Discussion
Mrr T said:
allnighter said:
Mrr T said:
REALIST123 said:
F
http://www.wrmea.org/wrmea-archives/132-washington...
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.” Link [url]http://www.wrmea.org/interview-with-gilad-atzmon-by-prof-norton-mezvinsky/366-special-topics/jews-for-justice/10411-the-1967-war-and-the-israeli-occupation-of-the-west-bank-gaza-and-east-jerusalem.htmlIsraelis 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.”Link [url]http://www.wrmea.org/interview-with-gilad-atzmon-by-prof-norton-mezvinsky/366-special-topics/jews-for-justice/10411-the-1967-war-and-the-israeli-occupation-of-the-west-bank-gaza-and-east-jerusalem.html
General Ezer Weizman similarly said, “There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.” Ha'aretz, March 29, 1972allnighter 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.” From paragraph "invented in every detail" check link below!http://www.wrmea.org/wrmea-archives/132-washington...
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.” Link [url]http://www.wrmea.org/interview-with-gilad-atzmon-by-prof-norton-mezvinsky/366-special-topics/jews-for-justice/10411-the-1967-war-and-the-israeli-occupation-of-the-west-bank-gaza-and-east-jerusalem.html
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.”Link [url]http://www.wrmea.org/interview-with-gilad-atzmon-by-prof-norton-mezvinsky/366-special-topics/jews-for-justice/10411-the-1967-war-and-the-israeli-occupation-of-the-west-bank-gaza-and-east-jerusalem.html
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.” link http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IX02RSLJrcoC&am...
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:
Your post had lots of attributions of facts to various individuals but no references for any of them. So as a start can you provide references.
you only had to ask! Check my bold above.Mrr T said:
My only immediate comment is any article which so single handily blames one side is unlikely to be a accurate history.
Duck and dive all you like 'arry you know wa 'amean?! Funny enough that claim was made about pro-Israel revisionists and negationists. Are you one of them?Mrr T said:
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.
Blimey! are you serious? The analogy is fallacious seriously. Here's a correct one if you allow me:It's more like Iraq deciding to annex Kuwait, and Kuwait (with the help of its allies) attacking Iraqi forces in Kuwaiti territory,and driving them back, then Comical Ali claiming they (Iraq) have been "invaded" by Kuwait and its allies, and claiming it's an act of aggression against a sovereign state. Would that argument/excuse/claim hold water under international law? Yes I agree with you it's a Bowlocks argument/excuse/claim.
Similarly it's bowlocks to claim Israel has been "invaded" by Egypt and Syria on their own territories. One cannot trespass on his own property!
Edited by allnighter on Wednesday 23 July 01:28
S 8 GRN said:
FredClogs said:
audidoody said:
OK. Watch this
T-H-E-R-E I-S N-O C-O-U-N-T-R-Y C-A-L-L-E-D P-A-L-E-S-T-I-N-E
Never has been.
This is an oft repeated non sense trotted out by people who could educate themselves in a matter of seconds if they wished to... Such an odd thing to do, display ones ignorance in such a manner... Perhaps they believe what they say?T-H-E-R-E I-S N-O C-O-U-N-T-R-Y C-A-L-L-E-D P-A-L-E-S-T-I-N-E
Never has been.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine
I would agree if the whole area of Palestine was deserted with not a single inhabitant in there, then Zionists can claim squatter's right from the start.But, and that's a big BUT! There were people living in the house already, the light was on, and the delicious smell of 'maqluba' was coming from the kitchen window!
Art0ir said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Why do the Palestinians still fight even when they are taking huge casualties.
Why do Palestinians continue to support Hamas despite such devastating losses?
Fantastic article. The refusal to attempt to see things from the other side is a symptom of war that is prevalent in every corner of the globe.Why do Palestinians continue to support Hamas despite such devastating losses?
Mr Snap said:
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.
At the meantime here's some more quotes:
Izhak Shamir
“Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat… First and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play… in our war against the occupier.”
Chomsky, Noam (1999). Fateful Triangle.
South End Press.
Ariel Sharon
“Everyone there should move, should run, should grab more hills, expand the territory. Everything that's grabbed, will be in our hands. Everything we don't grab will be in their hands.”
Voice of Israel, Jerusalem, in Hebrew, 16 Nov 1998.
Edited by allnighter on Wednesday 23 July 02:23
coyft said:
... Jewish people posting on this thread have .....
Listen mate, you start saying Jewish, another one starts saying Muslim, then we end up deviating from the main topic discussed here and the whole thing will end up looking like a reggae band playing in a KKK annual meeting. So let's drop religion out of it please.It seems John Kerry has a dog in the fight ...
He was amazed to find out that under the
apartheid state laws he was entitled to live
there because they considered him a Jew .
He is not really from Kerry in the green and pleasant land .
A previous Secretary of State Madeline Albright
Was just as surprised to find out she had
Three Jewish grand parents ...
Maybe the refugees might mistakenly believe them
not altogether even handed ...
He was amazed to find out that under the
apartheid state laws he was entitled to live
there because they considered him a Jew .
He is not really from Kerry in the green and pleasant land .
A previous Secretary of State Madeline Albright
Was just as surprised to find out she had
Three Jewish grand parents ...
Maybe the refugees might mistakenly believe them
not altogether even handed ...
Art0ir said:
Mrr T said:
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.
allnighter said:
Listen mate, you start saying Jewish, another one starts saying Muslim, then we end up deviating from the main topic discussed here and the whole thing will end up looking like a reggae band playing in a KKK annual meeting. So let's drop religion out of it please.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, eat your heart out - Ban Ki-Moon, stroll on sunshine : We have a new generation of kick-arse UN Secretary-General on deck. Some say he drinks nothing but petrol, others are sure that he can only be killed by the Dark Lord Moderator.....but we know him as..the allnighter.
(Crowd goes wild)
kitz said:
It seems John Kerry has a dog in the fight ...
He was amazed to find out that under the
apartheid state laws he was entitled to live
there because they considered him a Jew .
He is not really from Kerry in the green and pleasant land .
A previous Secretary of State Madeline Albright
Was just as surprised to find out she had
Three Jewish grand parents ...
Maybe the refugees might mistakenly believe them
not altogether even handed ...
Linking people by ethnicity? I've never come across you before, but you sound distinctly unpleasant. He was amazed to find out that under the
apartheid state laws he was entitled to live
there because they considered him a Jew .
He is not really from Kerry in the green and pleasant land .
A previous Secretary of State Madeline Albright
Was just as surprised to find out she had
Three Jewish grand parents ...
Maybe the refugees might mistakenly believe them
not altogether even handed ...
EDIT:
Just seen your views on Lee Rigby:
kitz said:
"Who is the better man
A .....murders wounded combatant and denies it
B murders unsuspecting soldier admits it and justifies it .....in his own mind .
C soldier sends remote missile from 2000 miles away to kill a suspect and extended family
And goes home and bounces his children on his knee ?"
You couldn't even make a decent assessment of what happened to Lee Rigby. You have little chance of understanding anything as complex as what's happening in the Middle East. A .....murders wounded combatant and denies it
B murders unsuspecting soldier admits it and justifies it .....in his own mind .
C soldier sends remote missile from 2000 miles away to kill a suspect and extended family
And goes home and bounces his children on his knee ?"
Edited by MX7 on Wednesday 23 July 01:42
coyft said:
allnighter said:
coyft said:
... Jewish people posting on this thread have .....
Listen mate, you start saying Jewish, another one starts saying Muslim, then we end up deviating from the main topic discussed here and the whole thing will end up looking like a reggae band playing in a KKK annual meeting. So let's drop religion out of it please.This works both ways of course, I doubt many Muslim Palestinians have any sympathy for the dead Israeli civilian.
In the context of this thread it is relevant, as it is pointless debating with someone who has zero empathy for the other side.
That's why we should stop religious slurs like "You must be a Jew because of this, or you must be a Muslim because of that....etc"
kitz said:
Benjamin Netanyahu used the statement
' telegenically dead Palestinians' in an interview
with Wolf Blitzer who was once employed by AIPAC .
Now that's unpleasant...
And gosh I nearly did it again .
Instead of talking in riddles why don't you come out a show your true colours?' telegenically dead Palestinians' in an interview
with Wolf Blitzer who was once employed by AIPAC .
Now that's unpleasant...
And gosh I nearly did it again .
FredClogs said:
Countdown said:
It just beggars belief...coyft said:
You're wasting your breath. The Jewish people posting on this thread have zero empathy for the Palestinians.
They have no limits as to the number of innocent Palestinian citizens that will be killed in pursuit of their objective. A common cry from Jewish people is "finish the job".
Sadly it's as simple as that.
Doesn't take long for anti-Semitism to rear its head on a thread like this. There are many Non-Jews that recognise that most countries in the world would be far less forbearing than Israel if under constant rocket attacks. If Georgia started firing rockets into Russia I doubt the Russians would leave any building left standing, and wouldn't be giving warnings first either.They have no limits as to the number of innocent Palestinian citizens that will be killed in pursuit of their objective. A common cry from Jewish people is "finish the job".
Sadly it's as simple as that.
Most sensible people recognise they needs to be a two state solution as part of the end of the conflict, but there wont be one with Hamas in power.
coyft said:
You would need to be ether Jewish or a narcissist to have no sympathy or empathy for the dead civilian population of Gaza.
.
Congratulations for reducing the most complex and bitter conflict of the last 100 years into "Jews Hate Muslims".
I'm Jewish and I have been near to tears about some of the images I have seen coming out of Gaza.
You need to have a word with yourself about the state of your own debating skills. They could do with some improvement.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28431945
BBC said:
The lifting of the economic blockade of the Gaza Strip must form part of any ceasefire deal, the Palestinian prime minister has said.
Speaking during a visit by the UN secretary general, Rami Hamdallah said it was time for the "siege to stop".
His call backs that of Hamas, which has insisted on an end to the Israeli-Egypt blockade as a condition for a truce.
What is the issue with lifting the blockade and allowing free trade? If it's a case of arms getting in then surely that point is irrelevant given the number of tunnels already found would have facilitated this already. Speaking during a visit by the UN secretary general, Rami Hamdallah said it was time for the "siege to stop".
His call backs that of Hamas, which has insisted on an end to the Israeli-Egypt blockade as a condition for a truce.
S 8 GRN said:
FredClogs said:
Countdown said:
It just beggars belief...Allnighter normally posts on here long anti Israeli comments.
I may disagree with him, indeed, I have referred to him as bigoted. Which is defined as some one with fixed views who is unwilling to accept others may hold different views. Based on his posts I will let you draw your own conclusions as to whether I am right or wrong.
A couple of pages ago, however, they posted a very revisionist view on the Arab/Israel conflicts. Most was not comment but quoted as facts. Since I have read a number of historied on these conflicts which took different views I asked for references. This was provided to some extend but being a pendant I looked a little deeper.
Below are my comments on the references and also highlighted the facts which are still not referenced.
The sources I could check where all articles on web sites. All but one was on wream.org. A quick check on the site shows it takes a very anti Israel line similar to allnighter. The other is on google books but its clear the writer takes an ever more rabid anti Israel line.
Now I have no objection to quoting intermediate sources if that source contain a link to the original. However, none of the sources had any links to the original fact.
Further, many of the other so called facts remain unreferenced.
Therefore my view remains that the books which I have read on these conflicts, which all contained reference to sources which can be checked, are a better version of history.
I may disagree with him, indeed, I have referred to him as bigoted. Which is defined as some one with fixed views who is unwilling to accept others may hold different views. Based on his posts I will let you draw your own conclusions as to whether I am right or wrong.
A couple of pages ago, however, they posted a very revisionist view on the Arab/Israel conflicts. Most was not comment but quoted as facts. Since I have read a number of historied on these conflicts which took different views I asked for references. This was provided to some extend but being a pendant I looked a little deeper.
Below are my comments on the references and also highlighted the facts which are still not referenced.
The sources I could check where all articles on web sites. All but one was on wream.org. A quick check on the site shows it takes a very anti Israel line similar to allnighter. The other is on google books but its clear the writer takes an ever more rabid anti Israel line.
Now I have no objection to quoting intermediate sources if that source contain a link to the original. However, none of the sources had any links to the original fact.
Further, many of the other so called facts remain unreferenced.
Therefore my view remains that the books which I have read on these conflicts, which all contained reference to sources which can be checked, are a better version of history.
allnighter said:
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.” From paragraph "invented in every detail" check link below!
http://www.wrmea.org/wrmea-archives/132-washington...
Reference to article on an anti Isreali web site which have no reference to the source quote.http://www.wrmea.org/wrmea-archives/132-washington...
allnighter said:
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.” Link [url]http://www.wrmea.org/interview-with-gilad-atzmon-by-prof-norton-mezvinsky/366-special-topics/jews-for-justice/10411-the-1967-war-and-the-israeli-occupation-of-the-west-bank-gaza-and-east-jerusalem.html
Reference to article on an anti Isreali web site which has no reference to the source quote.allnighter said:
Israelis have also acknowledged that their own rhetoric at the time about the “threat” of “annihilation” from the Arab states was pure propaganda.
No reference provided..allnighter said:
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.”Link [url]http://www.wrmea.org/interview-with-gilad-atzmon-by-prof-norton-mezvinsky/366-special-topics/jews-for-justice/10411-the-1967-war-and-the-israeli-occupation-of-the-west-bank-gaza-and-east-jerusalem.html
Reference to article on an anti Isreali web site which has no reference to the source quote.allnighter said:
General Ezer Weizman similarly said, “There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.” Ha'aretz, March 29, 1972
No reference provided..allnighter said:
hief 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.” linkhttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IX02RSLJrcoC&am...
Reference to article by some one who is rabidly anti Isreali and which has no reference to the source quote.allnighter said:
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.
No reference provided..allnighter said:
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.
No reference provided..allnighter said:
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.
Your view not a fact.allnighter said:
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!
Your view not a fact.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff