[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why you think they are incorrect. If you can provide links to the contrary go ahead. I'll go down the line:
Here's a basic reference point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_conflict
"The side that was mostly Jewish residents was made into Isreal, and the side that most mostly Arabs was made into Palestine."
At the time of partition the whole region was 1/3 Jewish and 2/3 Arab (remeber, huge numbers of Jews had immigrated to Isreal over the last 50 years, and more were comming). Isreal was to take 55% of available land, but the vast majority of it was uninhabited desert in the south.
[/ QUOTE ]
The original sentence was crap, geographically and it implied that the partition was perfectly rational and fair. Jewish immigrants were 1/3 of the population and owned 6% of the land; they got 55% of the land incuding the most fertile coast land, while the large desert section you called worthless was intensely lobbied for by the Jewish representatives in the UN debate. It allowed access to a key strategic port. There were no Jews even living there, but Jewish and American lobbying won out. We had senators and even justices calling heads of state to coerce them into accepting a partition that: a) the whole Middle East continent was opposed to and would fight to prevent and b) no outside power would enforce, making it not peacefully feasible.
[ QUOTE ]
From the map you can tell that the partition palestine is much larger then the current west bank and gaza strip. Most of Isreal proper was sparsely inhabited desert in the south that niether side used. The rest of Isreal roughly follows where the Jews had settlements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
"The land that was suppose to be Palestine was conquered by Jordan and Eqypt."
It was, there is no dispute to be had here. Check the main source I listed at the beginning.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well yes some of it, but your statement was still not accurate; it implied that Israel stuck to its boundaries. You say that "from the map you can tell that the partition palestine is much larger then the current west bank and gaza strip" and yet these are essentially the areas Jordan and Egypt controlled in 1949. What happened to the rest of the "much larger partition Palestine" I wonder?
[ QUOTE ]
"The terms of the earlier UN treaty were broken by Eqypt who allied itself with Syria and Jordan who all built up large military forces to invade Isreal."
following the Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran (a casus belli, according to a possible interpretation of international law), a build up of troops along the Syrian border, expulsion of U.N. peacekeepers from the Sinai, stationing some 100,000 Egyptian troops at the peninsula, and a public announcement by Nasser that he intended to destroy Israel.
"The goal was [to] the same as it was in 1948 and other times, kill every Jew in Isreal."
These quotes would be easy to find. They won't be hidden, the constant call for the destruction of Isreal has been uttered in every Arab country since 1947. Recentely it was the loudly proclaimed official policy on Iran's democratically elected president.
But here's a quick one from 1947:
"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." (by Abdul Rahman Hassan Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, in anticipation of victory over the new Jewish state in 1948 by the five invading Arab armies.
"suppose to be the nuetral"
As part of the 1956 peace agreement. The UN stationed a peacekeeping force there. Eqypt expelled it and stationed its own troops there for an invasion.
[/ QUOTE ]
The Israeli attack against Egypt was not a pre-emptive war. Nasser did close the Strait to Israeli shipping, but despite the rhetoric there was no invasion planned and Egypt planned to negotiate with the US to engineer a political victory. Israel invaded because this was deemed preferable to a Egyption political victory. Argument for preventative war or justified war are presentable (although still not acceptable) but arguments that 1967 was a pre-emptive war are downright laughable.
Don't bother replying with a Nasser quote along the lines of "drive them into the sea" or what not. He sent the troop into the Sinai in defensive posture, mistaken into thinking they could hold against Israeli attackers but knowing an invasion would certainly fail. He held them there for 2 weeks while sending negotiators to the States; why the hell was he waiting/negotiating if he wanted to invade?
Was it a justified attack on Israel's part? That is a tougher question, but still clearly the answer to that is no.
[ QUOTE ]
"[note: Israel had significant military superiority over 3 adversaries]"
Isreal was outnumbered in manpower, tanks, equipment, economies and populations of its enemies. Eqypt had a large modern air force and nearly all the Arab states had been trained and supplied by the Soviet Union. Isreal was outnumbered and outgunned as it was in 1947-48, and succeeded only through its own cunning strategy and the complete incompetence and uncoordination of its foes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Regardless, US intelligence predicted an easy victory for Israel against all 3 Arab states.