Originally posted by Sandwich
Dude, have you ever heard of a situation where a debate actually progresses beyond a certain point - especially when one of the debating parties agrees with the other? I agree with you - Israel struck the first blow in '67 (nevermind the fact that I've been told many a time by others arguing your side of the fence that to bicker about "he hit me first!" was childish and petty...).
So in moving the debate on, I'd like you to respond to a question of mine, which you have evaded for the past 2-3 rounds of posts and replies:
Do you agree with me that, all other things being equal, Israel would not have initiated (the '67) war without the provocation caused by the build-up of the military forces of the surrounding nations on her borders?
No Sandwich I dont agree with you, mostly because Israeli leaders are on record as saying otherwise. Heres what Yitzhak Rabi, Israels chief of staff in 1967 had to say on the matter:
I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.
Thats the guy who was in charge of Israels armed forces at the time of the war. I'll trust his judgement on the matter. You're also negelecting to mention why Egypt and Syria mobilised their troops, Israeli leaders repeated threats to invade Syria.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Meanwhile, unaware that the Egyptian air force had been wiped out, Jordan's King Hussein launched his attack from the West Bank (it is, after all, the western bank of the Jordan River) while the Syrian forces invaded Israel's northern part from the Golan Heights.
Dunno where you got this from but its complete bs, both Syria and Jordan were attacked by Israels airforce before they launched ground attacks. I dont see how you could expect anyone to believe that Jordan and Syria launched an attack without knowing their other ally was under air attack anyways, its ridiculous.
Originally posted by Sandwich
I assume you're meaning that the land here was partitioned in favor of the Palestinian Arabs, since 75% of Palestine of the early 1900's went to the current-day HaShemite Kingdom of Jordan.
Firstly Palestinian arabs didnt want the land partitioned so it could hardly have been done in their favour. Secondly Israel was granted 55% of Palestine outside Jordan, while legally its citizens only owned 7% of the land. It took more than 55% after declaring its independance.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Dude, I don't know what the media is reporting about the security fence, but you seem to have it wrong. It primarily follows the pre-67 borders, is an actual chain-link fence for most of its length, and has one purpose: to keep terrorists out of pre-67 Israel. If they still wanna blow themselves up, or shoot at passing vehicles, they can do so on armed IDF patrols and checkpoints, where at least they won't be accused of attacking defenseless women and children.
Looks like its you who isnt getting the full story, it cuts off palestinians from their water supplys and farmlands, annexs their land and is completely illegal under international law.
Originally posted by Sandwich
I don't expect this to convince you or sway you for a microsecond, however - and you're not to be blamed for that, either. But that's the core of Judaism, and if you wanna start arguing Judaism, then you gotta take that core into account.
First of all dont talk down to me, Secondly you're not jewish, said so yourself.
No, it doesn't make me a physical decendant of middle-eastern peoples.
I am not Jewish (religion)
So you're basically a non-semite christian who thinks Gods given him a place to live, and has more right to be there than those who have lived there for generations, a modern day crusader so to speak.
Karajorma, Palestian leaders recognised Israels right to exist at Oslo, in exchange for a Palestinian state. Ten years later the occupied territories are still occupied and Israels still annexing land, yet its all the palestinians fault.
