 |
| |
|
|
Slaughtermeyer
|
|
PA, USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
The aggressors had reaped what they had sown -- loss of territory that is crucial for Israel to occupy in order to retain its own sovreignty. |
In 1972, Israel and Moshe Dayan thought that occupying the Sinai was crucial for Israel to retain its own sovereignty. In the words of Israeli playwright Joshua Sobol,
"On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, one of the radio stations played a tape of Dayan from the beginning of the 1970s, in which he said that if he had to choose between the Egyptian proposals and Egyptian fire, he would prefer the latter. Dayan spoke contemptuously, arrogantly, but in the end he got both the Egyptian fire and the Egyptian proposals. It's the same with Sharon. In the end he will also get both the Palestinian proposals and the Palestinian fire. Worse, if he continues to follow the path he has embarked on, he will be responsible for ongoing bloodshed here that will end in some terrible historical spasm."
Thus, Israel has also reaped what it has sown in terms of loss of territory that is crucial for Egypt to occupy in order to retain its own sovereignty.
Source:
http://www.israelblog.org/Articles/...rosecution.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Slaughtermeyer
|
|
PA, USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Wasn't Egypt blockading Israel's access to the sea before Israel invaded the Sinai peninsula?? |
America was enforcing an oil and steel embargo against Japan. The Japanese considered this embargo an act of war, which forced them to attack. So by Israeli logic,.... the United States started the war against Japan.
Consider the following quotes from various Israeli military and political figures:
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman stated that there was "no threat of destruction" but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could "exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies." Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: "In June 1967, we again 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." New York Times, August 21, 1982 and Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries, there is an excerpt from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows: "[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it must - invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge...And above all - let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space." Quoted in Livia Rokach, "Israel's Sacred Terrorism."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DerSchwarzfalke
|
|
There are significant differences between blockades and embargoes. The most notable and relevant one is that a blockade is an act of war, an embargo is not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Slaughtermeyer
|
|
PA, USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
A blockade is an act of war if it takes place in international waters, which was not the case in the Egyptian blockade.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DerSchwarzfalke
|
|
The Straits of Tiran were not Egyptian waters, no matter how many times Cairo and Nasr said it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
I don't have time for this thread...... busy today.
HOWEVER there is a difference:
Blockade-You bring your ships through this water and we will kill your citizens and destroy your ships.
Embargo-We are not going to buy and sell with you anymore.
One involves the ending of human life and weapons, the other is..... a ban on buying and selling. Only one of those is an act of aggresion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Slaughtermeyer
|
|
PA, USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
It can be argued that the real culprit in the 1967 war is the USSR, because it mounted a disinformation campaign pushing Egypt to join Syria against Israel.
"The Soviet Union played a central role in escalating Middle East tensions to the brink of war in 1967, and evidence is accumulating that it actually instigated the conflict. In his recently published memoirs, Nikita S. Khrushchev asserts that the USSR's military command first encouraged high-ranking Egyptian and Syrian delegations, in a series of “hush-hush” mutual visits, to go to war, then persuaded the Soviet political leadership to support these steps, in the full knowledge they were aimed at starting a war to destroy Israel."
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2000/issue4/jv4n4a5.html
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2005 21:21
Maybe then they'd learn to get along.
Economic hardship isn't a legit reason to go to war. Otherwise Cuba would have every right to attack the United States. Up until 1956, the Straights of Tiran were not recognized as international waters. 
|