Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: Lemon law
And anyway, in wild west morality, the good guy is still supposed to wait for the bad guy to draw first. And does not a get pass for bushwacking the bad guys before they actually attack.
Especially when Egypt never threatened to attack, but rather only threatened to finish the fight if Yitzhak Rabin carried though with his threat of invading Syria. And as history clearly shows; the Arabs weren't in any position to even reasonably defend themselves, let alone conquer Israel.
Egypt shut down the Suez canal - which amounted to a declaration of war. They were advised to not do so in advance by multiple countries.
Egypt was exerting control of their territorial waters in response to Israel's threat to invade Syria, and calling on the UN as well as the US to help defuse the situation diplomatically. That hardly constitutes a declaration of war.
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Notice that everyone wants to go back to the '67 borders. That is the only one where people actually say that Israel started the ruckus.
Of course what is wrong with the '73 borders after the Arabs attacked.
You've made this argument before and I've yet to see an answer from you yet as to what you even mean? We are talking about Palistine here and there was no change of boarders for Palestine in '73, rather they fell under Israeli occupation in '67. and hence it is the pre-'67 boarders which many of us argue should be those of the Palestinian State.
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
You've made this argument before and I've yet to see an answer from you yet as to what you even mean? We are talking about Palestine here and there was no change of boarders for Palestine in '73, rather they fell under Israeli occupation in '67. and hence it is the pre-'67 boarders which many of us argue should be those of the Palestinian State.
I do condemn those who initiate such conflicts, and '73 was most certainly a case of Arab aggression. But again it was Israel that bombed Egypt to start the war in '67, and Israel who invaded Egypt to start the war in '56, and Israel who unilaterally declared statehood in '47 while taking Palestine by force. Why do you give Israel a pass on all of those?
Israel was attacked collectively by her Arab neighbors when she declared statehood.
The UN seperated Palestine into two sections. The Jews stated they would create the state of Israel.
The Arabs did not want a state of Palestine and agreed to care for the Palestinians within Palestine that was outside of Israel control.
And then they attack Israel as soon as statehood was declared and the British released their control over the territory. - I do not know what history books you have reviewed that show your understanding of the events. in '47
In '56, the Arabs attacked Israel and drove within spitting distance to Tel Aviv.
Again, I do not where you get your version of events.
In '67, Egypt was advised to NOT close the Suez by many nations. It was considered to be an international waterway, ADMINISTERED by Egypt, but vital to the world.
This was equivalent to closing the Panama Canal or the Straights of Gilbralter.
With Syria building up forces on her border and Egypt mobilizing her forces, Israel had every right to be worried, given the Arab track record. Egypt closing the canal was the straw that broke the camel's back.
People are complaining about Irael not releasing territory that was taken in '67; ignoring that the territory was taken to act as a buffer zone against hostile acts by those that were supposed to be administering the area.
Now, Jordan and Egypt have layed down the gloves against Israel; however, the Palestinians and their sponsors have not. Israel gave control of Gaza back to the Palestinians and that has not stopped any violence from them, only created more problems for both sides.
And now, the one major component of the Palestinian issue is now stating that they do not want any resolution.
Link
Given that stance, what should Israel do? Hamas and sponsors do not want peace or even discuss any progress to resolving the situation.