Please explain the Middle East crisis [Archive]

BrainGlutton

07-21-2006, 03:11 PM

From The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/76) by Mark Twain:

Soon as I could get Buck down by the corn-cribs under the trees by ourselves, I says:

"Did you want to kill him, Buck?"

"Well, I bet I did."

"What did he do to you?"

"Him? He never done nothing to me."

"Well, then, what did you want to kill him for?"

"Why, nothing—only it's on account of the feud."

"What's a feud?"

"Why, where was you raised? Don't you know what a feud is?"

"Never heard of it before—tell me about it."

"Well," says Buck, "a feud is this way: A man has a quarrel with another man, and kills him; then that other man's brother kills HIM; then the other brothers, on both sides, goes for one another; then the COUSINS chip in—and by and by everybody's killed off, and there ain't no more feud. But it's kind of slow, and takes a long time."

"Has this one been going on long, Buck?"

"Well, I should RECKON! It started thirty year ago, or som'ers along there. There was trouble 'bout something, and then a lawsuit to settle it; and the suit went agin one of the men, and so he up and shot the man that won the suit—which he would naturally do, of course. Anybody would."

"What was the trouble about, Buck?—land?"

"I reckon maybe—I don't know."

"Well, who done the shooting? Was it a Grangerford or a Shepherdson?"

"Laws, how do I know? It was so long ago."

"Don't anybody know?"

"Oh, yes, pa knows, I reckon, and some of the other old people; but they don't know now what the row was about in the first place."

Now, imagine a Sheperdson-Grangerford feud where every other family in town took sides, to the point of being ready to kill.

Or, to quote a briefer Southern aphorism: "First, 'twas the Hatfields; and first, 'twas the McCoys. Or maybe 'twas the other way about."

DanBlather

07-21-2006, 04:03 PM

OK, here is my take. Asbestos suit on.

Britain had conolized Palastine. There was a movement called Zionism which advocated creating a Jewish state in the biblical boundaries of Israel. A lot of European jews embraced Zionism and moved back to Palastine. Jews and Arabs lived together in some sort of peace. Nationalist Jews pushed (sometimes violently) for Britain to create a Jewish state. It became too much of a pain in the ass for Britain so they and the UN created a Jewish state and a Palestinian state. The Jews were happy for the most part (Israel was smaller than they wanted), but the Palestinians did not buy into the idea of Britain and the UN deciding their fate. They rejected the two state concept. Eventually Arabs tried to force the Jews out, but they failed miserably. As part of this a large number of Palesinians left Israel so they would not be in the firing line of the war. After the war was over the Israeli's said tough luck, you left voluntarily. It's been downhill since. Palestinians say WTF, how did a bunch of European Jews end up on land we lived on for several thousand years. Jews say that Israel is a legitimate country created by the UN, and if the Palestinians would stop trying to kill them then they could have their own country and everyone could live in peace.

My solution: Say Zionism was a stupid idea, but now that Israel exists lets deal with it. Make Jerusalem an international city ruled by the UN. Roll back Israel's boders to pre-1967 (more or less) and establish a Palestinian state that is massively financed with the money that we would have spent killing each other.

rjung

07-21-2006, 04:16 PM

Make Jerusalem an international city ruled by the UN. Roll back Israel's boders to pre-1967 (more or less) and establish a Palestinian state that is massively financed with the money that we would have spent killing each other.
My humorous variation of this (which I have been touting for years) would be to wall off the whole place and sell it to the Disney Corporation. Everyone living there would be migrated somewhere else (I'm sure there are enough scenic spots in Europe, Australia, and North America to do the job), compensated with funds raised from ticket sales at Disney's Holy Adventure. ;)

Alternately, get all the respective leaders together in a room, and repeatedly bang their heads together until they agree to knock it off.

JohnBckWLD

07-21-2006, 06:05 PM

...Establish a Palestinian state that is massively financed with the money that we would have spent killing each other.According to the The VJL (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/palaid.html) (an admittedly biased source):The Marshall Plan distributed $60 billion (at today’s prices), which worked out to $272 per European in the main participating countries. By contrast, by the end of last year, according to the World Bank, the Palestinians had received $4 billion since Oslo, which translates into $1,330 per Palestinian. In other words, the Palestinians have already gotten more than four times as much as the Europeans got from the Marshall Plan...Sometimes "massively financed" goals don't give buyers the product they assumed they were paying for.

BrainGlutton

07-21-2006, 08:54 PM

Alternately, get all the respective leaders together in a room, and repeatedly bang their heads together until they agree to knock it off.

Actually, that's another good way to model the situation. I'll be the Israelis, you'll be the Palestinians. We have to bang our heads against a brick wall, and whoever stops first loses.

DanBlather

07-21-2006, 08:59 PM

According to the The VJL (an admittedly biased source):Sometimes "massively financed" goals don't give buyers the product they assumed they were paying for.The same source (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html) shows $37B (not in today's dollars) in aid to Israel in the same period.

LonesomePolecat

07-21-2006, 09:42 PM

The Muslims want to kill the Jews. The Jews think they don't deserve to be killed, so the war goes on.

