refugees with Jordanian citizenship are not refugees.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugees.aspx
Article 1 – Definition of the term “refugee”
…
2) As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
………
(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or
As I already said, the children and grandchildren of those who were ethnically cleansed from Palestine 71 years ago are also refugees, not merely “descendants of refugees”.
Incorrect. First, the definition of “refugee” is provided in Article 1A, whereas you are quoting from Article 1B, not from the definition.
Second, the clause in Article 1B does not prejudice the right of refugees to return to their homeland if they so desire. The definition of “refugee” is not synonymous with “stateless person” under the Convention.
You say that the children and grandchildren of those who were ethnically cleansed from Palestine 71 years ago are also refugees, not merely “descendants of refugees”
Does this apply to all refugees, or just to Palestinian refugees. ?
Are there refugees other than Palestinian refugees who were ethnically cleansed from their homes in Palestine in order for the “Jewish state” to be established? The right of return obviously applies to all refugees, not just Palestinians.
Also you say ‘Second, the clause in does not prejudice the right of refugees to return to their homeland if they so desire.’
So what if any rights does a refugee who has “acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality” lose ?
as Article 1C does say ” C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:
(1)…
(2)…
(3)He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality;…”
And what I said is correct. I see no need to elaborate or expand on my previous comment, which identifies the errors in your argument.
You assert that the children and grandchildren of refugees from all conflicts are also refugees, not merely “descendants of refugees”.
May I ask you for a link or source to this interpretion of international law ?
( When I asked ” Does this apply to all refugees, or just to Palestinian refugees. ?” Indeed
there are no refugees other than Palestinian refugees who were ethnically cleansed from their homes in Palestine . I just meant does this apply to refugees in conficts other than the Israel-palestine one.)
Elementary logical truisms don’t require a citation. That children and grandchildren of those who were ethnically cleansed from Palestine 71 years ago are also refugees, not merely “descendants of refugees”, is common sense. You’re welcome to try to explain how a child born to refugee parents suddenly becomes not a refugee, given that a refugee is a person who has fled or been forced from their familial homeland.
You have some well thought out non conventional views which you defend well. I have tried posting here but it does not always get through. Is there a bug in the software or are you blocking some comments?
There is a spam filter.
You say ” The conclusion readers are evidently supposed to draw is that Egypt, in partnership with Jordan, was preparing to invade Israel.”
Invasion may not have been Nasser’s first choice but it was inevitable that Egypt would invade.
Oren states in “Six Days of War” that the vast array of Arab forces on all of Israel’s borders combined with the anti-zionist frenzy sweeping the Arab world produced a momentum for Israel’s destruction that no Arab leader could resist.
The inevitable attack by Egypt and the Arabs would lead to devastating Israeli casualties. Israel had no choice but to pre-empt and save many of the lives of its citizens.
“it was inevitable that Egypt would invade”
Repeating the same assertion debunked in the article is not an argument.
There were different opinions in Israel’s security establishment as the head of Military Intelligence, Maj. Gen. Aharon Yariv, said the Egyptians had radically changed their conduct in the preceding days. “Their moves show a willingness to move towards or even instigate a confrontation with us,”
May I ask why do you not quote all opinions of Israel’s security establishment, not just the ones that support your point of view.?
Why don’t you point out how that assessment was based on the view that the Soviet Union had provided Egypt with information indicating that Israel intended harm to Egypt, which obviously proved true since Israel did in fact attack Egypt.
Why don’t you point out how Rabin said during that same meeting “I don’t know their intentions but we should prepare for war”?
Third attempt to get through.
1)The soviet Union lied about Israel massing its forces to attack Syria and they lied about Israel planning to attack Egypt IRRESPECTIVE of Egypt’s next steps.
Yariv’s assesment was on 19/05/67 and Israel had not made any decision about attacking Egypt. On that same day Prime Minister Levi Eshkol sent a message to France’s President de Gaulle assuring him that he could count on Israel not to initiate hostilities “…until or unless (Egyptian forces) close the Straits of Tiran to free navigation by Israel”
So not ‘obviously true’ at all.
(2) Rabin saying on may 19th “I don’t know their intentions but we should prepare for war?” is a completely different assesment than Israel’s intelligence that Nasser had no intention of attacking Israel (they judged him not to be insane).
Rabin on may 19th was in doubt whether Egypt was planning to attack it and in effect said Israel should not be reckless and behave ostrich like and should prepare as if Egypt is going to launch a war.
If you accept that Rabin’s assesment differed from Israel’s intelligence why did you not quote it on your website so that we can get the full range of viewpoints of Israel’s security establishment?
http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/timeline.htm
Yes, it is obviously true that Israel intended to attack Egypt, given the historical fact that Israel did attack Egypt.
Thank you for acknowledging the uncertainty about this fear, which stands in stark contrast to your earlier position that an Egyptian attack was “inevitable”.
On May 19th Maj. Gen. Aharon Yariv, said the Egyptians had radically changed their conduct in the preceding days. “Their moves show a willingness to move towards or even instigate a confrontation with us”
to which you said
“Why don’t you point out how that assessment was based on the view that the Soviet Union had provided Egypt with information indicating that Israel intended harm to Egypt, which obviously proved true since Israel did in fact attack Egypt.”
I take it this to mean that prior to may 19th the Soviet Union had provided Egypt with information indicating that Israel intended harm to Egypt.
Is my inference correct ?
My question was rhetorical. I was simply making a point about the rhetorical, substanceless nature of your own original question to me vainly implying that I was somehow being dishonest.
My apologies for the tone of my question. I will repeat it in a more respectful manner.
There were different opinions in Israel’s security establishment as the head of Military Intelligence, Maj. Gen. Aharon Yariv, said the Egyptians had radically changed their conduct in the preceding days. “Their moves show a willingness to move towards or even instigate a confrontation with us,”
I think that this shows that there was no consensus in Israel’s security establishment regarding whether Nasser was planning to attack. Do you disagree with this ?
The point we are disagreeing on is your assertion that Israel’s attack on Egypt was justified because an Egyptian attack on Israel was “inevitable”.
The fact that Israeli officials themselves disagreed about that is illustrative of the lack of evidence that Nasser had any such intent.
You say ‘ The point we are disagreeing on is your assertion that Israel’s attack on Egypt was justified because an Egyptian attack on Israel was “inevitable”.’
There is more than one point we disagree on.
One of the points I disagreed with you is that your article implies (by not mentioning any dissenting opinions) that there was a consensus in Israel’s security establishment that Nasser was not going to attack.
There was no such consensus as the comments of Maj. Gen. Aharon Yariv (and others) show.
I said nothing of a consensus view on the part of Israeli officials. I merely observed that Israel’s own intelligence had assessed that Nasser would not attack Israel because he wasn’t insane.
My second attempt to post. Is the spam filter buggy ?
Three points.
(1a) You say “Yes, it is obviously true that Israel intended to attack Egypt, given the historical fact that Israel did attack Egypt”
On May 19th Israel had made no decision to attack Egypt so it is not obviously true on may 19th that Israel was going to attack Egypt even if the situation had been frozen ie No blocking of canal and no more troops into sinai is it ?
(1b)Also Do you maintain that ussr did not lie about Israel massing troops on the Syrian border ?
(2)You thank me ‘for acknowledging the uncertainty about this fear, which stands in stark contrast to your earlier position that an Egyptian attack was “inevitable” ‘
I am afraid I do not deserve your thanks. (1)Rabin on may 19th was not rabin on june 4th. (2)Israel is not Rabin (3) Israeli intelligence is far from omniscient. So the question what would have happened had Israel done nothing, is by no means the same as what Israel thought would happen if Israel did nothing.
The reason why an Egyptian attack was “inevitable” is because nasser told the un that if he does not attack, he risks assassination. True Nasser was not insane but he was also was no hero and was not about to die just to save Israel from being attacked. (I believe a similar dynamic may have faced king Hussein.)
(3) May I repeat my question
If you accept that Rabin’s assesment differed from Israel’s intelligence why did you not quote it on your website so that we can get the full range of viewpoints of Israel’s security establishment?.
I did not say that by May 19, 1967, Israel had already decided to attack Egypt. I simply observed the logical truism that Israel’s intent to do harm to Egypt was proven by the historical fact that Israel did attack Egypt.
I don’t know that the information conveyed by the Soviets was that Israeli troops were massing on Syria’s border, just that Israel was planning a military attack on Syria. As for the veracity of that intelligence, I’ll defer to State Department Middle East expert Harold Saunders, who said shortly after the war, “The Soviet advice to the Syrians that the Israelis were planning an attack was not far off, although they seem to have exaggerated the magnitude. The Israelis probably were planning an attack — but not an invasion.”
Again, that position is unsupported by the evidence. What history proved inevitable was an Israeli attack on Egypt, not vice versa.
Please provide documentary evidence for this claim, upon which your argument now wholly rests.
You ask for documentary evidence for claim that Nasser feared assassination if he did not attack Israel. Nasser told this to Secretary-Genera U. thant and Indar Indar Jit Rikhye ( commander of the United Nations Emergency Force in the Sinai .)
Please watch this video @ 33 minutes 22seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvisd4N3tZI#t=33m22s
The video does not support your claim. Your claim is that an Egyptian attack on Israel was “inevitable”, and your claimed proof of that is that Nasser indicated to UN officials his intent to attack. However, the UN official interviewed does NOT say that Nasser indicated such intent. Rikhye rather says Nasser told them that his military was insisting on going to war and that he was afraid of a coup or assassination. This is not evidence of intent on Nasser’s part to invade, simply an indication of the pressures he was under. Of course, the Israeli intelligence assessment that Nasser would not attack because he was not insane remains applicable.
You said that I said that Nasser indicated to UN officials his intent to attack.
(“and your claimed proof of that is that Nasser indicated to UN officials his intent to attack.”)
No where did I say that. Here is a copy and paste of what I said and your replies. So you are misquoting me. I accept it was an innocent mistake, But I feel confident if the reverse was the case and I misquoted you you would call it trolling. Not all innocent mistakes are trolling.
JIMMY on December 5, 2019 at 4:58 am
Invasion may not have been Nasser’s first choice but it was inevitable that Egypt would invade. Oren states in “Six Days of War” that the vast array of Arab forces on all of Israel’s borders combined with the anti-zionist frenzy sweeping the Arab world produced a momentum for Israel’s destruction that no Arab leader could resist.
…………………………………
JEREMY on December 5, 2019 at 6:18 pm
“it was inevitable that Egypt would invade”
Repeating the same assertion debunked in the article is not an argument.
…………………………
Jeremy R. Hammond on December 12, 2019 at 2:58 pm
(jeremy quotes Jimmy) an Egyptian attack was “inevitable”
Again, that position is unsupported by the evidence. What history proved inevitable was an Israeli attack on Egypt, not vice versa.
(jeremy quotes Jimmy) nasser told the un that if he does not attack, he risks assassination
Please provide documentary evidence for this claim, upon which your argument now wholly rests.
……………………………..
Jimmy on December 12, 2019 at 6:41 pm
You ask for documentary evidence for claim that Nasser feared assassination if he did not attack Israel. Nasser told this to Secretary-Genera U. thant and Indar Indar Jit Rikhye ( commander of the United Nations Emergency Force in the Sinai .)
Please watch this video @ 33 minutes 22seconds.
Jeremy R. Hammond on December 17, 2019 at 10:01 am
The video does not support your claim. Your claim is that an Egyptian attack on Israel was “inevitable”, and your claimed proof of that is that Nasser indicated to UN officials his intent to attack. However, the UN official interviewed does NOT say that Nasser indicated such intent. Rikhye rather says Nasser told them that his military was insisting on going to war and that he was afraid of a coup or assassination. This is not evidence of intent on Nasser’s part to invade, simply an indication of the pressures he was under. Of course, the Israeli intelligence assessment that Nasser would not attack because he was not insane remains applicable.
You did in fact argue, and I quote:
“The reason why an Egyptian attack was ‘inevitable’ is because nasser told the un that if he does not attack, he risks assassination.”
Your conclusion that the attack was “inevitable” rests entirely on your claim that Nasser indicated to the UN his intent to attack.
If you’re saying now that that’s not what you mean and acknowledging that Nasser did no such thing, then you must also acknowledge that your claim that an Egyptian attack was “inevitable” is baseless.
You say “Of course, the Israeli intelligence assessment that Nasser would not attack because he was not insane remains applicable.”
The Israeli intelligence on nasser seems to be faulty.
Nasser after the war said that he was unaware that the army was incapable of military confrontation and if he had been aware he would have avoided it, and he did not have to go to war.
If he felt the army could prevail over Israel even if Israel had the initiative and attacks first, then it would certainly prevail over Israel If Egypt attacks first with the initiative going to Egypt.
On the contrary, the Israeli intelligence assessment that Nasser would not attack because he was not insane was right on the money.
This is what I said December 11, 2019 at 7:22 am
“The reason why an Egyptian attack was “inevitable” is because nasser told the un that if he does not attack, he risks assassination. True Nasser was not insane but he was also was no hero and was not about to die just to save Israel from being attacked. (I believe a similar dynamic may have faced king Hussein.)”
May I ask if you have read the post. ?
The fact that you are asking me whether I have read that post after having responded to it now countless times is the straw breaking the camel’s back in terms of confirmation that you are simply trolling. Begone!
Second attempt to get post to go in reply section
You say below “On the contrary, the Israeli intelligence assessment that Nasser would not attack because he was not insane was right on the money.”
Nasser did ask Ussr for permission to attack Israel and it was not given.
Nasser did not attack Israel at that point in time because he wanted Ussr’s permission, not because he thought Israel would defeat him if it did attack Israel.
Nasser’s asking Ussr for permission and thinking he would win shows that Nasser was insane which means Israel’s intelligence assesment that Nasser was not insane was wrong.
For you to repeat this claim despite the fact I’ve already observed that you’ve offered no evidence to support it is just another example of your trolling behavior.
If you accept that by May 19, 1967, Israel had not decided to attack Egypt, when Ussr told egypt on may 19 that they were going to be attacked by Israel, then they were lying were they not ?
I do not know at what point the final decision was made by Israeli officials to attack Egypt. I do not know what documentary evidence you are referring to when you say the USSR told Egypt on May 19 that Israel was going to attack.
I do not have any documentary evidence. see my post Jimmy on December 18, 2019 at 7:12 am.
There might be a misunderstanding here.
This is the problem with not keeping comments threaded. You lose the context and nothing makes sense.
There were 2 cabinet meetings on June 4th about the situation. One in the morning and one in the afternoon. The decision to attack Egypt was taken in the afternoon. Do you accept that as a reasonable hypothesis?
Do you still have a disagreement with something I wrote in the article? If so, please state what it is.
You say:
“I don’t know that the information conveyed by the Soviets was that Israeli troops were massing on Syria’s border, just that Israel was planning a military attack on Syria.”
I am not sure what you mean. This is a direct quote from your article which I have capitalised.
“The CIA observed that Egypt’s forces had taken up defensive positions after having received an intelligence report from the Soviet Union that Israel was AMASSING forces on the border with Egypt’s ally, Syria. ”
Other sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#Background
In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border.[38
http://www.mafhoum.com/press6/163P1.htm
The sheer numbers of Israeli troops supposedly concentrated on the Syrian border–11 to 13 brigades, above the strength of Israel’s entire standing army–do seem designed more to impress party leaders, who held Soviet concepts of military scale, than to conform with Middle Eastern realities.(32)
Thank you for jogging my memory. It had been some time since I’d revisited this specific subject. So, yes, the Soviet’s report was that troops were actually massing, not just that an attack was planned. Which, as we know, was incorrect information as Israel had not massed troops on the border with Syria.
So the Soviets lied as it was not an innocent mistake. Which would mean the Soviets have some responsibility for the ’67 war. Do you agree with that.?
Maybe you see this as a deflection but I ask this because I see plenty of criticism of Israel on your site but none regarding anyone else.
I am not sure if this is because you believe Israel is the only one that does wrong in the middle east or your website is not about middle east only Israel. So any wrong doings by Israel’s neigbours are not relevant.
I find both view problematic, so i would like to hear your thoughts about this.
The only party responsible for starting the 1967 war is the party that started the 1967 war.
You welcome to try to explain “how a child born to refugee parents suddenly becomes not a refugee, given that a refugee is a person who has fled or been forced from their familial homeland.”
Your definition is correct. But it is not the case that a child born to refugee parents suddenly becomes not a refugee.
If a refugee has fled or been forced from their familial homeland and moved to another country and has children, and grand children born in that new country, then although the parent will remain a refugee the children, and grand children were never refugees in the first place, because they did not flee and were born in a new country. So it is accurate to describe the children, and grand children of the refugee as descendants of refugees.
Webster’s definition is one who flees. It is not one that flees together with all his descendants who did not flee and were born in a new country to the end of all time.
Are you saying most citizens of usa are refugees, because most of them are descendants of refugees?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refugee
one that flees especially : a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution
The definition of “refugee” under international law is not identical to Merriam-Webster’s definition. It is as I stated previously. Many Palestinian children living in refugee camps today are also refugees by virtue of their family being homeless on account of their family having been ethnically cleansed by the Zionists. This is why they are recognized as refugees by the UN, which happens to be somewhat of an authority in the realm of international law.
This unhcr document 1.[1 General Principles ( page 135) ]says if a refugee is no longer in need of refugee protection then his refugee status can be terminated.
So if the new country the refugee flees to does not persecute him and grants citizenship so he is no longer in need of refugee protection, he will lose his refugee status.
https://www.unhcr.org/4317223c9.pdf
The 1951 Convention sets out circumstances under which refugee status that was properly granted by UNHCR under its mandate may be terminated because the individual who was recognized as a refugee is no longer in need of refugee protection.
It is absurd to argue that people living in refugee camps dependent upon international aid to meet their basic living requirements no longer meet the definition of a refugee under international law simply because they weren’t alive at the time their families were ethnically cleansed from their homeland.
In the post you were responding to I was not talking about children of refugees. That was a different post and I prefer to discuss them separately.
All I said was
“This unhcr document 1.[1 General Principles ( page 135) ]says if a refugee is no longer in need of refugee protection then his refugee status can be terminated.
So if the new country the refugee flees to does not persecute him and grants citizenship so he is no longer in need of refugee protection, he will lose his refugee status.”
So In the case of the millions of palestinians refugees who fled to Jordan and were given citizenship and can work will fall into the category refugees no longer in need of refugee protection and in international law they are no longer refugees.
That is not what the UNHCR document says. It does outline procedures whereby refugee status can logically be terminated if the individual is no longer in need of refugee protection. But it does not say that simply by acquiring citizenship in another state that their refugee status is automatically revoked, as you are falsely claiming.
More to the point, you’re acknowledging tacitly that any Palestinian refugees who haven’t obtained citizenship in another state are indeed refugees and entitled to return to their homeland from which their families were ethnically cleansed.
(1)Thanks for the correction. I made a mistake. As you say the unhcr document does outline procedures whereby refugee status can logically be terminated if the individual is no longer in need of refugee protection.
so from the unhcr document it follows the millions of palestinians refugees who fled to Jordan and were given citizenship and can work will fall into the category of refugees no longer in need of refugee protection and there is no reason in international law why their status as refugees cannot be cancelled.
Do you accept that.?
(2)However in my opinion the unhcr document has to be read in conjunction with the ohcr document which says that in article 1 C that in the case of citizenship in another country it is automatic.
The title of the document is “Convention relating to the Status of Refugees” so article 1 C is referring to the status of refugees.
I am aware you disputed that interpretation before. Please confirm that you stand by your original interpretation and I will see if I have additional evidence to prove my interpretation.
“This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:
(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality;
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugees.aspx
”
(3)I acknowledging tacitly that any Palestinian refugees but not their children born in a foreign country who haven’t obtained citizenship in another state are indeed refugees.
Regarding whether they entitled to return to their homeland from which their families were ethnically cleansed. Please quote the international law which gives such a right. I am not disputing it, I just have not seen it or ‘researched’ it
I have already shown you your errors on numerous counts regarding the status of Palestinian refugees and have no desire to continue going around in circles with you about it. Enough.
https://www.unhcr.org/4317223c9.pdf, page 101-102 5.1.2
Children of refugees in need have a different status than refugees and have Derivative Status. This is a different status than refugee and gives nearly all the rights of a refugee as children need protection.
However this is only guarnteed till 18. They may well lose their derivative status at 18 if they are no longer in need of it.
So, like I said, the refugee children of Palestinians ethnically cleansed from their homes are refugees, not merely “descendants of refugees”. I should also point out that this UNHCR documents states that children “who are determined to fall within the criteria for refugee status in their own right should be granted refugee status rather than derivative refugee states”. Additionally, those “who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognized refugees, and should retain this status notwithstanding … the fact that a child reaches the age of majority.”
second attempt at posting
(I made a mistake in previous post so I would like to restate and see where you disagree)
I would like to ofer you 4 pieces of evidence that children of refugees are not refugees.
