Discussion
Mrr T said:
REALIST123 said:
F
Yitzhak Rabin, who would also later become Prime Minister of Israel, admitted in 1968 that “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”
Israelis have also acknowledged that their own rhetoric at the time about the “threat” of “annihilation” from the Arab states was pure propaganda.
General Chaim Herzog, commanding general and first military governor of the occupied West Bank following the war, admitted that “There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger.”
General Ezer Weizman similarly said, “There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.”
Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev acknowledged, “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Day War, and we had never thought of such possibility.”
History records that it was Israel that fired the first shot of the "Six day War". Of course Israel sold it to the rest of the world as a "preemtive strike". Yet both U.S and Israeli intelligence assessed at the time that the likelihood Nasser would attack was close to Nil.
The CIA confirmed that Israel had "overwhelming superiority" in force of arms, and in the event of war, defeat the Arab forces within 2 weeks and within one week if it attacked first, which is what actually occurred. Nasser's rhetoric was nothing more than that, a transparent attempt to regain face in the Arab world. He knew what the Israelis are capable of and he was aware of their military might in the region.
And as for the 1973 war, when Egypt and Syria launched a surprise offensive to retake what's lawfully theirs namely the Sinai and the Golan Heights, this joint operation was described and sold to the rest of the world as an "invasion" against Israel, a fallacy that ignores the June 1967 U.N resolution 242 calling Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
Technically speaking Egypt and Syria "invaded" their own territory, then illegally occupied by Israel. To describe it as an "Invasion" assumes the Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights,West Bank , and Gaza Strip were Iraeli Territories. This false narrative fits in with the fallacious larger narrative that Israel is the "victim" of Arab "invasion" and "aggression" which I have no doubt you subscribe to yourself!Good lord........who'd have thought it?
Not the histories of those conflict I have read but if you post it here it must be true..allnighter said:
Scuffers said:
your grasp on history is not great is it?
Nor is yours by the looks of it.Scuffers said:
Now, back to the occupied land, why was it occupied in the first place?
Israeli Minister of Housing Mordechai Bentov has also acknowledged that “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”Yitzhak Rabin, who would also later become Prime Minister of Israel, admitted in 1968 that “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”
Israelis have also acknowledged that their own rhetoric at the time about the “threat” of “annihilation” from the Arab states was pure propaganda.
General Chaim Herzog, commanding general and first military governor of the occupied West Bank following the war, admitted that “There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger.”
General Ezer Weizman similarly said, “There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.”
Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev acknowledged, “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Day War, and we had never thought of such possibility.”
History records that it was Israel that fired the first shot of the "Six day War". Of course Israel sold it to the rest of the world as a "preemtive strike". Yet both U.S and Israeli intelligence assessed at the time that the likelihood Nasser would attack was close to Nil.
The CIA confirmed that Israel had "overwhelming superiority" in force of arms, and in the event of war, defeat the Arab forces within 2 weeks and within one week if it attacked first, which is what actually occurred. Nasser's rhetoric was nothing more than that, a transparent attempt to regain face in the Arab world. He knew what the Israelis are capable of and he was aware of their military might in the region.
And as for the 1973 war, when Egypt and Syria launched a surprise offensive to retake what's lawfully theirs namely the Sinai and the Golan Heights, this joint operation was described and sold to the rest of the world as an "invasion" against Israel, a fallacy that ignores the June 1967 U.N resolution 242 calling Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
Technically speaking Egypt and Syria "invaded" their own territory, then illegally occupied by Israel. To describe it as an "Invasion" assumes the Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights,West Bank , and Gaza Strip were Iraeli Territories. This false narrative fits in with the fallacious larger narrative that Israel is the "victim" of Arab "invasion" and "aggression" which I have no doubt you subscribe to yourself!
Mrr T said:
Not the histories of those conflict I have read but if you post it here it must be true..
