Olmert puts peace on table to free soldier - Page 4

Stan187 · 12-02-2006, 21:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parihaka

Gentlemen, you're being trolled. Ask him to debate your points, not the ones he posits on your behalf.

I called it from day one, but at the same time we don't wanna abandon the thread lest he comes off thinking we gave up cuz he's right, or lest even worse someone else who is trying to learn more comes upon the thread and reads and figures he's right because we stopped arguing back. It is indeed, a vicious cycle.

**Shek** · 12-02-2006, 22:45 PM

Yirmey,

Since you didn't respond directly before, I'll present it in small bites this time around. The Rabin quote from after the war doesn't jive with the historical record during the run up to the war. If Rabin knew that Nasser didn't want war, and that he didn't have an offensive capability, why did he:

1) State that the decision to go to war was a question of whether Israel was "to be or not to be."

2) Have a nervous breakdown on 27 May?

His actions during the crisis period seemingly contradict his post-war claim. Do you have an explanation?

Also, from looking at the historical atlas of the initial penetrations in the Sinai, there are 7 Egyptian divisions plus 3 separate Egyptian brigades, or nearly 8 total Egyptian divisions. Here's another inconsistency with the Le Monde quote (which claims only "two divisions" being sent to Sinai). Are there any other instances where Rabin has been quoted saying a similar thing, is this quote completely taken out of context, or was this a once in a lifetime position?

Stan187 · 12-02-2006, 22:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shek

Yirmey, Do you have an explanation?

Does he ever?

Yirmeyahu · 12-05-2006, 12:42 PM

Stan187

Quote:

You yourself were implying that embargo and blockade were the same thing, that is not at all irrelent, and the only reason you say that now is because he proved you wrong.

I implied no such thing. Once again, The fact that "embargo" is not synonymous with "blockade" is irrelevant.

The logic employed in both cases is precisely the same. I won't repeat it. See above.

Quote:

Acts of aggression are defined by intentions as well.

False. Acts of aggression are crimes of deeds, not of thoughts. There is no "thought crime" known as "aggression". But it's very Orwellian of you to suggest otherwise.

Quote:

It is widely agreed upon in the world that the Straits are international waters. This is not something that just Israel said, which is what you're implying.

I never implied any such thing. I simply observed the fact that Egypt regarded the Strait as territorial waters, and that under international law this was a reasonable position. Israel could have taken the dispute to the UN to reach a diplomatic settlement. Instead, they committed an act of aggression on June 5 when they launched Mirage jet aircraft and virtually destroyed the Egyptian air force while it was still on the ground.

shek

Again, the fact that "embargo" and "blockade" have different meanings is irrelevant. The logic applied in both cases is the same.

parihaka

Quote:

The Japanese never, as the Israelis did, claim the actions against them would be casus belli for war.

The embargo was regarded as an act of war by Japan, and the US knew it would be regarded as such.

Hence, applying the logic in question, the attack upon Pearl Harbor was justified.

I, of course, reject this conclusion and recognize the flaw in the logic.

parihaka

Quote:

Ask him to debate your points, not the ones he posits on your behalf.

I've directly responded to a logical formula presented as an argument by demonstrating the fallacy of the logic.

That's not a strawman.

Quote:

The Rabin quote from after the war doesn't jive with the historical record during the run up to the war.

On the contrary, what doesn't "jive" with the historical record is this notion that Egypt was an imminent threat justifying a pre-emptive strike.

By definition, without an imminent threat, there is no "pre-emptive" strike, only aggression.

Quote:

If Rabin knew that Nasser didn't want war, and that he didn't have an offensive capability, why did he:

1) State that the decision to go to war was a question of whether Israel was "to be or not to be."

2) Have a nervous breakdown on 27 May?

His actions during the crisis period seemingly contradict his post-war claim. Do you have an explanation?

Your implied logic is:

1) Rabin said the decision to go to war was a question of "to be or not to be" so therefore Israel must truly have been under threat of imminent attack from Egypt.

2) Rabin had a nervous breakdown on 27 May, so therefore Israel must truly have been under threat of imminent attack from Egypt.

Both are non-sequiturs. No "explanation" is therefore required. I could think of some, but it's irrelevant.

I have a question for you. Why, if Israel was truly under threat of imminent attack from Egypt, did Avraham Sela, a fellow and colleague of Michael B. Oren at the Shalem Center, say, "The Egyptian buildup in Sinai lacked a clear offensive plan, and Nasser's defensive instructions explicitly assumed an Israeli first strike."?

Why would Menachem Begin say, "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Why would Ezer Weizman, General and Chief of Operations, say, "There was no threat of destruction against the state of Israel"; and "There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting"; and "The Jews of the Diaspora would like, for reasons of their own, to see us as heroes, our backs to the wall. This desire of theirs, however, will not affect the reality of the situation"?

Why would Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev say, "We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such possibility"?

And why would Rabin say, "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficent to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it"?

Could it be that these are honest statements?

Stan187 · 12-05-2006, 15:31 PM

So now you're reposting the same quotes you just posted, again? What are you trying to up your post count and get some butter cookies?

You've contributed nothing more to the discussion. Frankly you've contributed nothing since day one, now that I think about it. Keep thinking that you're right without proving your points though, its ok, that type of thinking will get you a nice padded seat working for UN secretariat and contributing nothing to world just like you're doing now

Yirmeyahu · 12-06-2006, 07:59 AM

Q: What did post #50 contribute to the discussion?

A: ?

We may have differing opinions, but those opinions must be supported by the facts. If you disagree with my opinion, you're welcome to demonstrate any error in fact or in logic that I have made.

Or you could just continue to make ad hominum arguments, which would, incidentally, be highly instructive as to the legitimacy of your position.

Stan187 · 12-06-2006, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

We may have differing opinions, but those opinions must be supported by the facts. If you disagree with my opinion, you're welcome to demonstrate any error in fact or in logic that I have made.

I have, multiple times. We all have, multiple times. The fact that you pretend you weren't proven wrong in both fact and logic does not make our arguments any weaker. Hence me calling you an idiot. After reading all of these threads, anyone else who read through the whole of them, would agree fully with the legitimacy of that statement.

**Shek** · 12-06-2006, 21:07 PM

Yirmey,

1. Blockades and embargoes are inherently different. A blockade is an internationally recognized casus belli. An embargo is not. Thus, when you try to make analogous claims: if A, then B, your are putting forward false analogies. This is because your As are not analogous. Thus, your logic breaks down at A.

2. Your claim that there is no need to reconcile fundamentally opposed statements by Rabin is bogus. For someone to claim that the question of acting was a matter of "to be or not be" to later be quoted as saying that "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficent to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." begs the question of which one is right, and this is just when you accept the quote prima faccia as being correct.

However, when you examine it against the historical record, instead there being only two divisions in the Sinai, there were 7 divisions plus basically the equivalent of an eight division, the quote begins to appear to be either a fabrication or taken completely out of context to fit an agenda.

So, you can avoid the question and keep on posting one liners that are not quoted within a larger context (remember, I've already demonstrated the Begin quote to be taken out of the context and edited so as to be misleading on the issue of self-defense), or you can actually confront the question and examine the Rabin quote on the merits.

Yirmeyahu · 12-08-2006, 08:42 AM

shek,

I.
A. The fact that blockades and embargoes are inherently different is irrelevent to the fact that the logic in both situations is precisely the same.
To remind everyone, I was given a logical formula which said that the Israeli attack upon Egypt was justified because Egypt engaged in an action which it knew Israel would regard as an "act of war".

Applying the same logic, the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor would be justified since the US engaged in an action which it knew would be regarded by Japan as an "act of war".

B. The closing of the Straits of Tiran was not an "internationally recognized casus belli".

II.
A.
1. As I've noted previously, Rabin saying the decision to attack Egypt was "a question of our national survival, of to be or not to be" does not lead to the conclusion that Israel was under threat of imminent attack from Egypt.

2. Such a statement was self-serving at the time, and was certainly not representative of the facts.

3. Rabin's later statement that "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficent to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it" seems to be a more honest acknowledgment (was not self-serving) and more closely represents the facts, including both US and Israeli intelligence assessments that in the event of war, Israel would win within a matter of days (which certainly was certainly proven to be the case).

B. Rabin is not the only leading Israeli who has acknowleged the truth of the matter.

1. "The Egyptian buildup in Sinai lacked a clear offensive plan, and Nasser's defensive instructions explicitly assumed an Israeli first strike." -- Avraham Sela (a colleague of Michael B. Oren at the Shalem Center)

2. "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." -- Menachem Begin

3 "There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger." -- General Chaim Herzog, Commanding General and first Military Governor of Israeli Occupied West Bank

4. "We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such possibility." -- Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev

5. "There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting."

