+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

West Bank outposts: An entire system of dispossession

At the core of Israel’s settlement outpost system lies the systemic violation of Palestinian human rights.

By Yossi Gurvitz, written for Yesh Din

Israeli private security guards try to stop Palestinians from working their land in the West Bank village of Sinjil, near the Israeli outpost of Givat Haro'e , August 18, 2013. Three years after settlers invaded their land, following the HCJ injunction order issued in the petition filed by the landowners through Yesh Din, landowners from the village of Sinjil arrive to their land for the first time. (Photo: Activestills.org)

Civilian Israeli security guards try to stop Palestinians from working their land in the West Bank village of Sinjil, near the Israeli outpost of Givat Haro’e , August 18, 2013. Three years after settlers invaded their land, landowners from the village of Sinjil arrive with a High Court injunction ordering them to have access to their land. (Photo: Activestills.org)

If we had to look for a good example of the meaning of the outpost system – the unofficial settlements Israel builds in the West Bank – we could hardly expect a better one than that supplied by the minister of defense himself. Commenting on a legal appeal that — contrary to some reports, Yesh Din is not part of — demands the removal of the Mitzpe Kramim outpost, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said (Hebrew): “This location was established legally, with the support of the prime minister and the defense minister. True, later someone appealed, an Israeli organization of course, a leftist organization that found some Arab who claims ownership.” As painful as it is that this is the level of understanding displayed by a senior government minister, the interesting part here is actually the where Ya’alon talks about “some Arab who claims ownership.”

With some brutality, Ya’alon touches on the main problem of the outpost movement: its violation of Palestinian human rights in the West Bank. Yesh Din’s research over the years, and particularly its report, “The Road to Dispossession,” which uses the outpost Adei-Ad as a microcosm, finds that the creation of an outpost is a steady source for unceasing violation of the rights of the Palestinian residents in adjacent villages. This violation is inherent in existence of the outpost.

Let me explain. When an outpost is created, it grabs territory, which later becomes the core of the outpost. This territory often includes private Palestinian land. Around the core there is what is known as the SSA – “special security area” – which Palestinians may not enter except on special occasions, since it serves as the perimeter of the outpost. Outside the SSA there is Palestinian land that becomes a source of friction.

outpost ring

Why is it a source of friction? Because the goal of outposts is to expand. Adei-Ad, our test case, now includes territory nearly 30 times its original size. How do outposts expand? Israeli civilians arrive in the vicinity and either attack Palestinian farmers or damage their crops. This is done in order to terrorize them and force them to abandon their land. When the land is abandoned, it is taken over.

In order to do so, of course, the outposts require assistance from their main partner, the government of Israel: soldiers who do not prevent violations such as settler riots; policemen who do not properly investigate attacks on Palestinians; prosecutors who close cases without due cause; a Civil Administration that does not enforce its own demolition orders; government offices that hurry to provide services for illegal settlements; and at the end of the line – the state attorneys, who time and again appear in court to defend these massive violations of the law, not to mention postponing bringing an end to them for long as possible. Time after time, the state proposes legalizing these outposts as a gift to the lawbreakers.

The first violation of Palestinian rights is that of their right to property — in other words, the land that is lost when Israeli civilians take it over. A short while after that comes the violation of their right to life and security: if you go to work your land, note that there is a chance you will not return home in one piece. Palestinian freedom of movement is also violated: with the creation of an outpost and the declaration of an SSA, its territory keeps expanding, and Palestinians are forbidden from entering.

All this ultimately leads to the violation of Palestinians’ right and ability to make a living. Two of the villages near Adei-Ad have already been emptied of many of their residents. An agricultural settlement, after all, cannot exist if its land is taken away by force.

We are not dealing with just one case: there are about 100 outposts. Every time one of them is legalized, it creates a precedent for the legalizing the next outpost, and creates incentives for Israeli civilians to seize more land and terrorize more Palestinians.

This isn’t an accident, it’s a system. The outposts are approved, as Ya’alon admitted, by the defense and prime ministers. This is the system, as shown in the previous post, in which all government offices are complicit; this is the system whose existence is now out in the open, with no blushing, announced by the defense minister. This system means the systemic, intentional, violation of Palestinian human rights, and it must stop.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Bruce Gould

      SALFIT (Ma‘an) 21 Apr — Israeli settlers from the Immanuel settlement uprooted some 450 olive trees and saplings from lands in Deir Istiya, northern Salfit, on Tuesday….Since 1967, approximately 800,000 olive trees have been uprooted by Israeli forces and settlers in the occupied West Bank, according to a joint report by the Palestinian Authority and the Applied Research Institute Jerusalem.


      Reply to Comment
    2. Ben

      Pedro and Gustav, just another tale of those non-violent, peace- and justice-loving Israeli Jews inexplicably set upon by “terrorists.” Heh? Just needs “context,” eh, Pedro? As Moshe Ya’alon says, it’s always “some Arab.” One of “them.” It’s never our fault. Why do those A-rabs get so excited about a little thing like this? It’s so unfair. “The world hates us whatever we do.” Sigh.

      Reply to Comment
      • BigCat

        Why are you posting as “Ben”, Brian? Why are you such a fraud? This obsession with Jews and Israel is really getting very very clinical.

        Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        The world is not perfect Benny dear. Didn’t you yourself admit to as much here…..?


        … but you still did not respond to my question when I quoted you. Here it is again….

        “Ben: “If more than four in 10 Americans believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, then huge numbers of Americans are massively ignorant.”
        Can we apply the same logic to Palestinian Arabs?”

        Well, Benny….? Waiting,….waiting,…waiting….

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          I think I may as well wait till the proverbial cows come home because our Benny is obviously not allowed to say ANYTHING derogatory about his clients. Americans? Yes! Israelis? Of course yes! But Palestinian Arabs are pure perfection. And when they are not, our Benny keeps Mum about it. Musn’t sleight one’s clients, eh Benny?

          Reply to Comment
        • Ben

          Wow. lol. As I recall, I thought your question makes no sense. The Palestinian masses are no doubt ignorant about a lot of things in this world but they incontestably have expert knowledge on how the Israelis behave in the occupied territories. The live it every day. I don’t ask Palestinians to weigh in on life in San Francisco or Dallas. Why should what bible thumping Americans in Texas think about the occupation, if they think about it at all which is really unlikely, matter to me? If I want to know what is going on on the ground in Dallas or the Texas hill country I’ll turn to them and I won’t ask the Palestinians. If I want to know what’s going on in the Palestinian hills I’ll ask the Palestinians.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ricky Rocket

            Brian is a deviant person. Who else calls out his list of enemies on a comment board.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Ben:”If I want to know what’s going on in the Palestinian hills I’ll ask the Palestinians.”

            And if you want to ask why this 100 year old war cannot be settled peacefully, who do you ask Benny?

            You ask us of course, you do that every day when you tell us how evil we are. But do you ask the Palestinian Arabs too…?

            Of course NOT! But if you did, and you would care to listen to the more candid ones amongst them, they would tell you…

            They would tell you that their war on us is much bigger than just a settlement here, or an outpost there. They would admit that is just kid stuff and ready made solutions exist to resolve such issues.

            They would admit that the real war is not about that but about the existince of a Jewish nation state in the Middle East. They just don’t want a Jewish nation state period…

            How do I know? I know because prior to 1967, before the “Occupation”, they still made war on us. What was their excuse then? Nothing of course, they openly admitted their intention to eliminate our state and to exile us (at best).

            Of course, since then, some of the more clever ones have been making soothing voices in order to deceive us and the rest of the world. But their objective is still to eliminate our state and to get rid of us. How do we know? We know because…

            1. They demand the right of “return” of hundreds of thousands of descendants of refugees.

            2. The Arab states don’t want to know about any compensation to any of the one million Jewish refugees whom they exiled and disposessed.

            3. The Palestinian Arabs still don’t want to extend formal recognition of the nation state of the Jewish people. They play word games by saying that they recognize Israel, knowing full well that israel has Arab citizens too. And their hope is that with the influx of the descendants of refugees, some day they would be able to turn Israel into another Arab state and just get rid of that pesky name “Israel” and them pesky Jews too.

            Ok Brian, your turn. Start denying, denying and whitewashing your favorite clients, the Palestinian Arabs…

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            What about the myth of the Arab peace initiative? Well, it was not a peace initiative. It was a formula for the destruction of the Jewish nation state because it included the following demand…

            “Refugees will have the right to choose between:

            return to the state of Palestine
            return to the state of Israel
            return to areas in Israel being transferred to Palestine
            remain in the host states, subject to the latter?s decision
            resettle in third countries, subject to the latter?s decision

            Israel will compensate the refugees for their refugeehood and for loss of property.”

            …and of course it contained NOTHING about compensation to the 1 million Jewish refugees who were killed in cked out of Arab countries and who were disposessed.

            Reply to Comment
      • New Relic

        Ben: snark is not wit. It’s boring, vapid & stupid.

        Reply to Comment
    3. Yeah, Right

      Odd, isn’t it, that Gustav rushes in to post a comment on this article that… scrupulously ignores this article, and consists entirely on an attack on Ben’s character.

      And in this he is joined by BigCat, Rickety Rocket and New Relic, none of whom is the least bit interested in this article but all of whom are very, very indignant that Ben chooses to post here.

      Gentlemen, can we return to the article? After all, it says something very important.

      Which is this: Israeli governments have always drawn a sharp distinction between “settlements” (authorized by the GoI, and therefore “legal” under Israeli law) and “outposts” (which just *exist*, and we should all ju…. Oh, Look! A squirrel!).

      The article quotes a Ya’alon slip o’ the tongue wherein he bells the cat on that little distinction.

      Clearly, that decades-old distinction is about as credible as the old Mission: Impossible tape-recorder disclaimer that “As always, should you or any of your I.M. Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions”.

      Ol’ Boogie went off-script (and, heck, doesn’t he make a habit of that?).

      Here did so here: “This location was established legally, with the support of the prime minister and the defense minister.”.

      That gives the game away i.e. even if the Government of Israel doesn’t “authorize” the establishment of “outposts”, it is nonetheless government policy to “support” their establishment, and in the eyes of the government that “support” makes their establishment “legal”.


      I bet that Netanyahu looks at Boogie and wishes that “this tongue will self-destruct in 10 seconds”.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        First of all, just like you, [Yeah Right], we are not gentlemen. Nobody who posts here is. So let’s just stop pretending eh?

        Secondly, yes this article talks about settlements and our Benny pretends that the biggest issue in the I-P conflict is the “settlements”. But it isn’t. So let’s stop pretending about that too, shall we? Solve the issues that I mentioned in my previous post and there would be peace, settlements or no settlements.

        But hey, who cares about peace eh [Yeah Right]? It isn’t about peace. It is about the process of preventing a Jewish nation state. And the Bennys and you know that in order to achieve that aim, Israel needs to be discredited and demonized. That’s what you people are here for.

        Reply to Comment
        • Bryan

          Gustav you have this profoundly wrong (“It is about the process of preventing a Jewish nation state.”) You have a predominantly Jewish state, and have had since 1948. Virtually all of your critics here accept that, whatever injustices this entailed, history cannot be rolled back, so that the 1948 state is accepted, is recognized by most countries, and the Arab League has offered to make this unanimous. You joined the UN and committed to abide by the principles of the UN Charter. You laid out your shop-window with a Declaration of Independence, which whilst it contains emotive nonsense about blooming deserts, could have represented a reasonable basis for peace and justice.

          But no, that was not good enough. You engaged in wars of conquest to expand the boundaries of that state by expropriation and ethnic cleansing. Far from living at peace with neighbours you espoused military and nuclear domination of the entire region. You continued to marginalise your minority population and steadily to build a raft of yet more discriminatory legislation, and to further this enterprise you and your Zionist fellow-travellers have done their best to undermine democracy in other states, to undermine the rule of international law, to make preemptive attack and extraordinary rendition and neo-Conservative regime-change norms of imperialism, and to spread race hatred (Islamophobia is almost exclusively corelated with pro-Israel advocacy.

          So it would be far more accurate to say this was “about the process of preventing a Jewish rogue nation state, a pariah state that cannot save itself from its own extremism or fulfill any of its international obligations”. And you are profoundly wrong in saying this is not about settlements. End the occupation and all its concomitant evils, and shut your critics up, and save the Jewish soul, and help to restore sanity to the world.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav


            Let’s take it one step at a time Bryan and let’s expose your lies. Here is your first lie…

            You said the Arabs accepted the Jewish state but we made war on the Arabs. Now read this…

            “The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal developed by the United Nations, which recommended a partition with Economic Union of Mandatory Palestine to follow the termination of the British Mandate. On 29 November 1947, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II).[2]

            The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem. Part I of the Plan stipulated that the Mandate would be terminated as soon as possible and the United Kingdom would withdraw no later than 1 August 1948. The new states would come into existence two months after the withdrawal, but no later than 1 October 1948. The Plan sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims of two competing movements: Arab nationalism in Palestine and Jewish nationalism, known as Zionism.[3][4] The Plan also called for Economic Union between the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights.

            The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public, except for its fringes, and by the Jewish Agency despite its perceived limitations.[5][6]

            Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution[7] and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division.[8] Their reason was that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[6][9]

            Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, the civil war broke out.[10] The partition plan was not implemented.[11]”

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Bryan’s lie number 2. That after 1948, the Arabs just minded their own business but Israel was expansionist and militaristic.

            Here is a reality check: the Palestinian Arabs mounted terrorist raid after terrorist raid against the Jewish state. Here is just a short list of attacks that took place till 1956…

            February 1951 – Jamil Muhammad Mujarrab, a member of a Jordanian armed group, raped and murdered an Israeli girl in Jerusalem’s Katamon neighborhood.[3]
            Jan 1, 1952 – Seven gunmen attacked and killed a nineteen year-old girl in her home, in the neighborhood of Beit Yisrael, in Jerusalem. On investigation, the Mixed Armistice Commission found that the case against Jordanian infiltrators could not be substantiated.
            December 31, 1951/ Jan 1 1952 – a rape murder occurred. The MAC investigating officer, Major Loreaux, reported that the body of the girl, Leah Feistinger,[4] had been found hidden in a cave about a mile from the Jordan border, the girl had been raped and murdered her face had been mutilated. While it was believed by Israeli police that this atrocity had been committed by Jordanians, they did not find evidence of an infiltration. The case had not been discussed by the Commission. Major Loreaux expressed the opinion that the Israeli police would have a better chance of finding the killer than the Arabs would.[5] The incident was used as pretext for the Israeli “reprisal raid” at Beit Jalla on January 6, 1952
            Apr 14, 1953 – Infiltrators tried for the first time to infiltrate Israel by sea, but were unsuccessful. One of the boats was intercepted and the other boat escaped.
            June 7, 1953 – A youngster was killed and three others were wounded, in a shooting attacks on residential areas in southern Jerusalem.
            June 9, 1953 – Gunmen attacked a farming community near Lod, and killed one of the residents. The gunmen threw hand grenades and sprayed gunfire in all directions. On the same night, another group of terrorists attacked a house in the town of Hadera. This occurred a day after Israel and Jordan signed an agreement, with UN mediation, in which Jordan undertook to prevent terrorists from crossing into Israel from Jordanian territory.
            June 10, 1953 – Attackers infiltrating from Jordan destroyed a house in the farming village of Mishmar Ayalon.
            June 11, 1953 – Gunmen attacked a young couple in their home in Kfar Hess, and shot them to death.
            Sept 2, 1953 – Attackers infiltrated from Jordan, and reached the neighborhood of Katamon, in the heart of Jerusalem. They threw hand grenades in all directions. No one was hurt.
            October 12, 1953 – Yehud attack – A Palestinian Fedayeen squad threw a grenade into a civilian house in Yehud, killing a woman and her two children.

            Scorpions Pass Massacre
            Mar 17, 1954 – Scorpion Pass Massacre – Bandits ambushed a bus traveling from Eilat to Tel Aviv, and opened fire at short range when the bus reached the area of Ma’ale Akrabim (Scorpion Pass) in the northern Negev. In the initial ambush, the bandits killed the driver and wounded most of the passengers. The bandits then boarded the bus, and shot some of the passenger, one by one. Eleven passengers were murdered. Survivors recounted how the murderers spat on the bodies and abused them. The massacre was apparently a reprisal raid conducted by members of a Bedouin tribe expelled from the al-Auja region of the Sinai three and a half years earlier.[6][7][8]
            Jan 2, 1955 – Gunmen attacked and killed 2 hikers in the Judean Desert.
            Mar 24, 1955 – Gunmen threw hand grenades and opened fire on a crowd at a wedding in the farming community of Patish, in the Negev. A young woman was killed, and eighteen people were wounded in the attack.
            August 29, 1955 – Beit Oved attack – a Palestinian Fedayeen squad fired small arms at a group of Israeli laborers, killing four and injuring ten.
            Apr 7, 1956 – A resident of Ashkelon was killed in her home, when attackers threw three hand grenades into her house. Two members of kibbutz Givat Haim were killed, when terrorists opened fire on their car, on the road from Plugot Junction to Mishmar HaNegev. There were further hand grenade and shooting attacks on homes and cars, in areas such as Nitzanim and Ketziot. One person was killed and three others wounded.
            Apr 11, 1956 – Gunmen opened fire on a synagogue full of children and teenagers, in the farming community of Shafir. Three children and a youth worker were killed on the spot, and five were wounded, including three seriously.
            Apr 29, 1956 – Killing of Roi Rotberg and Moshe Dayan’s eulogy killed by Egyptian-backed Fedayeen, 21 years of age, from Nahal Oz.

            Of course those types of attacks continiued till 1967 and beyond but they would be too numerous to list.

            Reply to Comment
          • Bryan

            Yes there were atrocities committed on both sides, and understandably in the aftermath of Deir Yassein and numerous other massacres and the large-scale expulsions that comprised the Nakba the local Arab population harboured many grudges against the Jewish victors. But Benny Morris examined the subject thoroughly and concluded that the infiltrations were initially largely comprised of unarmed people returning to retrieve possessions, harvest crops, visit friends, search for family, return home and other largely innocent activities. Understandably when Jews responded by shooting such civilians on sight, things got nastier. But all of this is irrelevant, utterly irrelevant. From 1988 the PLO officially agreed to end not only terrorism but all forms of attacks on Israel in the context of a compromise two-state political settlement that would create a largely demilitarized Palestinian state in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, and has since been a major partner in policing any violent activities.

            Reply to Comment
          • Bryan

            And Gustav shall we just lay off the derisory patronisation (“Sigh, does teacher have to explain it yet again to you numbskulls”) And shall we stop demonizing each others arguments (“Lie Number 1 – 2 etc”) There are rival narratives, and their are alternative explanations, some better grounded in fact, reason and logic than others, but only an unthinking bigot would call all those who disagree with him liars, when their arguments are based on facts, reason and logic, albeit they are alternative explanations of matters where the truth is not plain and self-evident. And Bryan (Memo to myself) shall we just lay off the smugness (“Bryan you are sufficiently intelligent and well-informed to recognise when you have won an argument hands down, and your opponents retort is simply to erect strawmen”).

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “There are rival narratives, and their are alternative explanations”

            Is that how history works for you?

            Here is my narrative which is the same as most respected historian’so narrative and even reasonable Arabs agree with it…

            Israel accepted UN Resolution 181 which was the two state solution. The Arabs rejected it. So they attacked the Jewish state and tried to prevent it’s birth.

            But here is your narrative….

            The Arabs were peaceful and they defended themselves from a militaristic and expansionist Israel.

            Can you not see that there is no mid way between our two competing narratives, Bryan? One of us is lying. And it isn’t me.

            Reply to Comment
          • Bryan

            The partition proposal was merely a suggested solution because the UN had no authority to start reconstructing territories, and understandably since it was very one-sided it was objected by the majority population who had been for years striving for National Self-Determination. But a bit like a certain biblical myth about a disputed child – the bogus mother said cut it in half, whilst the real mother said no. But that is irrelevant, utterly irrelevant. Jordan, Egypt the PLO, and (less consistently) Hamas accept that the 1948 state of Israel is now a fait accompli, and all Arab states are prepared to fully recognize and enter normal relations with Israel if the Occupation were to be ended.

            Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          Gustav: “But hey, who cares about peace eh [Yeah Right]? It isn’t about peace. It is about the process of preventing a Jewish nation state.”

          A funny comment, that, since I look at this “settlement enterprise” and what I see is a very, very deliberate “process” on the part of the state of Israel to “prevent” a Palestinian state.

          But let’s not talk about that, hey, because…. well…. because you don’t want to talk about it.

          There won’t be “peace”, Gustav, and you and I are in agreement on that score.

          Where we differ is in the reason for that lack of peace.

          I believe it is impossible because Israel knows the price – a Palestinian state – and finds it unacceptable. So it much prefers “no peace” if that is what is required to ensure that there is “no Palestine”.

          But you?

          You believe that peace is impossible because the Palestinians have “a process” to “prevent” something that already exists.

          Odd, that.

          But it wouldn’t sound at all odd to a psychiatrist – they would very quickly recognize that as “projection”, even if you want to pretend otherwise.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            As for the lie that we occupy the West Bank because we started an expansionist war in 1967, it ain’t true. Jordan attacked Israel. Here read a bit more history…

            MILITARY BUILD-UP: Seven to eight Egyptian division, two of them armoured, now deployed in Sinai: 200 tanks opposite Eilat, with the aim of cutting off the Southern Negev. Along Israel’s Eastern border: 60,000 Jordanian soldiers and 300 tanks. The Jordanian army placed under Egyptian command units, as well as Iraq forces which had entered its territory. On Israel’s Northern border with Syria, 50,000 Syrian soldiers dug in, fortified and protected by concrete and steel. Some 600 Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi planes ready.

            War broke out on 5 June when Israel responded to the Egyptian military build-up by launching a surprise attack on Egypt’s air force, destroying most of it on the ground within a matter of hours.

            That same morning, Israel sent a message to Jordan’s leader King Hussein via the US State Department, the UN and the British Foreign Office, saying that, despite the outbreak of war, it would not attack the West Bank if Jordan maintained quiet on that front.

            Jordan ignored Israel’s appeal to avoid conflict.

            That morning, King Hussein received false information from Egypt denying Egyptian losses and claiming a massive and successful Egyptian attack against Israel. Emboldened by this information, Jordan launched immediate multiple attacks on Israel:-

            civilian suburbs of Tel-Aviv were shelled by artillery;
            Israel’s largest military airfield, Ramat David, was shelled;
            Jordanian warplanes attacked the central Israeli towns of Netanya and Kfar Sava;
            thousands of mortar shells rained down on West Jerusalem hitting civilian locations indiscriminately, including the Hadassah Hospital and the Mount Zion Church;
            Israel’s parliament building (the Knesset) and the Prime Minister’s office, each in Israeli-controlled West Jerusalem, were targeted;
            20 Israelis died in these attacks; 1000 were wounded. 900 buildings in West Jerusalem were damaged.
            “Jerusalem is totally engulfed in war…” reported the British Consul-General that morning.
            All this happened before Israel reacted militarily against Jordan, or moved at all into the West Bank.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Another lie is the idea that after 1967, the Arabs wanted to make peace with Israel. Read a bit more history….

            The Khartoum Resolution of September 1, 1967 was issued at the conclusion of 1967 Arab League summit convened in the wake of the Six-Day War, in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. The summit lasted from August 29 to September 1 and was attended by eight Arab heads of state: Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, and Sudan.[1] The resolution called for: a continued state of belligerency with Israel, ending the Arab oil boycott declared during the Six-Day War, an end to the North Yemen Civil War, and economic assistance for Egypt and Jordan. It is famous for containing (in the third paragraph) what became known as the “Three No’s”: “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it…”[2]

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Another lie is that Israel refused to compromise and make peace. Here are some details about Olmert’s 2008 peace offer which accommodated most of the demands but it did not go far enough (for the Arabs) with the so called right of return…

            “Former prime minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday that during his tenure he offered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas an unprecedented peace offer, based on a return to the 1967 borders and a fair demographic land arrangement which would see heavily Jewish areas in the West Bank remain under Israeli control.

            “I offered a land swap, I offered a solution for Jerusalem, where the Jewish part would remain under Israeli authority and the Arab sections would be given to the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state,” he told a conference at Tel Aviv University.

            According to Olmert’s plan, the Holy Basin would be demarcated under the rule of five different states with access available to believers of all religions. The offer was based on the agreements reached at a 2007 summit in Annapolis Maryland, Olmert said, and would be carried out in accordance with the Road Map for peace.

            Olmert said he and Abbas had reached an interim agreement on the Palestinian right of return, but he never received a final response from the Palestinians on the matter.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            What about after 1967? Here is just a truncated list of terrorist attacks against Israel…

            Chronology of Terrorist Attacks in Israel
            Part II: 1968-1980

            compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston
            last updated 18 May 2013
            date location killed injured description
            18 Mar 1968 Eilat, Negev 2 28 2 killed, 28 children injured in landmine attack on school bus in Negev desert north of Eilat
            18 Aug 1968 Jerusalem 0 10 10 injured (including 2 Americans) by attack with three grenades in Jewish section of Jerusalem
            4 Sep 1968 Tel Aviv 1 71 three bombings in and near a bus station
            13 Sep 1968 Baniyas, Golan Heights 5 ? attack on military police headquarters in Baniyas in the Golan Heights
            19 Sep 1968 Jenin, West Bank 1 4 1 soldier killed, 4 soldiers injured in ambush near Jenin
            9 Oct 1968 Hebron, West Bank 0 47 grenade attack by Arab at Jews praying at the Tomb of the Patriarchs
            5 Nov 1968 Hebron, West Bank 0 6 bombing at the Tomb of the Patriarchs injures 6, including 2 Jews and 4 Arabs (3 children)
            22 Nov 1968 Jerusalem 12 55 car bombing of Mahaneh Yehuda market

            21 Feb 1969 Jerusalem 2 20 bombing in supermarket
            25 Feb 1969 East Jerusalem 0 1 bombing at British consulate
            6 Mar 1969 Jerusalem 0 29 29 injured (mostly students) by bomb in cafeteria at Hebrew University
            6 Mar 1969 Al Bireh, West Bank 0 1 explosion of grenade at bank
            15 May 1969 Gaza 0 35 35 Arabs injured by grenade attacks in Gaza, Jabaliya, Kahn Yunis, Rafa, and Deir el Balah
            17 Jun 1969 Kallia 1 ? 1 American killed in shelling attack
            20 Jun 1969 Jerusalem 1 5 three bombings near Western Wailing Wall
            7 Aug 1969 El Hamma 2 12 2 killed (including 1 soldier), 12 soldiers injured in bombing of bus near El Hamma
            2 Sep 1969 Qiryat Shemona 2 5 2 killed (including 1 child), 5 injured by shelling attack, fired from Lebanon
            22 Oct 1969 Haifa 4 20 bombings of two apartments
            19 Nov 1969 Khan Yunis, Gaza 1 5 grenade attack at bank; 1 child killed
            27 Dec 1969 Hebron, West Bank 1 ? 1 American killed in shooting attack on bus near Hebron

            1 Jan 1970 Jerusalem 1 5 1 Arab killed, 5 people injured by grenade attack in marketplace
            1 Jan 1970 Hebron, West Bank 2 ? 2 Arabs killed by grenade thrown at Israeli army vehicle
            23 Feb 1970 Halhoul, West Bank 1 2 shooting attack on bus; 1 American killed, 2 Americans injured
            22 May 1970 Avivim 12 22 12 killed, 19 injured (mostly children) in attack on school bus with three bazooka rockets
            6 Nov 1970 Tel Aviv 2 34 two bombs exploded 20 minutes apart in bus station

            7 Jul 1971 Tel Aviv 4 30 rocket attack on Tel Aviv suburb
            16 Sep 1971 Jerusalem 1 6 1 child killed, 6 people injured (including 5 Americans) by grenade attack

            16 Jan 1972 Gaza 1 3 1 American killed, 3 people injured in attack in Gaza
            8 May 1972 Ben-Gurion APT 10 ? Israeli forces storm a hijacked Belgian Sebena airliner at Ben Gurion Airport; fatalities include 1 passenger, 5 Israeli soldiers, and all 4 terrorists
            30 May 1972 Ben-Gurion APT 28 78 26 killed (including 20 Puerto Ricans), 78 injured in attack with guns and grenades at Ben Gurion Airport; two terrorists also killed
            20 Jun 1972 Golan Heights 2 3 rocket attack on bus in Golan Heights
            11 Jul 1972 Tel Aviv 0 9 grenade attack in bus terminal
            20 Sep 1972 Jerusalem 0 1 1 postal worker injured by letter bomb in Jerusalem; second letter bomb in Tel Aviv caused no injuries; one letter was addressed to Shimon Peres
            29 Sep 1972 Jerusalem 0 3 bombing of Jerusalem supermarket

            21 Feb 1973 Sinai 108 ? Libyan Boeing 727 airliner shot down straying over Sinai by Israel, fearing it to be hijacked; 108 killed, 5 survive
            4 Dec 1973 Jerusalem 0 18 grenade attack in shopping area

            11 Apr 1974 Qiryat Shemona 18 16 18 killed (including 8 children), 16 injured in attack by three terrorists on residential building
            15 May 1974 Maalot 27 134 PLO attack on Israeli collective farm
            13 Jun 1974 Shamir Kibbutz 7 ? 3 killed (plus four terrorists) in gun battle following invasion of the Shamir Kibbutz
            24 Jun 1974 Nahariya 7 8 4 killed, 8 injured in attack when terrorists seized hostages in apartment building (three terrorists also killed)
            26 Jun 1974 Nahariya 5 ? 3 killed (plus terrorists) in gun battle near Nahariya
            18 Nov 1974 Beit She’an 4 23 attack at Beit She’an; terrorists seized an apartment building after which 18 were injured jumping from windows; 5 were injured during gun battle which also killed three terrorists
            30 Nov 1974 Rihaniya 1 1 1 Moslem killed, 1 Moslem injured in home invasion
            6 Dec 1974 Rosh Hanikra 1 2 2 injured in raid on Rosh Hanikra kibbutz (one terrorist also killed)
            11 Dec 1974 Tel Aviv 2 66 1 killed, 66 injured in bombing at movie theater (one terrorist also killed)
            20 Dec 1974 Jerusalem 0 13 bomb explosion on crowded street
            22 Dec 1974 Jerusalem 0 2 2 injured (including 1 American child and 1 Arab) by grenade attack on bus

            2 Feb 1975 Jerusalem 0 2 bombing on bus
            8 Feb 1975 El Arish, Sinai 1 3 1 Arab boy killed, 3 other children injured by bombing in El Arish, northern Sinai
            8 Feb 1975 Ashdod 0 0 several shops destroyed by bombing; no injuries
            14 Feb 1975 Jerusalem 2 ? two terrorists in Jerusalem killed by premature explosion of bomb they were preparing during a state visit by Henry Kissinger
            6 Mar 1975 Tel Aviv 18 12 11 killed, 12 injured (seven terrorists also killed) in Tel Aviv attack: terrorists land by two boats on a Tel Aviv beach, fire at cars and soldiers, killing 2 soldiers; terrorists then seize a hotel which is stormed by Israeli troops at 0530; explosions kill 1 hostage, 1 soldier and 6 terrorists; 6 hostages and 1 terrorist are injured
            28 Mar 1975 Jerusalem 0 13 13 injured by bombing of bus at intersection during Passover/Good Friday; second bombing causes no injuries
            4 May 1975 Jerusalem 1 3 bombing of apartment building
            11 May 1975 Jerusalem 0 2 derailing of freight train near Jerusalem caused by sabotage
            17 May 1975 Ein Fashkha, West Bank 0 20 explosion of bomb in picnic box
            17 May 1975 multiple 0 2 two separate bombings in Ramallah and El Bira
            5 Jun 1975 Qiryat Shemona 0 3 rocket attack on Qiryat Shemona and grenade attack on bus in Jerusalem
            8 Jun 1975 Beit Lid, West Bank 1 ? terrorist attempts to attack hitchhikers and soldiers using grenades; terrorist killed by soldiers
            15 Jun 1975 Kfar Yuval 5 7 terrorists seize farmhouse, killing 1 person, injuring 6, and taking family hostage; Israeli soldiers storm farmhouse and kill all four terrorists plus 1 hostage
            15 Jun 1975 Nahariya 3 5 3 killed (1 died 16 Jun of injuries), 5 injured by three rockets fired into Nahariya
            4 Jul 1975 Jerusalem 13 72 13 killed (including 2 children), 72 injured (including 2 Americans) in bombing at Zion Square; bomb was in an abandoned refrigerator on a sidewalk surrounded by pre-Sabbath shopping crowds

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “That same morning, Israel sent a message to Jordan’s leader King Hussein via the US State Department, the UN and the British Foreign Office, saying that, despite the outbreak of war, it would not attack the West Bank if Jordan maintained quiet on that front.”

            Ahem. Casus foederis. “Case for the alliance”.

            Look it up, and then ask yourself these very simple questions:

            Q1: When Germany attacked Poland in 1939 were France and Britain the “aggressors” for subsequently declaring war on Germany?

            A1: No. There was a mutual defence treaty between those three powers, and so the latter two were under a treaty obligation to come to the defence of Poland.

            Q2: If an army attacks a member state of NATO can it send a message to all the other NATO states to “butt out, it’s nothing to do with you”?

            A2: No. To attack on NATO state is to attack all. That’s how NATO works, and no attack can feign ignorance of the consequences.

            Now, with that under our belt…….

            Gustav: “Jordan ignored Israel’s appeal to avoid conflict.”

            As it was obliged by treaty to do, since Jordan and Egypt had signed a mutual-defence pact.

            Which meant to attack one (Egypt) was to be regarded by all parties – including Israel, who could not feign ignorance – as an attack on both.

            Casus foederis.

            As, indeed, all NATO member states would be obliged to do should anyone attack a signatory to that treaty.

            Casus foederis.

            As, indeed, France and Britain were obliged to do when the Germans told them to butt out as it beat up Poland.

            Casus foederis.

            Honestly, you really do talk a lot of nonsense.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav


            You want analogies? Then what Jordan did was more akin to what Italy did in WW2. Germany committed aggression, war was declared on Germany, Italy the ally of Germany then joined the war.

            In the same way, Egypt committed aggression in 1967, Israel then justifiably struck Egypt, Jordan then joined the war on the side of the aggressor.

            You can try and paint the pig’s face with lipstick, [Yeah Right], but the fact is that it will still be a pig’s face. The fact is that Jordan attacked Israel in 1967.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “You want analogies?”

            *sigh* Why do I have the sinking feeling that Gustav is about to rewrite history?

            Gustav: “Then what Jordan did was more akin to what Italy did in WW2.”

            *sigh* Yep, here it comes….

            Gustav: “Germany committed aggression, war was declared on Germany, Italy the ally of Germany then joined the war.”

            *sigh* That part is quite correct: mutual-defence pacts are *defence* pacts, and are not triggered if you go on the attack.

            Germany attacked Poland. Therefore Italy – ally or not – was under no treaty obligation to enter the war.

            Equally, the USA attacks lots of countries. Invades them and occupies them. NATO countries are under no treaty obligation to “pitch in”, since NATO is a *defence* pact.

            Now, on with the nonsense…..

            Gustav: “In the same way, Egypt committed aggression in 1967,”…

            …annnnnnd, there it is.

            Egypt did not “commit aggression” against Israel in 1967.
            It rattled its sabres at Israel, sure, it did.
            It acted provocatively by mobilizing troops, yes.

            But those are “provocations”, they are not “acts of aggression”.

            An “act of aggression” is something else entirely.
            You know, like sending your aircraft into another country’s airspace to make a surprise attack on military bases.

            That’s an “act of aggression”.

            Gustav: “Israel then justifiably struck Egypt,”


            Menachim Begin begged to differ, as do I.

            Egypt rattled its sabres at Israel, and in response Israel ATTACKED the Egyptian armed forces.

            The ATTACK therefore came from Israel, it did not come from Egypt.

            Which means, of course, that this statement is nonsense:

            Gustav: “Jordan then joined the war on the side of the aggressor.”

            No, actually. Jordan jointed the war on the side of the country that HAD BEEN attacked, which was…. Egypt.

            You can try and paint the pig’s face with lipstick, [Yeah Right], but the fact is that it will still be a pig’s face. The fact is that Jordan attacked Israel in 1967.

            Let me guess: you’ve never heard of “The Caroline Case”, have you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Oh dear, our amateur kangaroo court judge, Mr [Yeah Right] put his foot in his mouth again and he forgets to take it out. I won’t aim my response at him because it is just like water off a duck’s back. It just washes over him. My answer is aimed at normal people who happen to stumble onto this site (that’s not the likes of Benny, Bryan, Bruce and their ilk who spend their lives bitching here)…

            This is what the leader of Egypt yelled at the top of his voice in 1967 after he kicked out the UN peace keepers and mobilized his army around Israel’s defacto borders…

            “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight.”
            Gamel Abdel Nasser,May 3oth 1967.

            The Arab states were not joking when they promised “round 2”. Unable as yet to mount another hot war, Egypt perpetrated a legal act of war (casus beli) by closing the Straits of Tiran, thus denying Israel any access to the Far East from Eilat. Egypt also supported the fedayyin (‘redeemers’, ‘freedom fighters’), a terrorist movement in the Arab refugee camps of the Gaza strip. These terrorists perpetrated almost 9,000 attacks against Israel between 1949 and 1956, concentrating primarily on civilian targets. Hundreds of Israelis died, and thousands were injured. Israel’s policy was to retaliate by mounting ‘pin point’ attacks against Egypt’s military emplacements, rather than against the refugee camps in which the terrorists hid. Without actually adumbrating it, Israel pre-saged President Bush’s doctrine of 9/11/01: any country that harbors and abets terrorism is itself a terrorist country and thus a legitimate target in the war against terrorism. By attacking military targets (and avoiding countless civilian deaths), Israel tried to force the Egyptian government to dismantle the terrorist fedayyin. It didn’t work.

            It is important to understand that at this point Egypt had perpetrated six specific actions which, in international law, qualify as casus belli, legal justification for war.
            1. Conspiring with other belligerent countries (in this case, Syria and Jordan) for a coordinated attack
            2. Closing Israel’s access to international waterways (the straits of Tiran)
            3. Violating the terms of the 1956 armistice by re-militarizing the Sinai
            4. Expelling the UN and USA peace-keeping troops form the Sinai
            5. perpetrating illegal spy-plane fly-overs to reconnoiter Israeli sensitive areas
            6. Massing troops and tanks on Israel’s borders.

            Israel could have legally launched a defensive war after any one of these casus belli. It chose, instead to try diplomacy, which not only failed to resolve the problem, but gave Egypt and Syria time to accelerate their own preparations for a final invasion after they would force Israel’s economic collapse.

            But according to our arch propagandist, [Yeah Right], Egypt was not the aggressor in 1967? Yeah Right … (Sarcasm).

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Oh, dear, oh dear. Gustav sure can regurgitate, but he simply can not comprehend.


            Gustav: “Gamel Abdel Nasser,May 3oth 1967.”

            Sure, he said nasty things about Israel.
            Sure, he set out “our basic objective”.

            But that’s not “an act of aggression”.
            It certainly isn’t “an armed attack”.

            It is what it is: provocative, and boorish, and nasty.

            But if you can attack a country because its leader is nasty, boorish and provocative then…. well, gosh…. half the world would constantly be launching surprise attacks on the other half.

            Gustav: “The Arab states were not joking when they promised “round 2”. ”

            Well, actually, yes.. Yes, they were.

            Even Oren-of-the-blessed-book admitted that the Egyptian forces that moved into the Sinai promptly dug themselves into foxholes, they did not deploy into anything remotely resembling “jumping-off positions”.

            And this is a truism: it’s mighty hard to invade anyone from a foxhole.

            Gustav: “Unable as yet to mount another hot war, Egypt perpetrated a legal act of war (casus beli) by closing the Straits of Tiran,”

            Hmm, interesting. Gustav does appear to be admitting that Egypt was not prepared to “mount a war”. Which, in all honesty, rather ends the discussion right there.

            But he does compound his error by showing both:
            a) he does not know what a “casus belli” is, and
            b) he does not know that the navigable passage through the Straits of Tiran is entirely within Egypt territorial waters.

            And, gosh, any state is entitled to deny passage to any ship through its own territorial waters.

            Such a denial can not possibly be an “act of war”, any more than troop movements inside Egyptian territory (e.g. in the Sinai) can possibly be an “act of war”.

            States are allowed to do that, Gustav. It’s called “sovereignty”.

            Still, his ignorance doesn’t end there, of course…..

            Gustav: “thus denying Israel any access to the Far East from Eilat.”

            Untrue, actually.

            Nasser announced only that ISRAELI-FLAGGED ships would not be allowed to transit Egyptian territorial waters, and when he made that announcement he knew (as did Israel, but obviously Gustav still doesn’t) that there weren’t any ISRAELI-FLAGGED ships plying the Eilat route, and hadn’t been for several years.

            Basically, Nasser’s dastardly “act of war” consisted of this:
            a) For two days Egyptian warships would slide up alongside merchant ships and look at the flag flying on the stern. And if that flag wasn’t a Star of David (and they weren’t, see above) then the Egyptians just… let them continue on the Eilat.
            b) After two days of this the Egyptian navy got bored, and didn’t even bother going through the motions of (a).

            Because that’s the oh-so-obvious flaw in Gustav’s “casus belli” i.e. he can’t actually point to any merchant ship that was ever stopped by the Egyptians in the Strait of Tiran, much less boarded and seized by them.

            No such event ever happened, precisely because Nasser knew that he was denying passage to non-existent Israeli merchantmen.

            Nasser knew that.
            Eskhol knew that.
            I know that.
            Gustav, sadly, has only now been made aware of that.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Since our [Yeah Right] likes analogies, I’ll give him one of my own analogies…

            A known homocidal maniac confronts [Yeah Right] with a knife in his hand and starts yelling at him, “in a minute I am going to stab you to death”. Assuming [Yeah Right] owns a gun, what would he do? He says he would just start whistling and he would mind his own business because the known homocidal maniac didn’t actually attack him yet. Ok then, good on [Yeah Right] but he would end up a very dead [Yeah Right].

            Me? What would I do? I would shoot the bastard and stay alive. Moreover, any jury would let me off on the basis of self defense.

            Just for interest, in 1967, Egypt was involved in a civil war in Yemen and it used weapons of mass destruction (gas) on the rebels. It also had a history of war and terrorism against Israel. So comparing the Egyptian regime to a known homocidal maniac is very valid.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “It is important to understand that at this point Egypt had perpetrated six specific actions which, in international law, qualify as casus belli, legal justification for war.”

            Oh, dear, Gustav shows once again that he does not understand the meaning of a “casus belli”.

            After all, this all started by my pointing out that it was Israel that attacked Egypt, therefore the terms of the mutual-defence pact between Egypt and Jordan were triggered.

            And now here is Gustav blathering on about “legal justification for war” which, axiomatically, means that he admits that…. Israel attacked Egypt.

            Think about it.
            Think about it.
            Think about it.

            Because if you do then you’d understand that a country doesn’t have to shout “Casus Belli!!!” if it is attacked, it needs only shout “Help! I’m being attacked!” and it can take up arms in self-defence.

            But if it’s *you* that’s doing all that “sneak attacking” then it is imperative that *you* shout “Casus Belli!!!!” because – du’oh! – you need to at least make some attempt to justify your oh-so-obvious act of aggression.

            Get it?

            No, I’m sure you don’t, so let me spell it out:

            Shouting “Casus Belli” isn’t a shout that “They Started It!!!”.

            Far from it.

            Shouting “Casus Belli” is an admission that “Sure, we started it. But they had it comin’ to ’em!”

            Which – when you think about it (Gustav clearly doesn’t) – is a “justification” that makes absolutely no difference to a mutual-defence pact.

            Such pacts are simplicity itself:
            a) If **you** attack any one of **us** then
            b) we’ll **all** deem that attack to be
            c) an attack upon **all** of us.

            Israel attacked Egypt, and that triggered Jordan’s obligations under that pact.

            That Israel – and Gustav – shouted “They had it comin’ t’ ’em!!” as they launched into that attack made absolutely no difference, since nowhere in any mutual-defence pact will you ever find an paragraph that reads “all provisions are null and void if your ally acts like a duche-bag”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            [Yeah Right] is welcome to chortle, gosh, golly gosh and generally to feel smug and self satisfied but his task is to convince normal ordinary human beings, not his idiot bosom buddies who are just as blinkered and hateful as himself, that a country is obliged to go to extreme lengths to satisfy his unreasonable demands for restraint.

            The reality is that no country would be willing to sit on it’s hands and watch itself be strangled slowly and deliberately till it would be only a formality before it collapses economically and would be ready to be destroyed.

            Want proof of what happens when acountry ignores real threats? Then take Israel again as an example. In 1973, poor old Golda Meir, Israel’s then prime minister, allowed herself to be badgered by the big powers and not to react to obvious Egyptian and Syrian military build ups. And what nearly happened? [Yeah Right]’s wet dream nearly became a reality. Israel’s army was nearly defeated which would have meant the destruction of the Jewish state. The only reason Israel was saved, was because Israel at that stage still controlled the Sinai which meant that Israel was not open for the taking (it had strategic depth) and it therefore had time to mobilize it’s reserves and turn the war around.

            But in 1967, Israel’s defacto border at it’s narrowest point was only 15 miles wide. So had Israel not maintained it’s citizen army along the border indefinitely, then Israel could have been cut in half within a matter of minutes.

            On the other hand, if it’s citizen army would remain mobilized, then sooner or later it’s economy would have collapsed, especially if one adds to it the effects of the blockade of international waterways.

            Egypt’s leader knew all that. And that is the game which he was playing. Unfortunately for him though, he underestimated Israel’s determination to survive. And now, our enemies like [Yeah Right], spit, spew and protest. They say; No fair … Israel wasn’t playing fair… it should have allowed itself to be slaughtered. But the response of sane people to that, is just laughter.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “The reality is that no country would be willing to sit on it’s hands and watch itself be strangled slowly and deliberately till it would be only a formality before it collapses economically and would be ready to be destroyed.”

            Oh, sure, I’ve heard this one before: Israel’s patented excuse for War-By-Bundy.

            It goes like this: Israel’s economy was at a standstill because every able-bodied man had been mobilized (and, on that note, isn’t it odd that Gustav never mentions that ISRAEL had troops massed on EGYPT’s borders?), and since every one of those men needed to be back at work by next Monday then, well, why wait around?

            Something like that, hey, Gustav?

            Gustav: “Want proof of what happens when acountry ignores real threats? Then take Israel again as an example. In 1973, poor old Golda Meir, Israel’s then prime minister, allowed herself to be badgered by the big powers and not to react to obvious Egyptian and Syrian military build ups. And what nearly happened? [Yeah Right]‘s wet dream nearly became a reality. Israel’s army was nearly defeated which would have meant the destruction of the Jewish state.”


            The military objectives of both Egypt and Syria in 1973 was very strictly limited to regaining their OWN territory. You know, territory that had the IDF’s Big Fat Arse sitting on it while the Israelis were busy colonizing both territories.

            With that Very Important Point in mind…..

            Gustav: “The only reason Israel was saved, was because Israel at that stage still controlled the Sinai which meant that Israel was not open for the taking (it had strategic depth) and it therefore had time to mobilize it’s reserves and turn the war around.”

            Oh, dear, oh dear.

            Gustav doesn’t appear to realize that Israel was sitting on EGYPTIAN and SYRIAN territory, and that Meir was dismissive of any plan that would presuppose that the IDF would ever lift its Big Fat Arse off those territories.

            Meir was far, far to busy with her other plan, which was the colonization of both the Sinai and the Golan.

            So bust, indeed, that she never paid any attention to the fact that the Sinai and the Golan actually belonged to Someone Else.

            Honestly, Gustav, you are a hoot.

            Q: Why did Egypt and Syria attack the IDF in 1973?
            A: Because the IDF was doing something that Egypt and Syria objected to.

            Q: And that would be….?
            A: The IDF was encamped inside Egypt and Syria and was refusing to leave.

            Can’t imagine how anyone could possibly see that as a “casus belli” for the Egyptians and the Syrians.

            Can you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right


            Gustav can be damned funny sometimes. Here, witness the hi-larity….

            Gustav: “1. Conspiring with other belligerent countries (in this case, Syria and Jordan) for a coordinated attack”

            Oh, gosh, so Egypt, Syria and Jordan co-ordinated their military planning?

            Man, isn’t that an excuse to atta…. oh, wait, no, it isn’t.

            Any alliance of any worth has contingency plans for any eventuality, and the existence of such plans do not a “casus belli” make.

            And, well, heck, the troop concentrations in both the Sinai and the Golan were deployed in “defence in depth” i.e. dug into defensive positions. They were most definitely in no position to “attack” (coordinated or otherwise)and nobody – but nobody, not the IDF, nor the USAF – had seen the slightest sign that those troops were moving out of those foxholes.

            Gustav” 2. Closing Israel’s access to international waterways (the straits of Tiran)”

            The Strait of Tiran was not an “international waterway”, since the navigable part of that Strait is entirely within Egyptian territorial waters.

            Gustav: “3. Violating the terms of the 1956 armistice by re-militarizing the Sinai”

            Riiiiiight. And that’s an “act of war”… err.. how, exactly?

            After all, one thing we can both agree on is that the Sinai is Egyptian territory, correct?

            Gustav: “4. Expelling the UN and USA peace-keeping troops form the Sinai”

            Annnnnnd, again, how is that an “act of war”?

            Note also that the purpose of those peacekeepers could be equally met by redeploying them to the ISRAELI side of that border, which the UN Secretary General proposed and Eshkol promptly rejected.

            Gustav: “5. perpetrating illegal spy-plane fly-overs to reconnoiter Israeli sensitive areas”

            Hmm, you do know that the USAF did exactly the same thing?

            And that Israel – to this very day – does exactly the same thing to Lebanese airspace?

            You **do** know that all three events are equally illegal, but only one of those three is seen by you to be a “casus belli” to launch a sneak attack.

            Gustav: “6. Massing troops and tanks on Israel’s borders.”

            Well, no, actually. Massing troops **in** the Sinai and **in** the Golan Heights is not at all the same thing as massing troops **on** Israel’s borders.

            Neither the Egyptian Army nor the Syrian Army “massed” anything on Israel’s border.

            They rushed troops into the Sinai and the Golan, and once they were rushed in there they…. dug in. Deep.

            Again, that ol’ saying rings true: it’s darn hard to invade anyone from a foxhole.

            Your arguments ring false, Gustav. All of them.

            Here, let me help you out by giving you a little homework: look up “The Caroline Case” and learn about the conditions that have to be met before any country can claim “anticipatory self-defence”.

            Learn about those conditions, and then compare them against your “Big Six”.

            Do that, and you’ll see that not one of them meets the necessary criteria established in that landmark declaratory exposition of customary humanitarian law.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Anyone honest just needs to read my post again about the 6 points which I mentioned. Put them together and they can make up their own minds.

            As for what [Yeah Right] says, this is how it pans out…

            What? Open threats about a war? That does not count…

            What, a blockade of an international waterway which isn’t a private Egyptian waterway? That does not count…

            What, breaking a signed treaty of allowing peace keeping troops along the Egyptian side of the border? That does not count…

            What, lining up troops along three of Israel’s borders and continually reinforcing them? Nah, that does not count either…

            What, probing cross border attacks by Fedayeen? Nah that does not count…

            In the meanwhile, the obvious plan of the Arabs was to tie up Israel’s citizen army, grind Israel’s economy with the blockade and lead it to economic collapse. Then attack and even then, [Yeah Right] would say, that would not constitute aggression by Egypt.

            Soooooo, what does a normal person do with such obviously biased opinions? We put them where they belong, into the WPB and we laugh them off.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Anyone honest just needs to read my post again about the 6 points which I mentioned. Put them together and they can make up their own minds.”

            Poor thing. He still hasn’t read up on the importance of The Caroline Case, and is therefore still ignorant of the criteria for a claim of “anticipatory self-defence”.

            Witness, yet again….

            Gustav: “What? Open threats about a war? That does not count”

            No, that doesn’t count. Rattling your sabre is a time-honoured tradition, Gustav, one that Israel indulges in All The Time.

            Gustav: “What, a blockade of an international waterway which isn’t a private Egyptian waterway?”

            Except that (a) the Strait if Tiran is not an international waterway, and (b) the navigable portion is entirely within Egypt’s territorial waters and (c) no ship was ever “blocked” by Egypt en-route to Eilat.

            Now, so sorry, that’s the second time I’ve pointed that out to Gustav, and all he does is slap his hands over his ears and mutter “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you”.

            Dude, do your research and you’ll see that I am perfectly correct on all three points: it’s not an int’l waterway, the passage passes entirely within Egyptian waters, and in 1967 the Egyptians never once blocked a ship from traversing it.

            Gustav: “What, breaking a signed treaty of allowing peace keeping troops along the Egyptian side of the border? That does not count”

            Count for what, exactly? There was no “treaty”, merely an agreement between Egypt and the UN that the Egyptians would allow peacekeepers to be stationed in the Sinai.

            Annnnnnd? The Egyptians are perfectly at liberty to withdraw their permission, at which point the UN blue helmets have to leave.

            UN Peacekeepers aren’t an army of occupation, dude. They always require the permission of the host country, and if that permission is withheld (Israel) or withdrawn (Egypt) then the Peacekeepers go home.

            Honestly, you have no idea what you are talking about.

            Gustav: “What, lining up troops along three of Israel’s borders and continually reinforcing them? Nah, that does not count either…”

            Ahem. One more time, because this never gets old: neither the Egyptian nor the Syrian troops were “lined up along Israel’s borders”.

            In both cases the troops who were deployed were deployed “in depth”, in accordance with classic Soviet defensive doctrine.

            The USAF could *see* that, and they told the Israelis exactly that, so let’s stop this nonsense that those armies were coiled up like a spring ready to launch themselves into Israel.

            They weren’t. They fully expected to be attacked **by** Israel, precisely because they were absolutely convinced that the IDF was determined to start a war.

            Which, of course, the Israelis were.

            Gustav: “What, probing cross border attacks by Fedayeen? Nah that does not count…”

            Oh, please, spare me the nonsense…..

            Gustav: “In the meanwhile, the obvious plan of the Arabs was to tie up Israel’s citizen army,”….

            ….. and, there it is: Israel’s patented War-By-Bundy.

            Those brave, brave Israeli boys had to be back at work by next Monday, so what’s an innocent country like Israel expected to do?

            Oh, yeah, that’s right: launch a sneak attack Pearl-Harbor-Style and then follow it up with an armoured assault, Blitzkrieg-Style.

            Nice style you guys have, though I’ll note that the irony appears to have escaped you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            [Yeah Right]:”You believe that peace is impossible because the Palestinians have “a process” to “prevent” something that already exists.”

            You can’t even bring yourself to say what you mean by “something that already exists”. Go on, [Yeah Right], repeat after me, “Israel the nation state of the Jewish people”. See? It wasn’t that hard. You CAN say it.

            [Yeah Right]:”Odd, that.”

            Yea it is odd isn’t it? The extraordinary dedication of the Palestinian Arabs to try to first prevent the Jewish state from coming to existence (in 1947). Then their persistent attempts to try to destroy the Jewish state by various tactics after we came into existence. They have been at it for about 100 years already…

            [Yeah Right]:”But it wouldn’t sound at all odd to a psychiatrist – they would very quickly recognize that as “projection”, even if you want to pretend otherwise.”

            Projection? We already offered them the opportunity to establish their Palestinian Arab state in 1947, in 2000, in 2001 and in 2008. But at every turn, they reacted with violence or ignored the opportunity.

            Honestly, [Yeah Right], haven’t you been reading my posts? Don’t you know anything?

            Talking about psychiatric conditions, you might want to consult a shrink. There is a condition known as denial and compulsive lying and distortion. You seem to suffer from it.

            Reply to Comment
    4. Average American

      This article is about law. But not democratic law, not international law. Jewish law. That is the law of the land in The Jewish State. People should not be surprised to see it in action. Jews are not a religion, they are a people, a race. Jewish law applies differently to the Jewish race than to non-Jewish races. That fits the definition of racism. Jewish law makes the astounding assertion that all of the (undefined) Land Of Israel already belongs to The Jews and those other people just need to get out of the way.

      Reply to Comment
      • New Relic

        Great, his tool,again.

        This guys conspiracy theories rival those of Bryan who had the Jews on the suspect list of killing Kennedy. Ironically, Bryan is the same guy who denies that anti-Semitism exists

        Reply to Comment
    5. Ben

      “The outposts are approved, as Ya’alon admitted, by the defense and prime ministers.”

      Just a few weeks ago one of these extreme right wing guys here tried to tell us that the settlements were established against the state’s wishes, that the govt opposed them. Yes he really said this. No shame in their game.

      “just a settlement here, or an outpost there…just kid stuff”

      Shameless. I’d like to see Gustav’s reaction to the “kid stuff” of someone stealing his home. And his neighbor’s home. And his district’s water supply. Bit by bit, “a settlement here an outpost there.” La dee dah. Such kid stuff. What better exemplifies the pathologies of the hard right? An obvious contradiction: it’s just kid stuff yet the Israeli Defense Minister and his settler minions are absolutely obsessed with this mere kid stuff. Odd, that. Gustav would have us believe that the settlements are an afterthought, a triviality, a detail. Child’s play. To the settlers and the state apparatus that meticulously feeds them however it’s no game. It’s deadly serious. It’s the most careful, organized, conniving, scheming, grasping, obsessive, unrelenting thing the state does. It sets records in these categories.

      Some brief statistics on “kid stuff”:



      Reply to Comment
    6. Ben

      Note the “Civilian Israeli security guards” backed by the uniformed troop “try[ing] to stop Palestinians from working their land in the West Bank village of Sinjil, near the Israeli outpost of Givat Haro’e” in the photo above. Note the pudgy bearded guy in the skull cap and casual wear (blessed by God he thinks? Oh yeah) packing the ugly assault weapon and with the demeanor of a master. This is ugly. Somehow these photos never trouble the hasbarists.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Ugly? Huh, Brian er Benny or whatever your real name is? You want ugly? Then these are ugly…

        – War is ugly
        – Hatred is ugly
        – Bias is ugly
        – Lies are ugly
        – Distortion is ugly
        – Hypocrisy is ugly

        Recognize yourselves? And recognize too that ugliness begets ugliness!

        Reply to Comment
    7. Click here to load previous comments