Premier wants Israeli troops at Palestinian border

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
The settlements were frozen for 10 months. The Pals did squat w/ respect to negotiations over that time frame. Only when the experiation date was coming up and it looked like ISrael would not resume the freeze did the Pals make any movement toward obtain a resembleence of peace.

Israel has gone into Lebanon multiple times; mainly chasing Palestinians that were a PITA and/or to protect against what was being considered a massacre of the Christians.
Isreal did not go into Lebanon for any type of peacekeeping mission there. They went in to obtain peace for themselves.

Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon after it was agreed that the UN would step in to control the buffer zone and prevent the Palestinians from attacking Israel.

Attacks lessened, arms filtration did not which was agaisnt the truce agreement (again).

Hamas had no ability to evict ISrael from Gaza.
Isarel had always talked about land for peace; the Palestinians were always stating that give us Gaza and there will be peace.
Israel gave up the land in Gaza; no peace.
The Palestinians continue to choose to attack Israel from Gaza - no peace and Israel is not going to allow the people in Gaza to get strong enough to become a full blown pest.

As has been presently demonstrated, the Palestinians that run Gaza DO NOT WANT PEACE. And Israel should be able to decide if they want to honor that request.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
I don't understand. Are you saying every Palestinian has to agree to this? 100&#37;? Why can't it just be the majority or the ruling party? If Israel recognizes the PA and they recognize Israel, what is the matter?
Presently there are two seperate major factions of the Palestinians w/ respect to the West Bank/Gaza. Fatah controls the WB, Hamas controls Gaza. Both claim to represent the Palestinians.

Neither group recognizes Israel as an offical state. Hamas charter explictily calls out for the destruction of Israel.

Now, should Fatah officially recognize Israel as part of the peace process; where does that leave Hamas? Hamas has publicaly renounced the talks and have indicated that they are willing to do anything to sidetrack them. They have started to create problems in the West Bank and also authorized attacks from Gaza.

So w/ respect to peace
  • Israel can create peace with the West Bank and continue to handle Gaza as it is presently doing. Tit for tat.
  • Israel can let Gaza have the results of any peace treaty with the West Bank. Doing so, may expose Israel to more attacks because the rules will be relaxed.
  • Israel can again treat Gaza as a seperate Palestinian entity and be willing to sit down at a peace table with Hamas when Hamas is willing. This was tried in '08 and within 24 hours of a truce agreement, attacks began from Gaza and responded to by Israel.
  • Israel can treat Gaza and the West Bank as one entity and respond against either section should attacks happen from either group. Collective punishment

w/ respect to conflict
The Palestinians can demand from Israel concessions that Israel feels will weaken her security. Israel refuses and the status quo continues. It will take another generation or two before political leaders are strong enough to be willing to make consessions.

In that time frame, the West Bank will still prosper more that Gaza due to the attitude of the leadership. One lives for conflict and misery to jsutify their existance, the other wants to be seen as trying to improve the lot of all Palestinians regardless of a power struggle.


Desired result:

The Palestinians can work with Israel knowing what is impossible and knowing what may work if they are also willing to concede. This is what most of the world is hoping for. The Palstinians have to be strong enough to resist the external forces that also want to keep the conflict alive.

As another poster here asks for; a JUST peace is where both sides give a little to obtain a lot - peace.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Common Courtesy show his bias by saying, "Hamas had no ability to evict ISrael from Gaza."

Even though that statement is true, it begs the question, Israel has no business in Gaza, and if Israel decides to occupy my home in the USA I too would have no ability to resists such overwhelming force. But lost here in the fast shuffle is why Israel would have such a right to occupy land it can't own and why Israel should not deserve universal hatred.

But if Israel tells me what I can and can't do with my own property, ya bet your boots I would violently resist an illegitimate occupation. Truth be told so would everyone else on this forum if Israel did that to them, so why is it wrong for Hamas to do the same?

Or is it somehow an Israeli right to keep occupying your property until you swear that you love them instead of honestly hating the bastard that steals your land and restricts your freedoms.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
Common Courtesy distorts if he thinks he speaks the truth in saying, "Land was turned over to Lebanon and Gaza.
From both areas they have since been attacked by Hezbollah and Hamas"

The Israelis never had any right to any land in Lebanon, they blew their inept peace keeping occupation of Lebanon, and until Israel proved they were aholes, Hezbollah did not even exist. But the social wing of Hezbollah provided the social serves Israel could have provided and did not. Israel had the opportunity to make Lebanese friends and instead alienated everyone in Lebanon. The Common Courtesy denial of those facts shows his bias.

The Gaza issue is a little more complex but not hard to understand. Once Hamas won a free and democratic election in Gaza, the gloves on both sides came off. If Israel did not with draw its settlers, that tried to settle on land that Israel could not claim, they would be forcibly be evicted by Hamas. But the premise that Israel does not totally control what should be a sovereign independent state of Gaza is total fiction. Because Israel controls all Gaza imports and exports, exactly what freedom flotillas are designed to break, so once again Common Courtesy is engaged in Serial distortion of reality by making his bogus statements regarding Israel giving anything back in Gaza.

Now please Common Courtesy, don't get me started on more of your bullshit regarding the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but the Israeli settlement Freeze extension will soon become a huge issue.

This is comming from a Palestinian sympathizer who honestly believes that even if Israel is attacked they should not fight back!

This Palestinian sympathizer believes that any land Israel gains while defending herself is land that should be immediately returned because Israel in the Palestinians sympathizers eyes should not hold any land gained through defending itself!

Finally NOT okay to make up your own history in these matters!!

Your Palestinian parents taught you well.......
 
Last edited:

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Excuse me JediYoda, I have no Palestinian Parents, I use American values, and just because you think some sort of Israeli Parentage is an excuse for your bias, in my mind bias is bias regardless of parentage.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Common Courtesy show his bias by saying, "Hamas had no ability to evict ISrael from Gaza."

Even though that statement is true, it begs the question, Israel has no business in Gaza, and if Israel decides to occupy my home in the USA I too would have no ability to resists such overwhelming force. But lost here in the fast shuffle is why Israel would have such a right to occupy land it can't own and why Israel should not deserve universal hatred.

But if Israel tells me what I can and can't do with my own property, ya bet your boots I would violently resist an illegitimate occupation. Truth be told so would everyone else on this forum if Israel did that to them, so why is it wrong for Hamas to do the same?

Or is it somehow an Israeli right to keep occupying your property until you swear that you love them instead of honestly hating the bastard that steals your land and restricts your freedoms.

Review your biased version of history.
Why was the territorial area of Gaza setup and which country was responsible for it.

Hint: Palestinian does not count - there is no such country.

What does the word responsbile mean?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Well, on other threads we have dealt with the responsibility question. The Palestinians who lived in what became Israel in 1948 were chased out and many of them fled to Egyptian owned Gaza. And even if these Palestinians refugees were really Israel's responsibility, something Israel swore they would be responsible for as a pre-condition of the formation of an Israeli state, at least the Egyptians offered the Palestinian refugees shelter and food.

But the Egyptian position was and remains, they do not want to be responsible for assimilating the Palestinian refugees BECAUSE THE PALESTINIANS IN GAZA ARE AN ISRAELI RESPONSIBILITY.

Later after Israel seized the Sinai desert in the 1967 war, EGYPT formally ceded its claim to Gaza, but certainly did not cede Gaza to Israel, but as land to be set aside for a future Palestinian State. And Jordon took a similar position regarding the West Bank.

So Israel is being very irresponsible in controlling any part of the West bank, Gaza, or East Jerusalem. So why is Israel still in control of those areas 43 years later? The answer is basically only by brute military force and without a shred of legitimacy.

I hope that explains responsibility to you Common Courtesy.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Later after Israel seized the Sinai desert in the 1967 war, EGYPT formally ceded its claim to Gaza, but certainly did not cede Gaza to Israel, but as land to be set aside for a future Palestinian State. And Jordon took a similar position regarding the West Bank.
Jordan and Egypt were responsible for those areas initially.
They lost control of those areas as a result of wars against Israel.
Where in the truce agreements did they have a condition that the area was to be set aside. again for the Pals The set aside was in '48, not in '67 or '73

Israel is in control of those lands because both Jordan and Egypt did not want them and there was no one in the Arab world that wanted the responsiblity of either the land or was willing to champion the Palestinian people as a state. For 20 years when the land was under Arab control; even then, no one wanted a Palestinian state. Wonder why?

So now Israel gets handed to areas of land by virtue of winning a conflict that was forced on her and within those lands are groups of people that are still at war with Israel.

As a result, Israel can not safely assimilate those people into Israel proper, nor do those people want to be.

For 40 years, those groups have been continuing the losing path the Arabs took - attack Israel with the hope of destroying her. When they change direction, Israel will also.

Israel does not tell them what they can not do with their property among themselves - she tells them what they can not do with their property as it affects Israel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SandEagle

Lifer
Aug 4, 2007
16,813
13
0
an international force is a great idea. israeli apartheid soldiers will just get away with shooting pali civilians
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
An international force will work IF they are authorized and willing to do the job that is needed. Secure the border.

In Lebanon is has not worked. State vs Terrorist organization

In Golan it has. State vs State

Whick will Palestinians be. And this is to be at the Jordan border, not the Israeli border
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
CommonCourtesy asks, "Where in the truce agreements did they have a condition that the area was to be set aside. again for the Pals The set aside was in '48, not in '67 or '73" And goes on to say, "So now Israel gets handed to areas of land by virtue of winning a conflict that was forced on her and within those lands are groups of people that are still at war with Israel."


The answer is in the United nations charter, remember the UN Common Courtesy?, its the very entity that set up Israel in 1948, defined its borders, and gave Israel its legitimacy.

BUT BY UN CHARTER, LAND GAINED BY CONQUEST IS ILLEGITIMATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I again hope that explains it to you Common Courtesy. But wait, this has been explained to you many times before on this forum by me and others.

So Common Courtesy, do you have trouble remembering things? This might be time to see a physician to see if you have some sort of dementia manifesting itself in rather obvious symptoms. In dementia, its usually long term memory as the first thing to go.
 
Last edited:

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
an international force is a great idea. israeli apartheid soldiers will just get away with shooting pali civilians

First of all knock off your idiotic aparthied crap!!
The word aparthied does not even apply in this situation!
technically nobody wants the Palestinians and nobody in the middle east wants anything to do with Israel.

Secondly -- It was NOt Israel that wants an international force.

So what part of this do you have trouble understanding??

No where in the link I posted does it say Israel wants an international force.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
BUT BY UN CHARTER, LAND GAINED BY CONQUEST IS ILLEGITIMATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry you can`t have it both ways.

You attack Israel and lose land in the process thats the consequances of trying to be the bully!

The UN charter says land gained by conquest--correct?
It does not say anything about land gained by defending oneself!!!!

You can`t make up the rules as you go along..

Plus I take you have never read the UN Charter.....hmmm....

The UN Charter deals with members states and not with states that are NOT members.

The Palestinians are NOT members of the UN....correct me if I am wrong?

Thus any land taken by israel in defense of itself, can be dealt with anyway that israel sees fit.

Now if their was a state of palestine and they were members of the UN, then israel would have to deal with giving the land back according to the UN Charter....

Simultaneously, the UN Charter's guarantee of the "territorial integrity" of member states effectively froze out claims against prior conquests from this process.

Again correct me if I am wrong -- Hamas nor fatah nor the palestinians themselves are considered members states......


So please explain where you get your mis - interpretation or shall we say that you purposely leave out key items that will perhaps embarrass your pro-palestinian viewpoint..lol
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
Excuse me JediYoda, I have no Palestinian Parents, I use American values, and just because you think some sort of Israeli Parentage is an excuse for your bias, in my mind bias is bias regardless of parentage.

American values???? We started this country by decimating the original "occupants" and stealing their land. Then we jacked more land as we grew. If Israel was following in the United States footsteps the few hundred Palestinians left would have a little ass reservation in the desert somewhere right now.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
CommonCourtesy asks, "Where in the truce agreements did they have a condition that the area was to be set aside. again for the Pals The set aside was in '48, not in '67 or '73" And goes on to say, "So now Israel gets handed to areas of land by virtue of winning a conflict that was forced on her and within those lands are groups of people that are still at war with Israel."


The answer is in the United nations charter, remember the UN Common Courtesy?, its the very entity that set up Israel in 1948, defined its borders, and gave Israel its legitimacy.

BUT BY UN CHARTER, LAND GAINED BY CONQUEST IS ILLEGITIMATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I again hope that explains it to you Common Courtesy. But wait, this has been explained to you many times before on this forum by me and others.

So Common Courtesy, do you have trouble remembering things? This might be time to see a physician to see if you have some sort of dementia manifesting itself in rather obvious symptoms. In dementia, its usually long term memory as the first thing to go.

Israel did not get those lands by conquest.

It was handed to them by the Arab countries that attack Israel and were responsible for that land.

Note that Israel never set foot in Jordan or Egypt or has claims such land.

If Israel was to dump any responsibility for Gaza or the West Bank; what do you think would happen to those areas.

You can not have it both ways. Should Israel fully seal off the borders; both areas would crumble economically.

Israel has no obligation to provide any logistics to Gaza - they do so out of humanitarian concerns and what does Gaza Palestinians then do
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
"
Israel did not get those lands by conquest."

Israel did indeed take those land by conquest in the 1967 war. Gramted various Arab Countries were massing their armies at the border, in turn Israel mobilized its armies, and a Statemate resulted. Rather than demobilize. Israel was the first to leave its borders, and attack surrounding Arab States.


"It was handed to them by the Arab countries that attack Israel and were responsible for that land."

Revisionist history again, Israel did indeed militarily occupy both Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, all outside of their 1948 borders, this time trapping all the Palestinians in the zone of Israeli military occupation, and then Egypt and Jordon, renounced any claims to the West Bank and Gaza, but they did not cede the land to Israel. And even today, the USA and the rest of the world do not recognize any Israeli claim to Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.

"Note that Israel never set foot in Jordan or Egypt or has claims such land."

A complete fabrication and and an out and out falsehood. During the 1967 war, Israeli troops drove well into Egyptian territory and got as far as the Suez Canal.
And Israel then held on to the Sinai desert until it finally gave it back to Egypt well over a decade later,

"If Israel was to dump any responsibility for Gaza or the West Bank; what do you think would happen to those areas. "

Then some other entities would take over the administration of these lands, be it the Arab League, the UN, or whomever would step up and the Palestinians would have been treated far more fairly.

"You can not have it both ways. Should Israel fully seal off the borders; both areas would crumble economically."

Israel has already almost sealed off the borders and that why Gaza, and to only a slightly lesser extent the West Bank are hell holes. The Egyptian and Jordan position is that the Palestinians are an Israeli responsibility, But if the Palestinian have their own State, both Jordan and Egypt would open their borders to trade with Palestinians, even though they would still not allow Israelis or Palestinians to apply for citizenship in their countries.

"Israel has no obligation to provide any logistics to Gaza - they do so out of humanitarian concerns and what does Gaza Palestinians then do
"

Don't make me laugh, there is no human compassion to be found in Israel. Its Arab charities and international funds that keep the Palestinians fed, and Israel disrupts Palestinians aspirations ever step of the way. Palestinians spend all their time at Israeli checkpoints as often they get walled off from their own land. Israel restricts their water, restricts their imports and exports, and there are some 500,000 illegal settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem due to Israeli policy.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Israel did not get those lands by conquest."

Israel did indeed take those land by conquest in the 1967 war. Gramted various Arab Countries were massing their armies at the border, in turn Israel mobilized its armies, and a Statemate resulted. Rather than demobilize. Israel was the first to leave its borders, and attack surrounding Arab States.


"It was handed to them by the Arab countries that attack Israel and were responsible for that land."

Revisionist history again, Israel did indeed militarily occupy both Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, all outside of their 1948 borders, this time trapping all the Palestinians in the zone of Israeli military occupation,
and then Egypt and Jordon, renounced any claims to the West Bank and Gaza, but they did not cede the land to Israel. And even today, the USA and the rest of the world do not recognize any Israeli claim to Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. "

When did Israel obtain a presense in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem and why? such is conviently ignored by the Pal supporters

"Note that Israel never set foot in Jordan or Egypt or has claims such land."

A complete fabrication and and an out and out falsehood. During the 1967 war, Israeli troops drove well into Egyptian territory and got as far as the Suez Canal.
And Israel then held on to the Sinai desert until it finally gave it back to Egypt well over a decade later,
I will agree here that I mispoke. I happen to think of Egypt as the Suez Canal and ignore the Sinai

"If Israel was to dump any responsibility for Gaza or the West Bank; what do you think would happen to those areas. "

Then some other entities would take over the administration of these lands, be it the Arab League, the UN, or whomever would step up and the Palestinians would have been treated far more fairly.

Why has not anyone volunteered to take over such in the past 30 years? - No one wants the headaches

"You can not have it both ways. Should Israel fully seal off the borders; both areas would crumble economically."

Israel has already almost sealed off the borders and that why Gaza, and to only a slightly lesser extent the West Bank are hell holes. The Egyptian and Jordan position is that the Palestinians are an Israeli responsibility, But if the Palestinian have their own State, both Jordan and Egypt would open their borders to trade with Palestinians, even though they would still not allow Israelis or Palestinians to apply for citizenship in their countries.

Jordan does not like the Pals - See Black September

"Israel has no obligation to provide any logistics to Gaza - they do so out of humanitarian concerns and what does Gaza Palestinians then do
"

Don't make me laugh, there is no human compassion to be found in Israel. Its Arab charities and international funds that keep the Palestinians fed, and Israel disrupts Palestinians aspirations ever step of the way. Palestinians spend all their time at Israeli checkpoints as often they get walled off from their own land. Israel restricts their water, restricts their imports and exports, and there are some 500,000 illegal settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem due to Israeli policy.


Then why is Israel supporting those two areas? A lot more than what the Arab nations ever did.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Israel did not get those lands by conquest.

It was handed to them by the Arab countries that attack Israel and were responsible for that land.

Note that Israel never set foot in Jordan or Egypt or has claims such land.

If Israel was to dump any responsibility for Gaza or the West Bank; what do you think would happen to those areas.

You can not have it both ways. Should Israel fully seal off the borders; both areas would crumble economically.

Israel has no obligation to provide any logistics to Gaza - they do so out of humanitarian concerns and what does Gaza Palestinians then do

Israel attacked in 1947, 1956, 1967, and again in 1982. Syria and Egypt attacked in 1973.

Israel seeks to have it both ways, always. They expropriate palestinian resources and hold back palestinian development at every turn.

Israel could seal their own borders if they wish, but that's not what they want. they want to seal the palestinians' borders as well, claim the territory as their own for their jewish state but not the people in it. Those people are pushed into smaller and smaller enclaves, the mideast equivalent of S African Bantustans. That's Gaza, and increasingly the West Bank as well.

