And Britain took the rest of Sinai from the Ottoman and gave the whole shebang to the holder of those administrative rights .... Egypt ... in 1922. What is so difficult? The Brits were redesigning the ex-Ottoman ME. It happened all over the ME at the time. Why the mystery regarding Sinai?
Israel’s invasion of Lebanon (1982) – summary: 1) In 1980 and 1981 Israel contravened the withdrawal agreement UNSC 425 of March 1978 by violating the territorial integrity of Lebanon and by resuming its military activities in Lebanon. At times this led to attacks by Israel which reached as far as Beirut. In retaliation the PLO fired rockets on northern Israel. 2) Philip Habib brokered a ceasefire to put an end to these cross-border attacks. Both the PLO and the Israelis accepted this oral agreement. Israeli politicians were concerned because the ceasefire only dealt with the Lebanese border. No other ceasefire was agreed to by either of the parties. International observers ascribed the relative peace over the next 11 month only to the Habib ceasefire. 3) A few hours after the Habib ceasefire was agreed, a rogue group led by a Syrian officer continued to fire on Israel. He was severely chastised by the PLO leadership and after discussions with the PLO, was convinced to observe the Habib ceasefire. 4) From then onward the PLO scrupulously observed the ceasefire. Israel on the other hand broke it on at least 2500 separate (but minor) occasions). Where the Israeli violations were more severe the PLO briefly responded but within a few hours Arafat gave orders to stop. 5) Many historians and analysts have commented on the PLo’s remarkable discipline which was making it impossible for Israel to claim a ceasefire violation and to mount an invasion. 6) On 4 June 1982 the Abu Nidal group, a rival Palestinian faction which had broken away from the PLO and was based in Syria (the PLO in Lebanon), made an assassination attempt on the Israeli ambassador in London. 7) Begin ignored the fact that the PLO was not remotely involved in the event, that the Abu Nidal group was totally separate from the PLO, and that in fact PLO officials were also assassination targets for the Abu Nidal group, gave the green light to Sharon to invade Lebanon 8 ) That the reason was that the PLO had launched 240 attacks on Israel from across the Lebanese border is debunked by the UNIFIL reports. They are a Zionist Myth. So this is where we have reached to date: Thread Summary 1) Israel invaded non-Israeli territory in early-1948 2) Israel invaded Egypt in October 1956 3) Israel invaded Jordan on 13 November 1966 4) In April 1967 Israel invaded Syria 5) In June 1967 Israel invaded Egypt 6) The Arab countries invaded Israel in October 1973 7) Israel invaded Lebanon in 1980 and in 1981 (thanks to Face, Yours for helping to point this one out) 8 ) Israel conducted a massive invasion of Lebanon in June 1982 The score is 7-1 against Israel.
Can anyone confirm with verifiable and credible references who fired the shots which killed the 35 Israelis in the 1978 Coastal Road Massacre? I would be very interested because I keep reading conflicting reports.
It was not a violation to farm the DMZ, however, it was a violation to fire on those doing the farming.
>>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<< the Israeli entrance into Lebanon in '78 was in direct response to the Coastal Road Massacre, Israel had withdrew its forces by June of the same year, the fighting resumed in July of 1981 with thousands of PLO forces attacking Israel in cross border raids and rocket attacks. Yes the relative peace included no less than 240 PLO attacks against Israel between the beginning of the ceasefire and the start of the war, these are analogous to the Hamas and Hezbollah ceasefires in which hundreds and thousands of rockets are fired into Israel and yet people like you claim that it is Israel that violated the ceasefires when they have the audacity to respond. >>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<the PLO only considered the ceasefire to apply to the Lebanese Israeli border, however, they launched numerous attacks against Israel in other locations. Completely false. A) The Arab League, and the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine both rejected the partition plan and immediately began taking up arms against the Jews in the mandate. B) The Arab Liberation Army had been waging war on behalf of the Arab League long before the end of the mandate and British withdrawal, that they were ostensibly a volunteer army does not change the fact that they were entirely financed, trained, armed, and directed by the Arab League against the Jews. C) It was the Arabs who struck the first blow against the Jews in the mandate civil war by firing at Jewish buses, ambushing them, and slaughtering their passengers. In direct response to Egyptian armed, funded, trained, and directed Fedayeen cross border raids not to mention the illegal closing of the Straits of Tiran. The Samu Incident was in direct response to numerous al-Fatah attacks originating out of Jordan. In response to numerous shellings of Israeli villages and fishermen, in response to what you have laughably labeled "aggressive farming". In response to hundreds of Egyptian sponsored, armed, trained, funded, and directed Fedayeen attacks against Israel and once again illegally closing the Straits of Tiran. Israel invaded Lebanon in direct response to numerous PLO rocket and cross border attacks (240 between July of '81 and the start of the war) >>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<each Israeli military action was in direct response to overt Arab aggression. - - - Updated - - - The PLO took responsibility and the attack was carried out by 11 Palestinian militants who landed in Israel on Zodiacs.
That is exactly what he was referring to and that is exactly what you referenced IE tractors and bulldozers engaged in farming or in your words "aggressive farming" lol And there you have it, once again farming in the DMZ was not a violation as the DMZ guidelines did not prohibit civil presence whatsoever! How farming can possibly be aggressive and warrant the shelling of civilian villages I have no idea. Bottom line, Israel farmed and the Syrians shelled civilians and fired on the farmers, who attacked who again? You do realize that Israel recorded 240 PLO attacks between the start of the ceasefire and the start of the war? The PLO only recognized the ceasefire extending along the Israeli-Lebanese border and conducted literally hundreds of attacks against Israel at other locations. The PLO never even recognized UNSC Resolution 425 so how can you assert that it was Israel who violated it? If you go to the above pages in that book you will notice that the PLO never stopped infiltrating the UNIFEL areas so to assert that it was Israel who was the aggressor for simply doing what UNIFEL could not is completely disingenuous.
How could UNIFEL reports possibly record things which occurred outside of their areas of operation? A) The PLO never even recognized UNSC resolution 425 as applying to them, B) their incursions into the UNIFIL administered zones never stopped, and C) the only recognized the Habib ceasefire to apply to the Israeli-Lebanese border area where UNIFIL was located and so conducted these attacks elsewhere.
Loosen up the Yarmulke Klip Klap, you attempted to counter Faces comment about Israel being attacked in every war it had been in by making an historically out of context comment about this matter prior to there even being an Israel so your point was wrong, very wrong. Here; And please, this is an English speaking forum so your Yiddish comments are not permitted.
Exactly. A bomb going off in Jerusalem would hardly be found on their daily report sheet. They recognized that it pertained to everywhere but just felt they didn't need to comply with it. And the UNSC Ceasefire that was called for So yes, attacks by the PLO against Israel anywhere were not permitted by the UNSC Ceasefire that the PLO stated they would abide by.
Did you even read my post #99, the reference to which follows? - Reference: "http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/313440-who-did-invading-borat-10.html#post1062968698" Allow me to refresh our collective memories from the Chandra book: What you did when you claimed Abject nonsense above, was to cherry pick the Israeli action which represents a violation of UNSC 425. You restrict it to fighting. I put it to you that the Israeli laying of mines in Lebanese territory, notwithstanding the fact that it did not represent actual fighting, was a clear and flagrant violation of 425 on at least two counts. Your position of PLO guilt and Israeli innocence has just been wiped out. But I dont intend to stop there. I get tired of this type of repetition, in which clearly established well-referenced facts in rebuttal are deliberately and provocatively ignored. The IDF had, on a second occasion, flagrantly violated the withdrawal and respect resolution that she had agreed to, and you pretend that the PLO was at fault. Hmmmm Yet your defence of these UN violations in 1980 is "the fighting began in July 1981"? It did not. It started much earlier. Secondly, with all of the above, what did you expect the PLO to do? Act differently to the way Israel would have, and to sit back and wait for the next violation? No, seriously, what were they expected to do? And what if the Israeli violations of 425 escalated yet further? Still sit back and do nothing? So how DID the fighting ACROSS the border start, between the two parties to the Habib ceasefire agreement? Let us visit some facts instead of Myths. Chandra makes it absolutely clear which is the tit and which is the tat in these cases. And Israel was responsible for the "tit". Yet, even having been shown this yesterday, and not having offered a single fact in rebuttal, you state the fighting resumed in July of 1981 with thousands of PLO forces attacking Israel in cross border raids and rocket attacks. I leave the readers to draw their own conclusions as to who violated first, which is the whole point of this thread. The facts are there for all to see. ... (to be continued) ...
