Egypt’s Navy Threatens Israel’s Sea Lanes

**ExNavyAmerican** · 08 May 07,, 13:57

Well, Israelis, Egyptians and just about everybody else says it's a peace treaty

Sorry, I should've been more clear. I was referring to the N. Korea-USA cease fire. There is a treaty between the Israelis, and Egyptians. My point was that a cease-fire is the same principle.

Yes, wars can resume.

Exactly.

US has contingency plans for war with every country in the world. Some are more developed, some are less.

Exactly. It is the same with the Israelis, and the Egyptians.

If that is so then why are egyptian (and other Arab) purchases seen as destabilising and potential threat while Israeli are not? Even though even Israelis admit they enjoy arms superiority.

If you accept that there is some sort of balance in region (Israel has better arms, Arabs more) then any increase would have destabilising effects on it, wouldn't it? Yet only Arab ones are seen as such. Do you hear same worrying voices when Israel talks about purchasing F-22s or JSF?

The Israelis have proven that they only invade their neigbors in defense of themselves. Their neigbors on the other hand have invaded, or designed to invade, Israel without provocation 3 times. We don't worry about Israel purchasing advanced weapons because they have proven that they'll use them only when necessary, and in defence. Can you imagine what it would be like if the Arab nations (who, as I said, have invaded Israel repeatedly) had nuclear weapons?

**aktarian** · 08 May 07,, 14:05

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

Sorry, I should've been more clear. I was referring to the N. Korea-USA cease fire. There is a treaty between the Israelis, and Egyptians. My point was that a cease-fire is the same principle.

OK then. While practically US and DPRK are at peace technically they are at war.

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

The Israelis have proven that they only invade their neigbors in defense of themselves. Their neigbors on the other hand have invaded, or designed to invade, Israel without provocation 3 times. We don't worry about Israel purchasing advanced weapons because they have proven that they'll use them only when necessary, and in defence.

Well, I don't agree with that. I believe only 1948 was self defence, 1967 had elements of self defence, 1973 was about territories from which Israel should withdraw anyway (same as 1991 war with Iraq) while 1956 and 1982 were wars of choice

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

Can you imagine what it would be like if the Arab nations (who, as I said, have invaded Israel repeatedly) had nuclear weapons?

Depends. IMO Arab nukes would bring stability to region and provide some sort of deterrant for Israel. So less wars and less agressive policy on both sides.

**ExNavyAmerican** · 08 May 07,, 14:42

Originally Posted by aktarian

Well, I don't agree with that. I believe only 1948 was self defence, 1967 had elements of self defence, 1973 was about territories from which Israel should withdraw anyway (same as 1991 war with Iraq) while 1956 and 1982 were wars of choice

As you said, '48 was in self-defence. 1967 was a pre-emptive strike (i.e. I said "invaded, ordesigned to invade..."). The Arabs were planning on invading, the Israelis got wind of it, and launched a pre-emptive strike. Because those nations were ready is one of the reasons why Israel nearly lost when they had the advantage of surprise. '73 was about territories that Israel occupied while in defence of itself, and the Arabs again launched a surprise attack with the aim of destroying Israel (note, they weren't planning on merely taking back lost land). Saddam took Kuwait in an act of greed, and aggression; Israel took the Golan Heights, Sinai, and portions of the West Bank out of defense during wars of aggression performed against them by Arab nations. In 1956 Egypt nationalized the Suez canal, an international waterway, that could have crippled commerce, specifically Israeli. It was a war of choice, but not instigated by Israel. I believe that it was justified because of Israel's interest in the Suez regard to their trade. The Suez canal connects the Israeli port of Elat with their Mediterranean ports, and is a shortcut to Europe, and North America for tradeships. Israel did the world a service imo. Israel's invasion of Lebanon in '82 was for similar motives as in 2006. Terrorists were sheltering there, and were attacking Israel. The only difference is that Israel failed miserably in 2006.

Originally Posted by aktarian

Depends. IMO Arab nukes would bring stability to region and provide some sort of deterrant for Israel. So less wars and less agressive policy on both sides.

The Arabs have proven that they can't be trusted with weapons in regard to Israel. The Arabs instigated the long years of war since 1948, have repeatedly tried to wipe Israel off the map, and you think that they can be trusted with nukes?

Israel has never threatened to use nukes except to make clear that they'll use them if they were to be defeated in battle to the point that their existence were in question-just like any other nations.

I may appear rabbidly pro-Zionist/Israel, but it I firmly believe in Israel's justification throughout their modern history.

**rickusn** · 08 May 07,, 16:03

It really doesnt matter.

The US is about to be forced from the world stage by economics, politics, nuclear threats and worse by 2010.

Russia and China will carve up the world much like Russia and Germany carved up Europe once upon a time.

Then in time the Russian Bear will devour even China.

Its inevitable.

Russias stated goal has always been world-domination.

That has not changed as unfolding world events are showing.

Israel has no hope of survival in the cataclysm that has only just begun, as usual, in a torrent of fear-mongering and sabre-rattling words by Russia.

**TopHatter** · 08 May 07,, 16:51

Originally Posted by aktarian

Depends. IMO Arab nukes would bring stability to region and provide some sort of deterrant for Israel. So less wars and less agressive policy on both sides.

"Arab nukes" and "stability"...is that some sort of sick joke?

A region known for it's commitment to wanton acts of violence and destruction directed at innocent men, women and children to achieve it's aims?

A region historically noted for the appalling lack of value it places on human life?

You want people like to have nukes because you believe it will be stabilizing?

Are you kidding?

**ExNavyAmerican** · 08 May 07,, 16:53

Originally Posted by TopHatter

"Arab nukes" and "stability"...is that some sort of sick joke?

A region known for it's commitment to wanton acts of violence and destruction directed at innocent men, women and children to achieve it's aims?

A region historically noted for the appalling lack of value it places on human life?

You want people like to have nukes because you believe it will be stabilizing?

Are you kidding?

That's exactly what I thought.

**aktarian** · 08 May 07,, 17:53

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

As you said, '48 was in self-defence. 1967 was a pre-emptive strike (i.e. I said "invaded, ordesigned to invade..."). The Arabs were planning on invading, the Israelis got wind of it, and launched a pre-emptive strike. Because those nations were ready is one of the reasons why Israel nearly lost when they had the advantage of surprise.

I'm suspect about these aleldged plans to invade. did they exist? Probably. but as you said Us has plans to fight UK. Does that mean UK should launch preemptive strike?

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

'73 was about territories that Israel occupied while in defence of itself, and the Arabs again launched a surprise attack with the aim of destroying Israel (note, they weren't planning on merely taking back lost land).

Well, if that is the case then why did Egypt stop ater gaining beachead? Surely it was not due to Israeli defences. Syrians were stopped but Egyptians stopped on thier own accord.

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

Saddam took Kuwait in an act of greed, and aggression; Israel took the Golan Heights, Sinai, and portions of the West Bank out of defense during wars of aggression performed against them by Arab nations.

Well if that was purely defensive act why did they start building settlements there soon after the war? Why would they risk their own citizens by placing them close to potential frontline? If this was act of defence, to create a buffer zone, then it would makes no sense to populate them with civilians.

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

In 1956 Egypt nationalized the Suez canal, an international waterway, that could have crippled commerce, specifically Israeli. It was a war of choice, but not instigated by Israel. I believe that it was justified because of Israel's interest in the Suez regard to their trade. The Suez canal connects the Israeli port of Elat with their Mediterranean ports, and is a shortcut to Europe, and North America for tradeships. Israel did the world a service imo.

But since when it's Israeli duty to keep sea lanes open for them?

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

Israel's invasion of Lebanon in '82 was for similar motives as in 2006. Terrorists were sheltering there, and were attacking Israel. The only difference is that Israel failed miserably in 2006.

If that is so then what about constant ISraeli provocations and bombings prior to any Palestinian moves?

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

The Arabs have proven that they can't be trusted with weapons in regard to Israel. The Arabs instigated the long years of war since 1948, have repeatedly tried to wipe Israel off the map, and you think that they can be trusted with nukes?

Israel has never threatened to use nukes except to make clear that they'll use them if they were to be defeated in battle to the point that their existence were in question-just like any other nations.

Pakistan with history of military coups and wars withh India is trusted with nukes. Russia with history of agressive wars is trusted with them. Nobody was much bothered with South African nukes either despite it's apartheid regime and wars in neighbourhood.

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

I may appear rabbidly pro-Zionist/Israel, but it I firmly believe in Israel's justification throughout their modern history.

well, that is your right. I obviously disagree with you.

**aktarian** · 08 May 07,, 17:56

Originally Posted by TopHatter

"Arab nukes" and "stability"...is that some sort of sick joke?

A region known for it's commitment to wanton acts of violence and destruction directed at innocent men, women and children to achieve it's aims?

A region historically noted for the appalling lack of value it places on human life?

You want people like to have nukes because you believe it will be stabilizing?

Are you kidding?

as I said before regimes far worse then Arab ones have nukes yet nothing happened.

and yes, I believe that nuclear balance brings stability. If only one side has them it allows for more agressive acts because they know they have bigger stick then anybody else and can do pretty much what they wish.

**ExNavyAmerican** · 08 May 07,, 18:25

I'm suspect about these aleldged plans to invade. did they exist? Probably. but as you said Us has plans to fight UK. Does that mean UK should launch preemptive strike?

It's your right to suspect, but the fact that the militaries of all those counties were mobolized when the war began, and it began with a pre-emptive surprise attack. This would suggest that these plans to attack were indeed legitimate, and not contingency.

Well, if that is the case then why did Egypt stop ater gaining beachead? Surely it was not due to Israeli defences. Syrians were stopped but Egyptians stopped on thier own accord.

You have me there. But that doesn't prove anything because it doesn't change the fact that the Arabs were planning on destroying Israel. That's why they attacked on Yom Kippur. How can you defend such wicked intentions as to destroy an entire nation?

Well if that was purely defensive act why did they start building settlements there soon after the war? Why would they risk their own citizens by placing them close to potential frontline? If this was act of defence, to create a buffer zone, then it would makes no sense to populate them with civilians.

The civilians moved there at their own accord. And it does make sense for the Israeli government to allow it. A military base establishes your pressence in the region; settlements prove that you're here to stay. Anyway, the Arabs invaded Israel with the intent to destroy it; taking back lost land was secondary. They repeatedly announced that Israel's destruction was the idea. The Israelis are not about to give back lost land won with blood; so the next logical step is to establish permanent settlments. But, as I said, the Israeli settlers made the choice of moving there: Israel is a democratic society where the people have the freedom of choice. You say you do not believe Israel has been justified in recent history, but do you excuse those non-democratic countries that attempted to destroy it?

But since when it's Israeli duty to keep sea lanes open for them?

Who says its their duty? But the world wasn't going to do anything about it (except for France and Britain), and it was conflicting with their (Israel's) interests, let alone the world's. And it is their duty to defend their own interests. Do you excuse the Egyptians closing the canal? Would you excuse the United States doing the same to the Panama Canal?

If that is so then what about constant ISraeli provocations and bombings prior to any Palestinian moves?

That is not true. The Palestinian attacks before the Iraq war were constant bombings, and the Israelis defend themselves. But you what? They never attempt to full overrun the Gaza Strip: a courtesy that its Arab neigbors never afforded to Israel. Since the Iraq war, the Palestinian bombings have dropped off, but Hezbollah and Hamas remains; they are a threat to Israeli security. And with this last one, Hezbollah started it with the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier.

Pakistan with history of military coups and wars withh India is trusted with nukes. Russia with history of agressive wars is trusted with them. Nobody was much bothered with South African nukes either despite it's apartheid regime and wars in neighbourhood.

Russia has never entered a holy war, in modern history, with the intent of wiping a nation off the face of the Earth. Neither has South Africa, nor has Pakistan. Bad examples.

well, that is your right. I obviously disagree with you.

Please tell me you're not one of those people that believe Israel should be dissolved as a nation. And do you have anything against Israel? (just out of curiosity)

**TopHatter** · 08 May 07,, 18:35

Originally Posted by aktarian

as I said before regimes far worse then Arab ones have nukes yet nothing happened.

and yes, I believe that nuclear balance brings stability. If only one side has them it allows for more agressive acts because they know they have bigger stick then anybody else and can do pretty much what they wish.

I'm still trying to reconcile "Arab nukes" with "stability".

Historically speaking, it just ain't happening.

**glyn** · 08 May 07,, 19:28

Originally Posted by aktarian

Depends. IMO Arab nukes would bring stability to region and provide some sort of deterrant for Israel. So less wars and less agressive policy on both sides.

I wish you no discourtesy, but your statement makes no sense at all. On reflection, I feel you must be deluding yourself - or letting others delude you. A mullah, perhaps?

**aktarian** · 09 May 07,, 09:19

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

It's your right to suspect, but the fact that the militaries of all those counties were mobolized when the war began, and it began with a pre-emptive surprise attack. This would suggest that these plans to attack were indeed legitimate, and not contingency.

Mobilised to what degree? If they would be greatly over their peacefull strenght I'd say you have a point. Otherwise not.

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

You have me there. But that doesn't prove anything because it doesn't change the fact that the Arabs were planning on destroying Israel. That's why they attacked on Yom Kippur. How can you defend such wicked intentions as to destroy an entire nation?

