[GHook93]

Quote by: e_sistani According to Israel, it carried out a preemptive attack on Syria and Jordan, while the naval blockade by Egypt served as a war trigger. However, you are missing other facts such as the reason why Egypt carried out the blockade and the supposed shelling of the Israeli cities in the first place. Reasons being are that Israel had ongoing tensions with its neighboring nations prior to the war such as the National Water Carrier Crisis in which Israel attacked Syria and that served as a leading event to the war, as for the latter’s attacks on civilians it only came after Israel’s ongoing harassments to the Syrian farmers in the demilitarized zone, Syria therefore had to take actions against the harassments. Moshe Dayan, the Israeli defense minister at the time of the war, stated: After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: 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. As you can see, Israel was intentionally causing provocations to Syria.

That is a very typical way to twist the facts. The Egyptian government consistently talked about pushing Israel into the sea and Jordan and Egypt launch constant terrorist attacks from the Gaza and the WB. Then all the countries that were attacked in '67 had massive troop build up preparing for a genocidial invasion. Of the hyprocritical anti-semites on the left like to twist the facts and state that Israel should have done nothing and they would have been fine. Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon were committing acts of war. If Israel didn't attack we would be talking about the 2nd Holocaust today!

In 1966, Egypt and Syria signed a defense pact whereby each country would support the other if it were attacked, thus the reason why Egypt had to go back on it’s on pact of Tiran strains being an international water way and resort to naval blockade so it could support Syria in its war with Israel.

You say defense pact as if that was what it was! LOL this was a military pact with intentions on destroying Israel! Call a spad a spad!

Yes there was but not as much as the Arabs, the Arabs were the majority back then, only few of the Jews existed at that time.

Jews were the majority in Jerusalem in 1866! Also you of course will ignore that rapid Arab immigration at the being of the 1900s. Many of the the Palestinians are just 2nd or 3rd generation Arab immigrates to the lands. There was rapid and numerous Arab immigration during the British White Paper era. Also while the Turks ruled the lands, the lands were pretty sparsely populated and really just empty desert lands.

I do, only that they were the occupiers of Roman land, they took the land from the Romans, but again let’s not forget that the Jews were occupiers of the land as well, they took it from the indigenous inhabitants the Canaanites.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL, nice way to put on spin on thinks, bravo!

At least the Arabs did not take the land from the Jews.

Bravo another good spin to justify things! The Arabs took 1 million Jewish homes and property in 1948, yet you will ignore that because it doesn't serve your point. Also the Arabs took many peoples lands. The Arabs conquers North Africa, the Middle East, Iran and push all the way into west Asia. It is not a concidence that all of the predominately Muslim countries were victims of the Arab Crusades. They even pushed into Spain. The only reason Spain is not majority Muslim is because of the inquisition. If the Franks hadn't stopped the Muslim Crusaders, then there would be a different story today.

It was the Romans, 29-614 AD : Byzantine (Roman) rule was interrupted , however , by a brief Persian occupation and ended altogether when Muslim Arab armies invaded Palestine and captured Jerusalem in AD 638 .

Persian with the Jewish conquered Palestinian briefly!
Coicidential it was in 124 AD that they Roman changed the name to Palestine as punishment for the 2nd Jewish revolt, yet the Arabs who arrived half a century later took the name Palestinians.

There is a scheme, many of the Fundamentalist Jews are seeking the day when the entire of Israel like they claim would be theirs , as it says in the Bible : 'To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates'.

Yet in '48 they were ready to give up half of Israel and have tried to do so many times since. Even today they Jews are ready to give up the West Bank were many Jewish relics are such as Joseph and Esters Tombs (which the Palestinians repeatedly vandalize).

There have been lots of schemes to actually try and build the temple, I have seen documentaries about it long ago, of course it’s not a wise move to do it now, not with the ongoing tension. you can google the third temple and you'll see that there exists many organizations and societies that actually root for building the third temple.

LOL None that have gained any real momentum! If Israel wanted to do it, she would have already done it. The biggest callers for the 3rd Temple are Evanganical Christians. They believe the 3rd Temple will trigger end of days!