20 miles from the border is in the Sea… Which shows again how anything short of total annihilation of anyone question Israel supremacy seems insufficient for Israel and its supporters.
So you’re suggesting ethnic cleansing. You don’t have to say it because that’s the only possible consequence of your suggestion. Absolutely disgusting.
Let me ask the person that is the designated Hamas spokesman according to Israel, must have learned to read and write by now, possibly even how to ride a bicycle if Israel hasn’t bombed his school Hamas command center yet.
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. - Mossad Chief Meir Amit
This entire story about the danger of extermination was invented and exaggerated after the fact to justify the annexation of new Arab territories“. - Israeli Minister Mordecai Bentov
They attacked on a Monday, knowing that on Wednesday the Egyptian vice-president would arrive in Washington to talk about re-opening the Strait of Tiran. We might not have succeeded in getting Egypt to reopen the strait, but it was a real possibility.” - Dean Rusk, the American Secretary of State at that time
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 farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that’s how it was. - Israeli general Moshe Dayan
Nasser and his allies knew that restarting their naval blockade would be a cause for war for Israel. They massed troops on the borders, threw out the peacekeepers overseeing the Strait and then announced they would be restarting their blockade.
So was it a certainty that the muslim coalition was going to attack Israel first? No. Would a naval blockade and enemy troops ready to cross their borders from all sides be a tenable situation for Israel? I don’t know if you’re familiar with the map of Israel but having ‘unfriendly’ troops in the West Bank creates a huge strategic problem. They chose not to take the risk and destroy or scare them away.
You’re certainly right that the ultrazionists made sure not to ‘miss any opportunity’ when it came to the spoils of war. But it’s also wrong to ignore that the opportunity to do so was largely given to them by their hostile neighbours.
Of course I would be one sided when zionists leaders admitted that the plan what occupation. Nasser was ready to for a diplomatic solution but Israel decided to colonize more part of Arabs countries.
Your excuse is similar to saying Ukraine and the us knew that Russia wouldn’t accept a country to join the coalition that was specifically created to fight the URSS, this doesn’t give Russia the right to invade ukraine.
The quote about the Syrian side is very clear about Israel trying to provoke wars
after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine - Israel first prime minister
Partition might be only a temporary arrangement for the next twenty to twenty-five years”. - Israel first president Chaim Weizmann
It is not a coincidence that Gaza and the West bank was occupied in that time frame
It seems like one half of your brain is thinking on Ukraine, the other half on Palestine, and they keep crossing into eachother :-)
I don’t know which country you are in but if a neighbour declared a naval blockade and surrounded you with their armies, is your only thought that ‘they are looking for a diplomatic solution’?
I won’t let it slide. Zionists leaders was clear about the colonial intention. So who’s again started it? Why the native should accept foreigners to create a state in their land? How hard is it for you to see that both Ukraine and Palestine are occupied so they are valid comparison? You are really blinded by the belief that Israel did nothing wrong.
You don’t have to let it slide, I welcome you to analyse the situation to the fullest of your abilities.
I just think trying to compare it to Ukraine is quite dumb. Even now you have to move your argument from the '67 situation to the broader idea of the partition of Mandatory Palestine. Morocco’s annexation of the Western Sahara territory, for example, is much more comparable in that regard than the classic cold war style territory push happening in Ukraine.
I’m sorry I have to explain this. In the case of Hezbollah, they’re agreeing to retreat to a distance from the border from where they can’t (significantly) attack Israel again. The poster I’m replying to questions why Israel can’t (be forced to) make a similar deal with Hamas. I’m using sarcasm to point to an important reason why
Are you suggesting that Hezbollah didn’t agree to the deal, or that that’s not part of it? Cause I didn’t see anything that either of those would be the case, and plenty of the contrary.
The Lebanese government is a basket case, and the Lebanese military is likely weaker than Hezbollah.
Any article that does not explicitly state that Hezbollah (and not simply the Lebanese government) agreed to a ceasefire is not stating anything of substance.
Now, Hezbollah said they’d make a statement today about this deal, and I haven’t seen the outcome of that yet. They may have agreed to it today.
The point is, however, that this specific article didn’t say what the person above said it did. Namely that Hezbollah agreed to anything.
Well there are a lot more (and better) sources on these developments than just this one article, I didn’t know we had to pretend the outside world doesn’t exist anymore after we’ve entered a thread
But even if we have to limit ourselves to just this article: it would be very interesting if they put the US president in front of the press to triumphantly announce a ceasefire is going into effect without first checking if all of the parties really agree to it
I’m sure if Hamas agreed to retreat 20 miles from the border they’d get the same deal
Gaza is only 25 miles long and, at it’s widest, 7.5 miles thick. It’s literally impossible to move 20 miles from the border.
20 miles from the border is in the Sea… Which shows again how anything short of total annihilation of anyone question Israel supremacy seems insufficient for Israel and its supporters.
Then how about disarmament within 20 miles?
If Israel also disarms in all of its currently controlled territory, which is the meaning of the 20 miles in Gaza then sure.
If Palestinians should roll over and wait for Israel to finish its genocide then obviously not.
Did Hezbollah’s deal include total disarmament by Israel?
So you’re suggesting ethnic cleansing. You don’t have to say it because that’s the only possible consequence of your suggestion. Absolutely disgusting.
Is membership of Hamas or Hezbollah an ethnicity for you?
Let me ask the person that is the designated Hamas spokesman according to Israel, must have learned to read and write by now, possibly even how to ride a bicycle if Israel hasn’t bombed his
schoolHamas command center yet.I am sure if Israel didn’t decide to invade the West bank and Gaza in 67 they would live in peace
I’m not sure if you’re joking, but if you’re not, you might want to read a little about the war you’re referencing.
Israel invaded those territories because Jordan and Egypt were using them to launch a surprise attack.
“Live in peace” is a bit subjective in your example lol
I love of israelis themselves expose those lies
Even Official Israeli Documents state that the Occupation of Gaza and the West Bank were planned
You seem to have a very one sided view on this.
Nasser and his allies knew that restarting their naval blockade would be a cause for war for Israel. They massed troops on the borders, threw out the peacekeepers overseeing the Strait and then announced they would be restarting their blockade.
So was it a certainty that the muslim coalition was going to attack Israel first? No. Would a naval blockade and enemy troops ready to cross their borders from all sides be a tenable situation for Israel? I don’t know if you’re familiar with the map of Israel but having ‘unfriendly’ troops in the West Bank creates a huge strategic problem. They chose not to take the risk and destroy or scare them away.
You’re certainly right that the ultrazionists made sure not to ‘miss any opportunity’ when it came to the spoils of war. But it’s also wrong to ignore that the opportunity to do so was largely given to them by their hostile neighbours.
Of course I would be one sided when zionists leaders admitted that the plan what occupation. Nasser was ready to for a diplomatic solution but Israel decided to colonize more part of Arabs countries.
Your excuse is similar to saying Ukraine and the us knew that Russia wouldn’t accept a country to join the coalition that was specifically created to fight the URSS, this doesn’t give Russia the right to invade ukraine.
The quote about the Syrian side is very clear about Israel trying to provoke wars
It seems like one half of your brain is thinking on Ukraine, the other half on Palestine, and they keep crossing into eachother :-)
I don’t know which country you are in but if a neighbour declared a naval blockade and surrounded you with their armies, is your only thought that ‘they are looking for a diplomatic solution’?
I won’t let it slide. Zionists leaders was clear about the colonial intention. So who’s again started it? Why the native should accept foreigners to create a state in their land? How hard is it for you to see that both Ukraine and Palestine are occupied so they are valid comparison? You are really blinded by the belief that Israel did nothing wrong.
You don’t have to let it slide, I welcome you to analyse the situation to the fullest of your abilities.
I just think trying to compare it to Ukraine is quite dumb. Even now you have to move your argument from the '67 situation to the broader idea of the partition of Mandatory Palestine. Morocco’s annexation of the Western Sahara territory, for example, is much more comparable in that regard than the classic cold war style territory push happening in Ukraine.
Uh… So Israel can settle it? No fucking thanks. And in the first place Gaza is only 25 miles long.
I’m sorry I have to explain this. In the case of Hezbollah, they’re agreeing to retreat to a distance from the border from where they can’t (significantly) attack Israel again. The poster I’m replying to questions why Israel can’t (be forced to) make a similar deal with Hamas. I’m using sarcasm to point to an important reason why
I didn’t see a thing stating Hezbollah agreed on that article.
Are you suggesting that Hezbollah didn’t agree to the deal, or that that’s not part of it? Cause I didn’t see anything that either of those would be the case, and plenty of the contrary.
The Lebanese government is a basket case, and the Lebanese military is likely weaker than Hezbollah.
Any article that does not explicitly state that Hezbollah (and not simply the Lebanese government) agreed to a ceasefire is not stating anything of substance.
Now, Hezbollah said they’d make a statement today about this deal, and I haven’t seen the outcome of that yet. They may have agreed to it today.
The point is, however, that this specific article didn’t say what the person above said it did. Namely that Hezbollah agreed to anything.
Well there are a lot more (and better) sources on these developments than just this one article, I didn’t know we had to pretend the outside world doesn’t exist anymore after we’ve entered a thread
But even if we have to limit ourselves to just this article: it would be very interesting if they put the US president in front of the press to triumphantly announce a ceasefire is going into effect without first checking if all of the parties really agree to it
lol@everyone ACKCHYUALLY’ing this comment.