I don't think anyone has ever claimed Israel was at risk of annihilation in 1967, but that is not the same as saying there was no pretext for war or that it was not a pre-emptive strike.As well as sabre rattling Egypt had closed the red sea to Israeli shipping. Whereas Syrian artillery located in the Golan heights amused themselves by occasional shelling of farmers in the plains below.
Scuffers said:
I know this probably does not fit with your sense of injustice etc, but it's the only way it will end.
A compromise and peace agreement will end it, a limited military response just prolongs the pain again and again.The long term military option is Israel commits genocide and wipe the Palestinians off the face of the earth forever, a final solution, a very unlikely option considering Israel's population's experience with that strategy.
The only viable long term solution is a political negotiated solution accepted by both sides, which means compromise for both, and actually talking in a room, not "talking" with artillery and rockets.
in normal circumstances, I would agree with you, but much like the IRA we had, until the money stops, the war will continue.
honestly, the quickest way to stop Hamas is to cut off their money supply, no more aid, nothing.
yes, this means yet more hardship for the civilians (actually, just who are the civilians in this?), but it's probably the fastest way to solve the problem.
without all this crap, can you imagine just how nice a place Gaza could be? some 24 miles of prime coastline, it could easily become a massive tourist destination, with easy port access, etc etc etc, but instead, the whole place is one big s
t-hole because of the nutters.
honestly, the quickest way to stop Hamas is to cut off their money supply, no more aid, nothing.
yes, this means yet more hardship for the civilians (actually, just who are the civilians in this?), but it's probably the fastest way to solve the problem.
without all this crap, can you imagine just how nice a place Gaza could be? some 24 miles of prime coastline, it could easily become a massive tourist destination, with easy port access, etc etc etc, but instead, the whole place is one big s
t-hole because of the nutters.Scuffers said:
in normal circumstances, I would agree with you, but much like the IRA we had, until the money stops, the war will continue.
honestly, the quickest way to stop Hamas is to cut off their money supply, no more aid, nothing.
yes, this means yet more hardship for the civilians (actually, just who are the civilians in this?), but it's probably the fastest way to solve the problem.
without all this crap, can you imagine just how nice a place Gaza could be? some 24 miles of prime coastline, it could easily become a massive tourist destination, with easy port access, etc etc etc, but instead, the whole place is one big st-hole because of the nutters.
Excellent idea. Once the siege was properly in place, the Israelis could catapult dead donkeys over the walls...honestly, the quickest way to stop Hamas is to cut off their money supply, no more aid, nothing.
yes, this means yet more hardship for the civilians (actually, just who are the civilians in this?), but it's probably the fastest way to solve the problem.
without all this crap, can you imagine just how nice a place Gaza could be? some 24 miles of prime coastline, it could easily become a massive tourist destination, with easy port access, etc etc etc, but instead, the whole place is one big s
t-hole because of the nutters.allnighter said:
Mrr T said:
REALIST123 said:
F
Yitzhak Rabin, who would also later become Prime Minister of Israel, admitted in 1968 that “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”
Israelis have also acknowledged that their own rhetoric at the time about the “threat” of “annihilation” from the Arab states was pure propaganda.
General Chaim Herzog, commanding general and first military governor of the occupied West Bank following the war, admitted that “There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger.”
General Ezer Weizman similarly said, “There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.”
Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev acknowledged, “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Day War, and we had never thought of such possibility.”
History records that it was Israel that fired the first shot of the "Six day War". Of course Israel sold it to the rest of the world as a "preemtive strike". Yet both U.S and Israeli intelligence assessed at the time that the likelihood Nasser would attack was close to Nil.
The CIA confirmed that Israel had "overwhelming superiority" in force of arms, and in the event of war, defeat the Arab forces within 2 weeks and within one week if it attacked first, which is what actually occurred. Nasser's rhetoric was nothing more than that, a transparent attempt to regain face in the Arab world. He knew what the Israelis are capable of and he was aware of their military might in the region.
