Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Yom Kippur War

2

Comments



  • depaly wrote: »
    Hi Snickers Man.

    'Perhaps the most pro-Israeli thing the west, especially the US, could do,
    is hold the Israelis down while the PAlestinians give them one good hard
    kick in the teeth.'

    What a strangely violent metaphor for someone who is
    supposedly advocating a peace deal!!!!!!


    What are you saying? "Gentlemen, we can't discuss war in here!!! This is the Military Forum!!" ?

    depaly wrote:
    Palestinians have broken every deal
    or agreement they ever made!!!!!!

    The Palestinian Authority has been undermined every step of its way by the hawks in Israel who, on the pretext of "fighting terROARRR" responded to every attack by Palestinian extremists by bombing and shooting Palestinian police barracks. Even, in fact epecially, in areas where the population was relatively peaceful as opposed to hotbeds of insurgency whence the original attacks might have come.

    They expect a fully functioning Palestinian Authority to fight its war for them by chasing down the terrorists while at the same time making it clear that their most basic institutions only exist on Israeli sufferance.

    Way to help develop cordial relations with a fully functioning neighbour state!
    depaly wrote:
    Israel got it's usual answer when,
    as you put it, 'it uprooted
    its few kibbutzes in the Gaza strip'!!!!!!!

    And who's idea was that?

    Why do you have such trouble getting the problem with that particular tactic? You should watch some Western Movies. Ones where the hero gets ordered about and says. "Put your gun down and I'll go. I'D LIKE IT TO BE MY IDEA"

    Get it?


    depaly wrote:
    Despite your obvious admiration for Egypt's 'early
    tank battle victories', I believe it's stretching it
    just a little to talk about an 'important boost to
    Arab prestige and pride'......
    Especially as six Arab nations were about to suffer
    defeat at the hands of Israel!!!!!!

    Don't take my word for it. Read some of the Arab commentators of the time. Like Mohammed Heikal, the Egyptian Nasserist who became very critical of Sadat's peace overtures but put the context for the initiative squarely on the shoulders of the performance of the Egyptian army in 1973.

    It doesn't take much to spin a plucky defeat into a moral victory. Everybody does it. Think back to the way the British view Dunkirk. Or the Irish view 1916. Heck, there's even a lot of Aussies who think they won at Gallipoli!!! Even those who know they didn't hark back to it as a glorious chapter in the development of their national identity.

    Why not the Palestinians?
    depaly wrote:
    Israel has had to be 'very good at fighting'.....
    It's survival was, and is, at stake.

    The Jews have a very small country, tiny in
    comparison to the surrounding Arab states.
    A country with many talents.
    And they demand only to live peacefully.
    They have the right and the ability to
    defend themselves - and they always will.

    If it comes to a new treaty, Israel will
    make painful concessions - and stick to
    them.
    Unfortunately, the likes of Hamas and
    Hizbollah will do their best to bring
    everyone back to hatred and violence.
    And those who hate Israel will dredge
    up the usual excuses.......

    However, sooner or later, they will all
    face reality.... The state of Israel
    is here to stay!!!!!!!!!

    And good luck to them!!!!!!

    Yadda yadda yadda!!! What's your point? I agree the Israelis have a fantastic army. So what?

    They can't achieve peace. They can achieve a fraught status quo maintained by having every man and most women in the army for most of their lives, and by occasionally visiting slaughter on the neighbouring Arabs but all that does is chop of one snake's head only to have another five or six hissing up to bite them again.

    Try thinking outside the box.

    What would satisfy the Palestinians? (or at least most of them) Maybe some semblance of a military victory on which could be based a state of their own in the West Bank and Gaza. That is ALL of the WEst Bank and Gaza. There's a few more kibbutzim that will have to be torn down but they should never have been built in the first place.

    A unilaterally declared and delimited autonomous sector sketched out by the Israeli army ain't going to work. No more than its counterpart the Bantustans worked in South Africa or the Nazi "Ghetto" solution worked in Europe.

    And for the same reasons.

    You might say "Israel doesn't need to do this. It's got its army. And its Mossad. It can deal with any recalcitrant Arab in its own way (with or without using Irish passports)"

    To which I would say that in the long run, time is against Israel. The womb will win that war like it wins most others in the end. And there are simply MORE Arabs than Israelis and always will be. When the strategic value of the region declines (and remember, PAlestine and Arabia was a place that none of the WEstern Powers gave a **** about from the end of the Crusades until the invention of the motor car) and Israel loses its main backer the US she had better have in place some functioning friendly neighbours who have more to lose from a war than to gain.

    I'm thinking of their future, really I am.

    Maybe they'd prefer it if it was their own idea......




  • Don't take my word for it. Read some of the Arab commentators of the time. Like Mohammed Heikal, the Egyptian Nasserist who became very critical of Sadat's peace overtures but put the context for the initiative squarely on the shoulders of the performance of the Egyptian army in 1973

    I'm going to side against you on this one.

    It is certainly true that the initial crossing of the Suez was a remarkable feat which restored faith in Arab capabilities at arms. It is also certainly true that after the initial setbacks the Israelis wiped the floor with the Egyptians, and their entire Third Army existed upon the suffrance of the Israelis allowing supplies through their lines. However, when reflecting upon the entire war, the Arabs tended to focus primarily on their initial success (to include movie recreations of the event), and minimize that small little detail that they actually got their asses handed to them in the end. It is not unreasonable for that overall 'culture' (for lack of a better term) to want to ascribe follow-on events to things which went in their favour, and not to the fact that the Egyptians and Israelis both figured that they had better things to be spending money and effort on than staring each other down in the Sinai, the Egyptians because they just couldn't win for losing, and the Israelis because they didn't want to spend the resources.

    NTM




  • Hi Snickers Man.

    Your contributions are puzzling.
    First it's all about peace deals.
    Then it's getting a victory out of
    a 'plucky defeat'.
    Then 'maybe some semblance of a military victory'
    would satisfy the Palestinians.
    Then 'the womb will win the war'.......
    'Straws' and 'clutching' are two words that are
    coming to mind!!!!!!!!!
    You seem to be desperately thinking of scenarios
    that will fulfill your dreams of a
    Palestinian/Arab victory....
    Perhaps you yourself have watched too many
    Western Movies!!!!
    The wishes of bitter enemies don't make it so!!!!

    This thread is ostensibly about the Yom Kippur War.
    The Israelis showed what they were made of in 1973.
    ( As they did in 1948 and 1967 )
    They have a hugely increased military capacity
    today. Upsetting for their enemies, but true
    nontheless!!!!

    I believe you may be exaggerating when you
    state that 'every man and most women' are in
    the Army 'for most of their lives'......
    'On call', perhaps??
    I'm open to correction......

    And forget the Western Powers!!!!
    Palestine was a place that the Arabs didn't
    give a **** about!!!!
    Until the Jews wanted to set up a homeland
    there, of course!!!!!!
    Arabs were always more interested in 'driving
    the Jews into the sea', than in compassion
    for the needs of Palestinians.
    As the decades since 1948 have proved!!!




  • I'm going to side against you on this one.

    However, when reflecting upon the entire war, the Arabs tended to focus primarily on their initial success (to include movie recreations of the event), and minimize that small little detail that they actually got their asses handed to them in the end. It is not unreasonable for that overall 'culture' (for lack of a better term) to want to ascribe follow-on events to things which went in their favour,

    There is nothing particularly "Arab" in that.

    Who won, in the military sense, the battles in Dublin in Easter 1916?

    Who won, in the military sense, the engagement at The Alamo in 1836?

    Who won, in the military sense, the campaign in Gallipoli in 1915?

    To name but three.

    In each of these cases, it is the descendants of the people who "had their asses handed to them" who are revered by their countrymen. Have the Mexicans ever made a film about their great victory in San Antionio? I don't know the answer to this, however I suspect they haven't. But John Wayne has.

    Will the British organise commemorations of their speedy and efficient suppression of an attack in their rear in 1916 as they were preparing for a titanic offensive on the Somme? Nope. But we will.

    And every April thousands of Aussies and Kiwis traipse over to Anzac Cove for a dawn service to remember the date when their forebears launched an unprovoked attack on a country that had never done them any harm with the express purpose of capturing that country's capital and handing it over to its oldest and bitterest local rival.

    The popular history of that campaign is so twisted that the captain of the Australian America's Cup sailing team once exhorted his crew to face up to adversity by citing Gallipoli. "Our blokes had their backs to the wall there too, but they won that one, didn't they?" (Check it out.)


    It was sacrifices such as these that spurred people on to achieve their goals and to allow them the myth that their countrymen had earned it through their heroic sacrifice. The Palestinians are no different to anybody else. And the Egyptian efforts in Yom Kippur are just another example.

    That one produced peace. The Palestinians will need their own version.




  • depaly wrote: »
    Hi Snickers Man.

    Your contributions are puzzling.
    First it's all about peace deals.
    Then it's getting a victory out of
    a 'plucky defeat'.
    Then 'maybe some semblance of a military victory'
    would satisfy the Palestinians.
    Then 'the womb will win the war'.......
    'Straws' and 'clutching' are two words that are
    coming to mind!!!!!!!!!
    You seem to be desperately thinking of scenarios
    that will fulfill your dreams of a
    Palestinian/Arab victory....
    Perhaps you yourself have watched too many
    Western Movies!!!!
    The wishes of bitter enemies don't make it so!!!!

    This thread is ostensibly about the Yom Kippur War.

    If by "all about peace deals" you mean asking what can we learn from the consequences of the Yom Kippur War to apply to the current situation in the Middle East, then I think that is a perfectly fair question to ask in this thread.

    If by "my dreams of a Palestinian/Arab victory" you mean how can we bring about a situation where an Israeli state can live in tolerant acceptance with its neighbouring Arabs including the Palestinians, ie the essential demand of the Zionists, then I think that is an Israeli victory more than it is a Palestinian settlement. Don't you?

    If however you insist on seeing the entire Middle East question as being one of how long can Israel maintain its military superiority over its Arab neighbours then there is no question. Israel remains overwhelmingly superior. But I would argue, as indeed would many Israelis, that that is to confuse the problem with the solution.

    Israel can send all the rockets and tanks and bombs into Gaza and Lebanon that it likes but all that means is that it will have to continue to do so interminably. With all the expense, debasement, loss of sympathy and paranoia that generates. A policy of perenially "handing their asses to" the Arabs only means that the next generation of Arabs will grow up to throw it back in their faces.

    And so it will continue. They have the current solution: a strong army, continually at war. So what's the problem?

    It's only if you see the desired solution as one where the Arab neighbours will not see the destruction of Israel as their only hope and that Israel can exist without having its entire male population spending a month in the army every year until the age of 55 (IN PEACE TIME) having already spent three years full time in uniform that you have to conclude that the current "solution" is in fact "the problem."

    Think outside the box.


  • Advertisement


  • depaly wrote: »
    Hi Snickers Man.

    Your contributions are puzzling.
    First it's all about peace deals.
    Then it's getting a victory out of
    a 'plucky defeat'.
    Then 'maybe some semblance of a military victory'
    would satisfy the Palestinians.
    Then 'the womb will win the war'.......
    'Straws' and 'clutching' are two words that are
    coming to mind!!!!!!!!!
    You seem to be desperately thinking of scenarios
    that will fulfill your dreams of a
    Palestinian/Arab victory....
    Perhaps you yourself have watched too many
    Western Movies!!!!
    The wishes of bitter enemies don't make it so!!!!

    This thread is ostensibly about the Yom Kippur War.
    The Israelis showed what they were made of in 1973.
    ( As they did in 1948 and 1967 )
    They have a hugely increased military capacity
    today. Upsetting for their enemies, but true
    nontheless!!!!

    I believe you may be exaggerating when you
    state that 'every man and most women' are in
    the Army 'for most of their lives'......
    'On call', perhaps??
    I'm open to correction......

    And forget the Western Powers!!!!
    Palestine was a place that the Arabs didn't
    give a **** about!!!!
    Until the Jews wanted to set up a homeland
    there, of course!!!!!!
    Arabs were always more interested in 'driving
    the Jews into the sea', than in compassion
    for the needs of Palestinians.
    As the decades since 1948 have proved!!!

    That's beautiful man, it's like an angry poem, stanza after stanza of barely supressed rage. I love it! best comeback ever




  • MajorMax wrote: »
    That's beautiful man, it's like an angry poem, stanza after stanza of barely supressed rage. I love it! best comeback ever

    Almost as if someone put chilli on his erogenous zones. ;)




  • There is nothing particularly "Arab" in that.

    Who won, in the military sense, the battles in Dublin in Easter 1916?

    Who won, in the military sense, the engagement at The Alamo in 1836?

    Who won, in the military sense, the campaign in Gallipoli in 1915?

    To name but three.

    In each of these cases, it is the descendants of the people who "had their asses handed to them" who are revered by their countrymen. Have the Mexicans ever made a film about their great victory in San Antionio? I don't know the answer to this, however I suspect they haven't. But John Wayne has.


    The very great problem with those analogies is that the results of those defeats was to redouble the (eventually successful) effort to bring an overall victory to the loser, and defeat of the people who just hammered the gallant martyrs. The result was not to encourage the people who just lost to bring peace, neither did the victors in those instances open up to negotiation. It took the War of Independence to do it for the first case, the capture of the Mexican President in the second case, and some two years of gradual Commonwealth military victories in the third case.

    Your argument appears to be that the situation is reversed in the case of Yom Kippur, that the 'sue for peace' came from the Israeli initial loss, and long-term victory. If so, the ananolgies don't apply.

    NTM




  • MajorMax wrote: »
    That's beautiful man, it's like an angry poem, stanza after stanza of barely supressed rage. I love it! best comeback ever

    You're an extremely sensitive soul, if you think
    that's 'barely supressed rage'!!!!!
    I hope this posting does't hurt your
    feelings, petal......




  • Almost as if someone put chilli on his erogenous zones. ;)

    I already knew that you were obsessed with me,
    but try and keep your focus off my erogenous
    zones!!!!
    Very creepy!!!!!!!!


  • Advertisement


  • There is nothing particularly "Arab" in that.

    Who won, in the military sense, the battles in Dublin in Easter 1916?

    Who won, in the military sense, the engagement at The Alamo in 1836?

    Who won, in the military sense, the campaign in Gallipoli in 1915?

    To name but three.

    In each of these cases, it is the descendants of the people who "had their asses handed to them" who are revered by their countrymen. Have the Mexicans ever made a film about their great victory in San Antionio? I don't know the answer to this, however I suspect they haven't. But John Wayne has.

    Will the British organise commemorations of their speedy and efficient suppression of an attack in their rear in 1916 as they were preparing for a titanic offensive on the Somme? Nope. But we will.

    And every April thousands of Aussies and Kiwis traipse over to Anzac Cove for a dawn service to remember the date when their forebears launched an unprovoked attack on a country that had never done them any harm with the express purpose of capturing that country's capital and handing it over to its oldest and bitterest local rival.

    The popular history of that campaign is so twisted that the captain of the Australian America's Cup sailing team once exhorted his crew to face up to adversity by citing Gallipoli. "Our blokes had their backs to the wall there too, but they won that one, didn't they?" (Check it out.)


    It was sacrifices such as these that spurred people on to achieve their goals and to allow them the myth that their countrymen had earned it through their heroic sacrifice. The Palestinians are no different to anybody else. And the Egyptian efforts in Yom Kippur are just another example.

    That one produced peace. The Palestinians will need their own version.

    You're not seriously trying to tell us that
    Egypt was any more keen to agree a peace deal
    with Israel, because it had won an 'early
    victory' or suffered a 'gallant defeat'
    some years earlier???
    And whether it's Ireland, Texas or Australia -
    people will see what they want to see in terms
    of their side or 'tribe'......
    So what????




  • If by "all about peace deals" you mean asking what can we learn from the consequences of the Yom Kippur War to apply to the current situation in the Middle East, then I think that is a perfectly fair question to ask in this thread.

    If by "my dreams of a Palestinian/Arab victory" you mean how can we bring about a situation where an Israeli state can live in tolerant acceptance with its neighbouring Arabs including the Palestinians, ie the essential demand of the Zionists, then I think that is an Israeli victory more than it is a Palestinian settlement. Don't you?

    If however you insist on seeing the entire Middle East question as being one of how long can Israel maintain its military superiority over its Arab neighbours then there is no question. Israel remains overwhelmingly superior. But I would argue, as indeed would many Israelis, that that is to confuse the problem with the solution.

    Israel can send all the rockets and tanks and bombs into Gaza and Lebanon that it likes but all that means is that it will have to continue to do so interminably. With all the expense, debasement, loss of sympathy and paranoia that generates. A policy of perenially "handing their asses to" the Arabs only means that the next generation of Arabs will grow up to throw it back in their faces.

    And so it will continue. They have the current solution: a strong army, continually at war. So what's the problem?

    It's only if you see the desired solution as one where the Arab neighbours will not see the destruction of Israel as their only hope and that Israel can exist without having its entire male population spending a month in the army every year until the age of 55 (IN PEACE TIME) having already spent three years full time in uniform that you have to conclude that the current "solution" is in fact "the problem."

    Think outside the box.

    I would have thought it obvious that Israel's
    military is present, and willing to defend
    itself, because of a real and consistent
    threat.
    If Hamas, Hizbollah and the other hate mongers
    in the Middle East can finally reconcile
    themselves to the existence of Israel - then
    all things are possible.
    It is these haters of Israel that need to
    think outside the box, try some maturity for
    a change, and learn to live with Israel.
    The 'useful idiots' in Europe, who act as
    cheerleaders for Arab extremism, do not
    do them any favours......




  • depaly wrote: »
    I already knew that you were obsessed with me,
    but try and keep your focus off my erogenous
    zones!!!!
    Very creepy!!!!!!!!

    Me obsessed with you? Get over yerself! YOU replied to MY post in this forum, not the other way round.

    And as for any interest in your genitalia: please rest assured that I have none. That cryptic comment was a reference to this charming vignette in another thread. I wasn't sure whether MajorMax was being sarcastic or not (still don't!) and looked at a few of his posts to get a flavour, as it were, of his opinions. But this one told me all I needed, or wanted, to know. :eek:

    Now if HE took an interest in your erogenous zones, you'd have reason to worry!!!!




  • depaly wrote: »
    If Hamas, Hizbollah and the other hate mongers
    in the Middle East can finally reconcile
    themselves to the existence of Israel - then
    all things are possible......

    That's the rub. How do you get them to do that?

    The current, and only foreseeable solution given Israel's attitude so far is to go on doing what it is doing, blitzing the hell out of the Palestinians, incessantly encroaching on their territory, forcing them out from one reservation to another and achieving feck all except a maintenance of the status quo which is a sullen, bloodied and beaten but unbowed Palestinian populace seething with resentment and quite prepared to die for the cause of grasping some dignity and honour back from the misery into which they have been thrust.

    And if this is the only "solution" Israel wants to live by, it is the one she will eventually die by.

    Some friend you are if you encourage them in it.




  • Me obsessed with you? Get over yerself! YOU replied to MY post in this forum, not the other way round.

    And as for any interest in your genitalia: please rest assured that I have none. That cryptic comment was a reference to this charming vignette in another thread. I wasn't sure whether MajorMax was being sarcastic or not (still don't!) and looked at a few of his posts to get a flavour, as it were, of his opinions. But this one told me all I needed, or wanted, to know. :eek:

    Now if HE took an interest in your erogenous zones, you'd have reason to worry!!!!

    You sound highly indignant, perhaps naturally
    so!!!!!
    If you're not careful, Major Max will also be
    impressed with your 'barely suppressed rage'!!!!

    I accept your explanation, obviously.
    If you care to look back, you will see that I
    have been contributing on this thread from the
    first page.
    So don't flatter yourself that replying to your
    post was anything out of the ordinary.

    Try and relax.




  • That's the rub. How do you get them to do that?

    The current, and only foreseeable solution given Israel's attitude so far is to go on doing what it is doing, blitzing the hell out of the Palestinians, incessantly encroaching on their territory, forcing them out from one reservation to another and achieving feck all except a maintenance of the status quo which is a sullen, bloodied and beaten but unbowed Palestinian populace seething with resentment and quite prepared to die for the cause of grasping some dignity and honour back from the misery into which they have been thrust.

    And if this is the only "solution" Israel wants to live by, it is the one she will eventually die by.

    Some friend you are if you encourage them in it.


    All you seem to offer is a simplistic and hypercritical
    verdict on Israel.
    I don't have to 'encourage' them in anything!!
    I know that there is much good, and much to be admired,
    about Israel and it's people.
    Their raison d'etre is not to 'blitz the hell out of
    the Palestinians'.
    They want to live in peace, and have a great country.
    And want to have good relations with their Palestinian
    neighbours and Arab citizens.
    They are not the rampant evildoers that you want
    everyone to think they are......

    What is your point, exactly??

    You clearly detest the very existence of Israel,
    despite mealy mouthed talk about peace deals.
    I notice that you nearly always conclude with
    Israel being outbred, or 'dying', or defeated
    'in the long run'.....
    Wishful thinking, indeed.

    I believe in fact that you feel as impotent
    as the Palestinian masses, at the current state
    of affairs.
    So the best you can do is make sly, sullen and
    erroneous comments on the 1973 war, and elaborate
    with some anti Israel propaganda.

    On mature reflection, you may realize that rewriting
    ( and predicting ) history is a lost and futile
    cause!!!!

    And if you were as willing to question the pernicious
    presence of Hamas and Hizbollah ( and their Iranian
    and Syrian paymasters ) as you are to condemn Israel -
    then we might be getting somewhere!!!!!!!!




  • So what if the Israeli's were flying american made planes. The IAF used mostly french aircraft until the early 70's (Mirages, Super Mysteres, Ouragans etc) and reverse-engineered french equipment (Neshers, Kfirs). The IAF took the best planes that it could from wherever it could get them.
    IIRC they didn't reverse engineer the planes, they stole the plans.

    Also the IAF got it's hands on a B17 shortly after WWII , perhaps even before the neighbours had fighters that could keep up with it




  • havent read the full thread, but from the quick look i can see people taking up both sides and the usual israel/arab arguements coming out.
    having watched a little bit about the arab israeli wars and the birth of israel. (birth of israel is a good documentary on youtube btw). my final feeling is that the situation is perfect.
    colonists and islamists locked in constant war while acting as a buffer to europe. the arabs would only have sooner or later tried it on with greece or the lower east continent. and colonist thiefs who drive people out of their homes...well they just deserve it.
    enjoy each others company.


    (although i do feel a bit bad for the arabs)




  • depaly wrote: »



    You clearly detest the very existence of Israel,
    despite mealy mouthed talk about peace deals.

    what have you ever done for Israel? Ever been there? Ever worked there?

    I have, and I like to think that my knowledge of the country's history and situation is as good as anybody else's from round these parts and better than most.

    I readily accept, as alandublin15 appears to intimate, that when many Irish people get hot and bothered about Israel/Palestine it is in fact their own local rivalries and preferences that are being acted out. Pro Palestinians are moved to apoplexy by the likes of Israeli apologists like Tom Cooney and Ian O'Doherty; pro Israelis are irritated by Richard Boyd Barrett and other trendy lefties. It's a simple trap to fall into.
    depaly wrote:
    Their raison d'etre is not to 'blitz the hell out of
    the Palestinians'.

    It's not their raison d'etre but it's an inevitable consequence of their actions. Even their very existence. They had to expel the Palestinians from much of what was useful and productive and fertile in the country in order to build their own cities and settlements. You cannot gainsay that fact.

    Their military strength has allowed them to establish a state of reasonable size but it has not been able to pacify the Palestinians. That is a simple recognition of the limitations of military power.

    The only people who can pacify the Palestinians are themselves. When they feel they have earned enough on which to build a settlement, they will stop. Or at least, enough of them will so that the extremists can be marginalised and bypassed. You will always have recalcitrants, a "Continuity PLO" as it were, but these can be defeated if their support among the community they claim to represent withers away.

    So how do you get them to stop? Israels answer is to go on handing them their arses. At least that's steady work for their military. Because that just means that they will have to continue doing that interminably.

    Until it gets to the point, some may say it has got there already, where in fact Israel's 'raison d'etre' is indeed as you described.
    I believe in fact that you feel as impotent
    as the Palestinian masses, at the current state
    of affairs.


    Whoa!! Is that the dim flickering of a light bulb going on over your head? Hold that thought and then ask how you might "empower" the Palestinians to accept a settlement.

    By making them feel they've earned it. By achieving a victory which earns them the right to be magnanimous. The Israelis will never let them do that, so Israel's friends are going to have to hold them down while the Palestinians land one on them.




  • The very great problem with those analogies is that the results of those defeats was to redouble the (eventually successful) effort to bring an overall victory to the loser, and defeat of the people who just hammered the gallant martyrs. The result was not to encourage the people who just lost to bring peace, neither did the victors in those instances open up to negotiation. It took the War of Independence to do it for the first case, the capture of the Mexican President in the second case, and some two years of gradual Commonwealth military victories in the third case.

    Your argument appears to be that the situation is reversed in the case of Yom Kippur, that the 'sue for peace' came from the Israeli initial loss, and long-term victory. If so, the ananolgies don't apply.

    NTM


    The point is that all of those actions were seen as the heroic sacrifices needed to achieve victory. With Victory being defined as the political outcome to the conflict.

    Very often what matters most is perception. As a serving soldier in the US military you perhaps did not scoff as much as many people here at the sight of yoru comrade in his armoured vehicle on hearing that the US was withdrawing from Iraq shouting out "Who hoo! We're going home! We won!!"

    The cynics among us might say that you're going home precisely because you didn't win. Your leaving behind a country wrecked by civil war, hopelessly divided and with more of its citizens embittered by than grateful for the actions of the US.

    That exultant GI reminded me of a 20 year old thug mugging an infirm 95 year old, finding out that he wasn't carrying any money and saying "At least I owned that guy in the fight! Man, I gave him some shock and awe!"

    But what's important is not whether or not the US "won" but that they believe they won. That is very important to them. Hence the insistence by many Republicans that Obama use the word "Victory" in his subsequent state of the Union address.

    Back to Yom Kippur. The Egyptians think they won. They got back the Sinai. They put that down to the performance of their army during the Suez crossing.

    Remember the event that Sadat was attending when he was assassinated? It was a ceremony to commemorate "the crossing". A full on military victory parade. I don't know whether the Egyptians still hold it but there's no doubt they convinced themselves that they had achieved a great victory.

    The Palestinians are going to need something similar, sooner or later.


  • Advertisement


  • The point is that all of those actions were seen as the heroic sacrifices needed to achieve victory. With Victory being defined as the political outcome to the conflict.

    Very often what matters most is perception. As a serving soldier in the US military you perhaps did not scoff as much as many people here at the sight of yoru comrade in his armoured vehicle on hearing that the US was withdrawing from Iraq shouting out "Who hoo! We're going home! We won!!"

    The cynics among us might say that you're going home precisely because you didn't win. Your leaving behind a country wrecked by civil war, hopelessly divided and with more of its citizens embittered by than grateful for the actions of the US.

    That exultant GI reminded me of a 20 year old thug mugging an infirm 95 year old, finding out that he wasn't carrying any money and saying "At least I owned that guy in the fight! Man, I gave him some shock and awe!"

    But what's important is not whether or not the US "won" but that they believe they won. That is very important to them. Hence the insistence by many Republicans that Obama use the word "Victory" in his subsequent state of the Union address.

    Back to Yom Kippur. The Egyptians think they won. They got back the Sinai. They put that down to the performance of their army during the Suez crossing.

    Remember the event that Sadat was attending when he was assassinated? It was a ceremony to commemorate "the crossing". A full on military victory parade. I don't know whether the Egyptians still hold it but there's no doubt they convinced themselves that they had achieved a great victory.

    The Palestinians are going to need something similar, sooner or later.


    The Egyptians 'think they won' in 1973!!!!
    Yes, and many Arabs think that the Holocaust
    never happened!!!!!
    They can think what they like!!!!
    Egypt 'got back the Sinai', because Israel
    handed it back to them!!!!!!!!!




  • havent read the full thread, but from the quick look i can see people taking up both sides and the usual israel/arab arguements coming out.
    having watched a little bit about the arab israeli wars and the birth of israel. (birth of israel is a good documentary on youtube btw). my final feeling is that the situation is perfect.
    colonists and islamists locked in constant war while acting as a buffer to europe. the arabs would only have sooner or later tried it on with greece or the lower east continent. and colonist thiefs who drive people out of their homes...well they just deserve it.
    enjoy each others company.


    (although i do feel a bit bad for the arabs)


    Jews have lived in Israel/Palestine for
    a few thousand years.
    Colonists???




  • what have you ever done for Israel? Ever been there? Ever worked there?

    I have, and I like to think that my knowledge of the country's history and situation is as good as anybody else's from round these parts and better than most.

    I readily accept, as alandublin15 appears to intimate, that when many Irish people get hot and bothered about Israel/Palestine it is in fact their own local rivalries and preferences that are being acted out. Pro Palestinians are moved to apoplexy by the likes of Israeli apologists like Tom Cooney and Ian O'Doherty; pro Israelis are irritated by Richard Boyd Barrett and other trendy lefties. It's a simple trap to fall into.



    It's not their raison d'etre but it's an inevitable consequence of their actions. Even their very existence. They had to expel the Palestinians from much of what was useful and productive and fertile in the country in order to build their own cities and settlements. You cannot gainsay that fact.

    Their military strength has allowed them to establish a state of reasonable size but it has not been able to pacify the Palestinians. That is a simple recognition of the limitations of military power.

    The only people who can pacify the Palestinians are themselves. When they feel they have earned enough on which to build a settlement, they will stop. Or at least, enough of them will so that the extremists can be marginalised and bypassed. You will always have recalcitrants, a "Continuity PLO" as it were, but these can be defeated if their support among the community they claim to represent withers away.

    So how do you get them to stop? Israels answer is to go on handing them their arses. At least that's steady work for their military. Because that just means that they will have to continue doing that interminably.

    Until it gets to the point, some may say it has got there already, where in fact Israel's 'raison d'etre' is indeed as you described.




    Whoa!! Is that the dim flickering of a light bulb going on over your head? Hold that thought and then ask how you might "empower" the Palestinians to accept a settlement.

    By making them feel they've earned it. By achieving a victory which earns them the right to be magnanimous. The Israelis will never let them do that, so Israel's friends are going to have to hold them down while the Palestinians land one on them.


    A stint in Israel doesn't necessarily
    make you any more informed!!!!
    Although it certainly seems to have
    generated some arrogance!!!!

    There's no fact to gainsay!!!!
    It's a rather sweeping statement that
    the Palestinians in toto were 'expelled'
    by Israel.
    Read up about the 1948 war, and get the
    full picture....

    Most of what is 'useful, productive and fertile
    in the country' has been introduced by the
    Israelis themselves after 1948!!!!

    What exactly would constitute a Palestinian
    'victory' for you???
    A major massacre???
    Be specific.




  • depaly wrote: »
    Jews have lived in Israel/Palestine for
    a few thousand years.
    Colonists???

    And many of those particular Jews, the ultra orthodox, are utterly opposed to the existence of Israel, regarding it as a blasphemy that a Jewish state be created before the arrival of the Messiah.

