unwise UN visa ban

RoccoR;

You're mistaken. Resolution 181 was intended to create two States and was clearly not implemented, despite the Zionists accepting its proposals. The unilateral declaration of Israel's independence was never in compliance with UNGAR 181 and the territory over which it was declared was not in compliance with 181 either. 181 remains in the background, an unimplemented legal proposal which has been rejected by both parties. However, its suggested borders remain to haunt the Zionist agenda. I can understand your position very clearly.

 

Regardless of what happened in the past, if the United States falls, Israel will lose the support of America, because a fallen America will no longer be able to give any support to Israel. Therefore, it is important for Israel that America not fall.

Among other things, that means that the United States shouldn't be outraging other nations when there is no real reason to do so. The visa ban is one example of the United States alienating other nations unnecessarily.

 

moon; et al,

Certainly, in the case of a preemptive action, there are arguments to be made on both sides of the issue.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the 1967 War, there is a fact that is often forgotten: The 1948-49 War was actually never ended, but held in the condition under Armistice. The 1967 War was a continuation of the War started nearly two decades earlier by the Arab League Armies rolling into the former Mandate Territory.

When looking at the events of the 1967 War, the re-ignition of the 1948-49 conflict, one has to think beyond the simple perspective and examine the "proximate cause" of the event which was immediately responsible for causing, some observed result; the 1967 War. The mobilization of large scale forces by Syria and Egypt and the contributing artillery fire from Jordanian forces from the West Bank are key factors.

Our friend "moon" has be predisposed to a line of thought which condemns Israel. In that scenario, it must be the case that Israel is at fault. Otherwise, the whole justification behind the Jihadist and Fedayeen movements unravels. It is unlikely that an advanced critical examination of the events will ever overcome that perspective. The virtual victim seldom can change its spots.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

moon, et al,

Yes, that was the hope.

[OBSERVATION]

(COMMENT)

There are two points that need to be made here.

• First it is an "either" condition. Neither side can hold the right to self-determination hostage from the other. The Jewish Agency could not deny the Arab their right to self-determination through the non-cooperation in the implementation. Nor could the Arab deny the Jewish Agency their right to self-determination through the non-cooperation in the implementation. It was both a fail-safe and a basic right.
  
• Second, the Arab Palestinian later recognized the legitimacy of A/RES/181(II) and (finally) activated their acceptance.

I often hear pro-Palestinian activist make these claims. It is again, to bolster the legitimacy of their virtual victim just cause. But they can be refuted easily. The problem is, the Hostile Arab Palestine (HoAP) component of the overall Palestinian movement suppresses this information to make their position look and feel righteous.

The outcome, thus far, from Resolution 181(II), is the declaration of two-states: 1) The Jewish State of Israel, and 2) The Arab State of Palestine. While the Jewish State of Israel has full recognition, the Arab State of Palestine is in political turmoil; with only partial recognition.

The realization of the third major component of the 1947 Resolution, the Internationalization of Jerusalem, is still a work-in-progress.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

RoccoR;

As it's accepted logic that the arabs would never have tried to resist the Zionist invasion if there was no Zionist invasion then it's clear what all the ruckus has been about. Nobody would accept what the Palestinians were asked to accept.
That aside- as the root cause of the conflict- it was the Israelis who engaged in wide-spread and organised military activities, war by any other name, and their ethnic cleansing policies- heavily documented policies found in the speeches and writings of the European Zionist leadership- resulted in the razing of many Palestinian villages and the murder or displacement of their populations. The entrance of the Arab League into the conflict by means of a declaration of war does not for one moment qualify any statement that ' the arabs started it '- a deceit which Zionism's supporters rely upon selling to the uninformed. It was the actions and policies of the Zionists which precipitated the 1948 war- a war for which they were already well-armed and prepared.
You could begin to reconstruct your view of the 1947/8 events by checking how many arab villages were destroyed by Zionist terror-gangs prior to the Arab League declaration.

So terming the 1967 conflict- which was again initiated by Israel- a recommencement of hostilities is neither here nor there . They started the hostilities and then chose to continue them.

......and war, as you know, is illegal whether one starts one or continues one.

 

1967 conflict, initiated by Israel. Now I have heard it all.

 

moon, et al,

This is a follow-up to a previous post on a mutually exclusive aspect.

(COMMENT)

You can ignore the UN announced implementation on the part of the UNPC. You can ignore the announced implementation on the part of the PLO. But you cannot accept the one without the other.

The territorial discrepancy was a unintended consequence of the external interference of the 1948 Arab League invasion. Unfortunately, the Hostile Arab Palestinian does not get to determine what is in compliance, and what is not in compliance; especially after being the 5 army aggressor.

(COMMENT)

So, you are suggesting that the Hostile Arab Palestinian has the right to reject the resolution for all Palestinians. In addition the Palestinian acceptance of Resolution 181(II) in the Declaration of Independence for the Palestine State, make no mistake, the Palestinian position is acceptance.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Not by some distance;

You can apologise by PM if you find that preferable.

 

The war began with that but the conflict was initiated by Egypt closing the Staits and massing troops in the Sinai, both against the armistice. In any case, threatening a neighbor is against the UN Charter and subsequently Israel had every right to defend itself as there was still a state of war between the two.

 

moon, BroadwayBaby,

I think you are mistaken here. You highlighted the wrong applicable phrase.

(COMMENT)

Israel was responding to an enemy force mobilization along its border. That is a clear and present indicator of an imminent attack. This was discussed in Posting #103, on the matter of preemption.

It is my opinion that our friend "BroadwayBaby" doesn't owe an apology at all. It is very clear that the Egyptians and the Syrians were planning to mass forces along the Israeli Border to poise for a surprise attack of their own, across the Armistice Lines, and into Israeli sovereign territory; with the Jordanians in support. They got caught and stomped on. (In 1973, their tactics they planned their attack a bit better and caught Israel by surprise.)

Just My Thought,
Most Respectfully,
R

 

I have nothing to apologize for, either in PM or on the forum.

 

Wasn't there an attempt to contradict history in post #106 ?

 

No. there wasn't.

 

Initiated by the Arabs by breaking the Armistice by closing the Straits and moving a hundred thousand troops into the Sinai.

 

Sure there was. Israel initiated the 1967 conflict. It's there in the record. You seemed to think that the record was..er.....funny ?

The Zionists attacked the Egyptians. Fact.

 

And it's on the record that the Armistice was broken by the Arabs. When an Armistice is broken that means a resumption of hostilities moon so in fact, Israel couldn't have initiated anything as the actions by the Arabs had already made a resumption of hostilities a fact.

 

Invention. Israel initiated the 1967 conflict. That's what attacking the Egyptians means.

 

It's all a sea of ambitions, and the power to fulfill those ambitions. The rule of law doesn't change that, it just crushes all opposition under the edict of a hegemon. Sure, it might be advantageous to your interests to follow the rule of law, but anything beyond that is wishful thinking, imo.

I don't really care a whole lot about territorial squabbles between nation states.

 

Mod edit flounder you find agreements such as ceasefires and an armistice meaningless trifles and meant to be broken but in the real world, when they are, it means resumption of hostilities so that whomever broke the ceasefire or armistice is the perpetrator who began the hostilities.

 

Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran, which was an act of war,

Egypt declared that their intention was not peace with Israel, but the destruction of Israel.

Egypt massed its armed forces near the Israeli border in the Sinai.

did you expect the Jews to just sit there and wait for Egypt to attack?

as for Jordan, Israel did not start the military engagement with them. Jordan chose to start firing on Jerusalem, and Israel urged Jordan to not go any further with the conflict. But Jordan insisted on war, stating "the die had been cast".

Jordan chose to attack Israel from the West Bank, and they lost the West Bank as a result.

- - - Updated - - -

again, Jordan attacked Israel, unprovoked. They started the eastern front of the 6 Day War.

- - - Updated - - -

WRONG!!!!

Israel accepted UNGA res 181 and declared a state within the boundaries given to them by the UN.

And today, the Palestinians accept UNGA 181 which means they accept dividing Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state.

 

As previously stated, the Israelis initiated the 1967 war by attacking Egypt. Denying that is simply futile. I'm not interested in following any additional red herrings.

 

Jordan initiated the eastern front by attacking Israel.

Egypt forced Israel to attack, by blocking the Straits from Israeli traffic, massing hundreds of thousands of troops by the Israeli border, and declaring that the destruction of the Jews was their goal.

what was Israel supposed to do, just let the Egyptians attack?

 

Israel attacked first. That is the point- and I've made it.

 

Egypt's blocking of the straits was an act of war.

their massing troops on the border was an act of war.

its sad that some folks think the Jews should wait till the knife is at their throat, before they can defend themselves.

 

Of course. Let the Arabs commit the Act of War. Israel's response would have been totally justified.