Israel

[David Dennison 19542]

11 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

That's not very persuasive.   We're all outnumbered and surrounded.  It's just that we make nice with our neighbors.  Israel will eventually secure good relations with its neighbors, as it did with Egypt and is now working on with Saudi Arabia.  The reasons to do so are much stronger than the reasons for fighting, once you recognize that the regional powers don't actually give two fucks about the Palestinians.

We aren't all squeezed into an area smaller than New Jersey.

I'm sure it'll all work out.

Edited May 16, 2018 by David Dennison

[Mojo Hand 4580]

In some ways that makes it easier.  That's why they could build a security wall and it worked. 

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

In some ways that makes it easier.  That's why they could build a security wall and it worked. 

It's not working.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's not working.

I guess the constant suicide bombings should be starting up again any day now, then. 

[JBJ 3827]

The real conflict is between Hamas and the PLO.  Nothing will get resolved until they get figured out internally.

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

I guess the constant suicide bombings should be starting up again any day now, then. 

Sort of working?

 

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Sort of working?

 

https://twitter.com/MonaChalabi/status/996389852223590401

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

https://twitter.com/MonaChalabi/status/996389852223590401

Not a good look.

[Orca of Peace 109]

48 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

The PA is a joke that only exists to provide the appearance of benign self-representation.  Hamas is the monkey wrench, and they are funded by Iran and Arab interests.  More broadly, various iterations of those powers have been fucking the Palestinians over for years.  Instead of absorbing them, they keep them in miserable refugee camps.  After 1948, the Palestinians should have held Gaza and the West Bank.  Israel didn't take it from them.    Egypt greedily took Gaza and Jordan took the West Bank.  With absolutely no right to do so.   For twenty years.  Until Israel kicked them out.

The Palestinians have long been used as a tool to weaken Israel, and they remain a tool today. Eventually they will be negotiated away and everyone in the region will make them accept the tiny fraction of whatever is left by then.   Nobody is speaking for them, and a lot of well-meaning people are helping them stay martyrs for bad people. 

the influence of the Arab nations is being dramatically exaggerated in this prose. No one controls the Pals except for Israel, the IDF army is boss, the rest of your prose hasn't been relevant for decades. 

Egypt and Jordan "greedily" took the Gaza/WB areas? no. That was just how deeply their armies happened to penetrate in the 1948 years, also coincides where the Arab populations existed in majority at the time.  Wasn't a "greedy" plan at all, with "no right to do so". Israel wasn't some kind of liberation hero for "kicking them out" in 1967.  This sort of ideology is ultra right wing zionism where the Pals don't even have a right their own homes, bedrooms and bathrooms and only exist there due to good will of the Jews come came from all over the world from some magic time machine of 2000 years to claim what belongs to the glorious people. All Arabs should go back to Mecca. 

Basically, this idea of the Pals as tools and pawns is very dated and no longer relevant. But if someone wants to live in 1981, so be it. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

3 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

the influence of the Arab nations is being dramatically exaggerated in this prose. No one controls the Pals except for Israel, the IDF army is boss, the rest of your prose hasn't been relevant for decades. 

Egypt and Jordan "greedily" took the Gaza/WB areas? no. That was just how deeply their armies happened to penetrate in the 1948 years, also coincides where the Arab populations existed in majority at the time.  Wasn't a "greedy" plan at all, with "no right to do so". Israel wasn't some kind of liberation hero for "kicking them out" in 1967.  This sort of ideology is ultra right wing zionism where the Pals don't even have a right their own homes, bedrooms and bathrooms and only exist there due to good will of the Jews come came from all over the world from some magic time machine of 2000 years to claim what belongs to the glorious people. All Arabs should go back to Mecca. 

Basically, this idea of the Pals as tools and pawns is very dated and no longer relevant. But if someone wants to live in 1981, so be it. 

Oh it just happened to be how deep Egypt and Jordan penetrated?  So why didn't they withdraw after the war and give the Palestinians the land recognized as theirs by the UN?  Not enough fuel to get back home? 

[Fozzz 152]

Orca, I think what you describe is a common orientalist motif.  According to many, Shias (including those outside of Iran) are practically the borg with Khamenei as their leader.  Only non-Muslim peoples in the MENA are capable of autonomy.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Fozzz

[Orca of Peace 109]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

Orca, I think what you describe is a common orientalist motif.  According to many, Shias (including those outside of Iran) are practically the borg with Khamenei as their leader.  Only non-Muslim peoples in the MENA are capable of autonomy.

i have no idea what this means in American talk. Parse it please. 

[Orca of Peace 109]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

Oh it just happened to be how deep Egypt and Jordan penetrated?  So why didn't they withdraw after the war and give the Palestinians the land recognized as theirs by the UN?  Not enough fuel to get back home? 

because the Pals didn't have an armed force

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Sure, that made it easy for Egypt and Jordan to squat, no doubt. 

[Orca of Peace 109]

16 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Sure, that made it easy for Egypt and Jordan to squat, no doubt. 

but Israel did not 'liberate' the Pals from Egypt / Jordan, if that is the insinuation. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

OK?  I never said that they did.  Who are you even quoting? 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[Orca of Peace 109]

a single tick is not a double quotation, ie 'liberation' .  I was referring to  "Egypt greedily took Gaza and Jordan took the West Bank.  With absolutely no right to do so.   For twenty years.  Until Israel kicked them out."

As if Egypt and Jordan violated some sort of made up international law with "no right" and Israel "kicked them out",  in an grand gesture of heroic lawfulness / goodness, emerging a  light unto nations for the glory of Zion.  Isn't that what was the real meaning?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

12 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

a single tick is not a double quotation, ie 'liberation' .  I was referring to  "Egypt greedily took Gaza and Jordan took the West Bank.  With absolutely no right to do so.   For twenty years.  Until Israel kicked them out."

As if Egypt and Jordan violated some sort of made up international law with "no right" and Israel "kicked them out",  in an grand gesture of heroic lawfulness / goodness, emerging a  light unto nations for the glory of Zion.  Isn't that what was the real meaning?

Made-up international law?    Egypt and Jordan occupied the WB and Gaza instead of allowing the Palestinians to form a country there.   Jordan actually annexed the WB.   They didn't leave voluntarily and only left twenty years later because the Israeli army forced them out.   The point is that they were fucking over the Palestinians from the start.   It's not confusing stuff here.  And if you think what Egypt and Jordan did was OK, then your complaints against Israel ring pretty hollow. 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[Nivek 17415]

If you thought it was boring in Jordan 
Then come out here for a day 
And by the way, the name is Marcus 
But if you like, you can call me Sensei 

[Orca of Peace 109]

29 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Made-up international law?    Egypt and Jordan occupied the WB and Gaza instead of allowing the Palestinians to form a country there.   Jordan actually annexed the WB.   They didn't leave voluntarily and only left twenty years later because the Israeli army forced them out.   The point is that they were fucking over the Palestinians from the start.   It's not confusing stuff here.  And if you think what Egypt and Jordan did was OK, then your complaints against Israel ring pretty hollow. 

and thusly Israel rescued the Palestinians from the terrible Egyptians and Jordanians? I'm sure the Pals really appreciated that, to be under Israeli military rule for 50 years (not really). lmao. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

What a weird strawman for you to fixate on. 

[Orca of Peace 109]

no, your arguments are quite bizarre, that the Pals were liberated by a heroic Jewish army who set the Arabs free from other Arabs, meanwhile brutalizing the same Arabs for 50 years. lmao. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

OK, you win.  I definitely argued that and you have defeated me.  Congrats. 

[El Diablo 4232]

30 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

OK, you win.  I definitely argued that and you have defeated me.  Congrats. 

He's winning the war, one straw man at a time.

 

[blackmarketbaby 118]

America's conflicts with Islam are nearly as old as America itself - and Europe's date back far longer. It should come as a wake up call for those blaming Islamic violence on "American imperialism" that our conflict with the Muslim world far predates anything that could be considered as such.

[Pods 7637]

Claiming Jews are squatting because of ancient history is fairly ironic.  Palestine hasn't even been Arab controlled, aside from an 8-year Egyptian occupation, since 1517. It was Ottoman controlled for the 400 years prior to WWI and there has never been an independent Arab Palestine. The Jewish claim may be ancient, but at least they controlled the land as a Jewish state called Israel at some point in the past.

Britain was attacked by the Ottomans and they defeated the aggressor. The Turks lost control of Palestine. 

At that point, we're dealing with 1917 standards. The British possess Palestine by right of conquest. No one has a claim to sovereignty of the region that is less than 400 years old. The guys you just took it from had launched religiously influenced invasions of Europe that had made it as far as Vienna. The British weren't too keen to turn control of the Holy Land back over to people who view them as infidels. 

The Balfour paper says they'll give it to the Jews, but they don't, they split it between Arabs and Jews. Jews migrate there, many of which are facing extermination if they don't. The British sharply restrict immigration in 1939 after Arab revolts and a whole shitload of Jews are killed, because there is nowhere for them to go. 

The UN then divided it between Jews and Arabs after WWII. The Jews accepted this division, the Arabs did not. The Arabs launched several attempted wars of conquest, intent on exterminating the Jews and they got the shit kicked out of them. Many of these Jews had fled extermination once already, now the Arabs were set on it again. I don't think I'd be fucking around if I was in their shoes either. Each time, the Arabs are punished with territory loss.

Starting wars of aggression and losing them usually means you lose territory. It's the punishment for starting them. It should be doubly so when one of the stated goals of the war is genocide.

I wouldn't give Jerusalem back if I was Israel either. They've won it by defeating multiple attempted conquests. 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Pods

[hpslugga 4097]

Quote

Starting wars of aggression and losing them usually means you lose territory.

And that has shit to do with international law, and it even has shit to do with 1967. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 hours ago, hpslugga said:

And that has shit to do with international law, and it even has shit to do with 1967. 

You should make a citizen's arrest, since they have violated "international law"

[David Dennison 19542]

8 hours ago, Pods said:

I wouldn't give Jerusalem back if I was Israel either. They've won it by defeating multiple attempted conquests. 

So if they lose it to conquest, that's cool?

[Pods 7637]

7 hours ago, hpslugga said:

And that has shit to do with international law, and it even has shit to do with 1967. 

Bullshit. Start war and lose = lose land has been international law since international law has existed. The world changed those standards in the 1960's and 1970's in response to Israeli victories over Arab aggression. 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Pods

[Lagunamadre 1975]

20 hours ago, JBJ said:

The real conflict is between Hamas and the PLO.  Nothing will get resolved until they get figured out internally.

Agreed. Hamas/PLO as well as the left/right in Israel have to come together to formulate one voice for each side before anything that resembles peace is possible.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

22 minutes ago, Pods said:

Bullshit. Start war and lose = lose land has been international law since international law has existed. The world changed those standards in the 1960's and 1970's in response to Israeli victories over Arab aggression. 

 

 

Germany realizes this.

[hpslugga 4097]

49 minutes ago, Pods said:

Bullshit. Start war and lose = lose land has been international law since international law has existed. The world changed those standards in the 1960's and 1970's in response to Israeli victories over Arab aggression. 

The '67 war was initiated by Israel and every single high ranking member of their military and government openly and notoriously admitted to that, so everything you said after that is moot. You seem to have this idea that international law vindicated Israel's capture of the lands they took, and that's just not accurate at all. Why else does 242 (which was written by an American and a Brit) literally begin with "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war?"

As to the second sentence, that's preposterous. The sentence "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." is in Article 2 Principle 4 of the UN's freaking Charter. It's been there since the UN was founded, which predates the State of Israel itself, so what you said could not possibly be true in any meaningful way.

Edited May 17, 2018 by hpslugga

[Sbbruin 22144]

3 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

The war was initiated by Israel and every single high ranking member of their military and government openly and notoriously admitted to that, so everything you said after that is moot.

I believe the term is "mute."

[hpslugga 4097]

2 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

I believe the term is "mute."

[Pods 7637]

31 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

The '67 war was initiated by Israel and every single high ranking member of their military and government openly and notoriously admitted to that, so everything you said after that is moot. You seem to have this idea that international law vindicated Israel's capture of the lands they took, and that's just not accurate at all. Why else does 242 (which was written by an American and a Brit) literally begin with "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war?"

As to the second sentence, that's preposterous. The sentence "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." is in Article 2 Principle 4 of the UN's freaking Charter. It's been there since the UN was founded, which predates the State of Israel itself, so what you said could not possibly be true in any meaningful way.

 

1967 War was started by Egypt closing the Straits of Tiran to blockade Israel from the Red Sea and mobilizing their military along the Israeli border. Those are acts of war and Israel acted accordingly.  

 

[hpslugga 4097]

^
Explained in a far better way than I have in the last decade or so. I could also whip out the dozen or so quotes from Israel's leadership explaining how Nasser's troop concentration was "not a casus belli" and how they all understood that he was not about to attack, but I doubt that's going to cause even a moment's hesitation on your part.

Edited May 17, 2018 by hpslugga

[hpslugga 4097]

DP

Edited May 17, 2018 by hpslugga

[hpslugga 4097]

DP

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Who did they take the West Bank from?  The rightful owner Jordan?

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Who did they take the West Bank from?  The rightful owner Jordan?

The problem is they won't actually take it. 

[hpslugga 4097]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Who did they take the West Bank from?  The rightful owner Jordan?

That’s irrelevant. Jordan has no current claim to it, which is why they have repeatedly voted in favor of Palestinian self-determination/statehood (however one cares to phrase it) as many as three times a year, depending on whether or not the UN has one. At the General Assembly, the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, they always vote in favor of the granting of Palestinian self-determination. Even you can understand that’s a direct repudiation of any claim they have to the West Bank because in all 3 cases, “Palestine” is defined the same exact way: the whole of the West Bank, the whole of Gaza, and the whole of East Jerusalem.

And before you start, Egypt has voted in the exact same pattern, so they clearly do not claim Gaza either.

[Pods 7637]

No. Massing troops on your enemies border throughout history has always been a valid casus belli and a good way to get your ass kicked if you are unprepared for the war you are starting. It doesn't matter if you're immediately going to attack or not. You are signaling intent and preparation. 

Also, keep in mind that the consequences for being wrong and the Egyptians actually attacking are genocide if they win. 

You are ignoring that they had also blockaded Israel from accessing the Red Sea, which is another valid historical casus belli. 

All of that also only covers Egypt. The other Arab countries chose to attack Israel, including Jordan, who owned Jerusalem and the West Bank. They lost those in response and they are mostly the territories we are talking about. 

I'm sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, but a huge percent of their situation is being fucked by other Arabs. 

If the Arabs had won the Six Days War, do you really think there would be an independent Palestine? They'd have carved it up and eaten the pieces.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Pods

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, Sbbruin said:

I believe the term is "mute."

Nope it's Moop....

[Johnny Sack 8397]

10 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

That’s irrelevant. Jordan has no current claim to it, which is why they have repeatedly voted in favor of Palestinian self-determination/statehood (however one cares to phrase it) as many as three times a year, depending on whether or not the UN has one. At the General Assembly, the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, they always vote in favor of the granting of Palestinian self-determination. Even you can understand that’s a direct repudiation of any claim they have to the West Bank because in all 3 cases, “Palestine” is defined the same exact way: the whole of the West Bank, the whole of Gaza, and the whole of East Jerusalem.

And before you start, Egypt has voted in the exact same pattern, so they clearly do not claim Gaza either.

Are you contending Israel attacked Jordan in  1967?

Because that ain't what happened.

[maninblack 7975]

Zionism or private property rights. Pick one

[hpslugga 4097]

On 5/17/2018 at 3:22 PM, Pods said:

No. Massing troops on your enemies border throughout history has always been a valid casus belli and a good way to get your ass kicked if you are unprepared for the war you are starting. It doesn't matter if you're immediately going to attack or not. You are signaling intent and preparation. 

Also, keep in mind that the consequences for being wrong and the Egyptians actually attacking are genocide if they win. 

You are ignoring that they had also blockaded Israel from accessing the Red Sea, which is another valid historical casus belli. 

All of that also only covers Egypt. The other Arab countries chose to attack Israel, including Jordan, who owned Jerusalem and the West Bank. They lost those in response and they are mostly the territories we are talking about. 

I'm sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, but a huge percent of their situation is being fucked by other Arabs. 

If the Arabs had won the Six Days War, do you really think there would be an independent Palestine? They'd have carved it up and eaten the pieces. 

 

[Pods 7637]

Actually, nothing I wrote was wrong. Literally every single thing is correct and you are responding with emotion and a poor attempt at a meme, rather than evaluating facts.

I'll leave you to it. 

[hpslugga 4097]

3 hours ago, Pods said:

Actually, nothing I wrote was wrong.

The record shows that literally everything you said was 100% the opposite of reality. 

Quote

Literally every single thing is correct

In your own mind

Quote

and you are responding with emotion and a poor attempt at a meme, rather than evaluating facts.

You aren't stating facts, you're projecting, and you didn't count on the fact that you were addressing someone who wrote a thesis on the I/P Conflict (the biggest section of which was the lead up to the 1967 war), which is why you post with such half-baked bluster. I had to spend five months doing research for that fucking thing, I ended up with 171 pages and consulted over 750 footnotes. So when you come along with lines like "you are responding with emotion," I attach as much value to that as I do to the dust on my floor.

Quote

I'll leave you to it. 

Ok...

It takes only 10 seconds to tell/recite a lie and at least 10 minutes to decode it. 

YOU SAID: "You are ignoring that they had also blockaded Israel from accessing the Red Sea, which is another valid historical casus belli."

Regarding the "closing" of the Straits of Tiran:

1. The closure was merely announced, never enforced, and, to be perfectly honest, likely didn't exist. Nasser was a windbag and he did announce the “closure,” but they started allowing ships to pass freely a couple days later. In fact Indar Jit Rikhye, the UNEF Commander in the Sinai, stated, “I personally flew over there, the Straits weren’t closed.” He's on the record in saying “The U.A.R. navy had searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation,” particularly in light of the fact that an Israeli-flagged ship hadn’t passed through the Straits in two years.

Also, when you read the '67 volume of Foreign Relations of the United States, you’ll notice that virtually (if not literally) every speaker took great care to avoid the use of the more definitive term "blockade" as an assertion and only spoke of it as a hypothetical. In other words, they never stated in internal documents that it was actually closed. Why? Because as Clark Clifford correctly pointed out in an internal discussion on May 26^th, "all we are acting from at the moment is a UAR announcement that it would close the Straits. As far as we know--since the UAR had been talking about our Battle Act--the UAR might allow even oil tankers to go through the Straits...So far we have had only an oral threat."

In fact, Clifford recommended, "We must call Nasser's bluff. We must put him in a position where he either takes an overt act against free shipping or backs down." Well if US leadership was speaking of testing the actuality of the blockade (i.e. “calling Nasser’s bluff”), that should tell you that they weren’t even sure if it was a real thing.

Bear in mind, this conversation took place on May 26th. No "overt acts against free shipping" ever took place. No ships were denied entry, no ships were forced to turn around, and most importantly to this question, no Israeli ships were fired upon. That's not a blockade.

2. The status of the Straits as an “international waterway” was a contentious question at best. In those same internal records, you'll come across lines like "we believe the Straits comprehend international waters." Operative phrase: "we believe." That was also Nasser's operative phrase, and quite honestly it was a more compelling one, though I would have been more interested to see where the ICJ would have fallen on that issue than to hear leaders from either side puff their chests about it. More on that below.

3. The only use Israel had for the Straits was for importing sparing amounts of oil. As mentioned, the US was fairly convinced that even if this blockade was a real thing, they were going to allow oil tankers, which is all Israel ever sent, even though they’d not done so for 2 years because most of their oil imports came into the city of Haifa via the Mediterranean and not Eilat via the Straits, in addition to the fact that they had an abundant supply at the time. Estimates showed Israel possessed enough oil for the entire State for at least 7 months. A less-than-a-week interruption for them with a supply like that is not a crime in any real sense, especially considering the Straits’ ambiguous legal status and the fact that Israel simply wasn’t using them to import oil or anything else at the time. In the bigger picture, since 1948, the Straits had served as a whopping 5% of Israel’s import economy. So Abba Eban was simply bullshitting when he said that “Israel is now forced to breathe with a single lung.” He knew he was bullshitting at the time, because as he later confessed in his autobiography that he thought "Nasser did not want war; he wanted victory without war.” 

4. Near the end of May, Nasser signaled that instead of armed conflict, he’d like to invite Israel to have the Straits issue adjudicated at the International Court of Justice. Israel refused the offer. They could have settled the issue of the Straits in the ICJ, and Israel, despite its assurances to the US that it would pursue the international legal route, declined. The fact is that the only reason they got so pissed about this so-called "closure" is because the UAR had defied Israel, thereby undermining its so-called "deterrence capacity," which is what Ariel Sharon defined as "the fear of us." In other words, it was the damaging political effect that drove Israel to use that as a pretext, not a fear of annihilation. 

YOU SAID: "No. Massing troops on your enemies border throughout history has always been a valid casus belli and a good way to get your ass kicked if you are unprepared for the war you are starting. It doesn't matter if you're immediately going to attack or not. You are signaling intent and preparation."

Regarding the troop concentration at the border:

For one thing, let’s forget that the Israeli command virtually was in concert in admitting to attacking.

Let’s forget that Chief of Staff of the IDF, Yitzhak Rabin, fully admitted "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into the Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." 

Let’s forget that General MatityahuPeled fully admitted "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...When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn’t go to war —what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today...To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal [the IDF]."

Let’s forget that Deputy Chief Haim Bar-Lev fully admitted "the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli."

Let’s forget all of that. Let’s forget the fact that the fucking highest of the high command were saying that at the time.

Hell, let’s also forget that one of the most prominent politicians of the day, Menachem Begin, fully admitted “we must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack them.”

Let’s forget that. I’m sure that someone could easily dismiss that as "they all lied!" You, on the other hand, still have your best work ahead of you because you simply cannot account for myriad questions requiring the most basic of logic to answer:

Prior to Nasser moving his forces to the Sinai, he asked UN Secretary General U Thant to move the UNEF out of the area. U Thant was heavily criticized for this, but the law says that when a member state requests this and it’s their country in question, they have to leave. After the UNEF left, why didn’t Israel request that they re-deploy on their side of the border? I mean if the UNEF was as vital to the peacekeeping effort as they apparently thought they were, given their shock and horror when Nasser asked them to leave, it’d stand to reason that Israel would like to use them for the same purpose, right?

And regarding the Straits, if this was such an issue for Israel, then why didn’t take up Nasser’s offer to adjudicate the matter in the ICJ? If Nasser himself had suggested that, why not take him up on the offer where they could prevail in court? Is it because they had a flimsy claim to it that the ICJ would ultimately rule against, thereby validating any actual blockades Nasser might institute?

Nasser dispatched his Vice President, ZakkariyaMuhieddin, to Washington, DC in order to open a dialogue that would culminate in a diplomatic settlement in lieu of conflict. Israel did not dispatch a soul in response and pursued its attack. If the Egyptians were willing to at least discuss avoiding war, which Israel "feared" they were destined to initiate, why wouldn’t the Israelis have been excited as hell to do the same?

Here’s what’s exasperating to me: a very significant portion of what I just said was already explained to you in lurid detail via that video I posted, which means you couldn’t even be bothered to watch it. You didn’t address any points that were made, you continued to assert things totally devoid of any credible evidence to support them, and you had the nerve to project that I’m “ignoring” things. I’m not ignoring jack shit. I’m rendering the historical documentary record, which is what I did almost 10 years ago when I wrote an entire thesis on the topic.

You then posted a line that was as disingenuous as it was disturbing. You said you sympathized with the Palestinian plight.

If you were, you wouldn’t be so hell bent on reproducing a lot of drab propaganda, making excuses, and crafting arguments whole-cloth about “international law” when everything you’ve said has absolutely nothing to do with international law whatsoever. Seriously, you cannot quote Chapter and Article, as it were, any provisions of the UN Charter or any other legal document that says that it's ok to steal people's lands, even in a "defensive war," that preemptive war is permissible when a waterway with an ambiguous international legal status is "closed" for 2-3 days, and/or that preemptive war is permissible when a country's leader assembles troops on his own side of the border.

You cannot quote any of those things because they do not exist, and contrary to what you said earlier, this is all shit that emanates from the UN Charter, which was written in 1945. This isn't about post-war adjustments to the law that paint Israel in a darker light. The law was already written twenty-two years before the crime was committed. Period.

What I can quote is far more substantive and relevant to the case. Article 51 of the Charter says "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defenceif an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."

Again, assembling troops and closing waterways (even literally, let alone fictitiously) in no way constitutes an "armed attack."

Article 51 also states "Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

In other words, assemble the ranks, draft a prescription…like UNSC 242 AND UNSC 194, and enforce it. We're 51 years past the war and Israel has yet to comply with 242. We have yet to apply any pressure to them to do so since Henry Kissinger built an alliance to marginalize William Rogers in the US State Department in 1971.

Even in the post 9/11 world, self-defense is widely regarded as requiring two elements:

The first is that the state must have believed the "threat" in question was legitimate and not just a rumor/perception/pretext. Here, that wasn't the case. Again, Meir Amit agreed with the US intelligence picture that an attack wasn't imminent and that if it was, they would "whip hell out of them."

The second is that the state using self-defense must act in a way that basically mirrors that of which it perceived the enemy capable. Here, that wasn't the case. Israel killed people at a ratio of 20:1, they completely devastated the armed forces of 5 countries, and they flat out stole land that amounted to 2-3 times its own size, which they flat out refused to relinquish even after the leader of one of the countries offered a full peace treaty to them in 1971, (see "Mission, Jarring").

The idea that the Arabs could have done anything close to this, even if all 5 countries launched a full-scale assault simultaneously, is a bad joke. In fact, the notion that “war is not the Arabs’ game” was so pervasive in Israel at that time that the preferred nomenclature of an Arab commando/soldier was “monkey.” The only way an Israeli genocide was taking place that week in history was if 1) the rumors about Nasser attacking were true and 2) the entire IDF just stood there and did nothing. Even a surprise attack would have been thwarted.

And even if I were to concede your argument about Nasser “attacking first,” which I don’t, you still have all your work ahead of you because of two things:

In the end you’re talking about the doctrine of preemptive war. Preemptive war is indeed permitted under international law, but it has a qualification, which is illustrated in Article 51 of the UN Charter: it has to be made against an “armed attack.” Closing a waterway and assembling troops on your own side of the border is not an armed attack, which is why the Mexicans aren’t screaming bloody murder at the UN when Trump talks about deploying troops at the border. In fact speaking of dumb American Republican presidents, the reason the Bush43 administration was so adamant about insisting on a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda is because they wanted to force a square peg into the round hole of preemptive war by “showing” that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, which was an armed attack against the US (same reason the UN didn’t bat an eyelash when we went into Afghanistan). They knew they couldn’t simply rely on “WMD’s” because, for one thing, they knew that was bullshit that would eventually get exposed and even if it were true, it wasn’t enough.

And even if you can actually prove the 1967 war was legally defined as “preemptive,” the UN Charter does not and never did make an exception for preemptive war as a means to acquire territory. Again, this is why 242 is “emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” And far from what it does say, notice what it does not say: it does not say “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by aggression.” That means it’s inadmissible regardless of who started it. You’ve got all these layers to peel in order to show that Israel has a case to keep that territory, to impose a blockade on Gaza, to render Gaza as “an open air prison,” to encase illegal West Bank settlements with walls built on the WB side of the green line and to freely send in the IDF to mass murder civilians, and you haven’t peeled layer damn 1.

Why would the framers of 242 include such a statement if it had, according to you, no application to this specific case? And even before the final draft of 242 was written and voted on, the UN had its 5th Emergency Special Session that spanned from June 17 1967 (a week after the war officially ended) through September 18th. In it, one of the items discussed was the assertion that Israel was engaged in “self-defense.” Not one country asserted that Israel was engaging in “self-defense” during those six days. Even Arthur Goldberg, the US ambassador to the UN, argued that both sides contributed to the escalation of hostilities. And that issue was pertinent because a letter from the MFA of the USSR triggered the session. In it, the Soviet Ambassador (Fedorenko) articulated that the objective of the emergency session should be the consideration of “the question of liquidating the consequences of Israel’s aggression against the Arab States and the immediate withdrawal of Israel troops behind the armistice lines.” Not one representative at that session objected to that wording, not even Goldberg. That bell was never silenced. No one even tried to.

So even if you were correct in your diagnosing the so-called “closure of the Straits,” as it’s called, and/or Nasser’s troop assembly in the Sinai as a “casus belli,” which you are not, it’s immaterial because the Soviet Union’s accusation of Israeli aggression and its recommendation of withdrawal to the armistice lines went unchallenged, uncontested, and unopposed. More importantly, the British and American ambassadors very soon after this session began to draft a resolution that “emphasized the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” And all 15 of the ICJ judges, which again included two Jews (representing the US and UK, oddly enough), nearly 40 years later agreed that resolution is the basis to resolve the conflict, and thusly that the whole of the West Bank, the whole of Gaza, and the whole of East Jerusalem were Occupied Palestinian Territory. Not only was literally everything you said not true, it was also completely irrelevant to the current state of reality that has plagued that area of the world since June 4 1967.

If you really were “sympathetic to the Palestinian plight,” you’d be rejoicing in the fact that the Palestinians have been pushing towards negotiating a settlement on the terms of what a broad consensus of the international community for the past 42 years. They were a part of a non-aligned coalition that pushed forth that SC resolution that called for a two-state settlement in January of 1976, and they started pushing for it independently beginning with the Algiers Declaration in 1988. If you were sympathetic to their plight, you’d support them in that effort because it’s right, it’s fair, it’s just, and it’s what a broad consensus of the international community has prescribed for over half a century.

Israel attacked in 1967. Their leadership admitted it, our leadership admitted it, the UN leadership admitted it (and still does whenever it renews its vote on the Palestine Question as it’s always based on 242 and 194), and of course the Arab leadership admitted it as well. Like General Peled stated, that stuff you’ve been posting thus far is a “bluff, which was born and developed after the war,” and it has jack shit to do with the historical record. 

So regardless of what you thought of my "meme," it was accurate: everything you said was wrong.

Edited May 24, 2018 by hpslugga

[Brian Fantana 6866]

Interesting post I saw in my "on this day" on Facebook. This is written by a good friend of mine who was born and raised in Tel Aviv and currently lives in Kfar Saba.