ForumsWEPRYou support Israel? I DO

879 277977
bobbyr5
offline
bobbyr5
7 posts
Nomad

I just feel the morals and ethics of the middle east aren't right compared to any western country.

  • 879 Replies
Blkasp
offline
Blkasp
1,304 posts
Nomad

Evidence has already came out from the highest echelons, that is the PM, that the enemy forces were not sufficient to warrant such an attack, and that Israel knew Nasser didn't have the number of forces at the border to even threaten Israel.


Although, you are leaving the other armies out of the equation. It was a combined effort by the Arabs, which failed.
sirmed1
offline
sirmed1
56 posts
Farmer

Evidence has already came out from the highest echelons, that is the PM, that the enemy forces were not sufficient to warrant such an attack, and that Israel knew Nasser didn't have the number of forces at the border to even threaten Israel.


It was a joint task force, and how Israel responded was perfectly logical. It is a well known fact that the six days war was a preemptive strike, and pretending otherwise borders complete ignorance.


You're surrounded on all sides by several nations who want you exterminated for a variety of reasons, and suddenly, they ramp up the threats. Soon after, their armies start massing up on your shared borders, what do you do? Wait for their armies to carry out a coordinated strike, or attack them while their armies are unprepared?
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

After the 1956 Suez Crisis, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Sinai to ensure all parties would comply with the 1949 Armistice Agreements.[9][10][11] In the following years there were numerous minor border clashes between Israel and its Arab neighbors, particularly Syria. In early November, 1966, Syria signed a mutual defense agreement with Egypt.[12] Soon thereafter, in response to Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) guerilla activity,[13][14] including a mine attack that left three dead,[15] the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) attacked the city of as-Samu in the Jordanian-occupied West Bank.[16] Jordanian units that engaged the Israelis were quickly beaten back.[17] King Hussein of Jordan criticized Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser for failing to come to Jordan's aid, and "hiding behind UNEF skirts".[18][19]

In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border.[20] Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19), and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[21][22] UN Secretary-General U Thant proposed that the UNEF force be redeployed on the Israeli side of the border, but this was rejected by Israel despite U.S. pressure.[23] Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or a justification for war.[24][25] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May. 22â"23. On 27 May he stated "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." [26] On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact. The following day, at Jordan's invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armored units in Jordan.[27] They were later reinforced by an Egyptian contingent. On June 1, Israel formed a National Unity Government by widening its cabinet, and on June 4 the decision was made to go to war. The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War.

A quote from wikipedia.
As it seems to me, it was like punishing harry for tom's fault.
Than attacking **** for being friends with harry and tom.
Still you think it was defensive war?
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

A quote from wikipedia.


Thank you for proving that it was a pre-emptive war to negate any war of aggression.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

Thank you for proving that it was a pre-emptive war to negate any war of aggression.

How come so?
btw welcome back
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

How come so?


You just showed how the Arab armies were massing on Israeli's borders...
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

It was a joint task force, and how Israel responded was perfectly logical. It is a well known fact that the six days war was a preemptive strike, and pretending otherwise borders complete ignorance.

You're surrounded on all sides by several nations who want you exterminated for a variety of reasons, and suddenly, they ramp up the threats. Soon after, their armies start massing up on your shared borders, what do you do? Wait for their armies to carry out a coordinated strike, or attack them while their armies are unprepared?


You should read back a few pages instead of lashing out at people for ignorance and accepting blindly one side of the story. Emerging evidence has shifted the balance of blame towards the Israelis as well.

''Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.
And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'''

The New York Times, May 11, 1997


I wouldn't simply say the Six Day War was caused by the Arabs, it was caused by a decade long resentment and building hostility that culminated in the troop buildup and pre-emptive strike. To shift the blame entirely to the Arabs stenches of biasness and callowness.


One cause of this tension was Israel's policy of diverting water from the Jordan River down to the Negev Desert. This angered Arabs, who threatened to stem the flow of water into Lake Galilee. Syria had begun earthworks to divert water away from Israel but these were bombed by Israel in 1965 and 1966.

Terrorist activity against Israel also increased during the 1960s, especially following the formation of the PLO and Al Fatah. This heightened the already extreme tension between Israel and its neighbours. Most of this activity came from the Golan Heights and bases in the West Bank. Israel was determined to wipe these terrorists out and saw all-out war as an effective solution.

In 1966 the Ba'ath party gained control of Syria. Ba'ath was a very militant anti-Israel group. Due to accusations of hiding behind the UN, President Nasser of Egypt also took a more militant stance towards Israel.

Many historians consider that the economic problems the Israelis were having at the time were a major reason for wanting a war with the Arabs. A war would distract people's minds from unemployment and low growth and would also bring in foreign money to boost the economy.

As well as this, many Jews believed that the former Israeli government should have been harder on the Arabs in the previous conflict, the 1956 Suez War. David Ben-Gurion, a former Prime Minister believed that another war would secure Israel's borders against further Arab aggression.
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

Can we agree on one term of discussion? No more quoting people on either side. If we continue to do so, than we will come up with nothing but inflammatory quotes that prove nothing, and that both sides have people on them who say stupid stuff.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Can we agree on one term of discussion? No more quoting people on either side. If we continue to do so, than we will come up with nothing but inflammatory quotes that prove nothing, and that both sides have people on them who say stupid stuff.


So now....we are supposed to go into a debate armed not with evidence but hot air and rhetoric which is supposedly held to be true to both sides?

I mean, there is a point to ignorance I can take, but telling me I can't quote is a little over the top.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Unless you meant quoting people whom you're replying to, which I don't agree with, since how else do we direct our points at, and how do we point out loopholes in arguments without quoting?

But we're digressing. Can we move back on?

zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

Unless you meant quoting people whom you're replying to, which I don't agree with, since how else do we direct our points at, and how do we point out loopholes in arguments without quoting?


I mean quoting government officials. All we will get as you said is a ton of hot air that makes both sides look like foolish children (an accurate representation). I prefer not to use quotes from political figures because many can be taken out of context and then the true statement is lost.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

I mean quoting government officials. All we will get as you said is a ton of hot air that makes both sides look like foolish children (an accurate representation). I prefer not to use quotes from political figures because many can be taken out of context and then the true statement is lost.


I disagree. By taking out quotes, you are discarding much precious evidence, which is not a hallmark of a good debate.

Also, if one cannot separate the truths from the untruths, and not point out that quotes are taken out of context, then one simply isn't very good at arguing.

Lastly, you misunderstood my point on hot air. By NOT allowing quotes, you're going to rely much more heavily on emotional bluster and hot air that you yourself come up with. Not backed by any evidence whatsoever.
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

Lastly, you misunderstood my point on hot air. By NOT allowing quotes, you're going to rely much more heavily on emotional bluster and hot air that you yourself come up with. Not backed by any evidence whatsoever.


No, I would rely on solid fact, not some jargon from a politician's mouth.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

No, I would rely on solid fact, not some jargon from a politician's mouth.


And What would be solid fact? A newspaper article which has biased standings? On what high and mighty basis are you dismissing every politician's words?

There's a thin line between sieving cleverly through evidence and finding objective ones, and shoving your head into the sand like an ostrich and ignoring everything else.
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

On what high and mighty basis are you dismissing every politician's words?


I am not dismissing every politician's words, however many of the quotes made by politicians were for just that-political purposes to garner votes in the next election.
Showing 631-645 of 879