BBC Poll: Israel's global image plummets

[Reffo]

it was not true for 1967, since Egypt boasted it could destroy Israel if it wished for, but it didn't state it is going to invade Israel (which it did in 1947)

Oh you are so naive sharonbn. I suspect you are much younger than I am. I remember 1967, I saw the situation unfold right in front of my eyes. Nasser clearly promised that the forthcoming battle with Israel would be the last one. I also remember the frenzied Arab mobs in the streets baying for the blood of Jews and parading with effigies of Jews being strung up. I also remember Nasser issuing a stamp which showed Tel Aviv burning.

Now hear this sharonbn and try to keep an open mind instead of parroting leftist apologetics for the Arabs. Nasser taunted Israel and dared Israel to try and break the blockade. Three Arab armies were mobilized on Israel's borders so Israel had to have a FULL mobilization too. Nasser did not have to attack. All he had to do is to maintain his blockade and keep his armies mobilized on Israel's borders and force Israel to do the same. How long do you think Israel's economy would have lasted? Or do you think that if Israel would have unilaterally demobilized, that would have solved the crisis? Of course NOT! That would have been the signal for the three Arab armies to attack. Nasser knew that Israel had no real choice but he thought that Israel would not dare to attack. He thought that he would slowly strangle Israel. And he was over confident too. He thought that if Israel WOULD attack, Israel would be defeated. Well, he was wrong. And you are wrong too for underestimating the threat that Israel DID face in 1967.

Egypt did make preparations for war, but some ...

You bet he did. You are not wrong!

Once again, your snide remark misses the point. Completely

You are absolutely right, I was snide. I was snide because I am sick of some Jews and Israelis inventing arguments for everyone, even potentially sympathisers of Israel to blame Israel for ALL the mess in the middle east. How do you think most people react to what Israelis like you say? I'll tell you how: they will say that we are not going to defend Israel more than Israelis are prepared to defend Israel. If Israelis say that Israel is in the wrong then Israel is wrong. Period.

Oh, they might thank you for being such an even handed person. So they might like you as a person but that won't do Israel any good. They will agree with you that Israel is in the wrong and that it exaggerates the threats that it faced historically and today too.

I don't expect you to defend Israel by using lies and propaganda. I expect you to tell the truth. But that means that you should do your homework and don't understate the danger that Israel was in in 1967 and that you should not pretend that Israel had any other choice but to do what it did. Nor should you pretend that Israel is not under threat today too from the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and even from Egypt (potentially). And sure you can complain about over reactions by some Israelis against Palestinians but please don't under estimate the threats from the Palestinians and their contribution to the situation that the two peoples find themselves in today. Because if Israel is guilty, then they [the Palestinians] are at least as guilty as Israel is for the mess that the Palestinians are in today.

[sharonbn]

so, out of all my long detailed reply, you take a few comments I made about the six days war and ignore everything else?
and its not even the main point of my post or even of the whole discussion?
what is this? a new argument tactics? everything you cannot answer - you don't. you just search for inaccuracies in my posts and deliver your answers to them with snide remarks? this is how you conduct discussions in real life?
I bet you don't have many friends.
why should I bother to write responses in that case?
well, I don't

MY POINTS, ALL OF THEM, REMAIN UNDISPUTED, EVEN UN-ADDRESSED BY YOU:

THE ARTICLE QUOTED BY FIREWIRE IS A DELIBERATE EXAGGERATION THAT AIMS TO PORTRAY ISRAEL AS THE INNOCENT VICTIM SURROUNDED BY ARAB COUNTRIES WHICH CONSTANTLY FOR THE LAST 60 YEARS HAVE ONE AND ONLY ONE PURPOSE - TO DESTROY IT.

This is textboox example of drafted press.

using your words, I am sick of some Jews and Israelis viewing everything as black and white, right or wrong, us and them, constantly simplifying the reality like little children (or like fanatic Islamists). I suspect you are much younger than I am, since anyone who says "If Israelis say that Israel is in the wrong then Israel is wrong. Period." didn't mature well beyond adolescence.

[Reffo]

so, out of all my long detailed reply, you take a few comments I made about the six days war and ignore everything else?
and its not even the main point of my post or even of the whole discussion?

Claiming that in 1967 the Arabs did not really threaten to destroy Israel is very much a central argument. That's what you claimed, didn't you? That is either a monstrous lie (if you know the real truth) or is monstrously ignorant.

Oh and sharonbn, since there were two of us discussing a topic, two of us can determine what is a central argument or not. You don't think it is but I do. And if you don't like it you can take your ball and run home? Which is what you are doing, I guess.

One last thought: It is interesting to see that you cannot take a bit of snideness from me but didn't you say this to me in an earlier post?

its nice to know you're Jewish too, but when did that deter me from teasing? after all, Jews are renown for being adversarial towards one another, no? (at least that's what the anti-semitic say...)

In post #8 Of this Thread. It seems you can dish it out but you can't take it. Oh well ...

[Pleepleus]

Once again, your snide remark misses the point. Completely.
I already explained my intention in questioning the relevance of Hezbollah and it certainly stands for Hamas.
The line from the article which I addressed was this:
"All that time, the Arab states have promised the Arabs who once lived next to Jews in Israel, that Israel would soon be destroyed."
and my answer was that this description was true for the period before the Israeli independence war in 1947.
it was not true for 1967, since Egypt boasted it could destroy Israel if it wished for, but it didn't state it is going to invade Israel (which it did in 1947). Egypt did make preparations for war, but some historians say The Nasser did not intend to actually initiate an attack. We will never know his true intentions, since Israel chose to attack Egypt first.
Regardless, all this piece of history is irrelevant for Hamas, which did not exist at that time.
At the present time, Hamas is not an "Arab state" and it doesn't promise that "Israel would soon be destroyed". Perhaps it wishes so, but it is not stupid to believe Israel is going to go away anytime soon.
so Hamas doesn't count in this regard. that doesn't mean I belittle Hamas' danger to Israel.

capish?

Claiming that in 1967 the Arabs did not really threaten to destroy Israel is very much a central argument. That's what you claimed, didn't you? That is either a monstrous lie (if you know the real truth) or is monstrously ignorant...

I understood Sharonnb as saying that the Arabs threatened to destroy Israel in 1947 but not in 1967, which I believe is incorrect. There is a website at http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/threats.asp which records many threats made in 1967:

"Our aim is the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel." – President Nasser of Egypt, November 18, 1965

"Brothers, it is our duty to prepare for the final battle in Palestine." – Nasser, Palestine Day, 1967

"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight . . . The mining of Sharm el Sheikh is a confrontation with Israel. Adopting this measure obligates us to be ready to embark on a general war with Israel." – Nasser, May 27, 1967

"We will not accept any ... coexistence with Israel. ... Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel .... The war with Israel is in effect since 1948." – Nasser, May 28, 1967

Cairo Radio Statements:

May 19, 1967: "This is our chance Arabs, to deal Israel a mortal blow of annihilation, to blot out its entire presence in our holy land"

May 22, 1967: "The Arab people is firmly resolved to wipe Israel off the map"

May 30, 1967: "With the closing of the Gulf of Akaba, Israel is faced with two alternatives either of which will destroy it; it will either be strangled to death by the Arab military and economic boycott, or it will perish by the fire of the Arab forces encompassing it from the South from the North and from the East."

There are many more such comments listed.

[Reffo]

Pleepleus

Yes, sharonbn contrasted and tried to differentiate between what happened in 1947 and 1967. But I maintain that he was dead wrong for doing so. Not only just because what the Arabs SAID but because of what they actually DID in 1967, as I outlined in the above posts. And to me at least, once he made such patently false claims, that became the central argument. The fact that sharonbn chose to become upset about it is of no concern to me. He will either get over it or he won't ...

[Reffo]

I suspect you are much younger than I am, since anyone who says "If Israelis say that Israel is in the wrong then Israel is wrong. Period." didn't mature well beyond adolescence

That's an out of context quote. This is what I actually said:

"You are absolutely right, I was snide. I was snide because I am sick of some Jews and Israelis inventing arguments for everyone, even potentially sympathisers of Israel to blame Israel for ALL the mess in the middle east. How do you think most people react to what Israelis like you say? I'll tell you how: they will say that we are not going to defend Israel more than Israelis are prepared to defend Israel. If Israelis say that Israel is in the wrong then Israel is wrong. Period"

I think that what I said, conveys things a bit differently than the truncated quote of me that you chose to present. Oh well, maybe it's just my imagination? What do you think sharonbn?

[Pleepleus]

Pleepleus

Yes, sharonbn contrasted and tried to differentiate between what happened in 1947 and 1967. But I maintain that he was dead wrong for doing so. Not only just because what the Arabs SAID but because of what they actually DID in 1967, as I outlined in the above posts. And to me at least, once he made such patently false claims, that became the central argument. The fact that sharonbn chose to become upset about it is of no concern to me. He will either get over it or he won't ...

Reffo, I believe Sharonbn is a woman. Sharon, please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.

[Reffo]

Reffo, I believe Sharonbn is a woman. Sharon, please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks

Whatever he/she is, he/she has been deluded. Probably by the likes of Ury Avnery, a narcissist, who felt overlooked early in his career, so he became a life long enemy of the state of Israel. It is time for him/her to read some real history. I don't even mind if it is from the likes of Benny Morris who is by no means uncritical of Israel but at least he has a more balanced approach.

[sharonbn]

---

[curlyg]

Reffo,

You have to admit some of your remarks are a little condescending... You're obviously younger than I am? Since when is age proof of truth?

Sharonbn is quite right in what she(?) says. The situation pre-1948 and post-1948 were fundamentally different. If you read Michael Oren's 'Six Days of War' (this is not someone you will accuse of sympathising with the Arabs, I suspect) he quite clearly says that Nasser wasn't interested in war and his grandiose rhetoric got ahead of him, and the situation spiralled beyond his control. There you have a reputable, Zionist, Israeli historian - who wrote what is widely regarded as the best account of the Six Day War yet - siding with sharonb on this point. What do you think of that?

[Reffo]

Reffo,

You have to admit some of your remarks are a little condescending... You're obviously younger than I am? Since when is age proof of truth?

Yes I do admit having been confrontational with sharonbn. In the same way that he (he is a 'he' he said so himself on another thread) admitted teasing me in one of our earlier discusiions. And I did not use "age" as proof of being right. I used the experience of being around at that time in 1967 as proof of what I heard them (the Arabs) say with my own ears. Let me assure you that what I heard them say was indeed threatening, very threatening.

Sharonbn is quite right in what she(?) says. The situation pre-1948 and post-1948 were fundamentally different. If you read Michael Oren's 'Six Days of War' (this is not someone you will accuse of sympathising with the Arabs, I suspect) he quite clearly says that Nasser wasn't interested in war and his grandiose rhetoric got ahead of him, and the situation spiralled beyond his control. There you have a reputable, Zionist, Israeli historian - who wrote what is widely regarded as the best account of the Six Day War yet - siding with sharonb on this point. What do you think of that?

You too are entitled to your own views. If you want to discuss it further, I have started a thread on this very topic. Please feel free to discuss it further there.

David Irving would be proud of them ...

[Reffo]

curlyg

By the way, if you do decide to comment on the thread that I mentioned above, you might want to have a second read of Oren's book because it seems to me that he agrees more with how I summarized 1967 rather than your take on it. Here, have a look at this link ...

Six Days of War
June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East. Author: Michael B. Oren
Oxford University Press, 2002

[Aliyah1995]

Reffo, indeed, after reading the link you provided, I don't see how anyone can say his book "sides with the Arab narrative of the Six Day War". Now, whether one considers Michael Oren to be objective is a different story, but if you are going to bring his book into the debate, Israel definitely was NOT the culprit of the Six Day War according to his book.

PLEASE NOTE: I just realized another thread has been started on this subject, hence I copied and pasted this post to the appropriate thread. Please don't reply to this post on this thread, but the thread "David Irving would be proud of them...."