Israel’s Settlers Are Here to Stay (NY Times op-ed)

[Violet_Crumble]

By DANI DAYAN
Published: July 25, 2012

Maale Shomron, West Bank

WHATEVER word you use to describe Israel’s 1967 acquisition of Judea and Samaria — commonly referred to as the West Bank in these pages — will not change the historical facts. Arabs called for Israel’s annihilation in 1967, and Israel legitimately seized the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria in self-defense. Israel’s moral claim to these territories, and the right of Israelis to call them home today, is therefore unassailable. Giving up this land in the name of a hallowed two-state solution would mean rewarding those who’ve historically sought to destroy Israel, a manifestly immoral outcome.

Of course, just because a policy is morally justified doesn’t mean it’s wise. However, our four-decade-long settlement endeavor is both. The insertion of an independent Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan would be a recipe for disaster.

The influx of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere would convert the new state into a hotbed of extremism. And any peace agreement would collapse the moment Hamas inevitably took power by ballot or by gun. Israel would then be forced to recapture the area, only to find a much larger Arab population living there.

Moreover, the Palestinians have repeatedly refused to implement a negotiated two-state solution. The American government and its European allies should abandon this failed formula once and for all and accept that the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria are not going anywhere.

On the contrary, we aim to expand the existing Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, and create new ones. This is not — as it is often portrayed — a theological adventure but is rather a combination of inalienable rights and realpolitik.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/opinion/israels-settlers-are-here-to-stay.html

Dani Dayan is the chairman of the Yesha Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria.

[leveymg]

1. So, Americans are now supposed to fight another couple wars to keep this guy in place?

Here's another $20 Billion dollars.

[bemildred]

2. Well, just don't lecture them. Nobody gets to lecture them.

Only they themselves are sufficiently mature and informed to question anything they do.

I'm just amazed that ANYBODY thinks this sort of immature and self-serving twaddle is going to work with anybody in the real world.

[leveymg]

4. Maybe not connected to the real world. But, someone keeps on sending them money

to construct "Judea and Samaria."

The EU imposes some restrictions on such funds transfers. The US? Can you name any elected American officials who tried?

[bemildred]

5. Hey, it took us 15 years to figure out we were never going to win in VietNam.

(Well, more than that really, that one had a long colonial backstory too.)

It's an old story. You are always going to win in one more Friedman Unit until the very day you give up. You want the straight goods, you don't go to politicians.

[leveymg]

7. History is written by those who own the screenrights.

Not related, but relevant (you should watch the film Walker linked in the thread, if you haven't seen it): http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021034940

[bemildred]

8. Walker.

Yeah, he was a corker, he had lots of companeros too.

I don't watch movies much, so I don't know, my wife tries to get me to watch stuff all the time, but I'd rather read. But I know about that asshole.

I approve of anything that better informs USA-ians of who they really are and their true history, so that's a movie I can support.

In the long run, history is written by future historians, and they are not going to think much of us.

[leveymg]

9. In the future, history will be rescripted to suit the whims of the Producers.

There will be no more reading, except for the archeologists and those plumbing for fresh material to rehash the past and make it turn out the way they wanted it to.

Politics is sort of the meat prototype for that total immersion experience. Throw money at it, and remake reality as you would like it.

It's like the effort to colonize Latin America ultimately failed, so reshoot the scene again somewhere else. Try the Middle East, for instance.

[bemildred]

13. Hubris is not new, the penalty has not changed.

And that sort of "we create our own reality" solipsism, while it may be fun for a while, is the very definition of hubris.

I live in LA, and I am quite well acquainted with showbiz, and I know what their lives are really like, and I am not impressed.

I do wonder sometimes if virtual reality will someday take off on it's own. Iain M. Banks had a book out recently on that theme, people living an "afterlife" in virtual heavens and hells and the interaction of all that with the (very advanced future) real world. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Detail ).

[leveymg]

16. "We create our own reality", indeed, until we go overbudget

and the Studio shuts down the filibuster, or slavery, the Soviet Union, Lehman Bros., or whatever.

In the meantime, I'll take a look at the Surface details.

[bemildred]

17. Don't feel compelled (by Surface Detail).

I read him a lot, but he is not to everybodies taste. But he does ruminate a lot on the relation between the virtual and the real, and given that our minds are very much virtual things tied to a real body, it's a meaningful subject.

[leveymg]

20. I already disbelieve quite a lot of I see, hear and read in the news media.

Life is complex enough, already, without starting another SF trilogy or Alternative History series. Didn't Phil Dick go mad that way? But, I may pick that one up if I have a chance.

What have I missed while I read so much?

[bemildred]

22. Probably not much.

I just went through most of Kim Stanley Robinson, and he's a very interesting writer, but I could have read a selected three or four books and got most of the ideas he talks about. Anybody that is doing a mass market series is going to get a bit stale as time goes on.

P. K. Dick was the master of them all, and crazy to boot. The best ones are always a bit nuts.

[leveymg]

25. It's only nuts until it happens.

That one embodies "thought leader." May not be a good thing, considering what he had to say.

[Bradlad]

14. Israel's presence . .

on the WB is absolutely not a colonial enterprise. Jews have lived there for over 3000 years and have always considered it their home. They have at least as much moral claim to settle there as the Arabs.

While you have made the expected dismissive comments (immature and self-serving twaddle) no one here so far has actually explained why any of what he says is wrong. I understand that his goal in the article - making a case for the status quo with judicious improvements over time - is anathema to many here who have internalized the Palestinian narrative and made it their own.

But if it's even remotely possible that his views, if adopted eventually, were to result in a more peaceful resolution to the ongoing conflict in time, for both Jews and Arabs in the territory, why are his views not worth considering? It seems to me his views have been steadily promoted in fact since 1967 - by Arab League and Palestinian leadership that has consistently made the worst possible decisions at every decision moment for Palestinian interests. This has made gradually increased settlement by Israelis on the WB the only political and military defense response left that makes any sense for Israel. That's because every Palestinian decision has more forcefully illustrated the extreme dangers to Israel of allowing full Palestinian sovereignty over almost any part of the WB.

It seems to me when I read the pro-Pal responses to articles like this, all I can see is a visceral reaction - a belief that these commenters would take it as a very personal defeat if the Palestinians were to lose any chance of some day evicting Israel from the WB. And it seems to me that that is what is driving the responses to this article - not any actual concern with the Palestinian's well being.

A case can be made based on observable facts - that if you want to know what it would be like for Arabs living under Israeli sovereignty, think of Arab Israelis and Arabs in Jerusalem. They retain their Arab culture and religion with no pressure to change. They have higher incomes and living standards and live in more freedom than any Arabs in the world. They have spoken clearly and the great majority do not want to become citizens of any future Palestinian state.

If you want to know what life for them would be like living under complete Palestinian sovereignty, think Gaza, where they live under legal military blockade and under a religious (Islamist) regime where they can be tortured and shot if they say the wrong thing - where thousands are still forced to live in refugee camps and where their homes, schools and mosques are used to launch rockets - that then become legal targets for retaliation.

Is that what you hope for the Arabs on the WB?

Why is it so unthinkable to think about what would be better for them and what they really want - rather than believe their corrupt leaders who claim to speak for them - who have only made their lives increasingly miserable the more they use their few resources to fight wars against Israel instead of creating a better life for their people?

[bemildred]

15. Israel's presence in the West Bank is the very definition of a colonial enterprise.

Jews have always lived there, but not the same Jews. The issue is people moving in from outside and displacing the locals, not their ethnic or religious background; and THAT, moving your own new people in so as to displace and dispossess the locals, that is colonialism exactly.

[Bradlad]

18. By that argument . .

"Jews have always lived there, but not the same Jews. "

Neither are there any Arabs living on the WB that were there 100 years ago. Why do you now see the Arabs as having some inherent right to be there but Jews do not?

"The issue is people moving in from outside and displacing the locals, not their ethnic or religious background"

How is it that Arabs immigrating from Egypt or Jordan are not considered as displacing the Jews but Jews immigrating from Israel are considered as displacing Arabs? You also need to define "displacing". Are you claiming that the Jews threw Arabs out of their homes and farms and took them over? Or are you simply claiming that when a Jew builds a house on a hilltop then that means an Arab can not build his house on that same spot? That's not displacement and it's not colonialism. That's land development.

"and THAT, moving your own new people in so as to displace and dispossess the locals, that is colonialism exactly"

No one "moved them in". They chose to immigrate. We have to keep going over this one but OK - Jewish immigration into any part of the WB is not colonialism. Saying that somehow that Jews have no right to immigrate to any stateless territory in the world, but that Arabs do - promotes a racist outcome.

[bemildred]

19. Blah blah blah and off we go.

Dissembling won't get you far with me. It is Israeli government policy to support colonization the West Bank with Israeli citizens in order to "control" it and its resources. What individuals (Arab or Jewish or both, as the case may be) do is not the issue, the issue is what the Israeli government does, and allows to be done, and supports by its policies.

[Bradlad]

21. Then let's not dissemble.

You have not responded to any of the points I raised - except for your tedious charge of "colonialism".

Which was the point I was trying to make about the lack of substance from any commenters here but plenty of sturm and drang. A very common effect of hubris.

[bemildred]

23. Yeah, I agree, this isn't going to go very far. nt

[Bradlad]

26. Nor did I ever expect it to.

That was my point.

[DonCoquixote]

106. The cheap way out

Is to say that you "did not answer my points" which an attempt to avoid defending the idea one puts forth. This OP is saying that the isrealis have a right to kick people out of their homes to make way so that people who have lived in New York or Europe can move in, and claim the land is theirs. How is that NOT colonialism?

Go ahead and answer; why should someone born and raised in New York or London have more rights to live in the mideast than someone who was BORN THERE?

I suppose you won't mind if the First nations take your house.

[Bradlad]

107. Let's clear the field first.

The cheap way out is to say that you "did not answer my points" which an attempt to avoid defending the idea one puts forth.

Well I don't follow you. If I state a premise and included several reasons (points) in support of that premise - and someone responds to tell me I'm wrong but fails to address even one of my points - while I address each one of theirs over several comments - then why is it "the cheap way out for me to object to his avoidance of my points?

This OP is saying that the isrealis have a right to kick people out of their homes to make way so that people who have lived in New York or Europe can move in, and claim the land is theirs.

No that's not what the OP says. It's what you want to believe they said because that is much easier to refute than what they did say. What the OP said was that Jews had an equal right to the Arabs to settle there - but that the Arabs (as a nation) lost their equal moral claim to the land when they started a war to kick the Jews out or kill them. You may disagree but that's what you need to refute - not your "red herring".

Go ahead and answer; why should someone born and raised in New York or London have more rights to live in the mideast than someone who was BORN THERE?

Why should I defend a statement I never made? I said, "Jews have lived there for over 3000 years and have always considered it their home. They have at least as much moral claim to settle there as the Arabs."

[DonCoquixote]

108. My humble retort

your quotes are in Bold.



Well I don't follow you. If I state a premise and included several reasons (points) in support of that premise - and someone responds to tell me I'm wrong but fails to address even one of my points - while I address each one of theirs over several comments - then why is it "the cheap way out for me to object to his avoidance of my points?

Simple, you fail to address the point that the OP makes, which is that the settlements have a right to exist. If you come to defend an OP, is it not logical to assume you support the OP? If you do not support the OP, please say so.

What the OP said was that Jews had an equal right to the Arabs to settle there - but that the Arabs (as a nation) lost their equal moral claim to the land when they started a war to kick the Jews out or kill them.

The equal moral claim is easy to refute, ask any member of the First Nations. The war to kick people out started when a bunch of people, who were NOT BORN IN THE MIDEAST, came in and KICKED PEOPLE OUT. No, being born in Russia like Golda Meir or Menachem Begin does not count. The Arab war was a response to THAT.

I said, "Jews have lived there for over 3000 years and have always considered it their home. They have at least as much moral claim to settle there as the Arabs."

Then you will have no problem explaining this:

http://mariahussain.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/recruiting-american-jews-for-israel/
http://www.upiu.com/culture-society/2011/02/07/Government-backed-programs-help-US-Jews-move-to-Israel/UPIU-3711297072721/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/11/israel-return-jews-palestinians

[sabbat hunter]

127. So what is your solution to the issue of the WB aka Judea and Samaria

you probably have four choices
1) annex as is, face the reality that in a generation or two Arabs will out number Jews in Israel
2) annex it and expel any Arabs from it
3) status quo indefinitely
4) leave most of the west bank (with the exception of Jerusalem) and allow the creation of a Palestine.

which do you choose?

or do you have another idea that would work?

[Bradlad]

130. My opinion . .

(which means nothing because I won't suffer the direct consequences of a bad decision) is to annex all areas Israel needs to provide for defensible borders. These are overwhelmingly Jewish majority areas (major settlement blocks near green line) or areas where few live like the Jordan valley. Perhaps sections of the fence/wall would form part of the new borders.

Then declare that Israel is open for three months to begin discussing adjustments and mutually agreeable final status arrangements, using a mutually acceptable mediator, and subject to good faith negotiations by the Palestinians. Good faith means that the Palestinians first recognize Israel as a Jewish state and agree to halt all aggression within that 90 day window. If they can't do that in the 90 day window there's no point to negotiations.

The Palestinians can accept Israel and negotiate more suitable borders and final status details as required by Res242 that they signed - or live with the borders Israel chooses. i.e. 45 years is way past time to shit or get off the pot IMO.

[Bradlad]

132. Thinking more about this . .

Last edited Mon Aug 6, 2012, 04:27 PM - Edit history (1)

I now think this is indeed a good idea. If I was in charge (it's good for everyone concerned that I am not) I'd provisionally (based on negotiations according to the timeline mentioned) annex everything that Israel would have had if Arafat had accepted the Camp David offer plus about 10% more. Then I'd offer to return the 10% if the Palestinians agreed to recognize Israel as the Jewish state it is and agreed to halt all violence against Israel, the inciting of violence against Israel and teaching their kids to hate Israel.

Then I'd make the actual legal transfer of that (10% more) land to Palestinian sovereignty to occur after say 10 years of good faith compliance with the terms of the agreement.

It would be difficult for the world to fault Israel for making the same offer as Camp David (excluding Gaza which Israel has no sovereign control over) while asking no more in return but a guarantee of peace. Well, they would fault Israel anyway because Israel's always wrong no matter what - but at least Israel would have done the honorable thing and once more offered to trade land for peace with people who want to destroy Israel more than have peace. The difference is this time the Palestinians lose automatically if they fail to negotiate in good faith. Which of course they will (fail).

But you can consider this my provisional acceptance of the two state solution - which until now I could not see how it could work.

[bemildred]

109. I'm not obligated to answer his "points".

Any more than he is obligated to answer mine.

He threw out a bunch of straw men ("Why do you now see the Arabs as having some inherent right to be there but Jews do not?&quot and red herrings ("How is it that Arabs immigrating from Egypt or Jordan are not considered as displacing the Jews but Jews immigrating from Israel are considered as displacing Arabs?&quot and otherwise engaged in a lot of dissembling. I am well aware that I can't make him engage in real conversation anymore than he can make me, and that the result of such efforts is boring flame wars.

Notice the fondness for false hypotheticals attributing nasty stuff to your opponents.

I suppose those are attempts at an insults, but I think it says more about him than me.

[Bradlad]

24. I agree about the control.

That was also part of my point. Palestinian decisions have made it absolutely necessary for Israel to control the territory. It's a defensive necessity caused by the Palestinian leadership.

The only resource worth mentioning is water. Israel shares the water exactly according to agreements signed by both parties and all major powers to Oslo despite a major PR effort by Israel's enemies to create some different reality. Actual Arab lack of water when they need it is due mostly to corruption and incompetence in the PA leadership and the PA Water Agency.

[bemildred]

27. Palestinians have no power, their decisions don't mean piffle. nt

[Bradlad]

29. That's what happens

. . when you attack a powerful democracy with a well organized military capable of defending itself. You gradually lose more power and control until you can show that you are responsible enough to handle what power and control you have left. In 1966 Arabs had complete control of the WB, all Jews had been expelled and their future was completely in Arab hands. I guess that wasn't enough for them, was it?

[bemildred]

31. That's what happens when you have no power.

And a powerful democracy with a powerful military wants your land. It's a very old story.

[Bradlad]

32. Right. It all started when the Jews shot back. n/t

[bemildred]

33. I was thinking more of the Athenian expedition to Syracuse.

Part of the Peloponessian War. But you could go with the Romans and their conquest of Israel, except they won, the Athenians got all wrapped up in domestic politics and they lost.

[pelsar]

30. au contrair...the Palestinians have lots of power.....

The narrative that the Palestenains have no power can effect no change doesn't stand up to history: Its a nice narrative to absolve them of any responsibility...but us israelis reject that belief, since history has shown otherwise:

a few examples:
- the wall, the only reason the wall went up was because of the Palestenian leadership to start using sucide bombers.
- Israel invaded lebanon in the 1980's due to the PLO's attacks.
- Israel invaded and shut down the gaza/israeli border due to the Palestinians decisions in gaza to attack israel
- The Palestenains of gaza could have made decisions, that would have opened the border and not cause the IDF to attack
- Their attacks from gaza after the withdrawal, eliminated their lsraeli left, their political allies in israel
- Sharon was elected due to the sucide bombers.
- Oslo and Palestinian limited rule was a direct result of the Palestenians Intifada I.

and so and so forth....their power has effected the middle east and in fact the world in countless ways, the belief that they have no power, is belief that is necessary to put the blame on israel of all of what happens, but its a belief that history has shown to be false.

[kayecy]

34. Compared to Israel's power, the Palestinians have zilch........n/t

[pelsar]

36. of course you believe that....

the second you 'admit" that Palestinians have any power to affect change, that means they are also responsible for their actions...and that is something that cannot be acknowledged nor accepted by certain western groups.

Once you go down that road, the whole concept of the conflict changes......its gets worse, if you believe that the Palestinians can handle the concept of "responsibility" and understand the concept of "civil rights" its gets terribly confusing to back them and make excuses for their actions.....after all what kind of "left" type person who makes claims of humanity and civil rights would support (directly or indirectly) a secular dictatorship or a theocratic dictatorship that believes in attempting to murder civilians at random periods. It only works if you can claim they are not "responsible for their actions" and cannot understand that there are "consequences for those actions" as well.

that is why you have to believe they have no power....I get it, what makes it rather ironic is that neither the Palestinians nor the israelis believe that.

[kayecy]

38. Your claim that Palestinians have power to effect change is disingenuous

the second you 'admit" that Palestinians have any power to affect change, that means they are also responsible for their actions

What exactly has been achieved by this power you claim the Palestinians have?
Take your first example:

- the wall, the only reason the wall went up was because of the Palestenian leadership to start using sucide bombers

Palestinians were involved in an asymmetric war with Israel……As a last resort they resorted to suicide bombing…….They were responsible for that action even though it was forced on them by Israel.

Similarly, Israel was responsible for building the wall even though that was forced on them by the suicide bombers….Israel could have resorted to other actions but it chose not to do so.

Result?.......No change.


Your claim that Palestinians have power to effect change is disingenuous….To date, because of their weakness, the Palestinians have achieved virtually nothing by their resistance, in terms of ending settlements or getting Israel to return to the Green Line....…How can you claim they have the power to effect change?

.

[pelsar]

43. i wrote change.....not change that you believe has to happen

what they have achieved with their power has been very negative toward their cause, but change never the less.

but you pretty much proved my point, that you cannot accept that the Palestenians in fact are responsable for what they do (even though they believe so)..

They were responsible for that action even though it was forced on them by Israel

do you mind explaining how if something is forced upon someone how infact they are responsable?...if its force, then they are not responsable, if its not forced and they make a decision to do a certain set of actions, then cleary they are responsable.

choose, its one or the other. (as far as the suicide bombers, you'll notice they chose to stop using them....which means they also chose to use them, they made decisions that changed their environment and not for the better in this case.
_____________________

as far as the settlements, go, there have been plenty of changes, mostly not in the way the Palestinians wanted, doesn't mean they can't affect change, it just means that if that change is not to their liking they might want to try different tactics.

[kayecy]

49. I'm always willing to oblige with an explanation......

do you mind explaining how if something is forced upon someone how infact they are responsable

With pleasure......See my previous example:

Israel was responsible for building the wall even though that was forced on them by the suicide bombers…

I think this example explains how something can be forced on you but you remain responsible.

as far as the settlements, go, there have been plenty of changes, mostly not in the way the Palestinians wanted, doesn't mean they can't affect change

And you think that constitutes "power" do you?.......Power is usually associated with control......When it comes to removing settlements, what "powe"r do you think the Palestinians have?

[pelsar]

58. forced to?..by whom?

no one forced israel to build the wall, there were other options: for instance moats, mining the open areas, additional soldiers with more roadblocks and towers, barbwire electronics fences such as on the Lebanese border......

israel may have made the wall but nobody forced them too.

same too for your Palestinians sucide bombers: you claim they were force to: so what exactly happened that all of a sudden they were forced to use suicide bombers..and the what exactly did israel do that forced them NOT to used suicide bombers.?

____
Power is usually associated with control

try the dictionary: power is not about control, its about influencing, making changes etc,....if you going to make up definitions so that fits your world view better, perhaps put an asterisk to save me time?

[kayecy]

65. I don't agree with you but no matter.......

no one forced israel to build the wall, there were other options: for instance moats, mining the open areas, additional soldiers with more roadblocks and towers, barbwire electronics fences such as on the Lebanese border......israel may have made the wall but nobody forced them too.

I stand corrected...I thought Israel had no choice....I find your admission that there were many other options most interesting.

...........................

try the dictionary: power is not about control, its about influencing, making changes etc,....if you going to make up definitions so that fits your world view better, perhaps put an asterisk to save me time?

I don't agree with you but no matter, I'll remove it from my question which you still have not answered:

And you think that constitutes "power" do you?.........When it comes to removing settlements, what "power" do you think the Palestinians have?

[pelsar]

70. there are always choices.....

some are better than others, some are stupid and some are smart, some are obvious and some are not.

the Palestinians got rid of the settlements in gaza didn't they?......isn't that the "power' your talking about?

[kayecy]

73. They did?.......News to me,.....

the Palestinians got rid of the settlements in gaza didn't they?......isn't that the "power' your talking about?

They did?.......News to me, I thought it was a unilateral decision by Sharon because he knew Israel didn't want Gaza in any final settlement.......He thought a Palestinian Getto surrounded by barbed wire would suit Israel just fine.


Whatever "power" you claim the Palestinans have doesn't seem to have reduced the West Bank settlements or the occupation does it?

[pelsar]

87. yes its news, because you prefer to make up word definitions.

the dictionary definition of "power" in this case its political power includes the words "influence", "policy" (which causes change) etc.

If the gazans were not shooting rockets at the israeli settlements and the IDF wasn't spending all those resources to protect them and lives, then there would have been no reason to leave......

again, its a simple series of events, that started with the Palestinians creating a policy of their own that included:

engineers to design home made rockets
importing the materials
production of the rockets
storage of the rockets
tactical planning of when to shoot
type of funeral for those killed.

the result of such political and military policies was israel leaving gaza....and that is one definition of the intelligence use of power.

the Palestinians caused israel to leave gaza
(the dictionary...its your friend, but it will cause you to write more accurately with the resultant confusion in your simplistic view of the conflict)

[kayecy]

92. More distractions....Just stick to justifying your claim.....

"Gaza", "rockets" and "funerals" are a nice way of avoiding having to justify your claim that the Palestinians have "Power"

As I said before, whatever "power" you claim the Palestinans have, doesn't seem to have reduced the West Bank settlements or end the occupation beyond the Green Line does it?


Notice I said "West Bank" and "occupation, NOT Gaza.

I am sure the Palestinians would like to know how you think they had the power to do the above.

[pelsar]

94. the subject was the power the Palestinians have.....

you claimed, i believe that they have none (zilch)....i was just showing that infact they do have the power to affect change.
_________

i was not getting into specifics...that i will do after we agree upon the principle that the Palestinians do have power, not as much as israel, but never the less, power to affect change...and not the "zilch" that you originally claimed.

agree or not?
(its has implications so i figure we should get the foundation right)

[kayecy]

96. Having got the foundation right,......

you claimed, i believe that they have none (zilch)....i was just showing that infact they do have the power to affect change.

What I actually said was:

Compared to Israel's power, the Palestinians have zilch.

So far you have shown us nothing which proves me wrong.

Do Palestinians have the power to affect change?.....Yes, in a very limited way, such as making some Israelis a little uncomfortable or even making their daily lives hazardous.......No, in the essentials of West bank settlements and Israel's occupation beyond the Green Line.

So there is your answer, just don't bother to introduce Gaza, rockets, etc again.


Having got the foundation right, perhaps you could now tell us how you think the Palestinians have the power to persuaded Israel to evacuate the West Bank settlements and return its military to the Green Line?

[pelsar]

97. ok we've established that they do have power...

your claiming "limited".....

is causing a war 'limited"?...threaten to over throw a govt with subsequent reaction of over 10,000 deaths and exile for thousands more?

in case you don't know what i am writing about, Sept 1970 in Jordan.
___

how about Lebanon? the PLO with the constant firing in to israel, caused the reaction of israel invading several times with the final time, causing massive damage to Beruit, killing thousands and once again exiling thousands.
____

are those two examples of what you would call: limited power. (we still establishing the definition, since your kind of weak on definitions).

[kayecy]

99. Don't you ever answer the question?

For the umpteenth time:

Having got the foundation right, perhaps you could now tell us how you think the Palestinians have the power to persuaded Israel to evacuate the West Bank settlements and return its military to the Green Line?

To answer your non-sequitors:
Jordan......What has that got to do with the Palestinians power to affect change in Israel's policy?

Lebanon.......Are you claiming that artillery fire and cross-border attacks can compare with the power of the IDF?

Israel had choices.......No one forced them to go to war and bomb and invade Lebanon did they?.....Had they made other choices, there would probably have been no war........That is real power to effect change.

[pelsar]

101. i answer when were talking about the samething....Palestenian power to make changes.

its a generic question, nothing to do with israeli policy, we'll get to that. Now that we've already established that the Palestinians do in fact have some power, the next question is how much?

In Jordan the Palestinians nearly caused a civil war and over 10,000 deaths... i would say that clearly shows the Palestinians in fact do have political power. Jordan, didn't have to attack the Palestinians, but the choices made by the Palestinians made that a reasonable choice

In Lebanon, same thing. The PLO attempted to murder israelis knowing full well that eventually Israel would militarily react, and they did. The ensuing war causing many deaths. The Palestinians could have refrained from shooting and israel would have not crossed the border as they had not done previous to the attacks, the PLO decided to change the status quo.

Again we see that the Palestinians in fact have quite a bit of power to create change.

We can look at Intifada I and II, both caused massive changes in the environment, those changes started when the Palestinians decide on a policy change.

would you like so more examples of the ability of the Palestinians to cause change in the environment do to their own changes in policy..i.e. power?

hence its pretty clear that the Palestinians power to make changes is not "zilch".

[kayecy]

105. If you can't or won't repond to my question .......

its a generic question, nothing to do with israeli policy, we'll get to that. Now that we've already established that the Palestinians do in fact have some power, the next question is how much?

Your initial post on this discussion was anything but generic.

My response was also specifically comparing Palestinian power to Israeli power.

If you want to change the subject under discussion, count me out...... In discussing Palestinian power, I am only concerned with the relative powerlessness of the Palestinians to get Israel to evacuate the West Bank settlements and persuade the IDF to return to the Green Line.

If you can't or won't repond to my question then I leave you to persue your hairy, fairy generic conundrums with someone else.

hence its pretty clear that the Palestinians power to make changes is not "zilch

And as I said at the start: "Compared to Israel's power, the Palestinians have zilch.", thus we have come round in a full circle.

[pelsar]

111. Palestenian power.....history and future.....

my initial post was about Palestinian power to make change, that is still what i want to establish...

so since you don't want to discuss that, i shall take the liberty of explaining why they have power (less then israel), why its relevant and the problem is "how to use it." This is not meant for you, but for others who might be interested.

1) the Palestinians have shown they have power to change the political/military environment: Be it causing a war in jordan, lebanon, getting Oslo started (intfiada I), causing the wall built (intifada II) etc etc etc.

2) the next question is how are they using that power to further their goals. This relates to how israel reacts to their actions (the stronger party). We have two examples of "good" use of their power to attain their goals.

a) Intifada I brought about Oslo, brought in the PA for limited self rule. Intifada I was based on limited violence with a bunch of other factors the changed israeli opinion about the Palestinians. Hence we see the power used by the Palestenian to cause change, to attain a goal.

b) gaza: Had there been no rockets, no violence, the israelis in gaza would have stayed to continue to surf and enjoy the quiet environment of gaza. The Palestinians there, again using some violence and politics caused Sharon with the backing of the israeli govt and people to destroy settlements and leave. This would not have happened if the Palestenians did nothing in regards to the occupation, hence we see a result of their policy changes

again we see the Palestinians using their power to influence the israeli society and govt to remove settlements.
____

our conclusion? History has shown that in fact the Palestinians do have political power not just to influence events, but to create for the first time in their history partial self rule (i..e nationalism)
__________

now you focused on the west bank....so the question is not whether or not the Palestinians have power, thats been clearly established, the question is how are they going to use it. The Palestinians used very different means and policies for oslo and the gaza withdrawal, if they want israel to leave the west bank, they are going to have to use their power intelligently and find a third method....

they've already proven they can make change, even get settlements removed......i.e. they've got power

[kayecy]

112. They are going to have to find a third method!.........

...so the question is not whether or not the Palestinians have power, thats been clearly established, the question is how are they going to use it. The Palestinians used very different means and policies for oslo and the gaza withdrawal, if they want israel to leave the west bank, they are going to have to use their power intelligently and find a third method....

I leave others to comment on your "generic" musings if they want to.

..............................

…if they want israel to leave the west bank, they are going to have to use their power intelligently and find a third method....

So here we have your proposal as to how the Palestinians can use what little power they have…..According tp you, ”They are going to have to find a third method!"

Forgive me if I don’t pass on this revolutionary solution of yours to my Palestinian friends!
.

[pelsar]

114. so keep doing the same thing....

Forgive me if I don’t pass on this revolutionary solution of yours to my Palestinian friends!


thats not really any of my business, but if you do look at a map and the history, its appears to me that the for the most part the present policy isn't really working that well...but hey its just my observation.

[sabbat hunter]

128. mining open areas

is not an option as they could easily hurt innocents, as they have been shown to have world wide.

There are many NGO that are trying to get land mines banned.

[shira]

50. Kayecy: As a "last resort" Israel forced Palestinians to become suicide bombers....

....after Arafat was offered the Clinton Initiatives (end of occupation/settlements, and a Palestinian state on nearly 100% of pre-1967 Gaza/WB)?

Is that what you're claiming?

Also, those rockets from Gaza were and still are forced out of desperation due to Israel evacuating completely from the area back in 2005?

[bemildred]

28. This is power, this is control:

Population of Jewish settlements in West Bank up 15,000 in a year

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113415103

[shira]

39. The Palestinians have the power to stop that. Settlers would've ended 12 years ago...

...had Arafat accepted the Clinton Initiatives.

[bemildred]

52. It is perfectly clear to anyone with a brain that they do not have the power to stop that.

Otherwise it would be stopped now.

[shira]

53. So had Arafat accepted in 2000-01, settlement expansion would've continued?

Is that what you're arguing?

[bemildred]

54. Please see post #52, that is what I am arguing.

Repeat as necessary.

[shira]

55. So if the Palestinians agree NOW to real peace, put a serious end to terror...

...put all their energy into their own state (not war), and agree to the Clinton Parameters, you're saying Israel won't agree and settlements will just continue? That's how powerless the Palestinians are?

[bemildred]

57. You just love those false hypotheticals, don't you? nt

[shira]

62. So the Palestinians aren't as powerless as you claim. Great! n/t

[bemildred]

64. So you love those false hypotheticals, great! nt

[shira]

74. Nothing false about it. You're wrong and can't admit it. n/t

[bemildred]

76. I haven't seem post #52 refuted.

All I've seen is some babble equating power with giving in to your opponents negotiating position, which does not really need any refutation.

[azurnoir]

103. so let's turn this around

are we assume that Israel because of the results of 2000-2001 had no choice but to continue building settlements?

[shaayecanaan]

44. Jews have lived in Greece and Turkey for longer than they've lived in Israel...

the oldest synagogue is in Greece, not Palestine. Besides which, there are peoples that go back a lot further than Israel. Assyrians have been in the area since Sargon the Great first strode the shores of the Mediterranean more than four thousand years ago.

Either way, simply living in an area for a length of time doesnt make it yours.

[Bradlad]

45. I agree.

That's why I didn't say that ancestral presence makes it theirs. What I did say is that:

"They have at least as much moral claim to settle there as the Arabs."

[Scootaloo]

51. Too bad "moral" and "ethical" aren't really synonyms

[Ken Burch]

46. The difference between Palestinians in the West Bank and Palestinians in Jerusalem and Israel Proper

(the pre-1967 area)is that those in Israel and Jerusalem get to vote in Israeli elections.

It goes without saying that, for Palestinians in the West Bank(what the extreme right-wing calls "Judea and Samaria&quot to have the same living standards as those in Jerusalem and Israel Proper, THEY would have to be given the vote in Israeli elections as well.

In other words, the one-state solution(which I, frankly, don't think is workable anytime soon).

West Bank Palestinians wouldn't have any good things at all if they were living under Israeli sovereignty(occupation)but had no votes in Israeli elections. They would be forever powerless and impoverished.

[Bradlad]

61. I thought this was pretty clear.

Or, perhaps you are from another culture (Scotland?) where these definitions are different. But here's a sentence from my comment referring to "Arab Israelis and Arabs in Jerusalem":

"They have higher incomes and living standards and live in more freedom than any Arabs in the world."

I list three categories by which people's situational happiness is typically measured: income, living standards and freedom.

Having a vote is normally considered a "freedom" that some humans have and others don't. Some have it in name but not in fact - because of corruption. Most Arabs in Arab majority states are in that latter category.

Living standards normally include longevity, infant mortality, access to health care, clean water, adequate housing and nutrition, etc, You may personally wish to conflate "living standards" with "the right to vote". I do not and I made that clear in my comment.

But even more to the point I think you were getting at: Palestinians in the WB have the "right" to vote right now. They don't get it in fact because of the corruption of their leadership. But the article advocated for the status quo with incremental improvements. Perhaps this would include the Israelis keeping control of the settlement blocks with Palestinians getting incrementally more control in their areas as long as they refrain from violence against the Jews - there or in Israel of course.

Added: As part of these incremental improvements it would be really wonderful if the Palestinain leadership actually allowed for some more of the freedoms we in Western democracies enjoy and take for granted. I can imagine that if true liberalism were granted to the Palestinians they would embrace it and eventually lose their hatred of Jews and develop along the lines of Lebanon before the Islamists destroyed it.

But they certainly would not have to be given the right to vote in Israeli elections in order to enjoy a high standard of living. I hope that clears things up.

[Bradlad]

67. And in addition . .

Last edited Mon Jul 30, 2012, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)

This is something that I think many commenters on the pro-Palestinian side fail to appreciate: Virtually all the deficit in living standards and living conditions of the Palestinian Arabs are the result of decisions they made to violently attack Jews. They had the power to make those decisions or to make better decisions.

Those decisions by the Palestinians caused Israel to make decisions for their self-defense against those attacks.

What happened was that the Palestinians used their power to change the environment for the Israelis by making it extremely lethal which was something they had the power to do before the separation fence was completed. The fence is a good example because it has impacted the Palestinian living conditions - in some cases very negatively. But this is an example of a key decision by the Palestinians that resulted in significantly worse living conditions for them.

In fact if you look at some articles about Palestinian per capita income, GDP and employment, going from the present and back for several decades, you'll see that all those figures track very closely with periods of calm, that result in steadily rising values in all those categories - and periods of violence, intifadas, etc., that result in steadily declining values for all those categories.

During periods of relative calm, Israel loosens the restrictions, checkpoints, etc. During periods of violence Israel does what it must to defend its citizens and restrictions increase, fences get built, etc.

I think this shows clearly that Palestinians definitely have the power to affect their own well being and living conditions in either positive or negative ways. And although I doubt this will make much difference to some here - it is obvious to some others of us that the more Westerners encourage and make excuses for and donate money for and wave signs in demonstrations in support of Palestinian "resistance" and intransigence against Israel - the more the Palestinians will suffer and the longer it will be before there is any peace in the region.

I would ask some of you (those to whom this applies) who claim to be concerned about Palestinian suffering - if your religious-like belief in the unassailable innocence of Palestinians who target the peaceful civilians of a neighboring state for death - is really more important than the great unhappiness and suffering on all sides that such groundless beliefs contribute to?

[Ya Basta]

125. I was wondering

"Israel's presence on the WB is absolutely not a colonial enterprise. Jews have lived there for over 3000 years and have always considered it their home. They have at least as much moral claim to settle there as the Arabs. "

-

I am curious to know what your opinion is about undocumented Mexicans. Do they too have at least as much moral claim to settle here as you and I do since they've lived here for well over 3000 years? At least in the southwest region of the U.S. that is. Or does your opinion change to no they don't because 'that's different'?

[Bradlad]

126. Yes, it is different.

At one time Texas was "disputed" land. Both Mexican and non-Mexican immigrants immigrated and settled there. It was fought over by the state of Mexico and a rag tag bunch of Anglo settlers who - after several defeats - eventually won that dispute and established sovereignty. They then wished to become part of the US. The US accepted their request. Now it is part of the US. So the US now determines who can immigrate and the requirements, quotas, etc. Just like any other legal state. Just as Mexico does within its recognized borders.

The WB is still a disputed territory as far as statehood. Israel holds sovereignty by defensive necessity pending statehood at some point when the Palestinians are willing to commit to and enforce peaceful relations with Israel. So far they have not been willing to do that. Israel, the temporary sovereign, has not annexed the WB as the US did Texas. In the meantime, Israel has decided that Israel's Jews can settle there pending final status negotiations. Sovereigns have "sovereign power" and have always determined such things. Otherwise they would not be sovereign.

Living there over millenia does not give Jews special rights. As I said, just a reasonable claim as good as an Arab's to settle in the disputed territory. Hope that clears things up.

[Ya Basta]

129. So killing and sticking guns into people's faces makes theft legitimate?

Because the essence of what you're referring to is a group of people getting together in a group, arming themselves then killing and terrorizing other people for the purpose of taking from them. Did I just describe what you described or did I just describe a group of gangsters from LA going over to a Vegas casino to commit arm robbery? In other words it may sound strange to compare the two, but that's only because we construct an illusion in our minds that there's a difference between the two when in essence there really isn't.

Nevertheless this is just an academic point because the point you made earlier wasn't that military annexation makes what Israel is currently doing legitimate, but instead that it was the presence of Jews living in that area for 3000 years which makes Israel's use of force to take land away from the Palestinians legitimate.

So that still leaves my question unanswered. Using your own justification do Mexicans have at least as much moral claim to settle here as you and I do since they've lived here for well over 3000 years? But I think we both know your reaction will be a hypocritical one. But tha's ok I understand.

[Bradlad]

131. You are completely wrong.

Nevertheless this is just an academic point because the point you made earlier wasn't that military annexation makes what Israel is currently doing legitimate, but instead that it was the presence of Jews living in that area for 3000 years which makes Israel's use of force to take land away from the Palestinians legitimate.

I have said several times that I do not believe having ancestral ties to any land gives anyone special rights to ownership or sovereignty. And I just said it to you. Nor do passages in some holy book.

Try again if you wish.

[Shaktimaan]

135. ...Israel's use of force to take land away from the Palestinians...

Considerign that the Jews WERE living there though, and in many cases were either forced out of their homes or killed by Palestinians BEFORE Israel captured the land and allowed settlers to live there.

Your Mexico analogy makes no sense. Mexicans have not lived here for 3000 years. They lived in Mexico. Jews actually did live, own land and build communities in the areas we are discussing. Places like Hebron and East Jerusalem. Knowing that, why do you frame the conflict as "Israel taking land away from the Palestinians?" and not "Israel and Palestine disputing land ownership?"

"Because the essence of what you're referring to is a group of people getting together in a group, arming themselves then killing and terrorizing other people for the purpose of taking from them."

Do you mean the massacres and ethnic cleansing perpetuated against Jews by Palestinians or vice versa? Both occurred.

[oberliner]

3. In a way, I'm glad the NY Times published this

It showcases to a wider audience just what the settler community in Israel is all about.

One thing I'll give Dayan credit for, at least he is honest in presenting his POV.

When the NY Times publishes pieces from Hamas leaders, they tend to tone down their rhetoric to sound more reasonable.

It's funny for all the talk of the "hasbara machine" - it really seems like the RW Palestinians are much better at PR than the RW Israelis.

While the liberals on both sides tend to have a hard time getting their message across at all.

[LeftishBrit]

6. Dani Dayan?!?

He is a right-wing nutter, who has represented the settlers for a long time, and was originally an MK for the Tehiya party - a small party well to the right of the Likud.

[shira]

10. But They are not Citizens – A Centrist’s Response to Dani Dayan

In stating that the settlements, even those outside the settlement blocs, are a fact on the ground that will be very difficult to dislodge, Dayan makes a reasonable point. In stating that the Six Day War was a defensive war that legitimizes the taking of territory, Dayan states, in my opinion, a simple (or not so simple) truth. In predicting that a future Palestinian State would most likely turn quickly to extremism, Dayan may very well be correct.

Putting it all together, Dayan believes that the above three points lead to an inevitable conclusion: Israel must explore a one-state solution.

I admit that I am an advocate of the Two-State Solution, and have suggested in a previous post (Revamping the Allon Plan) how I envision this. Nevertheless, I am certainly open to other views and even think that putting multiple solutions on the table is a healthy exercise. However, there is something missing from Dayan’s presentation that makes it something less than a solution. Dayan never addresses what this one-state will look like. Specifically, what is the end game for the Palestinians? Will they be citizens of the state? Will they have voting rights?

The question of the future rights of the Palestinians currently living in the West Bank is not a secondary issue, but is the central question to be addressed in any proposed One-State Solution. If it weren’t for the existence of two million Palestinian Arabs living in the territories, they would have been annexed and made officially part of Israel long ago, as was the Golan Heights, with the handful of local Druze given Israeli citizenship. But the numbers make this prohibitive, since with two million more Arab citizens, the Jewish majority would be marginal and in danger of being lost altogether over the next fifty years.

more...
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/but-they-are-not-citizens-a-centrists-response-to-dani-dayan/

[kayecy]

35. The six day war was defensive?....Who used military force first?.......n/t

[shira]

37. Yeah, it was. Closing off the Straits of Tiran alone was an act of war vs. Israel...

As well as Arab armies lined up right across Israel's borders, threatening to wipe out the Jews...

[kayecy]

40. So the US started the Pacific War did it?.......

So the US started the Pacific war by blockading Japan did it?.......According to you Japan was forced into a "defensive war" against the US.

Both Israel and Japan carried out surprise attacks.

[aranthus]

42. The US did not blockade Japan before Japan attacked.

The US embargoed ceretain of its goods from being sold to Japan. That isn't an act of war. A blockade is the use of military force to prevent any ships from reaching port in the enemy country (In Egypt's case by transiting the Straits of Tiran). The US did not do that to Japan. It merely refused to sell the Japanese oil and other goods. There was no blockade until well into the war.

[pelsar]

48. just out of curiosity....because i am curious....

your original claim was the the 6-day war was not defensive. Was the claim based on actual facts and events or just something you want to believe?

i suspect the later, but believe you should clearly state how you came to your conclusion.
___

perhaps you did not know that the egypt closed off the port of Eilat? (this is considered an aggressive act of war). If you did not know, and now you do, does that change your belief?

or will you now find something else to back up your belief (and if that too is false, will you look for more?

[kayecy]

56. There are many things I do not know about the 6-day war

just out of curiosity....because i am curious.... your original claim was the the 6-day war was not defensive. Was the claim based on actual facts and events or just something you want to believe?

I am sure there are many things I do not know about the 6-day war, but what I do know is:

1. On May 22, 1967 Nasser declared the Straits of Tiran closed to Israeli shipping….Nasser stated he was open to referring the closure to the International Court of Justice to determine its legality…This option was rejected by Israel.

2. Israel never atempted to test Nasser’s closure of Tiran.

3. On June 2nd, the Israeli Ministerial Committee met with the General Staff….At this meeting,
Rabin said that he:

…..distinguished between the problem of keeping open the Straits of Tiran, which allowed Eilat to function as a port and whose significance lay in the effect on Israel's deterrent capability

Brigadier-General Mati Peled declared:

"We have heard something regarding Tiran, which lost its significance long ago. It was not important to start with and is even less important now."

Sharon stated:

“Our aim is to make sure that in the coming ten or twenty years or generation or two the Egyptians will not want to fight us. Any link-up on our part with other powers or action against marginal objectives [that is, to be content with attacking Egyptian airfields, conquering the Gaza Strip, and the like] instead of the central objective of destroying the Egyptian army will prove that we are weak.”

4. At noon, June 4th, Eshkol conferred with Dayan, Eban, Yigal Allon, Herzog, and Rabin. It was decided unanimously that the time had come to go to war


--------Why did Israel chose war instead of arbitration by the International Court of Justice?

--------Why did Israel not attempt to test the Tiran/Eilat blockade?

--------Knowing that Nasser’s army was not ready for war, why did Israel decide to go to war?

--------Can a "defensive" war's aim be to deter Egypt for years to come?


Please explain how the above ties in with your belief that the 6-day war was a “defensive war”.

[bemildred]

59. It is a subject of great and vituperative dispute, which is why I now avoid arguing about it.

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Israel clearly attacked first, "pre-emptively", and conquered and still holds territory as a consequence. Nevertheless you will find many here who will assert that they were forced into it by the people they attacked. I will just point out that that is an unusual way to interpret such facts. In the meantime, there is a vast literature out there to be read on the subject, much of it in conflict. In 1973, the Arabs took the hint and attacked first, so things went a little less smoothly, but the IDF still won handily in the end.

[kayecy]

66. You are probably sensible, but "defensive" is ridiculous!...n/t

[bemildred]

68. Nobody ever fights an offensive war anymore.

They are always defending themselves or their national interests or whatnot, and it is never about conquest, the most overt you will ever see is some babble about the recovery of past glories and the like, never outright theft. Hence the popularity of "pre-emptive strikes": the illusion that you are only "defending yourself" combined with the advantages of a surprise attack. When your enemies do it, it's evil, when you do it, it's just good sense.

It was not always so, conquerors used to brag on their own violence, so I suppose that is progress of a sort, or maybe just more subtle PR.

[shira]

77. Egypt did in 1973. Had Israel pre-empted at the last minute, you'd blame Israel....

...for starting it.

Comical.

[bemildred]

80. That is true.

If I say Israel was the aggressor in 1967, and I do, it's hard not to admit the Arab states were the aggressor in 1973, but I said that they started it in 1973, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=15378

[shira]

81. Again, had Israel pre-empted Egypt in 1973 at the very last minute you would say...

...Israel was the aggressor in 1973 as well.

Again, comical.

[bemildred]

83. Correct.

If you want to be the defender, you have to wait to be attacked first.

[shira]

84. Thank you. Case closed. n/t

[Bradlad]

85. It's hard to be more completely wrong than that. n/t

[pelsar]

60. its pretty simple...

egypt blockaded the port of eilat...there is no argument about it is there?

that is a declaration of war, its not even a gray area, its not even confusing, its an act of war.

_____

your "arguments that it wasn't" ...you've got to be kidding. Nassar blockades the port, then offers to discuss its legality?...and you actually think thats some kind of argument? Perhaps after israel destroyed their air force egypt should have asked for a pause so they can discuss the legality of that?

and israel should have 'tested it"...or great, send in a civilian ship to possibly be sunk or rammed, brilliant plan!!! or war ship to be sunk with no air cover...another brilliant idea.
_____

as far as your quotes..go, they mean nothing to me, since i wasn't there, have no idea what the conversations were about, what was for public consumption and what was for the generals....i just prefer the actual events, they speak louder than any quote:
___

so are you claiming that Egypt did NOT blockade the port?
are you claiming that blockading the port is NOT an act of war?

pretty simple series of events, with pretty clear definitions (unless you want to change those definitions as well)

[kayecy]

63. Why kill lots of people when you have a choice?......

egypt blockaded the port of eilat...there is no argument about it is there?
that is a declaration of war, its not even a gray area, its not even confusing, its an act of war.

The answer to your above statement is that there apparently WAS a gray area...... I will not bore you with the details but if you are going to enter into an historical argument you really ought to check your facts.

There was a dispute in interpretation of International Law as applied to Tiran and that is why Nasser offered to take it to the International Court to be resolved….Israel refused, presumably because it though killing lots of Egyptians would be a better deterrent than winning a court case.


So, I ask you again, why did Israel not try to avoid war by going to the International Court?

[pelsar]

71. because the israeli govt sometimes makes intelligent decisions......

the "gray" area was for the useful idiotes to play with. blockading a port where a country imports its oil amongst other things is an aggressive act. Going to intl court was just a game to be played....The only reason they did that was to damage israel (unless of course you can thing of something else....)

if you really want to know why israel chose to "return the favor" to egypt, was quite simple: economics and a fearful population.

israel at full mobilization meant the countries economics was at a standstill, whereas the arab countries could have their armies on the border at partial alert and make all kind of noises about kicking the jews in to the sea, for a very long time...israel could not.

the israeli population was in panic, afraid of was might/could happen (spare me the idea the people can read the future and KNOW what is going to happen-thats called BS in english).

the combined arab armies had a 3:1 ratio over israel, in soldiers, aircraft, tanks etc. That is a serious threat. So israel chose a path to "even out the odds." and stop the threatening noises.
___

moral of the story?...if you threaten a country, block their oil imports, you may just end up on the losing end, its not a smart thing to do, if you can't follow through.

[kayecy]

75. Or the war-monger idiots to use as justification.....

the "gray" area was for the useful idiotes to play with. blockading a port where a country imports its oil amongst other things is an aggressive act

Or the war-monger idiots to use as an excuse to enhance their deterence.

Since both Rabin and Paled thought your "importing oil city" had no significance, going to war over Eilat does not really make sense........Unless of course you merely wanted to teach the Egyptians who was boss?

....the combined arab armies had a 3:1 ratio over israel, in soldiers, aircraft, tanks etc. That is a serious threat. So israel chose a path to "even out the odds." and stop the threatening noises.

You may very well be right, just don't pretend it was a "defensive war".....It was an agressive war which strted with a surprise attack by Israel just like all those other agressive wars.

Hitler carried out a surprise attack on Russia
Japan carried out a surprise attack on the US
Britain, France and Israel carried out a surprise attack in 1956 on Egypt.
North Korea carried out a surprise attack on South Korea in 1950
Argentina carried out a surprise attack on the Falklands.
Israel carried out a surprise attack on Egypt in 1967

Funny that only Israel claims its attack was "defensive"!

[shira]

78. This is why you guys can't expect to be taken seriously. Egypt attacked Israel in 1973...

Had Israel been able to stop it at the last minute, you'd now be blaming Israel for being the aggressor for that one as well.



In your view, it would have been best had Israel allowed the blockade and invited Egypt and surrounding armies to strike/bomb Israel's civilian population centers first.

Suicidal.

[pelsar]

91. just an historical note.....

Israel had a 6hr warning before the egyptians attacked and infact did not attack......political pressures, which cost israeli soldiers lives on the front. A controversial decision/ a bitter one that remains to this day in israel.

[pelsar]

88. try again (this will be your third attempt)

Last edited Tue Jul 31, 2012, 01:56 AM - Edit history (1)

isn't this what i mentioned in the beginning? your now searching history for some kind of parallel to justify your beliefs, when in fact there is none. If your beliefs from the beginning were based on historical events i wouldn't have to show how wrong you are every time. Your beliefs are not based on history, have no basis in that realm. Believe what you want, just don't try to prove it to the non religious.


your list?
hitler, japan, North Korea, etc...none of those included a previous threatening act as per what Egypt actually did, which was close off a port, make threatening noises, remove the buffer UN troops and mobilize its forces.

those are actual events that happened, you have to either be blind or prefer to be, to pretend that they meant nothing to a state that was out numbered 3:1

see how that works...your so intent of showing that israel is guilty, that your search for a parallel event has to ignore the very basic actions of Egypt
____

you'll note that first you tried the:
1) US embargo on Japan is equivalent to a navel blockade,
when that fell through, now your trying....
2) Germans surprise attack on russia (breaking a treaty) is similar to the IDF attack.

Since that too is not equivalent, your now going to have to find something else....

3)_______________

[kayecy]

93. Is your 5th excuse coming up?.......

Let us look at your arguement so far:

First you claimed the 1967 war was “defensive” because Nasser was blockading Eilat……You backed off from this when I showed you that Rabin, Paled and others believed that Eilat was not the vital oil terminal you claimed.

You then introducde the “casus belli” legal claim of which you said there was no doubt……I showed you that there was in fact a doubt, so you promptly dropped that claim.

Next you said that the Arab armies were about to attack….I showed you that Israel knew the Egyptian army was in no position to attack.

Finally you tried to show, that although normal Western democracies do not carry out surprise attacks, Israel was somehow different.


Are you going to produce something more to justify your “defensive war” claim or revisit your previous arguments?

[pelsar]

95. wow...you completely misunderstood me

i wrote: quotes mean nothing to me...so I ignore them as proof of anything (i guess you don't know they changed their minds after that a couple more times....)

i didn't "drop anything" blocking a port is an aggressive act, i added the "casus bell" because you tossed in the legal argument, but to me it is only a side show

blocking a countries port...an aggressive act
its very simple...everything else just confirms their plans..

the IDF knew the Egyptian army was not in position to attack? , ..where did the come from? The egyptian army was threatening israel (with mobilization on june 4).....they already had a uniform command with jordan and arab troops coming from Iraq, Kuwait, and Algeria.

the surprise attack comparisons of yours..... you were comparing oranges to apples. Germanys surprise attack etc were not at all similar to israel attacking Egypt, nor were your other comparisons relevant as all were missing key components that Egypt was doing to Israel, be it the port, the threats, the armies mobilization.
___

i understand you want to show that somehow israel wasn't threatened, even though the armies of 5 arab nations were mobilized to destroy israel (as per their rhetoric and movements), an israeli port was blockaded and there were sporadic attacks along the various israeli borders......

and israel is the guilty one?

sell it to the useful idiotes that need to believe it, history and historical events simply show otherwise

[kayecy]

98. A few sources for you:

[blockquote ]….i understand you want to show that somehow israel wasn't threatened, even though the armies of 5 arab nations were mobilized to destroy israel (as per their rhetoric and movements), an israeli port was blockaded and there were sporadic attacks along the various israeli borders......
Lots of countries have felt themselves threatened in the past, not to mention Iran feeling threatened by Israel today….Does that make any resulting war a “defensive war” ?

An Israeli port was blockaded, true but you seem to want to ignore the fact that the Israeli government did not consider either Eilat or its blockade of any importance.

…. and israel is the guilty one?

Did I say that?......All I claimed was that the 1967 war was not a “defensive war”
Calling it a “war of deterrence” would be nearer the mark, but as usual, Israeli propaganda can’t resist using euphemisms……..”Disputed territories” rather than “Occupied territory”…..”Transfer” rather than “ethnic cleansing”…… “Targetted killings” rather than “assassinations”.

…..the IDF knew the Egyptian army was not in position to attack? , ..where did the come from?

A few references for you:
Mate Peled, June 2nd, 1967
New York Times, may 23rd, 1967
Richard Helms’s CIA presentation to President Johnson
President Johnson to Abba Eban,
Israeli Military Intelligence
Michael B. Oren, in his book “Six Days of War
Rabin in an interview with , Le Monde
Menachem Begin in a speech in 1982

[Bradlad]

100. Warning! Definition escape in progress.

Last edited Tue Jul 31, 2012, 01:40 PM - Edit history (3)

This is one of those definition escapes that I just described in another thread. Link

Blow all the hot air you want. The aggressor is the side that if they laid down their weapons and walked away before the shooting starts (or better yet never picked them up and pointed them at their enemy) there would be no war. The defender is the side that if they laid down their weapons and walked away - they'd risk total defeat.

There's no possible way that Israel was the aggressor party to this war or that Egypt closed the Straits and kicked UNEF out to defend itself against Israel.

You fit the definition of a "definition Nazi" to the T. Constantly injecting definition disagreements into the discussion to avoid the underlying ideas and concepts - which almost always show your views to be lacking even the most basic logic support. BTW a "definition Nazi" is like a "Soup Nazi" except about words. Not anything like a real Nazi.

That's my definition and if you don't like it, you must leave.

[kayecy]

102. Response error...n/t

[Bradlad]

104. Read more carefully.

You asked where I got the evidence from that the IDF knew the Egyptian army was not in a position to attack.

No I didn't - pelsar did. You're confused about who you're addressing. I gave you a link about the "defintion Nazi".

[pelsar]

110. LOL...the IDF (military intelligence) KNEW........

did you miss 1973, when the IDF and govt "knew" the Egyptians were not going to attack?

Furthermore there is this thing called politics and cabinets and different opinions, not to mention "changing ones minds". If israel had not mobilized would have egypt attacked? how about a partial mobilization? maybe they would have blockaded haifa, seeing that eilat went so well?

not only am i not good at rereading the past via the present, nor am i good at reading the future, i also don't believe in the "parallel world" religion that states we can predict what would have happened if only "x" did "y" (ignoring all of the other zillion factors involved)

and just for fun? your list: your actually using politician speeches as proof of something?, or Mate Peled? Johnson to Eban? why not just use Bush? Nixon? (actually him i might even believe) as "proof" that at one point in life some famous people believed what you believed...
-----

as far as "being threatened" i think you somehow believe that there is no difference between words and actions. There is in fact a very very big difference. You will find this difference very true especially when it comes to international relations. Countries talk a lot, make lots of noises, but only when that actually do something physically do things start to really change.

The blockade of Eilat, removal of the UN were those actions.....

when you threaten to eliminate a country...there maybe unintended consequences (thats why in 73, they kept their mouths shut and tried it a different way).

[kayecy]

113. You are quite right Pelsar, one should not listen to noises…..

" There is in fact a very very big difference. You will find this difference very true especially when it comes to international relations. Countries talk a lot, make lots of noises, but only when that actually do something physically do things start to really change.

Now here we are in agreement at last!
Countries do “make a lot of noises” and it means nothing without action……Nasser boasted that he would crush Israel but he had no capability to do it.

In June 1967, Nasser had 50,000 of his troops in Aden and they were no match for poorly armed tribesmen.…….He had rushed 100,000 troops to Sinai fearing an Israeli attack but was so disorganized that they did not receive food for three days, they were completely disorganized and incapable of even static defence never mind attacking the IDF.

Israel did not boast or make noises…....It knew the IDF was more than capable of taking on and beating the combined Arab armies……..It simply attacked without warning to maximise the IDF’s future deterrent value…….Much more effective than boasting wouldn’t you say?


You are quite right Pelsar, one should not listen to countries making lost of noises….. They are not the dangerous ones.

[pelsar]

115. i guess you forgot...

egypt closed off an israeli port....that is generally defined as 'doing something"...i.e. action (now are going to claim that when your write "action' you don't mean that kind of action?-your going to redefine the word for us?)

If your going to count soldiers, at least be honest about it...shhheesh, do you really think i wouldn't have to correct you again?
you forget that 3:1 advantage that ALL of the arab armies that were participating in the "noise" had over israel, it wasn't just egyptian troops.

___

a funny thing about wars...the outcome is never "predetermined" Seems the people i know didn't know that they were capable of taking on an beating all of the arab armies, perhaps you can find some quotes from some "very important people' who know how to read the future and knew that the iDF would win...i don't know any of those kind of people (those who can read the future)

[kayecy]

116. It is now your turn to put-up or shut-up.......

…..you forget that 3:1 advantage that ALL of the arab armies that were participating in the "noise" had over israel, it wasn't just egyptian troops

You are a military man…..Do I have to remind you that in warfare, quality is everything?.....I am sure you will agree that this is particularly so in armored warfare.

Look at the situation of British Egypt in 1940…..The Italians were massing troops and armor on the Libyan border and clearly intended to invade…….Did the British make a pre-emptive attack?......No, they waited for the Italians to attack first, with the result that when 150,000 Italian troops invaded Egypt they were defeated by 36,000 British who took 118,000 Italian prisoners for the loss of 550 British.

Then there was the 1940 Italian invasion of Albania:
The Greeks fought the Italians to a standstill even though they only had 250,000 men as against 570,000 Italians.

………………………………
History is full of small numbers of quality, trained and motivated troops beating far superior forces (Germany-France, Germany-Russia, Japan-Singapore)…….Are you telling me Israeli Intelligence didn’t know the state of the Arab armies and that 3:1 in mere troop numbers meant nothing?


I have produced a list of sources indicating that the Israeli Government knew it was in no danger from the Arab armies….It is now your turn to put-up or shut-up.

.

[pelsar]

117. i shut up only if i'm wrong....but i'm not, your are (again)

Do I have to remind you that in warfare, quality is everything?
quality in war in fact is not everything....nor is there any guarantee in any war/battle who gets to win.

how many examples would you like of smaller "quality" forces getting wiped out by larger forces?
The obvious battles were in the Sinai in 73, the quality israeli forces on the border were overrun by the massive quantities of Egyptian armor, anti aircraft missiles etc. (the tide was turned when additional IDF forces, i.e. more quantity, were brought in)

another one would be the russians in WWII, their battle strategies were bases on overwhelming the enemy with quantity, not quality.

so once again, we find that your wrong: quality is in fact not everything in war.
would you like additional examples where quantity was used to overrun quality?


Lets see if you care to admit it? or do you want to change the definition of a few words?
_______________________

lets do a small conclusion: so far you've claimed
1) the egpytian blockade of eilat was similar to the US not selling stuff to japan
2) the israeli surprise attack in 67 was similar to the germans attacking russia
3) the IDF knew (could read the future) they would beat the egyptians because quality always beats quantity

those were taken from you posts....any complaints?





a footnote:
you list of sources includes political speeches...so if quote Bush/UN/US Senate/ US military intelligence about the WMD in iraq your going to believe all of them? I told you, quotes mean nothing, but i suspect you respect Rabin (well only if he agrees with you). Did you know that he had a nervous breakdown just before the 6 day war? If he was so confident and was able to read the future, what would cause such an episode?

[kayecy]

118. Is that the best comparison you could find?..........

The obvious battles were in the Sinai in 73, the quality israeli forces on the border were overrun by the massive quantities of Egyptian armor, anti aircraft missiles etc.
Is that the best comparison you could find?

1. 80,000 Egyptians attacked 450 Israeli troops of the Jerusalem Brigade at the start of the 1973 war, a ratio of 150:1...The ratio in 1967 was 3:1………No comparison and it certainly does not prove that 3:1 troop superiority will beat troop quality.

2. How far did the 150:1 Egyptian superiority allow them to advance?

3. Was Israel on the alert in 1973 as it was in 1967?

4. Did Israel lose the war or just a few thousand troops?

The two wars had only one thing in common …... In neither war was Israel in danger of being over-run!

...........................

would you like additional examples where quantity was used to overrun quality

Yes please, but do try to get your examples more comparable to the Egyption 1967 threat…….ie with no more than 3:1 superiority, with one side having as low moral as the Arabs and the other side having as good or better experience, training etc than the IDF.

............................

1)...the egpytian blockade of eilat was similar to the US not selling stuff to japan

Not quite. The 1967 Egyptian closure of Tiran was similar in effect to the 1941 US embargo which stopped 80% of Japan’s oil supplies.….The blockade was incomplete in both cases......You are going to prove me wrong?

2) ...the israeli surprise attack in 67 was similar to the germans attacking russia

No, that was only an illustration that most democracies do not carry out surprise attacks……The surprise attacks of Germany on Russia, Japan on USA, Argentina on Falklands and Egypt on the IDF (1973) were all by dictatorships…….Which democracies, other than Israel have started wars with a surprise attack?

3) the IDF knew (could read the future) they would beat the egyptians because quality always beats quantity

The Israeli government had access to the best intelligence and knew the Arabs were in no position to attack Israel…….You still haven’t produced anything that proves otherwise.

[pelsar]

119. you big on Israeli Intelligence...

so why didn't this "israeli intelligence" know the egyptians were going to attack israeli in 73?

you might note that that is was the same people more or less in the military and govt in both cases.....(67 and 73)
and why did Rabin have a breakdown right before the war?

btw, you shouldn't use Begin as knowing anything about armies and strategies, ever since his interview in 1982, on the Balfor castle, it was clear he knew nothing about military affairs. Thats why your 'quote list" is worthless, without knowing the background of the quotes and when the people changed their minds its only use is for people who don't really know anything and are not that interested in learning more. which is why i dismiss them as not even being worthy of "counter quoting."
___

btw, i guess you really don't understand anything about armies: 80,000 Egyptian troops did not cross the canal and overwhelm the 450...go back and find a more realistic number of actual troops that physically crossed the canal and overwhelmed the IDF troops....I'll wait. (accuracy is not your strong point), that will be your ratio

do you have "proof" of this arab low moral...(do you have some quote from someone that will "prove it&quot or did you just make it up?

and i see you still confuse blockading a port, a physical act of war, with the US deciding not to sell oil....you actually believe they are the same thing don't you? You really don't like the dictionary do you? lookup the word blockade, just try it. (I'll wait for your answer, should be good..)
_____________

our conclusion so far:
number of egyptian troops actually crossing the canal was wrong (research required)
confusion as to the definition of the word blockade (dictionary required)
"low egyptian moral" (quotes from egyptian soldiers in the field might help)

democracies surprise attacks ..relevancy? israel was already attacked by the port closure, the surprise was how the IDF reacted

[kayecy]

120. Our achievements so far:

btw, i guess you really don't understand anything about armies: 80,000 Egyptian troops did not cross the canal and overwhelm the 450...go back and find a more realistic number of actual troops that physically crossed the canal and overwhelmed the IDF troops

More bluster which gets us nowhere….For a military man you are surprisingly reluctant to produce numbers….I stand by what I wrote….As usual you have produced nothing to prove otherwise!

do you have "proof" of this arab low moral...(do you have some quote from someone that will "prove it&quot or did you just make it up?

Yes, but as you say, you were not there and you don’t accept historical quotations as constituting evidence……You prefer to make up your mind from chit-chat without any evidence………Yet again you have nothing to offer to prove the Arab armies were in good moral.

....and i see you still confuse blockading a port, a physical act of war, with the US deciding not to sell oil....you actually believe they are the same thing don't you?

Yep….Japan lost 80% of its oil supplies, what percentage did Israel lose?


Our achievements so far:
Pelsar has stopped claiming that there was no legal gray area in Israel using the Tiran blockade as a “casus belli”.
Pelsar has stopped claiming that the 1973 war proves anything about the 1967 war
Pelsar has decided he can’t find any of the examples he offered which showed quality not beating quantity.
Pelsar has stopped claiming that countries making lots noises and threats should be taken seriously, no matter what their relative capability is.

Outstanding items:
In Pelsar’s opinion, the number of Egyptian troops actually crossing the canal on the first day was not 80,000…..…….(We are waiting for Pelsar to produce evidence to support his opinion)

In Pelsar’s opinion, the Tirana blockade was hurting Israel more than the US embargo on Japan…..( We are waiting for Pelsar to produce evidence to support his opinion.

In Pelsar’s opinion, the Arab armies did not have low moral. …..(We are waiting for Pelsar to produce evidence to support his opinion)



As I said earlier, either put up the evidence or stop giving your own unsupported opinion.

[shira]

121. Kayecy: Why did Rabin have a nervous breakdown in the days leading up to the '67 war?

Israel "knew" there was no threat, right?



I find it amazing you believe Israel should have waited for the Arabs to attack first. Egypt closed the straits, overran the UN troops in the Sinai, and amassed 100,000 troops 1000 tanks near Israel's southern border. Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt and allowed both Iraqi and Egyptian forces to join with their own 50,000 troops, all their reserves, and 300 tanks near Israel's eastern border. 75,000 Syrian troops and their armory were ready near Israel's north border.

Consider Israel's tiny size.

What other country on earth would just welcome surrounding forces to attack their civilian population first?

[pelsar]

133. it would be best if you stop making things up and concentrate on the subject...

Last edited Tue Aug 7, 2012, 12:22 AM - Edit history (2)

i'll do just one...just a single one:

we all agree that egypt blockaded the eilat port. A blockade is considered an act of aggression.

NOTE the word Blockade.

American stopped selling japan oil....this is not considered a blockade, its defined as an embargo.

The two words are very different and have different definitions and to further the point. israel could and did force the blockade to end with military force. Japan could not use their military to force the US to end the embargo

___
so perhaps explain to us here why those two words have different meanings in the dictionary, since you seem to believe they are in fact the same?
Psst..this might help:
http://www.mei.edu/content/blockade-and-embargo-have-different-meanings

remember, there is a reason for the dictionary and the use of specific words to describe actions....or just for fun, perhaps tell us why you don't believe in the definitions by the dictionary?

(Its pretty obvious why you want to confuse embargo and blockade, but it works best on high school students or naive college students, i am neither, so why don't you simply come clean, and stop making a fool out of yourself to me)
____________

a few notes on learning to have an argument:
_____

Be precise, use the dictionary. you confuse similar outcomes as being the same thing:
For instance: a dead body with bullet holes in it and a person standing over him with a gun can mean:
1) the guy was murdered
2) the guy was killed in self defense
3) the guy was assassinated
4) the guy was killed by somebody else and the guy with the gun is a bystander


quotes: your use of quotes, is not based on your respecting the person your quoting. If i were to quote the same person with an opposite quote, no doubt you would dismiss it. Furthermore, quotes are of limited value as proof of facts especially when your quoting a politician who lie as part of the profession.

arguments: Here again you have tendency to make things up: for instance, the blockade of Eilat is an aggressive act, an act of war. Whereas, and i noted for you that I added the legal aspect, but not to replace the actual aggressive act, but because you mentioned the legality. You took that as a "replacement argument" Which it wasn't.


when you make a claim, the concept is to back it with some evidence. i.e. you claim the egyptians had "low moral" yet produce nothing to show it..dont make a claim if you don't have anything to back it:

For instance:
the egyptians were going to send in poison gas in to israel on june 7th as per their plan via tunnels that were dug by sympathetic UN soldiers. If you don't believe me, prove it. That is the essence of your "low moral" argument

[kayecy]

134. What evidence have you that the Arabs were NOT demoralized?...

Last edited Tue Aug 7, 2012, 03:41 PM - Edit history (1)

we all agree that egypt blockaded the eilat port. A blockade is considered an act of aggression.

But Israel didn’t have to start a war resulting in thousands of deaths did it?.......It hardly suffered economically compared with the US embargo on Japan......1967 was just as much a “war of choice” for Israel as the 1982 Lebanon War.

you claim the egyptians had "low moral" yet produce nothing to show it..dont make a claim if you don't have anything to back it:

When you are guilty of something yourself, always accuse the other chap seems to be your method of arguement!....I am prepared to back up anything I say.....For starters, try reading the following by Doron Geller http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/intel67.html)
“More than that, Military Intelligence was also aware of the weakness of Egyptian preparations and morale”

Are you prepared to back up your claim that the Arab troops were not demoralised? .....Either produce some support or keep quiet.


Now look at your original claim that the 1967 war was a “defensive war”.......The only support you have offered for that is that the Arabs armies outnumbered the IDF by 3:1 and therefore had the capability to invaded Israel.....You have yet to provide any support that an Arab 3:1 superiority was sufficient for any IDF High Command to lose sleep over....Surely your IDF contacts can produce some evidence to support your claim?


Your example of ‘quantity’ beating ‘quality’ was ridiculous.... 1n 1973, the Egyptians had surprise on their side and 90,000 men across the canal by day three but they were still defeated by a numerically inferior IDF.

You asked “....how many examples would you like of smaller "quality" forces getting wiped out by larger forces?”

I am still waiting for you to produce even one example, comparable to the Egyption 1967 threat…….ie with no more than 3:1 superiority, with the threatening side a third world state having never had a military success and the defending side being a first world state having been fighting successful actions for 20 years.

[pelsar]

136. egypt already started the war.... (again...DICTIONARY)

according to your convoluted logic, why did egypt even shoot back at the IDF and therefor save 1000's of live?...why blame israel for what egypt started?

remember according to you the egyptians didnt have a chance, the war was a forgone conclusion (correct?) so perhaps you should be blaming the egyptians for not giving up once they realized they "miscalculated" on their initial aggression.....

your answer should be interesting, you can even find a quote for our amusement...
_____________

why do you insist on using quotes and 'military intelligence of proof of anything?...if i find the exact opposite are you going to say "oops your right, your quotes are "better than mine."

here: high egyptian moral? satisfied? my quote proves your wrong:

Nevertheless, the Egyptian navy was able to preserve its fighting capabilities.... Discipline and morale were high, the standard of training excellent.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/380/fo3.htm


The Egyptian forces have taken up positions in accordance with our predetermined plans. The morale of our armed forces is very high, for this is the day they have so long been waiting for, for this holy war.
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/beforesixdaywar.html

since i too have produce quotes, i now expect you to admit that my quotes are better than your quotes and that you were wrong in your beliefs about the Egyptian army moral. After all i'm quoting an Egyptian General, General Murtagi


further more miltary intelligence proves nothing...give me a number... of how many times military intelligence was wrong for you to accept that they can, are wrong and prove nothin...how many examples would you like?
put your number here:

______________________________

You have yet to provide any support that an Arab 3:1 superiority was sufficient for any IDF High Command to lose sleep
Rabin the chief of staff has a nervous break down during the period before the war:

CASE CLOSED (lets see if you accept that as anything, most "believers" dont change their minds even when they are proven wrong using their OWN CRITERIA as you are here....)
_______________________________

Your example of ‘quantity’ beating ‘quality’ was ridiculous.... 1n 1973, the Egyptians had surprise on their side and 90,000 men across the canal by day three but they were still defeated by a numerically inferior IDF.

so its just wars where quality always beats quantity now, not battles? I didnt know that surprise wasn't an acceptable strategy in your statement, can the lesser side also have guns in their attack or does that also disqualify them in your eyes?


And.....you just changed your initial statement, from a quality force alway beating quantity now to this:
I am still waiting for you to produce even one example, comparable to the Egyption 1967 threat

i already gave you examples where quantity beat quality as per your first claim, in battles...so now you've decided to move the goal posts (you've been caught).....there is no war that was comparable to the 6 day war, not in geography, men, equipment, etc hence nothing can be proven based on anything in the past....hence your claim in fact is based on nothing more than your belief...and i dont argue with true believers, as nothing can be proven one way or another.

[kayecy]

137. I really do like the quotes you have found.........

according to your convoluted logic, why did egypt even shoot back at the IDF and therefor save 1000's of live?...why blame israel for what egypt started?

So you admit the IDF fired the first shots......The first to fire or attack is the one to blame for the subsequent deaths in my book, they had a choice......No attack = No deaths.....You must be getting desperate if you have to resort to a silly question like that.

Nevertheless, the Egyptian navy was able to preserve its fighting capabilities.... Discipline and morale were high, the standard of training excellent.

The Egyptian Navy was hardly an existential threat to Israel was it?...What is more interesting is that you failed to mention the following paragraphs which appear earlier in the same article:

“With the army involved in the war in Yemen, its resources badly overstretched, Egypt was by no means able to undertake a major war against Israel.”

And again:
“In 1967, Israel enjoyed a marked superiority in air power over the Egyptian air force. When reserves were called up, the Israeli Defence Force could amass a superior land force; only in the naval theatre did Egypt possess a margin of superiority.”

Do you want to offer any more quotes which support my view rather than yours?

The Egyptian forces have taken up positions in accordance with our predetermined plans. The morale of our armed forces is very high, for this is the day they have so long been waiting for, for this holy war.

I asked you for an IDF source and what do you supply?......A quote from an Arab general’s puffery!...What did you expect in an Egyptian general’s order-of-the-day after Nasser’s boasting?......Can’t you find a single independent or IDF source to quote?.......Didn’t your IDF officer training include the lead up to the 1967 war?.....It matters not what the Arabs boasted were their capabilities, it is what the Israeli Government thought the Arab capability was that matters.


................................

Rabin the chief of staff has a nervous break down during the period before the war:

Mmmm, so he did but there are many explanations why he did so, why chose the CAMERA version?....Camera is not exactly the most authoritative or independent publication is it.....Anyway, if you read the CAMERA article you will see they were, as usual, trying to rubbish a BBC report........I think you will agree that the BBC has less of an axe to grind than CAMERA.


.............................

And.....you just changed your initial statement, from a quality force alway beating quantity now to this:
I am still waiting for you to produce even one example, comparable to the Egyption 1967 threat

Isn’t that what this argument is all about?.....Whether the Arab armies in 1967 with their 3:1 advantage in manpower posed a real threat to Israel?....Why are you so reluctant to produce any comparable war/battle?

[pelsar]

138. lets try again... stop moving the 'goal posts"

Last edited Fri Aug 10, 2012, 04:42 AM - Edit history (6)

So you admit the IDF fired the first shots
your complaint was is that israel didnt have to attack and kill... (i'm ignoring your latest version....i noticed that when you dont like the answer, you ignore it, modify your question and ask again, hence you dont have to face the reaity that your were wrong..we'll just stick to yo your original questions.- take responsibility for you questions and dont try to weasel out and change them....

i asked you since you believe egypt knew they were going to lose why didnt they all surrender and stop the war?

well?..just answer the question? i promise wont change the question add more conditions like you do, if you answer it clearly, but do try to answer it...
_____

you asked for quotes about egyptian moral..i gave you two: end of story, i dont really care if you dont like the egyptian general or the Egypitan navy. You asked for quotes and got them
your quote was pathetic....(israeli military intelligence?......who is that? and was that the same guy who said that egypt wont attack in 73?...whats his name again?)
_______________

you asked if the israei generals were "losing sleep" over the pressure: I answered, Rabin had a nervous breakdown (no I didnt use camera, its common knowledge).

you asked I answered...you were wrong...man up and admit it
________________

you ask for battles and wars where the "quality ones lost"....
Why are you so reluctant to produce any comparable war/battle?

well lets see....everytime i answer you (post 117), you decide to change your original statement and makes excuses why my answer is no longer relevant. (3:1 ratios, first world vs third world etc)
___

i think you should first admit that your initial posts were in fact answered...and since you didnt like the answers (i.e. you were shownto be wrong) you decided to modify the questions or reject the answers....

moral for the egyptian army- answered
"israeli generals losing sleep" answered
quality forces losing to quantity: answered

i dont really care if you dont like the answers, you were answered with the same "quality answer as per your own sources and infact better.

your whole thesis is based on the fact that israel just knew they had nothing to fear from the surrounding arab armies, yet Rabin had a breakdown....i.e. clearly the chief of staff of the IDF didnt not have such bold confidence....

lets see you squirm out of that one....go find some quotes that he was really worried about his hamsters or something that caused the breakdown....i'm sure there is a speach from the "hamster society" that you can quote that will attest to it.

not answered: if egypt new they were going to lose the war after israel attacked why didnt they just give up and save lives?

well?- no squriming, no deflections....so far you've shown that questions you dont like, that show your beliefs are wrong, you dont answer....what a surprise.

[kayecy]

140. Since you now seem to have resorted to bluster ....

i noticed that when you dont like the answer, you ignore it, modify your question and ask again, hence you dont have to face the reaity that your were wrong.........you asked I answered...you were wrong...man up and admit it

Since you now seem to have resorted to bluster and innuendo like the above, there is little point in continuing this discussion. However, I think it worth stating the obvious at this point;

The argument was over your claim that the 1967 war was a “defensive war”......Israel carried out a surprise attack on the Egyptians similar to the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbour........In order to call such a surprise attack “defensive” you must have a very cogent argument.....So far, your argument seems to be that Nasser had made threats and the Arab armies had a 3:1 superiority over the IDF.......Those two facts are clearly not sufficient in themselves........The IDF and the GOI must genuinely have thought Israeli forces were insufficient to repulse any Arab attack.......If they did believe there was an immediate existential threat to Israel, then you are justified in your belief......If not then the 1967 war, with all its loss of life, was carried out simply to improve Israel’s military deterrence and allow its part-time soldiers to go back to their jobs.

The critical meeting where any such fears must have been discussed was the June 2nd Ministerial/General Staff meeting, in the Pitt war room, attended by Yariv, Rabin, Gavish, Sharon, Peled, Allon Yoffe, Eshcol, Eban, Shapira,Dayan).....I have been unable to unearth any document which indicates the IDF thought the Arabs would attack first or that if they did, the IDF was not up to stopping and such attack.

Chapter 22 of “The Israeli Military and the Origins of the 1967 war” by Gluska gives a good indication of what was said at the June 2nd meeting......I suggest you look it up.

I have supplied you with several quotations of what was discussed at the June 2nd meeting which indicate that no one believed the Arabs had an attack capability at that time....Most of those present were pressing for Israel to immediately attack in order to deter any future Arab threat.....At least one of them believed the Arabs troops to be demoralized.

You have responded to my detail of what went on in this meeting, by stating:

“.....since i wasn't there, have no idea what the conversations were about"

(As if this were in any way relevant!)
And

“Rabin the chief of staff has a nervous break down"

(As if this could not simply have been caused by the pressures on him or worry about the number of casualties following an Israeli attack..


Unless you really do have some evidence giving a contrary interpretation of the June 2nd discussions, I suggest we stop here and let anyone following this argument decide for themselves whether the 1967 war was a “defensive war” or merely an aggressive war to deter the Arabs from making any future threats..

For the record, whatever you may chose to think, I do not avoid answering your questions...... At least when they are sensible......Your latest question comes into the non sequitur category:

” ..if egypt new they were going to lose the war after israel attacked why didnt they just give up and save lives?”

(Has any state in history, when attacked, just given up to save lives?....You seem to be crediting the Arabs with more concern for human suffering than Israelis, French, Russians, Americans etc?)

[pelsar]

142. quit whenever you want...i shall repeat what you will not answer.....

you have two basic arguments, one based on misuse of word definition and the second based on what others believed.....

1) as per your claim: the US embargo on japan was similar to the Egyptian blockade of the port of eilat;
hence the japanese attack on perl harbor was similar the IDF attack on the arab states

you have, for reasons that can only be construed as ideologically motivated decided to define embargo and blockade as the same thing: news flash, they are not.

when you admit that they are in fact very different words with very different definitions and implications (something every 10 year old who knows what a dictionary is and how to use it), you will unfortunately be forced to revise you thesis (clearly you are unable to do so), hence the raping of the word definitions
_____

2) this weird belief that a few selective quotes are proof of something:
I have supplied you with several quotations of what was discussed at the June 2nd meeting which indicate that no one believed the Arabs had an attack capability at that time

June 2?...those guys have meetings all of the time....perhaps you can tell me what was discussed june 1? June 4th?

do you have the notes where they argued back and forth, the zillion different scenarios? when they discussed what would happened if their surprise attack was not a surprise at all? and the russian pilots shot them out of the sky?.....they were left without air cover? ...

how about the discussion to "stand down" and return the reservists to the homes, after all the arabs couldnt attack, who said no and who said yes? well? find me those notes.......

___________________________
now we come to the obvious reason for Rabins breakdown....he understood the risks involved in wars..he understood that "military intelligence" is as wrong as it is right....that is something someone who has yet to leave the couch would not possibly understand....
____

and finally just for fun, because Rabin, was mostly a soldier of the field and remembered what had happened to the "quality israeli soldiers that were outnumbered in Gush Etzion, E. Jersualem and a few other battles (you asked....)
_________

i shall conclude:
your conclusion of the israel being guilty of starting the war and needlessly killing is based on raping the dictionary to redefine words.

selective use of quotes based on someone elses conclusion of a single meeting of the general staff, ignoring the countless other meetings.

furthermore all of your other attempts to "prove you were right" be it how "quantity never beats quality in battles, or that the generals never lost sleep at night before the war, were shown to be wrong, and you couldn't even admit it.
____________

i have no doubt that believe what you do, i have met many people who believe things that they cannot prove, most admit to a "higher power", their advantage is, they dont have to misuse the dictionary, they can admit when their claims are wrong.....I can respect those beliefs

[kayecy]

143. Disappointing but not unexpected........

Last edited Fri Aug 10, 2012, 05:07 PM - Edit history (1)

June 2?...those guys have meetings all of the time....perhaps you can tell me what was discussed june 1? June 4th?

You think the Israeli Military/Political meeting which took the decision to go to war was just any old meeting?.....No wonder you have no idea about the lead up to the 1967 war.

how about the discussion to "stand down" and return the reservists to the homes, after all the arabs couldnt attack, who said no and who said yes? well? find me those notes.......

Find them yourself....You are the one claiming it was a “defensive war”, even though you apparently have no evidence, and haven’t a clue what was discussed before the GOI took the decision to go to war.......Since you are so fond of dictionary definitions you will know that a bigot can be defined as a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices….That is very close to the sort of person who willfully ignores all the evidence available and continues to be devoted to his own opinions.

now we come to the obvious reason for Rabins breakdown....he understood the risks involved in wars..he understood that "military intelligence" is as wrong as it is right....that is something someone who has yet to leave the couch would not possibly understand....

Obvious?.......Or just another of your unsupported opinions?

furthermore all of your other attempts to "prove you were right" be it how "quantity never beats quality in battles, or that the generals never lost sleep at night before the war, were shown to be wrong,

More unsupported opinion?


When will you learn that your, or anyone elses opinion is worthless without evidence to back it up?.......Of course if you had been one of the Generals or Ministers that took the decision to go to war, your opinion would be worth something.... As it is you are trying to defend your claim that 1967 was a "defensive war" on the basis of what you think the GOI's threat appreciation was instead of doing a little research.

[pelsar]

144. im still waiting....

i noticed that you all you have left are 'quotes"......who said what and when and for that you have a limited amount of information (which is quite reasonable given the massive amount of meetings and discussions held in the months before the war). In my book thats evidence of somebody else deciding what i should know....clearly you take what somebody else has told you "as gospel" (provided they agree with what you want to hear....)

so lets go back to what your avoiding and your previous statements: not anybody else's: this goes to your credability and ability to stand by your own statements:
_____________________
1) first still waiting for you to explain why you ignore the dictionary definitions for blockade and embargo..this must be the 5th time i've asked.....whats the problem?

2) you claim no israeli general lost sleep over the war, so your ignoring Rabins breakdown before the war Yes or no? (a breakdown is considered a bit more than "losing sleep&quot


3) your claim: quantity never beats quality, neither in battle or war: (this is called history not opinion-check the dictionary for the difference)

russian battles and war against the germans
chinese battles against the UN korean war
Arab irregulars agains the jews at gush etzion
Egyptian army at the outset of 73
Syrian army at the outset of 73 (Mt hermon outpost)
IDF failed attempt to retake the outpost, first attempt
IDF attempts to take Latrun 1948 (several) failed
Safed, first attempt by the Palmach failed (operation Yiftach)
crusaders lost to the "locals" battles and the war
Gallipoli (quantity, turks held off the austrialians (quality)

just answer those 3.....
dictionary definition
if rabins breakdown can be considered "losing sleep"
those battles are examples of quantity beating quality

I"m making this simple for you....think of it this way, instead of trying to either avoid what i'm asking, or pretending the battles are "opinions" or that Rabin really didnt have a breakdown or that you really didnt write about the "generals losing sleep" just admit:

you dont like using the dictionary and have no intention of using it, Rabin probably did lose sleep and was worried, and that in fact quantity in war can beat quality...and you might get some credibility..
if not well i guess i'll have to ask again why you avoid the dictionary definitions again

and btw, i really dont need the GOI to tell me what the "threats are today or were yesterday..only fools believe what comes out of the govt spokesmen mouths

[kayecy]

145. If you stopped miss-quoting me...........

1) first still waiting for you to explain why you ignore the dictionary definitions for blockade and embargo..this must be the 5th time i've asked.....whats the problem?

The answer to you question is that if you check back you will see that I never claimed “blockade” and “embargo” were the same thing.......They both do, however have a similar economic effect.
What I actually said was:
“Not quite. The 1967 Egyptian closure of Tiran was similar in effect to the 1941 US embargo which stopped 80% of Japan’s oil supplies.….The blockade was incomplete in both cases......You are going to prove me wrong?”

I am still waiting for you to prove me wrong.

2) you claim no israeli general lost sleep over the war, so your ignoring Rabins breakdown before the war Yes or no? (a breakdown is considered a bit more than "losing sleep&quot

Again you miss-quote me......I claimed nothing of the sort.....What I did do was to to ask you a question:

“You have yet to provide any support that an Arab 3:1 superiority was sufficient for any IDF High Command to lose sleep over”

Your answer appears to be that “Rabin had a nervous breakown”
I then asked you what evidence did you have that the breakdown was due to worries about the Arab 3:1 numerical advantage.

I am still waiting for you to produce that evidence.

3) your claim: quantity never beats quality, neither in battle or war

Another miss-quote...What I actually said was:

“Do I have to remind you that in warfare, quality is everything?”

As you are being pedantic, perhaps I should have said “is usually the main thing” rather than “is everything”......Do you still want to claim that the Arab 3:1 numerical superiority made the IDF Generals fearful of defeat?



.............................
Now, havening tried to answer your questions above, could we get back to the main argument?

ie Did the IDF and the GOI genuinely think Israeli forces were insufficient to repulse any Arab attack?

So far you have avoided this question by claiming either that you weren’t there or you don’t need the GOI to tell you what the threat was.

Whether you believe that the 1967 war was necessary for defensive reasons is of no interest.


Let me be clear.....I am perfectly prepared to accept that in your opinion the ‘67 war was a defensive war.......That is not what we are arguing about and is irrelevant.......Many people are of the opinion that the holocaust didn’t happen; their opinion is also irrelevant....The only thing that matters is the historical fact of why the GOI decided to go to war.......Only they had the power to start the war.


If you have no documentary evidence indicating why the GOI decided to go to war, then your claim of a “defensive war” is without foundation.

[pelsar]

146. it goes back to the blockade

The only thing that matters is the historical fact of why the GOI decided to go to war.......Only they had the power to start the war.

a blockade is an act of war...egypt already started the war. It was egypt that could have removed the blockade, remove the threat...and no war.

Egypt also had the power to stop the war after the initial attack: they just had to surrender....

hence you your premise from the very beginning is wrong. And to further explain to you what your having trouble with, is why was there a war in 67 and not in 66?

what changed? who did it? ...and there you have the basis for the war.....the Egyptians.

so you can stop blaming israel for reacting as israel saw fit, when it was the Egyptians that created the situation and could have diffused it any time they chose. (unless of course you believe the egyptians were too stupid to understand the consequences for their actions and hence are not responsible?..is that it?

that would actually make sense, i see that a lot around here, the concept being that the "Arabs/Palestenians/ etc do not understand the consequences for their actions and therefor israel is always the responsible party for whatever takes place.

its a colonialistic/racist point of view you seem to have, where only the "white europeans" could start the war and the middle eastern arabs didnt have that ability....

------------

did the IDF and the GOI genuinely think Israeli forces were insufficient to repulse any Arab attack?
i dont doubt that they new they could, but at what cost? since the IDF and GOI have and had the responsibility of securing the country and its citizens lives, their actions had to be in those best interests. and they did the proper thing. The veterans of 73 have never forgiven the govt and IDF for letting the egyptians attack first....they wasted many lives for their foolishness

i am not claiming a "defensive war" (never have)..its has no meaning in that its open to many interpretations. israel was threatened by words and deeds initiated by egypt, israel had the right to remove egypt if that was necessary, call it what you want, i call it stupidity by Nassar: he got what he asked for.
___________
btw i dont misquote you...you've changed/modified your accusations so many times that you get to pick and choose which one you think i'm referring to:

[kayecy]

147. You are not claiming '67 was a "defensive war"........

a blockade is an act of war...egypt already started the war.

A blockade is not the start of a war......Wars start when battle commences......Israel started the war with a surprise attack for its own reasons.

The UN Charter did not give Israel the right to attack Egypt because the Tiran closure was not an “armed attack” as defined by Article 51.....Moreover, many International Law experts argue that under the doctrine of proportionality, Israel would only be entitled to use such force as would be necessary to secure its right of passage.

No doubt you will dismiss the above as being legal trivialities.....If Israel says the closure was a casus belli then it it must be so.......Israel has a record of making such unilateral claims and ignoring International Law.

In any case what exactly do you mean by “blockade”.....Was all shipping up the gulf to be sunk?......Was the transit of all material to be prevented?.......You had better read your history books again before claiming that Egypt started the war.

......................................

i am not claiming a "defensive war" (never have)..its has no meaning in that its open to many interpretations.

It would have saved much time and trouble if you stated that at the start of this discussion instead of asking me why I thought the 6-day war was not defensive.


...................................

israel was threatened by words and deeds initiated by egypt, israel had the right to remove egypt if that was necessary, call it what you want

Iran has been threatened by words and deeds initiated by Israel.....Does that mean Iran has the right to remove Israel if that is necessary?
.

[pelsar]

149. of course i dismiss legal trivialities....

its impossible to get straight answers when one starts that game: its like you using "quotes" as proof of something or other, while dismissing quotes you dont like, or your difficulty in understanding the difference be between blockade and embargo- all word games that ignore that obvious events that happen and their consequences


so no i dont care whether the egyptians were going to let in fruits and vegetables while stopping car imports or oil.

they simply had no right to blockade an israeli port..its that simple.

when iran blockades haifa then israel should launch an attack on iran...yes
_______

dont skip this question:

so tell me, what was the difference between 1966 and 1967 and why didnt Egypt simply pull back, stop the blockade when the tensions rose inorder to stop a potential war?

i guess you forgot to answer it, see my previous post for more details and my assumptions based on your previous posts.

[kayecy]

151. And don't answer the question.......

they simply had no right to blockade an israeli port..its that simple.

That is your opinion......My opinion is that Israel had no right to carry out a surprise attack which it knew would kill thousands, just for a mere blockade, and one that was not necessarily illegal.

Our opinions differ.....End of story


............................................

so tell me, what was the difference between 1966 and 1967

Wasn't 1966 the year SCR228 “Censures Israel for this large-scale military action in violation of the United Nations Charter and of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan?”

and why didnt Egypt simply pull back, stop the blockade when the tensions rose inorder to stop a potential war?

I don’t know, but Nasser was afraid of an Israeli attack which seems as good a reason as any for moving troops to the Israeli frontier......As for stopping the blockade, well the ‘blockade’ as you call it was merely Egypt exercising its right to regulate shipping in its territorial waters.........I don’t see Israel allowing anyone to dictate what shipping can or cannot enter its territorial waters.


...................................

israel was threatened by words and deeds initiated by egypt, israel had the right to remove egypt if that was necessary, call it what you want

Iran has been threatened by words and deeds initiated by Israel.....Does that mean Iran has the right to remove Israel if that is necessary?

I’m still waiting for a proper answer.......not a silly comment about Iran blockading Haifa.

[pelsar]

152. time line...use it (i know you dont like it)

Nasser was afraid of an Israeli attack

really....and you know this because?........

and why didnt Egypt simply pull back, stop the blockade when the tensions rose inorder to stop a potential war?

well?....you claimed israel could have stopped the war,

But Israel didn’t have to start a war resulting in thousands of deaths did it?.
could egypt have stopped the war before it began by removing the blockade, keeping the UN troops in the sinai? not mobilizing its troops (arab mobilization began first before israels) just as it was in 1960, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66,?

____

you'll notice i've shortened my response to a single subject....this is where we discover your double standard, which will bring out your "colonialistic/racist viewpoint" towards the egyptians.....

[kayecy]

153. Are you going to answer my question?.........

Nasser was afraid of an Israeli attack
really....and you know this because?...

Because I read history...
see Tessler, A History of the Israeli-Palestine Conflict, page 386.
see Ami Gluska, The Israel Military and the Origins of the 67 war, Chapter 7.


........................

well?....you claimed israel could have stopped the war, could egypt have stopped the war before it began by removing the blockade, keeping the UN troops in the sinai? not mobilizing its troops (arab mobilization began first before israels

Of course it could, but not doing so did not start the war and did not cause thousands of deaths.....Only Israel knew it had sufficient superiority to start the war and the killing......Indifferent to the human cost, it chose to do so.


...................

you'll notice i've shortened my response to a single subject....this is where we discover your double standard, which will bring out your "colonialistic/racist viewpoint" towards the egyptians.....

Or was your shortening an attempt to avoid answering my question? ......I will ask it again:

Your statement:

israel was threatened by words and deeds initiated by egypt, israel had the right to remove egypt if that was necessary, call it what you want

My response:
Iran has been threatened by words and deeds initiated by Israel.....Does that mean Iran has the right to remove Israel if that is necessary?


No answer to my question will mean no answer to any of your questions.....I think I have been far too indulgent in answering your many questions without a quid pro quo.

[pelsar]

154. You said Nasser....

Nasser was afraid of an Israeli attack....

i'm waiting for some kind of quote from the Egyptian war room where Nasser discussed his fears of an israeli attack (as per your standard with israel).....i'm trying hard to figure out what the UN has to do with Nassers governing decisions and emotions. Was Moshe Shemesh aware of Nassars emotions at that point as well? and how did they do psychological analysis without putting Nassar "on the couch."

furthermore if he was so "afraid" why didnt he just return the situation to dec 1966, keep the UN troops as a buffer? well?


According to Moshe Shemesh...sheesh agains with a quote from someone in israeli military intelligence:

if your so big on quotes, and you claim your so read up on the war, why don't you be honest and also show the quotes that go against your opinion? or dont those "count? or worse are you claiming that in israeli intelligence there were no "counter claims?

how about this: we put an end to your religious like belief in israeli intelligence:
1973 failure to spot the coming attack
failure to predict baby assads plans for governing
failure to predict and prepare for intifada I
failure to predict the arab springs
failure to predict and prepare for the "civilian invasion from the golan"
failure to predict and prepare for the lebanon II war

and those are just a few of the big ones, there are countless smaller ones....
_________________

..how about answering this:
how can a non mobilized israel threaten egypt with war?

remember i mentioned the time line?....
Nasser responded to the Israeli threats by beginning to concentrate his troops in the Sinai

would i be wrong to suggest than the israeli threats started AFTER egypt blockaded Eilat?
_____

as far as your threat not to answer.....i, like my country do not respond well to threats..therefore i suggest you stop answering my posts...

[kayecy]

155. I made a threat did I?........

as far as your threat not to answer.....i, like my country do not respond well to threats..therefore i suggest you stop answering my posts...

I made a threat did I?........Like your country you see threats where there are non.



I will list out my question again for you:

Your statement:

israel was threatened by words and deeds initiated by egypt, israel had the right to remove egypt if that was necessary, call it what you want

My response:
Iran has been threatened by words and deeds initiated by Israel.....Does that mean Iran has the right to remove Israel if that is necessary?


Let us look at some of the possible reasons why you might refuse to answer the above simple question:

1. You don’t want to admit that your statement was nonsense…..That Israel did not have the right to "remove" Egypt.

2. You don’t want to admit that Iran may just possibly have a similar right to “remove” Israel.

3. You have decided that responding to my questions leads you to say things you later regret.

4. You wish to end this discussion with lots of questions and accusations of your own so you can later claim that I refused to answer you.

5. You think it fair and reasonable that I should go on responding to your questions but that there is no need for you to respond to my questions.


No doubt you will have convinced yourself that you have a more worthy reason for not answering, but unless you explain it, we are left to assume that one of the above must be your excuse.
.

[pelsar]

156. i thought you wanted to stop....

Last edited Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:47 AM - Edit history (6)

...questions hardly scare me....i live in a world where an internet forum is mainly to fix wrong information, hardly something to "scare me" or a place where i might get caught in a contradiction.... However its is interesting that you believe that a forum can be such a "scary place" that I can't answer questions.

you need to get out more...clearly your virtual world has screwed up your values of how real people act in real life situations under pressure: go join the peace corp, sneak into gaza and teach democratic values (ok a bit dangerous, but living up to your values and doing something is a good thing), join the syrian rebels, help the sudanees...but get outside and risk your life for you values....if you come back, your view on life will be very different, i promise u. and then you'll understand what real fear is, how people including yourself actually act and this place will suddenly seem like childs play...


as far as you answering many questions..... definitely, your broad strokes, false parallels, "proofs" using limited sources that someone else decided upon, demands many questions to show just how ideologically driven your view point is, as opposed to be driven by actual events and consequences.

anyways since your pretty insistent and took the time to write out possible answers:

i dont write nonsense......unless i put one of those cute little icons next to it, as far removing egypt...when country A threatens to remove Country b from the map, then country A deserves the same response (egypt)

1) given that israel has not threatened to remove iran, just blow up the nuclear facilities whereas iran has threatened in many various words to in fact remove israel/zionist regime etc it means there is no parallel in the threats and counter threats. You seem to confuse this kind of thing a lot.

2) What deeds has israel done to iran, that has in fact started the war? (spare me what somebody has said somewhere.....). Just what exactly has israel done?
_________


now i shall explain to you why your use of quotes proves nothing and is only for amusement during any discussion:
1) who decided which quotes to use? The author of the book who, when doing the research comes across some notes for some meeting and that author decides what quotes are the most appropriate for this book or article. That means someone else did the interpretation of a complete discussion and decided to summarize as per their ideology/beliefs/point of few, etc. Your just being the "useful idiote" when you quote what somebody else decided what you should use.

furthermore what happens when we find someone saying the exact opposite, which is what happens during political and military meetings. And when the opposite quote comes out, there is no way of knowing who infact had more information and who was right. You give this belief that the IDF wasnt worried about the losing the 6 day way, yet in fact all you have is a few quotes and the result of the war.....hardly proof of anything that was going through the minds of the IDF/politicians and people previous to the war.

You keep quoting some mysterious guy in israel military intelligence, only because this guy agrees with you. Again its self serving. Military intelligence is as wrong as it is right. The examples are so numerous that only a fool would use MI as proof of anything before an event happpens. After the fact then we know who was right and who was wrong, but never before, hence one cannot use MI as proof of absolute knowledge before the events take place.

So what are you left with when your quotes are questioned as are your use of MI?..your left with the rant of a 5 year old: my quotes and MI are better than yours.

thats not anything that can be taken as a serious argument. The only thing that infact has any substance are the actions taken, for only they provide the conclusion of the meetings that have taken place, both secret and public, but nothing of the fears, the risks that were believed and the other various scenarios that were discussed...this is what you cannot know, hence its best not to imagine you actually know what was discussed.

you make ridiculous statements of nassars or the IDF "emotional state" Nassar "feared" an attack, the idf wasn't "losing sleep". Christ, you actually believe you can define their emotional states? Sorry that goes to complete lack of credibility on your part. What kind of argument is that?

all those kind of statements from you, quoting people, anonymous Military Intelligence sources, defining the emotional states of the people involved require many questions until it clarified that that they prove nothing other than you looking to back up your own ideology. Perhaps in your virtual world no one dares question your quotes or summaries....

but then they dont know as much as i do, nor have my experience...and experience in the field beats the virtual world every time, since we can tell the difference between the two-what is real and what is fantasy

dont be such a "woos" and get some

[kayecy]

157. Why did it take you so long?.......

Thank you for at last getting round to responding to my question......I wonder why it took you so long?

given that israel has not threatened to remove iran, just blow up the nuclear facilities

"...just blow up the nuclear facilities"?........You no doubt think that threatening to do that is nothing like Egypt threatening to sink Israeli ships in in its territorial waters.

However, leaving aside your somewhat idiosyncratic views of what justifies a state going to war and killing thousands, let us suppose ( as everyone seems to think) that Israel carries out its threat and does bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities?

Would you then agree that Iran has the right, if it can, to ‘remove’ Israel?

...who decided which quotes to use?

You do your pro-Israeli research and I do my anti-Israeli research and we then have the best possible picture of both sides of the argument.

...but then they dont know as much as i do, nor have my experience

I underrated you.........Why didn’t you say before that you were an authority on military history?.......Of course my mistake was understandable after you wrote such pearls of wisdom as:

“that is a declaration of war, its not even a gray area,”

“since i wasn't there, have no idea what the conversations were about......i just prefer the actual events, they speak louder than any quote.”

“June 2?...those guys have meetings all of the time....perhaps you can tell me what was discussed june 1? June 4th?”

“if egypt new they were going to lose the war after israel attacked why didnt they just give up and save lives?”



I can understand why you don't like historical quotations.....It is so much more comfortable to form one's opinion about historical facts from personal “experience” and propaganda.
.

[pelsar]

158. where do you get your quotes from?

a very limited reading list given the volumes of written published and non published work...i would guess and say that the quotes you now of in the 1967 area are probably about .0000000000001% of the words used by the various miiltary people and politicians expressing their opinions

and your going to suggest that those quotes prove something or other? show some pictures of the period?
____

you really do live in some kind of of bubble dont you?
___

what takes me so long is going through your massive amount of gibberish of quotes and having to show u "counter quotes" and then have you cry out that "your quotes are better then my quotes"..like i wrote. a childrens game of limited information governed by what other people decided you should know...and you believe it.

events have a lot more meaning, what you dont like about them is that there is far less room to "play" an they force a conclusion that doesnt fit your ideology:

nasser closes the port, nasser removes the UN, nasser prepares his army, nasser has multitude agreements with the other arab states, other arab states send in their armies.....

you have ideological fanatic not to expect israel to react to those threats and protect its citizens and put the blame where it belongs...on Nasser.
_____

as far as Iran goes....they shouldnt be threatening israel, if and when israel removes the threat, then yes the will have the "option" of return fire. Like Nassar in 67, their best option would be to stop threatening israel, its not a good idea as history has shown.

again you have a problem with parallel actions:
israel threatening to take out irans nuclear weapons comes as a result of irans threats, they shouldnt be threatening since a first strike may take out million israelis....there is very little maneuverability here

Egypt blockading Eilat was only one of many steps that cumuliated in the actual war, even though that was enough to justify israel reacting.
___

but you have a fundmental problem with causes and actions...its based on simplicity: you believe that the first violent strike is the guilty party. Which makes things very easy and simple for you its also shows of someone, as i mentioned that has no experience i life;

as discussed before with you, you claim you will do nothing to protect your children if it means firing the first shot...you values are such that first one of your kids has to be shot before you will return fire.

funny thing about that, is that i doubt that anyone reading this believes u..or believes that is a natural reaction. You may believe it....but like i wrote, find the courage to leave home and see the world (leave your credit card behind).

[kayecy]

159. Is this “advice” of yours just more puffery ....

as far as Iran goes....they shouldnt be threatening israel, if and when israel removes the threat, then yes the will have the "option" of return fire.

Thank you for that admission...We will no doubt come back to your acceptance that Iran has the right to try and ‘remove’ Israel when Netanyahu puts his threat into action.......My guess is that when that happens, and Iranian rocket fall on Israeli cities in retaliation for Israel's attack, you will suddenly begin to accuse Iran of over-reacting or starting an Israeli-Iranian war.

but like i wrote, find the courage to leave home and see the world (leave your credit card behind).

Mmmm....You made that recommendation before ......I will give you the same answer as I gave you then:

I have lived and worked with locals in ten countries over the last 40 years, including the Middle East, China and South America......Is this latest “advice” of yours just more puffery or are you going to show us how your experience indicates I should see more of the world?

You didn’t respond last time and I imagine you will not respond now.

[pelsar]

160. you make way too many assumptions...

Thank you for that admission.......... you will suddenly begin to accuse Iran of over-reacting....I imagine you will not respond now

you seem to think i'm either hiding something or am afraid of 'being caught".....

you dont get...this is game to me .....see how many fanatics/believers come to make their claims here...and let them keep it up until we discover that they are in fact believers in the concept of:

the ends justifies the means
(this usually means that the can make shit up to demonize israel as long as it serves their means

they are "progressives" that believe like the right wing nationalists in first statehood base on genes... i.e. first comes a Palestinians state, and civil rights etc is a secondary issue that is of lessor importance, if at all

and the Believers: (i.e religious)
attempting to justify a belief based on flimsy secular evidence. With you, we see you base much of your "proofs" on quotes and limited military intelligence, both of which in term of proving something...cant.

but they are the easiest to use since one can pick and choose the one they want, ignoring the ones they dont. It doesnt make a difference to you that they infact prove nothing, but it supports what you believe....

..my experience of people who have traveled the world, seen the different cultures learned long ago that communication is through deeds and not words. Whereas words can easily be misunderstood, what one does and doesn't do, is not. yet here you are believing the words of politicians/military over the actual actions taken.....

Hence I made the assumption that you have seen little....
as per your admission that you would not protect your own children by risking some else life puts you in to some kind of religious fanatic cult kind of belief....I just assume if was youthful naivety, but given that your older, we 're left with a cult type fanatiscim since its just doesnt "ring true" to my normal instincts.

and i would add on top of that, that you seem to reject the notion of the courts with their different levels of murder/manslaughter etc where justifiable homocide is a legal concept ....i take it you reject that.

but what we do see, with you is the double standard....you seem to look down upon the egyptians as if they had no idea what they were doing when they closed the port, brought in some troops, organized the other arab states and their armies, mobilized.....started with the throw the jews in to the sea rhetoric....

but i get it....if we take if even further, the arabs could have even closed of haifa and every other israeli port and even then if israel fired the first shot, you would still be blaming us for starting the war.....

hell you probably blame us for trying to stop the missles from Lebanon in 1982, i wont even mention gaza and their almost daily attacks upon us, i assume here too, we shouldn't try to stop them?

[kayecy]

161. Well, are you afraid?.....

My comment:
Thank you for that admission.......... you will suddenly begin to accuse Iran of over-reacting.
Your response:

you seem to think i'm either hiding something or am afraid of 'being caught".....

Well, are you?.......I’m still waiting........The ramblings and blustering in your last post would indicate that you must be afraid of something.



My comment:
I have lived and worked with locals in ten countries over the last 40 years, including the Middle East, China and South America......Is this latest “advice” of yours just more puffery or are you going to show us how your experience indicates I should see more of the world?
Your response:
[blockquote.].my experience of people who have traveled the world, seen the different cultures learned long ago that communication is through deeds and not words.

And your experience is what?

you dont get...this is game to me .....see how many fanatics/believers come to make their claims here...and let them keep it up until we discover that they are in fact believers in the concept of:

Oh I do most certainly get it........I have touched a raw nerve.....I have dared to show Israel in a bad light and that is not acceptable to you......Carry on blustering and see how convincing you sound....

[pelsar]

162. afraid of an internet discussion?.....just your asking is weird enough

if your still waiting ....then rephrase the question since i believe i answered you

my experience is less than yours in living in multiple different countries for years but far more concentrated in one country of vastly different cultures....and a lesser time in other countries...

____
no, you havent touched a raw nerve about israel in a bad light.....you touched a fascinating curiosity in how far people will go to show how bad/wrong/evil israel is. You are the first to actually believe that quotes of people have more weight that actual actions and i'm talking years of discussions here.

on the other hand you are definitely and extremist as we see though the example with your children, so willing to sacrifice them so afraid to defend them for fear of hurting the wrong person.

which leads us to the obvious......if egypt continued to blockade the other ports and not firing a shot....i assume with your philosophy that if israel sunk their ships in your eyes israel would be the guilty party.

and can i assume that the katushays of 1982 were not sufficient for israel to attempt to kick out the PLO from lebanon
and the 6,000 kassams and mortars from gaza were not considered attacks by you on israel, so israel should let them fall where they may?

well...am i assuming correctly or not?

[kayecy]

163. It is always a pleasure to correct .........

Thank goodness you have stopped blustering and come back to earth.

I’ll take each of your assumptions one by one:

You are the first to actually believe that quotes of people have more weight that actual actions and i'm talking years of discussions here.

And you are the first I have met who actually believes that personal experience is more valuable than historical research.

on the other hand you are definitely and extremist as we see though the example with your children, so willing to sacrifice them so afraid to defend them for fear of hurting the wrong person

You are entitled to your opinion......In my opinion, a man willing to use a weapon to maintain Israel’s settlement policy is a much more dangerous extremist than me.

which leads us to the obvious......if egypt continued to blockade the other ports and not firing a shot....i assume with your philosophy that if israel sunk their ships in your eyes israel would be the guilty party.

I think you meant to say "if Egypt extended its blockade to Israel’s other ports and didn’t fire a shot".....If that is what you are assuming then you are wrong.... My reaction would be that Israel had a right to break the blockade, using minimum force of course, but if that minimum force resulted in the sinking an Egyptian ship, then Israel should not be considered the guilty party.

