74 thoughts on “IDF Military Exercise Prepares for Syrian Invasion, Chief of Staff Calls for Taking Battle to Enemy – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

    1. srael defense doctrine always called for moving the battle into enemy’s territory.

      Also known as naked aggression.

    2. I should read another source than Walla? Like what? The “objective” Maariv to which YOU link? Give me a break.

      The fact of the matter is that in so many words Ashkenazi called for invading Syria. You know it & I know it.

      1. Richard,

        Any army’s job is to prepare for any war. I’m sure the U.S has detailed battle plans to invade both Iran and Syria, that doesn’t make it any more or less likely to happen.

        In fact, Gabi Ashkenazi explicitly called for peace talks with the Syrians, and is far more sane then most of the current leadership.

        1. I’m sure the U.S has detailed battle plans to invade both Iran and Syria, that doesn’t make it any more or less likely to happen.

          Of course it makes it more likely to happen. Countries do not make plans to invade countries unless they contemplate actually invading them

          Gabi Ashkenazi explicitly called for peace talks with the Syrian

          How nice, considering that Bashshar Al Asad has made repeated overtures to Israel (and the United States) since he became President, all of which have either been rebuffed out of hand, or have had no results because Israel insists upon simultaneously having and eating not only its own cake, but everyone else’s too.

  1. Shirin, Naked aggression is a situation at which a country violates another territory without a cause (war / hostilities) or invitation to carry military operations in that territory.

    The IDF chief of stuff talked about bringing the war to, as a retaliation. not invading anyone. but as always you are going to take what he said out of context.

    talking about Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, though the American armed forces uses similar tactics to what the IDF used in GAZA, i never heard the word war crimes associated with their operation why is that ?

    1. I know what naked aggression means. I used the term for a reason. And by the way, you have it wrong. It is not a case in which a country violates a territory without a cause. There is always a cause for aggression. Usually it is greed for territory, resources, power over others, or as in Israel’s case, all of the above.

      The IDF chief of stuff talked about bringing the war to, as a retaliation. not invading anyone.

      The IOF Chief of Stuff (sic) talked precisely about invading someone. That’s what it is called when you “bring the war to them”. And as a retaliation for what? The last time Syria attacked Israel was in 1973 in an effort to regain the Golan because Israel had demonstrated clearly that it had no intention of withdrawing, but in fact was colonizing the land with the intention of annexing it. Even when Israel has bombed Syria the Syrian government has only responded with diplomatic efforts, never military ones.

      In fact far from attacking or even threatening Israel, Syria has signed the Arab League offer of recognition, and full diplomatic and economic relations in exchange for peace, and has initiated a number of overtures to Israel to engage in peace negotiations. Oh, I get it. THAT’s what the IOF Chief of Stuff (sic) wants to retaliate for by invading Syria.

    2. talking about Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, though the American armed forces uses similar tactics to what the IDF used in GAZA, i never heard the word war crimes associated with their operation why is that ?

      Stop whining. Obviously, you have been sleeping since 1991, or you would have heard plenty about American war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere. But no matter how many war crimes the U.S. commits, it does nothing to mitigate or excuse Israel’s addiction to the commission of war crimes.

    3. Naked aggression is a situation at which a country violates another territory without a cause

      Hmmm, I seem not to have read any cause to which Ashkenazi attributed his projected invasion. He just said we’d take it to the bad guys. That we’d invade them. So what’s the cause? Nothing here about retaliation. Not even in the Maariv article. You know I know Hebrew. So how do you just make it up as you go along? Or do you not care that I’ll call you out for making “stuff” (your word for the “chief of stuff”) up? Your claim is empty, vapid. Nothing.

      For the 2nd time regarding U.S. policy, stay on topic. If you digress again you will be warned.

    4. ” i never heard the word war crimes associated with their operation why is that?”

      Simple, Arijay, you don’t read the right publications.

  2. Lets just hope this is another case of IDF sabre-rattling? Scary thing is these idiots often follow up on their words with devastating effect. Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, geez that should keep the likes of them in gainful employment for the time being.

    I thought battles/wars require a clear cut objective. I’ve yet to ascertain the IDF’s objective apart from killing and maiming Arabs (soon to be Persians), oh yes and pissing off the international community. IDF and “love thy neighbour” won’t happen with leaders like Gabi at the helm.

    I wonder when they’ll start picking on someone their own size, Pakistan!

    1. Well it will be interesting to hear what the Israeli military and political elite will say when Turkey takes Lebanon and Syria under its protection with a military defence pact. Then Israel is totally “neutralized” and it costs Turkey basically nothing. Even USA has to accept the situation.

      The naked fact is that Israel has earned and become rich using frequent wars and all-time regional chaos. And there is no sign that Israel is wanting to change that strategy. For Turkey the key to further development is regional peace and so trade especially with neighbours. Israel for Turkey, like for the region, is basically irrelevant as a trading partner when it is compared to what others can offer.

      It must be difficult for Israeli military in a statement tell how Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran and Syria will attack Israel and in another statement tell the audience how superior Israel is compared to everybody else. Only a complete idiot who has no knowledge about military believes that Iran or Syria will attack a totally superior regional power backed blindly by a the present dominant superpower. It is 99.99999 percent sure that Israel will be the attacker using some laughable excuse why they had to make a “pre-emptive” attack or a revenge.

  3. “The next time any of my pro-Israelist readers seek to make the argument that Israel only wants peace and only engages in defensive military operations, they’ll have to deal with this important speech (Hebrew) delivered by Gaby Ashkenazi to a military audience”

    I wouldn’t argue that any country wants ONLY peace. Would you?

    “here is certainly an element of bluff and bluster in this. Both the exercise and speech are as much Psyops as expression of explicit intent. So we must take it with a certain grain of salt. But as I’ve said many times here, especially in the Mideast, be careful what you prepare for because it has a nasty habit of happening. In other words, if you expect a war and prepare to invade your enemy, your enemy responds in kind and before you know it you are at war–no matter what your original intent may have been.”

    What you don’t seem to understand is that the IDF’s combat doctrine calls for “taking the battle to the enemy” virtually at all costs. This has nothing to do with who starts the war, and everything to do with Israel’s size.

    “So no matter what the intent of this exercise and speech, in the powderkeg that is the Israeli-Arab conflict, any party who makes such bellicose statements has as much as done the deed. If the chief of staff says “next time” we must invade Syria, then we must take him at his word that he is fully prepared to do so and might at any moment. The lessons learned in the lead-up to both the 1967 and 1973 Wars tell us that threats have a way of coming true.”

    He didn’t say that Israel would seek to Invade Syria preemptively. But of course the Syrian ground forces are in no position to prevent the IDF from penetrating into Syrian territory. So it’s certainly not a question of capability.

    “This means that Ashkenazi’s speech is the height of irresponsibility. It means that we must see Israel as a direct threat to peace in the region. It means that we must prepare as if Israel intends to invade Syria in order to accomplish whatever vague political goals it might have. Of course, such a war would be not just foolish, but dunderheaded. But that’s never stopped Israel before.”

    Lots of hype, but little in the way of substance; Aman (military intelligence) has long been considered optimistic in its assessment of Assad and the viability of a peace agreement. One could contrast that with Mossad’s more hawkish approach under Dagan (a rightist himself).

    BTW the most interesting aspect of this particular exercise was a demonstration of the Rafael designed Trophy Active Protection System (Meil Ruach). This technology has the potential to change land warfare.

    1. I wouldn’t argue that any country wants ONLY peace. Would you?

      What an interesting question which lays bare yr own psyche & Israel’s more than anything else. Of course there are countries that only want peace. Countries for example that don’t have an army or which have long histories of living at peace w. their neighbors. Alas Israel isn’t one of those.

      This has nothing to do with who starts the war, and everything to do with Israel’s size.

      You’re repeating AriJay’s argument virtually verbatim. Read the comment threads before you publish comments & don’t repeat either your own or others arguments unless you have something new to add. My rebuttal is published above. Your claim is completely empty.

      He didn’t say that Israel would seek to Invade Syria preemptively.

      Sorry, but we all know Israel’s aggressive military history. He didn’t need to say that. Nor did he say that Israel would invade in self defense (if that’s even possible).

      Aman (military intelligence) has long been considered optimistic in its assessment of Assad and the viability of a peace agreement.

      Ashkenazi isn’t Aman, he’s chief of staff. He apparently at least in this context doesn’t agree w. Aman.

      1. “What an interesting question which lays bare yr own psyche & Israel’s more than anything else. Of course there are countries that only want peace. Countries for example that don’t have an army or which have long histories of living at peace w. their neighbors. Alas Israel isn’t one of those.”

        Well I think that’s simplistic. Sure many countries are peaceful and have been so for a long time, but they aren’t peaceful for the sake of it. In other words, they haven’t been put to the test. Do you think Israel became militarized ex-nihilo?

        “You’re repeating AriJay’s argument virtually verbatim. Read the comment threads before you publish comments & don’t repeat either your own or others arguments unless you have something new to add. My rebuttal is published above. Your claim is completely empty.”

        I find your rebuttal utterly unconvincing. You’ve taken a routine statement out of context; Ashkenazi was simply reiterating a long standing IDF doctrine. I’ll readily concede that my point is an obvious one, obvious to all but those seeking an empty headline that is.

        “Sorry, but we all know Israel’s aggressive military history. He didn’t need to say that. Nor did he say that Israel would invade in self defense (if that’s even possible).”

        So you’re simply assuming the “preemtive” part. Nice of you to finally concede that. And by the way “invading in self defense” would be, well, “taking the battle to the enemy”. Which is what he said.

        “Ashkenazi isn’t Aman, he’s chief of staff. He apparently at least in this context doesn’t agree w. Aman.”

        No, but he’s in charge of Aman. And in general the IDF is thought to favor a peace agreement with Syria. Aman estimates are the closest thing you’ll ever get to IDF policy recommendations.

        1. ‘invading in self defense’ would be, well, ‘taking the battle to the enemy’.

          It is one thing to “invade in self defense” after one has been invaded or attacked or is under clear threat of imminent invasion or attack. Historically to Israel “invading in self defense” has not required an attack or imminent threat of attack, or in some cases any threat of attack at all, which makes virtually all of Israel’s “invasions in self defense” in fact acts of aggression.

          in general the IDF is thought to favor a peace agreement with Syria.

          Then why has Israel consistently rejected out of hand the numerous peace overtures it has received from Bashshar Al Asad? Might that be because Syria requires as a condition of peace that Israel comply with international law by withdrawing from and returning Syria’s sovereign territory which Israel is illegally occupying, colonizing, and has illegally annexed? Is the IDF or anyone else in Israel delusional enough to imagine for even a moment that they can negotiate a peace agreement with Syria or any other country that includes part of that country’s territory becoming part of Israel?

          1. I’m always entertained when an Israeli or someone wishing us to believe in their “liberal” credentials says something along the lines of: “I don’t support the Occupation,” or “I support a 2 state solution,” or “the IDF supports peace with Syria.” The reason: because they’re statements consisting of words with no connection with any reality as we know it. In other words, anyone can say anything they like on subjects like this & it doesn’t mean “jack” because there is no connection between the words and any commitment to actually making the words come true.

            The IDF is in favor of peace w. Syria? OK, then what is it doing to get it? Is it telling the politicians to give back the Golan? No? If not, as I said it don’t mean “jack.” It’s simply hot vapor escaping fr a general’s mouth & worth about as much.

        2. Sure many countries are peaceful and have been so for a long time, but they aren’t peaceful for the sake of it. In other words, they haven’t been put to the test.

          YOu don’t know anything about world history, my friend. Switzerland hasn’t had a war in centuries & you can be damn sure it’s been put to the test. Costa Rica lives in the middle of a very unstable region which has known constant wars and hostilities, yet it has no army. Canada hasn’t fought in a war on its soil for 200 years. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

          Ashkenazi was simply reiterating a long standing IDF doctrine

          Is it a long-standing IDF doctrine that it plans to invade Syria, which is what he said?

          If I recall I told you you were done yammering on in this thread & told you not to comment on this subject again. Due to violating that yr future comments will be moderated & approved as long as they don’t violate comment rules & my editorial requests.

          he’s in charge of Aman

          Means very little. There are often disagreements, sometimes fierce ones between Israeli chiefs of staff & military intelligence.

    2. I wouldn’t argue that any country wants ONLY peace. Would you?

      Why not when it’s a fact that there are plenty of countries who have no interest in conflict, armed or otherwise. In fact, most countries do not feel a need, as Israel and the United States clearly do, to dominate the rest of their region, or the world.

      What you don’t seem to understand is that the IDF’s combat doctrine calls for “taking the battle to the enemy” virtually at all costs. This has nothing to do with who starts the war, and everything to do with Israel’s size.

      Given Israel’s history of starting war after war after war, that is a ridiculous statement on its face.

      He didn’t say that Israel would seek to Invade Syria preemptively.

      Any claim of preemption is a transparently false pretext that Israel has already used to justify its aggression (e.g. 1967). The U.N. has specific rules for when preemption is permitted, and in order for an invasion to be preemptive there must be something to preempt and there must be no time to go to the UN with it. Syria has not provided that and shows no sign that it will do so, at least under the current leadership.

      But of course the Syrian ground forces are in no position to prevent the IDF from penetrating into Syrian territory.

      Relevance to the preceding statement about preemption?

      1. Hello Shirin. At the risk of repeating myself, I’ll respond to your post independently of Richard’s.

        “Why not when it’s a fact that there are plenty of countries who have no interest in conflict, armed or otherwise. In fact, most countries do not feel a need, as Israel and the United States clearly do, to dominate the rest of their region, or the world.”

        But, you see, it’s easier to be peaceful in some regions of the world than in others. That’s all I was getting at. And I won’t even touch your unsupported claims that Israel (and the US) want to dominate the middle east, because they don’t lend themselves to serious debate.

        “Given Israel’s history of starting war after war after war, that is a ridiculous statement on its face.”

        Are you in fact claiming that were Israel to be attacked, the IDF wouldn’t seek to “take the battle to the enemy” i.e have it fought outside of Israel? I’m afraid you’ll have to give me more than “ridiculous on its face”.

        “Any claim of preemption is a transparently false pretext that Israel has already used to justify its aggression (e.g. 1967). The U.N. has specific rules for when preemption is permitted, and in order for an invasion to be preemptive there must be something to preempt and there must be no time to go to the UN with it. Syria has not provided that and shows no sign that it will do so, at least under the current leadership.”

        What’s your point? I said that Ashkenazi DIDN’T suggest that the IDF would invade Syria preemptively.

        “Relevance to the preceding statement about preemption?”

        I was merely pointing out that the IDF could invade Syria if it wanted to. It’s not, as I said, a question of military capability.

        1. it’s easier to be peaceful in some regions of the world than in others.

          Congratulations. I have rarely heard a more blatant bit of self-serving, not to mention rather racist, apologetics for Israel’s aggressions. Yes, Israel lives in a bad neighborhood. Of course, what you don’t acknowledge is that Israel is the principal reason it is such a bad neighborhood. Funny how the rest of the neighbors seem to get alone OK for the most part, isn’t it?

          I won’t even touch your unsupported claims that Israel (and the US) want to dominate the middle east, because they don’t lend themselves to serious debate.

          You know, I really like it when you guys show us your comedic talents. But you are right about one thing. They don’t lend themselves to serious debate for the simple reason that they are not debatable. The evidence that supports them is right in our faces on a daily basis.

          Are you in fact claiming that were Israel to be attacked, the IDF wouldn’t seek to “take the battle to the enemy” i.e have it fought outside of Israel?

          You are being disingenuous. What I am doing is pointing out that with only one clear exception, 1973, it has been Israel that has consistently attacked its neighbors, not vice versa. Therefore it is very clear that to Israel “taking the battle to the enemy” is not a defense strategy, but one of persistent aggression.

          What’s your point? I said that Ashkenazi DIDN’T suggest that the IDF would invade Syria preemptively.

          Any use of the term preemptively requires that there be something to preempt. Between Israel and Syria the only one of them that has had any justification for a preemptive or any other kind of attack is Syria. Israel is illegally occupying, colonizing, exploiting the natural resources of, and has illegally annexed part of Syria’s sovereign territory. Israel has repeatedly militarily attacked Syria, and all Syria has done in “retaliation” is seek (in vain) a diplomatic solution, sign onto the Arab League peace proposal offering peace, recognition, and full diplomatic and economic relations, and repeatedly reach out to Israel with the goal of negotiating peace. And yet, here we are, talking about Israel’s ability to invade Syria. And it does not strike you strongly that something is very wrong here?

        2. At the risk of repeating myself

          LORD, DON’T! Do not repeat yrself. Ever. And read the comment rules about that.

          I won’t even touch your unsupported claims that Israel (and the US) want to dominate the middle east, because they don’t lend themselves to serious debate.

          I don’t know what universe you’re livin’ in ’cause it sure ain’t this one. It’s self-evident to any serious observer of the region that what Shirin writes is absolutely dead on. And it isn’t because Shirin is saying it. It agrees with the vast majority of credible independent analysts (that is, one’s not on the payroll of the Israel lobby or related think tanks).

          You live in this nice, comforting cocoon which prevents you fr. understanding anything about your own country as seen fr. the outside. I pity you. But this ignorance is what will end up getting Israel killed in the long run I’m afraid.

          Again, last comment in this thread. Try again & your comment privileges will be limited.

  4. Richard
    here is what askenazi said:
    בכל עימות עתידי נצטרך לפעול מהר במלוא העוצמה ולהעביר את הלחימה לשטח האויב. זהו אתגר משמעותי וחשוב להכרעה”.

    in any future conflict we would have to act fast using full force and transfer the fight to the enemy’s territory this is the challenge we are facing.

    key word is transfer, that means, hostilities erupted, and the IDF goal will be to TRANSFER the fight, etc. transfer meaning it is happening here and we will take it elsewhere.
    this is not the same as invading.

    1. Do you own a dictionary? If so, I suggest you use it before you make foolish comments. If not, I suggest you obtain one and use it regularly.

    2. Here is the Walla characterization of the same speech which is different & carries the clear connotation of an invasion with absolutely no connotation of any provocation on Syria’s part:

      הוא כלל ביצוע כיבוש יעד של כפר סורי על כל מרכיבי איסוף המודיעין, ההסתערות והעברת הכוחות הכרוכים בכך

      Histaarut=storming across [a border]; assault
      haavarat cochot=transfer of forces [an invasion]

      No connotation whatsover of provocation or an act in self defense. Purely an offensive manuever. Further, the entire statement is formulated in the context of the “conquest” of a Syrian village. Conquest=invasion. You can’t conquer w/o invading.

      Really, you’re embarrassing yrself. Why don’t you move on instead of defending the indefensible.

    1. Um, do you really think the Syrian army practices exercises in which they invade Israel & occupy Tiberias? If you are, you’re off yr nut. Must more likely, their exercises are defensive in nature. But I’d be happy to see credible documentary exercise that proves otherwise.

    2. I really, really, REALLY hate to disappoint you, but I can guarantee you that one of the things they do not ever talk about or plan is attacking Israel. They also do not talk about or plan sending drones with nuclear bombs to the United States (or Israel for that matter). In fact, at the risk of hurting your feelings, Israel is not the primary concern of Arab states, or their militaries.

      1. Oh, you “guarantee” me? How the hell do you know what Syria’s military plans are? Because, since they are Arabs, they are a bunch of sweethearts? Remember Hama? 20,000 dead of their own people. Fellow Muslims whom they love. Israel, of course, they don’t love, but perish the thought they would have any agressive designs in that direction.

        I repeat HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE ARAB MILITARY COMMAND ARE PLANNING? That is the height of arrogance, or assuming that we are all a bunch of morons to think that you are privy to these things.

        1. Remember Hama?

          Wow, to impugn Syria you have to reach back to an event that happened 30 years ago & wasn’t even perpetrated by the country’s current leader? Is that all you have? Can you point to any actual direct act of aggression against Israel by Syria in the last say 30 years or so?

          That is the height of arrogance, or assuming that we are all a bunch of morons to think that you are privy to these things.

          I’d say it’s the height of arrogance for you to presume YOU know what the Arab armies are planning. I trust your knowledge far less than Shirin’s. At least she’s lived in many of these countries. Where do you get yr knowledge of them from? Bibiton?

  5. @ Shirin
    it’s hard for me (or anyone else) to understand if you were criticizing my English or my Hebrew comprehension.
    as the key phrase was להעביר (to move / to transfer in English, نقل in Arabic) i attached the term definition from dictionary.com

    “to convey or remove from one place, person, etc., to another: He transferred the package from one hand to the other.”

    THE IDF transferred the fight to the enemy territory. (just like happened in 1973, Israel was attacked, and managed to transfer the fight to the enemy territory)

    you have anything of substance to add ?

    1. it’s hard for me (or anyone else) to understand if you were criticizing my English or my Hebrew comprehension.

      1. Speak for yourself. You don’t know what “anyone else” was able to understand, and I know for a fact that at least some people understood just fine.

      2. I was, and am, criticizing your grasp of concepts, not words or language.

      the key phrase was להעביר (to move / to transfer in English, نقل in Arabic) i attached the term definition from dictionary.com

      When you use force to enter someone else’s territory against their will you are by definition and in fact invading no matter what word you choose to apply to the action, or in what language. That is the meaning of the word, and it is the meaning of the concept that the word represents.

      Interesting that you bring up 1973 since that is the only one of Israel’s many wars in which Israel was clearly not the aggressor, although the 1973 war happened as a result of Israel’s aggression of 1967 and its intransigence in refusing to comply with international law regarding the territories occupied. Israel has been the clear aggressor in every other one of its wars, except 1948 when Israel was at the very least a co-aggressor.

  6. I would say that the balance of power in the region is much more different than before ( 1948 or 1967 …) so the IDF can’t be sure about the results of the “new” war unlike previous times ,,, so it will not take the risk at least till the next summer…
    IDF doesn’t like surprises,,

  7. Few points:

    1) “The next war”…
    Ashkenazi’s words leave the listener with the impression that he KNOWS a “next war” is coming (not peace). And in that war the aim is to hit as hard as possible so there would be no doubt as to who won this war…
    This language could easily be interpreted as aggressive war mongering; in fact I don’t see how it can be interpreted as anything else.

    2) “In any conflict”…
    Does he advocates turning even a minor border skirmish into a total war?

    3)”When we look at our enemy”…
    He sounds as if already identified his target and clearly speaks about Israeli presence deep in foreign territory. It looks like what he really means is more land grab and occupation.

    4) Does Israel want war?
    It’s indeed a very strange way to articulate your will for peace…

  8. @ Shirin life is extremely easy when you use only two colors to define things.
    1. Israel like any other nation has every right to defend itself.
    2. due to the miniature size of Israel, a key component of the defense concept is to transfer the fight to the enemy territory.
    3. it’s funny how you think Israel was the aggressor in 1948, as far as i remember the armies of Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan,and few other forces (Iraq only one of them) invaded the Israeli territory. syrian forces advanced all the way to Kibutz Dgania, Egyptian forces advanced all the way the southern side of ashdod, and the Jordanian legion conquered the holly city (Jewish quarter was destroyed) and the west bank.
    4. acts of war involve more then shooting your rifle at the other side, such an act was the Egyptian closing of the tyran strait in May 23 1967, such an act was the 100’s of katyusha rockets fired by the PLO from Lebanon pre 1978 (litani operation) during the months prior to June 1982, and the abduction of two Israeli soldiers by the Hezbollah in 2006. all are considered act of war.
    5. to conclude that israel is planing to invade Syria as the aggressor would be similar to state that the Russians were the aggressor in invading Germany during WWII.

    1. 1.- Any state has the right to defend itself, beautiful. But it doesn’t meant to attack and occupy lands from neighboring countries like illegal occupation of Golan heights and Sinai..

      2.- I wouldn’t advice you, to go back to history. Because the establishment of Israel itself was an illegal according to the International Law. And as You mentioned that every state has the right to defend itself, Palestinians and Arabs were defending their lands and trying to take back the illegally occupied (according to I.L.) lands.

      3.- “If” i agreed with you that the act of Egypt was act of war and the war against Egypt was legal in 1967 then Why Israeli forces attacked Syria? it is an aggression or what? or there was another Suais channel there? Maybe i don’t know

      4.- I don’t like to hear contradictions. Sorry!
      a- in 1978 who attacked on Lebanon and occupied lands?? when you attack someone he has the right of defense. Doesn’t he? that what you were saying above!
      b- 1982 who invaded Lebanon?? although there were Arab sides who were welcoming Israeli forces but check the Israeli archives to see what happened to Mr. Sharon after the “Sabra was shatila” if you didn’t find i will tell you.

      5.- to conclude, any attack by Israel towards Syrian lands will be considered as aggression (by UN not me) as what happened in 1967 (read the 242 resolution) which was illegal by the law something that almost has never been respected by the Israelis. (Check how many times Israel violated the I.L.)

    2. life is extremely easy when you use only two colors to define things.

      You must mean blue & white, the colors of the Israeli flag. No? Oh, excuse me, I thought for a second you were talking about yr own prejudices.

      Israel like any other nation has every right to defend itself.

      Does this include incendiary military exercises in which it simulates invading Syria based on no provocation whatsoever? Or preparing for civil unrest on Israel’s forced expulsion of its Israeli Palestinian population? Or murdering 1,100 Gaza civilians including 300 children ostensibly because of missiles fired at southern Israel? You mean THAT kind of defense? Outside your circles in Israel that’s known as provocation & aggression–not defense.

      due to the miniature size of Israel, a key component of the defense concept is to transfer the fight to the enemy territory.

      Which is why Israel pre-emptively attacked the Arabs to begin the 1967 war & engages in so much bellicose, provocoative & aggressive military tactics & strategy, which in turn is why the world shrinks from Israel & its policies.

      Israel was the aggressor in 1948

      Can you explain why Israel expelled more than 700,000 of its own citizens & why this isn’t an act of aggression against its own citizens? Can you also explain why Ben Gurion, knowing declaring Israeli independence would provoke war, did so rather than continue engaging in negotiations that might have averted it?

      such an act was the Egyptian closing of the tyran strait in May 23 1967

      That’s crap. Israel didn’t use the Strait of Tiran for anything. Eilat was a minor town in the middle of nowhere. Israel wanted a war in 1967 & it got one. It began the war w. a massive unprovoked attack. We can argue whether Israel believed it would be attacked anyway & attacked first. But the fact of the matter is that Israel began the war. The closing of the Strait was a deft diplomatic justification devised by Abba Eban.

      the abduction of two Israeli soldiers by the Hezbollah in 2006

      Active duty soldiers are “captured” not “abducted.” Civilians are abducted. These were not civilians. And if Israel negotiated in good faith all the outstanding issues between Lebanon & Syria, returned prisoners & land, then there would be no such actions against Israeli forces. It’s really Israel’s choice. Its only response seems to be planning military exercises in which it publicly states it plans to invade Syria. Who’s provoking whom?

      The WWII analogy falls empty & flat.

    3. life is extremely easy when you use only two colors to define things.

      I wouldn’t know, but no doubt it is even easier when you can manufacture your own facts, and make things mean anything that suits your purpose of the moment.

      1. Israel like any other nation has every right to defend itself.

      You DO have problems with concepts, don’t you? You see, aggression is antithetical to defense. The only one of its wars in which Israel was not clearly and irrefutably the aggressor was 1973. The 1948 war was less clear cut, but there is no question that Israel was an aggressor in that war, and that Ben-Gurion freely and consciously chose to take actions guaranteed to heat up the situation rather than cool it down. The evidence that he and other Zionist leaders wanted a war is extremely compelling.

      2. due to the miniature size of Israel, a key component of the defense concept is to transfer the fight to the enemy territory.

      What a pile of processed bull food. Nice hasbara phrase though – where’d you get it? If “miniature size” were really a concern, then by far the best policy would be to promote peaceful relations with the rest of the world, not to become the neighborhood bully and rampage around making as many enemies as possible and starting fights with anyone and everyone.

      3. it’s funny how you think Israel was the aggressor in 1948,…

      Please reread what I wrote. I did not say Israel was the aggressor in 1948.

      as far as i remember the armies of Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan,and few other forces (Iraq only one of them) invaded the Israeli territory.

      What you remember is the well-worn myth that “Five Arab countries, determined to destroy The Newborn Little Baby Jewish State™ , sent their invading armies (read hordes)…” blahblahblah. What actually happened is far, far different. Just for starters, Israel had begun invading and attacking outside its allocated territory well before the Arabs “invaded”.

      …the Jordanian legion conquered the holly city (Jewish quarter was destroyed) and the west bank.

      I don’t have time and this is not the place to address your nonsense in every detail (though you may have inspired me to write an independent post debunking some of this stuff with actual facts), so I’m just going to point out that no part of Jerusalem was allocated to either the Jewish or the Palestinian state; that Israel, in violation of its agreement to UNGA 181, ethnically cleansed and took over the western part of the city; that the Jordanian legion (sic) did not so much conquer the Old City and the West Bank as prevent Israel from taking it along with everything else (and then there is the inconvenient little matter of that agreement between the Zionists and King Abdullah about who could have what; that the Jewish Quarter, which was quite a squalid place to begin with, was evacuated by mutual agreement between the Jordanians and the Zionists out of consideration for the safety and well-being of its inhabitants; that by all accounts, including those of many of the evacuees, the Jordanian army conducted the evacuation in a very humane and gentlemanly way, protecting the evacuees from attackers, in some cases at the cost of soldiers’ lives; and that the evacuees very quickly found themselves ensconced in beautiful, well-appointed homes out of which their Palestinian owners had been violent driven.

      4. acts of war involve more then shooting your rifle at the other side, such an act was the Egyptian closing of the tyran strait in May 23 1967

      The fact that Israeli officials decide to create an excuse for their aggression by calling something an act of war does not make it so. In fact, under International Maritime Law it was not an act of war at all. Egypt was absolutely entitled under the circumstances to close the Strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping, which was, in any case, virtually non-existent at the time. A further fact is that the closure had exactly zero effect on Israeli shipping. The Egyptians did not stop one single vessel from passing through. In addition Israel hardly used the port of Eilat at all, and no Israeli ships passed that way during the brief period of the closure.

      such an act was the 100′s of katyusha rockets fired by the PLO from Lebanon pre 1978 (litani operation) during the months prior to June 1982

      At the time Israel invaded Lebanon the border had been quiet for a year. Therefore the claim of rocket fire is a transparently false pretext for wanton aggression, a brazen lie, and an example of a strong pattern of Israeli behaviour.

      …and the abduction of two Israeli soldiers by the Hezbollah in 2006. all are considered act of war.

      On-duty soldiers who are engaged in operations are not abducted, they are captured. And capturing a soldier who is engaged in hostile operations is by no means an act of war. It is the hostile operations that are acts of war. And invading a country is the archetypal act of war.

      5. to conclude that israel is planing to invade Syria as the aggressor would be similar to state that the Russians were the aggressor in invading Germany during WWII.

      1. I have not concluded anything, including that Israel is planning to invade Syria.

      2. Your WW II analogy is so incompetent as to be uproariously funny. Syria has not invaded or attempted to invade Israel since 1973. On the contrary, Israel is illegally occupying, colonizing, exploiting the resources of, and has illegally annexed a rather large and valuable chunk of Syria’s territory. On top of that Israel has attacked deep into Syria as recently as a year or two ago, yet Syria only responded to the attack by seeking a diplomatic resolution. Further, as I have already said, Syria is a signatory to the Arab League peace proposal, and has made numerous overtures to Israel, which Israel has rejected. THOSE are examples of acts of war.

  9. This is OFF topic, but I think it’s extremely important and didn’t know where to post it. Sorry, I promise never to be off topic again;

    TUESDAY
    U.S. nudges Palestinians to answer Israeli proposal for a new freeze if the Palestinians recognized Israel as a Jewish state

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B6FB20101012

    WEDNESDAY MORNING
    The Palestinians answer by Yasser Abed Rabbo:
    “We will recognize Israel as ‘whatever it wants’ in return for ’67-borders”.

    “If the map will be based on the ’67-borders and will not include our land, our houses and East-Jerusalem, we will be willing to recognize Israel according to the formulation of the government within an hour” – even as the “Chinese nation”.

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/plo-chief-we-will-recognize-israel-in-return-for-1967-borders-1.318835

    Great initiative from the Palestinians, and we waited impatiently for the Israeli response that came during the afternoon; I didn’t find any English-language statement, but according to lefigaro.fr, the vice Prime-Minister Sylvain Shalom ‘excludes any kind of return to the ’67-borders as the Palestinians want’.

    The proof that the recognition of Israel as a Jewish State was just an excuse in order not to negotiate.

  10. “Does this include incendiary military exercises in which it simulates invading Syria based on no provocation whatsoever? Or preparing for civil unrest on Israel’s forced expulsion of its Israeli Palestinian population? Or murdering 1,100 Gaza civilians including 300 children ostensibly because of missiles fired at southern Israel? You mean THAT kind of defense? Outside your circles in Israel that’s known as provocation & aggression–not defense.”

    it includes preparing for war, it includes preemptive strikes under certain conditions. and stop the same old argument about GAZA, Israel went into gaza to stop the rockets firing at sderot.

    “Which is why Israel pre-emptively attacked the Arabs to begin the 1967 war & engages in so much bellicose, provocoative & aggressive military tactics & strategy, which in turn is why the world shrinks from Israel & its policies.”

    Israel attacked after few events, closing the Tiran straits being the last event, moving the Egyptian army into Sinai was another.

    “Can you explain why Israel expelled more than 700,000 of its own citizens & why this isn’t an act of aggression against its own citizens? Can you also explain why Ben Gurion, knowing declaring Israeli independence would provoke war, did so rather than continue engaging in negotiations that might have averted it?”

    please stay on point, the issue was weather or not the arab armies invaded Israel in 1948, or are you claiming that the arabs were doing so defending the israeli citizens ? and why BG decided to declare a state ? because hugh chunk of the world supported this act. and the fact that the arabs didn’t like it was there problem. or using your logic the Palestinians shouldn’t form a war because it will provoke a war ?

    “That’s crap. Israel didn’t use the Strait of Tiran for anything. Eilat was a minor town in the middle of nowhere. Israel wanted a war in 1967 & it got one. It began the war w. a massive unprovoked attack. We can argue whether Israel believed it would be attacked anyway & attacked first. But the fact of the matter is that Israel began the war. The closing of the Strait was a deft diplomatic justification devised by Abba Eban.”

    so you are saying that Israel had to “take it” a direct threat on its national sovereignty ? because Eilat was a small city ? what the Egyptian did was provoking the state of Israel, and you know it, the fact that Eilat was a small place is irrelevant . a portion of the far east trading was done via the port of Eilat.

    Active duty soldiers are “captured” not “abducted.” Civilians are abducted. These were not civilians. And if Israel negotiated in good faith all the outstanding issues between Lebanon & Syria, returned prisoners & land, then there would be no such actions against Israeli forces. It’s really Israel’s choice. Its only response seems to be planning military exercises in which it publicly states it plans to invade Syria. Who’s provoking whom?

    soldiers are being captured in war, when you cross the border and take them that’s abduction.

    very strange the coalition the formed in the world, you support with your rhetoric some of the words of the Iranian president.

    1. — “…An Old argument…”!!
      maybe it is an old for you because you don’t live in a jail or in Gaza (the same maybe worst) but if you were i don’t think that you would be considering it as an old argument..

      — Maybe you should read the history to see who was supporting that “act” who not and WHY
      e.g. many Jews were against the Zionism ideas, because it was illegal…

      — Saying “…it was Arab’s problem…” maybe you are right but this not an academic discussion neither a justification!

    2. Israel went into gaza to stop the rockets firing at sderot.

      Yes, yes or so the hasbara goes. But you have a wee little problem since ISRAEL destroyed & violated the ceasefire by killing Gazans in an alleged attack on tunnels. This attack in turn began the rocket attacks in response. So you see the rockets responded to an Israeli provocation.

      Israel attacked after few events, closing the Tiran straits being the last event, moving the Egyptian army into Sinai was another.

      I see. Are there portions of Israeli territory where you feel Israel’s neighbors have a right to demand that Israel not station its troops? If no, then why is Egypt stationing troops on its own territory grounds for war? Oh & btw, last I checked stationing troops on one’s own territory is not a legitimate grounds to launch a pre-emptive strike.

      why BG decided to declare a state ? because hugh chunk of the world supported this act.

      Not so. The support came after he declared independence, not before. And the most important interlocutors he had to deal w. were not the rest of the world, but his neighbors to which he gave the finger & declared statehood, thus launching the war. And if Ben Gurion at that time had been in the position to launch a pre emptive attack against his Arab neighbors he would certainly have done so just as he did in 1956 against Egypt.

      Israel had to “take it” a direct threat on its national sovereignty ?

      How is closing a strait that was unused & which led to a tiny Israeli town threatening Israeli sovereignty? If Egypt had tried to close Haifa or Tel Aviv ports certainly that would be an act of overt aggression. But Tiran? C’mon.

      a portion of the far east trading was done via the port of Eilat.

      In 1967? Far east trading? What are you smokin’? There was hardly any Far East trade in 1967. At most Eilat was a small fishing village surrounded by desert.

      soldiers are being captured in war, when you cross the border and take them that’s abduction.

      Sorry, when there is a state of hostilities bet. 2 nations & a group of combatants captures combatants from its enemy that’s “capture,” not abduction. BTW, before this happened Israel retained hundreds of Lebanese citizens in its jails, many w/o trial (some even tortured by our beloved Captain George aka Doron Zahavi). That is what spurred the cross border raid that led to the death of the IDF soldiers.

      you support with your rhetoric some of the words of the Iranian president.

      You read the comment rules. Again, don’t put words in my mouth. Don’t tell me who I support or don’t support. I don’t support any words utter by Ahmedinejad. And you go there again & you’re history.

  11. The military tactics being described in this articles were called “blitzkrieg” when Germany utilized them in WWII. Israel seems determined to become a pariah state.

  12. @Shirin
    refuting you so called “facts” is the easiest thing in the world, as none of the so called “facts” is really a fact.

    as for the aggression and the myth of the arab countries in 1948 see the following:

    The United States, the Soviet Union and most other states recognized Israel soon after it declared independence on May 14, 1948, and immediately indicted the Arabs for their aggression. The United States urged a resolution charging the Arabs with breach of the peace.

    Soviet delegate Andrei Gromyko told the Security Council, May 29, 1948:

    This is not the first time that the Arab states, which organized the invasion of Palestine, have ignored a decision of the Security Council or of the General Assembly. The USSR delegation deems it essential that the council should state its opinion more clearly and more firmly with regard to this attitude of the Arab states toward decisions of the Security Council.13

    On July 15, the Security Council threatened to cite the Arab governments for aggression under the UN Charter. By this time, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had succeeded in stopping the Arab offensive and the initial phase of the fighting ended.

    i guess the entire world then saw the things a bot different then you are today. interesting… the rest of the so called “facts” you brought are as credible.

    1. Please either directly refute my specific facts with facts and sources that are actually relevant and actually contradict them, or do yourself a favor and keep quiet.

      The fact that the United States, the Soviet Union, and whomever else recognized Israel is utterly irrelevant to any of the facts I enumerated. Whether anyone indicted the Arabs for their alleged aggression is about nothing but politics, and is evidence of nothing other than that they indicted the Arabs for their alleged aggression. It is in no way evidence of what actually took place on the ground in Palestine, or the motivations of any of the actors.

      Andre Gromyko was factually incorrect on numerous levels in saying that the Arab states “organized the invasion of Palestine” (note that he did not say “the invasion of Israel”, which is very significant). More importantly, his was a politically motivated statement, and nothing he said is evidence for what did nor did not take place on the ground, or the motivations of any of the parties.

      Just for starters the Arab states did not invade Palestine, since their assistance was quite welcome there by the Palestinians. Second, if anyone invaded Palestine it was the Israelis, whose goal was to ethnically cleanse and take for themselves as much of the territory allocated for the Palestinian state as they could get their hands on. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

      How “the entire world” as you put it “saw things” is not evidence of what actually happened. The facts which I detailed are confirmed again and again in multiple primary and secondary sources. If you have real sources that actually refute anything I said, please present them. If not, please stop wasting our time.

  13. Most of the rest of the world that doesn’t include America and Israel know Israel is almost always the aggressor.

    They don’t want peace, they never have. It’s been offered to them many times over, but the right-wing hardliners will never allow the compromises.

    Israel is eventually doomed. As America becomes weaker, and it’s already happening, the world has far less interest in listening to the “bully on the block” and what it wants us to do regarding Israel. China is soon to the be new leader and they don’t give a toss about Israel. About time too, IMO.

  14. @ Shirin,
    if you know anything about history you would know that the name Palestine, was given to that geographical area by the Romans, after they conquered……Israel.

    as for the rest of your nonsense and how invalid the opinion of the world in your eyes is (of course only when it comes to the ARAB side) i will remember that next time you will bring the Goldstone report, the MAVI Marmara incident (and your interpretation of the events) and other incidents in which you use the world opinion as a leverage. all politics right ?

    1. if you know anything about history you would know that the name Palestine, was given to that geographical area by the Romans, after they conquered……Israel.

      1. It isdifficult to think of anything that could possibly be more irrelevant to your argument or any other argument pertaining to Israel/Palestine. This silly nonsense is even more irrelevant than the European Jews as Khazars bit. The correct answer to both is “even if that were true, so what?”

      2. In fact, that claim is as false as it is irrelevant. The area was known all over the region by various forms of the name Palestine well before the Romans came along. That’s where the Romans got it. Or did you think the Romans just grabbed that name out of thin air?

    2. PS So far you have not even attempted to refute a single one of the facts I presented here, unless, of course, you think generalized and irrelevant blustering and arm waving constitutes a refutation.

      As for this:

      as for…how invalid the opinion of the world in your eyes is…blahblahblah

      You must really be at your wits’ end. There is no connection in this paragraph to reality, logic, or between one thought and another. You are one step away from word salad. In fact, one might call this a “thought salad”.

      The “opinion of the world” as you seem to be using it, is nothing more than the official political position of the governments of the more powerful states. Those political positions are influenced by many things, including but not limited to incentives and pressure (often amounting to coercion) on the part of other, usually more powerful states, and may or may not reflect the real opinions of the states’ leaders; the opinions of its population; reality; what is morally, ethically, or legally right.

      In any case, if you bothered to step outside the very narrow version of history you have been taught as part of your Zionist indoctrination, you would learn, among other things, that in the case of the creation of a Jewish state in part (not all) of Palestine, there was considerable pressure brought to bear on UN member states to come out in favour (the same kind of thing happened decades later in regard to UN votes on the invasion of Iraq), and in many cases it was far from an easy or pretty matter.

      Your insertion of the Goldstone report and the events that took place on Mavi Marmara is startling because they are complete non sequiturs. Neither has anything whatsoever to do with what you call “the opinion of the world”. The Goldstone report is an a compilation and analysis of the findings of a study, and is in no way related to what you call “the opinion of the world”. The events on the Mavi Marmara, and my interpretation of them, is also completely unconnected with what you call “the opinion of the world”. However, with respect to the Mavi Marmara and the Gaza massacre of 2008-09 world opinion does not appear to have gone terribly much in Israel’s favour overall.

      Finally, for what it is worth, I am not in the habit of using “world opinion” as leverage, nor should you if you do not wish to be shot down in flames on a regular basis.

  15. “Yes, yes or so the hasbara goes. But you have a wee little problem since ISRAEL destroyed & violated the ceasefire by killing Gazans in an alleged attack on tunnels. This attack in turn began the rocket attacks in response. So you see the rockets responded to an Israeli provocation.”

    Yes yes, the Gazans stopped firing rockets (actually almost reduced the number to zero) but increased the number of mortars fired, some cease fire… do an experiment go to your neighbor’s house and start throwing a one big rock on his house, after a week stop the big ones and start throwing only small ones. you think he would be appreciative towards that ?

    “I see. Are there portions of Israeli territory where you feel Israel’s neighbors have a right to demand that Israel not station its troops? If no, then why is Egypt stationing troops on its own territory grounds for war? Oh & btw, last I checked stationing troops on one’s own territory is not a legitimate grounds to launch a pre-emptive strike.”

    Because accompanied with statements, asking the UN peace force that was station in sinai to leave and other actions it shows intent, which is what you claim in this entire post.

    “Not so. The support came after he declared independence, not before. And the most important interlocutors he had to deal w. were not the rest of the world, but his neighbors to which he gave the finger & declared statehood, thus launching the war. And if Ben Gurion at that time had been in the position to launch a pre emptive attack against his Arab neighbors he would certainly have done so just as he did in 1956 against Egypt.”

    Richard, no one would have established a state without knowing the world would support the act. this is one of the reasons the Palestinians didn’t declare a state to date, under the current state the world will not support it (i think that it is changing)

    “How is closing a strait that was unused & which led to a tiny Israeli town threatening Israeli sovereignty? If Egypt had tried to close Haifa or Tel Aviv ports certainly that would be an act of overt aggression. But Tiran? C’mon.”

    you can’t distinguish based on the size of the city, it was a violation of the agreement signed after the 56 war,it denied passage only to ships en route to Israel. this was a provocation on behalf of the Egyptians, and it added to many other steps taking by the Egyptians.

    You read the comment rules. Again, don’t put words in my mouth. Don’t tell me who I support or don’t support. I don’t support any words utter by Ahmedinejad. And you go there again & you’re history.

    let me rephrase what i meant to say, The Iranian president thinks that Israel is the source of all evil. reading your blogs i got the impression that you think in very similar (but different) terms, is that true ?

    1. # AriJay)
      I guess you’ve only read this blog for a very short time. This blog IS financed by the Iranians and Ahmedinejad in person. Richard has alreay confessed that the Iranians dump off thousands of dollars on his front porch every month for the fine work he’s doing here. You didn’t know ?? Oh my !

      1. Well, Deir Yassin, we have to very careful about this so I don’t violate U.S. sanctions. But yes, I’m swimming in oodles of whatever the Iranian currency is funneled through some of the same financial institutions used by our friends in the Mossad to finance their assassination of Mahmoud al Mabouh. What’s good for the goose…

    2. Yes yes, the Gazans stopped firing rockets (actually almost reduced the number to zero) but increased the number of mortars fired, some cease fire

      You don’t quote any evidence so yr claim is non existent. When Israel broke the ceasefire it didn’t do so w. a claim that mortars caused them to retailiate. In fact, Israel didn’t defend or explain the attack in any way. Leaving one to presume that Israel WANTED to provoke a war such as what became Cast Lead.

      I do so love the false analogies you Israel apologists use. Try a more apt one: kick your neighbor out of his house; tell him to go live in a little hovel across town. Then when he launches mortars and rockets at you, bomb the shit out of him with Apache helicopters, drones and F-16s, not to mention artillery barrages. Then wall him into his hovel so he can’t enter or exit of his own free will. When he launches terror attacks do the same as above. And finally, when the poor guy is finally quiet, drop a bomb on a meager little tunnel he uses to bring a few necessities into that hovel of his. And then when he resumes those rockets, blow his little hovel to kingdom come.

      it shows intent

      You justify Israel’s pre-emptive attack on Egypt because you judge that Egypt had INTENT to attack Israel? How do you know this? Do you have a record of Nasser’s inner thoughts? Perhaps an Egyptian double agent told you so? You don’t launch a war based on your guess at your enemies intent unless you want to war in the first place, which is what Israel did.

      no one would have established a state without knowing the world would support the act

      You said the world embraced Israel before Independence was declared. I pointed out yr error. Now you say that Ben Gurion somehow knew that the Russians & U.S. would support him when historical evidence says you are wrong. B.G. may’ve had a suspicion of what might happen. But things were very much up in the air until the last minute about whether Israel would be recognized by the major powers.

      it denied passage only to ships en route to Israel.

      Shrin pointed out to you that no ship was actually denied passage. Can you prove that any ship was prevented from passing?

      reading your blogs i got the impression that you think in very similar (but different) terms, is that true ?

      An insulting & stupid question which I won’t dignify w. an answer. Let me know when you want to be serious.

    3. Yes yes, the Gazans stopped firing rockets (actually almost reduced the number to zero)…

      So, first you insist that Israel “went into Gaza to stop the rockets”, and now you admit that the rockets were stopped by the cease fire. Why do you keep changing your story?

      but increased the number of mortars fired…

      Is that so! Well, then, you will have no problems providing us with actual numbers from credible sources, will you?

      Because accompanied with statements, asking the UN peace force that was station in sinai to leave and other actions it shows intent, which is what you claim in this entire post.

      1. Please stop dodging Richard’s questions. If Israel has a right to tell its neighbors where on their own sovereign territory they may and may not station their troops, do Israel’s neighbors have a right to tell Israel where on its own sovereign territory it may and may not station its troops?

      2. Not only did Egypt’s actions not show an intent to attack Israel, Israeli leaders have admitted that they knew Nasser did not want a war with Israel, and an attack was not only not imminent it was extremely unlikely. If we look at Nasser’s actions in the larger context it becomes clear that he was putting on a show in response to widespread criticism over his failure to respond to Israeli attacks on his ally Syria, most particularly a bombing raid deep into Syrian territory just a few miles outside Damascus.

      no one would have established a state without knowing the world would support the act.

      Where on earth did you learn history?! Wherever it was, you need to go for remedial classes. Reality was pretty much the opposite of what you are describing.

      you can’t distinguish based on the size of the city…

      You certainly can. More to the point you can distinguish based on the actual military and economic impact to Israel which was exactly zero. The closing of the Strait was a purely symbolic act that had no actual effect at all, and Israel grabbed it to use as a pretext to launch a war of aggression.

      i…it denied passage only to ships en route to Israel.

      Exactly. Under international maritime law any state has a right to prevent any other state from using its territory to transport goods that might be used to harm it. The Strait of Tiran is part of Egypt’s territory, and Israel was threatening to attack Egypt. Therefore, Egypt was within its rights under international maritime law to take the steps it did.

      this was a provocation on behalf of the Egyptians, and it added to many other steps taking by the Egyptians.

      It was a symbolic act, and the fact that Israel chose to use it as an excuse to launch a war of aggression instead of treating as what it was fits very well with the documented fact that Israel had been planning for some time to “take out” Nasser’s military, and was only waiting for the time to be right.

  16. Oh god, Richard.. I’m sorry I’m a bit late on that, but I gotta say my immediate reaction after reading this post was face-palm.
    (I have no time going through the posts, so forgive me if I’m repeating things)
    First of all, this is barely an exercise, but more of an ‘abilities show’ for officer’s course graduates and the likes.
    The same things are done every year, and the only things that change are the weapon systems.
    My father participated in those when he was in the military, and the format hasn’t changed since.
    Rest assured, this is definitely not an preparation exercise for a Syrian invasion.
    Further more and most importantly, the Israeli military doctrine calls for taking the battle to the enemy, or fight the battles in the enemy’s territory. Has been like that for ever.
    He’s simply repeating what is said pretty damn often.
    Nothing new or exciting in this..

    1. forgive me if I’m repeating things

      I wince whenever some dunderhead makes a comment like this because it invariably means he’s going to repeat some warmed over pablum someone has already tried to pass off here as God’s truth.

      I could care less about the nature of the exercise, when it happens, who takes part, etc. What I care about is the target of the exercise (Syria, via an invasion); and the chief of staff’s speech which threatened such an invasion.

      Nothing new or exciting in this

      You are repeating comments of others, not just one, but several others, & verbatim. Don’t repeat comments. If you don’t have enough time to read a thread to see whether what you’re about to say has been said before THEN DON’T SAY IT! I don’t need an echo chamber. I need original thought.

      1. Its good that you don’t care about the nature of the exercise, really.. Only makes it easier for you to assume far fetched things and spread them as facts.
        Now going back to reality, you don’t know a little bit about whom is the target of this exercise, or any other exercise for that matter. You’re no military expert.
        The CoS speech only repeated what is widely known – The Israeli official doctrine of taking the fight into the enemy’s territory.
        Its no invasion threat, but simply stating that in every future war, the IDF will fight the battles on the enemy’s ground, and not in Israel.

        1. Go back & read Carmela Menashe’s description of the exercise. She describes it entirely differently than you or all the other apologists who’ve responded here. And you know what? I trust her view far more than yours.

          you don’t know a little bit about whom is the target of this exercise

          Sure do. Once again, Menashe explicitly noted the target of the exercise–Syria. You’re plum outa luck again, fella. Can’t seem to hit the bull’s eye at all today, can ya?

          And now you’re moderated cause ya couldn’t keep yer mouth shut as I politely asked.

    2. this is definitely not an preparation exercise for a Syrian invasion.

      And yet, it is an exercise/demonstration of an invasion of Syria, and we are supposed not to be concerned about it.

      Imagine that someone presented a translated story from the Arabic press about a Syrian military exercise that involved invading and occupying an Israeli town or village. How meaningful would you find anyone’s reassurances that it had nothing to do with preparations for an invasion of Israel, but was just a routine “abilities show” for officer graduates that was performed annually.

      the Israeli military doctrine calls for taking the battle to the enemy, or fight the battles in the enemy’s territory.

      In other words, a doctrine of aggression, as we have seen only too clearly throughout Israel’s history.

  17. Always get a good laugh reading this blog. Silverstein fancies himself a military expert and knows better than Ashkensi, Barak and all of the IDF what israel should or should not do to defend itself. It seems he also knows clearly what lies in Syrias wR plans. Of course, he has Shirin to aid him.

    It’s similar to how he treats anyone who supports IsrEl. So Thomas Friedman, Pulitzer winning bestselling author is an idwiiot, but Silverstein? Everyone in Israel except for the self haters are idiots. All the millions of Jews who support israel, we are all clueless idiots, but Silvetstein, ah, he knows it all.

    1. Everyone in Israel except for the self haters are idiots.

      I didn’t say that. But I will say one thing: YOU are an idiot. And keep up the good work. With enemies like you I’ll have lots of friends. They’ll take one look at what you write and say I must be on to something to have idiot enemies like you.

  18. LOL, ISRAEL SILL REMEMBERS LEBANON. I DON’T THINK ISRAEL(UNLESS THEY GO NUCLEAR), WOULD DARE GO ANYWHERE FOR A WHILE, LOOOOL THEY GOT OWNED BIG TIME IN LEBANON, AND THE MEMORY IS SILL FRESH, THEY(THE ISRAELI’S) HAD TO RESORT TO BLOWING UP WOMEN AND CHILDREN AGAIN TO MAKE IT SEEM AS IF THEY HAD DONE SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT!!! HIS RAG TAG TEAM OF MISFITS NAMED HIZBOLLAH HANDED THE ISRAELI’S A WORLD POWER HAD THEIR PROVERBIAL A$$ HANDED TO THEM!!!

    1. We understand you clearly even without the caps lock on, thank you.
      Nice to see propagandists have a say around here, as opposed to people who have different opinions than the blog’s.

        1. Isn’t it what this all blog is about?
          Whining about all the things Israel does?

          Maybe instead of saying that I whine, you should take care of the Jihadist above.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *