• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Arguments Against Israel

I still have my well-worn paperback 1973 First Edition BATTLEGROUND.
It came out early in that year, and by October, well, we know what transpired.

There is a web-based version online, but it is hard to read it because the links are not working properly to go from Chapter to Chapter. (Replace the three-digit numbers in the URL to proceed forward, as the full book is archived in sections 001-041)

by Shmuel (Samuel) Katz
Fact and Fantasy of the Mideast conflict

START http://www.ourjerusalem.com/series/story/battleground001.html
(continued 002 - 041)
END http://www.ourjerusalem.com/series/story/battleground041.html
 
a_unique_person said:
*snip* If you don't like the image of a tank and a child, move the tanks away from the children.
Click to expand...

The tanks are sent into combat because they are goaded into that action by the parents & relatives (and political leaders) of said children, who are making every effort to incite war.
As far as the Palestinians are concerned, the images of IDF troops facing against their kids throwing rocks is exactly a win-win for them.
They learned this lesson well, in Lebanon.
(See: RPG Kids)

Let's look closely at why tanks are used by the IDF.
Gaza 2008. There were no tanks in Gaza until November/December 2008.
Apparently, the threat of tanks rolling in was not sufficient to stop rocketing and mortar fire --- murderous attempts against Israeli kids and families by the Gaza kid's parents, uncles, cousins, brothers.

And then the argument goes around and around ---
It runs like this --- Well, the Palestinians are resisting "Occupation" (blockade, land theft, apartheid, etc etc) and what do you expect from 40+ years of being occupied? If only the IDF would withdraw (and the Jewish civilians along with them) from the "Palestinian Lands" that were captured in June 1967, then there would be Peace.

But wait --- that avoids basic underlying claims: That Israel itself is occupying "Palestinian Lands" that were stolen/occupied in 1947-1948.
That the creation of Israel itself is simply a "catastrophe" (and there is a word for that -- naqba).
That the entire land is an Islamic WAAQF, and cannot be left in the hands of the Jews.
That resistance and armed struggle must extend beyond those living in the land, and include the entire Islamic World to liberate Palestine from Jewish hegemony.

And in the face of all that, Israel maintains their tanks on the ready.
 
bigjelmapro said:
So you agree that this other version of the cover with the tank is inflammatory. Thanks for the admission.
Click to expand...

The book is good, and has nothing to do with the cover, which was chosen by the publisher. My copy of the book does not have that cover. My guess is it was chosen to catch the eye and sell more books. I don't know what you think I am admitting on my part, since I did not write or publish the book. Do you think I am part of some global conspiracy to rule the world?
 
Argue against Israel all you like, but if you want them Israelis to leave Isreal, you'd best bring a lot of blood and iron, and some smarts, unlike what the garden variety Arabs brought with them when the last four tests of steel occurred.

So far, Israelis have shown that, all talk considered, the law of blood and iron draws lines on the map. See also Sri Lanka. And lately, it seems the government in Pakistan is abiding by that law.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
Argue against Israel all you like, but if you want them Israelis to leave Isreal, you'd best bring a lot of blood and iron, and some smarts, unlike what the garden variety Arabs brought with them when the last four tests of steel occurred.

DR
Click to expand...

who is asking Israelis to leave Israel? Ive only seen folks asking Israelis to return to Israel.
 
parky76 said:
who is asking Israelis to leave Israel? I've only seen folks asking Israelis to return to Israel.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. In 1949, when the War ended, there were cease-fire lines, not borders.

At best, the demand is that those 1949 Rhodes Armistice Lines should be honored once again, and that they should form the basis for the BORDERS of a multi-part Palestinian State.

That leaves a basic question unanswered: Was the State of Israel truly defined legally by the demarcations of the Rhodes Armistice Lines in 1949? In other words, was everything beyond those lines NOT Israel? Or was there a legitimate Israeli interest in those lands prior to the signing of the 1949 Agreements, and did Israel express a desire to enter into further negotiations to resolve any land dispute at that time?

That's a legitimate question we skeptics need to evaluate.
 
webfusion said:
This is incorrect. In 1949, when the War ended, there were cease-fire lines, not borders.

At best, the demand is that those 1949 Rhodes Armistice Lines should be honored once again, and that they should form the basis for the BORDERS of a multi-part Palestinian State.

That leaves a basic question unanswered: Was the State of Israel truly defined legally by the demarcations of the Rhodes Armistice Lines in 1949? In other words, was everything beyond those lines NOT Israel? Or was there a legitimate Israeli interest in those lands prior to the signing of the 1949 Agreements, and did Israel express a desire to enter into further negotiations to resolve any land dispute at that time?

That's a legitimate question we skeptics need to evaluate.
Click to expand...

The USA, the United Nations, and most other countries on Earth, recognizes Israel's right to exist and excersize soverigenity over the territory within the 1967 borders. I agree with this.

This is Israel...and this is where Israelis belong.
 
parky76 said:
who is asking Israelis to leave Israel? Ive only seen folks asking Israelis to return to Israel.
Click to expand...

I was responding to the OP. Israel is such territory as Israelis can take, and hold, through their determined efforts, be they forceful, negotiated, or various combinations of such.
 
Darth Rotor said:
I was responding to the OP. Israel is such territory as Israelis can take, and hold, through their determined efforts, be they forceful, negotiated, or various combinations of such.
Click to expand...

The West Bank has not been annexed by Israel. Annexation is the first and last step a country takes when it wants to expand its legal authority and boundaries. As Israel has NOT annexed the West Bank, it is NOT part of Israel, by any legal definition.

and BTW, by your definition, Poland was part of Germany after 1938...since Germany took the land through determined efforts...and forceful means. why did Britain declare war on Germany after Poland was invaded? it was none of their business right?
 
Last edited:
"1967 borders."

There were no borders in 1967.

Sorry, but your saying so don't make it so.
 
webfusion said:
"1967 borders."

There were no borders in 1967.

Sorry, but your saying so don't make it so.
Click to expand...

the lines that demarcated Israeli soveriegnity as of June 4th, 1967.

happy?

:)

why do Neo-Zionists love to re-write history?
 
parky76 said:
the lines that demarcated Israeli soveriegnity as of June 4th, 1967.

happy?

:)
Click to expand...


Nope.

The 1949 Rhodes Armisitice Agreements did not "demarcate Israeli sovereignity" at all.

In fact, just the opposite.


Here is the precise language within the Accords themselves --
  • The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

Why do you love to refuse to read the historical record? Doesn't it embarrass you just a little bit to be on a skeptics board and fail so often with your bogus claims?

The demilitarized zones and demarcations established by the armistice proved to be completely porous to Palestinian guerillas as well as Egyptian regular Army units, and to Israeli reprisals. Egypt also failed to abide by non-belligerency provisions of the agreement, and blockaded Israeli shipping though the Suez canal.

All leading up to the 1956 War, and ultimately, to the 1967 War.
And ultimately, to the 2009 War, as Palestinian guerillas continued to operate.
As they do, to this very day, rejecting Israel itself.
 
webfusion said:
Why do you love to refuse to read the historical record? Doesn't it embarrass you just a little bit to be on a skeptics board and fail so often with your bogus claims?
Click to expand...

Israel has not annexed the West Bank. Therefore the West Bank is not part of Israel.

And according to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, the West Bank is NOT part of Israel.

http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton57/st01_01.pdf
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom