Who did the invading, Borat?

There we go, all better now.

Pffft

Please provide the terms of this Habib Ceasefire or I shall invoke Rule #10 as you are obfuscating the entire thread by not showing us these terms.

Your own quote stated that " the PLO had assured him that it would observe the cease-fire called for by the Security Council."

Irrelevant as you don't have any terms to show us from the Habib Ceasefire so, we can only surmise they were the same terms as the one in which you stated that;

He would have been referring to the Habib Ceasefire which used the same terms as the UNSC Ceasefire otherwise it would have been in violation of the UNSC.

Indeed. Using the same terms but a different name they would of course know there was a difference.

And this is your last opportunity to provide the ceasefire terms of this Habib Ceasefire or acknowledge that it would have been in lock step with the UNSC Ceasefire otherwise we shall invoke Rule #10 and have the thread moderated because it is useless continuing any serious discussion when you cannot show us that the ceasefire terms restricted all action to the physical area of the border and lines of Israel and Lebanon.

Last chance Klip Klap, please save this thread.

 

I personally back 'Face Your' absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Klipkap stop pointing <your finger of indignation> towards anyone here... you are no authority on anything and posting scatological references from a <SHYSTER'S BOOK> does not make you a maven either.

 

Israel invaded Jordan before the 1967 war.

 

I showed you a plethora of references to show that the Habib ceasefire was restricted to the Lebanese border zone, whereas 490 was not. So the two are quite clearly not the same. I can try to reword that if this is still unclear to you. If you claim that Habib was in violation of "490" than you should take it up with the Secretary General who announced Habib's efforts on 24th July 1981.

You were shown the essence of the content of the ‘Habib’ ceasefire, namely that it referred to the Lebanese border zone as follows:

1) Your own reference, provided by you in post #52, completely trashed your view that “490” was the ceasefire that was meant to be observed with this line – “Philip C. Habib, who helped negotiate the cease-fire” – which makes it utterly clear that the ceasefire in question was the Habib ceasefire.

2) When you read the actual words of “490” it calls for a ceasefire and goes on to request information on the implementation of the resolution. That implementation was the joint UN/Habib efforts that I showed you in my post #124 quoting from Chandra’s book. The ‘Habib’ ceasefire was the implementation as notified by the Secretary General of the UN on 24 July 1981. That same reference confirms that Israel had adopted it … I repeat … Israel had adopted the Habib ceasefire.

3) You persist in referring to a quote from Chandra’s book – “the PLO had assured him that it would observe the cease-tire called for by the Security Council” and you claim that this refers directly to UN Security Council resolution 490. Even though you cannot prove this, let us presume that Chandra’s quote did refer to “490”. It is still one single piece of evidence compared to the plethora contrary pieces of evidence that I provide in 5) below. Resolution 490 is not even a ceasefire agreement. The latter came from the implementation of “ 490”, which was the Habib ceasefire. I understand why you are fighting the dozens-versus-one battle – because you needed to make out that “490” was a ceasefire agreement (it was not – see 4) below) because it does not restrict the scope to the Lebanese border zone which the Habib ceasefire did (see Drew’s post #57)

4) From the text of “490” [click for source] it is clear that that resolution is not a ceasefire agreement, yet you keep on claiming that it is.

5) Instead, as I showed you on numerous occasions, all parties were clear that it was the Habib ceasefire that was governing the border zone between July 1981 and June 1982. “490” was not a ceasefire agreement. In rebuttal of your one single (and dubious) quote attempting to show that the ceasefire agreement being observed was UNSCR 490, the plethora of references that I provided for my view included

@ the top Jewish web site (post #35);
@ the Gilad Sharon’s biography of Ariel Sharon (his father) (post # 5;
@ the Rand organisation (post # 53);
@ Chandra’s book (post #78 and, most importantly, post #124)
@ Shindler’s book (post #57);
@ Porath’s statement (post #57; Ha’aretz – post #7;
@ A. Mack’s book “Israel’s Lebanon War (post #57); the WSWS summary (post #69);
@ Habib’s own observations (NYT - post #72)
@ The Israeli government web site (post #77)
@ The Global Jewish News Source (post #77)
@ US Library of Congress - http://countrystudies.us/israel/33.htm - (post #77)
@ The NYT (post #77)
@ Global Security (post #95)

@ To these we can also add US Secretary of State Alexander Haig’s statements [click for source]. Most of these were previously covered here on this forum - http://www.politicalforum.com/middl...982-zionists-deny-guilt-3.html#post1061941367.

