Israel a historical Aggressor, not only re Iran?

What do you want exactly?

 

You seem very sensible to me.. I thought it might interest you.

 

Thanks,

If you ask me, i think this whole thing is a hoax, no one will launch an air raid on Iran, i will be very suprised if Israel will,

The objective of this mess i thnik are the sanctions, maby in some attempt to empower the opposition in Iran, sanctions + increased expendure on the military might really hurt Iran, perhaps they try to lure it into attacking Israel first...

 

You mean on the grounds that the aggressor would be seen by Israel to be in breach of international law ?

 

I sure hope you are right.........

 

Klipklap's claims include false quotes and attributions. ItA great deal of it is mis-information generated and repeated ad nauseum by anti-Israelis. that is not to say that there isn't truth in some of his references.

the notion that Israel was the aggressor in the various wars is more a semantic statement than a reflection of reality.

any serious student of the history of the region must concede that provocation was met with provocation. Israel was NOT declaring that the arab world had to be destroyed, but every statement and move by the surrounding arab countries left absolutely no doubt that their intentions were the destruction of Israel and today large swaths of the arab world still harbour such a goal.

The palestinians have never had justice, being pawns of their arab brothers and victims of their own corrupt leadership. NONE of the misery, humiliation and death that has transpired since 67 would have occured if the arabs rejected the three noes and recognized Israel. That was Israel's price for returning the west bank and gaza at the time. (I will concede that Jerusalem wouldn't have been returned under any circumstances).

 

I beg your pardon!!! That is a gross insult!!

You had better come up with some proof about my false claims or I am going to make a serious report against you to the mods.

You have 2 days to prove that I made false quotes. Off you go.

 

Which quotes do you claim are "false"? Which "mis-information" are you talking about? Can you prove that Klipklap is "anti-Israel"?

Attacking other nations and expanding illegal settlements beyond one's borders are aggressive. As such, your "reality" is different from the facts on the ground and has far more to do with fantasy.

Any serious student of history of the region will also acknowledge that Israel exercised, promoted and welcomed provocations, as it continues to do today as seen with the Iran example.

Destroying the Arab world is silly and unrealistic. Destroying Palestine, however, is something that many Israelis advocate and something that the Israeli government practices. Yet, you seem to be far more willing to attack the hated Semites with extremism than to lift a finger against Israeli faults. Blaming all Arabs for the deeds of a few individuals in defense of Israeli crimes is thus a rather imbalanced position for you to take. Such seems like something a member of the KKK would do.

The facts on the ground indicate that you are blaming and condemning the hated Semites in defense of Israeli destruction activities in Palestine while relying heavily on Holocaust abuse in order to fool gullible American Guilt Complex members with fear propaganda of the hated Semites being "evil". Contrary to the needs of your political platform, the hated Semites are not some evil identity which exist for the sole purpose of following the Nazi example to the delight of the Zionist extremist, but rather a complex mixture of individuals who naturally do not approve of Israeli illegal expansion activities.

With this, you are smearing the hated Semites with unconditional racist hostility simply because you are horrified with the thought of Israel recognizing Palestine. Why blame them with racist hatred while knowing that Israel is far to racist to accept Palestine? Many of the hated Semites have often stressed that they would accept Palestine and Israel if only you could do the same. Yet, instead, you continue to shower them with extreme hostility. Any gullible American Guilt Complex member who is smart enough to pull their head out of the sand, can easily see that your one's sided position does not benefit anyone.

 

Youre analysis is skewed Sir.

Israel declared the destruction of the political bodies on which they were no majority in the 40s Palestine and harboured wider ambition long before.

The wishes of majority population were squashed by the zionist council. Destroyed indeed, along with hundreds of villages.

Your three no's miss out the continued offers of peace leading to the 73 war, such as the Jarring initiative.

Please try not to get into an argument over history with us. Ask us for our knowledge first. We do research and argue this stuff all the time.

 

Ah yes; the classic OBY non-response rant. The only thing missing from this utterly predictable and tediously repetitive diatribe is 'stealth jihad'. What's up OBY; need a new hyperbole du jour?

 

If this 'global jihad' is so covert, how come you know all about it? You wouldn't be involved, would you? After all 'covert' means 'secret'...

Come on OBY, spill the beans

 

I remember your accusations and lies well Bendor...
Oh, and I'm technically a Catholic but I'm absolutely pro-Palestine. This must be very confusing for you Bender.

 

I did not claim you made false quotes. I claimed that you posted some false quotes from others. A rather important distinction. But by all means make your serious report.

Notwithstanding that Segev's book is rather controversial. He readily ignores facts that do not support his hypothesis. Most of the new historians do not start with a conclusion and work backward to support it.


See Ben-Gurion's political struggles, 1963-1967: a lion in winter, pages 84-87, 92 - 98.

Dyan did not think that Israel was responsible for the crisis, indeed he thought it was a serious mistake that Israel did not immediately go to war with Egypt when Nassar closed the straights. He also was vocal about what he considered other mistakes made by Israel in the lead up to hostilities including discounting nassars ability to remove the UN troops from the sinai.

Then again EVERYONE knows that Israel's very existence was and is the real reason for all of the bloodshed. Israel didn't have to take any action to be the cause of arab animosity.

BTW, Israel most certainly launched a pre-emptive attack in 67.

Does attacking in self defence make one an aggressor or a defender?

 

Come on now, we all know the covert global jihad is a direct response to the global jewish conspiracy and the covert freemason global conspiracy.

 

Egyptian forces were deployed in Yemen when Israel attacked Egypt.

Read Moshe Dayan's journal.. and Sharett's diary.. published by their children.

 

Thank you for justifying Nazi Germany's aggression during WWII.

 

I think it is an index of extreme saintliness that so many decent people are prepared to spend their only lives answering the totally-mechanical zionist propaganda-machine. As soon as I put another couple of names on ignore more Goebbels-imitators spring up like weeds.

 

No you didn't. Here is your post:

Those words easily suggest that it is I who make the 'false quotes'. But I will let this pass by given your explanation. In future either write unambiguously what you mean, or hold back.

Sorry, but I have to point out a major flaw in your attempted rebuttal. Quotes regarding 1956 and 1966/1967 from Avraham Yaffe, Narkis, Eshkol, Aharon Yariv, Mordehai Bentov, Allon, Colonel Mordechai Bar-On and the like are rare and are definitely NOT repeated ad nauseum as you claim. What is INFINITELY more common and are indeed repeated 'ad nauseum' are claims such as "The 1967 conflict was a defensive war, and as such Israel is allowed to retain the territory that it conquered".

Exactly!! And that is precisely how I described Syria' s response to Israeli provocations along the Golan Heights. If you want to refute my quotes of Dayan and Colonel Mühren on this topic, and show them to be false, then please do. But enough of your lame debating which is equivalent to "No he didn't", and thereby concluding that my quotes are false. You are going to have to dig MUCH deeper than that before your views become even remotely credible.

There is a serious disconnect between the two concepts which you pose in that one sentence. Firstly, yes, Dayan DID think that Israel was responsible for the crisis. He admitted that Israel was the main provoker against Syria, and the 'Syrian affair' was the start of the conflicts.

You then go on to mention his belief that Israel should have have gone to war immediately Nasser closed the Straits. I do not dispute that, because that WAS his opinion. And there is the disconnect in your reasoning. Both sub-phrases are true and they don't contradict each other.

MYTH ALERT!!! MYTH ALERT!!! MYTH ALERT!!!
Your are a cherry-picker. You pick the 3 'Nos' as it that was the only event. Here is the real history.

1) Many Zionists claim that immediately after the June 1967 war, Israel presented the Arabs with a peace plan, including territorial withdrawal, IF they recognised the State of Israel. This Zionist Myth is in fact more than that. It is a blatant lie.
2) The Zionists then interpret the result of the Khartoum resolution (the 3 no's) in September 1967 as a rejection of their peace proposal, clearly a ridiculous interpretation, given that no such proposal was made to any Arab leader.
3) In January 1971 Anwar Sadat made a broad peace offer to the Israelis via UN representative Jarring. Israel responded. On February 15, 1971 Sadat amazed Israel and the US by agreeing to the Israeli demands. Israel then responded that she "would not withdraw to the pre-June 5, 1967, lines". Israel's setting of this prior conditions led to the breakdown of the 'Jarring initiative' and ultimately to the 1973 war.

Your spin, quoted above, becomes more transparent when there full facts are known. Is this also a lie repeated 'as nauseum'? Is it a false quote?

 

So?

I guess closing the straits, kicking out the UN, moving troops into the Sinai, signing a military alliance with Syria that specified that if hostilities commenced with Israel, Egypt would attack, was all window dressing for Nasser to maintain face while he had 50,000 troops running around ineffectually in Yemen.

 

Thaat's the sound bite version.. NO Israeli flagged ship had used the Straits for 14 months before Nasser closed the Straits.. and as soon as he did.. Nasser called for a negotiated peace via the UN.. Israel immediately attacked.

This was a contrivance by Israel because they had planned to take more land and water assets since 1953.

Moving to the Sinai.. Sinai belonged to Egypt.. always had..

 

I knew that you couldn't prove that anyone is "anti-Israel". Normally, when people express political criticism of the faults of a government, people generally argue that such is political criticism.

Yet, when certain faults of the Israeli government are criticized, many Zionists are quick to rely heavily on Holocaust misuse and abuse in defense of such crimes, claiming that political critics are "anti-Israel" or "anti-Israeli" or "anti-Jew", just like how you did so. Why can't you defend certain faults of the Israeli government without relying heavily on the belief that Holocaust misuse and abuse succeeds in fooling gullible American Guilt Complex members? While I do agree with you that certain gullible American guilt complex members have been fooled by such Holocaust misuse in the past, how long do you figure that Zionists will continue to score on their ignorance?

 

The extreme right wing Likud party are nothing sort of a terrorist organization, the biggest threat to Judaism is Zionism.

World leader in the sex slave trade

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11920/Israels-Slave-Trade-Continues-Unabated

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/world/main682673.shtml

http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Israel-2.htm

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3694030,00.html

Israeli women being trafficked abroad

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=54550

Israel: Sex Slavery Thrives - Jewish Tribune March 30, 2006

http://www.nogw.com/download/_07_tel_aviv_trafficked_women.pdf

Rescued: Jewish Mom, 8 Children, After 17 Years as Muslims

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/126886#.TzFFvRRBy5U

Israel admits organ harvesting - The Guardian/JTA Dec 21, 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/08/19/israel.sweden.organ.harvesting/index.html

Advocacy group: Israel is a pedophile's paradise - Haaretz Feb 2, 2010

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/advocacy-group-israel-is-a-pedophile-s-paradise-1.262570

Israel admits using phosphorus bombs during war in Lebanon – Haaretz Oct 22, 2006

http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-admits-using-phosphorus-bombs-during-war-in-lebanon-1.203078

http://harvardhumanrights.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/protocolmemo.pdf

Israel admits using white phosphorous in attacks on Gaza – Timesonline January 24, 2009

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/01/25-4

http://www.expose-the-war-profiteers.org/archive/media/2009/20090124.htm

http://harvardhumanrights.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/sufferingweapons.pdf

Israel: Breaking The Law Is The Rule And Not The Exception

http://ye.vlex.com/vid/israel-breaking-law-rule-exception-216801495

http://com-senfromyem.blogspot.com/2010/10/israel-breaking-law-is-rule-and-not.html

 

Off topic crap. leave us alone.

 

BALONEY... This is UTTERLY disjointed history... undocumented and unsubstantiated!!!


re : Sinai

The Ottoman Turks ruled the entire area in question from 1517 until after 1917 World War I.... when Gen. Allenby liberated Jerusalem and Damascus in 1917.

One has to remember also that the Turco-Egyptian frontier ran from Suez to Rafa.

Turkey granted Egypt at the time ADMINISTRATIVE RIGHTS ONLY up to the line Rafa-Aqaba..

Remember Allenby started his campaign against the Ottoman Empire by freeing the whole of Turkish Sinai; therefore Sinai East of the line Suez-Rafa belonged to Britain by right of conquest until its surrender of course by Israel to Egypt for a Peace agreement.

Prior to that, the Roman and Byzantine Empires ruled it from the 1st through early 7th century C.E.

 

So it was occupied at times... It was still Egyptian because Egyptians lived there.

It never belonged to Britain.. Occupation is NOT ownership.

Do you know and understand the term British Protectorate?