US caretaker to ask President to withdraw.

Is your slow typing the reason you are on line 22 hours a day?

 

I am going to split this for clarity, so expect quite a few ".... (to be continued) ...."s

You wriggle amongst the evidence, Jonsa. You call it a “crusty” interview, whatever that might signify. I tell you what …. It was an interview the contents of which Dayan’s daughter verified. You say that Ms Dayan was “not there”, implying along the Syrian border, but that is NOT the rich value of her testimony. Instead it is that she confirms that Ravi had that interview with her father and that what he reported WAS discussed. In fact it was she who gave Tal permission to publish. May I remind you of the words of the NYT article that I provided as reference for Rami Tal’s report of the Dayan interview - http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html:

So now, after having tried to besmirch the “interviewer” and the General’s daughter, you failed and are reduced to “saying” that Dayan lied. Unacceptable debating, Jonsa. Your "say-so" is far less acceptable than the General's daughter's evidence.

Colonel Mühren, of whom you saw original 8mm movie clips climbing a UN observation tower along the Golan Heights in my referenced video, testified that he saw that the bellicose triggers in the 1960s were NOT the shelling of the northern Israeli villages by the Syrians as the Apologists claim, but the provocations of them into those actions by the Israeli violation of the ceasefire agreement. He called the Zionist version “an outright lie”. Yet , you choose to call this first-hand eyewitness evidence by a senior expert in military matters “anecdotal”. ANECDOTAL!!?? Why am I utterly underwhelmed by your attempted rebuttal, Jonsa?

I use this as a more comprehensive source of Tal's piece (Click), but am reluctant to use it as a reference because I cannot confirm the quality of the translation in a Blog.

Now that we have the evidence for the authenticity of Tal's record versus your "say-so", it certainly becomes a devastating piece in this thread, completely annihilating the Zionist claim that Israel was peace-loving and that the Syrians were the aggressors.

So I can appreciate it that you desperately need to show the unworthiness of the report. However, there are debating standards to be considered.

.... (to be continued) ....

 

.... (continued) ....

On page 232 Segev quotes the “80%” provocations in full detail. Your “appear” was noted, but proved to be wrong.

Yes he did. He also told the rest of the story about the role of the Golan Heights water in the Eretz Yisrael dream of the Zionists. He does not cherry-pick.

Good grief. Does that mean that you agree that Rabin was wrong? If so I see no point in this entire intercourse between us. The Kibbutzim - with full support from the IDF - were violating the law and hence guilty of daily provocations of Syria.

If instead, by "yes" you mean that Rabin was correct, then you are wrong yet again!! But that is all the more amazing since you later admit the contrary (addressed below). Here are the facts:

You were shown that Syria tried to take the prescribed route and reported the Israeli violations to the UN Security Council who found in Syria’s favour. And you admit knowing this (see 6) below), yet here you are, chanting the Zionist Apologist prescribed mantras. Having been shown the real facts, Jonsa, your attempts to wriggle through non-existent gaps between them is just so obvious.

I agree that it does not make it any the more accurate. The value of it is that you have been querying Rami Tal’s interview with Dayan, and I show that the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs and Tom Segev (amongst MANY others – and they include my quoted Foreign Service officer and Middle East expert R B Parker and Professor Tanya Reinhart of Tel Aviv university) had sufficient faith in Rami Tal’s notes to quote them extensively. You disagree with the judgement of these experts without providing reasons, just your “say-so”.

So why on earth did you respond "Yes" to rabin's false claim? And why do you continue to maintain that it was the Syrians who started the hostilities!!??

So we at this stage we have:

# Corroboration of Rami Tal's interview

# Corroboration of Dayan's claims by UN Observer Colonel Jan Mühren (with more still to come)

# Confirmation that the Kibbutz farmers were not allowed entry into the DMZ, and hence further confirmation that Dayan was correct and that Rabin was wrong

..... (to be continued) ....

 

........ (final continuation) ....

What!!?? I offer a third independent source which confirms both Dayan and Mühren and does not just quote their commentary - a THIRD source - and one again you brush it aside as an "opinion". Allow me to remind you that the wrmea article contains the following:

. He was the head of the UN Observers along the Israeli borders. And you call his view an "opinion". That is like saying that Ben-Gurion's explanations regarding the legitimacy of Israel as a sovereign state are mere "opinions".

Furthermore, your ammunition is clearly reduced in quality to have to suggest that that von Horn's observations do not contain the ‘words’ “80%” but instead go further as the quote above shows.

Jonsa, I am not at all surprised that you found that shocking. I am amazed that you highlighted it here. Well done!! I see a glint of the honesty of “old Jonsa” peeping through.

# Indeed the WRMEA article (Click) shows that the DMZ restrictions were meant to be temporary, and that it was solely due to Israeli refusals that it became quasi-permanent

# That here we have another clear case of Israel rejecting peace offers from the Arabs. Many thanks for that. I will add it to the growing list.

I rest my case - the Israelis were the clear aggressors against the Syrians with whom Nasser had a mutual defence pact. And they did it over a continuous period and LONG before the three "casus belli" that the Apologists claim to be the only factors leading to the war.

Many thanks, Jonsa. I enjoyed that

 

Now that the aggressor in 1966/1967 along the Jordan and Syrian borders has been cleared up, let us finish off the last of the neighbouring Arab states, Egypt.

Remember that it is on full record on this forum that:

# Israel invaded Egypt, NOT the other way around, no matter what Eban claimed to the contrary in the UN Security Council on June 6th

# that the Israeli leaders were in agreement that Nasser did not intend to attack – and I don’t mean just one or two, I mean Rabin himself, General Allon, Prime Minister Eshkol, and a host of others whom I have quoted and referenced on many occasions, and …

# … that just as many Israeli leaders, especially in the IDF knew that the start of the crisis was the 7th April 1967 invasion by Israel of Syria and not Nasser’s three “casus belli” triggers as the drums of Zionist Myths so frequently claim.

Nonetheless, let us look, yet once again, at these Zionist trilogy of "casus belli". I will split all three up so as to keep the debating stage relatively uncluttered:

Casus Belli 1) Removal of the UNEF forces:

So both the UNEF commander and the UN Secretary General confirmed that Egypt was within full rights to demand the withdrawal of UNEF . Borat seems to think that they both lied.

So where was Egypt breaking the ceasefire by insisting on the rules? Here is Borat’s reply:

Isn’t that interesting, Forum readers, and I don’t mean the “Duh!” (he often uses that) but the underlined bit. The following response was inevitable:

And at that point the line went dead and wartime radio silence prevailed.

So far Jonsa has not claimed that Nasser's demand that UNEF withdraw violated any ceasefire ..... at least I do not remember any occasion - he focussed on Tiran.

Both the UNEF commander and the UN Secretary General agreed that Nasser was in the right. How could they not have, because Israel all along had denied UNEF any access at all ..... what's good for the goose is good for the gander

So the first of the three Zionist claims to "Casus belli" is left high and dry. Can we scrap this one now guys? Please. It is just so dog-eared and *CLANG* empty.

....... (to be continued - Casus Belli 2) - Egypt was massing troops) .....

 

Casus Belli 2 - Nasser massed troops along Israel's border

Yes, I know. Bizarre.

But any way, why do I see such a similarity between Borat’s post and Dubya’s lies when he tried to show a reason to invade Iraq in 2002? “Imminent”; “on the brink of invading”: “hours away from being launched”; etc.

You know what, Borat, I have a shedload of referenced quotes from Israeli leaders, both the European politicians and the Sabra generals, that they knew that Nasser did not intend to attack. You have seen the references that the CIA supplied Eban with exactly the same opinion. The USSR informed Eshkol that Nasser had relayed an unequivocal message through a Soviet ambassador on May 27 that "Egypt does not want war and is not heading in that direction".

But you call it all “cherry-picking” on my part. But you do so without ever providing counter-proof.

So today I intend to give you only one piece of evidence. It is from the top military man in Israel at the time ... the head-honcho .... el supremo

So, was Rabin lying? If not, why do you insist on insisting?

 

Nasser's own words (see below) plus his actions - (the naval blockade [casus belli] and violations all aspects of the standing armistice agreement at the time)

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), four independent infantry brigades and four independent armored brigades. No fewer 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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#Arab_preparations

"Our aim is the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel." – President Nasser of Egypt, November 18, 1965

"Brothers, it is our duty to prepare for the final battle in Palestine." – Nasser, Palestine Day, 1967

"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight . . . The mining of Sharm el Sheikh is a confrontation with Israel. Adopting this measure obligates us to be ready to embark on a general war with Israel." – Nasser, May 27, 1967

"We will not accept any ... coexistence with Israel. ... Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel .... The war with Israel is in effect since 1948." – Nasser, May 28, 1967

"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." – Nasser, May, 30, 1967 after signing a defense pact with Jordan's King Hussein

"We are now ready to confront Israel .... The issue now at hand is not the Gulf of Aqaba, the Straits of Tiran, or the withdrawal of UNEF, but the ... aggression which took place in Palestine ... with the collaboration of Britain and the United States." – Nasser, June 2, 1967

"Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria is in a position to cut Israel in two at Kalkilya, where Israeli territory between the Jordan armistice line and the Mediterranean Sea is only twelve kilometers wide ... ." – El Akhbar newspaper, Cairo, May 31, 1967
http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/threats.asp

 

Hello? it was an act of war because of the threat to peace by the act of war.

At the onset of the war, both the suez canal and the strait of Tiran had been closed to Israel flagged ships and ships carrying Israeli bound cargo since May 21st. It de facto ended on June 12 and de jure some time afterward.

The Legal Status paper is pretty explicit as to the legitimacy of Israel's claim under international law.

Therefore it was a known causus belli, no matter how you want to portray its insignificance. Get over it.

 

He's just showboating like with everything else he does. One example is him saying he would veto the ndaa and then he goes and signs it.

Obama and the US are israels (*)(*)(*)(*)(*). During the election I heard with my own ears and saw with my own eyes obama constantly defend israel. He must have mentioned israel at least ten times in less than ten minutes. Why would he aggrevate israel? Is he going to take in a bunch of palestinians before he rams through the dream act? More votes? Pandering to palestine? Just like he panders to latinos and blacks? Speaking of pandering, what does obama have against asians? I've never heard him ander to them.

 

No, there is a clear difference between the two concepts. An act of war entails the end of peace, not a threat to it. If Egypt had invaded Israel, for example, that certainly wouldn't have been considered by the US to be a mere threat to peace.

Provide me evidence that the US explicitly considered the closure of the Straits to be an act of war- or a justification for war.

No, I already provided evidence proving that the blockade was lifted a few days after it was implemented.

No one is denying that.

Wrong. You're assuming that every act that breaks international law warrants war, which is simply not true.

 

(*2) I will soon address your and Jonsa's claims regarding the Straits of Tiran. It is the 3rd "Casus belli" on my list. Watch this space.

(*3) Regarding Nasser "violating all aspects of the standing armistice agreement", you have just been shown that you were totally incapable of proving this claim - you went into wartime radio silence on the topic when challenged to show which clause in which agreement. In fact you bounce between the 1949 Armistice agreement and the 1956 Suez ceasefire as the source of Nasser's violations. Are you unsure which it is? Why am I not surprised, because you will find it in neither.

The best reference was tthe "long" UN reference that Jonsa posted (confirmed by him as his source for his "Nasser broke the ceasefire" claim. But when one actually READS that document, what he claims is not there. Nowhere. It too is *CLANG* empty.

(*1) What remains to be addressed is that Nasser's words were a valid reason for Israel's invasion. Let's get on with it:

# Nowhere in the Laws of War does verbal rhetoric constitute a valid justification for war.

# If it did the the world would have been buried in non-stop wars. Think Khrushchev (1961); Turkey's various threats against Iraq and Syria (until very recently); Argentina's 1977/1978 threats against Chile; Korea (very topical); Iran; Israel (various); USA (various); etc, there have been hundreds if not thousands of these, and NONE were just cause for war by the threatened.

# What the Apologists fail to acknowledge (do not know?) is that Yitzhak Rabin was making threats equally bellicose to those of Nasser. For instance in September 1966 Rabin stated "Israel's reaction against Syrian actions [themselves a result of Israeli provocations] must be directed against those who carry out sabotage and against the rulers who support these acts." This was a direct threat against the leaders of a sovereign neighbour. The Prime Minister's War Secretary, Yisrael Lior wrote "I had a bad feeling. I kept thinking that Rabin was suffering from what's called Syrian syndrome ... We loved to hate them." Rabin frequently urged the Prime Minister to allow farming of blocks in the DMZ, the Israeli provocations that I referred to above. In other words Rabin himself started the process. He was later to admit this. But the Apologists never suggest that this was just cause for Syria to shell Israeli positions. Why not? One rule for Israel; other rules for Arabs?

Words are just that, Borat .... WORDS. Until they are followed up by action, they remain just sabre-rattling. See the Laws of War.

 

Absolutely KK, that's why I provided facts, the repeated terror attacks that had originated from Syria and Jordan prior to the war, the Syrian non-stop shelling of Israeli villages, the violations of the armistice agreements, the massing of a several huge armed to their teeth arab armies on Israel's borders, the naval blockade, the casus belli, the Egyptian plan to invade Israel cancelled just hours before the invasion not due to a change of heart but because it was exposed...And of course words, non-stop threats coming from the highest echelons of the Arab world to wipe Israel off the map.

On the other hand all you KK have is words, some random words taken out of context, spoken by career politicians who speak out of both sides of their mouths. Not a lot KK, as Jonsa correctly mentioned, there is not a single scientist / historian who agrees with you, not even among the revisionists.

 

I am not going to bother with this. You are just repeating claims which have been refuted and which you had no proper response to.
You should really be ashamed of your regurgitation of the "violations of the armistice agreements" when you managed zero factual response in showing which agreement and which clause was violated
There is a word for a poster who simply repeats debunked claims.

PS: Tom Segev is a historian - another repetition of yours which is totally unfounded. More shame deserved

 

After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, the United Nations Emergency Force, to keep that border region demilitarized, and prevent Palestinian fedayeen guerrillas from crossing the border into Israel.[SUP][21]
[/SUP]
Egypt also agreed to reopen the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, whose closure had been a significant catalyst in precipitating the Suez Crisis. As a result, the border between Egypt and Israel remained quiet for the vast majority of the period up to 1967.[SUP][22]
[/SUP]
After the 1956 war, the region returned to an uneasy balance without the resolution of any of the underlying issues. At the time, no Arab state had recognized Israel. Syria, aligned with the Soviet bloc, began sponsoring guerrilla raids on Israel in the early 1960s as part of its "people's war of liberation", designed to deflect domestic opposition to the Ba'ath Party.[SUP][23][/SUP] Even after nearly two decades of its existence, no neighboring Arab country of Israel was willing to negotiate a peace agreement with Israel or accept its existence. Tunisian President Habib Bourgiba suggested in a speech in Jericho in 1965 that the Arab world should face reality and negotiate with Israel, but this was rejected by the other Arab countries

after the 1956 campaign in which Israel conquered Sharm el-Sheikh and opened the blocked Straits, it was forced to withdraw and return the territory to Egypt. At the time, members of the international community pledged that Israel would never again be denied use of the Straits of Tiran. The French representative to the UN, for example, announced that an attempt to interfere with free shipping in the Straits would be against international law, and American President Dwight Eisenhower went so far as publicly to recognize that reimposing a blockade in the Straits of Tiran would be seen as an aggressive act which would oblige Israel to protect its maritime rights in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter. United Nations Secretary-General U Thant also went to Cairo to help negotiate an agreement to avoid conflict, but after the closing of the Straits of Tiran, Israeli Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, contended that this was enough to start the war. Eban said, "From May the 24th onward, the question who started the war or who fired the first shot became momentously irrelevant. There is no difference in civil law between murdering a man by slow strangulation or killing him by a shot in the head... From the moment at which the blockade was posed, active hostilities had commenced, and Israel owed Egypt nothing of her Charter rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Six-Day_War

 

Indeed. At least Jonsa is dignified enough not to repeat untruths after having been challenged, rather he quietly disappears in silent acknowledgement.

 

Correct. But you were also shown that both the UN Secretary General and the Head of UNEF admitted that Egypt was fully entitled to require the withdrawal of the UNEF forces. Why are you repeating this when it is utterly clear to everyone? The last time you claimed that doing so was in violation of “the” ceasefire agreement, but when asked to show the agreement and the specific clause you couldn’t. And you still can’t. You are wasting our time. Deliver proper rebuttals or retreat gracefully

Similar to the above. What kind of agreement are you referring to? Oh, and please, Borat, don’t try to have us believe that Nasser was bound in this by some book written by a fellow called Colaresi. You continue to show NOTHING that Egypt was bound by. This is not a debate; this is a further time waste. I showed you that there was nothing of the kind in the 1956 UNSC resolutions and nothing of the kind in the 1949 Armistice agreement which you said were binding, but you insist on insisting, and now serve up this *CLANG* empty Wiki reference #22.

As for the rest of your post:

1) What are your references? Please don’t plead again that Egypt was bound by some (unverifiable) books. Your cut-and-paste is a time waste.
2) Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that Egypt was bound by what some wally in France or 'Murka said? I mean, PLEASE!!!, get real.
3) And who gives a fig what Abba Eban “said”. Imagine Israel having to be bound by what Nasser "said". Anyway, Eban is a proven liar – remember he claimed in the UNSC that Egypt had struck first on 5th June 1967.

Get real mate!! You really need to sharpen up your criteria, or stop wasting our time.

- - - Updated - - -

I know.
But the culture is different in central Asia it seems.

 

Absolutely, it was not a violation of international law, it was a violation of the armistice agreement between two states (that the UN does not control and does not have jurisdiction over) as the presence of peace-keeping troops on Egypt's side of the border was the condition of the armistice agreement. And Nasser flooded the demilitarized zone with troops and artillery, another violation. And the naval blockade - a huge violation of the armistice agreement and a casus belli if there ever was one.

 

I don't dispute Dyan saying it. I dispute its accuracy and its use in the revisionist argument that the Israelis didn't need to pre-emptively attack and in doing so, they unjustly and without provocation beat the holy crap out of five arab armies in 6 Days.

All of this above post is about a single source. All of your "supporting" sources use the exact same source. Its a single source. An off the cuff interview with an old broken and bitter man in his final reminiscings. Where are the list of documented incidents? Surely there are records documenting the shellings, the tractor incursions, mine explosions, small arms fire and raids? So present them to support your 80% of the provocations because it is simply WRONG!

I have provided you with hard evidence of the fact there was a good faith agreement by the UN that Nasser could kick out the UNEF whenever he wanted to and there was a good faith agreement with Israel that the strait would remain open to their shipping.

I have provided a phd level legal opinion on the legitimacy of Israel's right of passage, meaning it was a recognized causus belli under the International laws of the sea treaty.

I have provided evidence of the ONGOING hostilities between Israel and ALL its neighbours. I suppose that at the Arab high council meeting of 1963 they voted to divert two of the headwater rivers of the Jordan in order to deprive Israel of their diversion project. This was considered an exestential threat to Israel and an effective weapon to the arabs. They also formed the PLO at that meeting. They also voted to begin recruiting for the Palestine Liberation Army. Don't know about you, but that kinda attitude gets one's attention real quick.

http://www.alzaytouna.net/en/resources/documents/palestinian-documents/109088-draft-plo-charter-1963.html

This is at the height of Nasser's attempt at forming the United Arab Republic. The Pan Arabic Caliphate cometh! The intra arab power dynamics created an almost comical attempt at cordinating strategy.


I have provided evidence that the April 7th operation in supposed "retaliation" for a "border incident", was actually a raid to knock out the almost complete syrian diversion project. It was a highly sucessful raid. One of many such border incidents between the sides

Here is another arab perspective, which doesn't quite line up with your revisionist postion. Its a refreshingly honest assessment from a guy that was kinda involved.

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_periods3.html.

 

Never said it was a causus belli, in fact, I believe I have submitted evidence that Nasser had the right to kick them out, as it was good faith agreement with the UN. Just like the good faith promise Israel that the straits would remain open.


