Borat implies that It was Israel who was invaded in all of the many incursions that he refers to. This is akin to the other claim on this forum that "Israel never attacks; Israel only retaliates". Let us check these Zionist claims one by one as Erskine Childers cautioned in 1961: Claim 1) Who invaded territory that was not theirs in early 1948? Wiki Definition: Invade: An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity [to be continued]
Claim Test 2): Who invaded first in 1956? Did Israel invade Egypt or did Egypt invade Israel? Wiki Definition: Invade: An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity
Invasion is merely a battle menuvere, if you imply that invasion by itself prove righousness you are gravely mistaken, the Americans Invaded France in WW2 and it was very justified, You need to consider agrresivness - not military op's to determine right and wrong, and the war actually started the day after the UN resolution 181, 27th of November 1947, the Arab seige on Jewish part Jerusalem was on Dec 1947, the Israeli attempts to free it simply followed.
Once again, the act of WAR was what important and here too it was the Egyptians that tried to natinalize the cannel, if you have a second opinion on the matter you should first address it to the UK and France who declared the war.
I disagree, Gilos. If you want to take the approach that you advocate, you cannot choose your start date (as you can with "invasion" - which is usually known to within the hour if not the minute) by fingering a date which suits you. The real start date of this mega-conflict was not on 27th November 1947. Instead it was in 1897 when Theodor Herzl led the First Zionist Congress at Basel in 1897, which created the World Zionist Organization (WZO). Herzl's aim was to initiate necessary preparatory steps for the attainment of a Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael (Palestine) No Arab Palestinian had any hand in that first step which Herzl himself published was bound to lead to conflict. Driven by this resolution intense lobbying, particularly by Lord Rothschild, led to the British reneging on their promise to Hussein in 1915 and making the duplicitous undertaking called the Balfour Declaration. This put into motion the granting of Palestinian ground to a European sect by a major power who was subsequently meant to hold the (mandate) territory in sacred trust for the inhabitants of that territory, not for some foreign people with a 2000 year old wish. The was in direct violation of the Covenant of the League of nations and was therefore utterly illegal. Once again the Arab Palestinians had no hand in this process which was intended to open the doors to their territory for immigration of a foreign northern European people. This was clearly a highly aggressive act. But Borat did not qualify his claim by referring to who started the aggression and how each segment of tit-for-tat developed. He stated that Israel has been invaded many times in the past 65 tears and implied that it was NOT Israel who was the invader (see the definition of "invade" above). I respect your point, I really do, but right now I would like to deal with the issue of "invasions" since that is how the popular media, in line with Borat, phrases it. We can perhaps later take up your more philosophical point that there are issues that build up; issues which might involve aggression by others; which forced parties into aggression and ultimately into invasion. Right now I am rebutting Borat's statement
Again, Gilos you choose a starting point which suits you. Answer these questions if you would: 1) Why did Nasser nationalise the Suez canal? What spurred him to undertake this tit-for-tat? 2) Since when is the nationalisation of an asset (one which could be construed as being of national importance and not proper to be in the sole hands of foreigners) considered to be an act of war; an act of war which would justify INVASION? 3) Nationalization (British/Commonwealth spelling nationalisation) is the process of taking a private industry or private assets into public ownership by a national government or state. Wiki offers a minimum of 44 countries which have undertaken significant nationalisations - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization. Which of them do you think Israel or any other country should be allowed to invade with impunity? The United Kingdom? Saudi Arabia? Venezuela? Sri Lanka? Chile? Oh, and by the way, Israel invaded Egypt first in 1956, not France or the UK. Fact.
Actually it goes before the Balfur declaration and the first congress, it started right after the Tzar was assasinated, first Aliya was dated in 1881. the natives didnt like it just like I cant stand my noisy neighbors but guess what, both of us didnt have a choice who are neighbors are. Motives and intersts disregarding other ppl intests exist since ever and still to this day, its how the UN works - any relation to justice is purely by chance, but what you gave is a cold view of the events from the Arab perspective, to the Jewish ppl it was a dream coming true, I dont know if you are aware that most Jewish prayers have ended "Next year in re-built Jerusalem", and how much the ancient land means to the Jews, Jews always regarded them selves as uproots, foriegners in exile. so to us it was truely a blessing, thats way it was an unstoppable wave and why the country war erected against all odds. OK
I think it was a very natural part of his pan Arabism view, the cannal is a source of pride and quite a bit of cash. Well Israel didnt decide what legal and whats not, wasnt our call, we were just pawns, Ben Gurion followed Britain request. but the cannal is an international esset not just of Egypt, they cant just stop ships from sailing there. Ehhhh.........those that break the international law ? Ofc, they asked Israel to invade and Ben Gurion accepted.
it's a race thing, not a religious or ethnic thing. look, half the Jews in Israel today are faith based, not genetically tied. if you are a Jew from North West Africa, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, or Europe, you do not belong in the Middle East. if I were a Palestinian I too would be pissed at non-Middle Eastern Jews claiming to returning to their homeland.
That might be what you were taught at school and what Faux News, Commentary Magazine and what Shmuel Katzs books tell you, but the truth is Nasser's nationalisation of the Suez Canal was a tit-for-tat for the West reneging on promises to fund the Aswan Dam project. Now that is a REAL fact, and not a Myth. Oh, Gilos, please. Pull my other leg. All three countries were in cahoots and Britain knew that Ben Gurion would be thrilled at the opportunity to invade Egypt. Avi Shlaim lays open Ben Gurions gluttony for all to see here: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The Protocol of Sevres 1956 Anatomy of a War Plot.html At Sevres the British continued the Anti-Arab duplicity that they had started in 1917. Plus, just like in 1966, 1967, 1982 and 2008 there was a well-structured plan to conceal the truth as to who the aggressor really was. And Borat is perpetuating that Myth sequence. I know that HB will claim that with this post I am perpetrating Myths. He has to, otherwise all the carefully crafted Zionist camouflage of history comes tumbling down. This is no anti-semitic Myth. Here, check this: So this is not my invention. This reflects the records written by an IDF officer. Not only that, but Sir Donald Logan, who attended the Sèvres conference as Lloyds private secretary, became involved in the documentation. The whole issue is impeccably documented. Read Shlaims article - "The Protocol of Sèvres,1956: Anatomy of a War Plot" published in the respected journal - International Affairs, 73:3 (1997), 509-530.. It drives a HUGE nail into the coffin of the claim that Israel never invades; Israel only retaliates. You claim that Ben Gurion was an innocent pawn in the hands of the British and the French. On the contrary!!! There you have it, Gilos. There you have the reason for Israels intimate and enthusiastic involvement. It was part of the road-map to Eretz Yisrael. Retaliate? My foot. Innocent? Absolutely not!! And, Gilos, where does international law say that nationalising a strategic asset is illegal? The British nationalised breweries, electricity supply organisations, British Petroleum, British Aerospace, and worst of all, the British Leyland Motor Corporation and the entire Coal and Steel industries. France in turn took the remaining 49% of the SNCF in 1938, and then embarked on a massive nationalisation of the Coal, Electricity and Gas industries in 1946. Israel nationalised major banks in 1983. So, give me a break about such acts of nationalisation being illegal. Israel was the invader in 1956, not Egypt. MYTH BUSTED!!!
I do not believe that an educated man/girl could come up with such definition. If we attacked Egypt where is the property we kept? If you speak of the Sinai, the Sinai is not the property of Egypt... The International border of Egypt in the Sinai is a line from Rafa to Suez... If you do not know this much then, your efforts are Myths and prevarications.
Is that what your Zionist teachers told you ? Hmmm. Well , if you did some independent research + used you noddle , you'd notice that Arabs - generally - are amongst the most hospitable of people - Standard greeting is Ahlan Wa Sahlan - As Salaam Wa a Laykum " - = ( Welcome = Peace be on thee )- There's an enormous amount of documentary evidence that Palestinian Arabs at first WELCOME the Jewish cousins , however the tide turned when they came to realized the Zionist plan i.e. Herzl's "Der JUdenstaat" . Only then did Non-Jewish Palestinians recognise Zionist as an existential threat . European Jews did not seek refuge, they wanted to drive non-Jews out (ethnic cleansing i.e. Lehi/Irgun etc Jewish terrorists programs etc. to control the whole land. ## Gilos , there was a time , I too believed as you do, but later learnt mainly from Jewish sources , i.e. Anti-Zionist Jews + seculars like Ilan Pappe/ Uri Avnery etc + co., that I've previously been lied to. .... ..
HBendor, I followed your advice of 5 years ago and read books. Here is what I found in answer to your question: 1) Where is the property that Israel kept? http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/suez_01.shtml And that, HB, is why Israel did not keep any territory. Simple, Capiche? 2) The Sinai is not the property of Egypt HB, you tried this one before and were taught some history. Now you serve it up again. Why are you wasting our oxygen with stale repetitions? Heres a reminder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_Peninsula http://www.jpost.com/Features/In-Thespotlight/This-Week-in-History-Herzls-Sinai-alternative-320429 But you have been shown all of this before. Yet you continue to view the 1956 Israeli aggressive invasion as a Myth, because Sinai is not in Egypt. Isiah 42:20
... (Continued) .... So at this stage we know that: 1) It was Israel who entered into Arab-designated land (by UN 181) in early 1948, long before the Arab countries attacked in May. That fits the definition of invasion. Israel invaded non-Israeli territory in early-1948 The Zionist Myth of course is that it was the Arab countries who invaded Israel, instead of acknowledging that it was a tit-for-tat by the Arabs for Israels invasion and for her violating of international law (UN 181) by unilaterally declaring independence. 2) It was Israel who invaded Egypt in October 1956 Borat, the score is 2-0 against Israel on the invading front. So let us move onto the Third invasion by Israel, namely Israel's invasion of Jordan in November 1966. The score is now 3-0, Borat. Not looking good for a claim that Israel was always invaded and not the reverse. ... (to be continued) ...
First do not teach papa how to make babies... Second the explanation on Sinai is flawed at its base... Don't ever use the terminology <you have been shown> with me, I do not know you from a hole in the ground, and you cannot show me anything from the boiler room you operate from... Here is the difference on the situation... First of all, the Ottoman Turks ruled the entire area in question from 1517 until after World War I when Allenby liberated Jerusalem and Damascus in 1917. One has to remember also that the Turco-Egyptian frontier ran from Suez to Rafa. Turkey granted Egypt at the time ADMINISTRATIVE RIGHTS ONLY up to the line Rafa-Aqaba. Remember Allenby started his campaign against the Ottoman Empire by freeing the whole of Turkish Sinai; therefore Sinai East of the line Suez-Rafa belonged to Britain by right of conquest until its surrender of course by Israel to Egypt for a Peace agreement. Prior to that, the Roman and Byzantine Empires ruled it from the 1st through early 7th century C.E. Sinai has long served as the land bridge between Africa and Asia, but its harsh climate has also made it a buffer zone between competing empires. In recorded history the peninsula has been invaded more than 50 times, by Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, and others. The recent history of the peninsula has been driven by competition between adjacent powers for control of the area. With the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, Sinai grew in importance. Great Britain occupied Sinai and the rest of Egypt in 1882, mostly due to interest in the canal. During World War I (1914-191, the Ottoman Empire attempted unsuccessfully to wrest control of the peninsula away from British forces. When Britain declared Egypt an independent monarchy in 1922... Sinai remained a part of Egypt. Since World War II (1939-1945), Sinai has been a recurring battlefield for conflicts between Egypt and Israel. In October 1956 Israel invaded the peninsula after Egypt interfered with Israel's shipping routes by closing the Strait of Tiran (at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba) and nationalized the Suez Canal. Backed by British and French forces, Israel took control of Sinai. The United Nations (UN) mediated a truce, however, and the troops withdrew by the end of 1956. In 1967 Egypt once again blockaded the Strait of Tiran. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser also forced the UN Emergency Force, which had been stationed on the Sinai Peninsula since the Suez crisis, to leave the region. In response to these acts, Israel invaded the peninsula and captured the entire territory from Egypt in the Six-Day War. This war resulted in a temporary closure of the Suez Canal. In an effort to regain the land taken by Israel in 1967, Egypt, together with Syria, attacked Israel in 1973 and began what has come to be known as the Yom Kippur War. Israel defeated the Egyptian and Syrian forces and retained control of Sinai, but a state of unrest continued. An Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty was finally signed in 1979, at the conclusion of a peace conference mediated by United States president Jimmy Carter at Camp David, Maryland. The treaty required that Israel withdraw entirely from the Sinai Peninsula. The withdrawal was completed in 1982, except for the city of Taba, where a large Israeli tourist resort opened in 1982; Taba remained occupied by Israelis until 1989. The peninsula is now divided into a number of zones of demilitarization, monitored by the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) drawn from the United States and other countries. Read the parts in red and try to mesh PLO flag or not...
I do not care what you say... the only invaders were the Arabs and they also thumb their noses at all of you except klipkap who advocates for the Arab conquerors.
egypt and syria were prepared to attacki israel in 1967, but israel struck first. you cant blame them - - - Updated - - - The Palestinians have as much right to live in Palestine as Jews do.
Oy vey, HB, it doesnt matter that you dont care what I say. We all know your attitude to facts. It doesnt matter also because with the above post you have just shot your claim that Sinai is not part of Egypt soundly in the foot with the Glock that you threatened me with. Here take a look at your own words above: I rest my case. Israel invaded Egypt in 1956 and not the other way around. MYTH BUSTED!!!
Yes your case has been resting in here since you joined the Forum, appropriate flower were layed on it from your turbulent friends... Here is the part that you deviously and conveniently cut off... ~~~~First of all, the Ottoman Turks ruled the entire area in question from 1517 until after World War I when Allenby liberated Jerusalem and Damascus in 1917. One has to remember also that the Turco-Egyptian frontier ran from Suez to Rafa. Turkey granted Egypt at the time ADMINISTRATIVE RIGHTS ONLY up to the line Rafa-Aqaba. Remember Allenby started his campaign against the Ottoman Empire by freeing the whole of Turkish Sinai; therefore Sinai East of the line Suez-Rafa belonged to Britain by right of conquest until its surrender of course by Israel to Egypt for a Peace agreement. Prior to that, the Roman and Byzantine Empires ruled it from the 1st through early 7th century C.E. Sinai has long served as the land bridge between Africa and Asia, but its harsh climate has also made it a buffer zone between competing empires. In recorded history the peninsula has been invaded more than 50 times, by Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, and others. The recent history of the peninsula has been driven by competition between adjacent powers for control of the area. With the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, Sinai grew in importance. Great Britain occupied Sinai and the rest of Egypt in 1882, mostly due to interest in the canal. During World War I (1914-191, the Ottoman Empire attempted unsuccessfully to wrest control of the peninsula away from British forces. When Britain declared Egypt an independent monarchy in 1922... ~~~
Put that link on your browser and click 'go' You will get the Map of Sinai during the appropriate time. file:///C:/Users/Owner/Documents/Sinai_files/000_Untitled.jpg
And when Britain declared Egypt an independent monarchy on 28 February 1922 it included Sinai in the package. Here is a Wiki reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_Peninsula You don’t like Wiki? OK, try this pro-Zionist web site - http://www.shamrak.com/sh_articles/EA_Sinai Option.htm Whether the grant by Britain to Egypt was illegal is a matter of opinion. The writer provides no evidence for this. What he does provide is the undeniable fact that in 1922 Britain included Sinai within Egypt. Don’t like Zionist web sites, OK, then try this one - http://autocww2.colorado.edu/~blackmon/E64ContentFiles/GeographicalRegions/SinaiPeninsula.html Need more? http://staff.aub.edu.lb/~sh41/dr_sarry_website/publications/54_Arish-E.pdf Between 1917 and 1939, although part of Egypt, like the area around the Suez canal, Sinai was administered by the Frontier District Administration. So from 28 February 1922 onwards, Sinai was part of Egypt, because the Taba to Rafa border imposed by Britian for Egypt in 1922 includes Sinai. From 1939 onwards it was also administered by Egypt. Done and dusted!! Another HB unsubstantiated thumb-suck. However, let us presume for the sake of argument that in 1956 Sinai DID in fact still belong to Britain. You then leave us with the ridiculous illogicality that in October of that year, Egypt invaded British territory. Utter nonsense of course. But even so, if it were true (which it isn’t) Israel would have been guilty of invasion. The details of the Sevres discussions make a mockery of this aberration. (See Avi Shlaim 2001 - http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/Israel Between East and West, 1948-56.pdf) Israel invaded Egypt in 1956 and not the other way around. MYTH BUSTED!!!! British Map of Egypt under British protection
.... (continued) .... So we now have that: 1) Israel invaded non-Israeli territory in early-1948 2) Israel invaded Egypt in October 1956 3) Israel invaded Jordan on 13 November 1966 - the so-called Samu "incident" for which Israel was soundly rebuked in the UN by both the UK and the USA To that let us add another example as follows: 4) In April 1967 Israel invaded Syria. The standard Zionist version is that this invasion was an Israeli response to attacks by terrorists on Israel from bases in Syria. This becomes a mantra repeated so often that it seems inconceivable that anyone would dispute the "truth". Any attempts to do so are labelled "revisionist". Unfortunately for the Zionist view Ami Gluska published the results of his research in 2007 in a book called "The Israeli Military and the Origins of the 1967 War”. This research confirmed that it was government policy to undertake provocations of Syria along the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) on the border. It confirms Moshe Dayan’s interview in which he recalls: http://reuvenkaminer.blogspot.com.es/1997_04_01_archive.html This coincides perfectly with the personal observations by Dutch colonel and UN Observer Jan Mühren that there was an Israeli programme of deliberate provocations and that the Zionist version of it being responses to terrorist attacks was “a blatant lie; a distortion of history”. It is supported by the IDF reports of conflict along the borders where "agriculture"; " farming activities", "tractor" provide the majority of "terrorist attacks" and perfectly fit Dayan, Mühren and Gluska's descriptions that the majority of provocations being perpetrated by Israel. Gluska goes on to show in great detail how the Israeli Prime Minister Eshkol approved there programmes. He also describes how the event on 7 April 1966 got out of hand when the IAF cross the border without Central Command authority, overflew Damascus and engaged the Syrian air force. Tom Segev describes how the newspaper Maariv wrote “This is not an ‘incident’ but a real war”. Moshe Dayan thundered in the War Cabinet “What do you think you are doing? You are leading us into war”. He was to be proved to be correct.
Let us say for the sake of the argument that you are right because you do not suck anything especially thumbs... SO WHAT? We are today what we are with your approbation or withoiut it... SOOOOOOOOOOOOO WHAT? Watch the video of young Netanyahu advocating for a ONE STATE Solution... Under Jordan Is Palestine thread.
Sorry, HB, but that is not the topic of the thread, which is to refute Borat's claim that Israel was continuously invaded and to refute his implication and your previous claim that "Israel does not attack; Israel simply retaliates". So I suppose that is good enough cause to raise the next one: 5) In June 1967 Israel invaded Egypt and not the reverse. In his recently published book The Six-Day War and Israeli Self-Defense Questioning the Legal Basis for Preventive War (Dec 2012) John Quigley writes that: Israel did in fact claim that Egypt struck first: The Egyptians were not engaged in hostile moves. All observers agree on that. Israel had no other option than to lie so as to forestall a UN order to desist. Ami Gluska confirms this in The Israeli Military and the Origins of the 1967 War (2007), a highly detailed and impeccably referenced work which largely confirms Tom Segevs book of the same year (2007) 1967 Israel, the War and the Year that Transformed the Middle East. Gluska, p.239 : Israel had to lie. So what was Israels subsequent defence when she admitted that Egypt had in fact not struck first? She quoted three casus belli: a) Egypt had required the withdrawal of UNEF from Sinai. As the Secretary General of the UN admitted, it was Egypts full right to do so in terms of the conditions for emplacement of UNEF on Egyptian soil. Israel had flatly refused UNEF the right to station in her territory, yet here she was quoting a 'casus belli' when Egypt did the same. b) Egypt had built up a large force along Israels border and was about to attack. That reminds me of the 2003 WMDs that Saddam was imminently going to use. We have already seen that observers agree that the Egyptian forces were defensive. Were these forces a threat? Of course they were. Two months ago Israel had invaded Syria, an invasion that the Israeli media and the Israeli Foreign Minister called war. Then Rabin had publicly threatened the overthrow of the Damascus regime. Plus Egypt and Syria had a mutual defence pact. Egypt had been humiliated by the Arabs in November 1966 and April 1967 for having done nothing in response to Israel's invasions. Nasser could not afford to duck behind the parapet on a third occasion. He made a defensive show of force. c) Nassers threat to block the Straits of Tiran. What Egypt had in fact done was to inspect the cargo of ships passing through her territorial waters, which was her full right under the UN Law of the Sea. There was absolutely no sign of a blockade by Egypt of Israeli ports. Not one ship had been turned back. After a few days Nasser then ordered even these inspections to stop while he prepared to go to the International Court of Justice to seek an opinion as to his right to do so. That is when Israel struck and struck without any aggressive sign of attack by Egypt. And the Zionists main mantra of all time is that Israel was forced to attack because Egypt was about to invade her. So she lied again. There is a plethora of evidence from Israeli records revealed by Segev that the Israeli politicians and their military knew full well that Egypt was not about to attack. Notwithstanding all of this evidence, these impeccable records from a huge variety of sources and archives, the professional referencing and the careful piecing together of the documented picture, the Zionist mantra still rings out that Israel's aggression was a defensive attack. There is no evidence for this in the light of modern archival studies. Egypt was showing Israel that it was ready to move IF ISRAEL ATTACKED SYRIA in line with Rabin's threat. US and UK intelligence agencies informed Israel that that was their opinion. Israel had by now invaded neighbouring Arab countries 5 times on a major scale.
if Israel annexes the West Bank, the Arabs will outnumber the Jews and Israel will stop being a Jewish state.
