Netanyahu: Palestinians not interested in solution based on 1967 borders

I think 'pre-emptive' is merely an excuse for Israel to take control of the West Bank and Golan Heights (for control of fresh water stretching from the Red Sea to the Sea of Galilee).

reply to post by BiGGz


Really? Dont you think if their motive was conquest they would have just KEPT GOING? They were already spankin em.......

I love people who use the land grab argument, because if thats what they were after, they wouldnt have stopped , and if they have so many people in their pocket then they wouldnt have been stopped......

Originally posted by backinblack
I wish they would kick out their war mongering, land grabbing leaders and work towards peace within reasonable borders..

On both sides, ISraeli AND Arab and Palestinian.

So I'm guessing non of you preaching Israel's right to all this land has actually found a map showing what Israel considers it's borders???

Kind of odd don't you think??

reply to post by BiGGz


I imagine Israel had some fairly excellent intelligence gathering taking place that an attack was iminent coupled with the fact the Arabs began moving tank divisions, artillery pieces and soldiers on the broder of Israel. An attack was imminent and Israel dished out a superior ass kicking considering what they were up against. The Arab strategy of huge amounts of tanks barreling across the sanai desert at full speed played right into the hands off the isreali's who had fewer tanks but much superior firepower. The Israeli's were able to hit the approaching Arab tank divisions way before the Arabs inferior tanks guns came into range. The strategic manuevers used by the IDF during the war are still used and taught today.

I would hazard to guess if Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua began massing troops, armoured divisions, artillery and other key military aspects along the U.S. Mexico border and the U.S., had no diplomatic relations with those countries that the US would defend itself too.

Originally posted by backinblack
So I'm guessing non of you preaching Israel's right to all this land has actually found a map showing what Israel considers it's borders???

Kind of odd don't you think??

Do me a favor.. Find the offical borders for us and post it. I ask this of you to see your side of this mess.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Do me a favor.. Find the offical borders for us and post it.

I've been asking you and others for months..
It's Israel claiming the land so YOU show me...

reply to post by Xcathdra


This is after the Suez Crisis. Would you blame them?

reply to post by Jocko Flocko


How about this food for thought.

Maybe the reason Egypt, Syria, Lebanon ect were massing armies because THEY knew an attack by Israel was imminent? Which turned out to be the case...

The Egyptian army wasn't even prepared when Israel attacked pre-emptively. How 'battle-ready' were the Arabs if they were planning an attack on Israel? And why were they so under-prepared?

Israel better had accepted this whole deal with the '67 / '48 borders, because if they insist on their "ideas" they are going down by 2023. Then they will have NO borders at all ...

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi


Lets hope that's not the case, because with a radical country like Israel, they've threatened to destroy the world if they're destroyed, even if the world doesn't have anything to do with the destruction of Israel.

See Samson option.

Originally posted by BiGGz
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

This is after the Suez Crisis. Would you blame them?

edit on 5-6-2011 by BiGGz because: (no reason given)

For launching a preemptive strike against arab countriess massing their armies? No, I dont blmae Israel for launchiung a preemptive strike.

And Siani penninsula, which was captured by Israel, was returned to Egypt. Why? Because Egypt agreed to demilitarize it, and it has been until this day.

and contrary to what you type, Arab militaries were on high alert and were massing, including Egypt. It was announced in Egyptian newspapers what one fo their targets were, which if captured would have split Israel in half.

reply to post by Xcathdra


So you haven't even considered what I said.

Shows how arrogant you are.

I'll say it again.

How do you know Egypt and Syria weren't massing armies based on information they had that said there would be a first strike by Israel? Which turned out to be the case.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by backinblack

 

A premeptive attack ius allowable as a form of self defense.

Only if the threat is clearly credible and imminent. This requires very high standards of proof, because it's VERY easy to say "well, they were going to attack me, so I killed them all and took their stuff." Since this level of proof is very difficult to gain prior to actually being under attack, preemptive defensive attacks are for most intents and purposes illegal.

Curious fact; Egypt had been given reliable information from the USSR that an Israeli attack on Egypt was imminent. Go figure, huh?

Contunally stating israel attacked doesnt change the fact that arab militaries were massing on their borders. Why wait for the arabs to attack, when you can nip it in the bud?

Well, no. The Egyptian military was conducting operations on the Egyptian side of the Israeli-Egyptian border, in response to the intel given to them by the USSR. They had entered a defensive agreement with Jordan, Iraq, and Syria, which is only an intelligent thing to do when faced with the possibility of an imminent attack.

Why wait for the Egyptians to attack? pretty simple; because they obviously weren't going to attack. Nasser wasn't a dumbass. you don't put your military next to the border and let your enemy observe and prepare for three days, then attack. That's stupid. You don't go to your allies and ask them to get involved if the other guy shoots first, if you plan to shoot first. if Egypt had been planning to invade, Egypt would have invaded, in the same manner it finally did in 1973; a sudden attack that catches the enemy with its pants down. That's how you conduct a war.

Egypt's military on the border was meant as a deterrent to the attack that was believed to be coming from israel. if Israel had just sat there and done nothing, then Egypt would have done the same.

Its not like there is no precedent for arab countries to invade Israel. They wer invaded several times prior to the 67 war, so a premepotive attack is justifiable.

Actually, there was no such precedent. No Arab nation had invaded Israel up to that point (even 1948 consisted of Arab armies trying to recapture the Arab territory captured already by Israel) and no Arab nation has invaded Israel since (the closest you come is Egypt almost recapturing the Sinai in 1973; of course, like the GOlan, Sinai was not actually part of Israel)

However, there was precedent for Israel invading Egypt; in 1956, Israel launched a surprise attack and nearly took the Sinai before America and Russia forced them to pull back. Thus, the Egyptians took information from Russia regarding another potential Israeli invasion seriously.

Premptive strikes are allowable as a form of defense.

Again, only with overwhelming evidence of an imminent threat. Lacking that, a "preemptive strike" just makes you the aggressor, and thus a war criminal. yes, it's criminal to start a war.

As far as your other "challenge" you do thisall the time.. You get so wrapped up on what the defintion os "is" is, that you go in circles. Settlements are going up in the west bank, not Gaza, nor the Golan heights. The settlements are a completely seperate issue with the 67 borders.

No, point of fact, they're not. They're illegal Israeli colonies on land that does not belong to Israel, beyond Israel's internationally recognized national boundaries. So long as one of these places exists under Israeli sovereignty, Israel is violating the 1967 borders.

Btw, Israel has said they were rpepared to dismantle the large majority of those settlements and to remove their citizens.

But only in exchange for more territory ceded to Israel. This is, of course, as unacceptable. it's as if Hamas said they'd stop most of their own rockets, if Israel demilitarized.

Okay, no, that example is more like how Israel says it'll kill a few less Palestinians, if the Palestinians stop fighting 100%...

But you get the idea, "We'll stop SOME of our illegal activities, if you give in to our demands" is a really stupid position to take.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Very true. I play war games like warcraft, Rome/Empire:TW, Civilization ect, all the time (not wow, wc3 tft, HUGE difference). We mass armies and put them on our borders as deterrence so other countries don't invade.

It's used as a show of military power to persuade the other side from standing down. I know when I play my games, and I have an enemy on my border, I'm going to mass my army on our border along with mass defense fortifications. Doesn't mean I'm going to attack, just means I'm preparing myself in case I'm attacked. It's simple military strategy.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Curious fact; Egypt had been given reliable information from the USSR that an Israeli attack on Egypt was imminent. Go figure, huh?

So it was a war Egypt knew was coming, and in doing so prepared themselves by placing their troops on the borders, then Israel takes that and calls it a plan to invade Israel and takes the initiative to pre-emptively strike Egypt?

I think my neighbor is going to attack me when I walk out of my house. So I'm going to go and take over his house and keep it until he recognizes me as the sole owner of his house. After that, we can be friends.

reply to post by BiGGz


Wiki Link

In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border.[21] 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.

UN Secretary-General U Thant proposed that the UNEF force would be re-deployed on the Israeli side of the border, but the proposal was rejected by Israel despite US pressure. [24] Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[25][26] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22–23. On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact.

The following day, at Jordan's invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armored units in Jordan.[27] They were later reinforced by an Egyptian contingent. On June 1, Israel formed a National Unity Government by widening its cabinet, and on June 4 the decision was made to go to war. The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War.

Seems Israel had every reason to begin a first strike offensive.

The Egyptian army wasn't even prepared when Israel attacked pre-emptively. How 'battle-ready' were the Arabs if they were planning an attack on Israel? And why were they so under-prepared?

You are going to honestly tell me that through all the Arab preperations, defense pact signings and closure of the Straits that Egypt wasn't "ready for war" It seems to me the Arabs picked a fight with the big boys on the block and got a couple broken legs in return. Let me guess, you will say "oh, but poor old Egypt had thier runways destroyed in the middle of the night, hey, that's not fair!". Guess they shouldn't have been sleeping and had better anti-aircraft missile systems then. War is hell.

Lets hope that's not the case, because with a radical country like Israel, they've threatened to destroy the world if they're destroyed, even if the world doesn't have anything to do with the destruction of Israel.

How would the release a few low yield tactical nuclear weapons be the end of the world if Israel was on the brink of being overrun? Do you know how many nuclear tests the U.S., Russia and China conducted from the 1940's through the 1970's? Granted, they weren't exactly great for the world or its environment, but it didn't end mankind. And if you are alluding to the begining of WW3 in regards to the major super-powers like Russia and the U.S. having a full scale nuclear exchange over such conflict, do you honestly think Russia would sacrifice Moscow or any of it's cities to save Tehran or elsewhere? I don't think so, I think the big super powers would let the Israeli's and the Arab's duke it out, again...

Sorry for the huge "headline" formatting....






Mod Edit:Fixed broken BBCode.

Also Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.


Thanks dude, appreciated!

reply to post by Jocko Flocko


You don't sleep when you're 'preparing' for war.

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
How would the release a few low yield tactical nuclear weapons be the end of the world if Israel was on the brink of being overrun? Do you know how many nuclear tests the U.S., Russia and China conducted from the 1940's through the 1970's?

I know that in total, 2057 nuclear bombs have been detonated on Earth (between China, Pakistan, India, North Korea, Britain, France, United States, and Russia/USSR). And if you are real serious, give me 30 minutes and I'll have an answer for you.

Btw, do you know the explosive yield of a 1970's bomb compared to the explosive yield of a 2010 bomb? Not even in the same ballpark..

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
Granted, they weren't exactly great for the world or its environment, but it didn't end mankind.

Majority nuclear tests are done below ground or water, and for the most part in the same designated areas. If that wasn't the case, we'd all be living examples of the "Hills have Eyes". Israel on the other hand would be willing to use them on civilian populated cities. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people are still dying from an obsolete nuclear bomb made 70 years ago. Imagine the destruction Israels modern day nuclear arsenal would have on the planet.

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
UN Secretary-General U Thant proposed that the UNEF force would be re-deployed on the Israeli side of the border, but the proposal was rejected by Israel despite US pressure. [24] Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[25][26] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22–23. On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact.

So basically Israel threatened Egypt with war if Egypt closed their OWN straits to Israel? So you're confirming Israel was the antagonist in the Six-Day war?

Most Palestinians are interested in the solution - be it 1948 or 1967. The Palestinian leadership, or those who claim to represent Palestinians, are not interested in any solution. They exist because of the conflict (Hamas, Hezbolah, etc.), and would not be able to adjust to post-conflict society. Israel too is not interested in solutions that don't benefit it - because it is content with the status quo.

There will be no solution here if everyone keeps talking about the border of the past. This whole topic started by Obama is ridiculously absurd, and he is just doing his political dance. So is Netanyahu for his part. No side will make any concessions in terms of territory at this point, and any talks between the two sides will keep going in circles. The only realistic outcome, albeit not one that will solve everything or come anytime soon, is to settle at the status quo. That might be giving Israel a bit much in the eyes of many, but realistic doesn't mean fair.

Israel knows that it cannot afford anymore land concessions. It has what it has, because of the circumstances that it has faced during the last 60+ years. It did not choose these circumstances, it did not give rise to them. Any talk of peace with Palestinians will need to be initiated by the Palestinians with the above considerations, in order to get any achievable solution. Israel does not need to make a peace proposal - because it is content with the status quo already, and from a political and military perspective one can't blame it (the moral perspective has no place in international politics).


People can blame Israel all they want for what they see as Israel standing in the way of a peaceful solution. But the ball is not in Israel's court, and hasn't been for a very long time. It is not Israel who is "suffering", and it is not Israel's job to be concerned about those that are - it is the Palestinian leaderships' job. So far they haven't done anything productive, and they do have the means, which they instead use to fuel continuation of the conflict.

Everytime a new "Peace Idea" for Middle East comes along, especially originating somewhere other than Middle East, the full circus shows comes to town. After running around in circles it leaves, but not without getting a lot of people all riled up. Tragic, but entertaining no less.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


The heads up from the Soviets was false information intended to start a conflict in an effort to help their arab allies and remove the US presence from the Middle East.. The armiy of egypt mobolized when the Soviets told Egypt Israel was massing troops in the Syrian border, which was not the case.

The first war started as a civil war between arab and israelis. The armistice that resulted, and that was signed by all parties, established what is called the green line (1948+).

From this UN resolution on, it has been noted by the delegates who put the resolutions together that it did not address the border issue. The 48 armistice basically had all military forces stop where they were in the middle of the night and that became the border.

The 1967 resolution also noted there was still no clear deliniation of the borders, and without that, it would continue to cause conflict in the region. The British Diplomats were so concerned about this, that they pointed it out to their superiors at the time, and no one listend.

It didnt matter if they didn, since neither side signed off on it.

As far as the precedents go, yes there were. If you go back and look at the history of the region, you will find that prior to ISreli military action, there was an arab action that promoted it.From massing troops, to false intelligence from the soviets, from the expulsion of UN forces from Sainia and egpytian forces taking those positions over.

As far as criteria established by the UN, the part you are ignoring is where it states nothing in the UN charter will preclude a country from defending itself. Hindsight is 20/20 for us, on both sides of the dice. Do you really think it was that clear at the time, on either side?

The UN admonished both sides, arabs and isralis during their little stints.

As far as Israeli settlements, we agree on that point. I dont think ISrael should be building anything on those lands. However, as far as internationally recognized borders, there were none. As stated before, after the civil war and following arab war, was the green line, which is where the military on both sides stopped where they were at.

The 67 war did not include anything for international boundaries. It called for ISrael to retreat from captured territory. Since arabs, nor israelis signed it, they arent violating the 67 resolution.

As far as giving the land back, Israel said they would return land they captured in exchange for recognition and peace treaties. It was rejected by the arabs and that part is not in dispute. Btw Israel is not the only country that had issues with the palestinians in the region... Jordan and black september come to mind, yet people ignore it.

As I said before, you are attempting to hold Israel to a standard that does not exist (67 resolution). You also seem to hold them to a different standard than you do arab countries with regards to this topic. The resolution placed criteria on both sides, and both sides rejected it.

How is this all ISraels problem again?

They are both to blame for respective problems. Asking Israel to abide by rules while not holding other countries to the same agreement...

Why you agree to that that?

Keep in mind, and we forget this part, that all the countries in the area are trying to look out for their own intrests, not internationals.

All polotics are local.

reply to post by BiGGz


Nobody's military anywhere in the world should ever be asleep at the radar console, especially considering the massive tensions that led up to the war in the region. What it really boils down to is A: poor tactics and strategy on the Arab side of war planning. B: Isreal had superior air, tank and weapon power supplied by the U.S. and the Arab nations were using second generation ex Soviet Union weaponry. I would have thought though with the sheer numbers involved on the Arab side that they would have faired much better than they did.