Six-Day War 40th anniversary

Status
Not open for further replies.
kilo39 said:
You really don't read do you? You have all your kneejerks pre-stored with no look to opinion or truth from the perpetrators own mouths!!

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 a speech before Israeli National Defense College, Menachem Begin stated that Israel was the one who made the decision to attack: "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."
6 Day War]
Click to expand...

Thankfully they did. They learnt from history unlike you. They weren't going to hopelessly cling to appeasement and get overrun like your "forefather" :sick: :o

And alanf: you said it, hate, warmongering racist that you are. Yes, hitler appeaser or perhaps you would like to go censor your own comments!
Click to expand...

Now I'm a Hitler appeaser :D . Just like you would have been and are now to various despots.

It's almost as if you are this government's speechwriter :o
 
kilo39 said:
You really don't read do you? You have all your kneejerks pre-stored with no look to opinion or truth from the perpetrators own mouths!!

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 a speech before Israeli National Defense College, Menachem Begin stated that Israel was the one who made the decision to attack: "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."
6 Day War

And alanf: you said it, hate, warmongering racist that you are. Yes, hitler appeaser or perhaps you would like to go censor your own comments!

Ah more hitler supporters on this forum.
Click to expand...
All I read was Blah blah blah I am a jew hater blah blah you are a racist blah blah blah !!
Same k@k different day :rolleyes:
 
alanf85 said:
Thankfully they did. They learnt from history unlike you. They weren't going to hopelessly cling to appeasement and get overrun like your "forefather" :sick: :o

Now I'm a Hitler appeaser :D . Just like you would have been and are now to various despots.

It's almost as if you are this government's speechwriter :o
Click to expand...

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 a speech before Israeli National Defense College, Menachem Begin stated that Israel was the one who made the decision to attack: "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."

The rest of your diatribe just shows how far from the reality of yourself you really are. And "truth" and my writings are plain to see. Therefore what is your drivel?

marine1 said:
Ha ha that is really funny. Kilo how are the ARV's that you are smoking? Please send some our way as they seem to be working.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, the moron call: NO I didn't read it. Why should I? All I saw was "blah, blah, blah," and your mother was a crack addict and you are smoking ARV's. Shame. And to think god gave you a brain.
 
"In June 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt's airforce fearing an imminent invasion by Egypt.[1]"
Quote from Wiki
Wake up twinkie. They were going to attack Israel and every normal human being knows that.
 
"In the months before June 1967, Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from the Sinai Peninsula, increased its military activity near the border, blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, and called for unified Arab action against Israel"
More truths from Wiki
That my dear anti semite is an act of WAR!!
 
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 a speech before Israeli National Defense College, Menachem Begin stated that Israel was the one who made the decision to attack: "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."

Shout as loud as you like: the truth is plain to see.
 
Guys like you will never learn from History. The Jews are here to stay for the rest of time and maybe Islam and who ever else has a problem with it, should just accept that FACT.
 
Posted again for people who cannot read!!

"In the months before June 1967, Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from the Sinai Peninsula, increased its military activity near the border, blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, and called for unified Arab action against Israel"
More truths from Wiki
That my dear anti semite is an act of WAR!!
 
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761570433


"Syria appealed to Nasser for backing, and in mid-May the Egyptian army moved 100,000 troops and 1000 tanks into the Sinai Peninsula on Israel’s southern border. The United Nations (UN) had earlier stationed forces in the area as observers, but on May 17, Nasser called for the removal of UN personnel from several locations. Within days, all of the observers were removed. On May 22 Nasser announced the closure of the Strait of Tiran, a vital shipping corridor for Israel with links to the Red Sea and major sources of petroleum. A similar closure of the strait had been a major cause of the Suez Crisis in 1956; Israel had made clear since then that it would regard another closure as an act of war. Israel was further alarmed when Egypt and Jordan signed a treaty placing the two armies under a joint command. Despite a flurry of diplomatic effort, war seemed inevitable."

Maybe you want to argue with Encarta as well?


"Because Israel feared fighting on three fronts (Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian), and because it preferred that fighting take place in Arab rather than Israeli territory, Israel decided to strike first. On the morning of June 5 the Israeli air force attacked Egypt, the largest force in the region. The timing of the attack, 8:45 am, was designed to catch the maximum number of Egyptian aircraft on the ground and to come when the Egyptian high command was stuck in traffic between homes and military bases. The Israeli aircraft took evasive measures to elude Egyptian radar and approached from directions that were not anticipated. The surprise was complete. Within hours of the strike, the Israelis, who focused their attacks on military and air bases, had destroyed 309 of the 340 total combat aircraft belonging to the Egyptians. Israeli ground forces then moved into the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip, where they fought Egyptian units. Egyptian casualties were heavy, but Israel suffered only minimal casualties."

Well done to them as they saw what was coming. I want to see the Arabs attack military installations and not innocent civilians. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
On 25 November the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 228 unanimously deploring "the loss of life and heavy damage to property resulting from the action of the Government of Israel on 13 November 1966", censuring "Israel for this large-scale military action in violation of the United Nations Charter and of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan" and emphasising "to Israel that actions of military reprisal cannot be tolerated and that, if they are repeated, the Security Council will have to consider further and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to ensure against the repetition of such acts."
-
-
The Arab states disputed Israel's right of passage through the Straits, noting that they had not signed the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone specifically because of article 16(4) which provided Israel with that right. However, it has long been a part of state practice and customary international law that ships of all states have a right of innocent passage through territorial seas. That Egypt had consistently granted passage as a matter of state practice until then suggests that its opinio juris in that regard was consistent with practice. Furthermore, when Egypt occupied the Saudi islands of Sanafir and Tiran in 1950, it provided assurances to the US that the military occupation would not be used to prevent free passage, and that Egypt recognizes that such free passage is "in conformity with the international practice and the recognized principles of international law." In 1949 the International Court of Justice held in the Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania) that where a strait was overlapped by a territorial sea foreign ships, including warships, had unsuspendable right of innocent passage through such straits used for international navigation between parts of the high seas, but express provision for innocent passage through through straits within the territorial sea of a foreign state was not codified until the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. In the UN General Assembly debates immediately after the war, the Arab League argued that even if international law gave Israel the right of passage, Israel was not entitled to attack Egypt to assert it because the closure was not an "armed attack" as defined by Article 51 of the UN Charter. Pursuant to this point, international law professor John Quigley argues that under the doctrine of proportionality, Israel would only be entitled to use such force as would be necessary to secure its right of passage. This is however, contentious, as international law bodies such as the International Criminal Court as well as the International Law Commission have held the contrary as a matter of general principle. The ICC has sought to include blockading as an act of war in its statutes, as traditionally understood, while the ILC has stated that a blockade may be construed as an "armed attack" as defined in Art. 51 of the UN Charter.

marine1 said:
Guys like you will never learn from History. The Jews are here to stay for the rest of time and maybe Islam and who ever else has a problem with it, should just accept that FACT.
Click to expand...
You really don't get it do you? Nobody is arguing about the jews but the warmongering killers who have imposed a policy of genocide, aparthate, torture and imprisonment without trial. Exactly as hitler. Now who is the hitler appeaser?
 
Quoting a message that the Arabs gave to the UN? ROFLMAO. Saying that they ordered a blockade because Israel did not sign a document? :D Good one. Cough*Anti Semite*Cough !!

From your post: "However, it has long been a part of state practice and customary international law that ships of all states have a right of innocent passage through territorial seas.'
So you believe the exact opposite of what they in fact did do? Talk and letters are cheap. Why were they amassing a force on the border?
Why did they enforce a blockade which was aggression on their side?
Sorry for you [-]Hitler[/-], I mean Kilo.
If you are going to quote, quote the whole sentence: "the Arab League argued that even if international law gave Israel the right of passage, Israel was not entitled to attack Egypt to assert it because the closure was not an "armed attack" as defined by Article 51 of the UN Charter"
Who cares what they have to say about that chapter? They were looking for trouble by enforcing blockades and amasing troops on the border. They were preparing for WAR!!! They looked for trouble and trouble found them first. Sorry for you.

Proved you are a wrong again :" The ICC has sought to include blockading as an act of war in its statutes, as traditionally understood, while the ILC has stated that a blockade may be construed as an "armed attack" as defined in Art. 51 of the UN Charter."
 
At 10:00 p.m. on 16 May, the commander of UNEF, General Indar Jit Rikhye, was handed a letter from General Mohammed Fawzy, Chief of Staff of the United Arab Republic, reading: "To your information, I gave my instructions to all U.A.R. armed forces to be ready for action against Israel, the moment it might carry out any aggressive action against any Arab country. Due to these instructions our troops are already concentrated in Sinai on our eastern border. For the sake of complete security of all U.N. troops which install OPs along our borders, I request that you issue your orders to withdraw all these troops immediately." Rikhye said he would report to the Secretary-General for instructions.[29]

The UN Secretary-General U Thant attempted to negotiate with the Egyptian government, but on May 18 the Egyptian Foreign Minister informed nations with troops in UNEF that the UNEF mission in Egypt and the Gaza Strip had been terminated and that they must leave immediately, and Egyptian forces prevented UNEF troops from entering their posts. The Governments of India and Yugoslavia decided to withdraw their troops from UNEF, regardless of the decision of U Thant. While this was taking place, U Thant suggested that UNEF be redeployed to the Israeli side of the border, but Israel refused, arguing that UNEF contingents from countries hostile to Israel would be more likely to impede an Israeli response to Egyptian aggression than to stop that aggression in the first place.
 
Thanks again for backing me up:
"In 1949 the International Court of Justice held in the Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania) that where a strait was overlapped by a territorial sea foreign ships, including warships, had unsuspendable right of innocent passage through such straits used for international navigation between parts of the high seas, but express provision for innocent passage through through straits within the territorial sea of a foreign state was not codified until the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. "
 
kilo39 said:
At 10:00 p.m. on 16 May, the commander of UNEF, General Indar Jit Rikhye, was handed a letter from General Mohammed Fawzy, Chief of Staff of the United Arab Republic, reading: "To your information, I gave my instructions to all U.A.R. armed forces to be ready for action against Israel, the moment it might carry out any aggressive action against any Arab country. Due to these instructions our troops are already concentrated in Sinai on our eastern border. For the sake of complete security of all U.N. troops which install OPs along our borders, I request that you issue your orders to withdraw all these troops immediately." Rikhye said he would report to the Secretary-General for instructions.[29]
but Israel refused, arguing that UNEF contingents from countries hostile to Israel would be more likely to impede an Israeli response to Egyptian aggression than to stop that aggression in the first place.
Click to expand...
Arguing with you is like arguing with a piece of wood. Only the piece of wood might listen to the truth.

The UN had been EXPELLED from Egypt.

This is hysterical. :D
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X