Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So 42 years ago, Israel invaded and them was attacked by it's neighbours and successfully defeated both because of Arab incompetence. The Arabs have yet to do this again, and probably won't because there is no benefit to it. The Palestinians do because they want their land back, mainly back to the 1967 borders.

And if they returned to that everything would be just fine?
What about PLO attacks that occurred before 1967?
What if Israel is still attacked? Can it then declare war and obliterate that region utterly?

 Frazzled wrote:

So 42 years ago, Israel invaded and them was attacked by it's neighbours and successfully defeated both because of Arab incompetence. The Arabs have yet to do this again, and probably won't because there is no benefit to it. The Palestinians do because they want their land back, mainly back to the 1967 borders.

And if they returned to that everything would be just fine?
What about PLO attacks that occurred before 1967?
What if Israel is still attacked? Can it then declare war and obliterate that region utterly?

Returned to what?

If the PLO attacks, Israel has the right to attack the PLO, as does any state. Israel did, and even tried to exterminate the PLO a few times.

But if Israel attacks or tries to dispute the rights of a sovereign power, that power has the right to return fire and engage in combat.

 Frazzled wrote:
Palestinians just set fire to Joseph's tomb. I'd say the Dome is now fair game. This is not going to end well.

Unlikely. By attacking the dome, they risk damaging the founding stone, one of holiest Jewish sites. This would be untenable to all but the most radical Jews (that's not to say that someone hasn't already suggested it).

 Imposter101 wrote:
A wonderfully fallacious argument from analogy on your part though, but I'll embrace it just to prove how wrong it is.

Germany
> Single, unified state
> Planned for war against Poland the the USSR
> 1st tier army and military. Well equipped and well trained.
> Possesses a distinct goal

The Arabs
> Several states
> Have varying plans and contradictory
> Kind of planned for war against Israel, some involve it's destruction some involve the return of land to the rightful owners
> Mediocre to average armies. Inferior equipment to their opponent
> Nothing to really gain except a United States task force marching into their capital(s) from an invasion or attack on Israel

Germany had no army directly after WW1, they rebuilt it in secrecy and then launched a well planned surprise attack against Poland and then France.

But your right in the sense that the Arabs are not united as well as they could be. Granted, most of Israel's neighbors are bigger then it.

As far as equipment? I would say they are about level, the only true gap is in the aircraft and tanks, Israel has their own tanks which are amazing while most arab states are using older Soviet era tanks. And in the Air? mostly F16s and equivalent, while again the Arabs are utilizing older soviet MIGs.

I am not saying these countries are currently looking to start a long war with Israel im just pointing out that in the very recent past Israel was almost destroyed TWICE because arab states joined together to attack Israel. The only reason that the 6 Day war went as well as it did was that Israel pre-empted the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian invasions by launching a massive air attack that neutered those countries air forces. You can argue that the arabs had no plans to attack Israel and that Israel was the aggressor, but I would point out that staging 4/5ths of your military in attack formations on the border with another country is generally considered an act of war, and when three countries do it at the same time? yeah that's a declaration in all but name.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:
A wonderfully fallacious argument from analogy on your part though, but I'll embrace it just to prove how wrong it is.

Germany
> Single, unified state
> Planned for war against Poland the the USSR
> 1st tier army and military. Well equipped and well trained.
> Possesses a distinct goal

The Arabs
> Several states
> Have varying plans and contradictory
> Kind of planned for war against Israel, some involve it's destruction some involve the return of land to the rightful owners
> Mediocre to average armies. Inferior equipment to their opponent
> Nothing to really gain except a United States task force marching into their capital(s) from an invasion or attack on Israel

Germany had no army directly after WW1, they rebuilt it in secrecy and then launched a well planned surprise attack against Poland and then France.

But your right in the sense that the Arabs are not united as well as they could be. Granted, most of Israel's neighbors are bigger then it.

As far as equipment? I would say they are about level, the only true gap is in the aircraft and tanks, Israel has their own tanks which are amazing while most arab states are using older Soviet era tanks. And in the Air? mostly F16s and equivalent, while again the Arabs are utilizing older soviet MIGs.

I am not saying these countries are currently looking to start a long war with Israel im just pointing out that in the very recent past Israel was almost destroyed TWICE because arab states joined together to attack Israel. The only reason that the 6 Day war went as well as it did was that Israel pre-empted the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian invasions by launching a massive air attack that neutered those countries air forces. You can argue that the arabs had no plans to attack Israel and that Israel was the aggressor, but I would point out that staging 4/5ths of your military in attack formations on the border with another country is generally considered an act of war, and when three countries do it at the same time? yeah that's a declaration in all but name.

"Germany had no army"

WRONG. Germany's army had not been defeated during WW1 and still had significant numbers. The Treaty of Versailles was ignored from the start and the Germans had been focussing on rebuilding from the get go for an invasion of Poland, with most plans having it occur alongside the Soviet Union. (Evens and Jenkins, Weimar).

I wouldn't say they are level.

I would say Israel are the aggressor. There's a lot of dubious planning and Israeli information about 1967 that shows they had some interesting reasons for it.

Even then, what do they have to gain? They have nothing to gain. Most of these states pay lip service to Israel, some are even allies now.

 Imposter101 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

So 42 years ago, Israel invaded and them was attacked by it's neighbours and successfully defeated both because of Arab incompetence. The Arabs have yet to do this again, and probably won't because there is no benefit to it. The Palestinians do because they want their land back, mainly back to the 1967 borders.

And if they returned to that everything would be just fine?
What about PLO attacks that occurred before 1967?
What if Israel is still attacked? Can it then declare war and obliterate that region utterly?

Returned to what?
Frazzled: Returned to the 1967 borders.
If the PLO attacks, Israel has the right to attack the PLO, as does any state. Israel did, and even tried to exterminate the PLO a few times.
You obviously misread the definition of exterminate. Considering you're speaking of Israelis I think if anyone knows what the definition of extermination is, they would.

But if Israel attacks or tries to dispute the rights of a sovereign power, that power has the right to return fire and engage in combat.
Wait, under your own definition (disputing the rights of a sovereign power, Israel can wipe out the Middle East including Iran right now. Iran after all, says it doesn't even have a right to exist. Thats definitely a dispute. Do you stand by your statement?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

So 42 years ago, Israel invaded and them was attacked by it's neighbours and successfully defeated both because of Arab incompetence. The Arabs have yet to do this again, and probably won't because there is no benefit to it. The Palestinians do because they want their land back, mainly back to the 1967 borders.

And if they returned to that everything would be just fine?
What about PLO attacks that occurred before 1967?
What if Israel is still attacked? Can it then declare war and obliterate that region utterly?

Returned to what?
Frazzled: Returned to the 1967 borders.
If the PLO attacks, Israel has the right to attack the PLO, as does any state. Israel did, and even tried to exterminate the PLO a few times.
You obviously misread the definition of exterminate. Considering you're speaking of Israelis I think if anyone knows what the definition of extermination is, they would.

But if Israel attacks or tries to dispute the rights of a sovereign power, that power has the right to return fire and engage in combat.
Wait, under your own definition (disputing the rights of a sovereign power, Israel can wipe out the Middle East including Iran right now. Iran after all, says it doesn't even have a right to exist. Thats definitely a dispute. Do you stand by your statement?

Yes, a return to the 1967 borders under the 2 state solution, possibly the most opted for (or called for) way to end the issue.

And by my definition. Palestine can do the same. Iran are however not occupying or invading Israel, nor have they blockading or subjected it's peoples. Until they actually act, Iran is doing very little. They don't even have relations with Israel, which most Middle Eastern States do, most of whom also recognise Israel. I don't know where I said they could wipe them out though.

Implying the 1967 borders would actually work, which a person would be very naive to think so

However under your own definition, Israel is free to nuke Iran or as you say: "dispute the rights of a sovereign power, that power has the right to return fire and engage in combat. "

Because that is how the big boys play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
Implying the 1967 borders would actually work, which a person would be very naive to think so

Its a non-issue. When Israel starts saying-hey maybe so-instantly there are calls for one state etc.

There can be no peace there.

 Frazzled wrote:
However under your own definition, Israel is free to nuke Iran or as you say: "dispute the rights of a sovereign power, that power has the right to return fire and engage in combat. "

Because that is how the big boys play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
Implying the 1967 borders would actually work, which a person would be very naive to think so

Its a non-issue. When Israel starts saying-hey maybe so-instantly there are calls for one state etc.

There can be no peace there.

Iran has yet to attack Israel. Israel also knows that radiation doesn't stop at borders.

Guess you are conveniently forgetting how Iran arms hezbollah and formerly hamas

 Ustrello wrote:
Guess you are conveniently forgetting how Iran arms hezbollah and formerly hamas

Hezbollah have a sovereign right to defend themselves from Israel. As do Hamas. Both were elected, and one even drove out the occupying Israelis.

 Imposter101 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Guess you are conveniently forgetting how Iran arms hezbollah and formerly hamas

Hezbollah have a sovereign right to defend themselves from Israel. As do Hamas. Both were elected, and one even drove out the occupying Israelis.

So, Hez are now a nation state with sovereign rights?

Your interpretation/understanding of the situation just gets better and better.

 CptJake wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Guess you are conveniently forgetting how Iran arms hezbollah and formerly hamas

Hezbollah have a sovereign right to defend themselves from Israel. As do Hamas. Both were elected, and one even drove out the occupying Israelis.

So, Hez are now a nation state with sovereign rights?

Your interpretation/understanding of the situation just gets better and better.

Hezbollah were the elected party in Lebanon in 2006. They were the leaders of a state, which possessed sovereign rights. They had a right to defend themselves against Israel.

When the Israeli's occupied Lebanon, they emerged to push them out.

 Imposter101 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Guess you are conveniently forgetting how Iran arms hezbollah and formerly hamas

Hezbollah have a sovereign right to defend themselves from Israel. As do Hamas. Both were elected, and one even drove out the occupying Israelis.

A political terrorist party have sovereign rights?

 Ustrello wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Guess you are conveniently forgetting how Iran arms hezbollah and formerly hamas

Hezbollah have a sovereign right to defend themselves from Israel. As do Hamas. Both were elected, and one even drove out the occupying Israelis.

A political terrorist party have sovereign rights?

They were the elected head of the state of Lebanon. They have the sovereign right to defend themselves being in that position. Your definition of "terrorist" is also limited to it's military brigades in most countries that try to classify it as a "terrorist" group.

Except they aren't anymore, and you danced around the question I posed earlier. Iran armed terrorist groups that regularly attack Israel and by your logic engaged in a true proxy war with Israel in 2006 (date may be wrong). Also you are forgetting that Hezbollah attack Israel first in that war, so really your entire argument is null at that point.

 Ustrello wrote:
Except they aren't anymore, and you danced around the question I posed earlier. Iran armed terrorist groups that regularly attack Israel and by your logic engaged in a true proxy war with Israel in 2006 (date may be wrong). Also you are forgetting that Hezbollah attack Israel first in that war, so really your entire argument is null at that point.

"Danced around the question"

I answered it.

"Iran armed terrorist groups"

It doesn't make Hezbollah any less of a political party or entity. They operate as a largely separate group.

"Hezbollah attacked Israel in that first war"

Because Israel had occupied Lebanon, their home country. Hezbollah fought back.

Simply deciding my point is null and void does not make it "null and void".

Do people really believe that the Palestinians will be satisfied with the 1967 borders?

Also, since when the feth did we start caring about the sovereign rights of nations? The USA and allies didn't care about the sovereign rights of Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Libya, or Syria, when we started interfering in, bombing and invading them.

And if your response is "Those countries weren't democratic, they were ruled by brutal dictators and totalitarian regimes that oppress their people"...then why do the Saudi's get a free pass?

 Imposter101 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
However under your own definition, Israel is free to nuke Iran or as you say: "dispute the rights of a sovereign power, that power has the right to return fire and engage in combat. "

Because that is how the big boys play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
Implying the 1967 borders would actually work, which a person would be very naive to think so

Its a non-issue. When Israel starts saying-hey maybe so-instantly there are calls for one state etc.

There can be no peace there.

Iran has yet to attack Israel. Israel also knows that radiation doesn't stop at borders.

Thats not required under your definition. You said mere "dispute the rights of a sovereign power." Thats almost literally nothing. But hey its your definition.
Plus -as noted the whole Hamas/Hezzbullah thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Imposter101 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Guess you are conveniently forgetting how Iran arms hezbollah and formerly hamas

Hezbollah have a sovereign right to defend themselves from Israel. As do Hamas. Both were elected, and one even drove out the occupying Israelis.

So, Hez are now a nation state with sovereign rights?

Your interpretation/understanding of the situation just gets better and better.

Hezbollah were the elected party in Lebanon in 2006. They were the leaders of a state, which possessed sovereign rights. They had a right to defend themselves against Israel.

When the Israeli's occupied Lebanon, they emerged to push them out.

This is news to Lebanon that Hezzbullah was elected to run Lebanon. Where do you get your news from, the Syrian Ministry of Truth?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
However under your own definition, Israel is free to nuke Iran or as you say: "dispute the rights of a sovereign power, that power has the right to return fire and engage in combat. "

Because that is how the big boys play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
Implying the 1967 borders would actually work, which a person would be very naive to think so

Its a non-issue. When Israel starts saying-hey maybe so-instantly there are calls for one state etc.

There can be no peace there.

Iran has yet to attack Israel. Israel also knows that radiation doesn't stop at borders.

Thats not required under your definition. You said mere "dispute the rights of a sovereign power." Thats almost literally nothing. But hey its your definition.
Plus -as noted the whole Hamas/Hezzbullah thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Imposter101 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Guess you are conveniently forgetting how Iran arms hezbollah and formerly hamas

Hezbollah have a sovereign right to defend themselves from Israel. As do Hamas. Both were elected, and one even drove out the occupying Israelis.

So, Hez are now a nation state with sovereign rights?

Your interpretation/understanding of the situation just gets better and better.

Hezbollah were the elected party in Lebanon in 2006. They were the leaders of a state, which possessed sovereign rights. They had a right to defend themselves against Israel.

When the Israeli's occupied Lebanon, they emerged to push them out.

This is news to Lebanon that Hezzbullah was elected to run Lebanon. Where do you get your news from, the Syrian Ministry of Truth?

Okay then. The state has a right to defend itself. Hezbollah were part of the Lebanese state and thus have right to defend the Lebanese state as part of the government.

Hezbollah have been part of the Lebanese government since 2005.

 Peregrine wrote:

And, I'll ask you again: why do the Jews (or any other religion) need their own state? Why should we support the idea of a state defined by membership in a religion?

If you're going with this line of thinking... you'll have to include both Pakistan and Inda, as they were partitioned into a Muslim (Pakistan) and Hindu (India) state.

 Imposter101 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Except they aren't anymore, and you danced around the question I posed earlier. Iran armed terrorist groups that regularly attack Israel and by your logic engaged in a true proxy war with Israel in 2006 (date may be wrong). Also you are forgetting that Hezbollah attack Israel first in that war, so really your entire argument is null at that point.

"Danced around the question"

I answered it.

"Iran armed terrorist groups"

It doesn't make Hezbollah any less of a political party or entity. They operate as a largely separate group.

"Hezbollah attacked Israel in that first war"

Because Israel had occupied Lebanon, their home country. Hezbollah fought back.

Simply deciding my point is null and void does not make it "null and void".

Alright by that logic I could arm Sinn Fein and have them attack england since you know they are a political party and have a sovereign right to defend themselves from the oppressing brits

 Ustrello wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Except they aren't anymore, and you danced around the question I posed earlier. Iran armed terrorist groups that regularly attack Israel and by your logic engaged in a true proxy war with Israel in 2006 (date may be wrong). Also you are forgetting that Hezbollah attack Israel first in that war, so really your entire argument is null at that point.

"Danced around the question"

I answered it.

"Iran armed terrorist groups"

It doesn't make Hezbollah any less of a political party or entity. They operate as a largely separate group.

"Hezbollah attacked Israel in that first war"

Because Israel had occupied Lebanon, their home country. Hezbollah fought back.

Simply deciding my point is null and void does not make it "null and void".

Alright by that logic I could arm Sinn Fein and have them attack england since you know they are a political party and have a sovereign right to defend themselves from the oppressing brits

Where Sinn Fein lawfully elected as part of a separate government in another country?

Where Sinn Fein attacked first?

Again, another argument from analogy that doesn't work.

Yes they hold seats both in the republic of ireland and north ireland. And they are linked with the IRA so yes in a way they did attack first. So yes the analogy works

 Ustrello wrote:
Yes they hold seats both in the republic of ireland and north ireland. And they are linked with the IRA so yes in a way they did attack first. So yes the analogy works

So the IRA were attacked first?

This is one hell of a Red Herring.

Saying a political party with ties to a terrorist organization who attacked the UK is a red herring? Are you just throwing out debate terms and hoping they stick at this point?

 Ustrello wrote:
Saying a political party with ties to a terrorist organization who attacked the UK is a red herring? Are you just throwing out debate terms and hoping they stick at this point?

No, we are discussing the nature of Hezbollah, who formed in 1985 to remove the Israel occupiers of Lebanon.

The IRA has existed in numerous forms since 1905 if I am correct. They were fighting against the British ruled areas of Ireland that have existed for some time.

The groups are different, and the argument comes off like a Red Herring because it pushing the conversation off it's original course just like the old WW1 argument made earlier.

They are different how? Both are terrorist organizations who are fighting against a country that they consider detestable, just because one has been around for longer doesnt make them different.

 Ustrello wrote:
They are different how? Both are terrorist organizations who are fighting against a country that they consider detestable, just because one has been around for longer doesnt make them different.

They have differences. I don't think the IRA was ever used as a proxy army to attack other nations as Iran has used Hezbollah.