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

[GePap]

Damn! we get so far, and then this regular ME crap breaks out yet again!!!

I like the article. I have read enough to interpret the fatc for myself, free from the judgements of the author. I have also read in college some very well written and argued books demolishing the Israeli position on almost everything. they well well written, had lots of references,a nd so forth. i also knew the author was biased. No amount of facts can overcome a pre-set bias. At best, they can moderate one, which is why i am glad ned showed that link. I am sure that my reaction to it is not the same as Ned's, and that we still disgaree greatly on various points, but even biased pieces can help, if they introduce new facts.

As I said with azazel, I highly doubt that the leadeship of Israel wanted a war in 1967, and that a war came upon them. I also don't buy, for a second, that Syria or jordan were also looking for a war in 1967. notice the article, not a single mention comes up of aggressive Syrian or Jordanian moves in 1967. Edan has posted some links to jordanian acts, but they ae more acts aftre war starts than well prepared plans. So, I have not yet seen anywhere some grand, mastyer plan by the arabs in 1967 to attack Israel from all sides and crush them. Even Nassers statement about destroying Israel, which i looked up in too personal books, with a slight bias towards Israel, were conditional (if Israel provokes a war then....)

So I will hold to my original though. 1967 is war brought on by Nasser trying to regain the stature he had lost since 1956 by being aggressive towards Israel; a stance that brought on a war he and the other Arab states were not ready for, which israel did not want, was not looking for, but once the oppurtunity came, took full advantage of its military superiority to imporve its general position vis a vi the Arab states. No one is an angel, no one is a demon.

Which is the point: there are too many people arguing here that all arabs are this, all Israelis are that. Bull. There are plenty of Arabs that would not mind seeing Israel destroyed, for many different reasons (national ambition, anti-semitism, religious fervor, whatever) just as there are many Israelis who would love to see the end of the Palestinian people, and a whole host of disaster to fall upon the Arabs, for various reasons (national ambtion, racism, religious fervor, whatever).

[Az]

you don't want me to get that set of MLK quotes AGAIN, gsmoove.

GePap: I really hope that someday, the arab archives will be open. So far, I cannot say the syrians or jordanians wanted war, but I cannot say they didn't either. it's all a big question mark.

One could say that Jordan didn't REALLY want the war, but didn't dislike the idea enough to refrain for caving in to Nasser's pressure. But that's just guessing from what we know so far, that is not much.

Which is the point: there are too many people arguing here that all arabs are this, all Israelis are that. Bull. There are plenty of Arabs that would not mind seeing Israel destroyed, for many different reasons (national ambition, anti-semitism, religious fervor, whatever) just as there are many Israelis who would love to see the end of the Palestinian people, and a whole host of disaster to fall upon the Arabs, for various reasons (national ambtion, racism, religious fervor, whatever).

oh, but of course many Israelis would like the palestinian problem to dissappear. Many Israelis wouldn't mind just waking up and finding that the 3 million palestinians have just dissappeared. But I don't think there is a minority beyond the fringe ( most "National Union" voters ) that would support the forceful removal of the palestinians.

The arabs? I just don't know. I seem to get along ok with some Israeli arabs I know at the uni. nothing special, just "hi, wassup" and discussing classes. But that's about the level of communication with most people I know. I am sure if you ask people in Syria, they'll tell something a bit different, but I just don't know, really.

All in all, best ME thread in months.

[chequita guevara]

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

Did I write that? No.

I just reminded Ned that Begin and Sharon had ulterior motives in agreeing to peace with Egypt in 1977(especially on the same terms Sadat had offered in 1971).

[GePap]

Judging from how much Arab states fight among themselves and the treatment Palestinians are give by their Arab bretheren when they are actualy in an Arab state, my guess about how many actively hope to see the end of Israel is that the number is not high (though since there are so many more Arab's, the actual numbers are so much higher).

The average man on the street in mst Aarb capitals doesn't want war anymore than any israeli. The vast majority of people in the world are apolitical and are more worried about family and personal affairs than anything else.

The biggest probem is that both sides (and this is a human condition, not just reserved for both sides) are stuck looking at the situation as protrayed through historical fact that have little to do with the actual situation. For Israelis: they expect the same treatment they got in europe, ie. rampant anti-semitism being a natural things. thus, everyone, specially backward Arabs(fleeing European anti-semitism but bringing European mores) is out to destroy them. Every fact that feeds this is reinforced, every fact that doesn't is an abberation.
For the Arabs: Jews are just one more foriengn group out to destroy arab independence and stiffle their national ambitons (Just like those dman Europeans!). They don;t want that land to live in: they want to rule and subjugate us.Every fact that feeds this is reinforced, every fact that doesn't is an abberation.

