CNN Poll .. Should Isreal Dismantle Settlements?

[danholo]

Lebanon isn't an occupied country, ask the lebanese member of this forum. Lebanon is an independant government with an own policy, very different from syria, no syrian settlers with special privileges, no Syrian army interfearing in the daily life of Lebanese etc. The Lebanese government and parliament allowed the syrians to stay there, the palestinians have never recognised israel's presence in the occupied territories.

Probably not "occupied" but:

jad:

Concerning what you asked; the answer is yes. Yes, Syria "does" have influence on Lebanon. Actually, every Lebanese everywhere in Lebanon and outside, knows that the president here in Lebanon is elected or more like "placed" by the Syrians. That doesn't mean anything though. To us, the whole political scene and the politicians to be exact are corrupted and are pretty much screwed. Lebanon now has debts estimated for $30,000,000,000 due to politicians, specially those related to Syria; "which most are".Democracy has showed up though. The Lebanese people never settled for any "foreign" occupation. Here in Lebanon, there are many point of views. There are the Muslims and there are ofcourse the Christians. Now, both parties have agreed on the "Taef" which was signed from both sides, and which allowed
Syria -back in 1990- to enter Lebanon, in order to stop themascares and stop the civil war, to re-order the country, and ofcourse provide security and peace. It was given a 3-year time to do that.

For the Labanese sake, I hope democracy gets a real foot-hold and the corruption and Syria's intervention stops.

So takeo, it's not a democratic paradise as you pointed out - but it will be in time.

[takeo]

ok, danholo, i never said lebanon was paradise, there are still many religious tentions and the scars of the war haven't been completely recovered and a lot of corruption. the syrians also pressure the Lebanese government, and perhaps one could say that Lebanon, at least its foreign policy, is a puppet-state of Syria (as kouweit is a puppet-state of the US). But that isn't occupation, two very different things.

But lebanon is the only Arab country with truly free and relatively fair elections. Syria also doesn't interfear in the internal policy of Lebanon, which is very different from the Syrian one (lebanon is an ultra-capitalist country while Syria is mostly socialist) Syrian immigrants to Lebanon don't get a priveleged wellcome, rather on the contrary.

[takeo]

Also, there is something you have to consider before talking about "Israel depending on its military superiority", as you did in your post. Unlike most other countries, the IDF is made up primarily of reserves. These reservists don't come out of a vacuum - when they're enlisted, they leave their civilian jobs. If the enlistment is small-scale, others can cover for them, but not so in a large-scale enlistment. In other words, Israel could not stay on alert for a long time without suffering severe economic damage (besides that caused directly by the Egyptian blockade). OTOH, Israel could not go off alert status with armies massing on its borders. So the solution you seem to prefer, of mucking around in diplomacy until the problem is solved because everyone has died of old age, was not possible here - any diplomatic solution had to come quickly. So once it was obvious, after several weeks of effort, that a diplomatic solution was not in the offing, Israel had no alternative but to attack.

Well, it would mean nothing compared to the cost of the occupation of the westbank and gaza! Israel could try to solve this question, but it didn't had enough patience. It would have, temporarily, damaged the economy to stay on alert, but as i said nothing compared to the longlasting damage done to the israeli economy by the 1973-war and, the occupation colonisation and the two intifadeh's...

2. You talk about the American Indians like you have a clue what you are talking about.

I know that once American Indians lived on most of the territory of the US, they have been massacred and banned to some remote reserves.

3 You dont know the first thing about history except the propaganda you have been spewing out.

well, i can say exactly the same thing about you

you know whats really sad is that you actaully beleive this Bull

idem dito

Lets make one thing very clear when a country cuts off your trade routes and then Tells the world they (meaning Nasser) are going to turn the sand red with your blood dont be surpised when they come up swinging. Expect jews to react as if their lives depend on it becuase it usaully does. I guess you one those 2 or 3 people misunderstood us when we said never again.

those are rethorics, no relation to actual realpolitics.

The Site of palestinians dancing in the streets while the world trade center came crashing down will be forever burned into the minds of Americans. That is what real hate looks like. I have never seen americans or israeli's dancing when Arabs are killed . We all know who the real bigots are.

more rethorics, by the way "the" Arabs don't exist, there are many different opinions in the Arab world.

Are you talking about the Egyptians?

yes

Apparently that's not what Nasser said.

yes, but those were rethorics and the usual arab exaggerations, more or less the bombastic style of Saddam.

You are right - there might have been more wars.

I don't think so, there would have been no wars as there weren't any wars between 55(started by israel and GB and france) and 1967.

Or Egyptian control of the Negev - for example and of course the permanent closure of the straights.

egyptian controll of negev would be a real casus belli. the closure wouldn't be permanent, as certainly some solution would have been found over the next months or so.

Israel did not have any military superiority as compared to Syria and Egypt even individually and that's a FACT. Unless you have numbers that point otherwise - I am all open to new information. What I want to know is:

1. Armor strength of Syria, Egypt and Jordan
2. Air strength
3. Army size (minus the available civilian mobilized reserves or national guard units)
4. The number of mobalized troops in the sinai

Please suprise me with new information....

ok, one moment, I did a search: for syria this is the website: http://merln.ndu.edu/mipal/SyriaPrimer24apr03.pdf
the egyptian israeli situation http://www.idf.il/english/history/sixday3.stm

so in short Arabs (egypt and syria together, not apart) had a larger army size and mobilised troops, but the armor strenght and airstrenght were both smaller quantitatively and qualitatively. I couldn't find any information about jordan.

1. Permanent closure of the straights of Tiran including access of all oil to Israel
2. Economic paralysis of keeping a large force on the frontier with Egypt
3. Loss of any kind of regional legitimacy as in regards to its own borders
4. From #3 an open possiblity of other rules dictated by Nasser to Israel's disadvantage as it relates to borders and Israel's security and especially water supplies.
5. Increase of military activity on those borders
6. Possible Western intervention into the conflict - specifically British - with a huge reprecussions on the entire region

1. not necessarily, by the way the Red sea isn't as important to israel as the mediterranean sea.
2. not necessarily, israel could have searched further to reach a solution, egypt couldn't by the way, if only for economic reasons, such numbers on the border with israel on alert.
3. what do you mean?
4. no, Nasser couldn't change the border situation without provoking a war, and the water-supplies can't be a legitimate reason for war, since those countries have the right to use their waterresources as they please.
5. perhaps, but wasn't this the case after the 1967-war as well? besides, what about the military presence in the occupied territories?
6. ok, so what? Western intervention, perhaps sending a stabilisation-force, would have been in favor of Israel.

You are going off the subject again. I want to ask you again - what is Arab unification and especially of how it relates to the Six Days War? I don't understand? Unless you agree that militarizing the Sinai and provoking the Zionist enemy would unify the Arabs was Nasser's approach..... There were other ways to do that for Nasser and during his entire rules he could only think of doing it with political intrigues and direct military confrontation.

Well, you said it yourself, one of the reasons for this war was to change the regional political balance and to weaken the Arab forces in favor of unification (i mean the establishment of o,ne common Arab entity, federation, union, etc.)

Closure of the straights was a 100% provocation by Nasser. YES/NO?

a provocation yes, but not a casus belli. whereas the israeli occupation was a casus belli for its neighbours, still is by the way in the case of Syria.

Yes, I agree as long as it's not at the direct expense of security of non-Arab nations in the region. By militarizing Sinai and closing the straights Nasser only had one goal in mind.... provocation and possible military confrontation. YES/NO?

provocation yes, perhaps for internal domestic reasons and to enlarge its image in the Arab world, but no military confrontation.

When did Israel interfere in the internal affairs of its neighbors during the 1967? I don't understand? Or you talking a full blown mobilization of an enemy army at your frontier as an internal affair of a neighbor state. Interesting.... Going for a foreign office job I recommend you read up on mobilization (especially mobilization schedules and how it applies to socialist run governments), military-time economies, and such.

well as you said, one of the objectives of this war was to weaken the nasser-regime and the syrian regime.

Or Syrians would join once Egypt attacked - same thing.

that wasn't sure at all, but because israel attacked first, syria and jordan were obliged, according to the treaty they signed with egypt, to attack israel, israel knew this.

Syria was already in the war. They mobilized and for a weak economy of Syria mobilization is a very big deal. Most of the Syrian army was on the border.

yes, because the tentions were already very high and there were reports of Israeli threats. But Syria hadn't the intention to attack first.

The Arab world did not have links with Israel prior to 1967 either. And if anything it actually forced by Jordan and Egypt to finally admit Israel as an entity with finalized borders.

this was only after the war of 1973, the most dangerous war ever for Israel, which it nearly lost, and a consequence of the 1967-invasion.

As was Egypt and Syria and GB and France. So what? You need to be weak in order to be seen as a victim? That's something new - apparently that's what France is right now.

no, you need to be the victim, the one who suffered from an invasion, in order to be the victim! if you started the war, you can't possibly be a victim.

Takeo - Arab Israeli wars would have happened anyways. Would it be 1967 or 73 or 75 or 68.... There is a reason why Israel maintains a big army.

that's not sure, i am convinced that the 1973-war would not have happened if israel didn't invade first in 1967.

99% of the time. I can provide sources - if you want to. Not a biggie.

ok, that would be fine, so i can check your sources and consider if your words are based on reality or not.

[danholo]

Probably if someone would hold a gun to takeo's temple he would still think that there would be no reason for action.

[takeo]

if someone would hold a gun to my head i couldn't do much, could i?
But if i could prevent violence by avoiding a fight, I would.

[danholo]

So would I.

But looking at Israel's past experiences with its neighbors and its vulnerability during 1967, Israel didn't have really any space to take chances.

But your highly anti-Israel rhetoric of how Israel wanted to conquer more land is such cock and bull that your arguments really hold no ground.

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:


yes, but those were rethorics and the usual arab exaggerations, more or less the bombastic style of Saddam.


In 1967 there was no Saddam yet there was Nasser. So in your opinion a fully mobilized Egyptian army in Sinai and Nasser throwing bombastic speeches should have been taken lightly by Israel? Interesting... but again France had this accident in the summer of 1940 when the Entire German army was mobilized on its frontier and Hitler was throwing out his usual exaggerations - at the end France LOST.


I don't think so, there would have been no wars as there weren't any wars between 55(started by israel and GB and france) and 1967.


The Suez crisis was in 1956. But anyhow - Nasser always said that there would be an Arab Israeli war; it was only a matter of time. That's not me - it's Nasser.



egyptian controll of negev would be a real casus belli.


Negev is and was Israel proper. So you are suggesting that Israel should have been attacked first? I don't get it.


the closure wouldn't be permanent, as certainly some solution would have been found over the next months or so.


Thus for the next few month the entire Israeli army would be mobilized on all three of its borders. The weapon and oil supplies are not coming and Israel's economy is in complete stagnation in the meanwhile. Quite a plan you have there.... In reality France should have politicians like just to embarrass them.




ok, one moment, I did a search: for syria this is the website: http://merln.ndu.edu/mipal/SyriaPrimer24apr03.pdf
the egyptian israeli situation http://www.idf.il/english/history/sixday3.stm

so in short Arabs (egypt and syria together, not apart) had a larger army size and mobilised troops, but the armor strenght and airstrenght were both smaller quantitatively and qualitatively. I couldn't find any information about jordan.


Quality is subjective. However, quantitatively I found this only good link - I have Dupuy's analysis of the conflict will confirm with his numbers. The following:

Egypt:

7 Divisions - 100,000 troops
900 tanks in Sinai plus two hundred in reserve!!! (most of Egypt's armored strength mobilized)
500 planes including 400 jets in Sinai alone. This includes tactical bombers

Israel:

Army - standing army 50,000 (mobilized 150 - 200)
Tanks - 900
Jets, including trainers and bombers) - 220

Syria:

9 Brigades - 50,000 troops
200 jets of all types
450 tanks

Jordan:

11 brigades - 55,000 troops
300 tanks
50 jets of all types


http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Six_Day_War
I will also check out other sources.... to give you exact number of Israel and Arab force layout.



1. not necessarily, by the way the Red sea isn't as important to israel as the mediterranean sea.


So what's your point? Not to mention that 40% of Israel's oil in 1967 came through Eilat as over 40% of its trade. But otherwise of course - it's irrelevant.


2. not necessarily, israel could have searched further to reach a solution,


Almost a month of solution searching did not lead anywhere only to further mobilization of Egyptian army.


egypt couldn't by the way, if only for economic reasons, such numbers on the border with israel on alert.


Egypt maintained over 50 to 60 thousand troops in Yemen for 5 years prior to that. Don't even compare. Plus it's more of a reason to strike Egypt hence keeping up a fully mobilized army without commitment would bankrupt a country - especially a poor country like Egypt.


4. no, Nasser couldn't change the border situation without provoking a war,


And of course Nasser was not provoking a war - in your opinion... Right?


and the water-supplies can't be a legitimate reason for war,

In France no but in the Middle East Yes. Syria and Iraq had a huge conflict as in regards to water - for example.


since those countries have the right to use their waterresources as they please.


Not really. So if Austria put a damb on Danube to close the river to Belgrade - that would be acceptable... Right?


5. perhaps, but wasn't this the case after the 1967-war as well? besides, what about the military presence in the occupied territories?


What about them?


6. ok, so what? Western intervention, perhaps sending a stabilisation-force, would have been in favor of Israel.


It would not be in favor of Israel at all as it would not be in favor of the West. It would have been a huge mess. Plus - would France send troops to protect Israel in 1967? DeGaulle was very explicit - NO!!! To whatever happens even if Israel is attacked.



Well, you said it yourself, one of the reasons for this war was to change the regional political balance and to weaken the Arab forces


There were many reasons. The above is one of them.

in favor of unification (i mean the establishment of o,ne common Arab entity, federation, union, etc.)

You again are walking away from an answer.... Would a military provocation at Israeli borders united the Arabs? Was it the right way to approach Arab unification.




a provocation yes, but not a casus belli.


So you do agree that Israel was provoked. Now we are getting somewhere.


whereas the israeli occupation was a casus belli for its neighbours,


Occupation became a casus belli, however, closure of the Straights was a 100% casus belli and even the leaders of your country at the time agreed to that. Even the UN agreed to that. And the Britts, and The Americans... EVERYONE.


provocation yes, perhaps for internal domestic reasons and to enlarge its image in the Arab world, but no military confrontation.


Apparently I don't have your 20/20 vision and certainly you don't have any access to Egyptian archives or for that matter to archives of any intelligence service of governments involved in 1967. Thus what Nasser's plans were are still classiffied. I do agree with you that more than likely Nasser would not have attacked either - however, to the Israelis it all looked very different. The scariest thing was that Nasser did not leave any door open for negotiations - none. There were no conditions offered, there was no political pressure either directly or indirectly - NOTHING. Israel simply was at a loss of how to even approach the issue while keeping a mobolized army would kill the economy in a month.


but because israel attacked first, syria and jordan were obliged, according to the treaty they signed with egypt, to attack israel, israel knew this.


The treaty said - ANY PROVOCATION of an attack. Meaning that any action by Israel either defensive or offensive would mean provocation.



yes, because the tentions were already very high and there were reports of Israeli threats. But Syria hadn't the intention to attack first.


So Syria mobilized it's entire army because it was planning for a massive defense? I guess Syrian intelligence Service was better than Massad....



this was only after the war of 1973, the most dangerous war ever for Israel, which it nearly lost, and a consequence of the 1967-invasion.


Israel did not nearly loose the war in 1973. It was the Egyptians which nearly got amost their entire army annihilated.


no, you need to be the victim, the one who suffered from an invasion, in order to be the victim! if you started the war, you can't possibly be a victim.


So you contradict yourself on the matter. You need to be a victim but you are not the victim.... Please explain your train of thought.
Apparently your logic is beyond logic..



that's not sure, i am convinced that the 1973-war would not have happened if israel didn't invade first in 1967.


Okay....


ok, that would be fine, so i can check your sources and consider if your words are based on reality or not.


But then then the standards would apply to you as well. My standards on sources are also very high.... I very much prefer primary sources.

[jewbyc]

Originally posted by takeo
Well, it would mean nothing compared to the cost of the occupation of the westbank and gaza! Israel could try to solve this question, but it didn't had enough patience. It would have, temporarily, damaged the economy to stay on alert, but as i said nothing compared to the longlasting damage done to the israeli economy by the 1973-war and, the occupation colonisation and the two intifadeh's...




I know that once American Indians lived on most of the territory of the US, they have been massacred and banned to some remote reserves.



well, i can say exactly the same thing about you



idem dito



.

Here are the facts what you do with is up to you????

MYTH
"Israel's military strike in 1967 was unprovoked."

FACT
A combination of bellicose Arab rhetoric, threatening behavior and, ultimately, an act of war left Israel no choice but preemptive action. To do this successfully, Israel needed the element of surprise. Had it waited for an Arab invasion, Israel would have been at a potentially catastrophic disadvantage. While Nasser continued to make speeches threatening war, Arab terrorist
attacks grew more frequent. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just
the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched. Meanwhile, Syria's attacks on Israeli kibbutzim
from the Golan Heights provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967, during which Israeli planes shot down six Syrian MiGs. Shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union - which had been providing military and economic aid to both Syria and Egypt - gave Damascus information alleging a massive Israeli military buildup in preparation for an attack. Despite Israeli denials, Syria decided to invoke its defense treaty with Egypt. On May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli
border. By May 18, Syrian troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw on May 16. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised, Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. After the withdrawal of the UNEF, the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed (May 18, 1967): As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against
Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence. An enthusiastic echo was heard May 20 from Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad: Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation. On May 22, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran
to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel's only supply route with Asia and stopped the
flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran The following day President Johnson expressed the belief that the blockade was illegal and unsuccessfully tried to organize an international flotilla to test it. Nasser was fully aware of the pressure he was exerting to force Israel's hand. The day after the blockade was set up, he said defiantly: "The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war." Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight," he said on May 27. The following day, he added: "We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948." King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30. Nasser then announced: The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations. President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map. On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The Arab rhetoric was matched by the mobilization of Arab forces. Approximately 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft ringed Israel. By this time, Israeli forces had been on alert for three weeks. The country
could not remain fully mobilized indefinitely, nor could it allow its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba to be interdicted. Israel's best option was to strike first. On June 5, the order was given to attack Egypt.

Second Stop falling on the american Indian Thing. It insults my ancesters.

MYTH
America killed all the Indians

Fact

America was colonized by europe who Started wiping out the Indians as soon as they got here. Americans continued a public policy that was started by the French, English, German and so on

[takeo]

So would I.

But looking at Israel's past experiences with its neighbors and its vulnerability during 1967, Israel didn't have really any space to take chances.

But your highly anti-Israel rhetoric of how Israel wanted to conquer more land is such cock and bull that your arguments really hold no ground.

that's the topic of this debate...

you think so? I'm still convinced that it was the real motivation for the 1967-invasion, based on some quotes from leading israeli politicians who stated that israel needed more land.

The Suez crisis was in 1956. But anyhow - Nasser always said that there would be an Arab Israeli war; it was only a matter of time. That's not me - it's Nasser.

Well, we all know that Nasser liked to exaggerate.

Negev is and was Israel proper. So you are suggesting that Israel should have been attacked first? I don't get it.

I mean that the occupation of the negev-desert would have been a real casus belli.

Thus for the next few month the entire Israeli army would be mobilized on all three of its borders. The weapon and oil supplies are not coming and Israel's economy is in complete stagnation in the meanwhile. Quite a plan you have there.... In reality France should have politicians like just to embarrass them.

a few months don't mean a lot, while the 1967-invasion, the 1973-war and the consequent occupation costed the israeli economy a whole lot more on the long run.

Quality is subjective. However, quantitatively I found this only good link - I have Dupuy's analysis of the conflict will confirm with his numbers. The following:

Egypt:

7 Divisions - 100,000 troops
900 tanks in Sinai plus two hundred in reserve!!! (most of Egypt's armored strength mobilized)
500 planes including 400 jets in Sinai alone. This includes tactical bombers

Israel:

Army - standing army 50,000 (mobilized 150 - 200)
Tanks - 900
Jets, including trainers and bombers) - 220

Syria:

9 Brigades - 50,000 troops
200 jets of all types
450 tanks

Jordan:

11 brigades - 55,000 troops
300 tanks
50 jets of all types


http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Six_Day_War
I will also check out other sources.... to give you exact number of Israel and Arab force layout.

where did you find the numbers of jets? i also think there must be a considerable difference in the quality of jets, the egyptians having cheap Soviet-ones and the israeli expensive American jets...

Almost a month of solution searching did not lead anywhere only to further mobilization of Egyptian army.

a month means nothing in diplomacy, you need to be more pacient, certainly in such complicatec matters.

Egypt maintained over 50 to 60 thousand troops in Yemen for 5 years prior to that. Don't even compare. Plus it's more of a reason to strike Egypt hence keeping up a fully mobilized army without commitment would bankrupt a country - especially a poor country like Egypt.

more of a reason to strike Egypt? Nasser would have withdrawn its forces once the situation became less tense, as the bankruptcy of his country wasn't in his favor either.

In France no but in the Middle East Yes. Syria and Iraq had a huge conflict as in regards to water - for example.

yes, but no war, such conflicts will eventually rise between neighbouring countries but are no casus belli!

Not really. So if Austria put a damb on Danube to close the river to Belgrade - that would be acceptable... Right?

no, it wouldn't but there would be little Serbia could do to stop it, besides Hungary DID put a damb on the danube which was clearly in the disadvantage of Yugoslavia, well there wasn't a war...

What about them?

well, the required military presence in the occupied regions is a constant burden for the israeli economy.

It would not be in favor of Israel at all as it would not be in favor of the West. It would have been a huge mess. Plus - would France send troops to protect Israel in 1967? DeGaulle was very explicit - NO!!! To whatever happens even if Israel is attacked.

why? western involvement could have stabilised the region, Israel no longer fearing Arab attacks and vice versa.

You again are walking away from an answer.... Would a military provocation at Israeli borders united the Arabs? Was it the right way to approach Arab unification.

no, that's not what i said, altough israel seems to be the only topic on which all Arab states agree.

Occupation became a casus belli, however, closure of the Straights was a 100% casus belli and even the leaders of your country at the time agreed to that. Even the UN agreed to that. And the Britts, and The Americans... EVERYONE.

really? can you provide me any sources of this?

Apparently I don't have your 20/20 vision and certainly you don't have any access to Egyptian archives or for that matter to archives of any intelligence service of governments involved in 1967. Thus what Nasser's plans were are still classiffied. I do agree with you that more than likely Nasser would not have attacked either - however, to the Israelis it all looked very different. The scariest thing was that Nasser did not leave any door open for negotiations - none. There were no conditions offered, there was no political pressure either directly or indirectly - NOTHING. Israel simply was at a loss of how to even approach the issue while keeping a mobolized army would kill the economy in a month.

israel should have given him the benefit of the doubt, unless it was absolutely clear he would attack israel shouldn't have initiated the war.

The treaty said - ANY PROVOCATION of an attack. Meaning that any action by Israel either defensive or offensive would mean provocation.

no, an egyptian invasion isn't a provocation nor an attack.

So Syria mobilized it's entire army because it was planning for a massive defense? I guess Syrian intelligence Service was better than Massad....

might be possible...

Israel did not nearly loose the war in 1973. It was the Egyptians which nearly got amost their entire army annihilated.

well at first the war turned really nasty for Israel.

So you contradict yourself on the matter. You need to be a victim but you are not the victim.... Please explain your train of thought.
Apparently your logic is beyond logic..

it's simple. if you have been attacked first, it makes you the victim, not the man who started beating you.?

But then then the standards would apply to you as well. My standards on sources are also very high.... I very much prefer primary sources.

me too, but they're difficult to proove over the internet, unless you can make copies and scan them, or unless you can make clear references to existing documents in archives...

"Israel's military strike in 1967 was unprovoked."

all the text has already been debated above...

MYTH
America killed all the Indians

Fact

America was colonized by europe who Started wiping out the Indians as soon as they got here. Americans continued a public policy that was started by the French, English, German and so on

Well, who do you think the ancestors of those european colonisers (the early ones convicted murderers and other criminals banned from their country) are nowadays???

[jewbyc]

Originally posted by takeo
that's the topic of this debate...



Well, who do you think the ancestors of those european colonisers (the early ones convicted murderers and other criminals banned from their country) are nowadays???

In france stinking up the place.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by takeo
Israel could try to solve this question, but it didn't had enough patience.

One more time, Takeo is unable to face simple facts. Stop lying. They have tried. And tried. And tried. It didn't work. Learn about Nasser. You'll like it, you both have many common features.

egyptian controll of negev would be a real casus belli. the closure wouldn't be permanent, as certainly some solution would have been found over the next months or so.

The Casus Belli conditions have been already satisfied with the closure of Tiran. What exactly makes you think that Egyptians were willing to budge? From Nasser's rhetorics and actions, his intentions were clear. But you prefer to believe Arab fairytales than face life. Face it already: the Arab hatred towards Israel started way before 1967.

1. not necessarily, by the way the Red sea isn't as important to israel as the mediterranean sea.

Do you even realize how silly your argument is? First, it is vital. Second, it absolutely doesn't matter.

2. not necessarily, israel could have searched further to reach a solution, egypt couldn't by the way, if only for economic reasons, such numbers on the border with israel on alert.

The problem was not on Israeli side, so how do you expect them to come up with solution? Capitulate? They tried to negotiate, it didn't work so Israel retaliated and rightly so. BTW, did England "searched further to reach a solution" in the Falklands?
Sorry, this is how wars happen. If you don't want your finger to be bitten off, don't put in the lyon's mouth.

[Mediocrates]

The Takeos of the world look at their philosophy and see how it's routinely failed time after time after so all they have left is a complaint or revisionist story of WHY it failed.

"We" "Cheated" is pretty much how Takeo world history reads.

(Takeo world history stopped or at least is denied somewhere around the late 70's early 80's, the end of the 'golden age' of militant world socialism.)

[danholo]

takeo:

where did you find the numbers of jets? i also think there must be a considerable difference in the quality of jets, the egyptians having cheap Soviet-ones and the israeli expensive American jets...

Israel started to get military weaponry from the US during the 1973 war. This has probably been repeated to the umpteenth time on this forum. Again you avoid the facts which seems almost intentional.

If I remember correctly Israel's jets were all French Mirage fighters or something of the sort.

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:



Well, we all know that Nasser liked to exaggerate.


Really? I can provide you a full list of events in which Nasser participated in both military, covertatly, and politically since 1953 - it is pretty impressive. The list will include all countries in the region that in your list would include the top conterders of Arab Union - including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Plus all the non UAR affiliated regimes as Jordan, SA, Kuwait, and etc....

In general sence Nasser most of the time stood behind his words and there was no reason - unless you know of an exception - in which his words would not be taken as his current foreign policy initiative and put into life.


I mean that the occupation of the negev-desert would have been a real casus belli.

Are you for real? God help us if Democratic nations will have leaders of your caliber.....

a few months don't mean a lot,


A few month of a few month mobilization? Oh my GOD!!!! Seriously God spare us of the idiots of your proportions. Please, go talk to the local reps of your local military establishments on the matter of mobilization for a few month....


while the 1967-invasion, the 1973-war and the consequent occupation costed the israeli economy a whole lot more on the long run.





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quality is subjective. However, quantitatively I found this only good link - I have Dupuy's analysis of the conflict will confirm with his numbers. The following:

Egypt:

7 Divisions - 100,000 troops
900 tanks in Sinai plus two hundred in reserve!!! (most of Egypt's armored strength mobilized)
500 planes including 400 jets in Sinai alone. This includes tactical bombers

Israel:

Army - standing army 50,000 (mobilized 150 - 200)
Tanks - 900
Jets, including trainers and bombers) - 220

Syria:

9 Brigades - 50,000 troops
200 jets of all types
450 tanks

Jordan:

11 brigades - 55,000 troops
300 tanks
50 jets of all types


http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Six_Day_War
I will also check out other sources.... to give you exact number of Israel and Arab force layout.

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



where did you find the numbers of jets? i also think there must be a considerable difference in the quality of jets, the egyptians having cheap Soviet-ones and the israeli expensive American jets...



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Almost a month of solution searching did not lead anywhere only to further mobilization of Egyptian army.

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



a month means nothing in diplomacy, you need to be more pacient, certainly in such complicatec matters.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Egypt maintained over 50 to 60 thousand troops in Yemen for 5 years prior to that. Don't even compare. Plus it's more of a reason to strike Egypt hence keeping up a fully mobilized army without commitment would bankrupt a country - especially a poor country like Egypt.

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



more of a reason to strike Egypt? Nasser would have withdrawn its forces once the situation became less tense, as the bankruptcy of his country wasn't in his favor either.




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In France no but in the Middle East Yes. Syria and Iraq had a huge conflict as in regards to water - for example.

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



yes, but no war, such conflicts will eventually rise between neighbouring countries but are no casus belli!



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not really. So if Austria put a damb on Danube to close the river to Belgrade - that would be acceptable... Right?

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



no, it wouldn't but there would be little Serbia could do to stop it, besides Hungary DID put a damb on the danube which was clearly in the disadvantage of Yugoslavia, well there wasn't a war...



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What about them?

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



well, the required military presence in the occupied regions is a constant burden for the israeli economy.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would not be in favor of Israel at all as it would not be in favor of the West. It would have been a huge mess. Plus - would France send troops to protect Israel in 1967? DeGaulle was very explicit - NO!!! To whatever happens even if Israel is attacked.

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



why? western involvement could have stabilised the region, Israel no longer fearing Arab attacks and vice versa.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You again are walking away from an answer.... Would a military provocation at Israeli borders united the Arabs? Was it the right way to approach Arab unification.

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



no, that's not what i said, altough israel seems to be the only topic on which all Arab states agree.




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Occupation became a casus belli, however, closure of the Straights was a 100% casus belli and even the leaders of your country at the time agreed to that. Even the UN agreed to that. And the Britts, and The Americans... EVERYONE.

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



really? can you provide me any sources of this?




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently I don't have your 20/20 vision and certainly you don't have any access to Egyptian archives or for that matter to archives of any intelligence service of governments involved in 1967. Thus what Nasser's plans were are still classiffied. I do agree with you that more than likely Nasser would not have attacked either - however, to the Israelis it all looked very different. The scariest thing was that Nasser did not leave any door open for negotiations - none. There were no conditions offered, there was no political pressure either directly or indirectly - NOTHING. Israel simply was at a loss of how to even approach the issue while keeping a mobolized army would kill the economy in a month.

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



israel should have given him the benefit of the doubt, unless it was absolutely clear he would attack israel shouldn't have initiated the war.





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The treaty said - ANY PROVOCATION of an attack. Meaning that any action by Israel either defensive or offensive would mean provocation.

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



no, an egyptian invasion isn't a provocation nor an attack.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Syria mobilized it's entire army because it was planning for a massive defense? I guess Syrian intelligence Service was better than Massad....

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



might be possible...





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israel did not nearly loose the war in 1973. It was the Egyptians which nearly got amost their entire army annihilated.

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



well at first the war turned really nasty for Israel.





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you contradict yourself on the matter. You need to be a victim but you are not the victim.... Please explain your train of thought.
Apparently your logic is beyond logic..

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



it's simple. if you have been attacked first, it makes you the victim, not the man who started beating you.?





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But then then the standards would apply to you as well. My standards on sources are also very high.... I very much prefer primary sources.

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



me too, but they're difficult to proove over the internet, unless you can make copies and scan them, or unless you can make clear references to existing documents in archives...

[takeo]

Really? I can provide you a full list of events in which Nasser participated in both military, covertatly, and politically since 1953 - it is pretty impressive. The list will include all countries in the region that in your list would include the top conterders of Arab Union - including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Plus all the non UAR affiliated regimes as Jordan, SA, Kuwait, and etc....

OK, fine, where can i find that list? And please can you elaborate a bit more about the role of egypt in yemen?

Are you for real? God help us if Democratic nations will have leaders of your caliber.....

a few months don't mean a lot,


A few month of a few month mobilization? Oh my GOD!!!! Seriously God spare us of the idiots of your proportions. Please, go talk to the local reps of your local military establishments on the matter of mobilization for a few month....

I mean that the cost of a few months of mobilisation means nothing compared to the cost of continued occupation of the occupied territories and the two consequent wars in 1967 and 1973. do you agree???????

Mediocrates The Takeos of the world look at their philosophy and see how it's routinely failed time after time after so all they have left is a complaint or revisionist story of WHY it failed.

"We" "Cheated" is pretty much how Takeo world history reads.

(Takeo world history stopped or at least is denied somewhere around the late 70's early 80's, the end of the 'golden age' of militant world socialism.)

What failed? the 80's and 90's prooved the bankrupcy of capitalism as we know it, with the ever widening gap between the rich and poor nations. ultra-liberalism prooved to be destructive for thirth-world economies and didn't really speed up the pace of modernisation in the western world, during the golden 60's and 50's in Europe we had a keynesian economic model, hardly real capitalism, and the growth of devellopment was spectacular. Today there's still some growth altough the poorest part of the society, certainly in the US, doesn't benefit from it.
Today the strongest growing economy in the world (and the economy that expanded the most since 1949) is red China, with a complicated economic mix of communism and capitalism... while the former eastblok countries are still at a lower level compared the the 80's. the "new world order" established by bush didn't really work out either, on the contrary his son succeeded in bringing the world a whole lot closer to a new cold war.
The only "revisionist theories" one might have is why communism failed or derailed in certain countries, what could be done to make communism more democratic on the political level and why the economy of the soviet-Union slowed down since the 70's.

One more time, Takeo is unable to face simple facts. Stop lying. They have tried. And tried. And tried. It didn't work. Learn about Nasser. You'll like it, you both have many common features.

Nasser was an arab nationalist and he did some good things for his country and wanted to unite and modernise the Arab world. He has always been obstructed by the West however (including France) and i don't agree with his uncompromising policy towards Israel (which was vice-versa as well). He's still very popular in Egypt.

The Casus Belli conditions have been already satisfied with the closure of Tiran. What exactly makes you think that Egyptians were willing to budge? From Nasser's rhetorics and actions, his intentions were clear. But you prefer to believe Arab fairytales than face life. Face it already: the Arab hatred towards Israel started way before 1967.

His intensions to invade Israel weren't clear in 1967, and i still didn't see any proove of the closure being a casus belli by the standard of international legislation.

The problem was not on Israeli side, so how do you expect them to come up with solution? Capitulate? They tried to negotiate, it didn't work so Israel retaliated and rightly so. BTW, did England "searched further to reach a solution" in the Falklands?
Sorry, this is how wars happen. If you don't want your finger to be bitten off, don't put in the lyon's mouth.

Israel could have negociated further to end the closure, try to involve the US, etc. Any solution would have been better than a preemptive attack, certainly because Egypt wasn't going to attack. A few months mobilising would have hurt the israeli economy, no doubt, but as i said to mil, even this is preferable to the occupation and wars that seriously undermined the israeli economy, much more than any mobilisation could have done.

the falklands were an entirely different case, those isles were officially Brittish and attacked by the argentinians, it wasn't a pre-emptive war but a defensive one, that's why Great brittian escaped international condemnation.