quote:
You say that the military buildup was on *both* sides, when it was actually Arab forces which first massed on Israel's border.
Oh, come on. It *was* massed on both sides. How do you think Israel managed to launch such a swift,
3 division attack if they hadn't been preparing for war as well, magic? Are you unfamiliar with the writings of Gen. Matityahu Peled? He's publicly stated on several occasions that the concept of it being a self defense is nonsense, and that the myth was created after the war. Check out the March 24th, 1972 edition of
Maariv. Egypt had 80,000 troops massed in Sinai; Israel had several hundred thousand posed against them. Also read the interview with Gen Haim Bar-Lev (later Rabin's chief of staff) in Maariv on April 19th, 1972; Gen. Ezer Weizman... Mordechai Bentov (Knesset)... Menachem Begin (Likud leader at the time, later Prime Minister)... should I go on? The claim is nonsense. Try reading what the Israelis who actually led the operation had to say about it instead of this postfix by diapsora armchair quarterbacks.
quote:
You declare Israel's April 7th strike on Syria the first "militarily-significant event" while ignoring that it was in retaliation for Syrian shelling of Israel from the Golan Heights, perhaps because to you shelling is a militarily-insignificant event.
OK, so I need to go into the background of the Golan Heights as well? The area opposing the Golan Heights was initially occupied by Syria after the 1948 war, but was abandoned as part of a UN-brokered armistice; it was to be a demilitarized zone, and was supposed to have peaceful coexistance of Jewish and Arab populations. Of course, we know what the Israeli army did to the Arab populations during and shortly after, and with the water supply. UN observers protested (read Carl von Horn's comments, for example); nothing happened. By 1956, there was almost no Arab population left in their original towns; most had been forced toward the border. Israel continued the expansion into the demilitarized zone; Syria began shelling those who attempted to encroach further. Israel began shelling back. The shelling, in short, had been going back and forth
since 1956.
The shelling had taken relatively view lives. The Israeli incursion took over 100.
And, if you want to talk about the Golan Heights, we should add that Israel captured it *one day after* Syria signed the cease fire. Then, as usual, after capturing this territory, Israel began moving settlers into it.
quote:
For instance you say, sure, Nasser blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, but the US does blockades all the time, so what!
1) Yes, it was a violation of international law -
as I stated before.
2) It was no more major of a breach than Israel's violation of Syrian airspace, making a holier-than-thou argument highly unfair.
3) Since our history has a number of blockades, a holier-than-thou viewpoint is further unjustified from us. It's like criticizing Iraq for Halabja when at the time we had been selling them the very helicopters used in the attack even though they had long been using chemical weapons in the conflict.
quote:
I mention these things only to indicate that I'm not pleading nolo contendere - my lack of interest in pursuing the issues you raise is simply because discussing wars isn't one of my interests.
Then don't bring it up, or don't reply. Because it is one of my particular interests, and one that I do take to debating on. If you do want to reply, perhaps we should take this to another thread, this is getting fairly off topic.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
™ Version 4.2