Who Truly Deserves a State? The Kurds or the Palestinians?

Why thank you, that's a pleasant surprise coming from you and I mean it.

LOL in case you have not noticed, I get insulted, cursed and called a liar in every other post addressed to me. Look at the one just before yours if you need an example, it has it all - an insult, a curse and an accusation of lying LOL . Frankly I don't mind, to me it's a badge of honor and those who can't stand the heat should get out of the kitchen. And I do try to reserve the word 'liar' for the most outrageous cases. That said I will try to use it even more sparingly

 

I just call it as I see it.

Before about 1983 - just about everything Israel did as a nation I admired (though I am sure there are exceptions I am not aware of)

Well, then that goes for them as well.

I also mention it because it is against the board rules and your posts might be deleted that contain those accusations (yours or anyone's)..and then the points you made in that post will be deleted as well..which will not help your cause.

I am just saying there are other ways to to tell people off without breaking the board rules and then getting banned for it.

I know...I do it all the time...LOL.

 

Where is this 'evidence?' Why did the US and Israel believe that Nassar did not want war (and even if he did, they knew that the Arabs would be crushed)? Why is it that Nassar himself did not want war?

Etc...?

 

Indeed.

Irrelevant (even if your information is true); YOU claimed:

and,

...to which I provided my rebuttals in post #143. Since you haven't tackled my rebuttals and conveniently ignored them (as is common of you; I'm still waiting for your responses to my previous posts), I assume you've come to the conclusion that you were very wrong.

Like I said, the UN resolution recommended the creation of two states; the creation of two states required the consent of both parties (which, as I'm sure you know, was not given by the Arabs for reasonable, legal, and sane reasons). Thus, Israel's unilateral declaration of independence violated the resolution. Further, the ethnic cleansing that was practiced by the Zionists before the War must also be taken into account here.

It's best that you cease in evading my posts and posting misinformation. The only 'massive fail' in this thread is you.

 

Check out Wikipedia for a start.

 

I prefer academic textbooks written by scholars in the field who back up their claims with the necessary substantiations.

 

Oh my God,you mean you do not use a load of old bollocks to argue your case like all the pro israeli muppets on here? Come on now,that is not really fair.

 

Typically, perhaps die to cowardice, perhaps plain ignorance youve ignored all the points Ive made - what youre posting is both spin and incorrect. Heres the real story;

Zionists were desiring their ends and moving long even before the british arrived.

Even before partition, they had been killing british when the british decided to take some account of local opinion and limit immigration.

Zionists influenced British elite circles to create the balfour decalration.

The balfour declaration was made in defiance of local opinion, by an imperial power with no legitimacy in the area.
Zionists moved to Palestine in the full knowledge they were not wanted by most people there.

Jews were taking settling land, then attacking arabs prior to the creation of israel.

The arab armies invaded in full compliance with all international norms, given that the UN charter had been violated by the partition resolution, and the need to protect the civilians already being removed from their homes.

What your posting is just the usual Israeli government spin, originally created by historians with a very big dog in the hunt.

 

Wrong, the TON of evidence is that the arabs were not ready to attack Israel. But if you think somehow they could then please explain how in detail with your TON of evidence.

Um no, he wont.

 

Okee dokee.

 

Fine...where are the links to this UNBIASED, FACTUAL proof?

Nasser booted the UN peace keepers out of the Sinai, amassed large forces on the border and the general Arab sentiment was to destroy Israel.

And you think Israel was not in danger of being invaded?

Uhhhh....yeeeaaah.

Can you spell 'naive'?

 

Yes I can spell naive, here it is; DA60.....ok joking, lets move on.

What proof would you like?
How about the lack of egyptian military power? Proven by the assertion of israeli generals that Egypt was not formed ready to attack.

Is that something youd like to hear more about?

As for UN peace keepers, they were in place to protect egypt. Removing them was Nassers assertion to his people that Egypt could protect itself.

Ill just ask you this. The Commander of the UNEF U Thant always wondered why, if Israel was so fearful of attack and egypt so ready to attack, did israel reject the possibility of the UNEF being placed on its side of the border. Would you not have favoured this option if really feared attack?

Perhaps you can think up an interesting Israeli excuse to both fear attack and not want the UNEF in the way.

 

So that is your idea of unbiased, factual proof that Egypt was not going to attack Israel?

Okaaaaaay.


I have no intention of getting into some pointless debate with biased people on a subject that happened over 40 years ago.

When you have links to unbiased facts that prove that Egypt had NO intention (and not little intention - NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER) of attacking Israel in 1967 - I will look at it.

Because if you do not - then IMO - Israel had every right to defend itself...and in this case, with a pre-emotive strike.

Until then, and I mean no offense, I have zero interest in hearing endless theories.

 

Now youre telling me that the military formation egpyt lined its forces with is not proof?
Are you saying somehow that what ive told you be interpreted some other way? If so then please tell us on what grounds you wish to say this.

Exactly what proof is this that you require? A ticker tape of the thoughts of every man in Egypt?

Exactly what is theoretical about Egpyt's forces build up and its assessment by Israeli generals?

Moreover, since Im playing my part re Egypt's being not ready to attack, how about also you prove to us that Israel was not always going to attack anyway? Seem fair to you?

 

I believe that the Arab-Israeli War was continuous from 1948 until the Camp David accords.

So I believe that both sides were always ready for war...just some times more so then others.

I don't fault either for trying to get an edge...it was war.

I don't fault Israel for striking first in 1967 AND I do not fault the Arabs for striking first in 1973.

 

Why dont you fault Israel for striking first in 67? You really think they could have been attacked?

Do you think Egypt was ready to make strides into Israel with two armoured divisions?

But hey as a continuation of events from 48, that anyone can happily agree with.

Tell us, why would Israelis in the north put tractors into the DMZ if they didnt want war?

Do you think Israelis had long coveted all Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria?

If Israel really feared Egypt why do ou think it rejected the placement of the UNEF on its side of the border? What would that have prevented?

 

Your beliefs shouldn't trump facts. Israel wanted more land and water.

The Six Day war began in 1964 when Israel tried to divert the Jordan River.

 

My apologies, ive forgotten to deal with this post.

1/ The quote that YOU gave, when read out in full, proves not an ultimatum but an invitation to cease and desist their warlike actions, or face a protracted and bloody war.

2/ It was not plainly a statement of determination to exterminate jews wherever they are and whatever they do as youd like to paint it. Thats why you didnt quote the whole thing.

3/ What they set out to accomplish is set out in their statement of aims, to save palestine and the majority population there.

4/Jordan annexed the West Bank with the agreement of the Israelis. Did you forget that bit Borat?

5/ These are your exterminators are they? Who readily agree to land deals with jews? Who despite ample opportunity never once move their forces into Jewish aportioned territory?

 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4330386
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4330250

The problem with wikipedia is that the articles convey a very simplistic and general account of certain subjects (not to mention that its articles can be edited whenever one is not pleases with the given information). Why not read the above two articles, and then determine if Nassar really wanted war? More text can be provided, of course.

 

During the run up to the partition of Palestine it was the palestinians who were murdering jews (see my links earlier in the thread and pay special attention to killings and terror in early 1948 ). The arab league warned the world that if Jews get their own state they will be massacred (see my quote above by the Arab League's president).

These are facts my friend, i provided links, quotes, real info. Everything you post in this thread are 'endless theories' (as DA60 called it) and baseless speculations.

 

LOL, is that the best you can do? two articles by obscure unknown individuals expressing their opinions, theories and speculations and the articles are not even available, they need to be purchased.

Pretty lame dear. But let me guess, the articles claim that Nasser did not want a war, he wanted a victory without a war, don't they? That if Israel surrendered, gave in to Nasser's demands, ignored Egypt's unilateral nullification of the armistice agreement accepted the defeat - Israel would not have been attacked in June 1967. I've seen these attempts to 'excuse' Nasser before and they are so lame, absurd and politically naive that they don't even require rebuttal.

But by all means keep trying.

 

And let me also add that if Nasser truly did not want a confrontation and wanted to diffuse the situation that he had escalated, he would have withdrawn troops from Israel's border, returned the peacekeepers to the Sinai and reopened the Straits. None of those acts was defensive, each one of them was an act of aggression and a blatant violation of the existing armistice agreement.

 

Again failing to counter my last post you offer new accusations about what was going on inside palestine pre May 48.

Jewish forces were murdering both British and arabs. They commited terror across the land, and were easily better armed than the locals, who had been disarmed by the british in 36. Anything non factual in that or that you would dispute? Anything?

Your Azzam quote has been demonstrated as not what you claim it is.

These are facts my friend, I'll provide links quotes, real info to anything you dispute. Is there anything? Just one thing? Should be easy right?

Just like DA60 when presented with something you cannot couter or dispute you pretend its just a theory and fail to tell us why or how that is so.

 

Why would he have done that?

On what basis do you make that assertion? Come on tell us.

 

Its sourced history by actual historians. What more do you want?