Legitimate moral question for all you Israel bashers

[Gamblor]

Here's a problem we were instructed to discuss, in teams, in Basic Training - before we even received our arms. The story is true, and I might have even told it before here, I don't recall.

You are a member of an IDF unit is patrolling the Territories on reconnaisance. Now for anyone who has actually served in an army, you know that your colleagues become your best friends. You do everything together, eat, sleep, work, etc. So the unit happens across a cave, and they hear crying from inside. Two soldiers wander in to investigate, and are immediately shot dead. Two Palestinians run from the cave with Kalashnikovs, and are immediately shot by the remaining soldiers. Alone, in the cave is an elderly, weeping, Arab woman. what do you do with her?

Things to consider:
- She was either held hostage by the terrorists and forced to lure the soldiers in to their deaths, or she was complicit in luring soldiers in to the gunmen.

- The soldiers killed were your best friends in the world, so needless to say you are not in an appropriate frame of mind to make rational decisions. You do your best.

- If you arrest her: If she was innocent, you have arrested an innocent person, if she was complicit, the PA will negotiate her release within months and she will be back in her cave, waiting to either be held hostage or find a couple more terrorists to work with, murd

- If you kill her: If she was innocent, you have killed an innocent woman, if she was complicit, well that works out, but you have killed. Have you murdered?

- If you let her free: She may work with the terrorists again to lure more soldiers into their deaths, or she will likely be held hostage again, and more soldiers will be lured in to their deaths.

- Either way, if she dies, she cannot threaten your best friends, and no more Israelis are lured in by her and killed by terrorists. If she lives, or or upon release from prison, she once again becomes a threat to your life, whether its her choice or not.

Sidebar: I refer to the gunmen as terrorists because more often than not, the same people who are members of groups planning murders of Israeli civilians, are also those who shoot at soldiers. Feel free to interchange



Remember: this is anonymous, so be honest. You have to uphold your morals. Your best friends are dead. You are a soldier.

I should point out this situation has been faced multiple times, especially when you read about innocents being "murdered" by Israeli soldiers. Not, of course to say that all innocent civilians are put in this situation, but more than you think.

[brad]

obviously the correct answer is to arrest her. anything else is criminal.

ill let others elaborate.

[elwoodblues]

I know that this is just a hypothical moral question to make people think, but I think you make enough faulty assumptions that having a sincere discussion about "what would you do" is difficult. That having been said, why not arrest her let the criminal justice system deal with her. If she is innocent, she will be set free. I disagree with your assumption that if she is guilty then her release will be negotiated. Am I missing something that would suggest that arresting her (or, at the very least, bringing her in for questioning) wouldn't be the automatic answer?

"She was either held hostage by the terrorists and forced to lure the soldiers in to their deaths, or she was complicit in luring soldiers in to the gunmen." Why is that an automatic assumption --- that is not a rational assumption to make.

The soldiers killed were your best friends in the world, so needless to say you are not in an appropriate frame of mind to make rational decisions. You do your best. --- this is one of the best reasons to require that someone else makes the decision

"Either way, if she dies, she cannot threaten your best friends, and no more Israelis are lured in by her and killed by terrorists. If she lives, or or upon release from prison, she once again becomes a threat to your life, whether its her choice or not." --- again, I don't think this is a rational assumption to make. Perhaps the woman was forced at gunpoint to lure people in...


I can see why soldiers might make poor decisions in a situation like this if they are trained to believe that no matter what you do the woman will help kill your friends.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Detain her. Question her. At no time threaten her. Feed her and make sure she's comfortable. Ascertain her identity. Then release her and track her movements. It should become apparent within a reasonable amount of time if she was a willing participant or not. If not, you've shown humanity. If so, you've found a cell, and you can kill them all.

[brad]

note on crime in times of war - for reference see mai lai massacre -

enlisted men are not held personably accountable (for following orders that is). officers are.

if the woman was killed i would consider it just for the officer in charge to punished, perhaps by death.

if it was say a squad level detachment led by an NCO then i think it is a grey area (especially if the guy is a corporal or something) but still he should be punished.


the main point im making is do u see why no enlisted man was punished for mai lai? only lt. cally?

[Chris Alger]

This isn't a tactical question it's a political question and since soldiers are never given political questions to answer it amounts to so much propaganda. In this case, it suggests that the IDF acts with "restraint" against civilians that they must rationally presume to be enemies, given the nature of the occupation. It's like saying: you encounter a potential civilian threat while robbing a bank, and let's say for argument's sake that bank robbery is ok.

The answer in real life is that if there's any basis for suspecting her collaboration with the "terrorists" she'll be arrested and tortured by the secret police (Shin Bet, formerly GSS, now ISS) until they quit or confesses. If she confesses Israel will use her as a bargaining chip to facilitate its torture through occupation of the rest of her countrymen. According to B'Tselem in 2000, "torture became a bureaucratic routine in all Shin Bet interrogation centers [during the first intifada]. We estimate that 85 percent of Palestinian detainees were tortured, though many were later released without a charge." "A report released [on August 17, 2003] by the Public Committee Against Torture claims that the use of torture in the interrogation of Palestinian suspects has increased significantly over the past two years." "Torture In Israel Has Again Become Routine," Moshe Reinfeld, Ha'aretz, 8/18/3. Internal Shin Bet records have on at least one occasion revealed the absudity of the "ticking time bomb" defense when they showed the torturers taking their weekends off, leaving the time bomb ticking until they returned for the next session on Monday morning. I know of one case where a Shin Bet member bragged about his ability to extract confessions through torture in "soldier luring" cases like this (he was complaining about how "moderate physical abuse" took a month to get the confession, whereas traditional methods would have obtained it more quickly. In his case, the victim wasn't an old woman but a "young girl").

Since Israel has as much right to be in the occupied territories as any other colonial occupier, which is none at all, the only answer that doesn't presume the legitimacy of an international outrage is that they should let her go.

The only hard question posed by this problem is for the woman: should she let herself be taken alive? If she didn't help lure the soldiers to their death, should nevertheless try to kill those that remain, given what's in store for her, even if she's opposed to violent resistence? If she hasn't until now resorted to violence to drive out the occupiers, and she escapes, should she start?

[brad]

yep. torture routine in israel. coming soon to US.

[Utah]

God, I get such a kick out of your posts. Your anger and contempt for the world in which you live comes out so vibrantly in your writing. I have been extremely busy with some customer quotes that I haven't posted in a couple of days. However, I needed a little comic relief so I decided to check the forum to specifically see your posts. I'll admit, your one of the reasons I read this forum. It is just so rare to find such unfettered hate in one person.

Yes, of course Israel tortures, as does the U.S., the palestinians amd other terrorist groups you love (if they don't kill the prisoners immediately) and every other country. They have from the start of time and they will do so until the end of civilizan. Nothing neccessarily wrong with torture against your enemies.

Since Israel has as much right to be in the occupied territories as any other colonial occupier, which is none at all Maybe, depends how far back you go on the timeline. Of course, if the Arabs hadn't gotten that asses completely kicked in the six day war (which of course they started) there wouldn't be a problem now would there. Pretty much every square inch of livable land on the planet has been conquered by its current occupier. Therefore, no one has a legit. claim on the land they live? Should the Indians revolt?

[Cyrus]

Congratulations. You have just managed to compose the most bias-free poll ever posted on this forum and with the most bias-free language to boot.

"Remember: this is anonymous, so be honest. You have to uphold your morals. Your best friends are dead. You are a soldier."

I know. I know. I know. I'm typing as fast as I can.

[Cyrus]

Nice post. I enjoyed your defense of people's right to torture other people. I am particularly fond of the argument that "Everybody's doin' it!". Right! Absolutely! If only we could introduce that line of defense in the court rooms.

"...the Arabs gotten that [sic] asses completely kicked in the six day war (which of course they started)"

Now that not even Ariel Sharon would claim! Maybe not even the worst Catskils comedian of yore. Get another writer.

[Gamblor]

Gamblor:

Does anyone know the time?

Chris Alger:

Well, your question alone is irrelevant as you are neither looking for the time nor do you have the right to ask for the time.

According to a Human Rights Watch Report, the time has been used by the Israelis to murder innocent Palestinian babies whilst suckling on their mothers' breasts as IDF soldiers with pitchforks and horns in their foreheads drain the blood of Christians to make their Passover Matzah.

The time itself is a tool of the Right wing militia designed to force innocent, lovable, teddy bears such as myself and Arafat to oppress nine-to-five workers. After all, all humans have the right to show up to work whenever they choose and it is unjust for the Man to control us through an artificial construct such as 12:03 P.M.

What a child.

[Gamblor]

I am balancing both sides of the reality of the situation.

Your best friend is dead - this is to establish a state of mind.

You have to uphold your morals - My morals do not include intentionally murdering innocents.

You are a soldier - Your last 2 years have been spent learning to kill, kill, kill anything that poses even an indirect threat to your (or your countrymen's) lives.

What else do you want?

[Gamblor]

Lining up hundreds of tank columns in the Sinai doesn't constitute aggression, but building a family home in a new development town outside Kalkilya does?

[Gamblor]

if you tell a lie (such as the spin labelling the Israeli presence "oppression") often enough, for 30 years, people begin to believe it.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"the Arabs [got their] asses completely kicked in the six day war (which of course they started)"

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure you know what you’re talking about or is this just something you absorbed from public propaganda?

How, for example, do you reconcile your assertion above with how Menachem Begin, a member of the 1967 war time cabinet, described "who started" the hostilities: “In June l967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations 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.” (NY Times, 8/21/82).

Or this statement by Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of Staff of Israel’s armed forces at the time: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.” (LeMonde, 2/2/868).

Or this statement by General Mattitiahu Peled of the IDF’s General Staff: “While we proceeded towards the full mobilization of our forces [in 1967], no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our defence against the Egyptian threat. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.” (LeMonde, 6/3/72).

Of the four people quoted on this post, which of those would a rational observer believe is probably out to lunch?

[Gamblor]

You might have a point, if Egypt were the only nation building a military presence on Israeli borders.

The Egyptians knew long before the Israeli strike that they planned on war, so it was hardly a surprise attack.

"The war is inevitable... The war is coming, though not immediately...The efforts and the agreements which are now taking place are not building peace; they are agreements leading to war."
Amin al-Huweidi, former Egyptian Minister of War and head of the General Intelligence

That being said, who was responsible for the escalation?

It might have begun with the Egyptian closing of the Aqaba. As Canadian PM Lester Pearson pointed out in the House of Commons,

...the Gulf of Aqaba now is of vital importance to the existence of the State of Israel . From 90-92 percent of its oil goes past the Strait of Tiran and into the gulf to the port of Eilat.

Something should be done about the right of Israeli ships, which was exercised by all other ships until a day or so ago, to navigate the Suez Canal. There have been decisions by the Security Council of the UN affirming that right, but in practice, the affirmation has not meant very much to Israel.
Canadian Prime Minister L.B. Pearson in the House of Commons, June 8/67

The closure of the Aqaba coast was clearly an attempt by the United Arab Republic to lay siege to Israel in the days preceeding an anticipated War of Annihilation.

Perhaps a timeline might best serve to demonstrate the reality of the war.

May 14, 1967 : Nasser expels the United Nations force (established in 1957 as an international "guarantee" of safety for Israel) from the Sinai peninsula. The UN obeys, the US and Britain remain silent.

May 15 : Three Egyptian army divisions and 600 tanks roll into the Sinai. World community silent.

May 17 : Voice of the Arabs radio, based in Cairo: "All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel."

May 18 : Voice of the Arabs announces: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

Egypt blockades Straits of Tiran in the Red Sea, and Israel is cut of in the south from the outside world. US President Lyndon Johnson says: "If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Straits of Tiran would be closed."

May 20 Current Syrian President Hafez el-Assad says: "Our forces are now ready not only to repulse the aggression but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ..."

May 27: Nasser, on public Egyptian radio: "Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

May 30: Jordan's King Hussein signs a five-year mutual defence pact with Egypt and set up a joint command.

May 31: Iraqi President Rahman Aref announces: "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."

Information from:
Louis Beres, Prof. International Law
Department of Political Science
Purdue University

[Cyrus]

"Lining up hundreds of tank columns in the Sinai doesn't constitute aggression??"

The question was not if the Egyptians were building up an attack of their own or not (you'd be surprised to know the truth but I'll leave that for some other, more serious occasion) but about who started the war!

The man Utah claimed, and I quote, that "the Arabs started the six day war", throwing in an "of course" for good measure.

Which is extremely funny, as I said, because militarily, legally, technically, factually, any way you wanna look at it, the Israelis attacked and started the war in 1967. Arguments about "imminent threats" can be discussed at length but are irrelevant : a "preventive war" does not mean that the other guy "started" the preventive war.

You might pretend that this is nitpicking but, by Yahve (and by Allah), the devil is in the details.

--Cyrus

[MMMMMM]

Sure Cyrus...and if after we had built up around Iraq in preparation of attack--if Iraq had then attacked first, Iraq would have started the war--right?

[Gamblor]

you'd be surprised to know the truth but I'll leave that for some other, more serious occasion)

The truth notwithstanding, there is absolutely nothing that could come out of Cyrus' keyboard that would surprise me.

Except, perhaps, the truth.

[nicky g]

Apart from the fact tht the US and UK were already regularly bombing Iraq prior to the war, Egypt's troops were beig deployed within its own territory, along its border with an enemy neighbour. The coalition on the other hand were shipping forces to line up on the border of a country thousands of miles away from them, which is a much more blatantly aggressive move.

[MMMMMM]

See Gamblor's post in (another thread?) called something like A Nice Little Timeline.

[Gamblor]

Egypt's troops were beig deployed within its own territory, along its border with an enemy neighbour. The coalition on the other hand were shipping forces to line up on the border of a country thousands of miles away from them, which is a much more blatantly aggressive move.

It is nothing more than convenient coincidence, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that the Egyptian intent was to annihilate the Jewish state, that Egypt didn't need to send forces thousands of miles away to wage war. Same as Hussein lobbing Scuds into Tel Aviv. He didn't need to send planes, his army was an hour's flight away, and Scuds are only 20 mins. away!

[nicky g]

There is nonetheless nothing intrinsically wrong with building troops along your border. Pakistan and India both did exactly that and while it was close, neither invaded the other; it can be just as much a defensive or precautionary measure as a sign of intent to invade.

[MMMMMM]

Rubbish, when all three states were preparing for war near Israel and all three spoke of annihilating Israel, solving the Jewish problem once and for all, etc. Again, see Gamblor's post A Nice Little Timeline and then tell me you think the actions and words of those three states weren't highly threatening taken in concert.

[Chris Alger]

Anyone can construct a partial timeline, including only those events where one side "threatens" the other, to portray a phony picture.

[Chris Alger]

So let's say that iraq invaded Israel, bombed its schools and government buildings, bulldozed its homes, killed thousands of its civilians, prevented it's government from functioning, prevented its citizens from voting, yet taxed them, set of checkpoints everywhere and compelled them to follow the Palestinian military orders under threat of death or imprisonment.

By your definition, this would not be a case of Iraqi oppression?

[Gamblor]

Just as anyone can construct bogus claims of massacres and oppression? Of racism and apartheid?

If Israel is so racist and intent on murder, why has it not "ethnically cleansed" its one million Arab citizens?

Clearly, this is not an ethnicity issue, as the Palestinians are the same ethnicity as Jordanians, Egyptians, and Israeli Arabs.

My point, as clearly stated, was to show Arab belligerence and intentions in the days preceding the Six-Day war, and I did that beyond reasonable doubt.

If an Arab political voice had stated "We do not want war, we would rather simply live in peace beside our Israeli neighbour," I would have included it.

[Chris Alger]

"If Israel is so racist and intent on murder, why has it not "ethnically cleansed" its one million Arab citizens?"

Because without ethnic cleansing Israel would have about 6 million Arab citizens.

"My point, as clearly stated, was to show Arab belligerence and intentions in the days preceding the Six-Day war, and I did that beyond reasonable doubt."

Grow up. Your "evidence" of "beligerence" didn't even purport to contradict the relevant assessments of the Israeli political and military leaders I quoted. Your evidence of "intentions" amounted to propaganda radio broadcasts that bragged about the impossible things various Arabs states would do to Israel if Israel attacked.

[Chris Alger]

"in the face of overwhelming evidence that the Egyptian intent was to annihilate the Jewish state"

You haven't yet located a shred of evidedence suggesting that Egyptian or combined Arab armies had any such ability, much less any intention of doing so.

[Gamblor]

Because without ethnic cleansing Israel would have about 6 million Arab citizens.

Your evidence of "intentions" amounted to propaganda radio broadcasts that bragged about the impossible things various Arabs states would do to Israel if Israel attacked.

That's a pretty bold retort considering it came off the top of your head, without any conversation with Assad, Nasser, or King Hussein. I'm thoroughly impressed you are so close to their advisors that you can make such a wanton claim of their aspirations. The warning of impending war from the Egyptian Minister of War is especially ominous when you consider that Israel has no Minister of War. The closest position, the Cheif of Staff (Shaul Mofaz) has no parliamentary position and furthermore does not have any jurisdiction outside defence.

[Gamblor]

You haven't yet located a shred of evidedence suggesting that Egyptian or combined Arab armies had any such ability, much less any intention of doing so.

They did not have the ability simply because Israel in fact did have the ability to strike first and remove that threat.

Would you not argue that Israel does have the ability to annihilate all of Syria, Egypt, and Jordan?

Yet it does not. Given its complete disregard for UN and American pressure, it continues to allow the poor defenseless Arabs to have their nations with their military dictatorships and totalitarian regimes.

[Utah]

What makes torture wrong? You can drop a bomb on a man and blow him to kingdom come for military purposes but you can't inflict pain or fear on him for military purposes?

Torture works. If we used in more in Iraq we would further our goals a lot quicker. See the story below from today's national review. The man would not cooperate because he thought the americans were a bunch of pansies and that he had nothing to fear from keeping his mouth shout. However, when he believed he would die he gave up the info right quick.

And of course, we know what every enemy would do to U.S. soldiers if they captured them or what the palestinians would do if they captured Israelis (if they didn't kill them first).

Between August 16 and 20, intelligence identified an Iraqi policeman who was allegedly involved in the assassination plot, and the man was arrested on Aug. 20. According to the officer's defense attorney, this is what happened.

Lt. Col. Allen B. West was told the policeman was uncooperative, so he took a few of his men to the interrogation area to see for himself, where he found the prisoner being questioned by two female officers. They told him the man was belligerent, and wasn't giving them any information. (Surprise, surprise. The idiocy of having women question male Arab prisoners is apparent to everyone except the army commanders.) West entered the room, sat across from the man, drew his pistol, and placed it in his lap. West told him he had come to either get information, or to kill him. The prisoner responded by smiling and saying, "I love you." The interrogation continued, and one of West's troops lost his temper and started slapping the man. West then had his men take the prisoner outside, where he again threatened the man, telling him that he would kill him on the count of five if he didn't tell what he knew. The prisoner refused, and West fired his pistol into the air.

The interrogation continued, but not the beating. After about 20 more minutes of useless questioning, West grabbed the man, held him down near a box full of sand used to discharge jammed weapons, and said something like, "This is it. I'm going to count to five again, and if you don't give me what I want, I'm going to kill you." West held the man down, counted to five, and then fired his pistol into the discharging box about a foot from the Iraqi's head. He began talking. Over the next few minutes, the prisoner gave very specific information about the plot. He named the conspirators, gave times and dates of the assassination plan, and even described how attacks would be made

[Gamblor]

While I appreciate Utah's perspective, I certainly do not advocate torture on individuals who clearly have no reason to be incarcerated, let alone tortured.

That being said, the IDF and Shin Bet's rules of torture include the presumption of innocence and the "permanent damage" rule.

It is not until Shin Bet psychologists accept potential misrepresentation that they allow physical pressure to be used to extract the truth.

[Utah]

Too rich....Whats it like living in a bizarro world where everything is backwards? Whereas normal people see the world right side up, is everything in your world upside down?

Can't comment on Begin since I couldn't find the article so I have no idea of the context. Given your source, I am not even sure the article exists and I would request that you produce the article in full. I tried the NYT but their DB doesn't seem to go back that far. I guess I have a far higher burden of proof than you. Of course, there were more than just the Egyptians to worry about. 50,000 Syrians on the Heights, Iraq moving in, 56,00 Jordanians. etc.

Rabin - talk about your funny timelines!! Yep, he did say that - the day before the numbers jumped three fold with the 2nd and 7th infantry divisions moving in and well as the 6th armored. Plus the 4th division crossed the canal. At this point Rabin believed that this could no longer be merely for show.

Peled - Like Begin, I have not found any confirmation of these quotes except on anti-Israel sites. However, he probably did make this quote as it seems the Jews don't like him very much and called him "a mouthpiece for the PLO".

Regardless of what these people say (which I know Rabins statement is terribly misleading which damages the credibility of the other statements) facts are facts.
Terrorists were attacking Israel
Huge Arab Troops were amassing along Israels border
The Tiran straight was cut off
The Egyptians had buzzed Israels nuclear plant
Arabs were calling for the destruction of Israel

Israel was seriously provoked and was given no real options.

I suggest you read the Six Day War (by Oren) and stop getting your info from the Hamas Daily.

[Utah]

I certainly do not advocate torture on individuals who clearly have no reason to be incarcerated, let alone tortured.

Of course, neither do I. That is not what I am saying. I would not consider such a person an enemy.

[Chris Alger]

The Begin quote has been cited repeatedly and is familiar to anyone with a passing understanding of this topic. The context was Begin's defense of Isreal's unilateral aggression against Lebanon n 1982, Begin responding to charges that Israel had never before been the aggressor.

[ QUOTE ]
Rabin - talk about your funny timelines!! Yep, he did say that - the day before the numbers jumped three fold with the 2nd and 7th infantry divisions moving in and well as the 6th armored. Plus the 4th division crossed the canal. At this point Rabin believed that this could no longer be merely for show.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Rabin understood that Egyptian positions "remained defensive"[1] even after all six divisions had entered the Sinai. His understanding was consistent with 'Amer's advice to Nasser after the deployment was completed that the forces were in a position "from which they can deliver massive retaliation against Israeli aggression."[2]

As for Michael Oren supporting your claim that "of course" the Arabs "started" the 1967 war, I'd like to see it. It's certainly not on pages 58-59: "Had Egypt intended to attack Israel immediately, the army's advance into Sinai would have been conducted as quietly as possible, at night. Instead, by acting conspicuously, Nasser sent a double message to Israel: Egypt had no aggressive designs, but neither would it suffer any Israeli aggression against Syria." Note that the Oren is a right-wing Zionist and his book, which you endorse, is quite pro-Israel throughout, containing certain contradictions that can only be regarded as comical (e.g., Israel never "contemplated" seizing the West Bank but did so with military plans that it had been working on for years). So if you can't find any claim by Oren asserting that the Arabs "started" the 1967 war it's certainly fair to say it never happened. Even now I see that you're backtracking by claiming that Israel had no viable "option" except to attack (nonsense in any event, given Israel's refusal to follow the diplomatic course urged by every country to lend an opinion), which is quite different from saying that the war "was started" by the Arabs.

[1] Michael Oren, Six Days of War (New York 2002), pp. 79.
[2] Id., p.78.

[Chris Alger]

"That's a pretty bold retort considering it came off the top of your head, without any conversation with Assad, Nasser, or King Hussein."

No, it's right there in your post, as my reference to "your evidence" implied.

As for my inability to speak to the dead, this is another of your unbelievably thick retorts along the usual lines. You insist that the things you cut and past from various pro-Israel websites are unimpeachable and that anyone challenging them is anti-Semitic. Yet when confronted with widespread evidence from numerous sources of Israeli aggression, human rights abuses and oppression, you respond that only someone who was actually there or interviewed all the principals has any right to comment.

Could you please try some tack that is a bit less stupid? I'm afraid people will think your posts are written by me n order to make my opponents look dumber than they are.

[MMMMMM]

Given the three very aggressive quotes by the respective Arab heads-of-state, plus the movement of troops and armor to positions near Israel by 3 or 4 states, plus the cutting off of the strait of Tiran...while it may be remotely possible that the Arabs did not intend to attack, I think the burden of proof should be on those saying that. At the very least, it is not unreasonable for Israel to have take them at least somewhat seriously, and rather than chance a massive attack, to have responded pre-emptively.

At any rate maybe the moral of the story should be: Don't say you're ready to wipe out your enemy and mass troops on her borders, unless you intend to use those troops. Either the Arabs were planning to attack or it seems they did a rather foolish thing. By the way, I am inclined to think that Israel should have kept all the land she won in each war. That should at least have given her enemies pause before contemplating further aggressions.

[Chris Alger]

Your burden of proof argument is silly because it gives equal or greater weight to public propaganda over actual diplomatic positions and the military intelligence assessments that proved accurate (e.g., Egypt had no ability to defeat Israel and knew it).

"By the way, I am inclined to think that Israel should have kept all the land she won in each war. That should at least have given her enemies pause before contemplating further aggressions."

That's smart. Israel indeed decided to keep the land despite Sadat's 1971 offer that "Egypt will be ready to enter into a peace agreement with Israel" if Israel withdrew from the occupied territories, complied with 242, agreed to UN peacekeepers and settled the refugee problem. But Israel rejected the offer, precipitating the 1973 war in which nearly 3,000 Israelis were pointlessly killed. Showing that it understands only force, Israel thereafter agreed to withdraw from the Sinai and made peace with Egypt, unbroken now for nearly 30 years.

As the Egyptian example shows, the primary benefit Israel has achieved by holding onto it's war spoils is to give it's Arab-hating "supporters" outside of Israel a huge adrenelin rush of moral indignation while Israelis die over an endless turf war. It's cheap and easy to urge others on to violence from a safe distance, cheering the victims onto ever greater heights of self-destruction while watching them on TV.

[nicky g]

Threatening maybe. Threats do not always result in a war, as my example pointed out. The point is that a. the Arabs did not actually start the war, even if you beleive they provoked it; b. it is legitimate to send troops to your own borders, and as has been pointed out the number of troops sent in would not have been anything like enough to mount an invasion, as acknowledged by various Israeli leaders at teh time; and c. taking all the rhetoric spouted by Arab leaders about Israel seriously is as foolish as taking George Bush's pronouncements on democracy seriously.

[Gamblor]

You insist that the things you cut and past from various pro-Israel websites are unimpeachable and that anyone challenging them is anti-Semitic.

As opposed to the drivel you post, which you obviously expect to be unimpeachable. In fact, the research I cite consists strictly of information consistent with my eyewitness accounts and my upbringing.

That you claim objectivity is a sham of epic proportions. And yes. If you're reading from sources that are Pro-Palestinian, who cite the same crap disseminated by the PLO, Palestinian accounts on the street (who have been verified to have been brought up by their leadership to hate Jews), and Jew-haters the world over, without considering source and context, I expect you to have interviewed the principles. The revisionism and moral equivalency assumed by these sources makes them dubious at best.

I'm afraid people will think your posts are written by me n order to make my opponents look dumber than they are.

Conspiracy theorist!

[MMMMMM]

Valid points but allowing a threatening enemy to buildup on your borders can be very risky. If the Arabs had been able to launch their attack with full force, Israel could have gotten badly hurt and the war could have been much harder for Israel. Pre-emption was probably a prudent necessity.

[MMMMMM]

Just because Egypt had not the abilty to defeat Israel in a one-om-one war doesn't mean that four neighboring Arab states acting in concert would not be able to inflict massive damage on Israel were they to jointly attack. And if they inflicted enough initial damage they might conceivably have won. Israel is small and not capable of sustaining massive damage (especially from air strikes). So you are not addressing the issue but rather only claiming that Egypt alone could not beat Israel. At any rate the neighboring states could have inflicted unaceptable damage.

"As the Egyptian example shows, the primary benefit Israel has achieved by holding onto it's war spoils is to give it's Arab-hating "supporters" outside of Israel a huge adrenelin rush of moral indignation while Israelis die over an endless turf war."

Screw their "rush of moral indignation." Every time Israel gets attacked she should obliterate the attackers and take more land. If Hezbollah shells Israel she should demolish their nearest training camp and take the area from which she was shelled--PERMANENTLY. If Lebanon and Syria don't want this to happen it should be incumbent upon them to restrain or dismantle Hezbollah.

[nicky g]

"If Hezbollah shells Israel she should demolish their nearest training camp and take the area from which she was shelled--PERMANENTLY. If Lebanon and Syria don't want this to happen it should be incumbent upon them to restrain or dismantle Hezbollah"

Why does this never work the other way around for you?

[MMMMMM]

Because the Arabs and the Europeans and the Russians forced Israel to be formed through their persecutions of the Jews. The Arabs have nearly 1,000 times the land mass of Israel. The Great Cosmic Dart disenfranchised the poor Palestinians. Well... too bad...just like too bad for the countless other people who have been displaced throughout history. You can't go back and make it all up retroactively throughout all of human (or even modern) history. Let the other Arabs take them in, they've got plenty of land to do it. Give the Palestinians each 50K or 100K dollars and let them get on with their lives elsewhere. Most of them aren't even dispossessed of anything because they weren't even alive in 1948 but I agree they shouldn't have to live in refugee camps. If the Arabs weren't so discriminatory and oppressive towards Jews I don't think Israel would even be necessary today because anti-Semitism is less prevalent elsewhere. But too many Arabs want to exterminate the Jews so Israel is still necessary.

I admire your sympathy for those the Cosmic Dart disenfranchises, but that's life sometimes, and sometimes it's time to move on. This is one of those times.

Also, Israel has been under threat and attack by Hezbollah and other Arab entities for a long time. I'm just saying when attacked she should hit back even harder. Those stubborn fanatics will have to accept the existence of Israel sooner or later--sooner if they truly lose more land every time they attack. The Arabs have a craw in their throat they won't cough up but it's only about 1/1,000 of their total land mass. Sheesh. Get over it guys.

[nicky g]

Ugh. It isn't about an "Arab land mass". It's about a group of individuals' human rights. Regardless that wasn't the question. My point was whenever anyone threatens or attacks Israel or the US, you advocate them wiping out their attackers. Whenever the US or Israel attacks anywhere, you find an excuse for it.

[nicky g]

This is really jaw-dropping stuff.

When Palestinians are ethnically cleansed by Israelis, it's just the workings of the great cosmic dart. When Jews are discrminated against, it's evil Europeans and Arabs.

Palestinians born after 1948 have no right to what should have been their inheritance because they were born afterwards, but Israelis have the right to a land populated by their coreligionists 2000 years ago.

Antisemitism means there should be a Jewish state on land inhabited by others for over 1500 years. The Palestinians refugee diaspora on the other hand, should just shut up, accept its disenfranchisment and continue to live as second class citizens in refugee camps across the Arab world.

Of course you'll say that the solution to that it is for Palestinians to assimilate into those societies. And yet when it comes to the Jewish diaspora, the solution isn't for the countries they live in to give them full rights (many of which have) and for them to assimilate, but for them to go and live in someone else's house. Astounding.

[MMMMMM]

"My point was whenever anyone threatens or attacks Israel or the US, you advocate them wiping out their attackers. Whenever the US or Israel attacks anywhere, you find an excuse for it."

Generally speaking this is accurate. This is because nobody should be attacking the US or Israel. When Israel or the US attack others (such as in WWII, or the 1967 war, or today in Iraq) there are usually very good reasons for it. In other words we're usually right and they're usually wrong. Believe it or not.

[nicky g]

So it's not the threatening or attacking per se, it's because they're "wrong" to start with?

Are "they" always "wrong"? Are "they" "wrong" by definition? Is there anything Israel could ever do in your eyes that wouldn't be "right?" If it did, should it be annihilated, like the wrong'uns should?

[MMMMMM]

"This is really jaw-dropping stuff."

Seems pretty mundane to me.

"When Palestinians are ethnically cleansed by Israelis, it's just the workings of the great cosmic dart. When Jews are discrminated against, it's evil Europeans and Arabs."

Any notion why these two situations are not parallel?

"Palestinians born after 1948 have no right to what should have been their inheritance because they were born afterwards, but Israelis have the right to a land populated by their coreligionists 2000 years ago."

Israelis have a right to a tiny land where they shall not be discriminated against and oppressed. Palestinians lost but that's history and life. If they would focus on MOVING ON with their lives and society they would do themselves FAR more good than what they are stuck on focusing on now.

"Antisemitism means there should be a Jewish state on land inhabited by others for over 1500 years. The Palestinians refugee diaspora on the other hand, should just shut up, accept its disenfranchisment and continue to live as second class citizens in refugee camps across the Arab world."

No, as I suggested, the Palestinians should not have to live in refugee camps, but instead should be given 50-100,000 dollars each and be resettled in other Arab lands as full citizens if can't live next to Israel without attacking her (and apparently they can't).

"Of course you'll say that the solution to that it is for Palestinians to assimilate into those societies. And yet when it comes to the Jewish diaspora, the solution isn't for the countries they live in to give them full rights (many of which have) and for them to assimilate, but for them to go and live in someone else's house. Astounding."

Nicky, as far as I would surmise, NO Arab land has given Jews, or anyone but Muslims, full legal rights--with the exceptions of probably Turkey (and maybe one or two others). Talk of the Jews having equality under the law today in Arab lands is ludicrous--and talk of them getting equal treatment in the social sense is even more far-fetched.

When the Arabs truly reform their laws and societies and prejudices, then your solution might work. Until then it is unfair to the Jews to ask them to live with and under Arabs whose laws, customs and beliefs are highly discriminatory against them. In other words when the Arab states and culture emerge from their backwardsness your idea could work, but until then, the Jews need a haven.

The day when your idea could work isn't here yet. I agree that's the best idea ultimately but in the meantime don't ask the Jews to live under oppressors because you think the oppressors should treat them better and accord them full legal rights. When the Arabs reform, as a society and legally and politically, then your idea may become practical. And if all Palestinians were to be accorded 'right of return' today, and Israel were to be dissolved as a Jewsish state, then the Jews would over time become a minority in Israel and become subjected to discriminatory oppression--if not worse. Again the moral onus is on the backwards oppressors, not the victims, and I would say the same thing if the Great Cosmic Dart had placed Israel in, say, part of Germany instead of in Palestine. It would be tough luck then for the Germans who were displaced, and if some fanatical Europeans shelled the new Jewish state I would say smash the attackers and oppressors. A tiny bit of land isn't much and although I feel for those displaced, most of that anyone displaced should be entitled to resettlement and financial compensation. Too, the other Arab states are making it into a big deal, and instead of OFFERING to take in and help their Arab brothers, they with all those oil riches unfeelingly and cynically use them as pawns in an interminable political standoff.

[Chris Alger]

"Just because Egypt had not the abilty to defeat Israel in a one-on-one war doesn't mean that four neighboring Arab states acting in concert would not be able to inflict massive damage on Israel were they to jointly attack."

Don't you recognize a platitude when you see one? Every aggressor has this "defense," even Hitler: had we been invaded by those we invaded first, we would have suffered "massive damage." Except in cases where the aggressor attacks a country with no army at all, this truism applies with ubiquitous irrelevance.

In this case, however, the claim is actually false because Israel knew full well that the Arab states were incapable of doing anything of the sort. Indeed, by the time the war against Egypt and Jordan was effectively over, on the evening of the second day, Syria had inflicted a total of 18 casualties (killing two), having "scarcely lifted a finger while their allies were being pulverized," according to Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld. (The Sword and the Olive (New York 1998), p. 191). Similar events occurred during the 1948 war, where the only military force that could threaten Israel (Jordan's Arab Legion) stood by and watched while the Haganah mauled the Egyptians.

[Gamblor]

When Palestinians are ethnically cleansed by Israelis, it's just the workings of the great cosmic dart. When Jews are discrminated against, it's evil Europeans and Arabs.

This is the great moral equivalence argument put forward by so many anti-Zionists and closet anti-semites. So closeted, in fact, that even they don't realize it.

First, you hold Israel to a much higher moral standard than any other nation on earth. The United States and nearly every westernized nation on earth has undergone some sort of ethnic cleansing process, and at the very least ought to be held accountable. But hundreds of years on, they have learned to make peace with their neighbours and the displaced persons, and that was only when total domination was achieved.

Israel, at 55, is a state still in its early stages despite many characteristics of well established states, and thus can hardly be expected to act as it would on its 200th anniversary. Yet, all of the super human rights activists deem it necessary to focus on Israel while ignoring the ridiculous atrocities (true atrocities) that take place daily all over Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.

The moral equivalence comparing Israeli actions to the Holocaust is disgusting and anti-semitic to the core. The Jews in Europe were non-violent in their opposition to the Nazi party and in some cases were enlisted to help the Nazi party rise to power. The Warsaw ghetto uprising was a mere blip on the radar, hardly a Jewish resort to violence. Mein Kampf listed the very details of the murder of six million for the reason that they, specifically, tainted the ethnic purity of the German nation. Jewish opposition to the Nazi rise to power consisted of political upheaval, and at no point did little Yossi blow himself up in the Reichstag, or fire upon German motorists, babies, or did they set up sham governments so they could organize their violence.

The Arabs can, at the very least, be labelled belligerent, and the resort to violence betrays as anti-semitism any attempt to compare Israeli actions to the Holocaust. At the worst, the Arabs can be labelled genocidal and clearly, that is not such a stretch when considering the statements made by Arab leaders in the days leading up to the War of Independence.

For your information, Chris and Cyrus, the Arab hatred of Jews had nothing to do with the Jewish expulsion of Arabs (which didn't even occur, but for the sake of argument I will concede this), it began with the rise of the Wahhabi sect of Islam in Saudi Arabia. As clearly, Saudi Arabia is the centre of economic strength in the Arab world, its influence stretched across the Arabian peninisula and into the minds of all Muslim Arabs - simply, that Jews and Christians have no place in the great Pan-Arabian landscape.

[MMMMMM]

CA: "Don't you recognize a platitude when you see one? Every aggressor has this "defense," even Hitler: had we been invaded by those we invaded first, we would have suffered "massive damage." Except in cases where the aggressor attacks a country with no army at all, this truism applies with ubiquitous irrelevance."

The neighboring states were not building up on Germany's borders; Hitler was bulding up on theirs. As Utah says, you manage to invert everything--even when using a hypothetical argument.

"In this case, however, the claim is actually false because Israel knew full well that the Arab states were incapable of doing anything of the sort."

You claim that the neighboring Arab states could not have seriously harmed Israel. If they attacked jointly I would seriously doubt that Israel would be so safe as you indicate.

At any rate if say Mexico were to buildup and mass on our southern border, and Canada were to do the same on our northern border, and the Presidents of both countries spoke of annihilating the United States: the fact that they couldn't beat us would not mean that they couldn't cause serious damage were they to launch an all-out attack. And as this example is even more unbalanced than your example, it just shows that your assertion that the Arab states would have been incapable of seriously damaging Israel is wrong. Hard to think how you imagine an attack by all the neighboring Arab states, including an aerial attack, would not srrious endanger or harm Israel. Israel is pretty darn small and really can't afford to take much damage.

[Utah]

Is there air of Pluto? If not, what do you breathe?

Note that the Oren is a right-wing Zionist and his book, which you endorse, is quite pro-Israel throughout, containing certain contradictions that can only be regarded as comical

hmm....lets see what others have to say about the book shall we:

By contrast, Oren convincingly establishes in an often engrossing narrative the reactive, contingent nature of Israeli policy during both the crisis preceding the conflict and the war itself. PUBLISHERS WEEKLY

“ Michael Oren’s richly detailed and lucid account, the familiar story is thrilling once again. . . . What makes this book important is the breadth and depth of the research.”
—The New York Times Book Review


"There have been many books written on the Six Day War, none breaks new ground like this magnificent book does." - Fouad Ajami, on NPR's The Connection

“The definitive history of the Six-Day War . . . [Oren’s] narrative is precise but written with great literary flair. In no one else’s study is there more understanding or more surprise.”
—MARTIN PERETZ, Publisher
The New Republic

THIS IS NOT ONLY THE BEST BOOK SO FAR WRITTEN ON THE SIX-DAY WAR, IT IS LIKELY TO REMAIN THE BEST.”
—The Washington Post Book World

“WITH A REMARKABLY ASSURED STYLE, OREN ELUCIDATES NEARLY EVERY ASPECT OF THE CONFLICT . . . Oren’s [book] will remain the authoritative chronicle of the war. His achievement as a writer and a historian is awesome.”
—The Atlantic Monthly

Robert L. Pollock, Wall Street Journal
"Oren brings a novelist's flair to recounting...the war. His meticulous research cuts through the propagandized histories on all sides." --

Yep - this book is way out on the fringe.

[i]No, Rabin understood that Egyptian positions "remained defensive"[1] even after all six divisions had entered the Sinai. His understanding was consistent with 'Amer's advice to Nasser after the deployment was completed that the forces were in a position "from which they can deliver massive retaliation against Israeli aggression."

Yes - it is a funny timeline. We are talking about a specific quote at a specific time. You used that quote in a way to suggest Rabin's thinking about the war, which in fact could only relate to the period of May 14th and before, which of course was before the massive troop buildups. You are guilty of trying to mislead (talk about propaganda!).

Alger Half Truth #2 - remained defensive - pg 79

Why not include the whole quote - "And though the enemies deployment remained defensive, the situation was so volatile that that a single sniper bullet could set off a full scale war"

Alger Half Truth #3 - 'Amer's advice to Nasser after the deployment was completed that the forces were in a position "from which they can deliver massive retaliation against Israeli aggression

Again, why not include the full quote "Israel sought assurances futiley, and the Egyptian buildup continued. A full six divisions had by may 20th taken up positions in Sinai "from which they can deliver massive retaliation against Israel aggression", reported Amir. An Armada of Egyptian warships was rumored to have entered the Red Sea, en route to Eliat, and Egypt's ministry of religious affairs declared a state of holy war to liberate Palestine. The PLO's Shuqayri predicted Israel's "complete destruction" in the coming war, while in Damascus, Hafez Al-Assad said it, "was high time...to take the initiative in destroying the Zionist presence in the arab homeland." Arab military delegations were suddenly on the move - Iraq to Syria and Syrians to Egypt. "Pur two brotherly countries have turned into one mobilized force," declared Syrian Foreign Minister Makhous upon returning from Cairo. "The withdrawl on the UN forces...means. 'make way , our forces are on the way to battle.'"

And of course, it is known that Egypt had indeed offensive intentions and had already ordered an attack of Israel through Operation Dawn - that was recinded because they thought it was comprimised.

Alger Half Truth #4 - I found the Begin quote from 1982. Of course, you took the quote out of context (as he was talking about attacking the aggressor) and you cut out the very next line, which read "this was a war of self defense in the very noblest sense of the word." (I will email the article to anyone who is interested).

Even now I see that you're backtracking by claiming that Israel had no viable "option" except to attack (nonsense in any event, given Israel's refusal to follow the diplomatic course urged by every country to lend an opinion), which is quite different from saying that the war "was started" by the Arabs.

ummm....no. Taking the initiative and starting the war are two different things. I would think even people from Pluto would understand that.

[Cyrus]

In other words ...you have absolutely nothing to back up your claim that Egypt was going to "attack and annihilate Israel" in 1967. A claim which is, of course, preposterous and Chris Alger was correct to call you on that bluff ("overwhelming evidence").

I was going to drag out the (truly overwhelming) evidence detailed by the eminent Jewish revisionist historian, Mr Shlaim, in one of his books and give you grief again -- but that would be overkill.

[Chris Alger]

"The neighboring states were not building up on Germany's borders...."

Pure fabrication. The six divisions that Egypt sent into the Sinai remained dispursed, not "built-up" on Israel's border. Of course, if merely putting troops in the Sinai constitutes a threat, then Israel must have provoked it with it's own "build-up" in the Negev, including its nuclear weapons factory at Dimona, something you would have defined as an immediate threat mandating immediate use of military force if possessed by any Arab country, under your consistent double standard. Lebanon and Jordan, which constitute 80% of Israel's Arab borders never "built-up" anything at all until Israel attacked Egypt. As for Syria, its forces had remained stalemated on Israel's border, opposing a vastly superior Israeli force, for nearly 20 years. You're the one who's inventing facts (just like the Nazis...).

"At any rate if say Mexico were to buildup and mass on our southern border...."

And the U.S., believing that Mexico had no intention of attacking, launched a "preemptive" strike that annihilated Mexico's military, invaded Mexico, seized huge chunks of its territory and placed its citizens under military occupation, taxed them, destroyed their homes and businesses, stealing their land and resources, sending settlers in to colonize....

You'd be screaming about how the U.S. is a folorn, peace-loving victim of "Mexican aggression" and should sacrifice thousands if not hundreds of thousands of "her" lives to vindicate the right of bloody conquest by superior races, er, "cultures."

[Chris Alger]

"and closet anti-semites"

Why would an unrepetent racial supremacist such as yourself (Palestinians deserve no national rights because they are "mere" Arabs; all Arabs are "bred" to lie and steal, etc.) waste his time giving lectures denouncing (some) racism? Everyone knows that you don't oppose anti-Semitism in principle, but only because you're in the victim class. When you're in the victimizer class you're perfectly content to broadcast the most sickening racist remarks. Since your only consistent theme is your personal ethnic identity, it follows that So if you were Arab or Muslim or merely non-Jewish you'd undoubtedly be ranting and raving about "Jewish" plots, conspiracies, cultural and genetic flaws, just like you do now regarding Arabs.

[Chris Alger]

1. I didn't say Orem book is right-wing propaganda, I said Orem himself is a right-wing Zionist. Nothing you quoted contradicts that at all. Besides, when is right-wing Zionism considered "fringe" thinking in the U.S.?

2. Orem's silly comment about a "single sniper bullet" compelling one of the countries to start a war -- Orem doesn't say who, but implies that it would be Israel -- hardly contradicts his assertion that the Egyptian forces remained "defensive" after their full deployment. Which makes hash out of your claim that Oren thinks the Arabs "of course" "started" the war.

3. "You used that quote in a way to suggest Rabin's thinking about the war, which in fact could only relate to the period of May 14th and before, which of course was before the massive troop buildups. You are guilty of trying to mislead (talk about propaganda!)."

The quote from Rabin shows that he didn't think that the initial deployment was offensive in nature, and the quote from Oren regarding Rabin's assessment after the full deployment indicates that he never changed his mind. If you think I've misrepresented Rabin's assessment of Egyptian intentions, why can't you offer anything he said to the contrary?

4. The other comments by such high-ranking policy-makers as the Egyptian minister of religion and the Egyptian-appointed head of the PLO are no different in character than what the same parties had been saying for 20 years. You are stuck on the ridiculous notion that Arab words amount to initiating "war" while Israeli bombs first-strike attacks are "preventative retalliation" or some such Orwellian nonsense.

5. "it is known that Egypt had indeed offensive intentions and had already ordered an attack of Israel through Operation Dawn - that was recinded because they thought it was compromised."

This is Oren's claim, citing Arab sources, yet he curiously offers no evidence that Isreali leaders ever learned of Operation Dawn -- its existence remains in question -- or that it had any influence on their planning for a first strike.

So know you're admitting that Egypt didn't "start" the war because the only offensive plan they had on the drawing board was rescinded? Or are you still insisting against even your own evidence that you were correct?

6. The Begin quote was never out of context because he effectively admits that Israel launched the 1967 war, flatly contradicting your statement. That Begin believed Israel's starting the war was justified and that this act of aggression was really defensive in nature is a given. He also believed that his murder of 80 people by blowing up the King David hotel was a nobel act of self-defense as well, as were all the marketplace and truck bombs the former Irgun leader detonated in Jerusalem from 1936-1948. What do you expect from an unrepetant terrorist?

7. "Taking the initiative and starting the war are two different things."

How? "Initiative" means of or realting to "initiation," the act or instance of "initiating" and "initiating" means "starting," or "to cause or facilitate the beginning of."

[Gamblor]

Why would an unrepetent racial supremacist such as yourself (Palestinians deserve no national rights because they are "mere" Arabs; all Arabs are "bred" to lie and steal, etc.) waste his time giving lectures denouncing (some) racism?

Aw, don't make me blush.

Arabs are fully deserving of national rights, which they already possess. In Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the UAE, and Egypt.

Not in Israel for the obvious reasons outlined throughout history.

On the other hand, I wouldn't have expected ethnicity to be the determinant of national rights from such a noble hypocrite such as yourself.

Your disgusting claim that it is their ethnicity that is what denies them national rights is most distressing, considering your profession is to advocate for those unable to do so themselves. It is not their ethnicity that denies their rights - it is their leadership and their resort to, support of, and complicity in violence.

How do you sleep with yourself at night?

And have all the emotional scars from years of bullying in high school healed yet?

[Chris Alger]

So Palestinians have no national rights as Palestinians even though Iraqis have national rights as Iraqis and Yemenis have national rights as Yemenis. And why, according to you? Because, as you have argued elsewhere, Palestinians are "merely Arabs," an outright contradiction of what you just wrote.

More like: Palestinians were the Arabs unfortunate enough to have been tied to land that the Zionists coveted. This fact, rather than the lack of national identity or cause, deprives them of their most elementary rights. Which is purely racist, stupid, unfair and unbelievably dangerous.

"It is not their ethnicity that denies their rights - it is their leadership and their resort to, support of, and complicity in violence."

No, because this rule doesn't apply to Israeli Jews, who's record of complicity in violence so extreme that two of Israel's prime ministers were outright terrorists and the other (current one) was the leader of a death squad. The body count alone since 1890 proves the Zionists to be the most violent of the national groups of the former Palestine. That ethnicity is the determinent is also proven by the many Israeli laws that apportion national and civil rights according to ethnicity and the second class status given Arabs in Israel regardless of their propensity toward violence.

[MMMMMM]

Maybe "building up on Israel's borders" is not the perfect description, I don't know...but the neighboring Arab states were complementing their very threatening military movements with very aggressive verbal statements as well. If they didn't mean it, well hey...like I said before, don't pull out a gun and tell someone you're going to kill them just to make a point. It doesn't matter if they could have destroyed Israel or not...maybe they could only have hurt Israel badly...but they shouldn't have been playing with fire--or guns--or tanks and planes--like that. As for me if someone pulls out a gun and says he plans to kill me I'm going to take him very seriously, whether I think he can aim that gun or not, and even if it's a BB gun it'still damn dangerous. But according to Chris Alger, Israel knew full well that the Arabs were only posturing--so Israel should have just sat and waited--yeah right;-)

Well...right now North Korea may well only be posturing. But in a year or two if they develop and prove that they have not only nukes but also ICBMs, and then they say they have targeted major US cities, and deliver blistering rhetoric--threatening again to "set our cities on fire"--they will have only themselves (or at least Kim Jong-il and his cronies) to blame if they get blown off the planet first. The fact that they couldn't win a nuclear war with us is immaterial. If they can inflict massive damage and appear poised to do so, and make extremely hostile threats regarding nuking us, I wouldn't want to place any bets on how long the Northern part of that peninsula will continue to exist.

[Chris Alger]

"But in a year or two if they develop and prove that they have not only nukes but also ICBMs, and then they say they have targeted major US cities,"

E.g., behave like the U.S.

"and deliver blistering rhetoric--threatening again to "set our cities on fire"--they will have only themselves (or at least Kim Jong-il and his cronies) to blame if they get blown off the planet first."

In other words, if North Korea threatens to retalliate against aggression by the U.S. then it will be the understandable if not deserving target of aggression by the U.S.

This makes no more sense than writing "all work and no play" over and over and over....

[Utah]

Stop - your killin me. My interpetation of a conversation between you and a friend of yours:

Friend: Wow, its really warm out today.
Alger: No, it is freezing out and its all the Israeli's fault
Friend: But Chris, the thermometer says the temperature is 100 degrees!
Alger: More propaganda from the Zionist terrorists!
Friend: So you don't believe in thermometers?
Alger: Of course not. Everyone who has at least a minor understanding of the weather knows that its all Israeli lies, backed by their lying supporters in the Bush administration.
Friend: Chris, you drive me nuts.

I didn't say Orem book is right-wing propaganda, I said Orem himself is a right-wing Zionist. Nothing you quoted contradicts that at all. Besides, when is right-wing Zionism considered "fringe" thinking in the U.S.?

Lets look at what you said shall we, "Note that the Oren is a right-wing Zionist and his book, which you endorse, is quite pro-Israel throughout, containing certain contradictions that can only be regarded as comical"
Again, you try to confuse the issue. Obviously, you were trying to discredit his book. Seems about everyone who has reviewed the book disagrees with you. NYT, NPR, Atlantic Monthly, etc. I couldn't find a single source who attacked his book. Can you? And no, your friend Muhammad from your Black September Fan Club doesn't count.

The quote from Rabin shows that he didn't think that the initial deployment was offensive in nature, and the quote from Oren regarding Rabin's assessment after the full deployment indicates that he never changed his mind. If you think I've misrepresented Rabin's assessment of Egyptian intentions, why can't you offer anything he said to the contrary?

Ya just can't help yourself from confusing the issue. We are not talking about what Rabin thought of the war. We are talking about your misleading use of a quote. Again, you used a quote in a very misleading way to suggest Rabins thinking of the war in totality, when in fact he was refering to a specific event of the war. Regardless of what he thought about the war or whether he changed his mind - you are guilty as charged.

However, lets look at what Rabin thought later. pg. 151 - Rabin said no one wanted war bur that attacking Egypt was Israel's only chance of survival. How's that for a change of thinking. Gosh, suprising that part part wasn't included in your original quote. Maybe you and the fellas down at Fatah Central just missed that page?

The other comments by such high-ranking policy-makers as the Egyptian minister of religion and the Egyptian-appointed head of the PLO are no different in character than what the same parties had been saying for 20 years
You didn't like the quotes of Nassar as well calling for the destruction of Israel? Who higher do you want?

So know you're admitting that Egypt didn't "start" the war because the only offensive plan they had on the drawing board was rescinded? Or are you still insisting against even your own evidence that you were correct?
Of course not. Lets go to Nassar himself shall we. "We must expect the enemy to strike a blow within 48-72 hours. [p. 158] Nassar purposely provoked Israel into attacking thinking one of two outcomes. Israel accepts the new status quo or attacks and gets crushed. He purposely provoked Israel - thus starting the war. Canadian Ambassador, " few diplomatic observers seem to appreciate that there is a real danger of a desperate Israeli attack.." My point about operation Dawn was that Nassar had offensive intentions.

You seem to think that the Arabs were just kickin back enjoying the good life out in the desert when the big bad Zionists attacked them in a power play for land. They must be packing the hash pretty strongly down there at your PLO rallies calling for the destruction of Israel.

The Begin quote was never out of context because he effectively admits that Israel launched the 1967 war, flatly contradicting your statement.
Contradicts nothing. What he was saying is that Israel had a choice - be attacked by the aggressors and take unacceptable loses or seize the initiative from the aggressors. In the speech, he also said France should have done the same thing against hitler. Which, under your Pluto logic, would have meant that France, if they had attacked Hitler before he had a chance to attack them, would be the ones who started WW2.

How? "Initiative" means of or realting to "initiation," the act or instance of "initiating" and "initiating" means "starting," or "to cause or facilitate the beginning of

god, its like explaining things to a little kid. One can seize the intiative after a course of events has already started. Duh.

[Utah]

One needs to only look at the Cuban Missle Crisis to see how the US would act.

Are you saying that the Soviet Union was within its rights and the US was wrong to blockade them?

I mean, sure, Russia was putting nuclear weapons on our borders. But, they never actually fired one at us did they? Obviously, the US then started the whole thing?

I am curious to see how you will find the way to blame the Cuban Missle Crisis on the evil Zionists.


Also, as stated in a different thread, Nassar full well knew how the Israel would read his intentions and he expected to be attacked.

[MMMMMM]

North Korea's definition of "aggression" appears to be incredibly broad: roughly encompassing such things as the USA, Australia and others planning to interdict arms shipments to rogue nations or terrorists, or expecting them to uphold their agreed-upon framework, or not giving them aid for nothing in return. If North Korea were to say they would retaliate against a US military attack with nukes: that's one thing. If however they were to threaten to nuke the USA or Australia for interdicting their illegal exports of arms, or their state-sponsored illegal exports of counterfeit currency and heroin, then they have crossed the line.

North Korea is not acting like the USA, and that's not a good parallel, Chris. Not do I surmise they will be acting like the USA in our lifetimes.

You seem to love to draw equivalences where things are not truly equivalent. And so I'll add a bit to Utah's statement: not only do you frequently see things Upside Down, but you also frequently see Down and Up as being, for all intents and purposes, indentical.

[ACPlayer]

Pretty much sums up the open minded "arguments" that you offer:

I am right therefore I am right.

No wonder you can't see up from down.

[Chris Alger]

Considering how much time it's taken to get you up to speed on the 1967 War, I think I'll pass on a Cuban Missile Crisis primer for someone who thinks that Cuba is "on our borders."

[brad]

'Are you saying that the Soviet Union was within its rights and the US was wrong to blockade them?'

well according to international law a naval blockade is an act of war, which is why kennedy described it as a 'quarantine'.

[MMMMMM]

That's not my argument, and I typically elaborate on the why in any given specific situation. But generally speaking, compared to, say, the Stalinists, Fascists, Communists, Islamists, (and the French;-)), we usually were right and we usually are right--at least much more so than they.

If you think that's an "I am right therefore I their positions generally were and are demonstrably false. I don't think you would claim that, for instance, Communism was as equally valid economically as Capitalism, or that Nazism was equally moral with the systems of the US and England, or that the present day Islamists are equally right in fighting a jihad to subjugate the entire world to their medieval religious views.

So all you are doing is being obtuse because you don't care for the terse manner in which I make points--and because you're afraid to call a spade a spade. Well it must be nice living in fantasyland where everything is equal and nobody is more right than anyone else. Or then again maybe it isn't.

[Utah]

Ha! Really, you should be a comedian. If you can make others laugh as much as me you would make a fortune (and besides, given your delusional fantasies you certainly can't be much of a lawyer - although that is probably a delusion as well. I can here your boss say, "Alger, stop daydreaming and change that darn fry grease!").

And of course - for anyone who doesn't live on Pluto, Cuba is on our border, especially in the context of nuclear missles. Kinda like my vision of your conversation about the weather.
Friend: "Cuba is on the border of the US"
Alger: "No it isn't"
Friend: "But Chris, the map shows that Cuba is right off the tip of Florida!"
Alger: "That map is a lie created by Zionist pigs and the bastards in the Bush Administration."
Friend: "So Cuba is not on the border?"
Alger: "No. And it says right on this map created by a right wing Zionist that Cuba is 90 miles alway. Which obviously contradicts your border statement."
Friend "So since Cuba is not actually 'touching' Florida it is not on the border, even when you are talking about missile placement"
Alger: "Correct"
Friend "Did you forget to take your medicine again?"

[Utah]

Regardless of what international law says, the only think that mattered is what the Soviets thought it meant.

Even if it was an act of war, it was in reaction to a new Soviet threat. My point being that if you fault Israel for reacting to a buildup on its borders than it is reasonable to conclude that you would have favored a policy of letting the Soviets put as many nulcear missiles as they wanted to on Cuba - which is of course insane (unless your from Pluto).

[brad]

i didnt say it was wrong i just said that technically it was an act of war and the soviets/cuba could have called kennedy on it.

btw, US blockaded nicaraguan harbor under reagan, but it was 'in secret'.

that secret war stuff hasnt really served ordinary americans very well, now, has it?

[MMMMMM]

Utah to Chris Alger: "Even if it was an act of war, it was in reaction to a new Soviet threat. My point being that if you fault Israel for reacting to a buildup on its borders than it is reasonable to conclude that you would have favored a policy of letting the Soviets put as many nulcear missiles as they wanted to on Cuba - which is of course insane (unless your from Pluto)."

Let's see how Chris responds to this above point.

I put it at 3-1 Alger thinks the Soviet Union should have been allowed to place nuclear missiles in Cuba.

Also, I'll take this opportunity to ask him again if he is a Communist (because that would explain, IMO, many of his of odd views, and he hasn't answered the question when posed before on this board).

[Gamblor]

well according to international law a naval blockade is an act of war, which is why kennedy described it as a 'quarantine'.

And there you have it folks, straight from the horse's nostrils.

Egypt blocking the straits of Tiran qualifies as an act of war, and thus, Egypt is the aggressor!

I'd like to thank God, instant pudding, odor eaters, and those little heart shaped candies you see on Valentine's day.

[Gamblor]

Also, I'll take this opportunity to ask him again if he is a Communist (because that would explain, IMO, many of his of odd views, and he hasn't answered the question when posed before on this board).

I think that's too convoluted for him...

I think he simply hates anything that represents America or American interests. Some kind of complex, I think...

Again, it might have been that he got cut from his 9th grade football team.

[MMMMMM]

"I think that's too convoluted for him...

I think he simply hates anything that represents America or American interests. Some kind of complex, I think..."

Well, once on this board he did write: "...we on the American Left..."--he just didn't say how far left. I've read enough of his posts over the last few years to surmise that the chances are fairy good that he is a Communist. He does consistently seem to take positions favoring America's enemies (past or present) instead of America, and seems enthralled with Chomsky's twisted comparisons.

By the way, is Chomsky a Communist?

Communism killed 80-100 million people in the 20th century. Judging by results, Communism is by far the most pernicious ideology ever to have been tried in human affairs. Any educated person who today believes in Communism has severe delusions.

[ACPlayer]

terse manner in which I make points

Two things wrong with the above. Can you see them?

[MMMMMM]

terse manner in which I make points

"Two things wrong with the above. Can you see them?"

No.


Main Entry: terse
Pronunciation: 't&rs
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): ters·er; ters·est
Etymology: Latin tersus clean, neat, from past participle of tergEre to wipe off
Date: 1601
1 : smoothly elegant : POLISHED
2 : devoid of superfluity <a terse summary>; also : SHORT, BRUSQUE <dismissed me with a terse "no">

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way is Chomsky a Communist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pope Chomsky is a trickster. To get a sense of this read American Plain Indian legends and tales about Coyote or the American Northwest coast tribe’s tales about the Raven. Or think of the real Popes, usually intelligent people – yet they spew out nonsense (and sometimes good sense) in pious tones. Do they really believe all this? Is the propaganda necessary to delude everyone, and do they eventually delude themselves, and to what purpose? Power alone? Many other rhetorical questions could be added.

Perhaps everyone takes the posts by Chris too literally and seriously. His posts may partially be pretense, posturing, or simply a practice in propaganda and debate that he personally finds useful and/or entertaining.

I will add a quote from an article about John Marshall and the case that made the court [supreme court] that was in the Wilson Quarterly (Summer issue). The quote is what Jefferson says about John Marshall:

[ QUOTE ]
"When conversing with Marshall" Jefferson said, "I never admit anything. So sure as you admit any position to be good - no matter how remote the conclusion he seeks to establish - you are gone. So great is his sophistry, you must never give him an affirmative answer, or you will be forced to grant his conclusion. Why if he were to ask me whether it was daylight, I'd reply, 'sir, I don't know. I can't tell.'" Yet when Jefferson needed a lawyer to sort out his tangled real estate dealings, he retained the best: John Marshall.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may explain a few things, then again, it may not.



-Zeno

[Cyrus]

There is nothing in that blockade that warranted a war.

For more, consult Shlaim's book, pp. 236-241.

I know there's no chance in hell that you will, but even if one person does, it's worth my time for writing this post. Enough with the lies.

[brad]

'Egypt blocking the straits of Tiran qualifies as an act of war, and thus, Egypt is the aggressor!'

i agree although probably only an act of war against the country whose territorial waters those are.

if the blockade occured in israeli waters then yes i think its crystal clear that egypt de facto declared war on israel by the blockade.

somehow, however, i dont think its that crystal clear as im not up on that.

[ACPlayer]

The need to define terse to ME demonstrates that you got the first thing wrong.

Now what is the second?

[Gamblor]

Is it a big surprise that Shlaim is now an expatriate of his homeland, working as a scholar in the country in which King Edward I borrowed from Jews, promptly expelled them when he couldn't repay, invited them back, borrowed again, and then expelled them again?!?!

It should be fairly obvious to anyone who has followed Shlaim's radical post-Zionist career that he has neither the patience or the ideological support for Zionism.

Shlaim is among a group of post-Zionist academics, a radical group of modern Israeli natives who despise the Zionist enterprise, taking what they believe to be the moral high ground in a situation in which reality clearly shows otherwise.

These academics became internationally famous by claiming that previously undisclosed documents point to Israel's historical wrongdoing toward the Arabs.

Efraim Karsh that these Post-Zionists (he calls them "New Historians") use forgery, distortion, and reliance on (and distortion of) secondary texts as their main sources, and completely avoid all of the primary documents crucial to the issues they address, including all documents in Arabic.

For example, Benny Morris, as often quoted here by the self-righteous braggat Cyrus, claimed that the founders of Israel wanted to expel Arabs, yet the Zionist leadership showed nothing but resistance to the British plan. Herr Morris claimed that Ben-Gurion wrote that "we must expel Arabs and take their places." The original letter in fact says: "We do not wish, we do not need to expel Arabs and take their place... All our aspiration is built on the assumption... that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs."

In fact, even Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the man held up here as the single most anti-Arab voice of Political Zionism, wrote in his "The Iron Wall" that:

"My emotional relationship to the Arabs is the same as it is to all other peoples: polite indifference. My political relationship is characterized by two principles. First: the expulsion of the Arabs from Palestine is absolutely impossible in any form. There will always be two nations in Palestine: which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority. Second: I am proud to have been a member of that group which formulated the Helsingfors Program. We formulated it, not only for Jews, but for all peoples, and its basis is the equality of all nations. I am prepared to swear, for us and our descendants, that we will never destroy this equality and we will never attempt to expel or oppress the Arabs. O Zheleznoi Stene in Rassvyet, 4 November 1923

Unfortunately, Morris, Shlaim, and other leftist Israeli academics have given legitimacy to anti-Semitic campaigns against Israel, and in doing so, have succeeded in seriously misinforming the international public. For their efforts, these shoddy academics have been treated by the media as the "authorities" on Israel, and are embraced, rather than targeted, by the anti-Semitic left.

[MMMMMM]

Sorry ACPlayer, you lost me on your previous post, never mind this last one. Would you care to explain what's "wrong" with the terse manner in which I make points?

[Cyrus]

"Shlaim is now an expatriate, working as a scholar in the country in which King Edward I borrowed from Jews, promptly expelled them when he couldn't repay, invited them back, borrowed again, and then expelled them again."

This is the United Kingdom you're talking about right?? Oh boy. You sure know how to make friends and influence people. Carry on.

"Shlaim is among a group of post-Zionist academics, a radical group of modern Israeli natives who despise the Zionist enterprise, taking what they believe to be the moral high ground in a situation in which reality clearly shows otherwise."

Translation : Shlaim is a moral dissenter.

"These Post-Zionists ([Morris] calls them "New Historians") use forgery, distortion, and reliance on (and distortion of) secondary texts as their main sources, and completely avoid all of the primary documents crucial to the issues they address, including all documents in Arabic."

This is a lie and you know it. The Israeli revisionist historians are relying on Jewish texts, witnesses and documentation, primarily, if not exclusively. It's hard, for instance, to dispute the words of Moshe Dayan himself, as he relates to a Jewish journalist how he and his men faked the Syrian "provocations" over the Golan for years!


"Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the man held up here as the single most anti-Arab voice of Political Zionism, wrote in his "The Iron Wall" that (blah blah blah).."

Jabotinsky was very specific and very clear about the fate he wanted for the Arabs in Israel. He was, in fact, much more clear, in writing, than the Nazis ever were about the poor Juden. Any time you want us two to whip out our texts or whatever and compare ..citations, just whistle.

(You know how to whistle, don't you? you just put your lips together, and blow.)

--Cyrus

[Chris Alger]

My take on the event is this: Krushchev recklessly put missiles in Cuba to incrementally bolster Soviet deterrent power and to protect Cuba from another invasion. The negotiations over the Jupiter missiles, among other things, proved that nobody in the Kennedy administration considered the missles a direct threat to the U.S. The concerns were over domestic politics and strategic "credibility." The former represented a crisis partly of Kennedy's making due to his incendiary rhetoric during the 1960 election castigating Eisenhower for "allowing" Cuba to go communist. The second is the usual fuzzy thinking that any embarrassment or setback to U.S. power represents the danger of embarking down a long-term slippery slope to ... (fill in the blank). As a result of those considerations, and learning early on that the Russians were inclined to back down, U.S. leaders felt free to ratchet up tensions and somewhat unwittingly came perilously close to igniting a war. The American people were no more secure thanks to Kennedy's actions during the crisis than before.

Since I'm busy I'm not going to respond further on this thread unless somebody comes up with good evidence instead of the usual fabricated facts and uninformed ranting and raving.

And no, I'm not a communist.

[Gamblor]

The Iron Wall - Vladimir (Ze'ev) Jabotinsky (http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/ironwall.htm)

Here it is, straight from the people who brought you dialectical materialism, Wage Labour and Capital, Lenin, and the class struggle.

[southerndog]

Where is the legitimate moral question?

You ask a question about whether or not you could control your emotions. There is no moral question here.

[Chris Alger]

"Nassar purposely provoked Israel into attacking thinking one of two outcomes. Israel accepts the new status quo or attacks and gets crushed."

I see now what you mean by "starting" a war. It doesn't mean those who actually initiate military force or violence, or even threaten to initiate it. It means those that "provoke" its initiation by another. So by this definition, Hitler didn't "start" WWII by invading Poland, and the Japanese didn't "start" the war in the Pacific against the U.S., but were merely responding to unacceptable provocations. Of course, by this definition, the only wars that are started by an actual military aggressor are those without any claim to provocation. Since provocation is a given, your position is no different than saying that virtually no country ever really "starts" a war. As I figured, your claim that "of course the Arabs started the war" has deteriorated into so much semantic mumbo jumbo.

There is no "quotation" in Oren's book from Rabin claiming that Egypt so imminently intended to attack Israel that Israel's survival depended on striking first. In fact, there is no quotation on the page you cited about Rabin even mentioning Israel's survival, but rather Oren's interpretation of what Rabin said. From the context, especially given Israel's refusal to even consider placing UN troops in the Israel side of the Sinai, the IDF discussions about "survival" were so much hot air, intended to terrify reluctant politicians into greenlighting the war the IDF was chomping at the bit to start. No Israeli leader anywhere in the book, for example, claims that Israel could not "survive" an immediate attack by Egypt; quite the contrary. The consensus was that any attack launched by Egypt would be crushed from between 2 days to two weeks, although at some greater cost than if Israel attacked first.

Your Nasser quotation is taken out of context. It almost certainly derives from his May 27 speech that any war initiated by Israel would be met with an attempt by Egypt to destroy Israel. If this is provocation, then the same must apply to Rabin's May 11 speech on the need to invade Syria and overthrow its government.

"My point about operation Dawn was that Nassar had offensive intentions."

'Amer did, though the extent to which Nasser approved them is unclear. What is clear is that Nasser had no "offensive intentions" when Israel attacked.

"You seem to think that the Arabs were just kickin back enjoying the good life out in the desert when the big bad Zionists attacked them in a power play for land."

"Power play for the land" is a good way of putting it. Israeli leaders had always coveted more land than Israel was able to conquer in 1948, the West Bank being one of Ben-Gurion's proposed targets in the war he launched against Egypt in 1956 (his British and French allies vetoed it). Oren's book contains repeated references to the conquest of Jersusalem and the West Bank as being a completion of the 1948 war, "righting the wrong" and so forth.

[Gamblor]

The moral question is what is the correct action against a woman who, if free, will likely cause the deaths of some of your compatriots, but the evidence of her guilt is not conclusive.

[southerndog]

[ QUOTE ]
but the evidence of her guilt is not conclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is precisely the point, you are in no postition to be the judge and the jury. It is whether or not you can control your emotions and do the right thing.

[Gamblor]

Therein lies the question: You are assuming that a judge, jury, and executioner would make whatever you deem the correct decision.

Given that an arrest would simply lead to another prisoner exchange like the one currently being negotiated between Hezballa and the Israeli government, and "concessions" would likely lead to her release, is it morally correct to take the action you deem to reduce the chance of future murders of your friends (given your state of mind)