International stabilization force?

[Figleaf]

The idea of an international stabilization force in the middle east could be a good one, if ....

First, it's mission and rules of engagement would need to be clear and sensible. It is not sensible to put more defenceless troops in front of IDF weapons, and it is not sensible to expect the force to act as Israel's proxy army against militant groups. If a force is to go into the middle east, it's mandate must be to act impartially in the dispute.

Furthermore, any international force going into the middle east should not be confined to enforcing UN resolution 1559 while other resolutions (e.g. 242) languish unaddressed. Not only would it be a bizarre incongruity to enforce one and not another, it would also not comply with Condi's stated desire for a comprehensive solution to the problems.

Background... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_U...l_and_Palestine

[jdobbin]

The idea of an international stabilization force in the middle east could be a good one, if ....

First, it's mission and rules of engagement would need to be clear and sensible. It is not sensible to put more defenceless troops in front of IDF weapons, and it is not sensible to expect the force to act as Israel's proxy army against militant groups. If a force is to go into the middle east, it's mandate must be to act impartially in the dispute.

Furthermore, any international force going into the middle east should not be confined to enforcing UN resolution 1559 while other resolutions (e.g. 242) languish unaddressed. Not only would it be a bizarre incongruity to enforce one and not another, it would also not comply with Condi's stated desire for a comprehensive solution to the problems.

Background... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_U...l_and_Palestine

But who would makes up this force? No one with any sense would want to submit themselves to suicide bombings or Israelis tactical shelling.

[Argus]

The idea of an international stabilization force in the middle east could be a good one, if ....

First, it's mission and rules of engagement would need to be clear and sensible. It is not sensible to put more defenceless troops in front of IDF weapons, and it is not sensible to expect the force to act as Israel's proxy army against militant groups. If a force is to go into the middle east, it's mandate must be to act impartially in the dispute.

No one would be idiot enough to volunteer troops for a mission to go into south Lebanon and fight it out with Hezbollah. This is a terrorist group and it has already said it has no intention of giving up its weapons under any circumstances. So this so-called stabilization force either has to sit around and do nothing while Hezbollah attacks Israel - much like the last UN force - and then risk being battered when Israel fights back, or get involved in street fights and suicide bombings as they try to stop Hezbollah from attacking Israel.

Furthermore, any international force going into the middle east should not be confined to enforcing UN resolution 1559 while other resolutions (e.g. 242) languish unaddressed.

Most UN resolutions on Israel are anti-semitic in nature, unreasonable, unrealistic, and unworkable, and the product of muslim numbers and money. And no one has the balls to try and enforce any of them against Israel's wishes, certainly not some rag-tag force of third world cannon fodder sent in by the UN.

[jdobbin]

No one would be idiot enough to volunteer troops for a mission to go into south Lebanon and fight it out with Hezbollah. This is a terrorist group and it has already said it has no intention of giving up its weapons under any circumstances. So this so-called stabilization force either has to sit around and do nothing while Hezbollah attacks Israel - much like the last UN force - and then risk being battered when Israel fights back, or get involved in street fights and suicide bombings as they try to stop Hezbollah from attacking Israel.

I have to agree there. I also don't know if Israel is prepared to go all the way to Beirut basically burning the entire country all the was and possibly taking on a couple of Arab countries to boot.

Most Middle East experts are cringing about what it all might end up as.

[Figleaf]

Most UN resolutions on Israel are anti-semitic in nature, unreasonable, unrealistic, and unworkable, and the product of muslim numbers and money. ...

Sounds like you've been listening to Israeli/Bush propaganda a bit too much.

Based on the actual text of UN resolutions, what specifically do you see as anti-semitic, or unreasonable?

[Argus]

Most UN resolutions on Israel are anti-semitic in nature, unreasonable, unrealistic, and unworkable, and the product of muslim numbers and money. ...

Sounds like you've been listening to Israeli/Bush propaganda a bit too much.

Based on the actual text of UN resolutions, what specifically do you see as anti-semitic, or unreasonable?

To appreciate fully the extent to which the U.N. has been taken over, observe November 29th, the annual U.N. Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, which is the only U.N. day dedicated to a specific people. The occasion was held in the U.N.'s elaborate Trusteeship Council before hundreds of delegates. At the front of the room sat the secretary general, the president of the General Assembly, and the chair of that main U.N. body, the Committee on Palestinian Rights. In a repeat of previous years' performances, beside them stood a U.N. flag, a Palestinian flag, and in between, a map in Arabic pre-dating the existence of the U.N. member state of Israel. All participants were asked to rise for "a minute of silence...for all those who have given their lives for the cause of the Palestinian people..." — which would include suicide bombers.

anti-semitism at the UN

A point by point analyses of resolutions is not really necessary. As someone has already said.

