I will not Bow!

[Phoenall]

No, historians wrote it as a pre emptive strike because that's what is was. Do you think Israel just assumed that they were going to be attacked?? They had intelligence that Egypt was planning a strike on them.

provide us with an un-biased source...Do you think that if Egypt attacked the results would have differed significantly?

Of course not!

Like this :-

The Six Day War

The Six-Day War took place in June 1967. The Six-Day War was fought between June 5th and June 10th. The Israelis defended the war as a preventative military effort to counter what the Israelis saw as an impending attack by Arab nations that surrounded Israel. The Six-Day War was initiated by General Moshe Dayan, the Israeli’s Defence Minister.

The war was against Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Israel believed that it was only a matter of time before the three Arab states co-ordinated a massive attack on Israel. After the 1956 Suez Crisis, the United Nations had established a presence in the Middle East, especially at sensitive border areas. The United Nations was only there with the agreement of the nations that acted as a host to it. By May 1967, the Egyptians had made it clear that the United Nations was no longer wanted in the Suez region. Gamal Nasser, leader of Egypt, ordered a concentration of Egyptian military forces in the sensitive Suez zone. This was a highly provocative act and the Israelis only viewed it one way – that Egypt was preparing to attack. The Egyptians had also enforced a naval blockade which closed off the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping.

Rather than wait to be attacked, the Israelis launched a hugely successful military campaign against its perceived enemies. The air forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq were all but destroyed on June 5th. By June 7th, many Egyptian tanks had been destroyed in the Sinai Desert and Israeli forces reached the Suez Canal. On the same day, the whole of the west bank of the Jordan River had been cleared of Jordanian forces. The Golan Heights were captured from Syria and Israeli forces moved 30 miles into Syria itself.

The war was a disaster for the Arab world and temporarily weakened the man who was seen as the leader of the Arabs – Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt. The war was a military disaster for the Arabs but it was also a massive blow to the Arabs morale. Here were four of the strongest Arab nations systematically defeated by just one nation.

The success of the campaign must have surprised the Israelis. However, it also gave them a major problem that was to prove a major problem for the Israeli government for decades. By capturing the Sinai, the Golan Heights and the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Israelis had captured for themselves areas of great strategic value. However, the West Bank also contained over 600,000 Arabs who now came under Israeli administration. Their plight led many young Arabs into joining the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), a group that the Israelis deemed a terrorist organisation. Israeli domestic policies became a lot more complicated after the military successes of June 1967.

 

[pbel]

No, historians wrote it as a pre emptive strike because that's what is was. Do you think Israel just assumed that they were going to be attacked?? They had intelligence that Egypt was planning a strike on them.

provide us with an un-biased source...Do you think that if Egypt attacked the results would have differed significantly?

Of course not!

Like this :-

The Six Day War

The Six-Day War took place in June 1967. The Six-Day War was fought between June 5th and June 10th. The Israelis defended the war as a preventative military effort to counter what the Israelis saw as an impending attack by Arab nations that surrounded Israel. The Six-Day War was initiated by General Moshe Dayan, the Israeli’s Defence Minister.

The war was against Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Israel believed that it was only a matter of time before the three Arab states co-ordinated a massive attack on Israel. After the 1956 Suez Crisis, the United Nations had established a presence in the Middle East, especially at sensitive border areas. The United Nations was only there with the agreement of the nations that acted as a host to it. By May 1967, the Egyptians had made it clear that the United Nations was no longer wanted in the Suez region. Gamal Nasser, leader of Egypt, ordered a concentration of Egyptian military forces in the sensitive Suez zone. This was a highly provocative act and the Israelis only viewed it one way – that Egypt was preparing to attack. The Egyptians had also enforced a naval blockade which closed off the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping.

Rather than wait to be attacked, the Israelis launched a hugely successful military campaign against its perceived enemies. The air forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq were all but destroyed on June 5th. By June 7th, many Egyptian tanks had been destroyed in the Sinai Desert and Israeli forces reached the Suez Canal. On the same day, the whole of the west bank of the Jordan River had been cleared of Jordanian forces. The Golan Heights were captured from Syria and Israeli forces moved 30 miles into Syria itself.

The war was a disaster for the Arab world and temporarily weakened the man who was seen as the leader of the Arabs – Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt. The war was a military disaster for the Arabs but it was also a massive blow to the Arabs morale. Here were four of the strongest Arab nations systematically defeated by just one nation.

The success of the campaign must have surprised the Israelis. However, it also gave them a major problem that was to prove a major problem for the Israeli government for decades. By capturing the Sinai, the Golan Heights and the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Israelis had captured for themselves areas of great strategic value. However, the West Bank also contained over 600,000 Arabs who now came under Israeli administration. Their plight led many young Arabs into joining the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), a group that the Israelis deemed a terrorist organisation. Israeli domestic policies became a lot more complicated after the military successes of June 1967.

More distortions from a bullshiite site.

Firstly, I should point out that the History Learning Site is not produced by or affiliated to the BBC. The BBC do have some good resources both for school age students from primary (ie grade) schools through to high schools and for adults. Their take on the Norman Conquest, for example: BBC - History - British History in depth: The Conquest and its Aftermath

 

[Phoenall]

Just because the IDF said they thought Egypt was planning for war does not mean they knew of an immanent attack. Egypt must have known they would easily be defeated. Why would they plan for war without having the remote means of achieving their goals?

If you need help re-searching let me know.

LOL You can say whatever you want Pbel, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel was not the aggressor in the war, nor did they start the war just because they fired the first shot.

BTW, Israel even warned Egypt that if they closed the Straits of Tiran again, that it would be an act of war against Israel (which it obviously was).

More proof that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel:

"Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[16][17] Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[18][19] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22–23"

The paragraph above is under the sub - title Summary of events leading to war

Origins of the Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main article: Controversies relating to the Six-Day War

Preemptive strike v. unjustified attack

At the commencement of hostilities, both Egypt and Israel announced that they had been attacked by the other country.[169] The Israeli government later abandoned its initial position, acknowledging Israel had struck first, claiming that it was a preemptive strike in the face of a planned invasion by Egypt.[169][170] On the other hand, the Arab view was that it was unjustified to attack Egypt.[171][172]

Sorry but Egypt declared war when it closed the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. So in effect Egypt attacked first by closing the straits. No land gab in evidence either as Egypt and Jordan both received their land back when the peace treaties were signed

 

[Phoenall]

Surely if Israel acquired any land there would be documents showing a treaty or agreement. Any land won would be defined by definite borders.

I don't see where that has ever happened.

Egypt and Jordan for starters, then the UN armistice lines that were agreed as starting points for any future borders agreements.

What land did Israel acquire from Egypt an Jordan?

Parts of the Jordan valley and parts of the Negev, for which Israel gave up parts of the Negev and islands in the dead sea

The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty

Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty

 

[pbel]

LOL You can say whatever you want Pbel, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel was not the aggressor in the war, nor did they start the war just because they fired the first shot.

BTW, Israel even warned Egypt that if they closed the Straits of Tiran again, that it would be an act of war against Israel (which it obviously was).

More proof that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel:

"Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[16][17] Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[18][19] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22–23"

The paragraph above is under the sub - title Summary of events leading to war

Origins of the Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main article: Controversies relating to the Six-Day War

Preemptive strike v. unjustified attack

At the commencement of hostilities, both Egypt and Israel announced that they had been attacked by the other country.[169] The Israeli government later abandoned its initial position, acknowledging Israel had struck first, claiming that it was a preemptive strike in the face of a planned invasion by Egypt.[169][170] On the other hand, the Arab view was that it was unjustified to attack Egypt.[171][172]

Sorry but Egypt declared war when it closed the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. So in effect Egypt attacked first by closing the straits. No land gab in evidence either as Egypt and Jordan both received their land back when the peace treaties were signed

Don't you get tired of you're lying and distortions? Your giving all you're cohorts the stain of double talk.

No one with authority of Historical analysis has written that Egypt started the 67 war.

Keep lying, your passion shows.

 

[Phoenall]

Just because the IDF said they thought Egypt was planning for war does not mean they knew of an immanent attack. Egypt must have known they would easily be defeated. Why would they plan for war without having the remote means of achieving their goals?

If you need help re-searching let me know.

LOL You can say whatever you want Pbel, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel was not the aggressor in the war, nor did they start the war just because they fired the first shot.

BTW, Israel even warned Egypt that if they closed the Straits of Tiran again, that it would be an act of war against Israel (which it obviously was).

More proof that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel:

"Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[16][17] Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[18][19] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22–23"

The paragraph above is under the sub - title Summary of events leading to war

Origins of the Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.

So, closing the Straits of Tiran is an act of war but closing Gaza's territorial waters is not.

CORRECT as they are totally different things. Closing gazas waters is to stop the smuggling of weapons and munitions, covered by the Geneva conventions

 

[Phoenall]

What land did Israel acquire from Egypt an Jordan?

Why, check out your '48 map of Israel.

Never seen one.

You have it is just that you deny them, like a spoilt brat

 

[Phoenall]

You are distorting history...the 67 war was a pre-emptive strike planned as a land grab by Israeli leaders...They raised tensions, but the fact is the Arabs had 100,000 soldiers at Israel's border while Israel had a 150,000 with far superior weaponry. The proof: six days and the Land Grab of Jerusalem in your prayers.

The Bullshiite stops here. I want to see peace to the 67 borders to make up for this travesty...Peace and more importantly Acceptance can only end this regional conflict.

Israel is an invading force not a defending one that you push...

AND YOU ARE LYING

Which land did they grab then that was not handed back in the fullness of time. As for Jerusalem that was majority Jewish owned land taken in the 1948 land grab by Jordan.
The arabs stopped the Israeli ships from passing through the straights of Tiran which was a breach of Maritime law and the Geneva conventions.
Just what are these '67 borders and can you produce a legal document that states '67 borders. All I can find is UN res 242 that says :-

Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict

No mention of any borders is there, that is an islamonazi LIE spread to justify their continual attacks on Jewish children.

Majority ownership has nothing to do with sovereignty...It is your Zionist distortions that are lies...An academy award for you...your lies are impeccable.

Still waiting for your sanity certification

I am waiting for yours, cos only an insane person or an islamonazi would deny the facts of history.

So going on your criteria the Palestinians cant claim sovereignty over Palestine even though there are more of them than there are Jews. Nice to know when you spout your shit the next time.

Now back to reality what land did Israel grab in the 6 days war that is still under Israeli ownership.

 

[Kondor3]

pbel, in the matter of 'who started the Six Day War of 1967'...

1...the Israelis, as a preemptive strike

2...the Arabs, by massing Egyptian and Syrian and Jordanian troops along the borders

...our colleague 'Phoenall' has already provided numerous sources in support of his position.

At worst, the Arabs acted on bad intelligence and bad advice from the Soviet-Russians, telling them that Israel was about to attack them, thereby causing them to mobilize and deploy, and, at worst, the Israelis, knowing they would probably win based upon their own and US shared intelligence data and analysis and opinions, preemptively attacked anyway, to be certain that they won and survived.

You have been playing a losing 'guardhouse lawyer' game, challenging his sources, and challenging the conventional common understanding of those events of 47 years ago, without much success, and seem intent on continuing to muddy the waters with an incessant campaign of source-challenges; he as fielded some respectable sources and done all that should be required of a minor point-reinforcing sequence, yet you are turning this into some kind of Cecil B. DeMille production; a cast of thousands and millions of dollars later... for what should have been a stage-skit in a townie summer playhouse.

Time for you to do some of the heavy lifting.

If you can conjure-up a sufficient quantity of credible analysis of the events leading up to the Six Day War of 1967, to disprove both the common understanding of those events and the various sources that Phoenall has served-up for you and the audience, then, perhaps, you'll get some traction with your seeming compulsion to disprove the commonly understood causes of the Six Day War, and perhaps you can convince some part of the audience, outside the realm of the handful of pro-Palestinian shills and sympathizers and sycophants and apologists around here.

Until you manage that, however, it's beginning to look as though our colleague Phoenall has successfully navigated the pitfalls on this one, to an extent sufficient for reasonable and credible discussion, and wins the day.

Either serve-up a knockout blow of your own - authoritative and decisive and credible to all - or let the damned thing go.

No shame in losing from time to time.

Happens to most folks, if you're 'out there' and pitchin' hard enough and long enough.

Let it go.

 

[Phoenall]

provide us with an un-biased source...Do you think that if Egypt attacked the results would have differed significantly?

Of course not!

Like this :-

The Six Day War

The Six-Day War took place in June 1967. The Six-Day War was fought between June 5th and June 10th. The Israelis defended the war as a preventative military effort to counter what the Israelis saw as an impending attack by Arab nations that surrounded Israel. The Six-Day War was initiated by General Moshe Dayan, the Israeli’s Defence Minister.

The war was against Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Israel believed that it was only a matter of time before the three Arab states co-ordinated a massive attack on Israel. After the 1956 Suez Crisis, the United Nations had established a presence in the Middle East, especially at sensitive border areas. The United Nations was only there with the agreement of the nations that acted as a host to it. By May 1967, the Egyptians had made it clear that the United Nations was no longer wanted in the Suez region. Gamal Nasser, leader of Egypt, ordered a concentration of Egyptian military forces in the sensitive Suez zone. This was a highly provocative act and the Israelis only viewed it one way – that Egypt was preparing to attack. The Egyptians had also enforced a naval blockade which closed off the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping.

Rather than wait to be attacked, the Israelis launched a hugely successful military campaign against its perceived enemies. The air forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq were all but destroyed on June 5th. By June 7th, many Egyptian tanks had been destroyed in the Sinai Desert and Israeli forces reached the Suez Canal. On the same day, the whole of the west bank of the Jordan River had been cleared of Jordanian forces. The Golan Heights were captured from Syria and Israeli forces moved 30 miles into Syria itself.

The war was a disaster for the Arab world and temporarily weakened the man who was seen as the leader of the Arabs – Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt. The war was a military disaster for the Arabs but it was also a massive blow to the Arabs morale. Here were four of the strongest Arab nations systematically defeated by just one nation.

The success of the campaign must have surprised the Israelis. However, it also gave them a major problem that was to prove a major problem for the Israeli government for decades. By capturing the Sinai, the Golan Heights and the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Israelis had captured for themselves areas of great strategic value. However, the West Bank also contained over 600,000 Arabs who now came under Israeli administration. Their plight led many young Arabs into joining the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), a group that the Israelis deemed a terrorist organisation. Israeli domestic policies became a lot more complicated after the military successes of June 1967.

More distortions from a bullshiite site.

Firstly, I should point out that the History Learning Site is not produced by or affiliated to the BBC. The BBC do have some good resources both for school age students from primary (ie grade) schools through to high schools and for adults. Their take on the Norman Conquest, for example: BBC - History - British History in depth: The Conquest and its Aftermath

No distortions but the truth that you cant handle, even if I produced an Islamic extremist site that said the same thing you would deny it because it goes against you POV. The site is one used to teach history in many schools including those with a large Islamic population.

YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS CERTIFIABLY INSANE.

 

[Phoenall]

Main article: Controversies relating to the Six-Day War

Preemptive strike v. unjustified attack

At the commencement of hostilities, both Egypt and Israel announced that they had been attacked by the other country.[169] The Israeli government later abandoned its initial position, acknowledging Israel had struck first, claiming that it was a preemptive strike in the face of a planned invasion by Egypt.[169][170] On the other hand, the Arab view was that it was unjustified to attack Egypt.[171][172]

Sorry but Egypt declared war when it closed the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. So in effect Egypt attacked first by closing the straits. No land gab in evidence either as Egypt and Jordan both received their land back when the peace treaties were signed

Don't you get tired of you're lying and distortions? Your giving all you're cohorts the stain of double talk.

No one with authority of Historical analysis has written that Egypt started the 67 war.

Keep lying, your passion shows.

Then do explain this which shows a timeline of events that not even the most ardent islamonazi lunatic could deny

"Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[16][17] Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[18][19] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22–23"

 

[pbel]

Like this :-

The Six Day War

The Six-Day War took place in June 1967. The Six-Day War was fought between June 5th and June 10th. The Israelis defended the war as a preventative military effort to counter what the Israelis saw as an impending attack by Arab nations that surrounded Israel. The Six-Day War was initiated by General Moshe Dayan, the Israeli’s Defence Minister.

The war was against Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Israel believed that it was only a matter of time before the three Arab states co-ordinated a massive attack on Israel. After the 1956 Suez Crisis, the United Nations had established a presence in the Middle East, especially at sensitive border areas. The United Nations was only there with the agreement of the nations that acted as a host to it. By May 1967, the Egyptians had made it clear that the United Nations was no longer wanted in the Suez region. Gamal Nasser, leader of Egypt, ordered a concentration of Egyptian military forces in the sensitive Suez zone. This was a highly provocative act and the Israelis only viewed it one way – that Egypt was preparing to attack. The Egyptians had also enforced a naval blockade which closed off the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping.

Rather than wait to be attacked, the Israelis launched a hugely successful military campaign against its perceived enemies. The air forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq were all but destroyed on June 5th. By June 7th, many Egyptian tanks had been destroyed in the Sinai Desert and Israeli forces reached the Suez Canal. On the same day, the whole of the west bank of the Jordan River had been cleared of Jordanian forces. The Golan Heights were captured from Syria and Israeli forces moved 30 miles into Syria itself.

The war was a disaster for the Arab world and temporarily weakened the man who was seen as the leader of the Arabs – Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt. The war was a military disaster for the Arabs but it was also a massive blow to the Arabs morale. Here were four of the strongest Arab nations systematically defeated by just one nation.

The success of the campaign must have surprised the Israelis. However, it also gave them a major problem that was to prove a major problem for the Israeli government for decades. By capturing the Sinai, the Golan Heights and the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Israelis had captured for themselves areas of great strategic value. However, the West Bank also contained over 600,000 Arabs who now came under Israeli administration. Their plight led many young Arabs into joining the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), a group that the Israelis deemed a terrorist organisation. Israeli domestic policies became a lot more complicated after the military successes of June 1967.

More distortions from a bullshiite site.

Firstly, I should point out that the History Learning Site is not produced by or affiliated to the BBC. The BBC do have some good resources both for school age students from primary (ie grade) schools through to high schools and for adults. Their take on the Norman Conquest, for example: BBC - History - British History in depth: The Conquest and its Aftermath

No distortions but the truth that you cant handle, even if I produced an Islamic extremist site that said the same thing you would deny it because it goes against you POV. The site is one used to teach history in many schools including those with a large Islamic population.

YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS CERTIFIABLY INSANE.

There goes Phonynall. Has nothing of substance to attack when caught lying and distorting facts, so it attacks the messenger instead of the message.

Papers, please.

 

[P F Tinmore]

LOL You can say whatever you want Pbel, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel was not the aggressor in the war, nor did they start the war just because they fired the first shot.

BTW, Israel even warned Egypt that if they closed the Straits of Tiran again, that it would be an act of war against Israel (which it obviously was).

More proof that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel:

"Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[16][17] Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[18][19] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22–23"

The paragraph above is under the sub - title Summary of events leading to war

Origins of the Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.

So, closing the Straits of Tiran is an act of war but closing Gaza's territorial waters is not.

CORRECT as they are totally different things. Closing gazas waters is to stop the smuggling of weapons and munitions, covered by the Geneva conventions

Could you quote the passage of the GC that says that?

 

[Kondor3]

Phoenall, in the matter of the Six Day War of 1967...

For whatever little it's worth, coming from someone such as myself who is so blatantly pro-Israeli, and so hard-line in conjuring answers...

In my own humble opinion, you've done all that need be done, to assume a 'win' between yourself and our colleague 'pbel', related to the casus belli, and nothing more should be required of you, unless it pleases you to continue dragging 'pbel's inadequate and exhausted 'guardhouse lawyer' automatic gainsay defense up and down the basketball court for a while longer - but, at some point, somebody has to invoke the Slaughter Rule and call an end to this embarrassing one-sided contest. Just sayin'...

 

[Phoenall]

Phoenall, in the matter of the Six Day War of 1967...

For whatever little it's worth, coming from someone such as myself who is so blatantly pro-Israeli, and so hard-line in conjuring answers...

In my own humble opinion, you've done all that need be done, to assume a 'win' between yourself and our colleague 'pbel', related to the casus belli, and nothing more should be required of you, unless it pleases you to continue dragging 'pbel's inadequate and exhausted 'guardhouse lawyer' automatic gainsay defense up and down the basketball court for a while longer - but, at some point, somebody has to invoke the Slaughter Rule and call an end to this embarrassing one-sided contest. Just sayin'...

He has lost, he knows he has lost and he shows it in true commie fashion by hurling insults. When he can conduct himself as a decent adult then I might put him in his place again.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now I think we all recognize that small arms and light weapons (SALW) are traded, manufactured and retained by States for legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations. However, there are some States that have particular associations with organizations and groups that organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage or tolerating hostile activities and acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens; the recognized State of Israel being the most targeted State at this time and in this context. And I also think that most of us understand that the lack of the Rule of Law (RoL) and lack of good governance, but some cultures and countries has promoted a culture counter to peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions. It is also clear that some nations, states, and cultures claim some special grievance that is in their perspective, beyond peaceful solutions relative to the development of friendly relations with other nations and States. While recognizing that none of these unusual grievances or conditions can excuse or justify acts of terrorism (Jihad) or armed struggle (by Fedayeen), and that the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries and international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement of another State, to satisfy their grievances, it is none the less noticed that the illicit trade in SALW further these unjustifiable aims.

Thus the greater international community recognizes that laws and institutions must be put in place to mitigate the potential threat by allowing unregulated flows of SALWs into areas of conflict. Given that some countries, like the State of Palestine, have made public specific threats of violence, and have a history that demonstrates they are willing to carry-out such threats (past practice of criminal behaviors), the international community established a few RoL.

So, closing the Straits of Tiran is an act of war but closing Gaza's territorial waters is not.

CORRECT as they are totally different things. Closing gazas waters is to stop the smuggling of weapons and munitions, covered by the Geneva conventions

Could you quote the passage of the GC that says that?

(OBSERVATION)

1. Welcomes efforts made by Member States, regional and subregional organizations in addressing the illicit transfer, destabilizing accumulation and misuse of small arms and light weapons, and encourages the establishment or strengthening, where appropriate, of subregional and regional cooperation, coordination and information sharing mechanisms, in particular, transborder customs cooperation and networks for information-sharing, with a view to preventing, combating, and eradicating illicit transfer, destabilizing accumulation and misuse of small arms and light weapons;
Resolution 2117 (2013) Adopted by the Security Council

1. Reaffirms the importance of measures to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, including ongoing efforts at the regional and subregional levels;
General Assembly Resolution 58/55. Promotion at the regional level in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe of the United Nations programme of action on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects

1. Calls upon States, when addressing the issue of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, to explore ways, as appropriate, to more effectively address the humanitarian and development impact of the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons and their excessive accumulation, in particular in conflict or post-conflict situations, including by:

(a) Developing, where appropriate, comprehensive armed violence prevention programmes integrated into national development strategies, including poverty reduction strategies;​

General Assembly Resolution 60/68. Addressing the negative humanitarian and development impact of the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons and their excessive accumulation

7. Calls upon the international community to provide technical and financial support to strengthen the capacity of civil society organizations to take action to help to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons;

8. Invites the Secretary-General and those States and organizations that are in a position to do so to continue to provide assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them;
General Assembly Resolution 61/71. Assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them

5. Encourages the collaboration of civil society organizations and associations in the efforts of the national commissions to combat the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and in the implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects;

6. Encourages cooperation among State organs, international organizations and civil society in support of programmes and projects aimed at combating the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them;

7. Calls upon the international community to provide technical and financial support to strengthen the capacity of civil society organizations to take action to help to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons;
General Assembly Resolution 66/34. Assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them

(COMMENT)

This is just a sample of some of those agreements made and managed by the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs, Geneva.

I hope this helps.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now I think we all recognize that small arms and light weapons (SALW) are traded, manufactured and retained by States for legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations. However, there are some States that have particular associations with organizations and groups that organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage or tolerating hostile activities and acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens; the recognized State of Israel being the most targeted State at this time and in this context. And I also think that most of us understand that the lack of the Rule of Law (RoL) and lack of good governance, but some cultures and countries has promoted a culture counter to peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions. It is also clear that some nations, states, and cultures claim some special grievance that is in their perspective, beyond peaceful solutions relative to the development of friendly relations with other nations and States. While recognizing that none of these unusual grievances or conditions can excuse or justify acts of terrorism (Jihad) or armed struggle (by Fedayeen), and that the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries and international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement of another State, to satisfy their grievances, it is none the less noticed that the illicit trade in SALW further these unjustifiable aims.

Thus the greater international community recognizes that laws and institutions must be put in place to mitigate the potential threat by allowing unregulated flows of SALWs into areas of conflict. Given that some countries, like the State of Palestine, have made public specific threats of violence, and have a history that demonstrates they are willing to carry-out such threats (past practice of criminal behaviors), the international community established a few RoL.

CORRECT as they are totally different things. Closing gazas waters is to stop the smuggling of weapons and munitions, covered by the Geneva conventions

Could you quote the passage of the GC that says that?

(OBSERVATION)

5. Encourages the collaboration of civil society organizations and associations in the efforts of the national commissions to combat the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and in the implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects;

6. Encourages cooperation among State organs, international organizations and civil society in support of programmes and projects aimed at combating the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them;

7. Calls upon the international community to provide technical and financial support to strengthen the capacity of civil society organizations to take action to help to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons;
General Assembly Resolution 66/34. Assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them

(COMMENT)

This is just a sample of some of those agreements made and managed by the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs, Geneva.

I hope this helps.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine is not mentioned in any of your links.

Are you just blowing smoke again?

 

[Victory67]

WERE IS YOUR PROOF when even the Palestinians say they left willingly and lost everything. The truth is you are just a semi literate mouthpiece for islamonazi terrorist scum

He has lost, he knows he has lost and he shows it in true commie fashion by hurling insults.

Lots of research has been done by this showing that perhaps half of the refugees left on their own and the other half were kicked out by the Israeli forces. Tens of thousands more were kicked out after the war even ended.

Then Israel refused to allow Arabs who were still in Israel to return to their lands in Israel.

Pure racism.

 

[Victory67]

From your link we see this which destroys your argument

Despite President Clinton's optimism, the events of 1998 did not entirely resolve the controversy of the Charter. A June 1999 report by the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Information on the status of the Charter made no mention of the 1998 events and leading Palestinians continue to state that the Charter has not yet been amended

In March 2011 the PLO-EC Chairman asked the PLO-EC to convene the PLO Constitution Committee, either in Amman or in Cairo, and advised that the committee should draw up amendments to the PLO charter by September 31, when it's is scheduled that the state-building project of the PNA Prime Minister is to be completed.


SO YOU ARE CAUGHT LYING AGAIN LIKE A GOOD LITTLE ISLAMONAZI

He has lost, he knows he has lost and he shows it in true commie fashion by hurling insults.

The USA and Israel considers the PLO Charter to have been amended and the anti-Israel resolutions to have been removed.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It has to be remembered that the State of Palestine is not the center of the universe. The Rules of Law are written for everyone, not just the Jihadist and Fedayeen of Palestine.

Palestine is not mentioned in any of your links.

Are you just blowing smoke again?

(COMMENT)

There are general commitments that apply universally. Not smoke, not at all.

Most Respectfully,
R