Evidence for God from Science

Rakovsky wrote:Dear RickD and Gman,

I prefer peaceful resolutions to conflicts and dislike war.
Society has arisen out of the works of peace; the essence of society is peacemaking. ~Ludwig von Mises

No.. You side with those who love Sharia law.. Therefore you must like war.

Rakovsky wrote:Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. ~William Penn
These words appeal to me. When I think about justifications for war, I have to think them over for myself.

One of the toughest to evaluate is "the Great War", WWI. The Austrian Monarchy apparently wanted to fight Serbia. It started the war when Serbia failed to meet its extreme demands, which followed the Serbian terrorist assassination of an Austrian noble. This should have been a moment for diplomacy. But then Austria declared war on Serbia. Here was another moment for diplomacy. But then all the other major European powers declared war on eachother. They pulled in America, which ended up fighting against Austria.

Yes, Austria was the main party responsible. But the other nations didn't do enough diplomatically to avert the crisis, and I think this was what they wanted at some level. The result was huge casualties and the breeding grounds for WWII. I assume most Americans look at their victorious involvement in this bloodbath as positive, but I certainly wouldn't have wanted to perform mutual slaughter in the trenches.

So I think it is should be with a preference for diplomacy, and with independence of judgment, that one should look at wars like the 1967 war. And I should try to avoid some feeling of moral superiority when evaluating it, because we have engaged in far more bloody mutual wars

There would be no wars if the extremists wouldn't have started them.. Therefore we have wars that have to be defensive..

Rakovsky wrote:1. Israel was a tiny country surrounded by hostile Arab countries.
2. There were attacks before the 1967 war
3. The Arab countries massed 250,000 troops on its borders.
4. Egypt blocked the straits of Tiran
5. Egyptian president Nasser, especially, used attacking rhetoric.
Were there options available for Israel?

It is worth doing a brief review of articles with different points of view. Out of these factors, the main background factor is that 1. Israel was a tiny country surrounded by hostile Arab countries. Yet somehow Israel's army was more powerful than the Arab countries combined.

Being a small country surrounded by hostile countries is a strategic weakness. But this does not mean a small country is weaker than its neighbors. Sparta was a small country, and yet its army was very powerful. If you've seen the movie The "300" with Russell Crowe, you may remember how the Spartans defeated the Persians. Rome was one city, and yet it conquered the Mediterranean. And the American settlers lived in small colonies and in 100-200 years were able to take over the land from sea to sea.

Further, one must ask how the strategic weakness of being surrounded by hostile countries can be ended. This occurs when the beighbors seek to be hostile. In that case, they must either be conquered or be persuaded to be friendly, or at least neutral. In my opinion, it is much better to seek to try to make friends with people instead of conquering them. If they are weaker and can be conquered, perhaps a distant time will come when they will be stronger, and in that case it would've been better to make friends with them.

You have no clue what you are talking about... The Israelis had no intentions of conquering.. The Israelis were defending themselves against an enemy that was seeking to destroy them.

Rakovsky wrote:So yes, Israel was a tiny country surrounded by alot more people with hostile governments. But it appears that somehow Israel was alot stronger militarily.

Yes.. It's a good thing that the Israeli army is getting stronger.. Thanks for bringing that up and showing how God is protecting the Israelis. That way the suppressive evils of Sharia law will be diverted... Your best offense is a good defense.

Rakovsky wrote:Dear RickD and Gman,

I prefer peaceful resolutions to conflicts and dislike war.
Society has arisen out of the works of peace; the essence of society is peacemaking. ~Ludwig von Mises

Rakovsky, All sane people try to avoid war, when possible. Are you overlooking one crucial fact here? There are muslims who have publicly called for the destruction of Israel and all Jews. How is it possible to come to a peaceful resolution with someone whos goal in life is to destroy you?

Dear Gman,

You have brought me to reconsider my previous statement that "I dislike war", and to qualify it. As a general principle, I dislike war, but perhaps it is good in some cases?

General William Sherman said "War is Hell". Being in a war where you kill other people, and have your friends killed, is a bad personal experience. Alot of people get nightmares because of it. But at the same time, as Sherman's troops marched through the plantations, they freed up masses of black people from slavery- Christians, who saw their liberation as a kind of Jubilee, and compared their freedom to the ancient Israelites' march from slavery in Egypt. So I feel conflicted. Sherman is one of the generals least disliked by southerners, and his march resulted in plantations being destroyed, but perhaps I myself might have volunteered to fight in the Civil War to free the slaves. But then again, I sympathize alot with pacifism. So it is a hard choice.

In any case, I disagree with your statement "You side with those who love Sharia law.. Therefore you must like war."

First, I think it is misleading to say that if one disagrees with the 1967 invasion it means one is siding "with those who love Sharia Law", because Egypt's and Syria's governments were secular like Turkey and unlike Saudi Arabia, although some Egyptians and Syrians of course loved Sharia, that is, Islamic religious law.

Second, I think that to some degree, the invaded countries also didn't do enough to avert the war, because for example Egypt shouldn't have removed the UN peacekeepers. So I think it may simplistic to just say I "side with" one country over another, just as I don't completely "side" with the allied side of WWI, since I think they should have done more to avoid war too.

Third, if someone sides with "those who love sharia law", this does not necessarily mean the person likes war.

In the American movie "Lawrence of Arabia", the British soldier Lawrence helps the Arab-speaking tribes overthrow the Turkish occupiers and cooperate with the British army, which developed into the Mandate of Palestine. In the movie, Lawrence meets with the tribal leader Faisal one night in his tent. Incidentally, I think that Faisal was of partial Jewish descent. Lawrence makes a good impression on Faisal, showing his knowledge of Muslim culture, and as I remember religious verses. Also in the movie, as Lawrence leads warriors out, fully veiled bedouin women sing from the clifftops.

It's true that St Paul also encouraged women to wear partial veils over their hair, but anyway I don't think burqas should be a religious requirement, as I think women's faces are decent beauty from God. So I don't "side with" this rule. But at the same time, when I watch the movie, I side with the Bedouins, who have this rule, and are trying to overthrow their imperial rulers, who were less strict religiously themselves.

Perhaps the audience is manipulated too much by the movie to support War, which maybe as I think of it, is a negative. At one point in the movie, Lawrence remarked sadly to his superiors that part of him liked the killing he experienced. And I think the audience at least gets a little sense that there is something wrong with all the fighting.
So the audience naturally sympathizes with the bedouins' freedom, even if they might not be "war hawks", think War is the best war to achieve the freedom, or want to follow the religious rules themselves. Does that make sense?

So when I look at wars, I think it is best to think things through, instead of assuming one side is right or wrong from the outset. For example, one shouldn't assume that because the Bedouins followed Sharia and the Turks were much more secular that one must side with the Turks 100%.

"Likewise, I think it is OK to take a critical look at the 1967 war and whether the Israeli army had to fight it, in part based on the fact that "3. The Arab countries massed 250,000 troops on its borders." It appears that not only was the Israeli military far superior to its neighbors' armies, but the Egyptians' move of troops into the Sinai, which stimulated the Israeli attack, was itself a defensive response to an expected Israeli attack.

In one of the articles favoring the invasion, we find that confrontations with Syria led up to the buildup of Egyptian forces to the Sinai:

The number of dangerous incidents on the Syrian border increased following Israel's activation of the National Water Carrier from the Sea of Galilee to the Negev in 1964. Syria and the other Arab countries opposed the National Water Carrier project and tried to destroy it by diverting the tributaries of the Jordan river located in their territories; Israel bombed the diversion works in response. This tension came against the backdrop of the on-going border clashes along the demilitarized zone between Israel and Syria, as Syria resisted Israel’s attempts to increase use of the DMZ for Israeli agriculture. (The DMZ was the result of the terms of the Israel-Syria armistice signed on July 20, 1949.) Syria launched attacks on Israeli farmers cultivating land in the demilitarized zone... shelling from the commanding Golan Heights
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to ... backgd.php

Well, it sounds like it was economically harmful for Syria to divert its water from the planned Israeli water project. But I am not sure that they had to keep their water flowing in that direction, and perhaps the Israeli government could've sued for damage if there was a claim. More importantly, although harmful it was a nonmilitary step on its own territory, unlike the Israeli response.

Furthermore, the New York Times portrayed a different picture of the fighting in the Golan Heights:

General's Words Shed a New Light on the Golan

Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan... in conversations with a young reporter... 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...
[Dayan stated:] "They didn’t even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that’s how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world ... agewanted1

The commander also told the reporter:

I know how at least 80 percent of all of the incidents there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's speak about 80 percent. It would go like this: we would send a tractor to plow.in the demilitarized area, and we would know ahead of time that the Syrians would start shooting. If they did not start shooting, we would inform the tractor to progress farther, until the Syrians, in the end, would get nervous and would shoot. And then we would use guns, and later, even the air force, and that is how it went..We thought.that we could change the lines of the cease-fire accords by military actions that were less than a war. That is, to seize some territory and hold it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us."
http://ussliberty.org/orenbook.htm

A website supporting the invasion mentions something that might cause the Egyptian buildup:

May 13th 1967
Anwar Sadat arrives back from Moscow with the information he gives to Nasser that Israel is massing 10-12 brigades in preparation for an attack on Syria, supposedly to take place May 17. He was told to expect "an Israeli invasion of Syria immediately after Independence Day, with the aim of overthrowing the Damascus regime" http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/timeline.htm

Note however that the information about the 10-12 brigades being massed was incorrect, but there apparently were plans or calls to attack Syria. An article opposing the invasion comments about this:

In early April 1967, long-simmering tensions between Israel and Syria reached a head in a major aerial engagement in which six Syrian planes were shot down... In the first weeks of May 1967 Israel's Cabinet reportedly decided to attack Syria and numerous Israeli officials openly called for massive retaliation. [Ambassador]Oren acknowledges these very real threats and even quotes Ben-Gurion and Dayan as deploring such bellicose provocations. The Soviets apparently got wind of the Israeli Cabinet decision and conveyed a warning - albeit overblown - to Nasser. Ridiculed in the Arab world for standing idly by after the Samu raid and the downing of Syrian aircraft, Nasser reacted in mid-May to the new... threats by moving Egyptian troops into the Sinai.
http://ussliberty.org/orenbook.htm

About these threats, the same author writes:

Citing 'authoritative sources', the Jerusalem Post reported 'a major military clash with Syria seemed inevitable', in the form of a military expedition that would 'take the wind out of the Syrians' sails once and for all." U Thant later recalled that rumors of an impending blow against Syria were current throughout Israel... reached Cairo and other Arab capitals, where they generated the belief that Israel was about to mount a massive attack on Syria... Bellicose statements by Israeli ldeaders... created panic in the Arab world."
Norman Finkelstein, "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict", p. 125-126

And Wikipedia mentions that the Egyptian buildup in the Sinai began three days after the Egyptian president received the report, the buildup was set for a counterattacking position, and then changed to a purely defensive one:

On the eve of the war, Egypt massed approximately 100,000 of its 160,000 troops in the Sinai. Syria's army had a total strength of 75,000 and amassed them along the Syrian border. Jordan's army had 55,000 troops and 300 tanks along the Jordanian border...

Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19), and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran... Towards the end of May, Nasser finally forbade the general staff from proceeding with the Qahir ("Victory") plan, which called for a light infantry screen in the forward fortifications with the bulk of the forces held back to conduct a massive counterattack against the main Israeli advance when identified, and ordered a forward defense of the Sinai http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Israeli leaders later said that they did not think the Egyptian enforcements were sent to start an attack:

Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli army chief of staff during the war, later stated: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." General Mattityahu Peled, a member of Israel's general staff in 1967, opined that "the thesis according to which the danger of genocide weighed on us in June 1967, and that Israel struggled for its physical existence is only a bluff born and developed after the war." Menachem Begin, not yet prime minister but a member of the Israeli cabinet, allowed that: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."
http://imeu.net/news/article005371.shtml

So it appears that the Egyptian forces were sent in response to perhaps overly-alarmist reports a few days earlier of a possible attack on Syria, were put in a counterattacking and then defensive position, and weren't strong enough to succeed in invading. This reminds me of the buildup of opposing forces before WWI, and diplomacy would have been better in both cases, rather than just declaring war and staring a huge slaughter of other people.

Rakovsky wrote:Dear Gman,

You have brought me to reconsider my previous statement that "I dislike war", and to qualify it. As a general principle, I dislike war, but perhaps it is good in some cases?

General William Sherman said "War is Hell". Being in a war where you kill other people, and have your friends killed, is a bad personal experience. Alot of people get nightmares because of it. But at the same time, as Sherman's troops marched through the plantations, they freed up masses of black people from slavery- Christians, who saw their liberation as a kind of Jubilee, and compared their freedom to the ancient Israelites' march from slavery in Egypt. So I feel conflicted. Sherman is one of the generals least disliked by southerners, and his march resulted in plantations being destroyed, but perhaps I myself might have volunteered to fight in the Civil War to free the slaves. But then again, I sympathize alot with pacifism. So it is a hard choice.

In any case, I disagree with your statement "You side with those who love Sharia law.. Therefore you must like war."

First, I think it is misleading to say that if one disagrees with the 1967 invasion it means one is siding "with those who love Sharia Law", because Egypt's and Syria's governments were secular like Turkey and unlike Saudi Arabia, although some Egyptians and Syrians of course loved Sharia, that is, Islamic religious law.

Again... There wouldn't be a 67 war if the Arabs wouldn't have provoked it. Therefore it's these extremist Arabs that are guilty for these wars. Again, you cannot respond to my questions so you are just picking and choosing the one's that you think you can.

Israel was right to defend herself... And I'm glad that they did..

Rakovsky wrote:Second, I think that to some degree, the invaded countries also didn't do enough to avert the war, because for example Egypt shouldn't have removed the UN peacekeepers. So I think it may simplistic to just say I "side with" one country over another, just as I don't completely "side" with the allied side of WWI, since I think they should have done more to avoid war too.

Again, look at all the wars that Egypt, Jordan, and Syria started with Israel BEFORE the 67 war. The Fadayeen raids in 1949-1956, the 1956 Sinai/Suez war, the Al Fatah raids of 1959...

Rakovsky wrote:Third, if someone sides with "those who love sharia law", this does not necessarily mean the person likes war.

So you finally admit you love Sharia Law.. The truth comes out. This means that you are actually against the Arabs...

Rakovsky wrote:In the American movie "Lawrence of Arabia", the British soldier Lawrence helps the Arab-speaking tribes overthrow the Turkish occupiers and cooperate with the British army, which developed into the Mandate of Palestine. In the movie, Lawrence meets with the tribal leader Faisal one night in his tent. Incidentally, I think that Faisal was of partial Jewish descent. Lawrence makes a good impression on Faisal, showing his knowledge of Muslim culture, and as I remember religious verses. Also in the movie, as Lawrence leads warriors out, fully veiled bedouin women sing from the clifftops.

It's true that St Paul also encouraged women to wear partial veils over their hair, but anyway I don't think burqas should be a religious requirement, as I think women's faces are decent beauty from God. So I don't "side with" this rule. But at the same time, when I watch the movie, I side with the Bedouins, who have this rule, and are trying to overthrow their imperial rulers, who were less strict religiously themselves.

Perhaps the audience is manipulated too much by the movie to support War, which maybe as I think of it, is a negative. At one point in the movie, Lawrence remarked sadly to his superiors that part of him liked the killing he experienced. And I think the audience at least gets a little sense that there is something wrong with all the fighting.
So the audience naturally sympathizes with the bedouins' freedom, even if they might not be "war hawks", think War is the best war to achieve the freedom, or want to follow the religious rules themselves. Does that make sense?

A movie?? You are basing your stance on a silly movie? This is the real world we live in.. Not a movie.

Rakovsky wrote:So when I look at wars, I think it is best to think things through, instead of assuming one side is right or wrong from the outset. For example, one shouldn't assume that because the Bedouins followed Sharia and the Turks were much more secular that one must side with the Turks 100%.

"Likewise, I think it is OK to take a critical look at the 1967 war and whether the Israeli army had to fight it, in part based on the fact that "3. The Arab countries massed 250,000 troops on its borders." It appears that not only was the Israeli military far superior to its neighbors' armies, but the Egyptians' move of troops into the Sinai, which stimulated the Israeli attack, was itself a defensive response to an expected Israeli attack.

Yes.. Take a critical look... The Israelis were also greatly outnumbered. Also the Jewish population is only about 5.5 million, the Arab population is over 300 million. Again.. Take a look at all the wars these Arab states started with Israel. Israel NEVER wanted wars but always get's blamed for them..

Rakovsky wrote:In one of the articles favoring the invasion, we find that confrontations with Syria led up to the buildup of Egyptian forces to the Sinai:
The number of dangerous incidents on the Syrian border increased following Israel's activation of the National Water Carrier from the Sea of Galilee to the Negev in 1964. Syria and the other Arab countries opposed the National Water Carrier project and tried to destroy it by diverting the tributaries of the Jordan river located in their territories; Israel bombed the diversion works in response. This tension came against the backdrop of the on-going border clashes along the demilitarized zone between Israel and Syria, as Syria resisted Israel’s attempts to increase use of the DMZ for Israeli agriculture. (The DMZ was the result of the terms of the Israel-Syria armistice signed on July 20, 1949.) Syria launched attacks on Israeli farmers cultivating land in the demilitarized zone... shelling from the commanding Golan Heights
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to ... backgd.php
Well, it sounds like it was economically harmful for Syria to divert its water from the planned Israeli water project. But I am not sure that they had to keep their water flowing in that direction, and perhaps the Israeli government could've sued for damage if there was a claim. More importantly, although harmful it was a nonmilitary step on its own territory, unlike the Israeli response.

Again... This was not the reason for the war.. There were many many other reasons..

Rakovsky wrote:Furthermore, the New York Times portrayed a different picture of the fighting in the Golan Heights:

General's Words Shed a New Light on the Golan

Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan... in conversations with a young reporter... 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...
"They didn’t even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that’s how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world ... agewanted1

It's a good thing Israel got the Golan Heights.. Strategically it was imperative for them to capture it. Why? Well for one thing the Syrians were using it to shell Israeli farmers before the 67 war.. Second, the rivers from the Golan Heights flow into the Sea of Galilee. The Syrians were actually guilty of previously contaminating these waters with poison to kill the Arab and Jewish pollutions.. If Israel wouldn't have done anything about it, they would have been dead.

Rakovsky wrote:The commander also told the reporter:

I know how at least 80 percent of all of the incidents there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's speak about 80 percent. It would go like this: we would send a tractor to plow.in the demilitarized area, and we would know ahead of time that the Syrians would start shooting. If they did not start shooting, we would inform the tractor to progress farther, until the Syrians, in the end, would get nervous and would shoot. And then we would use guns, and later, even the air force, and that is how it went..We thought.that we could change the lines of the cease-fire accords by military actions that were less than a war. That is, to seize some territory and hold it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us."
http://ussliberty.org/orenbook.htm

A website supporting the invasion mentions something that might cause the Egyptian buildup:
May 13th 1967
Anwar Sadat arrives back from Moscow with the information he gives to Nasser that Israel is massing 10-12 brigades in preparation for an attack on Syria, supposedly to take place May 17. He was told to expect "an Israeli invasion of Syria immediately after Independence Day, with the aim of overthrowing the Damascus regime" http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/timeline.htm
Note however that the information about the 10-12 brigades being massed was incorrect, but there apparently were plans or calls to attack Syria. An article opposing the invasion comments about this:

In early April 1967, long-simmering tensions between Israel and Syria reached a head in a major aerial engagement in which six Syrian planes were shot down... In the first weeks of May 1967 Israel's Cabinet reportedly decided to attack Syria and numerous Israeli officials openly called for massive retaliation. [Ambassador]Oren acknowledges these very real threats and even quotes Ben-Gurion and Dayan as deploring such bellicose provocations. The Soviets apparently got wind of the Israeli Cabinet decision and conveyed a warning - albeit overblown - to Nasser. Ridiculed in the Arab world for standing idly by after the Samu raid and the downing of Syrian aircraft, Nasser reacted in mid-May to the new... threats by moving Egyptian troops into the Sinai.
http://ussliberty.org/orenbook.htm

Nice word salad...

Rakovsky wrote:About these threats, the same author writes:

Citing 'authoritative sources', the Jerusalem Post reported 'a major military clash with Syria seemed inevitable', in the form of a military expedition that would 'take the wind out of the Syrians' sails once and for all." U Thant later recalled that rumors of an impending blow against Syria were current throughout Israel... reached Cairo and other Arab capitals, where they generated the belief that Israel was about to mount a massive attack on Syria... Bellicose statements by Israeli ldeaders... created panic in the Arab world."
Norman Finkelstein, "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict", p. 125-126

And Wikipedia mentions that the Egyptian buildup in the Sinai began three days after the Egyptian president received the report, the buildup was set for a counterattacking position, and then changed to a purely defensive one:

On the eve of the war, Egypt massed approximately 100,000 of its 160,000 troops in the Sinai. Syria's army had a total strength of 75,000 and amassed them along the Syrian border. Jordan's army had 55,000 troops and 300 tanks along the Jordanian border...

Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19), and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran... Towards the end of May, Nasser finally forbade the general staff from proceeding with the Qahir ("Victory") plan, which called for a light infantry screen in the forward fortifications with the bulk of the forces held back to conduct a massive counterattack against the main Israeli advance when identified, and ordered a forward defense of the Sinai http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Israeli leaders later said that they did not think the Egyptian enforcements were sent to start an attack:

Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli army chief of staff during the war, later stated: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." General Mattityahu Peled, a member of Israel's general staff in 1967, opined that "the thesis according to which the danger of genocide weighed on us in June 1967, and that Israel struggled for its physical existence is only a bluff born and developed after the war." Menachem Begin, not yet prime minister but a member of the Israeli cabinet, allowed that: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."
http://imeu.net/news/article005371.shtml

So it appears that the Egyptian forces were sent in response to perhaps overly-alarmist reports a few days earlier of a possible attack on Syria, were put in a counterattacking and then defensive position, and weren't strong enough to succeed in invading. This reminds me of the buildup of opposing forces before WWI, and diplomacy would have been better in both cases, rather than just declaring war and staring a huge slaughter of other people.

Yes it's extremely sad that these aggressive Arabs states tried to start a war with Israel. After the Israelis offered peace and got slammed for it..

Major Arab Terrorist Attacks against Israelis Prior to the 1967 Six-Day War

Jan 1, 1952 - Seven armed terrorists attacked and killed a nineteen year-old girl in her home, in the neighborhood of Beit Yisrael, in Jerusalem.


Apr 14, 1953 - Terrorists tried for the first time to infiltrate Israel by sea, but were unsuccessful. One of the boats was intercepted and the other boat escaped.


June 7, 1953 - A youngster was killed and three others were wounded, in shooting attacks on residential areas in southern Jerusalem.


June 9, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a farming community near Lod, and killed one of the residents. The terrorists threw hand grenades and sprayed gunfire in all directions. On the same night, another group of terrorists attacked a house in the town of Hadera. This occurred a day after Israel and Jordan signed an agreement, with UN mediation, in which Jordan undertook to prevent terrorists from crossing into Israel from Jordanian territory.


June 10, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrating from Jordan destroyed a house in the farming village of Mishmar Ayalon.


June 11, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a young couple in their home in Kfar Hess, and shot them to death.


Sept 2, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrated from Jordan, and reached the neighborhood of Katamon, in the heart of Jerusalem. They threw hand grenades in all directions. Miraculously, no one was hurt.


Mar 17, 1954 - Terrorists ambushed a bus traveling from Eilat to Tel Aviv, and opened fire at short range when the bus reached the area of Maale Akrabim in the northern Negev. In the initial ambush, the terrorists killed the driver and wounded most of the passengers. The terrorists then boarded the bus, and shot each passenger, one by one. Eleven passengers were murdered. Survivors recounted how the murderers spat on the bodies and abused them. The terrorists could clearly be traced back to the Jordanian border, some 20 km from the site of the terrorist attack.


Jan 2, 1955 - Terrorists killed two hikers in the Judean Desert.


Mar 24, 1955 - Terrorists threw hand grenades and opened fire on a crowd at a wedding in the farming community of Patish, in the Negev. A young woman was killed, and eighteen people were wounded in the attack.


Apr 7, 1956 - A resident of Ashkelon was killed in her home, when terrorists threw three hand grenades into her house.Two members of Kibbutz Givat Chaim were killed, when terrorists opened fire on their car, on the road from Plugot Junction to Mishmar Hanegev.There were further hand grenade and shooting attacks on homes and cars, in areas such as Nitzanim and Ketziot. One person was killed and three others wounded.


Apr 11, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire on a synagogue full of children and teenagers, in the farming community of Shafrir. Three children and a youth worker were killed on the spot, and five were wounded, including three seriously.


Apr 29, 1956 - Egyptians killed Roi Rotenberg, 21 years of age, from Nahal Oz.


Sept 12, 1956 - Terrorists killed three Druze guards at Ein Ofarim, in the Arava region.


Sept 23, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire from a Jordanian position, and killed four archaeologists, and wounded sixteen others, near Kibbutz Ramat Rachel.


Sept 24, 1956 - Terrorists killed a girl in the fields of the farming community of Aminadav, near Jerusalem.


Oct 4, 1956 - Five Israeli workers were killed in Sdom.


Oct 9, 1956 - Two workers were killed in an orchard of the youth village, Neve Hadassah, in the Sharon region.


Nov 8, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire on a train, attacked cars and blew up wells, in the North and Center of Israel. Six Israelis were wounded.


Feb 18, 1957 - Two civilians were killed by terrorist landmines, next to Nir Yitzhak, on the southern border of the Gaza Strip.


Mar 8, 1957 - A shepherd from Kibbutz Beit Govrin was killed by terrorists in a field near the Kibbutz.


Apr 16, 1957 - Terrorists infiltrated from Jordan, and killed two guards at Kibbutz Mesilot.


May 20, 1957 - A terrorist opened fire on a truck in the Arava region, killing a worker.


May 29, 1957 - A tractor driver was killed and two others wounded, when the vehicle struck a landmine, next to Kibbutz Kisufim.


June 23, 1957 - Israelis were wounded by landmines, close to the Gaza Strip.


Aug 23, 1957 - Two guards of the Israeli Mekorot water company were killed near Kibbutz Beit Govrin.


Dec 21, 1957 - A member of Kibbutz Gadot was killed in the Kibbutz fields.


Feb 11, 1958 - Terrorists killed a resident of Moshav Yanov who was on his way to Kfar Yona, in the Sharon area.


Apr 5, 1958 - Terrorists lying in ambush shot and killed two people near Tel Lachish.


Apr 22, 1958 - Jordanian soldiers shot and killed two fishermen near Aqaba.


May 26, 1958 - Four Israeli police officers were killed in a Jordanian attack on Mt. Scopus, in Jerusalem.


Nov 17, 1958 - Syrian terrorists killed the wife of the British air attache in Israel, who was staying at the guesthouse of the Italian Convent on the Mt. of the Beatitudes.


Dec 3, 1958- A shepherd was killed at Kibbutz Gonen. In the artillery attack that followed, 31 civilians were wounded.


Jan 23, 1959 - A shepherd from Kibbutz Lehavot Habashan was killed.


Feb 1, 1959 - Three civilians were killed by a terrorist landmine near Moshav Zavdiel.


Apr 15, 1959 - A guard was killed at Kibbutz Ramat Rahel.


Apr 27, 1959 - Two hikers were shot at close range and killed near Massada.


Sept 6, 1959 - Bedouin terrorists killed a paratroop reconnaissance officer near Nitzana.


Sept 8, 1959 - Bedouins opened fire on an army bivouac in the Negev, killing an IDF officer, Captain Yair Peled.


Oct 3, 1959 - A shepherd from Kibbutz Heftziba was killed near Kibbutz Yad Hana.


Apr 26, 1960 - Terrorists killed a resident of Ashkelon south of the city.


