US calls Golan 'Israeli-controlled', drops all mention of West Bank 'occupation'

SheWolf said:

Trump said a few days ago, if he were running for president in Israel, he would easily win, because he gets over 90 percent approval. It's easy for him. But this isn't America First.

He disrespects all of our other allies, and fights with them over funding. But with Israel,he is totally different. It makes no sense.

Click to expand...

It does makes sense. But we can't say why without being labelled anti-Semitic, and I don't like being called anti-Semitic on Fridays... :shrug:

Evilroddy said:

The Six-Day War was from June 5th to June 10th, 1967. The Straits of Tiran dispute began before the war. If you want to push back the dates then I would suggest November of 1966 when Israel launched a massive raid into Jordanian controlled territory with a dozen tanks, fifty half-tracks, 3500 combat troops and 5500 support troops as a collective punishment against three villages for an alleged mine attack on Israeli soldiers.

Click to expand...

We can go back to 1948 or even before to Hebron massacre...

But like the Samu Raid, the Straits of Tiran closure was not part of the Six-Day War.

Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

the Straits of Tiran closure was the main reason for the war.

“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

NO1 said:

So you are saying that the treaty is the reason for Israel aggression so after 1956 when Egypt agreed to:
1. Sinai is to be demilitarized.
2. Israel-bound shipping in Tiran will go undisturbed.
3. A UN Emergency force will be established to supervise all the above along the Israeli-Egyptian border

And Israel announced that closing Tiran Straits will be count as act of war.
And At May 1967 Egypt violated all three of them and called for the destruction of Israel time and again. That's treaty count as well?

Also the defence treaty between them made about a week ago before the war, and Egypt should have tricked Hossian in order to convince them to attack Israel. So I guess it wasn't like you are saying. It's pretty clear the Jordan is independent country and if they knew Egypt was being crashed by Israel air force they would probably think twice before launcing an attack. Also it is a fact the Jordan and Syriaattack first, you can't denied it.

So no matter what approach you make, you still loose the argument. Also after the war Russia and others tried to announce Israel as the aggressor in the UN (even the UN), and they failed because it was clear that Israel responed to the aggression of the Arab countries.

Jordan illegali annexed the WB. They are not the owners of the WB as you said, so the area can't be occupied.

Click to expand...

NO1:

Egypt did not attack Israel. It made a declaration which it failed to back up with any real action. Major General Indar Jit Rikhye, who was the commander of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Sinai Peninsula, said later in his life that Israel's protests and threats against a blockade in 1967 were "questionable" at best given that an Israeli-flagged ship had not passed through the straits in two years, and that the Egiptian (U.A.R.) Navy had only searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation. No Israeli ship was interdicted and no supplies were interrupted from getting to where they were bound for.

Israel on the other hand did attack Egypt and Syria when it launched real air attacks into Egypt and Syria and that is why the start of the Six-Day War is dated to June 5th, 1967 and not May 22nd, 1967.

As to treaty violations from the Suez Crisis debacle, those were violations true, but not violent acts of war. Thus you are making a false equivalency where none exists.

As to the West Bank, Jordan held the land in trust for the Palestinians but never was formally recognised as having legally annexed it IIRC. Israeli troops invaded that land during the Six-Day War which Israel initiated and then militarily occupied it and so by the UN Charter which Israel signed on to, the State of Israel cannot legally annex or settle the land of the West Bank (or the Gaza Strip or the Golan Heights).
From Wikipedia:

Following the December 1948 Jericho Conference, and the 1949 renaming of the country from Transjordan to Jordan, the West Bank was formally annexed on 24 April 1950.

The annexation was widely considered as illegal and void by the international community.[4] A month afterwards, the Arab League declared that they viewed the area "annexed by Jordan as a trust in its hands until the Palestine case is fully solved in the interests of its inhabitants."[5] Recognition of Jordan's declaration of annexation was only granted by the United Kingdom, Iraq and Pakistan.[6][7]

Click to expand...

You have no leg to stand on I'm sorry to say.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

No dodge. Jordan and Egypt had attached themselves by treaty so that an attack on one was an attack on both. When Israel attacked Egypt it attacked Jordan too. Jordanian armed forces under Egyptian command responded accordingly. It's all a matter of public record even if some folks want to deny it.

Jordan was not the owner of the West Bank. It was the protector of the West Bank which was held in trust for the Palestinian people. This status was approved by the UN IIRC.

Click to expand...

Correction:

Jordan's annexation of the West Bank was approved only by The UK, Iraq and Pakistan and not by the UN as I incorrectly recollected. The Aranb League declared the annexation to be only valid and temporary because it was necessary in order to hold the land in trust for the Palestinians. Apologies for my error.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

The Six-Day War was from June 5th to June 10th, 1967. The Straits of Tiran dispute began before the war. If you want to push back the dates then I would suggest November of 1966 when Israel launched a massive raid into Jordanian controlled territory with a dozen tanks, fifty half-tracks, 3500 combat troops and 5500 support troops as a collective punishment against three villages for an alleged mine attack on Israeli soldiers. But like the Samu Raid, the Straits of Tiran closure was not part of the Six-Day War.

Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

And it was the casus beli to the start of the war.
The Egyptian aggressors blockaded it and with this they initiated conflict.
Israel didn't attack them because it woke up one day and felt like it as you're trying to claim here ridiculously.
History is very clear on this. You cannot change that.

In April 1967, Syria shot at an Israeli tractor ploughing in the demilitarized zone, which escalated to a prewar aerial clash. In May 1967, following misinformation about Israeli intentions provided by the Soviet Union, Egypt expelled UN peacekeepers who had been stationed in the Sinai Peninsula since the Suez conflict,[1] and announced a blockade of Israel's access to the Red Sea (international waters) via the Straits of Tiran, which Israel considered an act of war. Tension escalated, with both sides' armies mobilising. Less than a month later, Israel launched a surprise strike which began the Six-Day War.

Click to expand...

Origins of the Six-Day War - Wikipedia

Evilroddy said:

NO1:

Egypt did not attack Israel.

Click to expand...

I didn’t say that.

It made a declaration which it failed to back up with any real action.

Click to expand...

Egypt made more than that, blocking Israeli port is act of war, just like if Russia will block US port or British port, and even if no shot was fired it is clearly act of war.

Major General Indar Jit Rikhye, who was the commander of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Sinai Peninsula, said later in his life that Israel's protests and threats against a blockade in 1967 were "questionable" at best given that an Israeli-flagged ship had not passed through the straits in two years, and that the Egiptian (U.A.R.) Navy had only searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation. No Israeli ship was interdicted and no supplies were interrupted from getting to where they were bound for.

Israel on the other hand did attack Egypt and Syria when it launched real air attacks into Egypt and Syria and that is why the start of the Six-Day War is dated to June 5th, 1967 and not May 22nd, 1967.

As to treaty violations from the Suez Crisis debacle, those were violations true, but not violent acts of war. Thus you are making a false equivalency where none exists.

Click to expand...

Is that UNEF which supervised that Sinai is to be demilitarized and Israel-bound shipping in Tiran will go undisturbed? The same one which Egypt expelled? Interesting.

Let’s see what the president of Egypt said in the subject:
President Nasser, for example, in a speech on May 26, 1967 said:
Recently we felt we are strong enough, that if we were to enter a battle with Israel, with God’s help, we could triumph. On this basis, we decided to take actual steps …
Taking Sharm al Shaykh [i.e., blockading Israel’s port of Eilat] meant confrontation with Israel. Taking such action also meant that we were ready to enter a general war with Israel. (Speech to Arab Trade Unionists, reprinted in The Israel-Arab Reader, 1984, p. 176; emphasis added.)

Also On the same day Mohammed Heikal, Nasser’s closest confidante and the leading journalist in the Arab world, wrote in the Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram:
This week the closure of the Gulf of Aqaba to Israel was an alternative accomplished fact imposed and now being protected by the force of Arab arms. To Israel this is the most dangerous aspect of the current situation … Therefore it is not a matter of the Gulf of Aqaba but of something bigger. It is the whole philosophy of Israeli security. It is the philosophy on which Israeli existence has pivoted since its birth and on which it will pivot in the future.
Hence I say that Israel must resort to arms. Therefore I say that an armed clash between the UAR and the Israeli enemy is inevitable. (Reprinted in The Israel-Arab Reader, p 181; emphasis added; UAR, or United Arab Republic, was another name for Egypt.)

As I said it clearly act of war, even if it toward Israel.

As to the West Bank, Jordan held the land in trust for the Palestinians but never was formally recognised as having legally annexed it IIRC. Israeli troops invaded that land during the Six-Day War which Israel initiated and then militarily occupied it and so by the UN Charter which Israel signed on to, the State of Israel cannot legally annex or settle the land of the West Bank (or the Gaza Strip or the Golan Heights).
From Wikipedia:

You have no leg to stand on I'm sorry to say.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Jordan illegali annexed it that's a fact, and Jordan have been tricked by Egypt to attack Israel, and as defence Israel fight back. They threw the first punch even when Israel tried the best to prevent another battlefront against Jordan.

Evilroddy said:

Correction:

Jordan's annexation of the West Bank was approved only by The UK, Iraq and Pakistan and not by the UN as I incorrectly recollected. The Aranb League declared the annexation to be only valid and temporary because it was necessary in order to hold the land in trust for the Palestinians. Apologies for my error.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

The Arab League is the key word here.

Apocalypse said:

And it was the casus beli to the start of the war.
The Egyptian aggressors blockaded it and with this they initiated conflict.
Israel didn't attack them because it woke up one day and felt like it as you're trying to claim here ridiculously.
History is very clear on this. You cannot change that.

Click to expand...

Indeed, it was casus beli. If Russia would block US/UK main port and tried to establish economic blockade on them, it will be clearly act of war, but when it's Israel it a different case...

NO1 said:

I didn’t say that.


Egypt made more than that, blocking Israeli port is act of war, just like if Russia will block US port or British port, and even if no shot was fired it is clearly act of war.


Is that UNEF which supervised that Sinai is to be demilitarized and Israel-bound shipping in Tiran will go undisturbed? The same one which Egypt expelled? Interesting.

Let’s see what the president of Egypt said in the subject:
President Nasser, for example, in a speech on May 26, 1967 said:
Recently we felt we are strong enough, that if we were to enter a battle with Israel, with God’s help, we could triumph. On this basis, we decided to take actual steps …
Taking Sharm al Shaykh [i.e., blockading Israel’s port of Eilat] meant confrontation with Israel. Taking such action also meant that we were ready to enter a general war with Israel. (Speech to Arab Trade Unionists, reprinted in The Israel-Arab Reader, 1984, p. 176; emphasis added.)

Also On the same day Mohammed Heikal, Nasser’s closest confidante and the leading journalist in the Arab world, wrote in the Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram:
This week the closure of the Gulf of Aqaba to Israel was an alternative accomplished fact imposed and now being protected by the force of Arab arms. To Israel this is the most dangerous aspect of the current situation … Therefore it is not a matter of the Gulf of Aqaba but of something bigger. It is the whole philosophy of Israeli security. It is the philosophy on which Israeli existence has pivoted since its birth and on which it will pivot in the future.
Hence I say that Israel must resort to arms. Therefore I say that an armed clash between the UAR and the Israeli enemy is inevitable. (Reprinted in The Israel-Arab Reader, p 181; emphasis added; UAR, or United Arab Republic, was another name for Egypt.)

As I said it clearly act of war, even if it toward Israel.


Jordan illegali annexed it that's a fact, and Jordan have been tricked by Egypt to attack Israel, and as defence Israel fight back. They threw the first punch even when Israel tried the best to prevent another battlefront against Jordan.

Click to expand...

NO1:

Re: Straits of Tiran. Did Egypt stop any Israeli ships or prevent any non-Israeli ships bound for Israel from getting there before the war in June? Did Egypt fire any shots in anger at any ships entering the Straits of Tiran before the war started in June? Were any ships sunk, damaged or taken into custody by the Egyptians before the war? The answers are no,no and no. It was bluster on the part of Nasser and nothing more. I remember discussing it with my dad at the time. He wisely predicted that this was pretext to war on behalf of Israel and that there would be a war by July. I said no, little Israel would never start a war. He was right. I was seven years old, idealistic, pro-Israeli and very, very wrong.

Regarding Jordan: Yes the annexation was illegal, I have corrected my mistake there already. No, Jordan was not tricked by the radar images of planes or the Soviet warning because Jordan did not make the decision to counter attack, the Egyptian General Riad did, as he was in command of the Jordanian/Egyptian/Iraqi forces. When contacted by Israeli spokespersons Jordan's King Hussein's response was "the die has been cast", that Israel had initiated the war and that Jordon would respond in kind. It was not a new battlefront, it was the same battlefront because Israel is tiny and the Egyptians and Jordanians were under a combined command and operating as one. Thus Israel threw the first punch and the Egyptian/Jordanian combined command responded. Your rhetoric does not negate documented historical fact and your attempts to parse the Arab combatants from their combined command in order to paint the Jordanians as the attackers is a fail. Israel was the attacker of first instance and the aggressor.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

NO1:

Re: Straits of Tiran. Did Egypt stop any Israeli ships or prevent any non-Israeli ships bound for Israel from getting there before the war in June? Did Egypt fire any shots in anger at any ships entering the Straits of Tiran before the war started in June? Were any ships sunk, damaged or taken into custody by the Egyptians before the war? The answers are no,no and no. It was bluster on the part of Nasser and nothing more. I remember discussing it with my dad at the time. He wisely predicted that this was pretext to war on behalf of Israel and that there would be a war by July. I said no, little Israel would never start a war. He was right. I was seven years old, idealistic, pro-Israeli and very, very wrong.

Regarding Jordan: Yes the annexation was illegal, I have corrected my mistake there already. No, Jordan was not tricked by the radar images of planes or the Soviet warning because Jordan did not make the decision to counter attack, the Egyptian General Riad did, as he was in command of the Jordanian/Egyptian/Iraqi forces. When contacted by Israeli spokespersons Jordan's King Hussein's response was "the die has been cast", that Israel had initiated the war and that Jordon would respond in kind. It was not a new battlefront, it was the same battlefront because Israel is tiny and the Egyptians and Jordanians were under a combined command and operating as one. Thus Israel threw the first punch and the Egyptian/Jordanian combined command responded. Your rhetoric does not negate documented historical fact and your attempts to parse the Arab combatants from their combined command in order to paint the Jordanians as the attackers is a fail. Israel was the attacker of first instance and the aggressor.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Your questions are irrelevant, when Egypt announced the closure of Tiran and transfer canons and naval forces to the area, Egypt knew that is casus belie, economic blockade on Israel, is act of war and Israel had every right to respond to the aggression. Israel tried their best to solve it by diplomatic channels but it didn’t work out.

And there is one question you don’t answer it, how many Israeli ships did tried to enter the straits of Tiran at that time?

Anyway Egypt send hundred thousands of soldiers to Sinai, expelled the UNEF, blocked the straits of Tiran in order to use economic blockade on Israel, called for the destruction of Israel time and again. These are acts of aggression against Israel, and the president of Egypt also said it:
President Nasser, for example, in a speech on May 26, 1967 said:
Recently we felt we are strong enough, that if we were to enter a battle with Israel, with God’s help, we could triumph. On this basis, we decided to take actual steps …
Taking Sharm al Shaykh [i.e., blockading Israel’s port of Eilat] meant confrontation with Israel. Taking such action also meant that we were ready to enter a general war with Israel. (Speech to Arab Trade Unionists, reprinted in The Israel-Arab Reader, 1984, p. 176; emphasis added.)


About the treaty, as I said it was signed about a week ago before the war, Egypt needed to trick Jordan in order to convince them to attack Israel.If that isn't the case why Egypt will lie about the radar images?

About Jordan, as I said it was illegal, therefore the term ‘occupied’ is wrong. Jordan never was the legal owner of WB.

Also as I said, even the UN rejected couple of resolution which tried to declare Israel as the aggressor.

To conclude, Israel respond to aggression of Arab countries in 1967 and had every right to fight back just like any other country.

NO1 said:

Your questions are irrelevant, when Egypt announced the closure of Tiran and transfer canons and naval forces to the area, Egypt knew that is casus belie, economic blockade on Israel, is act of war and Israel had every right to respond to the aggression. Israel tried their best to solve it by diplomatic channels but it didn’t work out.

And there is one question you don’t answer it, how many Israeli ships did tried to enter the straits of Tiran at that time?

Anyway Egypt send hundred thousands of soldiers to Sinai, expelled the UNEF, blocked the straits of Tiran in order to use economic blockade on Israel, called for the destruction of Israel time and again. These are acts of aggression against Israel, and the president of Egypt also said it:
President Nasser, for example, in a speech on May 26, 1967 said:
Recently we felt we are strong enough, that if we were to enter a battle with Israel, with God’s help, we could triumph. On this basis, we decided to take actual steps …
Taking Sharm al Shaykh [i.e., blockading Israel’s port of Eilat] meant confrontation with Israel. Taking such action also meant that we were ready to enter a general war with Israel. (Speech to Arab Trade Unionists, reprinted in The Israel-Arab Reader, 1984, p. 176; emphasis added.)


About the treaty, as I said it was signed about a week ago before the war, Egypt needed to trick Jordan in order to convince them to attack Israel.If that isn't the case why Egypt will lie about the radar images?

About Jordan, as I said it was illegal, therefore the term ‘occupied’ is wrong. Jordan never was the legal owner of WB.

Also as I said, even the UN rejected couple of resolution which tried to declare Israel as the aggressor.

To conclude, Israel respond to aggression of Arab countries in 1967 and had every right to fight back just like any other country.

Click to expand...

NO1:

Please Read.

Israel's attack on Egypt in June '67 was not 'preemptive' | Foreign Policy Journal

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

NO1:

And there is one question you don’t answer it, how many Israeli ships did tried to enter the straits of Tiran at that time?

Click to expand...

There is no evidence which I can find that Israel tried to move any commercial surface ships through the Straits of Tiran during the Egyptian blockade and as I have already cited there is anecdotal evidence that Israel had not moved commercial ships through the Straits of Tiran for almost two years prior to the blockade.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

NO1:

Please Read.

Israel's attack on Egypt in June '67 was not 'preemptive' | Foreign Policy Journal

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

To quote an excellent reply from your link:

Closing the strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping was a casus belli according to the charter meaning war (at least according to the UN) by definition was justified regardless of other aspects of the conflict. Aer O'Head Regardless of when Israel gained access to the strait they had a legal entitlement to it, it's a benefit of sovereignty. Besides that in no way makes closing it to Israel ok.

The intel reports are interesting, and I'm not the CIA but I believe hostile acts like the literal act of war, the mutual military agreement between Syria, Iraq, Jordan, (nations conveniently strategic in a war against Israel), hostile rhetoric (Public promises like: I will wipe Israel off the map, throw every jew into the sea, wage a war of annihilation, etc, etc), plus moving 100k+ troops into the Sini, and kicking out the UN peacekeeping force out of the buffer zone in the Sini, are all objectively indicative of war or at least a threat. Regardless of Nasser's private intentions, he supplied Israel with completely sufficient evidence to wage a war. If Nasser just wanted to deter them, he kind of went a bit far. When has an act of war not been suggestive of harmful intentions, really.

Regardless of private intentions, sufficient evidence of a threat existed, even if Israel thought a chance of an attack would be slim. Circumstantial evidence provided justification for war, and objective proof of a threat of some sort. Even if the threat was unlikely that doesn't mean preempting it any less of a moral imperative.

ps regarding the preemptive status of the war, imminence deals with the perspective of the threatened nation not the actual timing of the attack. According to this article the attack would have never taken place making it not imminent. We can only determine this after the dust settles. According to circumstantial evidence the imminence criteria was met.

Click to expand...

Please read.

Although it became more and more frequent to engage in history revisionism during the 21st century, History is very decisive in describing the act of blockading the Straits of Tiran as an act of war.
Nothing you can say could really change the fact that the Egyptian aggressors were doing something that created that conflict.

Apocalypse said:

To quote an excellent reply from your link:



Please read.

Although it became more and more frequent to engage in history revisionism during the 21st century, History is very decisive in describing the act of blockading the Straits of Tiran as an act of war.
Nothing you can say could really change the fact that the Egyptian aggressors were doing something that created that conflict.

Click to expand...

Apocalypse:

So I'm supposed to accept and believe some guy named David, who when asked for evidence on just one of his erroneous claims by the author of the article, provided none. David has no authority and his analysis is wrong, as is yours in light of the historical facts.

If you want to give weight to the commentary on the bottom of the article then there are many more POVs there which undermine your interpretation of the history of the Six-Day War.

Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

Apocalypse:

So I'm supposed to accept and believe some guy named David, who when asked for evidence on just one of his erroneous claims by the author of the article, provided none. David has no authority and his analysis is wrong, as is yours in light of the historical facts.

If you want to give weight to the commentary on the bottom of the article then there are many more POVs there which undermine your interpretation of the history of the Six-Day War.

Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

You referred us to an opinion piece. This too is an opinion, they both share the same level of authority that a random person holds.
If you don't want to get people opinions' thrown at you as some kind of evidence, don't do it yourself.

Anyway, what he said there is true, so you could at the very least reply to the part I quoted.

And by the way that random person you believe has some kind of authority has this written under his name:

"The government perpetually lies to the public about important issues. The mainstream media dutifully serve to manufacture consent for criminal policies. I free people's minds by exposing state propaganda intended to keep them in servitude to the politically and financially powerful"

So we're dealing with some random lunatic who believes the government conspires against the people and engages in history revisionism.
Dave is much better it seems, hah.

Evilroddy said:

NO1:



There is no evidence which I can find that Israel tried to move any commercial surface ships through the Straits of Tiran during the Egyptian blockade and as I have already cited there is anecdotal evidence that Israel had not moved commercial ships through the Straits of Tiran for almost two years prior to the blockade.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Source?

Israel was importing oil from Iran through the Sraits of Tiran.

Apocalypse said:

You referred us to an opinion piece. This too is an opinion, they both share the same level of authority that a random person holds.
If you don't want to get people opinions' thrown at you as some kind of evidence, don't do it yourself.

Anyway, what he said there is true, so you could at the very least reply to the part I quoted.

Click to expand...

The Foreign Policy Journal is an academic publication with a fine pedigree. The article cited is not an opinion piece at all but a fully referenced essay. It's in the essay section of the archive.

David is some nearly anonymous poster who replied in the comments section of the article. When challenged to back up his erroneous claim by the author of the article with some references David did not reply. The author has far more authority with his fully referenced essay than David does with his unsubstantiated comment. Authority is the difference between the two writers. That is why I cited an academic essay and you cited an unsubstantiated comment in the reply section. My case has authority behind it, your's has only confirmation bias going for it. Not all opinions are equal especially when they are not backed up by references.

If what David the replier said is true then it is up to you to prove it, since you cited him and he provided no references to back up his case. My position has already been given to you. He was wrong. He was called out by the author and another commenter for sources and he remained silent or indifferent.

Evilroddy.

NO1 said:

Source?

Israel was importing oil from Iran through the Sraits of Tiran.

Click to expand...

NO1:

Source for the nearly two years without an Israeli ship going through the Straits of Tiran is:

Straits of Tiran - Wikipedia

Obviously I can't provide sources for information about Israeli ships which I cannot find any record of.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

The Foreign Policy Journal is an academic publication with a fine pedigree. The article cited is not an opinion piece at all but a fully referenced essay. It's in the essay section of the archive.

David is some nearly anonymous poster who replied in the comments section of the article. When challenged to back up his erroneous claim by the author of the article with some references David did not reply. The author has far more authority with his fully referenced essay than David does with his unsubstantiated comment. Authority is the difference between the two writers. That is why I cited an academic essay and you cited an unsubstantiated comment in the reply section. My case has authority behind it, your's has only confirmation bias going for it. Not all opinions are equal especially when they are not backed up by references.

If what David the replier said is true then it is up to you to prove it, since you cited him and he provided no references to back up his case. My position has already been given to you. He was wrong. He was called out by the author and another commenter for sources and he remained silent or indifferent.

Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Like many other journals the FPJ is filled with loons like that guy, read his bio.

And it's actually an opinion piece, so don't try to make the opinion of a person evidence of something because it's not.
It's not the first time you argue through the opinions of others thinking it grants your own more weight, and it's not.
His authority as an opinion maker is no greater than mine or yours. I would say lesser, again, considering his hysterical bio.

Dave on the other hand actually sounds like a swell guy. And you can just consider the following to be my own words and reply accordingly:

Closing the strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping was a casus belli according to the charter meaning war (at least according to the UN) by definition was justified regardless of other aspects of the conflict. Aer O'Head Regardless of when Israel gained access to the strait they had a legal entitlement to it, it's a benefit of sovereignty. Besides that in no way makes closing it to Israel ok.

The intel reports are interesting, and I'm not the CIA but I believe hostile acts like the literal act of war, the mutual military agreement between Syria, Iraq, Jordan, (nations conveniently strategic in a war against Israel), hostile rhetoric (Public promises like: I will wipe Israel off the map, throw every jew into the sea, wage a war of annihilation, etc, etc), plus moving 100k+ troops into the Sini, and kicking out the UN peacekeeping force out of the buffer zone in the Sini, are all objectively indicative of war or at least a threat. Regardless of Nasser's private intentions, he supplied Israel with completely sufficient evidence to wage a war. If Nasser just wanted to deter them, he kind of went a bit far. When has an act of war not been suggestive of harmful intentions, really.

Regardless of private intentions, sufficient evidence of a threat existed, even if Israel thought a chance of an attack would be slim. Circumstantial evidence provided justification for war, and objective proof of a threat of some sort. Even if the threat was unlikely that doesn't mean preempting it any less of a moral imperative.

ps regarding the preemptive status of the war, imminence deals with the perspective of the threatened nation not the actual timing of the attack. According to this article the attack would have never taken place making it not imminent. We can only determine this after the dust settles. According to circumstantial evidence the imminence criteria was met.

Apocalypse said:

And by the way that random person you believe has some kind of authority has this written under his name:

"The government perpetually lies to the public about important issues. The mainstream media dutifully serve to manufacture consent for criminal policies. I free people's minds by exposing state propaganda intended to keep them in servitude to the politically and financially powerful"

So we're dealing with some random lunatic who believes the government conspires against the people and engages in history revisionism.
Dave is much better it seems, hah.

Click to expand...

Apocalypse:

The author's views on war propaganda are valid.




Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

Apocalypse:

The author's views on war propaganda are valid.




Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

He's a tin foil hat loon. Nothing is valid about him. :lol:

Apocalypse said:

He's a tin foil hat loon. Nothing is valid about him. :lol:

Click to expand...

Apocalypse:

Here is a former CIA analyst who was present in the decision making chain of the USA in 1967. He says the same thing as the video and the essay by Hammond.

The Six Day War and Israeli Lies: What I Saw at the CIA

As a result, our report describing surprise Israeli attacks against Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian airfields encountered a hostile response from the National Security Council. Fortunately, CIA director Richard Helms supported our assessment, and the National Military Command Center corroborated the report as well. Rostow summoned Clark Clifford, chairman of the President’s Foreign Advisory Board and a leading NSC Arabist Hal Saunders to examine our analysis, and both men provided corroboration.

In addition to lying to the White House about the start of the war, Israeli military officers lied to the American ambassador to Israel, Walworth Barbour, about non-existent Egyptian military movements. The CIA, meanwhile, had the benefit of satellite photography that showed Egyptian planes parked on airfields wingtip-to-wingtip, which pointed to no plan to attack.

Click to expand...

Evilroddy.

Apocalypse said:

And it was the casus beli to the start of the war.
The Egyptian aggressors blockaded it and with this they initiated conflict.
Israel didn't attack them because it woke up one day and felt like it as you're trying to claim here ridiculously.
History is very clear on this. You cannot change that.



Origins of the Six-Day War - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

I have no dog in this fight. That being said, the quoted Wikipedia article that referenced an Israeli tractor coming under fire in the Golan Heights reminded me of this article I came across:

General's Words Shed a New Light on the Golan - The New York Times

From the link: “General Dayan interrupted: ''Never mind that. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was.''

‘.......we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.”

Rexedgar said:

I have no dog in this fight. That being said, the quoted Wikipedia article that referenced an Israeli tractor coming under fire in the Golan Heights reminded me of this article I came across:

General's Words Shed a New Light on the Golan - The New York Times

From the link: “General Dayan interrupted: ''Never mind that. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was.''

‘.......we would tel the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.”

Click to expand...

Rexedgar:

Yup, this was called the "Tractor War" although I don't know whether the name was contemporaneous with the events or given as a name after the fact. Dayan's widow recounted the story on film and the video of that account lurks somewhere on YouTube IIRC.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.