The 1967 War

mbig said:

Dude..
If the Soviet Intel was Wrong,

Click to expand...

He is not talking about Soviet intel, he has already told you that.You do not even know what he is on about as you are not well read on this subject.

mbig said:

And Certainly NOT an excuse or threat or "Major attack" for Nasser to close the Straights of Tiran, as you Initially/wrongly alleged.

Click to expand...

It was a planned major attack.You can tell that from the claims that they wanted to topple the Syrian government.As for your starights of trian, you do not even know what they are called.It is the Strait of Tiran and it was only closed for 2-3 days and that was about a week before the war even started.People who support Israel always seem to be the ones who know the least about this war, all they do is repeat what Israel claims.

Now others have studied this subject indepth and know more than you do.First off you did not have a clue what the other poster was talking about when he stated that Israel planned an attack on Syria, you thought it had something to do with the Soviet intel but it did not and when shown the error of your ways you then had to try and compare major and minor conflicts which is not the argument but is all you could come up with to try and avoid further embarrassment and you failed.

The debate here is the 6 day war and it is clear that the Israelis were planning to attack Syria and thus the Syrians, Egyptians and Jordanian who had defence agreements sent soldiers to their borders and then Israel using that as an excuse attacked.

Israel was in the wrong not Egypt or Nasser etc, they were just defending their country and friends from a supposed Israeli attack.

From Finkelstein a well known scholar on the subject:

Things then start deteriorating between Israel and the Syrians. Come the beginning of May Israel is making clear that it’s going to engage in a large scale strike against Syria.

Says large scale attack and I am going to believe him over you as he has written best selling books on the subject.You can read the full build up to the war here, you ignored it before.
Norman G. Finkelstein » Finkelstein on the June 1967 war

mbig said:

Dude..
If the Soviet Intel was Wrong, then Israel was NOT preparing a "Major attack" as you Wrongly allege.
And as I showed with MY Wiki link.
It doesn't matter if you were referring to Soviet Intel or not.
The FACT of the matter was that statement was shown Wrong. No matter who made it.
Israel was NOT planning a "Major attack".
(or the Soviets/anyone else would have been right)


And as I showed with MY wiki link, this was Incorrect.

Now you seek to Fudge it and move on to a previous lesser issue which in no way was "Israel planning a Major attack on Syria"


Which is NOT a "Major" attack as you alleged in your first post and only "contingent on continued Syrian terrorism".
And Certainly NOT an excuse or threat or "Major attack" for Nasser to close the Straights of Tiran, as you Initially/wrongly alleged.

Busted again.

This is typical Disingenuous DoL tactics to try and cover his first Wrong statement/attempted perversion of history.

As to my sources, I'll not only match mine against yours, but let's match who even backs their statements at all with Links as a percent of posts.
Because just one of your sneaky methods, as I just proved/outed again, is to Cherry Pick Wiki and then not even post it.
(until, as now, I force your hand)

Click to expand...

Read that a little more carefully:

The toughest threat was reported by the news agency United Press International (UPI) on 12 May: 'A high Israeli source said today that Israel would take limited military action designed to topple the Damascus army regime if Syrian terrorists continue sabotage raids inside Israel.

Click to expand...

Aiming to topple a government is pretty major in my opinion and here are the parts you left out:

Military observers said such an offensive would fall short of all-out war but would be mounted to deliver a telling blow against the Syrian government.' In the West as well as the Arab world the immediate assumption was that the unnamed source was Rabin and that he was serious. In fact, it was Brigadier-General Aharon Yariv, the head of military intelligence, and the story was overwritten. Yariv mentioned 'an all-out invasion of Syria and conquest of Damascus' but only as the most extreme of a range of possibilities. But the damage had been done. Tension was so high that most people, and not just the Arabs, assumed that something much bigger than usual was being planned against Syria.

Click to expand...

So, in fact, the Egyptians were responding to Israeli preparations for a major attack on Syria. Mind you, Israel had already previously stated that such attacks were likely to occur.

Alternatively, and in the Majority, you'd have to find a site that would agree with your Preposterous BS, and quote a Laughable source/hate/conspiracy site.. so you understandably Don't use links very often.

Click to expand...

Oh for ****'s sake, I have never used any hate site or conspiracy site. My sources are almost always major mainstream media outlets or major sites that would, if anything, be biased towards Israel.

