Israel
-
Should Singapore publicly condemn Israel?
-
If doing that alone is going to stop the bickering between the two states..SURE !!!
-
In light of the massive deflationary tsunami being generated by the paper money printing Zionist-controlled Federal Reserve and tanking growth projections of all countries dependant on export to the U.S as a growth engine, does it hurt more to suck on Jewish cock or should we just spit it out and start building a "real" economy (like we once did)?
-
IDF is teh sex!
-
IDF is a bunch of whiny hebrew teenagers being marched into a blender by the demonic ZioNazi gang of war criminals. Isreal will pull out of Gaza because it knows it can't win. Just watch. They talk about a truce and how humanitarian they are and all that fucking crap like everybody forgot they bombed UN refugee shelters and killed UN aid workers. Olmert is afraid he'll get assassinated by someone's mother and Benjamin is a-ok to see Olmert hang. The Pallys are going to fucking plot, scheme and kill Jewish settlers for the next 50 years (because that's probably how long Israel will last) and the best thing is the whole world is just going to kick back and laugh at the miserable sniveling whining mother fucking Zionazis as they get beheaded in droves. The muslim young are growing up lions and the Zionist young are scared they're going to hell because EVERYBODY CAN SEE THE ZIONIST PROJECT HAS LOST THE MORAL HIGH GROUND.
-
singapore should not condemn israel, becoz singapore armed forces are train by IDF 40 years ago. if someone say IDF sucks, singapore are SAF sucks more!
right or not the war on gaza, IDF in my opinion are the strongest in the world. i cant imagine our reservist activated to fight a war with the toughtest of terrorist hamas and hizbollahas a joke, maybe we should look back history and judge hitler again. maybe he can foreseen but the rest of the world cant see 60 years later.
-
What is so great about IDF training SAF 40 bloody years ago? They taught us because they needed diplomatic support for their Zionist Project and they thought they saw the Chinese here as being in the same boat as them, appropriating Muslim lands etc. But things have changed. Singapore wants a progressive future based on peaceful and stable trade relations with its neighbours. Israeli Zionists wants an Apocalyptic War and the Endtimes. These divergence views of the future has made whatever doctrines the IDF taught us as being obsolete. Those who still think like the Isreali settlers are dinosaurs in Singapore. Singapore does not want terrorism and war at its doorstep because Singapore does not have remote control powers over the U.S. administration. Singapore must always rely on its politicians first before its generals. That is why generals are taken into public service and taught to become statesmen. A small country like Singapore, run like a military dictatorship with the mentality of the Zionist will doom everyone in Singapore. So IDF can go fly a fucking kite in a thunderstorm for all I care.
-
Originally posted by frakfrakfrak:
Singapore must always rely on its politicians first before its generals. That is why generals are taken into public service and taught to become statesmen. A small country like Singapore, run like a military dictatorship with the mentality of the Zionist will doom everyone in Singapore. So IDF can go fly a fucking kite in a thunderstorm for all I care.
Oh No, because our generals eat free nothing to do, and soon going to retire, so to give them some jobs, they become MP and ministers lor, and as for our PM Lee, no choice mah, because he MM Lee's son, so he get to be the PM from general position.Like it or not, the zionist are good in warfare, they see singapore as same as them, surrounded by muslim countries, so that is why they tried to teach us, but unlike them who need to fight for survive, we dun need, so we take a friendly and consultative approach with our muslim neighbours rather then CONfrontation. Israel army is one of the most capable army, well disciplined, well plan with good strategy. Imagine that they can take the whole arab world, whacked egypt, syria, jordan and many others and yet still going strong. Of course you may say finanicial and arms support is there, but it still need good soldier to operate, fight, attack and defend well.
Me
-
Originally posted by frakfrakfrak:
Singapore must always rely on its politicians first before its generals. That is why generals are taken into public service and taught to become statesmen. A small country like Singapore, run like a military dictatorship with the mentality of the Zionist will doom everyone in Singapore. So IDF can go fly a fucking kite in a thunderstorm for all I care.
Oh No, because our generals eat free nothing to do, and soon going to retire, so to give them some jobs, they become MP and ministers lor, and as for our PM Lee, no choice mah, because he MM Lee's son, so he get to be the PM from general position.Like it or not, the zionist are good in warfare, they see singapore as same as them, surrounded by muslim countries, so that is why they tried to teach us, but unlike them who need to fight for survive, we dun need, so we take a friendly and consultative approach with our muslim neighbours rather then CONfrontation. Israel army is one of the most capable army, well disciplined, well plan with good strategy. Imagine that they can take the whole arab world, whacked egypt, syria, jordan and many others and yet still going strong. Of course you may say finanicial and arms support is there, but it still need good soldier to operate, fight, attack and defend well.
Me just
-
Originally posted by frakfrakfrak:
Singapore must always rely on its politicians first before its generals. That is why generals are taken into public service and taught to become statesmen. A small country like Singapore, run like a military dictatorship with the mentality of the Zionist will doom everyone in Singapore. So IDF can go fly a fucking kite in a thunderstorm for all I care.
Oh No, because our generals eat free nothing to do, and soon going to retire, so to give them some jobs, they become MP and ministers lor, and as for our PM Lee, no choice mah, because he MM Lee's son, so he get to be the PM from general position.Like it or not, the zionist are good in warfare, they see singapore as same as them, surrounded by muslim countries, so that is why they tried to teach us, but unlike them who need to fight for survive, we dun need, so we take a friendly and consultative approach with our muslim neighbours rather then CONfrontation. Israel army is one of the most capable army, well disciplined, well plan with good strategy. Imagine that they can take the whole arab world, whacked egypt, syria, jordan and many others and yet still going strong. Of course you may say finanicial and arms support is there, but it still need good soldier to operate, fight, attack and defend well.
Me just dunno
-
Originally posted by frakfrakfrak:
Singapore must always rely on its politicians first before its generals. That is why generals are taken into public service and taught to become statesmen. A small country like Singapore, run like a military dictatorship with the mentality of the Zionist will doom everyone in Singapore. So IDF can go fly a fucking kite in a thunderstorm for all I care.
Oh No, because our generals eat free nothing to do, and soon going to retire, so to give them some jobs, they become MP and ministers lor, and as for our PM Lee, no choice mah, because he MM Lee's son, so he get to be the PM from general position.Like it or not, the zionist are good in warfare, they see singapore as same as them, surrounded by muslim countries, so that is why they tried to teach us, but unlike them who need to fight for survive, we dun need, so we take a friendly and consultative approach with our muslim neighbours rather then CONfrontation. Israel army is one of the most capable army, well disciplined, well plan with good strategy. Imagine that they can take the whole arab world, whacked egypt, syria, jordan and many others and yet still going strong. Of course you may say finanicial and arms support is there, but it still need good soldier to operate, fight, attack and defend well.
Me just dunno hwo
-
"Chronicle of a Suicide Foretold: The Case of Israel"
The state of Israel proclaimed its independence at midnight on May 15, 1948. The United Nations had voted to establish two states in what had been Palestine under British rule. The city of Jerusalem was supposed to be an international zone under U.N. jurisdiction. The U.N. resolution had wide support, and specifically that of the United States and the Soviet Union. The Arab states all voted against it.
In the sixty years of its existence, the state of Israel has depended for its survival and expansion on an overall strategy that combined three elements: macho militarism, geopolitical alliances, and public relations. The macho militarism (what current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert calls the "iron fist") was made possible by the nationalist fervor of Jewish Israelis, and eventually (although not initially) by the very strong support of Jewish communities elsewhere in the world.
Geopolitically, Israel first forged an alliance with the Soviet Union (which was brief but crucial), then with France (which lasted a longer time and allowed Israel to become a nuclear power), and finally (and most importantly) with the United States. These allies, who were also patrons, offered most importantly military support through the provision of weapons. But they also offered diplomatic/political support, and in the case of the United States considerable economic support.
The public relations was aimed at obtaining sympathetic support from a wide swath of world public opinion, based in the early years on a portrait of Israel as a pioneering David against a retrograde Goliath, and in the last forty years on guilt and compassion over the massive Nazi extermination of European Jewry during the Second World War.
All these elements of Israeli strategy worked well from 1948 to the 1980s. Indeed, they were increasingly more effective. But somewhere in the 1980s, the use of each of the three tactics began to be counterproductive. Israel has now entered into a phase of the precipitate decline of its strategy. It may be too late for Israel to pursue any alternative strategy, in which case it will have committed geopolitical suicide. Let us trace how the three elements in the strategy interacted, first during the successful upward swing, then during the slow decline of Israel's power.
