Why would Israel attack Iran?

[Cactusboy]

The Israelis attacked in a similar manner to the Japanese attack on Hawaii in 1941... a sneak attack.

 

This is another disingenuous allegation. Both sides were heavily prepared for war. Two-thirds of the entire Egyptian military were on the Israeli borders. Iraq, Syria and Jordan all had large contingents on the Israeli border. This is not a peace-time maneuver. Don't pretend that Israel attacked a sleeping enemy like Japan. Not even close.

 

EVERYONE that mattered KNEW Egypt wasn't going to attack. They are quoted as saying so...Israel's leader and US intelligence agreed they weren't going to and wouldn't have attacked. I can provide the quotes if needed.

 

See how most have such a warped version of what's happened over there throughout the decades? How many outright lies do I need to show before you can admit it's greatly skewed? Step away from the conventional wisdom and into reality.

 

 

Quoted where? Source, please.

 

 

I'm somewhat familiar w/ one of the quotes so I googled part of it " ' we must be honest' egypt" and found this along w/ many results. I didn't check what this site is, but the quote and others are all over the internets, so I can find other sources if needed.

 

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “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.”

 

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/07/04/israels-attack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/

[Cactusboy]

You seem to not like Jewish people much.

 

We already covered that. If you are outspoken about the horrors done by black leaders in Africa do you not like black people?

I have no problem any race of people. I do have a problem with stupidity though. My problem with your argument is you seem to be singling out the acts of the Jewish people. Anybody who makes a counter argument seems to have "stunningly superficial knowledge"

 

many times I've denounced the terrorism that the Palestinians use. What else is there to say or single out? Both sides should follow international law. It's not my fault if one side violates it more.

[knapplc]

You seem to not like Jewish people much.

 

 

now you've done it, you will be scolded for that remark. Don't you know he loves the Jewish people he just doesn't love the govt or them living anywhere in the middle east. They need to all go back to where they came from and he can love them there!! Let's all sing cumbaya!!

 

 

Knapp...this is the guy you were thankful to be on your "side".

 

That is a disgusting low blow. You owe johnny an apology.

[johnnyrodgers20]

It also doesn't prove that weren't going to attack, how do you know what was in Nassar's head back in '67? Are you

Clairvoyant ?

[johnnyrodgers20]

You seem to not like Jewish people much.

 

 

now you've done it, you will be scolded for that remark. Don't you know he loves the Jewish people he just doesn't love the govt or them living anywhere in the middle east. They need to all go back to where they came from and he can love them there!! Let's all sing cumbaya!!

 

 

Knapp...this is the guy you were thankful to be on your "side".

 

That is a disgusting low blow. You owe johnny an apology.

 

No apology needed he is what he is!! Thaks for the thought though!!

[Cactusboy]

from the same link.

 

 

The current Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Michael B. Oren, acknowledged in his book “Six Days of War“, widely regarded as the definitive account of the war, that “By all reports Israel received from the Americans, and according to its own intelligence, Nasser had no interest in bloodshed”.

 

 

Yitzhak Rabin, who would later become Prime Minister, told Le Monde the year following the ’67 war, “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.”

 

There also quotes from our own intelligence, but they aren't on this link.

[Cactusboy]

You seem to not like Jewish people much.

 

 

now you've done it, you will be scolded for that remark. Don't you know he loves the Jewish people he just doesn't love the govt or them living anywhere in the middle east. They need to all go back to where they came from and he can love them there!! Let's all sing cumbaya!!

 

 

Knapp...this is the guy you were thankful to be on your "side".

 

That is a disgusting low blow. You owe johnny an apology.

 

why do you assume I was being negative? Maybe it's your that owes him the appology?

[knapplc]

I'm somewhat familiar w/ one of the quotes so I googled part of it " ' we must be honest' egypt" and found this along w/ many results. I didn't check what this site is, but the quote and others are all over the internets, so I can find other sources if needed.

 

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “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.”

 

http://www.foreignpo...not-preemptive/

 

Unconvincing in the face of the blockade of Eilat, not to mention the ouster of UN troops from Sinai by Egypt immediately prior to the war. Further, the bulk of the armies of Syria and Jordan were on their borders with Israel, not to mention members of the Iraqi military (which shares no border with Israel). The blockade alone could be construed as an act of war.

[Cactusboy]

I'm somewhat familiar w/ one of the quotes so I googled part of it " ' we must be honest' egypt" and found this along w/ many results. I didn't check what this site is, but the quote and others are all over the internets, so I can find other sources if needed.

 

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “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.”

 

http://www.foreignpo...not-preemptive/

 

Unconvincing in the face of the blockade of Eilat, not to mention the ouster of UN troops from Sinai by Egypt immediately prior to the war. Further, the bulk of the armies of Syria and Jordan were on their borders with Israel, not to mention members of the Iraqi military (which shares no border with Israel). The blockade alone could be construed as an act of war.

 

 

and yet after all of that....they still made those very quotes. It seems you should be arguing it with them on this one. I'm just the messenger.

[knapplc]

So how do you explain the fact that 100,000 of Egypt's 160,000 troops were in the Sinai next to Israel's borders in the days leading up to the war? And the presence of the Iraqi forces? And the presence of the bulk of Syria's and Jordan's military forces next to the Israel border, including their most advanced tanks?

 

Picnic?

[Cactusboy]

as far as the stait issue...here is an old link/article I posted on pedia long ago.