It is a great pity that the GOI didn’t test the Egyptian blockade of Tiran by sailing a ship escorted by jets through the straits......The US tested the Strait of Hormuz in a similar fashion when Iran promised to sink US ships transiting the Straight.

and can i assume that the katushays of 1982 were not sufficient for israel to attempt to kick out the PLO from lebanon

As you know there was a long history of Palestinian refugees not being allowed back to their homes, katusha attacks on northern Israel and massive Israeli air-strikes before the start of the 1982 war

According to Avi Shlaim, Sharon and Eitan,, realizing that there was no chance in persuading the cabinet to approve a large-scale operation in Lebanon, decided to implement "Operation Big Pines" in stages by manipulating enemy provocations.


Your assumption is therefore a little naive.....Yes the Katusha bombardment played a part, but Israel was looking for an excuse to start a war and found it in an attack on their UK ambassador even though the murder was not carried out by the PLO....As Sharon said in his memoirs "..the attack was "merely the spark that lit the fuse".

...and the 6,000 kassams and mortars from gaza were not considered attacks by you on israel, so israel should let them fall where they may?

No....It had to stop the bombardment but there are many ways to skin a cat......Back-door negotiations would probably have been fruitless, but were they tried?


It is always a pleasure to correct your assumptions.

[pelsar]

164. so reckless with human lives.....

i get the impression that you believe that little steps little attempts at change is always better that the quick and overwhelming force....for instance the 6 day war. why was it 6 days and not 3 weeks? because israel in one sweep wiped out their air forces, that gave the ground forces and easier time....hence the minimum casulties. Your little theory of attempting to break the blockade, with its dangerous escalation would start a war before israel was ready or before they could wipe out the air forces, making the war last longer....dumb idea.

(if you recall Gen Dayan mentioned this in the meeting of may 31 at his home at 2:30 while speaking with Rabin)
_______

so in 1982 when the katusahas were landing as they were in 1980 in israel, and the endless attacks from PLO conrolled Lebanon because of the refugess israel should not have attempted to stop them?...i believe that is what you are claiming, correct (look up litani operation as one example)

back to gaza.....yes there were times of agreement, when hamas wanted more supplies they would agree to stop shooting, and then start up again.
so?...should israel have atttack gaza or not?
___

its personal experience combined with historical research that makes the difference....when you know MI can be wrong over and over, because it is, when a politician/ military man say one thing and you KNOW it is not true because of your experience, then you know just how weak any quote is in proving anything and you know anybody relying on quotes has little experience in such matters....

[kayecy]

165. Israel killed 18,000 Lebanese.......

Last edited Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Your little theory of attempting to break the blockade, with its dangerous escalation would start a war before israel was ready

In your opinion....In my opinion it might have prevented the war and saved thousands of lives......This was obviously not a consideration with the GOI.

so in 1982 when the katusahas were landing as they were in 1980 in israel, and the endless attacks from PLO conrolled Lebanon because of the refugess israel should not have attempted to stop them?.. i believe that is what you are claiming,.

No, that is not what I am claiming.....Israel had a right to use reasonable force to stop the katusahs being fired......What it did not have the right to do was to start a war and carry out a 10 week bombing campaign on Beirut.

Israel has no concept of proportionality.....In the first year, 18,000 Lebanese plus 1,500 PLO, 1,200 Syrian and 1,800 foreigners were killed....Are you proud of your country’s achievement in killing people?

so?...should israel have atttack gaza or not?

As I said, Israel had to stop the bombardment, but it did so out of all proportion to the threat......The deliberate killing of 250 Hamas policemen at the start of the war was neither necessary nor helpful.

The 50 women and 90 children killed in the action makes a mockery of the IDF’s claim to be a humane army.

[Shaktimaan]

139. Not merely "feeling threatened."

In this case, Egypt expelling the peacekeepers and massing troops, armor and heavy weapons four times prior to the war's beginning; the massing of armies along Israel's border and the blocking of the straits were all violations of the agreements that Israel and Egypt had previously made. In 1957 Israel made it clear that any decision to block the straits would be considered an act of war. Moreover, the massing of troops along Israel's border was, coupled with Egypt's bellicose statements regarding seeking Israel's destruction and insistence that the Arabs were ready to fight, was an action that required an Israeli response. Israel had no choice, at the very least, to mass its own troops as a defensive measure along the shared borders. But since full mobilization meant essentially shutting down their entire economy, Israel can not remain in such a position for any extended length of time. This situation was hardly unknown to Israel's enemies. Meaning that Israel faced three basic choices... to attack first; to remain in a defensive position at full mobilization despite the fact that it would ruin their crops (which was their key food supply), and utterly destroy their already very fragile economy; or to not defend their borders and stand down, opening them up to a similar situation they faced in 73, when they were almost entirely overrun, only being saved by a critical resupply of ammunition from the US.

Your assertions that Egypt was not going to attack was not necessarily the prevailing belief at the time, when being wrong would have cost them their nation and very possibly, all their lives. To act as though the war was begun by Israel out of a desire to kill Arabs is laughable when you consider all that the Arabs had to do to get to the point where Israel attacked them. If it was for the land then it seems unlikely that Israel would have given back 95% of it. Especially since almost all of the land Israel hasn't returned to anyone is land that Jordan controlled back then. Jordan, of course, being the country that attacked Israel first; despite Israel's pleas with them (through the UN), to not involve themselves in the war.

If Egypt did not seek war, then why did they take actions that were very clearly stated as being "an act of war" (and then making public statements admitting to their plan to go to war with Israel for the purpose of destroying it?) Are these the acts of a nation that is unprepared for war? Was it merely a coincidence that other Arab states like Iraq were suddenly signing agreements with Syria and importing scores of troops to reinforce Syria's own army? What about expelling the UN peacekeepers whose sole job was to ensure that war did not break out on the Egyptian/Israeli border?

Faced with such a situation, what would you have recommended Israel do differently?

[Bradlad]

141. I would only add that . .

Last edited Fri Aug 10, 2012, 12:26 PM - Edit history (1)

. . when someone or some nation is facing a lethal threat, they should certainly be judicious about evaluating that threat. However, the threatening party bears the burden of showing that they have innocent intentions if that is the case. There are many ways Egypt could have defused the tensions they had caused. When a threatening party makes no signals that their intentions are innocent the defender has every right - and a duty to their own citizens - to assume the worst.

Even if it was stupid bluster on Nasser's (not Sadat's) part (which I do not believe) - he totally deserved the thrashing his incompetent army received from the IDF. His actions caused the war - no matter who would have won it. His actions caused the useless deaths of not only many Jews but also thousands of poorly led Arab soldiers at the hands of the IDF. He should have been hung for war crimes by the international community IMO. It would have set a good example for other budding megalomaniacs.

[shira]

148. Actually, there were 5 causes of war & Israel tried handling it diplomatically first...

Contrary to current Arab propaganda, but congruent with all news accounts contemporary to the events, Israel was the victim of Arab genocidal aggression in the 6-Day War. On May 15, 1967 Egypt demanded that the UN peace-keeping forces, in place since the Sinai Campaign, evacuate at once. UN Secretary General U-Thant, for reasons never fully clarified, complied at once. Then Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran and moved two tank battalions and 150,000 troops right up to Israel's western border. A military pact with Syria and Jordan, and illegal invasion of Israel's air space for surveillance over-flights of the Israeli atomic reactor in Dimona, rounded out the threats. These were five casus belli: actions defined in international law as so threatening to a sovereign state that each one creates a legitimate cause for defensive military response. Had Israel retaliated with lethal force after any one of these five, its military action would have been completely legal per international law, as legitimate defensive response to existential threats from an aggressor.

However, Israel did not retaliate. It first tried political negotiations. Its complaints to the UN went unanswered. Its reminders to President Johnson that the United States had guaranteed in 1957 to intervene if the Straits of Tiran were ever closed, or if Egypt ever re-militarized the Sinai, fell on deaf ears. Mr. Johnson was too heavily involved in the Vietnam war to consider American military action elsewhere, even though President Eisenhower, when he forced PM Ben Gurion to retreat from the Sinai after the phenomenally successful Sinai Campaign in 1956, had promised America's eternal vigilance that Israel would not again face a military threat from Egypt.

http://www.think-israel.org/meir-levi.settlements.html

[Bradlad]

150. And that's why Israel has learned . .

Last edited Mon Aug 13, 2012, 10:39 AM - Edit history (1)

that it can depend on no-one but itself for its defense. In fact, the failure of the international community and the US especially which gave Israel solid assurances re: the Sinai - to take a strong supporting role in defending Israel from Arab aggression - as well as numerous similar situations over the last decades - has created a scenario where a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran or any other state that represents a serious threat to Israel is probably unavoidable.

Duplicity has a price. No-one trusts you.

[aranthus]

89. Because the choice was to surrender.

And frankly, your argument about international law is bull. The reality is that Egypt committed an act of war, Nasser knew it, and he was playing very dangerous games. Such as offering to go to the International Court. If you think that wretched body means jack in the world (other than for playing the kind of propaganda games Nasser was playing), then you really don't understand the world enough to be writing about it. Israel wasn't playing around. It couldn't afford to. Egypt committed acts of war, and Israel had every right to respond.

[shira]

122. Kayecy would undoubtedly claim that if Israel blockaded parts of Egypt....

...that would have been considered an act of war worthy of a response.

[Bradlad]

69. You should learn more about it.

Last edited Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:54 AM - Edit history (2)

In fact, if you want to understand the I/P conflict, you should learn everything you can about it as it is a key event that has led very significantly to the current situation. I highly recommend Michael Oren's Six Days of War as the most accurate and most complete book ever written on the topic. It has 73 full pages of detailed notes and citations aside from the main text plus an additional section of interview with the author by Fouad Ajami, a 26 page index, etc. It's the kind of book anyone really interested in the facts would have and read. As far as I know no credible scholar has ever raised any serious questions of accuracy about anything in the book.

I have both a hard copy and the Kindle edition ($7 I think I paid it) that allows me to search for terms, read it on my iPhone / iPad and copy/paste snips from the text.

All the questions you asked are answered in this book and in detail.

Here'sjust one clip I just copied from the first section where he covers the preceding events leading up to the war:

The War of Independence, as the Israelis called it, had ended. The Jewish state had captured some 30 percent more territory than the UN had allotted it, and, by dint of the Palestinian exodus, a solid Jewish majority. Only the threat of forfeiting that majority and possibly inviting a war with Britain—Egypt’s and Jordan’s protector—deterred the IDF from conquering the West Bank and Gaza as well. In a final operation launched in March 1949, after the armistice with Jordan, Israeli troops took Umm al-Rashrash on the Red Sea, an area that had originally been partitioned to the Jews. Renamed Eilat, the port would serve as Israel’s lifeline through the Gulf of Aqaba and the Straits of Tiran, to the markets of Africa and Asia.

Oren, Michael B. (2010-07-01). Six Days of War (Kindle Locations 261-266). RosettaBooks. Kindle Edition.

There are other paragraphs (over 100) discussing the Straits but note that at this time Israel had signed the armistice with Jordan but not yet with Egypt.

[Bradlad]

72. Here's another interesting snip:

About negotiations in the aftermath of the War of Independence:

The logjam was eventually broken by two “good faith” agreements—one between Nasser and UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold and the other between Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and Golda Meir, Israel’s foreign minister. Hammarskjold promised Nasser that Egypt would have the right to remove UNEF, but only after the General Assembly had considered whether the peacekeepers had completed their mission. Dulles pledged that the U.S. would regard any Egyptian attempt to revive the Tiran blockade as an act of war to which Israel could respond in self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. In such an event, Meir would undertake to inform the United States of Israel’s intentions. Britain and France also acceded to this agreement, as did Canada and several other Western countries—Sweden, Belgium, Italy, and New Zealand. Several glitches ensued when Egyptian troops returned to Gaza and when Dulles reiterated his support for the Armistice, but by March 11, 1957, UNEF was in position and the last Israeli soldier left Sinai.18

Oren, Michael B. (2010-07-01). Six Days of War (Kindle Locations 417-424). RosettaBooks. Kindle Edition.

[shira]

123. This quote shows Western powers acknowledged that Egypt blockading Tiran....

...would be considered an act of war.

Nasser had to know this and was therefore playing games by wanting to take it to the ICJ.

[Bradlad]

124. You are right, of course.

If Nasser was concerned about the legality of the blockade he would have gone to the ICJ before blockading the port.

[aranthus]

41. In Sinai: Egypt. In the West Bank: Jordan. In the Golan: Syria

By blockading the Straits of Tiran and moving the bulk of its army into the Sinai Egypt used military force, broke the truce agreement that ended the 1956 war, and committed an act of war. The Israelis were entitled to respond with military force to break the blockade and destroy the Egyptian army. Jordan then attacked on the West Bank and Syria fro the Golan. Israel was entitled to respond.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Yes. The Six Day War most certainly WAS defensive.

And if the Arab countries had succeeding in doing what Nasser's rhetoric (see below) had proclaimed in the run up immediately before the war, do you honestly believe we'd be sitting here 45 years later trying to figure out how to give whatever number of Jews remained in places like Tel Aviv (presumably, zero) a "State"?

No, we would not, nor would any of the folks complaining about the aftermath of that war have any problem with how things turned out.





The problem now, as it was then, was that they LOST. They didn't think they were going to, but they did.

[shira]

11. Settler Leader’s Wrongheaded Proposal

Yesha Chairman Dani Dayan’s New York Times op-ed is sure to rankle Mideast watchers on both sides of the issue. Dayan writes that not only is the two-state solution dead, but it should be declared so and the settlement movement should be free to expand throughout the West Bank. Although Dayan makes a couple of important points about the weakness of the current push for a two-state solution, he ignores both an accepted reality and the Palestinian people, and two of his ideas contained in the op-ed would be, if accepted, detrimental to the American foreign policy doctrine that results in such steadfast American support for Israel.

First and foremost, a majority of Israelis (usually around the 60 percent mark, sometimes higher) consistently support the two-state solution, even at a time when that proposal is clearly at a post-Oslo low point. So Dayan need not appeal to readers of the New York Times; he is far from convincing his own countrymen to join him. It is much easier to understand why the Times chose to publish the op-ed: the American left would like to frame the debate as consisting of two points of view–Dayan’s and J Street’s. Both are outside the mainstream consensus on this issue, and it is only up against Dayan’s arguments that the hard-left can appear reasonable. With regard to Dayan, there are three questions he should be asked after writing this op-ed.

more...
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/07/26/settler-leader-wrongheaded-proposal/

[shira]

12. Response to Commentary Article in Arutz Sheva......

Danny Dayan is Right-A Two State Solution is not Doable


Is the two-state solution doable? Dani Dayan, Chairman of the Yesha Council ?of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria, thinks not. Seth Mandel thinks ?otherwise.?

The New York Times (NYT) published a strongly worded op-ed this week by Dani Dayan, under the ?title “Israel’s Settlers are here to stay”. Seth Mandel, in an article in ?Commentary Magazine, called his comments “wrongheaded”.?

Mandel accused him of ignoring "both an accepted reality and the Palestinian ?people". Dayan has every right to ignore or even reject, both. Mandel further ?complained that "two of his ideas contained in the op-ed would be, if ?accepted, detrimental to the American foreign policy doctrine that results in ?such steadfast American support for Israel." I beg to differ for reasons set ?out below.?

cont'd...
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11980#.UBVKOO1As20

[earthside]

79. I have finally come to the sad conclusion ...

... that the United Nations made a mistake in 1947-48.

[shira]

82. How so? And what should they have done differently? And how would it matter? n/t

[holdencaufield]

90. Do you mean by...

... endorsing the British Partition Plan for India and Pakistan?

I agree that the partition of India led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and 65 years of open warfare but, ultimately, it was the right thing to do.

[azurnoir]

86. according to this poll more Israeli's are ready to have it that way too-forever

Poll: 64% of Israelis back continued settlement activity

The researchers note a marked shift in the public's willingness to see an Israeli withdrawal in exchange for full peace compared to past surveys on this issue, with 46% saying they would oppose any territorial concessions, up from 38% in 2009 (the question did not refer to east Jerusalem). About 73% of those who gave an answer said the two-state solution would not further peace or would at most only prevent a short term escalation (up from 64% in 2011).

http://www.israelifrontline.com/2012/06/poll-64-of-israelis-back-continued.html