The Habib ceasefire, which all observers, analysts and historians agree is that which governed July 1981 to June 1982 between the PLO and Israel, was INDEED confined to the Lebanese border. That is a bankable fact. Yet you call it a lie [careful calling me a liar is not nice]. Between 16th July 1981 and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon on 6th June 1982 the PLO scrupulously observed the terms of the Habib ceasefire, linked solely to the Lebanese border. You attempt to assert that attacks or responses elsewhere, as also falling under this ceasefire. But you do so without providing one shred of evidence, either from Habib, or from other interested parties or from respected historians, or from archivalists that this was so. I, on the other hand, have provided you with evidence that: # Sharon was very concerned that the Habib ceasefire only applied to the Lebanese border (reference from his sons book). Are you claiming that he was lying? # That there were many Knesset members who disagreed with Sharon and Begins unilateral assumption that the Habib ceasefire extended beyond the Lebanese frontier [note Sharons hypocrisy]. Are you claiming that these Israeli ploticians were lying? # I have shown that eminent Israeli historian Porath noted that this was because the PLO observance of the ceasefire was depriving Begin and Sharon of an excuse to invade. Was Porath lying? # You have been shown that in the end Begin had to rely on the attempted assassination in London by the Abu Nidal group as his justification for invasion. Even Begin knew that the PLO was toeing the line. Was the Israeli Prime Minister mistaken? On the eve of the 1982 invasion, US Secretary of State Alexander Haig told Ariel Sharon that, before starting it [the invasion of Lebanon], it was necessary to have a "clear provocation", which would be accepted by the world. In other words even the US leaders who normally close their eyes and swallow, did not consider that the PLO had been guilty of provocations which violated the ceasefire. The US government's agent and broker of the ceasefire, Philip Habib, is on record as stating exactly the same. Yet you, Drew and HB disagree with all of these Israelis, involved intimately at the time. You disagree with the opinion of senior US officials, in a very pro-Israeli government. And you do all of this by cherry picking your facts. Why am I underwhelmed by your efforts to date. Because the verifiable facts trash them so easily - simple.
So you dont deny that the other Arab countries only invaded long after the Israelis had already completed at least half of their ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and cannot therefore use that as an excuse. What you are referring to is therefore a civil war within the Jewish designated area. In that case why did the Zionist forces invade the Arab-designated area and depopulate settlements there? You are denying that they did, so dont even bother answering that last question. To disprove your entire thesis, here are just some of the settlements involved in the Arab designated area that were depopulated of Palestinian Arabs and Christians, all now of course part of Israel: Deir Yassin (April 1948 200+ massacred in Palestinian territory) Jaffa (Lehi terrorism on 4 January 1948 killed 26 and injured hundreds note the date!! Ultimately tens of thousands flee because of this and further attacks) Lyddah (Lydda) and Ramle (50 to 70 000 expelled, many in the March of Death sanctioned by Ben-Gurion and overseen by Rabin) Al Majdal (Ashkelon) (tens of thousands displaced to Gaza, firstly by bombing and later by forced expulsion. It is now part of Israel) Beit Lahm (Beith Lehem Hagliliit), Al Bassa, al Zib, al Tell, al Kabri, al Nahr, umm al Faraj, al Ghabisiya, Amqa, Kuweikat, al Sumeiriya, Manshiya, al Biraw, Lajjun, Arab Baniha, Ghubayya al Fauqa, Ghubayya al Tahta . All originally in Arab Palestine and now part of Israel . . I am getting bored now. How many more do I need to research? And yet you claim that Israel did not invade the territory allocated to the Arabs in 1948. I cannot believe it!! How does what you write disprove the Zionist invasion of Arab-allocated territory? It does not disprove the fact that the Zionist forces invaded those settlements listed above. It is simply your attempted justification for that invasion. And how about the depopulation of Arab settlements within the Jewish designated territory? Remember that this thread is a rebuttal of a claim that it is the Arabs who are the aggressors and the Jews who simply respond. The Zionists removed 70+% of the Arab and Christian Palestinian population of what was to become Israel from within that territory. And Zionists claim that that was not aggressive. Isaiah 42:20 at play. Can you show me credible and verifiable references to this slaughter. Many thanks. I thought it was a typical reaction to a strike called by the Arabs. But something puzzles me. I have a book called The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006) by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe who claims that by end January 1948 (2 months after 181) 400 Jews had been killed. I could leave it there and agree with you; except for the fact that Pappe goes on to mention that by the exact same date 1500 Arab Palestinians had been killed. Odd, not so, if the Arabs were the only aggressors in the early days. But again, this is a diversion. It has nothing to do with the Zionist destruction of Arab settlements, some far removed from the 181 border. I smell a strawman.
Could you show me where in the most prolific, and most reliable chronicles of the proceedings of the Sèvres conference between Israel, Britain and France, by Colonel Mordechai Bar-On, chief of bureau of the IDF chief of Staff, wherein he records Ben-Gurion as offering what you claimed as the main reason, or even just A reason, for Israel’s willingness to invade Egypt? Any verifiable and credible reference showing this will do. Many thanks in anticipation. Until you can do that .... Israel invaded Egypt because - http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The Protocol of Sevres 1956 Anatomy of a War Plot.html: Face, Your …. Where do you see anywhere in the reference that I provided that Israel was willing to join in the invasion of Egypt because of infiltrations of Fedayeen across the borders into Israel?
And yet the facts that I present - referenced; pertinent; consistent; verifiable - show exactly the opposite. Is the penny not perhaps starting to drop? Are you not starting to feel some disquiet that the standard Zionist mantras blaming all ills on the evil PLO/Syrians/Jordanians/Egyptians who continuously invade Israel, leaving the Jewish state with no option other than to retaliate, is wearing a bit thin? Does there not seem to be a disconcerting and disproportionately large amount of evidence to refute the mantras? Do you find yourself squirming to find credible rebuttal evidence? Do you find yourself often having to repeat personal opinions for the lack of such hard evidence? And when you do have evidence, do you find yourself often being accused of providing evidence for something that is not under discussion .... i.e. a strawman? If so ....
I previously provided evidence of the eye-witness account of UN observer (Dutch) Colonel Jan Mühren in which he states that no incursions occurred into that part of Israel from Jordan at the time. I seem to remember posting a reference to an investigation by the DMZ commission of the incident. At first the Israeli's put continuous obstacles in the way of the investigation until there was intervention by General Odd Ball. It was found that the tracks around the site where a landmine had been buried did not lead across the border into Jordan, but back into Israel. The mayor of Samu swore blind that no terrorists used Samu or had passed through Samu into Israel; the villagers saw to that. Your counter proof was ..... ? Until some evidence refuting the above is forthcoming .... 3) Israel invaded Jordan on 13 November 1966
Many thanks, Face, Your. I was in fact aware of that. What I asked was who actually fired the shots which killed the Israeli hostages in the bus?
Proof please? But in any event, why did the PLO need to recognize it. Nothing whatsoever in “425” addressed the PLO. On the contrary, everything in UNSCR 425 was aimed at Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and instructions to her to withdraw and to respect Lebanese sovereignty. We know she broke both of these on numerous occasions in subsequent years. So I really don’t understand your point.
The famed and legendary "Habib Ceasefire" You produced testimony from the PLO itself that they said they would abide by the Habib/UNSC Ceasefire and here you are saying they didn't. More info Klip Klap. Post reams of it please! You do know what the UNSC Ceasefire called for don't you? It's in writing, Habib's is not and, is without doubt, modeled or, is exactly the same as the UNSC ceasefire or else the PLO are in violation of it anyhow. In any case, they admitted they broke it almost immediately after it was agreed upon and, then continued to do so with their 240 some odd terrorist attacks and you contend they didn't break it ? Please keep posting this disproven nonsense in here though. Easy to refute and, keeps you occupied enough that you can't spread it very far on other venues where your facts are not checked according to Childer's rule.
Every one knows it was the Habib ceasefire that counted .... ; everyone knows that it was the Habib ceasefire that was keeping the peace; ..... everyone knows that the Israeli leaders were concerned that the PLO was strictly observing it after the wobble on the first day by a rogue group led by a Syrian .....except you, it seems Drew. There must be a lesson in that. Yet, if you want to keep ignoring where the focus was in all documentation, commentary and analysis, feel free But you are going to have to explain to yourself why none of the historical players gave it one iota of attention. Or then again ... perhaps you don't. Whatever floats your boat. I prefer to stick with the massive weight of opinion at the time. To do otherwise would be silly of me. If so, then show me all the Knesset references to "490", show me the US State Department references to "490". Show me Habib's; Sharon's, Begin's, the British Foreign Secretary's, the Israeli historians', the US analysts' references to "490" and I will bury whatever contributions you come up with with an order of magnitude more references to Habib's". Off you go .... waiting. Next!!
Strange, you keep on flip flopping and have yet to show us what exactly the terms of this 'Habib Ceasefire' were. IN any case, you have already stated that not only did the PLO break the ceasefire but they were not following the 'Habib Ceasefire' but the UNSC Ceasefire. Here, your own quote;
Drew, when you can accept my challenge to show that the key parties did not focus on the Habib ceasefire, get back to me. Otherwise quit trolling.
Troll!! Why? You were given the evidence in this thread, you were provided with a rock-solid reference from a noted historian, you were invited to show where in the Sevres discussions Ben-Gurion offered the excuse of Fedeheen attacks, and you respond by mindlessly repeating an unproven claim. That is pure unadulterated trolling. It is provocative, disruptive and against forum rules.
Sure. I can't really vouch for the reliability of the source as this particular one has been known for his inaccuracy but, here it is nonetheless; We have a guy who refuses to acknowledge his own proof that the PLO were following the UNSC Ceasefire and, broke it first yet states that he just knows Israel violated this Habib Ceasefire yet, can't for the life of him show us what the terms of it were to even show anybody violated it much less the Israelis and you say I'm trolling? Klip Klap!
Sad to say, Drew, but you have been naughty again. 1) You edited my quote in post #78 by adding text of your choosing and passed it off as my quote. I am sure that such misrepresentation is against forum rules. Your edit added called for by the Security Council to my post. Naughty 1 by you. 2) And even then, you edited it so as to provide a bias which did not reflect the essence of the passage from Chandras book. Naughty 2 by you. My briefer (unedited by you) quote, on the other hand, did preserve this essence. My original quote reflected (correctly) that the PLO was determined to observe the Habib ceasefire. You claim that the PLO was following the UNSC ceasefire [from resolution 490]. What follows is the entire relevant quote from Chandras book. The highlights capture the dispute between Klipkap and Drew. I leave it to the readers to decide if the PLO were following the Habib ceasefire (Klipkap) or the UNSC resolution 490 (Drew): What was the Secretary General referring to ..... Habib's ceasefire or Resolution 490? In case there is any doubt, let us seek further in Chandras book: So what was it that all parties had accepted? Correct . the Habib ceasefire of 24 July 1981. When was the ceasefire of Resolution 490 called for? Right . 21 July 1981. So which ceasefire were all the parties observing? Right the Habib ceasefire and not UNSC 490. The readers can spot such a significant difference. You have now been caught out 6 times, Drew. When you are in an uncomfortable hole, stop digging.
Time to move on to the next case. 8 ) In December 2008 Israel invaded Gaza and not Vice-Versa Here is how this one started: In the January 2006 Palestinian legislative elections Hamas won 74 seats versus the 45 of Fatah. Ahead of the elections, Hamas had taken distance from its 1988 call for the destruction of Israel, but still refused to recognise the right of Israel to exist as long the occupation was not ended (click here for source). Edward McMillan-Scott, the British Conservative head of the European Parliament's monitoring team described the polls as "extremely professional, in line with international standards, free, transparent and without violence". The Hamas election manifesto never once mentioned the destruction of Israel (click for source). Hamas immediately offered Israel a ten-year truce, extending the year-long cease fire that Hamas had already been observing (click for source). Notwithstanding all of the above, the USA and Israel refused to recognise the election outcome. Economic sanction were imposed, destabilisation wasthe US and Israeli tactic and the ousting of Hamas was the policy. (click here for source) Israels occupation forces prevented Hamas democratic right to govern the West Bank. On top of all of that, Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza. The result of this flagrant disregard for the democratic election process was predictable. The spurning by Israel of the Hamas peace offer was equally predictable. Over the next five months 2700 locally made Qassam rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel, killing four Israeli civilians. On June 19, 2008, an Egyptian-brokered six-month ceasefire between Israel and Hamas went into effect - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Israel–Hamas_ceasefire. According to The New York Times, neither side fully respected the terms of the cease-fire.[4] Some rockets still continued to fire from Gaza and the Israeli blockade of Gaza was loosened but not completely opened. To see what the results of Hamas attempts to get everyone in Gaza to respect the ceasefire the following Wiki image provides graphical evidence of the drop to near zero in rocket attacks over 5 months from June 2008: Hamas arrested those responsible for the minor continuing rocket fire. Many of the violations were perpetrated by Fatah in an attempt to embarrass Hamas as admitted by Israeli sources (click for source) What did Israel do in return? It was meant to lift the embargo. But check the blue line on the image below. Between June and November 2008 the import nowhere even remotely reached the 2007 levels. Hamas has complied with the terms; Israel had reneged. And then on 4 November 2008 Israel broke the ceasefire, invading Gaza and killing 6 people. The standard Zionist mantra is that rockets kept raining down on Israel while Israel was doing everything to maintain peace. Oh yeah? . (to be continued) .
