UN asks Israel to open its nuclear program to inspection

TheDemSocialist said:

So therefor Israel is going to try to hold Iran to standards they themselves (Israel) does not even hold its own self to?

Click to expand...

Why on earth would Israel be held accountable for not fulfilling a treaty it did not sign? How is that in any way relevant to Israel demanding that Iran should be obligated to fulfil a treaty it has signed?

TheDemSocialist said:

Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/05/276226/un-asks-israel-to-open-its-nuclear-program-to-inspection/

So if Israel wants Iran to be "more open" with its nuclear deal, why doesnt Israel lead by example? Israel is also a threat to peace because they are not signed to the NPT.

Click to expand...

When was the last time that Israel threatened to wipe some group or another away? How many times has the President of Iran done so?

Kal'Stang said:

When was the last time that Israel threatened to wipe some group or another away? How many times has the President of Iran done so?

Click to expand...

Except Ahmadenajad never said that...
"Ahmadinejad's alleged condemnation of Israel came at a "World Without Zionism" conference in Tehran in Oct. 2005, in which he was quoted by an English-language Iranian news site as saying "Israel must be wiped off the map." But as several analyses of the original Farsi statement show, this appears to be a mistranslation.

Arash Norouzi of the Mossadegh Project noted in 2007 that Ahmadinejad "never... uttered the words 'map,' 'wipe out,' or even 'Israel'" in his statement. Rather, he argued, the translation should have been that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." (Both The Washington Post and The Atlantic came up with similarly variant translations.)

This is a key difference, Mr. Norouzi argued, because Ahmadinejad used the "vanish from the page of time" idiom elsewhere in his speech: when describing the governments of the Shah of Iran, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein. While war and revolution were involved in the three regimes' collapse, none of them, Norouzi argued, were "wiped off the map." Rather, they underwent regime change. This suggests in turn, he said, that Ahmadinejad was calling for regime change in Israel, not nuclear genocide. Juan Cole, another critic of the speech's translation, compared Ahmadinejad's statement to Reagan-era calls for the end of the Soviet Union."
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...-said-that-Israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map.

quantumechanic said:

Why on earth would Israel be held accountable for not fulfilling a treaty it did not sign? How is that in any way relevant to Israel demanding that Iran should be obligated to fulfil a treaty it has signed?

Click to expand...

Why would Israel call for standards they dont even uphold themselves to!? Its very hypocritical to say "hey you signed this piece of paper that states x,y,z but we didnt sign it so we dont hold ousrevles to those x,y,z standards but guess what you better uphold yourself to those standards. "

TheDemSocialist said:

Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/05/276226/un-asks-israel-to-open-its-nuclear-program-to-inspection/

So if Israel wants Iran to be "more open" with its nuclear deal, why doesnt Israel lead by example? Israel is also a threat to peace because they are not signed to the NPT.

Click to expand...

The same reason why Iran won't do it. It's a nuclear world, where nuclear arms are the only real deterrent from nuclear attack. Israel's enemies have proven themselves to be unstable through countless terrorist acts against innocent people. Israel isn't an innocent party by any means, but they have as much a right to build a nuclear deterrence as any other nation.

TheDemSocialist said:

Except Ahmadenajad never said that...
"Ahmadinejad's alleged condemnation of Israel came at a "World Without Zionism" conference in Tehran in Oct. 2005, in which he was quoted by an English-language Iranian news site as saying "Israel must be wiped off the map." But as several analyses of the original Farsi statement show, this appears to be a mistranslation.

Arash Norouzi of the Mossadegh Project noted in 2007 that Ahmadinejad "never... uttered the words 'map,' 'wipe out,' or even 'Israel'" in his statement. Rather, he argued, the translation should have been that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." (Both The Washington Post and The Atlantic came up with similarly variant translations.)

This is a key difference, Mr. Norouzi argued, because Ahmadinejad used the "vanish from the page of time" idiom elsewhere in his speech: when describing the governments of the Shah of Iran, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein. While war and revolution were involved in the three regimes' collapse, none of them, Norouzi argued, were "wiped off the map." Rather, they underwent regime change. This suggests in turn, he said, that Ahmadinejad was calling for regime change in Israel, not nuclear genocide. Juan Cole, another critic of the speech's translation, compared Ahmadinejad's statement to Reagan-era calls for the end of the Soviet Union."
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...-said-that-Israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map.

Click to expand...

One of the Great Strawmen of the current debate.
He didn't say that precisely but we have plenty of statements with his intent.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/71104-infamous-ahmadinejad-wiped-off-map-speech.html

So because he didn't say exactly that on that day, some use that Iran-originated Mistranslation to let him off the hook for what in fact are many essences of the same.

This on the same day when you sarcastically said:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...-s-anniversary-rally-gaza.html#post1061230981

TheDemSocialist said:

Yes.. Cuz so many radical leftists love a Pro-theocracy islamic militant parties...

Click to expand...

But you know what?
You Absolutely DO support the Islamist Militant Theocracy (vs Israel) and worse, their acquisition of Nukes.
And you do so regularly.
So you Mocked you. Same day.

Your so-called Leftist Politics, like Most Leftists isn't really Left, it's Anti-USA/Anti-Israel at all costs.
This a perfect example. Somewhere Left of Planet Chomsky.

oh..
and you never answered this earler in the string:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...lear-program-inspection-6.html#post1061216521
?
Just merrily Bump up your Propaganda titles/Paint and repaint the board.
I'm Sick of the Trite daily Graffiti/RSS feed from WSWS.

TheDemSocialist said:

Why would Israel call for standards they dont even uphold themselves to!? Its very hypocritical to say "hey you signed this piece of paper that states x,y,z but we didnt sign it so we dont hold ousrevles to those x,y,z standards but guess what you better uphold yourself to those standards. "

Click to expand...

I can only assume you didn't read GIJoe's post #93, so here's the part addressing this particular point:

GI Joe said:

Unlike Iran Israel was one of the few in the nuclear club that became a nuclear power long before there was an NPT. So even if they did sign it they would be exempt from getting rid of their weapons and from inspections just like the US, Russia, China France and the UK.
Iran recieved most of its nuke tech by signing and agreeing to be bound by the NPT. Israel developed nuke tech on its own not by signing and agreeing to be bound by the NPT.

Click to expand...

Israel developed its nuclear technologies before there was an NPT while Iran developed it by signing the NPT. Again, where is the double standard in holding Iran to the commitment it made?

TheDemSocialist said:

Except Ahmadenajad never said that...
"Ahmadinejad's alleged condemnation of Israel came at a "World Without Zionism" conference in Tehran in Oct. 2005, in which he was quoted by an English-language Iranian news site as saying "Israel must be wiped off the map." But as several analyses of the original Farsi statement show, this appears to be a mistranslation.

Arash Norouzi of the Mossadegh Project noted in 2007 that Ahmadinejad "never... uttered the words 'map,' 'wipe out,' or even 'Israel'" in his statement. Rather, he argued, the translation should have been that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." (Both The Washington Post and The Atlantic came up with similarly variant translations.)

This is a key difference, Mr. Norouzi argued, because Ahmadinejad used the "vanish from the page of time" idiom elsewhere in his speech: when describing the governments of the Shah of Iran, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein. While war and revolution were involved in the three regimes' collapse, none of them, Norouzi argued, were "wiped off the map." Rather, they underwent regime change. This suggests in turn, he said, that Ahmadinejad was calling for regime change in Israel, not nuclear genocide. Juan Cole, another critic of the speech's translation, compared Ahmadinejad's statement to Reagan-era calls for the end of the Soviet Union."
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...-said-that-Israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map.

Click to expand...

How do you explain this statement from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei where he referred to Israel as a "cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut."
Iran: We will help 'cut out the cancer of Israel' - Telegraph

Or this statement from Ahmadinejad, “The nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land…. A new Middle East will definitely be formed. With the grace of God and help of the nations, in the new Middle East there will be no trace of the Americans and Zionists,”
Ahmadinejad: Israel Is a ‘Cancerous Tumor’ That Will Soon Be Destroyed | TheBlaze.com

quantumechanic said:

I can only assume you didn't read GIJoe's post #93, so here's the part addressing this particular point:

Click to expand...

No i did read it and i responded to it by saying: So did the US and we signed and it and now we hold ourselves to those standards.

TheDemSocialist said:

So therefor Israel is going to try to hold Iran to standards they themselves (Israel) does not even hold its own self to?

Click to expand...

Not just it's own standards, the standards of the INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. If Iran has nuclear weapons that violates INTERNATIONAL LAW. It does not violate squat for Israel to have nuclear weapons; however, as a member of the international community (UN) Israel has a full right to demand enforcement of international law.

TheDemSocialist said:

So was the US by that standards.

Click to expand...

The US has Nukes and is not subject to inspections, niether are the other original nuke powers.

as I said
Its not hypocracy. Israel was a nuke power before there was an NPT, Iran was not. Israel developed its own nuke tech. Iran did not, it, Iran recieved its nuke tech because it agreed to be bound by the treaty. Iran had a choice whether to sign the NPT or not.

TheDemSocialist said:

So therefor Israel is going to try to hold Iran to standards they themselves (Israel) does not even hold its own self to?

Click to expand...

Israel is not subject to the same standards for reasons I mentioned just like the other original nuke powers. Iran made a choice to recieve nuke tech by signing the treaty. They could have chose to develope the technology on its own like Israel.

TheDemSocialist said:

No i did read it and i responded to it by saying: So did the US and we signed and it and now we hold ourselves to those standards.

Click to expand...

If you did read it then your post actually makes less sense.
Israel is not, and has never been, obligated to sign the NPT, and so hasn't, as is its right. Iran has signed the NPT and violated it. Do you honestly not see the difference?

quantumechanic said:

I'll keep an open mind. What examples of totally unjustified instances of aggressive offensive action taken by Israel can you share with us?

Click to expand...

The outbreak of the Six-Day War was Israeli-initiated. It could well have been to stop an invasion by Nasser and the other Arab forces, but some Israeli officials have said otherwise.

I believe the military events of the Suez Crisis were also initiated by Israel, although I read (in a historical novel :lol that Nasser's seizing of the Suez Canal violated international law and hurt Israeli trade (also British and French trade).

MadLib said:

The outbreak of the Six-Day War was Israeli-initiated. It could well have been to stop an invasion by Nasser and the other Arab forces, but some Israeli officials have said otherwise.

Click to expand...

The six day war is precisely the reason I used the word "unjustified".

On the 15th of May 1967 Egypt sent ground forces into the Sinai peninsula, on the 17th Nasser ordered the UN expeditionary force to leave Sinai (they left on the 22nd), on the 20th he started pulling military forces out of Yemen and sending them to Sinai (both of which actions forced Israel to call up its reserves, effectively bringing the Israeli economy to a standstill), on the 23rd he closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, on the 30th he received command of the Jordanian army and in early May he flew to Amman two battalions of commandos tasked with infiltrating Israel's borders. Syria, with the approval of the Arab league tried to divert drinking water away from the river Jordan (out of sheer spite), Palestinian terrorists were habitually attacking Israeli civilians gaining support and setting out to their murderous missions from every neighbouring Arab country.
Also, Israel delayed it's plan of attack twice when the US asked it to in lieu of their attempts at a diplomatic solution.

There's a compilation of quotes from Arab leaders before Israel initiated the war here. Here are a few examples:

"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood"
Nasser, 8th of March 1967

“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.”
President Attassi of Syria, 22nd of February 1967

"Taking over Sharm el Sheikh meant confrontation with Israel (and) also meant that we were ready to enter a general war with Israel. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel”
Nasser, 26th of May 1967

“We will not accept any… coexistence with Israel.… Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel…. The war with Israel is in effect since 1948”.
Nasser, 28th of May 1967

"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations."
Nasser, 30th of May 1967 (incidentally, the same day received control of the Jordanian army)

“The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the map”
President Aref of Iraq, 31st of May 1967


How much more justification did Israel need?

MadLib said:

The outbreak of the Six-Day War was Israeli-initiated. It could well have been to stop an invasion by Nasser and the other Arab forces, but some Israeli officials have said otherwise.

I believe the military events of the Suez Crisis were also initiated by Israel, although I read (in a historical novel :lol that Nasser's seizing of the Suez Canal violated international law and hurt Israeli trade (also British and French trade).

Click to expand...

Not true. The Six Day War was Arab initiated. While Egypts blockade of the Straights of Tiran was Casus Belli itself, there were many more hostile actions that put Israel in an untenable position forcing Israel to take action.
Here is a previous post I made. There might be some comments that are not directed to you


The blockade of The Straits of Tiran was recognized Casus Belli and was itself all the justification Israel needed to strike. Even LBJ said

“If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Straits of Tiran would be closed. The right of innocent, maritime passage must be preserved for all nations”. - US President Lyndon Johnson - June 19th 1967

The fact is even though Israel was well justified in striking because of the Straits of Tiran blockade on May 22nd, they did not do so and did try and let diplomacy work. The Straits of Tiran blockade was one of only many proximate causes that forced Israel to take pre-emptive defensive military action on June 6, 1967. The Arab actions prior to the blockade such as terrorist activity emanating from the various Arab countries, threats, Syrian shelling from the Golan and the attempt to cut off one of Israels main water sources, as well as combined with Arab actions during and after the Tiran blockade such the massing of Arab armies on Israels border, Egypt kicking out UN Peacekeepers in the Sinai, Egypt moving troops in and massing troops in the Sinai after kicking the UN out even thought it was supposed to be a DMZ, continued shelling/terror activity, the Egypt, Syria Jordan military pact and the constant threatening rhetoric calling for the destruction of Israel, all give Israel more than enough justification to strike even without the Straits of Tiran blockade. Even when the war began Israel urged Jordan to stay out and only struck Jordan after Jordan attacked.

Despite having many times more than enough justification to take action Isreal did try to give diplomacy a chance. But Israel was in an untenable position. They were a country of 3 million surounded on all sides by an enemy numbering 110 million with over 3 times the combat aircraft, tanks and other arms than Israel. The Arab Armies were many times the size of Israels 50,000 with 214,000 reserves. While Israeli troops were better trained they were mostly reserves so their mobilization was crippling their already shaky economy and they could not maintain such a mobilization for any length of time without imploding their economy. The fact is the longer they waited the weaker they became making for more and more resultant casulaties and damage they would suffer from. Even more importantly the longer they waited the less the chance for victory would be and losing means Israels complete destruction.

All the above while Nasser and other Arab leaders are making speaches and spouting off about anihilating Israel in a holy war and driving the Jews to the sea. Only a fool would not take these mortal threats seriously and not act as quick as possible.




Memorandum From the Central Intelligence Agency's Board of National Estimates to Director of Central Intelligence
Washington, May 26, 1967.
/1/Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Country File, Middle East Crisis, Vol. II. Secret


The Israelis face dismaying choices. Surprised and shaken by Nasser's action, they failed to take the instant military counteraction which might have been most effective. If they attack now they will face far more formidable opposition than in the rapid campaign of 1956. We believe that they would still be able to drive the Egyptians away from the entrance to the Strait of Tiran, but it would certainly cost them heavy losses of men and materiel. We are not sure that they have sufficient stockpiles of ammunition and equipment for a war lasting more than three or four weeks, and it is possible that they would not embark upon a major campaign without prior assurances from the US of adequate resupply.

But the alternative for the Israelis is perilous. To acquiesce in the permanent closing of the Strait of Tiran would constitute an economic and political setback from which no early recovery would be foreseeable. The Israelis would expect, correctly we believe, that the Arabs over the long run would be encouraged to undertake new and still more dangerous harassments. We are inclined to believe that unless the US and other major powers take whatever steps are necessary to reopen the Strait, the Israelis will feel compelled to go to war.

Arab-Israel Six Day War: Intelligence Memorandum Prepared in the Central Intelligence Agency

Docs 72-97



“Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.”

— Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad,
May 20, 1967

“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.” - President Attassi of Syria

"The existence of Israel has continued too long. We welcome the Israeli aggression. We welcome the battle we have long awaited. The peak hour has come. The battle has come in which we shall destroy Israel." - Cairo Radio

“All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel” - Cairo

“The Zionist barrack in Palestine is about to collapse and be destroyed. Every one of the hundred million Arabs has been living for the past nineteen years on one hope – to live to see the day Israel is liquidated…There is no life, no peace nor hope for the gangs of Zionism to remain in the occupied land.”
“As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel….The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence”. - Cairo Radio’s Voice of the Arabs broadcast


"We want a full scale, popular war of liberation… to destroy the Zionist enemy" - Syrian president Dr. Nureddin al-Attasi speech to troops

“Taking over Sharm el Sheikh meant confrontation with Israel (and) also meant that we were ready to enter a general war with Israel. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel” - Gamal Abdel Nasser speech to the General Council of the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions

“The existence of Israel is in itself an aggression…what happened in 1948 was an aggression – an aggression against the Palestinian people.
…(the crisis had developed because) “Eshkol threatened to march on Damascus, occupy Syria and overthrow the Syrian regime. It was our duty to come to the aid of our Arab brother. It was our duty to ask for the withdrawal of UNEF. When UNEF went, we had to go to the Gulf of Aqaba and restore things to what they were when we were in Aqaba in 1956” - Gamel Abdel Nasser at a press conference for several hundred of the World’s press.

“We will not accept any…coexistence with Israel.…Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel….The war with Israel is in effect since 1948”. - Gamel Abdel Nasser press conference

"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations." - Gamal Abdel Nasser speech








Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight," he said on May 27 The following day, he added: "We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."

King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30. Nasser then announced:

"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations."

“The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the map” - President Aref of Iraq

“Brethren and sons, this is the day of the battle to avenge our martyred brethren who fell in 1948. It is the day to wash away the stigma. We shall, God willing, meet in Tel Aviv and Haifa” - Radio broadcast by Iraqi President Abdel Rahman Aref


“Those who survive will remain in Palestine. I estimate that none of them will survive.” - Ahmed Shukairy* , chairman of PLO in Jordanian Jerusalem, asked in news interview what will happen to the Israelis if there is a war





" ...they could not expect the people of Israel, who have done nothing wrong, to sit for a prolonged period until the pincer movement had got them so entrapped that they could not go on." - Sir Barnett Janner

"The characteristic of this situation is the declared aim of one side not to win concessions from the other. Their demand is that Israel should cease to exist - indeed has never existed. ...What had to be sought was not merely how to avoid war but to create the conditions of peace. One condition of a lasting peace must be the recognition that Israel has a right to live. Israel had been for nearly 20 years a member of the United Nations entitled to the respect and protection of the United Nations."- Prime Minister Harold Wilson The Times


Much more
6 Days War: Crucial quotes
Six Day War - crucial quotes

lots of info and links

Six Day War - 6 Day war - Definition, History

Israel fought for its life 40 years ago
With many links and much more
American Thinker Blog: Israel fought for its life 40 years ago

Six Day War
Excellent site with mountains of info and links
Six Day War - timeline

Links are on original post

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/64467-do-palestinians-really-want-state-20.html

quantumechanic said:

The six day war is precisely the reason I used the word "unjustified".

On the 15th of May 1967 Egypt sent ground forces into the Sinai peninsula, on the 17th Nasser ordered the UN expeditionary force to leave Sinai (they left on the 22nd), on the 20th he started pulling military forces out of Yemen and sending them to Sinai (both of which actions forced Israel to call up its reserves, effectively bringing the Israeli economy to a standstill), on the 23rd he closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, on the 30th he received command of the Jordanian army and in early May he flew to Amman two battalions of commandos tasked with infiltrating Israel's borders. Syria, with the approval of the Arab league tried to divert drinking water away from the river Jordan (out of sheer spite), Palestinian terrorists were habitually attacking Israeli civilians gaining support and setting out to their murderous missions from every neighbouring Arab country.
Also, Israel delayed it's plan of attack twice when the US asked it to in lieu of their attempts at a diplomatic solution.

There's a compilation of quotes from Arab leaders before Israel initiated the war here. Here are a few examples:

"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood"
Nasser, 8th of March 1967

“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.”
President Attassi of Syria, 22nd of February 1967

"Taking over Sharm el Sheikh meant confrontation with Israel (and) also meant that we were ready to enter a general war with Israel. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel”
Nasser, 26th of May 1967

“We will not accept any… coexistence with Israel.… Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel…. The war with Israel is in effect since 1948”.
Nasser, 28th of May 1967

"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations."
Nasser, 30th of May 1967 (incidentally, the same day received control of the Jordanian army)

“The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the map”
President Aref of Iraq, 31st of May 1967


How much more justification did Israel need?

Click to expand...

Hmm...some Israeli officials at the time have stated that the justification was land-grabbing, others said otherwise. I read about the pretext, especially the PLO fedayeen from the West Bank (and Egyptian fedayeen from Gaza IIRC). The only thing that bothers me is that Israel claimed that it was attacked first even though it was the first to initiate open hostilities with the Arabs. I don't buy the "the Israelis are greedy land grabbers" BS, and I don't think USS Liberty was an Israeli conspiracy (it would make no sense for Israel to randomly attack an American ship unless they thought it was Egyptian).

Is it pretty much the same for the 1956 Suez Crisis?

MadLib said:

Hmm...some Israeli officials at the time have stated that the justification was land-grabbing, others said otherwise.

Click to expand...

A couple of Israeli officials have admitted that Israel wasn't expecting an Egyptian attack, but this doesn't change the situation. Egypt was planning on starving Israel out by waiting on its borders with a massive army, forcing Israel to recruit its reserves and bringing the Israeli economy to a standstill. Israel also suspected that the next border clash with Syria (it was habitually shelling settlements in the Galilee) will spark the war. So, even if an Egyptian attack wasn't impending, Israel was under an existential threat, albeit, not necessarily a military one.
Couple that with the Fedayeen attacks, the Syrian shelling and the tampering with Israel's water sources and you have yourself a war.
Regardless, this is the first time I've heard that Israeli officials said that the six day war was a land-grab. Who said that? Please link to sources.

MadLib said:

I read about the pretext, especially the PLO fedayeen from the West Bank (and Egyptian fedayeen from Gaza IIRC). The only thing that bothers me is that Israel claimed that it was attacked first even though it was the first to initiate open hostilities with the Arabs.

Click to expand...

The logic behind this seems rather obvious to me. Israel only needed a few days to end the war so, in order to get the world off their backs for the interim, they lied about who started. I think this hardly negates the justification of starting the war.

MadLib said:

and I don't think USS Liberty was an Israeli conspiracy (it would make no sense for Israel to randomly attack an American ship unless they thought it was Egyptian).

Click to expand...

Shame the anti-Israeli crowd doesn't see it that way. The whole "Israel intentionally attacked an American ship for some sinister plot" is quite a stretch, even as conspiracy theories go.

MadLib said:

Is it pretty much the same for the 1956 Suez Crisis?

Click to expand...

Pretty much, yes.
The Palestinian Fedayeen, the Egyptian section of which, in the years before the Suez crisis, was created, backed and funded by Nasser, had murdered hundreds of Israeli civilians and injured hundreds more. Egypt was habitually interfering with, and even confiscating, Israeli goods passing through the Straits of Tiran, and after a UN resolution ordering them to stop (this was waaay back, when the UN actually condemned Arab countries), they closed the Straits to Israeli shipping altogether.
Bottom line, Israel had to wipe out the fedayeen in Sinai who, in 1955 alone, killed or wounded 260 Israeli citizens. The closing of the Straits of Tiran and French and British backing in lieu of Nasser's nationalization of the canal were just a convenient, timely excuse, but Israel had to get rid of them.

MadLib said:

Hmm...some Israeli officials at the time have stated that the justification was land-grabbing, others said otherwise. I read about the pretext, especially the PLO fedayeen from the West Bank (and Egyptian fedayeen from Gaza IIRC). The only thing that bothers me is that Israel claimed that it was attacked first even though it was the first to initiate open hostilities with the Arabs. I don't buy the "the Israelis are greedy land grabbers" BS, and I don't think USS Liberty was an Israeli conspiracy (it would make no sense for Israel to randomly attack an American ship unless they thought it was Egyptian).

Is it pretty much the same for the 1956 Suez Crisis?

Click to expand...

Only that in 1967 Egypt also violated the arms cease agreement from 56.

ido_ said:

Only that in 1967 Egypt also violated the arms cease agreement from 56.

Click to expand...

What agreement?

quantumechanic said:

What agreement?

Click to expand...

the arms cease agreement of the Sinai war said that Sinai will be demilitarized, UN peace keeping force entered Sinai and Egypt obligated to keep the Tiran straits opened for Israeli shipping.
It also talked about Suez channel being kept opened for international shipping

ido_ said:

the arms cease agreement of the Sinai war said that Sinai will be demilitarized, UN peace keeping force entered Sinai and Egypt obligated to keep the Tiran straits opened for Israeli shipping.
It also talked about Suez channel being kept opened for international shipping

Click to expand...

Can you link to sources, I've never heard of such an agreement. Who was it between? Who signed it? What were the terms?
As far as I knew (or thought I knew), the US pretty much ordered us to leave and ordered the UN back in.

Did Israel sign the NPT? The UN doesn't have the authority (or shouldn't at least) to try and inspect things in Israel. It's common knowledge that Israel has had nuclear weapons for years, yet because they have a humane government they do not use them offensively. This cannot be compared to Iran where the Iranian government has signed the NPT and has also made threats against Israel.

quantumechanic said:

Can you link to sources, I've never heard of such an agreement. Who was it between? Who signed it? What were the terms?
As far as I knew (or thought I knew), the US pretty much ordered us to leave and ordered the UN back in.

Click to expand...

Suez Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel fulfilled some of its objectives, such as attaining freedom of navigation through the Straits of Tiran. As a result of the conflict, the UNEF would police the Egyptian–Israeli border to prevent both sides from recommencing hostilities....

....The war also had tangible benefits for Israel. The Straits of Tiran, closed by Egypt since 1951 was re-opened. Israeli shipping could henceforth move freely through the Straits of Tiran to and from Africa and Asia. The Israelis also secured the presence of U.N. Peacekeepers in Sinai. Operation Kadesh bought Israel an eleven-year lull on its southern border with Egypt

Click to expand...

Also note the remark in hebrew wiki:

ראש ממשלת ישראל, דוד בן-גוריון, הסכים, בעקבות הלחץ של שתי המעצמות, לפנות את חצי האי ועזה במרץ 1957, אך הודיע שכל סגירה של מצרי טיראן תהווה עילה למלחמה נוספת. ארצות הברית, שכאמור דרשה מישראל לסגת מסיני, התחייבה בתמורה לנסיגה לדאוג להבטחת חופש המעבר של ישראל במיצרי טיראן‏[5].

Click to expand...

Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After the 1956 Suez Crisis, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Sinai to ensure all parties would comply with the 1949 Armistice Agreements...

Click to expand...

Israel is not a threat to the world, does not supply terrorists and is not a terrorist state. I say we deal with those aforementioned first. Unless, of course, someone has a magic wand so that we can do everything at the same time.

Scumbags always hate being the "victim" of priorities: "but THEY do/did something similar, if we just change some definitions and context!" It doesn't matter if it is a thug downtown, an embezzling CEO or a terrorist organization... we get the same crap about how everyone does something, as if that exonerates them from guilt or justifies a change in priorities.