Tough beans, nobody cares what the UN thinks (including our inept president) to begin with, nor do they have the means or might to take it away. Syria lost that piece of property in a gun fight, and they have no claim but sour grapes to the Golon.
Golan Heights Oil - Israel wants it!
- Thread starter Eeset
- Start date
Tough beans, nobody cares what the UN thinks (including our inept president) to begin with, nor do they have the means or might to take it away. Syria lost that piece of property in a gun fight, and they have no claim but sour grapes to the Golon.
Who was the aggressor in that gun fight Doc? and if you lose something in a fight you initiated & lost, is the victor obliged to give back the spoils you lost in your aggression? Israel doesn't owe their enemies squat.
Everyone seems to want to focus on who owns the Golan Heights. My concern in creating this thread was not that but rather why our news feeds in the US are not covering the oil find story. The story gets coverage if you live in some other country but not here in the good ole US of A.
Because this country hates that which has made it great...oil is evil! or haven't you heard?
The article you cited was hugely biased. Focusing on only one issue.
The Israelis themselves openly admitted that they were not concerned about an attack. Their main concerns were three-fold:
1) Random shelling on Galilean villages from the Golan Heights by Syrians or by terrorists (mostly Palestinian) with the Syrians' assistance.
2) Constant incursions by Palestinian terrorists from the West Bank (which was then a part of Jordan). and
3) The closure of the Straits of Tiran by Egypt to Israeli flagged vessels (through which almost all of Israel's oil supplies were carried).
No. 3 was generally regarded as the event that made the war inevitable. So you can blame it on Egypt.
Israeli leaders were concerned about what Israel would become 25 years down the line, being squeezed on all fronts as described above, not about whether Egypt or Syria would attack them the following day:
a) Nasser's rhetoric was only making things worse.
b) Nasser and Syria had signed a mutual defence pact so Israel knew that it could not mount another mini-war against Syria as they had done only recently to deter shelling from Golan, without the certainty that Egypt would invade them on the southern front. So although everyone knew that Egypt didn't want to initiate a war, the fact that they were amassing all their forces on the Sinai border was a virtual guarantee that war was what they would get.
c) at that time, ALL the Arab states were clamouring for war. They were sending troops to Syria and Jordan to be in readiness and issuing rhetoric of their own,looking forward to the day when the error of 48 would be rectified.
d) At a late stage, Jordan, who were previously sympathetic to Israel and who previously did what they could to prevent terrorist incursion of the Palestinians into Israel (although it was not much) and didn't really help, suddenly switched and joined the mutual defence pact, stationing tank batallions in the West Bank which could within half an hour easily cut Israel into two which is only a few miles wide at its narrowest point. Nationalist fervour in all the Arab states made it plain that there had to be war. They all wanted it.
They got what they were asking for is all I can say. A few cabinet papers don't change what is already known.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Obviously not the Arabs!
The answer is no if that is indeed what happened. But alas, that is not what happened.
A debateable point.
Now since you asked me, let me ask you:
Who was the aggressor in that gun fight Rocket? and if you win something in a fight you initiated & won, is the victor obliged to give back the spoils you won in your aggression?
drbrumley
Well-known member
Of course it is. And your sources are not? Yeah right. Call a spade a spade will you?
Of course it does.
And remember, so will we all.
Ahhh, so there wasn't any attack. They were worried about 25 years down the road. Boy that's justification for you.
I was answering your question, not providing justification. Don't move the goalposts! You were the one who said that Israel were the aggressor and that they attacked knowing that they were not going to be attacked. Your position is refuted. You don't need these cabinet papers. All this information was previously available. It was justification for the Israelis, not for me. Whatever you do, you can't argue they were without justification and were just land-grabbing.
And what's that got to do with it? You seem to have an aversion to facts; your argument is nothing but a load of emotions. The Arabs were just begging for a war. The Soviets had just a few weeks beforehand in no uncertain terms told Nasser not to initiate a war because they woud not get Soviet support if they did. But perhaps you didn't know that the actual Egyptian assault was planned and was only hours away when the Soviets canned it. The Soviets had already lied to Nasser and the Syrians, saying that Israel was amassing forces on the Syrian border, when they were not. The Soviets wanted the war but they wanted Israel to be seen to be starting it. They didn't bargain for Israel winning it.
They got exactly what they were wanting, a scrap with Israel, the only difference was they never saw Israel punching them in the nose first. Your idea of aggression may differ from mine, or ignorance of the history that led up to, & eventually ended the six day war may be the sticking point but, make no mistake it was the Arabs then (along with a host of allies) & it is the Arabs now that bring the aggression.
And you would be wrong, just as the Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese, et al were wrong, they were all the aggressors against what they thought was a push over opponent israel...they thought wrong and paid the price of bringing threats & aggression.
Maybe for you...
I already said above but, if you want it again....Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, & Lebanon supported by a host of Arab & North African nations, & Pakistan. The aggressor is not the one who throws the first pre-emptive punch it is the gang of thugs threatening the one into a corner.
Given that Israel was not the aggressor in the six day war I would say they owe the Syrians nothing...then or now.
P.S. If you want to discuss this topic further we need to start a thread as not to derail Eeset's.
I don't mind.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
well, it did work
if it hadn't, do you think anybody at the UN would give a crap that the nation of israel only lasted 20 years before disappearing?
drbrumley
Well-known member
Your faith in God and His promises about Israel is pretty pathetic. Pure emotional spin....
:thumb: Well said DR... even a laymen's view of this piece of history proves that all the nations involved were showing aggression towards Israel and got stomped for it.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Or your lack of acknowledgement of Gods promises to Israel were never revoked lest they were never a promise to begin with. It says more about your lack of faith that God will not fulfill His promises, and if His promises are null and void for Israel, how can you be sure that His promises to the church are also false. Are you calling God a liar? That is what it sounds like, if so that is what is truly pathetic Doc. I guess it comes down to that...do you believe God's promises are true or are they false, reversible, a moving target?
drbrumley
Well-known member
Is Moshe Dayan lying then? He must be according to you then.
He even said they took the Golan just to take it. He was going to use the Golan as a bargaining chip. He never thought they would keep it this long. Your argument isn't with me, it's with him then. I just pointed out Israel wasn't attacked first. Everyone on this board and in history agree with this fact.