Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why does Jordan want to keep the IDF?


and-then

Recommended Posts

And what was the catalyst 100 years ago? Or 1000? Sunni and Shia have intermittently been slaughtering each other since the disputed succession not long after Muhammad died. There is no doubt that US involvement has destabilized and roiled that conflict but to act as though the US CAUSED it is ridiculous and you know it.

And what was the catalyst 100 years ago? Or 1000? Sunni and Shia have intermittently been slaughtering each other since the disputed succession not long after Muhammad died. There is no doubt that US involvement has destabilized and roiled that conflict but to act as though the US CAUSED it is ridiculous and you know it.

You forgot about the crusader who successfully turn different Arab tribe against each other

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what was the catalyst 100 years ago? Or 1000? Sunni and Shia have intermittently been slaughtering each other since the disputed succession not long after Muhammad died.

Fighting between people isn't just a result of the medieval barbarity of Islam. I would expect that many more wars have been between one supposed Christian country and another than between one Islamic faction and another.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely it is.

Debacle? That's wishful thinking. The IDF hit almost every target they went after. They had totally crippled the country and isolated pockets of Hezbollah and segregated the civilians to keep them out of harms way. They could go just about anywhere with impunity. The intel they gained alone was valuable. We may never know what all was done or found. And they could easily do the same thing to any neighboring country. If a nation like Saudi Arabia decided to help, Israel could do the very same to Iran. But by the same token, Saudi Arabia would pull their support right before Israel could claim total victory. Saudi Arabia is still Muslim. They'd want to see Iran taken down a few pegs, but not conquered.

In any conflict, it is normal to lose units even by lowly RPGs. Probably lose more from friendly fire and accidents. It has been a long time but vigilance is a good replacement to maintain the quality of the army. The IDF was a far way from being beaten. But please, believe what you want, Israel's enemies aren't underestimating them. At least they shouldn't be.

If that were true, without the armor and command of the air, Assad will be looking for Saddam's spider hole.

There is no substitute for combat experience but it doesn't take long to gain it. In combat the edge goes to the better trained and disciplined army and good leadership. Add the superiority of the technology (armor, air cover, intel/surveillance, and electronic countermeasures) and it can overcome superiority in numbers provided the tactics and leadership are superior too. Israel has this.

Israel won't attack unless Syria threatens attack. And I would guess that Israel has informants on the inside of the Syrian war machine and will be in position to give a heads up.

Hmm, some wishful thinking on your part. We should all remember the past and learn lessons, but we should never think that because there was success in the past, that there will be success in the future. And as for Lebanon in 2006, just who was IDF fighting, a regular army with tank and air divisions, satellite survailance, EW capability, any of these things? well, no, and to take away the American $ and direct support for Israel, what then is Irael? And to say that without armor or air then Assad will share Saddam's fate is simply not true, or perhaps you wish it true so that Syria will become what Lebanon became. What do you want, a stable country or chaos, or maybe an excuse to invade....

Edited by Kaa-Tzik
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, some wishful thinking on your part. We should all remember the past and learn lessons, but we should never think that because there was success in the past, that there will be success in the future. And as for Lebanon in 2006, just who was IDF fighting, a regular army with tank and air divisions, satellite survailance, EW capability, any of these things? well, no, and to take away the American $ and direct support for Israel, what then is Irael? And to say that without armor or air then Assad will share Saddam's fate is simply not true, or perhaps you wish it true so that Syria will become what Lebanon became. What do you want, a stable country or chaos, or maybe an excuse to invade....

Had Israel been fighting a conventional war with a Lebanese army it would have lasted less than a week. KT you know quite well that Israel is constrained (as should NOT be) by concerns of international pressure if they use all means to destroy Hezbollah. Because Hezbollah fight among civilians, using them as shield for missile emplacements and storage areas. The Israelis were taught some lessons in that conflict - no doubt. The chief of which is that if it comes again - gloves will be off and public opinion be damned. The slaughter in southern Lebanon will cause an uproar against Israel but how would that be any different than what happens all the time anyway?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had Israel been fighting a conventional war with a Lebanese army it would have lasted less than a week. KT you know quite well that Israel is constrained (as should NOT be) by concerns of international pressure if they use all means to destroy Hezbollah. Because Hezbollah fight among civilians, using them as shield for missile emplacements and storage areas. The Israelis were taught some lessons in that conflict - no doubt. The chief of which is that if it comes again - gloves will be off and public opinion be damned. The slaughter in southern Lebanon will cause an uproar against Israel but how would that be any different than what happens all the time anyway?

I don't agree with fighting with civilians present, but what is the other option for Hezbollah, to meet the IDF on some desert and fight it out? When you are the weaker side, then people will use whatever means available to redress the balance, asymetric warfare. You cannot blame Hezbollah for fightimg the way they do as they don't have much choice, other than surrender, and why should they, and who can tell them they cannot fight for what they want. Besides, a full scale of Lebanon happened before, with not so good results.....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with fighting with civilians present, but what is the other option for Hezbollah, to meet the IDF on some desert and fight it out? When you are the weaker side, then people will use whatever means available to redress the balance, asymetric warfare. You cannot blame Hezbollah for fightimg the way they do as they don't have much choice, other than surrender, and why should they, and who can tell them they cannot fight for what they want. Besides, a full scale of Lebanon happened before, with not so good results.....

I do not expect them to surrender and I agree that when fighting for what one believes in it must be done however it can be done. What I DON'T agree with is then using the opposition's acts of executing warfare to be used as a club against them since - as you say - they also have no choice. One does what they must OR they should just surrender. How likely do you think that is?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not expect them to surrender and I agree that when fighting for what one believes in it must be done however it can be done. What I DON'T agree with is then using the opposition's acts of executing warfare to be used as a club against them since - as you say - they also have no choice. One does what they must OR they should just surrender. How likely do you think that is?

And this is the intractable problem that we on this forum, or anybody outside the Levant will not solve. Both sides "know" they are right and there is no middle ground. Egypt and Jordan have made peace. Syria will not until the Golan situation is resolved, and that is a seperate issue to Palestine. If Golan were solved, then Syria would have no need to support Hezbollah. Syria has no vital interests in being at war with Israel other than Golan, solve that problem and then the Palestian problem will eventually wither away. It will in time anyway, though it would be hastend by solving Golan problem. This requires a degree of trust, when the Syrian civil war is ended. Then will be the time for "real" men to stand up and face facts, even if unpleasant to both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is the intractable problem that we on this forum, or anybody outside the Levant will not solve. Both sides "know" they are right and there is no middle ground. Egypt and Jordan have made peace. Syria will not until the Golan situation is resolved, and that is a seperate issue to Palestine. If Golan were solved, then Syria would have no need to support Hezbollah. Syria has no vital interests in being at war with Israel other than Golan, solve that problem and then the Palestian problem will eventually wither away. It will in time anyway, though it would be hastend by solving Golan problem. This requires a degree of trust, when the Syrian civil war is ended. Then will be the time for "real" men to stand up and face facts, even if unpleasant to both sides.

The Syrians still very much had the Golan when they were shelling Israeli kibbutzim from it in the 60's. It is the reason Israel used for taking it in the first place. But I agree with the rest of your statement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Syrians still very much had the Golan when they were shelling Israeli kibbutzim from it in the 60's. It is the reason Israel used for taking it in the first place. But I agree with the rest of your statement.

Once again, the popular Israeli narrative and its "self-perpetuating myths'. Read the books of Stephen J Green. He goes into detail about this myth too.

But like many another of Israel's founding legends, this one has come under question lately, and from a most surprising quarter: Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan.

General Dayan died in 1981. But in conversations with a young reporter five years earlier, he said he regretted not having stuck to his initial opposition to storming the Golan Heights. There really was no pressing reason to do so, he said, because many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland.

General Dayan did not mean the conversations as an interview, and the reporter, Rami Tal, kept his notes secret for 21 years -- until he was persuaded by a friend to make them public. They were authenticated by historians and by General Dayan's daughter Yael Dayan, a member of Parliament, and published two weeks ago in the weekend magazine of the newspaper Yediot Ahronot.

http://www.nytimes.c...l:?pagewanted=2

Is the below passage from the New Testament a fitting description of the Zionist state of Israel?

John 8:44-45

44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dayan admits in THIS piece that the Syrians fired at the Kibbutzim members. The demilitarized zones were farmed by the Israelis and the Syrians shot at them and harassed them so the IDF fought back. Did they take advantage when the opportunity presented itself in '67 - absolutely. Just as they will when the next round begins. The only way to stop it is to find a way to stop the shooting and make a deal. The Palis play directly into their hands every time they provoke them. Cry about it all you want but the facts are pretty clear - and ultimately things will be as they are written. That's the part where scripture lawyers like yourself get it wrong. The proof is in the reality of the situation on the ground. Not sure why you think God's own will is being circumvented by a group of "false Jews". Too funny...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dayan admits in THIS piece that the Syrians fired at the Kibbutzim members. The demilitarized zones were farmed by the Israelis and the Syrians shot at them and harassed them so the IDF fought back. Did they take advantage when the opportunity presented itself in '67 - absolutely. Just as they will when the next round begins. The only way to stop it is to find a way to stop the shooting and make a deal. The Palis play directly into their hands every time they provoke them. Cry about it all you want but the facts are pretty clear - and ultimately things will be as they are written. That's the part where scripture lawyers like yourself get it wrong. The proof is in the reality of the situation on the ground. Not sure why you think God's own will is being circumvented by a group of "false Jews". Too funny...

No, what Dayan admits is there are border provocations committed by Israel in order to instigate a bigger retaliation. In order to provoke a war and increase Israel's borders to include the rich farmlands of the Golan Heights.

The Israelis immediately began settling in the Golan Heights after the Six Day War.

Israel has never ever declared its borders. Why? Because they want more land such as the Golan Heights and deny the UN over the fact Golan Heights is occupied land and its settlements are illegal. And they want the Gaza Strip and they want the West Bank.

http://golan-marsad.org/wp-content/uploads/UN-Nations-resolutions-1.pdf

The state of Israel is no less corrupt than apostate Biblical Israel.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dayan admits in THIS piece that the Syrians fired at the Kibbutzim members. The demilitarized zones were farmed by the Israelis and the Syrians shot at them and harassed them so the IDF fought back. Did they take advantage when the opportunity presented itself in '67 - absolutely. Just as they will when the next round begins. The only way to stop it is to find a way to stop the shooting and make a deal. The Palis play directly into their hands every time they provoke them. Cry about it all you want but the facts are pretty clear - and ultimately things will be as they are written. That's the part where scripture lawyers like yourself get it wrong. The proof is in the reality of the situation on the ground. Not sure why you think God's own will is being circumvented by a group of "false Jews". Too funny...

:raise eyebrow smilie: The Gen. does seem to be saying that Israel deliberately provoked the Syrians into shooting, thereby giving a pretext for Israel to occupy the Golan Heights. Do you choose to overlook that bit? As long as Israel didn't actually fire on the Syrians, then it doesn't matter, since the Syrians started it?

Edited by Colonel Rhuairidh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Israel acquire the Gaza Strip & Golan Heights during the 7 day war, which was initiated by the Palestinians? What are they supposed to do, give it back? Palestinians tried to topple the king of Jordan, and lost that battle, too, what's to stop them from another attempt. There is no separation between the political and military branches in Palestine, it gave birth to and became a terrorist organization responsible for bombings & slayings all of the world, not just in Israel. Remember the Olympics in Munich? The sky jackings in the 70s? The USS Cole attack? The attack at Schiphol airport? And in Rotterdam? Black September? Fatah? These were not acts of people wanting peace, nor are the suicide bombings of civilian neighborhoods in Israel. And now the upper echelon have made themselves rich from these activities. They are for more dangerous to the Middle East than Israel.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:raise eyebrow smilie: The Gen. does seem to be saying that Israel deliberately provoked the Syrians into shooting, thereby giving a pretext for Israel to occupy the Golan Heights. Do you choose to overlook that bit? As long as Israel didn't actually fire on the Syrians, then it doesn't matter, since the Syrians started it?

No, I got the gist of the piece and if he was telling the truth then it's an overall example of properly calling out Israel for "stealing" land by pretext - much as what is happening today with settlements. I use " " around stealing because I do not believe one needs to steal what is rightfully their own but I also realize that most of the world rejects the deed God gave in the bible. There are certainly elements in Jewish society that are as guilty as any Palestinian for wanting, demanding ALL THE LAND. The difference is that they are only a minority and for a reasonable peace I believe the shooting could stop (on their side). I'm sure that legal challenges and hard feelings that flare to violence would continue for many years but overall I think if the Palestinians stood up and agreed that a Jewish state could exist within an agreed upon set of borders (internationally brokered) then Israel would hold their fire also. The Israelis are better educated and have attained a level of prosperity and relative safety that has allowed many within the state to see the conflict more liberally. They have a strong, building peace movement. There is no real Palestinian analog to this movement. There are small, isolated groups that are trying peaceful resistance - and I applaud them. But the people who lead the Palestinians - both Hamas and the PA- know that if they have a real peace then they will have to govern and that means many individuals who have no strength in those more mundane areas of administration will lose their power - they will do all they can to keep this from happening.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Israel acquire the Gaza Strip & Golan Heights during the 7 day war, which was initiated by the Palestinians? What are they supposed to do, give it back? Palestinians tried to topple the king of Jordan, and lost that battle, too, what's to stop them from another attempt. There is no separation between the political and military branches in Palestine, it gave birth to and became a terrorist organization responsible for bombings & slayings all of the world, not just in Israel. Remember the Olympics in Munich? The sky jackings in the 70s? The USS Cole attack? The attack at Schiphol airport? And in Rotterdam? Black September? Fatah? These were not acts of people wanting peace, nor are the suicide bombings of civilian neighborhoods in Israel. And now the upper echelon have made themselves rich from these activities. They are for more dangerous to the Middle East than Israel.

The Six Day War

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Six-Day_War

Edited by Yamato
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it was SIX and not SEVEN days. And those crafty, mendacious Jews arranged all of Nasser's men and equipment in the Sinai just so they had an excuse to jump on 3 armies and beat them senseless. Buy some antacid. Guess what happens when they try it again, Yam? Lebanon '06 was an aberration that will never be repeated BUT it probably will make Hezbollah be willing to try again someday. When they do they will be rooted out of south Lebanon - along with an unfortunately high number of Lebanese civilians who are trying to survive by hiding them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it was SIX and not SEVEN days. And those crafty, mendacious Jews arranged all of Nasser's men and equipment in the Sinai just so they had an excuse to jump on 3 armies and beat them senseless. Buy some antacid. Guess what happens when they try it again, Yam? Lebanon '06 was an aberration that will never be repeated BUT it probably will make Hezbollah be willing to try again someday. When they do they will be rooted out of south Lebanon - along with an unfortunately high number of Lebanese civilians who are trying to survive by hiding them.

These days it seems the israelis are besides the point, as much of the violence is between muslim sects and their political/military organizations, which i don't think would stop were palestine to achieve statehood along side of or in place of israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it was SIX and not SEVEN days. And those crafty, mendacious Jews arranged all of Nasser's men and equipment in the Sinai just so they had an excuse to jump on 3 armies and beat them senseless. Buy some antacid. Guess what happens when they try it again, Yam? Lebanon '06 was an aberration that will never be repeated BUT it probably will make Hezbollah be willing to try again someday. When they do they will be rooted out of south Lebanon - along with an unfortunately high number of Lebanese civilians who are trying to survive by hiding them.

1967, Israel's existance in danger?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These days it seems the israelis are besides the point, as much of the violence is between muslim sects and their political/military organizations, which i don't think would stop were palestine to achieve statehood along side of or in place of israel.

True. But there is an element that always blames Israel for everything in the region. Nothing will change it. Looking at the situation from the outside it seems to me that the whole world is acting like a drunk about the situation. It is leading us all to disaster and few seem to care - they are more interested in proving that one party to the conflict is worse than the other, rather than trying to bring them together in a way that works.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Israel is blamed for responding to an aggression? They owe the lives of hundreds of service men and women and the destruction of large amounts of expensive weaponry to their enemies? They should have lived with the illegal closure of a major route for oil shipping into their country, why, exactly? It's like saying I can beat the snot out of Jim but he decides he wants a free shot at mangling my face in public and BECAUSE I can beat the snot out of him eventually, I OWE it to him to let him smack me one, maybe lose a couple of teeth - just to prove I'm the better man? What a strange world you inhabit :st

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Israel is blamed for responding to an aggression? They owe the lives of hundreds of service men and women and the destruction of large amounts of expensive weaponry to their enemies? They should have lived with the illegal closure of a major route for oil shipping into their country, why, exactly? It's like saying I can beat the snot out of Jim but he decides he wants a free shot at mangling my face in public and BECAUSE I can beat the snot out of him eventually, I OWE it to him to let him smack me one, maybe lose a couple of teeth - just to prove I'm the better man? What a strange world you inhabit :st

Nasser closed the Strait of Tiran, which was used primarily to ship military material to Israel.

But guess what, for nearly two years prior to its closing on May 22 1967, no Israeli ship had used the Strait of Tiran.

It was purely political symbolic between Israel and Egypt in which Israel got its panties in a bundle.

"For the deterrent power of Israel's military strength to remain credible... it was necessary that the Jewish state itself [not the international community] reopen the Strait of Tiran." - Mark Tessler

"Unless Israel itself nullified Nasser's action, his challenge [to Israel's deterrent power] would prove successful ... and would be a signal for further encroachment and harassments that would sooner or later lead to war but under more unfavorable conditions [for Israel]." - Nadav Safran

"It's no longer just a matter of freedom of navigation. If Israel takes no action in response to the blockade of the straits, she will lose her credibility and the IDF its deterrent capacity." - Aharon Yariv, the chief of Israeli military intelligence

But Interior Minister Moshe Chaim Shapira seen it differently, "In 1950 and 1951 the straits were closed; did Israel [under Dayan and Ben-Gurion] rush into a war? The straits remained closed up to 1956; did that endanger Israel's security?"

Inspite the fact Israeli ships hadn't used the Strait of Tiran for nearly two years prior.

Edited by GoSC
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nasser closed the Strait of Tiran, which was used primarily to ship military material to Israel.

But guess what, for nearly two years prior to its closing on May 22 1967, no Israeli ship had used the Strait of Tiran.

It was purely political symbolic between Israel and Egypt in which Israel got its panties in a bundle.

"For the deterrent power of Israel's military strength to remain credible... it was necessary that the Jewish state itself [not the international community] reopen the Strait of Tiran." - Mark Tessler

"Unless Israel itself nullified Nasser's action, his challenge [to Israel's deterrent power] would prove successful ... and would be a signal for further encroachment and harassments that would sooner or later lead to war but under more unfavorable conditions [for Israel]." - Nadav Safran

"It's no longer just a matter of freedom of navigation. If Israel takes no action in response to the blockade of the straits, she will lose her credibility and the IDF its deterrent capacity." - Aharon Yariv, the chief of Israeli military intelligence

But Interior Minister Moshe Chaim Shapira seen it differently, "In 1950 and 1951 the straits were closed; did Israel [under Dayan and Ben-Gurion] rush into a war? The straits remained closed up to 1956; did that endanger Israel's security?"

Inspite the fact Israeli ships hadn't used the Strait of Tiran for nearly two years prior.

Iranian tankers full of OIL did, though. No sovereign nation has to be bullied and cut off from free passage REGARDLESS how often they may choose to pass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. But there is an element that always blames Israel for everything in the region. Nothing will change it. Looking at the situation from the outside it seems to me that the whole world is acting like a drunk about the situation. It is leading us all to disaster and few seem to care - they are more interested in proving that one party to the conflict is worse than the other, rather than trying to bring them together in a way that works.

True. But there is an element that always blames Israel for everything in the region. Nothing will change it. Looking at the situation from the outside it seems to me that the whole world is acting like a drunk about the situation. It is leading us all to disaster and few seem to care - they are more interested in proving that one party to the conflict is worse than the other, rather than trying to bring them together in a way that works.

Very little of any middle east conflict directly involves Israel, so Yeah, it's kind of weird that people are still blaming Israel. I think historically the region has always been involved in conflict, for hundreds if not thousands of years. The Palestinian insistence on a solely Palestinian state in place of an Israeli state took them down a road that turned out to have a dead end. Now some are willing to compromise and live with an Israeli state, but not everyone, and at this point, who would take them at their word? We're talking about terrorists, after all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I suppose it is possible that the Middle East could be wiped off the map. Would that affect the rest of the world for the worse or for the better? Just askin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very little of any middle east conflict directly involves Israel, so Yeah, it's kind of weird that people are still blaming Israel. I think historically the region has always been involved in conflict, for hundreds if not thousands of years. The Palestinian insistence on a solely Palestinian state in place of an Israeli state took them down a road that turned out to have a dead end. Now some are willing to compromise and live with an Israeli state, but not everyone, and at this point, who would take them at their word? We're talking about terrorists, after all.

Well all the world has always been involved in conflict, but I will admit that the Middle East has had more than its fair share.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.