BS: Six Day War 50 Years On

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 04:28 PM

well i don't know about countries - but my facebook page is full of atrocity accusations against Israel by individuals.

let's ask someone we all trust - amnesty international maybe - whether there is cause for concern.

and if there is, and if there isn't...well theres sod all we can do about it.

end of argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 03:05 PM

For the sake of historical accuracy
Not just support but PRACTICAL ASSIISTANCE
That's Capitalism for you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 02:17 PM

"Critics say it is time for the West to abandon its embarrassing alliance with the Saudis. How, they ask, can the West denounce the carnage in Syria when its own ally is bombing civilians in Yemen? If the Saudis, with Western support, can intervene to defend the government of Yemen, why should Russia not defend Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria? Morally and perhaps legally, America and Britain are implicated in Saudi actions: they sell warplanes and munitions to the Saudi regime; they also provide air-refuelling and help with targeting. What is more, critics say, Saudi Arabia is a woeful ally against jihadism. Indeed, it inflames global extremism through its export of intolerant Wahhabi doctrines."
That's Capitalism for you

Subject: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 01:59 PM

Let's see. The USSR was backing Egypt in 1967 when it was using poison gas in Yemen. The USSR of course starved millions of its own citizens prior to WWII and executed a whole generation of military officers in 1937 show trials (Darkness at Noon, etc.). The USSR executed Polish officers en masse, delayed crossing the Vistula letting the Nazis eliminate all Polish resistance in Warsaw, dominated Latvia and Lithuania politically, economically, and racially, invaded Finland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan.
Signed a pact with Nazi Germany and started WWII by splitting Poland in half with Hitler.
Invented the AK47 then supplied millions upon millions of copies of the weapon to various 'liberation' organizations thus creating an arguable holocaust throughout Europe and the Mideast.
Denied the religious aspect of the Nazi Holocaust to suit its own ideological ends, including purging of the Jewish authors of The Black Book , and persecuted Jews for generations up to the death of Stalin.

And, (back to the subject at hand), supporting the dictator Nasser in his attempt to extend 'liberation' ethos to the "United Arab Republic" utilizing Israel as the scapegoat.


That's Communism for you! !

And, irony of ironies, it was Israel which successfully utilized Socialism in its Kibbutz movement, and was able to meld socialist economic practices with democratic forms of decision making.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 01:55 PM

Tell me where they have opeenly defended what happened in Gaza or the settlements
More hysteria
Fuck you and your politicians Keith
I'd rather go with the Jewish People
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.612072http:/
or
https://citizenactionmonitor.wordpress.com/2017/04/03/its-crucial-that-jews-speak-out-for-palestinians-british-jews-network/
or
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/its-time-for-liberal-jews-to-wake-up-and-face-israeli-human-rights-violations/
or
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/08/israel-soldiers-speak-out-brutality-palestine-occupation
or
https://www.opendemocracy.net/openglobalrights/rabbi-arik-ascherman/in-israel-rabbis-for-human-rights-address-painful-paradoxes
http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/progressively-speaking-jewish-voice-against-israels-occupation-getting-louder/
or
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/ngos/jewish_voice_for_peace_jvp_/
or
http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/jewish-activists-condemn-canadian-jewish-congress-cjc-for-supporting-crimes-against-humanity-cjc-seeks-to-smear-critics-of-israeli-atrocities-537003411.html
or
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2014/07/jewish-voice-for-peace-san-diego-condemns-the-israeli-offensive-in-gaza/
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/40870-no-apartheid-in-our-name-lgbt-jewish-groups-block-celebrate-israel-parade
http://forward.com/news/israel/202796/jews-march-in-new-york-rally-against-israel-war-in/

I'm sure, fascist that you are, would rather go with the politicians
Why are the Holocaust survivors and other Jews' opinions are less important than the silence of politicians?
Please do not attempt to evade this unless you wish to admit that your support if for the Right wng Israeli regime rather than the Jewish people
So what's it to be - the opinions of the Jewish people or the politicians not saying anything?
Plenty more where they come from
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 01:26 PM

Jim, no decent country accuses Israel of atrocities.
(or will you quote one, ha ha?)

No decent country stands by silently while their friend is condemned worldwide

They do not, but decent countries like EU nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand do stand silent while Israel's enemies, some of the nastiest regimes in the world, shout propaganda and lies about Israel.

You say that you have supported Israel's right to exist from the beginning.
Why then do you refuse to condemn the attempt by 5 Arab armies to destroy it on day 1?
Why do you refuse to condemn the attempt by 3 Arab armies to destroy it in 1967?
Why do you refuse to condemn the UN taking no action to save Israel?
Why do you refuse to condemn the UN removing its peace keeping force to give the Arab armies a free run in 1967?

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 11:50 AM

"people who go abroad to fight in other people's wars,"
Spain was a fight against the fascism Britain was supporting at the time
The result which ensued the year my dad came home fully vindicated his going and the Holocaust underlined underlined the choice of an ally Britain had made
But that's capitalism for you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 11:47 AM

Good job you're not in charge then, Teribus. We call regimes that treat everyone like that who disagrees with the official line "fascists."

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 11:44 AM

Funny how bombing schools and hospitals, leaving cluster bomblets all over fields in someone else's country to blow children's feet off for decades after, wrecking waterworks, razing whole villages and stealing land can sound so much more respectable when you put them under the heading "difficult decisions of State," eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 11:42 AM

"My dad came home from fighting fascism to be awarded an MI5 record and put on a blacklist for being a "premature anti-fascist"

And I dare say, and sincerely hope, that all those about to come streaming back from the fighting in Syria, irrespective of what groups they joined will be awarded similar attention.

All those who joined and fought in paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland will have come under similar scrutiny for very good reason.

The British security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies do not view sympathetically people who go abroad to fight in other people's wars, and such people do need monitoring. In the case of those returning from Syria and Libya - I simply would shred their passports and not let them re-enter the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 11:32 AM

ah! theres the difference. when my dad came home - the MI5 offered him a job, and i'm not sure he ever really forgave my mum for not letting him take it.

like i say...odd!

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 11:23 AM

And the Six-Day-War put paid to the notion of whingeing weak-kneed dependent Semites for many. It had a good side and a bad side, both of which we are seeing in this thread.
In cinematographic terms, Jews went from "Gentlemen's Agreement" in 1947 to "Little Drummer Girl" in 1984.
As a Rabbi who served in Alaska once said, the difference is between a people perceived as helpless and acted upon to a people perceived as in control of their own nation, hence making difficult decisions of State which will inevitably lead to criticism.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 08:12 AM

"mind you - he was a strange man. strange opinions. cnd member. thought the second world war was so horrible, it wasn't worth fighting."
From where I stand he was an admirable man
The British establishment kowtowed to Hitler until they had no other alternatve but to oppose him
My dad came home from fighting fascism to be awarded an MI5 record and put on a blacklist for being a "premature anti-fascist"
The holocause was described by some members of the British establishment as lies made up by "whingeing Yids"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: bobad
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 07:21 AM

Secretary general Ban Ki Moon cites anti-Israel bias and disproportionate volume of resolutions against Israel in UN.

YouTube

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 06:40 AM

Strangely enough Jim, the first person i heard liken Israel's treatment of its arab population to the holocaust was my dad, who was in one of the armies that liberated one of the camps.

mind you - he was a strange man. strange opinions. cnd member. thought the second world war was so horrible, it wasn't worth fighting.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 06:17 AM

"but I stand by my point that no decent country accuses Israel of atrocities.
Israeli atrocities are a tangible fact - we watched them and we read about them
Groups like Medicines Sans Frontiers, Amnesty, the UN and many others have reprted on them and condemned them - they are a well established fact as is ibvious by your hysterical laughter
The silence of politicians - for fuck's sake Keith!!!!
Are you really reduced to that
THIS IS THE POSITION OF ALL DECENT COUNTRIES
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 05:20 AM

Jim, your link is about settlements.
I have always acknowledged that no countries support Israel on that, but I stand by my point that no decent country accuses Israel of atrocities.
(or will you quote one, ha ha?)

No decent country stands by silently while their friend is condemned worldwide

They do not, but decent countries like EU nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand do stand silent while Israel's enemies, some of the nastiest regimes in the world, shout propaganda and lies about Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 03:59 AM

NOW WHERE'S YOUR EXAMPLES ? of "decent nations defending Israel

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 03:51 AM

No decent country stands by silently while their friend is condemned worldwide (you have had all those quotes - from human rights organisations, from relief agencies, from neutral observers, from press reports (with film and photographs) from a massive world protest by Jews and no Jews aliuke from inside and outside of Israel which is now leading to a call for a worldwide ban on Israeli goods.
Israel is now in the same position Apartheid South Africa was prior to is fall
And you rely entirely on the silence of self-interested Governments as a defence!
THE ISRAELI THOCRACY in CONTEXT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jun 17 - 03:37 AM

Jom,
Imbecility gone wild - no country defends Istarli atrocities,

Imbecility gone wild-No decent country accuses Israel of atrocities.
(or will you quote one, ha ha?)

Those of us who have been in support of the existence of Israel (from the very beginning)

If you have defended Israel's right to exist from the beginning, you must deplore attempts to destroy it from its first day.

Please state that, because you never have before.

michaelr
"No decent country holds Israel guilty of any crime at all"
They all do. Collectively they are known as the United Nations.

No. Decent liberal democracies, EU states, Canada, Australia New Zealand, do not instigate or support the anti-Israel motions that are always started by some of the worst regimes in the world.

Greg F
It is the only Jewish state.
So then it IS a theocracy, Professor?

No. It is a Western style liberal democracy, and the only one in the whole region.

Steve, here is a more manageable extract of the speech.
Anyone who really supports the existence of Israel must deplore what happened.

"An army, greater than any force ever assembled in history in Sinai, had massed against Israel's southern frontier. Egypt had dismissed the United Nations forces which symbolized the international interest in the maintenance of peace in our region. Nasser had provocatively brought five infantry divisions and two armored divisions up to our very gates; 80,000 men and 900 tanks were poised to move.
A special striking force, comprising an armored division with at least 200 tanks, was concentrated against Eilat at the Negev's southern tip. Here was a clear design to cut the southern Negev off from the main body of our State. For Egypt had openly proclaimed that Eilat did not form part of Israel and had predicted that Israel itself would soon expire."

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 08:56 PM

If you're going nighty night, get someone to read it to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 08:46 PM

You're brief because you have nothing to say. As you've just demonstrated excellently. And you're pissed and I'm sober. Oh man, help yourself, as Beethoven once said to a man far greater than you. Nighty night!

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 08:39 PM

I'm brief when brevity suits. I'm going easy on you because I understand you were injured in a concentration camp.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 08:36 PM

Reproducing a huge speech sans comment is PURE blather. Lazy, nothing to say for yourself. You're very good at dissing other people who make efforts to make their points, no matter how misguided, then you copy and paste a huge, tedious piece of sheer boredom in the forlorn hope that it'll "speak for itself." Hardly the Gettysburg Address, is it? Would you like to tell us what the point of it is? Shall I give you a limit of, say, four hundred words? Cor, what an indulgence that would be! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 08:27 PM

It was a bloody great speech which encapsulated the situation as Israel saw it, at the same time as the War was occurring. It was delivered with excellent form.
It was Churchillian.
They pressed a recording of it soon after. You can still get it online. I recommend it.
It's spot-on with the OP which a lot of your blather is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 07:58 PM

Reproducing a vast speech without comment is puerile and pointless, robomatic. Bloody bad-mannered actually. Save yourself and tell us what your point is.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 07:54 PM

Pretty stupid remark, boobs. Save your energy for providing the figures I asked you for. Deliver or be damned as a bloody fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 07:47 PM

So then it IS a theocracy then, Bubo?

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: bobad
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 07:14 PM

Greg, read up on what Jews consider to be Jewish means not what you and other haters want it to mean to further your agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 06:58 PM

It is the only Jewish state.

So then it IS a theocracy, Professor?

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 06:53 PM

Just over 50 years ago, now, Israel's Foreign Minister gave this speech at the United Nations. My memory is that it was broadcast live on American television, along with much of the Security Council hearings:

I thank you, Mr. President, for giving me this opportunity to address the Council. I have just come from Jerusalem to tell the Security Council that Israel, by its independent effort and sacrifice, has passed from serious danger to successful resistance.
Two days ago Israel's condition caused much concern across the humane and friendly world. Israel had reached a sombre hour. Let me try to evoke the point at which our fortunes stood.
An army, greater than any force ever assembled in history in Sinai, had massed against Israel's southern frontier. Egypt had dismissed the United Nations forces which symbolized the international interest in the maintenance of peace in our region. Nasser had provocatively brought five infantry divisions and two armored divisions up to our very gates; 80,000 men and 900 tanks were poised to move.
A special striking force, comprising an armored division with at least 200 tanks, was concentrated against Eilat at the Negev's southern tip. Here was a clear design to cut the southern Negev off from the main body of our State. For Egypt had openly proclaimed that Eilat did not form part of Israel and had predicted that Israel itself would soon expire. The proclamation was empty; the prediction now lies in ruin. While the main brunt of the hostile threat was focused on the southern front, an alarming plan of encirclement was under way. With Egypt's initiative and guidance, Israel was already being strangled in its maritime approaches to the whole eastern half of the world. For sixteen years, Israel had been illicitly denied passage in the Suez Canal, despite the Security Council's decision of 1 September 1951 [Resolution 95 (1951)]. And now the creative enterprise of ten patient years which had opened an international route across the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba had been suddenly and arbitrarily choked. Israel was and is breathing only with a single lung.
Jordan had been intimidated, against its better interest, into joining a defense pact. It is not a defense pact at all: it is an aggressive pact, of which I saw the consequences with my own eyes yesterday in the shells falling upon institutions of health and culture in the City of Jerusalem. Every house and street in Jerusalem now came into the range of fire as a result of Jordan's adherence to this pact; so also did the crowded and pathetically narrow coastal strip in which so much of Israel's life and population is concentrated.
Iraqi troops reinforced Jordanian units in areas immediately facing vital and vulnerable Israel communication centers. Expeditionary forces from Algeria and Kuwait had reached Egyptian territory. Nearly all the Egyptian forces which had been attempting the conquest of the Yemen had been transferred to the coming assault upon Israel. Syrian units, including artillery, overlooked the Israel villages in the Jordan Valley. Terrorist troops came regularly into our territory to kill, plunder and set off explosions; the most recent occasion was five days ago.
In short, there was peril for Israel wherever it looked. Its manpower had been hastily mobilized. Its economy and commerce were beating with feeble pulses. Its streets were dark and empty. There was an apocalyptic air of approaching peril. And Israel faced this danger alone.
We were buoyed up by an unforgettable surge of public sympathy across the world. The friendly Governments expressed the rather ominous hope that Israel would manage to live, but the dominant theme of our condition was danger and solitude.
Now there could be no doubt about what was intended for us. With my very ears I heard President Nasser's speech on 26 May. He said:
"We intend to open a general assault against Israel. This will be total war. Our basic aim will be to destroy Israel."
On 2 June, the Egyptian Commander in Sinai, General Mortagi, published his Order of the Day, calling on his troops to wage a war of 'destruction against Israel. Here, then, was a systematic, overt, proclaimed design at politicide, the murder of a State.
The policy, the arms, the men had all been brought together, and the State thus threatened with collective assault was itself the last sanctuary of a people which had seen six million of its sons exterminated by a more powerful dictator two decades before.
The question then widely asked in Israel and across the world was whether we had not already gone beyond the utmost point of danger. Was there any precedent in world history, for example, for a nation passively to suffer the blockade of its only southern port, involving nearly all its vital fuel, when such acts of war, legally and internationally, have always invited resistance? This was a most unusual patience. It existed because we had acceded to the suggestion of some of the maritime States that we give them scope to concert their efforts in order to find an international solution which would ensure the maintenance of free passage in the Gulf of Aqaba for ships of all nations and of all flags.
As we pursued this avenue of international solution, we wished the world to have no doubt about our readiness to exhaust every prospect, however fragile, of a diplomatic solution – and some of the prospects that were suggested were very fragile indeed.
But as time went on, there was no doubt that our margin of general security was becoming smaller and smaller. Thus, on the morning of 5 June, when Egyptian forces engaged us by air and land, bombarding the villages of Kissufim, Nahal-Oz and Ein Hashelosha we knew that our limit of safety had been reached, and perhaps passed. In accordance with its inherent right of self-defense as formulated in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, Israel responded defensively in full strength. Never in the history of nations has armed force been used in a more righteous or compelling cause.
Even when engaged with Egyptian forces, we still hoped to contain the conflict. Egypt was overtly bent on our destruction, but we still hoped that others would not join the aggression. Prime Minister Eshkol, who for weeks had carried the heavy burden of calculation and decision, published and conveyed a message to other neighboring States proclaiming:
"We shall not attack any country unless it opens war on us. Even now, when the mortars speak, we have not given up our quest for peace. We strive to repel all menace of terrorism and any danger of aggression to ensure our security and our legitimate rights."
In accordance with this same policy of attempting to contain the conflict, yesterday I invited General Bull, the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization, to inform the heads of the Jordanian State that Israel had no desire to expand the conflict beyond the unfortunate dimensions that it had already assumed and that if Israel were not attacked on the Jordan side, it would not attack and would act only in self-defence. It reached my ears that this message had been duly and faithfully conveyed and received. Nevertheless, Jordan decided to join the Egyptian posture against Israel and opened artillery attacks across the whole long frontier, including Jerusalem. Those attacks are still in progress.
To the appeal of Prime Minister Eshkol to avoid any further extension of the conflict, Syria answered at 12.25 yesterday morning by bombing Megiddo from the air and bombing Degania at 12.40 with artillery fire and kibbutz Ein Hammifrats and Kurdani with long-range guns. But Jordan embarked on a much more total assault by artillery and aircraft along the entire front, with special emphasis on Jerusalem, to whose dangerous and noble ordeal yesterday I come to bear personal witness.
There has been bombing of houses; there has been a hit on the great new National Museum of Art; there has been a hit on the University and on Shaare Zedek, the first hospital ever to have been established outside the ancient walls. Is this not an act of vandalism that deserves the condemnation of all mankind? And in the Knesset building, whose construction had been movingly celebrated by the entire democratic world ten months ago, the Israel Cabinet and Parliament met under heavy gunfire, whose echoes mingled at the end of our meeting with Hatikvah, the anthem of hope.
Thus throughout the day and night of 5 June, the Jordan which we had expressly invited to abstain from needless slaughter became, to our surprise, and still remains, the most intense of all the belligerents; and death and injury, as so often in history, stalk Jerusalem's streets.
When the approaching Egyptian aircraft appeared on our radar screens, soon to be followed by artillery attacks on our villages near the Gaza Strip, I instructed Mr. Rafael to inform the Security Council, in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter. I know that that involved arousing you, Mr. President, at a most uncongenial hour of the night, but we felt that the Security Council should be most urgently seized.
I should, however, be less than frank if I were to conceal the fact that the Government and people of Israel have been disconcerted by some aspects of the United Nations role in this conflict. The sudden withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force was not accompanied, as it should have been, by due international consultations on the consequences of that withdrawal. Moreover, Israel interests were affected; they were not adequately explored. No attempt was made, little time given, to help Israel to surmount grave prejudice to its vital interests consequent on that withdrawal. After all, a new confrontation of forces suddenly arose. It suddenly had to be met and at Sharm el-Sheikh at the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba, the Strait of Tiran, legality walked out and blockade walked in. The peace of the world trembled. And thus the United Nations had somehow been put into a position of leaving Sinai safe for belligerency.
It is not, I think, a question of sovereignty that is here involved. The United Nations has a right to ask that, when it assumes a function, the termination of that function shall not take place in conditions that would lead to anti-Charter situations. I do not raise this point in order to linger upon that which is past, but because of Israel's general attitude to the peace-keeping functions of this Organization. And I confess that my own attitude and those of my colleagues and of my fellow citizens to the peacekeeping functions of the United Nations have been traumatically affected by this experience.
The United Nations Emergency Force rendered distinguished service. Nothing became it less than the manner of its departure. All gratitude and appreciation are owed to the individuals who sustained its action. And if in the course of the recent combats United Nations personnel have fallen dead or wounded – as they have – then I join my voice in an expression of the most sincere regret.
The problem of the future role of a United Nations presence in conflicts such as these is being much debated. But we must ask ourselves a question that has arisen as a result of this experience. People in our country and in many countries ask: What is the use of a United Nations presence if it is in effect an umbrella which is taken away as soon as it begins to rain? Surely, then, future arrangements for peace-keeping must depend more on the agreement and the implementation of the parties themselves than on machinery which is totally at the mercy of the host country, so totally at its mercy as to be the instrument of its policies, whatever those policies may be.
We have lived through three dramatic weeks. Those weeks, I think, have brought into clear view the main elements of tension and also the chief promise of relaxed tension in the future. The first link in the chain was the series of sabotage acts emanating from Syria. In October of 1966, the Security Council was already seized of this problem, and a majority of its member States found it possible and necessary to draw attention to the Syrian Government's responsibility for altering that situation. Scarcely a day passed without a mine, a bomb, a hand-grenade or a mortar exploding on Israel's soil, sometimes with lethal or crippling effects, always with an unsettling psychological influence. In general, fourteen or fifteen such incidents would accumulate before a response was considered necessary, and this ceaseless accumulation of terrorist sabotage incidents in the name of what was called "popular war", together with responses which in the long run sometimes became inevitable, were for a long period the main focus of tension in the Middle East.
But then there came a graver source of tension in mid-May, when abnormal troop concentrations were observed in the Sinai Peninsula. For the ten years of relative stability beginning with March 1957 and ending with May 1967, the Sinai Desert had been free of Egyptian troops. In other words, a natural geographic barrier, a largely uninhabited space, separated the main forces of the two sides. It is true that in terms of sovereignty and law, any State has a right to put its armies in any part of its territory that it chooses. This, however, is not a legal question: it is a political and a security question.
Experience in many parts of the world, not least in our own, demonstrates that massive armies in close proximity to each other, against a background of a doctrine of belligerency and accompanying threats by one army to annihilate the other, constitute an inflammatory situation.
We were puzzled in Israel by the relative lack of preoccupation on the part of friendly Governments and international agencies with this intense concentration which found its reflection in precautionary concentrations on our side. My Government proposed, I think at least two weeks ago, the concept of a parallel and reciprocal reduction of forces on both sides of the frontier. We elicited no response, and certainly no action.
To these grave sources of tension – the sabotage and terrorist movement, emanating mostly from Syria, and the heavy troop concentrations accompanied by dire, apocalyptic threats in Sinai – there was added in the third week of May the most electric shock of all, namely the closure of the international waterway consisting of the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba. It is not difficult, I think, to understand why this incident had a more drastic impact than any other. In 1957 the maritime nations, within the framework of the United Nations General Assembly, correctly enunciated the doctrine of free and innocent passage through the Strait.
Now, when that doctrine was proclaimed – and incidentally, not challenged by the Egyptian representative at that time – it was little more than an abstract principle for the maritime world. For Israel it was a great but still unfulfilled prospect; it was not yet a reality. But during the ten years in which we and the other States of the maritime community have relied upon that doctrine and upon established usage, the principle has become a reality consecrated by hundreds of sailings under dozens of flags and the establishment of a whole complex of commerce and industry and communication. A new dimension has been added to the map of the world's communications, and on that dimension we have, constructed Israel's bridge towards the friendly States of Asia and Africa, a network of relationships which is the chief pride of Israel in the second decade of its independence.
All this, then, had grown up as an effective usage under the United Nations flag. Does Mr. Nasser really think that he can come upon the scene in ten minutes and cancel the established legal usage and interests of ten years?
There was in this wanton act a quality of malice. For surely the closing of the Strait of Tiran gave no benefit whatever to Egypt except the perverse joy of inflicting injury on others. It was an anarchic act, because it showed a total disregard for the law of nations, the application of which in this specific case had not been challenged for ten years. And it was, in the literal sense, an act of arrogance, because there are other nations in Asia and East Africa, that trade with the Port of Eilat, as they have every right to do, through the Strait of Tiran and across the Gulf of Aqaba. Other sovereign States from Japan to Ethiopia, from Thailand to Uganda, from Cambodia to Madagascar, have a sovereign right to decide for themselves whether they wish or do not wish to trade with Israel. These countries are not colonies of Cairo. They can trade with Israel or not trade with Israel as they wish, and President Nasser is not the policeman of other African and Asian States.
Here then was a wanton intervention in the sovereign rights of other States in the eastern half of the world to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to establish trade relations with either or both of the two ports at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba.
When we examine, then, the implications of this act, we have no cause to wonder that the international shock was great. There was another reason too for that shock. Blockades have traditionally been regarded, in the pre-Charter parlance, as acts of war. To blockade, after all, is to attempt strangulation; and sovereign States are entitled not to have their trade strangled. To understand how the State of Israel felt, one has merely to look around this table and imagine, for example, a foreign Power forcibly closing New York or Montreal, Boston or Marseille, Toulon or Copenhagen, Rio or Tokyo or Bombay harbor. How would your Governments react? What would you do? How long would you wait?
But Israel waited because of its confidence that the other maritime Powers and countries interested in this new trading pattern would concert their influence in order to re-establish a legal situation and to liquidate this blockade. We concerted action with them not because Israel's national interest was here abdicated. There will not be, there cannot be, an Israel without Eilat. We cannot be expected to return to a dwarfed stature, with our face to the Mediterranean alone. In law and in history, peace and blockades have never co-existed. How could it be expected that the blockade of Eilat and a relaxation of tension in the Middle East could ever be brought into harmony?
These then were the three main elements in the tension: the sabotage movement; the blockade of the port; and, perhaps more imminent than anything else, this vast and purposeful encirclement movement, against the background of an authorized presidential statement announcing that the objective of the encirclement was to bring about the destruction and the annihilation of a sovereign State.
These acts taken together – the blockade, the dismissal of the United Nations Emergency Force, and the heavy concentration in Sinai – effectively disrupted the status quo which had ensured a relative stability on the Egyptian-Israel frontier for ten years. I do not use the words "relative stability" lightly, for in fact while those elements in the Egyptian-Israel relationship existed there was not one single incident of violence between Egypt and Israel for ten years. But suddenly this status quo, this pattern of mutually accepted stability, was smashed to smithereens. It is now the task of the Governments concerned to elaborate the new conditions of their co-existence. I think that much of this work should be done directly by these Governments themselves. Surely, after what has happened we must have better assurance than before, for Israel and for the Middle East, of peaceful co-existence. The question is whether there is any reason to believe that such a new era may yet come to pass. If I am a little sanguine on this point, it is because of a conviction that men and nations do behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. Surely the other alternatives of war and belligerency have now been exhausted. And what has anybody gained from that? But in order that the new system of inter-State relationships may flourish in the Middle East, it is important that certain principles be applied above and beyond the cease-fire to which the Security Council has given its unanimous support.
Let me then say here that Israel welcomes the appeal for the cease-fire as formulated in this Resolution. But I must point out that the implementation depends on the absolute and sincere acceptance and co-operation of the other parties, which, in our view, are responsible for the present situation. And in conveying this Resolution to my colleagues, I must at this moment point out that these other Governments have not used the opportunity yet to clarify their intentions.
I have said that the situation to be constructed after the cease-fire must depend on certain principles. The first of these principles surely must be the acceptance of Israel's statehood and the total elimination of the fiction of its non-existence. It would seem to me that after 3,000 years the time has arrived to accept Israel's nationhood as a fact, for here is the only State in the international community which has the same territory, speaks the same language and upholds the same faith as it did 3,000 years ago.
And if, as everybody knows to be the fact, the universal conscience was in the last week or two most violently shaken at the prospect of danger to Israel, it was not only because there seemed to be a danger to a State, but also, I think, because the State was Israel, with all that this ancient name evokes, teaches, symbolizes and inspires. How grotesque would be an international community which found room for 122 sovereign units and which did not acknowledge the sovereignty of that people which had given nationhood its deepest significance and its most enduring grace.
No wonder, then, that when danger threatened we could hear a roar of indignation sweep across the world, that men in progressive movements and members of the scientific and humanistic cultures joined together in sounding an alarm bell about an issue that vitally affected the human conscience. And no wonder, correspondingly, that a deep and universal sense of satisfaction and relief has accompanied the news of Israel's gallant and successful resistance.
But the central point remains the need to secure an authentic intellectual recognition by our neighbors of Israel's deep roots in the Middle Eastern reality. There is an intellectual tragedy in the failure of Arab leaders to come to grips, however reluctantly, with the depth and authenticity of Israel's roots in the life, the history, the spiritual experience and the culture of the Middle East.
This, then, is the first axiom. A much more conscious and uninhibited acceptance of Israel's statehood is an axiom requiring no demonstration, for there will never be a Middle East without an independent and sovereign State of Israel in its midst.
The second principle must be that of the peaceful settlement of disputes. The Resolution thus adopted falls within the concept of the peaceful settlement of disputes. I have already said that much could be done if the Governments of the area would embark much more on direct contacts. They must find their way to each other. After all, when there is conflict between them they come together face to face. Why should they not come together face to face to solve the conflict? And perhaps on some occasions it would not be a bad idea to have the solution before, and therefore instead of, the conflict.
When the Council discusses what is to happen after the cease-fire, we hear many formulas: back to 1956, back to 1948 – I understand our neighbors would wish to turn the clock back to 1947. The fact is, however, that most clocks move forward and not backward, and this, I think, should be the case with the clock of Middle Eastern peace – not backward to belligerency, but forward to peace.
The point was well made this evening by the representative of Argentina, who said: the cease-fire should be followed immediately by the most intensive efforts to bring about a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. In a similar sense, the representative of Canada warned us against merely reproducing the old positions of conflict, without attempting to settle the underlying issues of Arab-Israel co-existence. After all, many things in recent days have been mixed up with each other. Few things are what they were. And in order to create harmonious combinations of relationships, it is inevitable that the States should come together in negotiation.
Another factor in the harmony that we would like to see in the Middle East relates to external Powers. From these, and especially from the greatest amongst them, the small States of the Middle East – and most of them are small -ask for a rigorous support, not for individual States, but for specific principles; not to be for one State against other States, but to be for peace against war, for free commerce against belligerency, for the pacific settlement of disputes against violent irredentist threats; in other words, to exercise an even-handed support for the integrity and independence of States and for the rights of States under the Charter of the United Nations and other sources of international law.
There are not two categories of States. The United Arab Republic, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon – not one of these has a single ounce or milligram of statehood which does not adhere in equal measures to Israel itself.
It is important that States outside our region apply a balanced attitude, that they do not exploit temporary tensions and divergences in the issues of global conflict, that they do not seek to win gains by inflaming fleeting passions, and that they strive to make a balanced distribution of their friendship amongst the States of the Middle East. Now whether all the speeches of all the Great Powers this evening meet this criterion, everybody, of course, can judge for himself. I do not propose to answer in detail all the observations of the representative of the Soviet Union. I had the advantage of hearing the same things in identical language a few days ago from his colleague, the Soviet Ambassador in Israel. I must confess that I was no more convinced this evening than I was the day before yesterday about the validity of this most vehement and one-sided denunciation. But surely world opinion, before whose tribunal this debate unrolls, can solve this question by posing certain problems to itself. Who was it that attempted to destroy a neighboring State in 1948, Israel or its neighbors? Who now closes an international waterway to the port of a neighboring State, Israel or the United Arab Republic? Does Israel refuse to negotiate a peace settlement with the Arab States, or do they refuse to do so with it? Who disrupted the 1957 pattern of stability, Israel or Egypt? Did troops of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait and Algeria surround Israel in this menacing confrontation, or has any distinguished representative seen some vast Israel colossus surrounding the area between Morocco and Kuwait?
I raise these points of elementary logic. Of course, a Great Power can take refuge in its power from the exigencies of logic. All of us in our youth presumably recounted La Fontaine's fable, "La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure." But here, after all, there is nobody who is more or less strong than others; we sit here around the table on the concept of sovereign equality. But I think we have an equal duty to bring substantive proof for any denunciation that we make, each of the other.
I would say in conclusion that these are, of course, still grave times. And yet they may perhaps have a fortunate issue. This could be the case if those who for some reason decided so violently, three weeks ago, to disrupt the status quo would ask themselves what the results and benefits have been. As he looks around him at the arena of battle, at the wreckage of planes and tanks, at the collapse of intoxicated hopes, might not an Egyptian ruler ponder whether anything was achieved by that disruption? What has it brought but strife, conflict with other powerful interests, and the stem criticism of progressive men throughout the world?
I think that Israel has in recent days proved its steadfastness and vigor. It is now willing to demonstrate its instinct for peace. Let us build a new system of relationships from the wreckage of the old. Let us discern across the darkness the vision of a better and a brighter dawn.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: bobad
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 06:49 PM

