Israeli Army Murder 16 Palestinians

by Miguel Fri May 02, 2003 11:52

Despite persistent claims by the Palestinians and their supporters, occupation is not, in and of itself, illegal. It does not violate international law. Rather, international law attempts to regulate situations of occupation through the application of pertinent international conventions and agreements. Therefore, political motivations lie behind the claim that Israel's presence in the territories is illegal. Israel's presence in the territories is not illegal.

Israel's presence in the territories began in 1967 as a direct result of the aggressive actions of Israel's neighbors that forced Israel into a war of self-defense.

UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was adopted following the Six Day War, places obligations on both sides (as does Resolution 338, adopted following the 1973 Yom Kippur War). 242 does not call for unilateral withdrawal from the territories. Despite this, the Palestinians focus exclusively on the call for an Israeli withdrawal, ignoring those clauses that place responsibilities on the other parties to the conflict.

Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all the territories gained as a result of the 1967 war, as the Arab regimes claim. Instead, the resolution deliberately restricts itself to calling for Israel's withdrawal "from territories" while recognizing the right to live within secure and recognized boundaries.

by damnbutter Fri May 02, 2003 14:55

However mich contortions you make with the truth Miguel (Avi H.?) your lies are piss poor attempts to rewrite history. Israel is in contravention of stacks of UN Resolutions post 1967, The UN calls for restoration of pre 1967 borders (so called "green-line Israel"). Your simplistic line of reasoning "political motivations lie behind the claim that Israels presence in the territories is illegal. Israels presence..is not illegal" is truly pathetic, wishful thinking. By your logic, where will Israel stop, at the Persin Gulf perhaps?

"The aggressive actions of Israel's neighbours forced Israel into a war of self defence". Self defence???? Israel attacks and it's "self defence", the sad thing is that there are many morons like you who have convinced themselves of this fallacy.

by kokomero Fri May 02, 2003 16:40

This rubbish about the Israeli occupation not being illegal is incorrect and spurious. The fact is that if Israel weren't in occupation Palestinians (an Israelis) wouldn't be dying in this manner. Enough of the excuses and get back within your 1967 borders. At that point the whole world will be happy to endorse the state of Israel and police the line between the 2 states if required. If you're not prepared to give back territory then take the pain, shut up, and don't expect any sympathy!

by Avi H. Fri May 02, 2003 19:06

Miguel is quite right. Those are the facts, however much some people might not like it.

by BlackPope Fri May 02, 2003 22:55

.. self-congratulation is faint praise indeed - could even qualify as commentary-masturbation - suggest u see Mossad handler for refresher course in being less obviously such a loser

Shalom, BP

by hi Fri May 02, 2003 23:12

Israel offered a permanent peace 3 years ago. Palestinians rejected it and began their terrorist intifada. AFTER they began it, months after, Israelis voted in ariel sharon, as a response to it. After palestinans were successfully hitting israel with terrorist attacks every 1-3 DAYS, israel responded by going into many additional palestinian towns that were hotbeds for terrorists in an effort to clamp down on them. They would rather hamas lunatics try to attack israeli soldiers outside of israel than successfully break in and blow up every innocent jewish person they can get at. That is what's happening right now. There is no "ethnic cleansing." Almost 20% of israeli citizens are muslims/arabs, and they are not being harmed. Israel is not fighting a "race." Israel is not fighting with their own arab citizens. Israel is fighting with their neighbors, the palestinians, who are not israeli citizens, and who refuse to call off their idiotic, self-destructive intifada. Israel is more heavily armed than these nuts, so naturally when they fight, more palestinians die than israeli soliders do. If Israeli soliders wanted to, they could kill 5000 or 10,000 a day. They don't want to. They are hunting terrorists and people who refuse to be civil and peaceful. If Israel cared nothing about hurting their neighbors then every time a palestinian from town X attacked israel, israel could just lob giant bombs into town X, not lose a single israeli soldier, and kill thousand of palestinians at a time. After a few rounds of that, terrorism against israel would probably stop. But at an enormouse rate of innocent deaths. Israel does not want that. Proof of this is that instead of just lobbing bombs and killing thousands at a time, Israel has always tried to clamp down on terrorist hotbed towns, control them, and hunt terrorists and arrest people who are involved with attacks.

The day terrorists from towns X and Y attack israel and israel responds with giant bombs killing 3,000 from town X and 6,500 from town Y is the day you should declare that israel is responding with full war and no longer cares about hurting innocents. Until then, you should shut your mouths and try to figure out what it's like to try to kill terrorists who mix in with innocent people and have voluntary and involuntary "human shields" trying to protect them.

The solution to this is as follows. First, palestinians must call off their insane terrorist intifada. Hamas and islamic jihad nutcases must be gotten rid of. And Palestinians have had the same nutcase leader for 35 years, Yasser Arafat, and it's ridiculous to think that peace can come with a lunatic like him at the healm. Israel democratically elects new leaders every few years. All Israeli citizens of every religion vote. There are muslims and arabs, democratically elected, who are a part of the Israeli government right now. Israel leaders change every few years, and over the last 10 or 20 years Israeli leaders have tried every approach possible in dealing with the Palestinians. But when your dictator, err, leader, is Yasser Arafat for 35 years in a row, you aren't going to do very well. He needs to be replaced. Palestinians need a SANE, CIVIL, RESPONSIBLE leadership who, if given power, will lead Palestine into becoming a respectable state, and not just another terrorist home like Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, etc.

Think about it. If Israel right now handed over total land control of the West bank and gaza to Palestinians, and scumbags like Hamas, Islamic JIhad, Arafat, etc. were the main groups in charge and with all the power, what kind of state would Palestine be in 2 or 4 or 10 years? A terrorist state who would probably seek to destroy Israel the moment they had the power to do so. And don't go talking about Ariel Sharon, because Israel is a democracy, he was just voted in a mere 3 years ago, and he will probably be voted out in a year or two when a tough guy like him isn't needed anymore to run the place. BUT, THINK ABOUT THIS, if we can find a group of civil, moderate, non-extremist Palestinians to act as leaders, and give them control of the land, and let them lead Palestine into becoming a state, they can make sure it is run RESPONSIBLY and doesn't turn into a terrorist state and eventually make full war on Israel.

No matter which "side" you are on (the side that wants peace for both sides, or the side that wants to wipe Israel out), think about it. If you genuinely want peace for everyone involved, what would be better, if terrorists and lunatics like arafat and hamas run Palestine and gain power as it becomes a state (eventually leading to probable full war with Israel), or if CIVIL, SANE, RESPONSIBLE leaders run Palestine and gain power as it becomes a state, leading to a responsible neighbor who won't attack Israel and therefore war won't result and hoards of people won't die on both sides.

I'm for the latter.

Israel already offered to remove the settlements, several times, in fact. That's quite possible. But as long as war is being made on Israel, it makes no sense to do so.

Israel many times has offered to end the occupation in return for peace. Palestinians, mostly due to their terrorist leaders and popular terrorist groups, have always rejected the peace and chosen to attack. So, now, Israel attacks the attackers, specifically trying to get at members of the organizations that refuse to stop attacking Israel.

Palestinians controlled over 90% of their own land for most of the 1990's. Yet they still refused to stop attacking Israel, and still refuse to call off their terrorist intifada attacks. So, Israel had to go back in.

Israel's occupation should end the moment responsible, sane, non-extremist leaders for Palestinians emerge to take control and lead to a permanent, peaceful future. Israel's occupation should not end as long as the likes of Arafat and Hamas represent the Palestinian people. That would not help either side.

Egypt was willing to make real peace with Israel. Israel accepted, and it worked, and it has lasted.

Jordan was willing to make real peace with Israel. Israel accepted, and it worked, and it has lasted.

Of course, both Jordan and Egypt are still anti-semitic countries. Hell, it's barely even legal to BE a Jew in half the arab states. But that's another story. We're talking about political relations.

Palestinians have had the same nutcase leader since the 1960's. He's a loser. Arafat needs to go. Can we dig up some Palestinian moderates who aren't religious extremists and genuinely want peace for both sides, PLEASE?

Until that happens, no good will result.

by also Fri May 02, 2003 23:20

The UN has always singled out Israel out, while ignoring much larger, broader crimes committed by other countries. Note the following:

As Morris Abram, the late chairman of United Nations Watch, once observed, the UN has held only two special emergency sessions since 1982. No session was ever convened to condemn China's occupation of Tibet, Syria's occupation of Lebanon, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, or the slaughters in Rwanda, the disappearances in Zaire, or any other global horror. Only Israel was so targeted - twice.

At the UN's urging, only one member state has ever been brought before the Geneva Convention. Not Cambodia for its genocide, Russia for its brutal repression of Chechnya or Sudan for its atrocities. Again, it was Israel.

The UN General Assembly, driven by a coalition of Arab, Muslim and other dictatorships, has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than any other nation on Earth. But it has never censured Israel's assailants for their three wars of aggression in 1948, 1967 and 1973.

The UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) passes at least five resolutions a year condemning Israel (last year it was seven) and spends about 30% of its time solely on the Jewish state. In contrast, as Beichman notes, each of the following countries or regions has been the subject of one resolution - Iraq, Iran, Russia/Chechnya, Afghanistan, Burundi, Congo, Cuba, Myanmar, Sierra Leone, Southeast Europe and Sudan. Manuel Prutschi of the Canadian Jewish Congress notes this double standard is compounded by the fact the UNCHR devotes one agenda item to focusing solely on Israel. All other nations are lumped together under a separate item.

Despite this, Israel, the only Mideast democracy, is not allowed to join the UNCHR, or the Security Council, while many of the world's worst dictatorships - Syria, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia - can and do. As David Goldberg of the Canada-Israel Committee explains, membership on major UN bodies is conditional upon belonging to one of the UN's five regional groups. Israel is the only UN member excluded from this system because it has been prevented from joining its regional group - Asia - by an ongoing Arab boycott. Thus, it cannot even get a delegate appointed to the 53-nation UNCHR to defend itself from unfair attacks. Due to efforts by the U.S. and, to its credit, Canada, Israel now has partial membership in the "Western European and Others Group."

Israel, Beichman notes, is the only country to which the UNCHR assigns a special "rapporteur" to investigate human rights "violations." In other nations, rapporteurs investigate "situations." The reports by Israel's rapporteur are always one-sided because his mandate prohibits investigating Palestinian actions in addition to Israel's, even if they occur in the same area. The Israeli rapporteur's mandate is the only one not periodically reviewed by the UNCHR.

Each year on Nov. 29, the UN holds a United Nations Day of International Solidarity with the Palestinian People. The day is always a vicious diatribe against Israel. There is no UN Day of International Solidarity With the Victims of Palestinian Terrorism. No other "people" on Earth, no matter how brutally oppressed, receive a similar day of UN solidarity.

While the anti-Semitic ravings aimed at Jews at the infamous UN conference ostensibly against racism held in Durban, South Africa in 2001 are well-known, Israel is also the only UN state to have been subjected to two blood libels. In 1991, the Syrian delegate to the UNCHR accused Israel of murdering Christian children to use their blood to make matzo, an ancient anti-Semitic canard. In 1997, the Palestinian delegate accused Israel of injecting 300 Palestinian children with HIV-infected blood. Neither of these lies was immediately denounced by the UN. From 1975-91, in what even UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called a "low point" in its history, a General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism stayed on the books until it was finally repealed due to a campaign by the U.S. By contrast, in 1997, the mere mention of an allegedly blasphemous reference to Islam by a UN expert from an academic source, was instantly rebuffed by the UNCHR and deleted from the record.

No fair-minded person argues Israel should be above scrutiny by the UN. No fair-minded person dismisses the suffering of the Palestinians in the Disputed Territories and the human rights abuses committed by Israel, albeit in the context of responding to the constant threat of terrorism.

But to pretend, as the UN does, year after year, that Israel is the world's worst human rights violator, or even remotely close to holding that title, is not only sheer nonsense, it is a suggestion fueled by anti-Semitism. The liberal media around the world has taken up the task of demonizing almost every aspect of Israel's existence, while apoligizing for past wars and current terrorism made against it. Hamas terrorists have made it clear that they'll keep on attacking Israel regardless of whether Israel leaves the West bank and Gaza Strip or not. They say this and they act on it. Yet, the left repeats over and over in newspapers around the world that terrorism against Israel would cease if only Israel would leave the "occupied" territories. Of course, this doesn't explain why Israel was a constant victim of terrorism before they "occupied" any territories, nor why their leader, Yasser Arafat, spent 30 years waging terrorist attacks on Israel, and this doens't explain why since Palestinians began their most recent terrorist intifada, every time Israel has withdrawn from "Palestinian land," terrorist attacks taking place inside Israel's proper borders increased.