[chequita guevara]

I think you take to naive a view of Israeli leadership in 1967, GePap. I don't think Israel was looking to start a war, but once it saw an opportunity to get three pieces of land whih it wanted, it went for it. Nasser gave them the excuse they needed to cover their expansionism with a fig leaf of defense.

They intended to keep the Sinai originally. You don't build settlments in land you are planning on returning. You build them in land you plan on keeping.

[Az]

I just reminded Ned that Begin and Sharon had ulterior motives in agreeing to peace with Egypt in 1977(especially on the same terms Sadat had offered in 1971).

maybe Sadat had ulterior offer in agreeing to what was offered by Israel ( peace according to international boudaries ) previously rejeected by the egyptians and all other arabs in the Khartoum declaration.

Did I write that? No.

trolling is a legitma... wait, that doesn't sound right.

another thing, is that Begin didn't want the operation in Lebanon the way Sharon wanted it. I would go as far as to say that it went against his pricniples. Sharon was entirely incharge of the military operation, and had a feeling that he could create something in lebanon that was stable and positively inclined to the Israelis, and would stop the creation of a palestinian state in Lebanon. Ironically, the Syrians had a certain sharing of interests, in the sense, they both didn't want any strong palestinian entity in lebanon, But the syrians wanted the lebanonian government as a puppet pressure tool against Israel. I'd say that Sharon's motive was not an anti-palestinian one (the Syrians have more or less taken care of THAT threat back in the 70s, and btw caused at least as much damage in the more than half of a decade they were there), but to prevent the creation of a highly anti-Israeli state, unlike the previously almost-neutral stance.

Thing is that Israel had lots of true allies in Lebanon, that could hardly be considered a single national entity, and we, sadly betrayed them, and left them either to the hands of Hizbullah, or to immigrate to Israel, leave their land and start from scratch ( and didn't give them much help at that either ).

I signed a petition calling the government to help all of the christian lebanonian refugees in Israel.

[Az]

They intended to keep the Sinai originally. You don't build settlments in land you are planning on returning. You build them in land you plan on keeping.

the settlements came only in the 70's.

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I think you take to naive a view of Israeli leadership in 1967, GePap. I don't think Israel was looking to start a war, but once it saw an opportunity to get three pieces of land whih it wanted, it went for it. Nasser gave them the excuse they needed to cover their expansionism with a fig leaf of defense.

They intended to keep the Sinai originally. You don't build settlments in land you are planning on returning. You build them in land you plan on keeping.

You are speaking about the aftermath of the war Che, not how it begun.

Hey look, we have a three person agreement that the 1967 was not begun due to israeli actions and provocations!

I overall agree with you intepretation of the aftermath of June 5th 1967. But up to this point, the discussion was over the time before June 5th.

[gsmoove23]

Urgh! Not the MLK quote, its too painful to read . Besides, he pales in comparison to the Ghandhinator .

I had the interesting experience of living with a palestinian from Jordan in Britain last year. He was a devout muslim, no contact with women, had to consult an imam to see if he could eat just about anything. To be honest I was a little taken aback when I heard where he was from(I had just come from NYC a month after 9/11). We got to be pretty good friends and one night we were watching some downloaded videos in a friends room. The friend played a video of the 1st plane hitting one of the towers on 9/11 and my muslim friend broke out laughing. I was taken aback but then the other guy played a video someone had made of a mosque where you could here the call to prayer right before a huge jetliner crashed into it and I couldn't help but break out laughing. The muslim friend seemed to be offended by it so we played it a couple of more times and I decided to forget about his laughing at 9/11.

I happen to know that he supported terrorism. In fact he told me that Hamas was better because they were religious(He also hated Arafat and the 'foreigners' in his camp). In the beginning he had told me he was against them but as time went on and we got to know each other better the truth came out. It was hard to reconcile this with who he was. The guy wouldn't hurt a fly(supporting terrorism is one thing, carrying it out is another), was one of the most moral people I knew(regarding anything other then terrorism ) and I would still trust him with my American, western value lovin' life if I had to. Very confusing.

[Az]

Che says that Israel has originally intended to keep all of these lands for good. And onse again, Israel is the evil bastard of a nation trying to fool poor Nasser. I say no.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by GePap


You are speaking about the aftermath of the war Che, not how it begun.

Hey look, we have a three person agreement that the 1967 was not begun due to israeli actions and provocations!

I overall agree with you intepretation of the aftermath of June 5th 1967. But up to this point, the discussion was over the time before June 5th.

You agree with interpretations of the aftermath but you would claim that these motives suddenly appeared to Israeli leadership in the days leading up to June 5th? I would think Israeli leadership was a little more forward thinking then that.

[Az]

nice little aneqdote.

You agree with interpretations of the aftermath but you would claim that these motives suddenly appeared to Israeli leadership in the days leading up to June 5th? I would think Israeli leadership was a little more forward thinking then that.

many of the ministers didn't even think that Israel could win militarily.

Plus, I insist on my claim that Eshkol wanted to give back the land conquered in exchange for peace. That was of course regected by the notorious Khartoum declaration.

[GePap]

Why? Why did they have to be more forward thinking than say, Nasser when he undertook his little campaign in May 1967?

There are countless times in history when things simply come up, and one either goes for it, ro doesn't. We are also ignoring the realities of time. The aftermath is a span of months, year, not a few days. After all Azazel is correct that settlements in Gaza and Sinai took years to start, though they came very quickly to the west bank, which happened to be one of the sdurpise aquisitions of 1967.

[gsmoove23]

Eshkol would have under no circumstances been able to convince his government to do such a thing. There were too many bent on absorbing the territories into Israel proper for it to work, not to mention under no circumstances would Israel give up eastern Jerusalem and under no circumstances would the arabs have accepted any deal without it.

[GePap]

Azazel: I do not think that the israeli leadership as a whole (since Israel is a democracy the word of a single leader is not law) wanted to give the West bank back: notice the wrangling over UNSCR 242, and the whole bit about "lands" v "the lands". After 1967, israel intended to keep some territory gained. I do not see many israelis giving up the wailing wall once they had it in hand.

gsmoove23:

Very few leaders in the world ever have "a plan". Most go with the moment. I see evidence in the actions of the israeli leaqdership to point to a plan, anymore than I see one in the leadership of any of the neighboring Arab states.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by GePap
Why? Why did they have to be more forward thinking than say, Nasser when he undertook his little campaign in May 1967?

There are countless times in history when things simply come up, and one either goes for it, ro doesn't. We are also ignoring the realities of time. The aftermath is a span of months, year, not a few days. After all Azazel is correct that settlements in Gaza and Sinai took years to start, though they came very quickly to the west bank, which happened to be one of the sdurpise aquisitions of 1967.

They had to be more forward thinking because the outcome of 67 is something that various leaders, some who were in the cabinet at the time, had been hoping and planning for since before independance.

Settlements came very quickly to the West Bank because that was the most coveted land, no other reason. East Jerusalem was annexed almost imediately and the idea of 'changing facts on the ground' began to be implemented.

[Az]

Settlements in the west bank, esp. Northen Jerusalem (which hardly can be called a settlement ,though it is out of the borders of 67' ) were built, because Israel had always wished for Jerusalem to be unified under it's rule, call it Nationalism, the pinnacle of the Zionist movement, or whatever. For example East Jerusalem was immideately annexed, while the west bank wasn't, showing that the governments (and then it was all the same Labour government, same plan, different people ) wanted it to be a bargaining card against the Jordanians, or whoever they had to bargain against for peace on the eastern frontier. One could claim that they didn't annex the west bank or parts of it due to the large palestinian population. The fact that Israel DID annex arab eastern jerusalem disproves that.

I'd say that Israel would probably move much more swiftly towards encorporating that land if the land was empty, but:
a)if the land would be empty, it wouldn't be wrong, and there would be nothing to discuss.
b) IT WASN'T, and Israel never had any hopes of incorporating it into itself, otherwise, Israel would have annexed the mostly jewish populated settlement blocks, that have a long history of jewish presence.

[Arrian]

The friend played a video of the 1st plane hitting one of the towers on 9/11 and my muslim friend broke out laughing.

He sounds like a real nice guy.

It was hard to reconcile this with who he was. The guy wouldn't hurt a fly(supporting terrorism is one thing, carrying it out is another), was one of the most moral people I knew(regarding anything other then terrorism ) and I would still trust him with my American, western value lovin' life if I had to. Very confusing.

