Why Muslims Hate U.S. (Split from "Just War" and N

[Falcon]

If you mass troops on someone's border, talk unendingly about destroying their country then you are inviting an attack. If Nassar actually didn't plan to attack, as you claim, then the arabs (nassar chief of all) must be the biggest morons in the history of mankind. Everything they said and did pointed to an attack and then you discredit their forces despite credible numbers (250,000 - 500,000 troops, not 'two divisions'). If a fool comes up to you, waves a gun in your face and you knock them flat on their back then thats their problem, deal with it

Seeing as how you didn't address any arguments in the previous post, denied the facts as stated by the Chief of Staff of Israel at the time, and continue to insist with no evidence that everything they said and did pointed to attack when I have shown it did nothing of the sort,

CONCESSION ACCEPTED.

I suppose you think that Israel's Chief of Staff is all knowing, all seeing, and infallable? Why deny evidence of military build up, the words of the leaders of the nations behind said buildup, and their own violent past? You do realize that they were shelling and skirmishing even back then, a war isn't hard to imagine. Again, when you talk war and mass an army just what do you think any reasonable person would conclude? The opinion of one man doesn't sweep away all the other circumstances.

[Coyote]

Sigh... I never said that "everything you say is wrong" yadda yadda. Yet another strawman, which seems to be okay for you but your favorite accusation for anyone else. You completely dismissed my evidence "considering the source", ie, me. What the fuck is that, if not saying that everything I say is "wrong"?

I was quoting an outside source, but since I was the one that brought it to your attention it is utterly dismissed? You ignore evidence because you don't like the person that brought it to you? You're impossible.

Fucking hell, you screech like a raped monkey about all these horrible things I've done to you, yet you do them yourself. At one point you even go off about the fact that I misspelled a word. You whine and cry that I pick on you, personally, ignoring the argument-- yet you ignored evidence and quoted "Wizard of Oz" as a defense.

I never insulted you as much as you have insulted me, yet you make a big howling case about any remark I make to you.

Are you referring to the Golan Heights or to the Occupied Territories?

Both. As well as all but 6% of Palestine.

Finally, back to the subject at hand. Now, you don't challenge the existance of a Jewish state, but sharply criticize how they expanded betond the land that they legally purchased. Now, what I am going to say is probably going to agitate you but let's look at the world through real politics:

Nations are frequently born through violence. When the Palestinian state is born, and it will be one way or another, it will have been won through violence and UN dealing. And some nations expand that way-- are you equally angry and critical about Communist China virtually erasing Tibet as an entity; China whom we do thousands of times more trade with than Israel?

A lot of the reasons we started out arming Israel was long before the '67 war happened. The Soviets had decided to adopt the Arab states for some damn reason and sold them quite a few weapons, and much Arab state rhetoric centered around destroying Israel. So, seeing a market, we sold weapons and it was also a good chance to see how our stuff stacked up against their stuff. Remember, this was pre-'67, so the whle Occupied Territories hadn't come up yet.

We continued selling weapons after 1967 because the Cold War was still raging and now everyone had chosen sides. Actually for awhile things were pretty cool in the WB/GS but things changed during the first Intifada and Jordan renounced any interests in getting the Territories returned.

...why should they get to carve their own nation in someone's backyard in the first place? The Vasque's in Spain want their own nation, as do the Kurds, but no one takes them seriously, why should the Jews have been any different, but for the Bible?

I don't know why the Basques or the Kurds don't get a homeland, nor do I know why it took the citizens of East Timor so long to get their land. It also doesn't make sense that the Yugoslavs fought so hard to keep Slovenia, nor why the world ignore Tibet's situation.

Why did the Jews get what they wanted? Some other nations got what they wanted too, so the Jews were not unique (East Timor, Eritea, Slovenia, etc), and some nations get continually squashed (Kurds, Basques). For some reason, the Jews were one of the nations that got some spotlight and achieved their aim. But they were hardly the only ones to do so.

I don't know enough about pre-1947 conditions to argue here.

A lot of the land purchasing and immigration happened from the 1800's on and set the conditions for the later land allotments. Population-wise, the two groups had approached near equality by the mid 1940's and so some sort of land sharing would have to be taken into account.

The movement of Jews to the area was already happening, it would be equally unfair if 50% of the population (the Arabs) had 94% of the land. The UN vote tried to take into account the realities on the ground and the faster pace of Jewish population growth at the time.

The Israelis I've been talking about all along are the decision-makers. The politicians. The scumbags.

If so, then I actually do apologize, for you'd used the term "the Israelis" as a blanket term and it really did seem to me that you thought the whole nation was a tumor to be excised. Ariel Sharon, Effie Eitam, etc are ruining the place with their ultra-nationalist crap.

You've been using terrorist, Palestinians, and Arabs almost interchangebly since this debate started.

I had thought it obvious by context that "the Arabs" or "The Palestinians" I was talking about were the ones engaging in Terrorist acts; that a "civilian" who picks up a bomb or gun and attacks somone is no longer a civilian but a combatant, and a terrorist. But the person next to him who does no such thing? Of course not, don't be rediculous.

That's why I got so damned indignant; I had at least used the term "terrorists" to differentiate who I was talking about from time to time but you never once differentiated which Israelis you were talking about. You may say it was "obvious" but I thought the same thing about the "Arabs" I was talking about.

... the Viet Cong also attacked South Vietnamese civilians. Your attempt to paint Arabs as the only group low enough to attack civilians is pathetic.

Oh, knock it off. Where did I specifically say that! Jeez, you get all in a hissy fit if I distort an argument then turn around and do the same goddamn thing to me! Stop being such a hypocrite!

I was referring to VC attacks on US targets, not VC attacks on other Vietnamese. You have no right to complain about strawmen if it's your own favored tactic.

You're "smackdown" was a series of baby pats in which you basically did to me everything that you accused me of doing. Your position in this is that we should not be arming Israel, I say that Israel has a right to defend itself although I agree with you that they should pull out of the Territories.

Israel, despite its faults, has a better record for political freedom than any of its neighbors and is a democracy (albeit flawed, due to the inordinant amount of influence the Settler's Movement has). While the Arab States are not directly threatening israel anymore, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad are backed by radical, anti-Western regimes that would destroy this political freedom if they could.

We as a country should be more willing to place reservations on how our aid is used and to tighten the flow to make a point; but overall I think Israel is worth the attention we pay to them.

And no, when this is over, no one will be "crowing victory," this is fratricide and time that we should have spent on real Fundies.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Sigh... I never said that "everything you say is wrong" yadda yadda. Yet another strawman, which seems to be okay for you but your favorite accusation for anyone else. You completely dismissed my evidence "considering the source", ie, me. What the fuck is that, if not saying that everything I say is "wrong"?

You didn't provide a source, so that makes the source you, and frankly, your honesty is somewhat questionable given your conduct in this debate.

I was quoting an outside source, but since I was the one that brought it to your attention it is utterly dismissed? You ignore evidence because you don't like the person that brought it to you? You're impossible.

I didn't see any quotation marks or citing.

Fucking hell, you screech like a raped monkey about all these horrible things I've done to you, yet you do them yourself. At one point you even go off about the fact that I misspelled a word. You whine and cry that I pick on you, personally, ignoring the argument-- yet you ignored evidence and quoted "Wizard of Oz" as a defense.

The "Wizard of Oz" quote served two purposes. One, to point out your strawman, since the singer is made of straw, and two, to imply that you have no brain. And you can't seriously expect me to miss pointing out that your grasp on ad-hominems is so weak you can't even spell it right.

I never insulted you as much as you have insulted me, yet you make a big howling case about any remark I make to you.

I thought the subject of this debate was Israel, not whether or not I'm an asshole.

Are you referring to the Golan Heights or to the Occupied Territories?

Both. As well as all but 6% of Palestine.

Finally, back to the subject at hand. Now, you don't challenge the existance of a Jewish state, but sharply criticize how they expanded betond the land that they legally purchased. Now, what I am going to say is probably going to agitate you but let's look at the world through real politics:

Nations are frequently born through violence. When the Palestinian state is born, and it will be one way or another, it will have been won through violence and UN dealing. And some nations expand that way-- are you equally angry and critical about Communist China virtually erasing Tibet as an entity; China whom we do thousands of times more trade with than Israel?

The trade with China is two-way, while the "trade" with Israel only goes one, at least as far as weapons go. As far as China and Tibet go, I really don't know much about it, so I'm not sure whether I'd be angry about it or not.

A lot of the reasons we started out arming Israel was long before the '67 war happened. The Soviets had decided to adopt the Arab states for some damn reason and sold them quite a few weapons, and much Arab state rhetoric centered around destroying Israel. So, seeing a market, we sold weapons and it was also a good chance to see how our stuff stacked up against their stuff. Remember, this was pre-'67, so the whle Occupied Territories hadn't come up yet.

We continued selling weapons after 1967 because the Cold War was still raging and now everyone had chosen sides. Actually for awhile things were pretty cool in the WB/GS but things changed during the first Intifada and Jordan renounced any interests in getting the Territories returned.

Nice history lesson. What's that got to do with the present situation?

...why should they get to carve their own nation in someone's backyard in the first place? The Vasque's in Spain want their own nation, as do the Kurds, but no one takes them seriously, why should the Jews have been any different, but for the Bible?

I don't know why the Basques or the Kurds don't get a homeland, nor do I know why it took the citizens of East Timor so long to get their land. It also doesn't make sense that the Yugoslavs fought so hard to keep Slovenia, nor why the world ignore Tibet's situation.

Why did the Jews get what they wanted? Some other nations got what they wanted too, so the Jews were not unique (East Timor, Eritea, Slovenia, etc), and some nations get continually squashed (Kurds, Basques). For some reason, the Jews were one of the nations that got some spotlight and achieved their aim. But they were hardly the only ones to do so.

You didn't answer why the Jews deserve their own nation.

I don't know enough about pre-1947 conditions to argue here.

A lot of the land purchasing and immigration happened from the 1800's on and set the conditions for the later land allotments. Population-wise, the two groups had approached near equality by the mid 1940's and so some sort of land sharing would have to be taken into account.

The movement of Jews to the area was already happening, it would be equally unfair if 50% of the population (the Arabs) had 94% of the land. The UN vote tried to take into account the realities on the ground and the faster pace of Jewish population growth at the time.

Equally unfair that 50% of the population had 94% of the land? What the hell? Why is that unfair that they had most of their own land? Let me put it this way. California has about a 40% Hispanic population, and I doubt they own more than 4 or 5% of the land. Should we take people's homes and lots away and give it to the Hispanics for them to form their own nation (Muy Nuevo Mexico)? What did the Jews have that the Hispanics don't that gave them the right to have a nation?

The Israelis I've been talking about all along are the decision-makers. The politicians. The scumbags.

If so, then I actually do apologize, for you'd used the term "the Israelis" as a blanket term and it really did seem to me that you thought the whole nation was a tumor to be excised. Ariel Sharon, Effie Eitam, etc are ruining the place with their ultra-nationalist crap.

Cool.

You've been using terrorist, Palestinians, and Arabs almost interchangebly since this debate started.

I had thought it obvious by context that "the Arabs" or "The Palestinians" I was talking about were the ones engaging in Terrorist acts; that a "civilian" who picks up a bomb or gun and attacks somone is no longer a civilian but a combatant, and a terrorist. But the person next to him who does no such thing? Of course not, don't be rediculous.

That's why I got so damned indignant; I had at least used the term "terrorists" to differentiate who I was talking about from time to time but you never once differentiated which Israelis you were talking about. You may say it was "obvious" but I thought the same thing about the "Arabs" I was talking about.

But my beef wasn't with terms. My beef was with your acceptance of "collateral damage" apologies in Israel's "War on Terror". You can call the terrorists Eskimos and the regular Palestinians Enchiladas for all I care.

... the Viet Cong also attacked South Vietnamese civilians. Your attempt to paint Arabs as the only group low enough to attack civilians is pathetic.

Oh, knock it off. Where did I specifically say that! Jeez, you get all in a hissy fit if I distort an argument then turn around and do the same goddamn thing to me! Stop being such a hypocrite!

I was referring to VC attacks on US targets, not VC attacks on other Vietnamese. You have no right to complain about strawmen if it's your own favored tactic.

Bullshit. "The VC terrorism was directed against US troops and the places they could b found; ie, they attacked combatants." - Coyote. Do you think this is a verbal debate, where you can change your tune and no one will notice? You clearly implied that VC terrorism was only directed against combatants. Any purpose in even bringing the subject up other than to paint the Palestinians in a comparatively bad light is beyond me. So where's the strawman? You keep yelling about how I've used as many strawmen as you, yet you've failed to find a single one.

You're "smackdown" was a series of baby pats in which you basically did to me everything that you accused me of doing. Your position in this is that we should not be arming Israel, I say that Israel has a right to defend itself although I agree with you that they should pull out of the Territories.

Jesus Christ giving anal to Mother Mary! Israel is the stronger party, not the weaker! What do you mean "Israel has a right to defend itself"? They already have all the high-tech weaponry, tanks, planes, and nukes. The Pals don't have any of that shit, and you want to uneven the scales even further in a situation where both sides are rotten scumbags! I say "fuck 'em". Cut off their weapons and funding, and if they want them back, they'd better clean up their act fast.

Israel, despite its faults, has a better record for political freedom than any of its neighbors

That's not saying much...

and is a democracy (albeit flawed, due to the inordinant amount of influence the Settler's Movement has). While the Arab States are not directly threatening israel anymore, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad are backed by radical, anti-Western regimes that would destroy this political freedom if they could.

All Israel's violence does is make these groups even more radical and pissed off and unites the Arab world against both them and us. This, the invasion of Iraq, and our continued military presence in Saudi Arabia is a ticking time bomb waiting to douse this world in rivers of blood. Indiscriminate violence hasn't worked, doesn't work, the situation is getting worse, and we should stop being part of the problem.

We as a country should be more willing to place reservations on how our aid is used and to tighten the flow to make a point; but overall I think Israel is worth the attention we pay to them.

Israel has used our weapons to kill more innocent people than the Palestinians do. When each of our dollars is used to buy a bucket of blood, I think it's time to stop sending them.

And no, when this is over, no one will be "crowing victory," this is fratricide and time that we should have spent on real Fundies.

Real fundies don't interest me. I can't learn anything from them, and they're incapable of learning anything from anyone.

EDIT (12/24/02): I should apologize for being so nasty in the post before this. I thought you were more dogmatic than you turned out to be, and I have actually learned and grown from this debate.

[Vympel]

I suppose you think that Israel's Chief of Staff is all knowing, all seeing, and infallable? Why deny evidence of military build up, the words of the leaders of the nations behind said buildup, and their own violent past? You do realize that they were shelling and skirmishing even back then, a war isn't hard to imagine. Again, when you talk war and mass an army just what do you think any reasonable person would conclude? The opinion of one man doesn't sweep away all the other circumstances.

Mindlessly repeating your original position without modification in face of a new post is extremely poor debating form.

Your ridiculous position is that the Chief of Staff does not know what he's talking about, political rhetoric is more valuable than the actual evidence at hand (i.e. Nasser talked about the destruction of Israel- like we've never heard that sort of thing before or since- and I repeat that rhetoric coming from Israeli leaders wasn't exactly sweet sugar either), no army was 'massed' unless you count two divisions as an 'army' instead of a fraction of one, and the events that happened following the 'pre-emptive' strike are the final nail in the coffin.

You also could not respond one whit to my extract from "Image and Reality in the Palestinian Conflict" and have repeated to pull numbers out of your ass which you have not a single source for. 250-500,000? Wow one figure is double the other, but you're sure it's somewhere in the ballpark, and 5,000(!) tanks and planes no less! Perhaps you'd like to give a detailed Order of Battle for the Arab forces, their positions, and their state of readiness?

Quite frankly, the notion that an enemy force of 500,000 mobilized for war could inflict only 800 casualties on the enemy while sustaining some 18,000 of it's own is patently absurd.

And of course, it's just a coincidence that Israel tripled it's territory and started building settlements, and nabbed Jerusalem

Don't bother posting anymore if you have nothing new, I don't need to hear more ridiculous numbers, hand-waving of primary historical sources to repeat unfounded bullshit, or denial of the results.

[SWPIGWANG]

Since I'm a moronic non-debater that is obviously ignorant...I'll point you to this thread.

There is a quite comprehensive debate here

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.p ... enumber=14


At least there are sources you can dig up from the thread.

[Falcon]

I suppose you think that Israel's Chief of Staff is all knowing, all seeing, and infallable? Why deny evidence of military build up, the words of the leaders of the nations behind said buildup, and their own violent past? You do realize that they were shelling and skirmishing even back then, a war isn't hard to imagine. Again, when you talk war and mass an army just what do you think any reasonable person would conclude? The opinion of one man doesn't sweep away all the other circumstances.

Mindlessly repeating your original position without modification in face of a new post is extremely poor debating form.

You can't disqualify a valid arguement by saying someone has repeated it, if that were the case then you would be utterly disqualified since you have done nothing but repeat yourself in this thread as well. cheap debating tactics and hot air may look 'cool' but they don't score points with anyone who has half a brain.

Your ridiculous position is that the Chief of Staff does not know what he's talking about, political rhetoric is more valuable than the actual evidence at hand (i.e. Nasser talked about the destruction of Israel- like we've never heard that sort of thing before or since- and I repeat that rhetoric coming from Israeli leaders wasn't exactly sweet sugar either), no army was 'massed' unless you count two divisions as an 'army' instead of a fraction of one, and the events that happened following the 'pre-emptive' strike are the final nail in the coffin.

A military leader cannot predict what a leader of another county is going to do, especially a political leader. Hitler's Generals told him not to invade the USSR, no doubt such an invasion was tactically unsound, but he persisted anyway. for you, or anyone else, to come out and definately say that the arabs would have in no uncertian terms never have attacked when they were massing troops and talking war is simply nonsense. You keep repeating 'two divisions' but as I posted above those must have been mighty big divisions. Now according to the IDF (http://www.idf.il/english/history/sixday.stm) the numbers were 465,000 troops, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft. Now I realize that this isn't completely objective, or perhaps not even taken in the proper context (unlike some people who are in denial about their information), so I also included the 250,000 figure mentioned by another poster.

Quite frankly, the notion that an enemy force of 500,000 mobilized for war could inflict only 800 casualties on the enemy while sustaining some 18,000 of it's own is patently absurd.

Not really considering how quickly it was over, Israel's use of air power shut it down before it got started. http://www.idf.il/english/history/sixday2.stm

And of course, it's just a coincidence that Israel tripled it's territory and started building settlements, and nabbed Jerusalem

Just like its coincidence that they gave some of it back? Just because they kept some land doesn't mean it was just a war for land. You have to take everything that happened in context with each other, not just focus in one a few things that seem to favor your bias. You seem to want to ignore anything that doesn't point to Israel the greedy war nation of oppressors.

Don't bother posting anymore if you have nothing new, I don't need to hear more ridiculous numbers, hand-waving of primary historical sources to repeat unfounded bullshit, or denial of the results.

If you applied this to yourself you'd have shut up 3 pages ago O_o

[Vympel]

Mindlessly repeating your original position without modification in face of a new post is extremely poor debating form.

I see you have started projecting your behavior upon others now.

You can't disqualify a valid arguement by saying someone has repeated it, if that were the case then you would be utterly disqualified since you have done nothing but repeat yourself in this thread as well. cheap debating tactics and hot air may look 'cool' but they don't score points with anyone who has half a brain.

Of course, since you've not presented a valid point and have provided no evidence for your assertions and ridiculous numbers.

A military leader cannot predict what a leader of another county is going to do, especially a political leader. Hitler's Generals told him not to invade the USSR, no doubt such an invasion was tactically unsound, but he persisted anyway. for you, or anyone else, to come out and definately say that the arabs would have in no uncertian terms never have attacked when they were massing troops and talking war is simply nonsense. You keep repeating 'two divisions' but as I posted above those must have been mighty big divisions. Now according to the IDF (http://www.idf.il/english/history/sixday.stm) the numbers were 465,000 troops, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft. Now I realize that this isn't completely objective, or perhaps not even taken in the proper context (unlike some people who are in denial about their information), so I also included the 250,000 figure mentioned by another poster.

First of all, your Hitler analogy sucks ass because they were right, it WAS strategically (not tactically) unsound. Germany paid the price and Nazism was destroyed for it. Rule 1 of war is don't attack Russia

And just in case you don't know, 465,000 troops/ 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft is the total amount of Arab forces, not the total amount MOBILIZED. Huge difference.

Not really considering how quickly it was over, Israel's use of air power shut it down before it got started. http://www.idf.il/english/history/sixday2.stm

If an attack had been imminent and annihilation was certain as you claim (and denied by both US and Israeli military and civilian officials), such an offensive by such massive forces could not be stopped by Israeli airpower.

Just like its coincidence that they gave some of it back? Just because they kept some land doesn't mean it was just a war for land. You have to take everything that happened in context with each other, not just focus in one a few things that seem to favor your bias. You seem to want to ignore anything that doesn't point to Israel the greedy war nation of oppressors.

Oh of course, settlements, the entire West Bank, and nicking off with Jerusalem is perfectly reasonable- it reveals no territorial ambitions at all

If you applied this to yourself you'd have shut up 3 pages ago O_o

More projecting of your behavior eh?

Do run along now.

[Falcon]

Mindlessly repeating your original position without modification in face of a new post is extremely poor debating form.

I see you have started projecting your behavior upon others now.

that was your quote, not mine, though you are repeating your arguements too, how that makes them invalid I do not know... Resporting to cheap ploys is a sign of desperation -_-

You can't disqualify a valid arguement by saying someone has repeated it, if that were the case then you would be utterly disqualified since you have done nothing but repeat yourself in this thread as well. cheap debating tactics and hot air may look 'cool' but they don't score points with anyone who has half a brain.

Of course, since you've not presented a valid point and have provided no evidence for your assertions and ridiculous numbers.
[/quote]

Your stating this does not make it so.

A military leader cannot predict what a leader of another county is going to do, especially a political leader. Hitler's Generals told him not to invade the USSR, no doubt such an invasion was tactically unsound, but he persisted anyway. for you, or anyone else, to come out and definately say that the arabs would have in no uncertian terms never have attacked when they were massing troops and talking war is simply nonsense. You keep repeating 'two divisions' but as I posted above those must have been mighty big divisions. Now according to the IDF (http://www.idf.il/english/history/sixday.stm) the numbers were 465,000 troops, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft. Now I realize that this isn't completely objective, or perhaps not even taken in the proper context (unlike some people who are in denial about their information), so I also included the 250,000 figure mentioned by another poster.

First of all, your Hitler analogy sucks ass because they were right, it WAS strategically (not tactically) unsound. Germany paid the price and Nazism was destroyed for it. Rule 1 of war is don't attack Russia
[/quote]

No, it was perfectly sound, political leaders don't always do what is wise or what their generals tell them would be wise. To assume that Nassar would absolutely not have attacked Israel because it wouldn't have been militarily wise does not mean they wouldn't have done it anyways. Remember, we have the benifits of hindsight...

And just in case you don't know, 465,000 troops/ 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft is the total amount of Arab forces, not the total amount MOBILIZED. Huge difference.

Well that could be possible, the web sites I've read havn't been overly descriptive and you've not provided any information on the troops that were on Israel's borders beyond your own assertions which are impossible to validate. The way it read though, those were the forces threatening Israel. Regardless, those forces were available and no doubt could have been easily brought up considering the close proximity of the parties involved.

Not really considering how quickly it was over, Israel's use of air power shut it down before it got started. http://www.idf.il/english/history/sixday2.stm

If an attack had been imminent and annihilation was certain as you claim (and denied by both US and Israeli military and civilian officials), such an offensive by such massive forces could not be stopped by Israeli airpower.
[/quote]

You came to this decision.....how? Airplanes and forces destroyed on the ground in a surprise attack would have definately been more effective in the attacking role, wouldn't you say? Israel is a small nation, it could be easily overpowered through swift mass forces even if the Israeli forces were actually the superior force. Tactics mean a lot in warfare, as does surprise. Determining the actual potential of the arabian force had it been used offensively and at the right time is more difficult to judge than your hasty statement implies. At the very least such a battle would have been longer and deadlier.

Just like its coincidence that they gave some of it back? Just because they kept some land doesn't mean it was just a war for land. You have to take everything that happened in context with each other, not just focus in one a few things that seem to favor your bias. You seem to want to ignore anything that doesn't point to Israel the greedy war nation of oppressors.

Oh of course, settlements, the entire West Bank, and nicking off with Jerusalem is perfectly reasonable- it reveals no territorial ambitions at all
[/quote]

Just because they took the opportunity to take (in many cases strategic positions) land doesn't mean that they desired to take land and therefor fabricated a war. They didn't fabricate the increased border violence, the expulsion of the UN forces between them and Egypt, or the troops movements\military alliances of the Arabs.

If you applied this to yourself you'd have shut up 3 pages ago O_o

More projecting of your behavior eh?

Do run along now.[/quote]

Lining your posts with little arrogent egotistical trite phrases is unfunny...

[Vympel]

that was your quote, not mine, though you are repeating your arguements too, how that makes them invalid I do not know... Resporting to cheap ploys is a sign of desperation -_-

Keep reassuring yourself, because you sure as heck ain't convincing anyone else. 'Dumber than a bag of hair' indeed.

Your stating this does not make it so.

Indeed it doesn't, luckily the evidence is on this thread for all to see.

No, it was perfectly sound, political leaders don't always do what is wise or what their generals tell them would be wise.

Now your analogy is really falling apart. You apply Hitler's generals advice to Hitler on attacking someone as an analogy to Israel's generals opinion of the threat from an enemy? Right ....

To assume that Nassar would absolutely not have attacked Israel because it wouldn't have been militarily wise does not mean they wouldn't have done it anyways. Remember, we have the benifits of hindsight...

And of course, the fact that Nasser was on his way to Washington to discuss peace talks days before the Israelis attacks doesn't figure anywhere in your Israel annihilation fantasy.

Well that could be possible, the web sites I've read havn't been overly descriptive and you've not provided any information on the troops that were on Israel's borders beyond your own assertions which are impossible to validate. The way it read though, those were the forces threatening Israel. Regardless, those forces were available and no doubt could have been easily brought up considering the close proximity of the parties involved.

Of course they haven't been overly descriptive. They put up vague nonsense and rely on conventional wisdom of 'Israel had to attack or else it would've been destroyed' for their laughably under-researched tosh to pass muster.

Of course the forces were available. To indicate that this indicates an attack was imminent is stupid. By that logic, any large neighbouring military force is a threat, even when not mobilized or position for offensive operations. If everyone thought like that, Europe, Russia and America would be a pile of radioactive rubble by now.

You came to this decision.....how? Airplanes and forces destroyed on the ground in a surprise attack would have definately been more effective in the attacking role, wouldn't you say? Israel is a small nation, it could be easily overpowered through swift mass forces even if the Israeli forces were actually the superior force. Tactics mean a lot in warfare, as does surprise. Determining the actual potential of the arabian force had it been used offensively and at the right time is more difficult to judge than your hasty statement implies. At the very least such a battle would have been longer and deadlier.

The Israelis WERE the superior force- this is proven by US estimates of how long any battle would take- a week. The Arabs would've had no element of surprise, and armored forces are quite bloody effective in defense- especially against such poorly trained cabbages as the Arabs.

This IS a red herring- the intent to attack was not there, nor was the evidence for such an intent.

Just because they took the opportunity to take (in many cases strategic positions) land doesn't mean that they desired to take land and therefor fabricated a war. They didn't fabricate the increased border violence, the expulsion of the UN forces between them and Egypt, or the troops movements\military alliances of the Arabs.

Please explain the strategic value of Jewish settlements and Jerusalem.

Also, regarding increased border violence:

In mid-November 1966, Israel embarked on its largest military action since the Suez war. An armored brigade of nearly 4,000 men attacked the West Bank town of Samu in the Hebron hills, methodically destroying 125 homes, a clinic, a school and a workshop, and killing eighteen Jordanian soldiers as well (one Israeli soldier was killed). This raid was strongly condemned by US ambassador Arthur Goldberg.

From the extract you obviously didn't read at all.

Regarding the termination (not expulsion, nice play on words) of the UN mission, explain:

Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission (EIMAC), established as part of the agreements that ended the 1948 war, had been requested by Egypt as a viable mechanism to undertake UNEF’s responsibilities. The Israeli Cabinet in late May officially rebuffed any and all such proposals. U Thant also proposed that Israel allow the UNEF to be repositioned on its side of the border. Indeed, the Secretary General pointedly recalled that the original February 1957 General Assembly resolution mandating deployment of the UNEF envisaged that it would be stationed on both sides of the Egyptian-Israeli armistice demarcation line. Egypt had acceded to the General Assemhly request, Israel had not

Lining your posts with little arrogent egotistical trite phrases is unfunny...

Wasn't meant to be funny. I'm just sick of people who repeat their mantra over and over and don't bother reading other people's posts, especially when they don't have their own evidence to offer up.

[Falcon]

Your stating this does not make it so.

Indeed it doesn't, luckily the evidence is on this thread for all to see.

No, it was perfectly sound, political leaders don't always do what is wise or what their generals tell them would be wise.

Now your analogy is really falling apart. You apply Hitler's generals advice to Hitler on attacking someone as an analogy to Israel's generals opinion of the threat from an enemy? Right ....

Not the threat of the enemy, but the intentions of the enemy. Just because Israel's generals deemed the arab force insufficient to wipe them out doesn't mean they wern't going to attack or that Israel shouldn't have preemptively defended itself.

To assume that Nassar would absolutely not have attacked Israel because it wouldn't have been militarily wise does not mean they wouldn't have done it anyways. Remember, we have the benifits of hindsight...

And of course, the fact that Nasser was on his way to Washington to discuss peace talks days before the Israelis attacks doesn't figure anywhere in your Israel annihilation fantasy.
[/quote]

What, like the Palestinians have been 'peace talking' for how many years now?

Well that could be possible, the web sites I've read havn't been overly descriptive and you've not provided any information on the troops that were on Israel's borders beyond your own assertions which are impossible to validate. The way it read though, those were the forces threatening Israel. Regardless, those forces were available and no doubt could have been easily brought up considering the close proximity of the parties involved.

Of course they haven't been overly descriptive. They put up vague nonsense and rely on conventional wisdom of 'Israel had to attack or else it would've been destroyed' for their laughably under-researched tosh to pass muster.
[/quote]

You should talk, your loose collection of subjective context challenged quotes are nigh on meaningless. You refuse to look at the whole picture, denying any evidence should be your first clue that your analogy is flawed.

Of course the forces were available. To indicate that this indicates an attack was imminent is stupid. By that logic, any large neighbouring military force is a threat, even when not mobilized or position for offensive operations. If everyone thought like that, Europe, Russia and America would be a pile of radioactive rubble by now.

We nearly were, more than once... Plus, America hasn't 'mobilized' all its forces in the middle east yet, so by your logic an attack on iraq 'isn't possible'

You came to this decision.....how? Airplanes and forces destroyed on the ground in a surprise attack would have definately been more effective in the attacking role, wouldn't you say? Israel is a small nation, it could be easily overpowered through swift mass forces even if the Israeli forces were actually the superior force. Tactics mean a lot in warfare, as does surprise. Determining the actual potential of the arabian force had it been used offensively and at the right time is more difficult to judge than your hasty statement implies. At the very least such a battle would have been longer and deadlier.

The Israelis WERE the superior force- this is proven by US estimates of how long any battle would take- a week. The Arabs would've had no element of surprise, and armored forces are quite bloody effective in defense- especially against such poorly trained cabbages as the Arabs.
[/quote]

Foolish of them to mass on their border whilst making wild threats then, wasn't it... I suppose you think that Israel should have showed 'restraint' and sent their military home...

This IS a red herring- the intent to attack was not there, nor was the evidence for such an intent.

Other than the troop movements, the blockade, the violent speeches, etc...

Just because they took the opportunity to take (in many cases strategic positions) land doesn't mean that they desired to take land and therefor fabricated a war. They didn't fabricate the increased border violence, the expulsion of the UN forces between them and Egypt, or the troops movements\military alliances of the Arabs.

Please explain the strategic value of Jewish settlements and Jerusalem.

Also, regarding increased border violence:
[/quote]

I said in 'many cases' not in 'every case' please read carefully from this point on, thanks...

In mid-November 1966, Israel embarked on its largest military action since the Suez war. An armored brigade of nearly 4,000 men attacked the West Bank town of Samu in the Hebron hills, methodically destroying 125 homes, a clinic, a school and a workshop, and killing eighteen Jordanian soldiers as well (one Israeli soldier was killed). This raid was strongly condemned by US ambassador Arthur Goldberg.

From the extract you obviously didn't read at all.

Regarding the termination (not expulsion, nice play on words) of the UN mission, explain:

Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission (EIMAC), established as part of the agreements that ended the 1948 war, had been requested by Egypt as a viable mechanism to undertake UNEF’s responsibilities. The Israeli Cabinet in late May officially rebuffed any and all such proposals. U Thant also proposed that Israel allow the UNEF to be repositioned on its side of the border. Indeed, the Secretary General pointedly recalled that the original February 1957 General Assembly resolution mandating deployment of the UNEF envisaged that it would be stationed on both sides of the Egyptian-Israeli armistice demarcation line. Egypt had acceded to the General Assemhly request, Israel had not

[/quote]

So why did Egypt order the Un forces off its side of the border? Israel is being stubborn so it has to act likewise? I read all of the piece and I don't deny any of that, unlike some I realize that my side isn't all right or that the other side is all wrong, but I do see the leaning.

Lining your posts with little arrogent egotistical trite phrases is unfunny...

Wasn't meant to be funny. I'm just sick of people who repeat their mantra over and over and don't bother reading other people's posts, especially when they don't have their own evidence to offer up.[/quote]

irony ahoy

[Vympel]

Not the threat of the enemy, but the intentions of the enemy. Just because Israel's generals deemed the arab force insufficient to wipe them out doesn't mean they wern't going to attack or that Israel shouldn't have preemptively defended itself.

Thanks for the concession. The Israeli generals percieved no threat of annihilation. You just debunked the myth. The territory grabs and settlements make so much more sense now, don't they

What, like the Palestinians have been 'peace talking' for how many years now?

Seeing as how you totally failed to address the point and introduced a transparent red herring, concession accepted. As an aside, it's stark insight into your mindset that you think the failure of peace talks is entirely the Palestinians fault.

You should talk, your loose collection of subjective context challenged quotes are nigh on meaningless. You refuse to look at the whole picture, denying any evidence should be your first clue that your analogy is flawed.

What evidence have I denied? You also continue to pretend that I didn't post anything else either, too bad for you I've done a smidgen more research on the topic, which isn't too hard considering your total lack of effort.

We nearly were, more than once... Plus, America hasn't 'mobilized' all its forces in the middle east yet, so by your logic an attack on iraq 'isn't possible'

Actually, the forces have been conducting exercises, and units including aircraft carrier battlegroups continue to flow into the theater. Everyone knows an attack is imminent. Unlike Israel in 67, there are no Iraqi generals denying that they're going to be annihilated, and no Russians predicting Iraqi victory in a week

Foolish of them to mass on their border whilst making wild threats then, wasn't it... I suppose you think that Israel should have showed 'restraint' and sent their military home...

Of course it was foolish. A diplomatic miscalculation (forces are moved as a 'prestige move' all the time in international dick measuring contests) does not justifcation for a pre-emptive strike and massive territory grab make. The Israelis saw an opportunity for expansion and took it.

Other than the troop movements, the blockade, the violent speeches, etc...

We've already gone over this. By your logic the US should've nuked Khruschev becaus he said "we will bury you" and swapped 2 divisions around in East Germany, and the USSR should've nuked Reagan when he called the USSR the Evil Empire and started putting Pershings in Europe. Regarding this blockade, I have already posted:

"Israel claimed that it had come to be mortally dependent on trade through Eilat. In a Knesset speech on the morrow of Nasser’s announcement, Prime Minister Eshkol pointed to Eilat as the port of ‘hundreds of sailing ships under dozens of flags’ and the hub of ‘a far flung network of commerce and transport’. Israel’s UN ambassador, Gideon Rafael, described Eilat as a ‘thriving port and industrial center’ with ‘considerable trade passing through this essential maritime route’. Without free passage through the Straits, Eban asserted, Israel would be ‘stunted and humiliated’. In a yet more vivid image, Eban charged that Israel was being ‘strangled’ by Nasser’s blockade as it was condemned to ‘breathe with a single lung’. ‘The choice for Israel’, Eban perorated, ‘was drastic – slow strangulation or rapid, solitary death’.

In the real world, the picture was rather less forbidding, The official terms of the blockade barred all Israeli-flagged vessels, and non-Israeli-flagged vessels carrying strategic cargo, form passing through the Straits. Yet, according to the UN Secretariat, not a single Israeli-flagged vessel had used the port of Eilat in the previous two and a half years. Indeed, a mere 5% of Israel’s trade passed through Eilat. The only significant commodity formally affected by the blockade was oil from Iran, which could have been re-routed through Haifa."

Economic strangulation my ass.

I said in 'many cases' not in 'every case' please read carefully from this point on, thanks...

Ah yes, the West Bank and Jerusalem are an insignificant exception eh?

So why did Egypt order the Un forces off its side of the border? Israel is being stubborn so it has to act likewise? I read all of the piece and I don't deny any of that, unlike some I realize that my side isn't all right or that the other side is all wrong, but I do see the leaning.

Considering that Egypt wanted the UNEF re-deployed on both sides, the answer is quite obvious.

irony ahoy

Unfortunately for you, you have no evidence to back up your claim of irony.

[Sir Sirius]

Give it up Falcon, Vympel already has you beaten.

I'm willing to bet that the 'Black Knight syndrome' will rear it's ugly head soon.

[Falcon]

Not the threat of the enemy, but the intentions of the enemy. Just because Israel's generals deemed the arab force insufficient to wipe them out doesn't mean they wern't going to attack or that Israel shouldn't have preemptively defended itself.

Thanks for the concession. The Israeli generals percieved no threat of annihilation. You just debunked the myth. The territory grabs and settlements make so much more sense now, don't they

America doesn't percieve threats of annilation from Iraq or Afghanistan, but we do perceive threats of damage done by terrorists or something. We were threatened with annilation in the American-Mexican war, but we fought that (and took land) too. Israel went to war because it perceived an attack, it took the land because much of it was strategic in nature, and they were apparently right, the arabian power has went up greatly since 1967 and having high ground buffer zones between them and their enemies is nothing but sense.

What, like the Palestinians have been 'peace talking' for how many years now?

Seeing as how you totally failed to address the point and introduced a transparent red herring, concession accepted. As an aside, it's stark insight into your mindset that you think the failure of peace talks is entirely the Palestinians fault.
[/quote]

I'm saying we have an established precedent of arab 'peace' talks. Its also curious that you can apprently read minds now...

You should talk, your loose collection of subjective context challenged quotes are nigh on meaningless. You refuse to look at the whole picture, denying any evidence should be your first clue that your analogy is flawed.

What evidence have I denied? You also continue to pretend that I didn't post anything else either, too bad for you I've done a smidgen more research on the topic, which isn't too hard considering your total lack of effort.
[/quote]

At every point you brush aside the actions of the arabs and focus in on the opinions of Israeli generals and fail to realize that we're looking back on this in hindsight, which is 20\20 as the saying goes. You're 'reaseach' is a bunch of inane quotes, unbelievable.

We nearly were, more than once... Plus, America hasn't 'mobilized' all its forces in the middle east yet, so by your logic an attack on iraq 'isn't possible'

Actually, the forces have been conducting exercises, and units including aircraft carrier battlegroups continue to flow into the theater. Everyone knows an attack is imminent. Unlike Israel in 67, there are no Iraqi generals denying that they're going to be annihilated, and no Russians predicting Iraqi victory in a week
[/quote]

I thought Saddam said that he would 'smite' the invaders O_o I'm sure his generals are walking the PR line too.

Foolish of them to mass on their border whilst making wild threats then, wasn't it... I suppose you think that Israel should have showed 'restraint' and sent their military home...

Of course it was foolish. A diplomatic miscalculation (forces are moved as a 'prestige move' all the time in international dick measuring contests) does not justifcation for a pre-emptive strike and massive territory grab make. The Israelis saw an opportunity for expansion and took it.
[/quote]

You talk war and act war you'd better be prepared to get war. If a nation masses troops on someone's border while talking war it deserves what it gets.

Other than the troop movements, the blockade, the violent speeches, etc...

We've already gone over this. By your logic the US should've nuked Khruschev becaus he said "we will bury you" and swapped 2 divisions around in East Germany, and the USSR should've nuked Reagan when he called the USSR the Evil Empire and started putting Pershings in Europe. Regarding this blockade, I have already posted:
[/quote]

America and the USSR had a far greater dialog than the Israel\arab players, we knew what each other was doing and what was hot air\PR. You can't tell me that Israel knew that the arabs wern't going to attack, theres no way to know. Their generals knew it wasn't a militarly sound move, but as shown before, political leaders don't always do something that would be strategically wise.

"Israel claimed that it had come to be mortally dependent on trade through Eilat. In a Knesset speech on the morrow of Nasser’s announcement, Prime Minister Eshkol pointed to Eilat as the port of ‘hundreds of sailing ships under dozens of flags’ and the hub of ‘a far flung network of commerce and transport’. Israel’s UN ambassador, Gideon Rafael, described Eilat as a ‘thriving port and industrial center’ with ‘considerable trade passing through this essential maritime route’. Without free passage through the Straits, Eban asserted, Israel would be ‘stunted and humiliated’. In a yet more vivid image, Eban charged that Israel was being ‘strangled’ by Nasser’s blockade as it was condemned to ‘breathe with a single lung’. ‘The choice for Israel’, Eban perorated, ‘was drastic – slow strangulation or rapid, solitary death’.

In the real world, the picture was rather less forbidding, The official terms of the blockade barred all Israeli-flagged vessels, and non-Israeli-flagged vessels carrying strategic cargo, form passing through the Straits. Yet, according to the UN Secretariat, not a single Israeli-flagged vessel had used the port of Eilat in the previous two and a half years. Indeed, a mere 5% of Israel’s trade passed through Eilat. The only significant commodity formally affected by the blockade was oil from Iran, which could have been re-routed through Haifa."

Economic strangulation my ass.

You choose to believe the second paragraph over the first why....oh yes, blinding bias... Thats why quotes so often mean nothing, the people who give them have agendas, are ignorent of some facts, or are deliberately trying to mislead. Your belief that you've got all the facts in this situation is laughable, I doubt anyone does. Its certianly not as black and white as you make it out.

I said in 'many cases' not in 'every case' please read carefully from this point on, thanks...

Ah yes, the West Bank and Jerusalem are an insignificant exception eh?
[/quote]

I know the city is, and as I recall the West Bank had some military value.

So why did Egypt order the Un forces off its side of the border? Israel is being stubborn so it has to act likewise? I read all of the piece and I don't deny any of that, unlike some I realize that my side isn't all right or that the other side is all wrong, but I do see the leaning.

Considering that Egypt wanted the UNEF re-deployed on both sides, the answer is quite obvious.
[/quote]

Did they really, or did they because they knew that Israel wouldn't accept it. You believe this of Egypt, but you brush off Nassar's actions as PR\image building. Back to devination are we? Whats next week's lotto numbers, I need some cash.

irony ahoy

Unfortunately for you, you have no evidence to back up your claim of irony.[/quote]

It was quite plain...

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

In the real world, the picture was rather less forbidding, The official terms of the blockade barred all Israeli-flagged vessels, and non-Israeli-flagged vessels carrying strategic cargo, form passing through the Straits. Yet, according to the UN Secretariat, not a single Israeli-flagged vessel had used the port of Eilat in the previous two and a half years. Indeed, a mere 5% of Israel’s trade passed through Eilat. The only significant commodity formally affected by the blockade was oil from Iran, which could have been re-routed through Haifa."

Economic strangulation my ass.

Hmm. I'm not refuting this, per se, but you might want to take a closer look. Figures such as "a mere 5% of Israel's trade passed through Eilat" are often misleading (not always intentionally), as percentages less than that can be critical. For instance, international trade represents a small percentage of GDP for the US, yet it cannot be argued that it is not important, since our economy and war machine would grind to halts without foreign oil.

[Vympel]

America doesn't percieve threats of annilation from Iraq or Afghanistan, but we do perceive threats of damage done by terrorists or something. We were threatened with annilation in the American-Mexican war, but we fought that (and took land) too. Israel went to war because it perceived an attack, it took the land because much of it was strategic in nature, and they were apparently right, the arabian power has went up greatly since 1967 and having high ground buffer zones between them and their enemies is nothing but sense.

Iraq and Afghanistan only undermines your point. In both cases the US did not grab any territory, but destroyed enemy military forces threatening its interests. Unless you think they're about to become the next two states in the Union?

Arab power increased since 1967? What? Israel hopelessly outclasses every single Arab power combined- in both equipment and training.

I'm saying we have an established precedent of arab 'peace' talks. Its also curious that you can apprently read minds now...

Elaborate on this precedent, if you can. Your unsupported assertions will get you nowhere, and to suggest that 'Arab' peace talks are all false is blatantly bigoted.

At every point you brush aside the actions of the arabs and focus in on the opinions of Israeli generals and fail to realize that we're looking back on this in hindsight, which is 20\20 as the saying goes. You're 'reaseach' is a bunch of inane quotes, unbelievable.

Brush aside their actions? Nasser miscalculated, unfortunately for him. And it's not 'hindsight'- there was no intention to attack percieved at the time, obviously.

Funny you reduce the opinions of Israeli leaders as 'inane' and continue to ignore the extract I posted. Your total lack of supporting evidence fools noone. Maybe you should post from Arab newspapers again, that's some rock solid evidence from primary historical sources

I thought Saddam said that he would 'smite' the invaders O_o I'm sure his generals are walking the PR line too.

Once again you elevate empty public rhetoric to the levels of rock hard evidence.

You talk war and act war you'd better be prepared to get war. If a nation masses troops on someone's border while talking war it deserves what it gets.

Good to know you weren't in charge during the Cold War ... we'd all be dead.

America and the USSR had a far greater dialog than the Israel\arab players, we knew what each other was doing and what was hot air\PR. You can't tell me that Israel knew that the arabs wern't going to attack, theres no way to know. Their generals knew it wasn't a militarly sound move, but as shown before, political leaders don't always do something that would be strategically wise.

Demonstrate this far greater dialog. Are you going to contend that Reagan picked up the phone, called the Kremlin and said "hey Comrade, just kidding ok!"

The Israelis saw no intention to attack at the time, nor did the US. As you have shown, by your exceedingly low standards, troop movements and rhetoric are enough to justify a pre-emptive strike and land grab.

You choose to believe the second paragraph over the first why....oh yes, blinding bias... Thats why quotes so often mean nothing, the people who give them have agendas, are ignorent of some facts, or are deliberately trying to mislead. Your belief that you've got all the facts in this situation is laughable, I doubt anyone does. Its certianly not as black and white as you make it out.

I believe the only one making things out to be black and white is you with your continued perpetuation of the black & white myth. The first paragraph is the paraphrase of Israeli claims. The second is, "in reality". If you wish to refute it, by all means go ahead. Otherwise, STFU.

I know the city is, and as I recall the West Bank had some military value.

LOL. Jerusalem is insignificant to Israel now!!!! And again, please detail the military value of settlements scattered all over the West Bank.

Did they really, or did they because they knew that Israel wouldn't accept it. You believe this of Egypt, but you brush off Nassar's actions as PR\image building. Back to devination are we? Whats next week's lotto numbers, I need some cash.

Better an inference drawn from evidence than your baseless, sourceless, mindlessly pro-Israel claims.

Justify Israel's non-acceptance, btw. You act like it's reasonable to reject it without a smidgen of a reason why. More evidence of your mindset. Israel's actions require no justification whatsoever in your book- they are right by default eh?

It was quite plain...

Build that wall o Ignornace high.

Arthur,

Hmm. I'm not refuting this, per se, but you might want to take a closer look. Figures such as "a mere 5% of Israel's trade passed through Eilat" are often misleading (not always intentionally), as percentages less than that can be critical. For instance, international trade represents a small percentage of GDP for the US, yet it cannot be argued that it is not important, since our economy and war machine would grind to halts without foreign oil.

Only vessels with Israeli flags or with strategic cargo were forbidden from passing- not a single such vessel has used the straits in 2 years, argues Finklestein (source UN Secretariat). From the terms of the blockade, it is obvious that non-Israeli flagged vessels could still making it through- it's not like every ship no matter what flag couldn't make it.

[Falcon]

America doesn't percieve threats of annilation from Iraq or Afghanistan, but we do perceive threats of damage done by terrorists or something. We were threatened with annilation in the American-Mexican war, but we fought that (and took land) too. Israel went to war because it perceived an attack, it took the land because much of it was strategic in nature, and they were apparently right, the arabian power has went up greatly since 1967 and having high ground buffer zones between them and their enemies is nothing but sense.

Iraq and Afghanistan only undermines your point. In both cases the US did not grab any territory, but destroyed enemy military forces threatening its interests. Unless you think they're about to become the next two states in the Union?

The land is just one part of the issue, the preemptive strike is the other part. You also ignored the Mexican-American war...

Arab power increased since 1967? What? Israel hopelessly outclasses every single Arab power combined- in both equipment and training.

Maybe so, but not in numbers, see Germany vs Russia

I'm saying we have an established precedent of arab 'peace' talks. Its also curious that you can apprently read minds now...

Elaborate on this precedent, if you can. Your unsupported assertions will get you nowhere, and to suggest that 'Arab' peace talks are all false is blatantly bigoted.

Not all, the majority seem to be though. Unless you subscribe to the 'evil Israel' theory in which case its all Israels fault. Both sides are to blame, which is all I've ever asked for, the realization\admission that Israel is not the bad guy here anymore than its arabian counterparts.

At every point you brush aside the actions of the arabs and focus in on the opinions of Israeli generals and fail to realize that we're looking back on this in hindsight, which is 20\20 as the saying goes. You're 'reaseach' is a bunch of inane quotes, unbelievable.

Brush aside their actions? Nasser miscalculated, unfortunately for him. And it's not 'hindsight'- there was no intention to attack percieved at the time, obviously.

So that makes it 'ok' then? He just 'miscalculated' by putting an army on the border and forging alliances in the name of stoping Israel, Israel is clearly the bad guy, etc... Thats not how peaceful responsible nations act.

Funny you reduce the opinions of Israeli leaders as 'inane' and continue to ignore the extract I posted. Your total lack of supporting evidence fools noone. Maybe you should post from Arab newspapers again, that's some rock solid evidence from primary historical sources

Obviously some Israeli leaders thought there was to be an attack, they launched the strike. Your supporting evidence shows there was difference of opinion, but it doesn't prove that Israel was just using any excuse to gain land.

I thought Saddam said that he would 'smite' the invaders O_o I'm sure his generals are walking the PR line too.

Once again you elevate empty public rhetoric to the levels of rock hard evidence.

maybe your quotes were 'empty public rhetoric' whos to say? Are you now the arbiter on 'empty rhetoric' and 'primary historical sources'

You talk war and act war you'd better be prepared to get war. If a nation masses troops on someone's border while talking war it deserves what it gets.

Good to know you weren't in charge during the Cold War ... we'd all be dead.

there wouldn't have been a cold war if I'd been in charge (truman, monon, cough cough)

America and the USSR had a far greater dialog than the Israel\arab players, we knew what each other was doing and what was hot air\PR. You can't tell me that Israel knew that the arabs wern't going to attack, theres no way to know. Their generals knew it wasn't a militarly sound move, but as shown before, political leaders don't always do something that would be strategically wise.

Demonstrate this far greater dialog. Are you going to contend that Reagan picked up the phone, called the Kremlin and said "hey Comrade, just kidding ok!"

You would deny that Russia and America did not have a very open dialog and were both cautious to avoid war (and both knew it). There could be no winner in a nuclear war, but in the Israel-Arab conflict there were no such restraints.

The Israelis saw no intention to attack at the time, nor did the US. As you have shown, by your exceedingly low standards, troop movements and rhetoric are enough to justify a pre-emptive strike and land grab.

Why YES, you finally got it! In such a situation a nation is justified, though not always compelled, to take just those actions.

You choose to believe the second paragraph over the first why....oh yes, blinding bias... Thats why quotes so often mean nothing, the people who give them have agendas, are ignorent of some facts, or are deliberately trying to mislead. Your belief that you've got all the facts in this situation is laughable, I doubt anyone does. Its certianly not as black and white as you make it out.

I believe the only one making things out to be black and white is you with your continued perpetuation of the black & white myth. The first paragraph is the paraphrase of Israeli claims. The second is, "in reality". If you wish to refute it, by all means go ahead. Otherwise, STFU.

Sigh, you really must read closer. I've contended all along that there is SHARED blame on BOTH SIDES. It isn't all evil israel nor all evil arabs, I simply wanted this fact recognized.

I know the city is, and as I recall the West Bank had some military value.

LOL. Jerusalem is insignificant to Israel now!!!! And again, please detail the military value of settlements scattered all over the West Bank.

The settlements have no value, and as I pointed out in an earlier post the settlements have invalidated that particular military claim, but it didn't invalidate it at the time. jerusalem is insignificant to everyone personally, but as size, worth, etc... I don't see much value (to non-jews\muslims basically)

Did they really, or did they because they knew that Israel wouldn't accept it. You believe this of Egypt, but you brush off Nassar's actions as PR\image building. Back to devination are we? Whats next week's lotto numbers, I need some cash.

Better an inference drawn from evidence than your baseless, sourceless, mindlessly pro-Israel claims.

Guess you never followed all those links I posted above, or maybe you just like to fabricate your claims against my arguement from force of habit?

Justify Israel's non-acceptance, btw. You act like it's reasonable to reject it without a smidgen of a reason why. More evidence of your mindset. Israel's actions require no justification whatsoever in your book- they are right by default eh?

Their non-acceptance of the UN doesn't need a justification, nor does Egypt's explusion of the UN forces after Israel wouldn't agree to put them on its side too. The point was that if Egypt had been so peace minded why didn't it take the high road and leave the UN forces there despite the 'evil' actions of Israel. I doubt the war could have happened if Egypt had just went the extra mile leaving UN forces on its borders. Bottom line, Israel refusing UN troops was no reason for Egypt to expell them from its side. Egypt could have taken the moral high road and pointed at Israel's non compliance instead of putting its own troops on Israel's border.

Personally I think the UN forces should have been left there, but then again I don't like the UN either, so there you are.

[Vympel]

The land is just one part of the issue, the preemptive strike is the other part. You also ignored the Mexican-American war...

In both cases, they were not pre-emptive. Iraq invaded Kuwait remember? Need I mention why Afghanistan was attacked (Al-Quaeda and Taliban).

As for Mexican American War, I thought I had written the following but I forgot- who attacked who, why, and what was the threat. I know nothing about it.

Maybe so, but not in numbers, see Germany vs Russia

Hopelessly over-simplistic. The USSR kicked Germany's ass because of a variety of factors, not just numbers. The USSR in many cases had better equipment, and half-way through the war German skill went way down.

Not all, the majority seem to be though. Unless you subscribe to the 'evil Israel' theory in which case its all Israels fault. Both sides are to blame, which is all I've ever asked for, the realization\admission that Israel is not the bad guy here anymore than its arabian counterparts.

What majority of 'Arab' peace talks?

Yes, both sides ARE to blame. Which is why I don't think Israel had any justification for nicking off with other people's land.

So that makes it 'ok' then? He just 'miscalculated' by putting an army on the border and forging alliances in the name of stoping Israel, Israel is clearly the bad guy, etc... Thats not how peaceful responsible nations act.

Stop lying. Israel had forces on its side of the border too you know, and they too were involved in military exercises. And a mutual defense pact with Syria ain't exactly an offensive alliance.

Obviously some Israeli leaders thought there was to be an attack, they launched the strike. Your supporting evidence shows there was difference of opinion, but it doesn't prove that Israel was just using any excuse to gain land.

It was a pretext for grabbing land. This is demonstrated by how much they grabbed and their settlement building/ eviction of the existing population. Forbidden by the Geneva Convention, which Israel voluntarily signed.

maybe your quotes were 'empty public rhetoric' whos to say? Are you now the arbiter on 'empty rhetoric' and 'primary historical sources'

Bzzzt. You don't even know what a primary historical source is, do you? It's a source from the time of the events in question. It is the highest historical form of evidence, and inherently superior to a secondary source. Rhetoric from an Arab newspaper is hardly on the level of the private confidences of an actual leader.

there wouldn't have been a cold war if I'd been in charge (truman, monon, cough cough)

This has what to do with anything?

You would deny that Russia and America did not have a very open dialog and were both cautious to avoid war (and both knew it). There could be no winner in a nuclear war, but in the Israel-Arab conflict there were no such restraints.

??? You're claiming that Reagan at the time he made his evil empire proclamation had a very open dialog, and wanted to avoid war? Eh?

You're oversimplifying again. There were many factors in why the USSR and USA didn't blow each other to bits, not least of which is recognizing what's bullshit rhetoric and what ain't. You get these sorts of things from intelligence and (surprise!) the opinion of the military. In Israel's case, no one believed that an Arab attack was imminent, nor that Israel was going to be 'annihilated', in either Israel or the US.

Why YES, you finally got it! In such a situation a nation is justified, though not always compelled, to take just those actions.

That's absolutely fucked in the head. Finally you place your ludicrous standards on display. Do you have any idea the kind of deep shit the world would be in if every nation followed your standards? Pakistan and India would be pummeling each other right now, Europe, America and Russia would be radioactive rubble etc.

Sigh, you really must read closer. I've contended all along that there is SHARED blame on BOTH SIDES. It isn't all evil israel nor all evil arabs, I simply wanted this fact recognized.

If you truly believed that the blame was shared, which it was, it certainly doesn't give Israel the right to nick off with other countries land and justify it with 'we were about to be annihilated, it was all in self-defense!"

The settlements have no value, and as I pointed out in an earlier post the settlements have invalidated that particular military claim, but it didn't invalidate it at the time. jerusalem is insignificant to everyone personally, but as size, worth, etc... I don't see much value (to non-jews\muslims basically)

Israel is Jewish. They invest quite a lot of emotion in Jerusalem. It's significant to them, they took it.

As for the settlements, land in self defense and settlements are mutally exclusive. There is no logic behind seeding land captured for 'defense' purposes with your own citizens so they can be in the path of an attacking force.

Guess you never followed all those links I posted above, or maybe you just like to fabricate your claims against my arguement from force of habit?

All those links? What from such gem historical sources as the Anti-Defamation Leauge?

Their non-acceptance of the UN doesn't need a justification, nor does Egypt's explusion of the UN forces after Israel wouldn't agree to put them on its side too. The point was that if Egypt had been so peace minded why didn't it take the high road and leave the UN forces there despite the 'evil' actions of Israel. I doubt the war could have happened if Egypt had just went the extra mile leaving UN forces on its borders. Bottom line, Israel refusing UN troops was no reason for Egypt to expell them from its side. Egypt could have taken the moral high road and pointed at Israel's non compliance instead of putting its own troops on Israel's border.

LOL. Doesn't need a justiication!

It tried to get the UNEF forces redeployed on both sides of the border. This is equitable, is it not? What's wrong with that?

Personally I think the UN forces should have been left there, but then again I don't like the UN either, so there you are.

Indeed, after all an international organization dedicated to peace and security, national sovereignty and human rights is so bothersome!

[Sea Skimmer]

Yes, both sides ARE to blame. Which is why I don't think Israel had any justification for nicking off with other people's land.

I'd say protecting ones citizens from shellfire is justification. Jordan fired first on the west bank, hitting west Jerusalem and Tel Aviv with. Syria bombarded northern Israel for days before the IDF captured the heights. Both sides shot first, in Syrias case right through the cease-fire, which came into effect before the Israel had even begun its assault.

If overrunning the artillery of an enemy shelling civilian target is not justification for you then I don't know what the fuck would be.

[Darth Wong]

I'd say protecting ones citizens from shellfire is justification. Jordan fired first on the west bank, hitting west Jerusalem and Tel Aviv with. Syria bombarded northern Israel for days before the IDF captured the heights.

"We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot ... And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us."- Moshe Dayan, the Defense Minister who gave the order to conquer the Golan Heights, quoted from the NY Times, May 11, 1997.

[Perinquus]

"We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot ... And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us."- Moshe Dayan, the Defense Minister who gave the order to conquer the Golan Heights, quoted from the NY Times, May 11, 1997.

Well, this is a situation where I have to side with the Israelis. If you take a look at the Golan heights on a topographical map, you may notice that it is a strategically vital piece of terrain. It's high enough to make a superb platform for artillery, and it's kind of like a miniature Fulda Gap (through which the Soviets were expected to pour had the Cold War ever turned hot) - it's a natural avenue for invasion. From a purely strategic/military standpoint, I simply cannot fault the Israelis for doing absolutely whatever it took to secure that territory. And if the Israelis are smart, they will never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever give up control of that territory. It's that strategic.

So look at it from a military standpoint (and remember, Moshe Dayan was a general).

Given: You are surrounded by hostile states whose openly professed goal is your destruction.

Given: The Golan heights make an indespensible platform for artillery fire.

Given: The Golan Heights overlook a natural highway for invasion, which is currently under the control of the aforementioned, hostile power.

Do you allow this situation to continue, or do you improve your odds by securing this vital piece of ground? Remember also that the survival of your nation may be at stake here. I honestly cannot fault the Israelis in this instance. If I had been in Moshe Dayan's shoes, I would have done exactly the same thing.

[Vympel]

Well, this is a situation where I have to side with the Israelis. If you take a look at the Golan heights on a topographical map, you may notice that it is a strategically vital piece of terrain. It's high enough to make a superb platform for artillery, and it's kind of like a miniature Fulda Gap (through which the Soviets were expected to pour had the Cold War ever turned hot) - it's a natural avenue for invasion. From a purely strategic/military standpoint, I simply cannot fault the Israelis for doing absolutely whatever it took to secure that territory. And if the Israelis are smart, they will never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever give up control of that territory. It's that strategic.

So look at it from a military standpoint (and remember, Moshe Dayan was a general).

Given: You are surrounded by hostile states whose openly professed goal is your destruction.

Given: The Golan heights make an indespensible platform for artillery fire.

Given: The Golan Heights overlook a natural highway for invasion, which is currently under the control of the aforementioned, hostile power.

Do you allow this situation to continue, or do you improve your odds by securing this vital piece of ground? Remember also that the survival of your nation may be at stake here. I honestly cannot fault the Israelis in this instance. If I had been in Moshe Dayan's shoes, I would have done exactly the same thing

What bullshit. So it's ok to deliberately piss off a country by violating the demilitarized zone as a pretext in order to get your hands on territory that's not yours, just because it's convenient for you?

[Perinquus]

What bullshit. So it's ok to deliberately piss off a country by violating the demilitarized zone as a pretext in order to get your hands on territory that's not yours, just because it's convenient for you?

(Struggles to hold onto patience) First off, if you want civil debate, there are politer ways to disagree with someone than making "bullshit" the first response you make... but let's table that for the moment.

Secondly, you seem to have missed the part where I mentioned the avowed goal of these states is your destruction. I am indebted to Coyote for providing the following quotes:

"The Arab national aim is the elimination of Israel"
--President Nasser of Egypt to President Aref of Iraw, 25 May 1965

"The day of Realization of the Arab hope for the return of the refugees to Palestine means the liquidation of Israel"
--Abd' Allah al'Yafi, Lebanese Prime Minister, 19 April 1966

"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight... the [Egyptian] mining of Sharm el-Sheikh is a confrontation with Israel. Adopting this measure obligates us to be ready to embark on a general war with Israel"
-- President Nasser of Egypt, 27 May 1967

"With the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba, Israel is faced with two alternatives, either of which will destroy it; it will either be strangled to death by the Arab military and economic boycott, or it will perish by the fire of Arab forces encompassing it from the South and from the North and from the East"
-- Cairo Radio, 30 May 1967

"The existance of Israel is an error that must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear-- to wipe Israel off the map"
--President Aref of Iraq, 31 May 1967

(on 25 May, 1967, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia moved their troops to Israel's borders. This was the first time since the armistace agreements in 1949 that Arab armies had gathered in such large numbers).

So the Isrealis did not sieze the Golan heights as a matter of convenience (nice strawman of you), they did it as a matter of self-preservation. Just a slight difference of degree there.

In the third place, it's not as though the Israelis were the instigators here. Again, I am indebted to Coyote for the following:

February-October 1966:
6 September: 7 land reclamation officers killed by Syrian land mine.
30 April: 4 Israeli farm workers wounded by Syrian machinegn fire.
5 June: Syrian atillery shell workers in fields
6 June: Syrian shells set Israeli farms ablaze
13 February: Syrians shoot as Israeli tractors with mortars.
12 July: Tractor driver wounded by Syrian mine.
26 September: Syrians fire on a fishing boat in Sea of Galilee.
21 February: Syrians fire mortar shells at patrol escorting fishermen on lake shore.
15 August: Syrians open fire on Israeli patrol boat, Israelis retaliate, 5 Israeli troops wounded.
22 February: Syrians fire on tactor.
29 March: Farmer wounded by Syrian machinegun fire.
30 March: Tractor driver wounded by Syrian artillery.
22 October: Tractor driver fired at.
9 October: 4 border policemen killed by Syrian mine.

January-April 1967:

8 January: Syrians machinegun settlements in Israeli land.
4 March: Tractor driver injured by Syrian mine.
14 January: Syrian mine kills Israeli soldier watching a footbal match.
3 January: Syrians fire on Israeli patrol.
8 April: 200 heavy mortar shells from Syria level the settlement of Gadot (in Israeli territory).
2 January: Syrian artillery shells the settleemnt of Korazim.
15 January: Syrians shell lake patrol boat.
14 April: Farmer seriously wounded by Syrian shell fire.
8 January: Syrians shell town of Notera.
15 February: Syrians fire at tractor.
4 January: Syrians shoot at a farmer at the town of Ein Gev
8 April: Cowshed hit by Syrian artillery, 8 cows killed.
7 January: Tractor driver in Tel Katzir shot at.

This is but a portion of the attacks that Israelis endured leading up to the 1967 war. The Syrians used the Golan Heights as a artillery station for the constant harassment of Israeli civilians. Most of their taregets, as you can see, were civilians and farms.

Would any sovereign nation be expected to it on their hands and do nothing during all this harassment and butcher of civilians? Israel had done nothing to provoke this. Then in 25 May 1967 the military movements to the border; the war-incitement statements of the leaders and press... are you still going to insist that the Israelis were the aggressors here?

Israel took land that had been used as nothing more than a giant sniping platform. They took it to secure their strategic positions and to protect their people. They withdrew from positions they'd taken beyond that need-- they were at the outskirts of Damascus itself.

Yes, it is inexcusable that the Israelis should do something to protect their people from attacks like this.

Need I say more?

[Vympel]

Note: I've edited this a bit.

So the Isrealis did not sieze the Golan heights as a matter of convenience (nice strawman of you), they did it as a matter of self-preservation. Just a slight difference of degree there.

Again, bullshit. If you had been following this debate at all before chiming in, you'd know that. Please present evidence that Israel was about to be attacked and annihilated, as is the common myth.

In the third place, it's not as though the Israelis were the instigators here. Again, I am indebted to Coyote for the following:

February-October 1966:
6 September: 7 land reclamation officers killed by Syrian land mine.
30 April: 4 Israeli farm workers wounded by Syrian machinegn fire.
5 June: Syrian atillery shell workers in fields
6 June: Syrian shells set Israeli farms ablaze
13 February: Syrians shoot as Israeli tractors with mortars.
12 July: Tractor driver wounded by Syrian mine.
26 September: Syrians fire on a fishing boat in Sea of Galilee.
21 February: Syrians fire mortar shells at patrol escorting fishermen on lake shore.
15 August: Syrians open fire on Israeli patrol boat, Israelis retaliate, 5 Israeli troops wounded.
22 February: Syrians fire on tactor.
29 March: Farmer wounded by Syrian machinegun fire.
30 March: Tractor driver wounded by Syrian artillery.
22 October: Tractor driver fired at.
9 October: 4 border policemen killed by Syrian mine.

January-April 1967:

8 January: Syrians machinegun settlements in Israeli land.
4 March: Tractor driver injured by Syrian mine.
14 January: Syrian mine kills Israeli soldier watching a footbal match.
3 January: Syrians fire on Israeli patrol.
8 April: 200 heavy mortar shells from Syria level the settlement of Gadot (in Israeli territory).
2 January: Syrian artillery shells the settleemnt of Korazim.
15 January: Syrians shell lake patrol boat.
14 April: Farmer seriously wounded by Syrian shell fire.
8 January: Syrians shell town of Notera.
15 February: Syrians fire at tractor.
4 January: Syrians shoot at a farmer at the town of Ein Gev
8 April: Cowshed hit by Syrian artillery, 8 cows killed.
7 January: Tractor driver in Tel Katzir shot at.

This is but a portion of the attacks that Israelis endured leading up to the 1967 war. The Syrians used the Golan Heights as a artillery station for the constant harassment of Israeli civilians. Most of their taregets, as you can see, were civilians and farms.

And conveniently it ignores all the shit the Israelis were doing, such as the raid on Samu, violations of the demilitarized zones, etc. I also want to know the source- as you'll see in the next post it's misrepresenting the facts of the situation to the point of intentional dishonesty.

Mike Wong has also provided evidence as to why the Syrians were shelling.

Would any sovereign nation be expected to it on their hands and do nothing during all this harassment and butcher of civilians? Israel had done nothing to provoke this. Then in 25 May 1967 the military movements to the border; the war-incitement statements of the leaders and press... are you still going to insist that the Israelis were the aggressors here?

Yes, I am, considering the 'military movements' were a shuffling of divisions as a show of support that revealed no intention or capability to attack, and the wheels of diplomacy were turning before the Israeli strike, as Finklestein wrote in his work.

Israel took land that had been used as nothing more than a giant sniping platform. They took it to secure their strategic positions and to protect their people. They withdrew from positions they'd taken beyond that need-- they were at the outskirts of Damascus itself.

Not their land. Period.

Need I say more?

You can actually try and not be so damn simplistic next time. See next post.

[Vympel]

I should also add that the UN Secretary General reported that Israel and Syria had produced

Sixty-six thousand complaints about each other to the UN.

Those Israeli complaints not centering on the demilitarized zone often focused on Syria’s de facto annexation of the 10-meter strip and direct access to Lake Tiberias, behavior explicitly criticized by the Israel-Syria Mixed Armistice Commission (ISMAC) of the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). Syrian complaints most often centered on a theme which Israel was pleased to acknowledge: that Israel acted as if the demilitarized zone were part of Israel-proper.

According to Dayan, more than 80 percent of border incidents resulted from Israeli provocation involving aggressive agricultural activities in territory claimed by the Jewish state.

To catalogue, recount and assess blame for the thousands of violent incidents occurring on the Syria-Israel frontier from 1949 until June 5,1967 is far beyond the scope of this essay. It will suffice to make several points with which both parties would probably agree.

1. Israel claimed the demilitarized zone as sovereign Israeli territory in which Israel had only "consented to the demilitarization of the areas from which the Syrian army had retreated." Syria, on the other hand, asserted no sovereign claim to land in what had been Palestine. Instead it considered the demilitarized zone essentially as a buffer zone subject to UN supervision, the sovereign definition of which had been deferred indefinitely by the armistice.

2. Starting in the spring of 1951 Israel began to assert its sovereign claim quite actively, using the drainage and reclamation of the Hula swamp—located adjacent to the central sector of the demilitarized zone—to test Syria’s response. Syria opposed the project on the grounds that it would alter military geography in the demilitarized zone to Israel’s advantage and do substantial harm to Palestinian Arab farmers. According to Aryeh Shalev, "The central [Israeli] idea seems to have been to engage in a policy of brinkmanship—forcing Syria either not to interfere or face the risk of military deterioration which could escalate into war—combined with an attempt to strengthen Israeli control in the DZ." In March and April 1951 there was a series of armed clashes when Israeli tractors crossed to the east bank of the Jordan River, which "was under the complete control of the Syrians, as it had been even prior to the signing of the armistice agreement." and when Israeli soldiers, disguised as policemen, attempted—unsuccessfully—to "show the flag" in al-Hamma.

3. The upshot of armed clashes in the spring of 1951 was the informal partition of the demilitarized zone. Israel expelled Arab villagers from the central sector and asserted control of that sector up to the Jordan River. Syria exercised effective control over the east bank portion of the central sector—from Lake Hula to Lake Tiberias—took the dominating high ground—Tel al-Azaziat—in the northern sector and, according to Shalev, "seized areas close to its border—al-Hamma, [K]hirbet al-Tawafiq, al-Nuqeib, [and] the northeastern shore of Tiberias . . ." Although there would be alterations to this partition over the next 16 years—all minor and all at Syria’s expense—the events of 1951 would essentially define the line of June 4, 1967.

4. In 1952 and 1953 Israel and Syria held secret military talks to explore the possibility of formalizing the partition of the demilitarized zone. Although the talks achieved consensus on some major points: a new boundary along the east bank of the Jordan, keeping the river within Israel, partition of the northern sector and southern sectors of the demilitarized zone, and reduction of the 10-meter strip to one meter, keeping Lake Tiberias within Israel, they failed. Syria essentially wanted a new armistice line in order to halt more creeping Israeli annexation of the demilitarized zone, but was not interested in conveying formal recognition to Israel. To the extent that Israel might have been tempted to abandon the 1923 boundary, it might have done so in exchange for a treaty of peace—nothing less. Even in the context of a peace treaty, according to Professor Moshe Brawer, a Syrian presence on the water line of the Jordan and Tiberias "would only have been possible if they gave up any riparian rights to the river and lake."

5. From 1953 until June 1967 Israel’s struggle to assert its sovereignty all the way to the 1923 boundary became a game of inches, punctuated by serious armed clashes. In words attributed to the late Moshe Dayan, "more than 80 percent" of the incidents resulted from Israeli provocation involving aggressive agricultural activities, albeit in territory claimed by Israel. Regardless of their genesis, these incidents often involved Syrian shelling into the demilitarized zone by artillery batteries high above their targets, followed by Israeli attacks on Syrian positions, sometimes within Syria. These incidents, combined with an escalating war of words between Syria and Israel and a general breakdown in Arab-Israeli relations, led to war in June 1967. By June 10, 1967 the line of June 4, 1967 was well to the rear of Israeli forces.

Now then, who wants to bet where that 'Israeli land' was?

http://www.mideastinsight.org/9_99/line ... .99_2.html

Self-preservation in response to naked Syrian aggressione eh? God why are people so damn simplistic ...

[Perinquus]

Again, bullshit. If you had been following this debate at all before chiming in, you'd know that. Please present evidence that Israel was about to be attacked and annihilated, as is the common myth.

Oh little things like large troop movements on the border, numerous public bellicose statements, little things like that...

Frankly, when I hear people repeat loudly, publicly, and often that they hate me and mean to destroy me, and then I observe them making threatening gestures which give me every indication they may carry out those threats, I don't require anything more than that to tell me that pre-emptive action is both necessary and justified.

Mike Wong has provided evidence as to why the Syrians were shelling, so your argument is moot.

I'd like to see convincing justification for the shelling of civilian targets which are inside the borders of another country.

Yes, I am, considering the 'military movements' were a shuffling of divisions as a show of support that revealed no intention or capability to attack, and the wheels of diplomacy were turning before the Israeli strike.

The wheels of diplomacy were turning right up until the Japanese attack on December 7th 1941 as well. Diplomats frequently play for time. And massive troop build ups along the border are universally recognized as threatening.

Not their land. Period.

The Ruhr Valley was not British or French land. Period. So by that reasoning, when German troops reoccupied it, it would have been entirely inappropriate for the French and British to march in and put an end to Hitler's ambitions while Germany was still weak. Nevermind that hindsight tells us it would have saved millions of lives. It was not French and British land. Period.

You're right. It's absolutely essential to maintain the supposed moral high gound, no matter what. You just have to let them attack you first, and if they strike harder than you can withstand, and you end up being destroyed... well, at least you'll have the consolation of knowing that you were morally in the right.

You can actually try and post some frigging sources next time.

Oh, forgive me for presuming you were intelligent enough to verify the information independently.