Israel decided to believe that Arafat, after decades of trying to kill Israeli Jews, no longer wanted to attack. So, they armed the Palestinian Authority and Arafat in the 1990's, and gave him year after year after year to arrest terrorists and establish a responsible leadership. It didn't happen. Now, Arafat is almost irrevelant, and Israel is battling terrorists who dream of making Israel disappear. Someone must stop those attackers, and since Arafat refused to, and now can't, Israel has to.

by James Randolph - Moved as comment by R Isible Fri May 02, 2003 23:28

While Israel has had democratically elected leaders every few years who have tried various different approaches to achieving peace, Palestinians for 40 years have been lead by one tyrant, a terrorist, Yasser Arafat, and he has brought nothing but losses.

Israel offered a permanent peace 3 years ago. Palestinians rejected it and began their terrorist intifada. AFTER they began it, months after, Israelis voted in ariel sharon, as a response to it. After palestinans were successfully hitting israel with terrorist attacks every 1-3 DAYS, israel responded by going into many additional palestinian towns that were hotbeds for terrorists in an effort to clamp down on them. They would rather hamas lunatics try to attack israeli soldiers outside of israel than successfully break in and blow up every innocent jewish person they can get at. That is what's happening right now. There is no "ethnic cleansing." Almost 20% of israeli citizens are muslims/arabs, and they are not being harmed. Israel is not fighting a "race." Israel is not fighting with their own arab citizens. Israel is fighting with their neighbors, the palestinians, who are not israeli citizens, and who refuse to call off their idiotic, self-destructive intifada. Israel is more heavily armed than these nuts, so naturally when they fight, more palestinians die than israeli soliders do. If Israeli soliders wanted to, they could kill 5000 or 10,000 a day. They don't want to. They are hunting terrorists and people who refuse to be civil and peaceful. If Israel cared nothing about hurting their neighbors then every time a palestinian from town X attacked israel, israel could just lob giant bombs into town X, not lose a single israeli soldier, and kill thousand of palestinians at a time. After a few rounds of that, terrorism against israel would probably stop. But at an enormouse rate of innocent deaths. Israel does not want that. Proof of this is that instead of just lobbing bombs and killing thousands at a time, Israel has always tried to clamp down on terrorist hotbed towns, control them, and hunt terrorists and arrest people who are involved with attacks.

The day terrorists from towns X and Y attack israel and israel responds with giant bombs killing 3,000 from town X and 6,500 from town Y is the day you should declare that israel is responding with full war and no longer cares about hurting innocents. Until then, you should shut your mouths and try to figure out what it's like to try to kill terrorists who mix in with innocent people and have voluntary and involuntary "human shields" trying to protect them.

The solution to this is as follows. First, palestinians must call off their insane terrorist intifada. Hamas and islamic jihad nutcases must be gotten rid of. And Palestinians have had the same nutcase leader for 35 years, Yasser Arafat, and it's ridiculous to think that peace can come with a lunatic like him at the healm. Israel democratically elects new leaders every few years. All Israeli citizens of every religion vote. There are muslims and arabs, democratically elected, who are a part of the Israeli government right now. Israel leaders change every few years, and over the last 10 or 20 years Israeli leaders have tried every approach possible in dealing with the Palestinians. But when your dictator, err, leader, is Yasser Arafat for 35 years in a row, you aren't going to do very well. He needs to be replaced. Palestinians need a SANE, CIVIL, RESPONSIBLE leadership who, if given power, will lead Palestine into becoming a respectable state, and not just another terrorist home like Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, etc.

Think about it. If Israel right now handed over total land control of the West bank and gaza to Palestinians, and scumbags like Hamas, Islamic JIhad, Arafat, etc. were the main groups in charge and with all the power, what kind of state would Palestine be in 2 or 4 or 10 years? A terrorist state who would probably seek to destroy Israel the moment they had the power to do so. And don't go talking about Ariel Sharon, because Israel is a democracy, he was just voted in a mere 3 years ago, and he will probably be voted out in a year or two when a tough guy like him isn't needed anymore to run the place. BUT, THINK ABOUT THIS, if we can find a group of civil, moderate, non-extremist Palestinians to act as leaders, and give them control of the land, and let them lead Palestine into becoming a state, they can make sure it is run RESPONSIBLY and doesn't turn into a terrorist state and eventually make full war on Israel.

