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.
Jarhum,
My bad for also forgetting to mention that Egypt also enacted a
blockade on Israeli Shipping in the Red Sea. Isn't that an
act of belligerency?
Add that with the thousand tanks, and hundred thousand troops
sitting on the border, Israel had a real concern for its security.
Any country would.
Eban did attempt to delay Israeli pre-emptive strike, however,
American plans to aid Israel fell on its ass, and Israel then knew
they stood alone and had to do whatever it took to guarantee its
Survival. Why would it be matter of Survival? All
thanks to Nasser who chose very powerful words for that
situation.
Again, you claim to be a Political Scientist, and should
understand that words are very carefully chosen when dealing with
other countries. Nasser's choice of words were in not way
defensive. He did not claim that they would defeat Israel,
but chose the words, "destruction of Israel." He added, "The
Arab people want to fight" and not "The Arab people will want to
fight." A very aggressive choice of words don't you
think?
On Resolution 242, it was a matter of fact that the Security
Council rejected appeals to insert the word "all." If they
intended for Israel to return all territories and force her to
accept pre may 1967 borders, they would have happily made
amendments.
Now on the issue of Genocide. A massacre might pass as a
charge, but genocide not. Genocide entails the complete
elimination of a race of people, hence the root word, "gene-."
What Hitler tried to do, was genocide. He targeted
Jews, and came up with systematice methods to kill them by the
droves. He openly stated his ideals of "purification" of
"Aryan" peoples and lands.
There is no sign that the Israelis are systematically killing
Palestinians. If aerial bombings are considered so, then
Americans should have been accused of genocide of Iraqis too.
Oh, did I mention that that would be horribly inefficient
without the use of Fuel Air Explosives?
You can call me whatever you like, Zionist Extremists, PAP Dog,
blah blah... I'm used to it. I've said it before, I'm a
realist. I don't really care as much as for the morals and
how many people are dying from Israeli WP. I just know that
the coexistence of Hamas and Israel creates security dilemmas and
the only way to relative "peace" is the capitulation of Hamas.
