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

Hmm, I thought we agreed it was 100% illegal. There was no legal justification whatsoever for Egypt, Syria, Jordan and a bunch of other Arab countries to cross borders and invade a neighboring sovereign entity which was no threat to them even if it was in the middle of a land dispute or civil war. You don't need to be a legal scholar to know that.

 

Of course you don't if your going to describe what happened that way.

 

I address my comments to who they were intended for.

It is patent nonsense .. and "pathetically absurd" to suggest that the UN predominantly consists of Arab Theocracies in cahoots with African dictators .. and cite this as a reason why Israel has been condemned for hundreds of violations.

The reason Israel has been condemned is because the violations are real.

It is this type of "one sided", "patently absurd nonsense" that keeps the blood feud going and apologises for the killing of innocents.

 

1) You lie. Show me ceasefire terms that were violated by Egypt's legal demand that the UNEF troops withdraw. So the consent was required but in retracting it Egypt broke the ceasefire - what a howler - you are an utterly untrustworthy fraud since you have been shown the contrary on each step of the way. As I challenged, show me the ceasefire document that states that withdrawal of consent is a breach. Folks, watch for the next fraudulent weasel wriggling.

2) You post too far many "LOLs", Borat. They are no substitute for facts. And they ring horribly false. Now prove that Israel was "hours from being bombed and invaded by Egyptian armies (operation dawn)".

No, no. no, Borat. Simple repetition of your "I say so" is the weakest form of evidence. Show that Amer's plan was hours away from being put into action, and that the Israeli leaders all had it wrong.

No, no, no, Borat. Repeating Nasser's sabre-rattling is not proof that Amer's Plan was about to be put into operation, and that the Israeli leaders were liars. You need to do MUCH better than that .... with credible and verifiable references.

 

Good grief, Goomba. This guy knows nothing yet accuses us of lying!!

Israel isolated by the closure of the Straits of Tiran .... what a schoolboy howler. I am not even going to bother to ask him to show proof .... that claim is just too ....

 

Which was this sovereign entity that the Arab countries invaded on 15th November 1948?

Oh THAT one!!


Sovereign ....

The schoolboy howlers are in full flow.

 

It's May 15th, 1948. I took the liberty to highlight the key part of your question. At least this is not in dispute

 

You totally missed the point, Borat. You wrote that the Arab nations has invaded a SOVEREIGN ENTITY on 15th May1948.

I suspected that the (un)subtlety would escape you. Hey, it was YOU who made that unfounded claim initially,not me. There was no SOVEREIGN ENTITY on that day

 

Yes, I'd really like to hear his explanation of why Israel was in danger of being 'isolated' and cut off from the world when no Israeli ships passed through the Straits in years.

 

Palestine was certainly a Sovereign entity on that day. Whether you consider it to be one Palestinian entity or an entity partitioned into a Jewish and an Arab state - it had well defined borders, it had its citizens, it had its government (arabs had their government, Jews had theirs) and no neighboring country had any legal right to cross those borders, invade the area and interfere with what was going on in there. Are you for real, KK, how do you feel all twisted into a Jewish bagel?

 

The Straits of Tiran is the water way that leads into Eilat, Israel's only Red Sea Port and the place most of the oil imported into Israel was delivered. The Israeli ships may not have passed through the Straits in years but foreign ships bound for Israel to deliver oil (and anything else for that matter) were prevented from passing through the Straits by the closure.

Duh, any more ignorant questions?

 

One sovereign state with 2 governments?

Pull the other one.

 

Not ignorant ... Mr Duh. Just demanding of accuracy.

At the risk of being overly picky, tell me, Borat, what is your source of data to substantiate that in 1967 Eilat as "the place where most of the oil imported into Israel was delivered". I put it to you that, as with the rest of your so-called evidence, that this is another crock of crap.

My apologies if the facts keep on showing that the Zionist stories are just Myths, but that is not my problem.

 

I can give you hundreds of legitimate sources, pretty much every semi-objective analysis of the 6 day war mentions this fact. You can find all these sources on your own if you just use the miracle of the Jewish innovation - Google.

But I am certain you will dismiss them all as zionist 'crock of crap" so, KK, I am giving you [drumbeat] debunkingzionism - no less. Here is what your e-jihadist brother in arms has to say on this matter:

Eilat received only 5% of Israeli imports, and the only essential commodity, oil, certainly could have gone to the Haifa port.
http://debunkingzionism.blogspot.com/2008/08/straits-of-tiran-and-1967-war.html

See, your comrades don't even try to debate the fact that the bulk of Israel's oil was delivered to Eilat through the Straits. Why are you so stubborn?

 

The US has 50 governments, so what? It was not the f*ing business of other Arab states how many governments Palestine had and what was going on inside it. What part of 'it was not their land' don't you understand.

 

The part where that issue was discussed between Hussein and McMahon in 1915. Remember?
The terms of the Mandate for Palestine. Remember?
The wording of UNGAR 181. Remember?
The discussion leading to and the wording of UNSCR 242. Remember?
"It was not their land" is just your say-so. The above all prove that. Now take a look at the ICJ opinion of 2004. Done and dusted.

 

Only five percent of Israel's trade passed through Eilat.

The foriegn ships could have re-reouted through Haifai.

Also, Egypt stopped searching ships bound to Israel a few days after Nasser made the call to close the Straits.

Some blockade!

LOL

 

LOL, the oil ships could have been re-routed through Haifa in the opinion of idiots only. 95% of Israel's oil was coming from [gasp] Iran into Eilat at the time - short trip through the Straits, thousands of extra miles through Haifa. Eilat was equipped to receive and distribute Israel's oil supplies, Haifa was not. The cost to Israel would have been enormous, the political cost would have been higher.

Anyway it certainly debunks the idiotic lie that Nasser's closure of the straits was just a symbolic harmless action. You can't expect to break ceasfire agreement, cut off a nation from its oil supplies, mass hundreds of thousands of troops on its border, be hours from bombing and invading it, proclaim from the highest leadership positions the imminent elimination of that nation... you can't do all that Goomba and expect no response.

 

You are correct, Borat. I made the mistake of concluding that, because no IRAELI ships had used Eilat for the preceding 18 months (Ali A. Hakim's book) that also no oil passed through the Straits. The explanation is of course the tankers were not Israeli. My apologies and thanks for the information.

However that still does not mean that the Israeli core issue, namely that Nasser's 'closure' of the Straits of Tiran represented a 'casus belli' for her invasion of Egypt. That is the essence, not whether oil or soya beans or jelly babies entered Israel via Eilat. To find out, let us look at the blog that you have just provided as evidence:

1) One of Israel's propaganda points is that Nasser closed the straits during the 6 day war. But did he ACTUALLY? The answer, after three days of his announcement is....NO. The Straits were in fact open.

2) After the "closure" of the straits, UNEF'S U.Thant immediately received expressed approval from Nasser for a new diplomatic initiative, including the appointing of a new UN mediator to avert the crisis, as well as a two week moratorium on any belligerent acts in the Straits. Egypt approved, while Israel categorically rejected [This is of course in line with the Sabra generals’ wish to attack Egypt as shown in Tom Segev’s book “1967”, and not the other way around].

3) Nasser was willing to put the Straits issue up to the World Court, again, Israel rejected.

Your reference, not mine.

Nonetheless Zionist apologists frequently cite “The Law of the Sea” as demonstrating that Nasser broke international law. So besides whether the Straits were actually closed, was Nasser entitled to threaten to close them?

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - Part II (click the blue for source) Article 17 provides that:

So what is “innocent passage”?

Now consider the following:

# On 9 April 1967 Israel invaded Syrian airspace and destroyed seven Syrian aircraft. This is obviously an act of war. When discussing Nasser’s move General Moshe Dayan is on record as stating that the April 7 incident had caused the crisis.

# In early November 1966 Egypt and Syria had signed a Defence Pact.

Now put this all together. Israel was at war with Syria, ally of Egypt under their mutual defence pact, and Israel was claiming the right of “innocent passage” through Egyptian territorial waters!!

Dayan was correct. It was not Egypt who started the aggression. Who the perpetrator was is crystal clear.

 

1. That the closure of the Straits was casus belli was part of the standing ceasefire agreement at the time, it was no surprise to Nasser and frankly no one is arguing nowadays that it was not.

2. Nasser had every right to take the case to World Court or any other court. He should have restored the status quo first and appealed to the court then. You don't violate a ceasefire, you don't commit acts tantamount to acts of war, you don't cut off 95% of a nation's oil supplies and then suggest the matter to be reviewed by some courts that take years if not decades. In the real world if you want to go to courts - you go to courts, if you want to blockade you blockade and take responsibility for the consequences of your own actions.

I mean come on, let's get real here, all your suggestions that in response to extremely aggressive, belligerent, militant actions by Egypt and Syria Israel should have rolled over and played dead and/or wait for years for some kind of non-binding decision of some impotent court that had no enforcement mechanism to begin with are patently absurd.

 

Assuming that ALL the above is correct... SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WHAT?
BTW What was the Egyptian Army doing in Yemen... Where they approved by international law, the UN or the ICC? This is not a one way street... this works against all the above inconsistencies...

 

Assuming that ALL the above is correct... SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WHAT?
BTW What was the Egyptian Army doing in Yemen... Where they approved by international law, the UN or the ICC? This is not a one way street... this works against all the above inconsistencies...

 

Really??????????????????? The Jewish State dropped from MARS on Chinese Land... This is ridiculous!

How about Tibet, the Kuril Islands and the Malvinas????????????????????????????????

 

Yes of course the Jews fell from Mars on China... how ridiculous!
How about the Kuril Island, Tibet and the Malvinas???? hmmmmm

 

You are missing a few key pieces here, how very unusual of you LOL

February 22, 1967, President Attassi of Syria: “it is the duty of all of us now to move from defensive positions to offensive positions and enter the battle to liberate the usurped land…Everyone must face the test and enter the battle to the end.”

Needless to say he followed up with actions:
April 7, 1967 Syrian gunners fired from their Golan Heights position on an Israeli tractor farming in the demilitarised zone. Artillery fire was exchanged and the fight escalated. Israel sent airplanes against the Syrian gun positions and several Syrian villages. The Syrians sent up MiG jets and an all-out dogfight ensued – Israel downed six Syrian MiG 21 fighters and chased the remainder all the way back to Damascus
http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/timeline.htm

Why indeed Israel invaded Syrian airspace on April 7, 1967, the Syrians were doing nothing wrong, they were just peacefully shelling Israeli towns and villages. LOL