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

Firstly, other numerous works (books and articles) corroborate with the above articles (as I said, I can provide more if the fellow is interested). No one is forcing you to pay (or go to a library) to view the materials-if you prefer blogs and wikipedia, that is wholly understandable.

You have proven (through your constant evading and trolling) that you are very ignorant on the subject. It's best that you just say that you dislike Muslims and stop this whole charade.

 

Lol. There was no going back- Nassar fell in a trap, and each move that was made necessitated the next one. For instance, are you aware of why the Straits were closed? If you are, you will understand why your above post is quite naive and displays a very simplistic outlook on politics in general.

 

Is this a joke?

You expect me to fork over money just to read your articles?

Lol...pass.


Besides, if this article(s) has ANYTHING but unbiased FACTS, I am not interested.

Theories mean little to me...only PROVEN, UNBIASED FACTS.

 

What part of the following that I posted above did you not understand?

'I have no intention of getting into some pointless debate with biased people on a subject that happened over 40 years ago.'

If you have links to unbiased facts, please present them.

Otherwise, I have a life to lead.


Have a nice day.

 

Agreed....

 

Perhaps your local library or university has access to it (mine does). Whats nonsensical about all of this is that you would rather use Wikipedia than read academic articles or books written by scholars on the subject- yet all the while claim that you do not care for 'unbiased facts.' If you are not serious about the subject and don't want to pay (or head to your library/university) to access the materials, it's best not to speak about the subject when your only source is Wikipedia.

Like I said, the above articles are corroborated in other works and include the necessary substantiations.

 

I said nowhere that Wikipedia is all the info I have...I simply used it as 'a start'.

Besides this article which I have to pay to view...do you have a link to an UNBIASED source that can provide UNBIASED FACTS - NOT OPINIONS - that proves conclusively that Egypt had ZERO intentions of invading Israel in 1967?

Yes or no, please?

 

Here is an article that I recently found and read; it contradicts some of the things that I have read beforehand, but nevertheless argues that Nassar had no intention of 'invading Israel'.

http://www.mafhoum.com/press8/244P541.htm

 

Interesting - though it changes little for me.

But this says it all (from the conclusion of your link):

'Nasser chose at each stage not to draw back, motivated by the prospect of high political gains, and knowingly risking war, based on a persistent underestimation of an Israel seen as isolated from effective international support.'

According to your own evidence - Nasser deliberately risked a war.

What do you expect Israel to do when it it is surrounded by enemies and sees obvious signs of a potential attack on her? Nothing?


I am not going around and around on this issue.

UNLESS YOU SHOW ME UNBIASED, FACTUAL PROOF THAT THERE WAS ZERO CHANCE EGYPT WOULD HAVE INVADED ISRAEL IN 1967 - THEN ISRAEL WAS (imo) COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED IN ATTACKING.

I do not understand what is so complicated about this statement.


Are you seriously suggesting that what you showed us above was unbiased, factual PROOF?

Face it - none exists.

It is ALL speculation.

Well written and backed with lots of info...but just speculation.

 

You wanted 'proof' that Nasser had no intention of invading Israel; you are changing the goalposts.

 

Furthermore, this just is one article out of hundreds; it doesn't mention a myriad of things. You can't expect me to provide you with dozens of free academic texts.

 

What changing? I typed above:

'Besides this article which I have to pay to view...do you have a link to an UNBIASED source that can provide UNBIASED FACTS - NOT OPINIONS - that proves conclusively that Egypt had ZERO intentions of invading Israel in 1967?'

And you have not provided that.

And you never will...unless you bring Nasser back to life.

But even if you could, your own evidence proves that Egypt was deliberately provoking Israel...how are the latter supposed to know it is a bluff?

 

Are you going to answer this?


Plus, from your article:

'Finally, the decision not to strike first, but nevertheless to continue to escalate the crisis, is explicable in similar terms. The military establishment seems originally to have supported a first strike, but later bowed to the demands of the president.'

So your own evidence shows that there clearly was widespread desire in Egypt to attack Israel.

 

And you cannot expect me to comment on 'things' you have not presented.


And why you are arguing about a 45 year old war is beyond me.

 

Rabin said that Nasser didn't want war...Published in Le Monde, February 28 1968, while Rabin was The Chief of General Staff for Israel

 

We did not think that Nasser wanted war.

The two divisions he sent to Sinai on May 14 would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.

Published in Le Monde (1968-02-28, while Rabin was The Chief of General Staff for Israel)

 

Link?

So he deliberately provokes Israel...even though he does not want war?

Then he was an idiot.

 

First, you wanted 'proof' that Nassar had no intention of invading Israel (deliberately provoking and intending to invade are not the same thing). Second, are you not aware that Israel too was provoking the Arabs?:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/w...ed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html?pagewanted=1

 

We did not think that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to Sinai on May 14 would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.

Published in Le Monde (1968-02-28, while Rabin was The Chief of General Staff for Israel)

 

And?

10 char

 

I imagine they were.

I am not answering any more of your questions until you answer mine.

 

You do know what a 'link' is, don't you?

I am not saying you are wrong - but I am not taking your word for it (or anyone else's word for ANYTHING on a chat forum).

 

You wanted 'proof' that Nassar had no intention of invading Israel. I provided you with proof. What more do you desire?

 

You to answer my questions?

Why will you not?

 

Which post of yours are you referring to?