For the first twenty-five years of its existence, Israel engaged in four wars with Arab states. The first was the 1948-1949 war to establish the Jewish state. The Israeli declaration of an independent state was not matched by a Palestinian declaration to establish a state. Rather, a number of Arab governments declared war on Israel. Israel was initially in military difficulty. However, the Israeli military were far better trained than those of the Arab countries, with the exception of Transjordan. And, crucially, they obtained arms from Czechoslovakia, acting as the agent of the Soviet Union.
By the time of the truce in 1949, the discipline of the Israeli forces combined with the Czech arms enabled the Israelis to win considerable territory not included in the partition proposals of the United Nations, including west Jerusalem. The other areas were incorporated by the surrounding Arab states. A large number of Palestinian Arabs left or were forced to leave areas under the control of the Israelis and became refugees in neighboring Arab countries, where their descendants still largely live today. The land they had owned was taken by Jewish Israelis.
The Soviet Union soon dropped Israel. This was probably primarily because its leaders quickly became afraid of the impact of the creation of the state on the attitudes of Soviet Jewry, who seemed overly enthusiastic and hence potentially subversive from Stalin's point of view. Israel in turn dropped any sympathy for the socialist camp in the Cold War, and made clear its fervent desire to be considered a full-fledged member of the Western world, politically and culturally.
France at this time was faced with national liberation movements in its three North African colonies, and saw in Israel a useful ally. This was especially true after the Algerians launched their war of independence in 1954. France began to help Israel arm itself. In particular, France, which was developing its own nuclear weapons (against U.S. wishes), helped Israel do the same. In 1956, Israel joined France and Great Britain in a war against Egypt. Unfortunately for Israel, this war was launched against U.S. opposition, and the United States forced all three powers to end it.
After Algeria became independent in 1962, France lost interest in the Israeli connection, which now interfered with its attempts to renew closer relations with the three now independent North African states. It was at this point that the United States and Israel turned to each other to forge close links. In 1967, war broke out again between Egypt and Israel, and other Arab states joined Egypt. In this so-called Six Day War, the United States for the first time gave military weapons to Israel.
The 1967 Israeli victory changed the basic situation in many respects. Israel had won the war handily, occupying all those parts of the British mandate of Palestine that it had occupied before, plus Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Syria's Golan Heights. Juridically, there was now a state of Israel plus Israel's occupied territories. Israel began a policy of establishing
Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.
The Israeli victory transformed the attitude of world Jewry, which now overcame whatever reservations it had had about the creation of the state of Israel. They took great pride in its accomplishments and began to undertake major political campaigns in the United States and western Europe to secure political support for Israel. The image of a pioneering Israel with emphasis on the virtues of the kibbutz was abandoned in favor of an emphasis on the Holocaust as the basic justification for world support of Israel.
In 1973, the Arab states sought to redress the military situation in the so-called Yom Kippur war. This time again, Israel won the war, with U.S. arms support. The 1973 war marked the end of the central role of the Arab states. Israel could continue to try to get recognition from Arab states, and it did succeed eventually with both Egypt and Jordan, but it was now too late for this to be a way to secure Israel's existence.
As of this point, there emerged a serious Palestinian Arab political movement, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which was now the key opponent of Israel, the one with whom Israel needed to come to terms. For a long time, Israel refused to deal with the PLO and its leader Yasser Arafat, preferring the iron fist. And at first, it was militarily successful.
The limits of the iron fist policy were made evident by the first intifada, a spontaneous uprising of Palestinian Arabs inside the occupied territories, which began in 1987 and lasted six years. The basic achievement of the intifada was twofold. It forced the Israelis and the United States to talk to the PLO, a long process that led to the so-called Oslo Accords of 1993, which provided for the creation of the Palestinian Authority in part of the occupied territories.
The Oslo Accords in the long run were geopolitically less important than the impact of the intifada on world public opinion. For the first time, the David-Goliath image began to be inverted. For the first time, there began to be serious support in the Western world for the so-called two-state solution. For the first time, there began to be serious criticism of Israel's iron fist and its practices vis-à-vis the Arab Palestinians. Had Israel been serious about a two-state solution based on the so-called Green Line - the line of division at the end of the 1948-1949 war - it probably would have achieved a settlement.
Israel however was always one step behind. When it could have negotiated with Nasser, it wouldn't. When it could have negotiated with Arafat, it wouldn't. When Arafat died and was succeeded by the ineffectual Mahmoud Abbas, the more militant Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006. Israel refused to talk to Hamas.
Now, Israel has invaded Gaza, seeking to destroy Hamas. If it succeeds, what organization will come next? If, as is more probable, it fails to destroy Hamas, is a two-state solution now possible? Both Palestinian and world public opinion is moving towards the one-state solution. And this is of course the end of the Zionist project.
The three-element strategy of Israel is decomposing. The iron fist no longer succeeds, much as it didn't for George Bush in Iraq. Will the United States link remain firm? I doubt it. And will world public opinion continue to look sympathetically on Israel? It seems not. Can Israel now switch to an alternative strategy, of negotiating with the militant representatives of the Arab Palestinians, as an integral constituent of the Middle East, and not as an outpost of Europe? It seems quite late for that, quite possibly too late. Hence, the chronicle of a suicide foretold.
by Immanuel Wallerstein
-
What is so great about IDF training SAF 40 bloody years ago? They taught us because they needed diplomatic support for their Zionist Project and they thought they saw the Chinese here as being in the same boat as them, appropriating Muslim lands etc. But things have changed. Singapore wants a progressive future based on peaceful and stable trade relations with its neighbours. Israeli Zionists wants an Apocalyptic War and the Endtimes. These divergence views of the future has made whatever doctrines the IDF taught us as being obsolete. Those who still think like the Isreali settlers are dinosaurs in Singapore. Singapore does not want terrorism and war at its doorstep because Singapore does not have remote control powers over the U.S. administration. Singapore must always rely on its politicians first before its generals. That is why generals are taken into public service and taught to become statesmen. A small country like Singapore, run like a military dictatorship with the mentality of the Zionist will doom everyone in Singapore. So IDF can go fly a fucking kite in a thunderstorm for all I care.
take it easy la. we are talking IDF good in military warfare. IDF did not brainwash our forefathers or fathers in their early days of NS.
like it or not, IDF kick the ass of arabs in 1967 in their 6 days war. it still amazed me how can a small country with possibly much inferior military weapons compare to the mightyEgy and gangs, kick their ass and possibly eliminate the threat from them in years to come.
i bet u r few of those who blindly deny the superiorty of IDF in comparison to its arabs neighbours. like i say, i dont comment whether the war on gaza is morally right or wrong, i just like to comment, IDF is hell of a good army!!
-
IDF owns chuck norris
-
it still amazed me how can a small country with possibly much inferior military weapons compare to the mightyEgy and gangs, kick their ass and possibly eliminate the threat from them in years to come.
That is Israeli propaganda.
Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?
“The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was ‘no threat of destruction’ but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could ‘exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.’...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: ‘In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.’“ Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”
Was the 1967 war defenisve? — continued
“I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.” Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
Moshe Dayan posthumously speaks out on the Golan Heights
“Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] ‘They didn’t even try to hide their greed for the land...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 further, 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...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.’” The New York Times, May 11, 1997
The history of Israeli expansionism
“The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.” David Ben-Gurion, in 1936, quoted in Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”
Expansionism — continued
“The main danger which Israel, as a ‘Jewish state’, poses to its own people, to other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim...No zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion’s idea that Israeli policies must be based (within the limits of practical considerations) on the restoration of Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state.” Israeli professor, Israel Shahak, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years.”
Expansionism — continued
In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt’s personal diaries, there is an excerpt from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows: “[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no — it must — invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge...And above all — let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space.” Quoted in Livia Rokach, “Israel’s Sacred Terrorism.”
But wasn’t the occupation of Arab lands necessary to protect Israel’s security?
“Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should guarantee Israel’s security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967. The UN Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the Soviet Union — then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs — into compliance. As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force. Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest would be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.
“The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States. The proposal, however, was flatly rejected by Israel. ‘The whole affair disgusted Fulbright,’ writes [his biographer Randall] Woods. ‘The Israelis were not even willing to act in their own self-interest.’” Allan Brownfield in “Issues of the American Council for Judaism.” Fall 1997.[Ed.—This was one of many such proposals]
What happened after the 1967 war ended?
“In violation of international law, Israel has confiscated over 52 percent of the land in the West Bank and 30 percent of the Gaza Strip for military use or for settlement by Jewish civilians...From 1967 to 1982, Israel’s military government demolished 1,338 Palestinian homes on the West Bank. Over this period, more than 300,000 Palestinians were detained without trial for various periods by Israeli security forces. “Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising Against Israeli Occupation,” ed. Lockman and Beinin.
-
Truths about the Six-Day War: U.S. CIA & military secretly helped Israelis
Mid-East Realities, 11 June 1997
MER - Most of the lies and distortions about the Six Day War in 1967 when Israel occupied the Golan, West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, remain today 30 years later.
The reality is that Israel encouraged and then took advantage of that war for many political, economic, and territorial reasons. In the following column by Prof. Tanya Reinhart, she puts this into perspective in so far as Israel's attack on Syria and capture of the Golan in the last days of the war.
What history still does not properly record are:
- Israel never was in military danger, the Israeli Army was always aware they could overpowered all the Arab armies.
- The US CIA was greatly involved in providing Israel intelligence information that greatly helped them win the war in such a short time.
- US military personnel, disguised as civilians and on secret missions to which they were sworn to secrecy, helped the Israelis with specific technical and intelligence-gathering operations.
There is also a considerable likelihood that in the years following the war the American CIA, cooperating with the Israeli Mossad, targeted Gamal Abdel Nasser, President of Egypt, just as was the case with other anti-American leaders in other parts of the world. Nasser's death may have been one of the CIA's greatest and most secret successes. Recent revelations in Washington of destroyed CIA files dealing with foreign assassinations in the 50s and 60s adds a further dimension to this serious possibility.]
Dayan admits Israel attacked Syria in land grab
By Prof. Tanya Reinhart, translated from Yediot Aharonot, 6 May 1997
In June, it would be 30 years to the war of 1967 - the war that brought about the occupation. Governments have changed from Labor to Likud and back several times since then, and what has changed?
Yediot Aharonot of April 27 has published an 1976 interview with Moshe Dayan (which was not previously published). Dayan, who was the defense minister in 1967, explains there what led, then, to the decision to attack Syria. In the collective consciousness of the period, Syria was conceived as a serious threat to the security of Israel, and a constant initiator of aggression towards the residents of northern Israel. But according to Dayan, this is 'bull-shit' - Syria was not a threat to Israel before 67. Just drop it - he says as an answer to a question about the northern residences - I know how at least 80% of all the incidents with Syria started. We were sending a tractor to the demilitarized zone and we knew that the Syrians will shoot. If they did not shoot, we would instruct the tractor to go deeper, till the Syrians finally got upset and start shooting. Then we employed artillery, and later also the air-force... I did that... and Itzhak Rabin did that, when he was there (as commander of the Northern front, in the early sixties).
And what has led Israel to provoke Syria? According to Dayan, this was the greediness for the land - the idea that it is possible to grab a piece of land and keep it, until the enemy will get tired and give it to us. The Syrian land was, as he says, particularly tempting, since, unlike Gaza and the West bank it was not heavily populated.
The 67 war has brought the big chance to grab the land, and along with the land, the water of the of the Jordan Riverheads. Dayan insists that the decision to attack Syria was not motivated by security reasons: You do not attack the enemy because he is a bastard, but because he threatens you, and the Syrians in the fourth day of the war were not threatening us. He adds that the initiative of Colonel David Elazar to open the Syrian front was assisted by a delegation sent to prime-minister Eshkol by the Northern kibbutz's, who did not even try to hide their greediness to that land.
In 1973, the Israeli society has paid, for the first time, a heavy price for the occupation - in the 'Yom Kippur' war. The interview with Dayan was held three years after the defeat, and in that atmosphere, he explains that the decision to attack Syria was a mistake that will disable, in the future, peace with Syria.
One could infer from Dayan's words that he would have, perhaps, supported, withdrawal from the Golan heights, but Rabin, his partner to the road of the Labor, has never changed his skin. At the first period of his term as prime-minister, many believed that he is seeking an agreement with Syria. But behind the halo of our saviour the peace-maker, there was the same land-greedy commander who sent the tractors to provoke the Syrians in the early sixties.
In the tradition of all his predecessors, Rabin used the tactics of dragging negotiations: He agreed to discuss everything (the location of inspection points, the dates of opening embassies) except for the one issue that Syria was interested in - which lands Israel is willing to give up in the Golan. While Rabin's one hand was spreading rumors about secret agreements, to pacify public opinion, his other hand was pouring unprecedented budgets for developing the Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights. Apartments previously frozen were sold to anyone interested, and huge amounts of money were invested in developing foundation work and industry. All Netanyahu had to do is pick the fruits.
Thirty years after, the land-greedy are still stealing and appropriating it wherever possible - in the Golan heights, as in the West Bank. What we are left with are the words of Yifat Kastiel, whose twin sister was murdered recently in Wadi Kelet: They fight here all the time over pieces of land. But what importance could the land have, when the people who live here are so miserable?
-
In the early hours of 5 June 1967, Israel attacked Egypt and destroyed nearly its entire air force on the ground. On the Syrian- Israeli border, Israel attempted to evict its inhabitants and provoked a Syrian response. Already preluding the war, on 7 April 1967 the Israeli air force attacked Syria, shooting down six planes, hitting thirty fortified positions and killing about 100 people. By 10 June, Israeli forces captured the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, along with the Sinai and the Golan Heights. At the end of the war Israel had succeeded in almost doubling the amount of territory it controlled.
While one third of Egypt's army was in Yemen and therefore unlikely to start a war, Israel claimed to a believing world that the Arabs attacked Israel and that Israel was in danger of annihilation. Both claims were false. Israeli Air Force General Ezer Weizman declared that "there was never any danger of extermination". [1]
Almost a year after the war, Israeli General Matityahu Peled said: "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analysing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal [Israeli army]." [2]
On the Syrian-Israeli border, Israel was engaging in threats and provocations. One such incident on 7 April 1967 in a major aerial engagement between Israeli and Syrian planes. Six Syrian planes were shot down. In an interview in May 1967, Yitzhak Rabin threatened to overthrow the Syrian regime. Prime Minister Levi Eshkol reportedly said that Israel "may have to teach Syria a sharper lesson than that of 7 April." [3] On May 14, Soviet and Egyptian intelligence reported a massing of Israeli troops on the Syrian borders. [4]
A similar provocation against Jordan took place in November 1966, when 4,000 Israeli soldiers attacked Samu in the West Bank, and killing 18 Jordanian soldiers. The public justification for this action was to prevent Palestinian infiltration," though at the time "the Jordanian authorities did all they possibly could to stop infiltration," according to Odd Bull, chief of staff of UN forces at the time. [5]
In the course of the war more than 300,000 Palestinians were displaced, half for a second time. [6] A smaller number of Palestinians were internally displaced during the war, including Palestinians expelled from the Old City of Jerusalem. Subsequent displacement and expulsion of refugees has continued in 1967 occupied Palestine and in various countries of exile. Most of them found refuge on the east bank of the Jordan River along with the more than 400,000 who had fled there in 1948. More than 100,000 people, including 17,000 Palestinian refugees registered with UNRWA, moved from the Golan Heights into Syria. [7] In Jordan the refugee population increased by almost half. A small number fled further northern into the part of Syria not occupied by Israeli military forces, to Lebanon and Egypt. [8]
On the side of Egypt, Jordan and Syria the loss was 4,296 killed soldiers and 6,121 wounded. On the Israeli side the loss was 983 soldiers killed and 4,517 wounded. [9]
About one million Palestinians remained in those parts of Palestine occupied by Israel in 1967. As in 1948 in conquered areas with large Palestinian populations, Israel established a military government in West Bank and Gaza. The military government prevented the return of refugees who had been displaced during the war and also enabled Israel to take control of large amounts of land without granting citizenship and civil and political rights to the Palestinians living in these areas.
In the immediate wake of the June 1967 war, the Israel destroyed more than half a dozen Arab villages in the West Bank. Villages such as Imwas, Yalu and Beit Nuba in the Latrun area were destroyed and their inhabitants expelled. The area of these villages was subsequently turned into a nature reserve, Park Canada, which remains to this day a favorite Israeli picnic spot.[10] In the old city of Jerusalem, Israel depopulated and demolished the Mughrabi quarter adjacent to the Western Wall to make room for a square. Israel also depopulated the villages of Beit Marsam, Beit Awa, Jiftlik, and al-Burj as well as half the city of Qalqilya. [11] Only those Palestinians (and their offspring) registered in Israel�s September 1967 census of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip were considered legal residents of the 1967 OPTs. The administrative measure effectively prevented most Palestinian refugees displaced in 1967 from returning to their homes.
In occupied eastern Jerusalem, Israel disbanded the local municipal council and extended Israeli law and jurisdiction. The military government in West Bank and Gaza and the municipal order imposed on eastern Jerusalem controlled the Palestinian population by policies of separation and isolation.
A year after Israel occupied the remaining part of Palestine it began to establish settlements in these areas. In 1979 the UN Security Council determined in Resolution 446 that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
http://www.1948.com.au/1967/articles
-
Hehehe, so the eight Arab nations amassed their troops on three fronts for Israel to pound?!
-
Hehehe, so the eight Arab nations amassed their troops on three fronts for Israel to pound?!
Did they?
-
For a state that was on the verge of being wiped out... turned around n did some serious ass kicking... ;p i dun blame em for being.. a little bit too suspicious and decided to take matters into thier own hands given thier ... previous experiences with thier neighbours. lol
-
At the above cited meeting on January 31, 1954 Moshe Dayan went on to outline his war plans. Sharett's note for that day continues:
The second plan-action against the interference of the Syrians with our fishing in the Lake of Tiberias. . . .The third-if, due to internal problems in Syria, Iraq invades that country we should advance [militarily, into Syria] and realize a series of "faits accomplis." . . . The interesting conclusion to be drawn from all this regards the direction in which the new Chief of Staff is thinking. I am extremely worried. (31 January 1954, 332)
On February 25, 1954, Syrian troops stationed in Aleppo revolted against Adib Shishakly's regime.
After lunch Lavon took me aside and started trying to persuade me: This is the right moment to act this is the time to move forward and occupy the Syrian border positions beyond the Demilitarized Zone. Syria is disintegrating. A State with whom we signed an armistice agreement exists no more. Its government is about to fall and there is no other power in view. Moreover, Iraq has practically moved into Syria. This is an historical opportunity, we shouldn't miss it.
I was reluctant to approve such a blitz-plan and saw ourselves on the verge of an abyss of disastrous adventure. I asked if he suggests to act immediately and I was shocked when I realized that he does. I said that if indeed Iraq will move into Syria with its army it will be a revolutionary turn which will ... justify far reaching conclusions, but for the time being this is only a danger, not a fact. It is not even clear if Shishakly will fall: he may survive. We ought to wait before making any decision. He repeated that time was precious and we must act so as not to miss an opportunity which otherwise might be lost forever. Again I answered that under the circumstances right now I cannot approve any such action. Finally I said that next Saturday we would be meeting with Ben Gurion ... and we could consult him then on the matter. I saw that he was extremely displeased by the delay. However, he had no choice but to agree. (25 February 1954, 374)
-
The next day Ben Gurion sent Sharett the following letter:
To Moshe Sharett The Prime Minister
Sdeh Boker February 27, 1954
Upon my withdrawal from the government I decided in my heart to desist from intervening and expressing my opinion on current political affairs so as not to make things difficult for the government in any way. And if you hadn't called on me, the three of you, yourself, Lavon and Dayan, I would not have, of my own accord, expressed an opinion on what is being done or what ought to be done. But as you called me, I deem it my duty to comply with your wishes, and especially with your own wish as Prime Minister. Therefore, I permit myself to go back to one issue which you did not approve of and discuss it again, and this is the issue of Lebanon.
