Why the constant fallacy that anti-Zionism = anti Israel's 'right to exist'...

hatrickpatrick

...Or its right to defend itself?

I hear this one absolutely constantly from the pro Israel lobby, that opposing Zionism in its current form or being pro Palestinian is an attack on Israel's "right to exist".
Is this a genuine misunderstanding of the mainstream pro Palestinian cause, or is it willful ignorance to aid in dismissing said cause's arguments?
If I pointed out that I am completely cool with Israel's right to exist within the borders set down by the UN, and I am also completely cool with Israel's right to defend those borders using any generally acceptable means of defense, how would the pro Israel lobby react to that?

It seems to constantly slip past a lot of the more hard pro Israelis that most of us (not all, I accept, but certainly most) are only asking for a withdrawal to the 1967 borders, dismantling the illegal settlements which have been built in the West bank and East Jerusalem.

I have absolutely no intention of arguing that the entire area should be expunged of Jews or that they should be denied their democratic right to vote, what I (and as I say, most of the lobby from what I've seen) am arguing for is very basic property rights, that is if a Palestinian family is living in an occupied area and owns a house there, the Israeli government does not have the right to simply bulldoze it and steal the land it was built on.

I realize Israel vs Palestine has been debated to death on this forum but that's not what I want to debate about here, what I'm interested in is what seems to me to be a very deliberate misinterpretation of what pro Palestinian protesters like myself are actually advocating, as opposed to the more extreme positions which the pro Israel lobby likes to portray us as advocating.

Essentially it comes down to a debate about property rights - that just because you can force me out of my house at gunpoint, it doesn't give you either a moral or legal right to claim ownership of my house, in any civilized, democratic society.

So is this simply an unfortunate misunderstanding, or is it a deliberate mis-portrayal of Palestinian supporters?

Mature discussion here only please, if this descends into the usual sh!te which accompanies these threads I will have NO HESITATION in calling in the lads with the almighty banhammers. Just imagine the carnage, before you click that "post reply" button

wes

Well what do you mean by the pro Israel lobby, fristly?

For the more extreme members of the lobby (who are becoming the main stream imho if they are already not the main stream), they favour a greater Israel. So any kind of Palestinian state is a problem for them, as all the land belongs to Israel, according to them. So any kind of Palestinian state is a problem full stop.

Then, there are those who want to keep most of the settlements and leave the Palestinians in what would amount to disconnected South African style Bantustans, and they will refer to the 1967 borders as "Authwitz" border, essentially comparing an occupied people to Nazi's. So any kind of fair solution, which would be based on the 67 borders, with equitable mutually agreed land swaps is also a non-starter.

Then, there are groups like J Street, who I may not completely agree with, but who at least seem reasonable, and who are attacked by the more extreme pro-settler/likud element (the 2 groups I described above would fit that mould), because they are more reasonable.

SamHarris

It could be simple nomenclature. Zionism the the belief that Jews should have a homeland, hence anti Zionism implies a rejection of this and therefore Israel by proxy. Most of the people that say "anti-Zionist" are merely anti Israel policy, however.

hmmm

The biggest problem with those who go on about "anti-zionism" is that most haven't a clue what zionism even means - but they use it as a convenient catch-all phrase to express whatever anti-jewish/anti-israel sentiment has popped into their heads that day.

So if you're looking for some subtle and sophisticated debate where one side is claiming to be "anti-zionists", you're not going to get it.

SamHarris

hmmm wrote: »

The biggest problem with those who go on about "anti-zionism" is that most haven't a clue what zionism even means - but they use it as a convenient catch-all phrase to express whatever anti-jewish/anti-israel sentiment has popped into their heads that day.

So if you're looking for some subtle and sophisticated debate where one side is claiming to be "anti-zionists", you're not going to get it.

I second this. For most people it means whatever they need it to mean at that moment in time.

wes

SamHarris wrote: »

It could be simple nomenclature. Zionism the the belief that Jews should have a homeland, hence anti Zionism implies a rejection of this and therefore Israel by proxy.

Except that is not entirely true:

A new exodus for the Middle East?

--SNIP--
As early as 1895, Theodor Herzl, the prophet and founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary in anticipation of the establishment of the Jewish state: "We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country ... The removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."
--SNIP--

--SNIP--
Ben-Gurion hailed Lord Peel's recommendations: "The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had ... during the days of the First and Second Temples ... an opportunity which we never dared to dream in our wildest imaginings."
--SNIP--

--SNIP--
Weizmann also supported a transfer scheme and in 1941 told Ivan Maiskii, the Soviet ambassador in London (according to the envoy's own account): "If half a million Arabs could be transferred, two million Jews [ie, Jewish immigrants] could be put in their place. That, of course, would be a first instalment ..."
--SNIP--

Zionism always included ethnic cleansing. Its still happening today, as evdenced by the constant house demolitions and removal of Palestinians from there land:

Palestinian farmers ordered to leave lands

Supporters of Israel ignore the fact that for Israel to come into being, it needed to ethnically cleanse the people already living there, and that is still going on today.

If were just talking about a Jewish state, and no ethnic cleansing, you would have a point, but that isn't the case at all, and presenting Zionism as you are, is simple incorrect.

Simply put, the ethnic cleansing element is ignored as it doesn't suit supporters and apologists for Israel. Its a simple rejection of well established desire of Zionists going back to the man who came up with the entire idea, who admitted that the intent of ethnic cleansing was there from the get go.

Jonny7

wes wrote: »

Except that is not entirely true:

Zionism always included ethnic cleansing. Its still happening today, as evdenced by the constant house demolitions and removal of Palestinians from there land:

Palestinian farmers ordered to leave lands

Israelis are doing this.

Simply put, the ethnic cleansing element is ignored as it doesn't suit supporters and apologists for Israel. Its a simple rejection of well established desire of Zionists going back to the man who came up with the entire idea, who admitted that the intent of ethnic cleansing was there from the get go.

Israelis are bulldozing Palestinian houses. The Israeli government and the Israeli people are to blame for this policy.

Chuck Stone

Jonny7 wrote: »

Israelis are doing this.

Israelis are bulldozing Palestinian houses. The Israeli government and the Israeli people are to blame for this policy.

Not all of them? Surely there are a considerable number of them who are appalled at that type of thing? You can't just say 'Israelis' are bulldozing the homes of Palestinians.

The Israelis have human rights organisations that condemn that type of thing regularly and are a pain in the arse for those who'd rather suppress that type of story from being made public.

Jonny7

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not all of them? Surely there are a considerable number of them who are appalled at that type of thing? You can't just say 'Israelis' are bulldozing the homes of Palestinians.

The Israelis have human rights organisations that condemn that type of thing regularly and are a pain in the arse for those who'd rather suppress that type of story from being made public.

Obviously, am just dispelling the "Zionist" moniker.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

Supporters of Israel ignore the fact that for Israel to come into being, it needed to ethnically cleanse the people already living there, and that is still going on today.

If were just talking about a Jewish state, and no ethnic cleansing, you would have a point, but that isn't the case at all, and presenting Zionism as you are, is simple incorrect.

Simply put, the ethnic cleansing element is ignored as it doesn't suit supporters and apologists for Israel. Its a simple rejection of well established desire of Zionists going back to the man who came up with the entire idea, who admitted that the intent of ethnic cleansing was there from the get go.

Still on that ethnic cleansing crap eh? Pretty much the whole arab world declared war on Israel in 1948, their only problem being that the Israelis were far more motivated having seen what happened to their people in WW2 and drove the arab forces back. It was war and populations move during war, just go to Viipuri, Konigsberg or Danzig and try and you'll see its something that happens.

I don't mind people who are anti west bank settlement and all that but there are various people who use things like that to express their Anti-Israeli or Anti-Jewish sentiments and that is something that needs to be pointed out where it exists.

BlaasForRafa

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not all of them? Surely there are a considerable number of them who are appalled at that type of thing? You can't just say 'Israelis' are bulldozing the homes of Palestinians.

The Israelis have human rights organisations that condemn that type of thing regularly and are a pain in the arse for those who'd rather suppress that type of story from being made public.

Didn't you get the memo? Israeli bad, Palestinian good.

Nodin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Still on that ethnic cleansing crap eh? Pretty much the whole arab world declared war on Israel in 1948, their only problem being that the Israelis were far more motivated having seen what happened to their people in WW2 and drove the arab forces back. It was war and populations move during war, just go to Viipuri, Konigsberg or Danzig and try and you'll see its something that happens.

.............

You realise that just because you can use a few examples of it happening to Germans, its still ethnic cleansing....?

hatrickpatrick

hmmm wrote: »

The biggest problem with those who go on about "anti-zionism" is that most haven't a clue what zionism even means - but they use it as a convenient catch-all phrase to express whatever anti-jewish/anti-israel sentiment has popped into their heads that day.

So if you're looking for some subtle and sophisticated debate where one side is claiming to be "anti-zionists", you're not going to get it.

Interesting point. When I hear people self identify with the label "Zionist", most of these people seem to be in favour of expanding the state of Israel from its original borders, rather than simply maintaining it.
I suppose because of this I have regarded Zionism, in a modern context, to now refer to the expansion of the state rather than the maintenance of it, so therefore as an "anti Zionist" I am opposed to settlement activity and (what I regard as) theft of property through expansion of the border, starting in 1967 and continuing to the present day.

Perhaps this is where the confusion comes from? It seems that one cannot simply argue against the principle of taking land by military force without being accused of hatred of Israel as a whole. Whereas I think a lot of people who identify as Pro Palestinian simply want an end to settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

This is more a comment on the media portrayal than on individuals, but it does seem to be very prevalent. For example, saying "Israel has a right to defend itself" in response to outrage over particular military atrocities seems very strange to me, I am not for instance arguing that Israel does NOT have a right to defend itself by suggesting its military shouldn't be bulldozing privately owned homes.
Stuff like this, is what I am referring to in this thread.

SamHarris

wes wrote: »

Except that is not entirely true:



Zionism always included ethnic cleansing. Its still happening today, as evdenced by the constant house demolitions and removal of Palestinians from there land:

Palestinian farmers ordered to leave lands

Supporters of Israel ignore the fact that for Israel to come into being, it needed to ethnically cleanse the people already living there, and that is still going on today.

If were just talking about a Jewish state, and no ethnic cleansing, you would have a point, but that isn't the case at all, and presenting Zionism as you are, is simple incorrect.

Simply put, the ethnic cleansing element is ignored as it doesn't suit supporters and apologists for Israel. Its a simple rejection of well established desire of Zionists going back to the man who came up with the entire idea, who admitted that the intent of ethnic cleansing was there from the get go.

Im well aware of Israel's many wrongs. My point was that the core of Zionism is a homeland for the Jews, the "rest" are issues that people tack on or off for whatever purpose they want "anti-Zionism" to mean at that given point. It is not surprising that some people see it as tantamount to a declaration that Israel should not exist in the fashion it does - as it does mean when various commentators and even officials use the phrase.

To you it can mean a rejection of Israels wrongs - but the morphis nature of the phrase, coupled with its core meaning, means it should not be surprising to anyone when people, purposfully or not, misunderstand its use.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

You realise that just because you can use a few examples of it happening to Germans, its still ethnic cleansing....?

When you start a genocidal war of destruction, and lose, you lose territory. The Japanese lost the Sakhalin islands to the Soviet Union, Germany lost the Alsace region, and even Finland lost some territory (complicated).

The war in 1967 was started by the entire Arab world whose stated intention was to drive the Jews (not Israelis, Jews) into the sea. The Hamas charter explicitly calls for the murder of Jews, not because of Israel, but because they're Jews.

Some elements of the 'Palestinian' community may want a 2 state solution but many of them don't want peace, e.g. Hamas, they want the Jews dead.

In addition, in the 1967 war, many of the Jews in Arab countries had to flee - where did many of them go to? Israel! So it's safe to say that any expanded territory after 1967 can be justified by 2 means:

1. They had to assimilate hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees who were themselves the victims of ethnic cleansing.
2. They were attacked unprovoked by a region of Islamic hatemongers who wanted to drive them all (men women and children) into the sea.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

When you start (........) and children) into the sea.

There's no legal basis for such a claim. Acquisition of territory by force is outlawed. Your assertion that such a war was genocidal in intent is wild speculation.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Still on that ethnic cleansing crap eh?

Still defending ethnic cleansing I see.

Amazing how you ignore the straight forward statements made by various Zionists. It odd how you ignore what I said completely, and refuse to even acknowledge anything that shows you claims to be factually incorrect, and then don't provide anything to refute what was clearly stated by Zionists.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Pretty much the whole arab world declared war on Israel in 1948, their only problem being that the Israelis were far more motivated having seen what happened to their people in WW2 and drove the arab forces back. It was war and populations move during war, just go to Viipuri, Konigsberg or Danzig and try and you'll see its something that happens.

Notice how some of the quotes come from long before 1948, but its not like you have ever let fact get in the way of your fact free rants. Also, before the Arabs invaded Zionists were already engaged in ethnic cleansing, and they also made it clear before any Arab attacked that they wanted to kick out the Palestinians.

Again, you choose to deliberately ignore these facts, and have done so time and time again, and again you choose to ignore the clear statements by Zionists, where they make there desire to engage in ethnic cleansing very very clear, and some of those statements were made long before 1948. You are as per usual engage in a willful denial of reality.

Using war as an excuse for ethnic cleansing, is pretty popular, the Serbians tried that one as well. No one bought it then either.

Also, ethnic cleansing happening elsewhere, doesn't make it alright some where else, and is quite frankly a bizarre defense.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I don't mind people who are anti west bank settlement and all that but there are various people who use things like that to express their Anti-Israeli or Anti-Jewish sentiments and that is something that needs to be pointed out where it exists.

I think those who engage in Anti-Palestinian statements, like denying the fact they were ethnically cleansed and provide excuses for it need to be challenged. I think those who ignore facts, when they don't suit them also need to be challenged.

Its very simple Blass racism is wrong, when its directed against Palestinians as well, and just because you choose to provide excuses for it, doesn't mean others won't point it out. Also, the whole point, I am making is that what started in 1948, is still going on today. It hasn't stopped, and saying it was ok back then is tantamount to saying it would be fine today imho.

Also, pointing out how Israel was created, with an intent to ethnic cleanse made clear decades before 1948, isn't the same as saying Israel shouldn't exist now.

wes

SamHarris wrote: »

Im well aware of Israel's many wrongs.

The wrongs are due to Zionism, as thats the ideology behind all the wrongs.

SamHarris wrote: »

My point was that the core of Zionism is a homeland for the Jews, the "rest" are issues that people tack on or off for whatever purpose they want "anti-Zionism" to mean at that given point.

I am not the one tacking anything on, it was prominent Zionists who were the one going on about ethnic cleansing. I am just pointing it out. You can't ignore how the people espousing, how they were going to achieve a Jewish state, as if it is somehow separate.

Look at some of the people I provided quotes for, Ben Gurion and Theodor Herzl. Gurion was the 1st Prime Minister of Israel, and Herzl came up with modern Zionism. What they said and did to achieve a Jewish state is very much part and parcel of there ideology, and imho it can't be ignored, especially as the whole ethnic cleansing business is still happening.

wes

SeanW wrote: »

The war in 1967 was started by the entire Arab world

Israel started the 1967 war, claiming it was a preemptive strike (the other side would of course disagree):

Six-Day War

--SNIP--
After a period of high tension between Israel and its neighbors, the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise bombing raids against Egyptian air-fields.
--SNIP--

I have no idea why you would make an easily dis proven false statements in regards to the 1967 like claiming that the entire Arab world started it. The entire Arab world didn't even fight in it, let alone start it.

SeanW wrote: »

They were attacked unprovoked by a region of Islamic hatemongers who wanted to drive them all (men women and children) into the sea.

Good to see the old anti-Islam bias, isn't hurt by little things like facts.

What interesting about 1967, is that the first country attacked, Egypt was run by a secular nationalist regime. Syria also a secular Arab nationalist regime, and finally Jordan, a monarchy. Seems to me that most of the people involved were secular nationalists, along with a monarchy.

In fact, both sides, were largely secular nationalist at this point. The Religious extremists come to prominence much later for both sides.

JustinDee

Typically cherry-picked 'snippets' yet again, ignoring the wider picture in the region and context of what led to the Six Day War.
Disgusting.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

Typically cherry-picked 'snippets' yet again,

Coming from you that is quite frankly a bit rich. I do notice you don't actually address what I was replying to or anything like that, but again not surprising coming from you.

Also, the wiki link provide plenty of context. I take it you didn't bother reading it, and just wanted have a little rant. Pretty typical of you.

JustinDee wrote: »

ignoring the wider picture in the region and context of what led to the Six Day War.

I was just pointing out the purposeful factual errors, which i take you have no issue with for some strange reason. Typical hypocrisy that the factual error don't bother you, as long as they come from someone supporting Israel.

JustinDee wrote: »

Disgusting.

What disgusting is people who make crap up and try to pass it as fact. Then there are the people who are ok with it, and take issue with someone daring to point that out, and attack them for it. Again, simple hypocrisy from you.

I was making a short post on a forum, that was addressing stuff that was simply untrue. I wasn't writing a book on 1967, and as such didn't provide all the context surrounding it, but I did mention that Israel considered there attack to be preemptive to provide balance and the wiki link does contain the context, but again I did dare to disagree with a Pro-Israel poster, so I take it that was enough to enrage you.

JustinDee

A cold war power struggle in Middle East was going nowhere else but Israel's direction. Attempted coups in Lebanon and Syria backed by USSR-backed Nasser in his pan-Arab movement were only the tip of it. Skirmishes on borders via Gaza, Sinai and the Golan Heights were the first step in the Nasser nut's plan for the region.
You'll probably quote some military personnel aligned to opposition parties in Knesset saying there was no danger but any decent analyst of the situation knows that the war that followed the Six Day War was what Nasser was attempting in the first place. Stick to your blinkered view all you like. It changes nothing. Quit labelling though. Subjective pigeon-holing not very becoming.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

A. Stick to your blinkered view all you like. It changes nothing.

Read the wiki link, its covers all that stuff. Again, I am not writing a book on the conflict, just pointing out purposefully factual inaccuracies, which I notice you still have no issues with. So again hypocrisy.

Secondly, I already said that Israel claimed there strike was preemptive:

wes wrote: »

Israel started the 1967 war, claiming it was a preemptive strike (the other side would of course disagree):

I know you don't care what I actually said or anything, but I did point that Israel considered there attack to be preemptive. If the attack was preemptive, that still means that Israel attacked first. While that may be hard for you understand, and apparently pointing out that Israel attacked first (again they claimed it was preemptive) is enough to enrage you, and engage in pointless rants, about how I didn't discuss the entirety of the 1967 war and what lead to it in a short forum post. Sure, I could accuse you of ignoring things, and you in fact point blank state that you dismiss any other views, which would disagree with Israel engaging in a preemptive strike.

Also, you dismiss anything that would disagree with Israel claim of there attack being preemptive, and claim I am being the one being one sided. Again truly astonishing level of bias from you imho.

Anyway, I will leave you with the last word, as things have already gone to far off topic.

hatrickpatrick

JustinDee wrote: »

Typically cherry-picked 'snippets' yet again, ignoring the wider picture in the region and context of what led to the Six Day War.
Disgusting.

I suppose you would also argue that Iraq started the Iraq war, seeing as the US government defined it as a "pre-emptive strike"?

Except in extremely rare circumstances, the concept of a pre-emptive strike as it has been actually practiced is effectively just an excuse for aggression.
Sort of like how "national security" no longer refers to actual security in most cases but is in fact just an excuse for the government to break its own laws and violate civil liberties.

This still doesn't actually answer the question posed in my OP though. We can debate whether or not the six day war was justified in another thread if you like, but this is about the aftermath of that war, specifically Israel's (illegal) colonization of occupied lands, and the media's current refusal to differentiate between opposition to that specific policy and opposition to the actual existence of the state of Israel.

Chuck Stone

JustinDee wrote: »

A cold war power struggle in Middle East was going nowhere else but Israel's direction. Attempted coups in Lebanon and Syria backed by USSR

Source?

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

There's no legal basis for such a claim. Acquisition of territory by force is outlawed.

Taking land from aggressive invaders is commonplace.

Your assertion that such a war was genocidal in intent is wild speculation.

I suggest Googling the phrase "drive the Jews into the sea" you'll find references to the use of that phrase back in '67 primarily from Egypt.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Taking land from aggressive invaders is commonplace..

A throwaway statement which means nothing and bears no relation to the situation in law.

SeanW wrote: »

I suggest Googling the phrase "drive the Jews into the sea" you'll find references to the use of that phrase back in '67 primarily from Egypt.

Theres a strong difference between rhetoric and a planned enterprise.

wes

SeanW wrote: »

Taking land from aggressive invaders is commonplace.

Israel attacked first in 1967, that fact has already been established, and is in fact well known. Repeating the same lie over and over again, doesn't make it anymore true, and it pretty much destroys any kind of credibility from your arguement, when you wilfully decide to ignore facts.

JustinDee

And again with this subjective line?
Why do you think they attacked first? No-one has ever denied they did. Apart from quotes from former military figures aligned with opposition parties, it is common knowledge and so effing obvious what was to follow with Nasser's mobilisation on all sides which in turn followed the increase of border incursions and bombardment.
Israel was about to be swamped but made sure this would not happen. The Yom Kippur war and what followed were what Nasser and his provocateur allies wanted to happen in 1967. Handsitters in charge would have ensured what your ilk would appear to have wished for. Apparently, the Israelis were to sit there and do nothing in your opinion, it would seem.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

No-one has ever denied they did.

FFS, someone did actually deny this in the thread, and I replied to that claim:

SeanW wrote: »

Taking land from aggressive invaders is commonplace.

and

SeanW wrote: »

When you start a genocidal war of destruction, and lose, you lose territory. The Japanese lost the Sakhalin islands to the Soviet Union, Germany lost the Alsace region, and even Finland lost some territory (complicated).

The war in 1967 was started by the entire Arab world whose stated intention was to drive the Jews (not Israelis, Jews) into the sea.

So Justin someone did make exactly that claim at least twice in this thread, and no matter how many times its said, its still untrue.

I have no idea how you could have missed those posts, but here they are again, quoted above. If you read my posts, then you clearly know who I was replying to. Anyway, as I said before, I am done with this, and tbh it gotten very silly imho, especially with this latest post.

JustinDee

You keep going on and on about who struck first, in this intentionally disingenuous manner. What you also keep doing is neglect to apply any context whatsoever and the reasoning behind the pre-emptive strike (aside from a couple of retrospective quotes from allies of opposition Knesset parties).

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

You keep going on and on about who struck first, in this intentionally disingenuous manner.

I already said repeatedly that Israel claimed the strike was preemptive.

FFS, your just looking for an completley pointless arguement, with a really silly straw man here Justin. I already said that Israel claimed the strike was preemptive:

wes wrote: »

Israel started the 1967 war, claiming it was a preemptive strike (the other side would of course disagree):

The only person being disingenuous is you. I have no idea what your problem is, but I have clearly stated that Israel claimed that Israel said there strike was preemptive. Anyway, this has gotten really silly. Clearly, you think that even when Israel was the one who attacked first, its always the otherside who is the aggressor. Doesn't matter that Israel, right after they kicked off the 1967 war, grabbed a bunch of land, that they always wanted as a part of the whole Great Israel nonsense. You may as well be claiming the sky is green, if really think Israel didn't kick things off in 1967.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

I already said repeatedly that Israel claimed the strike was preemptive.

FFS, your just looking for an completley pointless arguement, with a really silly straw man here Justin. I already said that Israel claimed the strike was preemptive:

The only person being disingenuous is you. I have no idea what your problem is, but I have clearly stated that Israel claimed that Israel said there strike was preemptive. Anyway, this has gotten really silly. Clearly, you think that even when Israel was the one who attacked first, its always the otherside who is the aggressor. Doesn't matter that Israel, right after they kicked off the 1967 war, grabbed a bunch of land, that they always wanted as a part of the whole Great Israel nonsense. You may as well be claiming the sky is green, if really think Israel didn't kick things off in 1967.

And yet again??
It is actually incredible that you can look no earlier than June 5th 1967 as to why this all "kicked off".
My raising your claim isn't pointless, and neither is it whatever gimmicky web-term you wish to call it. It is a valid point to make as you myopically bang on about those big bad Israelis being the sole reasons behind the post-1956 augmentation of the Arab/Israeli conflict. They were hardly going to sit back and get hosed by what Nasser was rallying. Much more than a case of "but they started it". Even Pilger and Fisk admit as much.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

And yet again??

They did attack first......

Amazing, you can't understand this simple fact.

JustinDee wrote: »

It is actually incredible that you can look no earlier than June 5th 1967 as to why this all "kicked off".

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that is the day the war started. It is amazing that you can't accept a simple fact, as to who attacked first. Hint, it wasn't the Arabs.

JustinDee wrote: »

My raising your claim isn't pointless, and neither is it whatever gimmicky web-term you wish to call it.

It is pointless actually. I already pointed out Israel claim that it was preemptive. You are claiming that I ignored that. Your claim is simply wrong, and as such pointless. Its really not that hard to understand. I am well aware of both sides version of events, either way it doesn't change you actually attacked first, now does it?

JustinDee wrote: »

It is a valid point to make as you myopically bang on about those big bad Israelis being the sole reasons behind the post-1956 augmentation of the Arab/Israeli conflict.

I made no such claim. Your making things up again Justin. Its really rather sad, that you have resort to this absurd nonsense, in your desperate attempt to ignore the facts.

All, I see is someone who can't accept anything other that Israel version of things.

JustinDee wrote: »

They were hardly going to sit back and get hosed by what Nasser was rallying.

[sarcasm]Yes, he was totally going to attack, because Israel said he was, and as we know Israel never lies:[/sarcasm]

Rethinking Israel’s David-and-Goliath past

Little-noticed details in declassified U.S. documents indicate that Israel's Six-Day War may not have been a war of necessity.

--SNIP--
Or was it? Little-noticed details in declassified documents from the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, indicate that top officials in the Johnson administration — including Johnson’s most pro-Israeli Cabinet members — did not believe war between Israel and its neighbors was necessary or inevitable, at least until the final hour. In these documents, Israel emerges as a vastly superior military power, its opponents far weaker than the menacing threat Israel portrayed, and war itself something that Nasser, for all his saber-rattling, tried to avoid until the moment his air force went up in smoke. In particular, the diplomatic role of Nasser’s vice president, who was poised to travel to Washington in an effort to resolve the crisis, has received little attention from historians. The documents sharpen a recurring theme in the history of the Israeli-Arab wars, and especially of their telling in the West: From the war of 1948 to the 2007 conflict in Gaza, Israel is often miscast as the vulnerable David in a hostile sea of Arab Goliaths.
--SNIP--

Even the American's didn't buy Israels version of events, and I see no reason why, I should either.

What interesting is that in any version of events it was Israel who attacked first.....

Shea O'Meara

People should have the right to exist and follow their beliefs freely.
The state of Israel cannot claim to be simply trying to get by when it was created on the land of and without the consent of the indigenous people of the region.
We all know too well about state and religion being tied together but I don't believe any anti-Israel sentiment is in any way automatically an anti-Jewish issue. I can see how it's advantageous for people to blend the two when defending the right to practically invade another region and set up your own country to the detriment of the native population.
In my view the Israelis should apologise and try work out some kind of way to hopefully live in peace, rather than bluster their right to exist like they are the injured party and not the aggressor that the state is.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

They did attack first......

Amazing, you can't understand this simple fact

I didn't say they didn't ffs. What I do take into account however and what you keep on feebly denying, is what was happening in the lead-up to the 5th of June in 1967. To think that nothing was to come out of Nasser's movement . . . just beggars belief.
Ignoring this and quoting a David Talbot website of all things disproves nothing, 'wes'. Sorry but your posts are far too (deliberately) tilted to even begin an opinion on those decades given the blinkered line you keep taking.

Go on, regurgitate those old chestnut former military quotes too.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

I didn't say they didn't ffs.

Could have fooled me, seeing as you post stuff like this anytime I mention it:

JustinDee wrote: »

And yet again??

Go figure, it seemed me you had an issue with that.

JustinDee wrote: »

What I do take into account however and what you keep on feebly denying, is what was happening in the lead-up to the 5th of June in 1967. To think that nothing was to come out of Nasser's movement . . . just beggars belief.

No, what beggars belief, is that you have out of hand rejected anything that suggests otherwise. You expect me to believe the claims of Israel, when the US at the time, taught that Israel wasn't under the threat of imminent attack.

I am sorry, but I can't quite agree with someone who not only dismisses things you don't like, but doesn't even bother to address it all. All you have done so far is just say that anything you disagree with is wrong, and offered nothing more.

Also to call me blinkered, when I have repeatedly said that Israel claimed there attack was preemptive is also funny, especially when you have been exclusively taking a very one sided Israel is right argument the whole time.

JustinDee wrote: »

Ignoring this and quoting a David Talbot website of all things disproves nothing, 'wes'.

Well its shows that your more interested in the websites owner, as opposed to actually dealing with the article.

So again, your right because you say so.

JustinDee wrote: »

Sorry but your posts are far too (deliberately) tilted to even begin an opinion on those decades given the blinkered line you keep taking.

Considering that your line amounts to, you just saying you right again and again, and saying that anything that disagree with your views, is wrong solely on your say so, that is quite frankly a bit rich.

You didn't even address a single thing the article said, not that I expected you to or anything. You have so far steadfastly relied on claiming your right, and that anything that says otherwise is wrong, just on your say so.

JustinDee wrote: »

Go on, regurgitate those old chestnut former military quotes too.

So, not only are you going to ignore documents that date to the time of the war (because you have some issue with the website owner), but also with anyone who says anything that disagrees with what you say, then its just wrong apparently. Yet you are the one calling me blinkered.

I understand that you just reject anything that disagrees with you, but the simple fact is that Israels version of events are simply biased. To fair, then so is the other side, but you expect me to accept one sides version, because you say so is utterly ridiculous. If you want be biased towards Israel version of events, and ignore anything that says otherwise, more power to you. Personally, I am going to look at both sides, unlike yourself, and make up my own mind.

hatrickpatrick

JustinDee wrote: »

I didn't say they didn't ffs. What I do take into account however and what you keep on feebly denying, is what was happening in the lead-up to the 5th of June in 1967. To think that nothing was to come out of Nasser's movement . . . just beggars belief.
Ignoring this and quoting a David Talbot website of all things disproves nothing, 'wes'. Sorry but your posts are far too (deliberately) tilted to even begin an opinion on those decades given the blinkered line you keep taking.

Go on, regurgitate those old chestnut former military quotes too.

Regardless of the lead up (which I still don't agree with but it's off topic anyway), does any of that justify colonizing lands by literally driving out the indigenous population at gunpoint and bulldozing their homes?

JustinDee

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Regardless of the lead up (which I still don't agree with but it's off topic anyway), does any of that justify colonizing lands by literally driving out the indigenous population at gunpoint and bulldozing their homes?

No, it doesn't justify anything. What it is however is a very real summary of where the region was headed following Nasser's (prodded) 'revolution', particularly amongst the three occupying countries of Palestine at the time (Egypt, Syria, Jordan - of which experienced coups) plus Lebanon. Head-in-the-sand, ill-educated lines about all going on being harmless and just talk change nothing. As much the Pan-Arabists' fault as the Israeli govt at the time. They mobilised and got severely beaten for this. Even Syria nearly went too but for their own interested party, the USSR's intervention. Biggest loss after Jerusalem was the Golan ranges, which will never be given up again, regardless of whatever talks take place. Far too important in defensive terms. This isn't me justifying anything. Just saying what happened. No anti-Israeli revisionist claptrap will convince otherwise.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Theres a strong difference between rhetoric and a planned enterprise.

Let me get this straight, is it your view that the Israelis started the '67 war totally unprovoked with the intention of taking land?

And as for the "driving the Jews into the sea" part, are you suggesting that they weren't really serious about it or something? It seems to me to be farily clear that there was an intention to "drive the Jews into the sea" if it wasn't the intention, they wouldn't have said it.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Let me get this straight, is it your view that the Israelis started the '67 war totally unprovoked with the intention of taking land?.

No, however land was taken, held, and colonisation begun subsequently.

SeanW wrote: »

And as for the "driving the Jews into the sea" part, are you suggesting that they weren't really serious about it or something? It seems to me to be farily clear that there was an intention to "drive the Jews into the sea" if it wasn't the intention, they wouldn't have said it.

Rhetoric =/= structured plan and intent.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Rhetoric =/= structured plan and intent.

Meh, perhaps. But when one explicitly states that they want to "drive the Jews into the sea" I think it makes to believe that they might, possibly just be serious about it.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Meh, perhaps. But when one explicitly states that they want to "drive the Jews into the sea" I think it makes to believe that they might, possibly just be serious about it.

I doubt they had hugs and kisses in mind, but extrapolating genocide from rhetoric, without detailed plans to back up the conclusion, doesn't really fly.

Jelle1880

Not to mention that Ahmadinejad has no actual power, he is a puppet, a front for the Ayatollahs.

So everything he says is to be taken with a grain of salt.

Shay McLaughlin

The Palestinians want ALL of Israel and to make Jerusalem it's capital....how much land for peace is it going to take to satisfy this hunger for occupancy? Let's go BEYOND the '67 borders...what Israel is now and what it Originally was is quite surprising..there is no 'OUT" for Israel if they are sandwiched between the Gaza Strip and the Wesr Bank....I see many similarities between what has happened in my beloved Republic/country of Ireland and the Jewish struggle to hang on to what little land that's left which is rightfully their's.

Nodin

Shay McLaughlin wrote: »

The Palestinians want ALL of Israel and to make Jerusalem it's capital..............

That wasn't the negotiating position of Fatah. You've some source for that?

wes

Shay McLaughlin wrote: »

The Palestinians want ALL of Israel and to make Jerusalem it's capital....how much land for peace is it going to take to satisfy this hunger for occupancy? Let's go BEYOND the '67 borders....

Israel are the ones expanding outside there borders, on a daily basis via there settlements.

The PA position is a state more or less based on the 1967 borders, with some mutually agreed upon land swaps.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

I doubt they had hugs and kisses in mind, but extrapolating genocide from rhetoric, without detailed plans to back up the conclusion, doesn't really fly.

They said they wanted to drive the Jews into the sea, I'm not sure why any other evidence is needed.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

They said they wanted to drive the Jews into the sea, I'm not sure why any other evidence is needed.

...which is, to be blunt, part of the problem. There is a difference between rhetoric and fact.

SeanW

The fact is they never got to do it!

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

The fact is they never got to do it!

Genocide requires some level of planning. These plans would exist regardless of whether or not the genocide occurred. There's none. Therefore we're left with a lot of hot air in a region famous for it.