    Zionism is a phenomenon which dates from the last years of the 19th century.




  • depaly wrote: »
    A stint in Israel doesn't necessarily
    make you any more informed!!!!
    Although it certainly seems to have
    generated some arrogance!!!!
    More informed than some. ;)
    There's no fact to gainsay!!!!
    It's a rather sweeping statement that
    the Palestinians in toto were 'expelled'
    by Israel.
    Read up about the 1948 war, and get the
    full picture....

    No need to go down that road. Various people's potted history of Palestine has been aired so many times on this board. I think the Palestinians were far more sinned against than sinners in that conflict; you clearly don't. We won't convince each other on that score but that's not important.

    I'm talking about learning lessons from a more recent conflict that may actually lead to peace in Israel.

    depaly wrote:
    What exactly would constitute a Palestinian
    'victory' for you???
    A major massacre???
    Be specific.

    What's a major massacre? Something on the scale of Hiroshima/Nagasaki? That was deemed sufficient civilian sacrifice to bring to an end the war against Japan.

    But nothing so grand as that would be needed in Israel. A tactical military defeat. Perhaps the forced evacuation of a few contentious settlements. Maybe resulting in a few Israeli deaths. Maybe in the capture of a few "prisoners of war" from those settlements, (which are illegal anyway) followed by their safe return in the event of a peace deal.

    You've got to counter that with the calculation of how much Israeli blood and treasure is going to be spent following their current policy.




  • And many of those particular Jews, the ultra orthodox, are utterly opposed to the existence of Israel, regarding it as a blasphemy that a Jewish state be created before the arrival of the Messiah.

    Zionism is a phenomenon which dates from the last years of the 19th century.

    Glad to see your acknowledgement of the
    few thousand years existence, and your
    recognition and respect for the Ultra
    Orthodox and Zionists.........
    I was aware when Zionist ideas started
    to flourish....
    A noble and worthy movement, and an
    inspiring focus for the survivors
    of the Holocaust.




  • More informed than some. ;)



    No need to go down that road. Various people's potted history of Palestine has been aired so many times on this board. I think the Palestinians were far more sinned against than sinners in that conflict; you clearly don't. We won't convince each other on that score but that's not important.

    I'm talking about learning lessons from a more recent conflict that may actually lead to peace in Israel.




    What's a major massacre? Something on the scale of Hiroshima/Nagasaki? That was deemed sufficient civilian sacrifice to bring to an end the war against Japan.

    But nothing so grand as that would be needed in Israel. A tactical military defeat. Perhaps the forced evacuation of a few contentious settlements. Maybe resulting in a few Israeli deaths. Maybe in the capture of a few "prisoners of war" from those settlements, (which are illegal anyway) followed by their safe return in the event of a peace deal.

    You've got to counter that with the calculation of how much Israeli blood and treasure is going to be spent following their current policy.


    So let's get this straight.
    You want a peace deal - but only after a
    'tactical military defeat' for Israel!!!!
    And a few Israeli deaths....
    As I said, considerable arrogance.....

    I hope it keeps fine for you!!!!
    Have you consulted or even considered
    the varying views among Palestinians
    and their Arab allies???
    Or is this just off the top of your
    head????

    A 'few contentious settlements'???!!!!
    You think they are 'gamechangers'????
    That would tip the balance???
    We've already established that Sinai was
    handed back.
    Handed back three times, in fact!!!!
    Israel recognized the PLO, which had been
    murdering Jews for over 30 years, as the
    representatives of the Palestinian people.
    They moved out of Gaza.
    They would be willing to move out of
    sections of the West Bank.
    They agree to a 'two state' solution.
    And everytime these concessions have only
    been met with more violence.

    Therefore, Israel's 'current policy', and
    previous policies, have cost them much in
    what you call 'blood and treasure'.

    You make the case for an 'iron fist' better
    than any hard line Israeli politician!!!!!!




  • Almost as if someone put chilli on his erogenous zones. ;)[/QUOTE

    Oh lord, it wasn't funny at the time....well it was a little funny....But looking back it's hilarious




  • depaly wrote: »
    You're an extremely sensitive soul, if you think
    that's 'barely supressed rage'!!!!!
    I hope this posting does't hurt your
    feelings, petal......

    It's all the exclamation marks, it makes you seem like you're barely hanging on to your temper!!!!!!?!


  • Advertisement


  • How would the Egyptians have done if not ordered to advance ahead of the missile defence screen ?

    Does the documentation reveal the Israeli thoughts on that matter ?


    And relative to the events in Iraq what did it predict for the future of MBT's in terms of vulnerability in open country against well defended positions compared to their usefulness in other situations


Advertisement