• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Peace Plan

No, it is precisely the definition. You just support it in the case of forcibly transferring the Jews out but dont like Jews deciding to do what they were allowed to do explicitly under the Mandate, which in leftist world means that word meanings must be changed so that they align with the positions you want.

The forcible transfer of a population to make room for a different group of people is called what?

People exercising their rights to move where they want is called what?

You have inverted the two, condemning voluntary choices by individuals as a “transfer” while pretending that advocating the forcible transfer of Jews out of the territory is not precisely the definition of ethnic cleansing.

The Mandate was terminated on the 15th May 1948.

Trying to use it to legitimize situations that have occured 19 years after that fact to the present is ridiculous. A little recap

1948 The British terminated the Mandate and thus it ceased to have any legal bearing

1949 Israel becomes a UN member thus accepting the requirement to be bound by the UN Charter.

1951 Israel signs the 4th Geneva Convention thus accepting the requirement to be bound by it.

1967 Israel occupies territories as a result of a war it initiated and has since built illegal settlements all over the place and has sought to annexe the territory of others ALL in flagrant violation of the agreements it voluntarily agreed to be bound by.
 
The Mandate was terminated on the 15th May 1948.

Trying to use it to legitimize situations that have occured 19 years after that fact to the present is ridiculous. A little recap

1948 The British terminated the Mandate and thus it ceased to have any legal bearing

1949 Israel becomes a UN member thus accepting the requirement to be bound by the UN Charter.

1951 Israel signs the 4th Geneva Convention thus accepting the requirement to be bound by it.

1967 Israel occupies territories as a result of a war it initiated and has since built illegal settlements all over the place and has sought to annexe the territory of others ALL in flagrant violation of the agreements it voluntarily agreed to be bound by.

Israel "initiated" the 1967 war only in the sense that it refused to lay inert while the surrounding states launched their planned attack.
 
Israel "initiated" the 1967 war only in the sense that it refused to lay inert while the surrounding states launched their planned attack.

It's been done to death and was a tiny part of different theme , open a new thread about an old subject maybe.
 
You brought it up.

I " brought it up " as a rather minor aside in a post that was almost entirely aimed at another point that is a key part of the subject in the theme of the thread. That point was completely ignored by yourself so if you want to discuss the israeli attack on the Arabs in1967 you should open another thread, no ?
 
I " brought it up " as a rather minor aside in a post that was almost entirely aimed at another point that is a key part of the subject in the theme of the thread. That point was completely ignored by yourself so if you want to discuss the israeli attack on the Arabs in1967 you should open another thread, no ?

Why open another thread?

You brought up 1967.

Are you not capable of facing the truth? That prior to the 1967 war there were build ups of military the likes of which were better concealed in 1973?
 
Last edited:
I " brought it up " as a rather minor aside in a post that was almost entirely aimed at another point that is a key part of the subject in the theme of the thread. That point was completely ignored by yourself so if you want to discuss the israeli attack on the Arabs in1967 you should open another thread, no ?

There's nothing to discuss. You tried to mislead. I called you on it. Game over.
 
There's nothing to discuss. You tried to mislead. I called you on it. Game over.

Jack Hays:

The State of Israel launched air attacks against the State of Egypt to start the Six Day War, not the other way around. The power which attacks first is the aggressor and initiates a war.

oneworld2 is not misleading anyone. However I have my doubts about your argument that attacking while claiming preemption is not initiating war. Even a preemptive war is initiated by the attacker.

At the time of the attacks, the State of Israel falsely claimed to the world that the Egyptian Air Force had attacked Israel first. Only when that lie by the State of Israel was revealed and proved false did Israeli propagandists go back to the PR drawing boards and come up with the preemptive war rationalisation post eventum.

The state which first attacks is the aggressor and is the state which initiates the war. Initiating war is a choice.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Jack Hays:

The State of Israel launched air attacks against the State of Egypt to start the Six Day War, not the other way around. The power which attacks first is the aggressor and initiates a war.

oneworld2 is not misleading anyone. However I have my doubts about your argument that attacking while claiming preemption is not initiating war. Even a preemptive war is initiated by the attacker.

At the time of the attacks, the State of Israel falsely claimed to the world that the Egyptian Air Force had attacked Israel first. Only when that lie by the State of Israel was revealed and proved false did Israeli propagandists go back to the PR drawing boards and come up with the preemptive war rationalisation post eventum.

The state which first attacks is the aggressor and is the state which initiates the war. Initiating war is a choice.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Nope. Of course their first statement was that Egypt attacked first. In war, information is just another fighting front.
That nonetheless does nothing to set aside the Egyptians' clear intent to attack.
 
Jack Hays:

The State of Israel launched air attacks against the State of Egypt to start the Six Day War, not the other way around. The power which attacks first is the aggressor and initiates a war.

oneworld2 is not misleading anyone. However I have my doubts about your argument that attacking while claiming preemption is not initiating war. Even a preemptive war is initiated by the attacker.

At the time of the attacks, the State of Israel falsely claimed to the world that the Egyptian Air Force had attacked Israel first. Only when that lie by the State of Israel was revealed and proved false did Israeli propagandists go back to the PR drawing boards and come up with the preemptive war rationalisation post eventum.

The state which first attacks is the aggressor and is the state which initiates the war. Initiating war is a choice.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Two of the triggers for the 1967 attacks were the Egyptian seizure of the Straits of Tiran which is an act of war in accordance with the Law of the Sea. That and the deployment of Egyptian forces along the Sinai border (claimed to be aggressive by Israel, purely defensive by Egypt).
 
Oh please !!

How many settlers would have " chose to move there " had they not had the IDF protecting them ? Had the Israeli government not been subsidizing them ?

Your ridiculous bending of definitions is rejected. The Israeli govts have enabled and even tried to annexe the land they illegally reside on.
Nope, it’s you who bending the definitions. Israel isn't "Occupying Power" and Israel didn’t force anyone to live in Judea and Samaria. The article context is clear, given the time it been written and the title of it, and you trying to change it according to your agenda, but it’s not going to work. Israel didn’t transfer anyone to Judea and Samaria in such way some powers did in WW2.
Israel have legal rights in Judea and Samaria while the Palestinians have none, so of course Israel isn’t "Occupying Power".
 
Two of the triggers for the 1967 attacks were the Egyptian seizure of the Straits of Tiran which is an act of war in accordance with the Law of the Sea. That and the deployment of Egyptian forces along the Sinai border (claimed to be aggressive by Israel, purely defensive by Egypt).

Fledermaus:

What acts of war were conducted by the Egyptian armed forces/navy in the Straits of Tiran Affair. Were any ships seized or damaged? Were any Israerli vessels attacked or stopped? No, there were just some minor delays and inconveniences for some international shipping. Hardly a justification for preemptive war by the State of Israel especially since international action was being organised to challenge the Egyptian faux-blockade.

The Egyptian forces which were moved into the Sinai (sovereign Egyptian territory) were mostly low mobility infantry divisions with an armoured division and a mechanised brigade in support. Hardly a force designed for offensive operations. While such a force may have been in violation of restrictions imposed after the Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956, it is hardly grounds for preemptive war.

No, preemptive war was a fig-leaf justification, created after the fact, when the State of Israel's false justification for war of an Egyptian air attack was exposed as lie. The State of Israel made the choice to attack and thus initiated the war. Israel initiated the war and thus was the aggressor. As the aggressor the State of Israel cannot settle nor annex the lands it occupied in its war of aggression according to international laws which the State ofvIsraelmitself signed onto voluntarily before the 1967 war.

Those are the historical facts of the case. The rest as Jack Hays said above, is the lies that come with war.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Fledermaus:

What acts of war were conducted by the Egyptian armed forces/navy in the Straits of Tiran Affair. Were any ships seized or damaged? Were any Israerli vessels attacked or stopped? No, there were just some minor delays and inconveniences for some international shipping. Hardly a justification for preemptive war by the State of Israel especially since international action was being organised to challenge the Egyptian faux-blockade.

The Egyptian forces which were moved into the Sinai (sovereign Egyptian territory) were mostly low mobility infantry divisions with an armoured division and a mechanised brigade in support. Hardly a force designed for offensive operations. While such a force may have been in violation of restrictions imposed after the Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956, it is hardly grounds for preemptive war.

No, preemptive war was a fig-leaf justification, created after the fact, when the State of Israel's false justification for war of an Egyptian air attack was exposed as lie. The State of Israel made the choice to attack and thus initiated the war. Israel initiated the war and thus was the aggressor. As the aggressor the State of Israel cannot settle nor annex the lands it occupied in its war of aggression according to international laws which the State ofvIsraelmitself signed onto voluntarily before the 1967 war.

Those are the historical facts of the case. The rest as Jack Hays said above, is the lies that come with war.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Just see the Excuse-A-Thon play out.

Was or was not the seizure of the strait an act of war?

According to the Law of the Sea it is.

As to troop movements. Massing forces at the border has always been a cause for concern. And those "low mobility infantry" are still forces to contend with. And you place them first because of their low mobility. Armored and Mech units don't have to be on the front until shortly before "go".

Your opinion is noted as to the veracity of both sides claims.
 
Two of the triggers for the 1967 attacks were the Egyptian seizure of the Straits of Tiran which is an act of war in accordance with the Law of the Sea. That and the deployment of Egyptian forces along the Sinai border (claimed to be aggressive by Israel, purely defensive by Egypt).

Even the UN which they care so much about rejected resolutions which brand Israel as the aggressor in 1967.
 
Just see the Excuse-A-Thon play out.

Was or was not the seizure of the strait an act of war?

According to the Law of the Sea it is.

As to troop movements. Massing forces at the border has always been a cause for concern. And those "low mobility infantry" are still forces to contend with. And you place them first because of their low mobility. Armored and Mech units don't have to be on the front until shortly before "go".

Your opinion is noted as to the veracity of both sides claims.

Fledermaus:

Egypt could not seize the Straits of Tiran because they are Egyptian territorial waters. Egypt threatened to block them, not seize them. Was the blocking of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping an act of war? Probably not, as international law only guarantees innocent passage of ships through international waterways in territorial waters. The Israelis had been importing petroleum, a military as well as civilian resource through the straits and so Egypt could make a case that Israel, which was preparing to attack Egypt even in May of 1967 according to Soviet intelligence, was not able to claim innocent passage. The fact that the State of Israel had launched large scale military ground raids into Jordan and Syria, two states in alliances with Egypt further strengthened Egypt's claim that Israel could not claim innocent passage through the waterway. The fact that no Israeli ship attempted to sail the strait between May 23rd and June 5th, 1967 means that there was no actual "act" to claim an act of war. The Egyptians did not stop any ship sailing through the straits and only delayed them for manifest checks as it had the right to do since the straits were Egyptian territorial waters. So the case that Egypt declared its intention to block shipping constituted both an act of war or an imminent mortal threat, justifying Israeli preemptive war against Egypt is a very weak one, since Egypt never carried out its threat.

As to your claim that Egypt was "massing troops" along the border, please examine the map below:

image.jpg

This map shows that Egypt was hardly massing troops along the border as you claim. These dispositions are clearly defensive as there are few Egyptians along the border and they are all infantry divisions with low mobility. Indeed the bulk of the Egyptian armour is further from the frontier than most of the Israeli armed forces were.

So neither of your claims justify the serious and imminent threat that could possibly justify a preemptive war, even if that had been the State of Israel's true reason for launching attacks on June 5th, 1967. Israel had other options but rather chose to initiate war on June 5th, 1967 and lied to the world that the Egyptian Air Force had attacked the State of Israel first. The Israeli state initiated the war, period. The initiator state is the aggressor in war, thus the State of Israel was the aggressor. Settling or annexing territory conquered during a war of aggression is illegal by international laws and conventions which the State of Israel had voluntarily and without duress signed in good faith with the international community. President Trump's "Peace Plan" and the State of Israel's settlements in the Occupied Territories are in violation of international laws which the USA also signed onto willingly. Therefore the peace plan is illegal by American law too.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Great, another history revisionism and denial thread flooded by posts not willing to accept human history and their inability to change it.
 
Just see the Excuse-A-Thon play out.

Was or was not the seizure of the strait an act of war?

According to the Law of the Sea it is.

As to troop movements. Massing forces at the border has always been a cause for concern. And those "low mobility infantry" are still forces to contend with. And you place them first because of their low mobility. Armored and Mech units don't have to be on the front until shortly before "go".

Your opinion is noted as to the veracity of both sides claims.

His is also a perfect illustration of why it is important for the Israelis not to listen to or relinquish their sovereign autonomy to the international anti-Israel mob, who will never give Israel a fair shake no matter how obvious the case is.
 
Great, another history revisionism and denial thread flooded by posts not willing to accept human history and their inability to change it.

Also has nothing to do with Jordan, which clearly and unquestionably attacked Israel first.
 
Two of the triggers for the 1967 attacks were the Egyptian seizure of the Straits of Tiran which is an act of war in accordance with the Law of the Sea. That and the deployment of Egyptian forces along the Sinai border (claimed to be aggressive by Israel, purely defensive by Egypt).

Wrong , the Law of the Sea allows " innocent passage " through the territorial waters of states.

Israel was leading up to an attack on Egypt and as such could not claim innocent passgae for its vessels. The devil is in the detail.

The Russians told Nasser that the Israelis were going to attack them ( and they did ) and that's why he put his forces in the Sinai. Have not Arabs the same rights of other people to defend themselves from aggression or is that just something you ascribe to others?
 
Also has nothing to do with Jordan, which clearly and unquestionably attacked Israel first.

They were in a mutual defence pact , so Jordan had every right to attack Israel AFTER it had attacked Egypt first.

Israel started the 1967 conflict regardless how you wish to obscure that reality
 
His is also a perfect illustration of why it is important for the Israelis not to listen to or relinquish their sovereign autonomy to the international anti-Israel mob, who will never give Israel a fair shake no matter how obvious the case is.

A fair shake ? So if people think and comment on the fact that Israel started a war they actually did start they are not giving Israel a fair shake ? Seriously !!

Thx for sharing that because you don't realize how enlightening it is of your position.
 
Great, another history revisionism and denial thread flooded by posts not willing to accept human history and their inability to change it.

The " revisionism " comes from Jewish sources and mainly from top Israelis who led Israel at that time. Are you calling these Jewish people liars ?
 
Back
Top Bottom