Apr 12, 1962 - Terrorists fired on an Egged bus on the way to Eilat; one passenger was wounded.


Sept 30, 1962 - Two terrorists attacked an Egged bus on the way to Eilat. No one was wounded.


Jan 1, 1965 - Palestinian terrorists attempted to bomb the National Water Carrier. This was the first attack carried out by the PLO's Fatah faction.


May 31, 1965 - Jordanian Legionnaires fired on the neighborhood of Musrara in Jerusalem, killing two civilians and wounding four.


June 1, 1965 - Terrorists attack a house in Kibbutz Yiftach.


July 5, 1965 - A Fatah cell planted explosives at Mitzpe Massua, near Beit Guvrin; and on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem near Kafr Battir.


Aug 26, 1965 - A waterline was sabotaged at Kibbutz Manara, in the Upper Galilee.


Sept 29, 1965 - A terrorist was killed as he attempted to attack Moshav Amatzia.


Nov 7, 1965 - A Fatah cell that infiltrated from Jordan blew up a house in Moshav Givat Yeshayahu, south of Beit Shemesh. The house was destroyed, but the inhabitants were miraculously unhurt.


Apr 25, 1966 - Explosions placed by terrorists wounded two civilians and damaged three houses in Moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit Shean Valley. May 16, 1966 - Two Israelis were killed when their jeep hit a terrorist landmine, north of the Sea of Galilee and south of Almagor. Tracks led into Syria.


July 13, 1966 - Two soldiers and a civilian were killed near Almagor, when their truck struck a terrorist landmine.


July 14, 1966 - Terrorists attacked a house in Kfar Yuval, in the North.


July 19, 1966 - Terrorists infiltrated into Moshav Margaliot on the northern border and planted nine explosive charges.


Oct 27, 1966 - A civilian was wounded by an explosive charge on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.

Source: http://www.mfa.gov.il

More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_at ... efore_1967

From a human perspective I can understand Israel pre-emptive attacks on Islamic Countries which threaten it BUT as Christians we cannot support war and fighting.

Jesus said turn the other cheek. If someone strikes you turn the other cheek, If you are angry with someone that is murder

http://bible.cc/matthew/5-39.htm

http://bible.cc/matthew/5-22.htm

As Christians we should be supporting peace and love and not backing one country over another. That is not Kingdom. That is not love. That is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Bertram wrote:From a human perspective I can understand Israel pre-emptive attacks on Islamic Countries which threaten it BUT as Christians we cannot support war and fighting.

Jesus said turn the other cheek. If someone strikes you turn the other cheek, If you are angry with someone that is murder

http://bible.cc/matthew/5-39.htm

http://bible.cc/matthew/5-22.htm

As Christians we should be supporting peace and love and not backing one country over another. That is not Kingdom. That is not love. That is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Absolutely incorrect... In fact war can be sanctioned by God.

"Question: "What does the Bible say about war?"

Answer: Many people make the mistake of reading what the Bible says in Exodus 20:13, “You shall not kill,” and then seeking to apply this command to war. However, the Hebrew word literally means “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice; murder.” God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations (1 Samuel 15:3; Joshua 4:13). God ordered the death penalty for numerous crimes (Exodus 21:12, 15; 22:19; Leviticus 20:11). So, God is not against killing in all circumstances, but only murder. War is never a good thing, but sometimes it is a necessary thing. In a world filled with sinful people (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable. Sometimes the only way to keep sinful people from doing great harm to the innocent is by going to war.

In the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to “take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites” (Numbers 31:2). Deuteronomy 20:16-17 declares, “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them…as the LORD your God has commanded you.” Also, 1 Samuel 15:18 says, “Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.” Obviously God is not against all war. Jesus is always in perfect agreement with the Father (John 10:30), so we cannot argue that war was only God’s will in the Old Testament. God does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).

Jesus’ second coming will be exceedingly violent. Revelation 19:11-21 describes the ultimate war with Christ, the conquering commander who judges and makes war “with justice” (v. 11). It’s going to be bloody (v. 13) and gory. The birds will eat the flesh of all those who oppose Him (v. 17-18). He has no compassion upon His enemies, whom He will conquer completely and consign to a “fiery lake of burning sulfur” (v. 20).

It is an error to say that God never supports a war. Jesus is not a pacifist. In a world filled with evil people, sometimes war is necessary to prevent even greater evil. If Hitler had not been defeated by World War II, how many more millions would have been killed? If the American Civil War had not been fought, how much longer would African-Americans have had to suffer as slaves?

War is a terrible thing. Some wars are more “just” than others, but war is always the result of sin (Romans 3:10-18). At the same time, Ecclesiastes 3:8 declares, “There is…a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.” In a world filled with sin, hatred, and evil (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable. Christians should not desire war, but neither are Christians to oppose the government God has placed in authority over them (Romans 13:1-4; 1 Peter 2:17). The most important thing we can be doing in a time of war is to be praying for godly wisdom for our leaders, praying for the safety of our military, praying for quick resolution to conflicts, and praying for a minimum of casualties among civilians on both sides (Philippians 4:6-7)."

Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/war-Bible.html

RickD wrote:

Rakovsky wrote:Dear RickD and Gman,

I prefer peaceful resolutions to conflicts and dislike war.
Society has arisen out of the works of peace; the essence of society is peacemaking. ~Ludwig von Mises

Rakovsky, All sane people try to avoid war, when possible. Are you overlooking one crucial fact here? There are muslims who have publicly called for the destruction of Israel and all Jews. How is it possible to come to a peaceful resolution with someone whos goal in life is to destroy you?

Turn the other cheek pray for them and love them as Jesus commanded. Counter Cultural yes. Gospel yes. Jesus yes!

Turn the other cheek pray for them and love them as Jesus commanded.

They are Jews, not Christians. May be you forgot that.

neo-x wrote:

Turn the other cheek pray for them and love them as Jesus commanded.

They are Jews, not Christians. May be you forgot that.

That makes no difference. Jesus is the only way the truth and the life no one gets to the Father except him. Using your arguement it means anyone can do anything

Bertram on Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:12 pm

neo-x wrote:
Turn the other cheek pray for them and love them as Jesus commanded.

They are Jews, not Christians. May be you forgot that.


That makes no difference. Jesus is the only way the truth and the life no one gets to the Father except him. Using your arguement it means anyone can do anything

Those who are not under grace, do what they want to do, that be Jews or Muslims. If you are not a Christian why would you follow Jesus? doesn't make sense.

neo-x wrote:

Bertram on Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:12 pm

neo-x wrote:
Turn the other cheek pray for them and love them as Jesus commanded.

They are Jews, not Christians. May be you forgot that.


That makes no difference. Jesus is the only way the truth and the life no one gets to the Father except him. Using your arguement it means anyone can do anything

Those who are not under grace, do what they want to do, that be Jews or Muslims. If you are not a Christian why would you follow Jesus? doesn't make sense.

Christians should support a peaceful non war non angry loving solution to the conflict. Both sides are acting sinful in Gods eyes.

Bertram wrote:
Christians should support a peaceful non war non angry loving solution to the conflict. Both sides are acting sinful in Gods eyes.

War may not always be the answer but then Christians shouldn't support our military or any police officers who carry weapons? How do you propose we defend the innocent?

Gman wrote:

Bertram wrote:
Christians should support a peaceful non war non angry loving solution to the conflict. Both sides are acting sinful in Gods eyes.

War may not always be the answer but then Christians shouldn't support our military or any police officers who carry weapons? How do you propose we defend the innocent?

Good point. Should the NYPD drop the shooters for maybe a spunge-coated baseball bat?

Bertram wrote:

RickD wrote:

Rakovsky wrote:Dear RickD and Gman,

I prefer peaceful resolutions to conflicts and dislike war.
Society has arisen out of the works of peace; the essence of society is peacemaking. ~Ludwig von Mises

Rakovsky, All sane people try to avoid war, when possible. Are you overlooking one crucial fact here? There are muslims who have publicly called for the destruction of Israel and all Jews. How is it possible to come to a peaceful resolution with someone whos goal in life is to destroy you?

Turn the other cheek pray for them and love them as Jesus commanded. Counter Cultural yes. Gospel yes. Jesus yes!

Yes Jesus did say turn the other cheek and if somone hit me i would but we are also commanded to protect the innocent.


Daniel

Christians should support a peaceful non war non angry loving solution to the conflict. Both sides are acting sinful in Gods eyes.

This is more complicated then you think it to be, Bertram. Who is right, who is wrong, is really a subjective issue from each side. Palestinians think they are right, Jews think, they are. What about what God thinks, if that land is given to Israel by God, he will make sure it stays that way. I am not saying that this gives the Govt.. of Israel a "willed by God" war to do anything they want, but I think it certainly makes their fight, a meaningful one. Just because Israel has a state land, does not mean it is all. They are one of the smallest countries in the world. They are surrounded by nut job Arabs, who have their lost their brains by eating too much dates and having too much oil.

The real reason why the Arab nations never take the Palestinians in refuge is because they want Israel to be in conflict with them. They eventually hope to eliminate Israel from the world and they want to over take Jerusalem.

You come into my house, stay as a guest, then you won't leave. The only way you say, you will leave, is when I give my half home to you, with you planning to eventually take it all. That is absurd and wrong. It is the same what the Palestinians are doing. That land was never theirs to begin with. And ultimately this is not about land, it is about eliminating the Jews. A line has to be drawn somewhere.