Egypt Opens Gaza Border

[OCinBuffalo]

I was in a hurry when I posted earlier. What I meant to say was Israel, since 1949 until today, has received more US foreign and military aid than all the other countries combined in that same time span, per capita.

 

I had a link, I'm trying to find it.

 

[EDITED]

Can't find it, but this is a good read.

 

http://jewishvoicefo...-aid-and-israel

1. You say you are against violence as a means of achieving the Palestinian political goals. Ok, so does that mean you would pick up a rifle and take a position in a trench to defend Israel from an all out attack by Arab countries? Would you be celebrating in the street with the rest of the Arabs if Israel was overrun? (Given the current conditions...it's not that outlandish of a hypothetical.) I don't think you would be celebrating...but I also don't think you'd lift a finger to stop the psychotics either. So...what good is your "position"? Are you at least going to tell people in your family to STFU if they start talking about violence?

 

2. Do you think overrunning/attempting to overrun Israel will bring peace to the region?

 

If so, how does that not cause the USA to be involved, militarily, instantly? Do you really think that multiple divisions-strength, but under/non-trained, non-soldiers can win against a single brigade of...let's say...the 82nd Airborne or 1st Marines? How does getting 3 divisions of Arab Infantry/Armor smoked by a much smaller American force...bring about peace...or, for that matter, remove the shame of losing to a much smaller Israeli force? I don't see how getting a lot of Arabs massacred, or worse, re-embarrased, solves anything.

 

If not, then how does supporting anything(1967 borders for example) that has the potential to invite any Arab country to think it can overrun Israel...help? Even if no attack ever comes...how does it help to make the Israelis MORE paranoid than they already are? You are the one saying that they attacked back in the day with little provocation...OK, if we set aside the speciousness of it, then, using your own argument...if Israel was forced to accept the 1967 borders...why wouldn't they attack again? What would make them lose this time?(Answer: nothing) Therefore, what would prevent them?(Answer: nothing)

 

Aside: a preemptive strike is, by definition, OFFENSIVE. You are saying that like it's some pearl of wisdom nobody knows. No. It's just one more example of not knowing the difference between a Tactic and a Strategy. The TACTIC of attacking the enemy before he can gain the territorial/logistical advantage, and, taking the initiative away is part of any DEFENSIVE STRATEGY. The fact that it is offensive, does nothing to change the fact that any preemptive strike in any war in any country is based on the other side creating the conditions that merit it. So, the short answer is: don't like preemptive strikes? Don't do things that invite them.

Edited June 1, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Justice]

1. You say you are against violence as a means of achieving the Palestinian political goals. Ok, so does that mean you would pick up a rifle and take a position in a trench to defend Israel from an all out attack by Arab countries? Would you be celebrating in the street with the rest of the Arabs if Israel was overrun? (Given the current conditions...it's not that outlandish of a hypothetical.) I don't think you would be celebrating...but I also don't think you'd lift a finger to stop the psychotics either. So...what good is your "position"? Are you at least going to tell people in your family to STFU if they start talking about violence?

 

2. Do you think overrunning/attempting to overrun Israel will bring peace to the region?

 

If so, how does that not cause the USA to be involved, militarily, instantly? Do you really think that multiple divisions-strength, but under/non-trained, non-soldiers can win against a single brigade of...let's say...the 82nd Airborne or 1st Marines? How does getting 3 divisions of Arab Infantry/Armor smoked by a much smaller American force...bring about peace...or, for that matter, remove the shame of losing to a much smaller Israeli force? I don't see how getting a lot of Arabs massacred, or worse, re-embarrased, solves anything.

 

If not, then how does supporting anything(1967 borders for example) that has the potential to invite any Arab country to think it can overrun Israel...help? Even if no attack ever comes...how does it help to make the Israelis MORE paranoid than they already are? You are the one saying that they attacked back in the day with little provocation...OK, if we set aside the speciousness of it, then, using your own argument...if Israel was forced to accept the 1967 borders...why wouldn't they attack again? What would make them lose this time?(Answer: nothing) Therefore, what would prevent them?(Answer: nothing)

 

Aside: a preemptive strike is, by definition, OFFENSIVE. You are saying that like it's some pearl of wisdom nobody knows. No. It's just one more example of not knowing the difference between a Tactic and a Strategy. The TACTIC of attacking the enemy before he can gain the territorial/logistical advantage, and, taking the initiative away is part of any DEFENSIVE STRATEGY. The fact that it is offensive, does nothing to change the fact that any preemptive strike in any war in any country is based on the other side creating the conditions that merit it. So, the short answer is: don't like preemptive strikes? Don't do things that invite them.

 

You and the Israelis say they went on the offensive for self-defense, well that ain't true at all, now is it? They did it for land. Plain and simple.

 

They have one of the strongest military in the world and your trying to tell me that the West Bank and Gaza, which are already predominately occupied by Arabs, is the only thing stopping Israel from being attacked? Get real.

 

Besides, you can't punish people just because you think they might do something. If any of those Arab countries attack Israel, the US and Israelis will wipe the floor with them in less than a week, it's been done before.

[Taro T]

You and the Israelis say they went on the offensive for self-defense, well that ain't true at all, now is it? They did it for land. Plain and simple.

 

They have one of the strongest military in the world and your trying to tell me that the West Bank and Gaza, which are already predominately occupied by Arabs, is the only thing stopping Israel from being attacked? Get real.

 

Besides, you can't punish people just because you think they might do something. If any of those Arab countries attack Israel, the US and Israelis will wipe the floor with them in less than a week, it's been done before.

If they did it for land, why'd they give the bulk of it back?

 

If the Arabs would get their butts handed to them in less than a week by attacking Israel, why do you presume they weren't gearing up to attack Israel the last time they got their butts handed to them in less than a week?

[3rdnlng]

You and the Israelis say they went on the offensive for self-defense, well that ain't true at all, now is it? They did it for land. Plain and simple.

 

They have one of the strongest military in the world and your trying to tell me that the West Bank and Gaza, which are already predominately occupied by Arabs, is the only thing stopping Israel from being attacked? Get real.

 

Besides, you can't punish people just because you think they might do something. If any of those Arab countries attack Israel, the US and Israelis will wipe the floor with them in less than a week, it's been done before.

 

 

Israel needs a buffer zone which they provide. You conveniently didn't mention the Golan Heights which is an obvious strategic advantage for Israel to control.

Edited June 1, 2011 by 3rdnlng

[DC Tom]

Israel needs a buffer zone which they provide. You conveniently didn't mention the Golan Heights which is an obvious strategic advantage for Israel to control.

 

He mentioned it earlier in the thread - specifically, that it's not part of the issue because the Palestinians don't want it. I pointed out that any policy of "return to the 1967 borders" ties it to the Palestinians and makes it the same issue regardless.

 

He ignored that. I'm generously assuming because he's a pinhead.

 

I was in a hurry when I posted earlier. What I meant to say was Israel, since 1949 until today, has received more US foreign and military aid than all the other countries combined in that same time span, per capita.

 

I had a link, I'm trying to find it.

 

[EDITED]

Can't find it, but this is a good read.

 

http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/content/us-military-aid-and-israel

 

This coming from a !@#$ing retard who discredits reading when other people do it.

[Justice]

He mentioned it earlier in the thread - specifically, that it's not part of the issue because the Palestinians don't want it. I pointed out that any policy of "return to the 1967 borders" ties it to the Palestinians and makes it the same issue regardless.

 

He ignored that. I'm generously assuming because he's a pinhead.

 

 

 

This coming from a !@#$ing retard who discredits reading when other people do it.

 

Good morning, minion. I'm glad to see you're still in form. Listen, I didn't discount the value of reading completely, I just pointed out that just because you read something doesn't make it necessarily true when someone has an agenda, I don't know exactly what you're reading and who wrote it, but the link I provided was written by Jews. No agenda there. They want whats fair, as do I. The Jewish voice for peace people see things exactly I do and they're not even Muslim and I'm sure they're more familiar with the happenings in Palestine than you are.

 

I can care less about the Golan Heights, they can have it. I'll be happy with the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. I'm not greedy, we don't have to take back all of the land that was taken in the '67 war and that doesn't make me a pinhead, that makes me realistic. The Israelis say they need the Golan Heights for their protection, fine, take it.

 

 

 

 

1. You say you are against violence as a means of achieving the Palestinian political goals. Ok, so does that mean you would pick up a rifle and take a position in a trench to defend Israel from an all out attack by Arab countries? Would you be celebrating in the street with the rest of the Arabs if Israel was overrun? (Given the current conditions...it's not that outlandish of a hypothetical.) I don't think you would be celebrating...but I also don't think you'd lift a finger to stop the psychotics either. So...what good is your "position"? Are you at least going to tell people in your family to STFU if they start talking about violence?

 

2. Do you think overrunning/attempting to overrun Israel will bring peace to the region?

 

If so, how does that not cause the USA to be involved, militarily, instantly? Do you really think that multiple divisions-strength, but under/non-trained, non-soldiers can win against a single brigade of...let's say...the 82nd Airborne or 1st Marines? How does getting 3 divisions of Arab Infantry/Armor smoked by a much smaller American force...bring about peace...or, for that matter, remove the shame of losing to a much smaller Israeli force? I don't see how getting a lot of Arabs massacred, or worse, re-embarrased, solves anything.

 

If not, then how does supporting anything(1967 borders for example) that has the potential to invite any Arab country to think it can overrun Israel...help? Even if no attack ever comes...how does it help to make the Israelis MORE paranoid than they already are? You are the one saying that they attacked back in the day with little provocation...OK, if we set aside the speciousness of it, then, using your own argument...if Israel was forced to accept the 1967 borders...why wouldn't they attack again? What would make them lose this time?(Answer: nothing) Therefore, what would prevent them?(Answer: nothing)

 

Aside: a preemptive strike is, by definition, OFFENSIVE. You are saying that like it's some pearl of wisdom nobody knows. No. It's just one more example of not knowing the difference between a Tactic and a Strategy. The TACTIC of attacking the enemy before he can gain the territorial/logistical advantage, and, taking the initiative away is part of any DEFENSIVE STRATEGY. The fact that it is offensive, does nothing to change the fact that any preemptive strike in any war in any country is based on the other side creating the conditions that merit it. So, the short answer is: don't like preemptive strikes? Don't do things that invite them.

 

I didn't have time to respond to this hogwash fully before, so I'll start now.

 

Are you that presumptuous that you suspect my family in Palestine, whom you don't even know, of being violent people or even condoning violence? That couldn't be further from the truth. My family members are all people of peace. They have never taken part in any form of resistance of the occupation. They are very religious, peaceful people. That may come as a shock to you, but it's true. There are peaceful people in that part of the world, believe it or not.

 

 

A preemptive strike is an offensive strike, I know that, but I don't buy it. Look at the motive, Israel wanted more land and they took it, that's what it was all about.

 

If they did it for land, why'd they give the bulk of it back?

 

If the Arabs would get their butts handed to them in less than a week by attacking Israel, why do you presume they weren't gearing up to attack Israel the last time they got their butts handed to them in less than a week?

 

Thanks for the chicken scraps and BTW, they didn't attack, they were attacked.

[3rdnlng]

Good morning, minion. I'm glad to see you're still in form. Listen, I didn't discount the value of reading completely, I just pointed out that just because you read something doesn't make it necessarily true when someone has an agenda, I don't know exactly what you're reading and who wrote it, but the link I provided was written by Jews. No agenda there. They want whats fair, as do I. The Jewish voice for peace people see things exactly I do and they're not even Muslim and I'm sure they're more familiar with the happenings in Palestine than you are.

 

I can care less about the Golan Heights, they can have it. I'll be happy with the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. I'm not greedy, we don't have to take back all of the land that was taken in the '67 war and that doesn't make me a pinhead, that makes me realistic. The Israelis say they need the Golan Heights for their protection, fine, take it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't have time to respond to this hogwash fully before, so I'll start now.

 

Are you that presumptuous that you suspect my family in Palestine, whom you don't even know, of being violent people or even condoning violence? That couldn't be further from the truth. My family members are all people of peace. They have never taken part in any form of resistance of the occupation. They are very religious, peaceful people. That may come as a shock to you, but it's true. There are peaceful people in that part of the world, believe it or not.

 

 

A preemptive strike is an offensive strike, I know that, but I don't buy it. Look at the motive, Israel wanted more land and they took it, that's what it was all about.

 

 

 

Thanks for the chicken scraps and BTW, they didn't attack, they were attacked.

 

 

Why did Egypt amass troops in the Sinai? Why did Egypt close the Straits of Tiran? Why did Nassar say he was going to obliterste Israel? Did you know that without the West Bank Israel is only about 9-14 miles wide where the majority of its population is located? Put yourself in Israel's position and think what you might do to protect yourself.

[Taro T]

Good morning, minion. I'm glad to see you're still in form. Listen, I didn't discount the value of reading completely, I just pointed out that just because you read something doesn't make it necessarily true when someone has an agenda, I don't know exactly what you're reading and who wrote it, but the link I provided was written by Jews. No agenda there. They want whats fair, as do I. The Jewish voice for peace people see things exactly I do and they're not even Muslim and I'm sure they're more familiar with the happenings in Palestine than you are.

 

I can care less about the Golan Heights, they can have it. I'll be happy with the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. I'm not greedy, we don't have to take back all of the land that was taken in the '67 war and that doesn't make me a pinhead, that makes me realistic. The Israelis say they need the Golan Heights for their protection, fine, take it.

You aren't greedy. You don't need ALL the land that Israel captured in '67. You only want ALL the land that the Palestinians lay claim to (the former Jordan and Egyptian territory minus the Sinai of course), you don't want the Syrian territory (which the Palestinians have never laid claim to).

 

Yeah, that makes you a realist.

 

Out of curiosity, what exactly are you willing to give the Israelis in return? (Or more accurately, what should the Palestinians provide to Israel in return for this land?)

 

I didn't have time to respond to this hogwash fully before, so I'll start now.

 

Are you that presumptuous that you suspect my family in Palestine, whom you don't even know, of being violent people or even condoning violence? That couldn't be further from the truth. My family members are all people of peace. They have never taken part in any form of resistance of the occupation. They are very religious, peaceful people. That may come as a shock to you, but it's true. There are peaceful people in that part of the world, believe it or not.

 

 

A preemptive strike is an offensive strike, I know that, but I don't buy it. Look at the motive, Israel wanted more land and they took it, that's what it was all about.

 

 

 

Thanks for the chicken scraps and BTW, they didn't attack, they were attacked.

Thanks for ignoring my 1st question. And thanks for once again demonstrating your (lack of) reading comprehension w/ the 2nd one. We all know the Arabs DIDN'T attack, we also all know that the only reason was that the Israelis saw the buildups and closing of the Strait and realized they'd better strike 1st.

 

Denial. It's not just a river the Egyptians won't let your people swim in.

[DC Tom]

Why did Egypt amass troops in the Sinai? Why did Egypt close the Straits of Tiran? Why did Nassar say he was going to obliterste Israel? Did you know that without the West Bank Israel is only about 9-14 miles wide where the majority of its population is located? Put yourself in Israel's position and think what you might do to protect yourself.

 

They amassed to try to take Israeli pressure off the Syrians in the Golan (which was itself due to Israeli responses to Syrian-backed Fatah attacks from the Golan into Israel and Syrian fortification of the Golan...which itself was due to continued Israeli provocation and incursion into the Golan...)

 

And they didn't "amass" as much as they did mill about aimlessly (four different depolyment orders in the seven days preceding the Israeli attack - calling the Egyption C&C "confused" would be an understatement). It's why they got their asses handed to them.

 

Fundamentally...like I said earlier, the Six-Day War was little more than a series of high-intensity battles in the overall Israeli-Arab war fought almost continuously from '58 to '73.

[Justice]

You aren't greedy. You don't need ALL the land that Israel captured in '67. You only want ALL the land that the Palestinians lay claim to (the former Jordan and Egyptian territory minus the Sinai of course), you don't want the Syrian territory (which the Palestinians have never laid claim to).

 

Yeah, that makes you a realist.

 

Out of curiosity, what exactly are you willing to give the Israelis in return? (Or more accurately, what should the Palestinians provide to Israel in return for this land?)

 

 

Thanks for ignoring my 1st question. And thanks for once again demonstrating your (lack of) reading comprehension w/ the 2nd one. We all know the Arabs DIDN'T attack, we also all know that the only reason was that the Israelis saw the buildups and closing of the Strait and realized they'd better strike 1st.

 

Denial. It's not just a river the Egyptians won't let your people swim in.

 

I didn't ignore your first question. They gave back chicken scraps, big deal!!!

 

And now for the second question, I didn't answer it because I can't. I have no idea why they would be stupid enough to attack a much stronger opponent. Remember, I'm for peaceful resistance, whether the Arabs are stronger or not. I don't agree with violence.

 

As far as why the Arabs did what they did, who knows? Maybe THEY were expecting Israel to attack and were getting ready. We're not privy to that type of information to don't assume to know why.

[DC Tom]

I can care less about the Golan Heights, they can have it. I'll be happy with the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. I'm not greedy, we don't have to take back all of the land that was taken in the '67 war and that doesn't make me a pinhead, that makes me realistic. The Israelis say they need the Golan Heights for their protection, fine, take it.

 

THIS demonstrates your idiocy. I've already pointed out twice that the Golan is inextricably tied to the Palestinian issue by statements of "returning to the 1967 borders". Your response? "I don't care about the Golan."

 

No one gives a **** about what you care about. The fact is that the Golan is inextricably tied to the Palestinian issue by statements of "returning to the 1967 borders". It doesn't matter if you care about it or not. It's a major part of the problem. That you can't accept that and consistently whitewash it with "I don't care" makes you completely UNrealistic, and just one example of how you're a total !@#$wit.

[Justice]

You aren't greedy. You don't need ALL the land that Israel captured in '67. You only want ALL the land that the Palestinians lay claim to (the former Jordan and Egyptian territory minus the Sinai of course), you don't want the Syrian territory (which the Palestinians have never laid claim to).

 

Yeah, that makes you a realist.

 

Out of curiosity, what exactly are you willing to give the Israelis in return? (Or more accurately, what should the Palestinians provide to Israel in return for this land?)

 

 

 

Question for you, what do you call the Arabs that live in the West Bank and Gaza? Palestinians, right? Well Palestinians should live in a place called PALESTINE or give us equal rights. Like I said, I can care less if we ever get our country back, just treat us like you treat yourselves and eventually, over time, we can live in peace.

 

What are we going to give them? Peace and peace of mind. Isn't that enough?

[DC Tom]

As far as why the Arabs did what they did, who knows? Maybe THEY were expecting Israel to attack and were getting ready. We're not privy to that type of information to don't assume to know why.

 

 

Actually, we are. It's well-documented. I've already explained it twice in this thread (admittedly, I got it from reading, so you'll discredit it).

[Justice]

THIS demonstrates your idiocy. I've already pointed out twice that the Golan is inextricably tied to the Palestinian issue by statements of "returning to the 1967 borders". Your response? "I don't care about the Golan."

 

No one gives a **** about what you care about. The fact is that the Golan is inextricably tied to the Palestinian issue by statements of "returning to the 1967 borders". It doesn't matter if you care about it or not. It's a major part of the problem. That you can't accept that and consistently whitewash it with "I don't care" makes you completely UNrealistic, and just one example of how you're a total !@#$wit.

 

You freaking moron, if the Israelis were to offer everything to the Palestinians, unconditionally, except for the Golan, I'm sure they would take it.

 

Back when peace talks broke down, it wasn't because of the Golan, it was because of the right of return and East Jerusalem. Those are the core issues. Not the freaking Golan.

 

Actually, we are. It's well-documented. I've already explained it twice in this thread (admittedly, I got it from reading, so you'll discredit it).

 

 

Well documented? By whom? Not a sarcastic question. I really would like to know where you get your info.

 

 

 

 

[Taro T]

Question for you, what do you call the Arabs that live in the West Bank and Gaza? Palestinians, right? Well Palestinians should live in a place called PALESTINE or give us equal rights. Like I said, I can care less if we ever get our country back, just treat us like you treat yourselves and eventually, over time, we can live in peace.

 

What are we going to give them? Peace and peace of mind. Isn't that enough?

Eventually there will be 2 states. Palestine will be Gaza & the West Bank (but not likely w/ the boundaries you'd prefer).

 

Who is this "yourselves" you are referring to? The Israelis, correct?

 

As soon as the Palestinians actually begin offering Israel "peace & peace of mind" you may find they're willing to negotiate. They had an offer on the table that Arafat spurned. And there is no way the Israelis will ever go for the "right of return." Eventually, you'll get your state (if your leaders ever wise up), but you won't get them both.

[3rdnlng]

Why did Egypt amass troops in the Sinai? Why did Egypt close the Straits of Tiran? Why did Nassar say he was going to obliterste Israel? Did you know that without the West Bank Israel is only about 9-14 miles wide where the majority of its population is located? Put yourself in Israel's position and think what you might do to protect yourself.

 

These are questions for you B.Harami98.

[DC Tom]

You freaking moron, if the Israelis were to offer everything to the Palestinians, unconditionally, except for the Golan, I'm sure they would take it.

 

Back when peace talks broke down, it wasn't because of the Golan, it was because of the right of return and East Jerusalem. Those are the core issues. Not the freaking Golan.

 

And when you make policy statements about "returning to the 1967 borders", you inextricably tie the Golan to the Palestinian issue.

 

If I shout, do you understand it any better, stakehead?

 

Well documented? By whom? Not a sarcastic question. I really would like to know where you get your info.

 

I can get you a list of the primary sources when I get home from work (if I have time - I've moved on from the window to building new kitchen cabinets this week). A good secondary source to start is "Arabs at War," which, although military rather than political history, covers the run-up to the 1967 war from the Syrian and Egyptian side rather well.

[Justice]

So, DCTom, there isn't ANY merit to the link chicot provided? It was written so it must be true, right? Why discount it when the info was provided by one of Israel's own, Moshe Dayan?

 

http://www.nytimes.c...lan.html?src=pm

 

And when you make policy statements about "returning to the 1967 borders", you inextricably tie the Golan to the Palestinian issue.

 

If I shout, do you understand it any better, stakehead?

 

 

 

I can get you a list of the primary sources when I get home from work (if I have time - I've moved on from the window to building new kitchen cabinets this week). A good secondary source to start is "Arabs at War," which, although military rather than political history, covers the run-up to the 1967 war from the Syrian and Egyptian side rather well.

 

1. Yeah, Palestine's borders. The Golan was never ours.

2.. Greatly appreciated. I can find it on my own, but I'd like to know what YOUR sources were.

 

Also, I'd like to see your response on General Dayan's comments. Thanks.

 

These are questions for you B.Harami98.

 

 

Like I said before, I don't know what goes on behind closed doors and don't pretend to know, either. I can't answer those questions.

 

Besides, the size of Israel's borders has nothing to do with their defense. If they were to give the Palestinians a state of their own, then no one will have it in them to attack Israel knowing the world's fury will be coming down on them. They will be protected.

 

 

To take this even further, just take a look at Israel as it is now in the middle of the middle east surrounded by and outnumbered immensely by Arabs, are they in jeopardy now? Has anyone taken their land?

Edited June 1, 2011 by b.harami98

[DC Tom]

So, DCTom, there isn't ANY merit to the link chicot provided? It was written so it must be true, right? Why discount it when the info was provided by one of Israel's own, Moshe Dayan?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html?src=pm

 

Some merit...but the article itself states that Dayan's statements as to the motivation for invading the Golan (of which I counted at least three different and conflicting statements) shouldn't be taken at face value. Even Dayan's interviewer says that - suggests that Dayan was bouncing ideas off him for his memoirs (which is a bold statement against the value of memoirs as primary sources as well). And by the article, some of Dayan's statements are even factually disproven, e.g. "''You don't strike at the enemy because he is a bastard, but because he threatens you. And the Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us." When, actually, the Syrian air force was already bombing northern Israel (admittedly, half-assedly and ineffectually) by that time.

 

The article also strongly suggests something I'm sure you didn't pick up on (if you even read beyond the first page, which I doubt): "Israel" is hardly a monolithic entity uniformly directed. If the kibbutzim pushed the local commander to invade Golan for the land exclusive of Dayan, Rabin, and the Israeli PM...what does that suggest for the unity of Israel in seeking peace? That's a much bigger issue for the Palestinians, long-term than anything you've yet mentioned.

 

And the article also says "But on a more immediate level, the general's 21-year-old comments play directly into the current dispute over whether the Golan Heights should be returned to Syria in exchange for peace." Which, again, demonstrates how much of an idiot you actually are.

 

Really, it's not a very good article...not surprising, since it's a report of an article in Yediot Ahronot, which is based on 20-year old notes of informal conversations about events nine years after the fact. Basically, fourth-hand information, thirty years removed. I'd rather read the article in Yediot Ahronot, but it still would be more "interesting" than "credible".

[3rdnlng]

So, DCTom, there isn't ANY merit to the link chicot provided? It was written so it must be true, right? Why discount it when the info was provided by one of Israel's own, Moshe Dayan?

 

http://www.nytimes.c...lan.html?src=pm

 

 

 

1. Yeah, Palestine's borders. The Golan was never ours.

2.. Greatly appreciated. I can find it on my own, but I'd like to know what YOUR sources were.

 

Also, I'd like to see your response on General Dayan's comments. Thanks.

 

 

 

 

Like I said before, I don't know what goes on behind closed doors and don't pretend to know, either. I can't answer those questions.

 

Besides, the size of Israel's borders has nothing to do with their defense. If they were to give the Palestinians a state of their own, then no one will have it in them to attack Israel knowing the world's fury will be coming down on them. They will be protected.

 

 

To take this even further, just take a look at Israel as it is now in the middle of the middle east surrounded by and outnumbered immensely by Arabs, are they in jeopardy now? Has anyone taken their land?

 

Why did Nassar close the Straits of Tiran if not to provoke the Israelis? Why did he publicly vow to obliterate Israel? The width of the country has nothing to do with its defense? You've got to be kidding me!