Quote:
Originally Posted by donsutherland1  [left]
You have well-established your personal opinion toward that end. That you hold such an opinion is not at issue. The legal and historical facts (jurisdiction, diplomatic process, United Nations proceedings, historic legitimacy shared by Arabs and Jews, inherent right of self-determination enjoyed by all peoples, etc.) argue against the "aggressive imposition" narrative that is held by the Arabs. That is their perspective to which they are entitled if they so choose. However, that perspective alone does not change the legal facts associated with Israel's re-establishment nor the reality that it was the Arabs who initiated aggression aimed at conquering the newly re-established Israel in 1948. |
The legality you mention, imposed from without by imperial powers, without even a referendum doesnt change the fact that Israel is by definition an aggressive imposition.
If it was all accepted by the locals then Id have no argument, but it wasnt so I do.
Quote:
Incorrect. From the May 15, 1948 edition of The New York Times:
Air raiders bombed this all-Jewish city [Tel Aviv] at dawn today...
Cairo reported that Egyptian armed forces had been ordered to enter palestine. Arab armies moved from Trans-Jordan at 12:01 A.M. Saturday [May 15] to "liberate the Holy Land from Zionism," said a Trans-Jordan communiqué reported by The United Press from Amman...
The planes swooped over Tel Aviv little more than twleve hours after Jewish leaders proclaimed the existence of a new hebrew state of Israel...
In April 1948, the Arabs had threatened to invade the region once the British Mandate expired. The Arabs threatened aggression to impose their will and, once Israel was re-established, carried out their threat. No news story reported Israel's initiating an invasion of neighboring Arab lands to start the 1948 war.
|
No, its correct. Israeli forces moved before 1948.
Quote:
Furthermore, it should be noted that naval blockades (as were imposed against Israel in 1956 and 1967) have long been considered an act of war. They are covered in such conventions as the Treaty of Paris of 1856. Not surprisingly, they are also specifically cited as an act of aggression by such instruments as a 1933 Convention between the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Turkey and UN General Assembly Resolution 3314.
Egypt engaged in aggression against Israel in imposing its blockades. Israel exercised its inherent right of self-defense to break those blockades. Therefore, Egypt and not Israel was the aggressor in those wars.
|
It should be noted that justifications for war are not difficult to make up and that even Israeli generals of the time admit that they were the aggressors;
"Nasser didnt want war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it"
Yitsak Rabin, Chief of Staff
Le Monde, February 1968.
"the Egyptian layout in Sinai and the general build up there testified to a militarily defensive Egyptian set up, south of Israel"
Levy Eshkol
Yediot Ahronot, Oct 16, 1967.
and even later the Prime Minister Menachim Begin.
"In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."
New York Times, Aug 21 1982.
B Kimmerling, 'Politicide'.
Quote:
|
Fictitious accounts do not create "balance." If anything, they highlight the flimsiness of the opinion that Israel and not the Arabs initiated the aggression beginning in 1948 that led to today's situation.
|
Thats ok then since my points and accounts are not fictitious.