So no juice there.

 

Sorry to disappoint you but....

[video=youtube;x2yj6TX-w_Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2yj6TX-w_Y[/video]


I don't roll like that.

 

missed it by exactly 5778.234 miles.

keep tryin'.

 

I see more and more signs that Obama actually wants to effect change this term.

I'll believe it when I see it, but from China to Isreal I see moves that I am a fan of.

 

Post reported for trolling

 

OK, so basically what you are now saying is that Dayan was either mistaken or lying. The problem is that you have absolutely no evidence for that [on the contrary – see the section on “a single source” below] Therefore REJECTED!!

Wrong. The use of Tal’s interview notes by the “revisionist” Myth busters is NOT at all what you claim, and you know it. Dayan’s admission is that between the Kibbutsim greed for land within the DMZ that was prohibited to them by the 1949 Armistice agreement, plus Rabin’s paranoia with Syria, plus the connivance (illegally) of the IDF, Syria was repeatedly provoked over a long period of time. We will check your evidence refuting this in the next part, but don’t try the morphing of the main point – Israeli triggers to the Syrian aggression. It won’t wash. I am watching you.

Absolute nonsense. You are now deliberately obfuscating the debate by continuing to repeat your selective cherry picking, notwithstanding it having been pointed out to you on various occasions. That is underhand debating, Jonsa.But I will repeat: There was not only ONE source as you claim. That is naughty of you, Jonsa, and you know it. There have been various sources all pointing in exactly the same directions, as follows:

Independent evidence 1: Dayan’s words as recorded by Tal and corroborated by historians and his daughter, and admitted by you to be the words of Dayan. You now switch course to imply that he did this because he was old and bitter.

Independent evidence 2: Colonel Jan Mühren’s first hand eye-witness observations as a UN Observer right in the middle of the border zone. You can’t get better than that, Jonsa. The man was a professional OBSERVER!! He was NOT quoting Dayan in this case. = Excellent unconnected verification.

Independent evidence3: Swedish General Carl von Horn, of the UN peacekeeping forces confirmed all of the above. He “was convinced the instances of firing would not have occurred without the specific Israeli provocations” Another confirmation of the Israeli provocations of Syria.

Independent evidence 4: You were also shown that General Matityahu Peled (member of the IDF General Staff in 1967) is on record as stating that “more than half (>50% Jonsa, as is Dayan's 80%) of the border clashes before the 1967 war "were a result of our security policy of maximum settlement in the demilitarized area."” A senior IDF general also acknowledging Israel's dominant role in instigating the border conflict and war

And now I will add even more evidence (from Tom Segev’s impeccably referenced book - "1967"):

Independent evidence 5: Page 245: From minutes of a General Staff meeting: Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin – “We will begin a war of harassment against their war of harassment at a ten to one ratio” (is that 91% Jonsa?). He suggested inflaming tensions along the border and exploiting them as an excuse to act. I would say that that leave no wriggle soace for the Apologists.

Independent evidence 6: Page 252: Yisrael Lior (Secretary to the IDF’s CoS) March 1967 – "“If farming for political reasons is authorized, it is essential to follow through all the way, even if we have to use heavier weapons (tanks and planes).” That same day in March, Rabin requested and received permission to bring in armored tractors (into the DMZ)."

Independent evidence 7: Page 252: “Foreign Minister Eban became suspicious when he saw two identical newspaper articles about Kibbutz Ha’on – “we are obliged to repel any attempt to prevent Jewish farmers from working land in Israeli territory, including in the demilitarized zones.” [as you know by now, Jonsa, this was prohibited in the 1949 Armistice agreement. In addition, Israel rejected a peace proposal from Syria to ‘unlock’ this]. The articles were written by the military correspondents. This permission led directly to the 7th April invasion of Syria by Israel.

Independent evidence 8: Page 256: Ezer Weisman later recalled Moshe Dayan’s response when the Syrian planes were shot down “Have you lost your minds. You are leading the country into war!”.

Your claims of “single source” and “an embittered old man” have been blown away. I will address the rest of your post soon, but there is little of value remaining since the basis has been destroyed.