IDF soldiers detain five-year-old Palestinian for stone-throwing in Hebron

Firstly, apologies for the late response.

So they agreed to ceasefire, so what?

How could any subsequent movement of troops into their own area be an act of war especially when Israel had already committed numerous destructive acts on Egyptian infrastructure before they eventually left in 1957?
Moreover since you seem to think resolutions can be thought of as also agreements between parties how do you complain about troop movements years later when Israel had already violated the ‘agreement’ to seek to hang the egyptians over?

Resolution 999 (ES-I) (04 November 1956) : Noting failure of cease-fire resolution (997), urges to UN Secretary-General to continue to pursue cease-fire and withdrawal with the help of the UN Truce Supervision Organization.
Resolution 1120 (XI) (24 November 1956) : Noting with regret that most of the Israeli, French, British and Irish forces remain in Egypt in violation of UN resolution 1002, calls for those countries to obey that resolution.
Resolution 1123 (XI)(19 January 1957): Notes with regret Israel’s violations of UN resolutions 997-999, 1002 and 1120, and requests Secretary-General to continue efforts to get Israel to comply.
Resolution 1124 (XI)(02 February 1957): Deplores Israeli violation of UN resolutions 997-999, 1002, 1120 & 1123, and calls upon Israel to comply – withdraw from Egypt to beyond border.
Resolution 1125 (XI)(02 February 1957): Considers that once Israel withdraws, that the UN Emergency Force will have to be placed on the border to maintain peace.
http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/unresolutions/studyguide/sgunresgasummarylist.html

.

Simply read UN resolutions 997 and onwards which state categorically that Israel was in violation of past agreements and had invaded. Moreover the UNEF was placed on egyptian land, such placing was refused by the Israelis.

No Israeli port was ever blockaded. And no international law does not specify what a casus belli is.

LOL whats strange is that you think this shill is a credible source;
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/04/60-mi...-oren-falls-on-his-face-defending-israel.html
Rather than taking a balanced view his work basically follows the Israeli government line. That’s he doesn’t mention things like the Israelis initial 1967 raid lies that it was in fact the egyptians that had attacked them.
Moreover, Al jezeera doesn’t present the ‘muslim/ arab’ view, it presents a range of views. Because it’s a news org, not an academic org.
But heres a thorough examination of Orens work on the six day war, go ahead and read it;
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...g#v=onepage&q=myth and reality israel&f=false

Oh no theyre not lying, just acknowledging the simple fact that there was no firm agreement, that’s why Israel violated numerous Resolutions.
Indeed if Israel thought it had some right to attack it wouldn’t have initially lied that it in fact was the one being attacked.

Nonsense, both Israel and Egypt would have benefitted from UNEF presence in both financial and military terms. Moreover Israel was offered UNEF long before it ever arrived in the ME. Moreover with Israels shorter distances it would have benefitted even more from the UNEF.
.

No it made a number of its own threats and had a record of actual invasion and settlement. Indeed it had already invaded all its neighbours.

Um no, its you who is coming down to earth. Since a counter attack is defensive, you now admit that the Egyptians are interested in defence rather than attack.

I don’t think Ive ever said they didn’t move troops into the Sinai, nor does anyone. They did, after all they had to, Israel was/ is a repeated violator of resoltuions and ceasefire agreements, had already invaded itself and all its neighbours and was as usual making threats. So they mounted a plan to counter attack as anyone else in the world would do.

 

Well I can ask you cant I, since you obviously give a hoot? How about because the Israelis knew they were attacking first, they knew it was wrong, that they had no need to do it and so, just like Germany did in the 30s they pretended theyd been attacked first. That sound reasonable?

No they werent busy, they knew these divisions wouldn’t hurt them and already had plenty of people to conduct mediation as their diplomatic service didn’t suddenly go under a bunker.

Simply read the various UN resolutions and what they about who invaded who and who is in violation.

Its not the best but lets start with good old wiki;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_day_war
Still sure the attack on jordan is fictitious?

No it was over the status of the waters, not any bloackade.
What UN handbook of ceasefires? What rule? I suppose you could ask U Thant about it;
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...g#v=onepage&q=myth and reality israel&f=false

As for comments, all sides were/ are prone to making threats, so whats your problem again?

Riiiight, so if its occupied territory its ok so send in families. So what about the permanent israeli settlements?

Israel claims east jerusalem for itself, and also wants the main settlement blocks it has built. Moreover it claims the west bank is not occupied but disputed ground.

Yes. If theyre not granted or havent applied for citizenship then indeed they’ll be arrested and deported..problem?

Its got nothing to do with supporting their troops. Its about building Jewish communities in the west bank.
Don’t even try anymore, too many israelis know the truth and freely admit it. Just ask your pal Hbendor.

Nonsense, it may have taken a while to get the correct link but you got it in the end and refused to respond to it. Basically because you don’t know how.
Prove me wrong.

LOL such cowardly tactics again, thats not the huge fib you originally referred to and moreover its a refutation of your evidence, not a fib.

No not at all, it’s a news org, not an academic source.

No it doesn’t seem that way Drew, a counter attack is exactly that. A counter attack is not an offensive move unless you think the USA was guilty of starting its war with Japan when it was attacked at Pearl Harbour.


And no your sources don’t say that heavily preparing for a counter attack even to the point of expelling the very UN personnel who were, as you say, ‘protecting the Egyptians’ in order to prepare for a conquering counter attack is anything but defensive. They don’t say that, so just stop the BS.

Its simple, if authors have a long record of having strong political views on one side, or if their jobs are specifically to represent that side rather than to simply be academics then their credibility is suspect.
Al Jezeera is quite a well balanced org, but it’s a news org and therefore it doesn’t rigorously examine evidence and writing. Nor does it peer review its work.

And a counter attack is a defensive move. In military terms for example when confronted with an advancing enemy one may try to wipe them out on the field while also outflanking and surrounding them, cutting off their supply lines and such. Such maneuvres like out flanking and surrounding require the attack of individual positions but the effect of the action is the same - a defence of ones territory by use of counter attack. Thats why youre wrong.

No Ive not said Israeli sources are biased ive said those who work for the Israeli government, esp diplomacy cannot expect to have their work seen as anything but a rehash of their own governments positions.
Now, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlements

Have you a problem with the above?

Ok Ill let your BS slide here in favour of getting to the point;
Israel doesn’t need settlements for defence because its settlements arent full of soldiers and their families, they are not military barracks but actually created neighbourhoods built to provide cheap housing for normal civilian israelis. Housing soldiers families is nothing to do with it. Moreover when one wishes to defend against an enemy one doesn’t put hundreds of thousands of people closer to the enemy.
Don’t ask me, ask http://www.btselem.org/

Im not denying anything, Im simply stating to you directly that your original statement about my huge fibs was such rubbish you had to then bring up words that were said after that point in our correspondence – cleary reprehensible conduct. What do you say in refutation to that?

 

See above.

 

Nobody is talking about the subject any more.. thread should be locked, closed and thrown to the garbage.

 

I don't think so. How come the IDF don't arrest these little bastards and their fine father?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCqKkluvLkc