08-01-2002 11:51									#31
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Sprayber I'm afraid that people on both sides just are itching for full confrontation. Except for Arafat maybe. Because lets face it, either way he doesn't live much beyond a full blown arab Israeli war.

Yah, except that it likely wouldn't be an Arab-Israeli war. The PA would be annihilated before any Arab allies (If they are actual military allies?) could/would be able to intervene - not that Arab offensives against Israel have an outstanding record of success...

Arafat and the PA, by the act of forming a Government are now a nice easy (and valid) target should it ever come to hostilities. A big difference from the shadow war they fought before and were used to fighting. And now they have something to lose ...

	08-01-2002 12:11									#32
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Well, I'm sure there would be no great mourning in Damascus or Bagdad for the Palastinian people in the event of a war. They support them because they are a thorn in the side of Israel. Beyond that, I wouldn't put too much faith in brotherhood from the likes of Syria and Iraq. It seems strange to me that the one country that might have legitiment concerns about the Palastinian people wants to stay out of it. Why isn't Jordan up there with Syria and Iraq banging on the table demanding action against the evil Israelies? The Saudies seem more concerned about Arafat then the Jordanians.

	08-01-2002 12:46									#33
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by faded glory Well Sirot, the missiles were hardly an annoyance, they were an escalation. They could of done serouis damage. Make the mortars look like fire-crackers. Like I said, all they need to do is go on a grassy hill. Set up a katuysha, take about 20 minutes, and aim it in a general direction of city 10-15 miles away. Shoot it, and run like hell, hope Israeli army doesnt come looking. Damage done.

If Katyushas start falling on Tel-Aviv, Israel will have to disable them using all possible means. And this wont be fun for the Palestinians.

	09-01-2002 06:56									#34
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by ravagon not that Arab offensives against Israel have an outstanding record of success...

Yes, 48, 56, and 67 were indeed routes. But the whole reason why Eygpt and Israel are at peace now, is because the arab's were finally learning how to fight. In 1973, I recall the arab's were finally on even footing with Israel (militarly and technologically) and were able to inflict tremendous damage on the Israel army... Something like 400 Israeli tanks were destroyed, 2,000 casualties and about 150 aircraft in the first 4 days of the war.

It wasnt until the Israeli's were able to recover and devolop ways of dodging those Pesky surface to air missiles did they once again regain the upper hand. And at that point, we know theres no place to hide in the desert. And then of course, under a massive air bombardment. Ariel Sharon's Tank Brigade broke through after heavy fighting and emerged on the opposite side of the Suez canal and fought a large battle at a Chinese Farm plantation for control over a bridge head over Suez.

At that point, 40,000 eygptians were cut off in Suez. And Eygpt made peace.

Israel knew, that it had to make peace with Eygpt. Otherwise, Eygpt's own booming oil-economy would eventually be able to create a war machine the Israeli's could not match. Especially with Iraqi's and Syrians Still in the picture. So there was a huge strive for peace with eygpt after yom kippor war. Otherwise, another war would have erupted 10 years down the road. And would have been even more costly then the prevouis.

	09-01-2002 17:10									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Egypt's booming oil economy ?

the only thing that kept the arabs from loosing was the elite soviet SAM crews that kept israel from establishing air superiority .

	10-01-2002 00:10									#36
	Got spare money?

Right, but Israel was worried about the success of the arabs during that war. If Eygpt, Syria, and Iraq had say attacked again 1983 some years down the road. It would have a disaster for Israel.

Ya those SAM's where a *****. But once Eygptian mechanized troops and tanks got out of the protection Zone's of the Suez. It was tough. The T-62's, were no match to your American made M-60 tanks. Plus Israeli crew's were elite and had an expierenced commanders like Sharon. But Eygpt fought very hard.....however the Syrians and Iraqi's in Golan did not fair so well.

	10-01-2002 00:13									#37
	Get a bigger avatar today!

If I remember correctly, Eygpt was able to smash the Bar-Lev line on the suez garrisoned bye about 2,000 Israeli troops......and were able to push the Israeli's back about 30 miles into the Suez Desert. Except one weak spot, where Sharon attacked.

	10-01-2002 01:30									#38
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That's right ! 2000 troops ! that's like nothing to stop about 2 armies , the 3rd and 2nd Egyptian armies. The Bar-Lev line was great , when Bar-Lev built it . but then , suddenly , less troops were stationed , and so it happened . The egyptians had the new soviet ATGMs , NATO designated AT-3 Sagger. and the T-62 were equal if not superior to the M60s . you better doublecheck on this one. their crews on the other hand...


P.S. and btw the egyptians never managed to get out of their SAM cover....

	10-01-2002 05:00									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

According to a book I read about (yeah I know, it's amusing, didn't read it, have no money to buy), in 73, Syria parked it's forces and stopped advancing into Israel because they feared a rumor about us having some kind of bombs that make a fungus like cloud when they blow up and take a town with them.

	10-01-2002 05:56									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by faded glory Yes, 48, 56, and 67 were indeed routes. But the whole reason why Eygpt and Israel are at peace now, is because the arab's were finally learning how to fight. In 1973, I recall the arab's were finally on even footing with Israel (militarly and technologically) and were able to inflict tremendous damage on the Israel army... Something like 400 Israeli tanks were destroyed, 2,000 casualties and about 150 aircraft in the first 4 days of the war. It wasnt until the Israeli's were able to recover and devolop ways of dodging those Pesky surface to air missiles did they once again regain the upper hand. And at that point, we know theres no place to hide in the desert. And then of course, under a massive air bombardment. Ariel Sharon's Tank Brigade broke through after heavy fighting and emerged on the opposite side of the Suez canal and fought a large battle at a Chinese Farm plantation for control over a bridge head over Suez. At that point, 40,000 eygptians were cut off in Suez. And Eygpt made peace. Israel knew, that it had to make peace with Eygpt. Otherwise, Eygpt's own booming oil-economy would eventually be able to create a war machine the Israeli's could not match. Especially with Iraqi's and Syrians Still in the picture. So there was a huge strive for peace with eygpt after yom kippor war. Otherwise, another war would have erupted 10 years down the road. And would have been even more costly then the prevouis.

True enough. I think the important thing about the Israeli casualties/losses however was that they were able to recover. The introduction and use of (good) SAM systems (It was the SA-6 that did most of the damage IIRC?) marked one of those "breakthrough" moments in war where the offensive/defensive balance decisively changes. The Israelis had the wherewithall (and the need) to adapt and counter after initial arab successes, which (IMO anyway) contributed greatly to breaking the back (morale-wise) of the Egyptian forces. All this in response to (and in spite of) the Arabs "learning how to fight".
(And they ended up occupying a fairly large tract of Egyptian territory as a bargaining chip - Hence also knew Egypt would make peace for it )

More importantly today, they are at peace with Egypt - the most powerful of the Arab nations and have a virtual alliance with the most powerful Muslim nation. An offensive against Israel nowadays could only come from/through Jordan or Syria/Lebanon and would have to consider possible Turkish intervention, making it a very "different ballgame" (Aaaarrgh! I used an Americanism
).

	11-01-2002 00:15									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Actually the Syrians just sucked. And they still do.....there air defenses couldnt hit an unarmed cargo plane flying high at 300 mph..

quote: According to a book I read about (yeah I know, it's amusing, didn't read it, have no money to buy), in 73, Syria parked it's forces and stopped advancing into Israel because they feared a rumor about us having some kind of bombs that make a fungus like cloud when they blow up and take a town with them.

Actually 100 Israeli's and a single british 6 pounder anti-tank gun held up 100 Syrian tank's for 2 days on the approach to an Israeli Farm.

And then in 1980's the Syrians threatened to "Shoot down Israeli aircraft" over Lebananon. That was a joke, Israel sent like a 1,000 unmanned drones and blasted like 300 Sam sights to Smitherines

	11-01-2002 04:59									#42
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

items for the the enemies of israel to remember.
1) The US public, according to public opinion polls, supports the destruction of any nation state, or pretense thereof, that supports terrorism. Smuggling katyushas is not going to get US support.

2) Israel will use nuclear weapons if necessary. Not many in the west would shed a tear.

3) If links are found to Iraq, Saddam won't live out the year.

	11-01-2002 05:14									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

From what I heard, much of the weaponry was anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry. Can't say that blame the Palistinians for wanting such things. It wouldn't stop Israel, but it would be able to bloody Goliath some.

1956 and 1967 were indeed routes, because they were suprise attacks launched by the Israelis. The Egyptians weren't expecting war either time, and in '67 were hoping merely to scare the Israelis into not and then the Eground of fighting, the Israelis were able to win because they got to pcik and choose which Arab country they were going to attack and break the truce against. Thus they could mass all their forces against the Egyptians, then the Syrians, the the Lebanese, then the Egyptians again, and finally then the Egyptians again invading the Sinai. Only the UN yanking Israel's chain (backed by the US) stopped the Israelis from taking it in '48. They tried again in '56, and finally got away with it in '67. Eventually they had to give it back because the PLO was begining to become something of an annoyance and they needed peace on their Southern border so they could mass the troops for an invasion of Lebanon (an abortive attempt was made in '77, but they got their leash yanked by the US again).

In 1973, the major difference was the Soviet SAMs based in Egypt. When the Egyptian forces finally moved beyond the range of these weapons (10 miles, not 30) to put pressure on the Israelis who were busy clobbering Syria and Iraq, they were sitting ducks for the air force. If it weren't for the USSR threatening to start WWIII (by militarily intervening to save their allies), the Israelis would have taken Damascus and Cairo (it was the US yanking Israeli's leash, having no wish to escalate this to WWIII). For his troubles, Nixon was blamed at home for trying to take attention away from Watergate.

	11-01-2002 05:50									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara From what I heard, much of the weaponry was anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry. Can't say that blame the Palistinians for wanting such things. It wouldn't stop Israel, but it would be able to bloody Goliath some.

Knowing the "National and Islamic forces," the anti-tank weapons and Katyusha rockets will be used to attack civillian cars and neighborhoods. Didn't hear anything about anti-aircraft guns. But besides, if the Palestinians are going to start preparing for war, I think Israel has every right to preempt them and take out the PA.

quote: 1956 and 1967 were indeed routes, because they were suprise attacks launched by the Israelis. The Egyptians weren't expecting war either time, and in '67 were hoping merely to scare the Israelis into not and then the Eground of fighting, the Israelis were able to win because they got to pcik and choose which Arab country they were going to attack and break the truce against. Thus they could mass all their forces against the Egyptians, then the Syrians, the the Lebanese, then the Egyptians again, and finally then the Egyptians again invading the Sinai.

Another way to say this would be that the Egyptians and Syrians thought that killing Israeli civillians and blockading the country wouldn't result in war (actually, Nasser considered the possibility and decided he could win) and that the Arab states were never able to act in concert.

quote: Only the UN yanking Israel's chain (backed by the US) stopped the Israelis from taking it in '48. They tried again in '56, and finally got away with it in '67. Eventually they had to give it back because the PLO was begining to become something of an annoyance and they needed peace on their Southern border so they could mass the troops for an invasion of Lebanon (an abortive attempt was made in '77, but they got their leash yanked by the US again).

The other thing is that Sadat genuinely convinced the Israelis that he was willing to make peace. And though I can't find the source right now, I think it's actually a matter of debate whether needing the troops in Lebanon was a motive for Begin's signing the Camp David accords.

	11-01-2002 08:11									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara From what I heard, much of the weaponry was anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry. Can't say that blame the Palistinians for wanting such things. It wouldn't stop Israel, but it would be able to bloody Goliath some.

You'll be surprised that those "defense" weapons are used often as attack weapons.

Hezballa killed quite a few Israeli conscripts with anti-tank missiles. They aim it at bases, not tanks.

Also, 2.5 Tons of high quality explosives.

Why would they need it unless they are providing it directly to Hamas and Jihad and PFLP?

	11-01-2002 08:22									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: The US together with Micronesia are our only true allies (I have no idea why Micronesia likes us) and Turkey is a strategic ally.

I thought Germany sold a lot of military equipment to Israel and could be considered at least a friend? Or was this only when Israel was new?

	11-01-2002 08:27									#47
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov You'll be surprised that those "defense" weapons are used often as attack weapons. Hezballa killed quite a few Israeli conscripts with anti-tank missiles. They aim it at bases, not tanks.

Arguably though, that's a fair military strategy. The point is not that what the PA is doing is immoral in and of itself (although it does seem clear that the weapons were intended for terrorist use, there's no evidence open to the public), but that it is a violation of the Oslo accords. Of course, it was long ago obvious to anyone who didn't actively want not to know it that Fatah had rejected the Oslo accords, but oh well.

quote: Also, 2.5 Tons of high quality explosives. Why would they need it unless they are providing it directly to Hamas and Jihad and PFLP?

1) IIRC, Fatah has deployed suicide bombers once or twice.
2) These can be used in the manufacture of mortars and grenades to kill wicked settler-occupiers like Shelhavet Pass
3) They can be used by the Tanzim and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade to plant roadside bombs to kill future Zionist Criminals of Gaza like those kids who had their legs blown off at the beginning of the Intifada.
Thus we see that there are many non-terrorist uses of the explosives.

	11-01-2002 09:09									#48
	Tired of ads?

Natan, I have a strong suspicion they are indeed cooperating very nicely. PLO and Hamas and such.

quote: Originally posted by HisMajestyBOB I thought Germany sold a lot of military equipment to Israel and could be considered at least a friend? Or was this only when Israel was new?

IIRC only when Israel was new.

There was even a time when France was our close ally

	11-01-2002 09:15									#49
	Support Apolyton

And Britian too

Remember? 1956, Israel, france, and England used combined military force to retake Suez/Sinai. Had it not been for Soviet Union.....you probably would of kept it.

And Britian and France Bankrolled most of the operation. Of couse, they also provided some air-strikes and 2,000 paratroops

	11-01-2002 19:58									#50
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Idiot. Hey, Natan: I'd gotten the impression that Oslo was sorta beyond salvaging at this point,

Neither the Israeli govt nor the PA, much less the US or the EU have reounced Oslo, despite claims by commentators that Oslo is dead. Both sides have commited violations of the accords (pardon me for thinking that harboring and encouraging terrorists is a greater violation than expanding settlements or bulldozing houses in retaliation, but i understand some disagree) but the arms ship is a far greater violation of Oslo than anything that either side had done before. It is not merely a technical violation, but it strikes at the heart of the peace process - land for peace - ie israeli withdrawl from Palestinian land and recognition of a Palestinian state in exchange for that state being DEMILITARIZED and NOT having alliances with other states, like IRAN or IRAQ.
Israel now has no legal reason not to destroy the PA, re-occupy whatever territory it wishes, etc. We're back at square one. The only deterrent to such Israel action is the desire of those Israelies who are pro-peace and of the US to see a moderate successor to Arafat, rather than a hardline successor.

I realize there are "pro"-palestinian voices, including some here, who never accepted the Oslo ground rules, that the Palestinian state should be demilitarized and limited in foreign policy choices - they did not accept such assymetry between Palestine and Israel. However Israel will never accept such symetry with a Pal. state west of the Jordan. Sovereign states do not routinely commit suicide, no matter how much outsiders think that simple fairness indicates they should.

LOTM

	11-01-2002 21:02									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Natan Another way to say this would be that the Egyptians and Syrians thought that killing Israeli civillians and blockading the country wouldn't result in war (actually, Nasser considered the possibility and decided he could win) and that the Arab states were never able to act in concert.

Israel didn't need to use the Straights of Tiran since almost all of its trade came from Europe. Second, Israel was just as guilty, if not more so, of launching raids into neighboring countries. In 1967, Nasser had just spent 3-4 losing in Yemen to local rebels. I doubt he was under any illusions he could hurt the Israelis. Syria certainly wasn't.

quote: The other thing is that Sadat genuinely convinced the Israelis that he was willing to make peace.

Well, he also convinced the Israelis that Egypt was enough of a potential military threat that the time for peace had finally arrived. Prior to '73, Israel had no need for peace since it could crush any Arab foe it wanted. Sadat had tried to negotiate peace before the '73 war.

	11-01-2002 22:24									#52
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

the Straits of Tiran were blocked .that was an act of war. PERIOD. Nasser knew that very well . he was hoping to start a war . otherwise , why on earth would he do that ?

also , There was a build-up of hardware of Arab armies. Israel launched raids mainly against those egyptians that have made countless killings , including ambushes of civilian buses , and cars . attacking schools , etc.

quote: Prior to '73, Israel had no need for peace since it could crush any Arab foe it wanted. Sadat had tried to negotiate peace before the '73 war.

a very simple argument could counter your point. Israel could crush any Arab foe AFTER 73' as well.....

	11-01-2002 22:42									#53
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The Straights of Tiran were blockaded in 1948, and were also Egyptian territorial waters, so as for being ab act of war, it's debatable. The Settlement of 1956 opened the water ways and forced Egypt to consider them as international waters. He did close them again years later (over some Israeli provacation). Israel likes to bring this up, but always leaves out the the waters had been closed to them for years. In the few years that it was open to them, there were only a handful of ships using the Straights. The vast amjority of Israel's shipping, then, as now, was with Europe.

In 1967, yes, there was a build up of Egyptian armies. Israel had been threatening Syria with war for several months and Nasser moved tanks up to the border with Israel, basically as a warning to Israel. It backfired terribly, as Israel used it as the excuse to grab territory it had been trying to grab since '48.

Dalgetti, yer supposed to be a commie, which should mean you aren't supposed to believe your own state's propaganda. Israel is an actor, not a reactor. Israel was just as guilty, if not more, than the Arab states which surrounded it in instigating violence.

	12-01-2002 00:04									#54
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Blah.

I had excellent responses to Che but then Apolyton crashed on me and wouldn't add the ****ing post.

Great

	12-01-2002 01:31									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

God hates ugly.

	12-01-2002 01:47									#56
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Israel didn't need to use the Straights of Tiran since almost all of its trade came from Europe.

I don't think saying that it only deprived Israel of 4 or 5 percent of its trade is a good argument.

quote: Second, Israel was just as guilty, if not more so, of launching raids into neighboring countries.

The US does that too, but that doesn't mean that when we strike back against sponsors of terrorism against us, we are engaging in agression.

quote: In 1967, Nasser had just spent 3-4 losing in Yemen to local rebels. I doubt he was under any illusions he could hurt the Israelis.

I, and Arab historian Albert Hourani disagree. Nasser was under the impression that he could still beat Israel with Soviet help if war came. Leaders in the modern Arab world have always overestimated their military strength.

quote: Syria certainly wasn't.

Which is why they shouldn't have used the hills of Jawlan to shell Israeli Kibbutzim in the valley below.

quote: Well, he also convinced the Israelis that Egypt was enough of a potential military threat that the time for peace had finally arrived. Prior to '73, Israel had no need for peace since it could crush any Arab foe it wanted. Sadat had tried to negotiate peace before the '73 war.

As Dalgetti noted, the '73 war was a victory in psychology only. Sadat though that he could hold onto the east bank of the Canal, and he was wrong. The war was only a victory in that the Arab armies did not instantly disintegrate as they had in '67.

quote: In 1967, yes, there was a build up of Egyptian armies. Israel had been threatening Syria with war for several months

quote: and Nasser moved tanks up to the border with Israel, basically as a warning to Israel.

Not a warning, but a threat, and in the belief that his military could defeat Israel.

quote: It backfired terribly, as Israel used it as the excuse to grab territory it had been trying to grab since '48.

I think calling this an excuse is a tad biased.

	12-01-2002 01:50									#57
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by HisMajestyBOB I thought Germany sold a lot of military equipment to Israel and could be considered at least a friend? Or was this only when Israel was new?

Siro's mention of micronesia has me thinking that he is focusing on UN votes, where most europeans abstain on anti-Israel resolutions, unless they are obviously unbalanced.
In reality Israel has several allies, including Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Australia, though none are as understanding of Israels strategic dilemna as is the US. Britain has tended through the 80's and 90's to maintain a greater distance from Israel, though there is evidence that in the last few months Tony Blair is becoming almost as frustrated with PA behaviour as the US is. France and Italy continue to be less sympathetic to Israels frustrations with the PA, though they continue to be important trade partners. Israel of course has other friends of less stratgic importance in africa and Latin America, as well as a developing relationship with India.

As for Turkey, it is very important that Israel maintains an ally in the islamic world, and one that shares its strategic concerns regarding Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Oh, and a democracy and friend of the US at that.


LOTM

	12-01-2002 01:56									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara In 1967, yes, there was a build up of Egyptian armies. Israel had been threatening Syria with war for several months and Nasser moved tanks up to the border with Israel, basically as a warning to Israel. It backfired terribly, as Israel used it as the excuse to grab territory it had been trying to grab since '48.

Note on 1967. Egypt has a large population, and its army in 1967 (as now)was a small portion of that pop. Israel's active army is tiny - each time egypt mobilized (which it was doing with some frequency in 1967) Israel had to mobilize its reserves - virtually the entire male population under 45, and single females under 25. Basically a catastrophic disruption of the Israeli economy, with most of the civilian workforce under arms. Continued mobilization and demobilization in response to Egyptian threats was proving intolerable to Israel - preventive action was required.

LOTM

	12-01-2002 02:00									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Well, he also convinced the Israelis that Egypt was enough of a potential military threat that the time for peace had finally arrived. Prior to '73, Israel had no need for peace since it could crush any Arab foe it wanted. Sadat had tried to negotiate peace before the '73 war.

This is incorrect. Israeli leaders such as Golda Meir were quite eager for a compromise peace with Egypt in 1967-73, and floated the Allon plan for partial withdrawl from the west bank. It was egypt that was not ready. Sadat did not come to power until '70. and spent first 2 years consolidating power and expelling Soviet advisors (iirc). He launched war to restore eqyptian pride, and make peace palatable to Egypt.

LOTM

	12-01-2002 02:06									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov Natan, I have a strong suspicion they are indeed cooperating very nicely. PLO and Hamas and such. IIRC only when Israel was new. There was even a time when France was our close ally

socialist 4th republic, locked in battle with algerian rebels. Replaced by degaulle, eager to assert great power status, distance from US, appeal to 3rd world and arabs.
When giscard and mitterand succeeded gaulists, some moderation of French policy toward israel, but France under any leadership has a strategic interest in differentiating itself from US, and opposing a strong Israel that is tied to American intersts. France wont openly ally with the nasty-nasties(they are a western demo after all) , but as long as PA is halfway moderate France has an out to oppose Israel. (NB - I have not heard french response to arms boat, should be very interesting)

LOTM