You know, after the bomb goes off, or the 13 yr-old shoots up his school, or whatever, you always see interviews of family and friends saying "he was such a nice, quiet, sweet boy! I can't believe it."

Aside from that, I have found this thread to be a pretty darn good read. I hadn't touched it since I read the initial post, figured it would turn into a Siro/Eli vs. Gnu/Mobius thread and fled. So now I've read 12 pages of people actually trying to debate history with the use of sources, and found it worthwhile. As someone with a History degree, it's nice to see that every so often.

-Arrian

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by GePap
gsmoove23:

Very few leaders in the world ever have "a plan". Most go with the moment. I see evidence in the actions of the israeli leaqdership to point to a plan, anymore than I see one in the leadership of any of the neighboring Arab states.

This is untrue, the Israeli cabinet had a number of plans as any cabinet or administration has at any given moment for any current situation. Best case and worst case scenarios, planning is absolutely necessary though plans do not always work. The best laid plans...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel
Che says that Israel has originally intended to keep all of these lands for good. And onse again, Israel is the evil bastard of a nation trying to fool poor Nasser. I say no.

And yet they annexed the Golan, built settlements in the Sinai and occupied territories. Israel made no moves to leave the Occupied territories until the Intafada. It's hard not to draw the conclusion that Israel planned to be there for a very long time, probably counting on the Arabs to refuse to recognize their existence long enough for the international community to agree that the land should stay with Israel (which wasn't an unreasonable assumption).

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Arrian
He sounds like a real nice guy.

Arrian you're an ass. I didn't tell the story to prove a point, I don't see what point you could prove with one guy. I just wanted to tell the story. What do you do if you become close friends with a person who turns out later to have views you find abhorrent?

[Az]

And yet they annexed the Golan, built settlements in the Sinai and occupied territories. Israel made no moves to leave the Occupied territories until the Intafada. It's hard not to draw the conclusion that Israel planned to be there for a very long time, probably counting on the Arabs to refuse to recognize their existence long enough for the international community to agree that the land should stay with Israel (which wasn't an unreasonable assumption).

Israel annexed the golan in the early 80's, when no breakthrough with syrians was made. Who would the leave the occupied territories to, anyway? they couldn't just leave, since any leadership that would come, would still be bent on the destruction of Israel, and Jordan didn't want any part of it, by then. The Sinai settlements were started in the 70's, not immideately. Israel rejected some offers to peace there, but so did the egyptians? I guess Israel had a moral obligation to jump on any offer the egyptians have gave it.

on a side note, from a clearly pov of utility, Sinai would have been MUCH better off, if it stayed Israeli.

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara And yet they annexed the Golan,

After it was clear that Syria was unwilling to make peace. Israel was willing to gie up the Golan heights in the mid 90s when it appeared there might be some chance of peace.

built settlements in the Sinai and occupied territories.

And dismantled them in exchange for peace.

Israel made no moves to leave the Occupied territories until the Intafada.

I was unaware that the Intifada was in the 70s. Israeli Politicians had been and have been willing to trade land for peace since the late 60s (and indeed, they agreed to Resolution 242, because it promised peace, recognition and security in exchange for land).

About the only land, I think that Israel wasn't willing to discuss was East Jerusalem - until 2000, anyway.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Edan
About the only land, I think that Israel wasn't willing to discuss was East Jerusalem - until 2000, anyway.

East Jerusalem and a large number of settlement blocks throughout the West Bank. Regarding E. Jerusalem Barak only offered a small bit of it and Israel as a whole seemed to be resoundingly against that.

Giving back the Sinai of course served as a way Israeli leaders could fulfill the unclear wording of 242 regarding 'lands'.

[Az]

East Jerusalem and a large number of settlement blocks throughout the West Bank. Regarding E. Jerusalem Barak only offered a small bit of it and Israel as a whole seemed to be resoundingly against that.

those settlement blocks are really not such a large amount, a few percent of the entire territory, and entirely populated by jews. They're in territorial continuity with Israel. STILL, ISRAEL DIDN'T ANNEX THEM.

Giving back the Sinai of course served as a way Israeli leaders could fulfill the unclear wording of 242 regarding 'lands'.

oh, yes, OF COURSE. you seem to know a lot, as all entrenched people seem to do.

a fairly nice piece on the Golan Heights, doesn't fully represnt my views, but it's a nice article.

http://www.mideastinfo.com/archive/paper3.htm

( hardly a paper, but still, some nice reading IMO )

ok, that's it I am off to bed.

[gsmoove23]

Well I guess I got a little snippy with the 'of course'. It certainly wasn't the only reason for the trade.

As for West Bank settlements not offered by Barak, they are not all in continuity with Israel, only a few percent of entire territory if you don't consider large security zones that surround them and they are illegally populated by Jews. No they are not annexed, but they have never been up for offer, and if a deal was signed in which they were allowed to stay they would eventually be annexed.

I love your article. Israeli leaders always seem to be 'confused' by rejection of the supposedly generous offers of leases. I'm not sure what a lease would entail but I assume it would also allow Israeli forces to be maintained in the area? I also like it brushing over the 70,000 that 'fled' Israeli occupation in the Golan and the further 15,000 that 'fled' in 73.

[Arrian]

Arrian you're an ass. I didn't tell the story to prove a point, I don't see what point you could prove with one guy. I just wanted to tell the story. What do you do if you become close friends with a person who turns out later to have views you find abhorrent?

I was reacting to your statement that the guy "wouldn't hurt a fly" and how you his beliefs and his nonviolent nature were difficult to reconcile. All I was saying is that beliefs like that can lead someone who is not by their nature violent to do some pretty violent things. I also tend to react poorly to anyone laughing at 9/11. Forgive me if you think I pounced on your story. I guess I thought you were trying to make a point with it (the bit where he laughed at 9/11 and then you laughed at the prayer call, and everything was a-ok).

As for what I would do if I were friends with someone who had views abhorrent to me, I can only say that I would probably have been done with the guy once he laughed at the plane hitting the tower and told me he supports terrorism. That's where I get off. I have friends with different views than I, one in particular, and we debate things all the time - but there is a point at which you can no longer even have a rational discussion. If I cannot have a rational discussion with someone, I cannot remain their friend.

As for me being an ass, well, you're entitled to think so.

-Arrian

[gsmoove23]

Sorry for the ass thing, just would far prefer some discussion on the story like you did here rather then just writing it off.

I considered punching the guy but I just don't work like that. I had similar experiences in NY where friends of mine started seriously spouting off about killing arabs too. There I decided to let it go because of 9/11 here I decided to let it go because the guy was a palestinian and I'm sure he had his reasons too. Still think the guy could have used a punch in the face though.

[Arrian]

I see. My original post, minus the "nice guy" bit, which I admit was a bit nasty, was intended as a discussion of the story. My second post did a better job of it, though.

I wouldn't have punched him either. I probably would have attempted to ascertain whether or not he felt that civilians were valid targets based upon their citizenship (US, Israeli, whatever). It sounds like he does believe that. Assuming that is correct, I simply wouldn't have had anything more to say to him, as arguing with someone who thinks that way is impossible (see numerous threads involving Cybergnu that deal with that subject).

-Arrian
(off to play some Civ)

[Az]

As for West Bank settlements not offered by Barak, they are not all in continuity with Israel, only a few percent of entire territory if you don't consider large security zones that surround them and they are illegally populated by Jews. No they are not annexed, but they have never been up for offer, and if a deal was signed in which they were allowed to stay they would eventually be annexed.

The settlement blocks ARE in continuity with Israel. get your facts straight. I didn't say that all settlements were, but the blocks, where most of the Israeli population lives are. As to everything else, in a settlement they would be annexed, IF that's what to be agreed.

I love your article. Israeli leaders always seem to be 'confused' by rejection of the supposedly generous offers of leases. I'm not sure what a lease would entail but I assume it would also allow Israeli forces to be maintained in the area? I also like it brushing over the 70,000 that 'fled' Israeli occupation in the Golan and the further 15,000 that 'fled' in 73.

'fled'? do I feel irony in your post? do you claim that they were forcefully removed? Why then there is a non-jewish population in that region? Remind, you the article was written in the mid 90s, and the possible solutions to the crisis were considered. but I guess you don't care much for that. The only reason Syria wants the golan is because "it's theirs". Like a big "up yours, Israel". Not as actually they care what is going on there, as much as their leadership doesn't care for the rest of their country. But heck, If I'd think there would be the possiblity of a stable peace with Syria, without any confrontation from Lebanon as well, I'd give it away. But guess what? That just ain't going to happen.