Recent Myth: “Israel does not attack; Israel retaliates”

Hmm, no response to this comment either, right KK/Goomba? Israel (Palestine if you will) being a sovereign entity is invaded by foreign arab powers in violation of absolutely all international laws and norms, how exactly does it fit into the "Israel the aggressor" OP?

And while we are at it, KK or Goomba, do you care to explain why the fate of almost 1,000,000 Jewish refugees from muslim countries was not covered by the OP? It does not fit into your "Israel the aggressor, poor innocent peaceful Arabs/Muslims" narrative I suppose. LOL

 

That's the essence of the OP, why the hell do you address your comments to me and not to KK who started this pathetically absurd one-sided thread?

 

Like I said, both American and Israeli intelligence knew Nasser did not want war. Israel had broken the ceasefire numerous times as well; no ships had passed through the Straits in years (so set aside your hyperbolic nonsense); it wasn't the first time Nasser massed troops on the border; and finally political rhetoric is just what it is- political rhetoric...unless you believe a politician will decrease taxes if he says so. You can't be that naive!

 

Israel broke Resolution 181 and declared unilateral independence; the Zionists were busy ethnically cleansing Arabs at the time, so the Arabs had every right to attack.

 

LOL, it's a well known fact that Israel recognized resolution 181 and implemented it while the Arab world illegally rejected it. Thousands of Jews were murdered by Arab terrorists in Palestine prior to the partition, not the other way around.

That said, are you seriously suggesting that arab countries are above international laws and norms and have the right to attack other sovereign countries just because arabs are involved in an internal conflict in those countries? LOL

You two with KK are good clowns...yet another one of the OP's absurd claims is destroyed - THERE IS NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR ARAB STATES' INVASIONS OF SOVEREIGN FOREIGN COUNTRIES INCLUDING ISRAEL/PALESTINE - EVERY SUCH INVASION IS AN ACT OF ILLEGAL UNPROVOKED AGGRESSION.

 

No. I am quoting to you what Michael Oren wrote - Nasser did not know of the plan - and you are telling me in return that the Israeli author and ambassador lied. You are also telling me that the dozen other Jewish leaders that I quoted also lied.

Listen up folks: According to Borat, Yitzhak Rabin lied. Menachem Begin lied. Ben-Gurion lied. Dayan lied. Allon lied. Eshkol lied. They all lied. Yet he wrote that he does not claim that they lied. They are on documented record that Nasser was not about to attack. Borat claims that he was about to invade. QED he claims they all lied. It is that simple.

Watch. Soon he will return to say that it is my cherry-picking that caused them all to be on record with those denials of Nasser's intention of imminent attack.

Now is that weasel logic, or what?!!

 

I am telling you that it's irrelevant, the Egyptian army was on the brink of invading Israel (undeniable historical fact) and whether it was led by Nasser or his field-marshal Amer makes no difference whatsoever. Let alone that you lie again, Oren did not say "Nasser did not know", Oren said (according to your prior posts) there was no evidence he knew - a classic case of plausible deniability which fools no one. And Nasser did not fire and did not reprimand Amer (another one of your lies) when the plan was outed by the US which is another proof that he was complicit at best, directly involved at worst.

But as I said whether Nasser knew or did not was totally irrelevant given that the Egyptian attack, bombing of Israeli cities and ground invasion were imminent. And lest we forget, Nasser was the ruler of Egypt, the buck stops with Nasser.

 

What is remarkable and unsalable is your continuous harping on a subject you know nothing about...

 

So the foremost Israeli authority on the 1967 war, Michael Oren, is on record as saying (and Borat is aware of this) that there was no evidence that Nasser knew of Amer’s plan to attack. But Borat believes that he did, although there is no evidence that he did …. I feel a headache coming on.

Borat …. Nasser ordered Amer to be relived of all his duties.

Now that the pathetic evidence, Borat’s only piece, had been dispatched, Borat needed some new ammunition. So he came up with these:

I am not sure which ceasefire Borat is referring to. I presume he means the one that followed Israel’s invasion of Sinai in 1956. I thought for a moment that Borat might try to claim that this was also a “defensive first-strike” by Israel, but it seems he will stop short of that.

The 1949 Armistice agreement was broken by Israel’s invasion of October 1956. It also violated UNSC resolution 118 Did you get that Borat, so we can add those as further proof of the OP’s identification of Zionist aggression. Poor “peace-loving” Israel, always being set upon by the evil Arabs .... now pull the other leg.

Borat claims that Egypt broke “the ceasefire” by ordering the withdrawal of UNEF troops. As usual he provides no reference in support. This is once again utter nonsense, just as bad as Operation Dawn. The reason is that the ceasefire is embodied in UNGA resolution 997 which mentions NOTHING about a UNEF force. BOOOM goes Borat, yet again.

Let's see if he knows anything at all about the UN forces in Sinai.

 

I see. So the Zionists invaded Palestine in retaliation for the Palestinian invasion of post-war Europe ?

 

What part of "the Egyptian invasion was imminent regardless of whether Nasser knew about it" don't you understand? Jesus, grow up, your argument is absurd, Amer was about to bomb Israeli cities and send Egyptian armies into Israel but Israel was not under threat because Nasser did not know about Amer's plans. Can you possibly come up with a dumber argument? (even if we accept the claim that Nasser did not know at face value).

He sure did...months later, not after Operation Dawn as you lied again.

Yes, the 1956 ceasefire agreement that followed the joint British/French/Israeli invasion of 1956 to reopen the Suez Canal nationalized by Nasser. The invasion was conceived, planned and instigated by France and Britain. The ceasefire clearly defined the removal of peace-keepers and the closure of the Straits to be acts of war. Nasser accepted the terms of the ceasefire.

 

Israel initiated hostilities. There is never any excuse for a unilaterally-declared first strike under international law.

 

It's a well known fact that Israel broke UN Resolution 181 by unilaterally declaring independence- unless you can prove that by unilaterally declaring independence Israel did not break the resolution (references from the resolution itself).

It's also a well known fact Zionists were engaged in the ethnic cleansing of Arabs before even declaring statehood.

Arabs thus had the right to kick the snot out of Zionists.

 

The breach of ceasefire agreements are acts of war which by definition constitute the initiation/resumption of hostilities.

 

So why didn't Israel accept the transfer of UN peacekeepers to its side of the border, which Nasser had no problem with?

 

LOL, don't be ridiculous, the resolution mandated the partition of Palestine into a predominantly Jewish and predominantly Arab state. The Jews accepted and implemented the resolution, the Arabs unilaterally and illegally rejected it and invaded the land over which they had no sovereignty and legal rights. It was an unprovoked aggression and war crime.

 

Israel broke the ceasfire agreements numerous times as well.

 

Time to drive yet another nail into this coffin. Not only did 1) Rabin and various other Israeli generals and politicians know that Nasser was not imminently about to attack Israel, but the very thought is tactically absurd.

Consider what Rabin said – previously referenced:

Nail 2) Now add to that evidence the distribution of Egypt’s forces, namely that fact that a large proportion of them were active in Yemen. Yeah, we are urged to believe that Egypt was on the brink of attacking Israel while still involved militarily in Yemen. That is just so utterly unlikely.

Nail 3) As Goomba pointed out - the Israeli and US Intelligence services also knew that Nasser would not attack. The CIA was in constant contact with the Mossad (click the blue for source):

Nail 4) It is all standard practice. Find/create an excuse and the attack, and then blame the other side as being the aggressor. Examples are the violation of UNGAR 181; the Sinai invasion in 1956; the provocation of Syria from 1964 to 1967; the invasion of Jordan in 1966; and now the first-strike attack on Egypt in 1967; Begin's lies to the Knesset and to Dean Rusk before the 1982 invasion of Lebanon; how many more examples of Israeli aggression do we need to prove?. And this same pattern can be seen to be operating today (click the blue for source):

A leopard does not change its spots.

Any progress on the expulsion of the UNEF forces, Borat? What was the original agreement?

 

Illegally rejected it? LOL.

Prove it.

 

The irony of these last few posts is that Moon argues that the initiation of hostilities is wrong under international law while KK/Goomba claim that the invasion of Israel by neighboring arab countries in 1948 was legal. LOL, logic, common sense and the knowledge/understanding of international law are not strong suits of Israel haters but at least your twisting yourself into a jewish pretzel provides a pretty good comic relief, keep it up.

 

I didn't anything about legality. This is a lie on your part. Apologise or feel the wrath of Mighty Boswer.

 

Can I put you out of your misery regarding UNEF in Siani, Borat? Here is an excellent document on the subject (click the blue). Note this critical paragraph:

Do you also know that the commander of UNEF, General Burns, had to approach the Egyptian authorities in Cairo in order to prepare the ground for the implementation of the resolution; that there were negotiations; that these negotiations were later reiterated by the UN Secretary General. So here it comes, Borat …. brace yourself:

OUCHIES!!! You mean that you did not know that?
So Egypt was entirely entitled to order the withdrawal of UNEF. And in full contradiction to what you claimed, that order was entirely legal and did not break any ceasefire?

Oh, and did you know that Israel refused to have UNEF forces on her soil. Was THAT refusal also an act of war? I suggest that neither were.

Borat, your excuse is disproved by these referenced facts. Do you have any other support left in justification of Israel’s invasion of Egypt, now that Operation Dawn and UNEF have failed?

 

Throughout this thread you insisted that Arab countries had every right to invade Israel. I assumed you meant they had the "legal" right to attempt to wipe Israel off the map. Please accept my apologies if I misunderstood you position and we agree that the invasion of Israel by arab states in 1948 was 100% illegal.

 

LOL, of course the consent of the host government was needed, has it ever been in dispute. The continuous availability of such consent from the Egyptian government was a critically important part of the ceasefire agreement, the withdrawal of the consent was thus a gross violation of the terms of the ceasefire.

Duh!

You are talking about your claim that Israel hours from being bombed and invaded by Egyptian armies (operation dawn) was not under threat, right? LOL you are funny, KK

 

Your apology is accepted. I'm no legal expert (I highly doubt you are either), and thus can't say for sure if the attack was 100% legal. I do know though that Israel did break Resolution 181 and was ethnically cleansing Arabs at the time.