Israel Under Attack: Does Anyone Care?

The book is extremely one-sided, and is just a joke.

Advocate wrote:

It is interesting that the Pals never sought statehood before Israel was formed. They had a great opportunity to secure statehood when Jordan controlled the WB, but failed to try to get it. Since then, the Pals have been holding out for the right of "return" for all Pals, and not the Pals who fled their homes in 1948. This, of course, would destroy Israel.

That is a stupid and rather obvious lie, and the fact that you repeat it suggests you know nothing about the real history of the region for the past few centuries, but are willing to relay Zionist propaganda designed only for the ignorant, credulous, and stupid.

The Palestinians and the Arab citizens of several provinces of the former Ottoman Empire engaged to assist the British & French in their unprovoked assault on the Ottoman Empire in WWI, precisely in order to achieve independence and self government for themselves, which the British indeed promised them. They unfortunately were deceived by these European Powers who instead set up colonies and local protetorates according to boundaries they (the Europeans) arbitrarily drew. Thus were created (from largely self-governing former Ottoman provinces) states now known as Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. There was another, called Palestine, which was goverened by the British in much the same way as they then governed Jordan and Iraq.

The post WWII Jewish exodus from Europe to Palestine, then governed by the British seriously disrupted the then ongoing efforts of the Palestinians and the Arabs to get the French and British out of their territories. They were successful in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Jordan. However the mass influx of displaced European Jews and the efforts of their Zionist leaders to create an exclusively Jewish state within it, seriously disrupted the anti colonial efforts in Palestine.

The Zionists deliberately created a revolution in Palestine, using precisely the tactics used now by Hezbollah, and were resisted by the then only well-organized Arab/Palestinian military force in the region, that of Jordan. Broke and exhausted after WWII, and anxious to wash its hands of the mess it created, the British simply bugged out, abandoning the place and turning it over to the then new UN (which at the time had almost zero reoresentation from Moslem states anywhere, and none within the region). Led by a sympathetic US and European states anxious to keep their exported "solution" the UN verty quickly legitimized the Jewish state, before the Palestinians could have any say in the outcome.

Thus a new "border" between the new state of Israel and an expanded Jordan was created along the military lines of the ensuing war between the two peoples - a war that was clearly and deliberately started by the Zionists. The Palestinains became defacto Jordanians.

The subsequent 1967 war later, started by Israel, significantly expanded the Jewish state. After the sound defeat of the neighboring Arab countries, Israel, then in control of all the Palestinain territory west of the Jordan river, announced that it would forever retain military control of the West bank of the Joirdan River and the hills that overlook it, thus forever sealing the West bank Palestinain population in a ghetto ruled by an alien power, and entirely isolated from Jordan. Since then Israel has steadily absorbed increasing sections of the West bank; established large settlements of radical Jews within it; linked them with limited access roads, confining the palestinains in ever smaller enclaves (much like the "Bantustands" of Aparteit South Africa); and now has completed the job (and ghetto analogy) by enclosing it all behind a high wall. All of this was done in clear violation of conventionally accepted norms for human rights and indeed in violation of the UN convention regarding them.

Throughout Israel has rationalized these actions as necessary to limit the retaliatory bombings and killings done by Palestianian and Arab resistors. However, no law limits the right of these oppressed people to fight for their freedom and property.

Those are stupid lies. E. g., you say that Israel started the '67 war. That is nonsense. The Arabs blocked the Gulf of Aqaba so that Israel could not use it. That is an act of war.

Egypt's blockade of the Straits to Israeli ships and ships bound for Israel in 1956 and again in 1967 was a catalyst, respectively, to the Suez Crisis and the Six-Day War.[1] Despite this, according to Major General Indar Jit Rikhye, military adviser to the United Nations Secretary General, the accusation of a blockade was "questionable," pointing out that an Israeli-flagged ship had not passed through the straits in two years, and that "The U.A.R. [Egyptian] navy had searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation."[2]

Advocate wrote:

Those are stupid lies. E. g., you say that Israel started the '67 war. That is nonsense. The Arabs blocked the Gulf of Aqaba so that Israel could not use it. That is an act of war.

Quote:

Egypt's blockade of the Straits to Israeli ships and ships bound for Israel in 1956 and again in 1967 was a catalyst, respectively, to the Suez Crisis and the Six-Day War.[1] Despite this, according to Major General Indar Jit Rikhye, military adviser to the United Nations Secretary General, the accusation of a blockade was "questionable," pointing out that an Israeli-flagged ship had not passed through the straits in two years, and that "The U.A.R. [Egyptian] navy had searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation."[2]

Source

I doubt that the statement by Major General Indar Jit Rikhye was right.

Advocate wrote:

I doubt that the statement by Major General Indar Jit Rikhye was right.

And what are your reasons? Do you have better data and resources then he did? (I assume you read at least his book.)

The port of Sharm el Sheikh was important to Israel, which said that several ships each month visited this port.

You think he sat on a ship in the Gulf and counted ships?

(He was commanding UNEF in Gaza City. UNEF didn't have ships.)

Nasser had also moved some units of the Egyptian army into Egyptian territory in the Sainai. That's not exactl;y the same thing as an "army marching on Israel" as Advocate falsely declared.

Advocate wrote:

The port of Sharm el Sheikh was important to Israel, which said that several ships each month visited this port.

You do know what you write, don't you?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

(He was commanding UNEF in Gaza City. UNEF didn't have ships.)

However, the UNEF detachment in Sharm el Sheikh maintained an observation post and kept the Strait of Tiran under constant watch - from March 1957 after the complete withdrawal of Israeli troops onwards until May 1967.

Israel did indeed initiate hostilities against all of its Atrab neighbors (except Lebanon) in 1967 just as I indicated. This was a deliberate and calculated action probably based on fears of the often reckless spreech and actions of President Nasser of what was then known as the United Arab Republic (of Egypt and Syria). This appelation was more a phrase than a fact, but it is true that Nassar had mobilized a lot of political excitement in the Arab world over issues relating to former British & French colonialism and the issues attending the creation of Israel and Palestinian refugees (of which there were then many in camps in Gaza and the Joirdan Valley.

In keeping with his ofter overwrought and reckless rhetoric, Nasser had indicated a "blockade" of the Gulf of Aquaba. However, as Walter pointed out, there was no blockade in fact, and the material consequences to Israel were slight. Nasser had also moved some units of the Egyptian army into Egyptian territory in the Sainai. That's not exactl;y the same thing as an "army marching on Israel" as Advocate falsely declared.

In any event Israel saw the opportunity to themselves start a war, under favorable conditions to them, that they very likely regarded an inevitable in the circumstsances, and to use the two facts above as politically acceptable pretexts for it. There is no evidence that Nasser was planning an immediate war with Israel, and the gross unpreparedness of the Arab military forces on all their borders is ample confirmation of this.