(1) You say UNHCR documents states that children “who are determined to fall within the criteria for refugee status in their own right should be granted refugee status rather than derivative refugee states”
The corollary being that children who are determined NOT to fall within the criteria for refugee status in their own right should not be granted (the superior) refugee status but only the derivative refugee status.
Contrary to what you say the document clearly states there are 2 different statuses, Refugee status and derivative refugee status with derivative refugee status (despite getting the services of a refugee) NOT qualifying one as having the (superior) status of a refugee.
If as you claim that children of refugees are also refugees, there would be no need for 2 different statuses.
So children of Palestinians ethnically cleansed from their homes do not have refugee status, only derivative refugee status which is NOT refugee status.
(2)The children of palestinian refugees will only get derivative refugee status if they are under 18 and unmarried. It does not apply to all children. (sec 5.1.2).
If as you claim that children of refugees are also refugees, then chidren being married or over 18 should not affect their refugee status. So it is clearly not the case that children of refugees are also refugees.
(3)You say those “who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognized refugees, and should retain this status notwithstanding … the fact that a child reaches the age of majority.”
However it is by no means automatic that when a child reaches 18 he will remain a refugee as every refugee will be decided on a case by case basis. If the child wants to keep his derivative refugee status purely for convenience he will lose it.
If as you claim that children of refugees are also refugees, it should be impossible for a child to lose refugee status when he becomes 18.
https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/577e17944.pdf page 13
While, as a general rule, family members should retain their derivative refugee status notwithstanding the dissolution of the family through divorce, separation or death or the fact that a child reaches the ageof majority, careful consideration should be given to the personal circumstances of the family members to determine whether retention of status is appropriate in a particular case or whether retention of status would be merely for reasons of personal convenience.
(4) You also claim that grandchildren of those who were ethnically cleansed are also refugees.
As a general rule grandchildren of refugees not only will they not have refugee status, they will also not have derivative refugee status.
If as you claim that children of refugees are also refugees, then the grandchildren of refugees should also be refugees.
So the legal status of palestinian refugees and derivative refugee status is not doomed to go for all time and has a clear time limit.
https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/577e17944.pdf page 6
As a general rule, a person cannot acquire derivative refugee status solely on the basis of a family/ dependency relationship with a person who has derivative refugee status
You say ” the Six Day War was begun by Israel on the morning of June 5 with a surprise attack on Jordan’s ally Egypt that obliterated its air force while most of its planes were still on the ground.”
Why do you not feel it is relevant to say that before Israel atacked Egypt, Nasser was threatening to wipe out Israel.?
Part of a nasser speech
“Preparations have already been made. We are now ready to confront Israel. They have claimed many things about the 1956 Suez war, but no one believed them after the secrets of the 1956 collusion were uncovered – that mean collusion in which Israel took part. Now we are ready for the confrontation. We are now ready to deal with the entire Palestine question.”
Nasser was not threatening to attack Israel but to respond in the event of Israeli aggression. Also, it is a disingenuous question, as the context from which you have removed it illustrates, as follows:
Then Stephens writes, “On June 5, the first day of the war, the Israeli government used three separate diplomatic channels to warn Jordan—then occupying the West Bank—not to initiate hostilities. The Jordanians ignored the warning and opened fire with planes and artillery.”
By this means, Stephens disgracefully deceives his readers into believing that Jordan fired the first shots of the war.
In truth, the Six Day War was begun by Israel on the morning of June 5 with a surprise attack on Jordan’s ally Egypt that obliterated its air force while most of its planes were still on the ground.
Why do you try to defend Stephens deception rather than applauding me for setting the record straight? You’re simply revealing your own lack of objectivity.
(1)Nasser policy towards Israel evolved in the weeks prior to 6 day war, as he saw the balance of power switch towards him.
on 29th may he was threatening to destroy Israel even if Israel did nothing.
Have you ever read this speech ?
https://mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/mfadocuments/yearbook1/pages/8%20statement%20by%20president%20nasser%20to%20members%20of%20the.aspx?ViewMode=Print
(2)You ask “Why do you try to defend Stephens deception rather than applauding me for setting the record straight? You’re simply revealing your own lack of objectivity.”
I agree with you Stephens description is misleading for the casual reader. Although later on he does say they provoked the war rather than started the war
“There would have been no occupation, and no settlements, if Egypt and its allies hadn’t recklessly provoked a war. ”
(3)you say I should be applauding you for setting the record straight. There are things I could applaud you for. I am not convinced that Setting the record straight on the ’67 war is one of those things. That is why I have entered into a discussion with you about it.
False.
A distinction without significance to “the casual reader” who knows no better. It was deceptive, period.
And since you agree with me on that point, it seems there’s no further argument between us.
You say it is false to say that Nasser was threatening to destroy Israel even if Israel did nothing.
In his 29th may speech Nasser was threating to destroy Israel due to the aggression of Israel which took place in Palestine in 1948 and other misdeeds. Ie he opposed the very creation of Israel and wanted to reverse it. Ie Nasser was threatening to destroy Israel even if Israel did nothing.
https://mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/mfadocuments/yearbook1/pages/8%20statement%20by%20president%20nasser%20to%20members%
20of%20the.aspx?ViewMode=Print
“Preparations have already been made. We are now ready to confront Israel. They have claimed many things about the 1956 Suez war, but no one believed them after the secrets of the 1956 collusion were uncovered – that mean collusion in which Israel took part. Now we are ready for the confrontation. We are now ready to deal with the entire Palestine question. The issue now at hand is not the Gulf of Aqaba, the Straits of Tiran, or the withdrawal of the UNEF, but the rights of the Palestine people.
It is the aggression which took place in Palestine in 1948 with the collaboration of Britain and the United States.
It is the expulsion of the Arabs from Palestine, the usurpation of their rights, and the plunder of their property. It is the disavowal of all the UN resolutions in favour of the Palestinian people.”
There is nothing in here that constitute evidence of intent by Nasser to attack Israel. You forget that Nasser was of the belief that Israel was going to attack the Arab states, as it had already attacked Egypt in 1956 and had killed civilians in the attack on Samu, Jordan not long before. He is simply talking here about confronting Israel. Hence his movement of troops into the Sinai to take up what the CIA observed were defensive positions.
This has become wearisome. You are grasping at straws. Please stop wasting my time. You have already lost your privileges once for trolling and I will not hesitate to do deny you the privilege of my time again if you continue this charade.
I am not objective on Israel. I suspect you are also not.
Without deflecting may I ask if this is your interpretation of the 6 day war.
Israel on may june 67 knew egypt was not planning to attack Israel, yet took advantage of the situation to grab some of Egypt’s land, an enormous crime.
Yes, that is apparent.
Yet you’ve identified no evidence to confirm your suspicion.
What I am saying is simply that Israel attacked Egypt despite the lack of evidence that it was under threat of an imminent attack by Egypt and that this use of armed force meets the definition of “aggression” under international law.
you say “What I am saying is simply that Israel attacked Egypt despite the lack of evidence that it was under threat of an imminent attack by Egypt and that this use of armed force meets the definition of “aggression” under international law.”
In certain circumstances what someone does not say can be significant as what he does say. I believe elsewhere you expressed surprise at why Israel’s narrative of 6 day war is accepted given you say it was aggression. This has a lot to do with what you did not say. Are you prepared to enter into such a discussion, or do you classify that as deflection. ?
I cannot make any sense of that gibberish.
You say “What Stephens declines to inform readers is that UNEF was established after Israel conspired with Britain and France to wage a war of aggression against Egypt in 1956, following Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal.”
Why do you call the 1956 a war of agression against Egypt, when it was done in to stop Egypt sending terrorists to murder Israeli civilians, a war crime and also to stop the illegal closing of the suez canal to Israeli shipping and its illegal blocking the straits of Tiran, in accordance with Nasser’s stated policy of Israel’s death.
Because the invasion by one state of another state that has not used military force against the invading state is by definition the supreme international crime of aggression under international law.
It wasn’t self-defense. And, as we’ve already been over, Israel had diplomatic means available to address its grievance with Egypt over the closure of the straits.
You imply that Egypt had not used military force against Israel pre 1956. Why do you consider that Egypt continually sending terrorists to attack Israel and kill its soldiers and civilians with the aim of destroying Israel not a case of military force?
Can you identify an instance when Egypt deployed its military forces to attack Israel? I can think of none. Israel, on the other hand, used military force against Egypt in 1956 and again in 1967.
The use of armed forces by a state, guerrilla attacks on an occupying military power, and terrorist attacks on civilians are all distinct actions without equivalence under international law.
You say “The use of armed forces by a state, guerrilla attacks on an occupying military power, and terrorist attacks on civilians are all distinct actions without equivalence under international law.”
Are you claiming that if a country sends civilians who are not members of its armed forces to attack a neigbouring country, eg 9/11 it would not classify as aggression which can be defended against as the attackers were not part of its conventional armed forces?
The attacks of 9/11 were not the crime of aggression, which by definition is the crime of a state using its armed forces to invade another state. The 9/11 attacks were the crime of international terrorism, which is a matter for law enforcement.
(1)you say “What Stephens declines to inform readers is that UNEF was established after Israel conspired with Britain and France to wage a war of aggression against Egypt in 1956, following Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal. UNEF’s purpose was not only to secure the cessation of hostilities and serve as a buffer to prevent future aggression, but also to supervise the required withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the occupied Sinai.”
and once Israel had withdrawn its forces UNEF was there solely as a buffer to prevent future aggression. If either side asked UNEF to withdraw, it would be at least partial evidence as intent of aggression.
As Johnson said
“If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other, it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Straits of Tiran would be closed. The right of innocent, maritime passage must be preserved for all nations.”
(2)As America concurred with Israel that blockade of Israel shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba was illegal. Do you know if it agreed with Israel that it was a casus belli?
http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/johnson_condemns_blockade.htm
President Johnson tonight condemned the Arab blockade of Israel shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba as “illegal and potentially disastrous to the cause of peace”.
He called on all concerned in the Middle East crisis to seek peace through restraint. In a strongly worded statement the President said:
“The purported closing of the Gulf of Aqaba has brought a new and grave dimension to the crisis. The United States considers the gulf to be an international waterway.”
(3)You say “To lead readers to the desired conclusion, Stephens omits additional relevant context, such as how Nasser had been accused by its allies Syria and Jordan of hiding behind UNEF—such as failing to come to Jordan’s assistance when Israel on November 13, 1966, invaded the West Bank to collectively punish the civilian population of the village of Samu for the killing of three Israeli soldiers by the Palestinian group al-Fatah two days earlier.”
If the reason why Nasser expelled Unef was due to pressure from Arab countries to avenge Israel’s over reaction in Samu,it would mean an Egyptian attack was inevitable
Why are you stating that as though it was different from what I said?
No, it’s not. The CIA assessed in 1970 that, given a belief on the part of Nasser that Israel planned to attack Syria, “his mobilization and his demand for a withdrawal of UNEF forces might have been intended as deterrents.” The same CIA report points out that Nasser publicly “indicated that the UAR would not initiate an attack”, but would respond if Israel attacked Egypt or Syria.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/caesar-50.pdf
Since you quote Johnson, I would also remind you that the CIA accurately informed Johnson that a war was coming and that it would be Israel, not Egypt, who would fire the first shot.
The US did not view the closing of the straits as a justification for an Israeli attack on Egypt, which is why it called for pursuit of diplomatic solutions.
First, this is a non sequitur fallacy. Second, I didn’t say that Nasser expelled UNEF due to pressure “to avenge” Israel’s attack on Samu.
You are are warned against trolling.
(I think you wanted this comment moved to its right place so I have done so.)
You said ” Nasser had been accused by its allies Syria and Jordan of hiding behind UNEF—such as failing to come to Jordan’s assistance when Israel on November 13, 1966, invaded the West Bank to collectively punish the civilian population of the village of Samu for the killing of three Israeli soldiers by the Palestinian group al-Fatah two days earlier.”
My apologies for getting you wrong, but I was not saying definitely. I said IF. I was under the impression that the Arabs from neigbouring countries were clamouring for Egypt to attack and destroy Israel. Do you disagree with that.?
Is a misunderstanding and failing to get you right even with a question reason to be called trolling in your books ?
(“if the reason why Nasser expelled Unef was due to pressure from Arab countries to avenge Israel’s over reaction in Samu, it would mean an Egyptian attack was inevitable)
The trolling behavior of yours I was referring to was your strawman argument of attributing to me the view that Nasser expelled UNEF due to pressure “to avenge” Israel’s attack on Samu.
That aside, there is no need for me to identify the logical fallacies in your argument a second time.
and you say your comments were completely unambiguous and could not reasonably be interpreted in that manner ?
There was no need to “interpret” what I said by twisting it into something completely different.
You said ” Nasser had been accused by its allies Syria and Jordan of hiding behind UNEF—such as failing to come to Jordan’s assistance when Israel on November 13, 1966, invaded the West Bank to collectively punish the civilian population of the village of Samu for the killing of three Israeli soldiers by the Palestinian group al-Fatah two days earlier.”
My apologies for getting you wrong, but I was not saying definitely. I said IF. I was under the impression that the Arabs from neigbouring countries were clamouring for Egypt to attack and destroy Israel. Do you disagree with that.?
Is a misunderstanding and failing to get you right even with a question reaason to be called trolling in your books ?
“if the reason why Nasser expelled Unef was due to pressure from Arab countries to avenge Israel’s over reaction in Samu, it would mean an Egyptian attack was inevitable”
I am no longer going to respond to your comments when you insist on starting a new thread with your every reply to my own. It takes everything out of its context. Please click the reply button to reply to a comment rather than starting a new comment thread every time you comment. That’s what the button’s for, so meaningful, contexctualized conversation can happen. I will give you some time to replace your comments into their proper context before I delete them.
I cannot find a reply button to your post on December 19, 2019 at 5:08 pm “The only party responsible for starting the 1967 war is the party that started the 1967 war.”
I assume it is ok to post here.
Nasser after the war said that he was unaware that the army was incapable of military confrontation and he had been aware he would have avoided it, and he did not have to go to war.
Nasser is clearly taking responsibilty for the war, is he not.?
There is a limit to the number of levels of replies that can be used. To reply to a threat at its limit, scroll up to respond to the last comment for which a reply button is available.
As for your question, it is absurd to claim that Nasser accepted responsibility for starting a war that was in fact started by Israel. You cannot produce such a statement from him. Please stop making baseless claims. Produce real documentary evidence if you wish to continue arguing with me or you will be banned for trolling as this has become wearisome.
This is my third attempt at posting. Maybe third time lucky ?
You say ” it is absurd to claim that Nasser accepted responsibility for starting a war that was in fact started by Israel. You cannot produce such a statement from him. “That is incorrect.
Nasser indeed told Abdel Meguid Farid (his personal secretary) If I knew the army was incapable of military confrontation, I would have avoided it, I am a chess player I can play politics I did not have to go to war
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvisd4N3tZI#t=1h32m50s
No, what I said is quite correct, and the only thing Farid’s statement indicates is that Nasser mistakenly believed his military could withstand an attack from Israel. Once again, needless to say, it was Israel, not Egypt, that started the war.
Nasser’s statement “I did not have to go to war” indicates that Nasser felt it was he nasser that went to war. You can say Nasser had no need to claim responsibility for going to war when it was Israel that attacked first, but that was not Nasser’s view.
Nasser’s view (mistakenly or not) was that it was Nasser not Israel that went to war.
Yes, Nasser’s statement indicates that he is aware that Egypt went to war. It does not indicate that he felt he started the war, which would be silly since Israel started it.
You are trolling.
Second attempt to get my post in the reply section.
Not every time somebody has a difference of interpretation with you does it mean he is trolling.
Nasser said ” I did not have to go to war”
You say ” it is absurd to claim that Nasser accepted responsibility for starting a war that was in fact started by Israel. You cannot produce such a statement from him. “
Are you also arguing it is absurd to claim that Nasser accepted responsibility for the war that resulted as a result of his avoidable provocations.? eg the blockade of straits of tiran which he knew Israel saw as casus belli.
I didn’t suggest otherwise, which makes this remark of yours just another example of your trolling behavior.
Still more trolling. What I am observing is that the quote you provided does not support the claim for which you made it, and there’s nothing more to be said about it.
You say “I said nothing of a consensus view on the part of Israeli officials. I merely observed that Israel’s own intelligence had assessed that Nasser would not attack Israel because he wasn’t insane.”
In your article you say.
“Presumably an oversight, Stephens does not mention the movement of Egyptian armed forces into the Sinai Peninsula prior to the June war—a fact usually cited in such Zionist propaganda accounts as proof of Nasser’s intent to invade Israel. In fact, Israel’s own intelligence had assessed, following the Egyptian movement of troops, that Nasser had no intention of attacking Israel (they judged him not to be insane), which was an assessment shared by the US intelligence community.”
Israel when it decided on the eve of the war that it would preempt found Its military intelligence’s assessment that Nasser was planning to attack more compelling than its own intelligence that nasser was not going to attack.
A casual reader would think from your article that Israel knew it was not going to be attacked as its own intelligence had said so. This is misleading as you do not mention the contrary views which Israel found more compelling.
and no I am not trolling.
I do not know what other assessment you are referring to, but you are begging the question. The fact that Israel started the war by attacking Egypt is not evidence that Israel’s decisionmakers truly believed that Egypt was going to attack Israel. Even if they had convinced themselves that Egypt was going to do so, that conclusion is still unsupported by the evidence.
Also, by your own reasoning, I am right to point out the NYT’s for misleading readers into believing either that the Arabs started the war or that Israel did so but that it’s attack was preemptive. By your own logic, this is misleading as they do not mention the contrary views that Egypt would not attack. So you should be applauding me for pointing out this dishonesty rather than trying to attack me for it. You are being a hypocrite.
This is all about Israel’s motivation.
My criticism of your article was that as you do not bring the opposing opinions to Israel’s intelligence (eg. Yariv the head of Military Intelligence, who said on the eve of the war the Egyptians had radically changed their conduct in the preceding days. “Their moves show a willingness to move towards or even instigate a confrontation with us,”) a casual reader would think from your article that the Israel attack was not MOTIVATED by an impending Egptian attack.
I do not have to prove that Israel was MOTIVATED by its belief in an impending Egptian attack to criticize your implied certainty that Israel was not MOTIVATED by a belief in an impending Egptian attack.
(Also I am not sure why I am being hypocritical when I have already said Bret’s article is misleading)
Which is totally hypocritical since neither did Bret Stephens, whose factual and logical errors are demonstrated in my above response.
You say below “On the contrary, the Israeli intelligence assessment that Nasser would not attack because he was not insane was right on the money.”
Nasser did ask Ussr for permission to attack Israel and it was not given.
Nasser did not attack Israel at that point in time because he wanted Ussr’s permission, not because he thought Israel would defeat him if it did attack Israel.
Nasser’s asking Ussr for permission and thinking he would win shows that Nasser was insane which means Israel’s intelligence assesment that Nasser was not insane was wrong.
According to the British Israel’s existence was in danger.
http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/small/cab-128-42-cc-67-33-33.pdf
Only a short time was available in which to complete such action effectively since a continuation of the present uncertainty might entail such a deterioration in Israel’s military (though not economic) position that she would be forced to take military action to preserve her existence.
That discussion revolved entirely around the matter of the straits and Israel’s dependence on oil imports, overlooking that only a fraction of such came through the straits, and provides no evidence that Israel was under any imminent threat of military attack from Egypt on June 5, 1967, when Israel started the war by attacking Egypt. Instructively, your own source shows the British Prime Minister summing up the discussion by stressing the need to restrain Israel from attacking Egypt.
Your software is buggy. Please post in right place.
You seem not to be aware that the British view was that despite no evidence that Israel was under any imminent threat of military attack from Egypt, the Egyptian blockade of oil supplies by itself endangered Israel’s very existence.
Thank you for finally acknowledging that there is “no evidence that Israel was under any imminent threat of military attack from Egypt”, which is a 180 degree reversal from your initial claim that Israel faced imminent threat from an “inevitable attack by Egypt” that Israel “had no choice but to pre-empt”.
Where did I acknowledge that there is “no evidence that Israel was under any imminent threat of military attack from Egypt”. I was quoting the British view not my view.
I am simply observing the fact that your own cited source contradicts your central argument that Israel faced imminent invasion from Egypt.
Please could you explain that if there is no evidence that Israel was under any imminent threat of military attack from Egypt why did Nasser (under pressure from his military to attack) send his defence minister to moscow to seek support for a first strike.?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvisd4N3tZI#t=33m50s
There is no evidence presented in the clip that nature of the visit is being accurately characterized.
With reference to my claim that an Egyptian attack on Israel was “inevitable”, you say ” The fact that Israeli officials themselves disagreed about that is illustrative of the lack of evidence that Nasser had any such intent.”
All you can prove from the fact that Israelis officials disagreed about whether Nasser’s aggressive moves meant he intended to attack, is that Nasser’s intent was a known unknown, it does not mean that Nasser had no such intent.
Or do you accept that Israel was facing a risk that Nasser might attack.?
It isn’t up to me to prove a negative. You have failed to provide any evidence to support your persistent belief, which should be reason for you to question it.
The British Prime Minister summed up the discussion by stressing the need to restrain Israel from attacking Egypt. But to judge whether Israel was acting unreasonably by attacking by British standards, one would have to look at how Britain would have acted if they would have been in the same position, rather than Britains’s words how other countries should act. We do find post ww2 that Britian acted aggressively in promoting its own interests even when there was no risk of Britain itself being attacked. My conclusion is that Britain would not have acted any differently in preempting such a major threat. So by British standards Israel was acting reasonably whatever you claim international law says.
Nonsense. You are trying to deflect from the fact that your own source contradicts your central claim that it was Israel facing imminent attack from Egypt. The truth is the converse.
You say ” Rikhye rather says Nasser told them that his military was insisting on going to war and that he was afraid of a coup or assassination. This is not evidence of intent on Nasser’s part to invade, simply an indication of the pressures he was under. Of course, the Israeli intelligence assessment that Nasser would not attack because he was not insane remains applicable.”
Rikhye found Nasser’s response troubling, as Nasser was implying he might well be forced to attack to stop risking himself being killed.So the Un assessment would have been at that time that israel was facing a risk of attack from Egypt. You maintain in actuality Nasser would not have attacked as the “Israeli intelligence assessment that Nasser would not attack because he was not insane remains applicable.”
There are 2 problems with your assessment.
(1) I believe this Israeli intelligence assessment did not take into account that Nasser was risking being killed if he did not attack. As on the contrary if by attacking Israel, he saves his life at the expense of his country’s defeat, then the sane thing from Nasser’s personal interest was to attack Israel and save his life, rather than act in his country’s interest and end up dead.
(2) This Israeli intelligence assessment falsely assumes that Nasser knew that Israel had the stronger military, when in fact Nasser was being pressured by his military to attack Israel, because it believed Egypt had the far stronger military. One Egyptian military expert boasted that the moment Israel attacked egypt, Egypt would be in tel aviv the same day at lunch time.
It is enough to observe that you cited the video as proof that an Egyptian attack was “inevitable”, but it is not.
According to the clip kosygin told egypt’s defence minister “I will report this request to the politbureau but I must tell you we cannot give our accord for a pre-emptive strike against Israel and for starting hostilities.” Assuming the quote is accurate, from this quote alone one can see that the nature of the visit is being accurately characterized.
You are interpreting the meaning of “this request”. Perhaps the request was for Russian support in the event of war, the presumption being that Israel would attack, and that Kosygin was just informing the Egyptians that any support, if offered, would be conditional on the Arabs fighting a defensive war. The context is missing, and no documentary evidence is provided that the request made is as you have claimed.
on December 19, 2019 at 5:34 pm you ask “Can you identify an instance when Egypt deployed its military forces to attack Israel? I can think of none. ”
The answer to your question is in May 1948 when it tried to destroy Israel at birth
First, we are talking about the 1967 war. Your response is a tacit acknowledgment that, in that context, Egypt did not deploy its military forces to attack Israel, whereas Israel did deploy its military forces to attack Egypt. Hence, as I wrote, it was Israel that started the war and indeed engaged in an illegal war of aggression under international law.
Second, in 1948, Egypt did not attack Israel for the simple reason no state of Israel existed as a legally defined political entity. Egypt entered into Palestine to join the fight against the ethnic cleansing the Zionists were perpetrating to establish their “Jewish state” through violence. By the time the neighboring Arab states intervened, 300,000 Arabs had already been ethnically cleansed from their homes.
in your article you say
“Another non-starter for the Palestinians was Israel’s demand that they surrender the right of refugees from the Zionists’ 1948 ethnic cleansing to return to their homeland.”
un ga 194 says
“refugees wishing to return to their homes ” Note homes not homeland. In tne vast majority of cases their homes no longer exist so the right of return would not be applicable to them.
Their homes were in their homeland. The destruction of their homes by Israel does not deprive them of their right to return to their homeland. Crimes are not justified by the act of committing them.
They may be entitled to compensation for their destroyed homes, but Un 194 does not give them any right to return their homeland when they do not have homes.
You are right, UN 194 does not give refugees the right to return to their homeland. It’s an inherent human right.
(1)Usa recognised Israel defacto immediately as well as ussr why do you say no state of Israel existed as a legally defined political entity in 1948.?
https://www.archives.gov/files/education/lessons/us-israel/images/recognition-telegram-l.jpg
(2)As for Egypt’s intentions in attacking the Jews It was to throw the jews into the sea
(3)As for 300,000 Arabs that had already been ethnically cleansed from their homes. Most fled to flee the fighting that they had called for. Own goal of the centrury. Even Abbas had to admit it was a mistake.
I say Israel did not exist as a legally defined political entity because it did not. Israel was established through ethnic cleansing. You are trying to justify that crime.
If I provide you with documentary evidence that the egyptian request was for support for a first strike, would any part of your article be falsified?
The fact that Rikhye found Nasser’s response troubling, falsifies your statement “Israeli intelligence assessment that Nasser would not attack because he was not insane remains applicable.”
No, it does not.
You ask “Can you identify an instance when Egypt deployed its military forces to attack Israel? I can think of none. ”
For some context to this the destruction of Israel was a states Egyptian plan even pre-67.
I’ll take that as a “No”.
You mention “you forget that Nasser ……Israel was going to attack the Arab states”
Did you know that Nasser at first believed the Russian fib that Israel was pouring soldiers near the border of Israel and Syria to move into Syria, but he became aware shortly after that this was not in accordance with the reality. And by the time he talked about confronting Israel it was made known to him it was a falsehood. Yet he still refused to return his soldiers which would no longer have the purpose to defend Syria.
He did not return them because he had made for himself a new target to ‘reverse the aggression which took place in Palestine in 1948 ‘ ie the destruction of Israel.
.
It can be seen from clip at 26 minutes 29 sec that Nasser had changed his goals and his goal was no longer to deter Israel from hitting Syria, but of going back twenty years to before the birth of Israel. State Egyptian Radio mentioned this to Israel in Ivritt.
Egypt’s forces were not in the Sinai to defend Syria but to defend Egypt. Hence them taking up defensive positions in the Sinai.
You say It is enough to observe that you cited the video as proof that an Egyptian attack was “inevitable”, but it is not.
Agreed it was poorly worded. I should have said from the video one can see that Nasser feared for his life if he did not attack Israel. The reason he feared for his life that due to the frenzy that Nasser had whipped up in the Arab world regarding Israel’s demise.
Taking into account that Nasser was being advised by his military that he could defeat Israel, the only conclusion one can draw from this is that an Egyptian attack on Israel was inevitable as one cannot reasonably expect Nasser to lose his life to save Israel whom he did not recognise had the right to exist in the first place.
Thank you for acknowledging that your claim to have provided proof was false.
Are you aware that according to the Cia Nasser had played a part in precipitating the June 1967 war.?
Of course he played a role. Yet it was Israel, not Egypt, that started the war.
According to James Lindsay Unwra’s former general counsel, the nearly two million registered Palestinian refugees in Jordan are citizens of that country and as such do not have the right under international law to be considered refugees.
https://www.meforum.org/3404/reforming-unrwa
But the definition specifically does not apply to any person who “has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality.”[12]
We’ve had that discussion already.
http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/small/cab-128-42-cc-67-33-33.pdf
Only a short time was available in which to complete such action effectively since a continuation of the present uncertainty might entail such a deterioration in Israel’s MILITARY (my capitals) (though not economic) position that she would be forced to take military action to preserve her existence.
…..
Below are the 2 comments you made regarding the above source. Please explain why the source talks about a deterioration in Israel’s MILITARY (my capitals) (though not economic) position if as you say it provides no evidence that Israel was under any imminent threat of military attack from Egypt on June 5
………..
(1)You say “You are trying to deflect from the fact that your own source contradicts your central claim that it was Israel facing imminent attack from Egypt. The truth is the converse.”
…………….
(2)That discussion revolved entirely around the matter of the straits and Israel’s dependence on oil imports, overlooking that only a fraction of such came through the straits, and provides no evidence that Israel was under any imminent threat of military attack from Egypt on June 5, 1967, when Israel started the war by attacking Egypt. Instructively, your own source shows the British Prime Minister summing up the discussion by stressing the need to restrain Israel from attacking Egypt.
The document begins “Israel had so far been persuaded not to take military action…” It’s pretty hard to miss how that contradicts your claim that this document is evidence to support your claim that Israel was the one under imminent threat of attack rather than Egypt.
When you speak about Israeli ethnic cleansing, you bring Blatmann and Pappee. The difficultty is they both make porky pies about Plan Daled and say it called for expelling as many Palestinians as possible from the land of Israel
Even a 14 year old reading the plann Daled knows that it is nonsense. One should not rely on historians who to make up lies in the hope that it will reflect poorly on Israel.
So why do you rely on such ‘historianns’ ?
I do not rely on anybody regarding what Plan Dalet said. It is enough to refer to the primary source.
You say Pappé tells when talking Lifta, says it was one of the very first to be expelled
This is false. Read link below.
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/11/14/benny-morriss-untenable-denial-of-the-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestine/
https://www.israellycool.com/2019/09/12/know-your-history-theres-something-about-lifta/
Rather, it was a village rife with foreclosures, petty crime and violence, which operated as a base for terror attacks against Jews, and where inhabitants evacuated during the fighting – including the men, who the advancing Arab armies threatened with punishment if they did not man up and fight.
“It is true that not all of Jerusalem is Jewish, but it has in it already a huge Jewish bloc: when you enter the city through Lifta and Romema, through Mahaneh Yehuda, King George Street and Mea Shearim—there are no Arabs. One hundred percent Jews. Ever since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans—the city was not as Jewish as it is now. In many Arab neighbourhoods in the West you do not see even one Arab. I do not suppose it will change. And what happened in Jerusalem and in Haifa—can happen in large parts of the country. If we persist it is quite possible that in the next six or eight months there will be considerable changes in the country, very considerable, and to our advantage. There will certainly be considerable changes in the demographic composition of the country.” – David Ben-Gurion, February 7, 1948
Ms Gellhorn interviews the Arab reffugees in ’61. She found that they all hated Jews with a passion and it would be folly for Israel to let them come back.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1961/10/the-arabs-of-palestine/304203/
The Arabs of Palestine October 1961 issue
Something else will arrange, but not soon.” Ah well, the Jews might as well let the refugees come back; the Arabs here are loyal to the state. (“The ones I’ve seen detest the Jews and the state, Father, and you know it.” I expected his laughter to make a sound, it was so violent.) Yes, yes, that is true, but they do nothing. There is no resistance, no underground. Think what they could do if they really wanted to, with the Arab countries all around as a base.
…
THERE is no future in spending UN money to breed hate. There is no future in nagging or bullying Israel to commit suicide by the admission of a fatal locust swarm of enemies.
The Arab governments say they will not accept the existence of the state of Israel, now or ever. The logical conclusion is that, when ready, they intend to burst from their cold belligerent status into hot armed conflict and terminate Israel’s existence.
Well, yes, if someone ethnically cleansed you from your home, you would probably not like them very much, either.
(replies to button usually do not work) My point was you rely on Blatman and Pappe for many aspects of 1948 in the Arab Israel conflict, how can you rely on them when they have been proven to blatently lie about Plan Daled saying that it called for expelling as many Palestinians as possible from the land of Israel?
Like I said, I do not rely on them. Furthermore, I have not seen either of them make the claim you attribute to them.
If you agree that Nasser played a role in precipitating the 6 day war it would follow that Egypt had the minor responsibilty for it even if Israel had the major responsibilty for it, would it not ?
Playing a role in bringing about the war and starting the war are two different things. Israel, not Egypt, started the war.
Replies not working for some reason
You say “UN 194 does not give refugees the right to return to their homeland. It’s an inherent human right.” Does that mean the right of refugees the right to return to their homeland (rather than their homes) is a moral right rather than a legal right ?
No. It is both a moral and a legal right.
You ask “Can you identify an instance when Egypt deployed its military forces to attack Israel? I can think of none. ”
Egypt’s aggression towards Israel even prior to ’56
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/mf2017.pdf#page=53
Israeli ambassador to the UN Abba Eban explained the provocations to the Security Council on October 30:
During the six years during which this belligerency has operated in violation of the Armistice Agreement there have occurred 1,843 cases of armed robbery and theft, 1,339 cases of armed clashes with Egyptian armed forces, 435 cases of incursion from Egyptian controlled territory, [and] 172 cases of sabotage perpetrated by Egyptian military units and fedayeen in Israel. As a result of these actions of Egyptian hostility within Israel, 364 Israelis were wounded and 101 killed. In 1956 alone, as a result of this aspect of Egyptian aggression, 28 Israelis were killed and 127 wounded.
A quote from Abba Eban is not evidence that Egypt deployed its military forces to attack Israel prior to Israel’s attack on June 5, 1967.
you say in your article “In fact, Israel’s own intelligence had assessed, following the Egyptian movement of troops, that Nasser had no intention of attacking Israel (they judged him not to be insane), which was an assessment shared by the US intelligence community.”
As Nasser had accepted his army’s assessment that Egypt could attack Israel and win,it follows that this Us/Israel assessment was wrong.
You have failed to provide evidence to support your assertion that, in the context of Israel’s intelligence assessment, Nasser was insane.
Replies still not working You say ” Israel did not exist as a legally defined political entity because it did not. Israel was established through ethnic cleansing. You are trying to justify that crime.”
Are you claiming a country established through ethnic cleansing such as usa/australia can never be defined as a legally defined political entity. If not what is the relevance to Israel being established through ethnic cleansing as to whether it is a legally defined political entity or not ?
I am saying that ethnic cleansing is not a legitimate means by which to create a state and that a unilateral declaration does not a state make.