.........It is clear that Lebanon is the weakest link in the Arab League. The other minorities in the Arab States are all Muslim, except for the Copts. But Egypt is the most compact and solid of the Arab States and the majority there consists of one solid block, of one race, religion and language, and the Christian minority does not seriously affect their political and national unity. Not so the Christians in Lebanon. They are a majority in the historical Lebanon and this majority has a tradition and a culture different from those of the other components of the League. Also within the wider borders (this was the worst mistake made by France when it extended the borders of Lebanon), the Muslims are not free to do as they wish, even if they are a majority there (and I don't know if they are, indeed, a majority) for fear of the Christians, The creation of a Christian State is therefore a natural act; it has historical roots and it will find support in wide circles in the Christian world, both Catholic and Protestant. In normal times this would be almost impossible. First and foremost because of the lack of initiative and courage of the Christians. But at times of confusion, or revolution or civil war, things take on another aspect, and even the weak declares himself to be a hero. Perhaps (there is never any certainty in politics) now is the time to bring about the creation of a Christian State in our neighborhood. Without our initiative and our vigorous aid this will not be done. It seems to me that this is the central duty - for at least one of the central duties, of our foreign policy. This means that time, energy and means ought to be invested in it and that we must act in all possible ways to bring about a radical change in Lebanon. Sasson ... and our other Arabists must be mobilized. If money is necessary, no amount of dollars should be spared, although the money may be spent in vain. We must concentrate all our efforts on this issue ........ This is a historical opportunity. Missing it will be unpardonable. There is no challenge against the World Powers in this ........Everything should be done, in my opinion, rapidly and at full steam.
The goal will not be reached of course, without a restriction of Lebanon's borders. But if we can find men in Lebanon and exiles from it who will be ready to mobilize for the creation of a Maronite state, extended borders and a large Muslim population will be of no use to them and this will not constitute a disturbing factor.
I don't know if we have people in Lebanon-but there are various ways in which the proposed experiment can be carried out.
D.B.G. (27 February 1954, 2397-2398)
-
For a state that was on the verge of being wiped out... turned around n did some serious ass kicking... ;p i dun blame em for being.. a little bit too suspicious and decided to take matters into thier own hands given thier ... previous experiences with thier neighbours. lol
Like previous war for example:
It was a classic setting for international intrigue, a tile-roofed villa secluded among fog-swirled trees, ivy clinging to building wings clustered around a stunted steeple-like tower. The first group of conspirators landed at a French airfield outside Paris and reached the wall-enclosed villa in an unmarked car during the wee hours of October 22, 1956. Later that Monday morning, French Foreign Minister Christian Pineau visited his office in Paris, then was chauffeured home to switch to his personal car. He soon was at the villa shaking hands with Israel’s 70-year-old Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, eye-patched Chief of Staff Moshe Dayan and Defense Ministry Director-General Shimon Peres. British Foreign Minister Selwyn Lloyd, a key member of the third group of plotters, called his office in London to say he was staying home with a cold. He left England shortly after, to arrive at the villa that afternoon.
By the time the tense clandestine discussions–which also included French Premier Guy Mollet and British Prime Minister Anthony Eden–ended two days later in France and England, a secret accord had been reached. Champagne glasses were raised to celebrate a tripartite pledge to pursue what one chronicler called ‘the shortest and possibly silliest war in history.’ The target was Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt, which had become the symbol of Arab nationalism.
Israel, still territorially insecure after 8 1/2 years of existence among hostile Arab neighbors and cut off from access to the Red Sea by a blockade, had agreed to launch a pre-emptive invasion of Egypt’s 24,000-square-mile Sinai Peninsula on October 29. In response to that ‘threat’ to the strategically important Suez Canal, Britain and France would step in the next day to give the belligerents 12 hours to stop fighting, pull back from the strategic waterway and accept temporary occupation of ‘key positions on the Canal’ to ‘guarantee freedom of passage.’ That ultimatum, so obviously favorable to Israel, was designed to be rejected by Nasser. Then, on October 31–following a ‘decent interval’ for Egypt’s rejection of the ultimatum–Britain and France would launch airstrikes against the Egyptians. Invasion forces would then land long enough afterward to lend plausibility to the scenario...
http://www.historynet.com/suez-crisis-operation-musketeer.htm
-
War Crimes Committed Against U.S. Military Personnel, June 8, 1967
Submitted to the Secretary of the Army in his capacity as Executive Agent for the Secretary of Defense, June 8, 2005.
On June 8, 1967 while patrolling in international waters[2] in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) was savagely attacked without warning or justification by air and naval forces of the state of Israel.[3]
Of a crew of 294 officers and men[4] (including three civilians)[5], the ship suffered thirty four (34) killed in action and one hundred seventy three (173) wounded in action.[6] The ship itself, a Forty Million ($40,000,000) Dollar state of the art signals intelligence (SIGINT) platform, was so badly damaged that it never sailed on an operational mission again and was sold in 1970 for $101,666.66 as scrap[7] ...
-
'The USS Liberty': America's Most Shameful Secret
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html
Cover-up of the Attack on the Liberty