Israel a historical Aggressor, not only re Iran?

We have now seen the following examples of Israel's wish for peace:

1) Ethnic cleansing of 600 000+ Palestinians, most of them long before the Arab countries attacked in late May 1948
2) Unilateral declaration of independence in violation of the Mandate for Palestine, the San Remo resolution, the Balfour declaration and UN General Assembly resolution 181.
3) Naked aggression and collusion via an offensive strike in 1956 against Egypt ("Suez") in pursuance of the Zionist goal of Eretz-Yisrael
4) Impeccably documented provocation of Syria in 1966/1967
5) An offensive first-strike against Egypt in June 1967, largely because of internal Israeli tensions, and justified by a 'causus belli' of the closure of the Straits of Tiran, pretending that Nasser was not justified in denying her "innocent passage", even though she had not used the passage for years.

But before we move on beyond 1967 to seek more Israeli mega-aggressions, shouldn't we first check two major incidents, the first being what happened to the Mandate for Palestine between May 1948 when the British left Palestine, and the date when it was due to expire, August 1948. Ever wondered exactly how the Mandate for Palestine fizzled out?

In fact Britain handed over administration of the Mandate to the UN. The UN in turn created a mediatory position occupied by Count Folke Bernadotte. Bernadotte had saved thousands of Jews during WW2 through his mediation. He was meant to facilitate the spirit of UNGA 181 by fomenting negotiations between Israel and the Arabs, and seeking an alternative to "181", acceptable to both parties. What happened was that ...

.... Zionist terrorists assassinated him. Wasn't that a nice "thank you"?

The terrorist assassins were a group of armed men led by Avraham Stern, belonging to the Lehi organisation. See page 212 of Tucker et. al.'s Encyclopaedia of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The same Lehi had approached Nazi Germany during WW2, soliciting cooperation, just as the Mufti of Jerusalem had done, but Zionist carefully avoid mentioning that, while castigating the Mufti.

The Lehi, together with the other major Israeli terrorist organisation, the Irgun, were responsible for the Deir Yassin massacre in 1948, part of the process mentioned in 1), above. The leader of the Irgun was Menachem Begin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun]. Begin was later to become Prime Minister of Israel.

We will meet Begin again when we get to Israels grossest of all its offensive attacks - in 1982, against Lebanon, when we will see how he witheld crutial information from the Knesset, so as to "justify" yet more naked Israeli aggression.

But before we go there, we still need to visit "The Affair", to show Jonsa another reason why his response, quoted above, is incorrect.

 

Klipkap,

I just want to say, sir, that I appreciate your posts on this subject which are extremely lucid and informative. I enjoy reading your contributions very much and garner a great deal of 'debating ammunition' from them. I congratulate you. Keep up the good work.

As Jonsa has failed to substantiate his claims against you in post 106, I hope you follow through with your complaint to the mods.

 

Hi, i think that real Jews are not Zionists. You are looking for "first aggressor", so the second one would be right...(?) It's an old way to keep people "separated" and confused. Many people mix religions with governments, supposing that palestinian think to Islam, instead of food or life... Isreael-Palestine is a problem created by British. Like India-Pakistan etc.. "Western countries" caused the leadership of Khomeyni (etc...), supported Gheddaffi ($ €) and Saddam (against Iran), not extreme islamics, and Bin Laden (against SSSR)... However, they all were good clients to sell weapons, and casually in nations full of OIL (or strategic areas), opium etc... $$$
Now Israel has far-right governments and diffused "philosophy", atomic bomb and Mossad.
"They" have killed Yitzhak Rabin, so "they" are the first that don't want peace.

 

Israel is really occupying its own realm!

The Arab Conquests

The early history of Islam is that of the Arab Conquests. Mohammed, the prophet through whom the religion of Islam was revealed, himself united the Hedjaz under his own rule and laid the foundation for the political unification of Arabia. After his death, fired by the new religion and led by his successors, the Arab-speaking tribes of the desert poured in successive waves into the failing empires of Persia and Byzantium, exhausted by recent long and violent wars with each other. These tribes overthrew the Sasanids, drove back the Byzantine Roman Emperor, and in less than a hundred years had swept over Persia into Central Asia and India, over Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, and finally into France, where they were stopped in AD 732 by Charles Martel near Poitiers.

Mohammed died without leaving instructions as to whom should succeed him in his temporal functions, and the body of believers therefore resorted to the election of a successor (Khalifa, hence caliph'), who ruled from Medina. Factions soon appeared, however, and of the first four caliphs (632-661) only the first died a natural death, the other three being murdered. In this short period, nevertheless, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, North Africa as far as Tunis, Iraq and Persia were all conquered. In 66 a member of the Mecca aristocratic family of Omayyad seized the caliphate with the support of a large moderate body among the Muslims, and so became the first of the Omayyad Dynasty which ruled from Damascus till 750. Meanwhile however, a minority had given their support to Hussein, the son of Ali, Mohammed's male next-of-kin who, after being three times passed over in the elections of caliphs, had finally been set aside in favor of the first Omayyad; Hussein was killed in a rising at Kerbela in 680, but his partisans, the Shi'i, continued to plot in favor of his descendants.

The height of Arab power was reached under the Omayyads, whose generals conquered the East as far as central Asia -and India, north West Africa, and Spain. A political movement originating in Persia, the success of which meant the end of Arab racial supremacy in the Empire, overthrew the dynasty. A new dynasty, the Abbasid (750-125 established themselves in Iraq, and in 762 founded Baghdad as their new capital. The Muslim Empire achieved great prosperity under the Abbasid (especially Harun ar-Rashid ' 786-809) and outshone any other part of Western Eurasia in cultural brilliance; but before 850 the Abbasid caliphs had lost their personal power to semi-independent provincial governors, often Turkish mercenaries converted to Islam, and remained no more than the titular Lords of the Empire. In the tenth century rival caliphates were proclaimed by the Fatimid dynasty, ruling in North Africa and Egypt, and by the survivors of the Omayyad dynasty, ruling in Spain. In 1055 the Abbasid caliphs accepted the 'protection' of the Seljuk Turks, a warrior people from Central Asia who had been converted to Islam, and established an empire extending from India to the Aegean. It was Turkish princes in north Syria and the Kurdish dynasty founded by Saladin in Egypt in 1171 that broke the attempt of the Crusaders to establish a frontier kingdom in the Levant (1099- 1291). In the thirteenth century pagan Mongols from Central Asia also four times invaded the Muslim world, and these invaders were also thrown back by Turkish slave troops (Mamluks) who had been ruling Egypt, Palestine, and Syria since I250.


Who is kidding who... The occupiers are the Muslims and not visa versa.

 

Undoubtedly there was ethnic cleansing. However, many of the palestinians left to avoid the hostilities they knew were coming. Or do you think that they didn't know they were living in the path of the triumphant arab armies that were about to push the jews into the sea? This notion that they all left at gunpoint is as spurious as Israel claims that nobody was forced out.

Semantics, like I said. the arabs rejected the partition plan as well. And it sure as heck wasn't a surprise to any of the players (UN and arabs included) that Israel declared independence.

Collusion with the british and french when Nasser nationalized the Suez. Israel was the tool and darn it, they did exactly what their supporters wanted them to do. That this action expanded Israeli territorial control over the entire sinai was a bonus.

Yep. provocation met provocation. somehow you seem to blissfully ignore arab actions. Let's not mention the continuous commando raids and shellings and terrorist attacks. Two belligerants being belligerant, but of course from your perspective it was all the Israelis fault. I might add that as far as the arabs were concerned, it didn't matter what the Israelis did, their mere existance was and still is to many all the provocation required.

Er, what about the mutual defence treaty with Syria signed that spring? Or Nassar kicking out the UN peace keepers? Or moving in a couple of divisions of the army into the Sinai? We will also conveniently forget the speeches ol' Nassar was making. Not that the massing of Syrian troops and tanks was any indication that they were spoiling for a fight, it was simply a day outing for "bonding" purposes.

Well we know Bernodottes assassination was four months after the declaration of independence and after his first two proposals for a peaceful resolution (the first being a single state and the second a two state solution) were soundly rejected by both the arabs and the jews. that does in no way justify his assassination which was was definitely a criminal terrorist act. But his assassination wasn't the reason the mandate "fizzled out", and I would take exception to describing the enormous animosity of both sides and the declaration of war by the arab nations immediately following Israel's declaration as fizzling out.

And as for the war, it kinda backfired on the arabs. Four of the five arab armies were totally incompetent and fumbled and bumbled into harms way. The Jordanian army had its stuff together and try as they might the Israelis couldn't wrest Jerusalem from them. Meanwhile, the end result was Israel wound up with 50% more land than when they declared. OOPS.

this idea that the Israelis provoked all the wars in the name of eretz isroel is nothing but revisionist generalization. Perhaps you should read up on the pronouncements from the Arab High Council. Fact is the hostility and anomosity was festering for decades, each side neither wholly right nor wholly wrong.

I contend that Israel attacked first as smart military tactics. they knew they were going to have to fight, so they chose to fight on their terms. Look at Sadat in 73, he chose to to fight on his terms and nearly succeeded, but in the end the arab armies were no match for the Israelis.

 

How convenient not showing the rest of the picture.
The AK-47 has given your negative propaganda away... This picture is not of an Israeli soldier... the IDF does not use Russian armament!

 

That is correct I got the thing reversed because I feel that was all it was, a dog fight, one of a series of responses to the Arab aggressors. Remember I did list ALLl the events and the taunts which the dogfight was a part of, even the dog fight was in fact response to an Arab aggression (again which I detailed with dates times and other information, just check the my reply. I am not going to rehash them as they are already posted (see below) and show that Israel had cause to do a preemptive strike against armies that were massed on the boarder and whey Egypt closed the straights which was an act of war. That was agreed to by the international community and the UN.

As you see again you are; “only to pop up with the same arguments that have been refuted, as if nothing has happened. And a proof of that is in your post quoted above”.. Hey I got to use the same post three times!

Enough said for one post eh?

Rev A

 

And you have yet to respond to either of these. When next you claim that Israel is not an aggressor, I feel it only right that you should be reminded of this unanswered business.

The reason its unanswered business is that I don’t do videos, they are nearly impossible to verify etc. Number two is because I do not do cut and paste answers. I will do a rebuttal if you make the bulk of your rebuttal in your own words and offer up the cut and paste to support YOUR WRITTEN WORDS only. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Btw I have repeated all this several times in the past but maybe you have missed it.

Rev A

 

Accurate in every detail, Kilklap.

The murder of Bernadotte is hard to comprehend.

 

An excellent example of spurious argument.

Of course the arabs were completely innocent. They werent actually going to push the jews into the sea. The Syrians didn't shell Israel nor conduct raids. The Arab high council didn't beat the war drums. The arabs didn't reject the partition plan. the arbs didn't reject Bernadotte'd dotty plans. The arabs were simply bystanders to the actions of the eeeville jooooz.

 

It is of no surprise that they rejected the Partition Plan; indeed, the Plan gave them around 50% of the land when they owned roughly 90% of it.

 

David Ben Gurion; 'Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural, we have taken their country'

I notice the pro-Israelis go very quiet whenever this quote from the father of modern Israel is aired...

 

I don't.
He had a great deal of both insight and vision.

I don't think anyone can argue that the jews didn't come in and take the land. Its kinda obvious. First a handful of jews, then tens of thousands and then hundreds of thousands.

All completely irrelevant today. Israel now exists and the only way its going anywhere is in a big mushroom cloud. The Palestinians exist and the only way they are going anywhere is in forcible transfer or getting caught in the mushroom cloud. So the likelihood of either going away is remote.


here's the whole quote by the way:

""I don't understand your optimism," Ben-Gurion declared. "Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out."

 

Of course its no surprise. After all, it was a yet another UN clusterphuk agreement. But nobody seems to blame the UN and the pitiful post colonial diplomatic attitudes of the Brits and French.

I presume you mean that the arabs should have had ownership of the ottoman crown lands that the English then took over. that land was not owned by individuals.

 

No, that is not what I mean.

"By 1947, estimates of the percentage of Jews fluctuate between 20 percent and 30 percent, depending on whether the percentage includes illegal immigrants. Nevertheless, the territory allocated to the prospective Jewish state by the Partition Plan consisted of approximately half of the total territory of Palestine. Thus, 80 percent of the Arab population of Palestine, who owned 90 percent of the land received approximately half of of the overall territory."2

1 http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg

2 Ben-Ami, Shlomo, & Bassiouni, Cherif (2009). A Guide To Documents On The Arab-Palestinian/Israeli Conflict: 1897-2008. The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

http://www.brill.nl/guide-documents-arab-palestinianisraeli-conflict-1897-2008

 

More than half of the territory allocated to the Jewish state was the Negev desert, uninhabited and unsuitable for human life and agriculture at the time.

 

Another lie, the Arabs owned about 45% of the land, the rest belonged to the Jews and the Government (no not the Arab government, there never was an arab government or an arab state in Palestine).

 

Disregarding whether this is true or not, it is of no issue for the Palestinians. If the Zionists did not want to live in land "uninhabited and unsuitable for human life and agriculture at the time,' they could have simply returned to where they came from. As said, the Palestinians owned roughly 90% of the land, and thus had the right to practice full ownership over said land.

 

You are free to ignore and deny the sources I provided. Indeed, the facts speak for themselves.

 

True.. by 1948 the European Jews had bought about 6 or 7% of the land from absentee Turkish landlords.

 

And the Arabs bought about 40% of the land from absentee Turkish landlords. And they got 50% of the land during the partition, and they got real fertile land, not an uninhabited desert unsuitable for human life and agriculture at the time.

 

The facts are well established that the Arabs owned less than half of the land, no obscure website can change historical facts.

Besides the individual ownership of the land is not even a relevant point. The individual arab land owners within the Jewish partition were supposed to retain their land ownership and their property in the Jewish state. Those who stayed and became citizens (not necessarily loyal but at least not violently hostile) of Israel did. Those who left expecting to come back 2 weeks later with victorious arab armies have themselves only to blame.

That's plain silly, of course they wanted to stay on their land. The point is they got the short end of the partition and the land was not stollen as it did not belong to anyone (what part of uninhabited don't you understand?)

 

After a while of Hitler very few Jews owned much in Germany or Poland. The process organised by your Great Model is not normally regarded as ideal.

 

Interesting reasonable argumentation worthy of a response;

The record shows about half were forced out at gun point or by warfare, the rest fled before hand, this was nothing to do with the soon too be victorious arab armies - it was just the normal reaction of normal people exactly as has happened in every other conflict.

Not really semantics. The arabs had every reason to reject partition. No people in history has ever ever accepted the division of their lands with an immigrant group. The israelis had every reason both to accept what ever they could get and work by hook or by crook to get more.

Sorry but thats a dodge, Klip Klap stated that its naked aggression then you say theyre only doing what they were wanted to do.
Was it naked aggression or not?
And are you really calling territorial gains just an accidental bonus?

Lets not put the cart before the horse here. Syrians did support palestinian raids, they did indeed shell into the DMZ. But that was in direct response to Israeli settlement incursions of developing lands theyd agreed to keep clear with the Syrians after 48.

Good questions. Ill answer each in turn.
Er, what about the mutual defence treaty with Syria signed that spring?
What about it? Both countries had been and were being conventionally attacked numerous times. Its a natrual reaction for parties interested in defence.

Or Nassar kicking out the UN peace keepers? He needed the prestige of egypt being able to defend itself. By the way why do you think Israel didnt just get the UNEF to deploy on its side?

Or moving in a couple of divisions of the army into the Sinai?
Ah, yes. Defensive divisions. Not nearly enough to attack israel. How else does one defend egypt without army divisions?

We will also conveniently forget the speeches ol' Nassar was making. Why forget it? The usual wide arab rhetoric. Should we forget the belligerent israeli statements made over the years and would they be cause for pre-emptive attacks?

Not that the massing of Syrian troops and tanks was any indication that they were spoiling for a fight, it was simply a day outing for "bonding" purposes.
No it was what nations need to do to defend themselves from belligerent powers. If you keep them in the barracks its going to be too late when the enmey moves. A better question would be how much exactly did they form and would that have been enough to invade? Id like your thoughts on that.

Agreed mostly.

No it didnt really backfire, the israelis were already rolling up arab villages. They held positions in the arab areas long enough for more people to get out and the arab legion fought off the Israelis.
Indeed the arabs werent prepared but then they hadnt been planning war for years. If the Israelis didnt have something to slow them down theyd have taken even more.
Your point is bit like emphasing that the British Expeditionary force should never have tried to save france given that they were pushed back to the sea so disastrously - they did what was right.

Well lets be clear, the arabs were always hostile to Israel. And theres never been anything wrong with that as no people has or ever would do differently. Thats just whats morally correct.

Moreover, the israelis did have a choice not to do this immoral act. Given that they chose to create israel - their only consequent choice was to plan for war and ethnic cleasning either quick or slow.

Indeed the israelis chose a surprise attack. And indeed it makes good tactics, but why should they not be thought of as aggressors when for example, the Whermact were always willing to do the same and are generally thought of as an aggressive belligerent nation at the time?

As for Sadat, your forgetting something, the Israelis were sitting deep in and settling on egyptian land. He had no choice and had made every effort to come to terms..

 

I could not agree with you more and that's exactly why Israel was established by the UN as one tiny Jewish homeland to exist alongside 23 huge Arab states. Needless to say the Arabs tried to treat the Jews in Israel just like their WWII ally Hitler treated them in Germany. Needless to say the anti-Israel Islamonazis of all stripes still pretend not to understand (after 2000 years of Hitlers, Inquisitions, pogroms, persecutions, expulsions etc) why Israel was established.