ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Ben-Gurion, exhausted by political struggles, had left the premiership in late 1953 to Moshe Sharett, who hoped that vigorous international diplomacy might relieve Israel's insecurity. It did not. Ben-Gurion had a different approach, and returning as prime minister in late 1955 after the Czech-Egyptian arms deal, he soon began to plan a preemptive attack against Egypt before that country's new weaponry gave it strategic superiority. The preparations for an Israeli attack coincided with the Anglo-French decision to regain the Suez Canal, which Nasser had nationalized in July 1956 despite agreements putting it under international control. The French brokered a secret alliance with Israel and Britain, and in October IDF troops, under the leadership of Moshe Dayan, swiftly broke the Egyptian lines in the Sinai. The Israeli attack provided the cover for a ruse in which the British and French invaded the canal zone under the pretext of protecting it. This duplicity infuriated American President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who compelled the British and French governments to withdraw their troops, effectively ending much of the influence of those two countries in the region. Israel was also compelled to return to the old armistice lines, but not before the United States had agreed to placing a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai. American Secretary of State John Foster Dulles also promised in writing that the United States would treat the Strait of Tiran as an international waterway and keep it open.

These arrangements did not lead to peace negotiations, but they did impose a calm over Israel's southern border for nearly a decade. A regional arms race began in the absence of any movement toward peace, and Shimon Peres, Ben-Gurion's deputy defense minister, found France to be a willing supplier. The French-designed nuclear reactor in Dimona was widely suspected of being the kernel of an Israeli nuclear weapons program, while French Mirage jets became the backbone of Israel's air force. The Israelis also obtained a large indirect supply of arms from the United States, with West Germany as the intermediary. Israel, under the leadership of IDF Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin, turned its military into a highly professional organization.

George, purposely or not, you misunderstand me. I say the attack was not preemptory because the two parties were in a state of war. Egypt mounted a number of attacks on Israel BEFORE THE '56 incursion. Thus, Israel's incursion was just another battle between the two states. Under the circumstances, it was hardly one-sided aggression.

Advocate wrote:

George, purposely or not, you misunderstand me. I say the attack was not preemptory because the two parties were in a state of war. Egypt mounted a number of attacks on Israel BEFORE THE '56 incursion. Thus, Israel's incursion was just another battle between the two states. Under the circumstances, it was hardly one-sided aggression.

Just like the US and Iraq were in a 'state of war' since gulf war 1. So we didn't aggressively attack them; we projected a forward defense. Right?

Right

Cycloptichorn

Israel has an overriding slogan: never again. Israel, with nukes, won't go down without a fight.

Just for the sake of truth, here (below) is Advocate's statement about the events of 1956 that started this spurt of dialogue. "Israel did not mount a preemptory attack on Egypt...." is a patently false statement. Israel invaded Egyptian territory - then including Gaza - and, after wiping out the border defenses, sent a large army across Siani (also Egyptian territory) to await coordination with Anglo French forces that arrived a few days later. There had been no Egyptian attack on Israel.

Advocate wrote:

As usual, George distorts the facts and makes ridiculous statements. Israel did not mount a preemptory attack on Egypt in 1956. Due to unrelenting attacks by Egypt on Israel up to the war, the countries were in a state of war. Moreover, Israel never attacked Egyptian forces, but stayed in the background as ordered by the Brits.
.

The "provocation" for this attack was Egypt's "seizure" of the Suez canal which threatened British interests in the region. The canal had been built, under license from Egyptian governments, by a French consortium (using forced labor provided by Egypt) and was opened in 1869. Britain perceived that this was a potential threat to its own colonial interests, and in a series of financial, diplomatic, and military moves established itself as the "protector" of the canal, though this was opposed by many Egyptians. Nasser's action to seize the canal followed Western refusals to finance his Aswan dam project. His announced motive for seizing the canal was to use the revenues to finance the dam project. Britain, France and Israel saw Egyptian control of the canal as a threat to their strategic interests, and launched the invasion, which was immediately condemned by most Western nations. Under intense diplomatic (and financial in the case of Britain) pressure from the United States and the UN, they were forced to withdraw, though Israel persistently refused to give up Gaza for a long period afterwards.

It appears to me that the western nations want Israel to survive, since they are a source of innovations in hi-tech electronics, whether it is related to defense, or the consumer market. Naturally, that can't be an "official" position, since the western nations need Middle East oil. It's a balancing act for the western nations, I believe. This reality is very much part of any equation as to what will transpire there. Any ideologues need to accept this likely reality, rather than hammer on ethical/moral dogma.

Foofie wrote:

It appears to me that the western nations want Israel to survive, since they are a source of innovations in hi-tech electronics, whether it is related to defense, or the consumer market. Naturally, that can't be an "official" position, since the western nations need Middle East oil. It's a balancing act for the western nations, I believe. This reality is very much part of any equation as to what will transpire there. Any ideologues need to accept this likely reality, rather than hammer on ethical/moral dogma.

Israel is not a source of innovation in the tech industry, sorry.

Oh, I know you have your lists and emails which point out a few things that come from there. But they are truly dwarfed by Europe, Asia, and America. They do not make a significant difference in the technology markets.

On the other hand, they sure keep the Arabs busy and off balance, and give us a proxy in the region. We use Israel. They are our cats-paw. You should recognize this fact. It's demeaning to the Israeli people that the US uses them this way. But they accept it for the 3 billion in defense funding and another 2 in indirect aid they get every year.

Cycloptichorn

. . . ."Israeli technology companies are showing impressive growth rates both in absolute terms and in comparison to other European countries, including [those in] Western Europe," said Yigal Brightman, chairman and CEO of Deloitte Brightman Almagor and managing partner of the TMT group in Deloitte. "The dizzying success of Israeli companies in 2007 is not coincidental, and is amazing in light of the GDP of other countries included in the survey, such as Britain, Germany and France," he added.

The EMEA Fast 500 survey ranks the 500 technology companies, both private and publicly traded, that presented the most rapid revenue-growth rates during the past five years. The rating is based on the "Fast 50" regional competitions the company held in 16 European countries. . . .

. . . .A total of eight Israeli companies are among the leading 50 firms in the Fast 500, constituting a total of 9 percent of the rated companies.

And another impressive achievement: BioView, which came in at 38, achieved first place in the life sciences and medical instrumentation category. BioView develops and markets systems for identifying cell pathologies.

This year 45 Israeli companies were included in the list, compared to 44 in 2006 and 34 two years ago. Analysis of the results of the rating shows that the 45 Israeli firms included in the rating averaged a growth rate of 3,692 percent, higher than in any other participating country. The next most impressive results come from Bulgaria, with an average growth rate of 3279 percent; Poland, which averaged 2,448 percent; and Sweden, averaging 1,610 percent.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/928361.html

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foofie wrote:

It appears to me that the western nations want Israel to survive, since they are a source of innovations in hi-tech electronics, whether it is related to defense, or the consumer market. Naturally, that can't be an "official" position, since the western nations need Middle East oil. It's a balancing act for the western nations, I believe. This reality is very much part of any equation as to what will transpire there. Any ideologues need to accept this likely reality, rather than hammer on ethical/moral dogma.

Israel is not a source of innovation in the tech industry, sorry.

Oh, I know you have your lists and emails which point out a few things that come from there. But they are truly dwarfed by Europe, Asia, and America. They do not make a significant difference in the technology markets.

On the other hand, they sure keep the Arabs busy and off balance, and give us a proxy in the region. We use Israel. They are our cats-paw. You should recognize this fact. It's demeaning to the Israeli people that the US uses them this way. But they accept it for the 3 billion in defense funding and another 2 in indirect aid they get every year.

Cycloptichorn

Thank God there's an Israel in the Middle East to use. Do you see any other countries in that region that are usable?

Also, when our aid goes to Israel's defense spending, they are buying weapons systems, military hardware from corporations where? Exactly, it's a mobius strip. It's called a win-win situation, except for the idealogues that would rather that money go for freebies to some group here or in some mendicant nation.

But, I take issue with your minimizing Israel's R&D in technology. It's nothing worth discussing.

Foofie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foofie wrote:

It appears to me that the western nations want Israel to survive, since they are a source of innovations in hi-tech electronics, whether it is related to defense, or the consumer market. Naturally, that can't be an "official" position, since the western nations need Middle East oil. It's a balancing act for the western nations, I believe. This reality is very much part of any equation as to what will transpire there. Any ideologues need to accept this likely reality, rather than hammer on ethical/moral dogma.

Israel is not a source of innovation in the tech industry, sorry.

Oh, I know you have your lists and emails which point out a few things that come from there. But they are truly dwarfed by Europe, Asia, and America. They do not make a significant difference in the technology markets.

On the other hand, they sure keep the Arabs busy and off balance, and give us a proxy in the region. We use Israel. They are our cats-paw. You should recognize this fact. It's demeaning to the Israeli people that the US uses them this way. But they accept it for the 3 billion in defense funding and another 2 in indirect aid they get every year.

Cycloptichorn

Thank God there's an Israel in the Middle East to use. Do you see any other countries in that region that are usable?

Also, when our aid goes to Israel's defense spending, they are buying weapons systems, military hardware from corporations where? Exactly, it's a mobius strip. It's called a win-win situation, except for the idealogues that would rather that money go for freebies to some group here or in some mendicant nation.

But, I take issue with your minimizing Israel's R&D in technology. It's nothing worth discussing.

What a disgusting attitude. I'm not looking for the US to use anybody.

I'm not interested in their making our weapons developers richer. It means nothing to me that the Iron Triangle grows stronger by using Israel as a go-between.

Typical republican bullsh*t

Cycloptichorn

You may find the situation changing not to your liking in the future. I just want you to recall at that time how meaningless your opinions are.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You may find the situation changing not to your liking in the future. I just want you to recall at that time how meaningless your opinions are.

Cycloptichorn

I don't have opinions, since I'm not an idealogue. I just try to see the situation for the reality behind the popular opinions. If you choose not to believe me, that's fine.

Foofie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You may find the situation changing not to your liking in the future. I just want you to recall at that time how meaningless your opinions are.

Cycloptichorn

I don't have opinions, since I'm not an idealogue. I just try to see the situation for the reality behind the popular opinions. If you choose not to believe me, that's fine.

I choose not to believe you. You are an ideologue.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foofie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You may find the situation changing not to your liking in the future. I just want you to recall at that time how meaningless your opinions are.

Cycloptichorn

I don't have opinions, since I'm not an idealogue. I just try to see the situation for the reality behind the popular opinions. If you choose not to believe me, that's fine.

I choose not to believe you. You are an ideologue.

Cycloptichorn

No I'm an American.

I choose not to believe you. You are an ideologue.

Cycloptichorn

Your recollections of the 1967 war are flawed - you are confusing events that happened in 1948, and of course ignoring the 1956 war in which israel also peremptorily attacked Egypt.
...

In the 1967 war, the Israeli Jews were convinced that in order to survive they better make a pre-emptive attack on all the armies massing on their borders. After the Israelis won the 1967 war, the Jews had damn good reasons for fearing that they better maintain their defences in order to continue to survive. One of the ways they decided to maintain their defences was to prohibit those formally Israeli Arabs that fled from Israel at the start of the 1967 war, from returning to Israel. However, they remained content with those Israeli Arabs that had not fled.