I believe the evidence was already provided in post #.44 KlipKlip. Sigh. Here is is again; LEADERS OF P.L.O. DENOUNCE FACTION THAT BROKE TRUCE Even you acknowledge that this occurred during the ceasefire Klipkap; "Well, the date of the NYT piece was July 27, 1981, a few days after the ceasefire started," So, the PLO broke the ceasefire and your proof has been provided now please, do research prior to leaving deposits thanks.
So let us continue this debate (it is the third time, and the facts have not changed one iota) Drew, The reality is that many ceasefire agreements start off on a wobbly foot until everyone toes the line and discipline is instilled down to the last trigger-puller. The same happened with the June 2008 ceasefire in Gaza when it took Hamas a month to get all of the players to respect the agreement - a massive task. Now, to use that one occurrence by a rogue faction as an excuse for the invasion by Israel of Lebanon 11 months later would stretch the imagination of most. Israel is not in the habit of waiting, I can assure you. http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF129/CF-129.chapter6.html So, sorry. That one very early incident involving lack of discipline by some separatist group is not even remotely a justification for a massive invasion 11 months later. It just doesn't wash, Drew. Sorry. So what was the real reason for Israel breaking the ceasefire other than her fictitious claim of rocket-fire from Lebanon? Now, how about Avi Shlaims analysis (click) in his book The Iron Wall (2001) that the real driving force behind the Israeli invasion to Lebanon was the defense minister Ariel Sharon. One of his aims was the destruction of PLO military infrastructure in Lebanon and undermining it as a political organization, in order to facilitate the absorption of the West Bank by Israel. You know - Israels main mission - continuing on the road to achieving Eretz Yisrael. Now THAT is a REAL driver as Ben-Gurion is on record as stating at Severes in 1956. What we really need is some eye-witness reports or impartial analysis of the 1982 War, and that should seal our disagreement as to what really kick-started the war
When they have <LEGAL> reasons to disagree NO! When they are based on whim and brainwash, when they are based on false notions, demographics and lack of knowledge on Israeli Bedouins...YES, YES, YES of course!
How CONVENIENT when it is proven by <DREW> you degrade the situation on account of a 'Rogue faction'... how do you know that? Where you a member of this 'Rogue Faction'? Worthless accusations!!! It is devious and inconsistent with your attacks on Israel to whitewash the Arab Crimes and yet Israel is once again to blame when it retaliates. YOUR MYTHS ARE NOT WORTH A SERIOUS THOUGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please stop the flaming and trolling, as well as other rule violations, if you wish for a productive discussion. Shangrila Site Moderator
Wrong. Wrong because you chose to cherry-pick and ignore a whole heap of my response, HB. I degraded it because that one infraction took place 11 months BEFORE Israel decided to invade. Did you not spot it this time, HB? 11 months!!! 240 days before. It was old news. Stale. Mouldy. Even Begin had forgotten it because he never mentioned it in his attempted justifications for Sharon's Lebanon "adventure" Did you also not spot that the broker of the ceasefire, Philip Habib, admitted that there were no significant breaches until Israel made its Mega-Breach. No? Next, you ask how I knew it was a rogue faction, HB? Because the reference provided by Drew said so. You didn't actually read it? Here, let me help you: But wait, HB, you tried that very some argument about PLO attacks on Israel being justification for Israels invasion of Lebanon not even 8 months ago. Here, let me assist you. My pleasure. Here is where you were provided with a shedload of data conclusively disproving the Zionist MYTH. You might remember it, but then again, maybe not. http://www.politicalforum.com/middl...982-zionists-deny-guilt-3.html#post1061941367 - Click on the foregoing, HB. Don’t care to? OK, let me summarise it for you, but you are going to have to go back to the original for the source references: Israel’s Lebanon War by A. Mack ( Director of the Human Security Report Project at Simon Fraser University and a faculty member of the university’s new School for International Studies.): The Land Beyond Promise: Israel, Likud and the Zionist Dream by Colin Shindler (Professor, University of London; Pears Senior Research Fellow in Israel Studies) : Israel's leading academic specialist on the Palestinians, Yehoshua Porath, pointed out that: Last edited by klipkap; Nov 11 2012 at 01:49 AM. That MYTH is BUSTED!!!
Uh huh. A broken ceasefire is worthless Klip Klap. As stated above, a broken ceasefire is worthless. The PLO should not have accepted if they could not pull it off. The continuation of attacks by the PLO from Lebanon into Israel. 240 terrorist attacks all approved by its leader in Lebanon and carried out across the border throughout Israel and, quite against the ceasefire agreement which states; . Well what bout it? The ceasefire was broken and continued to be broken by the PLO and those are the facts no matter how you attempt to change the curtains its still only window dressing Klip Klap. Yes, a magician who can make the PLOs breaking of the ceasefire over and over again disappear. David Copperfield perhaps?
That MYTH IS ALSO FLUSTERED!!! Rather than waste my time with an irredentist myth maker let me retort with the following two liners. Israel Under Attack: Gaza rocket hits southern Israel as mid east peace talk resume in America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBxD1Bu1JVc&feature=player_embedded And speaking of MYTHS you get the cake.
Here are a few challenges to the credibility of that statement, Drew: 1) When was the ceasefire signed – the date? When did the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (note once again, NOT the PLO as such) start the attack on Israel which you quoted in your reference “LEADERS OF P.L.O. DENOUNCE FACTION THAT BROKE TRUCE”. 2) Why do you hold the PLO responsible? 3) Why did Israel wait for 11 months before invading Lebanon in June 1982, based on that July 1981incident which you claim to be the reason? 4) If that July 1981 incident is your justification, then you must agree that all of the hundreds of trivial “violations” of the ceasefire by the IDF such as prohibited overflights of Lebanon and sending IDF troops across the border, broke the ceasefire on vastly more occasions. Once answered, I am going to presume that the lameness of your position is because you view this July 1981 attack as being part-and-parcel of the 240 subsequent attacks by the PLO that you mention below. Am I correct, Drew? Otherwise, as I said …. old, isolated, mouldy, a rougue faction, way past its sell-by date and hence … Lame!! Here’s where your 240 comes from: You wrote it – “attacks by the PLO from Lebanon into Israel” .... 240 of them. You then quote the terms of the Habib-brokered ceasefire (below) to show that these were broken, even though Mr Habib himself is on record (previously referenced by me) that there had been no meaningful violation of the ceasefire until Israel invaded in June 1982. You have remained silent on his view. In line with Erskine Childers’ advice, can you provide a reference to prove that what you quoted above comes from the terms of the Habib-brokered ceasefire agreement as you said it did? You see, the reason that I ask is that the text that you provided looks remarkably like an excerpt from UN Security Council resolution 490 of 21 July 1981, and not the text of the 24th July 1981 ceasefire agreement as you claimed. It was a UNSC resolution from 3 days before the ceasefire was concluded!! Can you see why I insist on references? Have you made an honest mistake, Drew? I would appreciate some clarity before we continue …. …. (to be continued) – on the DrewBedson quote of “The continuation of attacks by the PLO from Lebanon into Israel. 240 terrorist attacks all approved by it’s leader in Lebanon"
@ DrewBedson If the PLO broke the ceasefire (which it did not), can you explain why you claim it did, yet the conclusion that can be drawn from official Israeli sources, is that they didn't? Very puzzling Here is the interview (click here for source): So there was a ceasefire agreement between the USA and Israel / and then the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine broke that agreement / but the PLO was to blame. WTF!!?? Can we classify that as Lame 2? Perhaps with highlighting?
Nasser made some miscalculations back then. The british and the french were in the process of withdrawing from suez before nasser invaded it, they withdrew all their forces from suez for instance. They intended to hand suez to egypt within a matter of months, but since afterall it were the french and the brits who built the canal but on egyptian soil, they wanted some sort of compromise and official agreement where the british companies would continue to operate certain aspects of the canal, but they would lease the land from egypt. But nasser being nasser wanted fireworks. So the anglo-french alliance got israel to invade the sinai and the resulting opening of hostilities gave anglo-french a pretext for intervention. Moreover, back then everyone was invading everyone else. No sooner was nasser done with suez and sinai demilitarized, that he invaded lebanon in 1958 and then yemen in 1960.
Not sure as it may or may not have actually been signed but, if so, different parties would have signed them at the different times however it came into effect 24 July 1981. 27th I do believe and, they were a faction of the PLO as Arafat referred to them as such. You do know what a ‘faction Is don’t you? It is a group or clique within a larger group which as part of the PLO and fighting alongside them makes them part of the PLO. Uh huh. You seem to be stuck on this point which is fine by me however, if you recall, I stated; So carry on Klip Klap, you amuse me greatly! As for the PLO, they initially broke the ceasefire (if they were even party to it in consideration of your last point) and then continued to break it by committing 240 terrorist acts against Israel. Didn’t say it was the reason. In any case, probably got sick and tired of the 240 terrorist attacks that originated in Lebanon. Nice Strawman by the way. Already addressed this contention and will restate that I did not say that was the reason. Actually they were fairly well armed and effective. In any case, if they were not part of the PLO then attacking Lebanon to get rid of this scum was justified anyhow as they don’t adhere well to ceasefires, or, just were attacking Israel. As for the ceasefire, they outright even denied they were going to follow it. Yep. No. I actually quoted the UNSC Resolution calling for a ceasefire. Please follow the link Klip Klap. Anyhow, he author of your piece, John H. Kelly obviously did not consider 240 terrorist attacks all masterminded and given the thumbs up from the PLO leadership in Lebanon as an attack. Possibly because he wanted his pal's brokered ceasefire to appear as if it were working or, just shared his exhumberence but nonetheless, Israel without denial was attacked from Lebanon by the PLO. I cannot as it seems to be unavailable to my research, possibly you might come up with it however, we can assume that Mr Habib would have been working along those guidelines as those were the orders he was given as I assume he follows the UNSC rather than just makes up his own stuff off the cuff. If you clicked on the link provided you would find you are correct. I certainly can. nd, as Regan said, "trust but verify" Could you be so kind as to produce the conditions that both parties agreed or signed onto on the 24 July 1981 since you seem to feel that they are not what the UN espoused should be those conditions? No. I told you that this is what Habib was working on when he made the ceasefire and comes complete with quote and link. Well then, according to what you just posted there was no ceasefire that the PLO or Palestinians were part of and therefore, Israel was quite justified in responding to any attack coming from Lebanon which would include the 240 terrorist attacks masterminded and green lighted from the PLO leadership there. This, if it is the point you wish to stand onas you seem to be now leaning in that direction, would make my original contention quite correct; Thank you for making this an easy point made Klip Klap Return soon, you amuse me much!
this conversation about cease-fires is funny, as Israel constantly violated the cease fire line with Syria before the 1967 war. The peace accord at the end of the 1948 war had established demilitarized zones (DMZs) between Israel and Syria[52][53] However, as recalled by UN military forces officers such as Odd Bull and Carl Von Horn, Israelis gradually took over portions of the zone, evicting Arab villagers and demolishing their homes; these actions incurring protests from the UN Security Council.[54] Moshe Dayan, the Israeli defense minister at the time of the Six Day War, recounted in a 1976 interview that Israeli policy in the Demilitarized Zone between 1949 and 1967 was "to seize some territory and hold it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us", thus changing "the lines of the ceasefire accord with military actions that were less than a war".[52][55] Dayan related further that in the process Israel had provoked more than 80% of the border clashes with Syria in the lead-up to its April 7, 1967 invasion of Syria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Six-Day_War#Israel_and_Syria
http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/313440-who-did-invading-borat-7.html#post1062955851 Drew (wags finger) you are wriggling on the end of a string. I am glad that I amuse you sufficiently to cause you to do that. You see that UNSC resolution was dated 21 July 1981. That is what you quoted whereas you claimed that it was a quote from the 24 July ceasefire agreement. Naughty? So we can summarily scrap your claim that the ceasefire contained those demands involving “all armed attacks” and “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East as a whole” and “Calls for an immediate cessation of all armed attacks”, and recognise clearly that they were NOT part of the ceasefire terms as claimed by you. Once again Erkine Childers' advice proves to be sound. You have been caught out on a rather serious case of misquoting and/or misrepresentation historical documents. That having been established, we are now in a position to evaluate the only remaining support that you have left for justifyig Israel's June 1982 invasion, namely those 240 PLO attacks from Lebanon, Begin himself not having even bothered to mention that 24th event (on the very day that the ceasefire came into being - 24th July 1981) in his critically important speech to the Knesset aimed at garnering US support. It was too insignificant.. By the way, how many hours after the ceasefire ink was still wet, did that rogue faction not injure anyone in Israel? .... (to be continued) ....
Thought we went over this already when I said “I cannot as it seems to be unavailable to my research, possibly you might come up with it however, we can assume that Mr Habib would have been working along those guidelines as those were the orders he was given as I assume he follows the UNSC rather than just makes up his own stuff off the cuff.” How can we when you have yet to produce anything to the contrary of the UNSC criteria for the ceasefire such as what you referred to earlier? Please, as a Yiddish speaking Zionist, adhere to Childer’s policy and produce this document. Really? I had no idea as this was all I could find regarding documentation of the ceasefire and so quoted and linked to it to show there was nothing nefarious involved until you corrected it and then I explained it as I quoted in the above para. I am still waiting for the actual ceasefire document to appear on this thread though which you must have access to as you infer it doesn’t have the same terms. If it does not then we can assume that it would be identical in meaning if not actual words to UNSC Res 490. So, tighten up your Yarmilke and adhere to Childer's requirement of Zionists please and produce the ceasefire agreement that the parties agreed to which negates the UNSC Resolution terms setting forth the ceasefire Klip Klap. That’s nice. Irrelevant though. Have no idea but obviously after the ceasefire by Arafat’s admission. Don’t forget your actual ceasefire of 1981 my Zionist friend. It is imperative you produce it to not be hypocritical of Childer’s policy.
Drew, here is some sound advice. When you find yourself in an uncomfortable hole .. stop digging. Because all that you are doing is emphasising for everyone to see that what you quoted had nothing to do with the Habib-brokered ceasefire, but you falsely told us that you were quoting from that ceasefire. That is a glaring falsity. What you are doing now is to keep on showing your dirty laundry to your readers. Still, whatever floats your boat. Where in that UNSC resolution did it say that those were the criteria for the Habib ceasefire along the Lebanese-Israeli border, Drew? Once again you are using Strawman concepts to try to atone for your being caught out falsifying documents. Of course we can toss out those all armed attacks and a just and lasting peace in the Middle East as a whole and Calls for an immediate cessation of all armed attacks from the Habib ceasefire since you have NEVER been able to demonstrate that the ceasefire terms contained anything of the sort. And now you expect me to do your failed research for you!! Drew, why is it me who has to produce that document? It is you who are using false logic so as to try to pass your failed monkey onto MY back. It wont wash. I have been around the debating rink for too long. I know the standard tricks. It was YOU and HBendor who claimed that the PLO had broken the Habib July 1981 ceasefire. And you have so-far failed utterly to show this. All that you have served up so far is: 1) That on the day, the very day, that the ceasefire was agreed, a rogue element in Lebanon continued with ineffective attacks. They were severely chastised by the PLO leadership for this. Whoop-dee-doo, what a huge crime by the PLO. 2) That this was part of the 240 subsequent attacks while the ceasefire was in force by the PLO from Lebanon on Israel. The former (1) is puerile as an excuse for an massive invasion by Israel 11 months later. We can dump that. Begin dumped it. So all that you are left with is claim (2) of the 240 attacks, and these attacks had better be linked to the Habib ceasefire and not to the UNSC resolution.. Here is some more evidence that you are wrong: Sharon: The Life of a Leader (by his son) - by Gilad Sharon (august 2011) http://books.google.es/books?id=jLq...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false So, Drew, BOOOOM!!! goes your presumption that the Habib ceasefire had to have been based on the 21 July 1981 UNSC resolution - all armed attacks and a just and lasting peace in the Middle East as a whole and Calls for an immediate cessation of all armed attacks. Destroyed!! It only applied to the Israel-Lebanon situation./b] That was Sharon's big concern. End of story.
... (continued) ... It is time to check these claimed 240 attacks from Lebanon which are supposed to have violated the Habib ceasefire. http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/02/sab2-f23.html So it was ISRAEL who was the aggressor .... violating the ceasefire hundreds of time ....... and it was the PLO who was observing it. Check the title of this thread, Drew. Check your claim that Israel was entitled to retaliate against the PLO in reaction against the PLO's violations of ceasefires. Let me give you even more proof that this claim is false. I am so please that my referenced and factual responses amuse you, Drew.
Why thank you Klip Klap. Have you brought your ceasefire agreement with you today to show that the Palestinians did not violate it? So to you, a UNSC Resolution is meaningless? Strange, you put much stock in the non binding 242 yet here, a UNSC Resolution calling for immediate cessation of all armed attacks is treated like it was chopped liver. When you show us this ceasefire agreement we shall examine it but as to our discussion, it remains legend only. Not at all. We can surmise that given the lack of Habibs ceasefire that it contained the exact same requirements as UNSC 490 did otherwise, it would be in violation of that particular resolution wouldn't it. Because you are the one who is attempting to make the point that it is not the saem with the saem terms as 490. Put up or put out please Klip Klap. Never said it was big, it was the initial breaking of the ceasefire and it was the Arabs that broke it. Well, they are in violation of the UNSC Rolutions which would claim that the Habib Ceasefire was in violation of the resolution if we could actually see it. But you don't dare produce it as it would destroy your silly point. A book written by a relative. How quaint Klip Klap! The ceasefire please considering that is what you state is different from UNSC 490. Wow. And this violation was after the attack by the Rogue element of the PLO and during the terrorist attacks in Israel? Not much factual about a hate Sharon opinion piece from the World Socialist Web Site. You do continue to amaze me where you and your pal Erkine doctor your criteria for pretending your not a Zionist.
No. That is your job. You originally offered the fact that the PLO broke the ceasefire as justification for Israel's invasion 11 months later. Now you ask me to provide the agreement. Sorry, I don't fall for that obvious attempt to pass the monkey. It's your monkey; go do your own research. It was you who quoted the UNSC 490 and claimed it was the terms of the ceasefire. I pointed that out you. Otherwise UNSC 490 is off-topic. Very naughty to make such a falsifiable claim, Drew. You were caught out. Strawman, Drew. Crystal clear. Stick to the point. We are not debating that UN resolution; it is off-topic. Your diversionary tactic failed. Yes, it is sad, isnt it, Drew. Israel violated it hundreds of times while some rogue faction from Lebanon violated it once on the first day. Given those verifiable numbers, who is guilty of the greater disregard, Drew? Come on. Quit wriggling and do the math.. See the first point above. You used it as a justification, so you provide it. You claimed to have the ceasefire text and to be quoting from it when you knew that you werent. Very naughty. Now you try a deflection by demanding that I provide it. You were caught out Drew, original false representation and now an attempted deflection so as to hide your track record. Now you have added trolling to your list of bad-spiritedness. You were shown in the words of Sharons son that the ceasefire only applied to Lebanon, whereas UNSC 490 applied to the whole of the Middle East and all borders. You have been caught out for a third time, Drew. Great!! So they broke it once. You have also been shown that the so-called 240 PLO attacks from Lebanon on Israel are Zionist Myths. There is a shedload of evidence demonstrating this. I detect the Isaiah 42:20 syndrome. See first and fourth points, Drew. You were caught out claiming to be quoting the Habib ceasefire when in fact you knew full well (and have admitted it) that you were quoting UNSC 490. That was VERY naughty of you. That relative shows that the ceasefire only applied to attacks from Lebanon, Drew. Your second trolling venture. You were caught out misrepresenting documents Drew. You go find the real one. No, Drew. It is not this (singular) violation; it is 2767 Israeli violations versus 1 by the opposition, and that 1 was on the day of the ceasefire and can easily be ascribed to implementation lag. The PLO leadership, according to your own reference, soundly chastised the culprits, and you try to make it a point against the PLO. But Drew, what about the UNIFIL reports which state that between 16 July 1981 and 4 June 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon THERE WERE ZERO BREAKINGS OF THE HABIB CEASEFIRE BY THE PLO VERSUS 2767 BY ISRAEL. Why are you so quiet on that stunning fact which undermines your whole position and shows that the 240 attacks that you claimed from Lebanon (had to be Lebanon to be in violation of the Lebanon-only Habib ceasefire) are just a Zionist Myth.5 The fact is that there were no 240 attacks which broke the Habib ceasefire, were there Drew? You were caught out yet again. .... (to be continued) .... I will provide you with yet more evidence. Be careful, that hole is getting rather deep. When you are in an uncomfortable hole .. stop digging.
Need more evidence to show the Lebanon-only nature of the ceasefire, and the Israeli lies? Here. Have fun. Arab and Israeli Terrorism: The Causes and Effects of Political Violence ... by Kameel B. Nasr YIKES!!! So you quoted from an agreement that was never written down. Where did you find it, Drew? Oh, and here is yet more evidence that the ceasefire which you say the PLO broke, only applied to the Lebanese border, perfectly in line with the evidence previously shown to you from the book by Sharon's son. Existential Threats and Civil-security Relations - edited by Oren Barak, Gabriel Sheffer http://books.google.es/books?id=pE5...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false P. 204 ZEEV MAOZ http://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/25/nyregion/news-summary-saturday-july-25-1981.html Ouch. Only across the Lebanese border. Violations were 2765 by Israel versus 1 by the PLO (and that 1 is dubious) Then Israel broke the ceasefire in a most serious way by invading Lebanon and slaughtering some 20 000+ people. I trust that helps us put into context who breaks ceasefires and who does the invading.
No I did not. Klip Klap, you are in the habit of putting your own strawmen forward in this discussion . For example, earlier, you stated that I said the words ‘non binding’ were found in resolution 242, I did not say that. You also stated that I held the PLO responsible for the invasion when in fact all I have said is that Israel’s actions are borne from ‘Arab Aggression.’ You also stated that I said that Israel invaded because of the actions of the rogue faction of the PLO when in fact I said nothing of the kind. IN this post you once again put words in my mouth claiming I called UNSC Res 490 the 'Habib Ceasfire' when I did not. See, the point I’m making is that you would have a better go of it if you actually addressed the points I do make rather than making up ones that I don’t. Anyhow, we shall carry on with your latest deposit …… You did however, it was a ceasefire nonetheless and you only referred to the ceasefire of July 1981 when you stated Post #37 August 1 so, your continuation of implications that I was doing something underhanded is not appreciated and, will be reported if it occurs again. Hardly. You brought up the "July 1981 ceasefire and, this is the only 'July 1981 ceasefire' who's terms are known. You claim Israel violated the ceasefire when in fact, you have no ceasefire to show that they violated anything so, in absence of, we only have a UNSC Resolution. If you feel that a UNSC Resolution dealing with the issue is not enough to validate that there was in fact an agreement then I’m afraid our discussion is over as there is no evidence of a ceasefire anywhere else. And Klip Klap, if I recall, it was you who brought the point of the ceasefire up to begin with ……. Post #37 August 1 So Klip Klap, what ceasefire are you talking about? I will listen to the reasoned advice of Childer when he asks that all Zionist claims should be verified so please produce this ceasefire agreement or we can surmise that Israel did not break it as it did not exist or, if it did exist, since you cannot show us the terms of it, how on earth do you know without doubt that they broke it and not the Palestinians. Well then I suppose we are debating the non existent ceasefire you brought up a few days ago but for some reason, can’t prove that it existed much less show us what it said or, who actually broke it. What on earth are you going on about now Klip Klap? I suppose you are still talking about some imaginary ceasefire that you keep dreaming of which does not exist otherwise you would show it to us. Hardly naughty as I produced a ceasefire agreement as it was a ceasefire nonetheless and you only referred to the ceasefire of July 1981 when you stated Post #37 August 1 so, your continuation of implications that I was doing something underhanded is not appreciated and, will be reported if it occurs again. What ceasefire are you talking about? Please produce this ceasefire you continue babbling about. And ‘Sharon’s Son?’ Tsk tsk, remember what Childers said about Zionists claims. Strange, UNSC 490 pertains to Lebanon as it states; "The President of the Security Council and the members of the Council, after hearing the report of the Secretary-General, express their deep concern at the extent of the loss of life and the scale of the destruction caused by the deplorable events that have been taking place for several days in Lebanon." Sure sounds like they were talking about Lebanon as they mention only Lebanon by name. Indeed! So, you were fibbing when you said; And now even you admit that you were wrong. Takes a big man Kip Klap but you have shown us that by admitting you were wrong that you can make the leap. Another strawman Klip Klap! Nowhere did I state that that was the fictional 'Habib Ceasefire. And you were outright stating a falsehood when you spoke of a non existent ceasefire. Childers would frown on your Zionist tactics so it is a good thing that I verified that not only did the Arabs break the ceasefire but, that there was no provable ceasefire to break by the time the Israelis invaded. I’m not the one who has introduced it, you were. And, I need not go on your errand to find your proof of something that does not exist to prove to you that you were right, the Arabs did in fact break the ceasefire as you have admitted. Violations of what Klip Klap? A Unicorn? There was nothing to violate according to you. Oh certainly, you have some third hand account from a Zionist but nothing to show us what the terms were to even see if they were violated by anybody. The Habib Ceasefire? Show us this Habib Ceasefire please. Unless of course it is your overworked imagination along with that of a few Zionists whom Childers has said that we should be very careful to verify so, please verify your Yiddish friends contentions by producing this ‘Habib Ceasefire’ please. After all, you are the only one here that speaks Yiddish. Actually there were more but that can wait for you to show us that there was even a ceasefire to break and, if there was, what the terms were so we can see if any were broken. Don’t bother. If your investigation has not yet uncovered that there was a ceasefire then I’m afraid you have nothing but an empty cup Klip Klap. Childers said to verify Zionists claims so, please produce your proof of this phantom ceasefire that you refered to when you said’ “ the PLO promised not to attack Israel, and Israel would not attack Lebanon.” 240 terrorist attacks from the PLO throughout Israel so I’d say the ceasefire was broken – assuming there even was one other than the UNSC one. Well, mine was from higher authority and was written down Klip Klap. Trumps your fantasy one in a huge way. United Nation Security Council Resolutions Archieve. I see you got yours from a book by somebody with a conspiracy to sell. “ the PLO promised not to attack Israel, and Israel would not attack Lebanon.” “Reportedly?” Sorry, your own source stated; “ the PLO promised not to attack Israel, and Israel would not attack Lebanon.” PLO faction broke it first and the PLO continued with 240 terrorist attacks contrary to the agreement which your source said that; “ the PLO promised not to attack Israel” Yes. The PLO breaks them shortly after they agree and then continue to attack with terrorism as “ the PLO promised not to attack Israel” So, to sum up; - you introduced this fictional 'Habib Ceasefire' and claim Israel broke it so, it is up to you to produce it's terms from a non Zionist affiliated reliable source (which, is a source that is impeccable and one Childer's would not need a second source to verify it's accuracy) - you stated only the July 1981 ceasefire and I produced this in the form of UNSC 490 which states it is a ceasefire agreement so, there is nothing wrong as it is just what you stated - a July 1981 ceasefire agreement - the PLO broke the ceasefire first - your sources stated that “ the PLO promised not to attack Israel” yet they did - and, you like to build strawmen as detailed at the beginning of this post. So, we are making headway here Klip Klap!
Soooo …. Are you now saying that you DO NOT HOLD THE PLO responsible!!?? Let us test that, shall we? Drew, this is how you started in this thread: Are you trying to tell us that in this thread’s context you were referring to some other ceasefire that the PLO was meant to be upholding, other than that brokered by Habib? Surely you jest. When I responded by offering to include the breaking of ceasefires, you replied: In response to my post asking if you denied that the PLO was observing the Habib ceasefire, you posted: No reference to Arab Aggression, all focused on the fact that the PLO chastised a rogue group for continuing attacks a few hours after the Habib ceasefire had been agreed. And what was your very next post in response? Here it is: Again no reference to Arab Aggression. And the next one? No reference to Arab Aggression and all aimed at the fact that the attacks by that rogue group on the day that the ceasefire was formulated amounted to PLO breaking of the ceasefire. And your next post? Yet now you claim that in the specific case of Lebanon you were referring only to Arab aggression and not to PLO ceasefire violations. You used Arab Aggression" once and "PLO broke ceasefire 14+ times, yet now you claim: Good grief, Drew, every time we test a claim of yours it turns out that you have been verbally wriggling. Some may use stronger words.
You wont mind if I test your claim, would you, Drew. You therefore wrote the ceasefire agreement which states and then provided a piece of text extracted from UNSC 490. And now you feign indignation that you once again put words in my mouth claiming I called UNSC Res 490 the 'Habib Ceasfire' when I did not You have been caught out a 6th time, Drew. When you find yourself in an uncomfortable hole .. stop digging.
