Slashdot Mirror
Israeli Army Retweeting 1967 War As It Happened
An anonymous reader writes "This is a new one, twitter as a form of historical reenactment: 'Israel's army is giving a "live" blow-by-blow account of the 1967 Six Day War, tweeting each air strike at the exact time it occurred 46 years ago ... @IDF1967 "is an official Israel Defence Forces account that is aimed at re-tweeting the events of the Six Day War in live time", ... The account was tweeting key events in the battle against the armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria that took place from June 5 to 10, 1967 and includes pictures and videos, the army said. The tweets are mostly in Hebrew, with some translated into English. "In response to repeated provocations by Egypt, the State of Israel and the IDF are going to war. We will not sit idly as the enemy forces tighten the noose around our necks," the opening tweet said around 8.00am (1500 AEST) on Wednesday when Israel landed its first preemptive air strike 46 years ago.'"
So when are they going to reenact the attack on the USS Liberty?
What's the over/under on some news outlet somewhere posting this as Breaking News as if it's currently happening? Wouldn't be the first time media misunderstood intent.
Interesting piece of propaganda
Damn. I took a second to sign in, and then this AC goes first, and violates Godwin's Law too. What I was GOING to say, before this nincompoop smeared their greasy fingers all over the comment stream, was that I hoped their tweets would not all be triumphalist, manly statements about their martial prowess, but would also include all the inanities and irrelevancies one finds in a Twitter stream. But it could be that the "funny" Jews aren't involved in this particular effort.
Since when did Slashdot become horribly biased in supporting Israel?
I assume the tweets will come strictly from an Israeli perspective.
Can we have a counter channel with a play-by-play according to the other sides? Then it would actually be historically interesting, and not pure one-sided YAY WAR, YAY ISRAEL propaganda.
When I read an international news story from an American outlet, I also try to read the Al Jazeera version in an attempt to extract the truth from somewhere in the middle. This is kind of like that.
What do you mean, "now".
Here are six mass graves discovered this week, in Jaffa, full of Arab native civilians "cleansed" from their city in 1948.
'The remains belong to people of different ages, including women, children and the elderly, some of which bear signs of violence.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334205/Mass-grave-uncovered-containing-dozens-Palestinians-killed-1948-war-founded-Israel.html
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Ah the 1948 war, where the arabs told the other arabs living in said regions that if they flee, they'll be able to live on the land of the jews that they those arab armies were going to ethnically cleanse. Never mind that said arab armies did in fact commit cleansing...of their fellow arabs, and in those regions among others. That's not new, news.
Om, nomnomnom...
> now they are nazis
Oh come on! Is creating a Twitter account so you can read these "tweets" really that hard?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
@Wehrmacht1939: "Seit 5 Uhr 45 wird jetzt zurückgeschossen!"
Oddly enough, the article doesn't say anything about anyone being "cleansed" from their city in 1948.
What it does say is that:
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Bah, screwed up my html. last sentence of the above should be outside the blockquote.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
You talk nonsense. People were murdered and their home stolen. After pushing them onto reservation-type camps, they are still subject to things like collective punishments - which include mass aerial bombardment of civilian homes with white phosphorus, or the interruption of potable water.
Both are war crimes.
None of this can be justified in any way by the alleged rhetoric of some ill-defined "arabs" saying something that - if you are understood correctly - would amount to: "If you leave your property that you own, and your orchards and shops, then after you are refugees, you might be able to squat on the couple of Kibbutz those Poles stole from your parents, instead!"
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I wonder if that broadcast will include the attack on the US Liberty in which they killed 34 American Sailors and was covered up for MANY years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
RUN AWAY!!!!!
It would be most interesting if the tweeting team managed to dig deep enough into the historical documents to recreate the fog of war that blankets all such events, announcing and then retracting as reports arrived at HQ (or whatever).
Full realism would be uninteresting since no real HQ would tweet everything it thought it knew at the moment it knew it. But then, perhaps using declassified documents, we could recreate what it would be like to work at the top levels of a Twitter-based government with Top Secret initial and revised reports and guesses bouncing around, seeing how little time people really had to make decisions that put thousands or millions of lives at risk.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
I wonder if they'll tweet an "oops,our bad #fail #sosorry" when it comes time for them to lay waste to an American military vessel in international waters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
Har. Wouldn't Monkey model be designated T-72-O? Monkey in Russian is . ;)
how the Israelis would feel if someone created a Twitter account along the lines of "@Treblinka1942" and ran a play by play of the daily events there?
Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
And the French Army simply retweets.
...and let's not forget that soon-to-be #tt that's always great at parties and family dinnertime:
Turkey retweets the Funny Thing That Happened With Armenians That Totally Was Not a Genocide or Anything Like That, Turkey Swears.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
...focus their attention on war
Euphemisms aside, they are at war. Not focusing on it is a sure ticket to extinction.
How do you feel about the way the Arabs treat Palestinian refugees? That is the test to see if someone is a hypocrite or ignorant on the topic.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Wow...it took me a good long while to get that the sarcasm was in there somewhere...just wow. It wasn't until the second paragraph. I've been at work too long today.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
Why post this article on Slashdot? Its obvious flamebait, bringing out all the hatred, hand-wringing and dubious justifications from all sides of this conflict.
Nothing good is going to come from all the comments in here, ive already seem my fair share of sheer hatred in the comments so far.
Why post this Slashdot? Because its on Twitter?
Last time there were tweets of this nature, Wall Street had a flash crash.
I wonder if the 1.4% drop in the S&P500 today is related in any way.
[Rent This Space]
You're thinking the Yom Kippur war in 1973. The 6 day war the arabs were massing for an attack on all sides, and Israel pre-empted the lot of them.
There was a (relatively lengthy) period of tension building up to that however.
Unlike all the other nations involved in this mess, Israel is part of the first world. As such, that kind of re-enactment is of especially bad taste. Israel must also know quite clearly that this will be perceived as provocation by their neighbours and after 60 years of continuous conflict, that's not the kind of thing they would let slip by error. Just a plain dick move.
For real.
Antagonizing the brothers in Egypt, their (Israels) friend in Jordan and the nutcase who's using Sarin in Syria seems like a poor plan.
The domestic T-72 tank had actual armor, whereas the T-72M export version had poured concrete between the bodywork plating.
Really? We have a few dozen modernized and upgraded T-72M4CZ tanks and I'm pretty sure the engineers would have noticed the concrete.
Ezekiel 23:20
How do you feel about two wrongs making a right?
No doubt you felt the same way back in 2011 when someone took to tweeting WWII in real time: http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2011/09/25/how-an-ex-history-student-is-using-twitter-to-bring-world-war-2-to-life/
Were you calling for a 'counter channel with a play-by-play according to the other sides' back then? perhaps adding: "YAY WAR, YAY ALLIES propaganda"?
That's the first I have ever heard of such thing! I wonder why that didn't get mentioned on Slashdot?
You clearly haven't the remotest clue what the Nazis actually did.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Will they tweet the attack the USS Liberty? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saw
I come here for the love
No. But it does equate to a double standard. A different standard is applied to Israel than to everyone else. What's worse is that the other Arab countries are treating their own people like shit.
That's like you pissing on your family. That's actually WORSE than some stranger doing it.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Is there a logical or rhetorical fallacy you won't ignore, in the pursuit of your defense for the outlaw nation?
Yeah, on both sides. Did you know that the Jews globally lost more property than they gained in 1948? After Arabs lost the war, Jews everywhere in the Middle East were essentially evicted and all their stuff was confiscated, depriving them of wealth amounting to almost three billion dollars (1948 dolllar value, try adjusting *that* for current value) and lands larger than the 1948 Israel.
But the people murdered by Stern and Irgun were innocent. Those who lost homes and property were not even indirectly responsible. It's like claiming Catholic farmworkers should be exploited because there are priests who molest children.
It's funny that countries such as Jordan and other, despite supposedly being the same ethnic group, don't actually want these troublemakers.
Yeah. Like why England and Finland weren't asking to accept the whole nation of Croatia in the 90's. Hey! There the same ethnic group. Your racism is vile. "Troublemakers"? They were just born there, descendents of Ancient Greece, Phoenecia, Rome, Egypt, Sumer and - dare I say Judea. But that's "causing trouble".
"Mass aerial bombardment"? And do you actually have anything to support this claim?
Operation Cast Lead
I may be wrong, but isn't it the case that Israel actually provides the water to the West Bank and to Gaza at their own expense, essentially at a loss?
"Here, we stole your aquifers. Aren't we forebaring and even magnanimous in trickling some back, after diverting it to water illegal colonial settlements? Gosh. What's a little matter of war crime, compared to our virtues?"
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Hell. You don't even have to focus on what the Nazis did to the Jews. You could completely ignore the Jews and just focus on what the Nazis did to EVERYONE ELSE.
The Nazis were genocidal dirt bags even if you ignore the Holocaust completely.
That's the astounding part of idiots that try to conflate the Nazis and Israel. They don't just have no clue, they have a negative clue.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I wonder why the IDF is doing this? Are they completely tone-deaf to public opinion?
I support Israel, but sometimes their PR blunders make we wonder what exactly they are thinking....
Just a plain dick move
Was that pun intended?
There have been lots of accounts tweeting history as it happened. Hell, someone is tweeting production pictures from Sean of the Dead on the 10 year anniversary of when they were taken.
"Someone" as in the film's director, Edgar Wright? Oh just a lollygagger who popped round the set now and then, what would he know about making the film?
This is a new one
No it's not.
@CenturyAgoToday
@RealTimeWWII
Neat, though, but certainly not the first.
You are on the wrong side of history, and pretty much all of the nonsense you refer to is coming from you. The Arabs in Palestine were following the orders of the Arab leaders to evacuate. They had been making it clear that a genocide was coming, and who wants get pulled into a genocide? If the Israelis hadn't been able to defend themselves and stop the many attacking Arab armies, it is very possible that any Arabs that had remained behind and ignored the commands to leave would have been killed along with the Jews.
Time Now for a Declaration of Mideast Peace; Doomed Arab Refugees
In ''Semites and Anti-Semites'' (New York, 1986), Bernard W. Lewis quotes (page 270) from the memoirs of Khalid al-Azm, Prime Minister of Syria in 1948-49, listing the factors that led to Israel's success:
''Fifth: the summons of the Arab governments to the population of Palestine to leave the country and take refuge in the neighboring Arab countries . . . this collective flight served the Jews and strengthened their position without effort. . . . Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes when we ourselves were the ones who induced them to leave them. . . . We doomed a million Arab refugees, by calling on them and insisting that they abandon their land, their homes, their work and their occupations, and we made them unemployed and homeless.''
Azzam's Genocidal Threat
An October 11, 1947 report on the pan-Arab summit in the Lebanese town of Aley,[9] by Akhbar al-Yom's editor Mustafa Amin, contained an interview he held with Arab League secretary-general Azzam. Titled, "A War of Extermination," the interview read as follows (translated by Efraim Karsh; all ellipses are in the original text):
Abdul Rahman Azzam Pasha spoke to me about the horrific war that was in the offing saying:
"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre[10] or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine's Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews.
"This war will be distinguished by three serious matters. First—faith: as each fighter deems his death on behalf of Palestine as the shortest road to paradise; second, [the war] will be an opportunity for vast plunder. Third, it will be impossible to contain the zealous volunteers arriving from all corners of the world to avenge the martyrdom of the Palestine Arabs, and viewing the war as dignifying every Arab and every Muslim throughout the world
"The Arab is superior to the Jew in that he accepts defeat with a smile: Should the Jews defeat us in the first battle, we will defeat them in the second or the third battle or the final one whereas one defeat will shatter the Jew's morale! Most desert Arabians take pleasure in fighting. I recall being tasked with mediating a truce in a desert war (in which I participated) that lasted for nine monthsWhile en route to sign the truce, I was approached
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
This is a good general resource: sixdaywar.co.uk
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Here's the Twitter account for the Titanic play by play. I seem to remember there was an earlier one as well.
https://twitter.com/TitanicRealTime
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Ah the 1948 war, where the arabs told the other arabs living in said regions that if they flee, they'll be able to live on the land of the jews that they those arab armies were going to ethnically cleanse.
Ah yes, you're referring to this
The new state of Israel spread the story that all these Palestinians had left under orders from Arab leaders, citing "Arab broadcasts" telling people to move away so that Arab armies could "operate without interference.” There has never been any evidence for this story. Both US and British intelligence services were monitoring all broadcasts during the period, and not a single "Arab broadcast" telling people to leave was recorded. In fact, several Arab broadcasts were recorded telling the population to stay put. Israeli forces, meanwhile, were using threats, violence, and murder to force many Palestinians out of their homes.
It is no longer the official line of the Israeli Foreign Office that Arab leaders ordered Palestinians to leave Palestine.
Besides, I never even understood the reasoning behind this justification to condemn all Palestinians for an alleged radio broadcast supposedly sent from a different Arab country. If you're a civilian and not part of the military, since when does fleeing a region about to become a battlefield even considered a crime? Are you suggesting that non-military people should just stay there, Arab or not, while two armies are supposedly converging on each other?
Well technically it was the Romans at the behest of the Jewish religious leaders. Jesus kept calling them hypocrites and then they proved him right.
