Who started the 67 war?

[Rigby5]

Israel was attacked first.

They are always attacked first.

Every act of war by Israel is in direct retaliation for attacks against them.

Anyone who writes or says otherwise are disseminating deliberate misinformation.

Wrong.
It is impossible for Israel to have been attacked first, since the Israeli assault on the Egyptian airfields was a sneak attack, no one suspected or was prepared for.

 

[Rigby5]

Israel warned Egypt that closing the Straits of Tiran would be considered an act of war. Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran, signed a defensive pact with Jordan, and deployed a massive military force on the Israeli border.

Being surrounded by Egypt, Jordan and Syria made a pre-emptive strike against Egypt, and destroying their Air Force, the only logical option.

That is a lie.
The Straits of Tiran are perfectly legal to close to miliary activity since it is all within Egyptian territory of 12 miles.
It is not a legal act of war to close the straits, and Israel would be required to lodges a complaint with the international commission.
There also was NO "massive miliary force on the Israeli border".
We know that for sure because the Israeli forces invading the Sinai ran into no resistance at all.
If there had been a massive force in the Sinai, then the last thing Israel would have done is attack, since defense if always a 2 to 1 advantage over attacking.

 

[Rigby5]

Exactly

Exactly wrong.
There was absolutely no justification at all for the 67 war except that Israel illegally wanted to steal Jerusalem.

 

[surada]

Israel warned Egypt that closing the Straits of Tiran would be considered an act of war. Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran, signed a defensive pact with Jordan, and deployed a massive military force on the Israeli border.

Being surrounded by Egypt, Jordan and Syria made a pre-emptive strike against Egypt, and destroying their Air Force, the only logical option.

The Straits of Tiran route served Israel's only port on the Gulf of Aqaba, Eilat. However, this had limited economic relevance prior to 1956 – construction of the Port of Eilat was only begun in 1952, and was only able to take oceangoing vessels from March 1956. Prior to this point, an average of only two vessels per year travelled to Eilat.

 

[Rigby5]

Israel's expansionism? For clarification, where do you delineate Israel's borders and by what document or rule of law?

Israel has no legal existence at all since the whole point of the British Mandate for Palestine was only to reward the Palestinians for helping Lawrence of Arabia.
The legal existence of an Arab Palestine comes from the Treaty of Sevres, the Treaty of San Remo, the principle of local autonomy, and the principle of self determination.
Israel has no justification because they are almost all illegal immigrants who never paid for any properties.

You could delineate Israel's borders at the 1948 UN partition, but Israel forfeit that by murdering tens of thousands of native Arab when Menachim Begin started wiping out Arab villages like Deir Yassin.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Palestinians were never asked nor involved - tell me all about their supposed government and leaders in e.g. 1947 !!
Again - when was the PLO formed and WHY?

The Arab-League rejected the UN partition plan - via simply insisting that those "illegal Zionist immigrants" had no rights towards British Mandated Palestine. But that is was Arab-Muslim territory - were the vast majority of the population were Palestinian-Arabs, and Bedouins.

Go and finally get some history books - and READ them.

Your posts are dull, stupid, besides the point and only show your total illiteracy towards the entire subject.

The Palestinians were never asked nor involved -

Sure, they were. The Jews were building a government, to run the land they'd get.
The Brits told the Arabs to do the same. The Arabs whined that it was unfair and so
they decided not to participate in the partition.

tell me all about their supposed government and leaders in e.g. 1947 !!

The whiney twats didn't have one. Too busy whining to do the work.

The Arab-League rejected the UN partition plan

No kidding. What's the deal with Arab whiney bitches?

But that is was Arab-Muslim territory - were the vast majority of the population were Palestinian-Arabs, and Bedouins.

And they got the vast majority of the land. All of Jordan and about half of the rest.
Then they got their asses kicked and lost a chunk of that in 1948. The rest in 1967.

 

[Shusha]

The legal existence of an Arab Palestine comes from the Treaty of Sevres, the Treaty of San Remo, the principle of local autonomy, and the principle of self determination.

Wait. You mean this San Remo Conference?

ARTICLE 2.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

Dude. Don't @ me. It was a rhetorical question.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong.
It is impossible for Israel to have been attacked first, since the Israeli assault on the Egyptian airfields was a sneak attack, no one suspected or was prepared for.

That was awesome!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly wrong.
There was absolutely no justification at all for the 67 war except that Israel illegally wanted to steal Jerusalem.

Stealing the capital of Israel, just awful! DURR.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Israel has no legal existence at all since the whole point of the British Mandate for Palestine was only to reward the Palestinians for helping Lawrence of Arabia.
The legal existence of an Arab Palestine comes from the Treaty of Sevres, the Treaty of San Remo, the principle of local autonomy, and the principle of self determination.
Israel has no justification because they are almost all illegal immigrants who never paid for any properties.

You could delineate Israel's borders at the 1948 UN partition, but Israel forfeit that by murdering tens of thousands of native Arab when Menachim Begin started wiping out Arab villages like Deir Yassin.

Israel has no legal existence at all since the whole point of the British Mandate for Palestine was only to reward the Palestinians for helping Lawrence of Arabia.

How much help were a few whiny pussies?

 

[Shusha]

Correct - it will be up to the UNSC (with those veto buggers) to get a binding decision done.

The UNSC does not have the legal authority to create international borders between states. Or create states. Or dissolve states. You are still operating from a legally untenable position.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Straits of Tiran route served Israel's only port on the Gulf of Aqaba, Eilat. However, this had limited economic relevance prior to 1956 – construction of the Port of Eilat was only begun in 1952, and was only able to take oceangoing vessels from March 1956. Prior to this point, an average of only two vessels per year travelled to Eilat.

How important was it in 1967?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is a lie.
The Straits of Tiran are perfectly legal to close to miliary activity since it is all within Egyptian territory of 12 miles.
It is not a legal act of war to close the straits, and Israel would be required to lodges a complaint with the international commission.
There also was NO "massive miliary force on the Israeli border".
We know that for sure because the Israeli forces invading the Sinai ran into no resistance at all.
If there had been a massive force in the Sinai, then the last thing Israel would have done is attack, since defense if always a 2 to 1 advantage over attacking.

If there had been a massive force in the Sinai, then the last thing Israel would have done is attack, since defense if always a 2 to 1 advantage over attacking.​

What military force did Egypt have in the Sinai?

 

[eagle1462010]

Exactly wrong.
There was absolutely no justification at all for the 67 war except that Israel illegally wanted to steal Jerusalem.

BS Nassar was bragging about his shiney army and how he was gonna destroy Israel.

Got his ass smacked.

 

[USAF 2023]

Correct - it will be up to the UNSC (with those veto buggers) to get a binding decision done.

Just the USA simply being the only country on the planet - that recognizes all these breaches of international law and therefore clearly demonstrates it's defiance (arrogance) towards UNGA resolutions (but constantly calls onto them if they fit the US agenda) - will eventually lead to the USA being isolated in the UN (Exactly as to what e.g. China, Russia, India, Brazil etc. are counting on or hoping for) - Biden "and the US elitist circles" (includes all US political factions) are fully aware of that - and therefore they are getting very "nervous". aka less Israel supportive.

Israel exists and there is no doubt about it in my mind. It is therefore futile IMO to discuss about it's right to exist.
Either Israel finds a way to accept a two State solution - on what ever territory Israel and the Palestinians agree upon. Or IMO - to avoid the destruction of Israel - they would need to find a way, to finally live together in ONE COUNTRY.

Since independently - neither Lebanon nor Syria will ever accept the occupation and illegal annexation of their territory by Israel. And presently, countries like Iran and very likely also Saudi-Arabia or Turkey, will be very happy to support organizations that promise harm towards Israel - e.g. Hamas and many others.

Please tell us why Olmert’s Peace Proposal was rejected?

 

[Kruska]

Israel has no legal existence at all since the whole point of the British Mandate for Palestine was only to reward the Palestinians for helping Lawrence of Arabia.
The legal existence of an Arab Palestine comes from the Treaty of Sevres, the Treaty of San Remo, the principle of local autonomy, and the principle of self determination.
Israel has no justification because they are almost all illegal immigrants who never paid for any properties.

You could delineate Israel's borders at the 1948 UN partition, but Israel forfeit that by murdering tens of thousands of native Arab when Menachim Begin started wiping out Arab villages like Deir Yassin.

Slight correction - actually Israel has, simply due to the fact "thanks foremost to the USA" that the UN recognized Israel as a member state.
The only issue remaining is the territory that Israel claims to be theirs.

 

[Kruska]

Wait. You mean this San Remo Conference?

ARTICLE 2.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

Dude. Don't @ me. It was a rhetorical question.

Never signed nor acknowledge by any Arab or Muslim country. Nor was any Arab country nor its representative present.

Validity for Arabs? NONE
Validity for Palestinians? NONE

Validity for the "The League of Nations" ?
There were 41 member states as of Januray 1920, and the San Remo Conference on April 1920 was attended and decided upon only by 6 States: - Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Greece and Belgium.
The primary objective of this conference was the Mandate distribution of former Ottoman controlled territory, e.g. between France and Britain.

When King Fayṣal of Damascus opposed the French Mandate over Syria, he was expelled by the French Army.

 

[Kruska]

The UNSC does not have the legal authority to create international borders between states. Or create states. Or dissolve states. You are still operating from a legally untenable position.

Off course it has: that is why it is called SECURITY council.

Who do you think tried to pass a resolution in view of the Ukraine-Russia issue - e.g. recognizing or not of Russia's annexation of Crimea? Logically a resolution couldn't be passed it that regard due to Russia this time making use of it's veto right.
The Gaza ceasefire and conflict is presently - a matter dealt with by the UNSC - and is stuck due to the USA making use of its veto right.

Any country—even if it is not a member of the UN—may bring a dispute to which it is a party to the attention of the Security Council. When there is a complaint, the council first explores the possibility of a peaceful resolution. International peacekeeping forces may be authorized to keep warring parties apart pending further negotiations. If the council finds that there is a real threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression (as defined by Article 39 of the UN Charter), it may call upon UN members to apply diplomatic or economic sanctions. If these methods prove inadequate, the UN Charter allows the Security Council to take military action against the offending country.

A border or territorial dispute is exactly what the UNSC is about - BINDING decisions in order to avoid or stop a war.

 

[surada]

The Palestinians were never asked nor involved -

Sure, they were. The Jews were building a government, to run the land they'd get.
The Brits told the Arabs to do the same. The Arabs whined that it was unfair and so
they decided not to participate in the partition.

tell me all about their supposed government and leaders in e.g. 1947 !!

The whiney twats didn't have one. Too busy whining to do the work.

The Arab-League rejected the UN partition plan

No kidding. What's the deal with Arab whiney bitches?

But that is was Arab-Muslim territory - were the vast majority of the population were Palestinian-Arabs, and Bedouins.

And they got the vast majority of the land. All of Jordan and about half of the rest.
Then they got their asses kicked and lost a chunk of that in 1948. The rest in 1967.

In the Ottoman census of 1870 there were a half million Muslims, 55,000 Jews and 70,000 Christians. They didn't count the Bedouin. Most Arabs including Palestinians lived in towns and villages. They weren't nomads. You're showing your ignorance.

 

[Kruska]

If there had been a massive force in the Sinai, then the last thing Israel would have done is attack, since defense if always a 2 to 1 advantage over attacking.​

What military force did Egypt have in the Sinai?

Read a book or two - there is also an internet