political suicide ?

yosi wrote:

Of course you would say that '67 was an offensive war on Israel's part. You would need to recognize that all-so-terrible thing "NUANCE" to understand otherwise. Yes, Israel fired the first actual shots in the six day war, but the war is considered to have been defensive on Israel's part because of the pre-existence of legitimate casus belli. From wiki:

A casus belli played a prominent role during the Six-Day War of 1967. The Israeli government had a short list of casī bellorum, acts that it would consider provocations justifying armed retaliation. The most important was a blockade of the Straits of Tiran leading into Eilat, Israel's only port to the Red Sea, through which Israel received much of its oil. After several border incidents between Israel and Egypt's allies Syria and Jordan, Egypt expelled UNEF peacekeepers from the Sinai Peninsula, established a military presence at Sharm el-Sheikh, and announced a blockade of the straits, prompting Israel to cite its casus belli in opening hostilities against Egypt.

Why don't we see what the Israeli's themselves say on the matter:

1967:


'Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech delivered at the Israeli National Defense College, clearly stated that: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982).


A few months after the war, Yitzhak Rabin remarked: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it" (Le Monde, 29 February 1968).


'General Matityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli conquest, committed what the Israeli public considered blasphemy when he admitted the true thinking of the Israeli leadership: "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war" (Ha'aretz, 19

March 1972). Israeli Air Force General Ezer Weizmann declared bluntly that "there was never any danger of extermination" (Ma'ariv, 19 April 1972). Mordechai Bentov, a former Israeli cabinet minister, also dismissed the myth of Israel's imminent annihilation: "All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories" (Al Hamishmar, 14 April 1972).


After the 1967 war Israel, claimed it invaded because of imminent Arab attack. It claimed that Nasser's closing of the Straits of Tiran constituted an act of war. It also cited Syrian shelling on the demilitarized zone of the Syrian-Israeli border. The claim that the Arabs were going to invade appears particularly ludicrous when one recalls that a third of Egypt's army was in Yemen and therefore quite unprepared to launch a war. On the Syrian front, Israel was engaging in threats and provocations that evidenced many similarities to its behavior in the lead up to the Gaza raid of 1955.


The demilitarized zone on the Syrian-Israeli border was established by agreement on 20 July 1949. Israeli provocations were incessant and enabled Israel to increase and extend its sovereignty by encroachment over the entire Arab area. According to one UN Chief of Staff, Arab villagers were evicted and their homes destroyed (E.L.M. Burns, Between Arab and Israeli, Ivan Obolensky, 1962, pp. 113-114).


Another Chief of Staff described how the Israelis ploughed up Arab land and "advanced the 'frontier' to their own advantage" (Carl von Horn, Soldiering for Peace, Cassell, 1966, p. 79). Israel attempted to evict the Arabs living on the Golan and annex the demilitarized zone. When the Syrians inevitably responded, Israel claimed that "peaceful" Israeli farmers were being shelled by the Syrians. Unmentioned was the fact that the "farmers" were armed and using tractors and farm equipment to encroach on the demilitarized zone (David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: the Roots of Violence in the Middle East, Faber and Faber, 1984, pp. 213-15). This was part of a "premeditated Israeli policy [..] to get all the Arabs out of the way by fair means or foul."


Shortly after the Syrian response on 7 April 1967, the Israeli Air Force attacked Syria, shooting down six planes, hitting thirty fortified positions and killing about 100 people (Hirst, op. cit., p. 214). It was unlikely that any Syrian guns would have been fired if not for Israel's provocation. Israel's need for water also played a role in the 1967 attack. The invasion completed Israel's encirclement of the headwaters of the Upper Jordan River, its capture of the West Bank and the two aquifers arising there, which currently supply all the groundwater for northern and central Israel.'

yosi wrote:

Oh come on. :roll: The Syrians were shelling Israel's northern civilian communities for years from the Golan heights.

And that's all there is to it, right? The Syrians were shelling Israel, and during this period preceding the war the Israeli's were just innocently sitting around picking daisies?

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/finkel ... -1967-war/

Finkelstein: Moshe Dayan, who became the defense minister during the June ‘67 war, gave an interview in 1976 in which he acknowledges, and now I’m more or less quoting him, that 80%, he said at least 80%, but I’ll say 80% of the incidents with the Syrians were instigated by us. That we were engaged, now I’m using my language, but it’s I think a correct paraphrase, we were engaged in a land grab in what were called the demilitarized zones between Syria and Israel. And in the course of this land grab there were conflicts arising with the Syrians. And it was only as a result of these conflicts that the Syrians then would fire artillery from the Golan Heights on the Israelis. So Moshe Dayan himself acknowledged that was instigated by the Israelis.

In April, just let me get right up to the point where the count down, as it were, begins. In April 1967 one of those incidents instigated by the Israelis then unfolded into an aerial battle with the Syrians. And the Israelis knocked down 6 Syrian planes, 6 Syrian Migs, including 1 over Damascus. And it was at this point again when Nasser is being taunted that “you’re not doing anything.”

Things then start deteriorating between Israel and the Syrians. Come the beginning of May Israel is making clear that it’s going to engage in a large scale strike against Syria and now the test is for Nasser. Are you going to do anything about it? The Israelis are announcing over and over again, the generals, the statesmen, that we’re going to give Syria now a serious blow. And it’s at that point that Nasser announces, or Nasser tells Secretary General [not "of State"] U Thant, that the peace keeping force which had been stationed between Israel and Egypt in the Sinai, that peace keeping force should be withdrawn. And that’s the beginning of the count down to the war.

Kat wrote:

Debate Advice and Suggestions
Advice on Debating with Others

1. Avoid the use of Never.
2. Avoid the use of Always.
3. Refrain from saying you are wrong.
4. You can say your idea is mistaken.
5. Don't disagree with obvious truths.
6. Attack the idea not the person.
7. Use many rather than most.
8. Avoid exaggeration.
9. Use some rather than many.
10. The use of often allows for exceptions.
11. The use of generally allows for exceptions.
12. Quote sources and numbers.
13. If it is just an opinion, admit it.
14. Do not present opinion as facts.
15. Smile when disagreeing.
16. Stress the positive.
17. You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
18. Concede minor or trivial points.
19. Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
20. Watch your tone of voice.
21. Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
22. Keep your perspective - You're just debating.

That's a lot of points to remember :wtf:

Kat wrote:

15. Smile when disagreeing.

How do people know if I'm smiling or not when I'm disagreeing? Is it really that obvious? :P

Kat wrote:

This seems like a good place to put this, since there's an actual debate happening here.

Feel free to begin a topic to debate about debating and how it applies to everyone here. There are usually few absolutes but it's absolutely required to debate here without getting personal. It's a poor discussion tactic to go after the person you're speaking with during a discussion. It signifies that you're, hmmm, I don't want to use the word "Losing"...that you're not on top of your topic. Be secure if you have your facts and be careful about what you believe on the internet...just discuss. There are so many serious topics to discuss. Thanks everyone. x

Debate Advice and Suggestions
Advice on Debating with Others

1. Avoid the use of Never.
2. Avoid the use of Always.
3. Refrain from saying you are wrong.
4. You can say your idea is mistaken.
5. Don't disagree with obvious truths.
6. Attack the idea not the person.
7. Use many rather than most.
8. Avoid exaggeration.
9. Use some rather than many.
10. The use of often allows for exceptions.
11. The use of generally allows for exceptions.
12. Quote sources and numbers.
13. If it is just an opinion, admit it.
14. Do not present opinion as facts.
15. Smile when disagreeing.
16. Stress the positive.
17. You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
18. Concede minor or trivial points.
19. Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
20. Watch your tone of voice.
21. Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
22. Keep your perspective - You're just debating.

You need to be very polite when disagreeing with someone in English, even someone you know quite well.
With someone you know very well, you can disagree more directly.

http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-Eng ... dvice.html

:shock:

yosi wrote:

History aside, resolution 242 clearly accounts for negotiated territorial adjustments to the pre-'67 armistice lines.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/henry-sieg ... ocess-scam
'UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 of 1947, which established the Jewish state’s international legitimacy, also recognised the remaining Palestinian territory outside the new state’s borders as the equally legitimate patrimony of Palestine’s Arab population on which they were entitled to establish their own state, and it mapped the borders of that territory with great precision. Resolution 181’s affirmation of the right of Palestine’s Arab population to national self-determination was based on normative law and the democratic principles that grant statehood to the majority population. (At the time, Arabs constituted two-thirds of the population in Palestine.) This right does not evaporate because of delays in its implementation.'

yosi wrote:

B, your last post has no bearing on the fact that the international community recognizes Israel's right to seek to alter its border through negotiation. I do not contest the legitimacy of the Palestinian right to statehood.

With regard to the '67 borders being indefensible, what is being referred to is the fact that Israel is 8-9 miles wide in the vital stretch between the Mediterranean Sea and the '67 line. This stretch includes the majority of Israel's population, virtually all of its major economic centers, and its lone international airports, all of which are on the low ground along the coastal plain, below the hills of the West Bank. The strategic reason Israel wants to adjust the border is so that the hilltops looking down onto the coast directly along the '67 line (from which it would be incredibly easy to bombard the vital population/economic centers of Israel with even the most simple weapons) will remain in Israeli hands.

This is all very nice, but it's not something the Israeli leadership has ever been satisfied with, as evidenced by all the previous so-called 'peace-talks' which have been nothing but an attempt to carve up the West Bank. These minor border adjustments you speak of have never been laid out as a basis for a viable settlement by the Israeli's.