Israel Under Attack: Does Anyone Care?

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

It is immaterial. No country has the right to blockade another country's port or ports. It is an act of war.

Sharm el-Sheikh was captured by Israel during the Suez Crisis of 1956 and restored to Egypt in 1957. Before 1967 Sharm el-Sheikh was little more than an occasional base of operations for local fishermen.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Advocate wrote:
It is immaterial. No country has the right to blockade another country's port or ports. It is an act of war.

Sharm el-Sheikh was captured by Israel during the Suez Crisis of 1956 and restored to Egypt in 1957. Before 1967 Sharm el-Sheikh was little more than an occasional base of operations for local fishermen.

I meant to say Eilat.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

So Advocate...since the area at issue here was inhabited for many, many centuries by both Jews and Arabs in relative peace...and the trouble between the two parties began sometime in the mid to late 1940's...

...what do you suppose happened at that time to change things so drastically for the worse?

C'mon, Advocate. Give a guess if you cannot come up with an answer.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

I meant to say Eilat.

It took you quite some time and a couple of responses to notice that ... I even asked you especially in my first response about that ...

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Advocate wrote:
The port of Sharm el Sheikh was important to Israel, which said that several ships each month visited this port.

You do know what you write, don't you?

... but you went on and on ...

However, since both names sound so similar ...

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Do you have to be so nasty and sarcastic.

You spend an enormous amount of time researching. I don't, but rely on memory, which is fuzzy when years and years pass.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

You are confusing the 1967 and 1971 wars. Israel started the war in 1967: Egypt started the 1971 War.

In 1967 Egypt was not "marching on Israel's borders" as you said. instead they merely demanded the removal of the UN peacekeeping force from their side of the Sinai border: the Isearlis had never allowed UN peacekeepers on their side of the border. I agree that Nasser had allowed his warlike rhetoric to get away with him. However, he did not start the war. Israel did that in well-coordinated assaults on three fronts; the West Bank; Golan; and Sinai.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You are confusing the 1967 and 1971 wars. Israel started the war in 1967: Egypt started the 1971 War.

In 1967 Egypt was not "marching on Israel's borders" as you said. instead they merely demanded the removal of the UN peacekeeping force from their side of the Sinai border: the Isearlis had never allowed UN peacekeepers on their side of the border. I agree that Nasser had allowed his warlike rhetoric to get away with him. However, he did not start the war. Israel did that in well-coordinated assaults on three fronts; the West Bank; Golan; and Sinai.

As proof Egypt was marching on Israel in 1967, the latter's airforce and ground forces attacked the Egyptian army in the Sinai close to the Israeli border, and left hundreds, if not thousands, of burned-out Egyptian tanks and other vehicles, as well as many Egyptian dead.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

"Close to the Israeli border' is still in Egypt. The Israelis were also close tho the Egyptian border.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

And they were marching on Israel.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Possibly, though there is no evidence of it. It is interesting though that the Israelis crossed their mutual borders (with Egypt, Syria, and Jordan) first. Indeed the Egyptians never got close to the border.

That's a fact that gives the lie to the tailor made rationalizations and lies you have been fed.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

You spend an enormous amount of time researching.

No. But I've lived in those days already.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

You interpret situations in the area as if Israel is the only country with border rights and how it's interpreted. Your emotion has over taken your common sense.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Advocate wrote:

You spend an enormous amount of time researching.

No. But I've lived in those days already.

Obviously, you get off on being a nitpicker. The bottom line is that an Israeli port was blockaded, an act of war.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You interpret situations in the area as if Israel is the only country with border rights and how it's interpreted. Your emotion has over taken your common sense.

Countries have borders.

Israel lived contentedly in its borders, despite hundreds of attacks by the Pals and others, until the attacks on it in the '67 War.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Quote:

Israel lived contentedly in its borders, despite hundreds of attacks by the Pals and others, until the attacks on it in the '67 War.

Good point…which brings us back to my question of earlier.

Since the area at issue here was inhabited for many, many centuries by both Jews and Arabs in relative peace...and the trouble between the two parties began sometime in the mid to late 1940's...

...what do you suppose happened at that time to change things so drastically for the worse?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Please first give me your take on that question.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5295053)
Please first give me your take on that question.

I already have, Advocate...a couple of times. You will see so if you check the thread.

The thing that is different is that a state of Israel has been imposed on the area.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I don't agree with your premise. There was little in the way of a "relative" peace going a long way back. For instance, there was anti-Jew rioting in the 19th century.

This encouraged the Jews to make moves toward forming their own country. But the Arabs feel that they own everything in the ME, and, to this day, hope to destroy Israel.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5295062)
I don't agree with your premise. There was little in the way of a "relative" peace going a long way back. For instance, there was anti-Jew rioting in the 19th century.

I'm not sure if you are kidding...or if you just grasping for straws here.

Compared with almost anyone else along the Mediterranean littoral...the people of that area WERE VERY DEFINITELY relatively peaceful with one another. The only real difficulty was when the "Christians" of Europe invaded to kill both Jews and Arabs.

Not agreeing with the premise that there was RELATIVE peace in that area is like not agreeing that Rome once was a major force in the Mediterranean area.

Quote:

This encouraged the Jews to make moves toward forming their own country.

Yup...it did. And things have been much, much, much worse ever since. That is what I said.

Quote:

But the Arabs feel that they own everything in the ME, and, to this day, hope to destroy Israel.

No...the Arabs do not feel they own everything there. They do, however, feel the Jews should not have dominion over the area...that the state of Israel should not exist there.

And yes, they do hope to destroy Israel.

That is one of the reasons I suggest that if the state of Israel continues to exist there...and any Arabs remain alive...there will never be anything resembling real peace there.

So anyway...now that I've given you my take on my question...what is your response to it.

What has changed in that area since the 1940's to account for all the war and fighting that has taken the place of the relative peace enjoyed there for centuries?

You are up!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

My "take" is pretty implicit. It is mainly that your question, containing a faulty premise, is difficult to answer.

You say things have gotten much worse in the area. I don't agree. The Pals have foolishly passed up every chance for their own country, and having an excellent ally in Israel. But the Pals are not doing badly, and their population has exploded. Unfortunately, the minorities (e. g., Christians) in Pal areas have been persecuted.

Israel has done very well, and has a multi-cultural and religious society. It is flourishing in almost every way.

1 Reply

Israel Under Attack: Does Anyone Care?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know