As Netanyahu demonstrates, they have no intention of withdrawing to their own borders at all, or of even defining a border in terms that anybody else could recognize. Certainly not so long as the Israeli tail continues to wag the American dog, bet on that.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEDIYoda;
on a side note -- correct me if I am wrong but I don`t see the palestinians listed in any way shape or form as being a member state --
http://www.un.org/en/members/#p

they're on there. its been renamed to israel.

This was addressed to Lemon law.....
At least lemnon would not have given a smart assed remark!!

But that`s OK......

lemon is busy for the first time reading the UN Charter in it`s entirety because he knows I totally owned him -- when ehe stated -- BUT BY UN CHARTER, LAND GAINED BY CONQUEST IS ILLEGITIMATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

waiting for lemon to conjure up more make believe history....lol
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
Israel attacked in 1947, 1956, 1967, and again in 1982. Syria and Egypt attacked in 1973.

Israel seeks to have it both ways, always. They expropriate palestinian resources and hold back palestinian development at every turn.

Israel could seal their own borders if they wish, but that's not what they want. they want to seal the palestinians' borders as well, claim the territory as their own for their jewish state but not the people in it. Those people are pushed into smaller and smaller enclaves, the mideast equivalent of S African Bantustans. That's Gaza, and increasingly the West Bank as well.

As Netanyahu demonstrates, they have no intention of withdrawing to their own borders at all, or of even defining a border in terms that anybody else could recognize. Certainly not so long as the Israeli tail continues to wag the American dog, bet on that.

1947 -- War for Israeli independence, 1947-1949


AP/GPO
Israeli soldiers on patrol during the 1948-49 war of independence.

On Nov. 29, 1947, the United Nations decides to partition Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state. Mounting violence leads to the first Arab-Israeli war in early 1948, when the British withdraw from the region. Jewish forces hold their ground and declare Israeli statehood on May 14, 1948. Neighboring Arab nations, including Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt and then-Transjordan, lend support to the Palestinians. The Egyptians are the last to seek an end to hostilities; an armistice is reached in January 1949.

Looks to me like israel was attacked......

1956 -- Suez crisis

Israeli leadership grows increasingly weary of cross-border attacks from the Egyptian-controlled Gaza Strip as well as Egypt's attempts to block Israeli shipping in the Suez Canal and Gulf of Aqaba. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser's denial of Israel's right to exist and attempts to thwart Western peace initiatives convince the West that Nasser is not an ally. The United States withdraws aid to Egypt for the Aswan Dam Project, infuriating Nasser. He nationalizes the Suez Canal on July 26, 1956. Britain, which owns nearly half of the Suez Canal Company, seeks to prevent the nationalization by joining with France and Israel to gain control of the waterway. A plan is devised in which Israel attacks the Sinai Peninsula on Oct. 29, allowing Britain and France to condemn the fighting and demand that both sides withdraw from the region. When Nasser refuses, Britain and France attack. The Soviet Union threatens to use nuclear power in the region to repel the West. The United States demands a cease-fire, which takes effect in November 1956. A U.N. force occupies the area in March 1957 and reopens the canal on April 24, 1957. The crisis solidifies the framework of the Cold War in the Middle East.

Looks to me as if both sides were to blame with outside instigation!!

Six-Day War, June 5-10, 1967

The U.N. force is able to prevent major Arab invasions of Israel until the summer of 1967, when Egyptian forces gather in Sinai and Nasser orders the international troops to leave. Egypt also blocks Israeli ships in the Gulf of Aqaba. In the United States, President Johnson tries but fails to secure peace and reopen the gulf. Israel plans pre-emptive strikes June 5 against Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq — nations that had mobilized for war — while moving troops into the Sinai Peninsula and the canal region. Jordan launches an offensive in Jerusalem on June 5. Israeli defenses retaliate and capture all of East Jerusalem and the West Bank within three days. Israel then focuses on the Syrian offensive, pushing Syria's troops from the Golan Heights by June 10, when a U.N. cease-fire takes effect. The victory provides Israel with a buffer zone — the Sinai, Gaza, East Jerusalem, West Bank and Golan — between it and its Arab neighbors.


again The arabs asked for it and got what thery asked for--a ass whoopin!!

Yom Kippur War, Oct. 6-24, 1973

Arab nations warn Israel that they will not accept Israeli occupation of lands lost in 1967. After Egypt's Nasser was succeeded by Anwar Sadat, Sadat prepares his country for war, including a contract with the Soviets for more sophisticated weaponry. Sadat, allied with President Hafez Assad of Syria, attacks Israel on Oct. 6, 1973 — on Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement. Israel fights back and gains back most of the ground lost in the initial attack. Fighting continues for 18 days, when the war ends again under U.N. auspices. Later agreements give Egypt control of some land along the Suez Canal and Syria some control around the Golan Heights.

look to me like the Arabs are sore losers.....


So Common Courtesy can have it both ways.......in fact he can have it anyways he likes!!

The facts don`t lie!! Each and every time there was a war it was Israel looking out fore israel`s interests!!!

Actually NO@!! Israel could not seal their own borders. Just like we cannot seal our own borders. Totally impossible!
Yet if they could that still would not stop groups that are anti - israel from lobbing bombs and such at israeli citys!

Israel could seal their own borders if they wish, but that's not what they want. they want to seal the palestinians' borders as well, claim the territory as their own for their jewish state but not the people in it. Those people are pushed into smaller and smaller enclaves, the mideast equivalent of S African Bantustans. That's Gaza, and increasingly the West Bank as well.
-- You are so full of it...totally full of manure!!
Please provide links to your idiotic diatribe/opinion.....
Yet you chose to use hint at aparthied, but you have no proof of what you are babbling about!!
All Israel want`s is to be totally left alone.
Yet others don`t want to leave israel alone.


You take away all the weapons ..etc from all the Arab countries -- 50 years from now there will still be Arab countires that are growing and thriving!

You take away all the weapons Israel has and leave only the Arab countries with weapons -- 50 years from now or even sooner there will be no state of Israel...figure that one out!!
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Israel attacked in 1947, 1956, 1967, and again in 1982. Syria and Egypt attacked in 1973.

Israel seeks to have it both ways, always. They expropriate palestinian resources and hold back palestinian development at every turn.

Israel could seal their own borders if they wish, but that's not what they want. they want to seal the palestinians' borders as well, claim the territory as their own for their jewish state but not the people in it. Those people are pushed into smaller and smaller enclaves, the mideast equivalent of S African Bantustans. That's Gaza, and increasingly the West Bank as well.

As Netanyahu demonstrates, they have no intention of withdrawing to their own borders at all, or of even defining a border in terms that anybody else could recognize. Certainly not so long as the Israeli tail continues to wag the American dog, bet on that.

Israel was attacked in '48, one day after being declared a nation by the UN
in '56, Egypt created a declaration of war by closing off commerce via the Suez. Egypt att he time was also setting up forces to attack Israel being support by the Soviets who were trying to stir up trouble.
In '67; The Arabs were lined up on Israel's borders to attack; Egypt was airlifting spec ops troops to Jordan and had an attack scheduled within 24 hours of Israel attacking.
The Arabs were lined up ready to go.

In '81 Israel took out the Osark reactor - Iraq had made statements about going after ISrael woith nukes and the reactor was coming on line

Who did Israel go after in '82?
Israel was also attacked in '91. This was the only time that she did not retaliate against the attacker

I will not even try to account for all the terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians that happened outside of Israel by the Palestinians. Munich/Uganda(Entebbe)/Achille Lauro for a few Those attacks only earned appreciation from the Arab world; but was denounced by the rest of the world

If Israel was to seal their borders completely from the Palestinians; what would happen to Gaza?

At present the West Bank and Gaza are "no-mans" land. Those that were responsible for it have quit; those that presently are being responsible are condemmed.

Those that want the responsibility refuse to accept being responsible
 
Last edited by a moderator: