Yes, that is how they see it through their perspective.

I see we are dealing with two entirely different cultures. The Arabs can't seem to come into this century. The problem lies with their inability to join the global community and the global community does not want (or know how) to adjust to the fact that they can't "fix" them. And they don't want to be "fixed."

This is how the problem is seen through the global perspective.
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/8/refugees.pdf


But ultimately, it all began when someone (Zionist Rothschilds) decided the Jews needed a "Jewish State."

It sort of reminds me of when in Germany they moved all the Jews into a single neighborhood. Similar thing, only Israel is rationalized as a "safe haven." It doesn't look very safe to me.

The 800,000 some odd Jewish refugees had their land and possessions
throughout the Mideast seized by various Arab countries so they had
to leave and most went back to Israel where they could live in peace
and they were welcomed in Israel and assisted in resettlement.

Here is the info from the jewishvirtuallibrary site.

MYTH

“Palestinians were the only people who became refugees as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

FACT

Although much is heard about the plight of the Palestinian refugees, little is said about the Jews who fled from Arab states. Their situation had long been precarious. During the 1947 UN debates, Arab leaders threatened them. For example, Egypt’s delegate told the General Assembly: “The lives of one million Jews in Muslim countries would be jeopardized by partition.” 3
Corresponding refugees, 1948-1972

The number of Jews fleeing Arab countries for Israel in the years following Israel’s independence was nearly double the number of Arabs leaving Palestine. Many Jews were allowed to take little more than the shirts on their backs. These refugees had no desire to be repatriated. Little is heard about them because they did not remain refugees for long. Of the 820,000 Jewish refugees between 1948 and 1972, 586,000 were resettled in Israel at great expense, and without any offer of compensation from the Arab governments who confiscated their possessions. 4 Israel has consequently maintained that any agreement to compensate the Palestinian refugees must also include Arab reparations for Jewish refugees. To this day, the Arab states have refused to pay anything to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced to abandon their property before fleeing those countries. Through 2010, at least 153 of the 914 UN General Assembly resolutions on the Middle East conflict (17 percent) referred directly to Palestinian refugees. Not one mentioned the Jewish refugees from Arab countries. 5

The contrast between the reception of Jewish and Palestinian refugees is even starker when one considers the difference in cultural and geographic dislocation experienced by the two groups. Most Jewish refugees traveled hundreds—and some traveled thousands—of miles to a tiny country whose inhabitants spoke a different language. Most Arab refugees never left Palestine at all; they traveled a few miles to the other side of the truce line, remaining inside the vast Arab nation that they were part of linguistically, culturally and ethnically.

So in a nutshell since Arabs and Jews hate each other and can't get over it, and can't live together in the same country they feel the only solution is segregation.

Were they fighting before Zionists insisted on founding a Jewish state? Weren't they living side by side before that?

The Jews in the Mideast had long been persecuted minorities for
hundreds of years. During WWII, Arab leaders sided with Hitler and
Jews in Arab lands everywhere were threatened. The antisemitic
rhetoric mounted and turned into open threats and eventually
confiscation of Jews property and belongings. The overwhelming
majority of these displaced Jews migrated to the closest place where
they could find a welcoming refuge - Israel.

http://www.frumforum.com/obama-falls-for-abbas-bluff/

Mahmoud Abbas must be a very good poker player.

Or else Barack Obama must be a very bad one.

Holding the geopolitical equivalent of a pair of twos and a pair of threes, the Palestinian Authority President has bluffed and bullied the President of the United States into an awkward predicament.

Abbas has threatened Obama: If you do not step up your pressure on Israel, I will go to the United Nations in September and ask the General Assembly to recognize Palestine as a sovereign state.

In his speech to the pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) last Sunday, Obama cited Abbas’ threat as reason to press now for a peace agreement based on the 1967 lines: “But the march to isolate Israel internationally — and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations — will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative. And for us to have leverage with the Palestinians, to have leverage with the Arab states and with the international community, the basis for negotiations has to hold out the prospect of success.”

In other words: “Hey AIPAC: Don’t blame me. I have no choice. If I don’t move against Israel now, Abbas will act on his awesome threat to isolate Israel internationally, and then where will any of us be?”

Well here’s one possible choice Obama had.

He could answer Abbas’ threat: “Oh really?” And then remind the PA president of some elementary facts, like:

(1) The UN General Assembly has already voted to recognize Palestine as a sovereign state, back in 1988. What’s the big deal about a second vote?

(2) The economy of your declared state depends abjectly on foreign aid: $675 per person per year. (For comparison: Sub-Saharan Africa receives $48 per person per year.)

A May 27 BBC report describes the importance of this aid: ” ‘Over the last 15 years, 50% of the Palestinian Authority budget has come from foreign aid,’ says Nasser Abdul Karim, an economist at the West Bank’s Bir Zeit University. ‘But it’s charity and the growth is unsustainable,’ he says wryly. So what would happen if the funding stopped? ‘Salaries would not be paid. Employees would stop spending. People could not pay rent or bank loans or electricity bills,’ says Mr Abdul Karim. ‘The domino effect would play a major role in crippling the whole economy.’ “

(3) The United States provides more than half this money, either directly to the Palestinian Authority or indirectly, via the UN agency for Palestinian refugees. So who exactly has leverage over who here?

(4) Beyond cash, the United States provides equipment and training for the security forces of the Palestinian Authority. Without that assistance, those forces would fall below even their current standards of effectiveness.

(5) PA electricity, water, and customs revenues all depend on Israeli co-operation. The Palestinian economy will collapse without Israel — and only the United States has leverage over Israel.

The PA mind trick over the September declaration is only a sub-set of a larger mind trick that Abbas has exercised over Obama.

The Obama team’s strategy is based on leaving two issues to the very end of a future Israeli-Palestinian negotiation: Jerusalem and refugees. The idea is that these issues excite the most intense emotions and should be left until all other issues are settled.

By postponing Jerusalem and refugees, the Obama strategy establishes a dynamic leading up to a final exchange: the Palestinians surrender their claimed “right of return”; Israel surrenders its sovereignty over historic Jerusalem.

If that’s indeed what the President has in mind, it would be quite a one-sided deal: Israel would yield something real and precious in exchange for the Palestinians yielding a claim they could never enforce.

It would be like the Americans yielding the White House to Mexico in exchange for Mexico promising not to try to take back Texas and California by force.

The real analogy to the Palestinian “right of return” is the long-abandoned Zionist claim to the East Bank of the Jordan River: the two fantasies could cancel each other out.

Indeed, since the admission of millions of Palestinians into Israel would be tantamount to the destruction of Israel, you might think that abandoning the refugee claim would be a first step toward negotiations.

Yet somehow Abbas has convinced Obama to allow him to stake this grandiose pretension against Israel’s most cherished possession. If this were poker, Obama would have been wiped out already. Or more exactly: not Obama, but the people with whose lives and security Obama is playing.

Originally published in the National Post.

ZOA: ABBAS” FATAH “HAMAS NEED NOT STOP MURDERING JEWS OR RECOGNIZE ISRAEL “

By Ruth King on June 22nd, 2010

ABBAS’ FATAH: HAMAS NEED NOT STOP MURDERING JEWS OR RECOGNIZE ISRAEL

Senior Fatah leader, Nabil Shaath – considered a “moderate” – speaking on behalf of Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah, which controls the Palestinian Authority (PA) last week said that Hamas, the genocide-seeking terrorist group that has controlled Gaza since violently seizing the territory in 2007, need not recognize Israel, nor stop murdering Jews in Israel, nor meet any other demands laid down by the Quartet (the U.S., European Union, Russia and the United Nations).

Hamas calls in its Charter to the destruction of Israel (Article 15) and the murder of Jews (Article 7) and has murdered over 600 Israelis in nearly a decade of suicide bombing, roadside bomb, sniping and rocket attacks. Yet the Quartet has demanded only the meager conditions that in order to be accepted as a legitimate party to negotiations, Hamas must recognize Israel, renounce the use of terrorism and accepting the existing Oslo agreements signed by the PA. Already in 2007, the ZOA argued that these conditions, even in the unlikely event that they were accepted by Hamas, are inadequate, as real change in Hamas could only be said to have occurred once it explicitly renounces its Charter, disarms terrorists, ends incitement to hatred and murder against Israel and ceases all violence for at least a year.

Asked in the Jordanian publication, Al-Dustour, to comment on claims by Hamas that the PA was demanding that the Islamist movement recognize Israel’s right to exist as a condition for achieving reconciliation between the two parties, Shaath said, “This is completely untrue. We have never asked Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Nor have we demanded that they accept the conditions of the Quartet … We want the proposed unity government to be committed to the PLO’s political program, as was the case with the unity government under Ismail Haniyeh … The peace negotiations will be conducted by the PLO. That’s all we’re demanding.” Shaath said that he has been urging European governments to drop their demand that Hamas accept the Quartet’s three conditions, saying, “All the Arab and Islamic states that don’t recognize Israel have agreed to the Arab Peace Initiative … Acceptance of the initiative and a cease-fire [with Israel] is therefore sufficient” (Khaled Abu Toameh, ‘Fatah: No need to end violence,’ Jerusalem Post, June 17, 2010).

In recent days, Shaath has also emphasized that terrorism against Israel is perfectly legitimate:

* “MP Dr. Nabil Shaath, member Fatah Central Committee and Commissioner of Foreign Relations… emphasized that the Fatah’s stated strategy for the struggle is to adopt the growing popular and ‘non-violent’ struggle against Israel, because of the inability to engage in the armed struggle, which has become undesirable now, although it is the right of the Palestinian people, which all international treaties and resolutions have guaranteed” (PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 20, 2010).

* “The current distancing from the armed struggle does not mean its absolute rejection… He noted that the difficulty of the conflict required the Palestinian people to diversify its activities of struggle – along with an emphasis on the importance of the armed struggle, which laid the basis for the existence of the state and contributed to maintaining the right and presenting it to the world – especially since the armed struggle at the present time is not possible, or is not effective, because of to the difficulties with which the Palestinian people contends” (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 21, 2010, translation courtesy of Itamar Marcus & Nan Jacques Zilberdik, ‘Abbas not truthful to Obama; denies PA incitement,’ Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, June 10, 2010).

Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah also does not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, supports terrorism, incites the Palestinian population against Israel and Shaath’s latest statements mirror others by Abbas and other senior Fatah officials:

* Mahmoud Abbas, PA president and Fatah chairman: “I say this clearly: I do not accept the Jewish State, call it what you will.” (Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, ‘Mahmoud Abbas: “I do not accept the Jewish State, call it what you will,” Palestinian Media Watch, April 28, 2009).

* Abbas: “The Palestinians do not accept the formula that the state of Israel is a Jewish state.” (David Bedein, ‘Olmert reports to Israel Cabinet Meeting,’ Bulletin [Philadelphia], December 3, 2007).

* Abbas: “It is not required of Hamas, or of Fatah, or of the Popular Front to recognize Israel” (Al-Arabiya [Dubai] and PA TV, October 3, 2006, Itamar Marcus & Barbara Crook, ‘Abbas dupes US: “Recognition” is functional, not inherent,’ Palestinian Media Watch, October 5, 2006).

* Abbas: “[W]ith the will and determination of its sons, Fatah has and will continue. We will not give up our principles and we have said that rifles should be directed against the occupation…. We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation” (Khaled Abu Toameh, ‘Abbas: Aim guns against occupation,’ Jerusalem Post, January 11, 2007).

* Kifah Radaydeh, senior Fatah official: “Fatah is facing a challenge, because [Fatah] says that we perceive peace as one of the strategies, but we say that all forms of the struggle exist, and we do not rule out the possibility of the armed struggle or any other struggle. The struggle exists in all its forms, on the basis of what we are capable of at a given time, and according to what seems right” [PA TV July 7, 2009, translation courtesy of Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, ‘Fatah official: ‘Our goal has never been peace. Peace is a means; the goal is Palestine,’ Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, July 12, 2009).

* Rafik al-Natsheh, senior Fatah official: “We will maintain the resistance [i.e. terrorism] option in all its forms and we will not recognize Israel …Not only don’t we demand that anyone recognize Israel; we don’t recognize Israel ourselves. However, the Palestinian Authority government is required to do it, or else it will not be able to serve the Palestinian people. I am certain that we will hinder all the traitors who wish to remove the resistance option from the movement’s charter” (Ali Waked, ‘Senior Fatah official: We won’t recognize Israel. Fatah official: Movement to display commitment to armed struggle in upcoming convention,’ Yediot Ahronot, July 22, 2009).

* Muhammad Dahlan, former commander of Fatah forces in Gaza: “We do not demand that the Hamas movement recognize Israel. On the contrary, we demand of the Hamas movement not to recognize Israel, because the Fatah movement does not recognize Israel, even today” (Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, ‘Western funders misled: Fatah still refuses to recognize Israel, PA’s “recognition” only to receive international aid,’ Palestinian Media Watch, March 17, 2009).

* Abu Ahmed, Fatah commander: ‘“The base of our Fatah movement keeps dreaming of Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa and Acco. …There is no change in our official position. Fatah as a movement never recognized Israel” (David Bedein, ‘The American Sanitizing of a Terrorist Group,’ Israel National News, October 5, 2006).

* PLO foreign minister Farouk Kaddoumi: “The Palestinian national charter has not been amended until now … It was said that some articles are no longer effective, but they were not changed. I’m one of those who didn’t agree to any changes” (Khaled Abu Toameh, ‘Kaddoumi: PLO charter was never changed,’ Jerusalem Post, April 22, 2004).

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “Nabil Shaath’s latest statements underscore the fraudulence of Fatah’s claims in the West to being moderates and peace-seekers. It perfectly clear that Fatah itself does not accept Israel as a Jewish state, has not renounced terrorism or accepted the idea of a peaceful Palestinian state alongside Israel. Unsurprisingly, it does not expect Hamas to act differently. However now it is demanding explicitly of the Quartet that Hamas be accepted as it is without even its acceptance of the weak requirements of the Quartet.

“The Obama Administration should act on this irrefutable evidence of Fatah’s fraudulent peace pretensions by immediately condemning Abbas’ Fatah-controlled PA and cutting off U.S. aid to it until and unless Fatah renounces its own Constitution calling for Israel’s destruction and the use of terrorism as an indispensable element in the campaign to achieve that goal; arrest and jail terrorists; and end incitement to hatred and murder against Israel in its mosques, media, schools and youth camps.”

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2010/06/22/zoa-abbas-fatah-hamas-need-not-stop-murdering-jews-or-recognize-israel/


yet People claim that PA is adhering to 242!

The way this is worded would lead some to think that Israel was there as a safe haven during the war. Yet Israel came about in 1948 ... 3 years after the war.

Insofar as Arab leaders siding with the Axis...

"Meanwhile, back in Israel, the majority of the Irgun (the Jewish National Military Organization, or Irgun Tzvah Leumi - commonly abbreviated Etzel) decided to cease fighting against the British and, instead, assist them in Europe. However, Avraham Stern led a small faction of the Irgun against the British. Stern believed that the war in Europe was so important to the British that they would be more than willing to make consessions to Jews in Israel if this proved necessary. He even negotiated with the Germans and the Italians!"

http://www.stateofisrael.com/arab-israel/worldwarii/


So during WW2 'Israel' was not a safe haven. Indeed many who tried to get away tried to get to the U.S. only to find the doors closed to them. Those who did try to get away from the war persecution found that they had to return to it.

"Although Jews have, over the eighteen centuries since the Roman Exile, maintained a constant presence (albeit small) in the Land of Israel, the modern concept of Zionism - which led to the formation of the State of Israel - has its roots in nineteenth century Europe. There, Jews experienced the political and scientific renaissance known as the Emancipation, which gave Jews the chance to break their general isolation from the day-to-day affairs of the countries in which they resided. Many Jews adopted the ethno-nationalist political ideology that was developing in Europe at the time and set up moshavim - communities which were financed largely by Baron Edmund de Rothschild of Paris - and socialist communes (called kibbutzim) in Israel, their ancient homeland. The first wave of Jews who were so inclined arrived in Israel (then known as Palestine) in 1882, in what is known as the First Aliyah ("going up:" the way Jews describe their immigration to the Holy Land)."

http://www.stateofisrael.com/arab-israel/1stevents/


"The Jewish claim to Palestine was also strengthened by the rapidly increasing Jewish population in this region. Under the leadership of future Israeli prime minister David Ben-Gurion, large tracts of land were purchased from Arabs, many of whom resided abroad. Alarmed at their ever-shrinking majority, the Arabs in Palestine began to take defensive measures. Palestinian Arab nationalist organizations were set up, including the Higher Arab Council, which attempted to influence British policy and to counter the activities of the Zionists. Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, tried to garner foreign support for the cessation of Zionist activity and for the conclusion of the British mandate. The British, in an effort to win Arab support, issued several "White Papers," which restricted Jewish immigration. Palestinian Jews, however, fought the White Papers by helping European Jews immigrate to Palestine illegally."

http://www.stateofisrael.com/arab-israel/priortostate/


Even Israeli history from an Israeli site makes it look like they pushed for a fight and when pushed back yelled "We are being bullied" to the world. Now they bulldoze villages and clear areas in the name of 'security zones' and allow Israeli citizens to build, take over the land thus "repossessed'. How can they cry foul when the rockets that land wouldn't be landing had the land not been taken?

I'm not pro either side. But when you start to push .... expect to be pushed back. You take from another .. expect them to want it back. That goes for the Palestinians as well. Want to fire rockets and shoot at people....put on a real uniform and show who you are instead of hiding with civilians.







yup I'm still lurking.

Hi Karma!

Actually Jews were there for a long time prior to the Declaration
of Independence for Israel and the immigration of Jews back to the
area had been going on for a long time. It was a lot safer than
Europe for Jews obviously. But as you point out, this was one of
the reasons why there was a crying need for at least one Jewish state
where Jews could be essentially free from persecution.

Israel became that state. Amazingly refounded after all the many
years the desire of Jews to return to their homeland was strong and
now does afford a place where any Jews can go and be free to
practice their religion freely.

They recognize the importance of this.

Gee I wonder why Israel is not so keen on the Palestinians trying
to establish a state without recognizing Israel's right to exist
and without committing to cessation of violence and incitement?

As I pointed out earlier, the main claim (I believe) is that Israel is not adhering to Resolution 242, I have not investigated the claim that Palestine is not adhering to it, and since you are laughing about it, I can nly assume you know the parts of Resolution 242 that Palestine is not adhering to. To save me the time & effort, could you possibly specify which parts of the resolution they have ignored with at least one documented case for each such violation to support your claim as I have done?



On the subject of recognizing a state's "right" to exist, can you provide the public speech or text wherein Israel formally recognized the State of Palestine's "right" to exist, or even formally recognized the State of Palestine? Thank you.

(By the way...The Palestinians aren't "trying" to establish a state...That was established and internationally recognized years ago.)

RE: Resolution 242 see

UN Security Council Resolution 242
Adopted: November 22, 1967
Eli E. Hertz

Resolution 242 is the cornerstone for what it calls “a just and lasting peace.” It calls for a negotiated solution based on “secure and recognized boundaries” – recognizing the flaws in Israel’s previous temporary borders – the 1948 Armistice lines or the “Green Line”1 – by not calling upon Israel to withdraw from ‘all occupied territories,’

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-242.pdf

That is Israel's interpretation of Resolution 242, but their interpretation is NOT in keeping with the agreement, since it states:

"that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"

Granted it didn't explicitly specify ALL territories occupied in the '67 conflict, however, it states elsewhere:

that it emphasizes "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..."

Since anything past the Green Line was territory taken in war, it CANNOT legally be annexed, so, while Israel MAY be able to hang on to the 1967 "borders" temporarily, they are and will remain occupied palestinian territory and can never legally be a part of Israel. These occupied territories include East Jerusalem, illegally annexed by Israel in 1967, which contravenes Resolution 242 and a number of other UN resolutions.

You apparently missed this part of the discussion:

Arab declarations about destroying Israel were made preceding the war when control over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (or Sinai and the Golan Heights) were not in Israel’s hands, and no so-called Israeli occupation existed.

That is why the UN Security Council recognized that Israel had acquired the territory from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria not as a matter of aggression, but as an act of self-defense. That is also why Resolution 242 was passed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter rather than Chapter VII. As explained above, UN resolutions adopted under Chapter VI call on nations to negotiate settlements, while resolutions under the more stringent Chapter VII section deal with clear acts of aggression that allow the UN to enforce its resolutions upon any state seen as threatening the security of another state or states.

Although Resolution 242 refers to “the inadmissibility” of acquiring territory by war, a statement used in nearly all UN resolutions relating to Israel, Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague, explains that the principle of “acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible” must be read together with other principles:

“… namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.”4

Resolution 242 immediately follows to emphasize the “need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every state in the area can live in security.”

While Resolution 242 may call upon Israel to withdraw from territory it captured during the war, the UN recognized that Israel cannot return to the non-secure borders existing before the Six-Day War that invited aggression.

This means that Israel is expected to withdraw from only some of
the lands captured during the war of 1967 not required for
defensive borders and they have done so already in Sinai and Gaza
for example. The remainder is rightfully to be determined through
negotiation and not through war criminal attacks on Israeli
civilians.

It should be noted that Israel started the Six Day War in 1967. While they may try to justify it as a "pre-emptive strike" made in self defense, the simple fact is that Israel INITIATED the war and is therefore the aggressor and in the wrong. Any territory taken in that war CANNOT be legally annexed. So any claim by Israel to the 1967 "border" can only legally be a claim of occupation of Palestinian territory for security reasons. There is no way it can legally be considered as Israeli territory unless Palestine lets it go in good faith negotiations.

Considering that Israel has already illegally annexed foreign territory, including East Jerusalem, Syria's Golan Heights and Lebanon's Shebaa Farms (in 1981), I don't believe good faith negotiations with Palestine over ceding any territory will get very far.

http://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1691729.html

Israel's annexations are violations of international law and contravene a number of UN resolutions including 252, 267, 271, 279, 285, 298, 337, 427, 446, 452, 465, 476, 478, 497, 509, 517, & 587 (I left out the other ones, restricting the list only to resolutions pertaining to Israel's illegal annexations.)

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/un.html

Well that is just a lot of misleading hogwash.

Israel did not start the 1967 war. Armies from Egypt, Jordan,
Syria had all amassed on Israel's border. If they had not been
there threatening Israel there would not have been any war.

Between 1966 and 1967 Israel’s borders saw repeated Arab terrorist attacks and Syrian military activity.[32] On May 11, UN Secretary General U Thant leveled criticism at Syria for its sponsorship of Palestinian terrorism, denouncing those attacks as "deplorable," "insidious" and "menaces to peace."[33]

On the eve of the war, Egypt massed approximately 100,000 of its 160,000 troops in the Sinai, including all of its seven divisions (four infantry, two armored and one mechanized), four independent infantry brigades and four independent armored brigades. No fewer than a third of them were veterans of Egypt's intervention into the Yemen Civil War and another third were reservists. These forces had 950 tanks, 1,100 APCs and more than 1,000 artillery pieces.[70]

At the same time some Egyptian troops (15,000–20,000) were still fighting in Yemen.[71][72][73] Nasser's ambivalence about his goals and objectives was reflected in his orders to the military. The general staff changed the operational plan four times in May 1967, each change requiring the redeployment of troops, with the inevitable toll on both men and vehicles.[74]

Towards the end of May, Nasser finally forbade the general staff from proceeding with the Qahir ("Victory") plan, which called for a light infantry screen in the forward fortifications with the bulk of the forces held back to conduct a massive counterattack against the main Israeli advance when identified, and ordered a forward defense of the Sinai.[74] In the meantime, he continued to take actions intended to increase the level of mobilization of Egypt, Syria and Jordan, in order to bring pressure on Israel.

Syria's army had a total strength of 75,000 and amassed them along the Syrian border.[75] Jordan's army had 55,000 troops[76] and 300 tanks along the Jordanian border, 250 of which were U.S. M48 Patton, sizable amounts of M113 APCs, a new battalion of mechanized infantry, and a paratrooper battalion trained in the new U.S.-built school. They also had 12 battalions of artillery and six batteries of 81 mm and 120 mm mortars.[77]

Documents captured by the Israelis from various Jordanian command posts record orders from the end of May for the Hashemite Brigade to capture Ramot Burj Bir Mai'in in a night raid, codenamed "Operation Khaled". The aim was to establish a bridgehead together with positions in Latrun for an armored capture of Lod and Ramle. The "go" codeword was Sa'ek and end was Nasser. The Jordanians planned for the capture of Motza and Sha'alvim in the strategic Jerusalem Corridor. Motza was tasked to Infantry Brigade 27 camped near Ma'ale Adummim: "The reserve brigade will commence a nighttime infiltration onto Motza, will destroy it to the foundation, and won't leave a remnant or refugee from among its 800 residents".[77]

100 Iraqi tanks and an infantry division were readied near the Jordanian border. Two squadrons of fighter-aircraft, Hawker Hunters and MiG 21, were rebased adjacent to the Jordanian border.[77]

On June 2, Jordan called up all reserve officers, and the West Bank commander met with community leaders in Ramallah to request assistance and cooperation for his troops during the war, assuring them that "in three days we'll be in Tel-Aviv".[77]

The Arab air forces were aided by volunteer pilots from the Pakistan Air Force acting in independent capacity, and by some aircraft from Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia to make up for the massive losses suffered on the first day of the war.[78]

The annexation of some of the territory is certainly not clearly illegal and was not a result of war initiated by Israel.

If the Palestinians really wanted a state with real boundaries they
could have had it many times over. But the Palestinians don't want
to live peacefully side by side with the permanent Jewish state of
Israel. They won't accept Israel at all and they won't commit to
peaceful coexistence. The Palestinians futilely crave victory and
they have trapped themselves in this hateful and bigoted ideology.

It is their own tragedy which they have the power to end at any
time all on their own.

False. "The Six-Day War was initiated by General Moshe Dayan, the Israeli’s Defence Minister."

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/six_day_war_1967.htm



That's israel's opinion…Too bad most of the world disagrees.

I suppose they could always litigate the issue at the ICJ…If they had bothered to join the International Court of Justice. All is not lost, however, as it may be that Palestine will do so and Israel & Palestine can then settle the issue peacefully, with legal representation instead of weaponry.

To think that Israel was not being attacked in 1967 by the armies
discussed above is just being silly. Moshe Dayan did not put hundreds
of thousands of Arab troops on the borders of Israel with orders
to attack Israel.

No point in going to the Kangaroo Court.

One can't put on face paint, floppy shoes and a red ball nose and
join the circus if one doesn't want to become a clown.



There is nothing to prevent the Palestinians and Israelis from
settling this dispute today except for the Palestinians unwillingness
to accept Israel as a permanent Jewish state coexisting peacefully
next door.

In other words Israel is going to do what it wants and the Palestinians and the rest of the world can go to hell?

It sounds like Israel doesn't want to have anything to do with the world community; like it would rather divide the world in two...Israel and everybody else.

Nope,Israel is going to do what Israel has to do for Israel!
PA nor Hamas ever gave the assurances of Security or Recognition to Israel as they were supposed to do!
And then they wonder!