6) You asked for the terms of the ceasefire on many occasions. I showed you that it was an oral agreement negotiated via intermediaries (Nasr’s book, quoted in my post #72 ). Even though I provided the above plethora of evidence that the Habib ceasefire was restricted to the Lebanese border zone (the main original point as per your post #57) and that all the main parties knew this, you keep on insisting that I provide the terms of the this oral ceasefire agreement.

7) I previously referred to the UNIFIL reports (post #57 and here - http://www.politicalforum.com/middl...982-zionists-deny-guilt-3.html#post1061941367), which show that there were no PLO-initiated violations of the Habib ceasefire from 16th June onwards. You propose that the attacks on Israel which continued on the day of the Habib ceasefire having been concluded was reason sufficient for Israel’s invasion 11 months later, notwithstanding the fact that you were shown that Begin never even mentioned it when justifying his invasion to Haig, instead the trigger was the assassination attempt on the Israeli ambassador by the Abu Nidal group which had split from the PLO in 1974.

8 ) I showed you why Begin had to resort to the frail trigger (for the 1982 invasion of Lebanon) of the Abu Nadal group (as opposed to your position that it was the attacks by the rogue group on 24th July 1981- 11 months previously) by quoting from Zeev Maoz’s piece in “Existential Threats and Civil-security Relations - edited by Oren Barak, Gabriel Sheffer in my post #72)

And when I provide you with direct quotes to substantiate all of this, you post:

I call your bluff. I add my voice in support for this thread to be moderated.

 

The Muslims have ruled Palestine much longer than the Jews did.

 

Sent to mods.

Rule # 10

And;

This thread has stagnated due to the inability of one poster who repeatedly asserts that a ceasefire known as &#8216;The Habib Ceasefire&#8217; contains the terms necessary to prove his point which is that one particular party broke the ceasefire as it was worded in his favor. However, when asked repeatedly to provide the terms of this ceasefire he is unable to, citing that it was an oral agreement and he cannot provide anything formal or official to show that the ceasefire he refers to has a clause to that effect or, any clause whatsoever for that matter.

While it is possible the member is right it is just as possible, if not more that he is wrong as the ceasefire he speaks of is based in part and works in conjunction with on a UN Resolution and, if terms within it run counter to that resolution then it would be an illegal ceasefire as it would run counter to the ruling of the UNSC.


This discussion has stalled and, we have attempted to work it out ourselves. Both the other member and I are in agreement as he expressed his wishes likewise stating "I call your bluff. I add my voice in support for this thread to be moderated."

So, please moderate this thread.

 

Israel invade Jordan.

Israel invaded the DMZ with Syria.

 

… (The Israeli invasion of Gaza (2008 ) continued – Part 2) …

So far we have seen that Israel placed a blockade on Gaza because Hamas won the 2006 elections (and then seized control when Fatah refusal to hand over power in 2007). Hamas had been observing a ceasefire up until then, so the excuse for the blockade of “rockets raining down on Israel” is nonsense. Even so, Hamas still maintained discipline. How different is this verifiable account of history from the Zionist mantra that Hamas continuously rains rockets on Israel?

But after a year, when the unjustified Israeli sanctions started to bite, only then did Hamas moved over to a response, indeed then raining homemade rockets down on Israel in retaliation. This ceased with the Egyptian-sponsored June 2008 ceasefire. Hamas once again obeyed the ceasefire. But Israel did not reverse the blockade. I am going to repeat that – Israel reneged and did not comply with her obligations. Yet Hamas still observed the ceasefire. That Israel failed utterly to comply with her obligations to reverse the blockade, see the graphs of permitted truck flow in my post in Part 1 of this Example 8.
This reminds me strongly of the PLO in southern Lebanon in 1981/1982 - quite a striking parallel.

