Why the constant fallacy that anti-Zionism = anti Israel's 'right to exist'...

Molloys Clondalkin

Nodin wrote: »

However, seeing as (a) no genocide took place and (b) no plans exist to show that there was genuine genocidal intent, we're back at square one.

Nodin Im suprised at you using wiki as a refrence its usually the first to be condemmed here, but seeing as in the first few chapters of the page shows that Eygpt wanted to dystroy Israel we can go with it.

The Straits of Tiran was regarded by the Western Powers and Israel as an international waterway[28][51][52] but its legal status was the subject of international controversy.[53] The Arabs believed that they had the right to regulate passage of ships while Israel, with the support of other major world powers, countered that the Arab claims were legally not supportable.[54] In 1967 Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or a justification for war.[55][56] On May 22 Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping.[28][57] Nasser stated he was open to referring the closure to the International Court of Justice to determine its legality, but this option was rejected by Israel.[58][59] Egyptian propaganda attacked Israel,[60] and on May 27, Nasser stated "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."[61]

So when Nasser closed the straits he commited the first act of war.
Also if you search for you will find plans from the eygptian air force for bombing Kfar Saba and Tel Aviv** civillian areas with russian bombers. does this count as genocide for you?

** In the documentary Follow me the story of the six day war these are clearly shown however that doc. is only available to buy if it does make it to youtube etc its removed very sharpish.

Nodin

Molloys Clondalkin wrote: »

Nodin Im suprised at you using wiki as a refrence its usually the first to be condemmed here, .

Rarely is, tbh - certainly I never do. You can usually see the sources in the foot notes- Its not the Daily Mail.

Molloys Clondalkin wrote: »

but seeing as in the first few chapters of the page shows that Eygpt wanted to dystroy Israel we can go with it. .

Destroying the state of Israel does not equate to genocide. It might also, as a term, refer to the destruction of it as an enemy/military force.

Molloys Clondalkin wrote: »

Also if you search for you will find plans from the eygptian air force for bombing Kfar Saba and Tel Aviv** civillian areas with russian bombers. does this count as genocide for you?
.

Again, thats not genocide. You'd want some evidence for the planned post-conquest period involving the civillian population.

Jelle1880

To be fair, if wanting to destroy Israel is not genocide then neither is Israel attacking Gaza.

If Israel wanted to wipe out the Palestinians it could have done so time and time again.

Molloys Clondalkin

Nodin wrote: »

Destroying the state of Israel does not equate to genocide. It might also, as a term, refer to the destruction of it as an enemy/military force.

Again, thats not genocide. You'd want some evidence for the planned post-conquest period involving the civillian population.

When Nasser publicy stated he was going to drive the Jews into the sea I think everyone got the picture he had in mind. the total destruction of Israel which could be seen as revenge for the embarassment of the Sinai campaign.


According to Gregory Stanton and his 8 stages to genocide Eygpt had ticked the box on stages 123 567 while I dont know if they had units specifically to kill any Jews they came across, using the air force to bomb civillian areas where no military infastructure exists, could be seen by people to be using a branch of the military to commit such acts of genocide.

The post conquest period evidence wouldnt count in this situation as the population would have been almost wiped out by the air force and army units.

Nodin

Molloys Clondalkin wrote: »

When Nasser(.........)and army units.

All a vast amount of extrapolation from rhetoric.

SeanW

It strikes me as somewhat nieve to hear someone saying "we're going to drive the Jews into the sea" and automatically assume they didn't mean it.

Molloys Clondalkin

Nodin wrote: »

All a vast amount of extrapolation from rhetoric.

The unfortunate reality is that if Nasser had his way we wouldnt be trying to estmate haw far he would have gone his data points were well documented. Im sure if he were alive today he would tell you he meant what he said. (remember he did say he would wipe out Israel and drive the Jews into the sea there is no denying that to do so idiotic).
He had his army draw up plans to attack Israel.
He closed shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba.
He evicted the UN from Sinai.

heres a few quotes from Eygpt and Syria just to refresh your thinking.

Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight,” he said on May 27.9 The following day, he added: “We will not accept any . . . ​coexistence with Israel . . . ​Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel. . . . The war with Israel is in effect since 1948

As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.

An enthusiastic echo was heard on May 20 from Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad:

Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united. . . . I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.

The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel . . . ​to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations. 11]

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948.

Our goal is clear—to wipe Israel off the map.”12 On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
The Arab rhetoric was matched by the mobilization of Arab forces. Approximately 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft ringed Israel. 13

Nodin

Molloys Clondalkin wrote: »

The unfortunate reality (........)ringed Israel. 13

And again - other than a particular reading of rhetoric - theres no evidence of plans to commit genocide.

Molloys Clondalkin

Nodin wrote: »

And again - other than a particular reading of rhetoric - theres no evidence of plans to commit genocide.

But you dont need plans written out to cmmit Genocide by your logic what happened in Rwanda was not Genocide stop clutching at straws here you do not need plans drawn up for it to be genocide.

JustinDee

Nodin wrote: »

And again - other than a particular reading of rhetoric - theres no evidence of plans to commit genocide.

Oh ffs. Why are you faffing about with semantics?
Yes, genocide most likely incorrect term for what Nasser was mobilising but at the end of the day, what difference would it have made whatever it was called?? He was readying up the occupiers of Palestine at the time (Jordan, Syria and his own nation), their Allies (and fellow Soviet proxies) to go to war with Israel. What was going to follow that? If you were the subject of this movement, would you sit on your keyster and just hope that it went away?

Nodin

JustinDee wrote: »

Oh ffs. Why are you faffing about with semantics?
Yes, genocide most likely incorrect term for what Nasser was mobilising but at the end of the day, what difference would it have made whatever it was called?? ..................

The difference between it being a planned genocide and a war would be a rather major one and of far more than semitotic signficance. That's the point I'm addressing and none other.

BlaasForRafa

Nodin wrote: »

The difference between it being a planned genocide and a war would be a rather major one and of far more than semitotic signficance. That's the point I'm addressing and none other.

And what would have happened after the war, had Israel lost eh?

Nodin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

And what would have happened after the war, had Israel lost eh?

Nothing pleasant, I'd imagine, as I said earlier. However, as also stated (a number of times in fact) earlier, there seems to have been no plan for genocide.

Molloys Clondalkin

Nodin wrote: »

Nothing pleasant, I'd imagine, as I said earlier. However, as also stated (a number of times in fact) earlier, there seems to have been no plan for genocide.

Im sorry but history doesnt eem to agre with you.

The Egyptian attack plan would involve strategic bombing of major ports, the Negev Nuclear Research Center near Dimona, airfields and cities. Arab armies would then attack, effectively cutting Israel in half with an armoured thrust from northern Sinai via the Negev desert.
Abdel Hakim Amer, an Egyptian general, planned the operation.
Operation Dawn was called off after Nasser was informed by Russia that the US was aware of the plan.

Operation Dawn Eygpts plns to wipe Israel off the map.

Nodin

Molloys Clondalkin wrote: »

Im sorry but history doesnt eem to agre with you.

The Egyptian attack plan would involve strategic bombing of major ports, the Negev Nuclear Research Center near Dimona, airfields and cities. Arab armies would then attack, effectively cutting Israel in half with an armoured thrust from northern Sinai via the Negev desert.
Abdel Hakim Amer, an Egyptian general, planned the operation.
Operation Dawn was called off after Nasser was informed by Russia that the US was aware of the plan.

Operation Dawn Eygpts plns to wipe Israel off the map.

Thats a war plan, not a plan for genocide. By your standard, the US attack on Iraq was genocide. Seriously lads.

Molloys Clondalkin

Once again Ill say this you do not need plans to commit Genocide you dont need any special units or groups set up to kill etc.

ECHR also noted that a minority took a broader view and did not consider biological-physical destruction was necessary as the intent to destroy a national, racial, religious or ethnical group was enough to qualify as genocide.[25]


Nasser said his intent many many times you can call it rehtoric all you want the res of the world has seen it for what it was.

Nodin

Molloys Clondalkin wrote: »

Once again Ill say this you do not need plans to commit Genocide you dont need any special units or groups set up to kill etc.

..................

So far we have no units, groups, or plans. There's not a shread of evidence. Not a jot.

Molloys Clondalkin

Nodin wrote: »

There's not a shread of evidence. Not a jot.

Except public statements by the president's os Syria And Eygpt to the UN

but sure you would'nt be interested in any of that, if the tabes were turned Im sure that would suit your cause quite nicely. :rolleyes:

Nodin

Molloys Clondalkin wrote: »

Except public statements by the president's os Syria And Eygpt to the UN

Rhetoric, from a region known for it.

Molloys Clondalkin wrote: »

but sure you would'nt be interested in any of that, if the tabes were turned Im sure that would suit your cause quite nicely. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but would you mind explaining that remark? I don't follow.

hatrickpatrick

Nodin wrote: »

Rhetoric, from a region known for it.



I'm sorry, but would you mind explaining that remark? I don't follow.

He's suggesting that if the Israelis used similar rhetoric you'd regard it as a valid pretext for attacking them.

All this talk of what happened in the 1967 incident is irrelevant in my opinion. The facts are that after the 1967 war, the Israelis colonized land by driving Palestinians out at gunpoint and bulldozing their homes.

There are no circumstances in which this is acceptable behavior. Ever. It doesn't matter what did or did not happen before, forcing families from their homes with the threat of violence and stealing their property is simply wrong. I find it very hard to see a grey area in that. It is entirely contrary to international law to build settlements on occupied land.

Every square centimeter of land which was taken by force from a Palestinian farmer or family since 1967 is illegitimately occupied, and no amount of arguing over the conflict's origins will change that. Even America doesn't officially recognize Israeli jurisdiction over these areas.

Nodin

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He's suggesting that if the Israelis used similar rhetoric you'd regard it as a valid pretext for attacking them.
......

O.

He'd be wrong. Likuds been in power there for a good bit, and Lieberman comes out with even worse guff, yet I've managed to avoid being bitten by the "war bug". My problem - like yours, it seems - is with what Israel does in the OT now, not some 1960's "what if" fantasy concerning them and Egypt.

hatrickpatrick

Still waiting for any Israel sympathizers to justify throwing families out of their homes at gunpoint and stealing their private property to build Israeli towns on.

If no one feels like trying to justify this, may I take it that you all agree the settlements are utterly repulsive and should be removed, the land they were built on being returned to its rightful owners in the West Bank and East Jerusalem?

JustinDee

Nodin wrote: »

O.

He'd be wrong. Likuds been in power there for a good bit, and Lieberman comes out with even worse guff, yet I've managed to avoid being bitten by the "war bug". My problem - like yours, it seems - is with what Israel does in the OT now, not some 1960's "what if" fantasy concerning them and Egypt.

Ffs. Its as if 1973 never happened at all.
All rhetoric was it?

Nodin

JustinDee wrote: »

Ffs. Its as if 1973 never happened at all.
All rhetoric was it?

In terms of alleged genocide, or attempts at same, yep.

JustinDee

Nodin wrote: »

In terms of alleged genocide, or attempts at same, yep.

Irrelevant semantics.
Meanwhile something very real and threatening to the country was augmenting during the mid-60s and was realised in 1973. What it was called is by-the-by, particularly when discussing the background of the Six Day War and beyond.

Nodin

JustinDee wrote: »

Irrelevant semantics.
Meanwhile something very real and threatening to the country was augmenting during the mid-60s and was realised in 1973. What it was called is by-the-by, particularly when discussing the background of the Six Day War and beyond.

The difference between a war and an attempted/intended genocide is not a mere matter of semantics.

JustinDee

Nodin wrote: »

The difference between a war and an attempted/intended genocide is not a mere matter of semantics.

P*ss weak excusing of what went on, particularly after attempting to bandy about the word 'rhetoric' as already done in an effort to belittle the severity of Nasser's Pan-Arab movement in the 60s and early 70s. Its as if there weren't enough coups, assassinations or bombardments on borders to even give a little hint.

I have never said it was genocide or attempted genocide, nor have I even tried to. What was prevented by Israel at the time was what Nasser and his fellow occupiers of Palestine almost achieved in 1973.

Nodin

JustinDee wrote: »

P*ss weak excusing of what went on, ......

I've never commented on what went on, save to point out that there was no planned genocide. I've never said that you stated it was planned or otherwise, yet you seem to feel the need to tell me its "semantics", when in fact it is not.