16 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderBy your criteria, I would agree, but you would surely then by those very same criteria have to include the US ( and a vast array of other UN & IL signatories) in that pantheon of ruthless self promoting regimes. While it is true that the UN and IL were established to help construct a level playing field that would ostensibly promote a civil society of nations, all with the capacity to relate appropriately to each other in the international arena, within a historic timeline of wars fought in Europe and around the world for the 3 centuries prior to 1948, you would have to recognize that it was a big ask, to expect the establishment of universal principles and the resetting of the international relations clock to a new year zero datum at 1948, would ever contain the social forces already in motion.
Israel is a rogue nation and should be compelled to reach a just settlement with those it has consistently oppressed and brutalized.
So while your argument does have absolute theoretical merit, it fails in the real world of actual people, real cycles of violence, and the articulation of age old desires to forge nationhood.
17 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76If you sympathize with Israel i.e. believe it should have been created, you ARE a Zionist by definition.
And, is it your position that the sneak attack you reference was not a pre-emptive strike and that it did not take place after acts of war were already committed against it by Egypt and the UAR?
I didn't say they were close to being destroyed. I said that the goal of Egypt, Syria, et al. was to destroy it.
And, is it possible for us to discuss Israel/Pale ...[text shortened]... as "Zionist propaganda"? I admit I sympathize with Israel, but I'm certainly not a Zionist.
It was a claimed "pre-emptive" strike but the Israeli leaders at the time have subsequently admitted that it wasn't done in self-defense. Egypt was obviously totally unprepared for war and it and many other Arab nations were attacked without warning. That is historical fact. No act by Egypt or the UAR justified such a massive attack as the UN Security Council recognized in 242 when it called for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territory, a resolution Israel remains in noncompliance with 42 years later.
17 Jun 09
Originally posted by kmax87Tell that to Von Ribbentrop and the others hung at Nuremberg for Crimes Against Peace.
By your criteria, I would agree, but you would surely then by those very same criteria have to include the US ( and a vast array of other UN & IL signatories) in that pantheon of ruthless self promoting regimes. While it is true that the UN and IL were established to help construct a level playing field that would ostensibly promote a civil society of nation ...[text shortened]... al people, real cycles of violence, and the articulation of age old desires to forge nationhood.
17 Jun 09
Originally posted by no1marauderSo when should the Washington trials begin, and the masterminds of the War on Iraq (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al) be shocked and awed into giving an account for their WMD malfeasance?
Tell that to Von Ribbentrop and the others hung at Nuremberg for Crimes Against Peace.
17 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSo, are the Russians zionists because they voted for the founding of the state of Israel?
If you sympathize with Israel i.e. believe it should have been created, you ARE a Zionist by definition.
It was a claimed "pre-emptive" strike but the Israeli leaders at the time have subsequently admitted that it wasn't done in self-defense. Egypt was obviously totally unprepared for war and it and many other Arab nations were attacked ...[text shortened]... rom the occupied territory, a resolution Israel remains in noncompliance with 42 years later.
You call the attack "without warning"? All Egypt did was close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli commerce (blockade is an act of war, of course) and ordered the UN peacekeepers to leave. Plus, Egypt sent over 100,000 troops into the Sinai Desert.
You make it out as if poor little Egypt was attacked by aggressive Israel. Egypt, Syria and Jordan conspired to invade and destroy Israel and were biding their time until they felt they could do so successfully. Israel simply cut the noose before it could be drawn tight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#Background
As for resolution 242, it also required:
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force
Did any Arab country abide by this with respect to Israel? When Egypt and Jordan did make peace with Israel it was as a result of mutually beneficial bilateral agreements; the same as will hopefully happen eventually with the Palestinians. The Arab countries did not "acknowledge the the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" of Israel in response that resolution. Why is Israel the only country in the ME expected to abide by UN resolutions?
Here's the fundamental problem. You don't acknowledge the legitimacy of the State of Israel in the first place. Through that lens, of course Israel is never going to be able to measure up to your standards. If the Arab World would simply learn to live with Israel and get the idea of conquering the land and driving Israel into the sea out of their minds, we'd reach a peace agreement. Yes, there are nuts on the Israeli side too. Avigdor Lieberman is a nut; I have no problem admitting that. But guys like him would be irrelevant if the Palestinians would just stop preaching the necessity for drive Israel into the sea.
17 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I don't need to read a wiki article.
So, are the Russians zionists because they voted for the founding of the state of Israel?
You call the attack "without warning"? All Egypt did was close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli commerce (blockade is an act of war, of course) and ordered the UN peacekeepers to leave. Plus, Egypt sent over 100,000 troops into the Sinai Desert.
You make it out as if f the Palestinians would just stop preaching the necessity for drive Israel into the sea.
The parties had agreed to mediation regarding the Straits of Tiran. Israel was threatening to attack Syria because of some cross-border incidents by Palestinians. Egypt ordered the UN peacekeepers out to give themselves the option of responding militarily if Israel attacked Syria. The peacekeepers offered to move a couple of hundred yards into Israeli territory, but the Israelis weren't interested - they had already decided to attack. Your fairy tale about the evil plans of the Arab nations to destroy Israel when they were vastly inferior militarily is a laughable lie.
EDIT: Here's some quotes from Israel's leaders in 1967:
We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him
(Nasser) ." -- Former Israeli PM Menahem Begin.
Israel has long claimed that it launched the Six-Day War in 1967 to
defend itself. Below are some statements made by Israeli leaders as
well as some report excerpts that prove otherwise.
Israel's former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman,
regarded as a hawk, stated that there was "no threat of destruction"
but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless
justified so that Israel could "exist according the scale, spirit, and
quality she now embodies." Menahem Begin, the first Likud Prime
Minister of Israel, also said: "In June 1967, we again had a choice.
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." "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful
Triangle."
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The
Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He
knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in
1967, in Le Monde on 28 February 1968.
"Deliberately provoked by Israel"
"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in
1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] 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.'" The New York Times, May 11, 1997
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.jewish/2007-06/msg00202.html
17 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76sh76: But guys like him would be irrelevant if the Palestinians would just stop preaching the necessity for drive Israel into the sea.
So, are the Russians zionists because they voted for the founding of the state of Israel?
You call the attack "without warning"? All Egypt did was close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli commerce (blockade is an act of war, of course) and ordered the UN peacekeepers to leave. Plus, Egypt sent over 100,000 troops into the Sinai Desert.
You make it out as if ...[text shortened]... f the Palestinians would just stop preaching the necessity for drive Israel into the sea.
What a silly lie. The Palestinian leadership have accepted a two-state solution since at least Oslo.
17 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76As regards the supposed Arab non-compliance with SC 242, the Saudis during the 80's and again in 2002 made peace proposals, accepted by the Arab League, that would have had all Arab countries normalize relations with Israel if the Israelis agreed to make peace with the Palestinians by giving the latter an independent state in the Occupied Territories. Israel has absolutely rejected these peace proposals.
So, are the Russians zionists because they voted for the founding of the state of Israel?
You call the attack "without warning"? All Egypt did was close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli commerce (blockade is an act of war, of course) and ordered the UN peacekeepers to leave. Plus, Egypt sent over 100,000 troops into the Sinai Desert.
You make it out as if ...[text shortened]... f the Palestinians would just stop preaching the necessity for drive Israel into the sea.
17 Jun 09
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not talking about what their leaders say. I'm talking about what their media and schools and religious leaders say. Do I need to scour the net for examples of calls for the destruction of Israel and killing of the Jews that occur regularly in Palestinian society, or will you concede them and save me the time?
sh76: But guys like him would be irrelevant if the Palestinians would just stop preaching the necessity for drive Israel into the sea.
What a silly lie. The Palestinian leadership have accepted a two-state solution since at least Oslo.
Regarding your assertion that the Arab countries would never have wanted to go to war with Israel because they were "vastly inferior militarily," that's true only in hindsight. In all, the UAR had more than twice the number of soldiers, more than 3 times the number of planes and three times the number of tanks as Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
One big reason that the war was such a success was the fact that they were able to take out the Egyptian air force on the ground in the first minutes. This could only be done through surprise attack. The Egyptian and Syrians had no problem with the surprise attack concept six years later in 1973.
I wasn't around at the time, but my father tells me of the wild and jubilant victory claims that the Egyptians were making in the first hours of the war; how Jewish people (New Yorkers, not Israelis) who were dreading this for months were walking around with ashen faces that morning fearful that a second Holocaust was on the way.
It's nice and easy to sit here in the safety of the distant future and make pallid observations about what was obvious in retrospect. At the time, throughout 1967, the Arab media was in a frenzy for the destruction of Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Al-Farida,_Lebanon_pre-1967_war.jpg
17 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76So, are the Russians zionists because they voted for the founding of the state of Israel?
So, are the Russians zionists because they voted for the founding of the state of Israel?
You call the attack "without warning"? All Egypt did was close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli commerce (blockade is an act of war, of course) and ordered the UN peacekeepers to leave. Plus, Egypt sent over 100,000 troops into the Sinai Desert.
You make it out as if ...[text shortened]... f the Palestinians would just stop preaching the necessity for drive Israel into the sea.
Some are. Some aren't. In this case I believe the Soviets were merely acting in an attempt to get another ally.
You call the attack "without warning"? All Egypt did was close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli commerce (blockade is an act of war, of course) and ordered the UN peacekeepers to leave. Plus, Egypt sent over 100,000 troops into the Sinai Desert.
1. The Sinai is not part of Israel; it is part of Egypt.
2. The closing of the strait was in response to Israel's blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba, and was purely to get a supply of water.
You make it out as if poor little Egypt was attacked by aggressive Israel. Egypt, Syria and Jordan conspired to invade and destroy Israel and were biding their time until they felt they could do so successfully. Israel simply cut the noose before it could be drawn tight.
Jordan had no intention of destroying Israel. Egypt and Syria both felt they were fighting a defensive war. It was all because the Soviets misinformed the Syrians and said that Israeli troops were massing along their northern border. And it's not like Israel never invaded Egypt.
Did any Arab country abide by this with respect to Israel? When Egypt and Jordan did make peace with Israel it was as a result of mutually beneficial bilateral agreements; the same as will hopefully happen eventually with the Palestinians. The Arab countries did not "acknowledge the the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" of Israel in response that resolution.
Yes they did. They just wanted their land back.
But guys like him would be irrelevant if the Palestinians would just stop preaching the necessity for drive Israel into the sea.
No Palestinian has said that for decades.
You're also making the (elementary) mistake that the Palestinians and the Arab states are (or ever were) on the same side in the conflict.
17 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by scherzoI hope everything you say about the Arab attitude towards Israel is correct. If you are, then maybe we can finally have peace one of these years. That's what I'd want more than anything; even if it means giving back the WB and E. Jerusalem.
[b]So, are the Russians zionists because they voted for the founding of the state of Israel?
Some are. Some aren't. In this case I believe the Soviets were merely acting in an attempt to get another ally.
You call the attack "without warning"? All Egypt did was close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli commerce (blockade is an act of war, of course) he Palestinians and the Arab states are (or ever were) on the same side in the conflict.[/b]
17 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76Really? The Arab states want nothing except their own interests served. They never did. If it means more land, then they'll take it. If it means wiping out Palestinian refugees, then they'll take it. The PLO and the UAR were both founded by Nasser to control the Palestinian revolutionary movements. Why do you think I'm so opposed to Mubarak, Abdullah II, al-Assad, Qaddafi, and Hariri?
I hope everything you say about the Arab attitude towards Israel is correct. If you are, then maybe we can finally have peace one of these years. That's what I'd want more than anything; even if it means giving back the
WB and E. Jerusalem.[/b]
17 Jun 09
Originally posted by scherzoSo, then I guess the only way to do it is to bypass the other regional leaders and have direct negotiations. Do you think Abbas is also a puppet as leader of what's basically the PLO successor? Or do you think he has the moral authority to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people?
Really? The Arab states want nothing except their own interests served. They never did. If it means more land, then they'll take it. If it means wiping out Palestinian refugees, then they'll take it. The PLO and the UAR were both founded by Nasser to control the Palestinian revolutionary movements. Why do you think I'm so opposed to Mubarak, Abdullah II, al-Assad, Qaddafi, and Hariri?
17 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76So, then I guess the only way to do it is to bypass the other regional leaders and have direct negotiations.
So, then I guess the only way to do it is to bypass the other regional leaders and have direct negotiations. Do you think Abbas is also a puppet as leader of what's basically the PLO successor? Or do you think he has the moral authority to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people?
Yes. If the "peace process" is what you're after.
Do you think Abbas is also a puppet as leader of what's basically the PLO successor?
He's a dictator. He's a traitor. His movement is falling apart, and he's doing literally everything he can to stop it. Even if it means illegally holding power after losing a democratic election. Even if it means selling out his people and his country to gain international diplomatic and monetary support. He's a dog. He's Israel's dog.
Or do you think he has the moral authority to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people?
He has that moral obligation. He does not have that moral capacity. Hence why he was voted out. Also hence why he's not leaving office when he's supposed to!!!