"Israel never attacks; Israel only retaliates" - challenged

Good question!
The attack on USS-Liberty was (according to the eye witnesses) also a deliberate attack, aimed at getting USA involved in a war for the interests of Israel. But why did the American government behave like a spineless worm after this attack?

Why there was no retaliation, and why do they still call Israel an ally of the USA, even after the Pollard Affair?

 

I still don't see any of the "credible" sources of fatcs regarding Suez that you said you used. I still don't see any rebuttal of the facts contained in Colonel Bar-On's recordings of Ben-Gurion's words; of Dayan's memoirs; of David Ben-Gurion's memoirs. I was expecting you to quote notes by Prime Minister Lloyd George recording his displeasure at the distortions contained in the Israeli record of the event.

It seems that you don't have any such information as you pretended to have.

So on what basis did you reject my fully referenced information?

Please answer and be a mensch by facing up to your *CLANG*

 

Dear KK, newsflash, words and quotes mean sh&t, people, including leaders run their mouths non stop and in the course of their lives say a lot of nonsense, their personal projections and wishful thinking. That's especially clear when anonymous propagandists take their words out of context, distort and manipulate the meaning, try to present that garbage as country's policy and think they are clever or fooling anyone. You don't lol

That being said, wars to wipe Israel off the map, endless terror attacks against civilians, blockades, boycotts, violations or armistice agreements, suicide attacks, Kassam rockets, Katyusha rockets, rejection of Israel's right to exist.... Look these things up, Google if you have to, it's not as scary as it sounds and the truth will set you free.

 

Was the above the paper that you offer for scoring? I cannot award you any grade, because it did not answer the topic of the questions that were set.

Nonetheless, I will remind you of your great interest in the numbers of those killed when we get to the period from 1964 to 2014, especially the "tens of thousands of Israeli citizens who were killed" (please prepare references in advance). Until then, try to stick to the facts of the specific conflict being discussed. I know that doing so must be difficult, but this thread is starting to get clogged with red herrings.

You also mentioned the breakinging of the ceasefire between 1949 and 1956 - do you have solid evidence of those events? Perhaps you could start with Qibya since you seem to hold high death tolls in particular esteem.

We might then move (still in your quoted period) onto the details of the Lavon 'Affair' and how the Zionist terrorists were awarded certificates of appreciation by Israeli President Moshe Katzav in 2005. Those studying Israel's indignation when Hamas' gives awards to 'martyrs' might be interested in where it started.

I fully support your focus on the 1949 ceasefire..

 

I wasn't talking about just a couple of years. I was talking about the history of the conflict, the unwavering commitment of the Arab world to wipe Israel off the map, their blockades, boycotts, terror campaigns,wars, violations of armistice agreements.... it's 70 years of this cr&p I am talking about.

 

I know that you believe this You have shown with this post that, although you profess respect for historical facts, that they do not matter.

You can refute my conclusion by showing how Ben-Gurion should not be trusted. We can then arrange to ignore his words in future - all of them, as with other leaders such as Arafat and Netanyahu. Now won't that be superbly pointless. Care to revise?

I invite you to address all those wrongs that you have noted above when we get to the appropriate time periods. At the moment you need to study how the 1949 armistice agreement was broken between Israel and Egypt in the period 1949 to 1956. According to your own words, you must have lots of highly credible data and sources. See ya soon. I will add the 1949 to 1956 period to the list, removing Lavon and Qibya since they are included. Is that OK?

 

Fear not, Borat, we will cover it all. At the end we can do the math, including that of stove-pipe rockets versus 155mm high-explosive M107/109 artillery shells - their cumulative numbers and their respective destruction power - and we can check the death statistics which should reflect the killing power.

I am sorry, but I have to reject your suggestion that we jump ahead now to the final conclusions. But I do promise you that we will get to it in the end.

Just to clear up a loose end - does this mean that you really don't have any "more credible data" than I do regarding the all the various motives and goals laid down at Sevres (1956)? You said you did. I am disappointed.

 

The ‘de facto’ borders are NOT the armistice line. Read the agreement.

This case has absolutely nothing to do with Israel existing as a sovereign state = Scarlet Red Herring.
Secondly, there is absolutely nothing semantic about the observation that Israel is an entity without a universally accepted definition of its borders. Interesting that you have to call that ‘semantics’ – goes to show attitude.

Israel is a predatory entity with the stated aim by its founder to ultimately acquire all of Eretz Yisrael. That is a fact. It was recorded in minutia from the exact words of Ben-Gurion. You have never disputed that … because you can’t. Borat has, but then …. It explains much of the Israeli-launched aggressions over the past 65 years – Sinai; Golan Heights; South Lebanon; West Bank settlements – all listed by Ben Gurion as part of his “Fantastic Plan”, a plan inherited later by Dayan, Rabin, Begin, Sharon and Netantahu. It explains ALL aggressive first-strikes by Israel – plain as the nose on your face. FACT!!!

It is your democratic right to keep on trumpeting the right to violate international laws and your justification for the promotion of anarchy. It is the typical Zionist creed.

I unequivocally reject your anarchistic medieval view, striving for an inevitable suitcase armageddon. .

 

Jonsa, you are clearly ignorant regarding WHERE the Yom Kippur war was fought. It was NEVER fought on Israeli soil, so “The Arabs attacked Israel” is a crock of crap. The war was fought in Sinai and the Golan Heights.

The Arab forces never traversed the occupied territories into Israel proper, as you have previously suggested. You need to read books instead of just typing.

Isn't it amazing just how untrue the Zionist MYTHs can be?

 

Great. At least you admit that he made them (plural). You are now pushing your point of view regarding his sincerity.

And what on earth do you mean by “they were designed too be rejected”, when they were in perfect accord with UNSC 242. Are you saying that Israel rejects 242 outright? If so thank you for agreeing with what the Zionist opponents have been maintaining for decades. If not, then what on earth is your point? Do you deny that Sadat’s offers were in line with 242?

Let us see if a modern Israeli historian and ex-Minister agrees with you – Shlomo Ben-Ami in his book “Scars of war; Wounds of peace”:
Did Israel refuse to comply with UNGA 242? Answer – Yes!! - “Jarring was explicitly told that Israel ‘will not withdraw to the pre-June 1967 lines’ (page 133).
Was Israel justified according to ex-minister Ben-Ami? – “Israel’s blunder became more clearly apparent when President Sadat for the first time in the history of the conflict committed Egypt … ‘to enter inot a peace agreement with Israel’.”
And he further scathingly criticises the Israeli leadership at the time (pages 134-135):

# ”The tragedy was now that Israel had drifted yet further to the right”;

# ”Israel’s short-sightedness became even more unpardonable when one realises that her leaders were fully aware of the boldness of Sadat’s move”

# Both Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan were forced to acknowledge the revolutionary change in Egypt’s position.

# “Mrs Meir’s government did not rise to the dramatic challenge posed by Anwar Sadat.

# It is difficult to imagine a greater gulf between the resourceful peace strategist, the compulsively creative and far-sighted visionary statesman that was Sadat, and the trivially immobile government led by Mrs Meir.

# “It was clear that Israel did not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity” (page 136)

Ben-Ami goes on to heap even more criticisms on Meir’s rejectionist head, but the above suffices.

Jonsa, where to you get these fables from that you try to offer as defences for the Israeli obstructionism?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that had the arabs been successful in the Sinai and Golan that they would have stopped? Get real.

 

Strawman

 

Borat, you seem to have this issue pending.
So, does that mean that you can’t improve on my Sevres sources?

 

Sorry mate but I don't have any pending issues. Everything I say is in history books, all of them. The wars to wipe Israel off the map, the unwavering rejection of Israel's right to exist, terror attacks, suicide bombings, thousands of rockets falling on Israeli towns, blockades, boycotts, propaganda lies, incitement of violence against Israel and jews, it's all so widely researched and documented that you can find it in absolutely any book on the history of the conflict.

 

No, you are the one that claims that Egypt and Syria's intention in the Yom Kippur war was solely to re-conquer the Sinai and Golan heights.

My contention is that they had to first retake their lost territories to even get to Israel.

wow, its almost like the Israelis had created a buffer territory between them and their enemies.

Enemies who had loudly, vociferously and repeatedly stated in word and action that the "liberation of all of historic Palestine" was their ultimate objective and had been whinging about doing so for decades.

I respect your knowledge of the subject, but your interpretations of events are extremely debatable, just like the handful Israeli academics you often rely on.

 

Its not just his interpretations, the entire thread topic is debatable, just like the one he made on the Exile, he claimed WE claim "Israel never attacks" - ofc Israel attacks, very strongly at that too, but as someone said at the begining of the thread (you?) Israel attacks when conflict is known and unavoidable in fact its was a military assumption that due to Israel size - Israel must be the first to attack, the hostility however, the aggression that led to theses unavoidable conflicts were mainly caused by the Arab states and Palestinians, which is why we say its defensive wars.

But KK made a statement that not even Israelis agree with and then he refutes his own claim...., much like in the Exile thread, Jews never emphsis the Romans selling the Jews to slavery or kicking them out of Judea, the enitrie event is remembered as the destruction of the Jewish center of life - Jerusalem and the Temple, so there again KK made his own assumption and then refuted it...

 

Not to raise an argument between us.
Israel RETALIATES when attacked...
or Attacks to RETALIATE... when attacked of course.

Playing with words and semantics is not needed here.

 

Well maybe its a language gap, Heb -Eng....

 

See how the [Palestine Flag ] looks like in 1939

Post subject: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?

http://www.factualisrael.com/1939-pales ... surprised/

Moroccan and other denominations with Solomon's Seal

http://www.factualisrael.com/moroccan-flag-nazis-rewrote-history/

 

I took my information off Wikipedia. It gave a link to Simon Dunstan's book "The Yom Kippur War: the Arab-Israeli War of 1973". The book received rave reviews. You can read it on-line here: http://books.google.es/books?id=-gl...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false What I posted was not my "interpretation". I was from the author of the seminal work on the 1973 Yom Kippur war. There were two brief attacks on Israel in the early days. The rest of the war took place in territory occupied (illegally) by Israel. They never intended to "get to Israel". Dunstan states the motives.

Oh - look - Dunstan is not an "Israeli academic".

 

Here is a test of the OP. Care to try it? - http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...w-conflict-between-israel-its-neighbours.html

So, who attacked and who retaliated?

 

Strawman, Gilos.

I say so because you conveniently forget that you were shown many cases in that thread of Jewish sources claiming that the Jews were exiled from Israel by the Romans - http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/384575-jewish-diasporas-how-did-they-differ.html
Here are some more:

* Jews were exiled from the land of Israel by the Romans - http://www.jewfaq.org/israel.htm
* Jewish people were then exiled and dispersed to the Diaspora - http://www.science.co.il/Israel-history.php
* Jews have remained a people despite exile and dispersion. In all of human history, there have been less than ten exiles of an entire people out of their country. It’s a highly unusual phenomenon to take a whole people and throw them out of their country. - http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/7-wonders-of-jewish-history/

But perhaps the best is from a public forum - https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080821101416AA5mPdI - and others:
"Why did Romans kick out the Jews out of Israel?" where 'Joe the Plumbers' respond:

* "It is because the Jews did not want the Romans there It was the Jewish people who fought against them to get them out. The Romans were the mightier at first and literally killed, dispersed them as slaves and brought down their buildings."
* "the grand expulsion is dated around 134 AD"
* "At the time the Romans kicked out the Hebrews, the land wasn't called Israel."

And from the classic "Joe the Jewish Plumber" website - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Diaspora.html - "The Jewish state comes to an end in 70 AD, when the Romans begin to actively drive Jews from the home they had lived in for over a millennium ... systematically drove the Jews from Palestine."

So give me a break from your claim that the masses don't believe that the Jews were driven out if the Promised Land by the Romans. I was one of those masses pre-2003, and I too believed the fable of the expulsion from Palestine.

The following, from Ask a Historian, might resolve your apparent problem - http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria..._the_jews_actually_exiled_by_romans_or_is_it/

So your claim that "KK made a statement that not even Israelis agree with" is just plain wrong.

 

Many thanks.

I knew that the books that you read would not be able to refute "Sevres". But I thought I should try to afford you an opportunity to PROVE that your sources did so.

Many thanks for the confirmation regarding quality of sources.

Keep well, KK

 

Seminal? Hardly. Acclaimed? Okay.

Yes, isn't it interesting that the Egyptian army didn't get anywhere close to Israel proper. And the Syrians couldn't get passed the Golan.

As to Sadat's limited objectives, I am afraid that I just don't believe that if he and the Syrians had achieved those "limited objectives" they would have stopped. Sadat's public objectives leading up to the war were quite a bit more ambitious.

as it is they failed miserably.

 

Excellent!!
So we can agree that the Yom Kippur war was not an assault on Israeli territory.
Many thanks.

PS: Your speculation is noted.