Saudi prince: If Israel quits Arab land, it could join Arab world

Few days ago she was claiming that 750,000 Palestinian refugees are result of 1967. war! So now you know who you are dealing with.

 

no, I meant, who started the war? as about the troops, does that mean Nasser wanted war? if you think so, this is not what Israeli leaders think:

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

 

I agree with your point. Israel should have waited until those 100,000 troops and 1000 tanks went rolling into Israel before doing anything about it. That makes total sense

Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and Syria amassing troops at the border threatening to wipe you off the face of the earth; with Syria already attacking from the Golan Heights isn't a friendly gesture; now is it?

If they didn't want to have their land taken, maybe they should have played nicely.

 

so in other words, you are saying, Israel security was their main concern, so they decided to launch a primitive ( did I spell it correctly?) war, this could be true, but the sequence of events, after the war, does not say so:

"Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should guarantee Israel's security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967. The UN Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the Soviet Union - then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs - into compliance. As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force. Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest would be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.

"The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States. The proposal, however, was flatly rejected by Israel. 'The whole affair disgusted Fulbright,' writes [his biographer Randall] Woods. 'The Israelis were not even willing to act in their own self-interest.'" Allan Brownfield in "Issues of the American Council for Judaism." Fall 1997.[Ed.-This was one of many such proposals]

 

as for Golan, Israel leaders also have something to say about it, I posted it before, but you missed it:

 

It was also about Egypt denying Israel access to the Strait of Tyran (sp?), which violated the law of sea accord.

The UN has shown itself incompetent. Given recent history, I wouldn't have accepted that either. It's hard to believe you'd see this as a good compromise; given the UN's awful history of actually resolving a problem.

 

I really don't care what people's opinions are.

Putting hundred thousand troops and weapons at your border, from at least 4 countries, while threatening your existence, sealing off the strait of tiran and having one of those countries already involved in attacks on your country. All provocation. I'm stunned that you actually believe otherwise.

As I said, if they couldn't play nice, don't moan about your losses when the inevitable happens.

 

Those were not normal people, those were decision makers at that time, maybe we should not take with their opinion and take yours? but why?

better if we have our own opinions, you can of course have whatever opinion you want, but was it really your own opinion?

 

Israel is the last state on planet earth that can complain about someone else is breaking international laws or not fullfiling UN resolutions. Don't be such hypocrite.

One just needs to look at what zinoist saw as their Israel in 1919. (long way before any war started) and he will know who started all those wars and way...

Zionist map from 1919.:

source

See any similarities to todays Israeli borders?
Yeah, they didn't started all those wars to grab some more land...

 

I see you are completely ignoring the reality of the situation now. Affixing on something irrelevant. That's fine.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E4D91239F932A25756C0A961958260

Let's put this in perspective, shall we?

 

So you agree that UN resolutions are useless. Yet, you probably think that Israel should have agreed to a UN resolution after the 67 war. That's interesting.

 

it would be very interesting to know what they will come with as a result of this revision, and hopefully, it will open the door for many other revisions.

 

You didn't get it. Israel will break any international law that they don't like but will complain when someone else breaking ti. Israel will not fullfil or follow any of UN resolutions that considers them but will complain when someone else don't accept or follow same resolutions. There's no better example of double standards than Israel and international laws and UN resolutions.

You mean, let's twist this because it doesn't sound good for our cause, right?

 

I know; it's not like Egypt expelled unef prior to the war; denied Israel access to the Strait of Tiran before the war, in violation UN resolutions. Let's only talk about Israel. I know how it goes. It's okay. Really. Those jews won't kill themselves.

 

Yeah it's all about anti-semitism....
Can you came up with other tactic when you don't have any single argument? That anti-semitisim card is already damn too many times played here

 

I've already done the historical one and the common sense one. Those didn't get through. So I'm bored with ya'll. What can I say

 

But somehow you avoided to comment map I've posted. Map didn't get through, huh?
That map explains all the wars between zionists and the arabs. Just use common sense and you'll see.

 

sorry to say, you have done nothing of much value, your historical one covered what Nasser did pre-1967 war without giving any attention to what Israel did pre-1967 war,

and your common sense, did not notice the expansionist policy of Israel that started much longer before 1967 and which make a threat to Arabs but your common sense saw the threat Nasser made to Israel by closure of Tiran, even though they have Mediterranean coasts, and ports there for their ships,

I of course do not expect you to have a different opinion than what you already have, even before knowing that 750,000 Palestinian refugees are result of 1948 not 1967, but I think its good always to know any info regarding to an event,

there were signs that Israel is going to war soon and more expansion, in 1966 and the bad economic situation in Israel, the unemployment rate, and the need for more immigrants, and for more lands, its worth to mention that Nasser accepted the UNEF, on the other side Israel refused them, so the UNEF were only on one side which is the Egyptian, and Nasser kept the right of expelling them anytime,

there was no immediate hostile action from Egypt and USA sent this fact to Israel, Egypt vice president then agreed to meet with president Johnson of USA to discuss the issue of Tiran, the visit was scheduled on June 7th, but Israel acted before this and started the war on June 5th,

President Johnson himself after leaving the white house declared that Israel doubled-crossed him in May-June 1967

they wanted war, because they wanted to expand,

now, for the common sense part, if it was really about Israel security, not cos they wanted land, then what stopped them from accepting the proposal in 1970?

and what about that map iggy posted, was it fake? doesn't it speak loudly that Israel wanted the land they occupied in 1967 much longer before 1967?

in addition to the map, they did not feel any kind of embarrassment to declare such ambitions , this is a threat for Arabs.

 

No, the real threat for arabs is this:



And this:

 

Have you read the imad's post ? And is a picture only your answer to it ?