Israel - The Right to exist as a State?
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
That certainly doesn't seem to apply to anything from Nov,'47-June,'67. Now if you want to apply this to the 6-day war then all the fighting was outside Israel's borders so they were not yet under attack. You already stated it was pre-emptive, that also means not being under attack. At least own up to the facts rather than pulling some false crap like saying they were attacked.
Really?
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the European theater of WWII. Germany had the most advanced armor and for the most of the war had better trained and motivated troops than the allies, both Anglo and Soviet.
A long war of attrition ground the German war machine. Tiger tanks were unmatched and were destroying T-34's and Shermans 7-1.
Numbers, numbers, numbers.
Perhaps they should not have been itching for a fight then.
Do not say overwhelming force if you don't mean it to be that.
I agree. Israel had much better stuff but that fact was uncovered during that war.
After the fact it was known...but the Arab nations thought it was in the bag.
Not even close. Just propoganda to compare the two.
It was both...
They were not going to let hostile nations blockade and mass on their borders. What can be more agressive than putting 100,000 men and 1000 tanks on the border?
Yes, as a result of Arab aggression Israel punished them. Israel could have pushed all the way into Egypt as they thoroughly whipped Egypt in 1967.
When Egypt signed a peace treaty they got the Sinai Pennisular back. Simple.
That's an interesting perspective, because according to the autobiography of Queen Noor, you're completely, 100%, totally, WRONG.
But I daresay you would know more about that than any of the people actually involved.
EAO -
Some info for you
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000443
Ian J. Bickerton, PhD, Associate Professor of Middle Eastern and United States History at the University of New South Wales-Australia, and Carla L. Klausner, PhD, Professor of Modern Middle East, Medieval Europe and Judaic Studies at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, in their 2002 book A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, wrote the following:
"In early May 1967, the Russians passed on to the Egyptians information about heavy Israeli troop concentrations on the Syrian border and an Israeli contingency plan for an attack on Syria. The Soviets, and probably Nasser himself, knew that information about massive Israeli troop concentrations was false. Indeed, the U.N. Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), U.S. intelligence, and Egyptian observers on the spot failed to detect any Israeli moves...
On May 14, 1967, Cairo announced that Egyptian armed forces were in a state of maximum alert, and combat units crossed the Suez into Sinai. On May 16, Egypt requested the UNEF [United Nations Emergency Forces] to be concentrated in the Gaza Strip; and on May 18, the Egyptian foreign minister demanded that U.N. Secretary General U Thant recall all troops of the UNEF stationed in the Gaza Strip and on UAR [United Arab Republic] soil. This was a step that Nasser had every legal right to take, but instead of procrastinating in order to defuse the growing crisis, U Thant complied almost immediately. Egyptian troops and tanks began to rumble across the Sinai and to take over U.N. positions. Syria also began to mobilize, as did Jordan and Iraq. On May 22 [1967], with Egyptian troops at Sharm al-Sheikh [see map], Nasser announced the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli vessels or any vessels carrying goods to Israel. [Israeli] Prime minister Levi Eshkol replied the next day that Israel would consider any interference with freedom of shipping as an act of aggression against Israel."
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000441
General Reference (not clearly pro or con)Avi Shlaim, PhD, Professor of International Relations at St. Antony's College, Oxford University, in his 2001 book The Iron Wall, wrote:
"Military clashes between Egypt and Israel occurred intermittently from the end of the Six-Say War until the spring of 1969. However, it was the large-scale offensive mounted by the Egyptian army in March 1969, coupled with [Egyptian President] Nasser's renunciation of the U.N.-Decreed cease-fire, that marked the beginning of the War of Attrition. A formal declaration of intent came later, on June 23, [1969]. Nasser's immediate goal was to prevent the conversion of the Suez Canal into a de facto border [with Israel], while his ultimate goal was to force Israel to withdraw to the prewar border. The military strategy adopted for this purpose consisted of heavy artillery bombardment of Israel's positions on the canal front, occasional air attacks, and hit-and run commando raids. The idea was to take advantage of Egypt's massive superiority in manpower and Israel's comparative disadvantage in static warfare and well-known sensitivity to casualties in order to exhaust Israel militarily, economically, and psychologically, and thus pave the way to an Egyptian crossing to dislodge Israeli forces from Sinai." http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000442
Avi Shlaim, PhD, Professor of International Relations at St. Antony's College, Oxford, in his 2001 book The Iron Wall, wrote:"The dangers of escalation prompted Secretary of State Rogers to put forward, on 19 June [1970], a second proposal [the first Roger's plan having been rejected by both sides], which came to be known as Rogers B. The proposal had three parts: first, a three-month cease-fire on the Egyptian front; second, a statement by Israel, Egypt, and Jordan that they accepted U.N. Resolution 242, and specifically the call for 'withdrawal from occupied territories'; and third, an undertaking from Israel to negotiate with Egypt and Jordan under [U.N. mediator] Dr. Jarring's auspices as soon as the cease-fire came into force... On 31 July the [Israeli] cabinet voted by a majority of 17 to 6 for accepting Rogers B...The cease-fire on the Egyptian front went into effect on 7 August [1970], ending the War of Attrition."
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000443
Benny Morris, PhD, Professor of History at Ben-Gurion University, in his 2001 book Righteous Victims, wrote:"On May 16-18 [1967] Egypt abruptly turned ostentatious display [remilitarizing Sinai] into deep political-military crisis, by demanding the evacuation of the 3,400 UNEF [United Nations Emergency Forces] troops from Sinai and Gaza. And [U.N.] Secretary-General U Thant unquestioningly accepted Cairo's right to demand the withdrawal: On May 20-21, UNEF withdrew from Sharm ash-Sheikh, and Egyptian troops immediately occupied the site...
Israeli intelligence still believed that Nasser would halt at the brink, and on the morning of May 22 thought it 'unlikely' that he would announce the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. But around noon the same day, Nasser visited the Bir Gafgafa air base in Sinai and declared that Egypt was about to do just that, re-creating the situation that Israel had always regarded as a casus belli [reason for war]...That night, just after midnight, the formal announcement was made. In retrospect this can be seen as the decisive act that made war inevitable -- though Nasser apparently did not realize it."
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000458
Submitted to several Israeli Cabinets for approval but not officially endorsed, the Allon Plan was initially presented in July 1967. The plan’s core assumptions included defensible borders as defined by Israel, a return of the densely populated areas to a 'Jordanian-Palestinian state' with Israel retaining control of the Jordan Rift Valley and mountain ridges to the west from Nablus to Hebron. Under the plan, Israel would assert and sustain military presence over the West Bank up to the Jordan River, the West Bank would be demilitarized, the Palestinians would be provided self-administration in an autonomous or semiautonomous region, and Israel would remain in full control over a united Jerusalem, with perhaps a Jordanian status in the Muslim quarter of the Old City.
Israeli leaders then ruled out the possibility of incorporating the West Bank Palestinian population into a greater Israel because it would have dramatically changed the states Jewish demographic orientation. When the Allon Plan was officially offered to the king [of Jordan] in cordial and secret talks in September 1968, Hussein rejected it because he felt it 'infringed on Jordanian sovereignty.' Nonetheless, the Allon Plan served as a basis for the Labor Party election platforms in 1974, 1977, 1981, 1984, and 1987. The concept of providing autonomy or self-administration for the Palestinians was offered by Israeli Prime Minister Begin to Sadat in December 1977 and enshrined in both the September 1978 Camp David and the September 1993 Oslo Accords."
Some info for you
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000443
Ian J. Bickerton, PhD, Associate Professor of Middle Eastern and United States History at the University of New South Wales-Australia, and Carla L. Klausner, PhD, Professor of Modern Middle East, Medieval Europe and Judaic Studies at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, in their 2002 book A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, wrote the following:
"In early May 1967, the Russians passed on to the Egyptians information about heavy Israeli troop concentrations on the Syrian border and an Israeli contingency plan for an attack on Syria. The Soviets, and probably Nasser himself, knew that information about massive Israeli troop concentrations was false. Indeed, the U.N. Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), U.S. intelligence, and Egyptian observers on the spot failed to detect any Israeli moves...
On May 14, 1967, Cairo announced that Egyptian armed forces were in a state of maximum alert, and combat units crossed the Suez into Sinai. On May 16, Egypt requested the UNEF [United Nations Emergency Forces] to be concentrated in the Gaza Strip; and on May 18, the Egyptian foreign minister demanded that U.N. Secretary General U Thant recall all troops of the UNEF stationed in the Gaza Strip and on UAR [United Arab Republic] soil. This was a step that Nasser had every legal right to take, but instead of procrastinating in order to defuse the growing crisis, U Thant complied almost immediately. Egyptian troops and tanks began to rumble across the Sinai and to take over U.N. positions. Syria also began to mobilize, as did Jordan and Iraq. On May 22 [1967], with Egyptian troops at Sharm al-Sheikh [see map], Nasser announced the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli vessels or any vessels carrying goods to Israel. [Israeli] Prime minister Levi Eshkol replied the next day that Israel would consider any interference with freedom of shipping as an act of aggression against Israel."
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000441
General Reference (not clearly pro or con)Avi Shlaim, PhD, Professor of International Relations at St. Antony's College, Oxford University, in his 2001 book The Iron Wall, wrote:
"Military clashes between Egypt and Israel occurred intermittently from the end of the Six-Say War until the spring of 1969. However, it was the large-scale offensive mounted by the Egyptian army in March 1969, coupled with [Egyptian President] Nasser's renunciation of the U.N.-Decreed cease-fire, that marked the beginning of the War of Attrition. A formal declaration of intent came later, on June 23, [1969]. Nasser's immediate goal was to prevent the conversion of the Suez Canal into a de facto border [with Israel], while his ultimate goal was to force Israel to withdraw to the prewar border. The military strategy adopted for this purpose consisted of heavy artillery bombardment of Israel's positions on the canal front, occasional air attacks, and hit-and run commando raids. The idea was to take advantage of Egypt's massive superiority in manpower and Israel's comparative disadvantage in static warfare and well-known sensitivity to casualties in order to exhaust Israel militarily, economically, and psychologically, and thus pave the way to an Egyptian crossing to dislodge Israeli forces from Sinai." http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000442
Avi Shlaim, PhD, Professor of International Relations at St. Antony's College, Oxford, in his 2001 book The Iron Wall, wrote:"The dangers of escalation prompted Secretary of State Rogers to put forward, on 19 June [1970], a second proposal [the first Roger's plan having been rejected by both sides], which came to be known as Rogers B. The proposal had three parts: first, a three-month cease-fire on the Egyptian front; second, a statement by Israel, Egypt, and Jordan that they accepted U.N. Resolution 242, and specifically the call for 'withdrawal from occupied territories'; and third, an undertaking from Israel to negotiate with Egypt and Jordan under [U.N. mediator] Dr. Jarring's auspices as soon as the cease-fire came into force... On 31 July the [Israeli] cabinet voted by a majority of 17 to 6 for accepting Rogers B...The cease-fire on the Egyptian front went into effect on 7 August [1970], ending the War of Attrition."
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000443
Benny Morris, PhD, Professor of History at Ben-Gurion University, in his 2001 book Righteous Victims, wrote:"On May 16-18 [1967] Egypt abruptly turned ostentatious display [remilitarizing Sinai] into deep political-military crisis, by demanding the evacuation of the 3,400 UNEF [United Nations Emergency Forces] troops from Sinai and Gaza. And [U.N.] Secretary-General U Thant unquestioningly accepted Cairo's right to demand the withdrawal: On May 20-21, UNEF withdrew from Sharm ash-Sheikh, and Egyptian troops immediately occupied the site...
Israeli intelligence still believed that Nasser would halt at the brink, and on the morning of May 22 thought it 'unlikely' that he would announce the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. But around noon the same day, Nasser visited the Bir Gafgafa air base in Sinai and declared that Egypt was about to do just that, re-creating the situation that Israel had always regarded as a casus belli [reason for war]...That night, just after midnight, the formal announcement was made. In retrospect this can be seen as the decisive act that made war inevitable -- though Nasser apparently did not realize it."
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000458
Submitted to several Israeli Cabinets for approval but not officially endorsed, the Allon Plan was initially presented in July 1967. The plan’s core assumptions included defensible borders as defined by Israel, a return of the densely populated areas to a 'Jordanian-Palestinian state' with Israel retaining control of the Jordan Rift Valley and mountain ridges to the west from Nablus to Hebron. Under the plan, Israel would assert and sustain military presence over the West Bank up to the Jordan River, the West Bank would be demilitarized, the Palestinians would be provided self-administration in an autonomous or semiautonomous region, and Israel would remain in full control over a united Jerusalem, with perhaps a Jordanian status in the Muslim quarter of the Old City.
Israeli leaders then ruled out the possibility of incorporating the West Bank Palestinian population into a greater Israel because it would have dramatically changed the states Jewish demographic orientation. When the Allon Plan was officially offered to the king [of Jordan] in cordial and secret talks in September 1968, Hussein rejected it because he felt it 'infringed on Jordanian sovereignty.' Nonetheless, the Allon Plan served as a basis for the Labor Party election platforms in 1974, 1977, 1981, 1984, and 1987. The concept of providing autonomy or self-administration for the Palestinians was offered by Israeli Prime Minister Begin to Sadat in December 1977 and enshrined in both the September 1978 Camp David and the September 1993 Oslo Accords."
Both the Americans and Israelis knew Israel had the military advantage over their Arab neighbors, provided the war was short. They knew the war had to be short and decisive which is why they launched a "Pearl Harbor" like airstrike against their neighbors. Just like Pearl Harbor, they bombed airbases and destroyed the Arab airforces on the ground. As far as military tactics are conserned, it was the same theme. If WW II had ended six days after Pearl Harbor, they Japanese would have been able to claim victory just like the Israelis. BTW, six days is hardly a war of attrition. Also if the war had gone badly, Israel's leaders probably would have dropped a few nukes. Or are you going to argue that since Israel's neighbors had more conventional bombs than Israel had nukes, that they still had an military advnatage. Numbers, numbers, numbers? So Israel never faced an existencial threat in 1967. Only the Arabs didn't know they never had a chance.
If I recall, Germany won many decisive victories at the beginning of WW II. If they would have gotten an armistice after they captured France and left Russia alone, Europe would look a lot different today. But Germany's leaders believed that they were superior and invincible.
Egypt's leader signed a deal with the US and Israel for peace. Now Egypt gets over a billion a year in US military and economic support. As an American, are you happy that so many of your tax dollars are used to support Egypt's unpopular military dictatorship? All Egypt's leaders have to do to keep the American money and arms flowing is accept Israel's existance, help Israel commit a crime against humanity in Gaza and ignore the screams of innocent men, women and children on the other side of the wall as Israel bombs them with chemical weapons. Mubarak isn't very popular with Egyptians, but thanks to American support, they can't do much about it. Egypt's leaders are more focused on maintaining their grip on power so they come out ahead. The loosers are the Egyptian people. Jordan has a similar deal with Israel and the US. Again more of your tax dollars at work.
BTW, if Palestinians sign a peace deal with Israel, I doubt they will get Palestine back. If peace with Israel was as simple as selling out Palestinians, I'm sure Syria and Lebanon would have done so by now.
In a way this still is a war of attrition. Over the longterm, unpopular dictatorships are unstable. Eventually Egyptians will seize back control of their country. Israel's hostile neighbors continue to grow in strength. The current trend for the US is economic and military stagnation, which isn't good news for Israel. At some point Americans will stop spending tens of billions each year to support brutal unpopular middle east dictatorships and Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity. Then Israel really will face an existencial threat.
If I recall, Germany won many decisive victories at the beginning of WW II. If they would have gotten an armistice after they captured France and left Russia alone, Europe would look a lot different today. But Germany's leaders believed that they were superior and invincible.
Egypt's leader signed a deal with the US and Israel for peace. Now Egypt gets over a billion a year in US military and economic support. As an American, are you happy that so many of your tax dollars are used to support Egypt's unpopular military dictatorship? All Egypt's leaders have to do to keep the American money and arms flowing is accept Israel's existance, help Israel commit a crime against humanity in Gaza and ignore the screams of innocent men, women and children on the other side of the wall as Israel bombs them with chemical weapons. Mubarak isn't very popular with Egyptians, but thanks to American support, they can't do much about it. Egypt's leaders are more focused on maintaining their grip on power so they come out ahead. The loosers are the Egyptian people. Jordan has a similar deal with Israel and the US. Again more of your tax dollars at work.
BTW, if Palestinians sign a peace deal with Israel, I doubt they will get Palestine back. If peace with Israel was as simple as selling out Palestinians, I'm sure Syria and Lebanon would have done so by now.
In a way this still is a war of attrition. Over the longterm, unpopular dictatorships are unstable. Eventually Egyptians will seize back control of their country. Israel's hostile neighbors continue to grow in strength. The current trend for the US is economic and military stagnation, which isn't good news for Israel. At some point Americans will stop spending tens of billions each year to support brutal unpopular middle east dictatorships and Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity. Then Israel really will face an existencial threat.
Perhaps they would not have even had troops neaby if Israel had npt been committing war crimes against the people of Gaza and the West Bank. That went on for 20 years with all attempts by the UN to stabilize the area blocked by the the US. Itching is hardly the word to use. The sides were chosen long ago, 33 countries voted to take land and 10 in the area voted no. The 33 should have been enforcing their written policies (UN181) but like all western documents it is worthless when it comes to actually meaning what it says.
When they started killing residents or making the refugees they lost all rights to the area. Simple indeed.
Or was it the Arabs who raided Israel? Why would Israel try and provoke Egypt and Syria at the same time. The main reason they won because they managed to knock them out one at a time. It may have been a different story if Egypt and Syria had coordinated their efforts. (Jordan was drawn into conflict)
Really...what are you trying to say here?
If if if. The Pearl Harbor strike crippled a few airbases and the Pacific Fleet.
Why should I even explain this? Do you not see a difference? At all?
Who said it was? Israel could not afford a war of attrition. It was a complete decisive blow against three countries.
Perhaps they would have. Egypt and Syria was equipped with Soviet equipment and a lot of it. Soviet armor at the time was simple and tough. SAM systems were very good and Israel would have had a tough time when the Arabs launched their attacks.
Why am I bothering?
WTF?
WTF Part Deux!
Yes they did and yes it would. However the English decided not to surrender and the Germans did attack the Soviets AND with far superior equipment. But eventually the Soviets threw everything they had at the Germans and when their prized Tigers and Panzers are being used everyday for months in all types of climate AND weather a war of attrition began and the Germans were ground down to a shell of what they were in 1939-1941.
BLAH BLAH BLAH
You can't handle a debate so you produce gibberish like this?
The losers are the Egyptian people... :lol:. Why because they are not fighting a war every 8 years with Israel?
Name the first 3 Presidents of Palestine?
And then all the Jews will be dead...YAAAAAAYYYYY! :roll:
Gee, EAO, I would like to say that I'm really, really, really sorry that Israel didn't wait to fight until the Egyptian and Syrian Armies crossed her borders, and Arab air power were heavily involved over Israel, because gee, then Israel would have been destroyed and all those evil, trouble-making joos would be dead.
except I'm not.
But don't kid yourself, that WAS the alternate possibility. Do you have any contact with reality at ALL??? Do you have ANY idea how tiny Israel is????
Please, try to get real.
BTW, it is extremely doubtful that Israel had nukes in 1967.......although it did before the turn of the decade.
Israel won in 1967 because it did everything NECESSARY to DEFEND itself..........pure and simple.
Never again means just that.
except I'm not.
But don't kid yourself, that WAS the alternate possibility. Do you have any contact with reality at ALL??? Do you have ANY idea how tiny Israel is????
Please, try to get real.
BTW, it is extremely doubtful that Israel had nukes in 1967.......although it did before the turn of the decade.
Israel won in 1967 because it did everything NECESSARY to DEFEND itself..........pure and simple.
Never again means just that.
From the time UN181 was signed Jews were making refugees out of Palestinians, that was a violation of that document. That is when their war crimes started and it is going on today.
How can you not understand something that basic?
Slightly less rewarding is having a talk with an American where the topic is something they are in denial about .
You forgot the part that they were the only ones to come to the aid of the people of Gaza and the West Bank who were having war-crimes committed against them. The freedom loving west ignored the situation for the 20 years prior to '67 and the 40 years since then. So please stop the alligator tears, Israel trained for it and the executed it and they kept the best of what they gained . A war of aggression for land, plain and simple. Partially funded by you.
Prior to partition, the Arabs warned all their brothers to move out of the Israeli area or be considered enemies. The Arabs threatened their own people with death unless they moved. The new Israel did not force anyone to leave the country, in fact they encouraged Arabs to stay. The only Arabs who lost their homes then were the ones who heeded the warning and left. The Arabs attacked isolated Jewish settlements, not the other way around. Israel only retaliated after they were attacked and as usual beat the Arabs butts.
Quoting ironsidesTo quote Barney Frank, probably the best thing he ever said,."Having a conversation with you is like trying to argue with a dining room tableuseless."Slightly less rewarding is having a talk with an American where the topic is something they are in denial about .
MHZ
Continuous attacks from Arabs and reprisal raids - and who pays - the poor average Palestinian - to the different Govts - they do not give a tinkers Damm
Arabs and Palestinians have had numerous opportunities to sit and talk peace - But between - Egypt till 76 and Sadat - Saudia Arabia, Syria and Jordan - the decided war was the best option
And the comments that Israel had Military superiority -is BS - The Arabs had good equipment - from tanks to aircraft - and leaders who could not lead - soldiers that were not motivated -
Israel on the other hand had excellent soldiers - capable of independent thought and action - ability to think strategically - and most importantly of all - They knew what would happen if they lost -
Jews would have been slaughtered.
MHZ
Continuous attacks from Arabs and reprisal raids - and who pays - the poor average Palestinian - to the different Govts - they do not give a tinkers Damm
Arabs and Palestinians have had numerous opportunities to sit and talk peace - But between - Egypt till 76 and Sadat - Saudia Arabia, Syria and Jordan - the decided war was the best option
And the comments that Israel had Military superiority -is BS - The Arabs had good equipment - from tanks to aircraft - and leaders who could not lead - soldiers that were not motivated -
Israel on the other hand had excellent soldiers - capable of independent thought and action - ability to think strategically - and most importantly of all - They knew what would happen if they lost -
Jews would have been slaughtered.
ES:
Likely, possession of nukes was a deciding factor in starting the 1967 war. The Israelis had nukes and knew that if they started to loose a conventional war, they could escalate it into a nuclear war. But since they defeated the Arabs in six days, they never had to play the nuclear card.
Likely, possession of nukes was a deciding factor in starting the 1967 war. The Israelis had nukes and knew that if they started to loose a conventional war, they could escalate it into a nuclear war. But since they defeated the Arabs in six days, they never had to play the nuclear card.
You just keep wandering around, trying to make your point.
Here's my point: even the leaders of the Arab nations acknowledge that their intent was to gang up together and eliminate Israel.
No matter what you want to believe, that's what they've published themselves.
They blew it, for a multitude of reasons.
You can believe whatever the hell you want to, but it won't change the reality as stated by the people who were there and made the decisions at the time.