And as for the 1973 war, when Egypt and Syria launched a surprise offensive to retake what's lawfully theirs namely the Sinai and the Golan Heights, this joint operation was described and sold to the rest of the world as an "invasion" against Israel, a fallacy that ignores the June 1967 U.N resolution 242 calling Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
Technically speaking Egypt and Syria "invaded" their own territory, then illegally occupied by Israel. To describe it as an "Invasion" assumes the Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights,West Bank , and Gaza Strip were Iraeli Territories. This false narrative fits in with the fallacious larger narrative that Israel is the "victim" of Arab "invasion" and "aggression" which I have no doubt you subscribe to yourself!Good lord........who'd have thought it?
Not the histories of those conflict I have read but if you post it here it must be true..allnighter said:
Scuffers said:
your grasp on history is not great is it?
Nor is yours by the looks of it.Scuffers said:
Now, back to the occupied land, why was it occupied in the first place?
Israeli Minister of Housing Mordechai Bentov has also acknowledged that “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”Yitzhak Rabin, who would also later become Prime Minister of Israel, admitted in 1968 that “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”
Israelis have also acknowledged that their own rhetoric at the time about the “threat” of “annihilation” from the Arab states was pure propaganda.
General Chaim Herzog, commanding general and first military governor of the occupied West Bank following the war, admitted that “There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger.”
General Ezer Weizman similarly said, “There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.”
Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev acknowledged, “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Day War, and we had never thought of such possibility.”
History records that it was Israel that fired the first shot of the "Six day War". Of course Israel sold it to the rest of the world as a "preemtive strike". Yet both U.S and Israeli intelligence assessed at the time that the likelihood Nasser would attack was close to Nil.
The CIA confirmed that Israel had "overwhelming superiority" in force of arms, and in the event of war, defeat the Arab forces within 2 weeks and within one week if it attacked first, which is what actually occurred. Nasser's rhetoric was nothing more than that, a transparent attempt to regain face in the Arab world. He knew what the Israelis are capable of and he was aware of their military might in the region.
And as for the 1973 war, when Egypt and Syria launched a surprise offensive to retake what's lawfully theirs namely the Sinai and the Golan Heights, this joint operation was described and sold to the rest of the world as an "invasion" against Israel, a fallacy that ignores the June 1967 U.N resolution 242 calling Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
Technically speaking Egypt and Syria "invaded" their own territory, then illegally occupied by Israel. To describe it as an "Invasion" assumes the Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights,West Bank , and Gaza Strip were Iraeli Territories. This false narrative fits in with the fallacious larger narrative that Israel is the "victim" of Arab "invasion" and "aggression" which I have no doubt you subscribe to yourself!
My only immediate comment is any article which so single handily blames one side is unlikely to be a accurate history.
One point I did pick up was you assertion was you cannot refer to the 1973 war as an "invasion". Since we refer to the landings by the allies in Sicily, Italy and France as invasions I do not see why the term cannot be used.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
A compromise and peace agreement will end it, a limited military response just prolongs the pain again and again.
The long term military option is Israel commits genocide and wipe the Palestinians off the face of the earth forever, a final solution, a very unlikely option considering Israel's population's experience with that strategy.
The only viable long term solution is a political negotiated solution accepted by both sides, which means compromise for both, and actually talking in a room, not "talking" with artillery and rockets.
I agree completely. The long term military option is Israel commits genocide and wipe the Palestinians off the face of the earth forever, a final solution, a very unlikely option considering Israel's population's experience with that strategy.
The only viable long term solution is a political negotiated solution accepted by both sides, which means compromise for both, and actually talking in a room, not "talking" with artillery and rockets.
Perhaps you can go and ask Hamas about their demands to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews.
I am also wondering if you can ask the Israeli why they are so crap at genocide. If they have killed 200 of 1.8m so far. On that basis its going to take them a very long time.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
RedTrident said:
Israel's ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, has reportedly said that the Israeli army should be given the Nobel Peace Prize for its “unimaginable restraint” in Gaza.
Obama got it after 5 weeks in office, so anything is possible 
The reason for the ground operation is to more accurately target the terrorists with fewer innocent deaths. The cost is being paid in Israeli soldiers lives'.
Edited by supersingle on Tuesday 22 July 17:55
Herman Goering at the Nuremberg Trials said:
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
Quite the prophet, Herman G. He must have met the future Israeli regime, as well as Tony Blair and George Bush Jr, in a dream.
JagLover said:
Mrr T said:
Not the histories of those conflict I have read but if you post it here it must be true..
I don't think anyone has ever claimed Israel was at risk of annihilation in 1967, but that is not the same as saying there was no pretext for war or that it was not a pre-emptive strike.As well as sabre rattling Egypt had closed the red sea to Israeli shipping. Whereas Syrian artillery located in the Golan heights amused themselves by occasional shelling of farmers in the plains below.
Art0ir said:
Mrr T said:
I agree completely.
Perhaps you can go and ask Hamas about their demands to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews.
Or the Israeli government's intention to ethnically cleanse Palestine and take what is left of the land?Perhaps you can go and ask Hamas about their demands to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews.
Mrr T said:
I agree completely.
Perhaps you can go and ask Hamas about their demands to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews.
I am also wondering if you can ask the Israeli why they are so crap at genocide. If they have killed 200 of 1.8m so far. On that basis its going to take them a very long time.
You do understand the meaning of Compromise? Perhaps you can go and ask Hamas about their demands to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews.
I am also wondering if you can ask the Israeli why they are so crap at genocide. If they have killed 200 of 1.8m so far. On that basis its going to take them a very long time.
Recriminations do not solve the issue. That attitude is exactly why there is no progress, duplicate it on the other side and hey presto, Gaza 2014.
Mrr T said:
Perhaps you can go and ask Hamas about their demands to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews.
Hold on. You just demanded that allnighter provide annotated evidence to his quotations (even when it's pretty obvious he will be able to). Yet within a couple of posts here you are making the, completely unattributed, assertion that Hamas demanded the destruction of Israel and the killing of all Jews - you haven't even dignified it with a quote.
As a matter of good manners alone, you should be doing what you expect of others. Otherwise, one can only assume that the demand you made of allnighter was merely a ploy to shut down an argument which you found hard to refute. If this is the case, you're not merely failing to practise what you preach, you're behaving in the most hypocritical fashion.
Edited by Mr Snap on Tuesday 22 July 17:51
JuniorD said:
Having read and contributed to this thread, it is clear that there is nothing more to be said the those PHers who can justify, and are seemigly comfortbale with the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians in Gaza. In fact, it would seem that there is nothing beyond the pale when it comes to Irsraeli options for dealing with the Gazans. The PH humanitarians are wasting their time.
Well that's original.....Funkycoldribena said:
Well that's original.....
Talking of not getting an answer, how about this from earlier?trashbat said:
Funkycoldribena said:
Exactly what I said earlier in the thread.Works both ways,except I used ad-finitum.Im just sick of people like VK trotting out the same old stuff, why shouldnt I counter?I keep hearing about the poor old Palestinians and how I should be weeping in my coffee,well sorry I have no sympathy for the likes of people who commit that sort of savagery.
Don't you think that's a fairly concise expression of racism? They're all the same?trashbat said:
Funkycoldribena said:
Well that's original.....
Talking of not getting an answer, how about this from earlier?trashbat said:
Funkycoldribena said:
Exactly what I said earlier in the thread.Works both ways,except I used ad-finitum.Im just sick of people like VK trotting out the same old stuff, why shouldnt I counter?I keep hearing about the poor old Palestinians and how I should be weeping in my coffee,well sorry I have no sympathy for the likes of people who commit that sort of savagery.
Don't you think that's a fairly concise expression of racism? They're all the same?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff