A 50-Year Occupation: Israel’s Six-Day War Started With a Lie - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#14813439
skinster wrote:Israeli politician calls on UN to stop using the term ‘occupation’
What else should we call it? Oh! I have an excellent list right here:
  1. Invasion
  2. Insurrection of Human rights
  3. Unjust prescience
  4. Blatant breaking of international law that the west chooses to ignore so they can get lots of oil and as a result Israel gets to do whatever they want.

I especially like the last one. ;)
#14813452
@Zionist Nationalist @Suntzu

That is irrelevant. Your point is that Egypt had a better military than Israel at the time and that Israel managed to win because it's Israel I guess or because Israeli are the best race in the world only second to white people. However this is false and has been proven wrong. The point of the post is to show that the 6 day war is a myth and you didn't do anything to refute this. All you did was scream "NO IT ISNT" while actual people who actually understand history prove to you that it's false. Now you go off topic and talk about how Israel is justified in fighting but no one said that they weren't.
#14813613
Zionist Nationalist wrote:It does not matter whatever the Arabs planned to attack Israel or not but they did everything to make it look like they are preparing to invade Israel


Rhetoric aside, this is nonsense as I've pointed out. All arab deployments were defensive in character. If Egypt, for example, really wanted to make it look like it was preparing to invade Israel, it would've positioned its armored forces close to the border instead of in reserve behind the infantry.


in 67 Israel was seriously preparing for a long term war with massive casualties so the best form of defense was to attack


Actually had Israel's goal been defense the best strategy would've been to let the arabs attack with their armor and destroy it with superior tank gunnery and maneuver. The arabs were better at static defense than maneuver so attacking them actually resulted in more casualties.

Suntzu wrote:
Fortunately for the Israelis, the Arabs are second only to the French at running away.


That's fallacious. A number of times, the Israelis conceded the arabs fought bravely but not well. Pollack rejected alleged cowardice as the cause of arab defeats. It is true that the Egyptian retreat order led to a catastrophic rout, but mainly because of a failure of communications hence lack of guidance from higher authority.
#14813727
@Zionist Nationalist

And you have no idea how war works. @starman2003 stated that there was a lack of good communication between the army and a higher authority. This means that it would've took longer for Egypt to form an offensive position than Israel.

@Suntzu

Whether or not you call someone a fierce fighter or a powder puff depends on how well they fought, not on whether or not they won. That's how you determine respect for an army. You understand this if you were a general but if you are a soldier with little to no information on exactly what's going on you're unable to understand this.
#14813825
Zionist Nationalist wrote:It takes only a few hours to go from defensive to offensive position


Israel attacked without warning, as they had done in 1956.

Why is it that potential aggression by Egypt is somehow more important than actual aggression and invasion by israel?

Like the complaints that Palestinians don't recognises Israel, compared to israel actually occupying the Palestinian and physical actually denied Palestinians basic rights.

One side is actually doing stuff. But somehow Israel the victim here.
#14813929
Oxymandias wrote:And you have no idea how war works. @starman2003 stated that there was a lack of good communication between the army and a higher authority. This means that it would've took longer for Egypt to form an offensive position than Israel.


Communications were apparently precarious at the start and broke down around the second day.


Whether or not you call someone a fierce fighter or a powder puff depends on how well they fought, not on whether or not they won. That's how you determine respect for an army. You understand this if you were a general but if you are a soldier with little to no information on exactly what's going on you're unable to understand this.


Sharon actually praised the common Egyptian soldiers at Abu Agheila but derided the officers.

Zionist Nationalist wrote:
It takes only a few hours to go from defensive to offensive position.


But if Egypt and Syria had planned to attack in '67, why weren't they deployed for an offensive from the start, just like before the '73 war? In '67 Egypt had only two infantry divisions along the frontier, both manning elaborate defensive positions. The bulk of its armor was farther back; in sharp contrast to '73 there was almost no offensive power near the border. Same was true for Syria.
#14813939
starman2003 wrote:Communications were apparently precarious at the start and broke down around the second day.



Sharon actually praised the common Egyptian soldiers at Abu Agheila but derided the officers.

Zionist Nationalist wrote:


But if Egypt and Syria had planned to attack in '67, why weren't they deployed for an offensive from the start, just like before the '73 war? In '67 Egypt had only two infantry divisions along the frontier, both manning elaborate defensive positions. The bulk of its armor was farther back; in sharp contrast to '73 there was almost no offensive power near the border. Same was true for Syria.


I'm guessing you don't have any military experience. Any time you are not actually on the offense you are in a defensive posture.
#14814103
@Suntzu

True I agree. However then why would they have such complex defensive positions. There is usually a standard position for defense in offensive military units yes? However why would they be so elaborate? And why would they have no offensive units at all never the border during '73? You don't answer this at all.

If you are holding out information please reveal it. It will come out eventually.
#14814224
Suntzu wrote:I'm guessing you don't have any military experience. Any time you are not actually on the offense you are in a defensive posture.


In 1973 the arabs had 5 infantry divisions at the canal and 3 on Golan right along the borders. All 8 divisions had an attached armored brigade, to spearhead attacks. For days they weren't yet attacking yet were hardly there for defense. Armored divisions were right behind the infantry ready to exploit breakthroughs they made.
In 1967 it was totally different. Egypt had just two regular army divisions on the frontier and Syria only about one. Just as in '73 the infantry had some armor integral to it but no reinforcement in the form of attached armored brigades right at the frontier. The bulk of the armor was much farther back, and intended to act as a reserve to counter Israeli breakthroughs. It should be obvious to any objective observer that arab deployment and planning in '67 were defensive in character.

Oxymandias wrote:
And why would they have no offensive units at all never the border during '73?


:lol: This makes no sense. Substitute '67 for '73.
#14814900
@Zionist Nationalist

Can we please let this topic die without anymore arguments please? I would rather have this entire sub-forum. It's just one big circlejerk over Israel and Palestine that has ended up with a pissing contest over which one can post the most tweets supportive of their side. Both sides are being a bunch of dicks and both sides are a bunch of idiots who have don't understand anything about Israel and Palestine.

And the only one who lives in Israel is essentially a nationalistic fascist which isn't the best representation of a country.
#14814929
Oxymandias wrote:Can we please let this topic die without anymore arguments please?


Right as far as on-topic discussion goes, we've prevailed. :)

And the only one who lives in Israel is essentially a nationalistic fascist which isn't the best representation of a country.


Actually I think he represents the views of those who run that country currently and in the future.
#14814970
Oxymandias wrote:If so then America and Israel are going to have a very rocky relationship, no, the entire world and Israel are going to have a very bad relationship because the idea that Israel can do whatever it fucking wants is stupid as fuck and is just going to make the entire world hate Israel more.

Yes, that is the attitude and thinking of someone with your background.
You do not consider the incitement to hate that the Arabs teach their children, the celebration of terrorist outrages, the naming of streets after terrorists, and so on and so forth.
Only the Israelis are bad.
Yes, got it.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

You are a supporter of the genocide against the P[…]

@skinster well, you've been accusing Israel of t[…]

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]

Candace Owens

... Too bad it's not as powerful as it once was. […]