• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:3] Gaza Occupation or Not

Chagos said:
They want their version to be what they want their version to be.

Facts have no place in that.
Click to expand...

It's the same old "the world is flat and Israel had it flattened" nonsense.
 
Fledermaus said:
They tried that Yom Kippur... Didn't work so well.
Click to expand...

Actually the Israeli struggles during the Yom Kippur War were more due to arrogance than anything else.

After so easily defeating the Arabs in the past they had decided the Arabs couldn’t fight.

As it turned out.......they could.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Actually the Israeli struggles during the Yom Kippur War were more due to arrogance than anything else.

After so easily defeating the Arabs in the past they had decided the Arabs couldn’t fight.

As it turned out.......they could.
Click to expand...

....but still lost to the Israelis....and everyone else except each other. :) I've trained with Iranians in the 80s and I trained Saudis in the 90s. They have enthusiasm....and that's it. We'd kick any of their asses just as easily as we did the Iraqis on the battlefield. When it comes to guerrilla warfare, that's a different matter and can only be won with the support of the majority of a population.
 
oneworld2 said:
Okay there seems to be some things to consider as to the statement

Many commentators say that the Israeli control over many many important aspects of life constitutes an effective control ( occupation from without ) of the Gaza strip

People should really by now know something of what a list of these things would consist of. But for those still a little vague here is a summary

Control over all of Gaza's airspace and coastal waters

Control over who and what gets in and out in conjunction with Egypt ( both tied together by US allegiance/reliance )

Control over the borders as per the two mentioned above

Control over the treasury by means of control , along with the PA ( occupying sub contractors ), over the finances of the Gaza strip

Control of the registry of the population and the issuance of passports etc

That's the bones of it

So does that constitute a military occupation ?

The usual response being no boots on the ground = no occupation

So the boots on the ground would constitute an ongoing occupation

To me the best way to look at it , the most accurate way , is to see that the guards have been moved from the interior of the prison to the perimeter fence. Thus making their lives a lot safer but still giving them the opportunity to shoot the prisoners themselves as and when they choose

Something to consider from a military POV

Israel often cites occasions when an IDF operator/commander has a telephone call with a Palestinian family whose house they intend to blow up. ( that they know everyone's phone numbers is another indication of the level of control btw but there you go. )

If they have the means to take out individuals and homes as and when they please they obviously don't need boots on the ground to carry out the actions needed to maintain a military occupation. Technology has , in this instance , given them the means to carry out the actions a boots on the ground occupation requires without the need for boots on the ground in reality.

Thus the argument , imo , falls flat on it's face
Click to expand...

Its my argument that even tho Hamas is evil Israel is still, effectively, in control or the ones with the majority of control over Palestine. Effectively in control of it, not Hamas. Despite Hamas being evil cavemen.
 
Rising Sun said:
....but still lost to the Israelis....and everyone else except each other. :) I've trained with Iranians in the 80s and I trained Saudis in the 90s. They have enthusiasm....and that's it. We'd kick any of their asses just as easily as we did the Iraqis on the battlefield. When it comes to guerrilla warfare, that's a different matter and can only be won with the support of the majority of a population.
Click to expand...

Well, considering the Israelis had nukes at that point(if I remember correctly) the Arabs fought about as well as they could without mushroom clouds going up. As it was they scared the piss out of the Israelis and the Egyptians ultimately won the Sinai back, which by 1973 is all they really wanted.

Enthusiasm obviously isn’t everything but it certainly counts for a lot.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Actually the Israeli struggles during the Yom Kippur War were more due to arrogance than anything else.

After so easily defeating the Arabs in the past they had decided the Arabs couldn’t fight.

As it turned out.......they could.
Click to expand...

Very well. And with a few Russian supplied surprises up their sleeves.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Well, considering the Israelis had nukes at that point(if I remember correctly) the Arabs fought about as well as they could without mushroom clouds going up. As it was they scared the piss out of the Israelis and the Egyptians ultimately won the Sinai back, which by 1973 is all they really wanted.

Enthusiasm obviously isn’t everything but it certainly counts for a lot.
Click to expand...

Bull****. When the Israelis had nukes, the Arabs switched from conventional warfare to asymmetrical warfare for the reason you mentioned. The Arabs can't win on the conventional battlefield except against each other. It's a cultural thing from what I observed. For that matter, same for the Italians. OTOH, it would be much more difficult to fight the Spaniards, Norwegians and Germans from my personal experience of working with and training many of them.
 
Fledermaus said:
Very well. And with a few Russian supplied surprises up their sleeves.
Click to expand...

Ironically enough the Russians didn’t actually want another Arab-Israeli war..... which is why they got kicked out of Egypt in he first place.

It didn’t help that Israeli intelligence dropped the ball rather titanically as well.
 
Rising Sun said:
Bull****. When the Israelis had nukes, the Arabs switched from conventional warfare to asymmetrical warfare for the reason you mentioned. The Arabs can't win on the conventional battlefield except against each other. It's a cultural thing from what I observed. For that matter, same for the Italians. OTOH, it would be much more difficult to fight the Spaniards, Norwegians and Germans from my personal experience of working with and training many of them.
Click to expand...

The Israelis had crude weapons ready as earlier as 1966.

“Israel is believed to have begun full-scale production of nuclear weapons following the 1967 Six-Day War, although it had built its first operational nuclear weapon by December 1966.[13] A CIA report from early 1967 stated that Israel had the materials to construct a bomb in six to eight weeks[67] and some authors suggest that Israel had two crude bombs ready for use during the war.[1] According to US journalist Seymour Hersh, everything was ready for production at this time save an official order to do so. Israel crossed the nuclear threshold on the eve of the Six-Day War in May 1967. "[Prime Minister Levi] Eshkol, according to a number of Israeli sources, secretly ordered the Dimona [nuclear reactor] scientists to assemble two crude nuclear devices. He placed them under the command of Brigadier General Yitzhak Yaakov, the chief of research and development in Israel's Defense Ministry. One official said the operation was referred to as Spider because the nuclear devices were inelegant contraptions with appendages sticking out. The crude atomic bombs were readied for deployment on trucks that could race to the Egyptian border for detonation in the event Arab forces overwhelmed Israeli defenses."[68]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...s_and_Israel&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop

Later on...:.

“The first public revelation of Israel's nuclear capability (as opposed to development program) came from NBC News, which reported in January 1969 that Israel decided "to embark on a crash course program to produce a nuclear weapon" two years previously, and that they possessed or would soon be in possession of such a device.[95] This was initially dismissed by Israeli and U.S. officials, as well as in an article in The New York Times. Just one year later on July 18, The New York Times made public for the first time that the U.S. government believed Israel to possess nuclear weapons or to have the "capacity to assemble atomic bombs on short notice".[96] Israel reportedly assembled 13 bombs during the Yom Kippur War as a last defense against total defeat, and kept them usable after the war.[70]”


And yet, the Arabs still attacked..... and Egypt did actually eventually succeed in achieving its goal of retaking the Sinai, which was the entire point of the war from their point of view.

And frankly after 1973 I’d say the Israelis would be the first to disagree with you.
 
Tigerace117 said:
.....“The first public revelation of Israel's nuclear capability (as opposed to development program) came from NBC News, which reported in January 1969 that Israel decided "to embark on a crash course program to produce a nuclear weapon" two years previously, and that they possessed or would soon be in possession of such a device.[95] This was initially dismissed by Israeli and U.S. officials, as well as in an article in The New York Times. Just one year later on July 18, The New York Times made public for the first time that the U.S. government believed Israel to possess nuclear weapons or to have the "capacity to assemble atomic bombs on short notice".[96] Israel reportedly assembled 13 bombs during the Yom Kippur War as a last defense against total defeat, and kept them usable after the war.[70]”


And yet, the Arabs still attacked..... and Egypt did actually eventually succeed in achieving its goal of retaking the Sinai, which was the entire point of the war from their point of view.

And frankly after 1973 I’d say the Israelis would be the first to disagree with you.
Click to expand...
More likely they attacked because they believed the Israelis didn't have a deliverable weapon yet and that it was their last chance to attack before they did.

Still, what is your point? That the Egyptians are so ****ing stupid they'd attack a nuclear power and all die as martyrs?
 
1. Egypt didn't win Sinai back in 1973, its advances were stopped after three days, Egypt having been fought to a stalemate.

2. Israel went on a counter offensive, crossed the Suez canal, thus encircling Egypt's 3d army and the city of Suez itself. Getting to within a 100 km of Cairo

3. Before that Israel had pushed the Syrian army back from Golan again and penetrated so deeply into Syria on the counter, that it could effectively shell Damascus (and did).

4. Both the US and the Soviets sent massive re-supplies to their respective allies from almost the beginning of the Yom Kippur war.

5. Rumours of Israel by then possessing nuclear bombs were never confirmed, so the Arabs either thought that Israel had none, or, considering the proxy involvement of both big "nuclears", believed they'd never be used. In which they would have been right, seeing how the US heavily dissuaded Israel from their use.

6. The Camp David accords by which Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt didn't happen until 5 years later.

7. Egypt did kick out Russian advisers a year before the war but was screaming for Russian help the moment the war turned sour. And received it.
 
Tigerace117 said:
The Israelis had crude weapons ready as earlier as 1966.

“Israel is believed to have begun full-scale production of nuclear weapons following the 1967 Six-Day War, although it had built its first operational nuclear weapon by December 1966.[13] A CIA report from early 1967 stated that Israel had the materials to construct a bomb in six to eight weeks[67] and some authors suggest that Israel had two crude bombs ready for use during the war.[1] According to US journalist Seymour Hersh, everything was ready for production at this time save an official order to do so. Israel crossed the nuclear threshold on the eve of the Six-Day War in May 1967. "[Prime Minister Levi] Eshkol, according to a number of Israeli sources, secretly ordered the Dimona [nuclear reactor] scientists to assemble two crude nuclear devices. He placed them under the command of Brigadier General Yitzhak Yaakov, the chief of research and development in Israel's Defense Ministry. One official said the operation was referred to as Spider because the nuclear devices were inelegant contraptions with appendages sticking out. The crude atomic bombs were readied for deployment on trucks that could race to the Egyptian border for detonation in the event Arab forces overwhelmed Israeli defenses."[68]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...s_and_Israel&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop

Later on...:.

“The first public revelation of Israel's nuclear capability (as opposed to development program) came from NBC News, which reported in January 1969 that Israel decided "to embark on a crash course program to produce a nuclear weapon" two years previously, and that they possessed or would soon be in possession of such a device.[95] This was initially dismissed by Israeli and U.S. officials, as well as in an article in The New York Times. Just one year later on July 18, The New York Times made public for the first time that the U.S. government believed Israel to possess nuclear weapons or to have the "capacity to assemble atomic bombs on short notice".[96] Israel reportedly assembled 13 bombs during the Yom Kippur War as a last defense against total defeat, and kept them usable after the war.[70]”


And yet, the Arabs still attacked..... and Egypt did actually eventually succeed in achieving its goal of retaking the Sinai, which was the entire point of the war from their point of view.

And frankly after 1973 I’d say the Israelis would be the first to disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Tigerace117 et al.:

Bye-bye Sinai, June 1967:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...pt-use-weapon-syria-jordan-iraq-a7774921.html

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Tigerace117 et al.:

Bye-bye Sinai, June 1967:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...pt-use-weapon-syria-jordan-iraq-a7774921.html

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Not even remotely consistent with the position of some that the Israelis knew they would win the war and were lying about the dire straights they believed themselves to be in.

This doesn’t sound like an army confident of victory. It sounds like one that was readying for a catastrophic defeat.

Looks like narratives are getting crossed on the anti-Israel talking points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Not even remotely consistent with the position of some that the Israelis knew they would win the war and were lying about the dire straights they believed themselves to be in.

This doesn’t sound like an army confident of victory. It sounds like one that was readying for a catastrophic defeat.

Looks like narratives are getting crossed on the anti-Israel talking points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Even the linked article states (towards the end) that Cohen's paper relied on a single source, which was highly unusual among serious researchers.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Not even remotely consistent with the position of some that the Israelis knew they would win the war and were lying about the dire straights they believed themselves to be in.

This doesn’t sound like an army confident of victory. It sounds like one that was readying for a catastrophic defeat.

Looks like narratives are getting crossed on the anti-Israel talking points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

CJ 2.0:

The programme seemed pretty ad hoc and as Chagos says the linked Avner Cohen paper was largely based on the 'foggy memory of just one witness, so I wouldn't put too much stock in it until corroborating sources emerge. However it is intriguing and it does provide a date that is earlier than expected for Israel's first operational bomb, if the source is correct and if the bomb could have worked. It also shoots another hole in the Israeli policy of strategic nuclear ambiguity, again if the source is reliable. I just put it into this thread because it is an interesting tangent which related to a discussion several posters were having about when Israel allegedly became a nuclear weapon capable military power.

As to consistency with narratives, war is a gamble at the best of times (just look at present-day Afghanistan which has fought the world's greatest military superpower to an effective stalemate). The Israeli political leadership may have had a good idea of how their surprise air raids on the Egyptian Air Force should have gone but luck and misfortune are queen and king on the battlefield, even in today's high tech world, and as Moshe Dayan said, 'no plan survives contact with the enemy'. So if things had not gone so well as they did for the State of Israel in June of 1967, then they had up their metaphorical sleeve a possible trump card to play which would have terrorised the Egyptians and might have also unnerved the Syrians and Jordanians, saving Israel if the odds swung against the attacker.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Evilroddy said:
CJ 2.0:

The programme seemed pretty ad hoc and as Chagos says the linked Avner Cohen paper was largely based on the 'foggy memory of just one witness, so I wouldn't put too much stock in it until corroborating sources emerge. However it is intriguing and it does provide a date that is earlier than expected for Israel's first operational bomb, if the source is correct and if the bomb could have worked. It also shoots another hole in the Israeli policy of strategic nuclear ambiguity, again if the source is reliable. I just put it into this thread because it is an interesting tangent which related to a discussion several posters were having about when Israel allegedly became a nuclear weapon capable military power.

As to consistency with narratives, war is a gamble at the best of times (just look at present-day Afghanistan which has fought the world's greatest military superpower to an effective stalemate). The Israeli political leadership may have had a good idea of how their surprise air raids on the Egyptian Air Force should have gone but luck and misfortune are queen and king on the battlefield, even in today's high tech world, and as Moshe Dayan said, 'no plan survives contact with the enemy'. So if things had not gone so well as they did for the State of Israel in June of 1967, then they had up their metaphorical sleeve a possible trump card to play which would have terrorised the Egyptians and might have also unnerved the Syrians and Jordanians, saving Israel if the odds swung against the attacker.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Lol yes. So Israel besieged on all sides decided to conduct a war of aggression where it recognized that losing could mean the destruction of its state unless it had a doomsday weapon to address the risk of it getting overrun and its people destroyed. But it didn’t need to fight and just did it to conquer land.

Or alternatively the “single source” referenced to imply something was just an oops and we never meant it since it is just one guy but is still very interesting.

You guys surely must see how ridiculous your narrative is. It literally makes no sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Apocalypse said:
You seem to be basing the overwhleming majority of your views on the opinions of individuals/organizations with a political agenda rather than on anything with actual authority such as facts and logical reasoning.
Click to expand...

And you never seem to present anything to back your positions expecting people to just somehow accept it as an undeniable/irrefutable gospel
 
oneworld2 said:
And you never seem to present anything to back your positions expecting people to just somehow accept it as an undeniable/irrefutable gospel
Click to expand...

Sure, as the side losing the argument you say so. You may quote whatever expression made in this thread you wish to and show how it wasn't given a supportive argument using logic or facts to base it. That's what I did quite efficiently with Evil's statements showing how the basis for his assertions is completely made up with nothing to depend on either logically or factually.
 
Apocalypse said:
Sure, as the side losing the argument you say so. You may quote whatever expression made in this thread you wish to and show how it wasn't given a supportive argument using logic or facts to base it. That's what I did quite efficiently with Evil's statements showing how the basis for his assertions is completely made up with nothing to depend on either logically or factually.
Click to expand...

Nah, Evilroddys case has been excellent and backed up at every turn. Yours has been poor imo very poor in fact
 
oneworld2 said:
Nah, Evilroddys case has been excellent and backed up at every turn. Yours has been poor imo very poor in fact
Click to expand...

Again, you say so as the side losing the argument. The fact you couldn't back your words by quoting a single expression is very telling.
 
Apocalypse said:
Again, you say so as the side losing the argument. The fact you couldn't back your words by quoting a single expression is very telling.
Click to expand...

Nope the level of control the Israelis wield over Gazans is at a level whereby boots on the ground would only put the soldiers in harms way without achieving much more.

The points about buffer zones is valid . As is the total control of the airspace and maritime territory . That the IDF can take out cars and blow houses up with complete impunity shows the true level of control
 
Apocalypse said:
Again, you say so as the side losing the argument. The fact you couldn't back your words by quoting a single expression is very telling.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

OTOH, sometimes I wonder if it'd be better the world cut off all funding to Israel so the Arabs would be emboldened to attack and the Israelis would nuke their capitals. It would solve a lot of issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom