ISRAEL, PALESTINE, AND CANADA

White Doors · November 5, 2006

You've done a survey of historical scholars to confirm this 'majority' I suppose?

Would you or would you not believe senior Israeli officials?

The BBC did.

Did they?

How many scholars did they survey? What was their sample-selection methodology? What questions did they ask, and what replies were received?

And you forgot to answer: Would you or would you not believe senior Israeli officials?

I would listen to them for sure, but I would have to investigate if their claims were contradictory to known historical fact. As should you.

Figleaf · November 5, 2006

You've done a survey of historical scholars to confirm this 'majority' I suppose?

Would you or would you not believe senior Israeli officials?

The BBC did.

Did they?

How many scholars did they survey? What was their sample-selection methodology? What questions did they ask, and what replies were received?

And you forgot to answer: Would you or would you not believe senior Israeli officials?

I would listen to them for sure, but I would have to investigate if their claims were contradictory to known historical fact. As should you.

Ummm ... historical 'fact' established how and 'known' to who?

BTW, you haven't answered my basic questions about this alleged BBC survey of historians.

White Doors · November 5, 2006

You've done a survey of historical scholars to confirm this 'majority' I suppose?

Would you or would you not believe senior Israeli officials?

The BBC did.

Did they?

How many scholars did they survey? What was their sample-selection methodology? What questions did they ask, and what replies were received?

And you forgot to answer: Would you or would you not believe senior Israeli officials?

I would listen to them for sure, but I would have to investigate if their claims were contradictory to known historical fact. As should you.

Ummm ... historical 'fact' established how and 'known' to who?

BTW, you haven't answered my basic questions about this alleged BBC survey of historians.

I've already posted the link, why don't you prove it wrong with your insider informaiton? Obviously you didn't even read it. I'm posting accepted historical fact. If you have an issue with accepted historical fact then the burden of proof is on you sir.

jbg · November 6, 2006

It seems that the Jew-haters demand perfection. If the Jews or Israel are responsible for one or two rogue episodes it seems it puts them on a moral plane with people who do nothing in life but scheme for the destruction of other people.
Makes you wonder.

Arab life is cheap but an Argentinian life is useful. Is that your point?

You're evading my obvious point that the Arabs have done nothing with the land they already have, their governments do nothing for their people, yet they demand a thin sliver of land roughly the size of PEI, that being too much for the Jews to have. There are lots of Arab countries, one Jewish one. Why not leave it be?

Sure. Please let us all know when the Palestinians have any say at all in the bizarro world of Isra-ayli politics.

The "Palestinians" had more say between 1948 and 1967? Or had the politically correct world not yet established the concept of "Palestinians" as of then? They suddenly became important when a productive, Western country wanted to protect itself from mortal danger.

Haganah. Irgun. Who gives a shite. This fat f#ck invaded a number of Arab countries and masssacred entire villages, police posts, and cities. The Yanks are gonna hang Saddam. When are they gonna get around to Pinochet and Sharon?

Then why did Egypt ask the UN peacekeepers to leave the Sinai in May 1967, and impose a naval blockade on the Gulf of Aqaba, sealing off the Israeli city of Eilat? For recreation?

Well in fact, they did it entirely for recreation. You left yourself open to this one dckhead.

Who gives a shite.

I sense a descending level of maturity here, since you have no arguments on the merits other than to call me a "dickhead".

Figleaf · November 6, 2006

I've already posted the link, why don't you prove it wrong with your insider informaiton? Obviously you didn't even read it. I'm posting accepted historical fact. If you have an issue with accepted historical fact then the burden of proof is on you sir.

:huh:

You posted this quote:

"Most historians now agree that although Israel struck first, this pre-emptive strike was defensive in nature." The Mideast: A Century of Conflict Part 4: The 1967 Six Day War, NPR morning edition, October 3, 2002. URL accessed May 14, 2006.

And this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/midd...six_day_war.stm

As far as I can tell, the quote isn't from that link, and the link says nothing whatsoever about a BBC survey of historians. Maybe I'm missing something ... care to fill me in?

jbg · November 6, 2006

Figleaf, no answers to my inquiries? You're might quiet.

White Doors · November 6, 2006

I've already posted the link, why don't you prove it wrong with your insider informaiton? Obviously you didn't even read it. I'm posting accepted historical fact. If you have an issue with accepted historical fact then the burden of proof is on you sir.

You posted this quote:

"Most historians now agree that although Israel struck first, this pre-emptive strike was defensive in nature." The Mideast: A Century of Conflict Part 4: The 1967 Six Day War, NPR morning edition, October 3, 2002. URL accessed May 14, 2006.

And this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/midd...six_day_war.stm

As far as I can tell, the quote isn't from that link, and the link says nothing whatsoever about a BBC survey of historians. Maybe I'm missing something ... care to fill me in?

That quote is from that link. I can't help you with your navigational skills.

refute or accept.

M.Dancer · November 6, 2006

I gave this some thought over the weekend and as far as I can see, the only way that Israel can conduct a war to the moral satistfaction of the left is to lose.

Then they can blame America.

Figleaf · November 6, 2006

That quote is from that link. I can't help you with your navigational skills.
refute or accept.

What ridiculous crap.

The link opens to a page with two maps and two paragraphs. There is nothing there about a survey of historians. If you think it says something about such a survey, then please, tell me, how many historians were surveyed?

Admit it... you didn't check the link, did you?

Figleaf · November 6, 2006

I gave this some thought over the weekend and as far as I can see, the only way that Israel can conduct a war to the moral satistfaction of the left is to lose.
Then they can blame America.

Well, I'm not a leftist, of course, but I have little problem with Israel's conduct of the Yom Kippur war (in and of itself).

Figleaf · November 6, 2006

Figleaf, no answers to my inquiries? You're might quiet.

Well, I know of a couple of questions I've asked you without reply, buts so far as I can tell, I've answered all questions you've posed to me. What do you think I've missed?

normanchateau · November 6, 2006

I gave this some thought over the weekend and as far as I can see, the only way that Israel can conduct a war to the moral satistfaction of the left is to lose.

In my opinion, there is another way. Israel could elect a government more palatable to the left. From 1948 to 1977, Israel was governed by the Labour party or Labour party coalitions. At that point, despite previous wars, Israel was not vilified to the extent that it is today by the left. But when Israel elected Begin and a subsequent string of like-minded right-wingers like Shamir and Sharon, Israel's reputation gradually shifted. Fear contributed to the election of these right-wingers just as it contributed to George Bush's election.

Having a neighbour next door whose elected government claims Israel has no right to exist will not eliminate that fear.

M.Dancer · November 6, 2006

I gave this some thought over the weekend and as far as I can see, the only way that Israel can conduct a war to the moral satistfaction of the left is to lose.

Then they can blame America.

Well, I'm not a leftist, of course, but I have little problem with Israel's conduct of the Yom Kippur war (in and of itself).

You mean the one they came a pubic hair away from losing?

Figleaf · November 6, 2006

I gave this some thought over the weekend and as far as I can see, the only way that Israel can conduct a war to the moral satistfaction of the left is to lose.

Then they can blame America.

Well, I'm not a leftist, of course, but I have little problem with Israel's conduct of the Yom Kippur war (in and of itself).

You mean the one they came a pubic hair away from losing?

Not the expression I'd use, and not the reason I think it was OK. As I recall, it was one that they didn't start.

M.Dancer · November 6, 2006

I gave this some thought over the weekend and as far as I can see, the only way that Israel can conduct a war to the moral satistfaction of the left is to lose.

Then they can blame America.

Well, I'm not a leftist, of course, but I have little problem with Israel's conduct of the Yom Kippur war (in and of itself).

You mean the one they came a pubic hair away from losing?

Not the expression I'd use, and not the reason I think it was OK. As I recall, it was one that they didn't start.

Ah....like the 1948, 56, 67........ 2006 wars.......

Figleaf · November 6, 2006

Ah....like the 1948, 56, 67........ 2006 wars.......

Israel certainly started the 1967 conflict, and arguably the 1956 conflict.

M.Dancer · November 6, 2006

Ah....like the 1948, 56, 67........ 2006 wars.......

Israel certainly started the 1967 conflict, and arguably the 1956 conflict.

Notwithstanding the act of war committed by Egypt......in both cases......

Figleaf · November 6, 2006

Ah....like the 1948, 56, 67........ 2006 wars.......

Israel certainly started the 1967 conflict, and arguably the 1956 conflict.

Notwithstanding the act of war committed by Egypt......in both cases......

In regard to 1967, if you mean the blockade, you and I have already established that it wasn't an act of war.

Please inform me as to what act you refer to for 1956.

jbg · November 7, 2006

In my opinion, there is another way. Israel could elect a government more palatable to the left. From 1948 to 1977, Israel was governed by the Labour party or Labour party coalitions. At that point, despite previous wars, Israel was not vilified to the extent that it is today by the left. But when Israel elected Begin and a subsequent string of like-minded right-wingers like Shamir and Sharon, Israel's reputation gradually shifted. Fear contributed to the election of these right-wingers just as it contributed to George Bush's election.
Having a neighbour next door whose elected government claims Israel has no right to exist will not eliminate that fear.

The same Begin as surrendered the Sinai for a piece of paper. And his "partner in peace" was dead within four years.

jbg · November 7, 2006

In regard to 1967, if you mean the blockade, you and I have already established that it wasn't an act of war.
Please inform me as to what act you refer to for 1956.

A naval blockade not an act of war? :blink: :blink:

Figleaf · November 7, 2006

In regard to 1967, if you mean the blockade, you and I have already established that it wasn't an act of war.

Please inform me as to what act you refer to for 1956.

A naval blockade not an act of war?

That's what M.Dancer demonstrated with his sources higher up the thread. If you disagree, please give your sources in reply.

M.Dancer · November 7, 2006

In regard to 1967, if you mean the blockade, you and I have already established that it wasn't an act of war.

You did....where, when you proved you were clueless? For over 200 years a blocade has been considered an act of war,you know, siezing merchant vessels, (see war of 1812) attacking merchant vessels....yet bring the jews into it and it becomes a bargaining chip.......which brings us back to me thoughts.....

what would make the anti israel camp happy about an israeli arab war

Israel losing.......see it's fine if Israel doesn't fire the first shot...ergo, they are thrilled when the arabs do

Figleaf · November 7, 2006

In regard to 1967, if you mean the blockade, you and I have already established that it wasn't an act of war.

You did....where, when you proved you were clueless? For over 200 years a blocade has been considered an act of war,you know, siezing merchant vessels, (see war of 1812) attacking merchant vessels....yet bring the jews into it and it becomes a bargaining chip.......which brings us back to me thoughts.....

WTF?? The sources YOU cited said it will be defined as an act of war in 2009. Note that we have not yet reached 2009.

BTW, for those interested, there are only two legal ways to go to war in modern international law: self-defence and security council authority.

M.Dancer · November 7, 2006

WTF?? The sources YOU cited said it will be defined as an act of war in 2009. Note that we have not yet reached 2009.
BTW, for those interested, there are only two legal ways to go to war in modern international law: self-defence and security council authority.

I can't be held responsible for your ignorance in history. There are a number so called acts of war, even someone with your limited imagination should be able to google the phrase "acts of war"

BTW, for those interested, self defence covers a preemptive attack....

Figleaf · November 7, 2006

WTF?? The sources YOU cited said it will be defined as an act of war in 2009. Note that we have not yet reached 2009.

BTW, for those interested, there are only two legal ways to go to war in modern international law: self-defence and security council authority.

I can't be held responsible for your ignorance in history. There are a number so called acts of war, even someone with your limited imagination should be able to google the phrase "acts of war"

Then surely a big-brain such as you could do it. OH WAIT! you did do that and found that blocades WILL BE so defined IN 2009. That is what you found, isn't it? Don't blame me when your own research proves you're utterly wrong.

Clearly any 'ignorance' does not lie on my side of this discussion.

BTW, for those interested, self defence covers a preemptive attack....

Absolutely false. The ludicrous notion of pre-emption makes a mockery of the concept of self-defence as any reasonable person could discern with a moment's thought.

Israel started the 1967 war.