View Full Version : Abu Afak's Roadmap for Peace
abu afak
11-06-2003, 01:26 PM
I might add This is my Minimal Roadmap, since a Palestinian state seems to be a forgone conclusion.
The Current Wall is being built to the West of where it should/needs to be for defensive reasons and was contemplated thusly in 1967:
"UNSC RESOLUTION AND ISRAEL'S DEFENSIBLE BORDERS:
A few days before the UNSC vote on 242, President Johnson summoned UN Ambassador Arthur Goldberg and Undersecretary Eugene Rostow to formulate the US position on the issue of 'secure boundaries' for Israel. They were presented with the Pentagon Map, which had been prepared by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Earle Wheeler.
The map displayed the "minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes," which included the entire Golan Heights and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria. The participants of the meeting agreed that the Pentagon Map fulfilled the requirements of 242 for 'secure borders.'
(Prof. Ezra Zohar, A Concubine in the Middle East, Geffen Publishing, p. 39; Makor Rishon weekly, March 10, 2000).
http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/242a.html
In 1967 the Cold War was on - remember? Plus who would challenge Israel now?
abu afak
11-06-2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Mil
In 1967 the Cold War was on - remember?
Er .. Yeah .. So?
Plus who would challenge Israel now?
Arabs at some future date with some future armament.
(forseeable or unforseeable currently)
The Narrower Israel, the greater the temptation.
Posted by Abu:
Er .. Yeah .. So?
At the time Israel's main enemies were 100% supported by USSR fighting with Soviet weapons and Israel was supported by the West fighting with 100% Western designed weapons.
Arabs at some future date with some future armament.
Who exactly? Syria, Lebanon? Or may be Jordan, or Egypt? Israel will only possibly be attacked if only with a WMD where the extra 100 kilometers of a border will not help.
In 1967 it made sence to have a buffer zone given the state of Israeli arm forces and the type of warfare that the sides would fight. Presently Israel does not need any buffers to defeat or stop any enemies if only suicide bombers from Jordan or Syria.
(forseeable or unforseeable currently)
The Narrower Israel, the greater the temptation.
This is not 1967 or 1973.
abu afak
11-06-2003, 05:06 PM
All irrelevant.. unless you want to argue Infantry, Tanks, armored vehicles, etc, which can be purchased form Many sources (ie the French) are outmoded weapons.
Enemies would indeed include all the past (and still motivated) ones plus the New Palestine/Forward launch pad.
Posted by Abu:
All irrelevant.. unless you want to argue Infantry, Tanks, armored vehicles, etc, which can be purchased form Many sources (ie the French) are outmoded weapons.
Even if you have weapons you need to MOBOLIZE. Mobilization, as an event, takes quite some time and is very VISIBLE. In 1967 Israel won on the bases of slow and completely sloppy Egyptian mobilization. In any case any meaningful mobilization by any Arab state or states would be recognized by Israel in a matter of hours, if not predicted prior by intelligence (most likely) - if not then surely from the satellites, and response would be immediate and quite devastating. Arabs are ideologically challenged but they are certainly not STUPID. In any case American armored presence nearby makes any invasion of Israel quite non-sencical.
Enemies would indeed include all the past (and still motivated) ones plus the New Palestine/Forward launch pad.
Before Jordan or Syria would bring any tanks to Israel they would be destroyed while in transit. 1973 would never take place ever AGAIN.
abu afak
11-06-2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Mil
.....Even if you have weapons you need to MOBOLIZE. Mobilization, as an event, takes quite some time and is very VISIBLE. In 1967 Israel won on the bases of slow and completely sloppy Egyptian mobilization. In any case any meaningful mobilization by any Arab state or states would be recognized by Israel in a matter of hours....
I can just here you in 1973.. BEFORE the Egyptian surprise attack:
"1967 could never happen again... .... ... .... "
Or in 2020:
"2008 could never happen again, it was just those new faster tanks... ... ... "
(or "new Surface-to-Surface Missiles" .. or ... etc etc)
I'd rather be safe.. have more defendable borders, at the cost a a few Arab farms.
At less than 10 miles wide.. there's not alot of room for error/"hours".
AND
Take into account the Border adjustments Visualized in 1967 in Resolution 242, based on the Rightful Security needs and future 'Secure and recognized boundaries' of Israel on which my proposal is based.
humus_sapiens
11-07-2003, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by abu afak
I might add This is my Minimal Roadmap, since a Palestinian state seems to be a forgone conclusion.
"If you will, it is no dream!" Theodor Herzl, Altneuland (1902)
wellofvow
11-07-2003, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by Mil
Posted by Abu:
At the time Israel's main enemies were 100% supported by USSR fighting with Soviet weapons and Israel was supported by the West fighting with 100% Western designed weapons.
Neither in 1967, nor in 1973, was Israel "supported by the West" to any degree approaching USSR support of the attacking Arab states. For example, Israel had NO onsite "military advisors" like the Arab states did.
Actually, in 1973, Kissinger advised Nixon to unembargo Israel and allow materiel to be flown in to Israel's aid only when it looked as if Israel could possibly lose this war.
And do not forget that Eisenhower hung Israel out to dry in 1956.
wellofvow
11-07-2003, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by Mil
Even if you have weapons you need to MOBOLIZE. Mobilization, as an event, takes quite some time and is very VISIBLE. In 1967 Israel won on the bases of slow and completely sloppy Egyptian mobilization. In any case any meaningful mobilization by any Arab state or states would be recognized by Israel in a matter of hours, if not predicted prior by intelligence (most likely) - if not then surely from the satellites, and response would be immediate and quite devastating. Arabs are ideologically challenged but they are certainly not STUPID. In any case American armored presence nearby makes any invasion of Israel quite non-sencical.
Before Jordan or Syria would bring any tanks to Israel they would be destroyed while in transit. 1973 would never take place ever AGAIN.
With all due respect, I think that the above comment should have been qualified by remarking something to the effect that this is YOUR OPINION.
I don't believe that Israeli military intelligence would agree with anything that you wrote. The whole scandal of the 1973 war - the fact that Israel came perilously close to losing - was predicated by the Israeli government (PM Golda Meir) NOT TAKING SERIOUSLY intelligence reports of Egyptian mobilization.
Israel has done nothing in recent years that would lead Arab warmongers to believe that mobilization of of their forces would lead to a "devastating" Israeli response.
Arab warmongers ARE and always have been, if not "stupid", then certainly willing to lose thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of their people to kill "the Enemy". Look at an Arab internecine war - Iran vs Iraq. The Iranians used children under 10 years old as "metal detectors" in minefields.
American armoured presence nearby? Where? And why should you imagine that Americans would attack an Arab force attacking Israel?
If Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan could have been fooled in 1973, it seems many times more likely that the Israeli government now, with the hysterical ultra-Left influence on it, would be passive if Syrian tanks rolled in, and would react only when Tel Aviv and Jerusalem started being shelled.
This is my OPINION. :rolleyes:
Posted by wellofvow:
Neither in 1967, nor in 1973, was Israel "supported by the West"
You kidding? Right?
to any degree approaching USSR support of the attacking Arab states. For example, Israel had NO onsite "military advisors" like the Arab states did.
Israel did not need any on-site military advisors. It needed weapons and political support. It got both from the West - specifically the US.
Actually, in 1973, Kissinger advised Nixon to unembargo Israel and allow materiel to be flown in to Israel's aid only when it looked as if Israel could possibly lose this war.
Source please. According to reality military supplies to Israel and the question to the supply situation was resolved immediatly after the conflict started. That is according to Kissinger himself. I just finished the newest book by Kissinger "Chronology of two foreign policy Crisis" which specifically describes the Yom Kippur war. I really recommend it.
And do not forget that Eisenhower hung Israel out to dry in 1956.
He did the same for France and Britain. However, Israel got a better deal at the end.
Posted by wellofvow:
With all due respect, I think that the above comment should have been qualified by remarking something to the effect that this is YOUR OPINION.
It is my opinion - you are right. A massive engagement with Israel will require full mobilization of troops and equipment including the engagement of all the civilian and other national structures - something that will not go undetected.
I don't believe that Israeli military intelligence would agree with anything that you wrote. The whole scandal of the 1973 war - the fact that Israel came perilously close to losing - was predicated by the Israeli government (PM Golda Meir) NOT TAKING SERIOUSLY intelligence reports of Egyptian mobilization.
The flaw of Israeli government in 1973 was a complete mis-interpretation of Egyptian political intentions. It was a 100% political failure and not a military and certainly not an intelligence error.
Israel has done nothing in recent years that would lead Arab warmongers to believe that mobilization of of their forces would lead to a "devastating" Israeli response.
Arabs have not mobolized their forces in the past 30 years on any significant level to seriously confront Israel. If only Syria in the late 70s and 80s with the entire Lebanon saga.
Arab warmongers ARE and always have been, if not "stupid", then certainly willing to lose thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of their people to kill "the Enemy". Look at an Arab internecine war - Iran vs Iraq. The Iranians used children under 10 years old as "metal detectors" in minefields.
Iran and certainly not Iraq will ever go to war with Israel. They are too far.
American armoured presence nearby? Where? And why should you imagine that Americans would attack an Arab force attacking Israel?
Any massive Arab force directed at Israel will have to deal with the US.
If Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan could have been fooled in 1973, it seems many times more likely that the Israeli government now, with the hysterical ultra-Left influence on it, would be passive if Syrian tanks rolled in, and would react only when Tel Aviv and Jerusalem started being shelled.
Man or man. Syria :) Don't make me laugh :) Syria is POWERLESS. It won't be just a slaughter, as happened in 1973, it will be an Armageddon for the Syrians who would be dissolved into little micro-scopic particles before they'll even reach the infamous anti-tank ditch. T-72s vs. Merkavas - you choose.
Canajew
11-07-2003, 10:53 AM
Mil,
Don't mean to intrude but your assertion that israeli intelligence was aware of the impending attack is incorrect. intelligence failures are one of the biggest reasons the surprise attack was so ... surprising. From complete reliance on a double agent planted by Sadat to an unwillingness to rank the risk of attack as anything but extremely low (as there was 'the concept' which held that the Arabs would not attack unless they were strong enough) to an unwillingess to confront the evidence of imminent attack through the repositioning of SAM batteries, intelligence failures only reinforced the political failures.
See "The Eve of Destruction: The Untold Story of the Yom Kippur War" by Howard Blum. It came out recently (a few months at most, at least in Canada) and is full of things I have not seen reported in other narratives I've read. A lot more attention paid to the intelligence as it existed as well as how it was perceived. A must read, and a clear indictment of intelligence failures stemming from over-confidence. Why could such a scenario not play out in the future?
danholo
11-07-2003, 11:03 AM
But it would not be possible for Israel to "miss" massive mobilization with modern radar technology and its spy satellites in space - something of which it DIDN'T have in the seventies. And it's pretty obvious that Arab states will notget stealth technology any time soon. :D (How is that possible when even half of them can't even read?!)
Posted by Canajew:
Don't mean to intrude but your assertion that israeli intelligence was aware of the impending attack is incorrect.
Israeli intelligence was very aware that something was going to happen. Partial mobilization of reserves started before the war.
intelligence failures are one of the biggest reasons the surprise attack was so ... surprising.
It was a suprise - I agree.
From complete reliance on a double agent planted by Sadat to an unwillingness to rank the risk of attack as anything but extremely low (as there was 'the concept' which held that the Arabs would not attack unless they were strong enough) to an unwillingess to confront the evidence of imminent attack through the repositioning of SAM batteries, intelligence failures only reinforced the political failures.
Intelligence is not just contructed from one source but from many. Israelis knew for sure something was in the works they just didn't know how massive and the objectives. Trust me - war preparations are hard to miss. The largest failure - as I said before - was that of the political establishment at predicting Sadat. Nobody in the Knesset in their wildest dreams could have thought of what exact political consequences would a war with Israel bring to Sadat. Sadat POLITICALLY out-smarted Golda; not militarily. Militarily Arabs were bound to loose and Sadat pretty much understood it. Not to mention that if Israel would be loosing US would get involved.
See "The Eve of Destruction: The Untold Story of the Yom Kippur War" by Howard Blum. It came out recently (a few months at most, at least in Canada) and is full of things I have not seen reported in other narratives I've read. A lot more attention paid to the intelligence as it existed as well as how it was perceived. A must read, and a clear indictment of intelligence failures stemming from over-confidence.
This B.S. about over-confidence really bugs me. What happened in 1973 was a complete and outer failure of the Israeli political establishment. Don't blame it on the military - the military did its job very well even better then in 1967.
Why could such a scenario not play out in the future?
It wouldn't.
abu afak
11-07-2003, 11:30 AM
Canajew: intelligence failures are one of the biggest reasons the surprise attack was so ... surprising.
Mil: It was a suprise - I agree.
...
Canajew: Why could such a scenario not play out in the future?
Mil: It wouldn't.
...
Sorry Mil.. I rather have a Land buffer than your Empty assurance that intelligence failures will never happen again.
Sorry Mil.. I rather have a Land buffer than your Empty assurance that intelligence failures will never happen again.
A land buffer will not save Israel in future wars.
I would recommend you read:
"Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia" by Israeli world-famous Soviet expert-historian Gabriel Gorodetsky. It has an absolutely great description of how Stalin missed Barbarossa. You will get lots of insight and make quite a few very visible parallels.
Canajew
11-07-2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Mil
See "The Eve of Destruction: The Untold Story of the Yom Kippur War" by Howard Blum. It came out recently (a few months at most, at least in Canada) and is full of things I have not seen reported in other narratives I've read. A lot more attention paid to the intelligence as it existed as well as how it was perceived. A must read, and a clear indictment of intelligence failures stemming from over-confidence.
This B.S. about over-confidence really bugs me. What happened in 1973 was a complete and outer failure of the Israeli political establishment. Don't blame it on the military - the military did its job very well even better then in 1967.
trust me, based on this book and the evidence that is now avaliable, you are incorrect in this assertion. The inelligence establishment failed Israel prior to the 1973 war.
trust me, based on this book and the evidence that is now avaliable, you are incorrect in this assertion. The inelligence establishment failed Israel prior to the 1973 war.
Well - shifting the blame on intelligence (the most popular culprit) really distorts the picture and makes the real guilty wash their hands. Intelligence - as done all over the world - is adjusted to fit political realities rather then intentionally mislead the government as is popularized in movies. Thus the government failed to make proper conclusions and not the intelligence. The partial reserves were mobilized, Yallon moved his troops, a conflict was in the air - it's just nobody could predict what exactly was in the works.
Canajew
11-07-2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Mil
trust me, based on this book and the evidence that is now avaliable, you are incorrect in this assertion. The inelligence establishment failed Israel prior to the 1973 war.
Well - shifting the blame on intelligence (the most popular culprit) really distorts the picture and makes the real guilty wash their hands. Intelligence - as done all over the world - is adjusted to fit political realities rather then intentionally mislead the government as is popularized in movies. Thus the government failed to make proper conclusions and not the intelligence. The partial reserves were mobilized, Yallon moved his troops, a conflict was in the air - it's just nobody could predict what exactly was in the works.
please read this new book. It really is far better than the others I have read on this conflict. The failrues were all ecompasing. the military doctrine failed, the politicians failed and the intelligence community failed Israel and all this together is what caused the almost total surprise. But again, please read this new book. It is written by a reporter who has written both fiction and non-fiction and he ties in great personal stories about protagonists on both sides, including Israeli tank commanders. From this and other accounts, the only branch of israel that did NOT fail was the ability and will of the common trained isareli soldiers on the front lines. It truly was a miracle and a testament to the will of Israel's front-line soldiers that the Syrians did not over-run the entire Golan and much of Israel too. israel really should have lost that one and this is an important lesson to learn if we want to try to prevent similar circumstances from arising again.
danholo
11-07-2003, 12:58 PM
Congrats Mil! 666 posts! :D
What is that? Devil's number upside down?
danholo
11-07-2003, 01:23 PM
666 is the Devil's number. It was supposed to be bad joke.
Posted by Canajew:
please read this new book.
I will - eventually. :) My book list is huge plus I am currently preparing for LSATs - so will see.
It really is far better than the others I have read on this conflict.
And I recommend you read the latest Kissinger book. Then will be even :)
The failrues were all ecompasing. the military doctrine failed,
Military doctrine did not fail. The Israelis recovered after 4 days!!!
Plus how could the military doctrine fail? Are you talking about the Bar-Lev line?
the politicians failed and the intelligence community failed
No it didn't. All the information was there.
Israel and all this together is what caused the almost total surprise.
Yes it was a suprise - I agree.
But again, please read this new book. It is written by a reporter who has written both fiction and non-fiction and he ties in great personal stories about protagonists on both sides, including Israeli tank commanders.
On the military side I prefer to read military historians like Dupuy.
From this and other accounts, the only branch of israel that did NOT fail was the ability and will of the common trained isareli soldiers on the front lines.
The quality of Israeli army is not under question here. Actually compared to the failure of the politicians the army functioned as intended and to all military comparisons even better then in 67.
It truly was a miracle and a testament to the will of Israel's front-line soldiers that the Syrians did not over-run the entire Golan and much of Israel too.
That would have never happened.
israel really should have lost that one
No it would not loose. Even if the Syrians had a bit more luck in the Golan the eventuality would have shifted by a few days before they would loose it all again.
and this is an important lesson to learn if we want to try to prevent similar circumstances from arising again.
Similar circumstances will not happen. Neither from a political or a military stand point. Israel is so powerful politically, economically and especially militarily that any Arab army would be decimated at its approaches. Now it's a political war that warries me and that one does not need tanks.
666 is the Devil's number. It was supposed to be bad joke.
1 1
1 1
11
O my attempt at drawing the devil :)
abu afak
11-07-2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Mil
[b]abu: Sorry Mil.. I rather have a Land buffer than your Empty assurance that intelligence failures will never happen again.
Mil: A land buffer will not save Israel in future wars.
I would recommend you read:
"Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia" by Israeli world-famous Soviet expert-historian Gabriel Gorodetsky. It has an absolutely great description of how Stalin missed Barbarossa. You will get lots of insight and make quite a few very visible parallels.
So, you've switched fromk intelligence failures "wouldn't happen" to now ... land buffers wouldn't help Israel.
And, of course, lacking a coherent arguable case you just refer me/the board to a very Non-analogous situation of Germany/Russia in WW2 to prove it. $%#$#%^%^$#$
Posted by Abu:
So, you've switched fromk intelligence failures "wouldn't happed" to now ... land buffers wouldn't help Israel.p.
Actually I never said there were any intelligence failures - on the contrary in 1973 all the intelligence was there. The failure consisted from the political establishment interpreting it correctly.
Happens.
And, of course, lacking a coherent arguable case you just refer me/the board to a very Non-analogous situation of Germany/Russia in WW2 to prove it.
Abu - failures of the political establishments in the period preceeding WWII by both the Western allies and the Soviets at interpreting Hitler's intentions is a very good example of what I am talking about. 1973 Israeli politicians in no way were immune from such situations and especially not the first ones failing to predict opponents' objectives in modern history.
abu afak
11-07-2003, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Mil
Posted by Abu:
So, you've switched fromk intelligence failures "wouldn't happed" to now ... land buffers wouldn't help Israel.p.
Actually I never said there were any intelligence failures - on the contrary in 1973 all the intelligence was there. The failure consisted from the political establishment interpreting it correctly.
Happens.
Proving only Failures can indeed happen, regardless of who you attribute them to. Intelligence or otherwise.
And, of course, lacking a coherent arguable case you just refer me/the board to a very Non-analogous situation of Germany/Russia in WW2 to prove it.
Abu - failures of the political establishments in the period preceeding WWII by both the Western allies and the Soviets at interpreting Hitler's intentions is a very good example of what I am talking about. 1973 Israeli politicians in no way were immune from such situations and especially not the first ones failing to predict opponents' objectives in modern history. [/B]
You used this point to say buffers wouldn't help.
It is NOT analogous to say 2 or 3 miles more won't help a 9 mile wide country (at some points), and compare it to virtually endless Russia -- which was, in fact, saved (from whichever failure) by it's very depth and the stretched supply lines needed to conquer it.
Posted by Abu:
It is NOT analogous to say 2 or 3 miles more won't help a 9 mile wide country (at some points), and compare it to virtually endless Russia -- which was, in fact, saved (from whichever failure) by it's very depth and the stretched supply lines needed to conquer it.
I am not going to argue with you on WWII ( your knowledge of it is probably limited to the History Channel ) but going back to the subject the Soviet situation in the month preceeding June 1941 was politically very similar that of Israel in the few month preceeding October 1973.
As far as 9 or 3 miles of a buffer zone - Israel would not fight its enemies at these but instead on the enemy territory as it has always done.
abu afak
11-07-2003, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by Mil
Posted by Abu:
It is NOT analogous to say 2 or 3 miles more won't help a 9 mile wide country (at some points), and compare it to virtually endless Russia -- which was, in fact, saved (from whichever failure) by it's very depth and the stretched supply lines needed to conquer it.
Attempted by Mil: "I am not going to argue with you on WWII ( your knowledge of it is probably limited to the History Channel ) but going back to the subject the Soviet situation in the month preceeding June 1941 was politically very similar that of Israel in the few month preceeding October 1973.
As far as 9 or 3 miles of a buffer zone - Israel would not fight its enemies at these but instead on the enemy territory as it has always done.
Let's face it guy.. You can no longer argue with me on your ridiculous Comparison of WW2/Germany/Russia because I made a Mockery of your nonalagous attempt to do so, not because of my lack of knowledge of WW2. AND In fact, As I showed, it was Russia's very width that made up for their errors.
As to where Israel would fight from? That depends on Intelligence/Intelligence-Failure, Politics/Political-Failure
(take your pick.. you've already admitted at least one is possible)
My choice gives a little more room for error, and in fact is the Right choice Politically right now, as opposed to being attacked from the same territory later (and looking back at NOW as a 'political error'), so that the hostility zone is that much further forward in a perilously narrow state... one that could be traversed in minutes by armored vehicles.
wellofvow
11-08-2003, 10:28 AM
I cannot hope to intelligently debate those who have read extensively in military history. I myself have read nothing of the 1973 war. On the other hand, my family and I lived through it.
My husband had been appointed as "key personnel in time of war" at a large hospital in Israel. The war caught us visiting family in the States with our months-old firstborn. I very seriously doubt that the hospital would have let him go on vacation abroad if it looked as if war were close.
A work colleague was at the end of her pregnancy when the war broke out. Her husband was a senior officer in the Air Force. If intelligence and the military had been awake, a substitute would have been found and he would have been able to be with his wife when she gave birth. (This is standard practice in all branches and for all ranks of the army. I know this personally, for both my husband and my brother.) He missed the birth, got to see his daughter once, and was killed soon after.
Military intelligence is, in and of itself, strongly influenced by current Israeli politically correct beliefs. I know this again through personal experience, not through books, Kissinger recall, or the internet.
If Israel's military and intelligence had known and reported the enemy buildup, there would not have been the wholesale slaughter of the early days of the war, nor the military confusion with senior officers giving orders that were disobeyed by officers in the field who were unwilling to kill their men. I watched men who had been there, in their tanks, in their bunkers, being interviewed "30 Years After" on Israel TV. Their eyes are still haunted.
Israel did NOT "partially mobilize" before the war, at least not to any extent that was deterrent. We were here. It didn't happen. We finagled tickets back to Israel on the second day of the war. There were young Israelis circulating the waiting room begging tourists to give them their places so they could rejoin their army units. A few were lucky. Or maybe unlucky.....
