IF tommorow the Palestinian people peacably protested in the street+did so for month - Page 8

Ned · December 10, 2002, 16:19

The article also cites the fact that Nasser had actually ordered an attacked in late May, but that the Soviets had dissuaded Nasser in response to the US passing on to the Soviets its information on Nasser's plan that it had received in turn from Aba Eban, the Israeli foreign minister.

In a different article, there is a note that the attack on Syria was authorized only when the Soviets did nothing to help Egypt despite their pledges of assistance. I had always thought that the attack was delayed only because Israel wanted to defeat one enemy at a time and concentrate its forces, particularly, its air force. This thinking appears to be wrong.

GePap · December 10, 2002, 16:29

I think we will have to wait for Egyptian achives to be opened to know what the Egyptians were up to. But overall, I thnk it is vital to realize that there were no innocents in 1967: no one side is the devil and the other an angel, plus of course, what happened in the aftermath of June 1967 is in some ways seperate. Eve if the war begun because "evil" arabs were about to destroy israel, what happened afterwards has little to do with it.

Az · December 10, 2002, 16:32

I wonder what's the defreezing period there.

gsmoove23 · December 10, 2002, 16:34

The thinking of the article appears to be heavily swayed, most tellingly on its attack of the New Revisionists seeming to suggest that their work hadn't shed any light on Israeli history. Again it says alot about Arab and foreign intentions and Israeli dealings with foreign powers but has little to say about the internal divisions within the Israeli government. It skirts over the water issue making the claim that attempts were repeatedly made by the US to mediate the issue, of course the arabs were obstinate so the Israelis continued. The same argument that can be used against the revisionists; selective reading of history gives you a hypothesis based on fact but far from truth.

GePap · December 10, 2002, 16:39

It would be nice to see similarly documented article from the other side. still, issues of slant aside, it always imporves the debate to infuse it with some less ranting works. I say that the tenor of debate on this thread came about cause simple ranting and raving left a long time ago.

Until the end of the Mubarak regime, i can't see Egypt making its files open, as plenty of people around then are still around the political hall of power in Egypt and sicne it is no democracy, they don't want mistakes or lies exposed.

Az · December 10, 2002, 16:45

well, GePap, all I see here, is that Israel tried to avoid war, don't you think? Egypt? I guess we'll never know.

GePap · December 10, 2002, 16:52

I agree that israel did not want war: that israel did not take advantage of the situation once war begun to fulfill certain aims is a different thing.

Az · December 10, 2002, 17:00

Oh, I know that. It's great that' we've reached an agreement on this.

( Must be cold in hell, an apolyton ME discussion driven to an agreement

Words cannot describe the joy I am feeling right now, the tens of hours saved from useless, impactless discussion over cyberspace. Praise the lord!

)

gsmoove23 · December 10, 2002, 18:21

Well, I'm just disgusted with all the agreement. Avoided war?

Helped escalate it with Syria. A war that didn't have to happen but for stupid hawks on both sides and of course an overly bellicose Nasser.

Az · December 10, 2002, 18:27

Quote:

A war that didn't have to happen but for stupid hawks on both sides

you didn't read the entire aritcle. ( That was sourced very well, btw )

gsmoove23 · December 10, 2002, 18:33

They're all sourced very well Azazel. The best propaganda is at least, on either side. It was a very intelligently written article that skimmed over the parts the author considered unpleasant. Avi Shlaim is also well sourced in his arguments but the author vilifies him and others in the beginning of his article with the exact same attack.

I don't tend to waste my time with stupid philosophical statements but there is no truth or maybe I am just severely disillusioned at the moment.

Az · December 10, 2002, 18:43

OMG, he criticized Avi Shlaim! burn him! BURN HIM !!!!

Az · December 10, 2002, 18:53

actually, after reading the article again, he DIDN'T say "vilify" Avi shlaim, as you've said, but simply pointed out that some of the "new historians" have a certain agenda. Then he provided examples of "new historians". He didn't even say that Avi Shlaim has an agenda. ( though one could clearly see that from Avi's statements) but simply pointed them out. Then he gave out the facts, as they're known to him. This paper has lots of example of debates from protocols of the Israeli cabinet, but I guess that doesn't give you an insight of the Israeli internal divisions.

gsmoove23 · December 10, 2002, 19:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
actually, after reading the article again, he DIDN'T say "vilify" Avi shlaim, as you've said, but simply pointed out that some of the "new historians" have a certain agenda. Then he provided examples of "new historians". He didn't even say that Avi Shlaim has an agenda. ( though one could clearly see that from Avi's statements) but simply pointed them out. Then he gave out the facts, as they're known to him. This paper has lots of example of debates from protocols of the Israeli cabinet, but I guess that doesn't give you an insight of the Israeli internal divisions.

I'm not burning the guy for criticizing Avi Shlaim, jeez. I'm saying that, while Avi Shlaim certainly does have an agenda so does the author of that article, as can also clearly be seen from his statements. I mentioned my reasons above. Of course, I'm not the only one who has made such statements about M.Oren. Big surprise.

Az · December 10, 2002, 19:29

where does he exactly show his agenda?

for example, Avi Shlaim in his work always uses to give adjectives to the sides : "Pragmatic" "Flexible" to arab leaders (

) and "stubborn" "rigid" to the Israeli leadership.

where does this guy show his bias, except , perhaps, in his view against his opponents on the debate. ( lack of proffecionalism )

Az · December 10, 2002, 19:37

If you want an paper that really tackles the new historians you can have this:

http://www.meforum.org/article/466

enjoy

gsmoove23 · December 10, 2002, 19:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
where does he exactly show his agenda?

for example, Avi Shlaim in his work always uses to give adjectives to the sides : "Pragmatic" "Flexible" to arab leaders (

) and "stubborn" "rigid" to the Israeli leadership.

where does this guy show his bias, except , perhaps, in his view against his opponents on the debate. ( lack of proffecionalism )

I said some of my reasons above, c'mon we're on different sides of the issue, of course we're not going to agree on our proph... er historians.

Az · December 10, 2002, 19:54

oh, I changed my views in accordance to facts, many times in apolyton, as well. I have testimonies. you're the stubborn ******* here.

anyway, it's 1:50AM here, and I've got to got to the uni tomorrow ( or is it today

). nighty night....

gsmoove23 · December 10, 2002, 20:35

Stubborn ****er? I used to call Israel terrorists.

The problem is someone decides to do some research, they change their opinion a few times and then they get stuck in the mud when they think they know everything, its a fact of life. Not sure if I'm there yet though, 2 years ago I thought Israel was the good guys.

G'night

Ned · December 11, 2002, 02:43

gsmoove, I grew up watching the events unfold in the ME. I knew that Israel was fighting for its life with the Arabs. They fully intended to destroy Israel and kill every Jew they could.

To us who watched the events unfold, we were amazed by the repeated Israeli victories against seemingly large odds. It was indeed an inspiring story.

Since I have been out of school for decades, I was shocked to see the revisionist history put forth here by many. I was and am still shocked by the virulent anti-Israeli feelings that so many here have.

As to the Palestinians, their leadership is their own worst enemy. By endlessly committing terrorist acts against Israel, they push out the possibilty of peace. Many here believe terrorism is caused solely by the occupation. However, it started well before that, while the West Bank and Gaza were still in Arab hands. Their objective then, as it appears to be now, is the destruction of Israel. Why do I say this? Because Arafat was the leader of the terrorists then and is he still is in charge now.

I am convinced that peace is impossible so long as that man lives.

Netanyahu is right.

CyberGnu · December 11, 2002, 06:21

Ned, revisionist history, or historians finally pushing through the smokescreen your media reported?

In one sense, maybe it would be for the best if Arafat disappeared. Without Arafat, Sharon wouldn;t have anyone to blame, and maybe actually be forced to do something that advanced peace.

Ah, who am I kidding. Of course that would never happen. Sharon would find a new group to blame within ten minutes... All supported by "credible sources", of course.

Arafat is not the obstacle to peace... Sharon and his ilk is.

Az · December 11, 2002, 06:23

hmm, what would make you change your views, Gnu?

Ned · December 11, 2002, 10:56

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ned, revisionist history, or historians finally pushing through the smokescreen your media reported?

In one sense, maybe it would be for the best if Arafat disappeared. Without Arafat, Sharon wouldn;t have anyone to blame, and maybe actually be forced to do something that advanced peace.

Ah, who am I kidding. Of course that would never happen. Sharon would find a new group to blame within ten minutes... All supported by "credible sources", of course.

Arafat is not the obstacle to peace... Sharon and his ilk is.

CyberGnu, Remember it was Begin and Sharon who made peace with Egypt.

chequita guevara · December 11, 2002, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
CyberGnu, Remember it was Begin and Sharon who made peace with Egypt.

Because they needed to secure their back as they prepared to invade Lebanon, which they did once the peace treaty was signed in 1977. The US yanked their leash then, but four years later with a President who was willing to allow the Israelis to do anything, they atacked again, and killed more people than in any Arab-Israel war before or since.

Az · December 11, 2002, 14:46

So, all Israel wants is to kill arabs? you're better than that, che.

gsmoove23 · December 11, 2002, 14:50

No Azazel, all Begin and Sharon want to do is kill arabs.

gsmoove23 · December 11, 2002, 14:55

Ned, it only makes sense that 30 years after the fact when documents are released in many involved countries that history would have to be re-evaluated. I wouldn't put the revisionists on a pedestal but I bet that truth is somewhere between them and the old-school.

For my part, I grew up in New York, didn't pay much attention to the ME but had the general idea that Israelis were the good guys because you couldn't help but think that if all you saw was US media.

Az · December 11, 2002, 14:59

Quote:

No Azazel, all Begin and Sharon want to do is kill arabs

I get too much of that crap from Gnu. If you're being ironic, pardon me for not noticing.

gsmoove23 · December 11, 2002, 15:16

Well, I was being sarcastic, as the smiley might show, but only slightly. Are you not willing to admit there are some evil bastards in the Israeli government?

gsmoove23 · December 11, 2002, 15:18

I'm truly sorry guys but I found this and I just had to post considering the thread topic...

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs... As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds." Mahatma Gandhi, quoted in "A Land of Two Peoples" ed. Mendes-Flohr.