"When one considers that the majority of U.N. member states are Arab nations (22) or Islamic nations (52) or dictatorial, anti-democratic nations or nations in desperate need of Arab oil or nations desperate for business investment opportunities within Arab countries or countries fearful of discontent among their growing Arab/Muslim populations (namely ALL of Europe!), it's no wonder why so many anti-Israel General Assembly resolutions get introduced AND passed! In fact, of over 700 General Assembly resolutions passed since the UN's 1945 establishment, nearly 450 condemn Israel. None have been passed against any Arab country nor any Arab terrorist organizations! In other words, out of 190 nations in the United Nations, over sixty percent of all General Assembly resolutions condemned just ONE member, Israel! If the General Assembly proposed a resolution deploring Israel for breathing too much Middle Eastern air, no doubt it too would pass! So when the large bloc of anti-Israel fascist, anti-democratic, anti-Western, Arab and Islamic Neo-Nazi nations tell Israel to comply with these transparently biased AND non-binding resolutions, Israel simply tells them to "shove it."

[Figleaf]

Most UN resolutions on Israel are anti-semitic in nature, unreasonable, unrealistic, and unworkable, and the product of muslim numbers and money. ...

Sounds like you've been listening to Israeli/Bush propaganda a bit too much.

Based on the actual text of UN resolutions, what specifically do you see as anti-semitic, or unreasonable?

...

A point by point analyses of resolutions is not really necessary. ...

Evasion. What's the matter, caught in your web of bullshit with no way out?

If you can't point out, based on the content of the resolutions that the resolutions are biased, then you have no business saying that they are. Your comments are mere ranting -- utter tripe. (And tedious.)

[Censorship]

Most UN resolutions on Israel are anti-semitic in nature, unreasonable, unrealistic, and unworkable, and the product of muslim numbers and money. And no one has the balls to try and enforce any of them against Israel's wishes, certainly not some rag-tag force of third world cannon fodder sent in by the UN.

The ONLY reason Israel has'nt been called to account is that the US has a veto, and excercises it regularly for the benefit of Israel.

'Third-world cannon fodder'? Racist much?

I'll tell you what - you love Israel so much, move there and sign up. Convert to Judaism, then you can get in. You will fit right in with the other intolerant religious nutjobs.

[Argus]

Based on the actual text of UN resolutions, what specifically do you see as anti-semitic, or unreasonable?

...

A point by point analyses of resolutions is not really necessary. ...

Evasion. What's the matter, caught in your web of bullshit with no way out?

You don't consider it an interesting datum that 450 of 700 resolutions over the last fifty years were against Israel? You want a blow by blow description of every one of the 450 resolutions? Some of us have lives, y'know.

If you can't point out, based on the content of the resolutions that the resolutions are biased, then you have no business saying that they are. Your comments are mere ranting -- utter tripe. (And tedious.)

True, though. Have you ever met Machinations? You guys sound a lot alike.

[Figleaf]

You don't consider it an interesting datum that 450 of 700 resolutions over the last fifty years were against Israel?

I find it a telling datum, but not even remotely supportive of your contention that those resolutions are biased. AGAIN, the point you need to answer here is what do you purport see IN those resolutions that supports your contention that they are biased. Until you can tender such support for your allegation in this regard you appear to be merely blowing hot air.

You want a blow by blow description of every one of the 450 resolutions? Some of us have lives, y'know.

You could begin with a few, even one, specific example. After all, are you trying to pursuade people here or simply browbeat us?

[Argus]

You don't consider it an interesting datum that 450 of 700 resolutions over the last fifty years were against Israel?

I find it a telling datum, but not even remotely supportive of your contention that those resolutions are biased. AGAIN, the point you need to answer here is what do you purport see IN those resolutions that supports your contention that they are biased. Until you can tender such support for your allegation in this regard you appear to be merely blowing hot air.

The UN's Dirty Little Secret

Israel and the UN

You want a blow by blow description of every one of the 450 resolutions? Some of us have lives, y'know.

You could begin with a few, even one, specific example. After all, are you trying to pursuade people here or simply browbeat us?

How about 58/155? This was a resolution specifically directed at the "plight" of the Palestinian children, repeatedly condemning Israel for endangering their lives etc. etc. Why is it biased? Because, like most every UN resolution, it is flagrantly one sided, saying nothing whatsoever about the safety of Israeli children. When Israel took the same resolution, mirrored it, and introduced it again, changing the name "palestinian" to "israeli" the resolution was amended in the following way:

The list of amendments, cosponsored by Bahrain, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, included deleting of the phrase "Israeli children" from the text and replacing it with "Middle East children," and inserting references to Israeli "military assaults," "occupation" and ""excessive use of force" ahead of all mention of terrorism. Even the title of the draft was changed from "The situation of and assistance to Israeli children" to "The situation of and assistance to children in the Middle East region."

There's also 60/104 deploring Israel's human rights record against the Palestinians, a mirror of 59/124 which did the same thing, 59/121 which did the same thing, 58/99 which did the same thing, 58/96 which did the same thing, 57/127 which did the same thing, 57/124 which did the same thing, 56/59, 56/60, 56/62, 56/63, 55/130 through 55/135 which all do the same thing, all in the last few years.

Meanwhile, the United Nations has never passed a resolution condemning China's human rights abuses, or North Korea's human rights abuses, or Iran's human rights abuses, or Indias human rights abuses, or Saudi Arabia's human rights abuses, or any of the human rights abuses of the Palestinian Authority or Egypt or Libya or any other Arab or Muslim state. Not even once. Nor has it condemned what Russia has done in Chechnya

[Figleaf]

Argus, the fact that proposed resolutions which 'mirror' other resolutions have not passed is easily explained by the fact that the participants are not in 'mirroring' situations. E.G. The Palestinians are not maintaining an occupation OF Israel, they are opposing an occupation BY Israel.

I continue to await your clarification of what actual content in UN Resolutions makes them biased.

[Rue]

The idea of an international stabilization force in the middle east could be a good one, if ....

First, it's mission and rules of engagement would need to be clear and sensible. It is not sensible to put more defenceless troops in front of IDF weapons, and it is not sensible to expect the force to act as Israel's proxy army against militant groups. If a force is to go into the middle east, it's mandate must be to act impartially in the dispute.

Furthermore, any international force going into the middle east should not be confined to enforcing UN resolution 1559 while other resolutions (e.g. 242) languish unaddressed. Not only would it be a bizarre incongruity to enforce one and not another, it would also not comply with Condi's stated desire for a comprehensive solution to the problems.

Background... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_U...l_and_Palestine

So tell me. How does one act impartially with terrorists. Oh I know. They will sit down with Hezbollah and have tea and say, " oh yoo hoo, would you stop fighting with those silly Jews...just ignore them....they are mad at Mel Gibson too... Man your simplistic analysis is laughable.

What is it with sheltered Canadians who haven't a clue about terrorists talking like they are experts on how to handle them. Give it a rest. Act impartially. Oh yoo hoo please stop that, pretty please.

[Rue]

Argus, the fact that proposed resolutions which 'mirror' other resolutions have not passed is easily explained by the fact that the participants are not in 'mirroring' situations. E.G. The Palestinians are not maintaining an occupation OF Israel, they are opposing an occupation BY Israel.

I continue to await your clarification of what actual content in UN Resolutions makes them biased.

Have you got a friggin clue what is going on? Israel is not occupying Palestine. It went into the Gaza and West Bank after terrorists in both regions seeking the destruction of the State of Israel used those places and civilians as shields to launch terrorist attacks and missile and mortar attacks. Or does your selective memory forget that?

When Israel pulled out of Gaza and the West Bank the terrorists attacks began again so now they have set up a security wall. So your comment that they are maintaining an occupation is simply not true and it shows you are clueless.

As for Lebanon when Israel pulled out of Lebanon the UN which had a mandate to disarm Hezbollah, refused not to and decided to sit back and do nothing with its troops except watch Hezbollah infiltrate the South, massacre Christians, Sunnis and Druze, and then begin launching missle and terrorist attacks. This same UN sat back while Iran and Syria turned Lebanon's entire highway system into a logistics support network to ship missiles and weapons to Hezbollah in the South. The UN ignored its own resolution calling for the disarming of Hezbollan and stayed silent when Hezbollah kidnapped and tortured Israeli civilians so do me a favour-either read up on what has happened or stop making references to things that are simply not true.

Anyone who can read knows that every time Israel has pulled its forces back from security zones, all it has done is lead to increased terrorist attacks. So your pretending this is a one sided affair with Israel as the big meeny and Palestinians as innocent victims is lame, very lame.

The fact is if there was no terrorism, Palestinians would have had their country and freedom long ago. It is that simple. Unless of course you are suggesting Israel should not exist at all, which is just fine right? Let's just kill them all because Israel is illegal right? Evil people. Mel Gibson is right.

[Rue]

Fig Leaf I strongly doubt you can read but try this. Try read up on what has happened in Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia from say 1955 to 1985.

Then tell you what Fig Leaf, if you can find me one UN Resolution condemning any of these countries as to how they treated their own civilians - do let me know...and then ask me that question again about where in the contents of UN resolutions its bias. Its not the contents. Its the fact that the resolutions have ONLY singeld out Israel and none of these countries or many other Muslim and Asian and other countries for their UN violations. Try Indonesia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, as well. Try Pakistan. Try India. Try Bangladesh. Try ZImbabwe. Or does your selective memory only apply with Israelis who are Jewish?

[Black Dog]

Have you got a friggin clue what is going on? Israel is not occupying Palestine. It went into the Gaza and West Bank after terrorists in both regions seeking the destruction of the State of Israel used those places and civilians as shields to launch terrorist attacks and missile and mortar attacks. Or does your selective memory forget that?

Gee and here me and teh rest of the world thought Israel took those lands in '67.

When Israel pulled out of Gaza and the West Bank the terrorists attacks began again so now they have set up a security wall. So your comment that they are maintaining an occupation is simply not true and it shows you are clueless.

Israel still occupies large chunks of the West Bank and continues to construct settlments here.

As for Lebanon when Israel pulled out of Lebanon the UN which had a mandate to disarm Hezbollah, refused not to and decided to sit back and do nothing with its troops except watch Hezbollah infiltrate the South, massacre Christians, Sunnis and Druze, and then begin launching missle and terrorist attacks. This same UN sat back while Iran and Syria turned Lebanon's entire highway system into a logistics support network to ship missiles and weapons to Hezbollah in the South. The UN ignored its own resolution calling for the disarming of Hezbollan and stayed silent when Hezbollah kidnapped and tortured Israeli civilians so do me a favour-either read up on what has happened or stop making references to things that are simply not true.

Where is this mandate to disarm Hizbullah? That was never the UN's responsibility under any resolutions pretaining to Lebanon.

[Figleaf]

The idea of an international stabilization force in the middle east could be a good one, if ....

First, it's mission and rules of engagement would need to be clear and sensible. It is not sensible to put more defenceless troops in front of IDF weapons, and it is not sensible to expect the force to act as Israel's proxy army against militant groups. If a force is to go into the middle east, it's mandate must be to act impartially in the dispute.

Furthermore, any international force going into the middle east should not be confined to enforcing UN resolution 1559 while other resolutions (e.g. 242) languish unaddressed. Not only would it be a bizarre incongruity to enforce one and not another, it would also not comply with Condi's stated desire for a comprehensive solution to the problems.

Background... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_U...l_and_Palestine

So tell me. How does one act impartially with terrorists.

No doubt it is merely thru inadvertence that you have distorted my comments. (Your anticipated apology is accepted.) I did not say act impartially with terrorists, I said act impartially in the dispute.

Of course the question of who are terrorists or not is challengingly bound up with the question of impartiality.

The remainder of your post was juvenile blather, so I will generously ignore it.

[Figleaf]

Have you got a friggin clue what is going on? Israel is not occupying Palestine. It went into the Gaza and West Bank after terrorists in both regions seeking the destruction of the State of Israel used those places and civilians as shields to launch terrorist attacks and missile and mortar attacks. Or does your selective memory forget that?

Obviously I have more clue than you about the history of this matter. Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaza since 1967 when it initiated attacks on various neighbor states it alleged were about to attack it.

When Israel pulled out of Gaza and the West Bank the terrorists attacks began again

Israel did not pull out of the West Bank, and so militant Palestinians have continued to oppose the occupation. While some of them have carried out that struggle through inhumane and illegal ways, their use of such methods does not change the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

so now they have set up a security wall. So your comment that they are maintaining an occupation is simply not true and it shows you are clueless.

Each time you make a ludicrous assertion and follow it up by calling me clueless, you reveal your profound ignorance or bias on this issue. Israel continues to hold military power and maintain security control over both the West Bank and Gaza. Furthermore, portions of the security wall itself lie outside of Israel's borders.

As for Lebanon when Israel pulled out of Lebanon the UN which had a mandate to disarm Hezbollah,

What causes you to think the UN had a mandate to disarm Hezbollah?

The UN ignored its own resolution calling for the disarming of Hezbollan

How did it "ignore" its own resolution? Your phrasing suggests you don't adequately understand UN and international procedure.

Anyone who can read knows that every time Israel has pulled its forces back from security zones, all it has done is lead to increased terrorist attacks.

Where are your figures on this so I can inform myself?

So your pretending this is a one sided affair with Israel as the big meeny and Palestinians as innocent victims is lame, very lame.

On the contrary, it is the kneejerk supporters of Israel that appear to view this matter as one-sided.

The fact is if there was no terrorism, Palestinians would have had their country and freedom long ago.

There is no reason to believe that at all. Furthermore, why would the Palestinians trust Israel to end its occupation if they ceased their struggle, especially considering that it continues to send in settlers? Basically, Israel's position is illogical... it is like a man who parks his car on another man's foot and insists he will only move it off if his victim stops shouting about it.

It is that simple. Unless of course you are suggesting Israel should not exist at all, which is just fine right?

I don't think that your blatantly false imputation there is due to inadvertence. I think you have knowlingly resorted to objectionable rhetoric. I will ask that you retract that false imputation so I won't have to bring this issue to the moderator.

[GostHacked]

Rue

Have you got a friggin clue what is going on? Israel is not occupying Palestine. It went into the Gaza and West Bank after terrorists in both regions seeking the destruction of the State of Israel used those places and civilians as shields to launch terrorist attacks and missile and mortar attacks. Or does your selective memory forget that?.

Can you show me on the map where the country/state of Palestine is? No? Gaza and the West bank are not part of the country/state of Palestine. It simply does not exist at the moment. Hence the road map for a two state agreement. Isreal is a country and recognized as such. Palestine, not at all.

Also the US has had alot to do with the rhetoric at the UN in regards to anti-semetic crap. Actions against Israel is NOT ANTI-SEMETIC. There is a difference between being a Jew hater and disagreeding with Israel's (a country) policies towards other countries. The US has vetoed many resolutions condeming Israel of it's actions. It is like Israel has a big protective sheild around it and no one can touch them no matter WHAT they do. This sets a bad precident and fuels the anti-Israel camp. No justice at all.

[Figleaf]

... Try read up on what has happened in Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia from say 1955 to 1985.

What in particular is it you think I should take note of?

Then tell you what Fig Leaf, if you can find me one UN Resolution condemning any of these countries as to how they treated their own civilians - do let me know

Ah, I see. You really don't have a grasp on the nature and function of the UN. FYI, except for the naiscent 'failed states' and 'duty to protect' doctrines which are not fully promulgated yet, the UN is confined to inter-state matters, not intra-state matters.

Considering the tendentious and self-regarding quality of your writing, you would do well to attempt to be informed on the topics you spew on to avoid the appearance of being profoundly ignorant.

... about where in the contents of UN resolutions its bias. Its not the contents.

Hey Argus! Do you concede Rue's point that the content of UN resolutions doesn't reveal a bias?

[Argus]

Have you got a friggin clue what is going on? Israel is not occupying Palestine. It went into the Gaza and West Bank after terrorists in both regions seeking the destruction of the State of Israel used those places and civilians as shields to launch terrorist attacks and missile and mortar attacks. Or does your selective memory forget that?

Obviously I have more clue than you about the history of this matter. Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaza since 1967 when it initiated attacks on various neighbor states it alleged were about to attack it.

This is the kind of thing which tends to cause those with any actual knowledge to dismiss any possibility the post is more than biased nonsense. This offhand sneering innuendo about Israel once again being the guilty party, as Israel is ALWAYS the guilty party to some people who choose to completely ignore all the facts of the matter.

The reason for the 1967 war are quite clear, and no one with a shred of fairness can lay them at Israel's doorstep. The 1967 war

[jdobbin]

This is the kind of thing which tends to cause those with any actual knowledge to dismiss any possibility the post is more than biased nonsense. This offhand sneering innuendo about Israel once again being the guilty party, as Israel is ALWAYS the guilty party to some people who choose to completely ignore all the facts of the matter.

The reason for the 1967 war are quite clear, and no one with a shred of fairness can lay them at Israel's doorstep. The 1967 war

A lot of nasty things happened in that war. Yes, it was initiated by Arab countries but Israel lay a thrashing on countries like Egypt including the executions of unarmed prisoners, possibly a thousand or more.

And after increasing Israel's size times 3, some made it the Israeli policy to have the land become part of a greater Israel, setting the stage for the conflicts we have now.

Israel's security has always been important but their policy on settlers in Gaza and the West Bank was ill conceived.

[Black Dog]

The reason for the 1967 war are quite clear, and no one with a shred of fairness can lay them at Israel's doorstep.

Does that include Menachem 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. "

Yitzhak Rabin?

"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."

What about former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman?

"There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting."

General Mattitiahu Peled?

"While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our defence against the Egyptian threat. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army."

General Haim Barlev?

"We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such a possibility."

Mordechai Bentov, Minister of Housing?

"The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory."

Of course, I can't forget this:

Sharon considered 1967 coup to force war with Egypt

Israel admits attacking it neighbors, a prima facie act of aggression, while claiming that they were about to be attacked, and their own attack was self-defense. Yet Israel's own military and political leaders admit they weren't in danger and weren't about to be attacked. Therefore, Israel was the aggressor in 1967.

[Argus]

The reason for the 1967 war are quite clear, and no one with a shred of fairness can lay them at Israel's doorstep.

Does that include Menachem 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. "

It did not matter whether they "proved" Egypt was about to attack Israel. And Egypt was not alone, as there were a dozen other nations mobilizing and moving troops forward. There was also the matter of Egypt throwing out the UN, and closing down the suez. That last alone would have led to war even without Egyptian troops moving to the border.

Yitzhak Rabin?

"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."

A noted peacemaker.

What about former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman?

"There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting."

This is an irrelevent quote. No danger of extermination? So what? Danger of damage and death and destruction within Israel, sure.

General Mattitiahu Peled?

"While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our defence against the Egyptian threat. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army."

Yes, Egypt was not alone, and you always mobilize what you have, regardless of whether you think you'll need them. I suspect you're cherry picking bits and pieces of quotes to say things the people you're quoting never intended to say.

General Haim Barlev?

"We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such a possibility."

Another irrelevent, cherry-picked quote. You're trying to suggest that them saying they weren't faced with extermination or genocide is the same as not facing actual war, or that war not being justified.

Mordechai Bentov, Minister of Housing?

"The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory."

Yet another cherry-picked quote suggesting that Israelis didn't think the war was necessary, even though it doesn't actually say that at all.

Israel admits attacking it neighbors, a prima facie act of aggression, while claiming that they were about to be attacked, and their own attack was self-defense. Yet Israel's own military and political leaders admit they weren't in danger and weren't about to be attacked.

Not one of the quotes you've posted says that. Most don't even come close to saying that. Supply the entire quotes in context.

[Black Dog]

It did not matter whether they "proved" Egypt was about to attack Israel. And Egypt was not alone, as there were a dozen other nations mobilizing and moving troops forward. There was also the matter of Egypt throwing out the UN, and closing down the suez. That last alone would have led to war even without Egyptian troops moving to the border.

The only nations that could have actually acted were Egypt, Syria and Jordan. The rest aren't worth mentioning. Or was Algeria a threat as well?

As for the rest, I can't help notice you ignore Israeli incursions into Jordan and Syria, fail to mention that the removal of UN troops was undertaken after Israel mobilized, that Israel refused to allow the UN to set up on its side of the border, and you get the waterway wrong. It was the Strait of Tiran, not the Suez that Nasser closed. That particular water way was in Egyptian territorial waters and had not been used by Israeli shipping in two years.

Not one of the quotes you've posted says that. Most don't even come close to saying that. Supply the entire quotes in context.

Nonsense. We have acknowledgement that the forces arrayed against Israel did not represent a threat (which was patently obvious even at the time). The cold hard fact is that Israel made the first move, in Bengin's words "We must be honest with ourselve. We decided to attack (Nasser)." The Six Day War was undertaken, not in response to any real threat to Israel, but to improve Israel's strategic position and seize Arab territory. That's why the plans for it were hatched after the Suze Crisis in '56 something both Israeli military leadership and other observers acknowledge.)