[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

It still doesn't justify anything. The land was STOLEN from the Palestinean people without anyone asking them about it. International law or not...it was illegal and wrong...from the very start.

[ihavenoname]

It still doesn't justify anything. The land was STOLEN from the Palestinean people without anyone asking them about it. International law or not...it was illegal and wrong...from the very start.

And that is why the palestinians are used as tools to this very day.

[GandalfTheGrey]

In defence of the Isrealie (sp... how do you spell that dangnabit?) position it should be fair to note that these were logically premptive strikes for what would have been inevitbale:

Meaning, the Arab states *would* have attacked had the Isreal not struck first and crippled the Arab military, preventing (temporarily) another possible attack.

I-S-R-A-E-L-I

The incursions the Israelis made in 1948 had absolutely no strategic benefit, and they were not attacking the Arab nations that declared war on them, they were attacking Palestinian civilians. It was quite simply a land grab.

Also, in 1967, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that this was another opportunistic land grab, rather than a pre-emptive strike. The defence minister at the time was quoted as saying that the fundamental reason for attacking Syria was to gain control of the Golan heights, a highly fertile farming area.

[GandalfTheGrey]

And if you want some evidence for these claims:

Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. 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.'

Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."

Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.

And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'"

The New York Times, May 11, 1997

[Efrem Da King]

ROFL yeah the new york times the pinacle of unbiased comments on the ME. I wonder if its as much of lie as certain other articles/pictures they have.

In other words the NYT is an evil lieing newspaper that cannot be trusted at all, let alone on anything to do with israel.

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

ROFL yeah the new york times the pinacle of unbiased comments on the ME. I wonder if its as much of lie as certain other articles/pictures they have.

In other words the NYT is an evil lieing newspaper that cannot be trusted at all, let alone on anything to do with israel.

Its so funny...its like watching Goebbels and Himler fight it out about who is a better Nazi propagandist...

Let me guess...NYT is a commie pinko Euro-homo newspaper owned by the Stalinist Al Gore...

[MB.]

You lost me.

What in hell are we talking about now, anyway?

Propaganda?

That seems to be a little... forget little- WAY off topic.

So, lets move on and lets this die.

Unles you two *really* want to thrash it out over the NYT's political viewpoints

[GandalfTheGrey]

In other words the NYT is an evil lieing newspaper that cannot be trusted at all, let alone on anything to do with israel.

um... probably stupid question, but have you even read the New York Times? Unless you read it pretty much every day (and living in oz, I doubt you would), I don't think you have any authority to say this. Suffice it to say that the NYT is a leading mainstream paper that is respected throughout the world. Thomas Friedman, a regular columnist, is at the very best neutral on me issues(though thats being very generous).