6. "The Jews of the Diaspora would like, for reasons of their own, to see us as heroes, our backs to the wall. This desire of theirs, however, will not affect the reality of the situation." -- Ezer Weizman

7. "The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory." -- Mordechai Bentov, Israeli Minister of HOusing

8. "The Yom Kippur War was not fought by Egypt and Syria to threaten the existence of Israel. It was an all out use of their military force to achieve a limited political goal. What Sadat wanted by crossing the canal was to change the political reality and, thereby, to start a political [peace] process from a point more favorable to him than the one that existed." -- Yitzhak Rabin

C. Rabin was talking about Egyptian forces relocated on in May 1967. The map shown above shows troop movements on June 5 and 6, 1967.

Quote:

I've already demonstrated the Begin quote to be taken out of the context and edited so as to be misleading on the issue of self-defense

That's an interesting story, but unfortunately it's fiction.

Stan187 · 12-08-2006, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

shek,

I.
A. The fact that blockades and embargoes are inherently different is irrelevent to the fact that the logic in both situations is precisely the same.
To remind everyone, I was given a logical formula which said that the Israeli attack upon Egypt was justified because Egypt engaged in an action which it knew Israel would regard as an "act of war".

Applying the same logic, the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor would be justified since the US engaged in an action which it knew would be regarded by Japan as an "act of war".

B. The closing of the Straits of Tiran was not an "internationally recognized casus belli".

II.
A.
1. As I've noted previously, Rabin saying the decision to attack Egypt was "a question of our national survival, of to be or not to be" does not lead to the conclusion that Israel was under threat of imminent attack from Egypt.

2. Such a statement was self-serving at the time, and was certainly not representative of the facts.

3. Rabin's later statement that "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficent to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it" seems to be a more honest acknowledgment (was not self-serving) and more closely represents the facts, including both US and Israeli intelligence assessments that in the event of war, Israel would win within a matter of days (which certainly was certainly proven to be the case).

B. Rabin is not the only leading Israeli who has acknowleged the truth of the matter.

1. "The Egyptian buildup in Sinai lacked a clear offensive plan, and Nasser's defensive instructions explicitly assumed an Israeli first strike." -- Avraham Sela (a colleague of Michael B. Oren at the Shalem Center)

2. "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." -- Menachem Begin

3 "There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger." -- General Chaim Herzog, Commanding General and first Military Governor of Israeli Occupied West Bank

4. "We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such possibility." -- Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev

5. "There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting."

6. "The Jews of the Diaspora would like, for reasons of their own, to see us as heroes, our backs to the wall. This desire of theirs, however, will not affect the reality of the situation." -- Ezer Weizman

7. "The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory." -- Mordechai Bentov, Israeli Minister of HOusing

8. "The Yom Kippur War was not fought by Egypt and Syria to threaten the existence of Israel. It was an all out use of their military force to achieve a limited political goal. What Sadat wanted by crossing the canal was to change the political reality and, thereby, to start a political [peace] process from a point more favorable to him than the one that existed." -- Yitzhak Rabin

C. Rabin was talking about Egyptian forces relocated on in May 1967. The map shown above shows troop movements on June 5 and 6, 1967.

That's an interesting story, but unfortunately it's fiction.

I.
A. The logic is not the same, and the difference is not irrelevant. We don't have to repeat ourselves, we proved those points pretty blatantly.

B. As shown by the treaty that Shek posted, closing the Straits was indeed an internationally recognized casus belli.

II.
A.
1. The biggest danger standing in the way of securing that existence of course being the 7 divisions and 3 brigades of Egyptian troops massing on the Israeli border.

2. 7 divisions and 3 brigades getting ready to attack is fact enough in and of itself, in addition to an internationally recognized casus belli for war.

3. There were 7 divions and 3 brigades. Look at the effing maps posted right above you, blind fool.

B. Cutting and pasting out of context quotes is not truth, and saying that kind of bs won't win you any kudos around here. And putting in a quote about the Yom Kippur War shows that you obviously must be a little confused on what we are talking about.

**ZFBoxcar** · 12-08-2006, 12:07 PM

Quote:

A. The fact that blockades and embargoes are inherently different is irrelevent to the fact that the logic in both situations is precisely the same.

For the love of God no they aren't! That is like saying the difference between calling somebody a bad name and firing a gun at them are the same. A blockade means that Egypt would shoot at any Israeli ship trying to pass by. An embargo just means Egypt would not trade with Israel, which is within their rights.

Other than questioning why Israeli leaders would go from making "self-serving statements" to basically writing equivalents of OJ's "If I Did It," I really don't have the patience to respond to the rest of your repetitive posts where you ignore all evidence thrown at you and just pretend that your opponents have said nothing but what is convenient for you.

Yirmeyahu · 12-09-2006, 23:00 PM

stan187

Quote:

The logic is not the same, and the difference is not irrelevant. We don't have to repeat ourselves, we proved those points pretty blatantly.

I was given a very clear and concise logical equation. I was told that the Israeli attack upon Egypt was justified because Egypt engaged in an action which it knew Israel would consider an "act of war".

By precisely the same reasoning, the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor would be justified.

Quote:

As shown by the treaty that Shek posted, closing the Straits was indeed an internationally recognized casus belli.

Egypt never signed that treaty. Egypt regarded the Straits as territorial waters, which, by submission of that treaty, you seem to agree with, since it applies to territorial waters.

There is nothing in that treaty which even remotely implies that preventing passage of ships in territorial waters is a "casus belli".

International law recognizes only two legitimate use of armed forces in international relations; the use of force must be 1)self-defense against armed attack or 2) authorized by the UN Security Council.

Quote:

The biggest danger standing in the way of securing that existence of course being the 7 divisions and 3 brigades of Egyptian troops massing on the Israeli border.

Both US and Israeli intelligence predicted that in the event of war, Israel would defeat Egypt within a matter of days, which certainly proved to be a correct assessment of the imbalance between Israeli and Egyptian power.

This attempt to portray Israel as some sort of David "preempting" the big bad Goliath is pure fiction.

You've added that the Egyptian troops were "getting ready to attack". This seems to be your own invention.

You've dismissed them, but the fact is that leading Israelis have acknowledged that Israel was not in dire threat of an imminent attack from Egypt.

The quote from Rabin regarding the Yom Kippur War serves to demonstrate that the 1967 war was not the only case in which Israel played the "David" card, and not the only case in which Rabin later acknowledged the truth of the matter, that the existence of Israel was not threatened by its neighbors.

ZFBoxcar

You keep reiterating the point that "blockade" and "embargo" have different meanings. I don't know why. The fact that these words have different meanings is irrelevant.

I was given a very clear and concise logical equation. I was told that the Israeli attack upon Egypt was justified because Egypt engaged in an action which it knew Israel would consider an "act of war".

The logic employed was: a) Egypt knew cutting off the straits would be regarded by Israel as an act of war; b) Egypt cut off the straights; c) It was therefore an act of war; d) The Israeli attack, since both nations were in a state of war, was justified.

By precisely the same reasoning, the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor would be justified: a) The US knew embargoing Japan, among other steps, would be regarded by Japan as an act of war; b) The US embargoed Japan, among other steps; c) It was therefore an act of war; d) The Japanese attack, since both nations were in a state of war, was justified.

The fallacy in both cases, of course, is in making the assumption that because a nation considers something as a "casus belli" or an "act of war" does not make it so under international law.

You've dismissed them, but the fact is that leading Israelis have acknowledged that Israel was not in dire threat of an imminent attack from Egypt. These acknowledgments are clearly too inconvenient for you.

**ZFBoxcar** · 12-09-2006, 23:07 PM

I never said that a nation claiming something to be an act of war makes it so. But shooting at any Israeli ship that tries to go through the Straits of Tiran IS an act of war.

Quote:

You've dismissed them, but the fact is that leading Israelis have acknowledged that Israel was not in dire threat of an imminent attack from Egypt. These acknowledgments are clearly too inconvenient for you.

You've never provided any link to these statements being made, and there is simply no motive to confess these "crimes" other than to say "muahaha we are evil and there is nothing you can do about it!"

And a blockade is a threat of attack (or an actual attack if it is tested) if you are a nation that happens to like having an economy.

**Shek** · 12-10-2006, 10:34 AM

Yirmey,

Do you deliberately misquote folks, or do you not know the context of the quotes that you use?

I've already pointed out how you misquoted Begin by citing a quote out of context, using his quote to try and bolster your argument that Israel didn't act out of self-defense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

Quote by Shek:
I've already demonstrated the Begin quote to be taken out of the context and edited so as to be misleading on the issue of self-defense.

Quote by Yirmeyahu:
That's an interesting story, but unfortunately it's fiction.

Since you failed to acknowledge the very next sentence from Begin's speech, I'll include it again:

Quote:

This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term.

Next, let's look at Rabin's quote that you've been using throughout the thread. I've included in bold text a portion of the quote that you failed to include.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on May 14 would not have been sufficent to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." -- Yitzhaq Rabin

However, in one of your most recent posts, you've demonstrated knowledge of the context of the quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

C. Rabin was talking about Egyptian forces relocated on in May 1967. The map shown above shows troop movements on June 5 and 6, 1967.

So, the bottomline behind the quote is that it applies to May 14, and not the situation on June 5, and therefore, attempting to use it is misleading.

To fill in the space between May 14 and June 5, here's a brief timeline (all are cited from Oren's "Six Days of War":

Aerial photos on May 19 showed the buildup to be 80K men, 550 tanks, and 1000 guns (Oren 76).

By May 20, a full six divisions were in the Sinai (Oren 78).

On May 23, Rabin had a nervous breakdown where he was temporarily suceeded in command and placed on quarters to rest (Oren 91).

So, my question to you is two-fold. Did you deliberately misquote Rabin, or did you not know that his quote referred to the situation on May 14 and not June 5? In either case, why should we trust that your other quotes are faithful to the context in which they were made, whether it be an error of commission or omission?

Stan187 · 12-10-2006, 17:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shek

So, my question to you is two-fold. Did you deliberately misquote Rabin, or did you not know that his quote referred to the situation on May 14 and not June 5? In either case, why should we trust that your other quotes are faithful to the context in which they were made, whether it be an error of commission or omission?

LoL, he probably just figured that no one on this board owned a copy of Oren's book.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Articles and links for the Military Professional	Officer of Engineers	The Staff College	115	11-20-2006 11:28 AM
Pakistan to free 435 Indian prisoners to push peace	Asim Aquil	Political Discussions	1	09-10-2005 14:44 PM
Second U.S. Soldier hung in effigy	Lunatock	Current Affairs	65	03-02-2005 23:28 PM
Ludwig Von Mises on Iron Theory of Wages	Praxus	Current Affairs	28	11-15-2004 02:48 AM

12-05-2006, 15:31 PM	#50 (permalink)
Stan187 WAB BOUNCER *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-24-06 Posts: 2,265 Country:	So now you're reposting the same quotes you just posted, again? What are you trying to up your post count and get some butter cookies? You've contributed nothing more to the discussion. Frankly you've contributed nothing since day one, now that I think about it. Keep thinking that you're right without proving your points though, its ok, that type of thinking will get you a nice padded seat working for UN secretariat and contributing nothing to world just like you're doing now

12-06-2006, 07:59 AM	#51 (permalink)
Yirmeyahu Banished Regular Join Date: 11-27-06 Posts: 80 Country:	Q: What did post #50 contribute to the discussion? A: ? We may have differing opinions, but those opinions must be supported by the facts. If you disagree with my opinion, you're welcome to demonstrate any error in fact or in logic that I have made. Or you could just continue to make ad hominum arguments, which would, incidentally, be highly instructive as to the legitimacy of your position.

12-06-2006, 21:07 PM	#53 (permalink)
Shek Moderator Join Date: 02-23-05 Location: Krblachistan Posts: 7,532 Country:	Yirmey, 1. Blockades and embargoes are inherently different. A blockade is an internationally recognized casus belli. An embargo is not. Thus, when you try to make analogous claims: if A, then B, your are putting forward false analogies. This is because your As are not analogous. Thus, your logic breaks down at A. 2. Your claim that there is no need to reconcile fundamentally opposed statements by Rabin is bogus. For someone to claim that the question of acting was a matter of "to be or not be" to later be quoted as saying that "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficent to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." begs the question of which one is right, and this is just when you accept the quote prima faccia as being correct. However, when you examine it against the historical record, instead there being only two divisions in the Sinai, there were 7 divisions plus basically the equivalent of an eight division, the quote begins to appear to be either a fabrication or taken completely out of context to fit an agenda. So, you can avoid the question and keep on posting one liners that are not quoted within a larger context (remember, I've already demonstrated the Begin quote to be taken out of the context and edited so as to be misleading on the issue of self-defense), or you can actually confront the question and examine the Rabin quote on the merits.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)