They all do. Collectively they are known as the United Nations.

UN, Israel & Anti-Semitism

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: michaelr
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 06:35 PM

"No decent country holds Israel guilty of any crime at all"

They all do. Collectively they are known as the United Nations.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 05:39 PM

Your weird bar graph is meaningless as it stands, boobs. Please interpret it in your own words. Perhaps you'd like to project it beyond Canada while you're at it. Canada is hardly the western world writ large. Really - is that the best you can come up with?

"It is the only Jewish state.
Is that the problem?"

Cut this out, Keith. Everybody here knows what your little game is. You are desperately trying to get your opponents to make an antisemitic statement. That is shallow, puerile, dishonest and disreputable. It is the behaviour of the state in human terms that is important. The regime facilitates discrimination against Arabs who live in Israel. The ethnicity of the people who carry out the discrimination is simply not the point. The point is that a regime in charge of the state is discriminating against a minority. Do try to focus. And if you really don't want us to take the piss, just drop your inane question.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 04:45 PM

Jim:

Pot. Kettle.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 02:55 PM

"I excuse nothing."
Very true Keith - my mistake
You deny everything
You refuse to put anything into context - you said yourself you only put the other side
This wall has two sides.
"Why do you always and only criticise Israel while ignoring the much worse record of all its neighbours? "
Repetition like this is a further sign of imbecility - you've had the answeer to this several times
"It is the only Jewish state."
And this
It is antisemitic by definition to implicate te actions of Israel with the Jewish People as a whole so repeating it only confirms you to be the antisemite I believe you to be.
"No decent country holds Israel guilty of any crime at all"
Imbecility gone wild - no country defends Istarli atrocities, and if they were half-decent they would leap to the defence of their friend
What kind of decent individual stays silent while their friends are being wrongly accused?
Even the U.S. puled the plug on using the veto before the advent of Trump - and with friends like him, your case is way up the Swanee
"lease clarify your position on those attempts to destroy the state of Israel whose existence you have apparently always supported"
I have done over and over again by putting it into the context you have talked about
Israel came into exitence by making it plain that it had in no intention of adhering to any agreement - "Britain leaving to the sound of hand grenades" - remember
MY family actively supported the new Israeli State until it became what Einstein warned it might become - as did many Jews who say it is now indistinguishable from what was happening in Germany
Do you believe them to be "self-loathers?"
You really are a squalid
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 02:24 PM

Jim,
I find your pointing to what happens elsewhere as an excuse for these horrific crimes deeply imbecilic.

I excuse nothing.
I just put it into context. All the surrounding states behave worse, so why do you never criticise them or even acknowledge their faults.

Why do you always and only criticise Israel while ignoring the much worse record of all its neighbours?
It is the only Jewish state.
Is that the problem?

(Also I challenge your description of "horrific crimes."
No decent country holds Israel guilty of any crime at all!)

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: bobad
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 02:07 PM

Shaw, all the figures have been posted before.

Here's some newly released figures for 2015 from Statistics Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 02:00 PM

Those of us who have been in support of the existence of Israel (from the very beginning)

Do you mean you Jim?
Do you condemn the invasion of Israel by 5 Arab armies on its first day, because you have never mentioned it before.

Do you condemn the planned invasion of Israel by Egypt, Syria and Jordan which led to the 6 day war?
You have never mentioned that before either.

Please clarify your position on those attempts to destroy the state of Israel whose existence you have apparently always supported.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 01:57 PM

Let me ask you again: where are your figures that demonstrate that antisemitic hate crimes far outnumber all other hate crimes? As it stands you have made an unsupported assertion. The last time I looked the numbers of such hate crimes in the UK was very low. And, as I said before, as I assume that you are neither judge nor jury, therefore not qualified to assess what is a hate crime or what isn't unless you are talking about actual convictions for crimes defined in the way you claim, I want to know only about convictions for antisemitic hate crimes, alongside figures for all other hate crimes. If you continue to refuse to support your assertion I'm going to assume that you are making it up. If you can show that there is a major issue concerning antisemitic hate crimes outnumbering all other hate crimes, you won't hear another word from me about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: bobad
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 01:39 PM

My point exactly Bobad

Er, no, anti-Semitism is irrational hatred. But keep putting the blame for the irrational hatred on the victim.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 12:57 PM

Pedantic evasion again
The fact remains that the Brits left to the sound of hand grenades says everything about that needs to be said about sharing the land.
The League of Nations had no right to resettle people who had occupide the territory for many centuries
Go look at the mps anyway - no relation whatever to the allocation of land.
Even Ben Gurion said that it was not the intention to move Arabs (The Fellahs) off their land, but that is exactly what has happened
Your mention of the Holocaust once again implicates the Jewish People to the actions of teh Israeli Regime, which is antisemitic by definition
The first person I ever heeard describe the Israeli leaders as "fascist scum" was a Manchester Holocaust survivor, and that has continued sisnce, most spectacvularly by an ex-Mossad director in the documentary 'The Gatekeepers'
How about these Holocaust survivors ARE THESE NOT WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION?
Cut the waffle and respond to the actual situation
Still "Jom" eh - it's like having a pulse to check to see how confident you are in your own verbiage
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 12:46 PM

"How can you treat fairly and equally a population that has declared all your structures of law and civilisation are legitimate targets?"

But it isn't the Arab population of Israel that has declared anything like that, is it, Al? In fact, populations don't do that sort of thing in any case. Belligerent and idiotic leaders, well that's different. And I'd also say that treating people without discrimination is far more likely to make people see that your structures of law and civilisation are far more worthy of respect. Chicken and egg.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 12:28 PM

1948? What departing Empire?

The Empire that occupied and governed Palestine was broken up in 1920 - that was the Ottoman Empire. The Jewish diaspora had been buying land in Palestine since 1847.

In 1920 Great Britain was assigned administration of the League of Nations Mandate for the territory known as Palestine.

In 1923 with the approval of the League of Nations (Why do you never mention them Jom?) 77% of the Mandated Territory was renamed Transjordan with the proviso that this territory was set aside for the exclusive settlement by the Arabs of Palestine. The remaining 23% of the Mandated Territory was open for settlement by any group. In this part of the original mandated territory the Jewish "Homeland" was to be created in accordance with the League of Nations directions.

The British left the Mandated Territory of Palestine 27 years after being appointed to administer it in accordance with the terms and condition of the League of Nations Mandate. In 1947 the UN had proposed a two state solution to the problem, the Jews accepted this proposal, the Arabs rejected it and opted for war instead. On the day Israel declared its independence it was attacked by five Arab armies which might account for, and explain those grenades Jom. As for the reaction of the Jews of Palestine - in 1948 if someone stated their avowed intention to destroy the nascent state and annihilate it's Jewish population it is little wonder that they fought off any attack with the utmost ruthlessness, the holocaust being fairly fresh in everyone's minds - call it incentive, or motivation.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 11:31 AM

the situation is/has a similar fee to NI at the height of the troubles.

How can you treat fairly and equally a population that has declared all your structures of law and civilisation are legitimate targets?

if there is a way forward, it is not going to be found by the idiots who shower my inbox with 'talking up' the conflict.

and you can always spot them.

They always have the statistics to prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 11:29 AM

LAST LINK DIDN'T WORK
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 11:27 AM

Er no
The reason was the departing Empire gave away land that occupied by Arabs without specifying the rights of those occupants
The British sailed away from Palestine to the sound of grenades being thrown into occupied Palestinian houses by Jewish 'Freedom Fighters'
These facts were outlined by veteran Jewish Historian, Benny Morris in his comments on Israeli atrocities and were protested against By Albert Einstein and his academic colleagues in a letter warning against the rise of "ZIONIST FASCISM"
Basically, Israel has continued the aggressive seizure of land right up to the present day, where if has now been formalised into Israeli Law, along with other actions detrimental and unacceptable by Arabs andJEWS ALIKE   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 11:08 AM

The reason why Israel has so many avowed enemies, or has had so many avowed enemies (Their number has diminished over the years) has a great deal to do with the regions response to Israel from it's inception in 1948. IIRC the armies of five Arab nations attacked the fledgling state swearing to destroy the state and annihilate the population rather than accept the "Two-State" Solution on offer at the time, now almost 70 years later the Arabs of the region have hoodwinked the UN into believing that this is now the solution they seek - forgive the scepticism they cannot show their version of what borders would be accepted.

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 10:14 AM

"Perhaps you should address the reason why Israel has so many "avowed enemies" Al"
My point exactly Bobad
The Arab Israeli conflict is the major contributor to antisemitism, the cause being that the Israelis have chosen to label their actions "Jewish" and have declared all opposition to their policies "antisemitic"
Even the Jewish people have fallen victim to this cynical use of the Jewish people as a human shield - they have become "self-loathing Jews"
Antisemitsm and Islamophobia ate two sides to the same coing, of course
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/politics/138734-170227-joint-list-chair-urges-solidarity-amid-growing-anti-semitism-and-islamophobia
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Six Day War 50 Years On
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 17 - 09:43 AM

But for many decades the only attacks from all those "avowed enemies" on sovereign Israel territory have come from the most unsmart and ramshackle rockets imaginable from Gaza. And I cut Israel lots of slack, Al. I support the existence of the state, condemn anyone who says they want Israel wiped off the map and wish for peace and prosperity for every Israeli citizen. I've said it so many times.   It was on the particular claim that all Israeli citizens are treated on the same basis of equality that I currently beg to differ. Yes I know that there is mass mistreatment in neighbouring countries, worse than in Israel. If I'm in court charged with armed robbery I can't use as my defence the fact that some people are mass muderers. It isn't OK to be less good than you should be just because others are even worse. That's a silly, childish argument but it's the only one put forward by apologists for the Israeli regime that we see on this forum.