Hello Frank,

Some points:

"The closing of a waterway could be construed as an act of war.
But the response was unilateral as it seems to be always with Israel."

Indeed the closing of the Strait of Tiran could be construed as an act of war. The Egyptians were told in no uncertain terms in 1958 that is how such an action would be viewed. Now then Frank, was this waterway closed with the agreement of the international community or did Egypt act unilaterally? I get it Frank, OK for one but not for the other.

So - "The amassing of troops on the border is posturing. Israel
does it all the time." Really, how about when the massing of troops is accompanied by some very specific threats - still posturing Frank? Under such circumstances you would presumably just ignore it and do absolutely nothing about it, in the relistic hope that they will all just go away. In 1967 there was no point in Israel complaining to the UN, Nasser had just told the UN to get their peace-keeping force (UNEF) the hell out of Sinai in order that he could mass his troops and armour on the Israeli border - The UN's reaction? Oh! certainly Mr. Nasser, how fast do you want us out of there.

As to the armed forces arrayed against Israel, at the time Frank the order of battle was as follows (these are factual and can easily be checked):

Sinai - Egyptian Forces - 7 Divisions (5 Infantry; 2 Armoured; Supporting Artillery) Corresponds to 21 Brigades (15 Infantry; 6 Armoured)

Sinai - Israeli - 3 Divisions (4 Infantry Brigades; 5 Armoured)

Jordan - Jordanian - West Bank - 9 Brigades 300 Tanks
Jordan - Israeli - West Bank - 5 Brigades (2 Armoured; 1 Mechanised; 1 Infantry; 1 Paratroop)

Jordan Valley - Jordanian - 2 Brigades (1 Infantry; 1 Armoured)
Jordan Valley - Israeli - 2 Brigades (1 Infantry; 1 Armoured*)

Golan - Syrian - 9 Brigades
Golan - Israeli - 3 Brigades (1 Armoured; 2 Infantry) later reinforced by Pele's armour (French AMX-13 Armoured Cars) from Jordan Valley.

Combat Aircraft Egypt; Syria & Jordan - 700
Combat Aircraft Israel - 200

Let's see Israel outnumbered in Sinai, on the Golan Heights and on the West Bank. Arab and Israeli forces had parity in the Jordan Valley. In terms of air power the Israeli's are outnumbered 3,5 to 1. Don't know about you Frank, but for someone going into the attack, from the Israeli point of view that looks a tough enough hill to climb. From the Arab side looks pretty good - the rule of thumb being generally that you require a numerical advantage of at least 3 to 1 to attack. From that perspective Frank, which at the time was, and it still may be the case, who was going to attack who.

In June 1967, had the Israeli's just sat tight and not done a thing, what do you think would have happened. Having swept the UNEF out of the Sinai and parked his Army on the Israeli border, having arranged all his pacts with the other Arab nations and got them to do the same, having blasted the world and it's uncle about what they were going to do to Israel - What was Nasser going to do? What options do you think he had? Just say, "Sorry boys my mistake they didn't buy it, lets go home." - Hell as like Frank and you know it - you just won't admit it. If Nasser had not attacked he knew he would be finished both domestically and internationally. Same in any situation you push somebody hard enough and put them in a corner - do not be surprised if they come out swinging, and you had better be prepared for it. Fortunately in this instance Egypt, Syria and Jordan were totally inept.

As for your statement - "Israel has had a pipeline to
nuclear weapons for quite a while." - Not in 1967 they hadn't.

Regarding the 1973 "Yom Kippur War" Frank, go back to what you originally said with regard to the Arab posturing in 1967. About how had they been serious in 1967 they would have kept quiet and just attacked, which explains my reference to 1973.

Provocation on the part of Israeli in 1973, as far as Egypt, Syria and Iraq were concerned, centred on the fact that they had lost in 1948, they had lost in 1956 and they had lost in 1967. Go to any history of the period Frank and the words that ring throughout the articles and reports describing the simultaneous attacks by Egypt and Syria are "unexpected", "surprise" and "unprovoked". Now Israeli intelligence has normally been very good, Mossad tend to be pretty much "on the ball" when it comes to Israel's national security. How come the Israeli's were not even mobilised when those attacks took place Frank - minor abhoration? bit of a "fuck-up" Mossad were going to advise the Israeli Government after the holiday? No Frank they were not mobilised because those attacks were not expected, they did come as one hell of a surprise to the Israelis - ergo under such circumstances they cannot possibly have been provoked by the Israelis.

So, according to you - "Israel would use the nuclear weaponry. That's a given." - Really? When 1967 or 1973? It's a given is it Frank - Then one question relates more to 1973 than 1967 - Why didn't they, because for three days Frank until Israel could get their reserves mobilised and up to the frontlines they were on the ropes and looking down-right shakey. Why didn't they use the nuclear weapons you say they had?

I contend that I have yet to hear any threat on the part of Israel to "wipe out" any of its neighbours. Your rejoinder to that is:

"My point. They didn't posture. They acted. And they are wiping
out their neighbors now."

Now I take that as a point of concession by ommission on your part Frank, i.e. that Israel has not ever threatened it's neighbours with "exermination", "eradication" and annihilation". And by way of just impressing that point Frank I'll run through the list:
Has Israel "wiped out" Egypt - No.
Has Israel "wiped out" Jordan - No, but incidentally Yasser Arafat and his boys (PLO) had a damn good crack at it. But there again Yasser is not in the least bothered about how many Arabs die to keep him in clover - he learned that from his Uncle.
Has Israel "wiped out" Syria - No.
Has Israel "wiped out" Lebanon - No, they occupied part of it for a while after Syria invaded it, then withdrew.

Of the land captured in 1967, Israel has returned 93% of it in bi-lateral agreements that secure recognition of the State of Israel and security. That's a hell of a lot to ask isn't it Frank? Just downright unreasonable - but for some reason these agreements have held.

Now let's take a look in detail at:
"I never made the assumption that the UN got in the way. Quite
the contrary. But the British had their own agenda. No one country can broker compromises. But the UN potentially can."

First sentence no you didn't I did.

Your second sentence, absolute bollocks, it was UN inaction and apathy that the Arab frontline states declared was their reason for launching their attack on Israel in 1973.

Your third sentence, what was the British agenda in Palestine Frank? They were given a 27 year Mandate under the League of Nations and that Mandate was due to expire in 1947, during the mandate period Britain tried unsuccessfully to establish a balance, a compromise acceptable to both parties, what was the agenda Frank?.

Your fourth sentence, Norway seems to be quite good at it.

Your fifth sentence, your faith in the UN is inspiring - please write to them, try and inspire their collective, lethargic, self-interest motivated arses into some form of action on something to do with this region. That august body was one of the first to recognise the sovereignty of the State of Israel in 1948 and so far (56 bloody years later) it has managed to achieve the square-root of sod-all.

Frank, go rake through any assortment of translations of Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian, Iraqi, Saudi, any Arab states newspapers for the last 56 years. Look for articles, editorials and coverage of political speeches relating to Israel. Then come back and tell me that they have not demonized the Israeli people. Time after time the political leaders of those countries have favoured military action in place of negotiation, every time they lose they expect to be able to come back to the table and accept the terms they rejected before their embarassing defeats. Not once, not twice, not thrice, not four times, but five times they have done this - If you want to talk about political realities, Frank - How long a bloody learning curve are they on. Not opinion Frank, Fact.

This one I liked Frank it gave me a bit of a laugh:

"The 1967 or '73 wars did not avert WWIII. If anything it makes it
more possible for them to occur today." It is now 2004, Israeli victories in 1967 and 1973 have averted WW III for 37 and 31 years respectively and continue to do so. The prospect of a major conflict arising out of the situation in the middle-east is getting less and less, everybody is getting bored with it, pan-arabism is dead, three of the four Arab frontline states have reached agreement with Israel. Lybia has decided to move on, Iraq is no longer in a position to finance Palestinian terrorist groups, Iran has more than enough to contend with in the arena of domestic politics. Only Syria remains trapped in the time warp.

Here's the bottom line as I see it Frank.
1. The year 1948 is not going to come back for Arab or for Israeli. Accept it and move on, countries currently hosting Palestinian refugees should offer them the option of citizenship instead of just using them a political pawns.
2. It will not matter one jot to either the Israeli people, or to any Israeli Government, how many suicide bombers are sent. The State of Israel is a fact, it is not going to go away.
3. What the Palestinians need more than anything else is political leadership, for as long as they standby Yasser Arafat they are doomed, because he does not want to see an end to this, he does not want to see the problem solved.
4. There is no one country in the world PERIOD that can act as an honest broker in this situation until all the parties involved are prepared to compromise and are genuinely interested in a peace that includes a free, and secure state of Israel, as a long term goal

As said previously, your faith in the UN is astonishing. Their track record is absolutely appalling. The impetus required to reform the UN will be met by the same numbing inertia that has governed it's actions since the day it was formed. It is an international talking shop of political opportunists and back-scratchers, totally motivated by self-interest, from the smallest nation up. The lottery prize is election to the Security Council in times of international tension, then you can bargain your vote on whatever topic in order to rake in some extra aid, or clinch a favourable trade deal. If you believe for one minute it has ever had anything to do with right, or wrong, justice and impartiality, then you are deluding yourself. Unfortunately there is just too much self-interest in keeping things exactly as they are at the UN if you are looking for change - then don't hold your breath, it is not going to be happening soon.

There is no fork in the road, the world has begun to realise that the participants of this circus have to get down to business and mean it. There will be no annihilation of Israel, or any other country in the region for that matter.