But why would Israel have reneged on its obligations under the ceasefire? That is a very aggressive act, and the Zionist apologists repeatedly claim that Israel was never the aggressor. Maybe the following could explain it (click here for source):

So the straight answer is that Israel had not intention at all of complying with the ceasefire. She just wanted to strangle Hamas, who was keeping to the ceasefire. Could that be true? Could Israel, the good guys, be so disrespectful of peace efforts? Here is the source for the next quote (click):

Up to that point, given the above facts, who would the reasonable person judge to be the good guys, and who the bad guys. Borat, Gilos, HBendor, Drew, … try to reign in the standard mantras and try to make a reasoned judgement.

And then, to compound it’s disrespect for peace and order, the Israel broke the ceasefire violently. Why? What was the epic Gazan action that gave Israel reason to do this?

….. (to be continued Part 3) ….

 

This is the example >>MOD EDIT: INSULT<< (what is black is white and what is white is black)...
There was not a single day in the history of Gaza that Gaza did not lob missiles on the civilian population.
And when Israel retaliates you call that invasion. You are something else indeed!

 

this is of course not correct.

for decades Gaza wasn't throwing missiles at Israel.

 

Isaiah 42:20 again.
# Do you dispute the IDF data underpinning the graphs that I posted? I have checked them. They passed 100%.

# Did you see the video that was posted with the Israeli spokesman admitting that Hamas was not responsible for any of the (massively reduced) attacks on Israel between June and November 4, 2008? If so, why do you persist in ignoring it?

# Did you see that Israel came nowhere close to complying with her obligation to remove the blockade - the Carter Institute made this crystal clear. Israel reneged.

Yet you call this MYTH making.

~ Edit/Off topic ~

 

Yes indeed, here's government spokesman, Mark Regev, admitting Israel did exactly that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SILJxPTqjAM

 

Go and listen Again to Mr Regev and understand... If the Place you are living in Polishe would have received half of these incoming Missiles on Israel your country would have obliterated the source of these missiles lobbing for sure.

 

Sorry, HBendor, but again you ignore reality and put a fantasy spin on it. I say that because what you have just claimed is in total contrast to the video clip.

You have just implied that there were missiles in significant numbers raining down on Israel. Yet at the start of the video the point is precisely made that this was not the case - take a look, HB before you respond only by insulting me again.

And then Israel broke the ceasefire on 4 November 2008 and rejected the Hamas offer to reinstate the ceasefire in December 2008. The result was the slaughter of 1400+ Gazans.

In complete contrast to what HB and the other Zionist Apologists write, Hamas was observing the ceasefire in 2008 and Israel both failed to comply and then broke the ceasefire.

Those are bankable facts as have been shown by IDF data, by Snakestrecher's video, and by my post here - http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/313440-who-did-invading-borat-13.html#post1062976901 (the latter also laden with proof)

 

If I ever insulted you... You derve it!

Your are talking of missiles as if Israel has been showered with candy drops... Israel should not have accepted one incoming missile... I wish your country would be under continuous incoming missiles. Pointing your crooked finger of indignation towards Israel when it does not deserve it is tantamount to lying to yourself. YOU HAVE SOME NERVE.

 

Israel suffers because of its racist and genocidal policies.

Just as South Africa and Serbia suffered.

 

Israel do not suffer. Arabs are FRUSTRATED due the fact that the Jewish state is still the bright modern light surrounded
by dark Muslim & Arab countries.
How many people were murdered today in Arab countries by Arab hands ???? Frustration !!

 

they act like they suffer daily.

they use this to mask their very guilty consciounse.

 

OK. So you continue to avoid addressing the evidence that I have presented.

I believe that I have been as patient as anyone can expect.

You have utterly failed to refute ANYTHING. You have just soooo run out of factual ammunition.
My facts stand. Israel is the main aggressor. She brought the rockets on herself. Time to face reality.

 

What ? Who ? Where ?
Please be serious !! 1300 Arabs were killed today !! Sorry - Butchered !!
I wonder how Islamists close their eyes at night knowing they live in a lie ? Blahhh

 

since you're the expert, why don't you teach them?

 

Answer - Your hatred is the cause to your misery !

 

my misery?

im sitting happily at my desk, with the fan on, in my comfy office in New York City.

 

You are invited to the middle east. Join fighting in the Syrian conflict, or the Egyptian revolution.
Don't you care about the REAL problems in that area ?

 

Neo-Zionist argument #24: "There are soo many more important issues in the world other than little Jewish Israel".