Hello guys,

Hmmm, shall we discuss this in constructive matter or perhaps not. From some perspective I can agree with the statement of Israel as a "winner" in the Yom Kippur war, as the one here stated, when the Egyptian 3rd army was surrounded by Israeli forces. However, the final moments of the war was a success for Egypt. The Egyptians´had caused the Israelis´ terrible losses of people, when we consider how few they are. This caused the Israelis to try to solve the problem, and not face this again. The first steps toward Camp david were taken, from both sides. Israel, wanted to regroup their forces to deal with the threat from southern Lebanon (PLO)
Later, the IDF intervened in the Lebanon (twice). This could never happen without any form of solution with Egypt. The price for peace was the Sinai

So who won the Yom Kippur? I should say both, Egypt got the Sinai back, a political solution which guaranteed no repeat of the 1967 event. Egypt had more or less at the same time security issues with Libya, so they needed to solve the problem with Israel as well.

To only seperate the military from their government is problematic, the governments have so many other considerations to make as well, in this case PLO and Libya played a significant role too.

take care

Ghostrider

I think you missed the point completely. The question being as to whether Israel is the "Owner' or "Occupier" of the west Bank as a result of this war.

I know, I saw how it turned to be not so nice toward each other and the talk about the war as a respond to the second part of it.

From an international law perpective. Israel does not "own" the west bank, and they have occupy it since the six day war, not the Yom Kippur

take care

Ghostrider

Originally Posted by Ghostrider

I know, I saw how it turned to be not so nice toward each other and the talk about the war as a respond to the second part of it.

From an international law perpective. Israel does not "own" the west bank, and they have occupy it since the six day war, not the Yom Kippur

take care

Ghostrider

Some people seem to think that if you are "nice" you are to be ignored. The facts are available to all, the original statement should never have been made as it was both wrong and blatantly provocative. So,... the answer was given in the same spirit that the statement was made.

Thanks for the information. So we shall be rude toward each other? Strange. The Middle East is a sensitive subject to discuss. I try to ignore if people are rude. I prefer constructive discussions and all people have their right to have their opinion. In this case, I ignored the fact, I am an anti-semitic, becouse I am Swedish ie Scandinavian according to one here.

My intention was to try to be a bit constructive instead.

take care

Ghostrider

Originally Posted by Ghostrider

Thanks for the information. So we shall be rude toward each other? Strange. The Middle East is a sensitive subject to discuss. I try to ignore if people are rude. I prefer constructive discussions and all people have their right to have their opinion. In this case, I ignored the fact, I am an anti-semitic, becouse I am Swedish ie Scandinavian according to one here.

My intention was to try to be a bit constructive instead.

take care

Ghostrider

If anyone is so stupid as to treat me as a fool, they will most certainly get told where they stand. That is certainly not going to lead to a constructive debate.

Opinions are great, they are like @rseholes, everyone has one, but they don't carry any weight when they contravene International Law and people who think that they do, need to be told the truth,... bluntly, especially when they are just looking for an argument.

When answering a question, as we have here, "facts" will outweigh "opinion" every time.

Originally Posted by senojekips

If anyone is so stupid as to treat me as a fool, they will most certainly get told where they stand. That is certainly not going to lead to a constructive debate.

Opinions are great, they are like @rseholes, everyone has one, but they don't carry any weight when they contravene International Law and people who think that they do, need to be told the truth,... bluntly, especially when they are just looking for an argument.

When answering a question, as we have here, "facts" will outweigh "opinion" every time.

Hello,

I hope you are not thinking I am treating you as a fool, becouse I do not. People have opinions, they are more loyal to their own opinions than to their significant other, to change this is more or less the mission impossible. In the case of Israel and its history, people have a tendency to find facts which support their opinions. If we only read what some Israeli authors, thinkers, politicians, and others are writing we can get or rather we get a strange view of the problem with the International Law. However to read what the UN-charters says and what Hague says, we get another picture.

If people are searching for an argument, the best way is to ignore it and do not be so provoked, how wrong they might have and we can prove it with the facts.

take care in Oz,

Ghostrider,

Ghostrider

Senojekips is right that if you start a thread on such an aggressive manner you will get an answer in the same way. We can discuss Israel's wars in a constructive way, but it has been done in several threads here and they end up in much the same way - in a dogfight. No reason to go down that road again.

Granted; the conflict in the Middle East is complicated and it is not only Israel's fault. But it does not change the fact that Israel is an occupying power and as such under international law have a duty to protect the civilians in the country they occupy. But they are not doing too well with that.

I checked, they do ends up in a dog fight, I read through the other threads about Israel and the issues there. However, I am interested of constructive discussions,

btw, some people need to take a course or two in the International Law, hehe.

Sorry guys, my intention was to have an interesting and a rational discussion

take care

Ghostrider

Legually or not - why should a "Jewish" state own 3 million not jewish phalastinians?
Don't forget that we want to be a democracy- so we need to keep a larger jewish population to keep ourselves a jewish state.
On the other hand- if we truely and legually own those real estate- shouldn't we as stereotipical jews take rent money from the P pepople? - lol

tank commander rev. idf -(one rank above first seargent )
miki

p.s merqava 3 rules!! (@uck 4)