Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Israel going in?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Billybob" data-source="post: 2589629" data-attributes="member: 1294"><p>They took much more land after the 67 war and there is no question that Israel struck first and then lied to justify it. Mordechai Bentov, an Israeli cabinet minister and Abba Eban, Israel's foreign minister said what they said, and they were there, as opposed to a military historian you quoted speaking in retrospect. </p><p></p><p>The U.S. said... </p><p><em>Israel received reports from the United States to the effect that Egyptian deployments were defensive and anticipatory of a possible Israeli attack,[14] and the US assessed that if anything, it was Israel that was pressing to begin hostilities.[21]</em></p><p></p><p>So some would contend it's just who's adequate explanation one wants to accept.</p><p></p><p>Israel is a signatory to the Geneva Convention.</p><p></p><p>If not religious/heritage or legal then what claim do you support for Israel's right to take what they have or their right to exist outside the parameters of the Balfour Declaration? Just because they have and at this time can? If so then why wasn't Germany justified in taking what they wanted and were able to? Are factions involving the illegals on our Southern border who want part of America justified if they can pull it off?</p><p></p><p>The issue of the Straits of Tiran and legal rights to Eilat supporting it are questionable at best...</p><p></p><p>since the Gulf of Aqaba was not a waterway connecting two regions of open sea, it was not technically a strait, and therefore that it was not covered by the 1949 ICJ decision ruling that a country is required to allow passage through a strait. Moreover, the UAR disputed Israel's legal right to Eilat, <strong>which had been captured after the 1949 armistice imposed by the Security Council.</strong>(another unlawful taking of land?) Other than that we're again confronted with the question of who has rights to what and why.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Billybob, post: 2589629, member: 1294"] They took much more land after the 67 war and there is no question that Israel struck first and then lied to justify it. Mordechai Bentov, an Israeli cabinet minister and Abba Eban, Israel's foreign minister said what they said, and they were there, as opposed to a military historian you quoted speaking in retrospect. The U.S. said... [I]Israel received reports from the United States to the effect that Egyptian deployments were defensive and anticipatory of a possible Israeli attack,[14] and the US assessed that if anything, it was Israel that was pressing to begin hostilities.[21][/I] So some would contend it's just who's adequate explanation one wants to accept. Israel is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. If not religious/heritage or legal then what claim do you support for Israel's right to take what they have or their right to exist outside the parameters of the Balfour Declaration? Just because they have and at this time can? If so then why wasn't Germany justified in taking what they wanted and were able to? Are factions involving the illegals on our Southern border who want part of America justified if they can pull it off? The issue of the Straits of Tiran and legal rights to Eilat supporting it are questionable at best... since the Gulf of Aqaba was not a waterway connecting two regions of open sea, it was not technically a strait, and therefore that it was not covered by the 1949 ICJ decision ruling that a country is required to allow passage through a strait. Moreover, the UAR disputed Israel's legal right to Eilat, [B]which had been captured after the 1949 armistice imposed by the Security Council.[/B](another unlawful taking of land?) Other than that we're again confronted with the question of who has rights to what and why. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Israel going in?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom