NationStates Jolt Archive

(as I tried to state in a previous thread, but was posted empty due to jolty jolt, and got deleted...)

from "La Repubblica" italian newspaper, 23/10/06, I summarise briefly:

Israeli minister Mr.Edri (minister to relations with the parliament) says that IDF fired phosphorous projectiles and bombs over Lebanese territory. He adds that the use of phosphorous weapons was legitimate (according to international laws) because they were fired in "open field" and on "military targets" - to avoid hitting civilians.
However, CNN broadcasted pictures of lebanese civilians with terrible burns, very likely caused by phosphorous, dying in the hospitals of southern Lebanon during the war.
Some experts, calling for a ban on phosphorous weapons, claim that such devices are not to be considered incendiary devices, because, when a P bomb explodes, it burns all the oxygen in a diameter of 150 m, and people caught in the blast radius die of poisoning and suffocation - this makes P weapons "chemical weapons", and, as such, they must be banned according to the third protocol of Geneva Convention on weapons. It must be noted that Israel (and the US, who produce and sell P weapons) didn't sign the third protocol.
The use of P devices has been a constant throughout warfare since WW1 - example are the battle of Verdun (WW1), the bombing of Dresden (WW2), Vietnam, and Fallujah (Iraq).

So, what do you think?

I think that Israel gave a very poor example of "legitimate" warfare in Lebanon. They used devices that were bound to wound and kill a lot of civilians - and also a lot of cluster bombs, that, even today, still maim and kill people in southern Lebanon. This behaviour, ordered by the Israeli cabinet, should be enough to impeach the Israeli government - and I hope the Israeli people will call for snap elections and send these warmongers home, they shouldn't be allowed to rule a democratic country such as Israel is (or claims to be). By such action, they only stirred more hatred towards Israel and jews abroad, and fueled Hezbollah support.

Not really surprising. I think I've become numb to Israeli war crimes as there are many, many of them.

I think that when two groups of angry disillusioned people have their emotions manipulated by dickheaded miltary and religious leaders into hating eachother's guts, only evil can result.

That, and the hats. I'm starting to really wonder about the hats.

"If you see two groups of people who really hate eachother, chances are good that they're wearing different kinds of hats. Pay attention to that, it might be important." -George Carlin.

George was definitely on to something. *eyes narrow suspiciously*

That, and the hats. I'm starting to really wonder about the hats.


Uh?:confused:

Uh?:confused:

Im wondering about the hats too.

Not really surprising. I think I've become numb to Israeli war crimes as there are many, many of them.
Don't do that. You're letting them win, that way.

That, and the hats. I'm starting to really wonder about the hats.
A: Hello again.

B: Hello.

A: Do you like my hat?

B: No, I do not like your hat.

A: Goodbye again.

B: Goodbye.

I think that Israel showed amazing restraint. They should have completely leveled Lebanon -- the Lebanese government allowing Hezbollah to perpetrate such violence is an implicit declaration of war. They should not have shown mercy to the terrorists.

Certainly the phosphorus weapons shouldn't be used but other conventional weapons should be. In war civilians should be protected if it can be helped but in war some civilians are going to die. Just the way it is. Tying to be 100% sure it won't happen is impossible and will just hamper military operations. That doesn't mean that the military should be careless in its operations but getting paranoid that you will kill a civilian is not going to allow you to complete your objectives.

A: Hello again.

B: Hello.

A: Do you like my hat?

B: No, I do not like your hat.

A: Goodbye again.

B: Goodbye.

Yes, that is normal behavior.

But these people are going:

A: Hello again.

B: Hello.

A: Do you like my hat?

B: DIE INFIDEL! *KABOOM!*

or

A: Hello again.

B: Hello.

A: Do you like my hat?

B: No, I don't like your hat. *Calls in an air strike*

*KABOOM!*

This is not normal behavior an I suspect the hats have somethng to do with it. *nod*

Yes, that is normal behavior.

But these people are going:

A: Hello again.

B: Hello.

A: Do you like my hat?

B: DIE INFIDEL! *KABOOM!*

or

A: Hello again.

B: Hello.

A: Do you like my hat?

B: No, I don't like your hat. *Calls in an air strike*

*KABOOM!*

This is not normal behavior an I suspect the hats have somethng to do with it. *nod*

You're grim assessment is more on the nose.

The use of Phosphorous devices isn't to cause damage, but rather to light the battlefield for your forces. The fact is Israel didn't target them on civilians and civilians having burns =/= them recieving them from phosphourous devices.

There have been many reports from BBC and such about Hizballah militants hiding amongst civilians or civilian areas or dressing up in civillian garb, so the fact that "civilians" were hurt when Israel only fired at military areas doesn't surprise me. If you're fighting an enemy that hides behind women and children, but then fires missles and rockets into your cities you have to do something, right?

There have been many reports from BBC and such about Hizballah militants hiding amongst civilians or civilian areas or dressing up in civillian garb, so the fact that "civilians" were hurt when Israel only fired at military areas doesn't surprise me. If you're fighting an enemy that hides behind women and children, but then fires missles and rockets into your cities you have to do something, right?

Oh, absolutely! But does shouting out to the heavens, "I'm only trying to kill combatants! I'm not targeting civilians!" before shelling their cities make Israel the good guys?

Oh, absolutely! But does shouting out to the heavens, "I'm only trying to kill combatants! I'm not targeting civilians!" before shelling their cities make Israel the good guys?

Israel, unlike Hizballah does not target civilians, in fact Israel dropped leaflets like this one:

http://www.honestreporting.com/Images/leaflets.jpg

"Following the continued Hizbullah terror acts the IDF is operating in Lebanon. For your safety, in order to prevent hurting civilians, you must not be present in areas where the Hizbullah is operating."

So either people refused to leave, were prevented from leaving by Hizbullah - always interested in maximizing casualties to make them look like the good guy - or the civilains are actually Hizballah members, their families, and supporters dressed in civilian garb.

So either people refused to leave, were prevented from leaving by Hizbullah - always interested in maximizing casualties to make them look like the good guy - or the civilains are actually Hizballah members, their families, and supporters dressed in civilian garb.

Or were unwilling to leave because everything they own is there.

Or were unable to leave because all the roads into and out of the areas were destroyed.

Israel completely screwed up it's little remaining credit in the international community. I was strongly pro-Israel until that crap started.

Or, as many reports say, they were hindered from leaving by Israeli attacks...


I think Lunatic Goofballs (not Golfballs as I'd like his name to be :p )is on to something ;)

And I'm not surprised by anything anymore, when it comes to violence and brutality over there - there are no good guys left in the middle east.

Oh, absolutely! But does shouting out to the heavens, "I'm only trying to kill combatants! I'm not targeting civilians!" before shelling their cities make Israel the good guys?

Fights like that one have no good guys. Both sides have long given up anything that might resemble a moral high ground. It shocks me that so many people outside of the middle east feel the need to pick a side, to choose who to root for. There comes a point when it doesn't matter who started it, who was where first, or what imperialst nation or god gave what chunk of land to whom.

As for the OP's question, its war. People get hurt in wars, civilians get caught in the middle. Arguing about which means of maiming and killing others are fair and which are criminal borders on satire. War isn't a police action, and it isn't about doing the right thing, war is about killing the other party until they either surrender or no longer exist. You can't play something like that nice, especially if the two sides hate eachother.

Israel, unlike Hizballah does not target civilians, in fact Israel dropped leaflets like this one:

http://www.honestreporting.com/Images/leaflets.jpg

"Following the continued Hizbullah terror acts the IDF is operating in Lebanon. For your safety, in order to prevent hurting civilians, you must not be present in areas where the Hizbullah is operating."

So either people refused to leave, were prevented from leaving by Hizbullah - always interested in maximizing casualties to make them look like the good guy - or the civilains are actually Hizballah members, their families, and supporters dressed in civilian garb.
OR
They saw what Israel did to UN convoys leaving and decided to stay put.

They were in an area where Israel also dropped leaflets saying that anybody traveling by road would be assumed to be a terrorist and be shot.

The roads and bridges out had been bombed by Israel prior to the attacks.




Now - Everyone in Haifa knew Hezbollah were fireing rockets there. It was no surprise when the rockets were landing after a day or so. Hezbollah were pretty insistant they would keep fireing rockets. You can't really say that after the first couple of days anyone in Haifa did not knwo to expect a rocket, they knew to expect rockets as much as Lebanse knew to expect bombs. So by your own reasoning - any civilian deaths in Haifa after the fist couple of days were not Hezbollahs fault but the civilains in northern Israel.

Incidently - much is made of hezbollah hiding it's fighters amoung civilians, surely the same could be said of Israel putting it's reserve forces amoung it's civilian population. By your reasoning if Hezbollah made an announcement that they were targeting reservists and IDF forces and any civilians should leave would that be OK?

Another point - a Hezbollah rocket killed I think 12 reservists just called up. I'm not sure what the fnal numbers for Lebanons Civilain/Hezbollah death toll were but I remember it being in the region of 10:1, INCLUDING milita killed in firefights on the ground. Israel had about 150? casualties. (any link to confirm or deny this would be appreciated). This means that unaimed, unatrgeted and unexpected Hezbollah rockets had the same (or better) civilian/soldier death toll as the supposed targeted attacks by Israel bombers and gunships.

I guess from last posts that some people are missing some points.

1.The main difference between Hezbollah and Israel is that Israel is supposed to be a civilised, democratic country, and Hezbollah isn't. So, I feel normal to expect higher standards of respect of human life from Israel than from Hezbollah, expecially in war.

2.P devices aren't just for lightning. See Dresden and Tokyo bombing in WW2, or also Fallujah. They're used as weapons. Else you can also claim that Troy was set afire because the Achaians needed more light to see and kill the troyans. And that the Nazis razed towns because they needed wider streets for their panzers.

3.Dropping leaflets doesn't leave you free from obligations to minimise civilian losses. Also Hezbollah broadcasted TV messages warning that they were going to strike Israel. So what? If a Israeli policeman would kill an Israeli civilian because a terrorist is hiding behind him, don't you think Israeli justice would be quite harsh on the policeman? Double standards, that's what I don't understand.

4.Also it is widely known that Hezbollah isn't a purely military organisation: it is a political party that resorts to violent means and guerrilla to achieve its ends. So, Hezbollah members can easily qualify as civilians, as they don't wear uniforms: technically, there is no great difference between Hezbollah militants and French resistance in WW2 (in demeanor, not in their ends, that's quite different!). They're both civilian armed organisations. How do you tell the difference between a lebanese unarmed, peaceful civilian and a lebanese Hezbollah militant that's lost his gun? The IDF and the Israeli cabinet should have pondered this matter better than they apparently did.

Or were unwilling to leave because everything they own is there.

Or were unable to leave because all the roads into and out of the areas were destroyed.

Or, when they were leaving in convoys escorted by the UN and agreed by the Israeli army, they were attacked by Israeli planes. Oops!

from "La Repubblica" italian newspaper, 23/10/06, I summarise briefly:

Israeli minister Mr.Edri (minister to relations with the parliament) says that IDF fired phosphorous projectiles and bombs over Lebanese territory. He adds that the use of phosphorous weapons was legitimate (according to international laws) because they were fired in "open field" and on "military targets" - to avoid hitting civilians.

Oh lordy, not the damned WP screaming match again.

Before we delve too much more into this, the previous threads on this topic have basically come to the same results:

1) Screaming idiots who claim that WP is a chemical and a weapon and is thus a chemical weapon, in the face of alllogic and evidence to the contrary.

2) Screaming idiots who claim that WP ought to be used on women and children.

3) Rational people who oppose WP on reasonable grounds.

4) Rational people who support WP on reasonable grounds.

Results 1 and 2 seem to predominate and ignore the objections of 3 and 4.

However, CNN broadcasted pictures of lebanese civilians with terrible burns, very likely caused by phosphorous, dying in the hospitals of southern Lebanon during the war.

I'll trust other sources over CNN on that one.

Some experts, calling for a ban on phosphorous weapons, claim that such devices are not to be considered incendiary devices,

That shows either a misunderstanding of how WP weapons operate or abias in reporting.

because, when a P bomb explodes, it burns all the oxygen in a diameter of 150 m, and people caught in the blast radius die of poisoning and suffocation

That again shows a bias in reporting or a misunderstanding of how WP weapons operate.

this makes P weapons "chemical weapons", and, as such, they must be banned


No. It simply means that people don't understand the difference between being burned to death and being poisoned.


according to the third protocol of Geneva Convention on weapons.

Wrong treaty. There is no "third protocol of Geneva Convention on weapons". I can only assume you are thinking of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html), which in no way bans WP.

Check the list of ban chemicals:
http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_annex_on_chemicals.html

It must be noted that Israel (and the US, who produce and sell P weapons) didn't sign the third protocol.

Well of course not. No one has signed a non-existant treaty.

However, you might be thinking of Protocol III of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC)?


The use of P devices has been a constant throughout warfare since WW1 - example are the battle of Verdun (WW1), the bombing of Dresden (WW2), Vietnam, and Fallujah (Iraq).

[QUOTE=Risottia]So, what do you think?

I think there are legit legal and moral questions regarding the use WP in Fallujah and Lebanon. However, twisting definitions to try and redefine what is clearly an incendiary weapon into a toxic chemical weapon do a disservice to the cause. Frankly, I'd be happy if people stood up and screamed and yelled honestly against misusing innappropriate weapons, rather than having people try and obsfucate the issue by trying to call an incendiary a toxic weapon.

I think that Israel gave a very poor example of "legitimate" warfare in Lebanon. They used devices that were bound to wound and kill a lot of civilians - and also a lot of cluster bombs, that, even today, still maim and kill people in southern Lebanon. This behaviour, ordered by the Israeli cabinet, should be enough to impeach the Israeli government - and I hope the Israeli people will call for snap elections and send these warmongers home, they shouldn't be allowed to rule a democratic country such as Israel is (or claims to be). By such action, they only stirred more hatred towards Israel and jews abroad, and fueled Hezbollah support.

I agree with most of that, althought I doubt it will happen.

The use of Phosphorous devices isn't to cause damage, but rather to light the battlefield for your forces.

Wrong. WP has a legit use as an incendiary weapon, just as FAEs and napalm do.

The fact is Israel didn't target them on civilians and civilians

I don't think that's quite clear yet.

having burns =/= them recieving them from phosphourous devices.

This is very true.

Israel, unlike Hizballah does not target civilians.

yeah israel never fires missiles at child refugee camps.
/sarcasm.

1.The main difference between Hezbollah and Israel is that Israel is supposed to be a civilised, democratic country, and Hezbollah isn't. So, I feel normal to expect higher standards of respect of human life from Israel than from Hezbollah, expecially in war.


Hezbollah is not a country!!!
israel is not civilised or democratic since it murders people who live thire and who have no controll over thier own land.

Hezbollah is not a country!!!
israel is not civilised or democratic since it murders people who live thire and who have no controll over thier own land.

Hezbollah is not a country, but it is a political party(so they claim).

Israel is a very civilized country, just maybe not in the aspects you're viewing. Look what they've done with the land they've been given. They have made it worth something, unlike the sea of Arabs around them who have done little to nothing with the land they've been living on for many years more than the Jews of Israel.

A country can be democratic and murder people of another nation. Democracy is a form of government; not a foreign policy on war.

Israel does what it has to do to survive on an island surrounded by raging seas. If they opened there arms to embrace people who clearly hate them, they would be exposing themselves to an enemy bent on killing them. Put yourself in the same situation. What would you do? Just lay back and let your enemies attack you? Or would you fight back, and survive?

I support Israel, though i disagree with some things they do. For the most part, though, they do what needs to be done. Honestly, the most effective way to have taken out Hezbollah would've been to mobilize more ground forces against them. But, the trusty UN stopped Israel from doing this, as this would also be unethical.

Get over it, folks. This world isn't a pretty place where everyone gets along with kisses and hugs and fluffy bunnies. We're human. Humans are animals. Animals are territorial. You fight for what's yours, in the end, despite what people say, and despite what people think.

Why then was Hizballah firing rockets and missles into Israel in the first place? Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 as per the UN resolution. However, Hizballah was required to leave the border as well under the same resolution, 1557. Why didn't they?

4.Also it is widely known that Hezbollah isn't a purely military organisation: it is a political party that resorts to violent means and guerrilla to achieve its ends. So, Hezbollah members can easily qualify as civilians, as they don't wear uniforms: technically, there is no great difference between Hezbollah militants and French resistance in WW2 (in demeanor, not in their ends, that's quite different!). They're both civilian armed organisations. How do you tell the difference between a lebanese unarmed, peaceful civilian and a lebanese Hezbollah militant that's lost his gun? The IDF and the Israeli cabinet should have pondered this matter better than they apparently did.

That's a very good point.

I had read something a while ago on the BBC that was a viewpoint from Lebannon on the war. The people who were interviewed basically said just that. That the militants aren't the same as a person in uniform.

The same group also didn't object to the presence of Hezbollah.

(Sorry, I don't remember exactly where this was on the BBC in the news section, so I can't source this).

israel took the land from my 'pals'.

Hezbollah is not a country, but it is a political party(so they claim).

Israel is a very civilized country, just maybe not in the aspects you're viewing. Look what they've done with the land they've been given. They have made it worth something, unlike the sea of Arabs around them who have done little to nothing with the land they've been living on for many years more than the Jews of Israel.

A country can be democratic and murder people of another nation. Democracy is a form of government; not a foreign policy on war.

Israel does what it has to do to survive on an island surrounded by raging seas. If they opened there arms to embrace people who clearly hate them, they would be exposing themselves to an enemy bent on killing them. Put yourself in the same situation. What would you do? Just lay back and let your enemies attack you? Or would you fight back, and survive?

I support Israel, though i disagree with some things they do. For the most part, though, they do what needs to be done. Honestly, the most effective way to have taken out Hezbollah would've been to mobilize more ground forces against them. But, the trusty UN stopped Israel from doing this, as this would also be unethical.

Get over it, folks. This world isn't a pretty place where everyone gets along with kisses and hugs and fluffy bunnies. We're human. Humans are animals. Animals are territorial. You fight for what's yours, in the end, despite what people say, and despite what people think.

The Arabs weren't bent on killing the Jews until the Zionists came along, and even the Jews who lived in the MidEast at the time, in 1947 hated the Zionists too.

As Arabs See The Jews (http://www.starttherevolution.org/archives/2006/j%20-%20october/AsTheArabsSeeTheJews.htm)

The Arabs (Muslims, Jews and Christians) don't hate the Jews, they hate that there are foreigners who invaded the land.

I really don't care. WP is a legitimate weapon of war. Hezbollah started a war with Israel and purposely hid among their civilian population. I can't really blame Israel if some WP munitions did go off in civilian neighborhoods. The people who support Hezbollah, shelter their troops and hide their weapons should expect to be attacked when Hezbollah picks a fight with Israel. Hezbollah and groups like it count on inflated civilian casualty rates to win sympathy and smear Israel.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4RxK9r4MESY

israel took the land from my 'pals'.
Actually, Britian took the original land and gave it to Israel.

The rest of the land was taken, through warfare that was initiated by the countries who lost land.

If you're going to argue, check your facts.

I think that when two groups of angry disillusioned people have their emotions manipulated by dickheaded miltary and religious leaders into hating eachother's guts, only evil can result.

That, and the hats. I'm starting to really wonder about the hats.

"If you see two groups of people who really hate eachother, chances are good that they're wearing different kinds of hats. Pay attention to that, it might be important." -George Carlin.

George was definitely on to something. *eyes narrow suspiciously*

I agree, these hats couldn't be more different.

http://www.vandammefan.net/vandammepics/movies/images/vandammepics_movie04_jpg.jpg
http://www.victorynewsmagazine.com/images/SeyedNasrullah.jpg

Actually, Britian took the original land and gave it to Israel.

The rest of the land was taken, through warfare that was initiated by the countries who lost land.

If you're going to argue, check your facts.

oh cause britian is held very highly in my books.
/sarcasm.

Actually, Britian took the original land and gave it to Israel.

The rest of the land was taken, through warfare that was initiated by the countries who lost land.

If you're going to argue, check your facts.

No, the Brits took the land, and gave it to the Zionists.

Many Jews didn't care where they went after WWII, many just wanted to have a home, and live a normal life. It was the Americans who encouraged it. The Western world encouraged it; the western, Christian nations who turned a blind eye to the persecutions that encouraged it.

The Arabs paid the price, and they never did have a hand in the Holocaust. They had lived peacefully with the Jews.

Why then was Hizballah firing rockets and missles into Israel in the first place? Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 as per the UN resolution. However, Hizballah was required to leave the border as well under the same resolution, 1557. Why didn't they?

Is this a rethorical question :confused:

If not... hope this will further understanding:

Reason 1)
Hizbu-llah is claiming the Sheba farm as a part of lebanon...

These farms are being occupied by Israel, but are not considered to be part of lebanon, rather part of Syria.

Hizbu-llah did therefore target the occupied sheba farms with rockets...
It did not target Israeli soil before the recent invasion of Lebanon

Reason 2)
Hizbu-llah had strived for the return of the members that are currently held in Israeli prisons, these are quite numerous and are expected to remain there for a long time.

Hizbu-llah captured Israeli soldier to swap them with imprisoned Hizbu-llah members.

No, the Brits took the land, and gave it to the Zionists.

Many Jews didn't care where they went after WWII, many just wanted to have a home, and live a normal life. It was the Americans who encouraged it. The Western world encouraged it; the western, Christian nations who turned a blind eye to the persecutions that encouraged it.

The Arabs paid the price, and they never did have a hand in the Holocaust. They had lived peacefully with the Jews.

Not true at all. The Mufti of Jerusalem encouraged Hitler's holocaust and wrote letters to Muslims in the balkans to encourage them to side with the nazis, which they did. Also there were riots since the twenties in the palestinian territories where Jews were killed and raped and their property looted.

The Arabs weren't bent on killing the Jews until the Zionists came along, and even the Jews who lived in the MidEast at the time, in 1947 hated the Zionists too.

As Arabs See The Jews (http://www.starttherevolution.org/archives/2006/j%20-%20october/AsTheArabsSeeTheJews.htm)

The Arabs (Muslims, Jews and Christians) don't hate the Jews, they hate that there are foreigners who invaded the land.


What happened before 1947, if i may ask? Wasn't it War World II? Oh, right, and genocide. Once again, put yourself into that situation. Where would you go? Would you feel right in a place where so much tragedy happened to your people? I know I wouldn't. The Zionists are very headstrong, yes, but I admire that. They don't lay down and take crap. They saw what that led to, and sought to never allow it to happen again.

Right now I'm arguing on basic facts and my opinions on human nature, as i see psychology as the predominiant factor in politics and world affairs, because let's face it, no matter how much you try to shake it, you can't get rid of basic human instinct.

oh cause britian is held very highly in my books.
/sarcasm.

Personally, I don't care about your opinions of Britain, as that's not really the subject here. I was stating a simple fact, that it was not Israel that took the lands, but rather Britain.

Actually, Britian took the original land and gave it to Israel.

The rest of the land was taken, through warfare that was initiated by the countries who lost land.

If you're going to argue, check your facts.

That is very much disputed, as far as facts goes.

Some would look at the timeline and say Israel initiated those war under the suspicion that the other countries were massing military near their borders. I know I would do the same if I was faced with a belligerent neighbour.

If you're going to be snooty about facts, make sure yours are solid.

That is very much disputed, as far as facts goes.

Some would look at the timeline and say Israel initiated those war under the suspicion that the other countries were massing military near their borders. I know I would do the same if I was faced with a belligerent neighbour.



Of course, the only reason your neighbor is belligerent is because you maintain a cassus belli in the first place.

That is very much disputed, as far as facts goes.

Some would look at the timeline and say Israel initiated those war under the suspicion that the other countries were massing military near their borders. I know I would do the same if I was faced with a belligerent neighbour.

If you're going to be snooty about facts, make sure yours are solid.

As you said, it's disputed.

Disputed means people argue about the fact in question, and to argue, you should support one side or the other. Typically, the side you support is the side that you view as 'fact'.

So, in my case, I view this dispute to be in favor of Israel. Of course, by your arguement, to argue with facts would involve cross checking every dispute that arises. Needless to say, this would be a waste of time, and far too complicated for the history books.

Of course, the only reason your neighbor is belligerent is because you maintain a cassus belli in the first place.

That is neither here nor there. I don't care who started it and both side are wrong in my book. If I had to choose between accusing Israel or the Arab states, I'd kill 'em all and let their associated god sort 'em out.

But when someone is stating things as facts, then maybe, just maybe, they better be true. Saying the arab states initiated those war is only looking at one side of the medal.

As you said, it's disputed.

Disputed means people argue about the fact in question, and to argue, you should support one side or the other. Typically, the side you support is the side that you view as 'fact'.

So, in my case, I view this dispute to be in favor of Israel. Of course, by your arguement, to argue with facts would involve cross checking every dispute that arises. Needless to say, this would be a waste of time, and far too complicated for the history books.

Fact: Israel won that war.

Fact: There was massive concentration of troops along the border.

NOT Fact: the arabs started it.

Fact: Israel won that war.

Fact: There was massive concentration of troops along the border.

NOT Fact: the arabs started it.

I believe it's pretty well recognized that, legally, a nation is allowed to initiate a conflict if it appears that they are at immediate risk of being attacked.

In this situation, it was made uniquely weird, because of chain-of-command issues in Egypt, with Nasser not being all that gung-ho for war, but his close friend, Ali Ali Amer was. Amer was prepping his troops for assault without Nasser's permission, and Israeli tactical intelligence took note the preparations that were being made. They responded.

The situation is too incredibly complex to blame just the Israelis or the Arabs for the '67 war, instead, there's a lot of blame to be spread to a lot of places.

Furthermore, the Israelis did not initially intend to move against the West Bank, but, because of a similar bout of idiocy on the part of the Jordanian local commanders, they wound up doing so. King Hussein was entirely against fighting the Israelis, and the US was against the Israelis and the Jordanians fighting.

The '67 war showed why strong chains of command in the military are good.

Ok, i see what you're saying, though i do view it a bit differently. Yes, Israel did start the war, but do you disagree that the Arab nations were preparing to do so themselves?

There were, afterall, alliances formed against Israel, and masses of troops being sent to the borders.

So i view this as the catalyst myself.

Israel just beat them to the punch.

What more of a threat would you need?

I believe it's pretty well recognized that, legally, a nation is allowed to initiate a conflict if it appears that they are at immediate risk of being attacked.
OH, I agree, Israel was legally within their right to adress what they saw as a legitimate threat. But as you said yourself, Israel initiated the conflict.


In this situation, it was made uniquely weird, because of chain-of-command issues in Egypt, with Nasser not being all that gung-ho for war, but his close friend, Ali Ali Amer was. Amer was prepping his troops for assault without Nasser's permission, and Israeli tactical intelligence took note the preparations that were being made. They responded.

The situation is too incredibly complex to blame just the Israelis or the Arabs for the '67 war, instead, there's a lot of blame to be spread to a lot of places.
Agreed, blame is not a scarce comodity when it comes to the Israelo-Arab conflict. And I start by blaming us, through the UN by going about giving the Jews a homeland the wrong way.

Furthermore, the Israelis did not initially intend to move against the West Bank, but, because of a similar bout of idiocy on the part of the Jordanian local commanders, they wound up doing so. King Hussein was entirely against fighting the Israelis, and the US was against the Israelis and the Jordanians fighting.

The '67 war showed why strong chains of command in the military are good.
Indeed. I wasn't so up-to-date on the west bank cause and I thank you for the info.

Hm, now I'm feeling a bit uneducated on the subject. There's always more reading up to do, I guess.

Ok, i see what you're saying, though i do view it a bit differently. Yes, Israel did start the war,
So that little quip of yours about facts was what? An empty rethoric?
When talking about your views of the event, don't state them as facts unless you can back them up.

but do you disagree that the Arab nations were preparing to do so themselves?
How the fuck should I know? I wasn't there, I wasn't involved and I can only look back and wonder why. Odds are with you but we can never be sure because Israel decided that a pre-emptive strike was better for them than incertitude.

There were, afterall, alliances formed against Israel, and masses of troops being sent to the borders.
There are massive troops along the border between the two koreas and has been for a good long while. Yet, strangely, nodoby has yet invaded. Nobody but the protagonists of back then can tell us their true intentions.

So i view this as the catalyst myself.
I view the catalyst as the rise of a nationalistic movement in the Jewish communities after ww2. If you go further back, I view the catalyst as when god said "Let there be light". Catalysts are all well and good in explaining history but they are arbitrary point and twenty history teachers can come up with twenty different catalysts.

Israel just beat them to the punch.
and are viewed factually as the agressor in that particular war. Not that they didn't have good reasons but they initiated the war. History is full of war fought for a just cause. The defense of the homeland is a just cause in my view, the taking of territories not so much.

What more of a threat would you need?
I don't know, actual incursions or a flyover by ennemy plane would do it.

Hm, now I'm feeling a bit uneducated on the subject. There's always more reading up to do, I guess.

And that is the first part in the learning process. I'm glad we could have had this talk, then.

Welcome to NS general, don't let the arrogant tone fool you, we are here to educate. ;)

As much as I don't support israel [I feel that their nation was created out of the racist idea that ethnicity should determine nationality] I don't feel they did anything wrong. There's just no such thing as "legitimate warfare."

Israel is a very civilized country, just maybe not in the aspects you're viewing. .

Like human rights, democracy, thou shalt not colonise thy neighbour......



Look what they've done with the land they've been given. They have made it worth something, unlike the sea of Arabs around them who have done little to nothing with the land they've been living on for many years more than the Jews of Israel..

You mean the land they took? That was under Arab tillage? That land?
.

Israel does what it has to do to survive on an island surrounded by raging seas...

By building civillian suburbs on Arab land. Yep. Makes fucken sense to me....



If they opened there arms to embrace people who clearly hate them, they would be exposing themselves to an enemy bent on killing them. Put yourself in the same situation. What would you do? Just lay back and let your enemies attack you? Or would you fight back, and survive?...

Whatever I might do, it wouldnt involve carting religous fanatics over my borders to set up colonies in the area belonging to the people I evicted to form my state in the first place. Thats just looking for trouble....

Actually, Britian took the original land and gave it to Israel.

The rest of the land was taken, through warfare that was initiated by the countries who lost land.

If you're going to argue, check your facts.

Britain did not "take" the land, nor did they own it. It was mandated to administrate the area by the league of nations for a period preceding self-governance. As a solution to the desire to have both a Jewish state and an Arab one, It was proposed that a certain area of the land be given to the settlers. The local Arabs rejected this proposal, as they would essentially be giving away land for no gain, and the neighbouring states attacked. The land was taken from the neigbouring states, and from Palestinians Arabs who were expelled by Israeli forces during the war.

Currently the problem is caused by Israels further attempts to expand by placing illegal settlements in the occupied territories outside its 1967 borders.

Meh, these whole discussion make me sick. Again and again all over so little land.
When I am in more darker moods, I just think, couldn't we the US just waited a year or two more until we D-Day. Then there wouldn't have been enough Jews left to cause all this ire, the way the SS Totenkopf brigades were lining them up like helpless pigs and slaughterring them with the efficiency of any modern slaughter house factory. The Death camps killed 11 million people, 6 million of those Jews in 4 years.

No substantial amount of Zionist Jews, no Israeli State , a lot less problems in the middle east. As someone said on the first page is a dirty world. Now the Arabs have to deal with it, bummer for them.

Or of course Germany should have won WW1, one of the friendliest nations to Jews, that even part of the British propaganda was that Imperialist Germany with many Jews in powerful positions was run by "the evil jewish conspiracy". (of course with the coming of the next world war, Germanies view on Jews took a 180° turn). Point is, then there would have been assuredly no holocaust, and no voice or reason for an Israeli State.