Iraq sent "irregulars" to fight against Israel in 1948. I don't think Iraq is any further away now than in 1948. Iran didn't send anyone since the Shah was not a radical Moslem.
Bottom line, trying to put my emotional recollections aside (very difficult): military intelligence supposedly tried to get through to the government that we were in danger, but the government (well, primarily Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan) were too arrogantly sure of themselves after 1967. They totally ignored the Arab mindset, JUST AS THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT IS DOING RIGHT THIS MINUTE.
Mil's messages that it could never happen again is more of this same arrogance. The Arabs can lose wars over and over until the end of time, and nothing will happen fundamentally to them. Witness, to this day, Egypt insists that it won in 1973! Israel loses just one war, and it vanishes from the face of the earth for all time. Israel has NO wiggle room. We can NEVER miscalculate. Over-confidence, misinterpretation, and willfully buying into political correctness to curry favor with other countries will spell the death of Israel.
I do not mean any of this personally, Mil. I just have too much at stake while you debate which book is more accurate. I am looking at tomorrow or next week's terror attack, or worse.
Posted by Abu:
Let's face it guy.. You can no longer argue with me on your ridiculous Comparison of WW2/Germany/Russia because I made a Mockery of your nonalagous attempt to do so, not because of my lack of knowledge of WW2. AND In fact, As I showed, it was Russia's very width that made up for their errors.
Abu - you have not shown me, and the local audience, ANYTHING especially as it relates to your knowledge of WWII on the Eastern Front.
As to where Israel would fight from? That depends on Intelligence/Intelligence-Failure, Politics/Political-Failure
(take your pick.. you've already admitted at least one is possible)
As I said before - Israel is not under threat from any of the Arab states.
My choice gives a little more room for error,
50 miles? :) Then lets re-invade Sinai that would be the best guarantee - much better then the West bank.
and in fact is the Right choice Politically right now, as opposed to being attacked from the same territory later (and looking back at NOW as a 'political error'), so that the hostility zone is that much further forward in a perilously narrow state... one that could be traversed in minutes by armored vehicles.
Don't make me laugh. Israel is strong enough to annihilate any enemies having one of the strongest and one of the most powerful militaries in the WORLD.
abu afak
11-08-2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Mil
Posted by Abu: Let's face it guy.. You can no longer argue with me on your ridiculous Comparison of WW2/Germany/Russia because I made a Mockery of your nonalagous attempt to do so, not because of my lack of knowledge of WW2. AND In fact, As I showed, it was Russia's very width that made up for their errors.
Mil: Abu - you have not shown me, and the local audience, ANYTHING especially as it relates to your knowledge of WWII on the Eastern Front.
Still no answer on making Your silly nonanlogous comparsion of Germany/Russia/WW2 to Israel's situation; and in fact having it turned around on you.
Your answer instead ?? Claiming some phantom greater knowledge of WW2, which apparently you can no longer verbalize as it applies here.
Abu: As to where Israel would fight from? That depends on Intelligence/Intelligence-Failure, Politics/Political-Failure
(take your pick.. you've already admitted at least one is possible)
Mil: As I said before - Israel is not under threat from any of the Arab states.
Threats come, Threats go, You have made only an empty claim a mistake "Wouldn't" happen again.. No thanks!
I'll take the Land.
Abu: My choice gives a little more room for error,
Mil: 50 miles? :) Then lets re-invade Sinai that would be the best guarantee - much better then the West bank.
That's right Mil.. carry it to the Absurd.. you look yet more desperate
Abu: and in fact is the Right choice Politically right now, as opposed to being attacked from the same territory later (and looking back at NOW as a 'political error'), so that the hostility zone is that much further forward in a perilously narrow state... one that could be traversed in minutes by armored vehicles.
Mil: Don't make me laugh. Israel is strong enough to annihilate any enemies having one of the strongest and one of the most powerful militaries in the WORLD.
You claim, Looking back, 1973 was a Political error.
A political Error NOW not making as large a buffer and as wide/viable as state as possible.
Nor have you answered wellofvow, who also, but more elaborately lays out your most glaring Fallacy:
"..Mil's messages that it could never happen again is more of this same arrogance..."
Posted by Abu:
Still no answer on making Your silly nonanlogous comparsion of Germany/Russia/WW2 to Israel's situation; and in fact having it turned around on you.
Both errors made by Stalin in 1941 and by Golda in 1973 were political in nature given all the sound intelligence and the powerful military power .
Your answer instead ?? Claiming some phantom greater knowledge of WW2, which apparently you can no longer verbalize as it applies here.
All I said that the situations are very analogous. VERY.
Threats come, Threats go, You have made only an empty claim a mistake "Wouldn't" happen again.. No thanks!
I'll take the Land.
It wouldn't happen again because
#1 There is no Soviet Union
#2 Most of Israeli neighbors, besides Syria, are armed by US or Britain - Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
#3 The political situation is not such to lead to any wide-scale military conflicts especially given the current "War on Terrorism" and the physical American military presence in the ME.
That's right Mil.. carry it to the Absurd.. you look yet more desperate
I would say that given that Egypt was most responsible for all the wide-scale conflicts fought by Israel we should take back the Sinai so to stop those pesky Egyptian Abrams after they would cross the canal yet again. Don't you agree? Or should Israel fear a completely decrepit Syrian army which arnaments have not changed much since 1973 with their pesky T-72s?
You claim, Looking back, 1973 was a Political error.
A political Error NOW not making as large a buffer and as wide/viable as state as possible.
why? You still did not say which particular Arab state would go into an open conflict with Israel?
Nor have you answered wellofvow, who also, but more elaborately lays out your most glaring Fallacy:
"..Mil's messages that it could never happen again is more of this same arrogance..."
How should I answer her? To say that there is an Arab state crazy enough to openly declare a war on Israel - there are no states like that. To say that 1973 was the fault of the political establishment of Israel at predicting Sadat's game in the midst of the Cold War - we agree. What is that you don't understand?
abu afak
11-09-2003, 09:17 AM
Uh Mil...
The Rule of Holes:
"When you're in one... STOP DIGGING!" -Will Rogers
Uh Mil...
The Rule of Holes:
"When you're in one... STOP DIGGING!" -Will Rogers
Good job running out of arguments. The reality is that Israel is not under any threat from a wide scale war initiated by any of its neighbors due to many various reasons. If anything there is no super-power backing of any of the Arabs which in itself is quite enough to discourage them from making any dumb war-like moves against Israel.
abu afak
11-09-2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Mil
Uh Mil...
The Rule of Holes:
"When you're in one... STOP DIGGING!" -Will Rogers
Good job running out of arguments. The reality is that Israel is not under any threat from a wide scale war initiated by any of its neighbors due to many various reasons. If anything there is no super-power backing of any of the Arabs which in itself is quite enough to discourage them from making any dumb war-like moves against Israel.
It is you who "ran out of" and hatched all kinds of Convoluted, nonanalogous arguments that got ever further afield.
Your contention that Israel wouldn't be better off with a buffer/wider area, and that Mistakes "wouldn't" happen again has failed Miserably with every poster here including me, because it is so wrong-headed to begin with... and indeed is the same pre-1973-war thinking that enabled an attack.
As to who the threats would come from.. as I Said.. It would probably be the New State as well as any and all of the old attackers. Hard to visualize the weaponry and politics of the future. That's why one takes whatever measures one can.. NOW..
and why the Drafters of 242 in their wisdom Called for these New Negotiated Secure and Recognized Boundaries that my proposal is Based on.
This whole string reminds me of your equally Idiotic contentions about that Resolution on which you were also humbled despite claiming great knowledge.
I suspect you are still smarting from that one and your lack of logic/persistence here can be attributed to that grudge in which you not only couldn't acknowledge you were wrong, but then Lied outright and said you hadn't made any contentions about the Resolution.
While I'm sure you'll have your usual convoluted sentence-by-sentence reply to this post as well, you'll never convince anyone here that my proposal wouldn't be wise for Israel, or that Mistakes, intelligence or political, couldn't (or as you hollowly assure us "woudn't") be made again.
I can go through every word of your reply but then again you'll call me a "lier" again. I don't really understand of what is it exactly that I apparently "lied" about but lets leave this conversation.
But my question stands which exact country will try to invade Israel? Name me a country please.
abu afak
11-09-2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by abu afak
[It is you who "ran out of" and hatched all kinds of Convoluted, nonanalogous arguments that got ever further afield.
Your contention that Israel wouldn't be better off with a buffer/wider area, and that Mistakes "wouldn't" happen again has failed Miserably with every poster here including me, because it is so wrong-headed to begin with... and indeed is the same pre-1973-war thinking that enabled an attack.
As to who the threats would come from.. as I Said.. It would probably be the New State as well as any and all of the old attackers. Hard to visualize the weaponry and politics of the future. That's why one takes whatever measures one can.. NOW..
and why the Drafters of 242 in their wisdom Called for these New Negotiated Secure and Recognized Boundaries that my proposal is Based on.
This whole string reminds me of your equally Idiotic contentions about that Resolution on which you were also humbled despite claiming great knowledge.
I suspect you are still smarting from that one and your lack of logic/persistence here can be attributed to that grudge in which you not only couldn't acknowledge you were wrong, but then Lied outright and said you hadn't made any contentions about the Resolution.
While I'm sure you'll have your usual convoluted sentence-by-sentence reply to this post as well, you'll never convince anyone here that my proposal wouldn't be wise for Israel, or that Mistakes, intelligence or political, couldn't (or as you hollowly assure us "woudn't") be made again.
/// Edit// I'll only respond if you have a serious reply to the Gist of my proposal, rather than trying to engage you in your empty grudge from that last disaster for you, or your usual staccato/semantic nonsense which doesn't address anything.
(and BTW I Have already addressed your hypothetical several times)
Good Luck Mil
David_in_NYC
11-09-2003, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Mil
But my question stands which exact country will try to invade Israel? Name me a country please.
"Palestine"
Not a country, but a lot of people are trying their damnedest to make one. Are you familiar with the concept of demographic warfare as a means of Islamic conquest?
This is not to say that it wouldn't be Egyptian tanks rather than Palestinian suicide bombers, if even the most deluded Arab could still believe that the tank would kill a single Jew.
Mil,
You have several MAJOR flaws in your logic.
(1) you pretend to "know" the future - relying on partially-educated guesses (unless you are Israeli military intelligence, in which case you'd be more educated, but still engaged in prediction, a perilous task indeed).
(2) you make false analogies to completely different conflicts - You simply CAN NOT compare the SIZE of russia/germany to the size of Israel.
(3) you rely on Kissinger's self-promoting books and one sided theories.
Here's a question you need to ask yourself - "WHAT IF I'm WRONG????"
Nu? Or are you all knowing and cannot be wrong - infallible, like Beilin and Mitzna.
The UNITED STATES supplies Egypt and Saudia Arabia with modern armements, including heavy tanks and Apache helicopters.
Tell me, who will Egypt use these tanks against?
Despite the peace treaty with Egypt, does Egypt's media do anything to help create a lasting peace, or does it simply incite future war?? Protocals anyone?
Will the US so suply Iraq? Have you heard about the massive Jew hatred of Iraqi's???? sunni's and Shi'ites are united on this front.
Don't be a Tom Friedman, thinking only about today or next year.
Think about Ten years from now...and twenty.
And ask yourself, what if, just what if, I'm wrong?
The arrogance of the Israeli left never ceases to amaze me...
Oh...and the Arabs ARE A SUPER POWER! Not militarily, but via oil....which they have used to purchase tons of media influence...not to mention France and Germany.
And the US, while mildly on Israel's side (in terms of right to exist) still Arms Egypt and Saudi Arabia with its best weapons, while pushing Israel to forget the roadmaps requirment of the disarmament of terrorist groups.
The fact that you place ZERO blame on Israel's intelligence in terms of 73 is also incredibly simple minded - an example of believing what you want to believe.
Not that the political establishment didn't fail, or that there wasn't information - certainly there was....but intelligence came to the conclusion that these were posturing....there is enough blame to go around.
Nonetheless...you can have all the intelligence in the world, but when you are outnumbered, like we are, and if the technology balance shifts, which it is doing (do to the US and French selling the arabs tons of weapons for oil...) and it won't make a difference.
That said, thank G-d we have nukes - as the Arabs know deep down, that a succesful attack on Israel is Armagedon for the Arab world.
Originally posted by Mil
Why could such a scenario not play out in the future?
It wouldn't. [/B]
You don't live in the same world your grand parents lived, and your grand children won't live in the same world that you live. Empires rise and fall, Israel cannot afford to give up real estate just because today they are massively stronger.
The arab world is moving, and may merge (a bit like the EU), China could become the new super power and could back the arabs, Europe is getting innondated by arabs, Egypt is talking about nukes (not that they have it, just that their daily government suggested it). Destructive arms are getting samller and deadlier. I know the US has been a good friend of Israel but it would be mad for Israel to bet her life on a friend protection.
Mil's "it wouldn't" argument, if you can call it that, is the most arrogant, idiotic and unfortunately, leftist Israeli thing to say.
(Similar to the "they are analagous because I say so non-withstanding the differences!)
A feeling of %100 confidence (usually hiding a deaper fear) - a willingness to endanger Israel to appease its enemies in the belief that this is safer, relying on this hope rather than relying on sound tactics and strategy.
I am for a Pal Arab state on demographic grounds, but giving them everything they want is not the answer. You do not endanger the military needs of the country against a potential attack.
Mil, Governments change. Technology advances. To say that we are safer with a peace of paper peace agreement and a 9-mile-wide country with a hostile population next door (based on poll numbers, history, their education and stated goals) as opposed to no paper, a slightly more hostile but less emboldened population next door, and strategic depth which allows the army N-S passage as well as guards against the bifurcation of the country...
Its a silly position, and its sad that Mil doesn't see that.
merkava16
02-28-2004, 05:05 PM
any palestinian state would seriously compromise Israel's national security.
1. the palis would allow arab armies to deploy on their soil.
israel is , as u pointed out, only 9 miles wide in places. if the arabs invaded they could be from the border to the sea in 9 minutes.
2. the arabs would control the strategic Judea Samaria mountain ranges.
3. Israel would no longer have the right to eliminate terrorist leaders with chopper attacks, and could not blockade pali villages
4. the palis would have one huge terrorist training camp.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.