Jarhum,
It is distortingly inaccurate to pin Israel as the belligerent
in the 6 day war when Nasser claimed, "Our basic objective will be the destruction
of Israel. The Arab people want to fight," after mobilizing
troops to the border. What does that tell you?
Resolution 242's controversy over a single word IMO is overhyped
especially when it was the Security Council's decision to
deliberately reject appeals to insert the word "all" before the
"territories." It was a tacit understanding that territorial
changes had to be made since all the belligerents were
defeated.
On charges of murdering civilians, both Israel and Hamas must
answer. They have both caused innoncent people to lose their
lives. Then again, Hamas or Palestine didn't sign the Geneva
conventions did they? Hence, if Hamas or its Palestinian
militants cannot be tried in such fashion, how can it be that only
Israeli military personnel be tried?
In any case, your charge of genocide would have failed
instantly. To constitute genocide, o"If Israel embarks on an
aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will
be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or
Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and our basic
objective will be to destroy Isrelne has to prove that a party has
been systematically engaged in a process of targeting a specific
race for EXTERMINATION. Lets refrain from muddling up words
to make the Israelis look more guilty than they really
are.
The Israeli state has the responsibility to ensure the security
of its people. Any state has. I don't think you are not
aware of that. Its not whether they are right or wrong in the
first place, but that its an expected reaction from overt
high-profile attacks carried out by Hamas.
Shotgun,
I beg to differ. Your justification that Israel is not a
belligerent due to a single simplistic quoted rhetoric is grossly
inadequate. And your attempt to cite inadequately speaks volumes on
your intent.
Nasser said" "If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria
or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not
confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle
will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy
Israel"
I view your intent to leave out the first sentence of his
announcement to trade unionist as purposeful and tantamount to
alter the discourse of the exact causation of the war.
Moreover, Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban
wrote in his autobiography that he
found "Nasser's assurance that he did not plan an armed attack"
convincing, adding that "Nasser did not want war; he wanted victory
without war". Writing from Egypt on 4 June 1967 New York Times
journalist James
Reston observed: "Cairo
does not want war and it is certainly not ready for war. But it has
already accepted the possibility, even the likelihood, of war, as
if it had lost control of the situation. In addition, Egypt planned
to send its vice president to Washington for last ditch
diplomacy attempts to avert a war on the day of Israel's
pre-emptive strike.
However, Israel's insistence to proceed with a preemptive strike
leading to a war was a transformative and political
manovouer rather than purely a miliary defence one.
On resolution 242,
there are various interpretations of the ambigous, inconclusive
declaration. However, you have adopted the pro-Israeli stance as a
definitive direction of the resolution which reflects your
prejudiced stand. There exist various perspectives and
interpretations of this vaguely coined declaration. Academics would
point to the essence of the resolution that neither requires Israel
to withdraw nor permits Israel to retain the 1967
boundaries.
Palestine is defined as occupied territories rather than a
sovereign state actor. Your reluctance to accept Israel's
liabilities towards its war crimes is questionable. Numerous groups
have accused Israel of blatant violation of the fourth geneva
convention, notably Amnesty, UNWRA and several others. Israel
themselves do not refute its violation of human rights, only to
justify it with claims of self defence.
Does extermination requires the perpertrator to publically
announce its intention in forms of rhetoric to justify charges of
genocide directed at it? What Israel is doing in Gaza tantamounts
to acts of genocide, I reiterate. Try asking Hitler was he
responsible for acts of genocide against the Jews? He would
vehemently refute the accusations. Any criminal would attempt
to justify their wrongdoings and Israel is no different. I see no
disparity between the killings of innocent civilians of a sovereign
state and a non state actor. Do you imply acts
of extermination of citizens would only then constitute
genocide?
The president of the UN General Assembly has condemned Israel's
killings of Palestinians in its Gaza offensive as genocide.
I am fully aware any state or individual has the right to
self-defence. However, unlike you, I am not selective in its
application. Unfortunaely, Israeli attacks, in this current round
of events are not retaliatory nor a reaction. They were the
perpertrators of this war. Refer to my previous article for my
elaboration and substatiation of this.
I am tremendously appalled at your attempted downplay
of the massacre and the gross violation of human lives and
rights by the Israeli Zionists. In addition, I am pretty
amused at your selective citation of information to further a
flismy stand. I hope you would reconsider your stand for
disregard for the precise cause of the massacre of innocents will
do your values no justice.