I'll tell you why. Because Sadat had no intentions of destroying Israel. He wanted to show his strenght and repeat his peace offer from 1971. He was willing to accept tactical or even operational defeat to achieve strategic victory. and that is what happened. Egypt was defeated on battlefield but got what he proposed in 1971 anyway, return of Sinai, peace with Israel and becoming US ally.

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

The civilians moved there at their own accord. And it does make sense for the Israeli government to allow it. A military base establishes your pressence in the region; settlements prove that you're here to stay. Anyway, the Arabs invaded Israel with the intent to destroy it; taking back lost land was secondary. They repeatedly announced that Israel's destruction was the idea. The Israelis are not about to give back lost land won with blood; so the next logical step is to establish permanent settlments. But, as I said, the Israeli settlers made the choice of moving there: Israel is a democratic society where the people have the freedom of choice.

However those settlements are encouraged and financed by Israeli government which shows that this is deliberate policy. But why would Israel build settlements so close to front? because they have no intention of giving them up, despite claims to contrary.

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

You say you do not believe Israel has been justified in recent history, but do you excuse those non-democratic countries that attempted to destroy it?

No, I don't. Israel is now a fact and that woun't change.

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

Who says its their duty? But the world wasn't going to do anything about it (except for France and Britain), and it was conflicting with their (Israel's) interests, let alone the world's. And it is their duty to defend their own interests. Do you excuse the Egyptians closing the canal? Would you excuse the United States doing the same to the Panama Canal?

Did egypt close the canal or did they just nationalise it?

And speaking of which after 1967 war canal was closed for all. How is that for keeping sea lines open?

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

That is not true. The Palestinian attacks before the Iraq war were constant bombings, and the Israelis defend themselves. But you what? They never attempt to full overrun the Gaza Strip: a courtesy that its Arab neigbors never afforded to Israel. Since the Iraq war, the Palestinian bombings have dropped off, but Hezbollah and Hamas remains; they are a threat to Israeli security. And with this last one, Hezbollah started it with the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier.

I was refering to pre Litani/Peace for Galilee situation in Lebanon.

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

Russia has never entered a holy war, in modern history, with the intent of wiping a nation off the face of the Earth.

No, they just came very close to wiping a nation of the face of the earth. Killing a lot of it's people, dispersing lot of those that remain and lay waste to it.

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

Neither has South Africa,

South Africa had apartheid policy that treated blacks as inferior people. they didn't wipe a nation off the face of the earth, they simply refused to acknowledge that other side is human.

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

nor has Pakistan. Bad examples.

No, Pakistan just created and backed one of nastiest fundo regimes around and ocasionaly sent officers to command them.

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

Please tell me you're not one of those people that believe Israel should be dissolved as a nation. And do you have anything against Israel? (just out of curiosity)

No, Israel is a fact and that woun't change. They have as much right to exist as a nation as Palestinians do (not that Israelis will ever be criticised for refusing to recognise Palestinian right to exist but that's another story). I disagree with a lot of their actions and don't agree with justification behind them.

**aktarian** · 09 May 07,, 09:23

Originally Posted by TopHatter

I'm still trying to reconcile "Arab nukes" with "stability".

Historically speaking, it just ain't happening.

Why? several non democratic and agressive nations have(had) them and nothing happeend. so why would Arab nukes be different?

You'll probably say "they want to wipe Israel off the planet". That may be the case but they also realise that Israel has them too. So there would be ballance instead of imballance as is the case now.

**aktarian** · 09 May 07,, 09:30

Originally Posted by glyn

I wish you no discourtesy, but your statement makes no sense at all. On reflection, I feel you must be deluding yourself - or letting others delude you. A mullah, perhaps?

So if somebody would say that nukes prevented war between US and SU would that person be deluding itself or be deluded by agents of Comintern?

And BTW, Arabs seldom use term mullah, it's mostly used in Iran and east of it (India, Pakistan and Stans). Arab equivalent would be shaykh.

**Blademaster** · 16 May 07,, 09:33

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

The Israelis have proven that they only invade their neigbors in defense of themselves. Their neigbors on the other hand have invaded, or designed to invade, Israel without provocation 3 times. We don't worry about Israel purchasing advanced weapons because they have proven that they'll use them only when necessary, and in defence. Can you imagine what it would be like if the Arab nations (who, as I said, have invaded Israel repeatedly) had nuclear weapons?

Wrong. Israel invaded Egypt and with the help of the British and French forces, they seized the Suez Canal in 1957. That was without any provocation by the Egyptian towards Israel.