 | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) <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 (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) The quote demonstrated: a) Why Israel wanted the war. b) How they provoked it. (...) The battle was "mostly over". Israel was reluctant to advance substantially into Arab territory as they feared a counter attack by external powers (i.e. the (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) Israel tricked the Syrians. Fine. The purpose was to control the Golan Heights so as to provide a safe buffer between her and Syria. It was a completely *defensive* strategy. Has Israel used this strategic advantage against Syria in an (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Wrong. Read the quotes again. (...) Indeed. (...) We've covered that ground before. (...) How many years later? (...) Not quite. (...) He got it back because he *did* attack! His attack made Israel understand that they had to speak to him. (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
