Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I love how people act as though Palestinians had this unbroken historical record of being the people living in Israel, when the word “Palestine” was coined by the Romans to replace “Judah” when they conquered the Jewish kingdom that was there.
Muslims didn’t move to Israel until the 600s, when the Islamic Caliphate conquered the land. Jews were still there and had been living under Roman rule. Then they lived under Muslim rule.
But let me be clear: Jews have always been there. Always.
Thank you.
The political class in Israel has as much of a legitimate claim to that land as Barney the Dinosaur. FFS, open your eyes. Compare the pasty visages you see when you think of Behin, Meir, Rabin, Sharon, and now Netanyahu, with ANYONE else around those parts.
The people at the controls of the Palestinian genocide have zero claim that wouldn’t be laughed out of a 9th grade biology class.
WTF are you rambling about?
Jews have always lived there. Sorry. It’s just a fact.
Sure, Jews have lived there - along with other indigenous people with just as much claim to the land.
But you? One of the many cretins from Poland or Russia or Ukraine who cosplay Jewish identity? GTFOH.
if you look at history isreal should have more land but gave it back in exchange for peace but that was not honored :
During the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel had captured Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, roughly half of Syria's Golan Heights, and the territories of the West Bank which had been held by Jordan since 1948.[82]
On 19 June 1967, shortly after the Six-Day War, the Israeli government voted to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for a permanent peace settlement and a demilitarization of the returned territories.
Right. You mean the war where Israel preemptively struck even though it was clear to multiple intelligence agencies that there was no real threat to Israel at the time?
You don't read much, do you?
Go do your homework and get back to me. I only know this because I read...
I've read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Days_of_War
It's pretty informative.
Where'd you get your info?
I'll check it out. What's odd is that some of the sources I've read have quoted this guy as having said it probably wasn't necessary.... I believe it was Mearsheimer... I'd have to find the exact reference though and get back to you.
ChatGPT search revealed this:
Moshe Dayan, Israel’s defense minister during the Six-Day War, made statements after the war suggesting that the threat from Syria was not as severe as initially portrayed. He admitted that the capture of the Golan Heights was not driven by an immediate military necessity but rather by a desire to settle old scores with Syria, which had been involved in long-standing conflicts with Israel. Dayan stated, “The Syrians on the fourth day of the war were no threat to us,” and further acknowledged that entering into war with Syria was unnecessary given the circumstances at that point in the conflict .
This reflects a more complex reality than the commonly stated narrative of Israel facing an existential threat from all sides. Some historians and Dayan himself later argued that the situation may not have required as drastic preemptive action, particularly regarding Syria, whose military efforts were relatively limited during the early part of the war
And this.
There is significant debate among historians and analysts about whether Israel was under the threat of immediate attack prior to the Six-Day War of 1967. While Israeli officials at the time, including military leaders, presented the situation as an existential threat, some historical evidence suggests that Israel may not have been under immediate danger of invasion by its neighbors.
Key points include:
1. **Public Statements by Arab Leaders**: Prior to the war, Arab leaders, particularly Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, made aggressive statements, including closing the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and mobilizing forces in the Sinai Peninsula. These actions were seen by Israel as highly provocative, though there is debate over whether they were intended as a prelude to war or as posturing.
2. **Intelligence Reports**: Some Israeli and American intelligence assessments suggested that although Egypt, Jordan, and Syria were mobilizing forces, they may not have been ready for an immediate coordinated attack on Israel. Moshe Dayan, Israel's Defense Minister during the war, later expressed doubts about the imminence of an Arab invasion, stating that many actions taken by Arab countries were more about defense and bluffing than preparation for an all-out attack.
3. **Diplomatic Options**: Diplomatic efforts were ongoing before the war, with countries like the United States and the Soviet Union working to de-escalate the situation. The presence of these negotiations suggests that there was still an opportunity for a peaceful resolution, which may imply that war was not inevitable at that moment.
4. **Israel’s Preemptive Strike**: Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt on June 5, 1967, which decisively shifted the balance of the war. Israel argued that it acted in self-defense, anticipating an Arab attack. However, critics have argued that the Israeli leadership may have been aware that the threat was not as immediate as portrayed, but chose to strike first to secure a strategic advantage.
In conclusion, while Israel certainly felt threatened, and tensions were very high, there is evidence suggesting that the threat of an immediate attack was not as clear-cut as it was sometimes presented. However, the overall political and military climate at the time made a broader regional conflict likely, even if not inevitable on that specific timeline.