A 50-Year Occupation: Israel’s Six-Day War Started With a Lie

They were in Yemen. Nasser had already called for a summit to discuss a solution re: Tiran. Israel wanted more land and water.

 

The article is carfully constructed to fit your agenda, there were many documentries on 6 day war it's really not hard to review if someone is truly into it,
The 6 day war was not a war of "no-choice" (and that's what those Generals in your article are saying, not that they attacked for the fun of it or get more land), it's possible that trou negotiations and crawling and begging - there would be another solution to the Arab hostile moves, the thing is - why should Israel beg for their mercy ? if the stupid Arabs made their hostile moves and we know we can defeat them - why beg ?
Israel had the right to attack the army in sinai that was not suppose to be there and open their path to the red sea, this war was very important to explain the Arabs how things will roll now on, if not to a mistake Golda made rejecting peace from Egypt in the 70's I think we would have peace with all the Arabs today, the 6 day war did not only end well to Isreal but it gave us a whole new position in the ME.

 

Sinai was Egyptian.........

 

Egypt had 100k of its 160k troops on the Israeli border - how does the possible fact they may have had troops in Yemen negate the fact Israel reacted to an Egyptian act of war?

 

Discuss solution my ass, he was strangling Israel while "thinking of a solution", what a joke by the way that the man that called for a bloclade was "thinking of a solution".

He made his stupid move and we made ours, we know the messege was recived and echoes till today. that's what important.

 

It was in Israel hands and in the deal Israel made before retreating Egypt could not have send Tanks into it without Israel approval, he moved Tanks to attack Israel and dont start that Yemen crap with me please, its a stupid excuse.

But even without the Sinai business, we had the right to "object" their siege - or were we suppoosed to get an approval from the rest of the Arabs for that ?

 

And it remains Egyptian because Israel gave it back.
Why did they do this?

 

If you accept Gaza and Qatar blockades as an act of war why not the Egyptian one in 67 ?

 

No, Arafat's opposition is to the onerous and one-sided pre-conditions to peace talks demanded by Israel. For a start no halting of settlement building, and not allowing Palestine to have a military for self defense. Who in their right mind would agree to that?

 

Someone more concerned about the future of his people than killing Jews.

 

Someone who can't control his terror organization and demands indipendance, that's how it will look like with Hamas in the picture.

 

No occupation, no reason for a 'terror' (legitimate, legal resistance), organisation. Simple.

 

No occupation, no reason for resistance to it. Simple.

 

There is no occupation.
Jordan ceded the land to Israel.

 

Well, tell the UN and 192 countries that. I'm sure you'll get a sympathetic hearing before you get shown the door.

 

The treaty between Israel and Jordan that ceded the territory to Israel was signed in 1994; as Jordan has every right under international law to cede any part of its territory to any other state, the opinion of the UN and its membership on the matter is irrelevant.

 

Right, so there's no occupation? Are you ****ing serious? Israel is in no position to cede any illegally held or occupied territory, to anyone.

 

Under international law -- the 1994 treaty between Jordan and Israel -- the land belongs to Israel.
You cannot "occopy" land that belongs to you, so...
Since the 1994 treaty resolved the issues under international law, the opinion of the UN is no longer relevant.

Jordan. The West bank was part of Jordan in 1967. Jordan ceded it to Israel in 1994.

 

That land wasn't Israel's in the first place! It is called the Occupied Territories for a reason. Can you think what that might be?

 

Please pay attention.
In 1967, the WB belonged to JORDAN.
1967-1994, Israel occupied JORDANIAN territory and created a controversy under international law.
1994, Jordan ceded the land to Israel, ending that controversy.
Thus, under international law, the land belongs to Israel, and so any further consideration by the UN is meaningless and void..
As the land belongs to Israel under international law, Israel cannot "occupy" it.

 

I cited an Ivy League University, Cornell University, and you cited global research. And Im the one whos posting nonsense. Hahaha.

"Measures to isolate" Another bravo! The entire purpose of sanctions is to do just that.

Here's another definition.




Here's the legal US legal definition by Cornell University again. In case you missed it the first time

 

Notice that "an act of war" is not in its definition. It can be used as a method during a war, but it in itself is not an act of war

Like sanctions, embargos, hacking, probing, etc- Blockades are considered an act of aggression. But not an act of war

And Israel has been waging war on Arabs in Palestine before that. In fact zionist leaders spoke about not going along with the partition and planned to expell all the Arabs long before 48.

Yes. It's well known that Israel has selectively used the law to excuse their aggression when they can while ignoring other inconvenient and more important laws. Like the one that prohibit ethnic cleansing and settlement building.

 

I dont. I merely use them as an example to show holes in the logic that blockade=an act of war

 

Believe whatever you want to believe, your opinion means nothing to the countries involved in any blockade.

 

Wait, what?

How on sweet Mother Earth is not halting settlement building a pre-condition for anything at all? Please provide proof that Israel demanded not to halt settlement building as a pre-condition to sit at the negotiating table with the PA.

Halting settlement building and allowing Palestine to have a military for self defense before negotiations even take place are onerous and one-sided pre-conditions indeed, but it's the Palestinians who make such demands.

May I remind you that settlement building was halted for 10 months during Obama's first term as proof of Israeli willingness to return to the negotiating table as required by the Palestinians (one-sided and onerous pre-condition...), but the Palestinian leadership turned a blind eye and a deaf ear. May I also remind you that Israel released hundreds of Palestinian criminals as proof of same willingness as required by the Palestinians during Obama's second term (another one-sided and onerous pre-condition...), only to be rewarded with same blind eye and deaf ear. Oh, and a very cold shoulder indeed.

Blind and deaf seem to characterize the so-called pro-Palestinians these days.