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

Ok so you didnt like the 73 example and would now like to tell us about Nassers rhetoric. Fair enough, you got me....oh wait;

“the time is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian government"

Yitzak Rabin.

Why on earth would you keep telling us that the rhetoric only went one way?

A ceasefire eh? Did ceasefire mean also accepting the settlement of their territory and a promise to keep it?

Please you can perhaps explain it to us.

 

I think Yitzak's reference to two divisions was to two armoured divisions. Which are the crucial vanguard in the offensive which you maintain they were about to embark on correct?

Really Borat, you think all those egyptians were enough to take on israel? If so, then why didnt israel just ask the UNEF to place itself on its side of the border?

Surely that UN backing along with itself would have helped its defence would it not?

 

Yet both the US and Israel knew that Nasser did not want to attack Israel and that he did not pose any serious threat. You conveniently ignore that he initially asked for a partial redeployment of UN forces- but was told that it had to be a full withdrawal (thus from all the Sharm Al-Shiekh); you conveniently ignore that Nasser agreed to a repositioning of UN troops on the Israeli side of the border, but Israel refused; you conveniently ignore the primary reason as to why Nasser blocked shipping to Israel- since the UN forces had completely withrawn, Nasser had no excuse as to not retake the Gulf of Aqaba; you conveniently ignore the fact that Israel had barely used the Straits (no Israeli ship had passed through the waters for more than a year)-thus dispelling the myth that the closure of the Straits posed an existential threat to Israel, and thus did not warrant Israel's unproportional/agressive use for force. You are completely ignorant with regards to the War.

 

Thanks for this...although Wiki is a quick way to obtain info...it's too unreliable sometimes.

 

Ceasefire meant peace negotiations that the Egyptians refused to conduct, breaking the ceasefire and re-starting the hostilities was an undeniable act of aggression which made the war undoubtedly defensive on Israel's part.

The acts of war and violations of the armistice committed by Egypt and 7 other arab countries in 1967, the closing of the Straits, the kicking out of the peacekeepers, the enormous military buildup of troops tanks artillery etc on all Israeli borders coupled with the rhetoric of Israel's imminent destruction coming from every arab capital made Israel's actions in 1967 unquestionably defensive.

And lest we forget 1948 when the Arab world did not accept the partition resolution and dozens of Arab states invaded newly-founded Israel.

 

israel started the 1967 war by bombing other states,no getting around that fact. The Straits never closed as you have been told before and provided with evidence of. You just keep repeating all that zionist BS,no one with any intelligence believes anything you write.

 

Oh please.. the 1967 ambush on Egypt started in 1964 when Israel got into a confrontation with the Arabs over Israel's attempt to take control over the Jordan River.

 

Are you saying that a ceasefire requires negotiations which if not immedialty conducted either party is entitled to settle on the gains it has made?

Why wasnt the settlement building and the stated determinations to keep everything a breaking of the ceasefire?

Why then didnt it think it was under threat? What was so enormous about the military threat it faced?

Why would they accept it? Why would anyone?

And why wouldnt they intervene in the civil war?

Perhaps you can expain the fundamental logic unpining your arguments here.

 

Why would anybody of right mind pay attentiont to Margot and her ilk. She was bought out long ago by the Arab/Muslims.

It has always been about conquering. One time Salah al Din, or Salah ad-Din, better known as Saladin, a Kurdish Muslim, was the honoured Caliph, the saviour. All the leaders since have wanted to rule a caliphate, which Margot, will deny, once more because she knows... first-hand.

 

Stick to the relevant points please.

 

The fundamental logic is based on the attempts by the Arab world to wipe Israel off the map, regardless of their motivation and your spin that makes their actions aggressive and Israel's actions defensive.

 

The concept of a "kurd nation" is the invention of western imperialism.In recent years as part of America's "Greater Middle East" project,the west is trying to create a new kurd culture,language and identity from the populations in Iran,Iraq,Syria and Turkey.This trend is supported with fabricated kurd history books written by people that serve to a certain political agenda.Just like the words of Lord Curzone during Lousanne peace conference."Wait until I give kurds and alphabeth".

Also kurd terrorist organization PKK is another actor of the global conspiracies over Turkey and middle east.

 

Saladin was never Caliph, was he??

 

Saladin was a Turk emperor.Kurdification of Saladin is part of the west's kurd project.He was the emperor of Ayyubid dynasty and he made the continuation of Seljuk Turk influence in that geography.

The education he had was the same as any other Turk sultan.His battle tactics,attitude towards soldiers and way of life had a Turk characteristic.His most trusted generals during battle were mostly Turk ones.His knowledge about science,his interest for philosophy and mathematics was the result of the education he had.

Saladin's brothers names were "Turansah,Tugtekin and Bori (which means wolf,the main symbol of Turks)".Which kurd would name his sons with such Turk names? Also Saladin followed Turk traditions and treated to populations in where he ruled like a Turk emperor.

 

As I understand it, he was from an Arabized Kurdish Sunni family and known for his chivalry, leadership and statesmanship... Major Frederick Millingen wrote Wild Among the Koords in 1870.. and his observations about the Kurds don't match what we know of Saladin.

 

As per usual, you've failed to rebut any of the arguments that have been advanced.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/238644-character-kurdish-nomads.html

In constant strife with their neighbours or amongst themselves, the Koords constitute an essentially warlike people, ever ready to meet an enemy, always on the alert, employing sometimes open strength, more frequently stratagems, quick in their movements, cunning and cruel in their exploits.

The mixture of good and bad qualities which is to be remarked in the character of the Koords is, as has already been said, common to all nomadic tribes, whether Arabs, Koords, or Kirgiz. In some respects, however, the Koord must be considered somewhat inferior to the chivalrous Arab nomad who, according to the opinion universally adopted, respects the rights of hospitality, and protects those who seek shelter under his tent. The Koord is treacherous and does not feel the least scruple in staining his hands with the blood of the guest who has a claim to his protection.

(Its impossible to romanticize the Kurdish tribes)

 

What attempts? What was so aggressive about these attempts? What was so immoral about them?

Your accusations are easily disproven by your refusal to attempt to answer any of the questions ive posed. If you had a ready answer you would have given it, since youre such a keen poster here. You read what I write and you know what you can answer.

Unlike you however, I will answer anything you hope to offer.

Lets have a discussion, no more just stating something at me then ignoring the riposte. Come on.

 

Relevant points for relevant comments. However, I get the drift, and where you stand.

However, as I have stated many times when they are not fighting the infidel, every which way possible, the tribes fight with themselves and will continue to do so. Then, of course are the ideologies of Shia and Sunni... never-ending.

 

So (*)(*)(*)(*)ing what?

Americans are never tired of bashing each other over the head on a saturday night. Theyve been fighting wars internal and external since the inception.

Dont bother throwing stones in glass houses.

 

LOLOL

Well said....

The master of irrevelant.. peanut gallery.

 

What does morality have to do with this? Israel exists and has a right to defend itself even if the Arab world and you consider its existence 'immortal' and when Israel defends itself against hostile armies trying to wipe it off the map, the Israeli actions are by definition defensive.

When a sovereign state is attacked or the threat of an attack is imminent its response is defensive in nature. What else is there to debate?

 

What does morality have to do with it? Isnt that the basis of all your charges against arabs? That zionism was a moral project and that therefore anyone against is wrong?

Indeed it does. Indeed it does have a right to defend itself but that doesnt include settling lands it takes. If they do then arabs have a right to kick them out of lands they take. Arab actions are by definition defensive.

When people are attacked after minding their own business living in their own lands, or when people find their lands settled on instead of being given back its response is defensive in nature.

Indeed the arabs have been defending themselves since 1881, what else is there to debate? Id like to know also.

 

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs including the belief that the arab cause is 'just'... Needless to say this is debatable but it's not the topic of this particular debate.The facts are stubborn things though:

Fact: in 1948 Israel was not at war with 7 arab states when they invaded
Fact: in 1967 Israel was not at war with 7 arab states when they attacked (plz spare me this Israel fired the first bullet childish nonsense)
Fact: in 1973 Israe was not at war with Egypt and Syria when they cowardly attacked on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar.

Just because you agree with the Arab cause does not make their actions any less aggressive and Israel's actions any less defensive. Fortunately the defensive nature of wars in not determined based on who you happen to be rooting for and is based on who initiates the hostilities and who wants to exterminate the enemy.

 

FACT.. in 1922 Eruopean socialists had invaded Palestine doubling the population in 15 years..

Doesn't matter.. When the Israelis attack Iran.. Israelis with means and education will be leaving in droves.