Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Israel 'has 150 nuclear weapons'
Options
Comments
-
BlaasForRafa wrote: »Have you looked at a map of Israel? At its narrowest its 20 kilometres from the west bank to the coastline... a tank attack from Jordan (who were under the command of a senior Egyptian General) would have cut Israel in two.
Perhaps then creating a country, by kicking out the people living there was not the best idea. Bound to piss people off.BlaasForRafa wrote: »Also the Golan Heights dominate northern Israel and the Syrians had already been shelling Israel for years, an armoured thrust from the heights would at the coast in 2 days or less. Then theres the fact that Egypt had massed 2/3rds of its army in the Sinai ready for an attack.
There is no proof that Egypt were about to attack.BlaasForRafa wrote: »There seems to be a wilful refusal from some to see into the Israeli psyche faced with this. A people that faced annihilation during WW2 were facing annihilation again and had to take action and gamble everything for their nation and peoples survival. In the event the morale, professionalism and bravery of their forces made up for their numerical inferiority against the pan-arab nationalist armies.
Israel, made a choice for war. War was not a for gone conclusion at that point.
There is a willful refusal for people to actually look at the history of what happened, but that par for course. We know Israel were the ones to attack and yet its the other guy fault. Go figure.0 -
Mayo Exile wrote: »Yes. Agree with this. Any country will lock up its citizens for a very long time if they betray secrets of a national security nature. They actually get executed too and not just in wartime. The USA executed some scientists whom they accused of betraying nuclear secrets to the USSR in the early 1950's.
Golan Heights should be a DMZ. No offensive weaponry of anykind there (artillery, missiles, rockets etc.). The West Bank then needs some type of "Marshall Plan" assistance to lift the Palestinian population out of the poverty it finds itself in. History shows that poverty breeds extremism, and hence extremist actions.
I'd agree with that. The palestinian public can't be blamed for the situation they are in and indeed poverty does breed extremism. But the palestinian leadership are certainly not blameless in their own peoples situation. The corrupt and cynical way the Fatah/PLO faction led them for so long didn't do anything to help the palestinian people and the extreme religious and ethnic hatred espoused by the Hamas leadership dosen't do much to help the situation either.
If a formula could be worked where Israel removes all settlements and withdraws to its borders and massive assistance were given to the palestinian people and all factions recognised Israel then there may eventually be peace for all sides.0 -
Agree 100%.BlaasForRafa wrote: »If a formula could be worked where Israel removes all settlements and withdraws to its borders and massive assistance were given to the palestinian people and all factions recognised Israel then there may eventually be peace for all sides.0 -
Um, Saddat accepted the UN peace proposal. Israel rejected it. The proposal had nothing to do with Syria. I think this says more than speculation.
You're not looking at the totality of the situation. It wasn't just about Egypts relations with Israel but the relations between the arab countries and their respective standing in the arab street which mattered also. Assad wanted to be the most influential leader in the arab world and defeating Israel would certainly assure that, Sadat didn't want Syria to be seen as being more influential than Egypt.0 -
Again see the biography I linked.
We do know Israel intend to attack as per there war of aggression.
The Jordanians did everything to prevent the war, see the biography I linked. Israel were the ones who attacked and not the Arabs. They were willing to talk, when Israel attacked.
They did join in to help there fellow Arabs.
Of course Israel attacked first. and in the situation were right to do so.
Instead of continually quoting the biased biography of hussein try reading something more objective like 19670 -
Advertisement
-
There is a willful refusal for people to actually look at the history of what happened, but that par for course. We know Israel were the ones to attack and yet its the other guy fault. Go figure.
You are the one who wilfully refuses to look at the facts and the context involved with them. I'm glad there are others on the thread who even though they might not agree with my stance are more objective and not as narrowminded in their views as you.0 -
You're speculating and hypothisizing. The fact is Egypt accepted the proposal, Israel rejected it. You can read the proposal here as well as the official responses from Egypt and Israel. Egypt was by far the militarily strongest Arab country in the region anyway what Syria did was irrelevant.BlaasForRafa wrote: »You're not looking at the totality of the situation. It wasn't just about Egypts relations with Israel but the relations between the arab countries and their respective standing in the arab street which mattered also. Assad wanted to be the most influential leader in the arab world and defeating Israel would certainly assure that, Sadat didn't want Syria to be seen as being more influential than Egypt.0 -
BlaasForRafa wrote: »Of course Israel attacked first. and in the situation were right to do so.
Instead of continually quoting the biased biography of hussein try reading something more objective like 1967
Biased according to whom? You?
Israel were to ones who attacked not the Arabs. They were clearly the aggressors. We know they attacked for a fact and they claim it was pre-emptive, which is nonsense. Israel wanted the land, which is what Zionism is all about.
Again, there is no evidence the Arabs were about to attack. I have read reviews of the book and the reviewer doesn't seem to think things so cut and dry:
Peace for Land
Here is an article from Salon.com, which again question Israel claims:
Rethinking Israel's David-and-Goliath past
Of particular interest:From Salon.com:
Or was it? Little-noticed details in declassified documents from the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, indicate that top officials in the Johnson administration -- including Johnson's most pro-Israeli Cabinet members -- did not believe war between Israel and its neighbors was necessary or inevitable, at least until the final hour. In these documents, Israel emerges as a vastly superior military power, its opponents far weaker than the menacing threat Israel portrayed, and war itself something that Nasser, for all his saber-rattling, tried to avoid until the moment his air force went up in smoke. In particular, the diplomatic role of Nasser's vice president, who was poised to travel to Washington in an effort to resolve the crisis, has received little attention from historians. The documents sharpen a recurring theme in the history of the Israeli-Arab wars, and especially of their telling in the West: From the war of 1948 to the 2007 conflict in Gaza, Israel is often miscast as the vulnerable David in a hostile sea of Arab Goliaths.0 -
You're speculating and hypothisizing. The fact is Egypt accepted the proposal, Israel rejected it. You can read the proposal here as well as the official responses from Egypt and Israel. Egypt was by far the militarily strongest Arab country in the region anyway what Syria did was irrelevant.
And both countries relied on other arab countries for funding. The mood of the people in these essentialy totalitarian states was important to leaders like Sadat and Assad. One illustration of that was Egypt being kicked out of the Arab league for agreeing to peace with Israel in 1979.0 -
BlaasForRafa wrote: »You are the one who wilfully refuses to look at the facts and the context involved with them.
I haven't at all. Its very simple. Israel attacked to take land. Land that they clearly wanted, seeing as it was one of the main points of there ideology, Zionism.BlaasForRafa wrote: »I'm glad there are others on the thread who even though they might not agree with my stance are more objective and not as narrowminded in their views as you.
You may think me narrow minded, but that hardly matters. I disagree with you. Also, you claim I ignore Israel version. I don't ignore it at all. I know of evidence that suggest there version is inaccurate. I choose not to ignore this. Also, the simple fact that Israel were the ones who actually attacked first, kinda makes it far easier to see them as the aggressors.
You have no proof the Arabs were about to attack. There is quite a bit of evidence that suggest war was not imminent at all. You rather say this stuff is biased and ignore it.
I know full well Israel version of things, but remain unconvinced by there version. Seeing as I know, it is contradicted else where.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
BlaasForRafa wrote: »And both countries relied on other arab countries for funding. The mood of the people in these essentialy totalitarian states was important to leaders like Sadat and Assad. One illustration of that was Egypt being kicked out of the Arab league for agreeing to peace with Israel in 1979.
I don't see how any of that negates my point. Sadat, the same person who made peace with Israel in 1979, accepted the 1971 peace agreement, Israel rejected it. The peace proposal in 1971 was actually more favourable to Israel as it said nothing about Gaza and the West Bank whereas the Camp David agreement called for a self governing authority for the Palestinian territories.0 -
BlaasForRafa wrote: »time and time again what seems to be your true nature comes out. Zionists did this, Zionism does that....
What true nature?
Zionism is a political ideology. There stated aim was to set up a Jewish state in Palestine (there were other places considered at different points). The West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem were a part of this area the Zionist wanted to set up there state in. The fact that Israel is building/expanding colonies as we speak pretty much make my case for me.BlaasForRafa wrote: »I guess the gas chambers didn't get enough of those damn zionists eh?
I, in no way support genocide of anyone. The holocaust was a terrible crime, in fact it is the worst crime in modern history easily.
Care to provide a single shred of evidence to prove that I support racism against the Jewish people or there extermination?
A single point in this thread where I have called for the extermination of the Jewish people or Zionists?
I think you will find none of this to be true. Perhaps, you should address the points I bring up, instead of throwing out baseless accusations, due to me brining up inconvenient facts about Israel and there actions.0 -
Because I've already warned and this is my second warning, the next person to make a personal comment against another user on this thread, will receive a 1 month ban from politics.
BlaasForRafa Infracted.
GY.
Any response or debate of this post outside of the Rule discussion thread in this forum will result in an infraction or ban.0 -
There is no proof that Egypt were about to attack.
One can't prove an intent to the standards that you appear to want.
However, even if there was no actual intent by Egypt to attack (a point I'm not conceeding), you don't go around bluffing unless you're willing to have your bluff called. What does it say to a neighbour when you go and call up all your reserves, and then send them to your neighbour's border at the same time as cutting off their lines of commerce? Israel had to honour the threat. If you point a fake gun at police, you're liable to get shot. You may know that your intentions are harmless, nobody else does.
NTM0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »One can't prove an intent to the standards that you appear to want.
However, even if there was no actual intent by Egypt to attack (a point I'm not conceeding), you don't go around bluffing unless you're willing to have your bluff called. What does it say to a neighbour when you go and call up all your reserves, and then send them to your neighbour's border at the same time as cutting off their lines of commerce? Israel had to honour the threat. If you point a fake gun at police, you're liable to get shot. You may know that your intentions are harmless, nobody else does.
NTM
There is evidence that suggests that Israel knew that Egypt was not going to attack and that Egypt were trying to avert war.
I refer again to the Salon article:Rostow decided that Israel should know about the secret visit. In a June 2 note to the president, the national security advisor urged that the United States inform Israel of Mohieddin's impending trip to the White House: "My guess is that their intelligence will pick it up." The same day, Nasser sent a telegram to the American president indicating that Egypt would not attack Israel, but that "we shall resist any aggression launched against us or against any Arab state."
The actions of Egypt are defensive in nature from what I have read about what was going on.
Here is a quote from a book by Israeli Prime Minister Begin in June 1967:
"(Israel) had a choice. The Egyptian armies concentration in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."
You can find this quote in "Preemption" by Alan Dershowitz on p302-3n25.
Of course he comes to a very different conclusion to me, but it shows Israel did not think a attack was imminent, which is the only justification for a preemptive war.
It certainly seems from multiple sources (the various links I have provided already) that Israel knew a attack was not imminent. There is evidence that that Arabs state tried to prevent a war up to the last possible moment.0 -
The same day, Nasser sent a telegram to the American president indicating that Egypt would not attack Israel, but that "we shall resist any aggression launched against us or against any Arab state.
And Adolf signed a treaty with Stalin saying "we shall not attack you." As was once astutely observed, "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock." Besides, private telegrams are one thing, but once fiery speeches are made publicly and wheels set in motion, the Egyptian population may not care much about private telegrams. These things have a way of running away with themselves.
Stated intentions are irrelevant, as they can change at any moment. What is important is capability. Whatever else was going on diplomatically, the only thing of immediate concern to Israel was the fact that a country which did not like Israel very much had mobilised its reserves and sent them to the Israeli border. You can say whatever you want to me or to my friends as you point a gun in my direction, but I am going to treat you like you are about to shoot at me regardless. It is foolish to do otherwise. "Pull a tiger's tail, and you will get bitten." At the time Egypt mobilised its reserves, the Israelis had not. The Israeli army is predominantly reserve-based, without having mobilised the Israelis were of much less threat to Egypt for Nasser to defend against.Of course he comes to a very different conclusion to me, but it shows Israel did not think a attack was imminent, which is the only justification for a preemptive war.
With respect, it only shows that the Israelis had no concrete proof of Egyptian intentions, which is reasonable. I doubt Egypt would have picked up the telephone and said 'By the way, we're going to invade tomorrow.' The statement does not preclude the possibility that the Israelis thought an Egyptian invasion was probable and that proactive steps needed to be taken to minimize the effects of such, the best of which would have been kicking off the match themselves.
NTM0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »And Adolf signed a treaty with Stalin saying "we shall not attack you." As was once astutely observed, "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock." Besides, private telegrams are one thing, but once fiery speeches are made publicly and wheels set in motion, the Egyptian population may not care much about private telegrams. These things have a way of running away with themselves.
The Egyptian population could not start a war. That was the sole province of Nasser.
There is no evidence to suggest Nasser was not sincere. Lets not forget Jordan were also trying to stop war at the same time as well btw.
In the case of Hitler we know he wasn't sincere at all.
The is every evidence that Nasser was not as prepared for war as the Israeli's make out.Manic Moran wrote: »Stated intentions are irrelevant, as they can change at any moment. What is important is capability. Whatever else was going on diplomatically, the only thing of immediate concern to Israel was the fact that a country which did not like Israel very much had mobilised its reserves and sent them to the Israeli border. You can say whatever you want to me or to my friends as you point a gun in my direction, but I am going to treat you like you are about to shoot at me regardless. It is foolish to do otherwise. "Pull a tiger's tail, and you will get bitten." At the time Egypt mobilised its reserves, the Israelis had not. The Israeli army is predominantly reserve-based, without having mobilised the Israelis were of much less threat to Egypt for Nasser to defend against.
Israel's forces according to the US government at the time considered Israel military capability superior to Egypt's. The resulting conflict pretty much proves the US's right in that regard. There capability (Egypts) was not up to much.
Israel we should remember is a nation that attacked Egypt in 1956 and had in 1948 driven out the Palestinians. We are not talking about a peace loving nation on the other side, but rather a nation that had resorted to violence to achieve its own aims. A nation which had superior force as proven by the eventual war.Manic Moran wrote: »With respect, it only shows that the Israelis had no concrete proof of Egyptian intentions, which is reasonable. I doubt Egypt would have picked up the telephone and said 'By the way, we're going to invade tomorrow.' The statement does not preclude the possibility that the Israelis thought an Egyptian invasion was probable and that proactive steps needed to be taken to minimize the effects of such, the best of which would have been kicking off the match themselves.
For Israel war to be preemptive as they claim, they would need such proof. They made a choice to go to war, and this is explicitly stated in the quote.
Then there is the various efforts by Nasser and King Hussein of Jordan at the time to avoid war. Israel would have known of these efforts.0 -
The Egyptian population could not start a war. That was the sole province of Nasser.
If he wanted to stay in power, the legal machinations would be more like formalities. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that public clamour ended up driving government direction.There is no evidence to suggest Nasser was not sincere. Lets not forget Jordan were also trying to stop war at the same time as well btw.
I'm not sure why you're not getting this. The man mobilised his reserves, sent them to the border, and cut off Israel's access to the Red Sea. This may not be 'proof of an attack', but they're hardly supporting the concept of sincere efforts at peace and friendship either. How does preventing Israel's merchant ship access to the Red Sea possibly benefit Egypt's military safety if all they are concerned about is Egypts territorial integrity?In the case of Hitler we know he wasn't sincere at all.
In hindsight. Neville Chamberlain certainly thought he was being sincere.Israel's forces according to the US government at the time considered Israel military capability superior to Egypt's. The resulting conflict pretty much proves the US's right in that regard. There capability was not up to much.
Once the Israeli reserves had been mobilised, yes. This was the case in 1967. You will note that the Egyptians had a lot more success in 1973 when the Israelis were not mobilised.A nation which had superior force as proven by the eventual war.
In which case, what sort of idiot waves the red cape at a bull? "I ate your mama!" If the Egyptians were known to be so inferior, why did they even bother trying to 'make defensive preparations' as you claim? Why not rely on the diplomatic approach?For Israel war to be preemptive as they claim, they would need such proof. They made a choice to go to war, and this is explicitly stated in the quote.
OK, we obviously have a philosophical difference over when a first strike is acceptable. I do not believe that waiting for the 'perfect smoking gun' is viable because it may never come until it is too late. One needs to make the best possible estimate and act accordingly.Then there is the various efforts by Nasser and King Hussein of Jordan at the time to avoid war. Israel would have known of these efforts.
Then why did Nasser escalate the situation? What possible benefit could have been accrued by the Egyptians mobilising given your protestations that (a ) they were purely defensive and (b ) it was known that the Egyptians could not have defeated the Israelis militarily?
NTM0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »If he wanted to stay in power, the legal machinations would be more like formalities. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that public clamour ended up driving government direction.
Nasser did as he pleased, as shown by his later actions, even if they were unpopular and his replacements managed to continue his policies more or less.
Even when he was assassinated, his replacement went on to make peace.Manic Moran wrote: »I
I'm not sure why you're not getting this. The man mobilised his reserves, sent them to the border, and cut off Israel's access to the Red Sea. This may not be 'proof of an attack', but they're hardly supporting the concept of sincere efforts at peace and friendship either. How does preventing Israel's merchant ship access to the Red Sea possibly benefit Egypt's military safety if all they are concerned about is Egypts territorial integrity?
The Arabs states were in private trying to make peace. Yes, mobilizing was not the smartest move, but he had plenty of reason to fear Israel.Manic Moran wrote: »In hindsight. Neville Chamberlain certainly thought he was being sincere.
There is no evidence that Nasser was no sincere. In fact there is quite a bit to suggest that he did not want war at the time.Manic Moran wrote: »Once the Israeli reserves had been mobilised, yes. This was the case in 1967. You will note that the Egyptians had a lot more success in 1973 when the Israelis were not mobilised.
They (Egypt) still lost that conflict and they also had the benefit of surprise in 1973 and still lost.
Israel knew of Egypts troop mobilizations in 1967, so its not the same as 1973.Manic Moran wrote: »In which case, what sort of idiot waves the red cape at a bull? "I ate your mama!" If the Egyptians were known to be so inferior, why did they even bother trying to 'make defensive preparations' as you claim? Why not rely on the diplomatic approach?
He tried both methods. His plan was by no means successful, and was certainly (in hindsight) a bad idea.
Still mobilizing one forces does not mean a imminent attacks. Israel could have engaged in a similar defensive posture by mobilizing there forces as well, but instead decided to attack.Manic Moran wrote: »OK, we obviously have a philosophical difference over when a first strike is acceptable. I do not believe that waiting for the 'perfect smoking gun' is viable because it may never come until it is too late. One needs to make the best possible estimate and act accordingly.
True. The main problem is that Israel claims there was a 'perfect smoking gun', when no such thing exists.
To call a war a preemptive war, you better have proof you were actually preempting something. Seeing as no evidence exist, we can hardly call the 1967 war a preemptive war, as the case for a imminent attack by Egypt can not be made. Israel claims that such an attack was about to happen and the onus on them is to prove it, which they haven't and others have suggested that the case for war is not as clear cut as Israel likes to make it out.Manic Moran wrote: »Then why did Nasser escalate the situation? What possible benefit could have been accrued by the Egyptians mobilising given your protestations that (a ) they were purely defensive and (b ) it was known that the Egyptians could not have defeated the Israelis militarily?
NTM
What was he suppose to do? He set up his troops to defend his nation and it failed miserably. He was not about to attack Israel, as the Israeli's claim. There was no clear case for war as they claim. They could have mobilized for defense as well, but decided to attack instead.0 -
Advertisement
-
Manic Moran wrote: »Well, they've had them for about 30 years and not blown anybody up with them yet, so it's pretty fair to say they're not an unknown quantity. They're also not noted for 'offensive' (as opposed to defensive) rhetoric, and being an elected government (And don't try to tell me Iran's elections are worth much) are considered to be more rational.
NTM
No offensive rhetoric?
Are we talking about the same Israel here?0
Advertisement