Legality of Arab Position

 

 

 

The New York Times

June 11, 1967

Written by Roger Fisher

 

The Arab states have consistently refused to accept the existence of Israel, have subjected it to military harassment, and have threatened to exterminate it. This does not, however, mean that everything that they do is wrong or that everything Israel does is right. The chance for Israel to live in peace will be improved if the United States better understands how things may look to the Arabs. It will also be improved if the United States now demands of Israel the same standard of conduct that we were demanding of the Arab states.

 

United States press reports about the Gulf of Aqaba situation were grossly one-sided. The United Arab Republic had a good legal case for restricting traffic through the Strait of Tiran.

 

First, it is debatable whether international law confers any right of innocent passage through such a waterway. Despite an Israeli request, the International Law commission in 1956 found no rule which would govern the Strait of Tiran. Although the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea does provide for innocent passage through such straits, the United States representative, Arthur Dean, called this 'a new rule' and the UAR has not signed the treaty.

 

There are, of course, good arguments on the Israeli side too, and an impartial international court might well conclude that a right of innocent passage through the Strait of Tiran does exist.

 

Innocence of Passage

 

But a right of innocent passage is not a right of free passage for any cargo at any time. In the words of the Convention on the Territorial Sea: "Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state."

 

In April, Israel conducted a major retaliatory raid on Syria and threatened raids of still greater size. In this situation was Egypt required by international law to continue to allow Israel to bring in oil and other strategic supplies through Egyptian territory - supplies which Israel could use to conduct further military raids? That was the critical question of law.

 

The exercise by Israel of the belligerent right of retaliation on Syria in April may have been morally justified (although the Untied Nations found that it was not and censured Israel). Even so, it provided a fair basis for the UAR to assert the right to exercise a comparable (and less bloody) belligerent right - namely, to close the Strait of Tiran to strategic cargo for Israel.

 

The UAR would have had a better case if it had announced that the closing was temporary and subject to review by the International Court, but taking the facts as they were I, as an international lawyer, would rather defend before the International Court of Justice the legality of the UAR's action in closing the Strait of Tiran than to argue the other side of the case, and I would certainly rather do so than to defend the legality of the preventive war which Israel launched this week.

 

Equal Application

 

Looking ahead one can see that it may be difficult to convince the Arabs that the United States does not decide issues on grounds of race or religion but on the grounds of principle.

 

Arabs may think that if we hold Egypt to its implied promise to let ships through the Gulf of Aqaba we should hold Israel to its express promise not to extend its territory.

 

Arabs may think that if we plan to establish some international agency on Egyptian territory to see that the waters of Suez and Aqaba are available for fair international use we should plan to establish a similar agency on Israeli territory to see that the waters of the Jordan River are available for fair international use. Arabs may think that a firm United State guarantee of the borders of the Middle East ought to apply to them as well as to Israel.

 

http://www.pon.harvard.edu/hnp/middleeast/oped1967.shtml"]http://www.pon.harvard.edu/hnp/middleeast/oped1967.shtml"]http://www.pon.harvard.edu/hnp/middleeast/oped1967.shtml[/url]

[Cactusboy]

So how do you explain the fact that 100,000 of Egypt's 160,000 troops were in the Sinai next to Israel's borders in the days leading up to the war? And the presence of the Iraqi forces? And the presence of the bulk of Syria's and Jordan's military forces next to the Israel border, including their most advanced tanks?

 

Picnic?

 

 

Well from the link...

 

 

In a meeting with Nasser, Johnson’s special envoy to the UAR, Robert B. Anderson, expressed U.S. puzzlement over why he had massed troops in the Sinai, to which Nasser replied, “Whether you believe it or not, we were in fear of an attack from Israel. We had been informed that the Israelis were massing troops on the Syrian border with the idea of first attacking Syria, there they did not expect to meet great resistance, and then commence their attack on the UAR.”

 

Anderson then told Nasser “that it was unfortunate the UAR had believed such reports, which were simply not in accordance with the facts”, to which Nasser responded that his information had come from reliable sources (presumably referring to intelligence information passed along by the USSR).

 

Nasser added that “your own State Department called in my Ambassador to the U.S. in April or May and warned him that there were rumors that there might be a conflict between Israel and the UAR.”

 

U.S. intelligence had indeed foreseen the coming war. “The CIA was right about the timing, duration, and outcome of the war”, notes David S. Robarge in an article available on the CIA’s website.

[knapplc]

I would agree with the tenor of that article. There is much merit to what the Arabs are feeling.

 

There is no merit to bombing buses, though. Nor to indiscriminately firing rockets into your neighbor's fields, or to any of the other myriad things the Arabs have done in this conflict. Same goes for Israel.

 

Kinda what I've been saying for several pages in this thread.

[Cactusboy]

I would agree with the tenor of that article. There is much merit to what the Arabs are feeling.

 

There is no merit to bombing buses, though. Nor to indiscriminately firing rockets into your neighbor's fields, or to any of the other myriad things the Arabs have done in this conflict. Same goes for Israel.

 

Kinda what I've been saying for several pages in this thread.

 

and you said that Hamas is notorious for breaking cease fires...and that's just not what the facts show. Again...I understand why you think how you do. Your understanding is probably based on how/what our major news outlets report on. You saw in the Morning Joe clip how ignorant Scarborough is on the subject and he was a fricking US Congressman. It's classic that he thinks he has it all right because he reads the NYT and other major news rags.

 

I hope you at least can now see that the story we get from our media is GROSSLY biased and I've only touched on examples of it.

[knapplc]

Nothing you've shown me proves that the media is more biased than I already knew. It doesn't take much to believe in media bias. But it does take quite a leap in logic to extrapolate from that belief another belief that Israel = bad, Arabs = good. Completely unsupported conclusion.