Who Truly Deserves a State? The Kurds or the Palestinians?

Indeed. Ive now read all your posts, unfortunately being so obviously dumb Im still none the wiser as to what constitues reasonable evidence to you and why.

After all, for example, you cite the egyptian build up and Israeli generals stated assessment of it as theoretical and somehow of little use.

Your posts so far have not demonstrated of why this should be so in your opinion. Perhaps you could clarify?

In the meantime, it appears you are hanging the argument that Nasser was about to attack israel whatever it did on the basis of quotations youve found on the internet. Its an interesting way of making your case.

I would ask you though, if all these quotes are perfectly stating the case, and perfectly in context, then why would Nasser request and agree to diplomacy prior to the Israeli attack? Surely troubling himself with negotiations would be the last thing on his mind when he was preparing a mass attack etc etc. Wouldnt you say?

 

At this point...I am just trying to get some people to even admit that Nasser said it. I'll deal with the rest later.

And what exactly is your opinion on all this?

You are obviously against Israel's 1967 attack.

Are you just as against Egypt's 1973 attack?

 

You stated:

'Well I have never ever seen him say that,so am I convinced? Not really but that is not the point I am making.'

So you are 'not convinced' he said it.


Until you are...your posts in this thread will be ignored by me.

I have better things to do then waste my time on some ridiculously biased, (imo) emotionally unstable individual who cannot face reality even when it stares him in the face.

Get a life, pal.


Have a nice day.

 

Oh ok then.

My opinion on all this is that Nasser played close to the wind telling all his friends that if israel continued this way it would be defeated.

However, he had little choice but to assure countries like Jordan that someone would stand up for them - but he was all the time lying. He lied to his friends that he was preparing to defend them, in fact he was preparing to defend himself - as that was his only real option.

I suppose in the end if Israel hadnt attacked then perhaps it was always going to receive a few shells here and there. After all, that is exactly what it wanted, to provoke shelling so it could then have a reason to take the land various political lobbyists like Golan farmers for example, wanted.

 

I asked more then that.


You are obviously against Israel's 1967 attack.

Are you just as against Egypt's 1973 attack?

 

I do not know why you are bothering. The poster is not interested in what happened at all.

 

And for the record, I posted these links off of Google to show that even sources with little/no biased were aware of this quote...DUH.

And since The Third Man assumed that the BBC - one of the more well respected news sources around - would deliberately fabricate a quote and risk their integrity and possibly a law suit; I figured using any more reliable sources would not convince him/her.


This is exactly why I dislike getting into these petty arguments - nothing gets solved and I end up wasting my time on these hate-filled, ignorant trolls like The Third Man (at least on this subject he is).

 

When put in the context of what the Israeli leadership had believed (and done) at the time, Nasser's political rhetoric is of irrelevance. Israel, in addition to the US, was confident that the former would be triumphant if any war was to break out (whether Israel or the Arabs struck first). Further, Israel exploited the situation by clearly sending misinformation to the US (in order for the former to gain support from the latter). For instance, take the following quote by the then Israeli foreign minister, Abba Eban:

 

And why do you care one way or the other? It happened 45 years ago (almost). What possible difference does it make who started it and why? You certainly cannot change it now. Why some of you people get so worked up over things you cannot change is totally beyond me. is there really nothing else in your lives to focus on then 45 year old wars?

Both sides hated each other, one was fighting for it's survival, the other had publicly stated they wanted to destroy the other, one saw the advantage, took it and the rest is history.

It's called 'war' - it's always messy and it's never 'fair'.




Btw - you are obviously against Israel's 1967 attack.

Are you just as against Egypt's 1973 attack?

 

The BBC prestigious? You are kidding right? Anyway I did not say they fabricated any quote,you have just made that BS up because you feel the need to have the last post at the end of this thread,pretty sad indeed. What I said about the BBC was that the piece I quoted was already proven to be incorrect on this very thread. So please stop lying.

 

Because I have an interest in the Arab-Isaeli conflict. Similar to those who have an interest in WWII, Ancient literature, Islamic philosophy, etc....

The truth dispels misinformation and falsehoods.

Indeed.

Indeed.

Personally or legally?

 

Many of you take it a lot farther then just 'interest'...it is clearly very personal to many of you (not sure if you are one of these people).

Again, why take a near half-century old war 'personally' is totally beyond me (unless of course one was directly involved in it).


Personally, I really don't care that much.

What I do care about is people bullying and mistreating others online over such an old subject...again, not saying you are one of them...THAT is why I am still posting in this thread.

The subject matter is almost irrelevant to me.

I am always interested to learn new UNBIASED facts about it (and I did learn that Israel's leaders apparently acted offensively - not purely defensively. But had the Arabs left Israel alone and not continually threatened to destroy her - none of the wars probably would have happened. So I blame the Arabs more then Israel - certainly after '56 and up to just after '73. After about '82, I blame Israel more. A LOT more.).

But I do not care almost AT ALL about anyone else's opinion.

And that goes for almost all subjects discussed in this forum.

I am interested in facts...not opinions.

Endlessly debating opinions seems a COMPLETE waste of time to me.

And 90+% of the time seems just to result in endless arguments.

Both.

 

Well for a guy who says he does not care that much you have made more than 50 posts in this thread.

 

Meh, tell that to the historians.

True.

Well, I'm not really sure about it in the legal context (can Creation help me out? ); but personally, yes. Israel was not interested in negotiations post-67, and it had to be made vulnerable.

 

Interesting. I will just post the PM you sent me about 30 minutes ago.

Here you go.

Today, 02:10 PM
DA60 DA60 is online now
Guru


...to save you trouble...I am ignoring your posts until you see the reality.

Like I typed before, I think you are at least somewhat emotionally disturbed and hate filled.


I dislike either Israel or the Arabs.

You seem to be obsessed about hating Israel.

Get a life.

 

Is that a 'yes' or a 'no' that you fault Egypt for the 1973 attack as much as you apparently fault Israel for the 1967 attack?

 

Hmmm,two abusive PM's from you now. Seems like you are contradicting yourself a bit from your statement above.


DA60
Guru

I see you are hiding from my personal messages...
...why am I not shocked?


Clearly, you are little more then an obsessed, emotionally disturbed troll who belittles anyone that does not agree with his mantra.

You are a sad individual.

I sincerely pity you.


Don't worry - I won't pm you again (unless you respond).


Have a nice day.

 

And what exactly do you mean by this?

 

In reality in 1967 Israel immediately accepted UNSC resolution 242 'land for peace', Egypt together with the rest of the arab league declared 'no peace no recognition and no negotiations with Israel". The resolution eventually became the basis for the Camp David accords but Egypt refused to comply by it until they got their a&s handed to them once again in 1973.

 

Yes, that's nice, Borat.

 

What I mean is that post-67, it was the held belief at the time that as long as Israel was in a position of military superiority and confidence, war will not materialize. However, this belief proved to be erroneus due to the fact that Israel was not really interested in a lasting settlement (why should it; the Arabs won't dare attack) even though Sadat clearly was:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The Middle East The Origins of Arab-Israeli Wars.html

It was the prevalent status quo that led the Arabs to war. Sadat wanted to break the political stalemate (and maybe even regain the territory that Israel had conquered); to do this, Israel had to be made vulnerable (he knew the Arabs wouldn't be able to 'destroy' Israel). This is why the '73 war is seen as a victory for the Arabs. One, it broke the myth of Israeli invincibility; and two, it brought Israel to the negotiation table.

For more info:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Decade-Decision-American-Arab-Israeli-Conflict/dp/0520034694"]Amazon.com: Decade of Decision: American Policy Toward the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1967-76 (9780520034693): William B. Quandt: Books[/ame]

 

Avi Shlaim, no less. Why am I not surprised, the most biased, the most dishonest (and proud of it) of all 'revisionist historians'. He is as credible as the rest of your ilk like Finkelstein, Chomsky etc.

Same people who reject wikipedia and BBC bring the most virulently anti-Israel opinions into the debate and try to sell it as facts. Can they get any more pathetic, dishonest and dangerous than that?

 

The Kurds have earned their state. A Palestinian state would become a terrorist entity.

 

So it would be just like Israel then.

 

The above is corroborated in other works (one which I provided above; yes, unfortunately for you Borat you'll have to pay or take a trip to a library). As always, you've merely attacked the messenger and did not tackle any of the above. Interestingly, your favorite source (Wiki) too concurs with the above (lol).