Prisoner exchange

[groggy]

At the time they shot it down they believed it was a military plane attempting to flee.

They got close enough to get eye to eye contact with the pilots and thought it was a military plane?
And you buy that?

 

[fuji]

In other words, Israel attacked first.

Yes, perhaps the Arabs shouldn't have kicked out the peacekeepers and declared war.

 

[fuji]

They got close enough to get eye to eye contact with the pilots and thought it was a military plane?
And you buy that?

"I saw two rows of windows and knew that this was a Boeing. I knew this was a civilian plane. But for me this meant nothing. It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use."

 

[groggy]

Yes, perhaps the Arabs shouldn't have kicked out the peacekeepers and declared war.

In other words, you retract your statement that Egypt started the war.
As you've admitted, Israel attacked first.

 

[fuji]

In other words, you retract your statement that Egypt started the war.
As you've admitted, Israel attacked first.

The Arabs started the war 1948. Egypt broke the truce by expelling the peacekeepers, violating the terms of the ceasefire, and by declaring its intent to attack Israel.

 

[basketcase]

In other words, you retract your statement that Egypt started the war.
As you've admitted, Israel attacked first.

Egypt committed the first acts of war and violations of ceasefire. Israel responded by striking first.

 

[groggy]

The Arabs started the war 1948. Egypt broke the truce by expelling the peacekeepers, violating the terms of the ceasefire, and by declaring its intent to attack Israel.

No, as you have previously said, Israel attacked first.
Up until the first attack its all a game of chicken.
First person who breaks that is the one to start the war.

 

[fuji]

Groggy, the war started in 1948. The question is not who started the war--the Arabs plainly did, in 1948--the question is who broke the ceasefire.

The ceasefire required the presence of the UN peacekeepers that Egypt kicked out. That was a key part of the peace deal, and they violated it.

Moreover the Arabs were PLAINLY preparing an attack, they were actually saying they were about to attack, telling anyone who cared to listen that they were about to destroy Israel.

So they started the war (in 1948) and they were the ones to breach the terms of the ceasefire.

Are you saying that the Egyptians should have been permitted to recklessly violate key parts of the ceasefire deal, and Israel should have sat there waiting for the attack? Ludicrous. Just ludicrous.

 

[groggy]

That's a lot of squirming, Fuji.
And no, Israel attacked first, all else is your attempt at justifications.
Israel started the war, they fired the first shots.

 

[toguy5252]

That's a lot of squirming, Fuji.
And no, Israel attacked first, all else is your attempt at justifications.
Israel started the war, they fired the first shots.

LOL. When you don't like history just rewrite history. Too funny.

 

[groggy]

I'm not rewriting anything, just noting all that this is typical of the claims you guys make.

 

[fuji]

That's a lot of squirming, Fuji.
And no, Israel attacked first, all else is your attempt at justifications.
Israel started the war, they fired the first shots.

I guess Groggy it all comes down to be whether you want to be accurate, correct, and truthful, or whether you want to make up your own version of history.

If you want to be accurate, correct, and truthful then the chain of events are:

1. Arabs started a war of aggression against Israel in 1948

2. Up to 1967, Arabs repeatedly broke various truces and ceasefires, resuming their war of aggression

3. In 1967 Egypt was still in a state of war with Israel, but had negotiated a truce that called for UN peacekeepers in the Sinai. This is considered critical to protect Israel from further Arab aggression.

4. Egypt rampantly violated the terms of that truce, massed an army, ejected the required peacekeepers further violating the truce terms, and declared its intention to attack

5. The truce having been violated beyond repair by Egypt, Israel attacked

Specifically Israel did not attack until the truce was violated by Egypt. You can say "Israel attacked first" and that's true, but it is false, incorrect, and lying to say that Israel started the war.

The war was started in 1948 by the Arabs. In 1967 it was still underway. Israel did not start the war, Israel was not even the one to break the truce.

 

[basketcase]

Even Abbas said that the Arabs shouldn't have rejected the partition in 1947.

Good to see someone involved nit just content to blame the other side for everything.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...-wrong-to-reject-1947-partition-plan-1.392560

 

[groggy]

I guess Groggy it all comes down to be whether you want to be accurate, correct, and truthful, or whether you want to make up your own version of history.

If you want to be accurate, correct, and truthful then the chain of events are:

1. Arabs started a war of aggression against Israel in 1948

I think we'd have to start at this claim and work forward.
Each of these will take a bit of time to work through, and none as you list.
Start with 1948.
Make your case.

 

[basketcase]

Gee. I haven't seen a single historian who claims that the Arab states didn't invade in '48. I know reality is a tough thing for grog.

 

[fuji]

Sure Groggy, here is a historical article discussing the Arab invasion in 1948:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4283094

And here is the Arab League's declaration of war:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/arab_invasion.html

The Arabs invaded Israel the day it was legally created by the United Nations in a war of aggression intended to destroy the Jewish state.

 

[Infinity]

Up until the first attack its all a game of chicken.
First person who breaks that is the one to start the war.

Please direct us to where that is stated in International Law?

The first person to break the rules of peace, are deemed to be the one to start the war. The question then becomes one of proportionality.

 

[groggy]

Sure Groggy, here is a historical article discussing the Arab invasion in 1948:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4283094

And here is the Arab League's declaration of war:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/arab_invasion.html

The Arabs invaded Israel the day it was legally created by the United Nations in a war of aggression intended to destroy the Jewish state.

That's right, because prior to that it was the Jewish state of Palestine.
No, that's not right.
It was the Jewish state of Israel, run by the British.
No, that's not it.

No, there was no mass movement leading to ethnic cleansing, no rebellion from those poor Arab folks at the mercy of British and UN decisions.


Perhaps Israel should only be declared a state when they have fulfilled the conditions for that UN declaration.
A viable Palestinian state.
Full rights for all in both states.

 

[fuji]

I'm not sure what you're on about now Groggy, but the point is established:

The Arabs launched a war of aggression in 1948, invading Israel the day the UN created it.

Perhaps Israel should only be declared a state when they have fulfilled the conditions for that UN declaration.
A viable Palestinian state.
Full rights for all in both states.

So that criteria was met on May 14, 1948. There were two, independent, viable states created that day, including a Palestinian state that was much larger than the 1967 borders one now proposed! Late that evening the Arabs launched their war of aggression against Israel and in the course of that war lost a lot of territory.

If they hadn't launched their losing war against Israel there would be a large Palestinian state today.

 

[groggy]

I'm not sure what you're on about now Groggy, but the point is established:

The Arabs launched a war of aggression in 1948, invading Israel the day the UN created it.



So that criteria was met on May 14, 1948. There were two, independent, viable states created that day, including a Palestinian state that was much larger than the 1967 borders one now proposed! Late that evening the Arabs launched their war of aggression against Israel and in the course of that war lost a lot of territory.

If they hadn't launched their losing war against Israel there would be a large Palestinian state today.

Its a lovely theory, but only works if you ignore the Jewish terrorist attacks all through the beginning of 1948 by Irgun.

Yigael Yadin, the acting chiefofstaffofthe Hagana- andasof 15May 1948 ofthe Israeli army- sug- gested that the way forward lay in adopting a new, more straightforward ter- minology and a tougher form of indoctrination. He recommended abandoning the term 'retaliation': 'This is not what we are doing; this is an offensive and we need to initiate preemptive strikes, no need for a village to attack us [first]. We have not used properly our ability to strangulate the economy of the Palestinians.' The, for many Israelis, legendary head of the Palmach, Yitzhak Sadeh, agreed with Yadin and added, 'We were wrong to initiate only retaliations.' What was needed was instilling in the troops that aggression 'is the mood and mode now'.

That's from the very well researched The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Ilan Pappe.
Give it a read and get back to me.

According to your definitions, acts of terrorism are acts of war, and the start of the war should be blamed then on Jewish terrorists.