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

Nonsense, first of all On the eve of the war, Egypt massed approximately 100,000 of its 160,000 troops in the Sinai, including all of its seven divisions (four infantry, two armored and one mechanized), four independent infantry brigades and four independent armored brigades. No fewer than a third of them were veterans of Egypt's intervention into the Yemen Civil War and another third were reservists. These forces had 950 tanks, 1,100 APCs and more than 1,000 artillery pieces.

Second, the quote is unconfirmed, you failed to provide a link, it either did not happen or in the typical manner of the Israel-hate mob it was taken totally out of context.

As I said earlier Nasser might have preferred a victory without a war but if he truly wanted peace he would have restored the status quo (the Straits, peacekeepers and no troops on Israel's border).

 

I found the following:

'"In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."
Menachem Begin, leader of Gahal Party, cited in New York Times, Aug. 21, 1982.

"To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analysing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal [Israeli army]."
General Matityahu Peled, cited in Ha’aretz, March 19, 1972.

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

"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defence Minister in
1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the
firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and
the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan
Heights did so less for security than for the farmland... They didn't
even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to
plough some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the
demilitarised area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start
to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance
further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And
then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's
how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a
threat to us.'"
The New York Times, May 11, 1997.'

http://www.footballanarchy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13988&start=30


Thanks for making me go and find it people....sheesh.

It took me all of 30 seconds and a Google search.

Typical chat forum debate...people type 6 billion words when about 100 will suffice.



This does suggest that Israel's attack was an offensive action - not defensive.

But it still changes virtually NOTHING as far as I am concerned.


As I typed earlier - imo, the Arab-Israeli war was continuous from 1948 until signing of the Camp David accord.

And if either side saw an opportunity to get an edge, they took it...as they should.

It's war.

That is why I do not fault Israel IN THE SLIGHTEST for it's attacks in 1967

AND

that is why I do not fault Egypt IN THE SLIGHTEST for it's attacks in 1973

It was war.

And considering Israel was fighting for her survival and the Arabs were just fighting to destroy Israel - I morally side MUCH, MUCH more with Israel DURING THAT TIME.


You do not agree - so be it.

 

So would you agree then that the Arabs states had the right to invade Israel?

 

Israel has been rewriting history since the TORAH............

 

I don't, but I do thank you for your participation.

 

Forget it....I asked you twice and you still have to ask which questions?

Clearly you are ignoring what I type unless it is exactly about what you wish it to be about.

 

Statement to the Security Council by Foreign Minister Eban, 6 June 1967:

An army, greater than any force ever assembled in history in Sinai, had massed against Israel's southern frontier. Egypt had dismissed the United Nations forces which symbolized the international interest in the maintenance of peace in our region. Nasser had provocatively brought five infantry divisions and two armoured divisions up to our very gates; 80,000 men and 900 tanks were poised to move.




A special striking force, comprising an armoured division with at least 200 tanks, was concentrated against Eilat at the Negev's southern tip. Here was a clear design to cut the southern Negev off from the main body of our State.



For sixteen years, Israel had been illicitly denied passage in the Suez Canal, despite the Security Council's decision of 1 September 1951 [Resolution 95 (1951)]. And now the creative enterprise of ten patient years which had opened an international route across the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba had been suddenly and arbitrarily choked. Israel was and is breathing only with a single lung.


In short, there was peril for Israel wherever it looked. Its manpower had been hastily mobilized. Its economy and commerce were beating with feeble pulses. Its streets were dark and empty. There was an apocalyptic air of approaching peril. And Israel faced this danger alone.


We were buoyed up by an unforgettable surge of public sympathy across the world. The friendly Governments expressed the rather ominous hope that Israel would manage to live, but the dominant theme of our condition was danger and solitude.


Now there could be no doubt about what was intended for us. With my very ears I heard President Nasser's speech on 26 May. He said:
"We intend to open a general assault against Israel. This will be total war. Our basic aim will be to destroy Israel."


On 2 June, the Egyptian Commander in Sinai, General Mortagi, published his Order of the Day, calling on his troops to wage a war of 'destruction against Israel. Here, then, was a systematic, overt, proclaimed design at politicide, the murder of a State.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign R...atement to the Security Council by Foreign Mi

 

Again with the questions and you cannot bother to answer mine - even though I asked one of them twice.

Your debating skills are 'interesting'.

 

As you wish.

 

Furthermore:



'The Arab measures went beyond mere saber rattling or power projection. Arab states did not plan simply to attack Israel to dominate it or grab territory; their objective was to destroy Israel. Their own words leave no doubt as to this intention. The Arabs meant to annihilate a neighboring state and fellow member of the UN by force of arms:3

“We intend to open a general assault against Israel. This will be total war. Our basic aim will be to destroy Israel.” (Egyptian President Gamal Abdel- Nasser, May 26, 1967)
“The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.” (Egyptian Radio, ‘Voice of the Arabs,’ May 18, 1967)
“I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.” (Syrian Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad, May 20, 1967)
“The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified.... Our goal is clear – to wipe Israel off the map.” (Iraqi President Abdur Rahman Aref, May 31, 1967)
Arab declarations about destroying Israel were made preceding the war when control over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (or Sinai and the Golan Heights) were not in Israel’s hands, and no so-called Israeli occupation existed.

That is why the UN Security Council recognized that Israel had acquired the territory from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria not as a matter of aggression, but as an act of self-defence.'

http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/10/resolution_242.htm


To expect Israel to just sit back and do nothing while virtually all their neighbours are openly calling for their extinction is naive in the extremis.

 

Please do not chop up my post without at least showing that you chopped it up.

I typed the following:

'Forget it....I asked you twice and you still have to ask which questions?

Clearly you are ignoring what I type unless it is exactly about what you wish it to be about.'


So you ignore repeated questions put to you, but continue to expect others to answer yours and you re-post members posts in whatever form you feel like.




Have a nice day.

 

I can chop up whatever I please to chop up. You have asked numerous questions in this thread in a number of various posts. What is the harm in asking you to direct me to the exact post?

 

Where did I say you could not (oh, that's right - you don't answer questions, you only ask them)?

I simply asked you not to.

You reject my request...what a shock.



Have a nice day.

 

Where did I say that you said that I could not?

You did not ask, you simply made a statement; I replied with one of my own.

Indeed.

 

Okaaaaay.


You have a nice day now.

 

Likewise!

 

Why are you consistently lying here? You tell me here you 'have no intention of getting into some pointless debate with biased people on a subject that happened over 40 years ago.'

Then you exactly that with Goomba. Then you wont even direct him to a question you wish answered.

If you dont want a discussion, refuse to either ask or answer questions, and feel free as you do to demand unbiased facts from me while quoting 'mythsandfacts' website then really you hhave no place in discussion with us and really should GO AWAY.

 

Well, I guess I got caught up in it despite my best wishes.

You have a problem with that...tough.


Have a nice day.

 

Indeed you did get caught up in it. Now thats over its time for you to leave as youve stated you want to.

If you want to discuss something with us then please say so.

But really for now, since we dont know if youre next response is going to demand we provide you proof according to your own unspecified detail or you telling us that you dont want to discuss this and that history with us its really best you cease discussion with us.

 

You're funny - though I doubt it is intentionally.

And the fact you want me to leave just makes me want to stay just that much more.


Have a nice day.

 

LOL. Great.

Now you want to stay and discuss things with us. Hopefully you wont tell us you dont want to discuss 40 year old history, then proceed to do exactly that!

Going forward, please describe to us what constitutes proof to you and what sort of things you think are theoretical and factual - after all, the egyptian military build up and the Israeli generals assessment of that is not really factual according to you.

Clearly Im both unintentionally funny, and far too stupid to see through to what constituets reasonble evidence.

 

Read my posts.

 

People who post up stuff from mythsandfacts should not try and debate on forums as they will get their ass handed to them. That site is full of myths and very short on facts. I have read your posts and really they are not that great and you have been soundly thrashed on this thread but still have the need to come back and post one liners or even as above 3 words.

 

Are you saying those quotes are inaccurate?

Where is your proof if you are?

 

Well being as they are written by a rightwing zionist nutter I would say that they are probably not correct/disinformation/not presented in context,of course you are free to believe any BS that Eli E Hetz writes on his propaganda site,and you do. Also you have already been proven wrong about Arab plans to invade Israel.