• small44@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    I am sure if Israel didn’t decide to invade the West bank and Gaza in 67 they would live in peace

    • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’m not sure if you’re joking, but if you’re not, you might want to read a little about the war you’re referencing.

      Israel invaded those territories because Jordan and Egypt were using them to launch a surprise attack.

      “Live in peace” is a bit subjective in your example lol

      • small44@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I love of israelis themselves expose those lies

        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. - Mossad Chief Meir Amit

        This entire story about the danger of extermination was invented and exaggerated after the fact to justify the annexation of new Arab territories“. - Israeli Minister Mordecai Bentov

        They attacked on a Monday, knowing that on Wednesday the Egyptian vice-president would arrive in Washington to talk about re-opening the Strait of Tiran. We might not have succeeded in getting Egypt to reopen the strait, but it was a real possibility.” - Dean Rusk, the American Secretary of State at that time

        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 farther, 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. - Israeli general Moshe Dayan

        • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 month ago

          You seem to have a very one sided view on this.

          Nasser and his allies knew that restarting their naval blockade would be a cause for war for Israel. They massed troops on the borders, threw out the peacekeepers overseeing the Strait and then announced they would be restarting their blockade.

          So was it a certainty that the muslim coalition was going to attack Israel first? No. Would a naval blockade and enemy troops ready to cross their borders from all sides be a tenable situation for Israel? I don’t know if you’re familiar with the map of Israel but having ‘unfriendly’ troops in the West Bank creates a huge strategic problem. They chose not to take the risk and destroy or scare them away.

          You’re certainly right that the ultrazionists made sure not to ‘miss any opportunity’ when it came to the spoils of war. But it’s also wrong to ignore that the opportunity to do so was largely given to them by their hostile neighbours.

          • small44@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Of course I would be one sided when zionists leaders admitted that the plan what occupation. Nasser was ready to for a diplomatic solution but Israel decided to colonize more part of Arabs countries.

            Your excuse is similar to saying Ukraine and the us knew that Russia wouldn’t accept a country to join the coalition that was specifically created to fight the URSS, this doesn’t give Russia the right to invade ukraine.

            The quote about the Syrian side is very clear about Israel trying to provoke wars

            after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine - Israel first prime minister

            Partition might be only a temporary arrangement for the next twenty to twenty-five years”. - Israel first president Chaim Weizmann It is not a coincidence that Gaza and the West bank was occupied in that time frame

            • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              1 month ago

              It seems like one half of your brain is thinking on Ukraine, the other half on Palestine, and they keep crossing into eachother :-)

              I don’t know which country you are in but if a neighbour declared a naval blockade and surrounded you with their armies, is your only thought that ‘they are looking for a diplomatic solution’?

              • small44@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                I won’t let it slide. Zionists leaders was clear about the colonial intention. So who’s again started it? Why the native should accept foreigners to create a state in their land? How hard is it for you to see that both Ukraine and Palestine are occupied so they are valid comparison? You are really blinded by the belief that Israel did nothing wrong.

                • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  You don’t have to let it slide, I welcome you to analyse the situation to the fullest of your abilities.

                  I just think trying to compare it to Ukraine is quite dumb. Even now you have to move your argument from the '67 situation to the broader idea of the partition of Mandatory Palestine. Morocco’s annexation of the Western Sahara territory, for example, is much more comparable in that regard than the classic cold war style territory push happening in Ukraine.

                  • small44@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 month ago

                    What’s dumb is comparing a conflict between two native populations over territorial conflict to an actual occupation by people who came from all over Europe to steal land of people who lived there

                    The 67 occupation is connected to the partition where zionists didn’t really believe in it as stated by their own admission