Israel - The Right to exist as a State?

Does Israel have the right to exist with secure borders free from attack


  • Total voters
    42

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
EAO

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.



EAO
Do you have any facts to back this up or is it just your personal opinion - And if you do have links try to ensure they are not slanted in one way or the others -

Just the facts Mamm - Just the Facts
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
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.
No wonder you couldn't supply a link to support that version of events. Does changing facts help you sleep better at night?

I can find many documents that support this versio.

" Palestine was not divided. It was destroyed. Once adopted, the execution of Resolution 181 was referred to the Security Council. The Arabs rejected it outright while the Jews celebrated its adoption. The Palestinians rebelled as the Zionist underground forces attacked Palestinian villages and towns in order to secure more than their portion of Palestine allocated to them by the Partition Plan. The United States admitted around March 1948 that the partitioning of Palestine could not be carried out in a peaceful manner and proposed that Palestine be placed under a temporary UN Trusteeship. This plan and calls for a ceasefire fell on deaf ears. The Jewish forces exerted all military efforts to achieve maximum land gains as the British prepared to end their Mandate in Palestine. By April 1948, they had achieved a military superiority and set in motion all political machinery to declare their Jewish State. Herzl’s prediction to establish a Jewish State in Palestine within 50 years was missed by only 1 year.
On the afternoon of May 14, 1948 the Jewish State of Israel was proclaimed just as the Sabbath began at sunset that day. At 5:16 EST, U.S. President Harry Truman authorised the recognition of Israel (note how, in this document pesented to him by his advisors, Truman crossed out the word JEWISH STATE and replaced it with the name ISRAEL, thus implying that it should not be exclusively Jewish).
The British mandate ended the next day on 15th May 1948 at noon.
In this process, most of Palestine’s indigenous population were expelled and, together with their descendents, became numbers in an UNRWA register. Today, they total about 5.5 million people living in miserable refugee camps in Lebanon (12 camps), Syria (10 camps + 3 unofficial sites), Jordan (10 camps) West Bank (19 camps) and Gaza (8 camps). These Palestinian refugees hold the record of being the longest suffering and largest refugee population in the world. Yet, even within these camps, they remain dignified and determined that, through the application of international law, their right to return to their homes will be upheld."


UN Resolution 181 - 1948
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
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.

I'm not debating whether Arab leaders were ganging up on Israel and intended to eliminate Israel. Its clear that they were and that was their intent. However the 1967 war did not start with an Arab attack against Israel as some people here believe. Israel started that war with a pre-emptive attack. That means Israel started the war, not their Arab neighbors. I'm not debating that Israel's decision to start a war when they did was unfounded or irrational or even a war crime. Given the circumstances, Israel's pre-emptive strike was a reasonable justified decision supported by international law.

Some people here also believe Israel's army was a "rag-tag" MacGyver sort of patched together at the last minute with bailing wire and twine amateur army. BS! Even though Arabs had numerical superiority, Israel had a well trained professional army, armed with superior weapons and technology which was THE deciding factor in the 1967 war.

Also I have linked to evidence which strongly indicates that Israel possessed nuclear weapons in 1967. That means that even if Israel's initial strike went badly, Israel still had nuclear weapons and other unconventional weapons that they could fall back on. Israel's existance as a state was not at stake in this war. Even though the Arab leaders never knew they didn't have a chance of winning the war, Israel's leaders knew they couldn't loose. Israel initiated the 1967 war. I suspect they also deliberately provoked it in attempt to increase their territory.

That's not sour grapes or hoping for anyone's demise. Just a statement of the facts backed up by supporting evidence.
 
Last edited:

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
I find these kind of statements particularly repugnant.
...And then all the Jews will be dead...YAAAAAAYYYYY! :roll:

I shouldn't have to defend myself from these sorts of attacks, but here goes:

I have never written anything here which is derogatory towards Jews, Judaism, or even Israelis in general. Yes I believe some Israelis are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and should be brought before the ICJ. (Just like I believe some Palestinians are also guilty of war crimes) Individuals are criminals because of their actions and it has nothing to do with their race, religion or nationality.

Yes I believe that these criminals and their supporters exploit guilt over the holocaust and longterm discrimination and oppression of Jews in order to silence criticism of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

IMO, playing the anti-semiticism card against legitimate criticism of Israel in order to stifle debate actually trivializes the meaning of anti-semitism which is a real and serious problem. I completely support the right of Jews to practice their religion openly without fear of discrimination or abuse.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
I'm not debating whether Arab leaders were ganging up on Israel and intended to eliminate Israel. Its clear that they were and that was their intent. However the 1967 war did not start with an Arab attack against Israel as some people here believe. Israel started that war with a pre-emptive attack.

I doubt that anyone believes that the 67 war started with an Arab attack. There was a PLANNED attack, and Israel decided not to wait.

I think you're just being deliberately obtuse by pretending that people are claiming there was an Arab attack, just so you can blame Israel for beating the **** out of Egypt.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
I find these kind of statements particularly repugnant.

I shouldn't have to defend myself from these sorts of attacks, but here goes:

I have never written anything here which is derogatory towards Jews, Judaism, or even Israelis in general. Yes I believe some Israelis are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and should be brought before the ICJ. (Just like I believe some Palestinians are also guilty of war crimes) Individuals are criminals because of their actions and it has nothing to do with their race, religion or nationality.

Yes I believe that these criminals and their supporters exploit guilt over the holocaust and longterm discrimination and oppression of Jews in order to silence criticism of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

IMO, playing the anti-semiticism card against legitimate criticism of Israel in order to stifle debate actually trivializes the meaning of anti-semitism which is a real and serious problem. I completely support the right of Jews to practice their religion openly without fear of discrimination or abuse.

EAO

Eagle Smack is correct - The Arabs would have perpetrated Genocide - But you deny it - Read your history and make sure it is not from the Jewish Controlled Media and that those dammed Jews stop playing that so irritating Holocaust Card - and that you do this when you walk away from the grassy knoll.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
I'm not debating whether Arab leaders were ganging up on Israel and intended to eliminate Israel. Its clear that they were and that was their intent. However the 1967 war did not start with an Arab attack against Israel as some people here believe. Israel started that war with a pre-emptive attack. That means Israel started the war, not their Arab neighbors. I'm not debating that Israel's decision to start a war when they did was unfounded or irrational or even a war crime. Given the circumstances, Israel's pre-emptive strike was a reasonable justified decision supported by international law.

Some people here also believe Israel's army was a "rag-tag" MacGyver sort of patched together at the last minute with bailing wire and twine amateur army. BS! Even though Arabs had numerical superiority, Israel had a well trained professional army, armed with superior weapons and technology which was THE deciding factor in the 1967 war.

Also I have linked to evidence which strongly indicates that Israel possessed nuclear weapons in 1967. That means that even if Israel's initial strike went badly, Israel still had nuclear weapons and other unconventional weapons that they could fall back on. Israel's existance as a state was not at stake in this war. Even though the Arab leaders never knew they didn't have a chance of winning the war, Israel's leaders knew they couldn't loose. Israel initiated the 1967 war. I suspect they also deliberately provoked it in attempt to increase their territory.

That's not sour grapes or hoping for anyone's demise. Just a statement of the facts backed up by supporting evidence.

EAO

A very important life lesson for you - Do not take a knife to a gunfight -
Tell me in all your wisdom -
What would have happened if the Arabs had won the 48 War -
Please be explicit -
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Things haven't changed sine the Indian Wars, I don't understand why the American's and Israeli's can't figure out if they don't take people's land and kill their children then won't be as despised as they are now.

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]About 1966 or so, a NASA team doing work for the Apollo moon mission took the astronauts near Tuba City. There the terrain of the Navajo Reservation looks very much like the lunar surface. Among all the trucks and large vehicles were two large figures that were dressed in full lunar spacesuits. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Nearby a Navajo sheep herder and his son were watching the strange creatures walk about, occasionally being tended by other NASA personnel. The two Navajo people were noticed and approached by the NASA personnel. Since the man did not know English, his son asked him who the strange creatures were. The NASA people told them that they were just men that were getting ready to go to the moon. The man became very excited and asked if he could send a message to the moon with the astronauts. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif] The NASA personnel thought this was a great idea so they rustled up a tape recorder. After the man gave them his message, they asked his son to translate. His son would not. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif] Later, they tried a few more people on the reservation to translate and every person they asked would chuckle and then refuse to translate. Finally, with cash in hand someone translated the message, [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Watch out for these guys, they come to take your land."
[/FONT]



Dineh (Navajo) Home Page
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
I doubt that anyone believes that the 67 war started with an Arab attack. There was a PLANNED attack, and Israel decided not to wait.

I think you're just being deliberately obtuse by pretending that people are claiming there was an Arab attack, just so you can blame Israel for beating the **** out of Egypt.

I could have sworn that someone here claimed Israel defended themselves from an Arab attack in 1967. Maybe I was mistaken...

Regardless, position troops on your border doesn't prove that an attack was planned or imminent. During the entire cold war, Nato and East Block troops were continuously deployed along the border and yet that attack never haapened. Its what nations do when tensions escalate, but doesn't necessarily mean that an attack is imminent.

According to what I've read, at the time of the Israeli pre-emptive attack, Egypt's troops were deployed along the Israeli/Egypt border defensively:

On 25 May 1967, Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban landed in Washington “with instructions to discuss American plans to re-open the Strait of Tiran” As soon as he arrived, he was given new instructions in a cable from the Israeli government. The cable said that Israel had learned of an imminent Egyptian attack, which overshadowed the blockade. No longer was he to emphasize the strait issue; he was instructed to ‘inform the highest authorities of this new threat and to request an official statement from the United States that an attack on Israel would be viewed as an attack on the United States.” Despite his own skepticism, Eban followed his instructions during his first meeting with Secretary Rusk, Under Secretary Rostow, and Assistant Secretary Lucius Battle. American intelligence experts spent the night analyzing each of the Israeli claims.[100] On May 26, Eban met with United States Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, and finally with President Lyndon B. Johnson. The Americans said their intelligence sources could not corroborate the Israeli claim; the Egyptian positions in the Sinai remained defensive. Eban left the White House distraught. According to most sources, including those involved, the new instructions were sent at the instigation of Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin, who was eager to force an American decision; either Johnson would have to commit to specific American action then, or Israel would be free to act on its own.[100]

Historian Michael Oren explains his reaction: "Eban was livid. Unconvinced that Nasser was either determined or even able to attack, he now saw Israelis inflating the Egyptian threat - and flaunting their weakness - in order to extract a pledge that the President, Congress-bound, could never make. 'An act of momentous irresponsibility... eccentric...' were his words for the cable, which, he wrote, 'lacked wisdom, veracity and tactical understanding. Nothing was right about it'."[101] In a lecture given in 2002, Oren said, "Johnson sat around with his advisors and said, ‘What if their intelligence sources are better than ours?’ Johnson decided to fire off a Hotline message to his counterpart in the Kremlin, Alexey Kosygin, in which he said, ‘We've heard from the Israelis, but we can't corroborate it, that your proxies in the Middle East, the Egyptians, plan to launch an attack against Israel in the next 48 hours. If you don't want to start a global crisis, prevent them from doing that.’ At 2:30 a.m. on 27 May, Soviet Ambassador to Egypt Dimitri Pojidaev knocked on Nasser's door and read him a personal letter from Kosygin in which he said, ‘We don't want Egypt to be blamed for starting a war in the Middle East. If you launch that attack, we cannot support you.’ `Amer consulted his sources in the Kremlin, and they corroborated the substance of Kosygin's message. Despondent, Amer told the commander of Egypt's air force, Major General Mahmud Sidqi, that the operation was cancelled."[102] According to then Egyptian Vice-President Hussein el-Shafei, as soon as Nasser knew what Amer planned, he cancelled the operation.[103]

On 30 May, Nasser responded to Johnson's request of 11 days earlier and agreed to send his Vice President, Zakkariya Muhieddin, to Washington on 7 June to explore a diplomatic settlement in "precisely the opening the White House had sought".[104] Secretary of State Rusk was bitterly disappointed that Israel attacked on 5 June, as he thought he might have been able to find a diplomatic solution if the meeting had gone ahead.[105] Historian Michael Oren writes that Rusk was "mad as hell" and that Johnson later wrote "I have never concealed my regret that Israel decided to move when it did".[106]

Within Israel's political leadership, it was decided that if the US would not act, and if the UN could not act, then Israel would have to act. On 1 June, Moshe Dayan was made Israeli Defense Minister, and on 3 June the Johnson administration gave an ambiguous statement; Israel continued to prepare for war. Israel's attack against Egypt on June 5 began what would later be dubbed the Six-Day War. According to Martin van Creveld, the IDF pressed for war: "...the concept of 'defensible borders' was not even part of the IDFs own vocabulary. Anyone who will look for it in the military literature of the time will do so in vain. Instead, Israel's commanders based their thought on the 1948 war and, especially, their 1956 triumph over the Egyptians in which, from then Chief of Staff Dayan down, they had gained their spurs. When the 1967 crisis broke they felt certain of their ability to win a 'decisive, quick and elegant' victory, as one of their number, General Haim Bar Lev, put it, and pressed the government to start the war as soon as possible".[107] Some of Israel's political leaders, however, hoped for a diplomatic solution.[70]

Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know wikipedia isn't 100% reliable, but you can follow the links to its sources.

  1. <LI id=cite_note-QuandtPP-99>^ a b William B. Quandt, Peace Process, p. 31-32 <LI id=cite_note-100>^ Oren, 2002, pp. 102–103. <LI id=cite_note-101>^ The Unwanted War That Made the Middle East. Retrieved 8 October 2005. <LI id=cite_note-102>^ Bowen, 2003, p. 57 (author interview, Cairo, 15 December 2002). <LI id=cite_note-103>^ Oren, 2002, p. 145. <LI id=cite_note-104>^ Cristol, 2002, p. 67. <LI id=cite_note-105>^ Oren, 2002, p. 196.
  2. ^ van Creveld, 2004, p. 21.
These historians support my point that the Egyptians were not planning an attack against Israel at the time Israel attacked and were looking for a diplomatic solution to de-escalate tensions. Nasser had domestic reasons for making belligerent statements regarding Israel.

However I would agree that Egypt's military deployment was such that Israel could justify a pre-emptive attack legally.

I also believe that Israel's military leaders knew their military situation was superior to the combined forces of their Arab neighbors and that Egypt's deployment along their border was actually a stratgic error which created an opportunity they could exploit. They knew that they would likely win a war if they attacked at the time and they deliberately provoked their Arab neighbors in the hope that they would do something to justify starting a war.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
EAO

A very important life lesson for you - Do not take a knife to a gunfight -
Tell me in all your wisdom -
What would have happened if the Arabs had won the 48 War -
Please be explicit -

I'm sure it would have been brutal for the Jewish refugees. Probably far more brutal that how the Palestinians suffered.

Personally I think this entire mess could have been avoided if the UN had been fair and consulted the people living in Palestine.

I would have supported a partition of Palestine, but not the way the UN proposed it. If the partition was done fairly, the number of people tranferred in each direction would have been equal. Instead, for every Jew that had to move in one direction, 80 Arabs had to move in the other direction. Also the Jewish side got most of arable land and control of most of the water. Since the UN proposed partition was so blatantly unfair, increased Arab hostility was inevitable.

