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

Israeli apologists have variously claimed that the 1967 invasion of Egypt was a pre-emptive war aimed at forestalling an imminent attack by Egypt.

But the UN Charter - article 2.4, to which Israel is a signatory, states “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” But surely there are exceptions, such as when a State is threatened or under attack. How does one analyse the 1967 invasion properly.

Here is an article on pre-emption and the use of force against another nations, by Abraham D. Sofaer (Professor of Law, Stanford University) - http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/2/209.full.pdf
He identified four key elements for justification of preemption:
The nature and magnitude of the threat involved;
The likelihood that the threat will be realised unless preemptive action is taken;
The availability and exhaustion of alternatives to using force; and
Whether using preemptive force is consistent with the terms and purposes of the U.N. Charter and other applicable international agreements.

The topic became a hot one in 2003 when Bush Jnr’s invasion of Iraq was justified on the basis of the necessity for pre-emption given the imminent threat that the West was under from Hussein’s WMDs. Do I see an echo of the Zionist reasoning regarding Egypt in 1967? Back to Israel and Egypt.

1) What was the nature and magnitude of the threat to Israel?
Borat says the threat was in the form of Operation Dawn. But that was cancelled by Nasser. He says that that did not matter because even though that plan had been cancelled, Nasser had a plan to invade Israel imminently. However, numerous Israeli leaders from the time are on record that Nasser had no intention of invading; he did not want a war. Were they all poorly informed – especially Rabin, Eshkol, Begin, Allon and Dayan? Seriously?

2) The likelihood that the threat would be realised unless preemptive action was taken?
Nasser still had troops in Yemen. It would have been lunacy for him to have attacked Israel. Rabin is on record as stating that the troops that Egypt had in Sinai were no threat to Israel – “Nasser knew it and we knew it”. Dayan is on record (agreed with by Ben-Gurion) that It was Israel’s provocations of Syria that had started the ‘crisis’, especially the aerial battle of 7th April. He went on to conclude that Nasser wanted to apply pressure on Israel to stop its war with Syria. He was duty-bound to react because of the mutual defence agreement between Egypt and Syria. The CIA had concluded that Nasser had no intention of attacking and had informed Eshkol of that fact.

3) The availability and exhaustion of alternatives to using force
Israel did nothing to seek such routes. She made no formal petition to the Security Council to seek intervention. She refused to have UNEF relocate to Israeli territory.

On May 23rd Minister Israel Galili proposed a resolution that the closure of the Straits amounted to a declaration of war. If it was a ‘casus belli’, clear to the entire world, why would he do that (“1967”, Segev, p.289)? This resolution was later adopted by the Ministers (“The Rabin Memoirs”, 1996). Remember this was AFTER Nasser’s announcement. It is clear from the archives that there was no verifiable reason to declare that the closure of the Straits was a sure ‘casus belli’. In fact, Prime Minister Eshkol reminded his generals (Segev, p. 356) that Israel had managed for years without the Straits (1950 to 1956). It should also be noted that “Egypt did not restrict non-Israeli-flag vessels carrying non-strategic materials, or Israeli-registered vessels chartered to a non-Israeli carrier” (John Quigley, “Palestine and Israel; a challenge to justice” (1990)).

There was therefore no ‘causus belli’ for a preemptive war. Israel’s invasion was not defensive. The Sabra generals wanted blood!!

 

The quality is excellent, I proved that:

- in 1948 the Arab world attempted a genocide of the Jewish people in Palestine.

- the 1948 Arab invasion into Israel/Palestine was illegal by any measure, their objective to drive the jews into the sea was nothing short of abhorrent.

- in April 1967 the Syrians were regularly shelling Israeli towns and villages in blatant violation of the ceasefire agreement

- the removal of peacekeepers by Nasser in 1967 was a gross violation of the ceasefire agreement

- the closure of the Straits was a gross violation of international maritime laws and the ceasefire agreement. Moreover it was a mutually/internationally agreed upon 'casus belli'

- the closure of the Straits had a very severe negative impact on Israel's economy as it cut Israel off virtually all its oil

- Nasser massed hundreds of thousands of troops and thousands of pieces of artillery on Israel's border, he and his official media were proclaiming daily that the time of battle to liberate the Middle East from the Jews had finally arrived.

- Israel was hours from well planned bombing and ground invasion campaign under the command of Nassers lifetime friend field-marshal Amer. The attack was canceled for a time being as it was outed by the Americans and lost the element of surprise.

- After the war Israel accepted the "land for peace" UN resolution 242, the Arab world rejected it. The arab world still does, their ultimatums to Israel to commit a military and demographic suicide (aka the Saudi peace initiative) are a laughable PR campaign, not a serious peace proposal.

- 1,000,000 Jews of the arab world who were loyal citizens of their corresponding Arab countries, who had nothing to do with European/Palestinian Jews and the situation in Palestine endured pogroms, were persecuted murdered and expelled from their countries with just a shirt on their backs, their only fault was they were Jews (not even Zionists). You approved these persecutions of innocent people. The bulk of these jewish refuges were resettled in Israel without a penny of UN/Refugee agencies aid.

You my dear south-african friend have not disproven a single one of these statements because they are all undeniable, unquestionable historical facts. And no amount of your absurd cherry-picked out of context quotes won't change the historical accuracy of this post. Deal with it if you can

 

Since the only responses to my busting of the “1966/1967 Defensive war myth” has been empty repetitions of long-refuted claims (typified by the *CLANG* hollow previous post), we can summarise the evidence of the Israel aggressions to date, which collectively form a massive rebuttal of the Zionist claim that "Israel never attacks; Israel only retaliates":

1) The assassination of Lord Moyne – admitted to openly by Yitzhak Shamir - http://www.timesofisrael.com/yitzhak-shamir-why-we-killed-lord-moyne/

2) The depopulation of 400+ Palestinian villages during the early-1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from what was to become Israel and even beyond the approved borders. This included the ghastly Deir Yassin massacre. No discussion about this one – it is well documented as Ben-Gurion and “The Consultancy’s” plan

3) The assassination of the UN envoy, Count Bernadotte, who was tasked with mediating a solution between the Arabs and the Israelis, on 17th September 1948 [PS: Bernadotte was responsible for the rescuing of thousands of Jews from Nazi concentration camps]. Clear aggression. No debate.

4) The Lavon Affair: In July 1954 a failed Israeli covert operation, code named Operation Susannah, was conducted in Egypt. As part of the false flag operation a group of Egyptian Jews were recruited by Israeli military intelligence with plans to plant bombs inside Egyptian, American and British-owned targets. The attacks were to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood and Egyptian Communists. Clear aggression. No debate.

5) The Suez Invasion: Israel invaded Egypt. What more is there to say? Colonel Mordechai Bar-On, chief of bureau of the IDF chief of staff, who served as the secretary of the Israeli delegation and took copious notes throughout the Sevres meetings. The reason for the invasion is impeccably documented there as part of Ben-Gurion’s “Fantastic Plan” which included Israel gaining control of the Straits of Tiran. =Pure Israeli aggression

6) Israel’s provocations and its war with Syria: Peaking in April 1947. This is the event that Dayan insists triggered Nasser’s bellicose rhetoric

7) Israel’s invasion of Jordan in November 1966: Perfectly described in UN Observer Jan Mührens first-hand account.

Israel’s invasion of Egypt in June 1967: As perfectly documented in this thread, Israel’s leaders knew that Nasser was not intending to attack. There is therefore no possibility of her first-strike being a defensive war.

9) Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982: Said to have been justified by attacks during the ceasefire by the PLO from Lebanon on northern Israel (easily refuted) and the assassination attempt by the PLO on the Israeli ambassador in London (easily refuted)

10) Operation Cast Lead: Israel broke an existing ceasefire in November 2008. The resulting foreseeable response by Hamas led to the slaughter of 1400+ Gazans.

11) The 2012 triggers of the Hamas rocket attacks: Any analysis of the sharp peaks in rocket attacks can be easily seen to have been triggered by Israeli aggression.

 

big bunko friend!!!!!!!!!!

 

Stunning rebuttal quality, HBendor.

In a few weeks time you will be claiming that your post "debunked the Mythmaker's lies".

See .... your tactics are known!!

 

My tactics are REGISTERED/Patented do not push the envelope. You better behave before I let Nkulunkulu bite your derriere.

 

Nkulunkulu is noble. He would not countenance the Myths against an indigenous people.

Besides ... he cannot get to me. The feet of my bedposts are in jam tins filled with disinfectant. He cannot climb them. See ... we REALLY know our sh1t.

 

Here is a post from an adjacent thread which adds Lebanon 2006 war to the ever/growing list of major conflicts that is directly attributable to Israeli instigation>

 

So as a result of this bellicose trumpeting the renegade elements in Gaza get all incensed again (logically?) and fire a few K-rockets at Israel which kill a goat.

Israel then claims self defence and assassinates a schoolboy playing soccer and a fisherman on a Gaza beach.

Go do the ethical math.

 

From another source...

We were caught unprepared : the 2006 Hezbollah-Israeli War / by Matt Matthews.

http://carl.army.mil/download/csipubs/matthewsOP26.pdf

 

Aye right enough ..... you weren't prepared, its normally unarmed women and children that suffer the IDF Nazi pogroms.

And ......... well Hezbollah were armed, and could fight back, something your IDF isn't used to doing, there normally cowardly tactics are to attack unarmed civilians! And in particular, women and children!
Admittedly, there were 2000 Hezbollah against 40000 IDF, and those 2000 young boys kicked your arse's, regadless how mucharms your lot stole from the American tax payer!!!!!

Highlander

 

Many thanks for your support. It is always a welcome event when Zionist apologists see the light.

 

Sinai was historically always Egyptian... FACT.

 

One doesn't 'kidnap' soldiers. One CAPTURES them! Just more jewish media hype for sympathy for their mass genocide against the arabs.

 

Sorry, but I'm mindless. So I cannot grasp what Israel [and how] is attacking.

I'm honestly not aware that IDF is using its tremendous offensive arsenal to attack Iran or Syria or Hezbollah ...

Oh! Israel is "attacking" Hamas.

Nice ... if Israel didn't attack Hamas sooner or later other powers will attack it!

 

In 1948 the resolution 181 was irrelevent because of the Arab rejection to the plan (Jews accepted it ok?), therefore this resolution became irrelevent in 1948.
A little bit about the Independence War:
The Independence War took place after THE REJECTION OF THE ARABS WHO LIVED IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND BY THE ARAB LEAGUE!!, and even in the debate that was in UN General Assembly the representatives of Arab countries threatened THERE that they will use force to stop resolution 181!!
In November 29th, 1947 until March 31st 1948, a violence attamps occourd after resolution 181, a bus that was driven kids been shot. The Arab comeittee anounced general strike and the Jewish commercial district of Jaffa was looted and burned.
The British porces that was there didnt want to retaliate and live it to the Arabs and the Jews to solve it. During this period included the Arab military activity sniping and dropping bombs at Jewish transportation along the main roads and at isolated Jewish neighborhoods in mixed cities and in remote communities.

So after all this you can see that Isreal didnt attack the Arabs, but the Arabs were the ones that threatened to use force, while the Jews accepted resolution 181.

Here is a little bit about the actions that led to Sinai War:
In 1951, Egypt blocked Suez Canal to Israel nad two years after Egypt even blocked any other ships that transported goods to Israel.
In 1953, Egyptians set up an artillery battery in Ras Nzrani, across the Straits of Tiran, thus blocking the path made ​​sailing to and from Eilat.
In 1955 Egyptians expanded the blockade to be also in the air, and not just in the sea!
As of August 1955, and despite the ceasefire agreement, the Egyptian army units active Fedayeen - "sacrifice their lives" for gathering intelligence and carrying out attacks in retaliation for the Israeli retaliations. Terrorist acts committed by infiltrators have peaked in early 1956 robbery, murder and sabotage. This situation simply canceled the casefire agreement that been signed between Israel and Egypt, and because of that only Israel could open war against Egypt.

A little bit about the Six Days War:
Tensions between Israel and the Arab countries was before the war, because of the many attacks by infiltrators and terrorists Palestinians, who came to Israel from Syria, Jordan, Gaza Strip - Gaza and the Sinai, and were active encouragement of the Arab countries. That added stress due to water projects diverting Israel and Syria and Syrian shelling of Israeli towns in the Hula Valley.This was the pretext for war against Syria, Jordan and Egypt.

Sinai is part of Egypt!! and always was! thats why Israel after the Six Days War gave back to Egypt and evecuated Israeli settlements in Sinai.

Israel was under threat from Nasser and Egypt, In May 22th and 21st, Egyptians closed Straits of Tiran, the main transition for transporting good from Africa to Israel, and even placed there a long shot cannon, when Nasser did it- this was the pretext for war against Egypt.

The PLO assasination of the Israeli UN ambassedor, would you allow that some terror orgaization would attack you and the represantetives of your country with out a retaliation?
Like Israel did in the Second Lebanon War against Hezbollah.

In 2008, Hamas started to launched rockets toward Israel, Israel had to retaliate for tose attacks, dont you think?
If some murderer would come to your neighborhood and to kill people. would you think that the police should retaliate or just stand a side while he's continue his killing spree?

BTW- Israel anounced unilateral ceasefire because of international pressure against the operation and just 12 hours later Hamas stopped his attacking.

The direct reason for the operation was the killing of Ja'abri, Hamas chief of staff, but dont forget the fact that until this operation, Hamas launched rockets on daily besis and Israel overlooked it.
Hamas launched 858 rockets toward Israel before the operation, and the question is once again been asked- would you allow that your neighborhood would be in constent threat?

If you are refering you the current oparetion it is not true, the current operation started because of launched rockets by the Islamic Jihad and Hamas toward Israel, and that was after the kiddnaping and murdering of 3 Israeli teenagers in the West Bank.
After Israel agreed to the first casefire that Egypt offered to the 2 sides, and even stopped the attacking while Hamas and the Islamic Jihad started theirs, and why they rejected the casefire? to humiliate Egypt.
Even in the humanitary casefire that the UN seggested Israel accapted and stopped firing, while Hamas and Islamic Jihad continued their attacks.

BTW- the UN found 20 rockets that been hiden in UNRWA's schools in Gaza, I think this is a war crime.

The BBC is against Israel actions, and it is well known, but still the BBC published last week i think a video that is showing how pictures from Syria been taken by Hamas and been puclished by then like it is happening in Gaza.

 

You might want to read Moshe Dayan's journal and that of Sharrett.

 

Interesting point to tell the truth. At first I agreed with this as Hamas is a military force that almost exclusively uses terrorism but it is the recognized government of Palestine therefore it is a military force that has authority to engage in negotiations and all the responsibilities that go with it.

I looked the terms Pow and hostage on Wiki;

"A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, PW, P/W, WP, PsW, enemy prisoner of war (EPW) or "missing-captured"[1]) is a person, whether combatant or non-combatant, who is held in custody by a belligerent power during or immediately after an armed conflict. The earliest recorded usage of the phrase is dated 1660.

Captor states hold captured enemy combatants and non-combatants in custody for a range of legitimate and illegitimate reasons. They are held to isolate them from enemy combatants still in the field, to release and repatriate them in an orderly manner after hostilities, to demonstrate military victory, to punish them, to prosecute them for war crimes, to exploit them for their labor, to recruit or even conscript them as their own combatants, to collect military and political intelligence from them, and to indoctrinate them in new political or religious beliefs"

"A hostage is a person or entity which is held by one of two belligerent parties to the other or seized as security for the carrying out of an agreement, or as a preventive measure against certain acts of war. However, in contemporary usage, it means someone who is seized by a criminal abductor in order to compel another party such as a relative, employer, law enforcement, or government to act, or refrain from acting, in a particular way, often under threat of serious physical harm to the hostage(s) after expiration of an ultimatum."

So I take it that they are two different things, a POW is mainly used to take them out of action whereas a hostage is used to negotiate for something. If Hamas simply holds the soldier they 'captured' and did not attempt to do anything with them save "release and repatriate them in an orderly manner after hostilities" then I would say they captured them or him but, if they 'captured' or seized him or them " in order to compel another party such as a relative, employer, law enforcement, or government to act, or refrain from acting, in a particular way, often under threat of serious physical harm to the hostage" then they are guilty of hostage taking which, is more in tune with kidnapping rather than capturing.

 

NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!
You want to debate the validity of your statement?

 

I have Moshe Dayan's journal in my house!

Syria believed that they have to fight a guerrilla war against Israel and thats why they soppurted the PLO, which up to this point was a terror organization that killed a lot of Israelis.
The Syrian Foreign Minister, Ibrahim Mah'os, said that "they believe of people's liberation war. this is the only solution...."

 

Now back at the Farm... The froof of the pudding is in the eating... So......Here is some proof from Gaza with maps et al.


IDF Spokesperson Photographs- Maps Demonstrating Terrorists Operating in
Close Proximity of Civilians
July 23, 2014
Attached, please find three maps that show the positions of terrorist
positions in the Gaza Strip, reflecting the way in which the terror
organizations deliberately choose to carry out their operations in close
proximity to civilians.
http://bit.ly/1rJ8lFo
http://bit.ly/1pbSnCP
http://bit.ly/1mCCiln
________________________________________
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis