Fun with Flotillas Pt II

[Bob]

Its not as simple as saying one side started it. The 6 day war wasnt really six days. There had been a steady chain of violence along the border for years already and plenty of provocative actions by both sides. The first punch in that fight was thrown a couple of years before whats known as the 6 day war.

The bottom line is both sides wanted that territory and were more than happy to fight for it.

Sometimes two thugs just fight over something because they want to.

I get the impression that your knowledge of these events doesn't go any deeper than what Wikipedia has to offer.

[dre]

I get the impression that your knowledge of these events doesn't go any deeper than what Wikipedia has to offer.

Yup we all know that Bob. Its pretty well established that youll often take short breaks between your xenophobic tirades, and your calls for ethnic cleansing, to make bogus attacks on the knowledge of other posters.

This is just part of your schtick!

Edited June 24, 2011 by dre

[Bob]

Yup we all know that Bob. Its pretty well established that youll often take short breaks between your xenophobic tirades, and your calls for ethnic cleansing, to make bogus attacks on the knowledge of other posters.

This is just part of your schtick!

I say this because of your quick reversal of position, you initally said this in response to DogOnPorch's question about conflicts initiated by Israel -

"Sure the whole chain of events that lead to the war in 67 was started by Israel diverting water away from hashemite territory using its national water carrier, and then bombing a similar water diversion project by Lebanon and Syria."

You then changed your position in your next post and suggested that "both sides" were equally responsible for the hostilities of the Six-Day War. This is your typical MO. On most discussions about issues related to the Israel-Arab conflict, you draw false moral equivalence between Israel and the Arabs. You do this in order to drag Israel into the same mud that the Arabs play in.

That's your schtick.

Feel free to elaborate further on your initial assertion that Israel initiated the conflict in the Six-Day War, and please tell us which reputable historians agree with you. I've read three books on this war, from Michael Oren, Tom Segev, and Benny Morris. My recollection of the information in those books doesn't jive with your simplistic assertions.

[dre]

Israelis call that period "HaMilhama al HaMaim".

The 1949 Armistice Agreements which followed the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, created three Demilitarized zones on the Israel-Syria border. The southernmost, and also the largest of stretched from the south-eastern part of the Sea of Galilee eastwards to the Yarmuk River where the borders of Israel, Jordan and Syria converged.[1] The issue of sharing the waters of the Jordan–Yarmuk system between Israel, Syria and Jordan turned out to be a major problem.[2]

Although small scale water-related skirmishes had occurred following the 1949 agreements, the major escalation took place in 1964, following Israel's completion of its National Water Carrier Project, which siphoned water from the Sea of Galilee. Arab states regarded the Israeli project as a unilateral usage of water resources outside the river basin; in response they attempted to finance and build the joint Syrian-Lebanese Headwater Diversion Plan, which would have diverted some water from flowing into Israel, particularly into the Sea of Galilee, where the National Water Carrier starts. The headwaters diversion would have directed the waters of the Banias stream into a dam at Mukhaiba for Syrian and Jordanian use, and divert the waters of the Hasbani into the Litani River for Lebanese use. The diversion works would have reduced the installed capacity of the National Water Carrier by 35%, and Israel's overall water supply by about 11%.[3][citation needed] Israel declared it would regard such a project as an infringement of its sovereign rights.

In November, when activities for the Arab diversion project started, the Israel Defense Forces launched repeated military strikes against the diversion works, which led to a prolonged chain of border clashes[4][citation needed]. The Arab countries eventually abandoned their project. Control of water resources and Israeli military attacks regarding the diversion effort are considered among the major factors which led to the Six-Day War in June 1967.

Like I said... not quite as simple as "Nasser started it dude!!!"

[dre]

I say this because of your quick reversal of position, you initally said this in response to DogOnPorch's question about conflicts initiated by Israel -

"Sure the whole chain of events that lead to the war in 67 was started by Israel diverting water away from hashemite territory using its national water carrier, and then bombing a similar water diversion project by Lebanon and Syria."

You then changed your position in your next post and suggested that "both sides" were equally responsible for the hostilities of the Six-Day War. This is your typical MO. On most discussions about issues related to the Israel-Arab conflict, you draw false moral equivalence between Israel and the Arabs. You do this in order to drag Israel into the same mud that the Arabs play in.

That's your schtick.

Feel free to elaborate further on your initial assertion that Israel initiated the conflict in the Six-Day War, and please tell us which reputable historians agree with you. I've read three books on this war, from Michael Oren, Tom Segev, and Benny Morris. My recollection of the information in those books doesn't jive with your simplistic assertions.

You then changed your position in your next post and suggested that "both sides"

Nope thats always been my position. And my origional claim that lead to this conversation was simply that BOTH sides have PROVOKED each other and that its not as simple and one sided as you guys try to make it sound... literally every chance theyve gotten.

You do this in order to drag Israel into the same mud that the Arabs play in.

They DO play in the same mud... that god awful dirt farm known as the middle east.

[GostHacked]

Hey, Bob. Just had a chance to look over your blog. Um, wow.

[Remiel]

Ah, so your support for Zionism is quite conditional. Basically, it doesn't bother you if Israel is susceptible to cease its mission of being the Jewish homeland. I would imagine you think the Law of Return, allowing any Jew to make Israel his or her homeland, is discriminatory and unfair? The Law of Return codifies the claim of the Jewish people to this land.

I think my characterization of you being anti-Zionistic was accurate. You don't care whether the Jewish people have independence and self-determination.

Well, if the State of Israel is on a mission to be the Jewish homeland, it is on a fool's errand. The Land of Israel is the Jewish homeland, and the chances of the state of Israel ever conforming perfectly with that seem to be about nil.

What does it matter though what the exact political situation of Israel is though, in the long run, as long as Jews are able to live in the Land of Israel in peace and safety, following the traditions of their forefathers (if they so choose)? Plenty of national groups are minorities in their states; minorities that are a part of the character of that state. But if in such a situation the Jews preferred to remain a majority, I would support their right to take their lands (physical communities) within the Land of Israel and reform their state again.

As for the Law of Return, I see no problem in principle of every Jew having a right to immigrate to the State of Israel. My only problem with it would be if immigration due to the Law of Return were so great that it was used to deny other people who may also have some claim to lands within the State of Israel from ever reclaiming what was theirs.

Your problem is that you cannot understand that a Jewish State of Israel may be a sufficient but not necessary condition for Jews having the right of self determination. It would be, after all, ludicrous to suggest that diaspora Jews do not have a right to self determination because they do not live in or have any desire to live in the State of Israel.

[bud]

Hey, Bob. Just had a chance to look over your blog. Um, wow.

yes. he's quite the fanatic and extremist.

he calls for the ethnic cleansing of palestinians because he sees all of the land as jewish land.

meanwhile, we have jbg, porch dog, dancer, AW and many others staying silent while bob the fanatic spews his extremism.

[DogOnPorch]

Its not as simple as saying one side started it. The 6 day war wasnt really six days. There had been a steady chain of violence along the border for years already and plenty of provocative actions by both sides. The first punch in that fight was thrown a couple of years before whats known as the 6 day war.

According to you, anyways.

The bottom line is both sides wanted that territory and were more than happy to fight for it.

What? The Sinai?

Sometimes two thugs just fight over something because they want to.

So you don't understand the conflict.

[DogOnPorch]

Bob: You then changed your position in your next post and suggested that "both sides" were equally responsible for the hostilities of the Six-Day War. This is your typical MO. On most discussions about issues related to the Israel-Arab conflict, you draw false moral equivalence between Israel and the Arabs. You do this in order to drag Israel into the same mud that the Arabs play in.

That's your schtick.

Yup, it sure is. Also, posters such as dre are very selective as to what history matters and what doesn't. Notice how The Yom Kippur War never enters into their equations, for example. That is to say the Arabs tried AGAIN to wipe Israel out...and lost...AGAIN. Nor shall they mention the Grand Mufti. It's all about water from that ditch known as the Jordan River according to dre.

Edited June 24, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[dre]

Yup, it sure is. Also, posters such as dre are very selective as to what history matters and what doesn't. Notice how The Yom Kippur War never enters into their equations, for example. That is to say the Arabs tried AGAIN to wipe Israel out...and lost...AGAIN. Nor shall they mention the Grand Mufti. It's all about water from that ditch known as the Jordan River according to dre.

Im not the only one that can see the importance of those aquifiers (which now produce 1/3 of Israels fresh water).

By virtue of the power vested in me as Commander of the Israel Defense Forces in the West Bank Area, I issue the following Order:

Definitions

1. In this Order:

'The Prescribed Day' - 7 June 1967.

'The Water Provisions' - all the provisions, including laws,regulations, orders, decrees, proclamations and directives that were in force in the Area on the Prescribed Day relative to water, its transport, production, provision, consumption, sale and distribution, control of the use of water, water rationing and the fixing of water allotments, the establishment of Water Projects, measurement of water, prevention of the pollution of water, the carrying out of studies and investigations on anything related to water affairs, the digging of wells, the hearing of objections and complaints and all measures related thereto, the delimitation of areas for the operations of various water installations and entities, the granting of such permits and licenses as have been or may be applied for within the scope of the above-mentioned Provisions, the fixing and levying of dues, taxes and revenues related to the procedures dealt within the above-mentioned provisions and any other matter that has not been specificall mentioned but is dealt with in any form whatsoever as regards water issues.

'The Area' - The West Bank Area.

'The Officer in Charge' - Whoever I may appoint from time to time for the purpose of this Order.

'The Jordanian Government' - The Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

The very first thing Israel did when war broke out was send their military to secure key water resources, the same water from the same sources that they had already been fighting over constantly for about 3 years prior to the war (a period known by many israelis as "War over Water"). The same land where Israel now maintains a massive network of pumping stations and pipelines today.

[DogOnPorch]

Im not the only one that can see the importance of those aquifiers (which now produce 1/3 of Israels fresh water).

The very first thing Israel did when war broke out was send their military to secure key water resources, the same water from the same sources that they had already been fighting over constantly for about 3 years prior to the war (a period known by many israelis as "War over Water"). The same land where Israel now maintains a massive network of pumping stations and pipelines today.

Yeah...that's why the Arabs attacked Israel all those times.

[jbg]

The argument that Palestinians have no need for their own state because there are already twenty two other Arab states is equally idiotic.

When before the 1964 formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization by an Egyptian relative of the Mufti of Jerusalem was there such an identity as "Palestinian"?

[jbg]

Some people argue that Quebec nationalism is illegitimate because it seeks to reverse the results of the Plains of Abraham. Those people are also nuts.

Oh really? The Acadians fled the English to inhabit Louisiana as the "Cajuns". Are they now insisting they are a separate "nation" because the U.S. speaks largely English?

[dre]

When before the 1964 formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization by an Egyptian relative of the Mufti of Jerusalem was there such an identity as "Palestinian"?

Who the hell cares? We have millions of people living in the occupied territories. Israel has no interest in assimilating these people into Israel and allowing them to vote. The surrounding Arab countries have no interest in assimilating them either. If they want to create their own state its entirely their own perogative.

As for Israeli security... a palestinian state would probably improve that situation as well. Israel has had better success dealing with the surrounding Arab states than its had dealing with the palestinians. Statehood would give them something to lose, and if the fledgeling state attacked Israel then Israeli could crush it legally without making themselves a perpetual paraiha.

The sticking point? Israel would not be able to continue looting it for resources, and it would be legally obligated to pay this new state for all the resources its looted from it so far.

[Remiel]

Oh really? The Acadians fled the English to inhabit Louisiana as the "Cajuns". Are they now insisting they are a separate "nation" because the U.S. speaks largely English?

They did not " flee " the English, they were kicked out by them. I do, however, consider the Canadian Acadians to form at least a quasi-nation within Canada, and I imagine that many Cajuns would be loathe to give up that identity to be absolute the same as every other American.

[DogOnPorch]

dre: The sticking point? Israel would not be able to continue looting it for resources, and it would be legally obligated to pay this new state for all the resources its looted from it so far.

Yeah, right.

Who the hell cares?

Mufti? What's a Mufti? Those that care are those that don't want to support Hamas and crew.

Edited June 24, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

.... and I imagine that many Cajuns would be loathe to give up that identity to be absolute the same as every other American.

They don't have to, as "every other American" is not the same. That is a melting pot myth. You would actually find that Cajuns are very patriotic because of the dues they paid just like many other ethnic groups, with the added bonus of getting to help fight the British when Louisiana was a Spanish colony. Efforts to preserve language and culture (e.g CODOFIL) are consistent with other assimilated groups as well. Cajun culture wasn't really well defined until, ironically, the American Civil War.

[jbg]

They did not " flee " the English, they were kicked out by them. I do, however, consider the Canadian Acadians to form at least a quasi-nation within Canada, and I imagine that many Cajuns would be loathe to give up that identity to be absolute the same as every other American.

The Cajuns are part of the American melting pot. Heck, "Jambalaya" is quite the hit country song. It doesn't get more mainstream American than country music.

[GostHacked]

When before the 1964 formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization by an Egyptian relative of the Mufti of Jerusalem was there such an identity as "Palestinian"?

The whole area including Lebanon, Syria, and a few other countries never existed before the boarders were drawn up. Israel sure did not exist at the time of the Palestinian Mandate which the Brits administered. Denying the Palestinians a home is also denying that Syrians and Lebanese do not deserve a country of their own.

Israel has a right, but not the rest of the people living there?

[DogOnPorch]

The whole area including Lebanon, Syria, and a few other countries never existed before the boarders were drawn up. Israel sure did not exist at the time of the Palestinian Mandate which the Brits administered. Denying the Palestinians a home is also denying that Syrians and Lebanese do not deserve a country of their own.

No it isn't. Blame the Arabs for not assimilating their fellow Arab war refugees from a war they started. The Arabs were also very content to not create Palestine while they were the owners of the region ('48-'67). Of course, the Ottoman Turks never heard of them at all. You could even blame the Turks for the situation by siding with Germany during WW1...but I don't want to strain your brain.

Israel has a right, but not the rest of the people living there?

You just don't get it. The Jews remember the Mufti even if you refuse to.

"Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: 'The Jews are yours.'"

- Quote from the Mufti after WW2.

"I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all."

- Quote from the Mufti calling for a genocide of the Jews when Israel was declared a state, 1947.

Rome

June 28, 1943

His Excellency

The Minister of Foreign Affairs for Hungary

Your Excellency:

You no doubt know of the struggle between the Arabs and Jews of Palestine, what it has been and what it is, a long and bloody fight, brought about by the desire of the Jews to create a national home, a Jewish State in the Near East, with the help and protection of England and the United States. In fact, behind it lies the hope which the Jews have never relinquished, namely, the domination of the whole world through this Important, strategic center, Palestine. In effect their program has, among other purposes, always aimed at the encouragement of Jewish migration to Palestine and the other countries of the Near East. However, the war, as well as the understanding which the members of the Three-Power Pact have of the responsibility of the Jews for its outbreak and finally their evil intentions towards these countries which protected them until now - all these are reasons for placing them under such vigilant control as will definitely stop their emigration to Palestine or elsewhere.

Lately I have been informed of the uninterrupted efforts made by the English and the Jews to obtain permission for the Jews living in your country to leave for Palestine via Bulgaria and Turkey. I have also learned that these negotiations were successful since some of the Jews of Hungary have had the satisfaction of emigrating to Palestine via Bulgaria and Turkey and that a group of these Jews arrived In Palestine towards the end of last March. The Jewish Agency, which supervises the execution of the Jewish program, has published a bulletin which contains important information on the current negotiations between the English Government and the governments of other interested states to send the Jews of Balkan countries to Palestine. The Jewish Agency quoted, among other things, its receipt of a sufficient number of immigration certificates for 900 Jewish children to be transported from Hungary, accompanied by 100 adults.

To authorize these Jews to leave your country under the above circumstances and in this way, would by no means solve the Jewish problem and would certainly not protect your country against their evil influence - far from it! - for this escape would make it possible for them to communicate and combine freely with their racial brethren in enemy countries in order to strengthen their position and to exert a more dangerous influence on the outcome of the war, especially since, as a consequence of their long stay in your country they are necessarily in a position to know many of your secrets and also about your war effort. All this comes on top of the terrible damage done to the friendly Arab nation which has taken its place at your side in this war and which cherishes for your country the most sincere feelings and the very best wishes.

This is the reason why I ask your Excellency to permit me to draw your attention to the necessity of preventing the Jews from leaving your country for Palestine and if there are reasons which make their removal necessary, it would be indispensable and infinitely preferable to send them to other countries where they would find themselves under active control, for example, in Poland, in order thereby to protect oneself from their menace and avoid the consequent damages

Yours, etc.

Source: The Arab Higher Committee. Its Origins, Personnel and Purposes. Documentary Record Submitted to the United Nations, May 1947, by the Nation Associates. Hungary acceded to the Mufti's request and sent Hungarian Jews to the death camps ("where they would find themselves under active control") in Poland. The Nation Associates added their own note stating that as a result of this request, 400,000+ Jews were killed.

[Letter from Mufti ends here]

[Bob]

Who the hell cares? We have millions of people living in the occupied territories. Israel has no interest in assimilating these people into Israel and allowing them to vote. The surrounding Arab countries have no interest in assimilating them either. If they want to create their own state its entirely their own perogative.

As for Israeli security... a palestinian state would probably improve that situation as well. Israel has had better success dealing with the surrounding Arab states than its had dealing with the palestinians. Statehood would give them something to lose, and if the fledgeling state attacked Israel then Israeli could crush it legally without making themselves a perpetual paraiha.

The sticking point? Israel would not be able to continue looting it for resources, and it would be legally obligated to pay this new state for all the resources its looted from it so far.

Israel CANNOT assimilate them. Arabs, overall, are not assimilated into Israeli society. They are not loyal citizens to Israel, and reject Israel's foundation as the homeland of the Jewish people. You cannot force an Arab to accept Jewish independence and self-determination in a land that he has believes belongs to his nation. Arabs have a thing called national pride, and you can't wish it away or "assimilate" them. To use the term "assimilate" and "Arabs" in the same sentence with respect to Israel show just how oblivious you are to this situation. They are a fifth column in this country as it is, and there's certainly no way we're going to increase their numbers.

Do you not understand that the Arabs view Israel as being born in sin? That they view Israel as a mistake that must be undone? That they have waged war after war against us? That they've been committed to a campaign of terrorism against us since decades before1948? How the hell can we integrate people who are committed to the destruction of Israel? Why the hell should we, anyways? This is our land, not theirs. Let them resolve their statelessness in the neighbouring Arab countries, where no assimilation would be necessary. You obviously fail to ask the most basic of questions - why are they stateless in the first place? What actions brought them to where they are today and perpetuate their statelessness? Why should we give further autonomy to a group of people that has proven time and again that they wish to kill us?

The argument that security would be improved is the most idiotic of all. Increasing the autonomy and independence of a group that actively works to kill us will do the exact the opposite. Look what happened after the withdrawal from Gaza, did that bring security? What about the withdrawal from southern Lebanon? If we withdraw from Judea and Samaria we will immediately give them access to every community in Israel, all of Israel will be within the range of their rockets and missiles. How many dead Jews have to be in the ground before our lack of trust in the Arabs is seen as justified? Have they not killed enough of us yet to illustrate their commitment? Are their regular anti-Semitic and anti-Zionistic declarations (across all forms of media - TV, radio, newspapers, as well as textbooks, political statements, etc) not enough to convince you that they mean what they say?

With you, reality is turned on its head. Only a delusional person can believe that ceding territory to an enemy that has made its intentions clear - your destruction - is a step towards increased security. The artificial nation you refer to as the "Palestinians" forfeited any right it had to independence and self-determination long ago, when they waged wars and campaigns of terror against Israel in order to destroy us. And they regularly renew their forfeiture with their continued terrorism and political warfare against Israel.

Lastly, this idiotic assertion of yours that somehow statehood would make the Arabs more accountable (and I've seen this garbage so many times, it's not even funny) is just that: idiotic. What makes you think Israel can go in with carte blanche to eradicate all these Arabs when they ramp up their terrorism after this hypothetical future Israeli withdrawal? The same team of idiots that you're a part of would be the loudest in decrying Israel for "war crimes" in its self-defense in this situation. We have manufactured outrage anytime terrorists are killed in Gaza (in the post-withdrawal context), and the same thing would happen in the context of an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. And when "civilians" are killed in Gaza, are the terrorists blamed for embedding themselves within the "civilian infrastructure"? No, Israel is blamed and said to either be A. negligent in its military operations or B. intentionally targeting civilians. And here you are, pretending that somehow these political games would cease in the context of a "Palestinian" state.

As far as responsibility for the terrorism, that will continue with or without a "Palestinian" state, the political leadership of the Arabs will just claim that it isn't responsible for the rockets and missiles, blame some fringe group, and wash its hands of responsibility - just as they do today and have been doing for many years. And when Israel defends itself, we'll hear the same cries of "war crimes", but this time it'll include allegations of a "war of aggression" and a "violation of sovereignty". It's going to be the same political games, deflection and terrorism 2.0 with you and your ilk carrying the torch. If anything, terrorism waged against Israel from Judea and Samaria that would invariably occur in the context of a "Palestinian" state would be blamed on Israel in one way or another, in the same way you rats do so today. Israel isn't going to allow herself to be placed at greater risk in order to appease the wishes of her enemies to harm her masquerading as an "independence/liberation" movement for the artificial nation known as the "Palestinians".

Edited June 24, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

The whole area including Lebanon, Syria, and a few other countries never existed before the boarders were drawn up. Israel sure did not exist at the time of the Palestinian Mandate which the Brits administered. Denying the Palestinians a home is also denying that Syrians and Lebanese do not deserve a country of their own.

Israel has a right, but not the rest of the people living there?

All of those countries existed historically. Open up your Torah. The societies/cultures, however, that inhabited those lands, have all but been wiped out by Islamic and Arabic imperialism. Aside from the Jewish people, of course. We're the one exception. Israel is the epitome of anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism.

[Bob]

When before the 1964 formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization by an Egyptian relative of the Mufti of Jerusalem was there such an identity as "Palestinian"?

Here we are, many pages and posts later, and the goon-squad of dre, Remiel, bud, and GostHacked can't answer a straightforward question - how does the "Palestinian" culture distinguish itself from other Arabs in a meaningful way?

If this group of people isn't unique (and it sure as hell isn't!), then why are they entitled to independence and self-determination when their nation already has more states and land than you can shake a stick at?

They can reject my supposition that a distinct identity is a necessary prerequisite for being entitled to independence, as they've tried to argue by attacking my question rather than answering it, but none of them can simply concede the point that the "Palestinians" are a recently manufactured national identity - nothing more than a political tool to create the illusion of a distinct nation in limbo. Fine, my question about what distinguishes the "Palestinians" from other Arabs is irrelevant, so why not answer it? Why not concede the point? All they need to do is admit that I'm right about the Palestinians being indistinguishable from other Arabs, while still holding onto some other justification for their nationalistic ambitions (i.e they're currently stateless, so they deserve to form a state upon the lands they currently reside on, as I think dre argued).

Maybe Alberta and Ontario, as examples, should become independent states in order to stop funding the have-not provinces. They actually have more of a legitimate claim to independence than the "Palestinians", because they haven't been waging wars and campaigns of terror against Canada, unlike the Arabs against Israel.

[Oleg Bach]

This old Jewish guy I talked to insisted that Palistine does not really even exist in name...He said that it is not an Arabic or Jewish name - that it is a Roman invention - after a town in Italy called Palistinia....is this true?