No matter which "side" you are on (the side that wants peace for both sides, or the side that wants to wipe Israel out), think about it. If you genuinely want peace for everyone involved, what would be better, if terrorists and lunatics like arafat and hamas run Palestine and gain power as it becomes a state (eventually leading to probable full war with Israel), or if CIVIL, SANE, RESPONSIBLE leaders run Palestine and gain power as it becomes a state, leading to a responsible neighbor who won't attack Israel and therefore war won't result and hoards of people won't die on both sides.

I'm for the latter.

Israel already offered to remove the settlements, several times, in fact. That's quite possible. But as long as war is being made on Israel, it makes no sense to do so.

Israel many times has offered to end the occupation in return for peace. Palestinians, mostly due to their terrorist leaders and popular terrorist groups, have always rejected the peace and chosen to attack. So, now, Israel attacks the attackers, specifically trying to get at members of the organizations that refuse to stop attacking Israel.

Palestinians controlled over 90% of their own land for most of the 1990's. Yet they still refused to stop attacking Israel, and still refuse to call off their terrorist intifada attacks. So, Israel had to go back in.

Israel's occupation should end the moment responsible, sane, non-extremist leaders for Palestinians emerge to take control and lead to a permanent, peaceful future. Israel's occupation should not end as long as the likes of Arafat and Hamas represent the Palestinian people. That would not help either side.

Egypt was willing to make real peace with Israel. Israel accepted, and it worked, and it has lasted.

Jordan was willing to make real peace with Israel. Israel accepted, and it worked, and it has lasted.

Of course, both Jordan and Egypt are still anti-semitic countries. Hell, it's barely even legal to BE a Jew in half the arab states. But that's another story. We're talking about political relations.

Palestinians have had the same nutcase leader since the 1960's. He's a loser. Arafat needs to go. Can we dig up some Palestinian moderates who aren't religious extremists and genuinely want peace for both sides, PLEASE?

Until that happens, no good will result.

by Ltheconstantly - www.erased.org Sat May 03, 2003 00:48

There is only 'debate' possible on ending the oppression of an enslaved that was invaded and conquered: That kind of 'debate' is only possible when the lying weasels who invaded and are trying to steal that land try to find excuses to keep what they have stolen.

Israel is holding in bondage the Palestinian people - saying to them:"If you don't want to be enslaved here, then run to some other country and we will let you go and take your land. If you stay we will keep killing you, on the hypocrisy basis that you are trying to kill us to make us leave your land." The Israelis are trying to turn that fact into a 'debate'.

In every patriotic rebel situation that has ever existed in human history - those who kill the invaders and the People of the invaders of their land are by verdict of history heroic patriots and freedom fighters. I can not think of any more heroic act than: to without hope of survival, to give up one's life to kill either the Military arm of the invaders of my land or the invading people who the Military arm represents. It is certainly just to kill the people of a country who Don't Stop Their Military Arm from enslaving my land. The Palestinian's land has been enslaved for 36 years by these swine.

And the Israelis say: "Well now that we Occupy and control this land....hmmmmmm . Maybe it never was really your land. After all our god said that he gave that land to us. So You! Get out of your land. It belongs to us now, by force of arms and of killing your people.(The israelis never slaughtered a Palestinian 'army' because the Palestinians never had one. They just keep killing the Palestinian people who try to drive the IDF out of the Palestinian homeland ..... the brave, brave US supported Israelis)

The 'debate' is about the falsification of history that the israeli dominated press has launched.
________________________________

For instance - this history Falsifier says below"

""Legality of Israel's Presence in the Territories
by Miguel Fri, May 2 2003, 10:52am

.............
...........
Israel's presence in the territories began in 1967 as a direct result of the aggressive actions of Israel's neighbors that forced Israel into a war of self-defense. ""
_______________________
Check the Net and any other news or historical sources - There was No aggessive 'Actions' taken agaist Israel in 1967. The consensus of military writers agree that neither Eygpt or any other of the countries on Israel's borders had amassed enough forces their to be considered an immanent military threat to Israel.

Israel factually and definitely started the 1967 War by attacking FIRST - it was a sneak attack that destroyed the entire Egyption airforce on the Ground before it could take to the air. That sound like the Arabs were just on the point of 'attacking' Israel? To be on that low a readiness alert? Puleeeze..... try a more convincing lie. Try something different than that one.

The 1967 War was the old first initiated sneak attack - later given the nice sounding title of "pre-emtive strike". Pre-emptive strike simply means that you find an excuse to claim that you have reason to fear an adversary and then you sneak attack them. Genghis Khan was a pre-emptive striker. Adolf Hitler pre-emtively struck Poland who he claimed was about to harm German citizens - just as Bush pre-emptively struck the crippled country of Iraq. And then changed his story to 'freeing Iraq' after he couldn't get enough witnesses to lie about findings WMDs.

The 1967 War started by Israel was the same thing. Israel at the time had over Double the military armament resources of all the Arab countries combined. And guess where she got them? And guess which Political Action Committee pressuring the US congress got Israel her 200% arms superiority to launch that war?

You can contact me when you extract my address out of the print I put it in here to keep the liars who run this board from deleting it; so what you have to do isfindlance asyou knowat theserver ofgraffiti sentenceperiod endingisnet notcom. That is the way I have to leave my contact point for you about those who dominate this page.

Truth has been killed by 'irish'indeemediocrity editors. Editors who don't have the honesty or the facts with which to debate the issues.

by Avi H Sat May 03, 2003 05:21

Israel was fighting for its life in 1967 against armies from six Arab countries. It is well known from communications intercepts and observed troop movements that they were about to attack Israel. Nasser of Egypt ordered the UN observer troops on the Israeli border to leave, which they obediently did, and closed the Straits of Tiran, strangling Israel's southern port, Eilat. These actions were preparatory to an imminent attack. Israel won that war against such overwhelming odds only because it attacked before it was attacked itself: as such, its actions were a vindicated self-defence strategy.

by 1967 War Sat May 03, 2003 08:42

A combination of bellicose Arab rhetoric, threatening behavior and, ultimately, an act of war left Israel no choice but preemptive action. To do this successfully, Israel needed the element of surprise. Had it waited for an Arab invasion, Israel would have been at a potentially catastrophic disadvantage.

While Nasser continued to make speeches threatening war, Arab terrorist attacks grew more frequent. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched.

Meanwhile, Syria's attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967, during which Israeli planes shot down six Syrian MiGs. Shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union which had been providing military and economic aid to both Syria and Egypt gave Damascus information alleging a massive Israeli military buildup in preparation for an attack. Despite Israeli denials, Syria decided to invoke its defense treaty with Egypt.

On May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.

Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw on May 16. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised, Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. After the withdrawal of the UNEF, the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed (May 18, 1967):

As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.

An enthusiastic echo was heard May 20 from Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad:

Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.

On May 22, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel's only supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran. The following day, President Johnson expressed the belief that the blockade was illegal and unsuccessfully tried to organize an international flotilla to test it.

Nasser was fully aware of the pressure he was exerting to force Israel's hand. The day after the blockade was set up, he said defiantly: "The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war."

Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight," he said on May 27.9 The following day, he added: "We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."

King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30. Nasser then announced:

The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.11

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."12 On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

The Arab rhetoric was matched by the mobilization of Arab forces. Approximately 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft ringed Israel.13

By this time, Israeli forces had been on alert for three weeks. The country could not remain fully mobilized indefinitely, nor could it allow its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba to be interdicted. Israel's best option was to strike first.On June 5, the order was given to attack Egypt.

by El Raton Blanco - PMC Sun May 04, 2003 23:03

Yeah...and the Native Americans were a threat to
the Whites, right? Israel is just pissed that people
disagree with its rewrite of history. How can you
justify invading, killing, and then theft? Blame it on the victims when
they resist. As for Israel, it is the Middle Eastern
bad ass. It starts trouble then whines when trouble
comes home. You would think that the experience
of the Holocaust would give Israel empathy for other
victims, including its own. But that experience has
only given Israel a sense of moral superiority
that allows it to justify anything.
Why doesn't Israel confess to its history of invasion
and forced population transfers? Do they want peace
and justice truly? Or do they just want to get rid
of the "inconvenient existence" of the indigenous
people of Palestine?

by Avi H. Mon May 05, 2003 00:44

As you don't like reality, you have clearly found another game to play.