posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 08:52 PM
Your link classifies both the Suez War and the Six Days War as Israeli attacks. I have three pieces of advice for you.
1. Present better commentary on your links. You post is little more than a link in my opinion violates the spirit of our rules against copy and paste.
You should have just outlined your points a bit and taken some time to preach your opinion. I'd rather be discussing your analysis instead of just
discussing the link you gave.
2. Stop relying on whichever ignoramus is behind this link. Look into things for yourself. Be inquisitive. Be a scholar. Question everything. Deny
3. Have a basic grounding in history so that you can spot lies when they are fed to you.
The Suez War was primarily Anglo-French, not Israeli, and the primary justification of Israel's involvement (which was little more than a cover story
for Anglo-French objectives of securing the Suez for oil trade as the traditional excuse of it as a route to recently independent India was gone) was
that 1. Egypt was imposing a blockade on Israel in the Gulf of Aqaba. 2. "Fedayeen" were launching raids into Israel from Egypt. By the way- Egypt
no longer had any significant financial interest in the Suez at that time. France had financed the construction and Britain had mostly bought Egypt
out of it. Nasser's nationalization of the Canal in retaliation to US opposition to the Aswan Dam was completely inappropriate.
As for the Six Day Smackdown- Read the encyclopedia and you tell me who attacked whom.
in 1957, at the UN, 17 maritime powers declared that Israel had a right to transit the Straits of Tiran. Moreover, the Egyptian blockade prior
to the 1956 Suez War possibly violated customary international law
Several years later, in response to Israel's construction of the National Water Carrier, Syria initiated a plan to divert the waters of the
Dan/Baniyas stream so that the water would not enter Israel
Syria also began shelling Israeli civilian communities in north-eastern Galilee
the border remained a scene of constant conflict
n 1966, Egypt and Syria signed a military alliance, initiated for both sides if either were to go to war. On April 7, 1967, a minor border incident
escalated into a full-scale aerial battle over the Golan Heights, resulting in the loss of seven Syrian MiG-21s to Israeli Air Force (IAF)
Egypt, then already trying to seize a central position in the Arab world under Nasser, accompanied these declarations with plans to re-militarize the
he Soviet Union actively backed the military needs of the Arab states. It was later revealed that on 13 May a Soviet intelligence report falsely
claimed that Israeli troops were massing along the Syrian border.
On May 23, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran (Israel's main shipping route to the south and particularly for oil) to Israeli shipping, and blockaded
the Israeli port of Eilat at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba.
President Nasser, who had called King Hussein an "imperialist lackey" just days earlier, declared: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of
Israel. The Arab people want to fight." 
Last but not least- you say "look how it all focuses on the middle east". No- it doesn't. Everything at that link does- that's the webmaster's
doing. How could you possibly claim that all terrorism etc centers on the middle east when the first battle of the war on terror was fought in
Southern Asia, and the second (albeit a very minor often overlook one) was against Abu Sayaaf in the Pacific?
You've take a couple of things together and say "it all works together and points to Israel", or something to that effect. Let me tell you a story.
There was a man who every morning opened his bible to two random verses, read them, and applied them to his life that day. One day the first verse was
"And Judas hanged himself". Then he opened up to a different page for himself to get his second verse, and the verse he found was "Jesus said, "go
ye and do the same".
Should that man have hanged himself just because he took a few totally separte, things from different contexts and jammed them together? That's what
your link is doing. Just stacking things up out of context to make a nonsense argument.