Subject:
|
Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 May 2002 07:26:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
754 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > > Perhaps they should never have invaded in '67?
> > >
> > > Well if 5 Arab armies had not attacked them they probably would not have.
> >
> > You should have paid more attention in history class. This is not quite true.
>
> It was a pre-emptive strike. This does not mean that the Arabs weren't going
> to attack anyway-- they were. The war was unavoidable (for Israel). Israel
> wisely seized the upper hand.
Nite quite John. Let's just look at one front. The claimed issue for
engaging Syria was that Israeli farmers were being harassed by the Syrians -
they (the farmers) made a presentation to the Israeli cabinet which
reportedly concluded the issue.
Mosh Dayan’s (MoD at the time) record of events when asked about this:
"I can tell you with absolute confidence, the delegation that came to
persuade Eshkol to take the heights was not thinking of these things. They
were thinking about the heights' land."
...and later:
"it's possible to talk in terms of' the Syrians are b*stards, you have to
get them and this is the right time, and other such talk, but that is no
policy. You don't strike at every enemy because he is a b*stard but because
he threatens you. And the Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a
threat to us."
So, can you justify your view John – or is it yet more pro-Israeli propaganda?
Below is how Moshe Dayan described border clashes with Syria in the prelude
to the ’67 war
”I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion,
more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We
would send a tractor to plough someplace 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 farther, 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
howit was. I did that, and Laskov and Chara [Rabin's predecessor as chief of
staff] did that, and Yitzhak did that, but it seems to me that the person
who most enjoyed these games was Dado [David Elazar, OC Northern Command,
1964-69].”
One could hardly accuse Moshe Dayan as being part of the international
anti-Israeli conspiracy?
> For you to say that they "invaded" shows that
> *you* did most of the snoozing in history class.
lol How would you describe the theft of land by an army when the battle was
mostly over?
Scott A
>
> <snip>
>
> > > I do support Israel's right to fight back
> > > though.
> >
> > Do the Palestinians not have the ?right to fight back??
>
> Through the use of terror??? Please answer this specific question.
>
> -John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) <snip long quote which you have *already* offered elsewhere which I can't find relevant> Just answer this question "yes" or "no": Would the Arabs have invaded Israel if they hadn't acted first? (...) "Mostly over"? It's never "over" for the (...) (22 years ago, 15-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) It was a pre-emptive strike. This does not mean that the Arabs weren't going to attack anyway-- they were. The war was unavoidable (for Israel). Israel wisely seized the upper hand. For you to say that they "invaded" shows that *you* did most (...) (22 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
