• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama: Palestinian State Must Be Based on 1967 Borders

ricksfolly said:
It was an Israel preemptive attack
Click to expand...

There's so much disinformation and propaganda about what happened then:

Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?

"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

Was the 1967 war defensive?

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

Moshe Dayan:

"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.
The 1967 War and the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You neglected to address some very importent issues.

1) While Nasser massed his forces along the sinai border Syria Jorden and Lebanon did not sat idle, all in all the balance of power were 500K VS 50K regular + 200K reserve, favour for the arabs, and the Israeli army was distributed between 3.5 (lebanon is the half) theaters.
2) Economic reason, while the closer of The Straits Of Tiran were a valid casus belli againt Eygpt as it severed Israel's ability to trade with Asia and the Pacific, still the fact that half a million massed troops alongside its brders forced Israel to requited over 200K reserve, in a country that at its time populated only 2.5 mill it meant that about 10% of its population was sitting on the borders waiting for war instead of being productive thus if continued it would have meant the end of the Israeli economy at it time as that amount of troops could not be sustained on a long run.

3) Strategic Depth- all of israel's main cities: Tel Aviv and the rest of gush dan, Netanya, Haifa, Beer Sheva were within striking distance of 20 miles or less so a planned and joint attack by the armies of the arab world would have cauesed catastrophic damage to Israel in all aspects.

And many more reaseon, Arab world commitment to the destruction of Israel, fedayeen activaties along side the jordenian border and so many more forced Israel to make a preemptive attack
 
shanners said:
'...Menahem Begin.... "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.'
"Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
Click to expand...
This is a classic example of 'zionist quotes' that litter the internet.
I may get to the others, but shanners bolded this one, his Seemingly most poignant.
Begin more fully and IN Context.

“in June, 1967 we again had a choice [as in 1956]. The Egyptian army concentration in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. [But] This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.”

further elaboration and credit to:
CAMERA Snapshots: Washington Post Praises Israeli Terrorism Courts
 
Last edited:
shanners said:
Originally Posted by shanners
'...Menahem Begin.... "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.'

"Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
Click to expand...
mbig said:
This is a classic example of 'zionist quotes' that litter the internet.
I may get to the others, but shanners bolded this one, his Seemingly most poignant.
Begin more fully and IN Context.

“in June, 1967 we again had a choice [as in 1956]. The Egyptian army concentration in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. [But] This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.”​

further elaboration and credit to:
CAMERA Snapshots: Washington Post Praises Israeli Terrorism Courts
Click to expand...
I knew this one sounded familiar, having Busted it at least once before.
Found one of my old posts on another board.
More from that speech:

55 Address by Prime Minister Begin at the National Defense College- 8 August 1982
.."In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. (/end shanners)

This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.

We did not do this for lack of an alternative. We could have gone on waiting. We could have sent the army home. Who knows if there would have been an attack against us? There is no proof of it. There are several arguments to the contrary. While it is indeed true that the closing of the Straits of Tiran was an act of aggression, a causus belli, there is always room for a great deal of consideration as to whether it is necessary to make a causus into a bellum.

And so there were three wars with No alternative - the War of Independence, the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War - and it is our misfortunate that our wars have been so. If in the two other wars, the wars of choice - the Sinai Campaign and the Six Day War - we had losses like those in the no alternative wars, we would have been left today with few of our best youth, without the strength to withstand the Arab world..."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A return to the 1967 borders should not be discussed until a definite proposal for peace is made by the Palestinians. Israel has been down this road dozens of times.

There is no point in only one side making offers, or having an outsider like Obama making concessions on Israel's behalf.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
A return to the 1967 borders should not be discussed until a definite proposal for peace is made by the Palestinians. Israel has been down this road dozens of times.

There is no point in only one side making offers, or having an outsider like Obama making concessions on Israel's behalf.
Click to expand...

Egypt opened its boarder with Gaza. This is going to happen one way or the other. Israel to play.
 
xpiher said:
Egypt opened its boarder with Gaza. This is going to happen one way or the other. Israel to play.
Click to expand...

What is Israel to do? What are the Palestinians offering?

That Egypt opened their borders with Gaza is all well and good, however temporarily that might be, but it has nothing to do with Israel.
 
Grant said:
What is Israel to do? What are the Palestinians offering?

That Egypt opened their borders with Gaza is all well and good, however temporarily that might be, but it has nothing to do with Israel.
Click to expand...

You aren't looking at the entire picture. Egypt opening its boarders is another thumbs up to the Palestinian effort to unilaterally declare statehood. Either Israel has to do something to advert what would amount to a prolonged civil war with international support, maybe even a war with Iran. Egypt opening its boarders is another thumbs up to the Palestinian

What Israel can do is agree to land swamps, remove troops from the Lebanese boarder (they don't need this for self defense, just easy preemptive strikes), and allow Palestine to have a small self-defense force (similar to what the UN allowed Japan to have). It can maintain security while allowing these two contentions to no longer be issues.
 
xpiher said:
You aren't looking at the entire picture. Egypt opening its boarders is another thumbs up to the Palestinian effort to unilaterally declare statehood. Either Israel has to do something to advert what would amount to a prolonged civil war with international support, maybe even a war with Iran. Egypt opening its boarders is another thumbs up to the Palestinian

What Israel can do is agree to land swamps, remove troops from the Lebanese boarder (they don't need this for self defense, just easy preemptive strikes), and allow Palestine to have a small self-defense force (similar to what the UN allowed Japan to have). It can maintain security while allowing these two contentions to no longer be issues.
Click to expand...

What Israel can do is join the international consensus. The US could also play a decisive role as the status quo depends entirely on it's support. However, I don't see any of that happening in the near future, unfortunately.
 
NGNM85 said:
What Israel can do is join the international consensus. The US could also play a decisive role as the status quo depends entirely on it's support. However, I don't see any of that happening in the near future, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

and what does it do about the next war, which invariably will follow from the "consensus"?

Pretty sure there was a neat little consensus about ceding just a bit more land to the Germans too. Peace in our time, or something? Or are you saying the consensus must be right because it is the consensus?
 
I got this in an email...I thought it so appropriate and funny...

Dear President Obama:

I am writing today with a somewhat unusual request. First and foremost, I will be asking that you return America to its August 20th, 1959 borders so that Hawaii is no longer a state and you are no longer a citizen.
Sincerely,

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
 
CJ 2.0 said:
and what does it do about the next war, which invariably will follow from the "consensus"?

Pretty sure there was a neat little consensus about ceding just a bit more land to the Germans too. Peace in our time, or something? Or are you saying the consensus must be right because it is the consensus?
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of the "consensus" in the American South regarding race relations in the 1960s.

The appeal to popularity allows folks to support all manner of views, doesn't it.
 
xpiher said:
You aren't looking at the entire picture. Egypt opening its boarders is another thumbs up to the Palestinian effort to unilaterally declare statehood. Either Israel has to do something to advert what would amount to a prolonged civil war with international support, maybe even a war with Iran. Egypt opening its boarders is another thumbs up to the Palestinian
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's a good idea to remind ourselves why Egypt, a nation of fellow Muslims, had closed its borders with Gaza. If there are any Palestinian 'declarations of Statehood' they would be declarations of a failed Statehood, just as it has always been.
What Israel can do is agree to land swamps, remove troops from the Lebanese boarder (they don't need this for self defense, just easy preemptive strikes), and allow Palestine to have a small self-defense force (similar to what the UN allowed Japan to have). It can maintain security while allowing these two contentions to no longer be issues.
Click to expand...

Sure Israel can agree to a land swap but so far the only thing the Palestinians have is an declaration to destroy Israel. Until this is removed there is little room to negotiate. Until that is removed from the negotiating table there is little to discuss.
 
NGNM85 said:
What Israel can do is join the international consensus. The US could also play a decisive role as the status quo depends entirely on it's support. However, I don't see any of that happening in the near future, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Is there any 'international consensus' about US borders, or Chinese borders, or is it only Israel who falls under world scrutiny.
 
NGNM85 said:
What Israel can do is join the international consensus. The US could also play a decisive role as the status quo depends entirely on it's support. However, I don't see any of that happening in the near future, unfortunately.
Click to expand...


I like what Victor Davis Hanson says


"Instead, the elite Westerner talks about "occupied lands" from which Israel has been attacked four times in the last 60 years — in a manner that Germans do not talk about an occupied West they coughed up to France or an occupied East annexed by Poland. Russia lectures about Jenin, but rarely its grab of Japanese islands. Turkey is worried about the West Bank, but not its swallowing much of Cyprus. China weighs in about Palestinian sovereignty but not the entire culture of Tibet; some British aristocrats bemoan Sharon's supposed land grab, but not Gibraltar. All these foreign territories that were acquired through blood and iron and held on to by reasons of "national security" are somehow different matters when Jews are not involved."
 
Grant said:
Sure Israel can agree to a land swap but so far the only thing the Palestinians have is an declaration to destroy Israel. Until this is removed there is little room to negotiate. Until that is removed from the negotiating table there is little to discuss.
Click to expand...

Its Hama's only card. If thats a precondition to negations, they have nothing left to bargain with.

I also thought of another little thing that could help alleviate the security issues of an independent Palestinian state, mutual defense pact treaty that last 60-100years (close to 60 would be better IMO) because lets be honest, any conflict involving Israel, inevitably will lead to Palestinian involvement.

The problem with the deal supported by Netanyahu is that it leaves Palestine defenseless, leaves a large standing army on its borders, and leave in place the causes of animosity (subjugation).
 
ricksfolly said:
There are always two sides to every story. Wait until you hear the Hamas side before you make up your mind.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

You listen to terrorists I give no credibility to any thing they say
 
ptif219 said:
You mean like this
Click to expand...

No of course not. What you have done is to provide an example of terrorism to then infer all Palestinians are terrorists.

If I did the same in reverse, if I presented a story of some extremist Israeli who engaged in violence or terror against Palestinians and referenced it to suggest ALL Jews, ALL Israeli Jews or ALL Zionists are terrorists what would your reaction be?

Its an old tactic. You smeer an entire people because of the negative actions of terrorists.

I reject your exercise. Its unoriginal and among other things its intellectually lazy. Its name calling. Its a negative smear of an entire people.

I detest it when it is done about Israelis, Jews, Zionists, I certainly detest it for the exact same reasons when you do it against Palestinians.

No I will not smeer all Palestinians because of the actions of terrorists in their name who are Palestinian or otherwise.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Then you do not support the Israeli state, spawned of Irgun terrorism.
Click to expand...

The Israeli state was not spawned of Irgun terrorism. That statement is nothing more than another attempt to incite or flame negative accusations against all Israelis. Why don't you find out how many people were in Irgun at its maximum level of membership. Go on. Then get back and tell me what percentage they were of all Zionists who created Isral.

Here's a hint less then 1%.

But why let history get in the way of your name calling right? We had someone bait all Palestinians as terrorists now you doing the same about Israelis.

You both show how these discussions are always hijacked by people like you using rhetoric to useto incite hatred.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom