Discussion in 'World Events' started by quantum_wave, May 20, 2011.
yes i know but i am not happy with the self defence myth of the 1967 war
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Maybe, but its still irrelevant. Whether it is Egypt fighting Israel or Israel fighting Egypt, they are both the occupying power as far as Palestinians are concerned
Note that nationals of the occupying power are not covered by the Geneva convention in the occupied territories
yep irrelevant for what you are arguing but not for what i am but yes i see your point
also roll on the one state solution...
The point is that population transfer is illegal under any occupation. As is population replacement
Getting there...with the help of blinkered right wingers and idealistic left wingers. With such common vision, how can it fail?
Human Rights: Unchanging Obama Challenged by the Changing Landscape
I love this image:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
From the Palestine Chronicle [which is a great resource for Palestinian opinion]
Statehood Declaration or Anti-apartheid Struggle?
And from Intifada Palestine:
OMAR BARGHOUTI: Peace Demands Challenging Israel’s Exceptionalism
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you're just trying to assert that Israel fired the first official shots of that war, you won't find many people to dispute you. If you're trying to assert that there was no credible danger to Israel, whether or not the IDF was equipped to handle it, and that the opening air strike on Egypt was of no benefit to Israel's security, then I don't see how any of these quotes substantiate the claim.
Large-scale army mobilizations along borders with hostile nations are traditionally considered acts of war in themselves. When troops and supplies are massed along your borders in a position to attack, you either have to hit them first, or else cede them a major positional advantage in the event they choose to proceed with said attack. There are plenty of quotes out there from Nasser and other Arab leaders vowing to bring about Israel's destruction, in the days and weeks immediately prior to the war. Nasser was also the one who ordered the evacuation of all UN peacekeepers from the Israel-Egypt border, which hardly seems like a rational action for a leader fearing an Israeli attack and seeking protection.
I suppose if Egypt were the existential threat Israel portrayed them as being in 1967, the war probably wouldn't have ended in 6 days, pre-emptive strike or not. That doesn't mean it wasn't a military threat capable of dealing severe damage on Israeli soil.
Egypt was no threat in 1967 according to Rabin Dayan et all.
The US has its 5th fleet in the persian gulf, so i guess thats a declaration fo war on iran by your logic
and so on and so forth.
The reason why Israel attacked was a land grab pure a simple!!
ok nnight all
could some one please explain to me the point for the US to try and "negotiate" a peace based on the 1967 lines?
it seems really weird that the US would push for a peace agreement that would net borders for a state(Israel) that the US could not legally recognize.
relevant law is
article 6 of the US constitution
article 11 of the Montevideo convention
Perhaps Palestine was not considered a state.
well for one look at article 1 of the montevideo convention it has all 4 needed requirments(which is actually one more than Israel)
but that aside where does the montevideo convention say its ok to recognize territorial gains from non states gained through war it doesn't.
well except for the fact Israel has always refused to negiotiate you would be right.
(a) a permanent population;
(b) a defined territory;
(c) government; and
(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
well the last three I can see the argument( I don't accept them as valid though) but really you question a. God what so because Israel is trying to fucking get rid of them they lose that?
a. they have a permanent population. to deny this is pure racism. there is literally no honest way to deny this.
b. they have a defined territory. the region of palestine. in so far the territory is not defined it is because of the lack of definition of Israel borders so your blaming palestine for Israel's evils
c. palestine had a government before the great war of zionist conquest in 48( known to Israel supporters as the war of Israeli independence) the palestinians could have taken over goverance from the british at anytime inbetween zionist conquest and the establishment of the mandate. they created governmental groups since the war to try and gain proper control over their territory but can't do to the occupation
D. it says capicity to. not whether or not their allowed to or its deemed ok by their zionists conquores. they have entered into agreements with other states already. wow o for 4. oh and if you deny all of these you'd have to say when Israel was founded it wasn't a state but you won't do that because when it making up rights for them anything is ok but the actual rights for the people of palestinian aren't for you.
On the eve of the war, Egypt massed approximately 100,000 of its 160,000 troops in the Sinai, including all of its seven divisions (four infantry, two armored and one mechanized), as well as four independent infantry and four independent armored brigades. No less than a third of them were veterans of Egypt's intervention into the Yemen Civil War and another third were reservists. These forces had 950 tanks, 1,100 APCs and more than 1,000 artillery pieces. At the same time some Egyptian troops (15,000 - 20,000) were still fighting in Yemen.
You need to back that statement up with several sources. A quote saying that Egypt after moving over half their army to the border along with other countries massing armies on the border, of whom there was an eventual defense pact created prior to the preemptive strike, was posing no threat to Israel. I'll just stick to the idea that his actions were the opposite of that statement, so i'd like to see your statement in context (if it actually has source)
An interesting & ignored bit of information.
Jordan got control of the West Bank in the 1947-1948 war. Some years later they annexed it to Jordan. At no time did Jordan offer the Palestians control of any part of the West Bank.
In the 1967 war Israel recaptured land that was originally part of the land divided between Israel & the Palestinians.
If not for Israel recapture of the West Bank in 1967, the Palestinians would have hardly any territory to be negotiated for.
Thats not the question to ask. The question to ask is, would the Jordanians have instituted a racist state that denied the Palestinians access to their own homes and resources?
True, but this did not occur in a vacuum. By the time 1967 rolled around, European Jews had already unilaterally declared a Jewish state in Palestine and dispossessed over 700,000 Palestinians, occupied Jordan, Lebanon and Syria and were a military threat to all their neighbours. For Egypt to maintain troops at the border is hardly suspicious considering that the Jewish state since its inception has never ceased to invade occupy and steal the resources of its neighbours. At no time did Egyptian forces step into Israel, it was Israel that invaded and occupied the Sinai until kicked out, Lebanon until kicked out [after 18 years of occupation], the Israelis continue to invade Lebanon for the waters of the Litani and still occupy the Golan heights and dispossess Palestinians on a daily basis. In fact, one might say that the presence of Israeli troops at all the borders is a much bigger threat to their neighbours since Israel has a history, since inception of militant occupation.
Anyone with a neighbour engaged in the above would consider it practical to maintain defensive forces against such militancy. If your neighbour was like that, so would you.
I.F. Stone was almost prescient when he wrote in 1967:
To Obama's plan Netanyahu says inside white house "Its not going to happen" and says "someone should tell the Palestinians its not going to happen too" (video): http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/05/2011520181538261950.html
Unless you're Gamal Nasser, in which case you demand that the peacekeepers helping protect you leave at gunpoint.
Imagine, Egyptians not trusting the UN after they gave away Palestine to the Europeans. What did the peacekeeping forces do in 1948 for the Palestinians?
Yossi Gurvitz makes a good point about who has really been the block against peace in the region
Boo fricking hoo?
Barack Obama, the US president, has rejected Palestinian plans to seek statehood at the United Nations, and said Washington's commitment to Israel's security is "ironclad".
Obama was speaking at the annual policy meeting of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the main pro-Israel lobby in the US, on Sunday amid unprecedented tumult in the Middle East and new strains in US-Israeli relations.
"No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state," Obama said.
"And the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the UN or in any international forum. Because Israel's legitimacy is not a matter for debate."
On Thursday, the US president for the first time publicly called on Israel to accept a return to territorial lines in place before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, with mutual land swaps with Palestinians, to frame a secure peace.
The formula was rejected by Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, who told Obama at a White House summit on Friday that the 1967 borders were "indefensible".
That prompted Palestinian officials to say that they would seek recognition for Palestinian statehood in the UN General Assembly in September.
European Union states, UN diplomats say, are looking increasingly favourably on the idea of recognising a Palestinian state.
However, any statehood vote would have first to be approved in the UN Security Council, where the US - which insists on a negotiated peace accord - has a veto.
On Sunday, Obama reiterated the US's commitment to defending the existence of Israel.
"You also see our commitment to Israel's security in our steadfast opposition to any attempt to de-legitimise the State of Israel," he said.
"As I said at the United Nation's last year, Israel's existence must not be a subject for debate, and efforts to chip away at Israel's legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States."
I told you. Old fork tongue strikes again.
Separate names with a comma.