What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote

[Shusha]

And its especially egregious to then accuse Israel of committing "war crimes" by crossing this "border" which can not legally be a border.

 

[flacaltenn]

And the LAST TIME THIS HAPPENED WAS?????? And the next SCHEDULED ONE IS ?????

There is NO current duly elected representation for the Palis.. Polling on Abbas is ABYSMAL in all of the OPT..
Why don't you go organize an appropriate govt structure and get them to start campaigning...

Not stable, no mechanism to ASSURE peaceful continuity. And the plain fact IS -- they don't EVEN LIKE any type of top heavy "nation-hood"... There are OTHER WAYS of selecting spokepeople and diplomats that don't REQUIRE the Palis to violate their instincts about powerful central govts.. I'm sensitive to that because I hate powerful central govts..

So maybe we ought to stop pushing them into elections, take the leaders of the 5 or 6 biggest cities and their staffs and call it a day...

Oh and GAZA??? Fatah and the PA want NOTHING To do with them.. They're gonna have to make their own peace... Or their own graveyard....

You asked me a question you thought I would struggle to answer and found out that it was no problem because this poster attempts to apply the same standards across the board and is thus a whole lot more objective than the resident pro Israeli shreikers here.

The first few sentences you write only support what I say is the issue. Both Israel and it's backers seek to keep the Palestinians divided and at war with themselves so as to scupper the chance of a negotiated settlement on anything other than Israeli claim while thet continue to change the fats on the ground , illegally !!.

The situation in Gaza just underscores the divide and conquer technique in operation in its starkest form imo Look at how many people here have bought into the idea/acceptance of seeing it as a seperate entity to the rest of the OPTs when it is absolutely not . You can see the conditioning even in members who have , imo , a fairer approach to the conflict and support Palestinian rights.

What we see on these boards and what is pumped out by the MSM , is the constant gripe about how the Palestinians cannot form a national committee able to negotiate a deal , the Israeli cry about " we have no partner to negotiate with bla bla junk " without any comment about how that situation is manufactured and manipulated so as to create that very situation by those complaining in a complete misrepresentation of the reality

But you just took a victory lap without TELLING ME -- when was the LAST ELECTION?? WHEN IS THE NEXT ONE SCHEDULED??? And then freaked out about how it's all ISRAELS fault that they are divided..

You don't get it.. Doubt you ever will because you seem to have ZERO interest in analyzing the failures to achieve peace in the past.. And your image of the West B and Palestinians is too "impressionist" and not a real depiction of what their culture and traditions and political preferences are...

So I doubt there's much to be acheived here if you just COMMAND that there WILL BE ELECTIONS, but have no fucking idea why forcing previous national elections on Palestinians is a VERY bad idea.... So have fun brawling and quoting 30 year old UN resolutions and such..

I'm gonna work on fixing the problem.. To that end -- I'm actually making a difference.. Just not on USMB with folks like you who dont have enough intellectual curiosity....

 

[Spartacactcus]

But you just took a victory lap without TELLING ME -- when was the LAST ELECTION?? WHEN IS THE NEXT ONE SCHEDULED??? And then freaked out about how it's all ISRAELS fault that they are divided..

You don't get it.. Doubt you ever will because you seem to have ZERO interest in analyzing the failures to achieve peace in the past.. And your image of the West B and Palestinians is too "impressionist" and not a real depiction of what their culture and traditions and political preferences are...

So I doubt there's much to be acheived here if you just COMMAND that there WILL BE ELECTIONS, but have no fucking idea why forcing previous national elections on Palestinians is a VERY bad idea.... So have fun brawling and quoting 30 year old UN resolutions and such..

I'm gonna work on fixing the problem.. To that end -- I'm actually making a difference.. Just not on USMB with folks like you who dont have enough intellectual curiosity....

There was no " victory lap " just an accurate account of how the divide and conquer technique is being applied to the Palestinian side . If you don't understand how the PA and Hamas are played against eachother and elections/the political system are interferred with you are really going to struggle understanding what is going on and how it is being manipulated to create the situation where there is no unified Palestinian national unity with which the negotiations can take place while the facts on the ground dictate the inevitable outcome seperately from any political dialogue.

I am happy to discuss the failure of past negotiations , no problem and have a wish to play a part in the discussion of how the conflict can be resolved.You seem to want out whilst flinging a load of assumptions and ad hominems around but think you alone are capable of intellectual curiousity.

A national unity government is CRUCIAL for the Palestinian side but a DISASTER to the Israeli side and if you don't understand how that is achieved and the status quo maintained you will not ,imo , have the necessary information to even attempt to play a role in a conflict resolution debate

 

[Spartacactcus]

Yes, I am aware that they do so. They are absolutely wrong. You can not just impose borders on a sovereign nation at a say-so. International law does not work that way. It especially does not work that way when the Line in question is prohibited from being a border. International law is predicated on treaties and agreements between sovereigns and, more recently and still unsettled in international law, peoples represented by sovereigns. You can't just throw that out because ... Israel, shrug.

You are wrong. Chapter 7 UN Charter states that any breach of an international agreement that threatens the peace is a violation of the law. Israel's attack on Egypt was the initial violation that led to the 67 war and you know it is. That's why UNSC 242 was unanimously accepted and it states that Israel should withdraw from the territories it has occupied

"International law experts" don't have the right to impose an arbitrary line within Israel beyond which Israelis "shall not pass!" It is an egregious breach of the principles of sovereignty and international law. And it is applied only to Israel.

They understand the laws mentioned above and have applied it to various conflicts not just Israel. Israel agreed not to pass the armistice line and then decided to violate that agreement and thus found itself in breach of the relevant section of the UN Charter it had also agreed to adhere to.

You just want special dispensation for Israel to violate agreements it has agreed to be bound by and if any challenge it you play the Jew card and it's pathetic

 

[Spartacactcus]

Subjective.

But still a whole lot more objective than your own commentary

You went from everything you post is hard fact to admitting everything you have posted is opinion.

So you are a troll as well as the forum clown. No worries have fun talking to yourself from now on

 

[Shusha]

Yes, I am aware that they do so. They are absolutely wrong. You can not just impose borders on a sovereign nation at a say-so. International law does not work that way. It especially does not work that way when the Line in question is prohibited from being a border. International law is predicated on treaties and agreements between sovereigns and, more recently and still unsettled in international law, peoples represented by sovereigns. You can't just throw that out because ... Israel, shrug.

You are wrong. Chapter 7 UN Charter states that any breach of an international agreement that threatens the peace is a violation of the law. Israel's attack on Egypt was the initial violation that led to the 67 war and you know it is. That's why UNSC 242 was unanimously accepted and it states that Israel should withdraw from the territories it has occupied

"International law experts" don't have the right to impose an arbitrary line within Israel beyond which Israelis "shall not pass!" It is an egregious breach of the principles of sovereignty and international law. And it is applied only to Israel.

They understand the laws mentioned above and have applied it to various conflicts not just Israel. Israel agreed not to pass the armistice line and then decided to violate that agreement and thus found itself in breach of the relevant section of the UN Charter it had also agreed to adhere to.

You just want special dispensation for Israel to violate agreements it has agreed to be bound by and if any challenge it you play the Jew card and it's pathetic

You are conflating different issues in order to avoid the inevitable truth. We are not discussing violations of the Armistice (though we could, because you are wrong on that too). We are discussing how Israel's sovereignty is being taken away by having a Line which is prohibited from being a border being treated as a border for the express purpose of limiting Israel's rights, claims and positions and accusing Israel of "war crimes". Its an egregious double standard applied only to Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ Spartacactcus, et al,

Well, this is what we call in mathematics: "Poor Notation"

Really ?

How is the border of North and South Korea being defined ?

East and West Germany ?

North and South Vietnam ?

East Timor ?

(COMMENT)

✪ The Korean Conflict has not ended. The Conflict is in a perpetual ceasefire (cessation of hostilities) along the Armistice Lines; administratively maintained by the established the UN Military Armistice Commission. While we refer to the Armistice Line as a Border, but it is not a true Border. It is generall assumed that the Armistice Line will be managed under • Paragraph 1(1)(5) • A/RES/26/2625 (XXV) • as general demarcation roughly along the 38th Parallel.

✪ The Iron Curtain (ie of which the East Germany and West German segment) was established by the Allied Powers under the authority of the military governments of the Western occupying powers (France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States) separating the "Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany" from the adjacent Allied Occupation Zones [British Army of the Rhine (BOAR) and the US Army Occupation Force]. It was dissolved 1989 when the Soviets Occupation Force and the East German Border Guards collapsed as a functioning organization. Ther German reunification Plan was activated on 1990 Article 23 in the Basic Law of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG).

✪ The Vietnamese Demiliterized Zone was also a demarcation that collapsed after the US withdrawal. The a separation along the 17th Parallel at the end of the Indochina War. It was also similar in nature to the to an Armistice Line.

✪ For instance - the permanent boundary between Australia and East Timor for the first time, and set down a formula for sharing billions of dollars in future oil and gas revenues from the Timor Sea.​

The character of boundaries and demarcations are a thing of their own. There is no one single set of protocols that govern the establishment of demarcations.

The Green Line, which outlined the separation between occupation forces (Israeli, Jordanian, Egyptian) dissolved and is only a historical demarcation. It remained in force until the peaceful settlement between the Parties was established (the Peace Treaties).


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toomuchtime_]

However Israel never started started or waged war against any nation except in its own defense, so it has broken no treaties however much you want it to.

So now that it has been shown how the UN Charter was used to support and validate resolution 242 and it is there in black and white ,what do you do ? Completely ignore it and move to the next defensive line that Israeli actions are only ever in self defence ( even when they are clearly not )

Pathetic

The only thing you have shown is that your anti semitism is so passionate that you cannot understand the very documents you cite. No reasonable person would claim that Israel violated the UN Charter or 242 or the Geneva Conventions.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, I am aware that they do so. They are absolutely wrong. You can not just impose borders on a sovereign nation at a say-so. International law does not work that way. It especially does not work that way when the Line in question is prohibited from being a border. International law is predicated on treaties and agreements between sovereigns and, more recently and still unsettled in international law, peoples represented by sovereigns. You can't just throw that out because ... Israel, shrug.

You are wrong. Chapter 7 UN Charter states that any breach of an international agreement that threatens the peace is a violation of the law. Israel's attack on Egypt was the initial violation that led to the 67 war and you know it is. That's why UNSC 242 was unanimously accepted and it states that Israel should withdraw from the territories it has occupied

"International law experts" don't have the right to impose an arbitrary line within Israel beyond which Israelis "shall not pass!" It is an egregious breach of the principles of sovereignty and international law. And it is applied only to Israel.

They understand the laws mentioned above and have applied it to various conflicts not just Israel. Israel agreed not to pass the armistice line and then decided to violate that agreement and thus found itself in breach of the relevant section of the UN Charter it had also agreed to adhere to.

You just want special dispensation for Israel to violate agreements it has agreed to be bound by and if any challenge it you play the Jew card and it's pathetic

It's naive, (maybe deliberate), to suggest that the Israeli attack aimed the Egyptians was an "initial violation". Had you researched the matter, you would have learned that there were Arab provocations that lead to the Israeli actions. The Egyptians had blocked the Strait of Tiran (to be considered an act of war), while a week earlier Nasser had ordered the removal of the peace keeping force. As the Egyptians were massing troops and artillery near their border, those actions were a strategic preparation for war.

As to UN opinions, we're left to understand that such opinions have no effective force of law as those opinions have no effective means of enforcement.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol Actually it was you who tried to play the "Jew card" by talking about the fact that an ICJ judge who ruled against Israel was Jewish.

Cutting you some slack, obviously you have he attention span of an ameoba.

Not cutting you some slack . You are lying

Mindless decided to play the Jew card ( as well as yourself ) prior to my mentioning the facts surrounding the US judge involved in the 2004 ICJ opinion

You know this , so it's fair to say you are just lying.

lol There was no reason for you to talk about the fact that a judge who agreed with the ICJ advisory opinion on the barrier was Jewish or that his parents had survived the Holocaust other than to make an emotional plea to condemn Israel. As bizarre as it sounds, a rabid anti semite like you has played the "Jew card" in order to condemn Jews.

 

[flacaltenn]

There was no " victory lap " just an accurate account of how the divide and conquer technique is being applied to the Palestinian side . If you don't understand how the PA and Hamas are played against eachother

Since you don't KNOW or don't CARE about the date of the last election, I doubt we could discuss with your lack of interest and effort... You go READ about the hostile standoff between Hamas in Gaza and PA and come back here WITH EXAMPLES of how the assassinations and all the FAILED compromise peace treaties between those parties are ALL ISRAEL'S fault and we can chat..

MAKING that assertion leads me to believe you haven't been following this whole affair with as much effort as I have...

I could give a dozen links to the REAL AND DEEP divisions that are there, but in cases like this, the ignorance is only healed when the party makes their OWN effort to understand background and context..

Israel could not be the primary instigator in keeping these parties from loving one another...

 

[Shusha]

As the Egyptians were massing troops and artillery near their border, those actions were a strategic preparation for war.

And not just Egypt, with the mutual defense pacts in the Arab world, Jordanian and Iraqi forces were also being massed at the Jordan border. This is a violation of the Armistice Agreement, which states:

No aggressive action by the armed forces—land, sea, or air—of either Party shall be undertaken, planned, or threatened against the people armed forces of the other. (emphasis mine).

Edited to add: Not to mention exceeding the permitted defensive forces at the border is also a violation.

Israeli response to this violation of the Armistice, is just that.

 

[Spartacactcus]

Yes, I am aware that they do so. They are absolutely wrong. You can not just impose borders on a sovereign nation at a say-so. International law does not work that way. It especially does not work that way when the Line in question is prohibited from being a border. International law is predicated on treaties and agreements between sovereigns and, more recently and still unsettled in international law, peoples represented by sovereigns. You can't just throw that out because ... Israel, shrug.

You are wrong. Chapter 7 UN Charter states that any breach of an international agreement that threatens the peace is a violation of the law. Israel's attack on Egypt was the initial violation that led to the 67 war and you know it is. That's why UNSC 242 was unanimously accepted and it states that Israel should withdraw from the territories it has occupied

"International law experts" don't have the right to impose an arbitrary line within Israel beyond which Israelis "shall not pass!" It is an egregious breach of the principles of sovereignty and international law. And it is applied only to Israel.

They understand the laws mentioned above and have applied it to various conflicts not just Israel. Israel agreed not to pass the armistice line and then decided to violate that agreement and thus found itself in breach of the relevant section of the UN Charter it had also agreed to adhere to.

You just want special dispensation for Israel to violate agreements it has agreed to be bound by and if any challenge it you play the Jew card and it's pathetic

You are conflating different issues in order to avoid the inevitable truth. We are not discussing violations of the Armistice (though we could, because you are wrong on that too). We are discussing how Israel's sovereignty is being taken away by having a Line which is prohibited from being a border being treated as a border for the express purpose of limiting Israel's rights, claims and positions and accusing Israel of "war crimes". Its an egregious double standard applied only to Israel.

I don't see how Israeli violation of the treaty it signed with the Arabs is anything but a violation of Chapter 7 UN Charter as used to justify the UNSC 242. It's not denying Israels right it is trying to defend Palestinian rights that also have their roots in the treaties/agreements you cite to justify Israeli actions and policies.

You don't even have to be on your own territory to be found guilty of commiting war crimes. Those that accused Israel of war crimes also accused the Palestinian side of committing them but you want to ignore that because it stops your use of the Jew card doesn't it ?

 

[Spartacactcus]

The only thing you have shown is that your anti semitism is so passionate that you cannot understand the very documents you cite. No reasonable person would claim that Israel violated the UN Charter or 242 or the Geneva Conventions.

UNSC 242 cites the 4th GC and the UN Charter as the reason Israel was deemed to have violated international law. It is yourself that cannot understan the document for the very reason you are trying to project onto me , complete bias

 

[Spartacactcus]

(COMMENT)

✪ The Korean Conflict has not ended. The Conflict is in a perpetual ceasefire (cessation of hostilities) along the Armistice Lines; administratively maintained by the established the UN Military Armistice Commission. While we refer to the Armistice Line as a Border, but it is not a true Border. It is generall assumed that the Armistice Line will be managed under • Paragraph 1(1)(5) • A/RES/26/2625 (XXV) • as general demarcation roughly along the 38th Parallel.

✪ The Iron Curtain (ie of which the East Germany and West German segment) was established by the Allied Powers under the authority of the military governments of the Western occupying powers (France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States) separating the "Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany" from the adjacent Allied Occupation Zones [British Army of the Rhine (BOAR) and the US Army Occupation Force]. It was dissolved 1989 when the Soviets Occupation Force and the East German Border Guards collapsed as a functioning organization. Ther German reunification Plan was activated on 1990 Article 23 in the Basic Law of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG).

✪ The Vietnamese Demiliterized Zone was also a demarcation that collapsed after the US withdrawal. The a separation along the 17th Parallel at the end of the Indochina War. It was also similar in nature to the to an Armistice Line.

✪ For instance - the permanent boundary between Australia and East Timor for the first time, and set down a formula for sharing billions of dollars in future oil and gas revenues from the Timor Sea.​

The character of boundaries and demarcations are a thing of their own. There is no one single set of protocols that govern the establishment of demarcations.

The Green Line, which outlined the separation between occupation forces (Israeli, Jordanian, Egyptian) dissolved and is only a historical demarcation. It remained in force until the peaceful settlement between the Parties was established (the Peace Treaties).


Most Respectfully,
R

I agree that demarcation lines serve as temporary borders until either conflicts end or circumstances demand.

So all of the above are not counter arguments to what I have said imo , just a more detailed explanation

So to the green line. The Israelis , Jordanians and Egyptians can all agree to settle their differences along lines they agree to but they cannot , imo , decide what the borders of the Palestinan state can be. That's why I wish the US would just stop blocking a resolution of it at the UNGA with its veto power that is solely preventing negotiations between all parties and the UN in accordance with international law

 

[toomuchtime_]

The only thing you have shown is that your anti semitism is so passionate that you cannot understand the very documents you cite. No reasonable person would claim that Israel violated the UN Charter or 242 or the Geneva Conventions.

UNSC 242 cites the 4th GC and the UN Charter as the reason Israel was deemed to have violated international law. It is yourself that cannot understan the document for the very reason you are trying to project onto me , complete bias

UNSC does not claim Israel violated international law. It simply calls upon the nations that fought the Six Day War to come to a peace agreement and only calls upon Israel to withdraw to safe and secure borders, which would be impossible unless the Arabs agreed to peace, which they famously refused to do. If you mind were not so consumed by hate, you would know that the land for peace formula that is the basis of 242 was presented to the SC by the US on behalf of Israel. The fact that Israel immediately offered to return tot he warring Arab nations the land it had captured in driving their armies from Israel's borders, shows conclusively, to any reasonable person, that Israel had no territorial motives in fighting these war.

 

[Spartacactcus]

It's naive, (maybe deliberate), to suggest that the Israeli attack aimed the Egyptians was an "initial violation". Had you researched the matter, you would have learned that there were Arab provocations that lead to the Israeli actions. The Egyptians had blocked the Strait of Tiran (to be considered an act of war), while a week earlier Nasser had ordered the removal of the peace keeping force. As the Egyptians were massing troops and artillery near their border, those actions were a strategic preparation for war.

As to UN opinions, we're left to understand that such opinions have no effective force of law as those opinions have no effective means of enforcement.

I have already researched the events up to and including the six day war so you assumption that I am ignorant of it is a false one. The reason Nasser decided to mass forces near the Israeli border was down to the fact that the Russians had told the Egyptians that Israel was massing troops near the Syrian border and planned to attack it. Egypt was in a mutual defence pact with Syria and Jordan so.

Do you want me to cite a whole host of quotes from the Israeli leadership/military of the time that will rubbish your claims about the lead up and prosecution of the six day war ?

That Moshe Dayan admitted that around 80% of the border skirmshes with Syria prior to the war and were a cause of the rising tensions were initiated by Israelis ?
That the Israelis had sought a green light from the US for the attack and had been told that if they attacked they would whoop all the Arabs in next to no time ?

That according to the UN observer of the Straits the blockade wasn't even being enforced ?

My guess is you will have the Israeli propaganda systems rewriting of the history after the event , also admitted by a top Israeli of the time so if you want to go for it feel free but don't expect an easy ride of it

 

[Spartacactcus]

The only thing you have shown is that your anti semitism is so passionate that you cannot understand the very documents you cite. No reasonable person would claim that Israel violated the UN Charter or 242 or the Geneva Conventions.

UNSC 242 cites the 4th GC and the UN Charter as the reason Israel was deemed to have violated international law. It is yourself that cannot understan the document for the very reason you are trying to project onto me , complete bias

UNSC does not claim Israel violated international law. It simply calls upon the nations that fought the Six Day War to come to a peace agreement and only calls upon Israel to withdraw to safe and secure borders, which would be impossible unless the Arabs agreed to peace, which they famously refused to do. If you mind were not so consumed by hate, you would know that the land for peace formula that is the basis of 242 was presented to the SC by the US on behalf of Israel. The fact that Israel immediately offered to return tot he warring Arab nations the land it had captured in driving their armies from Israel's borders, shows conclusively, to any reasonable person, that Israel had no territorial motives in fighting these war.

What does UNSC res 242 claim as the reason for its issuance and it's insistance that Israel vacate the territories it had occupied ? I gave you the answers and you have chosen to drop their inclusion. You are nothing but an obvious troll

 

[toomuchtime_]

(COMMENT)

✪ The Korean Conflict has not ended. The Conflict is in a perpetual ceasefire (cessation of hostilities) along the Armistice Lines; administratively maintained by the established the UN Military Armistice Commission. While we refer to the Armistice Line as a Border, but it is not a true Border. It is generall assumed that the Armistice Line will be managed under • Paragraph 1(1)(5) • A/RES/26/2625 (XXV) • as general demarcation roughly along the 38th Parallel.

✪ The Iron Curtain (ie of which the East Germany and West German segment) was established by the Allied Powers under the authority of the military governments of the Western occupying powers (France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States) separating the "Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany" from the adjacent Allied Occupation Zones [British Army of the Rhine (BOAR) and the US Army Occupation Force]. It was dissolved 1989 when the Soviets Occupation Force and the East German Border Guards collapsed as a functioning organization. Ther German reunification Plan was activated on 1990 Article 23 in the Basic Law of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG).

✪ The Vietnamese Demiliterized Zone was also a demarcation that collapsed after the US withdrawal. The a separation along the 17th Parallel at the end of the Indochina War. It was also similar in nature to the to an Armistice Line.

✪ For instance - the permanent boundary between Australia and East Timor for the first time, and set down a formula for sharing billions of dollars in future oil and gas revenues from the Timor Sea.​

The character of boundaries and demarcations are a thing of their own. There is no one single set of protocols that govern the establishment of demarcations.

The Green Line, which outlined the separation between occupation forces (Israeli, Jordanian, Egyptian) dissolved and is only a historical demarcation. It remained in force until the peaceful settlement between the Parties was established (the Peace Treaties).


Most Respectfully,
R

I agree that demarcation lines serve as temporary borders until either conflicts end or circumstances demand.

So all of the above are not counter arguments to what I have said imo , just a more detailed explanation

So to the green line. The Israelis , Jordanians and Egyptians can all agree to settle their differences along lines they agree to but they cannot , imo , decide what the borders of the Palestinan state can be. That's why I wish the US would just stop blocking a resolution of it at the UNGA with its veto power that is solely preventing negotiations between all parties and the UN in accordance with international law

Still more ignorant bigotry from you. No one has a veto in the UNGA and since the UNSC is limited by the UN Charter to only dealing with issues among member states except for issue like genocide, no resolution passed by the UNSC concerning the Israel-Palestinian conflict can be binding on any member state.
The resolution Abbas will seek from the UNSC will have only propaganda value.

 

[Hollie]

It's naive, (maybe deliberate), to suggest that the Israeli attack aimed the Egyptians was an "initial violation". Had you researched the matter, you would have learned that there were Arab provocations that lead to the Israeli actions. The Egyptians had blocked the Strait of Tiran (to be considered an act of war), while a week earlier Nasser had ordered the removal of the peace keeping force. As the Egyptians were massing troops and artillery near their border, those actions were a strategic preparation for war.

As to UN opinions, we're left to understand that such opinions have no effective force of law as those opinions have no effective means of enforcement.

I have already researched the events up to and including the six day war so you assumption that I am ignorant of it is a false one. The reason Nasser decided to mass forces near the Israeli border was down to the fact that the Russians had told the Egyptians that Israel was massing troops near the Syrian border and planned to attack it. Egypt was in a mutual defence pact with Syria and Jordan so.

Do you want me to cite a whole host of quotes from the Israeli leadership/military of the time that will rubbish your claims about the lead up and prosecution of the six day war ?

That Moshe Dayan admitted that around 80% of the border skirmshes with Syria prior to the war and were a cause of the rising tensions were initiated by Israelis ?
That the Israelis had sought a green light from the US for the attack and had been told that if they attacked they would whoop all the Arabs in next to no time ?

That according to the UN observer of the Straits the blockade wasn't even being enforced ?

My guess is you will have the Israeli propaganda systems rewriting of the history after the event , also admitted by a top Israeli of the time so if you want to go for it feel free but don't expect an easy ride of it

That was quite an impassioned rant but it changes nothing related to the Egyptian preparations for war or facts of the Egyptian announcement to blockade the Strait, Nasser’s removal of the peacekeeping force and the massing of Egyptian troops.

All of the above was in the context of the Arab-Moslem refusal to accept a Jewish State in an Islamist waqf. With the history of Arab-Moslem intentions to drive the Jews into the sea by machine gun fire, the IsraelI government would have foolish not to understand the intentions and strategic maneuvering by the Egyptians.