quote:

---

Originally written by Lord Torso:

...
Well, there's still no especially pressing issue which would make them move to attack Israel.

I also don't know why Israel as a state is still allowed to exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by I Would Have Been Your Daddy:

What I'm arguing against is that doing anything else results in instant loss. Israel's lasted for quite a while, and it's not going under overnight.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by $ v. #:

So, I asked you to convince me as to why, when you are surrounded, your only options are to "react" or to die. You made that comment in regards to Israel. You responded to my question by saying "I guess you've never been in a real fight before," comparing the situation around Israel to "a real fight" which I assumed referred to a personal brawl. I don't think the two situations are particularly analogous.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Lord Torso:

quote:

---

Originally written by Zeviz:

quote:

---

Originally written by Lord Torso:

...
Well, there's still no especially pressing issue which would make them move to attack Israel.

I also don't know why Israel as a state is still allowed to exist.

---

I find the contradiction between first and second sentence quite amuzing.

---

I find it amusing that you think there is a contradiction. Israel should not exist in the state it is now, but that's no reason to remove the government by force or indeed to even remove the government.

And ad hominenm attacks aren't the best way to solve disputes. Inciting them, yes, but that's really not what anyone wants. Right?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Lord Torso:

And if it was? Is there something I don't know? Have I broken the U.S.A.'s laws unknowingly? Are we so pro-Israeli now that we've passed laws against free speech and calls for reform? Someone please inform me what the problem is with stating my opinions in the hopes of an argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:


Second, you stated an argument, he called it contradictory, you defended it, he rebutted your defense.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Dikiyoba:

Originally by Lord Torso:

quote:

---

Someone please inform me what the problem is with stating my opinions in the hopes of an argument.

---

"...in the hopes of an argument..." is the problem Dikiyoba has with it, because provoking conflict is neither nice nor helpful.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon
Well, I'm at least pretty

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Lord Torso:

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:


Second, you stated an argument, he called it contradictory, you defended it, he rebutted your defense.

---

I'm not seeing the contradiction. I see a sentence that I unnoticingly made contradictory in my second post ("I find it amusing that you think there is a contradiction blah blah blah"). My statement about the possibility of Israel only restructuring rather than dissolving its government could be taken as a call for Israel to reform rather than cease existing. But I would estimate the necessary restructuring to be so drastic that the state Israel as it is would cease to exist.

But that, if we look at these posts in chronological order, was after Zeviz told me I was making contradictory statements and so has no bearing. Someone will have to spell out the contradiction for me.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by I Would Have Been Your Daddy:

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

What are you talking about. It nearly has. Yom Kippur war, six day war, etc.

---

I'm not presuming to know more about Israel's history than a citizen of Israel, but didn't the Six Day War resulted in Israel gaining a lot of territory and defeating three countries in six days? Hardly "almost destroyed".

Even the Yom Kippur War ended with not all of the territory regained, and in fact helped diplomatic relations.

In any case, nothing like open war is going to happen now. Israel has proven that it is very hard to beat in armed conflicts, and has the backing of the U.S.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

quote:

---

Originally written by I Would Have Been Your Daddy:

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

What are you talking about. It nearly has. Yom Kippur war, six day war, etc.

---

I'm not presuming to know more about Israel's history than a citizen of Israel, but didn't the Six Day War resulted in Israel gaining a lot of territory and defeating three countries in six days? Hardly "almost destroyed".

Even the Yom Kippur War ended with not all of the territory regained, and in fact helped diplomatic relations.

In any case, nothing like open war is going to happen now. Israel has proven that it is very hard to beat in armed conflicts, and has the backing of the U.S.

---

During the first four days of the six day war, Israel looked like a squashed ant. A squashed ant that somehow managed to rise up and defend itself from it's attackers agains all odds.

The Yom Kippur war was not so much a near defeat for Israel as it was a surprise. Practically no troops were on duty. They struck at the time when Israel was weakest in hopes of getting rid of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by The Worst Man Ever:

...From the brief research I have done on the subject, and please correct me if I am wrong:

In 1948, there was indeed an unprovoked attack by Arab states on Israel. The states were dictatorships and monarchies; characterizing them as 'theocracies' verges on insane. Israel won the war and, in so doing, annexed a substantial amount of what would have been Palestinian territory.

---

quote:

---

In 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Company, and in response, France and England essentially used Israel as a cat's-paw, attacking Egypt by proxy and managing to keep the Suez Canal open. Hardly self-defense.

---

quote:

---

In 1967 there occurred the Six Day War: for whatever reason, Egypt elected to blockade Aqaba, closing access for Israel to the Red Sea. Israel proceeded to launch a 'pre-emptive attack' on Egypt and seize the Sinai, along with various other territories they had a strategic but not legal reason to occupy. This was essentially a war of aggression on Israel's part.

---

quote:

---

In 1973, mostly in retribution for the 1967 war, Egypt and Syria invaded, intent on reclaiming territories lost.

---

quote:

---

After the cease-fire, a series of conferences eventually lead to recognition for Israel from Egypt - conditional on Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai.

The lesson to be learned here? Simple. In three/four/five wars (depending on whether you count the Suez Crisis as a war, or the War of Attrition), Israel at its zenith managed to, what? Seize a few thousand square miles of desert? It wasn't until they gave the ridiculous siege-mentality 'We have to get them or they'll get us' a rest and actually took Egypt to the table that they got anything done.

---

quote:

---

An auxillary lesson is that Israel had an exceptional amount of culpability in any given international war it fought in (except 1948 - granted).

---

quote:

---

That's auxillary because it doesn't make a whit of difference. You can't have security until you have peace, and someone who will only settle for victory will have to wait for peace until the other side - the Jews here, I suppose - is dead.

If that's how it's going to go - well, they have a word for when a country gets together and kills millions of a specific race because they believe it's the only way to keep them in line.

I'm sure you know it.

---