"Tom Cooper" wrote in message ...
"Quant" wrote in message
om...
"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...
"Quant" wrote in message
om...
"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...
"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On 13 Sep 2003 04:51:07 -0700, Quant wrote:
(Jack White) wrote


So, if you're already familiar with all the facts. How come that you
said that Israel was the aggressor on 1967?

Because it was Israel who planted the "news" about the concentration of
Israeli units, preparing to strike Syria, into the Soviet intel system. The
Egyptian actions - starting with the blockade of the Tyran - was a reaction
to this, prompted by Moscow informing Cairo about the "Israeli intention to
attack Syria".

1. I think that the facts I brought show clearly an Arab aggression on
1967.
2. I think that they show clearly that Israel couldn't prevent the
war. The other choice of Israel, which was a "no choice", was to be
annihilated. How come you interpret a no choice war as an aggression?

I don't see this as a "no choice war". Not right from the start. Once Nasser
blocked Tyran and started threating with destruction of Israel, yes, there
was not much other choice but to start a war. The question is only which
kind: had the whole Sinai to be occupied in order to re-open the Tyran?

Even more so before that there was other choice: before the war there was
still a possibility of negotiation and that is what even Washington urged
Aba Ebban and the others to do.

A bit of research via Google will reveal some interesting later
acknowledgements by key Israelis that support your statements:

"Nevertheless, Israel's leaders did not regard Nasser's acts as
threatening. As Mordecai Bentov, at the time a member of the Israeli
government, said, "The entire story of the danger of extermination was
invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the
annexation of new Arab territory." "

Source: http://www.wrmea.com/Washington-Repo...91/9107040.htm

"Former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion said that he "doubt[ed] very
much whether [Egyptian President] Nasser wanted to go to war. "
Yitzhak Rabin has said, "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war." "

http://www.washington-report.org/bac...91/9104034.htm

Even Begin agreed that both the 56 and 67 wars were "wars of choice"
on Israel's part, and that it initiated the combat:

"It was 12 years ago when Prime Minister Menachem Begin admitted in
public that Israel had fought three wars in which it had a "choice,"
meaning Israel started the wars. Begin's admission came in a speech
delivered on Aug. 8, 1982, before the Israeli National Defense
College. His purpose was to defuse mounting criticism of Israel's
invasion of Lebanon, which had begun two months earlier on June 5 and
was clearly one of Israel's wars of "choice." The others were in 1956
and 1967...[Begin Begin quote] "Our other wars were not without an
alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice. The reason for going to
war then was the need to destroy the fedayeen, who did not represent a
danger to the existence of the state...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. This was a war of
self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of
National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the
initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the
security of Israel and the future of the nation."

http://www.washington-report.org/bac...94/9407073.htm

Unfortunately, conventional wisdom, as exhibited by continual Israeli
pronouncements and the meager coverage provided by a main-line media
that prefers to stick with the original "Israel was forced into war"
concept, means that many today still cling to the old notion that
Israel had no choice in its wars with its neighbors that have netted
them the land originally mandated to the Palestinians, along with a
chunk of Syrian territory.

Brooks



I'm not persisting on this issue in order to "win the debate". If you
were right and I was wrong then I learned something new. But it's
important for me to fix the false impression (on my opinion) that you
created, saying that Israel was the aggressor on 1967 and the Arab
were not the aggressors.

Look, don't get me wrong, but this argumentation reminds me what some people
use to explain why Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941: "sooner or later the
Soviets would attack; they were preparing, so it was better to strike
first".

In addition to what I said above, let me add that I do consider the party
that initiates the fighting as aggressor. Unless the shots were fired
everything else is possible: once the fighting starts the situation changes
considerably. There was certainly a threat for Israel in 1967, but it was
Israel who attacked first. Pre-emptive or not, starting a war and conquering
enemy territory, and then holding it for decades to come, is an aggressive
movement in my opinion beyond any doubt.

I disagree with you, but for now it will be enough for me to show that
the only aggressors in 1967 were the Arabs.

If it was the Arabs "alone", then why is Israel still holding the Golan? Why
was the West Bank annected? Why have the Israelis built settlements there?
If Israel was not an aggressor and there was no intention to conquer, they
why were all these things done?

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying: feel free to acuse me for this. But, as long as
nothing changes in this regards you can't expect me to consider Israel
anything but an aggressor in 1967.

If it's important to you, then we could check specifically war after
war, incident after incident. Maybe then and when looking on the wider
picture we could find arguments we both agree upon.

I rather think this is important for you: I doubt you can change my mind in
this regards.

It is you who brought the 1967 matter into this thread, not me. For me
it's just important to correct your false claim (on my opinion)
regarding that war.

Err, I draw several general conclusions. You jumped on the part about the
Six Day War. So, sorry, but there must be a misunderstanding of a sort here
if you still instist I brought the issue of 1967 to this thread. If, then I
brought not only the issue of 1967, but also all the other Arab-Israeli wars
of the last 55 years on this thread. This, however, is needed for such like
you in order to understand the situation in the context of the answer to the
question: would Saudi EF-2000s be a threat for Israel or not.

The answer to this question, namely, is negative: no, they would not be a
threat, but Israel is a threat for its neighbours. Why? See bellow.

1. If you try to insinuate that the blockade of the Tiran straits
wasn't a proper casus belly, or that the six days war wasn't a no
choice war for Israel, then look at what I wrote above.

I saw it and this is not going to change my opinion.

2. If you are honestly trying to find out whether the "talk about the
Saudis eventually buying EF-2000s" will prompt Israel to open a war,
then the answer is no.

To be honest, I'm not so sure. Perhaps not an outright war, but the Israeli
political (or, should I actually say "military", as Israel is meanwhile
largely lead by former military officers) leadership is meanwhile so
paranoid that one can really expect everything from it.

3. Saudi-British negotiations are not an existential threat for
Israel.

Given the reactions of the Israeli media, and the Israeli lobby in the USA
every time the Arabs buy something, apparently they almost are. When the
Egyptians buy 20 AGM-84 Harpoons, one can read everywhere about "new
threats" for Israel. When the Iranians test their IRBMs, that's also a
threat. When the Saudis talk about buying EF-2000 there is also similar
screaming (see this thread) etc. No, these are no "existantial threats" at
all, but your people make them look as such. When Israel is buying 60 (more)
F-16, developing and producing nuclear and other WMDs, not caring at all for
international conventions and regulations, that's - "of course" - for
"defence purposes"...

So, it's this biased campaign which is so disturbing for me. At earlier
times I was pro-Israel. I'm not any mo I'm getting sick of such and
similar propaganda. To make it clear again: I'm not saying that Arabs are
any better either, but what Israel is doing meanwhile, and what its
politicians and representatives do and how they act is simply too much.

4. I don't have the capability to do an exact assessment of the threat
to Israel in case that Saudia or Egypt will buy Eurofighters. And this
is why I started this thread. To get more information.

Well, just keep it simple: how many wars the Saudis have started against
Israel? How many times have their troops REALLY AND ACTIVELLY participated
in fighting against Israel?

Let's be honest: the answer is actually 0. Yes, "technically", they're still
at war with Israel. But, practically? It was token support the Saudis were
providing to other Arabs in 1948 and in 1973, nothing really more. Last year
it was exactly the Saudis who were offering a recognition of Israel and
peace - under specific conditions: something "unthinkable" for most of the
other Arabs. These reasons alone should actually be enough for you not to
have to expect the Saudi EF-2000 to be any kind of a serious threat for
Israel either. And, there are still plenty of additional reasons which
indicate the same.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585