babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Who started the flippin' 1967 war and related

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Who started the flippin' 1967 war and related
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 29 March 2004 05:21 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There. Now we've got a thread for this. Anyone who wants to can hash this who-was-first stuff out. Personally, I've got an opinion and I think the documented evidence supports it, but I really don't feel like getting into it.
However, hopefully this does mean that anyone who starts in on it again in another Israel thread about something else can be directed to take their burbling here. Cheers!

From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 29 March 2004 09:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok, lets play. But I think this belongs in poltics.

Anyway... Menachem Begin says that Israel started it:

quote:

"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. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.

Begins Admission in 1982 That Israel Started Three of Its Wars


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 29 March 2004 10:27 PM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
In the mid 1960s and particulary as 1966 rolled into 1967 there was increased Arab military activity against Israel. What follows is not the remembrance of an actor but the facts as they occurred at the time.

Repeated shelling from the Golan, terrorist attacks across the Green Line, massing of Egyptian and Syrian troops on the borders with Israel. The expulsion of the UN observers on the Egyptian border. The act of war was the closing of the straights of Tiran. The closure of an international body of water is recognized as an act of war.

The Voice of Arabs, May 18, 1967: As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.

Syrian Defence MInister, May 20, 1967: Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.

May 22, Egypt closes the straights, in effect declaring war.

Nasser, May 23: The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war.

May 30, Jordan and Egypt sign a defence pact. Nasser declares: The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.

The President of Iraq, June 4, 1967: The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map

250,000 arab soldiers had mustered on the borders with Israel (over half in Sinai).

June 5, 1967, Israel attacks Egypt.

Israel offered Jordan non-aggression if Jordan stayed out of it. June 5, 1967, Jordan shelled West Jerusalem.

If this is not a defensive war, what is? If Israel had waited for an invasion, it would have likely been destroyed. The Eqyptian battle plans (in keeping with the rhetoric above) called for the massacre of the civilian population of Tel Aviv.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 29 March 2004 11:47 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You do not know what a defensive war is.

quote:
The act of war was the closing of the straights of Tiran. The closure of an international body of water is recognized as an act of war.

Recognized where, by whom?

If true, therefore:

  • The United States and Britain declared war on Japan by blockading Japanese waters prior to Pearl Harbour.
  • Kennedy declared war on Cuba by stopping shipping from Russia during the Cuban missile crisis.

quote:
The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war.

Now surely anyone can see that Nasser is responding to another voice in the dialogue. Here we have Nasser saying Israel is threatening war, and we will defend ourselves.

Why have you excluded Israeli voices from the dialogue talkin2u?

Most sailent of these is this:

quote:
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.

-- Menachem Begin.

Whats the matter with adding those Israeli voices -- they don't fit your sloppy one sided attempt to rewrite history?

As for the rest, I have sited my source, I'd like to see yours? Any corroboration on those, aside from the Massada 2000 site?

[ 29 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 30 March 2004 03:32 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
So what about the other armies?
From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 March 2004 04:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, it was the movement of Egyptian troops into the Sinai that was used as a justification for the attack. Read Talkin2u's post point by point. Begin doesn't think the 'other armies' are worth mentioning obviously.

Egypt was the country that Israel attacked first.

Begin says something else in that speech I think you should take to heart. He says: "We must be honest with ourselves."

You should try it, rather than trying to nitpick your way through an arguement as a way of absolving Israel of its responsibilities for its actions, Arab actions aside.

No ones hands are clean. Why pretend?

[ 30 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 30 March 2004 04:43 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
But what about what the other armies were doing? Begin frames his speech within the question of whether provocations were to threaten Israel's existence or jsut the lives of its people. He also says, "This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term". Begin believes Israel was justified in attacking. What were 250,000 soldiers doing if not assembling to attack Israel?
quote:
You should try it, rather than trying to nitpick your way through an arguement as a way of absolving Israel of its responsibilities for its actions, Arab actions aside.


Thats the kicker. I want all the others to accept their responsiblility for creating the refugees. Understand that we do not live in a vacuum.

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 March 2004 05:01 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree that Begin's arguement is that he believes the war was a war of self defence in the nobelest terms. I inlcuded that as an example of fair quotation in context, unlike Takin2u's selective use of quotations from Nasser.

What I am establishing is that Begin feels the following:

  • That Israel had a choice.
  • That the Egyptian army was not a threat to the nation
  • And that Israel started the shooting.

I argue against Begin's interpetation of the facts and that the Prima Facie case is that the Egyptians who were defending, not Israel. The last is patently obvious in the light of the ongoing seizure of territories taken in the conflict. That is my thesis based on the facts as presented by a PM of Israel, a former general and a vetran of the war.

It is all well and fine to argue that Israel had a right to start the war for the reasons Begin states, but that it is not ok to present a black and white characterization of history without colours, depth and perspective.

Anyone who tries to paint a black and white, good versus evil, right against wrong picture of history, drains history of its nuance and is engaging in a propoganda exercise.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 March 2004 05:02 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is off topic:

quote:
Thats the kicker. I want all the others to accept their responsiblility for creating the refugees. Understand that we do not live in a vacuum.

That is the 1948 war.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 30 March 2004 09:46 PM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
This is off topic:

That is the 1948 war.


Which was started by--who else, the Arabs (by which I mean the Arab govenments of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria). The goal then (as in later wars including the current one) was to commit both genocide and politicide.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 March 2004 01:18 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1967 dude, stick to it, stop trying to redirect the fire when it gets to hot (or is this more ADD?.)

We can talk about 1948 on another thread.

Now why do you dispute Menachem Begin's (War hero, General, former PM of Israel) facts regarding the 1967 war?

[ 31 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 March 2004 01:20 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 31 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 31 March 2004 10:14 AM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
1967 dude, stick to it, stop trying to redirect the fire when it gets to hot (or is this more ADD?.)

We can talk about 1948 on another thread.

Now why do you dispute Menachem Begin's (War hero, General, former PM of Israel) facts regarding the 1967 war?

[ 31 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Yes, Israel began the shooting in 1967. However, if you were in a small country, surrounded be enemies who had massed their (much more numerous)soldiers on your borders, were threatening to wipe you out (both physically and politically), had expelled UN peacekeepers (expicitly because you wanted war) and had committed an act of war, wouldn't you start shooting.

What Begin was saying is that Israel had a choice (use the element of surprise or be eliminated) and exercised that choice in order to stay alive.

Once again, read the historical record and understand that the Arab threats were not high-blown rhetoric but real honest existential threats. Only 19 years before, Israel had been invaded with the goal of eliminating it. That is the reality int eh region.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 March 2004 03:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes, Israel began the shooting in 1967.

Thank you.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 March 2004 03:53 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...and had committed an act of war, wouldn't you start shooting.

Now, where is it stated in international law that closing a body of water to shipping is, necessarily and in-and-of-itself an 'act of war.' I ask this, because if it is the case, then the US/British blockade of Japan prior to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour was an act of war. This is important, as it would seem that Japan's entry into WW2 on the side of Hitler was completely justified, and that they were just responding to the attack of imperial Britain and its ally the United States.

I ask this because this is not how I have been brought up to understand the WW2 conflict.

  • Isn't it also the fact that Egypt disputed that the straight of Tiran was an international body of water (The Enterprise Channel, the only one really usable, lies within a mile of the Egyptian coastline and, therefore, was within Egyptian territorial waters.)
  • Isn't it also the case that the Law of the Sea which govern free passage of shipping was unlcear in 1967, and that it was only in 1967 that the Soviet Union and the USA agreed to hash out the issues relating to free passage of straights?
  • Isn't it also the case that Egypt offered to have this dispute reffered to the International Court of Law in the Hague, and that Israel ignored this offer?
  • Isn't it also the case that Israel was illegally occupying the port of Eliat, contrary to the 1949 armistice agreement?

quote:
In fact, the issue of passage through straits was one of the early driving forces behind the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, when, in early 1967, the United States and the Soviet Union proposed to other Member countries of the United Nations that an international conference be held to deal specifically with the entangled issues of straits, overflight, the width of the territorial sea and fisheries.

UN site.

[ 31 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 31 March 2004 04:13 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let us not forget that the mobilization of some of Egypt's forces happened in the context of a series of provocations mounted by Israel in the Golan Heights, followed by Israeli threats to invade Syria.
Egypt, an ally of Syria, demonstrated support for its ally by mobilizing troops near the border of the country threatening to invade its ally.
On the Golan Heights provocations,

quote:
"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.
--New York Times, May 11, 1997

And I can't recall whether this quote has been pointed out yet, but

quote:
"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." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

Indeed, Nasser's vice-president was in the United States at the time, trying to persuade the Americans to get the Israelis to come to the table for a peace deal. It has been suggested that one factor in Israel's decision to attack when it did was that they didn't want to let Nasser save face in negotiations.

Meanwhile, it should also be noted that in the years between 1948 and 1967, Israel had not been passive. Israel's neighbours, and certainly Egypt, had as much reason to worry as Israel did. For instance, in 1956, Israel helped Britain and France attack Egypt; by the end of the war they had grabbed Gaza and the Sinai--the difference from 1967 being that in 1956, the UN made them give them back.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 02 April 2004 03:43 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Now, where is it stated in international law that closing a body of water to shipping is, necessarily and in-and-of-itself an 'act of war.'

I don’t know for sure if international law, past or present, really details all known provocations that would be considered acts of war. However, closing of waterways was addressed in UNResolution 242. It can be argued that the Israelis certainly believed that restricting traffic through the Tiran straits was.
From UN Resolution 242
quote:
2. Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;


This quote, from Al-Ahram Weekly, June 1998, by Rear Admiral Rifaat (Egyptian Navy?) raises some interesting questions.
quote:
The preparations were presented as simply a political move and thus no concern of the military commanders who, although expressing
their dissent, were compelled to comply with orders. This state of affairs lasted until 23 May 1967 when all of a sudden a decision
was taken to block traffic through the Straits of Tiran, leading into the Gulf of Aqaba. From then on, the outbreak of hostilities became imminent and the situation deteriorated rapidly.


Prior to war, Egypt went to the US to determine whether it would go to bat for Israel if Egypt attacked. Was the closing of the straits a provocation carried out from pressure from the Soviets? Was this closing a provocation aimed at the US and its allies? Were the rumblings and rhetoric of war coming from Israel’s enemies a rouse? I honestly doubt Israel was willing to gamble. I don’t buy the ‘Egypt defending itself’ line for a minute.

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 April 2004 05:49 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is a lot of questions followed by a sudden conclusion. One would assume that you would prepare a series of facts that answer those question and then deduce the conclusion from there.

quote:
Prior to war, Egypt went to the US to determine whether it would go to bat for Israel if Egypt attacked.

This is an absurd deduction and one has to ask how you came to it, given that the US clearly sided with Israel. The US had already gone to the UN with a resolution allowing for the creation of an international force to be assembled to 'force' the sraight. This resolution failed.

Johnson warned: "Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go alone."

No. Nasser went to the US to seek diplomatic resolution, and to prevent US intervention if conflict developed beyond the diplomatic.

As for 242, 242 was introduced in Nov. of 1967. Why are we talking about it? Why do people insist on talking authoritatively, and come to conclusions about things that they know nothing about?

But you are right shipping was guaranteed, and that Israel was in violation of the 1949 cease-fire protocls by its siezure and blocking of Arab shipping to and from the port of Eilat. The closure of the straight should been seen in the context of an already existing violation of the articles of the 1949 cease-fire, in regards to shipping, by Israel.

I agree that the quote from Al Ahram is interesting, but it is not a statement of policy, or intention to attack Israel. Saying that with the closure of the straight "the outbreak of hostilities became imminent and the situation deteriorated rapidly," is not to say that it was an act of war, in-and-of-itself, or that it was a threat.

If that were the case then Kennedy's blockade of Russian shipping to Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis was an incontovertible step toward war. It was not, as the resolution of the Cuban Missile Cirsis proves. Nasser's statement that he would accept the jurisdiction of the International Court in the Hague in regard to the straight, allowed for ample room for all parties to resolve the situation diplomatically.

This is not to say the Egypt did not announce its intention to fight if attacked:

quote:
Nasser, May 23: The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war.

Simply to state that there is a possibility of armed conflict is not to invoke conflict or to say that one wishes conflict.

And it can not be ignored that this was essentially a reply to specific statements from members of the Israeli general staff about the removal of the government of Syria on May 10th, which were a clear threat.

The act of war was the attack upon the Egyptian air force by Israel. That was the act of war.

[ 02 April 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 04 April 2004 12:38 AM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
On Syria, Dayan also says this in his autobiography(William Morrow, NewYork, 1976):
quote:
The heightened tension that developed between Israel and Syria in the period preceeding the Six Day War sprang from the extremist character of Syria's regime; a fanatical hatred of Israel; attermpts to divert from Israel water sources of the Jordan River; and the Syrian army's
sponsorship of terrorist activity.
Who supplied Syria with weaponry? Who manufactured those shells raining down on Galillee? (I suppose you have to add to your list of provocations considered under International Law as acts of war the profession of farming)
From the Al-Ahram article from my previous post continues. The Admiral says:
quote:
The reasons for this disaster are almost incomprehensible. Why was Egypt intentionally brought to the brink of war by deliberate political moves that can only be described as rash beyond reason?
This proves that Egypt had intentions. Question. What were those intentions and what was the motivation? Now, getting around to why I asked who supplied Syria with those shells.
From a June, 2000, Guardian article by Isabella Ginor, reflecting on Krushchev's comments in his memoirs,
quote:
the USSR's military command persuaded its political leadership to support these steps (closing the Tiran Strait), knowing they were aimed at starting a war to destroy Israel.
The Soviet client states should have been wise to what Moscow was doing. Maybe they knew and, frankly, didn't care that the Soviets were attempting to draw the U.S into a major conflict. The Soviets even went as far as sending such a message over the Washington-Moscow teletype unit. That message, in essence, said that if you defend Israel you will have a catastrophe on your hands. The soviets had naval landing parties ready to ensure Israel's loss. Question. Why would the Soviets pump up Egypt, support them closing the Tiran Strait, provide weapons to Syria (Jordan?), with a navy ready to invade if not to instigate something. What?
The article goes on to say:
quote:
An officer of the GRU (Soviet military intelligence) later told a senior American analyst that the defence minister, Andrei Grechko, and his team wanted to "provide the progressive Arabs with a unique and historic achievement - the destruction of Israel" for which "they would remain eternally beholden to Moscow".
So then what happened? Reference comments made by Arthur Goldberg, former US Ambassador to the U.N., instrumental in crafting U.N. Resolution 242, Columbia Journal of International Law, Vol 12 no 2, 1973.
quote:
"...The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal... are the words 'all', 'the' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'...There is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied by it on, and after, June 5, 1967... On certain aspects, the Resolution is less ambiguous than its withdrawal language. Resolution 242 specifically calls for termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every State in the area. The Resolution also specifically endorses free passage through international waterways...The efforts of the Arab States, strongly supported by the USSR, for a condemnation of Israel as the
aggressor and for its withdrawal to the June 5, 1967 lines, failed to command the requisite support..."
Was the first bullet fired by Israel? Its hard to say. Were they the aggressors? No.

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 April 2004 04:55 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Also, your attmept to divert attention to the fact that you thought 242 was created before the 1967 war, and that its provision on shipping had baring on the legality of the closure of the straight of Tiran, is well... quaint.

quote:
This proves that Egypt had intentions.

Saying something is "rash" is not to say that it was a deliberate attempt to bring about war. It is saying that Egypt was stupid.

Most of the rest is dealt in previous posts, so I'll ignore it, the 1999 article fron the Rufus Polson's New York Times regarding Israeli provocations in the Golan region, as an example in regard to "shells raining down on Galillee," show clearly that Israeli hands are not clean, either.

However, border raiding (a term which encapsulates the exchanges between Israel and Syria in the Golan) is not necessarily war, either. Setting your regular army, navy and airforce into a concerted attack against an enemy is war. That is what Israel did when it attacked the Egyptian and Jordanian airforce.

And this is the main point: While it is the case that Arab' were combative, and also provocative, and that the closure of the canal was possibly rash, it is not clear that it was illegal, or that it was intended to provoke a war. My biggest concern is that you insist on painting a picture of a virgin Israel beset by wild Arab dogs, and ignore the clearly provocative behviour of Israel itself.

As I said before:

quote:
Anyone who tries to paint a black and white, good versus evil, right against wrong picture of history, drains history of its nuance and is engaging in a propoganda exercise.

Kudus to you for bringing in the larger geo-polical interest of the superpowers into the picture.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 04 April 2004 08:17 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, it certainly seems that the USSR were interested in the region, and it certainly seems that where England and the US backed Israel, and probably Turkey, the USSR was aiding various Arab states. And it seems the USSR was hoping those states would go for a war and win it.

Whether this shows either that (a) the Arab states in question were simply following the USSR's line (any more than Israel was simply following the US line), or (b) that Israel thought they were, is quite another question. I'd say it's fairly likely that Egypt and Syria were happy to get their hands on some cheap arms, but were less sanguine about their chances in a war than the USSR was.
And we have leaders of Israel saying that they did not, in fact, think Egypt wanted war. Whether they were right or wrong, certainly that would mean they started the war because they wanted to start the war, not because they were pre-empting a feared attack. So even if we posited that, unbeknownst to the Israeli leadership, the Egyptian, Syrian et al leaders were intending to invade at the behest of the USSR, it still remains the case that *that isn't why Israel started the war*.

Meanwhile, the simple fact is that Egypt, while they had mobilized some of their troops in the Sinai, didn't have enough of them there for Israel to consider them a credible invasion threat. That would certainly have had to change for them to mount an invasion.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 04 April 2004 09:06 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If I may be parenthetical here, I note that it is interesting that in Israel, the 1973 war is widely regarded as a failure, even though the Israelis won the conflict by being able to repel the invading armies. In the Arab world, the 1973 war was regarded as a face-saving success, allowing Nasser (and later, Sadat) to conclude peace negotiations with Israel without inviting the scorn of the other Arab countries and their leadership.

Back to 1967 and the two divisions in Egypt that threatened the very fabric of Israel's position in the spacetime continuum...


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 April 2004 10:07 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would urge you all to read Michael Oren's penultimate look at the 1967 war called The Six Day War . It is brilliant look at what really happened.

And of course Israel naysayers will always look at Israel and see the glass as empty even when its full. What else is new?


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 April 2004 10:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is not new is Zionist insisting that Israel is snow white. That is a fantasy.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 April 2004 10:18 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Exactly which Zionist are you referring to.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 April 2004 01:53 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All of them.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 05 April 2004 02:47 AM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:

And of course Israel naysayers will always look at Israel and see the glass as empty even when its full. What else is new?

And the motivation for this is supposed to be . . .
The famous "anti-semitism on the left"?
(which is conceded to be a new thing, but apparently whatever it is, while new, isn't a response to anything that has happened in or around Israel)

We're all religious fanatics who hate Israel's freedoms?
We're jealous of Israel's success?
(The same way we hate Sweden and Denmark's freedoms. We just resent any country that's successful, which is why we're always bashing those blasted Nordics)

No, wait, it's because we've been blinded by the Palestinian-controlled news media.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 05 April 2004 03:23 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
I have only read excerpts from Oren’s book. Very compelling. Perhaps, Macabee, you could enlighten us with a summary of Oren’s findings and conclusions. I intend to read it, unfortunately my stack of unfinished and unread books is growing.

With that out of the way, I particularly enjoy this

quote:
As I said before:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who tries to paint a black and white, good versus evil, right against wrong picture of history, drains history of its nuance and is engaging in a propoganda exercise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In light of this.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Israel began the shooting in 1967.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you.


Is this
quote:
Saying something is "rash" is not to say that it was a deliberate attempt to bring about war. It is saying that Egypt was stupid.


The kind of nuance you were expecting?!?!?!?

However, I was not surprised by this

quote:
What is not new is Zionist insisting that Israel is snow white. That is a fantasy.

or this
quote:
And the motivation for this is supposed to be . . .
The famous "anti-semitism on the left"?
(which is conceded to be a new thing, but apparently whatever it is, while new, isn't a response to anything that has happened in or around Israel)
We're all religious fanatics who hate Israel's freedoms?
We're jealous of Israel's success?
(The same way we hate Sweden and Denmark's freedoms. We just resent any country that's successful, which is why we're always bashing those blasted Nordics)
No, wait, it's because we've been blinded by the Palestinian-controlled news media.


Very telling indeed.

I am attempting to provoke further understanding of history, not in anyway an attempt at propaganda, unlike this

quote:
This is not to say the Egypt did not announce its intention to fight if attacked:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nasser, May 23: The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 April 2004 07:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The point????

How is it that you interpret Nasser's statement? Excuse me what is it that he is saying?

So you are not suprised by my statement:

quote:
What is not new is Zionist insisting that Israel is snow white. That is a fantasy.

Are you suggesting that you believe that Israel has a portion of blame in causing the 1967 war, or not?

[ 05 April 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 05 April 2004 08:04 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So Caoimhin isn't surprised by anything we say. Doesn't bother me--I'm more interested in reaching the truth than in innovating new stories.

I notice this ability to predict what we say hasn't led to any counterarguments. Caoimhin knows all, sees all but, being basically wrong, is not thereby enabled to get around the facts.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 April 2004 02:28 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He he he. Knows all except that resolution 242 has no bearing on the 1967 war as it was penned 6 months after the war was started. Theta was a new one. It would be nice to get some pro-Israel posters with some backgroudn knowledge to contribute, as opposed to the same old same old repeated over and over again as if it was scripture.

[ 06 April 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 06 April 2004 03:49 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:

No, wait, it's because we've been blinded by the Palestinian-controlled news media.

Don't laugh. Someone actually said much the same thing, and appeared to be serious, over here.

quote:
I used to call Radio Canada, Radio Canada Palestine during the time of the Intifada. Maybe I should continue. It has been a force of Palestinian propaganda in this country , paid by the Canadian taxpayer.

This guy wrote this 24 hours after your joke, so maybe you inspired his deep thoughts.

[ 06 April 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 06 April 2004 11:24 AM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used to call Radio Canada, Radio Canada Palestine during the time of the Intifada. Maybe I should continue. It has been a force of Palestinian propaganda in this country , paid by the Canadian taxpayer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to achieve even the flimsiest sense of giving this poster the benefit of the doubt, I'm going on the assumption that this person had a supremely intense migrane for about a week before writing this...


From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 April 2004 11:36 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That migraine is contagious. You may have noticed.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 06 April 2004 12:01 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by evenflow:
In order to achieve even the flimsiest sense of giving this poster the benefit of the doubt, I'm going on the assumption that this person had a supremely intense migrane for about a week before writing this...

Actually...that quote isn't the most egregious. Check this out:

quote:
I'm stating the self-evident and that is that the Left has down-played and trivialized and ignored acts of terrorism against Israeli civilians, and Jews of the Diaspora , to the extent that the left wing or Middle Eastern extremists see this as a signal that acts of violence are merited as a form of response to grievances.

I guess we're supposed to quietly agree, slap ourselves "up side the head," and move on to some useful activity like acting as a cheerleading squad for the IDF and the current Israeli government.

Arguments like the above can't be refuted. If we can't see that such things are self-evident then we're just a bunch of anti-semites anyway. See how it works?


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 06 April 2004 05:03 PM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
OK, that last one is giving ME a migraine...
From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 07 April 2004 01:05 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
being basically wrong, is not thereby enabled to get around the facts.


Rufus. Please back this up with the facts I can't navigate around. Otherwise, challenge my claims as they appear. My point should be obvious enough.

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 April 2004 05:02 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you believe that Israel has a portion of blame in causing the 1967 war, or not?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 08 April 2004 01:17 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
Question
quote:
what about what the other armies were doing?

Question
quote:
What were 250,000 soldiers doing if not assembling to attack Israel?


Question
quote:
Was the closing of the straits a provocation carried out from pressure from the Soviets?

Question
quote:
Was this closing a provocation aimed at the US and its allies?

Question
quote:
Were the rumblings and rhetoric of war coming from Israel’s enemies a rouse?

Question
quote:
What were those intentions and what was the motivation?

Question
quote:
Why would the Soviets pump up Egypt, support them closing the Tiran Strait, provide weapons to Syria (Jordan?), with a navy ready to invade if not to instigate something. What?


To be fair, I think you should explore/expand on these questions first.

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 08 April 2004 03:25 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh come on. I am not asking for 'us' to come to a conlcusion, I am asking you what your conclusion is. Many of those are cogent questions, but the question I asked is simple, and your past posts indicate that you have at least partial answers to those, anyway.

So based on your understanding of the situation, do you believe Israel shares blame for starting the 1967 war. Yes/no?

[ 08 April 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 08 April 2004 08:14 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by caoimhin:

Rufus. Please back this up with the facts I can't navigate around. Otherwise, challenge my claims as they appear. My point should be obvious enough.

All right, I'll explain, but I warn you that jokes are never as funny when someone has to explain them to you. Let's see--you quoted my previous posting, and your response was:

quote:
Very telling indeed.

Then you said it, along with various other things you'd quoted, was predictable--or at least, that you had predicted it. Whether that was because of our predictability or your incredible genius was left undefined.

I didn't disagree about predictability.
What claim was I supposed to be challenging? You didn't make one. That was kind of my point--you said you had predicted everybody's arguments, and let that stand as your sole rebuttal to the points made in those posts. You didn't actually suggest anything that might have been wrong with those arguments; hence I jokingly concluded that you had nothing to suggest, despite your foreknowledge of the contents. Get it this time?

For someone with amazing precognitive abilities, you seem awfully slow.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 09 April 2004 01:51 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
Rufus. I fail to see the joke (except your obvious insecurity w.r.t. your standing on the left – whatever the left may be) I also can’t find where I made mention of my ability to predict either your thoughts or words. This serve and volley was apparently to understand the history resulting in the Six Day War, not to test my ability to get a joke. You made the claim that I was ‘innovating new stories’, that I was ‘basically wrong’ and that I couldn’t ‘get around the facts’. Clairvoyance aside, I am challenging your exercise in hindsight (ie the post from you that followed mine). Perhaps showing me where I am wrong, what facts I can’t get around, or challenge the history I present might further the discussion, eh? (Your bleating that I might be slow is funny though – again, very telling. What grade are you in?) I won’t respond to Cueball’s groveling, but I will entertain additional arguments that suggest Israel ought to have waited until the saber rattling and sand kicking coming from her enemies resulted in a ‘could-see-the- whites-of –their- eyes’ situation. Oh, wait…..
From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 April 2004 07:25 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Groveling? Groveling to what?

What you mean to say is that you wont respond to a simple yes or no question. Are you afraid to answer the question "do you believe that Israel shares responsibility for starting the 1967 war?"

It is after all the topic of the thread no? So why are you continuing to post on the thread if you do not have an answer?

It's normal in thesis expostulation to start with your conclusion, (say Israel does not share responsibility for starting the 1967 war,) and then expand upon the facts you bring to support that thesis. Or is it that you don't have a thesis, as to who started the the 1967 war?

Everyone else on the thread has answered that question, in one form or another, except you.

[ 10 April 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 June 2005 10:58 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bump. Continue, gentlemen.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 13 June 2005 11:03 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I suppose if Israel were more polite it would have waited until it was ACTUALLY invaded. Then it could not be said that it started the war. So...then technically Israel did start the war.
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 June 2005 11:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ghengis Khan could have thought of that excuse.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 13 June 2005 11:05 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Ghengis Khan could have thought of that excuse.

Oh please give me a break!


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 13 June 2005 11:09 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Read the facts here.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 June 2005 11:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Listen Peechy, why not read through my posts on this thread, then if you find anything you take exception to in the specific, make a post. I am quite familiar with the "facts" of the 1967 war, as you will see.

For instance; Do you assert that shutting down the Enterprise Channel of the straights of Tiran (wich is within 50 miles of the Egyptian coast) to Israeli shipping (a political blockade,) is an act of war?

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 13 June 2005 11:16 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Listen Peechy, why not read through my posts on this thread, then if you find anything you take exception to in the specific, make a post. I am quite familiar with the "facts" of the 1967 war, as you will see.

For instance; Do you assert that shutting down the Enterprise Channel of the straights of Tiran (wich is within 50 miles of the Egyptian coast) to Israeli shipping (a political blockade,) is an act of war?

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Cuey:
It wasn't a neighbourly thing to do. And from your posts it's hard to tell whether you are familiar with the actual facts hence my post.

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 June 2005 11:17 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But was it an act of war or not?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 June 2005 11:19 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Wikpedia is an interesting resource, but at the end of the day, truth on Wikpedia is determined by whoever types the fastest, not what the facts are.

All over this thread are quotes from Israeli leaders acknowledging that the Arab nations were not going to attack Israel and Israel's government knew it.

There is a simple syllogism here:

*Israel admits attacking it neighbors, which is a prima facie act of aggression.

*Israel claims that they were about to be attacked, and their own attack was self-defense.

*Israel's only military and political leaders admit they weren't in danger and weren't about to be attack, therefore:

*Israel was the aggressor.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 13 June 2005 11:23 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
Wikpedia is an interesting resource, but at the end of the day, truth on Wikpedia is determined by whoever types the fastest, not what the facts are.

All over this thread are quotes from Israeli leaders acknowledging that the Arab nations were not going to attack Israel and Israel's government knew it.

There is a simple syllogism here:

*Israel admits attacking it neighbours, which is a prima facie act of aggression.

*Israel claims that they were about to be attacked, and their own attack was self-defense.

*Israel's only military and political leaders admit they weren't in danger and weren't about to be attack, therefore:

*Israel was the aggressor.


Listen Ferret, I quoted a neutral source. According to your revisionist views Israel should have waited until the aggressors actually invaded that would have been more polite wouldn't it have? (I'll make it simple if I tell youI am going to punch you in the face...should you wait until I actually punch you? Is that prima-facie (pardon the pun) enough for you?


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 13 June 2005 11:28 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
But was it an act of war or not?

The totallity of the circumstances made it an act of war.
Just read the facts will you! Here I'll paste then so you won't have to work too hard!

Israel's own sense of concern regarding Jordan's future role originated in Jordanian control of the West Bank. This put Arab forces just 17 kilometers from Israel's coast, a jump-off point from which a well co-ordinated tank assault could cut Israel in two within half an hour. Although the size of Jordan's army meant that Jordan was probably incapable of executing such a maneuver, the country was perceived as having a history of being used by other Arab states as staging grounds for operations against Israel; thus, attack from the West Bank was always viewed by the Israeli leadership as a threat to Israel's existence. At the same time several other Arab states not bordering Israel, including Iraq, Sudan, Kuwait and Algeria, began mobilising their armed forces.

Israel watched these developments with alarm, and tried various diplomatic routes to try settling them. The U.S. and U.K. were asked to open the Tiran straits, as they guaranteed they would in 1957. Jordan was asked by the Jewish lobby in the USA through numerous channels, weeks before the war, to refrain from entering the conflict. All Israeli requests for peace were left unanswered, creating a feeling of grave concern for the future of the country. Israelis claimed that the closing the Straits met the international criteria for an act of war. On June 3 the Johnson administration gave its acquiescence to an operation against Egypt, and plans for war were finally approved. Israel's attack against Egypt on June 5 began what would later be dubbed the Six-Day War.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 June 2005 11:31 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Israel was mortally afraid that those 2 Egyptian division in the Sinai (which was, let us remember, sovereign Egyptian territory; and where are you going to put your army, other than between you and your worst enemy, who is planning to attack you?) weren't they? Well, no, of course they weren't:

General Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of Staff, Israeli Defence Forces:

"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (Le Monde, February 28, 1968 )

Menachem Begin, Minister without Portfoli:

"In June l967, 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." (New York Times, August 21, 1982)

General Ezer Weizman, Chief of Operations, Israeli Defence Forces, General Staff:

The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman stated that there was "no threat of destruction" but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could "exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies."

"There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting." (Ha'aretz, March 29, 1972)

What are the cold, hard facts?

a) Israel wanted the land;

b) Israel lanched a surprise attack on their neighbors and took the land;

c) Israel's one and only defense for this attack of aggression was that they were in danger of being attacked themselves, but;

d) Israel's generals and the political leaders in power at the time have admitted they weren't in danger and weren't about to be attacked.

QED


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 13 June 2005 11:36 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsferret:

What are the cold, hard facts?

a) Israel wanted the land;

b) Israel lanched a surprise attack on their neighbors and took the land;

c) Israel's one and only defense for this attack of aggression was that they were in danger of being attacked themselves, but;

d) Israel's generals and the political leaders in power at the time have admitted they weren't in danger and weren't about to be attacked.

QED



This is your cold and "hard" (appropriately described) opion and interpretation of "the facts."


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 June 2005 11:39 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
[QB]

Listen Ferret, I quoted a neutral source.


Nothing says "persuasive argument" like comparing people to animals. A little childish, even for you.

A source can be neutral (which is debatable in relationship to Wik) without being accurate or reliable. A Wik article is whatever the last person wrote. There is no attribution and no credibility.

According to your revisionist views Israel should have waited until the aggressors actually invaded that would have been more polite wouldn't it have?

But they weren't going to invade; Israel knew it and has admitted that she knew it. The Arabs. Were not. Going to invade. And Israel. Knew it. Therefore this whole "wait for them to invade" discussion is a red herring.

(I'll make it simple if I tell youI am going to punch you in the face...should you wait until I actually punch you?

Would that before or after I fall over laughing?

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 13 June 2005 11:44 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsferret:


A source can be neutral (which is debatable in relationship to Wik) without being accurate or reliable. A Wik article is whatever the last person wrote. There is no attribution and no credibility.

According to your revisionist views Israel should have waited until the aggressors actually invaded that would have been more polite wouldn't it have?

But they weren't going to invade; Israel knew it and has admitted that she knew it. The Arabs. Were not. Going to invade. And Israel. Knew it. Therefore this whole "wait for them to invade" discussion is a red herring.

(I'll make it simple if I tell youI am going to punch you in the face...should you wait until I actually punch you?

Would that before or after I fall over laughing?

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: rsferret ]


Actually if articles aren't considered neutral then critics are free to write in an say so. None appear on this page.
Secondly we will never know now will we whether they would have ACTUALLY invaded. And finally good to see that you are laughing. I was beginning to worry about you.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 June 2005 11:52 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Actually if articles aren't considered neutral then critics are free to write in an say so. None appear on this page.
Secondly we will never know now will we whether they would have ACTUALLY invaded. And finally good to see that you are laughing. I was beginning to worry about you.


And will will never know if Poland was on the brink of attacking Germany, if Pearl Harbor was a daring effort to stave off the American invasion of Tokyo, or if Gengis Khan's pre-emptive invasion of Europe averted the sack of Mongolia.

Unless of course we look at the facts and reach the logical conclusion.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 12:07 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

And will will never know if Poland was on the brink of attacking Germany, if Pearl Harbor was a daring effort to stave off the American invasion of Tokyo, or if Gengis Khan's pre-emptive invasion of Europe averted the sack of Mongolia.

Unless of course we look at the facts and reach the logical conclusion.


Poland/Egypt? Hmmmm. Nice comparison.! I don't think Poland refused to recognize the nationhood of Germany nor did it repeatedly threaton to "drive it into the sea" or amass troops along it's border and then shut down a major if not only shipping access.
But this is your LOGIC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Al-Farida%2C_Lebanon_pre-1967_war.jpg

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 12:11 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
War of 1967

The Six-Day War, 1967 began as a strike by Israel, often considered preemptive, against Egypt following the Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran (a casus belli, according to a possible interpretation of international law), expulsion of U.N. peacekeepers from the Sinai, stationing some 100,000 Egyptian troops at the peninsula, and a public announcement by Nasser that he intended to destroy Israel [3] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/5/newsid_2654000/2654251.stm). Surprise Israeli air strikes destroyed the entire Egyptian air force while still on the ground. A subsequent ground invasion into Egyptian territory led to Israel's conquest of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. In spite of Israel's request to Jordan to desist from attacking it, both Jordan and Syria began to shell Israeli targets; Israel responded by capturing the West Bank from Jordan on June 7th, and the Golan Heights from Syria on June 9th.

again.....sigh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_conflict#War_of_1967

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 14 June 2005 12:32 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Poland/Egypt? Hmmmm. Nice comparison.! I don't think Poland refused to recognize the nationhood of Germany nor did it repeatedly threaton to "drive it into the sea" or amass troops along it's border and then shut down a major if not only shipping access.
But this is your LOGIC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Al-Farida%2C_Lebanon_pre-1967_war.jpg

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


The "major if not only shipping access" was a tiny port on the edge of the Negev desert accounting for about %5 of Israel's shipping in 1967.

Of course, if you didn't know that, you could glance at a map and see that Tel Aviv is a port, Hafia is a port, Netanya is a port, and you could ask yourself if it is reasonable to believe that any port, let alone one that is the Israeli equivelent of Ancourage, Alaska, would be the "major if not the only shipping access" for a long, thin country hugging the edge of the sea. Kind of defies common sense, doesn't it?

You're in your own world, Peech.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 14 June 2005 12:45 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
More quotes from generals n' such:

General Matityahu Peled:

"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war" (Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972).

Israeli Air Force General Ezer Weizmann declared bluntly that "there was never any danger of extermination" (Ma'ariv, 19 April 1972).

Mordechai Bentov, a former Israeli cabinet minister, also dismissed the myth of Israel's imminent annihilation: "All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories" (Al Hamishmar, 14 April 1972).


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 14 June 2005 12:50 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Very readable summary:

Humphrey Goes to the Middle East
by: John Law
December - December 1985
The Link - Volume 18, Issue 5
Page 12


Anyhow, after the Israelis got out of Sinai and Gaza they just bided their time until they got another chance to get the rest of the loaf of Palestine. It took ten years, but they never gave up waiting and scheming.

As you remember, Humph—you were getting on for 30 by then!—they finally got their chance in 1967, when Nasser, who really did not want war with Israel then anymore than he did in 1956, gave them the perfect pretext to go for the big brass ring.

Q. How’d he do that?

A. He did that by allowing the world to get the strong impression that he was on the verge of attacking poor little Israel.

Q. But he wasn’t?

A. Not on your life. He never had any intention of attacking Israel. Nasser had achieved what he thought was an important diplomatic victory—one that raised his prestige to new levels throughout the Arab world. What he didn’t seem to understand was that to the rest of the world he was creating an impression of belligerence that would allow Israel to justify anything it might do—and he was very naive in not believing that if the war that he did not want was imposed on him, that he could stave off defeat.

Q. So how’d he get himself into that mess?

A. It was a set-up—a trap that he walked into. The Israelis put the first elements of the trap into place in April, 1967, when they began getting very, very tough with Syria.

Q. Syria? But what’s that gotta do with—

A. Let let me tell you the story my way, Humph. It actually was on April seventh—I’ll always remember that date because I was in the area then, as I was throughout the crisis leading up to and during the Six-Day War. That was the day that the Israelis shot down six Syrian fighter planes over Damascus—an unprecedented event—in the wake of a minor Syrian-Israeli incident in the demilitarized zone between the two countries. Then, in May, there were a couple of border infiltrations by guerrillas from Syria, in which there was no loss of life but which led Israel’s prime minister to announce publicly that Israel might have to teach Syria a “sharper lesson that that of April seventh.” On the very same day, a senior Israeli intelligence official, during a briefing to a group of Western correspondents in Jerusalem, warned that Israel might take military measures designed to overthrow the Syrian regime.

Q. I still don’t see what the heck this has gotta do with Nasser—

A. Here’s what: As a result of those provocations by Israel, the Syrians became very resentful of Nasser, because they had a mutual defense pact with him and, the way they saw it, he wasn’t lifting a finger to help them out. One of the reasons Nasser didn’t was that ever since the Suez war, a force of United Nations peace keepers, called UNEF, had been stationed in the Sinai in between the Egyptian and Israeli troops. This was no conciliation to the Syrians, though, and their media began taunting Nasser: accusing him of talking big while “hiding behind” the UNEF soldiers. Being called chicken was much more than Nasser, who wanted to be looked up to as the leader of the Arab world, could take. And his reaction was electrifying—

Q. So what poor slob did he decide ta execute, heh, heh—

A. Humph, I like you better when you make your bloopers, than when you make your jokes, so—

Q. I never made a blue purse in my life, honest—

A. Yetch. Never mind. what Nasser did was to order UNEF out of Egypt. And to the shock and surprise of most of the world, which mistakenly thought that Nasser did not have the legal right to do what he did, UNEF actually did pack up and leave. The Israelis protested vehemently, believing—or pretending to—that this left them exposed to extermination by the vast Egyptian hordes. But Nasser felt good about it, because he was able to demonstrate to the Syrians and to any other doubting Arabs that he was not trying to hide behind anybody’s skirt. And it also gave him what he thought was a big diplomatic victory.

Q. Yeah, ya said that before. But what was the big victory?

A. Well, it came from the fact that some of those UNEF units, ever since 1957, had been stationed at a base overlooking the Straits of Tiran, to make sure Israeli ships were allowed to go in and out of the Gulf of Aqaba—which the Egyptians, who thought the straits were in Egyptian territory--had not allowed them to do before the Suez war. The opening of the straits was the only reward that the Israelis had managed to retain as a result of their capture of Sinai. With UNEF gone, the Egyptians were once again in control of the straits, and Nasser did not take long to announce that Israeli ships would be denied access. This was considered not only by Nasser but by most Arabs as a great victory—because it erased an earlier win by the Israelis. Most of the rest of the world was shocked, though, and Israel had one more ready-made excuse to hit the Egyptian gnat with its sledgehammer.

Q. Yeah, but I don’t blame the Israelis for being sore—ya can’t expect a country to accept being landlocked.

A. Funny you should say that, because that’s just what Mr. Average American seemed to think in 1967, and the Israelis were making so much fuss that it sounded as though their most vital artery had been cut. The fact is, though, that Israel hardly ever made use of Elath, its port on the Gulf of Aqaba. In fact, no Israeli flagship had used the straits in about two years. Virtually all of Israel’s imports came through its flourishing ports on the Mediterranean—places like Haifa and Ashdod. Yet somehow or other, people seemed to forget about these ports, and the perception of the world was that Israel was being strangled.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 June 2005 02:51 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peech, I din't bother to read the rest of your stuff after this:

quote:
Israel's own sense of concern regarding Jordan's future role originated in Jordanian control of the West Bank. This put Arab forces just 17 kilometers from Israel's coast, a jump-off point from which a well co-ordinated tank assault could cut Israel in two within half an hour.

It is nor Jordan's fault that it has this particular strategic relationship to Israel. You are acting as if Jordan should just move off to the middle of asia or something.

Essentially you have summarized the exact reason that Israel proceeded with a billigerent act of agression, on the basis that Israel's security concerns would always be threatened by the natural topography of the land, as long as there was an Arab regular army in the West Bank.

In summary, you have just explained why Israel started the war of 1967, and why it continues to illegally settle and occupy the West Bank, and why Areil Sharon has made it his life goal to keep it.

Case closed.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 14 June 2005 02:56 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Peech, I din't bother to read the rest of your stuff after this:

It is nor Jordan's fault that it has this particular strategic relationship to Israel. You are acting as if Jordan should just move off to the middle of asia or something.

Essentially you have summarized the exact reason that Israel proceeded with a billigerent act of agression, on the basis that Israel's security concerns would always be threatened by the natural topography of the land, as long as there was an Arab regular army in the West Bank.

In summary, you have just explained why Israel started the war of 1967, and why it continues to illegally settle and occupy the West Bank, and why Areil Sharon has made it his life goal to keep it.

Case closed.


I would just like to point out that America's long border with Canada is virtually indefensible and cannot be tolerated. Chinese tanks could attack at any point along its staggering 4,000+ mile length. We will be forced to invade in the morning to correct the situation. Good night.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 June 2005 08:57 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
Listen Ferret,

Enough with that.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 03:39 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

The "major if not only shipping access" was a tiny port on the edge of the Negev desert accounting for about %5 of Israel's shipping in 1967.

Of course, if you didn't know that, you could glance at a map and see that Tel Aviv is a port, Hafia is a port, Netanya is a port, and you could ask yourself if it is reasonable to believe that any port, let alone one that is the Israeli equivelent of Ancourage, Alaska, would be the "major if not the only shipping access" for a long, thin country hugging the edge of the sea. Kind of defies common sense, doesn't it?

You're in your own world, Peech.


GOOD for you Farrel...ignore the rest of the post and sieze on something you actually have "some" knowledge of geography.
Glad I'm not in your world.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 03:42 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Peech, I din't bother to read the rest of your stuff after this:

It is nor Jordan's fault that it has this particular strategic relationship to Israel. You are acting as if Jordan should just move off to the middle of asia or something.

Essentially you have summarized the exact reason that Israel proceeded with a belligerent act of agression, on the basis that Israel's security concerns would always be threatened by the natural topography of the land, as long as there was an Arab regular army in the West Bank.

In summary, you have just explained why Israel started the war of 1967, and why it continues to illegally settle and occupy the West Bank, and why Areil Sharon has made it his life goal to keep it.

Case closed.


Cue:

"I" am not alleging anything. I simply pasted in a neutral explanation from a neutral source Wik. YOU chose to NOT read it. So I guess you're right ...the case is closed (minded that is).
Cheers

PS to steal some ammunition from RS (I hate to give him any credit but) look at a map? Israel is but a spec on the wall. And its neighbours??? So if you're right..that Israel is a belligerent land hungry, imperialist monster one would expect it to be huge in territory, right?

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 03:42 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Enough with that.


OK


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 03:48 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

I would just like to point out that America's long border with Canada is virtually indefensible and cannot be tolerated. Chinese tanks could attack at any point along its staggering 4,000+ mile length. We will be forced to invade in the morning to correct the situation. Good night.


Great analogy RS!!!! 1st it's Poland and now ..... Once again (I shouldn't really bother but) neither Canada nor the US have rejected the existence of each other, declared that they would drive one into the sea, declared a lasting Holy war, amassed troops on the borders who were armed and threatening and HAD ACTUALLY a history of aggression.
Choose to believe whatever you want. Why let facts get in the way of your ideology? It's just so inconvenient.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 14 June 2005 03:48 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

GOOD for you Farrel


Why do people have so much trouble with the final "l"? They get the double "r" in the middle, but no one wants to put two "l"s at the end.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 03:55 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

Why do people have so much trouble with the final "l"? They get the double "r" in the middle, but no one wants to put two "l"s at the end.


Sorry RS. I think I am dyslexic ... or just confused. I'll just stick with RS if that's OK. My humble (and sincere) apologies. Really.

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 June 2005 09:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
[QB]

PS to steal some ammunition from RS (I hate to give him any credit but) look at a map? Israel is but a spec on the wall. And its neighbours??? So if you're right..that Israel is a belligerent land hungry, imperialist monster one would expect it to be huge in territory, right?

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ][qb]


Quite, that is the reason it is the only country in the world to expand its national territory by 100%, through military campaigns, since ww2.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 11:45 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Quite, that is the reason it is the only country in the world to expand its national territory by 100%, through military campaigns, since ww2.


By defending military aggressin you mean....Hmm what about the battle of the Plains of Abraham, the US war of Independence, and on and on. They don't count I guess becasue in your world only that Zionist entity (aka Israel) is the evil empire.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 15 June 2005 01:36 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Cue, he's just going to go on repeating the same propaganda, ignoring the evidence presented which refutes it.

We have posted the evidence up and down this thread that Israel was not defending itself, and Israelis in power knew it, but he ignores it.

He is not even reading your posts to the end, obviously, or he would have read the clause "after WWII." So what's the point? If he repeats the same lies in the face of overwhelming evidence, and is not even troubled to read the posts he is responding to, what can you hope to achieve by the discussion?


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 15 June 2005 02:02 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
Cue, he's just going to go on repeating the same propaganda, ignoring the evidence presented which refutes it.

We have posted the evidence up and down this thread that Israel was not defending itself, and Israelis in power knew it, but he ignores it.

He is not even reading your posts to the end, obviously, or he would have read the clause "after WWII." So what's the point? If he repeats the same lies in the face of overwhelming evidence, and is not even troubled to read the posts he is responding to, what can you hope to achieve by the discussion?


RS:

My god we are on the same page at last!!!!! There is no point in any discussion with YOU because you just spew propaganda!! Bravo. Thanks and good night! (BTW Where is your trade mark signature of accusations of "stupid and lies". Must have been a long day in court for you eh?)


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 15 June 2005 02:12 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:


RS:

My god we are on the same page at last!!!!! There is no point in any discussion with YOU because you just spew propaganda!!


Actually, Peech, it's not primarily the fact that you repeat propaganda; lots of people do that. It's that you don't deal with the evidence that challenges it; you simply ignore it.

quote:
(BTW Where is your trade mark signature of accusations of "stupid and lies".

I've given up the use of adjectives to describe you, Peech. People can read what you post and judge for themselves.

quote:
Must have been a long day in court for you eh?)

You're confused, Peech; being a lawyer was your dubious claim, not mine. I'm a paramedic. Are you just so much in habit of attributing your faults to other people that now you naturally attribute your supposed career to them?

[ 15 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 15 June 2005 12:27 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
I'd take the word of Menachem Begin and other Israeli Leaders of the time any day over Wikipedia or any other secondary source. Seems to me a clearcut case: The Israelis stated that the 'amassed Arab armies' wouldn't have been enough for an attack on israel. It was posturing and blustering, nothing more. Israel appears to have used that as an excuse for an attack.
From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 15 June 2005 04:54 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

You're confused, Peech; being a lawyer was your dubious claim, not mine. I'm a paramedic. Are you just so much in habit of attributing your faults to other people that now you naturally attribute your supposed career to them?

[ 15 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


I duno sounds to me like your the one who is confused RS. I don't care what you do for a living. In case you didn't get the sarcasm, it was just to point out that you think are an expert on everything. In fact you are an expert's expert. I suppose if you had a sense of humour....


As for your "dubious" remarks about my occupation I wont dignify them with a reply. Hope you had a good day at work.

[ 15 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 15 June 2005 04:56 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:
I'd take the word of Menachem Begin and other Israeli Leaders of the time any day over Wikipedia or any other secondary source. Seems to me a clearcut case: The Israelis stated that the 'amassed Arab armies' wouldn't have been enough for an attack on israel. It was posturing and blustering, nothing more. Israel appears to have used that as an excuse for an attack.

So I suppose then by that logic...putting a loaded gun to your head and threatening to shoot is posturing and blustering? Hmmm very good. I have your point

[ 15 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 June 2005 07:38 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One of the most recent revelations was of course that the IDF command threatened to a coup if the civilian goverment chickened out of the war. Sharon or Begin who revealed that. Quite proud of themselves these guys.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 16 June 2005 02:42 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
They really have no shame. Source?
From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 16 June 2005 02:58 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sharon considered 1967 coup to force war with Egypt
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 June 2005 12:16 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, that is a classic link. Kinda like the "Stairway to Heaven" link for Arab-Israeli threads. Kills em dead just like at the end of the prom.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 17 June 2005 02:23 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
Cueball, you wrote:
quote:
Are you afraid to answer the question "do you believe that Israel shares responsibility for starting the 1967 war?"

Perhaps we should start a thread or two on who indeed ‘shares’ responsibility with Israel. What do 'share' and 'responsibility' actually mean? Does that sharing of responsibility exist today? What should the 'shared responsibilities' produce in terms of ending the conflict?

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 17 June 2005 03:30 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, that'd be a "Yes, I am afraid", then.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 17 June 2005 07:29 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Funny, when two groups of terrorists share responsibility for a bus bombing in Israel, I have never known anybody on the Israeli side to remark: "What do 'shared' and 'responsibility' really mean, anyway?" .

Without truth, you will never have justice. No justice, no peace.

[ 17 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 17 June 2005 09:29 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
Then I suppose you don’t know enough anybodies.
Im surprised its never focused your attention. I’ve often wondered why two or more groups claimed responsibility for such death and mayhem. I’m prepared to hear how shared responsibility in that situation produces results towards justice and peace.
Truthfully, neither of you have attempted to answer my question(s).
Is asking these questions a problem or is the case closed?

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 17 June 2005 11:18 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by caoimhin:
Cueball, you wrote: Perhaps we should start a thread or two on who indeed ‘shares’ responsibility with Israel. What do 'share' and 'responsibility' actually mean? Does that sharing of responsibility exist today? What should the 'shared responsibilities' produce in terms of ending the conflict?

Hey buddy, you sure you don't need to ask what "is" is, too?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 18 June 2005 01:41 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by caoimhin:
Then I suppose you don’t know enough anybodies.
Im surprised its never focused your attention. I’ve often wondered why two or more groups claimed responsibility for such death and mayhem.

Wondering why two groups claimed responsibility is not quite the same as invoking an existenial debate over the meaning of responsibility. That seems more like an evasion than a sincere expression of curiosity.

quote:
I’m prepared to hear how shared responsibility in that situation produces results towards justice and peace.
Truthfully, neither of you have attempted to answer my question(s).

Maybe that is because your question was an attempt to evade a question Cueball asked you. It is hardly fair to answer a question with a question and then complain your question isn't addressed by the responses.

quote:
Is asking these questions a problem or is the case closed?

It's hard to believe you are serious in your question, Cao.

In fact, I did answer you completely, if briefly; knowledge of the truth is the necessary foundation for justice, and justice is the necessary foundation for peace. This is my reading of the hard realities of the situation, not an effort to beg off with a platitude. Would it help if I gave you some specific examples of how this is so?

1. The conviction that the Jewish people are always and forever endangered by irrational forces seeking their destruction is one of they
seven pillars of Jewish denial. The myth of the unprovoked attack by the Arab states feeds that distorted and dangerous view of the world. This belief system, in turn, plays a crucial role in the support that Israel receives from Jews around the world, and the support that anti-peace forces receive from Jewish Israelis.

2. Aided by the potentiating narcotics of nationalism and religion, many Jewish Israelis have sincerely convinced themsevles that they have a legitimate claim to the West Bank and Gaza, which obviously makes it more difficult in all kinds of ways for them to cede control. Let me mention only one minor one; this belief engenders a destructive patronizing arrogance of the part of many Zionists, growing out the belief that they are giving up something that belongs to them, not because justice and integrity demand it, but because they are so very soft-hearted and humane. This attitude, in and of itself, is an major obstacle to peace.

3. Many Israelis are sincerely shocked and horrified by what is being done in their name in the territories, but comfort themselves (and Israel's critics) with the false notion that the occupation and all its evils were foisted on an innocent Israel by warmongering Arabs. Removing that excuse gives events in the West Bank and Gaza their proper context, and gives people one less excuse to be silent in the face of evil.

Finally, I would add that understanding of what actually happened is of value in and of itself, whether it serves peace or not, whether it serves any end or not. "Truth counts, truth does count."

[ 18 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 18 June 2005 02:05 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
May I remind people once again that the 1973 war is largely regarded as a failure by any Israeli with a working brain, due to the incredibly arrogant lack of any interpretation of the reliable intelligence the Mossad was getting at the time? They had all the data they needed and just arrogantly chose to disregard it.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 18 June 2005 11:06 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Once again I see that Farrel has engaged in racist babbling. Rense.com aside from being a conspiracy nuts haven is an anti-Semitic intolerant website (check it out see Zundle defended and Jews pilloried by other Jews as well as conspiracy nuts)) and the so-called "7 Pillars of JEWISH denial" is nothing more than a bigots ravings. Farrel posted it here on Babble (Usually this is posted on Nazi sites and then glorified), he has been warned before. He now clearly has shown where he comes from and his ongoing intolerance of Jews. Will someone do something ?

[ 18 June 2005: Message edited by: Macabee ]

[ 18 June 2005: Message edited by: Macabee ]


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 June 2005 01:30 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by caoimhin:
Cueball, you wrote: Perhaps we should start a thread or two on who indeed ‘shares’ responsibility with Israel. What do 'share' and 'responsibility' actually mean? Does that sharing of responsibility exist today? What should the 'shared responsibilities' produce in terms of ending the conflict?

Your extestentialism [sic] is showing.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 June 2005 01:32 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Once again I see that Farrel has engaged in racist babbling. Rense.com aside from being a conspiracy nuts haven is an anti-Semitic intolerant website (check it out see Zundle defended and Jews pilloried by other Jews as well as conspiracy nuts)) and the so-called "7 Pillars of JEWISH denial" is nothing more than a bigots ravings. Farrel posted it here on Babble (Usually this is posted on Nazi sites and then glorified), he has been warned before. He now clearly has shown where he comes from and his ongoing intolerance of Jews. Will someone do something ?

[ 18 June 2005: Message edited by: Macabee ]

[ 18 June 2005: Message edited by: Macabee ]


Well dude, if you can use guilt thorugh association to estabish racism, then we are all fringin world wide web racists.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 18 June 2005 01:34 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Isn't rense.com just some weird conspiracy-theory site? I looked on the front page and I think it violates several rules of good taste, which further lends credence to my assumption.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 June 2005 02:02 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I looked at what Farell posted here, and whatever it is you are complaining about in the rest of the site (I am sure you have gone over it so I will have to trust you on that) there is nothing in what he posted that is racist. In fact a large part of it is more or less true.

Also, the "Seven Pillars" stuff is a reference to T. E. Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom," his quasi-fictional account of his time spent getting the Hashemite's to fight the Turks. It's not any weird reference to Protocol or anything.

But I guess your attempt to sidetrack the thread by accusing people of being racist (which is what you always do when you have lost, yet another argument based on the facts) is as good as an admission Israel started the 1967 war.

Its the best way to tell if we are right or not.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 June 2005 02:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 18 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 18 June 2005 02:51 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball whatever else our disagreements, Rense is not something to support. It is not your place. The fact Farrel would use it as a menas to support his point is tantamount to someone using the David Irving site etc. Rense supports Holocaust denial and has been involved in anti-Semitic bilge. I cant imagine you believe this is ok unless your animus towards Israel/Jews is so great it blinds you to websites like Rense.

BTW Rense extols on the virtue of the infamous anti-Semitic forgery the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, he supports Enst Zundel and derides Jewish issues wherever he can. Is that what you want to be assocuiiated with? And yes we are judged by the company we keep. Would you use racist websites to back up your point? I wouldnt.

[ 18 June 2005: Message edited by: Macabee ]


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 18 June 2005 03:34 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Cueball whatever else our disagreements, Rense is not something to support. It is not your place. The fact Farrel would use it as a menas to support his point is tantamount to someone using the David Irving site etc. Rense supports Holocaust denial and has been involved in anti-Semitic bilge. I cant imagine you believe this is ok unless your animus towards Israel/Jews is so great it blinds you to websites like Rense.

BTW Rense extols on the virtue of the infamous anti-Semitic forgery the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, he supports Enst Zundel and derides Jewish issues wherever he can. Is that what you want to be assocuiiated with? And yes we are judged by the company we keep. Would you use racist websites to back up your point? I wouldnt.

[ 18 June 2005: Message edited by: Macabee ]


The document in question was originally a cover story in Tikkun. Rense.com did not write it or alter it. I had read it, originally, on Tikkun's website, but I did not, of course, memorize the URL when I did it. So I googled the title, confirmed the identity of the article, and posted it as a link. The article and the author are the reference; not the website (it would be different in a case in which there was no byline and no reference to where the article was originally published), which clearly states, "By Kim Chernin, Tikkun,Sept/Oct 02 Cover Story.")

Thus your accusation is tantamount to saying "By checking out this 'Declaration of Independence' from the well-known racists at the Mobile City Library, you have shown your true colors." It is without merit.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 18 June 2005 05:13 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Cueball whatever else our disagreements, Rense is not something to support. It is not your place. The fact Farrel would use it as a menas to support his point is tantamount to someone using the David Irving site etc. Rense supports Holocaust denial and has been involved in anti-Semitic bilge. I cant imagine you believe this is ok unless your animus towards Israel/Jews is so great it blinds you to websites like Rense.

BTW Rense extols on the virtue of the infamous anti-Semitic forgery the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, he supports Enst Zundel and derides Jewish issues wherever he can. Is that what you want to be assocuiiated with? And yes we are judged by the company we keep. Would you use racist websites to back up your point? I wouldnt.


You won't mind private messaging me with URLs that substantiate these statements, would you?

(rense's front page makes me want to stab my eyeballs out so you'll forgive me if I feel I have better things to do than try to look at that eyesore of a website.)


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 18 June 2005 05:13 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Cueball whatever else our disagreements, Rense is not something to support. It is not your place. The fact Farrel would use it as a menas to support his point is tantamount to someone using the David Irving site etc. Rense supports Holocaust denial and has been involved in anti-Semitic bilge. I cant imagine you believe this is ok unless your animus towards Israel/Jews is so great it blinds you to websites like Rense.

BTW Rense extols on the virtue of the infamous anti-Semitic forgery the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, he supports Enst Zundel and derides Jewish issues wherever he can. Is that what you want to be assocuiiated with? And yes we are judged by the company we keep. Would you use racist websites to back up your point? I wouldnt.

[ 18 June 2005: Message edited by: Macabee ]



Tikkun are 'objectively antisemitic', I suppose. Damn self-hating Jews. Must be the vestiges of "antisemitism on the left" we've heard so much about.

But let's look at Macabee's argument: It follows this illogical line:

Antisemitic opinions exist on Rense.com. Therefore (by way of a fallacy of confusing the whole and the part and by way of an ad hominem fallacy) anyone using any opinion on Rense.com is engaging in antisemitism, regardless of the origin of the opinion cited, or it's 'truthfulness', however that is measured.

Turning this argument on Macabee, it is clear that he supports Babble, a website on which - by his own admission - antisemitic attitudes are espoused. Therefore, following Macabee's logic, he is an antisemite.

[ 18 June 2005: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 18 June 2005 05:15 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:

You won't mind private messaging me with URLs that substantiate these statements, would you?

(rense's front page makes me want to stab my eyeballs out so you'll forgive me if I feel I have better things to do than try to look at that eyesore of a website.)


Actually I would. Dont be a lazy sot. It is all there . Just go on the site and see it for yourself

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 18 June 2005 05:21 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:


Tikkun are 'objectively antisemitic', I suppose. Damn self-hating Jews. Must be the vestiges of "antisemitism on the left" we've heard so much about.

But let's look at Macabee's argument: It follows this illogical line:

Antisemitic opinions exist on Rense.com. Therefore (by way of a fallacy of confusing the whole and the part and by way of an ad hominem fallacy) anyone using any opinion on Rense.com is engaging in antisemitism, regardless of the origin of the opinion cited, or it's 'truthfulness', however that is measured.

Turning this argument on Macabee, it is clear that he supports Babble, a website on which - by his own admission antisemitic attitudes are espoused.

So, if we follow his logic, Macabee is an antisemite.

[ 18 June 2005: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]



Babble is not by definition a racist site.ts owner is not an intolerant racist conspiracy theorist. Rense.com has as its anchor anti-Semitic villification, support for people like Zundle and positive reviews of the Protocols. In all your haste to support Farrel's choice of "authoritive" websites you are losing track of the obvious...those who hate Israel so much they will use racist blogs and web pages to support their positions.

Perhaps you could find simlar aricles on the Heritage Front website is it OK to link that site to Babble to support your position? If it is this site should close down.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 18 June 2005 05:29 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
[QB]
Babble is not by definition a racist site.ts owner is not an intolerant racist conspiracy theorist.

Again, you are confusing the whole for the part. I don't disagree that Rense.com is a cesspool. That said, the article in question was not penned by anyone associated with Rense.com. Just because they are using it doesn't make it antisemitic. Only its content can do that.

quote:
In all your haste to support Farrel's choice of "authoritive" websites you are losing track of the obvious....

In your haste to pontificate from on high about the evils of antisemitism you have, as always, entirely missed the point. In fact, I did not argue in favour of rsfarrel's use of "authoritative" websites (that quote isn't mine). I actually made the completely obvious point that the site's overall content is irrelevent to the article he cited. Talk about losing track of the obvious. You're essentially claiming that I made the opposite argument to the one I made.

quote:
...those who hate Israel so much they will use racist blogs and web pages to support their positions.

This conclusion begs the question.

[ 18 June 2005: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 18 June 2005 05:32 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, I see what's happened here. rsfarrell was looking for this particular article, did a google search for it, and found it on this rense.com site. I've never heard of the site before this and it looks like lots of others haven't either.

So, I have no idea whether rense.com is an anti-semitic site. Macabee says it is, but then, Macabee thinks lots of things are anti-semitic that other people don't. I don't plan to spend my day reading through the site in question to find out, either. (I'm supposed to be packing anyhow - I'm almost done packing my entire kitchen! )

So I'm going to accept rsfarrell's explanation, because even IF rense.com is an anti-semitic site, he claims he only found the site through googling that one article, which originally appeared in a mainstream news-source (Tikkun). It's quite possible that rense.com is an anti-semitic site, in which case I thank Macabee for the heads up. But since rsfarrell has explained how he found the article there, and that explanation is believable considering that it is even credited on THAT site to a mainstream news source, then I will leave it at that, and let Macabee's posts and rsfarrell's posts stand, and let everyone who reads them judge for themselves.

As for the article itself - I have had a complaint that the article is anti-semitic. I skimmed the article in question, but it's pretty long, and again, I don't really have time to read the whole thing right now. However, from what I HAVE read of it, it sounds like a dissenting Jewish opinion. Considering that Macabee has accused dissenting Jewish babblers of being anti-semitic in the past, I'm not going to take this claim about the article at face value without specifics.

If people want to send me private messages with the exact passages from the article that they consider anti-semitic with an explanation of why they consider it as such, then I'll read it.

Also, this thread is well over 100 posts and it's probably time it was closed, especially since it's descended into the usual "you're an anti-semite" arguments.

[ 18 June 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca