Netanyahu: Sneak Attack On Iran If Elected

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Arch Angel why wont you admit that just because Israel did make the first attack, they didnt make the declaration of war, Egypt did.

Because its simply not true.

Egypt did not declare war until after the Israeli sneak attack.

It all goes back to the claims that Israel has some moral right to take land.

If the Arabs had attacked first the claim might have had some value, but with Israel as the aggressor all the while claiming self defense the right to take land is simply not there.

You can't steal land from your neighbors by invading in a sneak attack just because you 'knew' that they were going to attack.

What is it about the fact that Egypt commited an act of war by closing Israeli shipping lanes that you do not understand. Its international law under the code of casius belli(ACT OF WAR).

The first overt act of war in the crisis was Egypt’s blockade on May 22 of Israel’s southern port of Eilat and the Gulf of Aqaba, through which passed vital cargo including 80 percent of Israel’s oil imports. Blockading such an international waterway is recognized under international law as a casus belli, or act of war. That’s why, in a televised address the next day, President Johnson denounced Egypt’s menacing actions

Act of War

This is indisputable. This is perfectly reasonable, and nulls any argument you can throw out. Even you should see that, though I doubt you will as you have prooven time and again. Therefore, based on the implementation of international law, the Arabs did act first. Giving justification for a preemptive attack(sneak attack in your terminology). I think the reasonable folks here will agree here. What say you?

This is indisputable. This is perfectly reasonable, and nulls any argument you can throw out. Even you should see that, though I doubt you will as you have prooven time and again. Therefore, based on the implementation of international law, the Arabs did act first. Giving justification for a preemptive attack(sneak attack in your terminology). I think the reasonable folks here will agree here. What say you?

There are always reasons for a sneak attack.

There is never a reason to take land for self-defense.

Especially if you are not willing to allow the native population equal rights.

ArchAngel, this has been explained to you several times

Here's a quick summary of some of the major events leading up to the Six-Day War

and Here is Seekerofs posting dt 12-12-2005 on page 4 of this thread

1967 Arab-Israeli war + pre-emptive strike + 1967
define:pre-emptive strike
States have the right to make pre-emptive strikes on others
The Legality of Preemptive or Preventive Counterproliferation Strikes


[edit on 15-12-2005 by Riwka]

Originally posted by Riwka
ArchAngel, this has been explained to you several times

Here's a quick summary of some of the major events leading up to the Six-Day War

and Here is Seekerofs posting dt 12-12-2005 on page 4 of this thread

1967 Arab-Israeli war + pre-emptive strike + 1967
define:pre-emptive strike
States have the right to make pre-emptive strikes on others
The Legality of Preemptive or Preventive Counterproliferation Strikes

In 1967 when Israel invaded in a sneak attack, pre-emptive or not, they committed an act of aggression.

No matter their reasons, or motives the fact that they still occupy land today that was siezed in this attack is clear and conclusive proof of their aggressive intents.

Pre-Emptive does not give a blank check.

If Israel had returned to pre-war borders they could justly claim that the attack was defensive.

This has also already been explained to you here

Jordan had annexed the WestBank - but the Hashemites do not want to have that land anymore. Furthermore, Israels historic and legal claim to these territories is no less valid than that of the Palestinians. And that's why the future status of the WestBank is subject to negotiation between Israel and the PA.


... BTW: ATS Thread Tag System is a great feature



[edit on 15-12-2005 by Riwka]

Alright, Ive got a way to settle this once and for all. Arch Angel, lets see all the evidence you have to support your historically innaccurate claims here. And I mean from a respected source, such as a scholarly source with supplemental links to back it up. Lets see if you can come up with anything credible.

Originally posted by Riwka

Jordan had annexed the WestBank - but the Hashemites do not want to have that land anymore.

Jordan has always voted for UN Resolutions calling for Israel to withdraw.

Jordan does not support the Israeli occupation.

They may not want to fight to get the land back, but they do want it.

Furthermore, Israels historic and legal claim to these territories is no less valid than that of the Palestinians. And that's why the future status of the WestBank is subject to negotiation between Israel and the PA.

It is less valid because of the time factor.

The Israeli claim is more than two thousand years absent while the Palestinians claim goes from the here and now back centuries.

The future Status is in negotiations that Israel will never settle as long as they have the upper hand, and the American UN veto.

[edit on 15-12-2005 by ArchAngel]

Originally posted by ludaChris
Alright, Ive got a way to settle this once and for all. Arch Angel, lets see all the evidence you have to support your historically innaccurate claims here. And I mean from a respected source, such as a scholarly source with supplemental links to back it up. Lets see if you can come up with anything credible.

What exactly is inaccurate?

Are you refering to the idea that Israel invaded in a sneak attack?

How about The Largests Zionist Propaganda Site On The Web as a source?

Israel's best option was to strike first.On June 5, the order was given to attack Egypt.

Anyone that denies Israel attacked first is a revisionist that should be in a cell next to Zundel.

Mod Edit: Fixed Link.

[edit on 15/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]

Israel did attack first, but did not commit the first act of war. Egypt did in blocking Israeli trade routes, which as I showed earlier is an act of war. I asked you to make your case not show zionist propoganda. I have come across that site many times doing google searches and never once have I used it because it is just that. So are you gonna make your case or are you just gonna try and find Israeli propoganda to show us.

[edit on 12/15/2005 by ludaChris]

Originally posted by ludaChris
Israel did attack first, but did not commit the first act of war. Egypt did in blocking Israeli trade routes, which as I showed earlier is an act of war.

Does this give Israel the right to take Land that was not theirs?

That is the root of the debate so answer it.

Israel had reasons to attack, but no valid defensive reasons to continue occupying for two generations.

Before the 1967 sneak attack the West Bank, Gaza, Cheeba Farms, and the Golon did not belong to Israel, and no one gave those lands to them.

Today four million people are denied National, Civil, and Human rights.

Offer a solution for the Palestinians that gives liberty without Ethnic Cleansing.

[edit on 15-12-2005 by ArchAngel]

Youre still not making your case like I asked. Can you make it, or will you continiue stalling?

Originally posted by ludaChris
Youre still not making your case like I asked. Can you make it, or will you continiue stalling?

Please don't talk like you asking has any effect on what I do, or do not do.

PLEASE explain what I said that you deny, and I will help you understand.

You were hardly clear in your 'demands'.

The 1967 war started when Israel invaded in a sneak attack.

Are you denying that?

Everyone, even the most extreme Zionist, knows that Israel was the first to attack.

Everyone knows that Israel is still occupying today.

Try making a list, and be a little less demanding.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Does this give Israel the right to take Land that was not theirs?

Of course it does. It is called war.
History provides countless examples of such.
And as for the return of the land, possession is 9/10s of the law, is it not?
It is called the spoils of war.
Sometimes it is returned, sometimes it is not.
Again, history provides countless examples.

Question, ArchAngel:
If the Arabs would have defeated Israel, would they have returned the land back to the Jews?





seekerof

[edit on 15-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by ArchAngel
The 1967 war started when Israel invaded in a sneak attack.

Are you denying that?

Yes.
It was a pre-emptive strike.

Are you denying that?





seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by ArchAngel
The 1967 war started when Israel invaded in a sneak attack.

Are you denying that?

Yes.
It was a pre-emptive strike.

Are you denying that?

So you are saying that the Israelies did not sneak when they attacked?

Did they announce it before they bombed the Arab airforces as they sat on the ground?

Sneak attack, and Preemptive are not mutually exclusive.

Sneak attack is easy to prove while pre-emption is almost impossible to prove.

Pre-emptive can be aggressive, and unjustified.

And the rules of war in the modern age do not allow for taking land as 'spoils'.

[edit on 16-12-2005 by ArchAngel]

Originally posted by ArchAngel
So you are saying that the Israelies did not sneak when they attacked?

Preeeetty self-evident what I am saying and that you are denying, ArchAngel.

Did they announce it before they bombed the Arab airforces as they sat on the ground?

Can you show me the International law that requires a nation to announce to another nation that they are going to do a pre-emptive strike? Kind defeats the purpose of a pre-emptive strike, don't ya think?

Sneak attack, and Preemptive are not mutually exclusive.

Apparently, to you they are not.
I have given you a sufficient link from an .edu site explaining what a pre-emptive strike is. As such, you read it? Did you comprehend it? Can you provide a link to what a sneak attack is in military terms?

Sneak attack is easy to prove while pre-emption is almost impossible to prove.

In your world and current mode of thinking.
Military tactics, strategy, and terminology are certainly not your strong points, are they?

Pre-emptive can be aggressive, and unjustified.

Irregardless, again, did you read the link(s) I provided? Do you understand the purpose of a pre-emptive strike and what it details?

And the rules of war in the modern age do not allow for taking land as 'spoils'.

So you think.






seekerof

Irregardless, again, did you read the link(s) I provided? Do you understand the purpose of a pre-emptive strike and what it details?

Yes I did read it.

It said nothing about justifying stealing land in a preemptive strike.

The 'preemptive' claim of self defense is destroyed by the aggressive action of stealing land.

Preemption can be aggression, and in this case it most surely was.

A sneak/preemptive attack is only defensive if you stay behind your original border after the hostilites end.

Can you show me the International law that requires a nation to announce to another nation that they are going to do a pre-emptive strike? Kind defeats the purpose of a pre-emptive strike, don't ya think?

Can you show me where in international law it says that an attack without announcment is not a sneak attack?

It was a sneak attack, now quit with the ping-pong.

[edit on 16-12-2005 by ArchAngel]

:shk:
Your lack of military strategy and the doctrine known as pre-emptive strike is befuddling, as is you continued denial of what it implies and details.

You cannot even answer the questions asked of you, but instead bait and run, as par.

Since you obviously need a better understanding of war, land taken in war, and what pre-emptive strike is versus your notion of sneak attack, I encourage you, no, I implore you to self-educate one's self, cause apparently, what is being explained to you by myself and others is flying over your head.

When you get the time, try reading these [linked below]. They are exceptional reads and explained in simple layman/laymen terms:
World Politics and You by Dan Caldwell
Imagining World Politics by Steven L. Schweizer






seekerof

[edit on 16-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by ArchAngel

With all the information at your fingertips, the internet, low cost of general college education, free access to professors, teachers and tutors, free libraries, museums, 'low cost' book stores and personal experiences you could seek-out/reach-out and 'learn'...

Why don't you reach out and learn the other side of the situation.

You may know much about one side, but seem to understand little of the other.

Once you see both sides you realize neither is right, and the main problem is status of the 4 million Palestinians and their land.

But your posts are so soaked in Zionist rhetoric I doubt you would be able to put the shoe on the other foot.

MK....

There are a great many things to which I disagree concerning Israel and her resective acts (this topic is not one of them); however being accused of being a Zionist appologist is a first. You assme far, far too much and do not answer questions when posed, provide far to little (if at all) in the way of facts, continue to skip and miss all points save your own narrow views (which typically include sophomoric jabs) and choose to simply incessantly spew and spew and spew.

BTW, I do know the "other side of the situation", hence my position concerning Israel in this topic. Clear.

Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel ...

-- Zuheir Muhsin, late Military Department head of the PLO and member of its Executive Council, Dutch daily Trouw, March 1977
(link)

Hmmmm...


.