Also, the 1948 war actually started as a civil war in 1947 when Zionists started an ethnic cleansing campaign. Palestine's Arab neighbors got involved after the Brits pulled out in 1948, but the Zionist atrocities and Arab reprisals started almost a year earlier.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
I'm sure it would have been brutal for the Jewish refugees. Probably far more brutal that how the Palestinians suffered.

Personally I think this entire mess could have been avoided if the UN had been fair and consulted the people living in Palestine.

I would have supported a partition of Palestine, but not the way the UN proposed it. If the partition was done fairly, the number of people tranferred in each direction would have been equal. Instead, for every Jew that had to move in one direction, 80 Arabs had to move in the other direction. Also the Jewish side got most of arable land and control of most of the water. Since the UN proposed partition was so blatantly unfair, increased Arab hostility was inevitable.

Also, the 1948 war actually started as a civil war in 1947 when Zionists started an ethnic cleansing campaign. Palestine's Arab neighbors got involved after the Brits pulled out in 1948, but the Zionist atrocities and Arab reprisals started almost a year earlier.



EAO

Define Brutal
EAOA very important life lesson for you - Do not take a knife to a gunfight - Tell me in all your wisdom - What would have happened if the Arabs had won the 48 War - Please be explicit -
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
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.

What crap!

READ your own article.
One source lists such Egyptian overflights, along with United Nations peacekeeper withdrawal and Egyptian troop movements into the Sinai, as one of the three “tripwires” which would drive Israel to war.

You are so blinded by your own bias, your passive-aggressive hatred of Israel, that you can't even understand what you are readiing.....Egypt, unilaterally, undertook aggressive action that pushed Israel to defend herself...........nukes or not. ONE of the above "tripwires" would have triggered Israeli defences, which I have REPEATEDLY pointed out, once mobilized must be used NOW.......Egypt tripped THREE such "tripwires" all the while howling promises of the destruction of Israel.....

Once again, I use the analogy.....if a neighbour runs at me with a gun in his hand, screaming threats, I do NOT have to wait until he steps on my property before I shoot him......especially if he is backed by two or three friends.

BTW, Israel MAY have had two bombs a week before the war....may have had. Two. Did they know how to deliver them????? Did they have any way to deliver them???? One sincerely doubts that, even had they actually built two bombs, that they were ready for deployment against an enemy.

I would also point out that in 1973 Israel damn near lost the Yom Kippur War because they did not pre-empt....it was a very close thing. Nor did they threaten or consider seriously the use of nukes.......and then they most certainly could have delivered them.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
EAO

Brutal according to Merriam Webster

Main Entry: bru·tal
Pronunciation: \ˈbrü-təl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French, from Medieval Latin brutalis, from Latin brutus — more at brute
Date: 15th century
1 archaic : typical of beasts : animal
2 : befitting a brute: as a : grossly ruthless or unfeeling <a brutal slander> b : cruel, cold-blooded <a brutal attack> c : harsh, severe <brutal weather> d : unpleasantly accurate and incisive <the brutal truth> e : very bad or unpleasant <a brutal mistake>
bru·tal·ly \-təl-ē\ adverb
synonyms brutal, brutish, bestial, feral mean characteristic of an animal in nature, action, or instinct. brutal applies to people, their acts, or their words and suggests a lack of intelligence, feeling, or humanity <a senseless and brutal war>. brutish stresses likeness to an animal in low intelligence, in base appetites, and in behavior based on instinct <brutish stupidity>. bestial suggests a state of degradation unworthy of humans and fit only for beasts <bestial depravity>. feral suggests the savagery or ferocity of wild animals <the struggle to survive unleashed their feral impulses>.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
EAO
Anyhow - Of to bed - So you came have some time to give " brutal" your description and what would occur if the Arabs won the War in 48.

Looking forward to your replay - i know how difficult it is to find balanced articles in a Jewish Controlled Media - Dammed Jews have infiltrated everything -
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
What crap!

READ your own article.

You are so blinded by your own bias, your passive-aggressive hatred of Israel, that you can't even understand what you are readiing.....Egypt, unilaterally, undertook aggressive action that pushed Israel to defend herself...........nukes or not. ONE of the above "tripwires" would have triggered Israeli defences, which I have REPEATEDLY pointed out, once mobilized must be used NOW.......Egypt tripped THREE such "tripwires" all the while howling promises of the destruction of Israel.....

Once again, I use the analogy.....if a neighbour runs at me with a gun in his hand, screaming threats, I do NOT have to wait until he steps on my property before I shoot him......especially if he is backed by two or three friends.

BTW, Israel MAY have had two bombs a week before the war....may have had. Two. Did they know how to deliver them????? Did they have any way to deliver them???? One sincerely doubts that, even had they actually built two bombs, that they were ready for deployment against an enemy.

I would also point out that in 1973 Israel damn near lost the Yom Kippur War because they did not pre-empt....it was a very close thing. Nor did they threaten or consider seriously the use of nukes.......and then they most certainly could have delivered them.

Colpy, can you actually make a point without getting personal and insulting??? You'd think I'd just insulted your mother...

Those trip wires were internal to Israel. Not something that Israel broadcast to the world. It explains their decision making process, nothing more.

Israel's nuclear program is secret. The best anyone can do is speculate. But two bombs would be enough to stop an attack, because of the uncertainty of how many more Israel possessed. As the Americans proved building the bomb was the hard part. Delivering them would be relatively simple.

I just read up on the Yom Kippur war and learned a few things you obviously didn't know.

The Yom Kippur attack wasn't a complete surprise despite best efforts by Egypt at misinformation:

Since they (Egypt) had not received MiG-23s, and Scud missiles had only arrived in Egypt from Bulgaria in late August and it would take four months to train the Egyptian ground crews, Aman predicted war with Egypt was not imminent. This assumption about Egypt's strategic plans, known as "the concept", strongly prejudiced the department's thinking and led it to dismiss other war warnings.

The Egyptians did much to further this misconception. Both the Israelis and the Americans felt that the expulsion of the Soviet military observers had severely reduced the effectiveness of the Egyptian army. The Egyptians ensured that there was a continual stream of false information on maintenance problems and a lack of personnel to operate the most advanced equipment. The Egyptians made repeated misleading reports about lack of spare parts that also made their way to the Israelis.

Yom Kippur War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Despite the above, the King of Jordan told Israel in a secret visit two weeks in advance that an attack was imminent. Israel also had a well placed spy that warned of the attack almost two days in advance. Plus there were other little clues that Israel put together in advance of the attack, that an attack was imminent.

Israel's leaders discussed the option of pre-emptive attack but decided against it. The main reason was Israel had lost support from everyone except the US because of their 1967 pre-emptive attack and they couldn't afford to loose US support. Instead they mobilized their reserves and prepared for the attack as best they could. Ironically since it was a holiday, the reserves were actually mobilized faster than anticipated since the reservists were easy to reach (at home or the synagogue) and the roads were empty. By the time the attack occurred, all the Israeli reserves had been mobilized and were in position.

What Israel failed to anticipate was that the Arab attack would be sophisticated and well planned. You should read the wikipedia account linked above. During the first few days, the Israelis did not do very well, not because the attack was unanticipated but because the Arab forces were more evenly matched than in 1967 and also because the Arabs had a few surprises. For example, the Egyptians used water cannons to breach Israel sand and concrete defenses along the Suez canal. The Arabs also had night vision capability while the Israelis did not. Eventually with US help, the Israelis did turn the tide and the war ended up as a draw.

At one point the Israelis were considering nuking Arab positions:

....On the afternoon of October 7, an alarmed Dayan told Meir that "this is the end of the third temple". He was warning of Israel's impending total defeat, but "Temple" was also the code word for nuclear weapons.[145] Dayan again raised the nuclear topic in a cabinet meeting, warning that the country was approaching a point of "last resort."[146] Meir on 8 October authorized the assembling of 13 20-kiloton-of-TNT (84 TJ) atomic bombs. Nuclear-capable Jericho missiles at Hirbat Zachariah and F-4s at Tel Nof were prepared for action against Syrian and Egyptian targets;[145] the preparation was done in an easily detectable way, likely as a signal to the United States.[146] Kissinger learned of the nuclear alert on the morning of October 9. That day, President Nixon ordered the commencement of Operation Nickel Grass, an American airlift to replace all of Israel's material losses.[147] Anecdotal evidence suggests that Kissinger told Sadat that the reason for the U.S. airlift was that the Israelis were close to "going nuclear."[145]...

Yom Kippur War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I suggest you read up on the Yom Kippur war. Its yet another example where many commonly held beliefs about Israel are incorrect and based on more on pro-Israel misinformation rather than the facts.
 
Last edited:

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
EAO
Anyhow - Of to bed - So you came have some time to give " brutal" your description and what would occur if the Arabs won the War in 48.

Looking forward to your replay - i know how difficult it is to find balanced articles in a Jewish Controlled Media - Dammed Jews have infiltrated everything -
Brutal as in Jews would probably have suffered atrocities greater than those suffered by Palestinians.

However just because your adversary would commit atrocities doesn't give you free reign to commit them yourself.

But following this line of thought, lets suppose that Palestinians did win the ethnic cleansing war back in 1948 and now the tables were reversed. Now the Jews were being treated as badly as Israel treats Gazans today. Lets suppose that the US was giving billions each year to help Palestinians oppress Jews and the news service was full of anti-semitic rhetoric. I'd still be speaking out in opposition to war crimes and crimes against humanity. The only difference would be that I'd be defending the right of Jews to the same human rights as everyone else instead of Palestinians.

The people who helped Jews in Europe during the 1930s and 40s weren't the people who believed the hate propaganda fed to them by their government. They were the people who could see through it and believed that all human beings are entitled to fundamental human rights regardless of race or religion.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
I do not mean to be insulting, I do apologize...I simply get frustrated at your seeming inability...or unwillingness.... to understand the position of Israel in the ME.

By the way, Egypt knew full well they were pushing Israel to war in 1967.........

Yes, I know about the Yom Kippur War....I read Golda Meir's book. the Israelis knew it was coming, and did not do a pre-emptive strike for two reasons:

1. They held the Sinai, which provided a buffer zone through which the Egyptians would have to attack before they reached Israel proper.

2. They held the Golan Heights, at the narrowest part of the nation, and they felt that tipped the balance in their favour against Syria.

So, they avoided (or tried to avoid) international condemnation by waiting for the Arabs to strike first.

Also, in 1973, the Israelis certainly had a number of ready nukes.......as a last resort.

As it was, the 1973 war proves my point, and the conventional wisdom, about the 1967 war. The Israelis were damned near over run on both fronts........but had the buffer zone in which to recover.....had they not held the Golan Heights the nation would have been cut in two....had they not held the Sinai, Egyptian forces would have been deep into Israel.....

In 1967, Israel held neither....thus the absolute necessity of a pre-emptive strike.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
So we fundamentally disagree about this conflict. Its not a big deal. I doubt we'll ever convince each other of anything on this subject. People can read our posts and make up their own minds.

If everyone had the same opinion, this forum would be pretty boring. A spirited debate is entertaining. I like this better than watching the idiot box, and I wouldn't want you to stop arguing your points.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
No wonder you couldn't supply a link to support that version of events. Does changing facts help you sleep better at night?

I can find many documents that support this versio.

" Palestine was not divided. It was destroyed. Once adopted, the execution of Resolution 181 was referred to the Security Council. The Arabs rejected it outright while the Jews celebrated its adoption. The Palestinians rebelled as the Zionist underground forces attacked Palestinian villages and towns in order to secure more than their portion of Palestine allocated to them by the Partition Plan. The United States admitted around March 1948 that the partitioning of Palestine could not be carried out in a peaceful manner and proposed that Palestine be placed under a temporary UN Trusteeship. This plan and calls for a ceasefire fell on deaf ears. The Jewish forces exerted all military efforts to achieve maximum land gains as the British prepared to end their Mandate in Palestine. By April 1948, they had achieved a military superiority and set in motion all political machinery to declare their Jewish State. Herzl’s prediction to establish a Jewish State in Palestine within 50 years was missed by only 1 year.
On the afternoon of May 14, 1948 the Jewish State of Israel was proclaimed just as the Sabbath began at sunset that day. At 5:16 EST, U.S. President Harry Truman authorised the recognition of Israel (note how, in this document pesented to him by his advisors, Truman crossed out the word JEWISH STATE and replaced it with the name ISRAEL, thus implying that it should not be exclusively Jewish).
The British mandate ended the next day on 15th May 1948 at noon.
In this process, most of Palestine’s indigenous population were expelled and, together with their descendents, became numbers in an UNRWA register. Today, they total about 5.5 million people living in miserable refugee camps in Lebanon (12 camps), Syria (10 camps + 3 unofficial sites), Jordan (10 camps) West Bank (19 camps) and Gaza (8 camps). These Palestinian refugees hold the record of being the longest suffering and largest refugee population in the world. Yet, even within these camps, they remain dignified and determined that, through the application of international law, their right to return to their homes will be upheld."


UN Resolution 181 - 1948


Following numerous border clashes between Israel and its Arab neighbours, particularly Syria, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser expelled the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula in May 1967.[8] The peacekeeping force had been stationed there since 1957, following a British-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt which was launched during the Suez Crisis.[9] Egypt amassed 1,000 tanks and nearly 100,000 soldiers on the Israeli border[10] and closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials, receiving strong support from other Arab countries.[11] Israel responded with a similar mobilization that included the call up of 70,000 reservists to augment the regular IDF forces.[12]
On June 5, 1967, Israel launched a preemptive attack on Egypt.[13] The Arab countries denied planning to attack Israel, and asserted that Israel's strike was not preemptive but an unwarranted and illegal act of aggression.[14] Jordan, which had signed a mutual defence treaty with Egypt on May 30, then attacked western Jerusalem and Netanya.[15][16][17]
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Things haven't changed sine the Indian Wars, I don't understand why the American's and Israeli's can't figure out if they don't take people's land and kill their children then won't be as despised as they are now.

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]About 1966 or so, a NASA team doing work for the Apollo moon mission took the astronauts near Tuba City. There the terrain of the Navajo Reservation looks very much like the lunar surface. Among all the trucks and large vehicles were two large figures that were dressed in full lunar spacesuits. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Nearby a Navajo sheep herder and his son were watching the strange creatures walk about, occasionally being tended by other NASA personnel. The two Navajo people were noticed and approached by the NASA personnel. Since the man did not know English, his son asked him who the strange creatures were. The NASA people told them that they were just men that were getting ready to go to the moon. The man became very excited and asked if he could send a message to the moon with the astronauts. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]The NASA personnel thought this was a great idea so they rustled up a tape recorder. After the man gave them his message, they asked his son to translate. His son would not. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Later, they tried a few more people on the reservation to translate and every person they asked would chuckle and then refuse to translate. Finally, with cash in hand someone translated the message, [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Watch out for these guys, they come to take your land." [/FONT]​





Dineh (Navajo) Home Page

Kind of funny when Canadians talk about the Americans taking Indian land. Was Canada free of First Nation people? Completely unpopulated?