There was no cleansing in Jaffa. Predominantly Arabs still live there and have their community intact. Why don't you just visit it, instead of repeating a typical pay per posting propaganda..
There are better sources.
Time Now for a Declaration of Mideast Peace; Doomed Arab Refugees
In ''Semites and Anti-Semites'' (New York, 1986), Bernard W. Lewis quotes (page 270) from the memoirs of Khalid al-Azm, Prime Minister of Syria in 1948-49, listing the factors that led to Israel's success:
''Fifth: the summons of the Arab governments to the population of Palestine to leave the country and take refuge in the neighboring Arab countries . . . this collective flight served the Jews and strengthened their position without effort. . . . Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes when we ourselves were the ones who induced them to leave them. . . . We doomed a million Arab refugees, by calling on them and insisting that they abandon their land, their homes, their work and their occupations, and we made them unemployed and homeless.''
You may want to review this post in this same topic for more information.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I saw what you did there.
Ah the 1948 war, where the arabs told the other arabs living in said regions that if they flee, they'll be able to live on the land of the jews that they those arab armies were going to ethnically cleanse. Never mind that said arab armies did in fact commit cleansing...of their fellow arabs, and in those regions among others. That's not new, news.
The post above is essentially correct, and it shouldn't be down modded.
Time Now for a Declaration of Mideast Peace; Doomed Arab Refugees
In ''Semites and Anti-Semites'' (New York, 1986), Bernard W. Lewis quotes (page 270) from the memoirs of Khalid al-Azm, Prime Minister of Syria in 1948-49, listing the factors that led to Israel's success:
''Fifth: the summons of the Arab governments to the population of Palestine to leave the country and take refuge in the neighboring Arab countries . . . this collective flight served the Jews and strengthened their position without effort. . . . Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes when we ourselves were the ones who induced them to leave them. . . . We doomed a million Arab refugees, by calling on them and insisting that they abandon their land, their homes, their work and their occupations, and we made them unemployed and homeless.''
You may want to review this post in this same topic for more information.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Israel must also know quite clearly that this will be perceived as provocation by their neighbours and after 60 years of continuous conflict
So, if the Arab countries alert their Hebrew reading population to get on the internet and go to that web page, some of them might be offended.... by reading what is in the history books, or more or less in Israeli newspapers? I think that is a bit of a stretch. The only people that are really likely to be offended about this are the people that already hate Israel.
Just a plain dick move.
I think you set the bar a bit low there. What is your reaction to this?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
No. But it does equate to a double standard. A different standard is applied to Israel than to everyone else. What's worse is that the other Arab countries are treating their own people like shit.
Despite your flamebait moderation, you are essentially correct.
As far as a double standard against Israel, the UN is a great example of that.
From: Middle East Quarterly - Winter 2004
The Case for Israel
... The Case For Israel ... Dershowitz points out that a full 27 percent of the U.N.'s country-specific resolutions critical of a state have been directed against it. In contrast, no resolution in the history of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights has condemned Syria, China, Saudi Arabia, or Zimbabwe, all of which are self-evidently far worse violators of human rights. Israel, asserts Dershowitz, has a "far better record on human rights than any other nation in the Middle East and most other nations in the world." As evidence, he notes that "Israel is the only nation in the world whose judiciary actively enforces the rule of law against its military during wartime" and that "Israel has killed fewer innocent civilians in proportion to the number of its own civilians killed than any country engaged in a comparable war."... The Case for Israel
Fighting the Lies Harder Than Fighting the War - Israel does not "deliberately" target civilians.
Regarding the mistreatment of Arabs by Arabs, two interesting cases that immediately come to mind:
Black September - In Context
Hama 1982 – The Syrian massacre you never heard about (Not for those of weak constitution. The SS had nothing on the Syrian Army.)
For some reason you never really hear about those. What makes it doubly interesting is that Black September was specifically against the Palestinian Arabs.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Could be m for macaca, though. That would work in Russian as well.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
It's been pointed out support for Israel among fundamentalist Christians is not driven from a love of freedom but rather the desire to see Biblical prophecy fulfilled wherein the Jewish people have a homeland and nation.
This is an incredibly cynical position because that then portends the coming end of the world.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Firstly... never, ever source the daily mail. It is always wrong.
OK, I exaggerate... it gets the weather right one time out of ten.
The Mail is not a reliable news source, by any standard. You might as well be listening to your neighbour's chicken's cat's banker's lawyer.
Israel's justification for starting the 1967 war is the Eygptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran. Which, for some reason, also entitled them to seize a great deal of surrounding land, most importantly the West Bank.
Except that means that any and all attacks from Hamas or Hezbollah in response to Israel's total blockade of Gaza are completely justified, according to Israeli rules. Just as Israel's possession of a couple hundred nuclear weapons means that they should be threatened with economy-destroying sanctions and military strikes, if Iran is threatened with the same in case they someday decide they want a nuclear weapon.
There is a continual stream of Israeli shill propaganda, and downmods of any critcism of Israel here, its
standard practice for the Israels supporters to use sock puppets accounts, or like you post as AC. If you had any courage in your convictions at all you would post logged in you lying pathetic coward.
Slowly the whole world is waking up to the lies Israel's supporters rely on to get away with their many war crimes. The usual tactic is to scream anti-semitism at any criticism of Israel, but as the generational change occurs less and less people are saddled with irrelevant guilt over the happenings during WW2
eventually true justice must come and the stolen land of Palestine at least partially returned to its rightful owners.
A different standard is applied to Israel than to everyone else.
Yup, like nuclear weapon arming, and massive military investment from the US. The soviet union is long dead.
Victor Suvorov is probably readable if you are into alternative history, but if you are looking for facts, his books are at about the same level as Tom Clancy's pulp fiction.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
there's enough people here that really think that way
Lulz .. it's not my thinking which caused you to misinterpret the post.
You're projecting, with the usual bullshit handwaving and the usual canards to justify the unjustifiable. The formation of Israel was impossible without massive land theft from the native population, from a bunch of immigrants just off the boat from Europe.
Then there's the other bullshit in the form of headscratching that the victims of land theft and ethnic cleansing feel some sort of animosity towards their oppressors. Do you also spend a lot of time yelling at the Sioux for being pissed that the Black Hills were stolen from them? Still calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist because he resisted Apartheid?
Zionism is amoral sociopathy. A sense of entitlement to other people's land and property is bullshit, whether it was the Spaniards, the Pope, or the Germans doing it to Jews, and it's bullshit when Zionists do it to the people who have lived in Palestine for centuries.
You're thinking this revisionist history still flies? Israel started the 1967 war with a sneak attack on the Egyptian Air Force, after Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran. The formation of Israel was impossible without ethnic cleansing and wars of conquest from the people living there, much like the formation of the United States. Except the latter didn't happen a mere 46 years ago.
explore the possibility that the myths of a small tribe in the middle east may have ceased to be relevant as anything other than a historical curiosity
Not as long as religious zealots believe in it. Prophecy is made, people believe in it, hence .. prophecy gets fulfilled. Religion is a whole lot more dangerous than you're giving it credit for. There's never been anything more destructive in human history.
Any particular reason they are choosing to do this?
I am John Hurt.
Israel started the 1967 war with a sneak attack on the Egyptian Air Force, after Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran.
Blockades in international law are acts of war. You have it backwards as usual, but thanks for yielding the point.
The formation of Israel was impossible without ethnic cleansing and wars of conquest from the people living there, much like the formation of the United States.
The Jews that immigrated to Palestine bought land that nobody wanted and developed it. They paid high prices for other land. The Arab leadership had to threaten to kill anybody that sold more land to Jews to reduce the sales as the Jews were paying very good money. As noted in this post, it was Arab leaders that ordered the Arabs of Palestine to leave their homes so that the invading Arab armies could commit genocide. In 1967 the Arabs nations again gathered their armies to commit genocide, and failed, losing land in the process to tiny Israel. You don't really have a good grasp of the history there.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The point is, if you really cared about helping Palestinians, you would focus on helping Palestinians, because flaming Israel isn't going to accomplish much. Israel is the smallest of the Palestinians' problems.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It is propaganda, but it looks to me like they are testing some kind of whole system that does this...maybe it scrapes updates from some kind of internal database of action reports?
Whatever it is, it's like an "API" for tweeting a war...the IDF has been keen on using twitter as part of it's media relations...or propaganda depending on your view...
They had 18 year old IDF draftees posting pics of themselves with their rifles like it was summer camp...hashtaging with #phonecian
The writings of Zev Chafets are instructive here...you *have* to read between the lines, but his books tell it all...ex: in the troubles in the 80s, commanders were told to give everyone in their units Biblical names for when they had to interact with American troops...shit like that...
Thank you Dave Raggett
Hello Orwell. I agree. In the case of the 1967 war I've seen historians who would fully agree that the Israeli generals were fully aware there was no threat of Egyptian attack, but somehow in the end they would keep using the words preemptive strike even if they'd just agreed that was wrong. At the least they could say preventive strike. If you strike whenever it suits you you can always say it's preventive. In a way it always is right, but it is just an euphemism for wars of aggression. The only Israeli or pre-israeli war I would call defensive was the Yom Kippur war, and even that one was completely avoidable . It took many (6) years of taunting the Egyptians. Zeev Maoz wrote a book about it , Defending the Holy Land.
I think you set the bar a bit low there. What is your reaction to this [palwatch.org]?
Israel is a first world nation. Would you reaction be the same if you learned that one of your friend beat his wife and kids rather than some unemployed uneducated alcoholic from the shitty part of town ?
Egypt committed an act of war against Israel. The historians you refer to may not be doing their job properly.
May 23rd 1967
Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran (Gulf of Aqaba ) to Israeli shipping, thereby cutting off Israel’s only supply route with Asia and stopping the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran. By international law, this was an act of war.
There is plenty more at that site, you might want to wander around it.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Israel's justification for starting the 1967 war is the Eygptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran.
So, Israel's justification for attack was an act of war by Egypt? Brilliant!!
Except that means that any and all attacks from Hamas or Hezbollah in response to Israel's total blockade of Gaza are completely justified, according to Israeli rules.
Wrong again. First, it isn't a total blockade. If it was, the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza would not have been able to build a new shopping center, would they? But weapons are being stopped, like the many Iranian rockets being smuggled into Gaza.
Biggest mall in Gaza Strip opens its doors
Second, Gaza is not a nation state, but a territory. It shouldn't be attacking anyone. Any attacks coming from there are either direct aggression by the Hamas government, or terrorism
Third, it doesn't have an army, navy, or air force.
Just as Israel's possession of a couple hundred nuclear weapons means that they should be threatened with economy-destroying sanctions and military strikes, if Iran is threatened with the same in case they someday decide they want a nuclear weapon.
Israel is not a member of the Non Proliferation Treaty, it has no obligations under the treaty, and its possession of nuclear weapons is unproven. Iran is a member, has obligations, and they seem to be in breach of treaty on top of being rebuked by the UN Secretary General for repeatedly threatening Israel's existence. Note that the issue between Israel and Iran is totally Iran's fault. Israel and Iran were allies when the Shah governed Iran. It was only after the Islamic revolution that the new Iranian government declared Israel an enemy to be destroyed. Israel did nothing to warrant that.
So, you continue to side with would-be genocidal aggressors and repeatedly condemn the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, often on specious grounds. For some reason this comes to mind:
Queers for Palestine
No single group better exemplifies the cognitive dissonance on display at these rallies than Queers for Palestine, also known as QUIT -- Queers Undermining Israeli Terror. What is left to say about the fundamental self-contradicting nature of such a group?
In Israel, gays live openly and happily in a free and liberal society. There is a thriving gay scene, just as there is in the United States and many other Western democracies.
But in Palestine -- as in most Islamic countries -- being gay is not only frowned upon, it is a crime often punishable by death. Tales of what life is like for gays in Palestinian society are horrifying in the extreme. In fact, gay youth in Palestine frequently flee to Israel if they can get a chance.
So why in the world would gay activists in the most gay-friendly city on Earth protest against one of the other centers of gay liberation (Israel) and for one of the planet's most violently oppressive homophobic societies?
This is the essence of cognitive dissonance -- the condition of holding two differing beliefs that are so incompatible and contradictory that the only way to internally reconcile them is to, well, go insane (to use the layman's term). Because, try as I might, I can't comprehend any other justification for being a member of QUIT other than insanity. ...more
--------
Which, for some reason, also entitled them to seize a great deal of sur
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Godwin's law states:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
So, far from violating it, GP demonstrates Godwin's law. Faster than usual, but that's probability for you.
There is plenty more than you are aware of. The consensus has always been Israel was defending itself in 1967. That means virtually all the books about that war repeated it.
Except for the silent minority who were better informed. It happens that after a while the minority view gains traction , maybe because it's no longer important to keep silent about it.
There is no straight line between the closing the Straits of Tiran and attacking all the neighboring countries and taking as much land as you can. It's a lawyer's argument. Israel recently bombed Damascus. That's an act of war. Nobody even bothered.
You talk nonsense. People were murdered and their home stolen. After pushing them onto reservation-type camps, they are still subject to things like collective punishments - which include mass aerial bombardment of civilian homes with white phosphorus, or the interruption of potable water.
No actually I'm not talking nonsense, see other posts that have replied to you. And the Arabs went out of their way committing pogoms all over the middle-east, and all those Jews who were forced out have never seen a day's worth of compensation for them. As a useful point, said pogoms started just after the grand mufti came back from Nazi Germany, and the creation of the arab brigade. In turn, arab countries started instituting similar policies.
After all, when you flee from your land on the hope that a group is going to be collectively slaughtered and you get it all, is your own damned fault. Never mind that said palestinians will happily put things like armaments and weapon manufacturing in "civilian homes" which is a war crime, they put weapons and weapon manufacturing in mosques. They launch attacks from the grounds of hospitals, homes, farms, and mosques...again all of which are war crimes. The interruption of potable water is *not* a war crime if you still supply it by another source, which Israel does.
Not only are you ignorant of what's going on now, the last 20 years, but you're ignorant of what's happened in the region 70 or even 100 years ago.
Om, nomnomnom...
So, being cut off from it oil supplier and having a key trade route blocked... no big deal then? That isn't what the Israels' leadership indicated. The Arab nations were quite open about their preparations and intent.
"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." - Gamel Abdel Nasser, May 3oth 1967.
“Those who survive will remain in Palestine. I estimate that none of them will survive.” - Ahmed Shukairy, chairman of PLO in Jordanian Jerusalem, asked in news interview what will happen to the Israelis if there is a war
“All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel” - Cairo Radio
Israel [will] not initiate hostilities “...until or unless (Egyptian forces) close the Straits of Tiran to free navigation by Israel”- Prime Minister Levi Eshkol message to France’s President de Gaulle
source
I am intrigued about your "silent minority." Are they silent because they are sworn to secrecy by the government because they actually know something based on having held official positions? Or, on the other end of the spectrum, are they simply anti-Semitic cranks that find society no longer as hostile to their views so they begin spreading them? When it comes to Israel, either is possible. At the moment I don't have any indication that you are referring to anybody with secret government information, and various countries in Europe, for example, are becoming increasingly hostile to Jews and Israel. I would be interested in any light you care to shed on the matter.
And land? Would that be Sinai that Israel held as a buffer while Egypt was still openly hostile and its leaders threatening genocide? You know the Israelis eventually gave it back in a peace deal? And Gaza, which they unilaterally withdrew from several years ago?
Acts of war come in many sizes, some that will be ignored, and others that almost certainly won't. Bombing a shipment of weapons bound for an enemy in a civil war is one thing. Cutting off an entire nation's fuel and significant trade routes is another.
I hope you aren't throwing in with a bad lot.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
In a way. Matti Peled, Menachim Begin, Yitzhak Rabin, Levi Eshkol. They all have left quotes about what was going on. Do you expect generals to make noise about this except for an offhand quote? Your concern is touching, but the reason you're focusing on the closing of the straits is because the narrative of preemptive war has run dry. Sure, the closing of the straights was a tense situation, but it could be resolved. Or not. It would mean Iran had to go round with its oil. BTW Iran has had the Straights closed to it for 30 years now.
Too many people stopped believing Nasser wanted war. Nobody wanted war with Israel, since it was well understood that Israel could walk over all of its neighbors. The CIA for some odd reason keeps a page on their site about its prewar estimate of how long it would take Israel to completely win a war if they sat down and waited for all their neighbors to attack at once. The estimate was 8 days. That's why when Levi Eshkol sent Abba Eban to the US with the Poor Little Shimshon routine, the US didn't really buy the story.
The son of Matti Peled has not long ago gone public with some of the thinking at that time. Miko Peled on 1967.
My high school English teacher once told me that when you die you come back as the type of person you hate the most. Under this belief most jews probably were nazis in the previous life.
Personally, from that day onwards I decided that I hate rich people. Just in case.
So, Israel's justification for attack was an act of war by Egypt? Brilliant!!
Wrong again. First, it isn't a total blockade. If it was, the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza would not have been able to build a new shopping center, would they? But weapons are being stopped, like the many Iranian rockets being smuggled into Gaza. [haaretz.com]
The egyptian blockade wasn't complete, either. They just let pass whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted. Like Israel does in Gaza.
Second, Gaza is not a nation state, but a territory. It shouldn't be attacking anyone. Any attacks coming from there are either direct aggression by the Hamas government, or terrorism
Labelling. Is anything it can't solve?
Palestine is not a state just because Israel does not want to give up any land grabbed since. They want ALL the land but WITHOUT those filthy arabs. They managed expelling most of them in the 6 days war through a campaign of terror (terrorism, we could call it), but now that people has seen they won't be ever allowed to get back to their former houses the arabs refuse to flee away. From then, it's been sixty years of Israel policy determined to erradicate the muslim population. Sort of gas chambers or forced sterilization they are going to try everything to get rid of the people while keeping their lands. And I don't rule out sterilization completely.
Third, it doesn't have an army, navy, or air force.
Had they, surely they wouldn't resort to shitty homemade missiles. Surely Israel could kindly provide them any?
Israel is not a member of the Non Proliferation Treaty, it has no obligations under the treaty, and its possession of nuclear weapons is unproven. Iran is a member, has obligations, and they seem to be in breach of treaty on top of being rebuked by the UN Secretary General for repeatedly threatening Israel's existence.
Every treaty can be repealed. Acording to artice X of the treaty, a three-month advice is all what it takes. Doing so, however, it would be an admission they are trying to do it and being attacked by Israel and the USA - two countries very well known for it's preemptive strikes tendencies. One could think Iran has the same rights to develop their own nuclear technology without being bombed in the process as South Africa or Israel had, if thinking that were allowed.
Note that the issue between Israel and Iran is totally Iran's fault. Israel and Iran were allies when the Shah governed Iran. It was only after the Islamic revolution that the new Iranian government declared Israel an enemy to be destroyed. Israel did nothing to warrant that.
If you support a dictator you are not a friend of the revolution which overthrows him.
Funny you mention how free and happy is the gay scene at Israel the same day an homophobic crime in Israel hits the news. Face it, Israel is a theocracy, and it's religious leaders are just like those across the borders.
Yes, we expect Israel to act like a liberal, enlightened western democracy. And it bloody well should: Israel was not created to act like a warmongering bully but as a safe haven for Jews escaping ethnic and religious prosecution. They have some of the most impressive cultural and scientific communities in the world and should know better.
And we don't expect that same level of civility or liberalism from Syria or Egypt because why would you. It is a double standard, but not one that Israel should be complaining about, nor one that excuses its behaviour.
Do the same people who are responsible for this initiative also get to make choices involving weapons?
Our desire to influence the politics of the Middle East never had much to do with the USSR. It's always been about oil.
Israel started the 1967 war with a sneak attack on the Egyptian Air Force, after Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran.
Blockades in international law are acts of war. You have it backwards as usual, but thanks for yielding the point.
It depends - sometimes it's legal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade#Act_of_war
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
So I may be full of self-loathing but at least I'm effectively immortal.
404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
Yup, like nuclear weapon arming, and massive military investment from the US. The soviet union is long dead.
Funny, I don't see anything there about a long history of genocidal threats and intended genocide by the Arab Nations surrounding Israel. Some of those noted here in this same discussion. I also don't see any mention of Iran's continuing veiled and unveiled threats of genocide against Israel which led not long ago to a rebuke by the Secretary General of the UN.
US military aid to Israel is a minor fraction of its defense budget. At times it has been used to coax Israel into doing things against its interest and in the interest of the US. One example: during the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq, the US sent a Patriot missile battery to Israel to help defend it against Iraqi Scud missile so Israel would not counter-attack Iraq after Iraq attacked Israel.
The Soviet Union may be long dead, but hatred on the part of many Muslims of Jews lives on as part of their religion. Muslims that have never met a Jew in their life are willing to kill them.
Of course Muslims aren't the only ones to have a problem with Israel.
The European Left and Its Trouble With Jews
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
It's bad form for such a peace loving and friendly nation to focus their attention on war, even if it is out of respect for those innocent people who died.
Yes, yes it would be, if such a nation were to be involved in this. Sadly, I don't think any of them are. Who's principally involved in this conflict? The primary principals hardly need naming, then there's the UK for their involvement and the US for ours. Which of these nations do you believe deserves the label "peace loving and friendly"?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The Nazis were genocidal dirt bags even if you ignore the Holocaust completely.
You haven't read much of the Bible, have you?
That aside, the history of that region is chock-full of the people of A killing B, and the people of B killing A, repeat ad infinitum.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Zionism is amoral sociopathy.
You hit it on the head.
It is the moral equivalent of American "Manifest Destiny", the annexation of Silesia, and colonial rule of Congo, Kenya and Nigeria.
I'm always with the Cherokee and the Mau-Maus.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
"This is a new one, twitter as a form of historical reenactment:
No it's not, Duxford Air Museum, which was a major air base during WWII tweeted the fighter sortie logs from the Battle of Britain on the relevent days in summer 2010.
http://www.airshows.org.uk/news/2010/04/raf-duxfords-battle-of-britain-operations-are-brought-to-life-through-the-power-of-twitter/
I actually found it remarkably moving subscribing to that feed. Far more than just watching television shows about the same period, you would often get reports of new aircraft/pilots arriving at base, maybe notice the same name showing up in lots of logs about hits or kills against enemy aircraft, then a simple statement about the same pilot killed or missing in action.
The logs were a perfect document to tweet because they were short single line statements of engagements and base arrivals and departures drawn up after sorties by ground personnel.
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
Yeah. an Orange-grove ghetto, in Tel Aviv.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Sorry, the acquisition of territory by force is impermissible. Israel has no more claim to the West Bank and East Jerusalem than Germany had to Poland and France. People have a right to return to their own homes, no matter why they left them. Israel's plan all along was to take their land and give it to the state so it can be administered by the JNF, a racist organization that only leases land to Jews.
It's not like Israel's intentions are pure, given their stated goal to turn the place into a homeland for people from Europe and America and witnessing the last 45 years of ethnic cleansing. You may not like it, bit it is Israel that is engaged in genocide. They are slowly destroying the Palestinians so their land can be held in trust for Jews. You'll have to face the fact that Zionism is the exact same type of blood and soil nationalism as Nazism.
Christ, I know the Mail, Telegraph and Express.
But? That's know different than NYT, the Times, Observer or Guardian. Differentiation is just which socioeconomic bracket they aim the stream of sewage at.
It was all over, when Guardian left Manchester, really. Now the most astute british commentary on world and domestic events come from comedians. Wait. I guess that may have always been so.
Still, seeing that the only people who got Woolrich right, and with any nuance, were Stephen Fry and... Russell Brand!?!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
When my kids are fighting for the same toy, I would take the toy away from both of them. If they don't learn how to play nice, neither of them get the toy. The solution is obvious to me, if both parties couldn't play nice living on the same piece of land, nuke it. No one get it :-) The world will be peace again. No?
Yes, we expect Israel to act like a liberal, enlightened western democracy.
If they did that, with no further requirements on how everybody else in the ME acts, then they would cease to exist. So that's dumb.
Here's one Western democracy's views: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Although the phrase echoes statements made by Lincoln, and although versions of the sentiment have been advanced at various times in American history, the precise phrase "suicide pact" was first used by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The phrase also appears in the same context in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision written by Justice Arthur Goldberg.
Thomas Jefferson offered one of the earliest formulations of the sentiment, although not of the phrase. In 1803, Jefferson's ambassadors to France arranged the purchase of the Louisiana territory in conflict with Jefferson's personal belief that the Constitution did not bestow upon the federal government the right to acquire or possess foreign territory. Due to political considerations, however, Jefferson disregarded his constitutional doubts, signed the proposed treaty, and sent it to the Senate for ratification. In justifying his actions, he later wrote: "[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."
tldr; liberal values are nice to have, but you have to know when to put them away
But the people murdered by Stern and Irgun were innocent. Those who lost homes and property were not even indirectly responsible.
You can't hold one side of a conflict to a different standard than another in the pursuit of justice. Any proposal to correct injustices done by Israel, without a corresponding correction to other parties, is simply compounding the injustice. And as time goes on and the generations change, it becomes a new injustice to hold the new generation responsible for any perceived crimes of the past.
"Troublemakers"? They were just born there, descendents of Ancient Greece, Phoenecia, Rome, Egypt, Sumer and - dare I say Judea. But that's "causing trouble".
What are you talking about? People are troublemakers for making trouble (like engaging in terrorism), not their ancestry.
I also don't see any mention of Iran's continuing veiled and unveiled threats of genocide against Israel which led not long ago to a rebuke by the Secretary General of the UN.
Equating genocide with regime change is a bit disingenuous. Way to perpetuate ignorance.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
The formation of Israel was impossible without massive land theft from the native population
Apparently it's not impossible because that's what happened.
Do you also spend a lot of time yelling at the Sioux for being pissed that the Black Hills were stolen from them?
If Native Americans were regularly engaging in terrorism and justifying it based on some "stolen land" argument, I suspect a lot of people would be yelling at them.
Still calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist because he resisted Apartheid?
Guess what, someone isn't a terrorist depending on whether you agree with their goals, they're a terrorist based on what they do. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.
A sense of entitlement to other people's land and property is bullshit
Haha, I actually agree with that. So now that the Jews control the land, it's bullshit for the Palestinians to have a sense of entitlement to it. And if not now (because I can sense you're gonna impose some arbitrary time limit), then they just have to plug their ears and wait a century or two. Then the Jews will have lived there for centuries and the amoral sociopathic Palestinians will be the ones with a false sense of entitlement.
and its possession of nuclear weapons is unproven
I like keeping my head in the sand as well. We should hang out sometime.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
I really should've read the rest of your comment before posting.
This is quite possibly the most biased, ignorant, and misinformative post I've ever seen on this subject.
And that's saying a lot.
Of all the half-truths you mention, I can't help but be amazed by your talk of the Shah? Really? You grant legitimacy to the Iranian puppet government installed by the USA? And you expect people to take you seriously?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Your problem is that you are single-focusedly trying to attack Israel. It's not a matter of logic, it's a matter of you looking like you have mental health issues.
From appearances, when you 'examine' historical and moral issues, all you can see is the wrong done by Israel. It's not clear you are capable of objectiveness; until then there's no point discussing it with you more deeply.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No, I was equating genoide with genocide - the extermination of a people. Not sure how you failed to understand that.
Israel has long suffered threats of genocide against it by Middle East leaders. You can see a couple of them in this discussion in this post.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
That's an interesting idea. I'd kinda like to follow it, but my Hebrew isn't *quite* that good. Okay, my Hebrew is nowhere near that good. I still need a lexicon just to read basic gradeschool-level stuff, *with* the vowel pointings, and without vowel pointings I am completely lost.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
That's funny, I didn't see a single instance of the string "Iran" in the post you linked to. Perhaps you provided the wrong URL?
Also, I failed to understand that you were equating genocide with genocide because you brought up Iran, which hasn't threatened genocide against Israel, but has threatened regime change. The fact that western media has widely misrepresented this (by disseminating mistranslations of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad along the lines of "wipe Israel from the map", etc.) is what led me to believe that this is what you were making reference to. If my assumption was incorrect, and you were instead referring to an actual case where Iran did threaten Israel with genocide, I apologize and eagerly await a reputable citation.
Hopefully this clarification has enabled you to be sure of the reasons for my lack of understanding.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Guess the 100,000+ killed by americans in Iraq dont count. Seek help for your delusions man.
The vast majority of the people killed in Iraq were either killed by terrorist attacks ( bombs in shopping markets, that sort of thing) or by extremist militias.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Yes, you neverminded the fact that Israel started the war with a sneak attack on Egypt, with forces of it's own that it had been assembling for some time. Any reason why that is?
Based on your link it looks like it can be a legal act of maritime war (as in, it's not a war crime to blockade a nation you're at war with). I don't see where it says it can be legal as in the blockaded country is "not allowed" to take military action against it.
That spark — the claim that Israel had been massing troops near the Syrian border — was a Soviet lie, and everybody knew it. The Egyptian chief of staff personally inspected that border, the Syrians themselves sent reconnaissance planes. They found nothing and discarded the claim. Eshkol even suggested to the Soviet ambassador to jointly inspect the Israeli side of the border — he declined.
Neither in Israel nor Syria did foreign press report any mobilization, which on any larger scale would have been absolutely unconcealable.
Yet on the 15th May — Israel's Day of Independence — Nasser announced a military emergency and started to sent the first two armored divisions into Sinai.
Nasser expelled the UN troops on the 16th May. Israel started partial mobilization only on that same day, full on the 19th.
By the 17th, Egypt ordered its armed forces to take up battle positions in Sinai.
By then three Egyptian divisions with more than 600 tanks had began fanning out through it. Damascus was simultaneously mobilizing 50 cadet battalions, Iraqi brigades were moving towards their Jordanian border. Kuwait, Yemen and Algeria announced readiness to dispatch troops and planes.
(Ultimately it would be 1,300 Israeli tanks vs 2,500 Arab ones, 746 artillery vs 2,780, 247 fighter jets vs 557, etc.)
As late as on the 20th, Israelis tried to get De Gaulle mediate with the Soviets, and requested Washington to make good on Eisenhower's 1957 declaration to demonstratively send a warship through Tiran — no response was forthcoming.
His successor Sadat would later recall Nasser's own words: "Now, with the concentration of our force in Sinai the chances of war are fifty-fifty but if we close the Straits, war will be a 100 per cent certain."
Nasser would close said straits, recognized in 1957 by the maritime nations as international waterway, to Israeli shipping on the 22th.
In a speech before unionists on the 26th, Nasser would boast: "The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel."
No Israeli PM would ever say anything like this.
Nor would Israeli troops ever publicly march through Tel Aviv chanting "We are off to Cairo."
So you're admitting that since blockades are an act of war, attacks in response to the blockades of Gaza (and now Iran) are totally justified by Israeli rules?
Brilliant!
Of course it's a total blockade. Nothing gets in without Israel's approval - that's why they murdered people on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla for daring to bring in food and supplies.
Ooo! A shopping mall! Have they rebuilt all the homes destroyed in Cast Lead? If you are shot by an IDF sniper for shits and giggles can you get a wheelchair promptly? How fast will your recovery be while you're being starved, I mean put "on a diet"?
See, this is the problem with trying to justify the unjustifiable - you end up using ad hoc bullshit that will have you squawking with butthurt the second it's turned on you.
So:
If Arabs had done to Jewish settlers in 1947 what Israel has spent the last decades doing to the Palestinians, you would have been just fine with that because there was no Jewish nation-state at the time. You would have been okay with ethnic cleansing, Apartheid, periodic bombings, and fucking starving the Jews. Because there was no Jewish nation-state.
Squawk.
Then there's your other problem: your canard is out of date, since the U.N. voted to give Palestinians status as a non-member state. If you argue that vote changes nothing, then you're also arguing that Israel is not a legitimate state, just because settlers went before the U.N. in the late 40's to ask for nation status.
Squawk.
Is batshit irrelevant to America's and Israel's illegal threats against Iran, as both the U.S. and Israel admit that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.
Who do you think you're even trying to kid here? Mordechai Vanunu?
Even you know you're in outer space here. There's Israel - maker of dozens of first strikes and wars of choice - making constant threats against Iran - who hasn't attacked another country in two centuries. And you're citing the Shah, seriously? The brutal, torture loving dictator?
You mean the liberal democracy Iran had until it was destroyed by Israel's sugar daddies, the U.S. and Britain? Outer. Space. And calling Israel a "liberal democracy" is laughable on it's face when it's dependent on Apartheid to stay in power.
More bullshit canards, you mean? Uganda has never been friendly to gays, therefore there was nothin
Halfwitted wishful thinking at it's poorest.
Hey, look, you left out the part where Israel lied about being attacked first.
Because Israel, the most powerful and belligerent military force in the region, has never moved troops or weapons in preparation of possible war with it's neighbors or made threats to do so. Like it's been doing to Iran, over the nuclear weapons program that Israel admits that Iran doesn't actually have.
But even buying your selective timeline, nothing changes the fact that Israel struck first, which means Israel started the war.
Oh, and then there's the almost inconsequential fact that Israelis admit they didn't expect to be attacked by Israel, making the whole operation a land-grabbing war of choice for Israel. Whoopsie doopsie.
Now you can stick that in your ignorant pipe and smoke it.
@RealTimeWWII has been doing this meme for years. I like it, fairly educational in a few ways. And relatively neutral.
From the same link:
"Whether or do not a blockade was seen as lawful depended on the laws of the nations whose trade was influenced by the blockade. The Brazilian blockade of Río de la Plata in 1826, for instance, was considered lawful according to British law"
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
In some alternate universe where Jews made up 90% of the area's population in 1900, rather than less than 10%? Where the Jews in 1948 (still a small minority) weren't just off the boat from Europe? Where Israel became a Jewish state by majority vote, including Palestinians, rather than via a war of conquest?
The formation of Israel was no more possible without land theft and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians than the formation of the United States was possible without land theft and ethnic cleansing from the Native Americans.
WHOOSH. Of course every single attack from Native American's would have been called "terrorist attacks", if they used the same language then that we do now. But then as now, the occupiers cannot whine when the victims of land theft and systematic oppression dare to fight back.
Then the United States is the greatest terrorist state on the planet, followed by Israel.
Oh, I doubt that.
So it was bullshit for Jews to go after Swiss banks and Nazi guards for actions that happened before the formation of Israel, much less the 1967 war? Or are you going for some "arbitrary time limit"?
Hey, look, you left out the part where Israel lied about being attacked first.
And you omitted that little fact that this claim came in the Security Council meeting on June 5, the day the war actually started, or about three weeks after the 15th.
Because Israel, the most powerful and belligerent military force in the region, has never moved troops or weapons in preparation of possible war with it's neighbors or made threats to do so. Like it's been doing to Iran, over the nuclear weapons program that Israel admits that Iran doesn't actually have.
A total movement of 100,000 troops and hundreds of tanks outside of war, together with a multitude of other belligerent actions (again, eg. expelling the UN, closing the Straits) — no, it had not done that. Moreover, prior to the later 70s, Israel by no means was "the most powerful" military force — sure, it always had the superior and more competent personnel, but material-wise it was absolutely outgunned, which without decisive maneuvers (heavily relying on surprise, like to destroy the entire Egyptian air force on the ground) could have readily resulted in its defeat — as Egypt and Syria would show in 1973: That war could have easily resulted in their (partial) military victory had Egypt not made the idiotic decision to step outside of its SAM umbrella and Syria similarly not run out of such missiles.
But even buying your selective timeline, nothing changes the fact that Israel struck first, which means Israel started the war.
One notices how you shifted the topic from Israel's rationale to who started the war, and how you quietly dropped that "assembling for some time" claim — "whoopsie doopsie" indeed. Moreover, fog of war almost always leads to misreadings of the situation, particularly in a country that remembers how all of its neighbors invaded the day after its declaration of independence.
Oh, and then there's the almost inconsequential fact that Israelis admit they didn't expect to be attacked by Israel, making the whole operation a land-grabbing war of choice for Israel. Whoopsie doopsie.
Yeah, like when it returned the Sinai in exchange for a proper peace deal with Egypt years later, or how it emphatically urged Jordan to stay out of the 1967 war — which joined the fray after falling for Egypt's lies about fantastic military victories.
Now you can stick that in your ignorant pipe and smoke it.
Hear, hear!
Oh great, are you one of those people who also claim, "only white people can be racist?"
I am definitely not going to claim Israel is without fault, I'm advocating for looking at the whole picture.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Comparing modern day Israeli actions to the Nazi atrocities redefines and systematically erases the true depravity, hatred, and atrocities the Nazi's committed against not only Jews but anyone else who got in their way.
In some alternate universe where Jews made up 90% of the area's population in 1900, rather than less than 10%?
Nope not an alternate universe, of course I'm referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine
Where Israel became a Jewish state by majority vote, including Palestinians, rather than via a war of conquest?
War of conquest is legitimate.. but in any case as I'm sure you know it was British territory at the time and they pretty much gave the Jews a state out of pity for the Holocaust.
As to why the British were "allowed" to do what they wanted with land they conquered, see yourself: "A sense of entitlement to other people's land and property is bullshit"
WHOOSH. Of course every single attack from Native American's would have been called "terrorist attacks", if they used the same language then that we do now. But then as now, the occupiers cannot whine when the victims of land theft and systematic oppression dare to fight back.
I think you got confused with present and past tenses. If NOW, TODAY, the Sioux were regularly engaging in terrorism and justifying it based on some "stolen land" argument, I suspect a lot of people would be yelling at them.
I never called people who fought against Israel in 1948 terrorists.
Then the United States is the greatest terrorist state on the planet, followed by Israel.
That's not far off, actually, but I think it depends on how you define "greatest". Since the US is the biggest, most powerful, and richest country, and has the biggest military and probably the biggest intelligence agencies (budget-wise), it probably commits the most state terrorism. The US definitely does stupid stuff. Hell right now we're giving weapons to Syrian rebels who are terrorists. So that's state-supported terrorism.
That said, if you consider our total capacity (destroying the world) compared to what we actually do (arm terrorists in places we don't care about), it's a tiny ratio.
Compare that to Taliban Afghanistan. Their total capacity is small, but they dedicated a lot of that capacity to terrorism. So who's the "greater" terrorist?
I'd say that in both absolute and relative terms, though, Israel engages in less terrorism than the US simply because it isn't involved in as many countries or movements around the world.
So it was bullshit for Jews to go after Swiss banks and Nazi guards for actions that happened before the formation of Israel, much less the 1967 war? Or are you going for some "arbitrary time limit"?
Ummmm I'm not sure how that follows from what we were talking about regarding control of land. Did Nazi guards even exist at the point you're talking about? What land did they still control that the Jews wanted back?
Anyway, if you're talking about crime and punishment in general, victims deserve justice if they can identify the actual criminals involved. What you don't get to do is hurt innocent people because you were hurt in the past. For instance imagine some Jew today saying "My parents were hurt by Germany in general, so today in 2013 I want to reclaim all my family land in Germany, and any Germans living there have to get out." You know why it's different? The Germans living in your old house right now probably had nothing to do with it, especially 70 years down the road as we are. Even if the great grandson of Hitler himself is living in your old house, he had nothing to do with it.
A less emotional example might be a modern foreclosure victim who was foreclosed on in error. Say the bank already sold the house and someone else is living there and raising a family. If you prove that your house was taken away from you unfairly, what should happen? I don't think you have a right to throw out the family who lives there. The bank made the mistake, th