Israeli Defense Minister HAMMERS obama

[proudveteran06]

I suppose a case could be made for the Legality of a preemptive strike by Israel in 1967, under the conditions in which she found herself.

But, in the final analysis, when Safety and Legality are at swords'-point... Safety wins every time.

The Israelis were far safer, by launching a preemptive strike, than they would have been without one.

That's the only test that counts, in the end.

Staying 'legal' is a nice thing to do, under the circumstances.

Staying 'safe' is far more important, as the Israelis so sensibly concluded, in 1967.

Audentes fortuna juvat.

Ask any Pro Palestinian Pig why the UN left prior to the 67 War and there will be no response

 

[georgephillip]

It makes me feel warm inside that Israel's existence angers you so much.

BTW Georgie, how many Palestinians would NOT have become refugees after the 1948 war if 5 Arab countries didn't attack Israel??

Zero Palestinians would NOT have become refugees in 1948 if five Arab armies hadn't prevented the "chosen people" from stealing all the land between the River and the sea. I'm happy that fact gags bigots (like you, Toastie)

Bigot?? I think you should go learn what that means before you use it on other people.

You didn't answer my question bigot. If 5 Arab armies didn't attack Israel, how many of those refugees would not have become refugees??
Learn to read and comprehend, Nazi Shill

I did answer your question, Bigot.
Zero(0) Palestinians would NOT have become refugees in 1948 if five Arab armies had NOT prevented your racist kin from stealing all of Palestine.
Get it, Bigot?

 

[Kondor3]

Zero Palestinians would NOT have become refugees in 1948 if five Arab armies hadn't prevented the "chosen people" from stealing all the land between the River and the sea. I'm happy that fact gags bigots (like you, Toastie)

Bigot?? I think you should go learn what that means before you use it on other people.

You didn't answer my question bigot. If 5 Arab armies didn't attack Israel, how many of those refugees would not have become refugees??
Learn to read and comprehend, Nazi Shill

I did answer your question, Bigot.
Zero(0) Palestinians would NOT have become refugees in 1948 if five Arab armies had NOT prevented your racist kin from stealing all of Palestine.
Get it, Bigot?

We have a fairly reliable number pertaining to the total No. of Arabs displaced in 1948, yes?

700,000

The number needs to be parsed or subdivided into...

(a) the No. of Muslims driven out by Israeli militia actions prior to the Arab attack...

(b) the No. of Muslims who voluntarily abandoned their homes prior to the Arab attack...

(c) the No. of Muslims who abandoned their homes pursuant to orders and requests by various Arab leadership...

(d) the No. of Muslims driven out by Israeli militia actions after the Arab attack had begun...

(e) the No. of Muslims who voluntarily abandoned their homes after the Arab attack had begun...

...then, and only then, we can get a decent handle on how many Palestinians would not have lost their homes, had the Arabs not attacked.

Anything else is pure speculation, and, of course, there exists documented evidence of Arab leadership calling upon the Muslims of the region to leave, so as not to get in the way of the advancing Arab armies - promising to redeem all of Old Palestine for them in a matter of weeks... another Failed Arab Promise still festering 66 years later.

 

[toastman]

Zero Palestinians would NOT have become refugees in 1948 if five Arab armies hadn't prevented the "chosen people" from stealing all the land between the River and the sea. I'm happy that fact gags bigots (like you, Toastie)

Bigot?? I think you should go learn what that means before you use it on other people.

You didn't answer my question bigot. If 5 Arab armies didn't attack Israel, how many of those refugees would not have become refugees??
Learn to read and comprehend, Nazi Shill

I did answer your question, Bigot.
Zero(0) Palestinians would NOT have become refugees in 1948 if five Arab armies had NOT prevented your racist kin from stealing all of Palestine.
Get it, Bigot?

No, you DIDN't answer my question you anti semitic welfare receiving Nazi.

Try again, Nazi bigot.

 

[Kondor3]

I suppose a case could be made for the Legality of a preemptive strike by Israel in 1967, under the conditions in which she found herself.

But, in the final analysis, when Safety and Legality are at swords'-point... Safety wins every time.

The Israelis were far safer, by launching a preemptive strike, than they would have been without one.

That's the only test that counts, in the end.

Staying 'legal' is a nice thing to do, under the circumstances.

Staying 'safe' is far more important, as the Israelis so sensibly concluded, in 1967.

Audentes fortuna juvat.

Ask any Pro Palestinian Pig why the UN left prior to the 67 War and there will be no response

Rather than asking our colleagues, I think I'll take the quick don't-peek memory test on that one...

And, if memory serves...

Didn't Nassar tell the UN to get the hell outta Dodge, so that the Egyptians could move into position along the Israeli borders without the UN bitching about it?

Or did I get that wrong?

 

[toastman]

I suppose a case could be made for the Legality of a preemptive strike by Israel in 1967, under the conditions in which she found herself.

But, in the final analysis, when Safety and Legality are at swords'-point... Safety wins every time.

The Israelis were far safer, by launching a preemptive strike, than they would have been without one.

That's the only test that counts, in the end.

Staying 'legal' is a nice thing to do, under the circumstances.

Staying 'safe' is far more important, as the Israelis so sensibly concluded, in 1967.

Audentes fortuna juvat.

Ask any Pro Palestinian Pig why the UN left prior to the 67 War and there will be no response

Rather than asking our colleagues, I think I'll take the quick don't-peek memory test on that one...

And, if memory serves...

Didn't Nassar tell the UN to get the hell outta Dodge, so that the Egyptians could move into position along the Israeli borders without the UN bitching about it?

Or did I get that wrong?

Actually, you're absolutely right. But don't forget what Billo said. "If Egypt wanted to expel the U.N from their territory, it wasn't any of Israel's Goddamn business!!"

 

[Billo_Really]

There was no way to prevent the attack on Israel by the arab state, so yes a peemptive strike was legal to shift the control away from the arabs in favor of the smaller Israeli forces. If the arabs had succeeded there would have been higher casualties and the likely massacre of innocent jews. As it was the actions of Israel saved lives by minimizing civilian losses of Israelis and palestinians.

Six Day War - 6 Days in June

I'm sorry, but the "pre-emptive strike" by Israel, doesn't pass the Caroline Test:

...the necessity for preemptive self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation."

In addition, you cannot claim "pre-emptive self defense", when your the one provoking the war, as Israel did a little over a month BEFORE the 6-day war, when it invaded Syria on April 5, 1967. This was brought to light in an interview with Moshe Dayan in 1976...

Moshe Dayan, the Israeli defense minister at the time of the Six Day War, recounted in a 1976 interview that Israeli policy...between 1949 and 1967 was "to seize some territory and hold it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us", thus changing "the lines of the ceasefire accord with military actions that were less than a war". Dayan related further that in the process Israel had provoked more than 80% of the border clashes with Syria in the lead-up to its April 7, 1967 invasion of Syria.

So you cannot provoke a war with Syria, then turn around and claim self defense by invading Egypt.

 

[Phoenall]

There was no way to prevent the attack on Israel by the arab state, so yes a peemptive strike was legal to shift the control away from the arabs in favor of the smaller Israeli forces. If the arabs had succeeded there would have been higher casualties and the likely massacre of innocent jews. As it was the actions of Israel saved lives by minimizing civilian losses of Israelis and palestinians.

Six Day War - 6 Days in June

I'm sorry, but the "pre-emptive strike" by Israel, doesn't pass the Caroline Test:

...the necessity for preemptive self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation."

In addition, you cannot claim "pre-emptive self defense", when your the one provoking the war, as Israel did a little over a month BEFORE the 6-day war, when it invaded Syria on April 5, 1967. This was brought to light in an interview with Moshe Dayan in 1976...

Moshe Dayan, the Israeli defense minister at the time of the Six Day War, recounted in a 1976 interview that Israeli policy...between 1949 and 1967 was "to seize some territory and hold it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us", thus changing "the lines of the ceasefire accord with military actions that were less than a war". Dayan related further that in the process Israel had provoked more than 80% of the border clashes with Syria in the lead-up to its April 7, 1967 invasion of Syria.

So you cannot provoke a war with Syria, then turn around and claim self defense by invading Egypt.

Yes it does as the threat was there and a declaration of war by Egypt had already been made.

What happened in Syria has no bearing on the preemptive strike on Egyptian forces that were massing to invade Israel.

You can if it has nothing to do with Egypt. No different to the US declaring war on Iraq and then invading Afgahnistan

 

[georgephillip]

Bigot?? I think you should go learn what that means before you use it on other people.

You didn't answer my question bigot. If 5 Arab armies didn't attack Israel, how many of those refugees would not have become refugees??
Learn to read and comprehend, Nazi Shill

I did answer your question, Bigot.
Zero(0) Palestinians would NOT have become refugees in 1948 if five Arab armies had NOT prevented your racist kin from stealing all of Palestine.
Get it, Bigot?

We have a fairly reliable number pertaining to the total No. of Arabs displaced in 1948, yes?

700,000

The number needs to be parsed or subdivided into...

(a) the No. of Muslims driven out by Israeli militia actions prior to the Arab attack...

(b) the No. of Muslims who voluntarily abandoned their homes prior to the Arab attack...

(c) the No. of Muslims who abandoned their homes pursuant to orders and requests by various Arab leadership...

(d) the No. of Muslims driven out by Israeli militia actions after the Arab attack had begun...

(e) the No. of Muslims who voluntarily abandoned their homes after the Arab attack had begun...

...then, and only then, we can get a decent handle on how many Palestinians would not have lost their homes, had the Arabs not attacked.

Anything else is pure speculation, and, of course, there exists documented evidence of Arab leadership calling upon the Muslims of the region to leave, so as not to get in the way of the advancing Arab armies - promising to redeem all of Old Palestine for them in a matter of weeks... another Failed Arab Promise still festering 66 years later.

Yet another malignancy still festering in Palestine, and one that supersedes all of your parsing, is why the UN, at the behest of western corporations, was entitled to inflict a Jewish state upon a population that was two-thirds non-Jewish.

A mandate at the polls in Palestine of 1948 would NOT have produced a Jewish state but rather a Semitic Union that could well be a superpower in the 21st century.

All the crimes of both sides since that time stem from that imperial (UN) decision.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

The land was designated a Jewish homeland some 26 years in 1922 so I would say that's fair, wouldn't you?

 

[georgephillip]

The land was designated a Jewish homeland some 26 years in 1922 so I would say that's fair, wouldn't you?

I would say that depends on the distinction between "homeland" and "state."

 

[toastman]

There was no way to prevent the attack on Israel by the arab state, so yes a peemptive strike was legal to shift the control away from the arabs in favor of the smaller Israeli forces. If the arabs had succeeded there would have been higher casualties and the likely massacre of innocent jews. As it was the actions of Israel saved lives by minimizing civilian losses of Israelis and palestinians.

Six Day War - 6 Days in June

I'm sorry, but the "pre-emptive strike" by Israel, doesn't pass the Caroline Test:

...the necessity for preemptive self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation."

In addition, you cannot claim "pre-emptive self defense", when your the one provoking the war, as Israel did a little over a month BEFORE the 6-day war, when it invaded Syria on April 5, 1967. This was brought to light in an interview with Moshe Dayan in 1976...

Moshe Dayan, the Israeli defense minister at the time of the Six Day War, recounted in a 1976 interview that Israeli policy...between 1949 and 1967 was "to seize some territory and hold it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us", thus changing "the lines of the ceasefire accord with military actions that were less than a war". Dayan related further that in the process Israel had provoked more than 80% of the border clashes with Syria in the lead-up to its April 7, 1967 invasion of Syria.

So you cannot provoke a war with Syria, then turn around and claim self defense by invading Egypt.

What does Syria have to do with attacking Egypt in a pre emptive strike??

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

The land was designated a Jewish homeland some 26 years in 1922 so I would say that's fair, wouldn't you?

I would say that depends on the distinction between "homeland" and "state."

Homeland first, for which the Jewish people were very grateful, (particularly since the signatories of the Mandate were by law obliged to facilitate immigration), then State to follow.

A win-win situation.

 

[Kondor3]

I did answer your question, Bigot.
Zero(0) Palestinians would NOT have become refugees in 1948 if five Arab armies had NOT prevented your racist kin from stealing all of Palestine.
Get it, Bigot?

We have a fairly reliable number pertaining to the total No. of Arabs displaced in 1948, yes?

700,000

The number needs to be parsed or subdivided into...

(a) the No. of Muslims driven out by Israeli militia actions prior to the Arab attack...

(b) the No. of Muslims who voluntarily abandoned their homes prior to the Arab attack...

(c) the No. of Muslims who abandoned their homes pursuant to orders and requests by various Arab leadership...

(d) the No. of Muslims driven out by Israeli militia actions after the Arab attack had begun...

(e) the No. of Muslims who voluntarily abandoned their homes after the Arab attack had begun...

...then, and only then, we can get a decent handle on how many Palestinians would not have lost their homes, had the Arabs not attacked.

Anything else is pure speculation, and, of course, there exists documented evidence of Arab leadership calling upon the Muslims of the region to leave, so as not to get in the way of the advancing Arab armies - promising to redeem all of Old Palestine for them in a matter of weeks... another Failed Arab Promise still festering 66 years later.

Yet another malignancy still festering in Palestine, and one that supersedes all of your parsing, is why the UN, at the behest of western corporations, was entitled to inflict a Jewish state upon a population that was two-thirds non-Jewish.

A mandate at the polls in Palestine of 1948 would NOT have produced a Jewish state but rather a Semitic Union that could well be a superpower in the 21st century.

All the crimes of both sides since that time stem from that imperial (UN) decision.

That's nice, I'm sure, but it doesn't get us any closer to answering the question: How many Arabs would not have been displaced, had the Arabs not attacked in 1948?

 

[Kondor3]

The land was designated a Jewish homeland some 26 years in 1922 so I would say that's fair, wouldn't you?

I would say that depends on the distinction between "homeland" and "state."

Not a 'homeland'...

Not a 'state'...

But a 'national home'...

National = nation...

Nation = state...

Close enough for government work...

 

[georgephillip]

We have a fairly reliable number pertaining to the total No. of Arabs displaced in 1948, yes?

700,000

The number needs to be parsed or subdivided into...

(a) the No. of Muslims driven out by Israeli militia actions prior to the Arab attack...

(b) the No. of Muslims who voluntarily abandoned their homes prior to the Arab attack...

(c) the No. of Muslims who abandoned their homes pursuant to orders and requests by various Arab leadership...

(d) the No. of Muslims driven out by Israeli militia actions after the Arab attack had begun...

(e) the No. of Muslims who voluntarily abandoned their homes after the Arab attack had begun...

...then, and only then, we can get a decent handle on how many Palestinians would not have lost their homes, had the Arabs not attacked.

Anything else is pure speculation, and, of course, there exists documented evidence of Arab leadership calling upon the Muslims of the region to leave, so as not to get in the way of the advancing Arab armies - promising to redeem all of Old Palestine for them in a matter of weeks... another Failed Arab Promise still festering 66 years later.

Yet another malignancy still festering in Palestine, and one that supersedes all of your parsing, is why the UN, at the behest of western corporations, was entitled to inflict a Jewish state upon a population that was two-thirds non-Jewish.

A mandate at the polls in Palestine of 1948 would NOT have produced a Jewish state but rather a Semitic Union that could well be a superpower in the 21st century.

All the crimes of both sides since that time stem from that imperial (UN) decision.

That's nice, I'm sure, but it doesn't get us any closer to answering the question: How many Arabs would not have been displaced, had the Arabs not attacked in 1948?

I'm pretty sure the number you're seeking is zero, since the heroic Jews would have "transferred" all Arabs from Palestine in 1948 without the R2P provided by five Arab armies.

 

[georgephillip]

The land was designated a Jewish homeland some 26 years in 1922 so I would say that's fair, wouldn't you?

I would say that depends on the distinction between "homeland" and "state."

Not a 'homeland'...

Not a 'state'...

But a 'national home'...

National = nation...

Nation = state...

Close enough for government work...

Surely... you remember this part?

" ...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

 

[Roudy]

Bobo doesn't understand Confucius rule # 1967, "ye ask to get yer butt kicked ye gonna get yer butt kicked."

 

[Roudy]

I would say that depends on the distinction between "homeland" and "state."

Not a 'homeland'...

Not a 'state'...

But a 'national home'...

National = nation...

Nation = state...

Close enough for government work...

Surely... you remember this part?

" ...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

And that's how come 1.8 million Arab Muslims live in Israel as Israeli citizens with full rights, and they wouldn't trade living there with living any of the neighboring Arab shitholes.

 

[Kondor3]

Yet another malignancy still festering in Palestine, and one that supersedes all of your parsing, is why the UN, at the behest of western corporations, was entitled to inflict a Jewish state upon a population that was two-thirds non-Jewish.

A mandate at the polls in Palestine of 1948 would NOT have produced a Jewish state but rather a Semitic Union that could well be a superpower in the 21st century.

All the crimes of both sides since that time stem from that imperial (UN) decision.

That's nice, I'm sure, but it doesn't get us any closer to answering the question: How many Arabs would not have been displaced, had the Arabs not attacked in 1948?

I'm pretty sure the number you're seeking is zero, since the heroic Jews would have "transferred" all Arabs from Palestine in 1948 without the R2P provided by five Arab armies.

Then explain the large numbers of Muslim-Arab Palestinians who were allowed to remain on Israelis soil, and who, after some years of court and civil rights struggles, attained full Israeli citizenship, rather than being driven out.

Epic Fail.

You have a baseline of 700,000 refugees.

The question was put to you: How many of those 700,000 would not have ended-up as refugees, had the five Arab armies not attacked Israel in May 1948?

You have indicated zero.

Neither common sense nor your attempted deflection supports your claim.