Che feel free to point out which one of these historic facts is incorrect :

1-Syria and Egypt massed their armies on Israel’s border on May 15, 1967;

2-Nasser ordered the UN Emegency force out of Sinai on May 16, 1967 and then this statement was broadcast on the Voice of the Arabs May 18, 1967:

“As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.”

3-on May 20, 1967, Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad stated:

“Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

4-on May 22, 1967, Egypt closed the Straits of Iran only to Israeli shipping blocking all ships bound for Eilat, Israel blocking Israel’s only supply route to Asia and preventing oil shipments coming in from Iran.
Interestingly Che for someone who now argues that Israel occupies Gaza because it the smuggling of weapons into Gaza you seem to have no problem with what Egypt did as being tatamount to an act of war or occupation. Why the double standard?

5-Nasser stated on May 27, 1967: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight," then stated on May 28, 1967: "We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."

6-after King Hussein of Jordan signed a military pact with Nasser on May 30, he announced the following:

“The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.”

This statement was then followed by one from the President of Iraq (Abdur Rahman) who then stated:

" The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."

6-The Arab League of nations amassed 250,000 troops of which about 50% of those were in the Sinai including more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft leading up to the 1967 war as the above comments were being announced.

What Che in the above is false? Would you care to point out how the above comments and actions above and many more by Nasser et al prior to Israel’s strike are not public domain and are simply false and created by Zionists.

Please share the experts who claim 1-6 are untrue.

Please explain how blockading Israel was not an act of war or how telling it amassing troops on its border to wipe it out were all harmless and Israel should have just sat their doing nothing.

No matter what you do, Israel is just a small country...of jews...you can be all like "Ah! they made war against the Arabs! they kill people! oh noes! We should do something! We need a solution to the israelis problem!" and etc but, in the end, last time i checked the arabs are several times more powerful than the israelis, and have an army that could destroy everyone in israel in a mass genocide, all in the name of a completely legit quest to take back land that belonged first, to the palestinians. Hell, they even have nuclear weapons(pakistan at least)!

So...let the arabs/muslims/w.e. take care of it. If they succede, then you're right and, oh well, israel doesnt get to exist. If the Jews win and Israel continues to exist miraculously, then apparantly, there indeed is a god and he favors them. And who is anyone to argue against a god?

So what's the point? Just sit back watch the movie.

Mika-El said:

Che feel free to point out which one of these historic facts is incorrect :

1-Syria and Egypt massed their armies on Israel’s border on May 15, 1967;

2-Nasser ordered the UN Emegency force out of Sinai on May 16, 1967 and then this statement was broadcast on the Voice of the Arabs May 18, 1967:

“As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.”

3-on May 20, 1967, Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad stated:

“Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

4-on May 22, 1967, Egypt closed the Straits of Iran only to Israeli shipping blocking all ships bound for Eilat, Israel blocking Israel’s only supply route to Asia and preventing oil shipments coming in from Iran.
Interestingly Che for someone who now argues that Israel occupies Gaza because it the smuggling of weapons into Gaza you seem to have no problem with what Egypt did as being tatamount to an act of war or occupation. Why the double standard?

5-Nasser stated on May 27, 1967: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight," then stated on May 28, 1967: "We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."

6-after King Hussein of Jordan signed a military pact with Nasser on May 30, he announced the following:

“The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.”

This statement was then followed by one from the President of Iraq (Abdur Rahman) who then stated:

" The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."

6-The Arab League of nations amassed 250,000 troops of which about 50% of those were in the Sinai including more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft leading up to the 1967 war as the above comments were being announced.

What Che in the above is false? Would you care to point out how the above comments and actions above and many more by Nasser et al prior to Israel’s strike are not public domain and are simply false and created by Zionists.

Please share the experts who claim 1-6 are untrue.

Please explain how blockading Israel was not an act of war or how telling it amassing troops on its border to wipe it out were all harmless and Israel should have just sat their doing nothing.

Click to expand...

would it then be fair to say that israel - by its present embargo of gaza - is engaging in warfare against the Palestinians?

justabubba said:

would it then be fair to say that israel - by its present embargo of gaza - is engaging in warfare against the Palestinians?

Click to expand...

defensive yes. After all, Hamas, a terrorist organization which had been a rejectionist terrorist organization for years before taking/gaining power, controls that territory and used it to launch numerous attacks againbst Israeli civilians.

So yes, the embargo is a form of warfare, but is easily justified by the general douchebaggery of Hamas, their goals and their methods.

As long as we're highlighting the parts of the quote that mbig out, I think we should do the same for you.

Demon of Light said:

Military observers said such an offensive would fall short of all-out war but would be mounted to deliver a telling blow against the Syrian government.' In the West as well as the Arab world the immediate assumption was that the unnamed source was Rabin and that he was serious. In fact, it was Brigadier-General Aharon Yariv, the head of military intelligence, and the story was overwritten. Yariv mentioned 'an all-out invasion of Syria and conquest of Damascus' but only as the most extreme of a range of possibilities. But the damage had been done. Tension was so high that most people, and not just the Arabs, assumed that something much bigger than usual was being planned against Syria.

Click to expand...

Jeezy said:

As long as we're highlighting the parts of the quote that mbig out, I think we should do the same for you.

Click to expand...

Typical response. The reality is it was not some falsehood but something they were considering and preparing for. Do you really think Egypt or Syria would not consider the most extreme possibility being the plan that is ultimately implemented?

Demon of Light said:

Typical response. The reality is it was not some falsehood but something they were considering and preparing for. Do you really think Egypt or Syria would not consider the most extreme possibility being the plan that is ultimately implemented?

Click to expand...

You're missing the point.

Your quote states, quite clearly, that the story was overwritten. In the article itself, Yariv's reponse was not presented as "...and this is the most extreme , yet also the most unlikely scenario." Nasser didn't read that article and echo your argument by saying, "...well of course we're going to prepare for the most extreme, yet also the most unlikely scenario!" He read a botched article that implied invasion was the probable course of action.

In other words, at least in the instance you are currently citing, Israel was not the provocateur; yellow journalism was. You're using the quote to suggest that Israel was the real aggressor, and Egypt massing it's army was itself preemptive, therefore justifying it. In reality, Arab paranoia and faulty sources were to blame for inflating a contingency plan that Israel probably had for years, and that several nations have for various foreign policy rainy days. Do you think we aren't "considering and preparing" for Iran? We are. But that doesn't make invasion likely, does it? And it certainly would be irresponsible for a journalist to suggest that the 101st Airborne is on its way to Tehran, wouldn't it? I haven't read the article in question, but neither have you. I'm just going by what your quote says, and judging by that alone, you are misinterpreting your own evidence.

Jeezy said:

You're missing the point.

Your quote states, quite clearly, that the story was overwritten. In the article itself, Yariv's reponse was not presented as "...and this is the most extreme , yet also the most unlikely scenario." Nasser didn't read that article and echo your argument by saying, "...well of course we're going to prepare for the most extreme, yet also the most unlikely scenario!" He read a botched article that implied invasion was the probable course of action.

In other words, at least in the instance you are currently citing, Israel was not the provocateur; yellow journalism was. You're using the quote to suggest that Israel was the real aggressor, and Egypt massing it's army was itself preemptive, therefore justifying it. In reality, Arab paranoia and faulty sources were to blame for inflating a contingency plan that Israel probably had for years, and that several nations have for various foreign policy rainy days. Do you think we aren't "considering and preparing" for Iran? We are. But that doesn't make invasion likely, does it? And it certainly would be irresponsible for a journalist to suggest that the 101st Airborne is on its way to Tehran, wouldn't it? I haven't read the article in question, but neither have you. I'm just going by what your quote says, and judging by that alone, you are misinterpreting your own evidence.

Click to expand...

Not only has he mischaracterized a "limited military action" into a "major attack" (self-impeached), he has failed to present any linkage of Nasser closing the Straits of Tiran with any threat, major or minor, against Syria.
That was his main claim, which remains Unbacked by any source; including the much quoted Wiki page.

Mika-El said:

Please explain how blockading Israel was not an act of war or how telling it amassing troops on its border to wipe it out were all harmless and Israel should have just sat their doing nothing.

Click to expand...

You are talking about the closure of the Strait of Tiran, the Strait was shut for just 2-3 days.It was opened for 6 days before the war even started which says that Israel saying that as an excuse for war is a standing joke but Israeli supporters will believe anything.It has already been explained why troops were on the borders, try reading it and learn.

Jeezy said:

In reality, Arab paranoia and faulty sources were to blame for inflating a contingency plan that Israel probably had for years, and that several nations have for various foreign policy rainy days. Do you think we aren't "considering and preparing" for Iran? We are. But that doesn't make invasion likely, does it?

Click to expand...

Sorry bud, but this is another point where you are getting it wrong:

In early May, however, as Arab attacks mounted on the northern border, the Israeli Cabinet authorized the army to launch a limited retaliation against Syria. Rabin reiterated his demand for a large-scale raid to thoroughly discredit, if not topple, the Ba'th regime.

Click to expand...

Source: Six days of war: June 1967 and the making of the modern Middle East

Oh, and before you try and cherry-pick one part of that quote to try and argue against me, be aware that I have sources to contradict anything you cherry-pick.

mbig said:

Not only has he mischaracterized a "limited military action" into a "major attack" (self-impeached), he has failed to present any linkage of Nasser closing the Straits of Tiran with any threat, major or minor, against Syria.
That was his main claim, which remains Unbacked by any source; including the much quoted Wiki page.

Click to expand...

Oh, did you want information that specifically shows Nasser did this because of said threat? Why didn't you say so?:

On May 12 a very impertinent statement was made. Anyone reading this statement must believe that these people are so boastful and deceitful that one simply cannot remain silent. The statement said that the Israeli commanders have announced they would carry out military operations against Syria in order to occupy Damascus and overthrow the Syrian Government.

On the same day, Israeli Premier Eshkol made a strongly threatening statement against Syria. At the same time, the commentaries said that Israel believed Egypt could not make a move because it was bogged down in Yemen.

Click to expand...

Source: Jewish Virtual Library

Why all this uproar because of the closure of the Gulf of Aqaba? When Eshkol and Rabin threatened Syria, nobody spoke about peace or threats to peace. They actually hate the progressive regime in Syria. The United States, Britain and reaction which is the friend of the United States and Britain - do not favour the national progressive regime in Syria. Israel, of course, shares their feelings. Israel is an ally of the United States and Britain. When Israel threatened Syria, they kept quiet and accepted what it said. But when we exercise one of our legitimate rights, as we always do, they turn the world upside down and speak about threats to peace and about a crisis in the Middle East.

Click to expand...

Source: Jewish Virtual Library

Demon of Light said:

Sorry bud, but this is another point where you are getting it wrong:

Source: Six days of war: June 1967 and the making of the modern Middle East

Click to expand...

What in the world does that quote prove?

That the Israeli army DIDN'T run invasion scenarios for Syria prior to Rabin's demand, in the aftermath of increased Syrian border raids? That open invasion wasn't merely ONE of the options? If you actually READ the surrounding paragraph, you would see that Levi Eshkol ,the prime minster of Israel at the time, opposed Rabin, who was merely chief of staff for the IDF. In other words...the actual head of the country who was actually responsible for making that decision said no to a man you would consider a war-hawk, and it cites Syrian aggression as a pretext for Rabin's demands.

So really, that's an argument for my side, not yours.

With all due respect, don't cite books you haven't read, man. It makes you seem silly. eace

Demon of Light said:

Oh, and before you try and cherry-pick one part of that quote to try and argue against me, be aware that I have sources to contradict anything you cherry-pick.

Click to expand...

This sentence legitimately made me laugh.:lol: Ooh, I'm so scared of your sources! What are you going to do? Cite more Google books that, in actuality, you haven't read? I'm shaking behind my keyboard.

Demon of Light said:

Oh, did you want information that specifically shows Nasser did this because of said threat? Why didn't you say so?:

Source: Jewish Virtual Library

....Virtual Library[/URL]

Click to expand...

Of course your Link doesn't say what You says it does... again.

Why did Egypt Close the Straits?
Your Link continues:

"...Yesterday and the day before yesterday, the entire world was speaking about Sharm el-Sheikh, navigation in the Gulf of Aqaba, the Elath port. This morning I heard the B.B.C. say that in 1956 Abdel Nasser pledged to open the Gulf of Aqaba.

Of course this is not true. It was copied from a British paper called The Daily Mail. No such thing happened. Abdel Nasser would never forfeit any U.A.R. right. As I said, we would never give away a grain of sand from our soil or our country.

The armed forces' responsibility is now yours. The armed forces yesterday occupied Sharm el-Sheikh. What is the meaning of the armed force's occupation of Sharm el-Sheikh? It is an affirmation of our rights and our sovereignty over the Aqaba Gulf. The Aqaba Gulf constitutes our Egyptian territorial waters. Under no circumstances will we allow the Israeli flag to pass through the Aqaba Gulf.

The Jews threatened war. We tell them: You are welcome, we are ready for war. Our armed forces and all our people are ready for war, but under no circumstances will we abandon any of our rights. This water is ours.

War might be an opportunity for the Jews—for Israel and Rabin [Maj. Gen. Yitzhak Rabin, the Chief of Staff]—to test their forces against ours and to see that what they wrote about the 1956 battle and the occupation of Sinai was all a lot of nonsense.

Of course there is imperialism, Israel and reaction. Reaction casts doubt on everything, and so does the Islamic Alliance.

We all know that the Islamic Alliance is now represented by three states: the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the kingdom of Jordan, and Iran. They are saying that the purpose of the Islamic Alliance is to unite the Moslems against Israel.

I would like the Islamic Alliance to serve the Palestinian question in only one way: by Preventing the supply of Oil to Israel. The oil which now reaches Israel through Elath comes from one of the Islamic Alliance states. It goes to Elath from Iran.

Who is supplying Israel with oil? The Islamic Alliance—Iran, an Islamic Alliance state.

Such is the Islamic Alliance. It is an imperialist alliance, and this means it sides with Zionism because Zionism is the main ally of imperialism."..."

Click to expand...

He's affirming/thumbing his nose that the Straits [especially since 1956] are "Egyptian Territorial waters", no Israeli flag will pass thru it, and that it will prevent Israel from getting oil. [from the Islamic Alliance traitors]

Che said:

You are talking about the closure of the Strait of Tiran, the Strait was shut for just 2-3 days. It was opened for 6 days before the war even started which says that Israel saying that as an excuse for war is a standing joke but Israeli supporters will believe anything.

Click to expand...

The Strait was only reopened to Israeli shipping after the cease fire.

Israel occupied the islands and reopened the straits to its ships after the war. As a result of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel in 1979, the Strait of Tiran was recognized as an international waterway. Israel relinquished the islands to Egypt in 1982 as part of its withdrawal from the territories it had occupied in the Sinai in 1967.

Click to expand...

Straits of Tiran: Information from Answers.com

Shayah said:

The Strait was only reopened to Israeli shipping after the cease fire.


Straits of Tiran: Information from Answers.com

Click to expand...

Answers.com?Is this really where supporters of Israel get their info?I have already put up a link to Finkelstein who is obviously a scholar and is not Answers.com..is that the best you could come up with?Very funny.Now try some real history.

The question of the Straits of Tiran. Ok. Number one, U Thant had made an offer, he said let’s do what happened in Cuba during the Missile Crisis. Let’s have a moratorium. The moratorium would be, Egypt promises not to fire on foreign vessels that go through the Straits of Tiran, Israel promises it won’t send through Israeli-flagged vessels. Egypt says, fine. Israel says, no.

Now, another unknown fact. Everybody refers to the blockade in the Straits of Tiran. There was no blockade. I know you’ll be surprised to learn that. It’s a little known fact. The first couple of days the Egyptians searched ships. By the end of the week they stopped searching the ships. The ships were going right through. We know that because the main figure there, he actually just passed away this week, Indar Jit Rikhye, he wrote a book called The Sinai Blunder, and he was in charge of the UN forces there. There was no blockade. He writes it in the book, I even asked, kind of surprised, I called him to check on it a couple of years ago and he laughed. He said there was no blockade.
Norman G. Finkelstein » Finkelstein on the June 1967 war

Che said:

Answers.com?Is this really where supporters of Israel get their info?I have already put up a link to Finkelstein who is obviously a scholar

Click to expand...

Finkelstein is a known revisionist. You're going to have to do much better than endlessly pulling Finky out of a hat to impress anyone here.

btw - There is supposed to be a space between one sentence and the next.[space]Don't they teach this rudimentary rule in the UK?

Shayah said:

Finkelstein is a known revisionist. You're going to have to do much better than endlessly pulling Finky out of a hat to impress anyone here.

Click to expand...

He is quoting Indar Jit Rikhye who was a Major General in the Indian army and military adviser to the United Nations secretaries-general Dag Hammarskjöld and U Thant in the 1960s and all you could come up with was Answers.com.

Are you claiming that Finkelstein is lying? Are you claiming that Indar Jit Rikhye is lying? Sorry but I am going to believe them over your Answers.com..

btw - There is supposed to be a space between one sentence and the next.[space]Don't they teach this rudimentary rule in the UK?

Click to expand...

I see your argument from Answers.com has been blown away and now you need to make personal attacks..figures.

Che said:

I see your argument from Answers.com has been blown away and now you need to make personal attacks..figures.

Click to expand...

At least Answers.com was a neutral source, quite unlike the Finkelstein offering.

Asking about your run-on sentence formulation isn't an attack. It's a reasonable query since no one else here (11,000+ members) does it.

Shayah said:

At least Answers.com was a neutral source, quite unlike the Finkelstein offering.

Click to expand...

I see you have no argument left.Finkestein is quoting Major General Indar Jit Rikhye a very well respected military adviser to the United Nations secretaries-general Dag Hammarskjöld and U Thant in the 1960s.You cannot dispute that.He wrote in his book that there was no blockade and he should know as he was the commander of the UN troops there at the time.I accept your defeat, next time try something better than Answers.com..

Egypt blockade?

According to Israeli and mainstream media claims in 1967, Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran thereby prompting a response from Tel Aviv.

However, this was not true. In the first few days, the Egyptian navy did search ships passing through the straits.

But a week later, they stopped. Rikhye stated in his book The Sinai Blunder that Egypt did not block the Straits of Tiran.

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/arabunity/2008/03/2008525184024810153.html

Indar Jit Rikhye
http://www.economist.com/node/9298508

I accept that you can't come up with any neutral source. Bout what I expected.

Jeezy said:

What in the world does that quote prove?

That the Israeli army DIDN'T run invasion scenarios for Syria prior to Rabin's demand, in the aftermath of increased Syrian border raids? That open invasion wasn't merely ONE of the options? If you actually READ the surrounding paragraph, you would see that Levi Eshkol ,the prime minster of Israel at the time, opposed Rabin, who was merely chief of staff for the IDF. In other words...the actual head of the country who was actually responsible for making that decision said no to a man you would consider a war-hawk, and it cites Syrian aggression as a pretext for Rabin's demands.

So really, that's an argument for my side, not yours.

With all due respect, don't cite books you haven't read, man. It makes you seem silly. eace




This sentence legitimately made me laugh.:lol: Ooh, I'm so scared of your sources! What are you going to do? Cite more Google books that, in actuality, you haven't read? I'm shaking behind my keyboard.

Click to expand...

A little advice: if I warn you that an argument is not going to work you really should not make the argument. First, I should note that my source clearly demonstrates this was a very recent development involving authorization for an actual operation not a contingency plan in place for years. Second, you will see by looking down just a few paragraphs that Rabin and Eshkol both made public statements that, in effect, made the intention for major attacks on Syria clear yet leaving their exact nature and scope unclear. Finally, about that claim concerning attacks from Syria, here is another part of the book you should consider:

Divided into three main sectors totaling some 66.5 square miles, the [demilitarized zones] contained archipelagos of irregularly shaped plots . . . over which Israel claimed total sovereignty. Pressing this claim, the Israelis denied the Mixed Armistice Commission any jurisdiction over the DZ's (Syrian representatives sat on the MAC) and declared them off-limits to Syrian farmers. But the Syrians just as adamantly opposed Israeli attempts to control the plots, and, from their emplacements atop the Golan Heights, fired on any tractors plowing them.

Click to expand...

These demilitarized zones were areas Syria had control of at the end of the war of independence in 1949 and, under the armistice agreements, were supposed to have their status determined in a final peace settlement. Israel's actions were actively seeking to change that situation. Several violations are mentioned involving Israeli military boats frequently violating some of the waters included in the demilitarized zone. Another important point raised is that incidents were exploited to justify attacks on Syria. Of course, it does not tell the whole story even then:

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.

Click to expand...

Source: The New York Times

mbig said:

Of course your Link doesn't say what You says it does... again.

Why did Egypt Close the Straits?
Your Link continues:
He's affirming/thumbing his nose that the Straits [especially since 1956] are "Egyptian Territorial waters", no Israeli flag will pass thru it, and that it will prevent Israel from getting oil. [from the Islamic Alliance traitors]

Click to expand...

Really having to cherry-pick now that I have completely destroyed your accusations huh? He asserts that it is their right to do so as a defense of their actions, not as a rationale. The rationale he gives is very clear: Israel threatened war.

justabubba said:

would it then be fair to say that israel - by its present embargo of gaza - is engaging in warfare against the Palestinians?

Click to expand...

No. Hamas is in a declared state of war with Israel already therefore the analogy does not hold. At the time Egypt blockaded Israel, Israel did not have a charter calling on the extinction of Egypt as Hamas does with Israel. Its leaders did not call for the extermination of Egyptians as Nasser called out about Israelis. Israel did not send terrorists in to Egypt to kill innocent civilians.

At the time of the Egyptian blockade both Egypt and Syria encouraged openly attacks into Israel by terrorists and called for its destruction and massed troops on its border.

Israel's embargo of military potential weapons is a legitimate act of self-defence. Israel can not sit back and allow weapons to be smuggled into Hamas that could be used to kill Israelis.

Where I do concede an arguement is that if that embargo goes too far and stops non military weapons such as food stuffs,such acts are acts of dehumanization against Palestinians and fuels the cycle of conflict in that they reinforce in the collective psyche of Palestinians in Gaza the notion that Israel and its IDF are the enemy, tyrants, occupiers, use whatever words you want. For Palestinians it is a daily, tangible act of oppression and it forces them to turn to Hamas the very people that fuel this embargo.

This is why I embrace the Labour Party of Israel position that says let's truly re-visit the embargo. What is its real purpose. Is there not a better and more real way to get food and medicine through quickly. The practical reality is that while Israel announced an easing up of restrictions on certain goods, there is still a long turn over period to get the goods inspected and sent along their way to Gaza.

Its a tough situation because Israel has to protect itself against Hamas but its unintentionally (some have argued intentionally) dehumanizing Palestinians at the same time.

Trying to balance the two is difficult.

Maybe the opening of borders with Egypt will speed up the shipment of food stuffs. What I am worried about is the opening of the border with Egypt may pave the way for smuggling of weapons to Hamas in which case Israel's efforts to prevent weapons smuggling are rendered toothless.

We need to get food and medicine, electrical supplies, fresh water concrete for housing in to Gaza. The problem is Israel worries Hamas will intercept all of this for use of Hamas and to build tunnels, etc.

The status quo is absurd because the longer it goes on the more it turns Palestinians against Israel and strengthens Hamas' emotional hold over its people. That is precisely what Hamas wants-its people in a constant state of humility-that constant state of humility fuels the conflict and thus Hamas' ability to exploit the humility to prop its desire to incite terror.

So to answer your question, no it is not an act of war, but on the ground, in practicality, it is an act of great humiliation and dehumanization of Palestinians and that net effect ripens the climate for future terrorists and further wars.

There is an important distinction I make though to you. I concede humiliating Palestinians is a direct result of the embargo. What I can not concede is that Israel has no right to defend itself against Hamas and prevent the spread of arms to Gaza.

These are two imperatives-one is the Palestinian existential imperative, the other the Israeli existential imperative. I do not see them as opposites but mutual needs driven into conflict by the decision of Hamas to use terror.

Disarm Hamas, and have it renounce its charter calling for the extermination of Israel-have Hamas do what the IRA did and disarm and acknowledge Israel's right to exist, then the IDF embargo becomes a moot point and they can return to their barraks.

This all begins and starts with the decision of Hamas to have turned to terror. When Palestinian charities in Gaza were permitted to accept funding from Israel to build roads, mosques, schools, hospitalsm houses, green-houses because Hamas had a no terror policy, this issue did not exist. It was only after Hamas chose terror-it was only when the violent wing of Hamas fueled by Syria and Iran pushed out the Egyptian Muslim brotherhood anti-terror faction and ordered roads to Israel blown up, all buildings funded by Israel blown up and threatened to kill any Gaza citizen working in Israel or working with Israelis, this current situation developed.

Israel demonstrated good will and good neighbour policy to Palestinians in Gaza and withdrew its settlers. The day it withdrew its settlers it used as buffers against terrorism, the missiles started flying in and in came the suicide bombers.

It is time Hamas accept full and total responsibility for the consequences of capturing its people and subjecting them to the policy of on-going war against Israel.

Hamas is at war with Israel and chooses to hold Palestinians hostages as it carries out this war.

Why pretend otherwise?