Israel & the Arab World

[Post To The Left]

I never said that the preemptive attack wasn't justified. I was just agreeing with you that before the 6-day war the armies, air forces of Israel and the Syrian-Egyptian alliance as well as other Arab countries were more or less on equal footings. My point is that during the Yom Kippur War at the assistance of Kissinger President Nixon ordered the commencement of Operation Nickel Grass, an American airlift to supply massive amounts of Israeli war material. Material that altered the war because of the American support.

Since then American support to Israel has been enormous and in 2009 it received 7 million dollars a day that it can use to buy superior American armaments. Israel has the regions strongest military, has had for decades and a large amount of nuclear weapons to act as a deterrent.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Post To The Left

[dre]

So the Israelis started that one in your opinion rather than Nasser and crew?

Weve been over this already. You could say either side "started" it really. There had been constant skirmishes already along the border for nearly three years prior to Nasser expelling UNEF, arming up the border and closing the straights to Israeli traffic. The "six day war" was actually just the biggest battle in a war that lasted three years, sparked by squabbling over control of water from the Jordan.

[bush_cheney2004]

... My point is that during the Yom Kippur War at the assistance of Kissinger President Nixon ordered the commencement of Operation Nickel Grass, an American airlift to supply massive amounts of Israeli war material. Material that altered the war because of the American support....

This was not the intentions of the Americans, who had already orchestrated the maintenance of the status quo for the region with the Soviet Union, which was not impressed with Sadat's scheming or chances anyway. I specifically recall a classified briefing in 1975 wherein the Americans (i.e. Nixon/Kissinger) dictated the terms of escalation with raw military advantage in the region.

Nasser was dead....Sadat was embarrassed (again)...and Israel cemented its Cold War relationship with America.

Edited September 14, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

Weve been over this already. You could say either side "started" it really. There had been constant skirmishes already along the border for nearly three years prior to Nasser expelling UNEF, arming up the border and closing the straights to Israeli traffic. The "six day war" was actually just the biggest battle in a war that lasted three years, sparked by squabbling over control of water from the Jordan.

Didn't think you were correct then, either. But, if wish to believe it was all about the Jordan River rather than Pan-Arabism (cough...fascism...cough), y'all go right-on ahead.

[Bob]

Israel most certainly does have "unconditional military and diplomatic backing" from the USA but not only that they have unconditional American support on the UN diplomatic front. Through its veto on the UN security council the US has vetoed ANY UN resolution against Israel.

There's a big difference between the supplying of arms in some circumstances and "military support". Get back to me when America fights our wars for us. Why have you not mentioned the arms support for the Palestinians and Arab-Muslim allies? Do bullets and bombs from the former Soviet Union which have killed thousands and thousands of Jews and other Israelis not count, or something?

With respect to the USA vetoing many (not all) resolutions proposed to condemn Israel - so what? Is the UN Security Council some sort of honest broker with the USA being some sort of biased-party? If you view the UN's component bodies, especially the Security Council, as some sort of honest player operating with integrity, then you've got serious problems. Spare me the insinuation that somehow the USA is the primary obstacle to the UNSC doing the "right thing" because of its relationship with Israel.

[DogOnPorch]

There's a big difference between the supplying of arms in some circumstances and "military support". Get back to me when America fights our wars for us. Why have you not mentioned the arms support for the Palestinians and Arab-Muslim allies? Do bullets and bombs from the former Soviet Union which have killed thousands and thousands of Jews and other Israelis not count, or something?

With respect to the USA vetoing many (not all) resolutions proposed to condemn Israel - so what? Is the UN Security Council some sort of honest broker with the USA being some sort of biased-party? If you view the UN's component bodies, especially the Security Council, as some sort of honest player operating with integrity, then you've got serious problems. Spare me the insinuation that somehow the USA is the primary obstacle to the UNSC doing the "right thing" because of its relationship with Israel.

Most of the Arab supporters here are just upset that the Russians cut-off the free gravy train of modern weapons to the Arabs. Now the poor bastards have to (gasp) buy them or make them like the rest of the planet. It's just not fair!

[Bob]

Most of the Arab supporters here are just upset that the Russians cut-off the free gravy train of modern weapons to the Arabs. Now the poor bastards have to (gasp) buy them or make them like the rest of the planet. It's just not fair!

It drives me nuts. They still have tons of support through direct and indirect means. Whether it be Iran supplying Hezbollah or China/Russia/etc supplying some Arab-Muslim nation which then funnels it to our enemies through other channels. Jews are still being murdered around the world just because they're Jewish.

[DogOnPorch]

It drives me nuts. They still have tons of support through direct and indirect means. Whether it be Iran supplying Hezbollah or China/Russia/etc supplying some Arab-Muslim nation which then funnels it to our enemies through other channels. Jews are still being murdered around the world just because they're Jewish.

Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria certainly rely on their sugar-daddy Iran to amount to anything. Syria is also a tad nervous about taking the fight directly to the Israelis after nearly losing all of its modern aircraft trying to help Arafat in '82.

[Bob]

Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria certainly rely on their sugar-daddy Iran to amount to anything. Syria is also a tad nervous about taking the fight directly to the Israelis after nearly losing all of its modern aircraft trying to help Arafat in '82.

I'm gonna stop thinking about it - it's depressing. I may have said it earlier, so I may be repeating myself, but I don't see Arab-Muslim hostility and intransigence on the decline. It's getting worse, with terrorism growing and "Dear Leader" Obama being deferential to our enemies. I don't have a lot of optimism for any significant developments in the near-term or long-term simply considering these realities.

[DogOnPorch]

I'm gonna stop thinking about it - it's depressing. I may have said it earlier, so I may be repeating myself, but I don't see Arab-Muslim hostility and intransigence on the decline. It's getting worse, with terrorism growing and "Dear Leader" Obama being deferential to our enemies. I don't have a lot of optimism for any significant developments in the near-term or long-term simply considering these realities.

I didn't say it was getting better. Relax...I'm on your side.

[Bob]

I didn't say it was getting better. Relax...I'm on your side.

Oh I know you see things how they are... but like I said, it's depressing.

[Peter F]

Here's an article that provides a different perspective on Israeli/Arab relations. Perhaps it's terms like Israeli/Arab that imply some sort of equivalence....but in fact, nothing could be further from the truth:

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/salim_mansur/2010/08/20/15091106.html

Is being the underdog supposed to mean something?

[M.Dancer]

I never said that the preemptive attack wasn't justified. I was just agreeing with you that before the 6-day war the armies, air forces of Israel and the Syrian-Egyptian alliance as well as other Arab countries were more or less on equal footings.

False

Israel

50,000 troops

214,000 reserves

300 combat aircraft

800 tanks [2]

Total troops: 264,000

100,000 deployed

Egypt: 240,000

Syria, Jordan, and Iraq: 307,000

957 combat aircraft

2,504 tanks[2]

Total troops: 547,000

240,000 deployed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

[M.Dancer]

Is being the underdog supposed to mean something?

To the bookie and the bettor, yes.

[bloodyminded]

Perhaps because Israel is closer to the U.S. in terms of the way it runs its country than the surrounding hell-holes.

That is not generally how and why countries choose their allies. Did canada ally with the state terrorists in

Indonesia (far worse than any Palestinian authority at the time, since, or now) because the dictator ran his personal bank...er, his country the same way that Canada did? What about America's support for "the good communist," Ceasescu, or the rest of its obedient rogues' gallery?

If the US decided that Israel was a bigger headache than ally, it wouldn't take long to drop it like an apple squirming with maggots. "Loyalty" between "friends," in terms of international relations, is for diplomatic and public consumption only. It has no real teeth to it.

Edited September 18, 2010 by bloodyminded

[DogOnPorch]

Communist Rumania was an ally of the United States?

[bloodyminded]

Communist Rumania was an ally of the United States?

Sure was.

You mean you didn't even know this?

Then why speak on the subject?

[DogOnPorch]

Sure was.

You mean you didn't even know this?

Then why speak on the subject?

Well, I know, and I'm sure others are aware, that you have the stink of revisionism upon yea.

Next Up: Canada's blame for WW2.

[bloodyminded]

Well, I know, and I'm sure others are aware, that you have the stink of revisionism upon yea.

Next Up: Canada's blame for WW2.

Canada is not to blame for WW2. I don't know where you got this.

Edited September 18, 2010 by bloodyminded

[jbg]

If the US decided that Israel was a bigger headache than ally, it wouldn't take long to drop it like an apple squirming with maggots. "Loyalty" between "friends," in terms of international relations, is for diplomatic and public consumption only. It has no real teeth to it.

A lot of American blood was shed in search of freedom for (not very strategically important) Great Britain. In fact we effectively joined both World Wars in that quest.

[Bonam]

A lot of American blood was shed in search of freedom for (not very strategically important) Great Britain. In fact we effectively joined both World Wars in that quest.

At the time of WWI, Britain was basically considered the world's greatest power. At the start of WWII, it was still one of the great powers, and it was not yet clear that the US was about to far surpass it. To say that Great Britain was "not strategically important" isn't really correct, it was the homeland and stronghold of the world's most powerful and influential empire.

[dre]

Didn't think you were correct then, either. But, if wish to believe it was all about the Jordan River rather than Pan-Arabism (cough...fascism...cough), y'all go right-on ahead.

Thats exactly what it WAS about. That round of fighting started because of opposing attempts to divert water.

Wiki describes it pretty nicely.

In 1964, Israel began drawing water from the Jordan River for its National Water Carrier, reducing the flow that reached Hashemite territory. The following year, the Arab states began construction of the Headwater Diversion Plan, which, once completed, would divert the waters of the Banias Stream before the water entered Israel and the Sea of Galilee, to flow instead into a dam at Mukhaiba for use by Jordan and Syria, and divert the waters of the Hasbani into the Litani River, in Lebanon.[30] The diversion works would have reduced the installed capacity of Israel's carrier by about 35%, and Israel's overall water supply by about 11%.[31]

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) attacked the diversion works in Syria in March, May, and August 1965, perpetuating a prolonged chain of border violence that linked directly to the events leading to war.[32]

The conflict was already "started" before Nasser

[DogOnPorch]

Thats exactly what it WAS about. That round of fighting started because of opposing attempts to divert water.

Wiki describes it pretty nicely.

The conflict was already "started" before Nasser

That's merely a sideshow in terms of the cause for The 6 Day War. I might point out that Egypt is nowhere near the Jordan River. I apparently also need to point out that Nasser was President of Egypt starting in 1956...not 1964. Pan-Arabism had everything to do with fascism and nothing to do with a river we in Canada would term a slough.

[DogOnPorch]

For a place that's apparently starving, perhaps one of you Hamas supporters could explain this.

http://www.rootsclub.ps/index.php

[bloodyminded]

For a place that's apparently starving, perhaps one of you Hamas supporters could explain this.

http://www.rootsclub.ps/index.php

Leaving aside your "Hamas supporters" jibe (by which you really mean: those with the affrontery to disagree with DogonPorch), are you honestly--I mean sincerely--unaware that there are rich people in every region, and in every country?

You didn't know that there are fantastically rich people in Haiti and Somalia?

Well...now you know!