The wars Israel fought were because of Arab aggression. Prove to me one war Israel started for a land grab. :thumbup

 

What exactly did you think the 1982 invasion of Lebanon or Ariel Sharon's "big plan" was? Israel tends to provoke most of the Arab-Israeli wars, and why not, Israel enjoys a supreme military advantage over all the Arab armies combined. Any conventional war will end in Israel's favor, even when they got caught daydreaming in the Yom Kippur War the war ended with Israeli troops threatening both Cairo and Damascus.

 

There really should be a thread ear-marked for Iranian-Israeli developments, because both sides aren't saying anything different in these threads anyway.

Didn't Texas ask to be annexed by the US?

 

*confused*

The wars Israel fought were because of Arab aggression. Prove to me one war Israel started for a land grab. :thumbup

 

What exactly did you think the 1982 invasion of Lebanon or Ariel Sharon's "big plan" was? Israel tends to provoke most of the Arab-Israeli wars, and why not, Israel enjoys a supreme military advantage over all the Arab armies combined. Any conventional war will end in Israel's favor, even when they got caught daydreaming in the Yom Kippur War the war ended with Israeli troops threatening both Cairo and Damascus.

 

There really should be a thread ear-marked for Iranian-Israeli developments, because both sides aren't saying anything different in these threads anyway.

 

the 1982 invasion was a reponse to an assasination attempt against the british ambassador, and was also in response to the high number of PLO troops in southern lebanon. the same troops and group that was being blamed for a number of bombardments and raids in northern israel for the decade prior. the group was also linked to an attack on a civilian airliner.

^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 3 2006, 1:10 AM) 1134410[/snapback]

 

The wars Israel fought were because of Arab aggression. Prove to me one war Israel started for a land grab. :thumbup

 

What exactly did you think the 1982 invasion of Lebanon or Ariel Sharon's "big plan" was? Israel tends to provoke most of the Arab-Israeli wars, and why not, Israel enjoys a supreme military advantage over all the Arab armies combined. Any conventional war will end in Israel's favor, even when they got caught daydreaming in the Yom Kippur War the war ended with Israeli troops threatening both Cairo and Damascus.

 

There really should be a thread ear-marked for Iranian-Israeli developments, because both sides aren't saying anything different in these threads anyway.

the 1982 invasion was a reponse to an assasination attempt against the british ambassador, and was also in response to the high number of PLO troops in southern lebanon. the same troops and group that was being blamed for a number of bombardments and raids in northern israel for the decade prior. the group was also linked to an attack on a civilian airliner.

 

But what does this have to do with bombarding and sieging Beirut? Or installing a Christian government headed Bashir Ganayel? Why did Ronald Reagan one of the biggest proponents and protectors of Israel threaten Begin to HALT Israeli-US relations over this war?

 

The invasion started fine as a limited military action to clean out PLO militatns, but when Sharon started to use salami tactics to make a small operation into a big one that where you saw the world denouncing Israel. Not to mention the expansion of the operation to reroute Palestinian refugees into Jordan was largely unpopular within Israel and internationally it totally negated the substatial progress made in the peace progress brought by coughing up the Sinai in the Camp David Accords. All this coupled with Sharon's order to IDF commanders to let Phalangist militiamen butcher nearly two thousand civilians in Sabra and Shatila make this one of the lowest points in Israeli history. Even Begin, one of the biggest Jabotinsky nutriders to ever hold an Israeli office, admitted it was a mistake and resigned toward the end of the war.

 

If you still think that war was provoked by Arabs despite it being called a "war of choice" by Begin himself then damn I don't know what to tell you, you must play with Moshe Dayan and Golda Meir action figures.

 

To sum it up: 1982 was a Jabotinsky fantasy.

Come on my Jewish friends it's your mitzvah to rep the Blue and White! It's not easy to defend the Lebanese quagmire but still, say something!

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon 1982, also known in Israel as Lebanon War (Milkhemet Levanon) or Operation Peace of the Galilee (Mivtsa Shlom HaGalil in Hebrew), began June 6, 1982, when the Israel Defense Forces invaded Lebanon. The Government of Israel justified the invasion as a response to the Abu Nidal organization's assassination attempt against Israel's ambassador to the United Kingdom, Shlomo Argov and to artillery attacks launched by the Palestine Liberation Organization against populated areas in northern Israel. This invasion came four years after another invasion in 1978 known as Operation Litani.

 

The Lebanese Army, PLO, Syrian troops stationed in Lebanon and Muslim Lebanese militant groups fought against the Israeli invasion. The Israeli Army, however, occupied southern Lebanon and moved towards the capital city of Beirut and surrounded it for three months. Surrounded in West Beirut, which was subject to heavy bombardment, the PLO and the Syrian forces negotiated passage from Lebanon with the aid of international peacekeepers on condition that Israeli Army would not enter Beirut. Directly after PLO withdrawal, Israel occupied Beirut and few days later Sabra and Shatila Massacre took place.

The PLO katyusha strikes were more than enough justification to enter Lebanon under the original guidelines for Operation Peace for Galilee which only had them penetrating 40 km from the international border.

 

But what justified setting up a puppet government, or attacking the capital, or trying to dump the Palestinian refugees into Jordan? Why did a limited-military strike have to turn into a full scale war?

First, the PLO wasn't moved to Jordan, where King Hussein saw them rightly as a threat against his government. It was instead moved to Tunisia, far far away from any influence.

 

Secondly, do you KNOW how unstable Lebanon was in 1982? That was precisely the reason why the PLO was able to do what it wanted to do prior to Peace for Galilee. I fear for this sound-bite generation that wishes to get its information in small, sometimes biased packets rather than the real truth.

First, the PLO wasn't moved to Jordan, where King Hussein saw them rightly as a threat against his government. It was instead moved to Tunisia, far far away from any influence.

 

Secondly, do you KNOW how unstable Lebanon was in 1982? That was precisely the reason why the PLO was able to do what it wanted to do prior to Peace for Galilee. I fear for this sound-bite generation that wishes to get its information in small, sometimes biased packets rather than the real truth.

 

 

You confuse what I said. I didn't say they (they being the Palestinian refugees not the PLO) were moved to Jordan, I said they wanted them to be rerouted to Jordan. They didn't want to move the PLO anywhere, maybe into the earth lol, the Americans were the ones who arbitrated a cease-fire and escorted them to Tunisia.

 

Israel had every right to enter Lebanon to perform a limited military operation to establish a buffer zone against PLO guerrillas, of course.

 

What I'm taking exception to is Israel installing Bashir Gemyel in an attempt to create a new, pro-Israeli political order in Lebanon and Sharon's envisioned strategy of pushing the Palestinians into Jordan in hopes it overthrows the monarchy there and creates thier own state.

 

If Israel kept within the paremeters set in Operation Little Pines, Israel would never have faced the international outrage that it did. If Ronald f***ing Reagan disagrees with your war, yeah, you probably are going to far, lolz.

 

Also come on man, no need for the cheap shot. Do you really think wannabe, instant experts who use "small packets" of info know who Ze'ev Jabotinsky is?

Yeah, I know whom he is. He's the one who warned European Jews of an impending Holocaust (granted, he thought it would come from Russia, but whatever) and tried to get them to Israel/British Mandate Palestine before it was too late.

 

More info on this courageous man:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...jabotinsky.html

 

If Israel kept within the paremeters set in Operation Little Pines, Israel would never have faced the international outrage that it did. If Ronald f***ing Reagan disagrees with your war, yeah, you probably are going to far, lolz.

 

One word: Osirak.

If you really want to understand Conservative Israeli policy, especially in regards to Arab-Israeli relations, I definitely reccomend you read Jabotinsky's articles "On the Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)" and "The Morality of the Iron Wall." They aren't very long but I've only read them in books, no idea if its online.

A few interesting maps, this one is the range of the Shahab 3's which Iran is confirmed to have.

 

 

 

This one is much more theoretical showing the ranges of the Shahab 3 (No Dong), and the rumored Shahab 4 (Taepo Dong 1) and Shahab 5 (Taepo Dong 2). Only Israeli intelligence has mentioned the development of the third missle.

Israel will have 6 million jewish inhabitants right about the time Iran gains the ability to unlease a nuclear holocaust. Do not underestimate a fanatic's determination to exterminate 100% of middle eastern jews, when they know that perhaps 50,000,000 (only 5%) of muslims will pay the price.

Doesn't this remind you of the Tom Lehrer song, "Who's Next"?

 

"Egypt's gonna get one too

Just to use on you-know-who

 

Well, Israel's getting tense

It wants one in self-defense

The Lord is my shepherd says the psalm

But just in case....we're gonna get a bomb!

Who's next?"

 

Just replace Egypt with Iran, and you get it.

ya so the british were kind enough to give the jews a homeland.

 

 

how noble of them.

 

 

my point still remains that you cannot compare texas which won her independence and israel which relied on the charity of another nation.

 

 

Texas won it's independence with the help of American forces flooding into the land and helping the Texans kick Mexico out. The Texan Republic was in name only. The only reason Texas became independent was because people from other parts of America went in and wanted protection and statehood in the land, so they began a war.

 

It sounds to me like you just have an unexplainable hatred for Israel.

Texas won it's independence with the help of American forces flooding into the land and helping the Texans kick Mexico out. The Texan Republic was in name only. The only reason Texas became independent was because people from other parts of America went in and wanted protection and statehood in the land, so they began a war.

 

It was also about slavery. American Texans wanted it, but the Mexicans said it was illegal in their country. Hence the reason for Henry David Thoreau's protest of the Mexican War in his essay "Civil Disobedience".

ya so the british were kind enough to give the jews a homeland.

 

how noble of them.

 

my point still remains that you cannot compare texas which won her independence and israel which relied on the charity of another nation.

 

 

Most countries in the world have had their land "given" to them. All of Africa, the Middle east, the south pacific. All the borders in those regions were drawn by colonialists. That's actually one of the big problems with the Middle East is borders were forced instead of evolvoing naturally.

Texas won it's independence with the help of American forces flooding into the land and helping the Texans kick Mexico out. The Texan Republic was in name only. The only reason Texas became independent was because people from other parts of America went in and wanted protection and statehood in the land, so they began a war.

 

It sounds to me like you just have an unexplainable hatred for Israel.

 

 

One of the major reasons for the war was because American Immigrants were being treated as second class citizens, and in fact laws were passed to make it illegal for American Immigrants to be there (avoids segueing into commentary on current immigration law). Since they had already made a home there, they refused, and the Mexican people in Texas for the most part agreed because Texas intself was not represented int he government. The War was originally a drive to allow American Immigrants full rights as Mexican citizens and to separate Texas from Coahila state to have a more local government beneath the Mexican National government. Even without the Americans, the war would have taken place because of the representation/distant governor issue. Might not have been won though. But Santa Anna pissed everyone off, so they decided to pursue independence.

 

After the war, they applied for statehood with the US, and were rejected. The US wanted an independent buffer that they didn't have to defend between them and Mexico. After a few years, the US changed it's mind and ASKED Texas to join. That's why TX ended up with several benefits other states don't have.

Once more, how do you see peace in the middle to occur though if both sides of are at the furthest of religious ideals.

 

You can point to religious zealots that cause deaths and massacres within the communities of the islamic states.

 

But I can point to the same within the Jewish state as well brought about by their own army.

 

If both sides continue their "genocide" as they currently are depending upon whose opinion you are reading, then nothing is ever going to happen.

 

 

I still believe the proposal of Jerusalem (which is not supposed to be controled by Isreal) as an international city allowing for all religions is the best option. Along with UN peacekeepers in that area and a city managed by the UN.

That is irresponsible of you to call either sides fighting in the conflict a genocide. Especially since the Israeli army does not go out of its way to hurt civilians.

 

Israel has been ready for over a decade to give the land back to form a Palestinian state. It does not help when one side (the Palestinians) keep fighting to get all of the land when it is not theirs and was never their land.

That is irresponsible of you to call either sides fighting in the conflict a genocide. Especially since the Israeli army does not go out of its way to hurt civilians.

 

Israel has been ready for over a decade to give the land back to form a Palestinian state. It does not help when one side (the Palestinians) keep fighting to get all of the land when it is not theirs and was never their land.

 

 

But the Israeli Army won't go out of their way to avoid killing civilians either. And they've done some truly horrendous things to Palestinians during lockdown periods.

 

Neither side is right in this conflict. Which is why the resolution is taking so much effort from external forces...