09-29-2023, 10:54 PM
(09-29-2023, 09:46 PM)Dill Wrote: Had the US driven hundreds of thousands of Japanese from Hawaii and then occupied it? Until you can factor that into your counter-history, the analogy is pretty one-sided.
First off, congratulations on finally getting your post right on the seventh try. Truly impressive. As usual, your counter question is typically disingenuous. Who once occupied the land doesn't change whether a sovereign nation was being attacked. You're trying to justify aggression after being correctly called out for incorrectly labeling the aggressor nation(s).
Quote:EB says "Prior to the start of the war." Then clearly identifies Israel's "pre-emptive attacks" against Egypt and Syria as the start. You want to argue that "irregular forces/fledgling Palestinian guerilla groups" really started the war, even though Israel clearly struck first. But if you are correcting the record out of "basic fairness," can you explain why should those fledgling guerillas want to do that? What was their motivation? Israeli provocation doesn't count?
Uh, yeah. This question wasn't needed because I said exactly that. Israel's enemies were directly using and aiding irregular forces to attack Israel, constantly. The motivation for the irregular forces is entirely irrelevant and just further evidence of your desire to justify the attacks on Israel in the first place. Hence you being correctly labeled an Israel hater and your desire to label them as the aggressor when they clearly were not. You even lied about the UN resolution, making it sound like it labeled Israel the aggressor in the war when it was passed fourteen years later. In short, you have nothing but lies and deliberate obfuscation.
Quote:Your defense of Israel always been decidedly Israel-centric, according Israel a right to take and occupy land belonging to others that is generally denied every other nation. For defenders of international law based on human rights derived from a presumed natural equality, the fact that some Arab nations and Iran want to destroy the state of Israel is an effect of the right-to-occupy that you grant Israel, not a cause. That's why I so often seem to "omit" discussion of that as a driver of Arab-Israeli conflict.
Actually, my defense of Israel is solely in response to your entirely biased attacks on them and your lies about the war. You lie, I call out your lies. In this case that amounts to defending Israel as they were the ones you lied, and continue to lie, about.
Quote:The consensus of professional historians since the '90s has been that none of the major belligerents' leaders actually wanted the war. But a series of miscues and incompetent diplomacy and poor to non-existence intel lead all actors to react the way they did.
E.g., there is Richard Parker, who was a U.S. official in Egypt when the war started, but is also an actual historian.
Richard B. Parker. The Politics of Miscalculation in the Middle East (Indiana University Press, 1993) and The Six Day War: A Retrospective (University Press of Florida, 1996).
A short cut: Before The Politics of Miscalculation, Parker wrote this essay which goes over the range of conspiracies about who started the war--The US, Syria, The Soviets, Israel, and Egypt. It's shorter than a book and covers a wide range of "causes" seen from different sides. Why read about "conspiracies"? As the conspiracies are book-based and dredge up a great deal of factual information, the essay gives one a comprehensive introduction to all the factors/lines of force that went into the "provocations" assumed by all sides and the actions which followed the very same logic. (E.g., Egypt's belief, thanks to a communique from the Soviets, that the Israeli's were massing for an attack. Perhaps they were thinking of Pearl Harbor too.) https://www.palquest.org/sites/default/files/The_June_War_Whose_Conspiracy-Richard_B._Parker.pdf
Cool story. If the Arab nations didn't want a war then they should have stopped aiding and directly assisting the irregular forces attacking Israel from within their own borders. If their goal was to avoid war then they did a horrifically shitty job of it.
Quote:As time has proven the consequences of the war ever more problematic for Israel, Israeli historians have offered sterner assessments of their own leadership. E.g., Tom Segev's 1967 (2007) and Guy Laron's Six-Day War: Breaking the Middle-East (2017), place much more responsibility on the Israeli general staff for provoking the war (without letting Syria off the hook either) . (All books I've mentioned are on Amazon.)
Oh, if one book said it then it's true, right? I mean I'm sure there no books that take the opposite opinion. Not that you'd bother ever searching for or reading them. Regardless, here is a much better book with a much more balanced view of things, hence your not mentioning it.
https://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-War-Making-Modern/dp/0345461924
Quote:Obama certainly wasn't going to invade a nuclear power. But he did lead the EU in organizing a sanctions regime and began the diplomatic isolation of Russia. Only NK and Syria have recognized the annexation. He did more about that violation than the US has done about Israel, for sure. It's not only Dems in the House and Senate.
So nothing, go it. I mean he did so much that Putin couldn't wait for another Dem in the White House to invade the whole country this time. Obama really put him on his heels.
Quote:Did Poland seize Danzig and East Prussia in an aggressive war?
Before the war they weren't part of Poland, after the war they were. Germany lost, Poland gained territory from Germany. I guess consistency is not your strong suit.
Quote:There are Israeli apologists who make a similar argument, hoping to construct a false equivalence. I think their intended audience is not people familiar with the legal principle actually applied to these rather different cases. These are generally the same people who argue that the occupation of the West Bank cannot be an occupation because the Palestinians were not previously a sovereign people etc. Meantime they are still human beings under brutal control of a hostile state, still settling their land by force. But Iran . . .!
Your entire premise is based on deliberate misrepresentation. Your posts are so poor in this regard it takes you multiple times to get your BS straight before you don't delete what you just posted.
(09-29-2023, 09:54 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't see how it can be "100%" wrong if 1) Israel struck the first blow and, as I note in the previous posts and your source agrees, 2) there is no consensus even among Israeli historians that they did, because Israel was also constantly provoking it's neighbors before it also struck the first blow.
Nope, the irregular forces striking from Palestine, Joran and Syria struck the first blows. Your constant ignoring of this point doesn't make your argument stronger.
Quote:But your insistence it is 100% wrong arises from your "basic sense of fairness" and "need to set the record straight"? Whatever record that is, it doesn't seem to reflect the consensus of historians about the Six-Day War.
Your perception of these events is so flawed, as illustrated above, I'd be concerned if you agreed with me.
Quote:I responded to LSUfan's statement on the annexation of the Golan Heights, explaining why the annexation violated international law, and why Israel is viewed as the aggressor there by the rest of the world. Fourteen years after the war it still did that.
Then why did you frame it as the UN condemning Israel as the aggressor in the Six Days War? Because you are disingenuous and hope you won't get called out. These conversations tickle me as they consistently melt away at your façade of impartial intellectualism.
Quote:You decided that my clear factual statement of the legal decision was a "flat out lie," and all "disingenuous" and "amazingly biased" if not buttressed by reference to "Palestinian guerrillas" and a "but Iran!" Like the UN, I "omitted" factors could which play no role in the 1981 decision. If you know what Iran thinks, then you exempt Israel from the law?
Did I ever say Israel was above the law?
Quote:None of which makes what I said a "flat out lie" since the law is what it is and Israels actions were what they were and the UN correctly assessed the annexation according to law, knowing full what what Iran thinks. Yet you appear to have decided something is "disingenuous" about this factual reporting of facts, because in your view Israel was not an aggressor, regardless of the law.
You're disingenuous as you consistently ignore the aggressive vitriol directed against Israel, all the while trying to spin them as the aggressors. I have to reiterate, I'm not even a fan of Israeli foreign policy, but your arguments against them are so flawed and biased that any fair minded person would feel compelled to correct them
Quote:So where are you on this now. Do you still say I just "flat out lied" when I described the UN decision as it is without mentioning Iran?
A lie by omission is a lie. You consistently omit provocations against Israel, hence you are lying by omission. So yes, deal with it. Take another seven attempts at a response before finally getting it right. I'll still be here.