Well, that's pretty much the way it looks to me ...

BrainGlutton

07-21-2006, 10:08 PM

The Muslims want to kill the Jews. The Jews think they don't deserve to be killed, so the war goes on.

Well, that's pretty much the way it looks to me ...

True, but not the whole truth. Historically, Muslims never had much interest in killing Jews until the state of Israel was founded on land they consider the eternally indefeasible territory of Dar al-Islam. Irrational -- but no more so than the attitude of (some) Jews who think the land should be theirs because God promised it to Moses.

BrainGlutton

07-21-2006, 10:10 PM

The same source (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html) shows $37B (not in today's dollars) in aid to Israel in the same period.

That might be unfair, but it doesn't diminish the purchasing power of the much smaller aid package the Palestinians got. (Other factors, internal to the Palestinian community, are at least partly to blame for that.)

Sam Stone

07-21-2006, 10:15 PM

True, but not the whole truth. Historically, Muslims never had much interest in killing Jews until the state of Israel was founded on land they consider the eternally indefeasible territory of Dar al-Islam. Irrational -- but no more so than the attitude of (some) Jews who think the land should be theirs because God promised it to Moses.

In much the same way that the KKK didn't have much interest in lynching blacks - until they got 'uppity'. As long as Jews were happy remaining occasionally-persecuted second class citizens, things were fine. But once they began asserting their rights and demanding their own homeland where they might protect themselves from future gas chambers and genocides, well, they just needed killin', is all.

Thudlow Boink

07-21-2006, 10:16 PM

Well, you see, Sauron made this ring...

Oh. You were asking about the Middle East crisis. Not the Middle Earth crisis. Never mind.

DanBlather

07-21-2006, 10:33 PM

That might be unfair, but it doesn't diminish the purchasing power of the much smaller aid package the Palestinians got. (Other factors, internal to the Palestinian community, are at least partly to blame for that.)By that parentheses saying it was not in today's dollars I wasn't trying to imply that the site was showing bias, I was just too lazy to look further or do the conversion.

BrainGlutton

07-21-2006, 10:37 PM

By that parentheses saying it was not in today's dollars I wasn't trying to imply that the site was showing bias, I was just too lazy to look further or do the conversion.

No, adjustment for today's dollars doesn't matter, I'm sure the Israelis did get a lot more aid than the Palestinians -- but my point was, what the Palestinians did get, largely went to waste, and at least partly because of corruption. How much of that aid wound up in Arafat's Swiss bank accounts, I wonder?

Little Nemo

07-21-2006, 10:43 PM

Britain had conolized Palastine. There was a movement called Zionism which advocated creating a Jewish state in the biblical boundaries of Israel. A lot of European jews embraced Zionism and moved back to Palastine. Jews and Arabs lived together in some sort of peace. Nationalist Jews pushed (sometimes violently) for Britain to create a Jewish state. It became too much of a pain in the ass for Britain so they and the UN created a Jewish state and a Palestinian state. The Jews were happy for the most part (Israel was smaller than they wanted), but the Palestinians did not buy into the idea of Britain and the UN deciding their fate. They rejected the two state concept. Eventually Arabs tried to force the Jews out, but they failed miserably. As part of this a large number of Palesinians left Israel so they would not be in the firing line of the war. After the war was over the Israeli's said tough luck, you left voluntarily. It's been downhill since. Palestinians say WTF, how did a bunch of European Jews end up on land we lived on for several thousand years. Jews say that Israel is a legitimate country created by the UN, and if the Palestinians would stop trying to kill them then they could have their own country and everyone could live in peace.
The couple of items on this timeline are a bit off. Zionism was already an active movement seeking to establish a Jewish homeland before Britain took over Palestine. The UN didn't really create Israel; the British decided the region was too much trouble for them to want so they left - the UN then basically recognized that the area was half full of Jews and half full of Muslims, so they split the country in half. The Muslim attack was more "immediately" rather than "eventually".

BrainGlutton

07-21-2006, 10:44 PM

In much the same way that the KKK didn't have much interest in lynching blacks - until they got 'uppity'. As long as Jews were happy remaining occasionally-persecuted second class citizens, things were fine. But once they began asserting their rights and demanding their own homeland where they might protect themselves from future gas chambers and genocides, well, they just needed killin', is all.

The Muslims would not have had the least little objection to that if said homeland had not been in what they considered Islamic territory. The same territory that had been fought over in the Crusades, and the Muslims still seem to bearing a grudge over that. (Rather petty of them, considering they won, but there you are.)

Jews, in fact, before the 20th Century, generally fared much better in Dar al-Islam than in Christendom. They were dhimmis, infidels under Islamic rule, second-class citizens; but so were Christians and Zoroastrians. There were no anti-Jewish pogroms or genocides, at any rate. Not until Israel was founded.

(Mohammed did, on one occasion, massacre three Jewish tribes that had rebelled against his rule, down to the last child, but he would have treated an Arab tribe the same. It was the rule of his time and place; only way to avoid a multi-generational blood feud. Mohammed actually thought of the Jews as cousins -- they were the children of Abraham through Isaac and Judaism was the right way of worship for them; Arabs were the children of Abraham through Ishmael and Islam was the right way of worship for them. So says Karen Armstrong in Islam: A Short History. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/081296618X/sr=8-8/qid=1153539777/ref=pd_bbs_8/002-9161653-5447225?ie=UTF8))

Loopydude

07-21-2006, 11:39 PM

My solution: Say Zionism was a stupid idea, but now that Israel exists lets deal with it. Make Jerusalem an international city ruled by the UN. Roll back Israel's boders to pre-1967 (more or less) and establish a Palestinian state that is massively financed with the money that we would have spent killing each other.

I think the major problem with this is the Palestinians were given a rather good shot at having the sort of state you describe already, but Arafat flat-out refused, getting hung up yet again on the right of return. As far as I can tell, none of Israel's antagonists will ever really be content with anything short of Israel's complete destruction.

moof12

07-22-2006, 12:01 AM

moof12

07-22-2006, 12:09 AM

[QUOTE=DragonAsh]Isreal & the Hezbollah are going at it, hammer and tongs. All I know is that everyone in the Middle East seems to be mad at everyone else. Could someone please explain to me what the crisis all about, why Isreal always seems to be at the center of it, and why/how the US is (or isn't involved), and/or why we should/shouldn't b

I am suprised on how little the majority of the population knows about a war that has been going on for over a hundred years in which the United States and Great Britian have played integral roles in exacerbating the situation in the Middle East. A short summmary: For 1500 years the Jews have been without their Holy Land, given to them by God himself, Jerusalm (contained in present day Israel.) The Arabs, though historically not native to the region, have lived in Israel and the vast surrouding areas for the last 400 years. Basically the conflcit is that both the Arabs and the Jews want the same land.

Until the end of World War 2, few countries cared about the dispute between the two peoples, but after the news of the atrocities commited against the Jewish peoples in Europe, countries like the United States and England decided that it was right for these millions of displaced Jews with nowhere to go, to have a homeleand to call their own. The great powers decide that the city of Jerusalem should go to the Jews as historically (even stated in the bible) it was their land.

With approval of the United Nations, England sets up a new country called Israel which is formally recignized as a nation by most western nations. Naturally, the Arabs who have been living in the area known has Israel for over 400 years did not agree with the decision to give away their land to the Jews, and so the war begins.

For more info,
read a book :)

Sevastopol

07-22-2006, 12:12 AM

I think the major problem with this is the Palestinians were given a rather good shot at having the sort of state you describe already, but Arafat flat-out refused, getting hung up yet again on the right of return. As far as I can tell, none of Israel's antagonists will ever really be content with anything short of Israel's complete destruction. Some fairly elementary research will show you that neither of these statements represent the true case.

Briefly - the supposed 93% Israel offerred Arafat, retained the vital and necessary resources of the West Bank Israel has taken. Both I and A knew that I's offer guaranteed only a failed state. The purpose of the offer was to generate precisely the public relations line you have repeated.

- Israel's complete destruction; Depends how you measure that. Ethnically cleansed of all the Jewish population? No-one is seriously advocating that.

A democratic and enfranchised state without a mandated religious character? Quite a lot of people are advocating that. If that is "Israel's complete destruction" bring it on!

Bryan Ekers

07-22-2006, 12:32 AM

Briefly - the supposed 93% Israel offerred Arafat, retained the vital and necessary resources of the West Bank Israel has taken. Both I and A knew that I's offer guaranteed only a failed state. The purpose of the offer was to generate precisely the public relations line you have repeated.What, if anything, was Arafat's counter-offer? A reasonable leader who cared about his people would have made one, wouldn't he?Ethnically cleansed of all the Jewish population? No-one is seriously advocating that.I think some people are very seriously advocating that. What Cirque-du-Soleil contortionist definition of "serious" are you using?

Sevastopol

07-22-2006, 12:42 AM

Briefly - the supposed 93% Israel offerred Arafat, retained the vital and necessary resources of the West Bank Israel has taken. Both I and A knew that I's offer guaranteed only a failed state. The purpose of the offer was to generate precisely the public relations line you have repeated.What, if anything, was Arafat's counter-offer? A reasonable leader who cared about his people would have made one, wouldn't he? The question was whether there was a good shot of a Palestinian state. I'm happy to disabuse Loopy' of that notion. Did Arafat behave in an optimal or reasonable manner? Who can say?Ethnically cleansed of all the Jewish population? No-one is seriously advocating that. I think some people are very seriously advocating that. What Cirque-du-Soleil contortionist definition of "serious" are you using? Well perhaps you could refer to some?

Bryan Ekers

07-22-2006, 02:27 AM

The question was whether there was a good shot of a Palestinian state. I'm happy to disabuse Loopy' of that notion. Did Arafat behave in an optimal or reasonable manner? Who can say?
I was kinda hoping you could. I thought you might be able to describe what counterproposals, if any, Arafat made. No matter.
Well perhaps you could refer to some?
Sweeping anti-Jewish rhetoric spoken by Arabs? Gosh, wherever shall I look?

Sevastopol

07-22-2006, 04:13 AM

Sweeping anti-Jewish rhetoric spoken by Arabs? Gosh, wherever shall I look? And such might be sufficient to convince you of serious intentions to Ethnically [cleanse] of all the Jewish population? Because I'm seeing a gulf in the reasoning here. (no pun intended)

Loopydude

07-22-2006, 08:23 AM

The question was whether there was a good shot of a Palestinian state. I'm happy to disabuse Loopy' of that notion. Did Arafat behave in an optimal or reasonable manner? Who can say? Well perhaps you could refer to some?

You've disabused me of nothing, and your intractable anti-Israeli ranting is tedious.

That Clinton and Barak handed Arafat an abortion is conjecture. That the right of return is a complete non-starter is certain. Unless that's off the table, there is nothing to negotiate, because you and I both know full well that it's the end of Israel, either slowly or quickly.

BrainGlutton

07-22-2006, 08:42 AM

For 1500 years the Jews have been without their Holy Land, given to them by God himself . . .

This sentence, is of course, intended ironically.

Please say so.

antechinus

07-22-2006, 08:49 AM

Sage Rat

07-22-2006, 09:10 AM

Personal take:

At one time the middle east was a lush, green growing place and life was good. Then, over the space of a thousand years or four the earth heated up and the area became quite arid. It created a place where dictators could hold land and not need to worry about revolt because you can't hold a revolution if you have to strain just to get the food you need to survive.

Then one day oil is discovered, enriching the dictators to ghastly levels and giving them infinitely more power than just that needed to oversee some desert farmers.

They form alliances and hatreds, and the people of these nations are entirely at the mercy of the government which now has tanks and bombs to their hoes and rakes. The people fear, but are in such fear that they can't even bring themselves to talk poorly of their own dictator. Enterprising individuals see this and turn this frustration and powerlessness and turn it against the people buying the oil saying it is their fault. These enterprising individuals gather followers and became little emperors for only the price of sending off minions every once in a while so they look like they actually care about what they claim to be fighting for.

Into this, the people who are buying the oil establish a nation (Israel) and give them a lot of military support right in the middle of this land full of dictators, oil money, and emperor wannabe terrorist leaders.

BrainGlutton

07-22-2006, 09:21 AM

bolding mine
I thought that the European jews were escaping persecution in Europe after WWI and then again during WWII and escaping the nazi holocaust. What do you mean move back? I may be wrong, but could you provide a cite. You are not refering to the biblical (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_035b.html) exodus (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mtentribes.html) are you? Or is in reference to returning after resistance by the Ottomans in the late 1880s when jews started immigrating to the region?

Seconded. Please clarify. If you mean reversing the Diaspora following (and, in fact, largely preceding) the last Jewish revolt against Rome, that's bullshit. "Law of Return," indeed! Jews can no more go "back" to Palestine than American Indians can go "back" to Siberia or Gypsies to India.

DanBlather

07-22-2006, 11:33 AM

Seconded. Please clarify. If you mean reversing the Diaspora following (and, in fact, largely preceding) the last Jewish revolt against Rome, that's bullshit. "Law of Return," indeed! Jews can no more go "back" to Palestine than American Indians can go "back" to Siberia or Gypsies to India.Yes, I meant reversing the diaspora. The Jews who "returned" were many, many generations removed. I tried to be as neutral as possible. Whether or not that is BS is for readers to decide. I tend to think that Zionism is a mistake.

RaftPeople

07-22-2006, 12:24 PM

This sentence, is of course, intended ironically.

Please say so.

I was hoping so also. The beauty of that quote by moof12 is that, (based on information from my mother's bible study class) God basically gave them the green light to remove whoever was there already. Can't remember the exact quote.

shizaru

07-22-2006, 12:49 PM

Well, you see, Sauron made this ring...

Oh. You were asking about the Middle East crisis. Not the Middle Earth crisis. Never mind.

Ok, Damn, that was funny! Seriously, I laughed out loud and spit beer! Good one. Do ya mind if I use it as a joke in my comic strip? Cuz that was a good one.

Thudlow Boink

07-22-2006, 02:23 PM

Do ya mind if I use it as a joke in my comic strip? Cuz that was a good one.Um, yeah, okay, go ahead.

BrainGlutton

07-22-2006, 02:30 PM

I was hoping so also. The beauty of that quote by moof12 is that, (based on information from my mother's bible study class) God basically gave them the green light to remove whoever was there already. Can't remember the exact quote.

It's not a quote, it's the whole Book of Joshua. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Joshua)

Sevastopol

07-22-2006, 06:07 PM

You've disabused me of nothing, and your intractable anti-Israeli ranting is tedious.

That Clinton and Barak handed Arafat an abortion is conjecture. That the right of return is a complete non-starter is certain. Unless that's off the table, there is nothing to negotiate, because you and I both know full well that it's the end of Israel, either slowly or quickly.

There is nothing intractable or ranting about anything I've posted. Each post has been a model of decorum. The facts as to the 93% claim are well established and it is surprising to hear them challenged.

I don't believe the "right of return" was in fact the sticking point and in any case how would such a thing be the end of Israel? As per above, if that meant a popularly enfranchised democratic state, bring it on.

Bryan Ekers

07-22-2006, 06:24 PM

Just out of curiosity, did Arafat ever float the idea of compensation for seized lands?

BrainGlutton

07-22-2006, 06:30 PM

I don't believe the "right of return" was in fact the sticking point and in any case how would such a thing be the end of Israel? As per above, if that meant a popularly enfranchised democratic state, bring it on.

That would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Not immediately, perhaps, but in one or two generations. Still the best thing, IMO.

Sevastopol

07-22-2006, 06:39 PM

Quick google search. Finding this:Discussions led by US President Clinton at Camp David, Maryland, in July 2000 between the PLO and Israel’s Labour Prime Minister Ehud Barak saw Arafat willing to make more concessions than under Oslo, including allowing Israel to annex the most densely populated Jewish settlements and even limitations on the right to return, in favour of compensation from an international fund. Not a site I would particularly rely on (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/nov2004/araf-n12.shtml) but the quoted text rings true enough.

Brainglutton My point being that end of Israel as a Jewish state, while a plainly desirable outcome, does not mean: The end of Israel.

Sam Stone

07-22-2006, 06:44 PM

Brainglutton My point being that end of Israel as a Jewish state, while a plainly desirable outcome, does not mean: The end of Israel.

Plainly desirable to everyone except, you know, the Jews.

Tough luck for them, huh?

Sevastopol

07-22-2006, 06:47 PM

Plainly desirable to everyone except, you know, the Jews.

Tough luck for them, huh? What makes 'the Jews' so special that they should have a nation committed to their religion?

BrainGlutton

07-22-2006, 06:50 PM

What makes 'the Jews' so special that they should have a nation committed to their religion?

Nothing, but "Jewish" is an ethnic/national identity as well as a religious one, and the modern state system is partly a result of the 19th-Century movement of nationalism, the idea that every nation should have its own state.

BrainGlutton

07-22-2006, 06:53 PM

Plainly desirable to everyone except, you know, the Jews.

Tough luck for them, huh?

Most Jews live outside Israel, and while most of those have a deep emotional investment in Israel, it is not their country and its existence really is nothing to them in practical terms. Jews in America aren't suddenly going to start being persecuted or marginalized just because they no longer have Israel to flee too. In fact, anti-semites would rather they all go to Israel.

Sevastopol

07-22-2006, 06:55 PM

Nothing, but "Jewish" is an ethnic/national identity as well as a religious one, and the modern state system is partly a result of the 19th-Century movement of nationalism, the idea that every nation should have its own state. But not at the cost of an apartheid whereby a majority of the governed people are excluded from the political process, denying them the right to self-determination. So we are back to the 1 State/ 2 State question. It is the familiar path:

- 2 State - the withdrawl of West Bank settlements to allocate resources to Palestine: or
- 1 State - expansion of the current Israeli 'borders' to include and enfranchise the Palestinian population.

Both rational and reasonable solutions are unacceptable to present day Israel.

Bryan Ekers

07-22-2006, 06:58 PM

What makes 'the Jews' so special that they should have a nation committed to their religion?
If I may dare to Godwinize the thread (though I'm not sure if citing a relevant fact rather than hyperbolic analogy does so), within living memory there have been pogroms and systematic exterminations. Whether or not it happens to be in the Middle East, I can see why there is a justification for a well-defended Jewish state somewhere.

I think the Kurds deserve to carve out an autonomous state in Northern Iraq, as well. If Canada starts engaging in gas attacks on Trois-Rivieres, I guess I'll become a separatist, too.

Sam Stone

07-22-2006, 07:01 PM

What makes 'the Jews' so special that they should have a nation committed to their religion?

Let me ask - are you in favor of all the Islamic states being converted to secular countries and the abolishment of Sharia law?

Israel may be a Jewish state, but it's a modern democracy that allows people to practice any faith they want. It allows personal practices that are abhorrent to Orthodox Jews, on the principles of political tolerance and freedom that guide other modern democracies. The Jewish religion takes a back seat to modern jurisprudence in Israeli law.

Would that the Islamic world was even half as tolerant. And yet it's only the Jewish state that seems to be such an affront to certain types of secularists.

Sevastopol

07-22-2006, 07:03 PM

If I may dare to Godwinize the thread (though I'm not sure if citing a relevant fact rather than hyperbolic analogy does so), within living memory there have been pogroms and systematic exterminations. Whether or not it happens to be in the Middle East, I can see why there is a justification for a well-defended Jewish state somewhere.

I think the Kurds deserve to carve out an autonomous state in Northern Iraq, as well. If Canada starts engaging in gas attacks on Trois-Rivieres, I guess I'll become a separatist, too. Well if the reason be historical, let the nation be history too.

There a few bigger fans of an autonomous Kurdistan than I. In fact the need is much greater than for either Israel at any time, or Palestine now. There are 30 million Kurds you know. The ill-dealing they have suffered at the hands of the UK and the US is astounding. However, it is not an issue where the giant engines of disinformation are in play, or correspondingly the need for gentle correction of opinions is present.

Sevastopol

07-22-2006, 07:07 PM

Let me ask - are you in favor of all the Islamic states being converted to secular countries and the abolishment of Sharia law? As much should be evident from the principles I have advanced. However, I'm not sure there are many or indeed any states which observe Sharia Law. That said, if democracy produces Sharia Law, I'm not sure it is for me to argue.

Israel may be a Jewish state, but it's a modern democracy that allows people to practice any faith they want. It allows personal practices that are abhorrent to Orthodox Jews, on the principles of political tolerance and freedom that guide other modern democracies. The Jewish religion takes a back seat to modern jurisprudence in Israeli law.

Would that the Islamic world was even half as tolerant. And yet it's only the Jewish state that seems to be such an affront to certain types of secularists. It is not the religiosity per se. It is the apartheid, excluding the conquered/governed people from the political process - because they do not conform to the particular ethnicity.

BrainGlutton

07-22-2006, 07:20 PM

But not at the cost of an apartheid whereby a majority of the governed people are excluded from the political process, denying them the right to self-determination. So we are back to the 1 State/ 2 State question. It is the familiar path:

- 2 State - the withdrawl of West Bank settlements to allocate resources to Palestine: or
- 1 State - expansion of the current Israeli 'borders' to include and enfranchise the Palestinian population.

Both rational and reasonable solutions are unacceptable to present day Israel.

True. WRT 2, it is unacceptable to the Israelis at least party because the Israelis don't trust the Palestinians, once they've been granted independence, to give up the fight to drive the Jews into the sea and take over all of Canaan.* And with an open border to Jordan, no longer patrolled by the IDF, the Palestinians would be in a better position to build up their strength and prepare for the next war. I personally think the Israelis would have little to fear from a fully independent Palestine, as I've explained in other threads, but I can at least understand the Israelis' POV on this point. They have been surrounded by enemy states and fighting for their very survival as a nation at all times since before the state of Israel even was founded.

Also, even if the Israelis pull out of the OTs mostly, they still don't want to withdraw west of the Green Line, because that would require evacuating their West Bank settlements -- an idea almost politically impossible to sell in Israel, as I understand it; which is why they're building their Wall well to the East of the Green Line and, in the process, appropriating a lot of the best territory.

*The most neutral name for the country -- and IMO the one to be preferred when discussing all the territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan.

Sevastopol

07-22-2006, 07:30 PM

Also, even if the Israelis pull out of the OTs mostly, they still don't want to withdraw west of the Green Line, because that would require evacuating their West Bank settlements -- an idea almost politically impossible to sell in Israel, as I understand it; which is why they're building their Wall well to the East of the Green Line and, in the process, appropriating a lot of the best territory. Even though renouncing the West Bank settlements is the right thing to do. And as you note, 'appropriating' * the best territory, the wrong.*The most neutral name for the country -- and IMO the one to be preferred when discussing all the territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. Noted.

*stealing.

BrainGlutton

07-22-2006, 07:41 PM

In any case, let's try to remember that the purpose of this thread is supposed to be to explain the crisis, not to justify or condemn any party's actions.

I'm dreaming, aren't I?

Bryan Ekers

07-22-2006, 07:45 PM

Well if the reason be historical, let the nation be history too. It's not that historical. There are survivors still milling about and the destructive social movements that climaxed in WW2 didn't evaporate in 1945.
In fact the need is much greater than for either Israel at any time, or Palestine now.
At any time? We'll have to disagree on that, since the need was pretty dire in, say, 1939. It would have been nice if the ~950 passengers of the SS Saint Louis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Saint_Louis) had had a guaranteed safe destination.
The ill-dealing they have suffered at the hands of the UK and the US is astounding.
Let's not forget, y'know, Iraq. :D

Sorry, BrainGlutton.

BrainGlutton

07-22-2006, 07:50 PM

There are survivors still milling about and the destructive social movements that climaxed in WW2 didn't evaporate in 1945.

But in the MENA, they never happened in the first place.

antechinus

07-22-2006, 08:05 PM

Plainly desirable to everyone except, you know, the Jews.

Tough luck for them, huh?

I think you will find that many jews (http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/)do not like the idea of a jewish state.

Bryan Ekers

07-22-2006, 08:05 PM

But in the MENA, they never happened in the first place.
Yes, you're right. Obviously Jews aren't safe in Europe (with its history) but they are safe in the Middle East (which lacks that same history). Clearly, every European Jew should go to Israel immediately.

Facetiousness aside, I personally prefer the idea of Israeli-built schools (including trade schools) in the surrounding areas aimed mostly at educating and empowering women. It could end up surrounding Israel with a buffer zone of Arabs who have something to protect and are less likely swayed by demagogues. Then you give property owners M-16s and tell them that if they don't want Israel to (in its own defense) blow up their date orchard, they should shoot any Hezbollah thug who thinks it'd be cool to launch rockets into Israel from the back 40.

Not a perfect solution, to be sure, but I find the image satisfying. :D

Little Nemo

07-22-2006, 08:42 PM

Sevastopol, I do have to say that I find your scenario a little disingenous. Israel is currently approximately 80% Jewish and 20% Muslim - obviously the culture is going to be slanted towards the majority religion (the same that the United States is slanted towards Christianity and Egypt is slanted towards Islam and Japan is slanted towards Buddhism). But I feel that the Muslims in Israel is doing reasonably well for a minority population. Do you honestly believe that if the numbers were reversed and the country had a population was 80% Muslim and 20% Jewish that the Jewish minority would be treated as well?

Bryan Ekers

07-22-2006, 09:40 PM

excluding the conquered/governed people from the political process
Doesn't that happen in every other state in the region, regardless of ethnicity? If anything, Israeli Arabs have it better than most.

I mean, if defending democracy is your goal, shouldn't you create a list of all the nations in the Middle East and rate them according to the number of abuses, and act accordingly?

Just curious, as always.

DragonAsh

07-23-2006, 06:35 PM

Well, this thread has been very interesting. It's a bit comforting to know that even people who know a whole lot more about what's going on...don't really know what's going on ;)

Will have to do a bit more reading. One more question - Isreal and the US are supposed to be allies - why? What's in it for the US?

Loopydude

07-23-2006, 06:42 PM

There is nothing intractable or ranting about anything I've posted. Each post has been a model of decorum. The facts as to the 93% claim are well established and it is surprising to hear them challenged.

Again, the guarantee of a failed state is conjecture.

And again, Barak made an offer. Arafat threw right of return back at them and walked away, having made no counteroffer. That was, effectively, the end of the ME peace process. Whether or not you or I think Barak's offer was reasonable is really quite moot when all parties know full well the right of return issue is DOA. Fair or not, that's the reality. If the Palestinian side won't budge on that issue, there's really nothing to discuss, and negotiations are little more than a charade. I see no evidence whatsoever that Arafat was interested in anything more than political theater, having never renounced the portions of the PLO charter which would effectively remove the nation of Israel, nor bent one inch on the right of return. It's an impossible goal so long as Israel exists, everyone knew it, and hence the entire exercise was doomed to fail before it started. I put the blame squarely on Arafat and the rest of the Palestinian leadership, who, apparently, were willing to take nothing over something if it means Israel continues to exist, and made the failure of even the hope of a Palestinian state a certainty.

BrainGlutton

07-23-2006, 07:43 PM

Will have to do a bit more reading. One more question - Isreal and the US are supposed to be allies - why? What's in it for the US?

1. American Jews are (mostly) highly sympathetic to Israel, and as a group they are prosperous, hard-working, well-educated, and influential.

2. Many in the religious-conservative community support Israel for (highly disturbing) reasons of their own. (See Christian Zionism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism)) And in the past three decades, religious conservatives have found ways to exercise political influence far out of proportion to their very considerable numbers.

3. It is strategically and politically useful to the U.S. to have at least one ally in the MENA that is a prosperous, militarily strong democracy and which is very beholden to the U.S.

4. Since we have some general consciousness of the Holocaust, and since all of Israel's neighbors have tried so many times to gang up on Israel and destroy it, in America we have long thought of the Israelis as the "good guys," and it's part of our popular political culture to side with the good guys.

Can't think of a fifth reason.

Little Nemo

07-23-2006, 07:49 PM

Can't think of a fifth reason.
If we don't support Israel, the Jews who control the media will cancel the upcoming season of Lost.

Sam Stone

07-23-2006, 11:13 PM

1. American Jews are (mostly) highly sympathetic to Israel, and as a group they are prosperous, hard-working, well-educated, and influential.

2. Many in the religious-conservative community support Israel for (highly disturbing) reasons of their own. (See Christian Zionism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism)) And in the past three decades, religious conservatives have found ways to exercise political influence far out of proportion to their very considerable numbers.

3. It is strategically and politically useful to the U.S. to have at least one ally in the MENA that is a prosperous, militarily strong democracy and which is very beholden to the U.S.

4. Since we have some general consciousness of the Holocaust, and since all of Israel's neighbors have tried so many times to gang up on Israel and destroy it, in America we have long thought of the Israelis as the "good guys," and it's part of our popular political culture to side with the good guys.

Can't think of a fifth reason.

How about because Israel is a modern democracy with civil rights, a well functioning economy, and people who are very much like us? You might as well ask why we are allied with Japan, or Britain, or many of the former Soviet countries who are now moving towards NATO.

Historically, Israel was critically important to the U.S. because most of the Arab countries sided with the Soviet Union during the cold war. This is also the source of our strong 'friendship' with Saudi Arabia, despite the mischief they've gotten into lately.

And speaking as a person who grew up in a fundie Christian community, I can tell you that the honest affection for Israel has little to do with the belief in the imminent second coming. What I learned in church is that the Jews are God's chosen people, and as such they didn't need to come to Jesus for salvation like everyone else did. People in the church also recognized that the Jews had been great stewards of Christian relics and holy sites, and that the Arabs were not. Jews may not be Christians, but they are fellow travelers. The Arabs were often seen as the enemy, the people who would like to kill Christians and Jews or turn them into second class citizens. That alone made Jews and Christians allies.

BrainGlutton

07-23-2006, 11:58 PM

How about because Israel is a modern democracy with civil rights, a well functioning economy, and people who are very much like us?

Comes under (3).

You might as well ask why we are allied with Japan, or Britain, or many of the former Soviet countries who are now moving towards NATO.

Likewise comes under (3), except that WRT most of the former Soviet republics, "democracy" does not apply (but strategic/political advantage still does).

Historically, Israel was critically important to the U.S. because most of the Arab countries sided with the Soviet Union during the cold war. This is also the source of our strong 'friendship' with Saudi Arabia, despite the mischief they've gotten into lately.

Fifteen years after the Cold War ended, I would hope we would have learned the folly and shame of that kind of thinking!

But hopes are often disappointed . . .

And speaking as a person who grew up in a fundie Christian community, I can tell you that the honest affection for Israel has little to do with the belief in the imminent second coming. What I learned in church is that the Jews are God's chosen people, and as such they didn't need to come to Jesus for salvation like everyone else did.

:dubious: You do realize, don't you, that the latter makes not one more whit of sense than the former?!

Sam Stone

07-24-2006, 01:38 AM

I never said it made any sense. But the claim that fundamentalist Christians support the Jews because they think Jews are a critical cog in an imminent judgement day is just a little less - charitable. The people in the community I grew up with had a genuine affection for the Jewish people. There was nothing 'strategic' about it. They believed that they were people of God, and that they were good and just people. Pilgrimages to Israel were common, and therefore there was plenty of contact between Jews and the community, and it was always good.

rjung

07-24-2006, 04:19 PM

How about because Israel is a modern democracy with civil rights, a well functioning economy, and people who are very much like us?
So it's okay to blow up A-rabs 'cuz they're different? :dubious:

BrainGlutton

07-24-2006, 04:23 PM

07-24-2006, 04:46 PM

How about because Israel is a modern democracy with civil rights, a well functioning economy, and people who are very much like us?

So it's okay to blow up A-rabs 'cuz they're different?

:rolleyes:

Sam claims (in easily understood english) support Israel because they are like 'us'. This could be a debatable point (though I agree its a factor myself). How does this statement in any way say its ok to blow up Arabs...for whatever reason? Answer? I'll leave it to other imagination as to why you would post a one liner like that here...

(as a point of interst, are we allowed to say 'troll' in GD now...or is that only in the Pit?)

-XT

BrainGlutton

07-24-2006, 04:50 PM

:Sam claims (in easily understood english) support Israel because they are like 'us'. This could be a debatable point (though I agree its a factor myself). How does this statement in any way say its ok to blow up Arabs...for whatever reason?

Easy. Taking sides as between Israel and the Arabs inevitably involves blowing up Arabs, or at least condoning it when Israel does.

Malthus

07-24-2006, 05:00 PM

Malthus

07-24-2006, 05:02 PM

Easy. Taking sides as between Israel and the Arabs inevitably involves blowing up Arabs, or at least condoning it when Israel does.

Or, looked at differently, involves recognizing the legitimate right of Jews to defend themselves from attack.

It is all in how you phrase it. ;)

RedFury

07-24-2006, 05:35 PM

Or, looked at differently, involves recognizing the legitimate right of Jews to defend themselves from attack.

And great "defenders" they are!

Fleeing civilian vehicles hit by Israeli missiles (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-2282992,00.html)

WITH an expression of utmost calm on her blood-masked face, the woman allowed herself to be gently lowered from the minibus into the waiting arms of two Lebanese Red Cross volunteers.

The rescue workers had extracted her through a jagged hole in the roof of the crumpled bus, created by a missile fired minutes earlier by an Israeli helicopter that had blasted the vehicle off the road. Left behind in the vehicle, slumped over each other and soaked in blood, were the bodies of three people.

The narrow roads that meander through the valleys and undulating chalky hills east of Tyre were a place of terror and death yesterday as Israeli helicopters attacked civilian vehicles fleeing Israel’s 11-day onslaught in south Lebanon.

Dr Ahmad Mrowe, director of the Jabal Amel hospital in Tyre, said: “Today is the day of the cars. It has been very bad.”

By early evening, the Jabal Amel hospital alone had received 41 wounded, most of them serious, according to hospital sources, all thought to be civilians seeking refuge north of the Litani river after heeding Israeli warnings to leave the area.

The stricken minibus was hit along a road cut into the side of a steep valley beyond Siddiqine village, where Israeli artillery shells exploded in thick, dirty, white plumes of smoke and dust.

One man, his face half torn off by a missile, sat in his seat, his yellowing hand hanging from the window.

Beside him, covered in the dead man’s blood, a woman moved slightly back and forth.

<snip>

An officer with the UN peacekeeping force in south Lebanon said that the Israelis had told them they would not hinder cars travelling north on the main roads.

But the evidence yesterday suggested that cars were being attacked regardless of their occupants and direction of travel.

DSeid

07-24-2006, 06:21 PM

So DragonAsh, the answer is "No. No one here can explain the ME conflict ... without succumbing to political grandstanding anyway."

Try http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm for a fairly balanced historical overview, though.

My short answer:

Jews, despite being kicked out of the region nearly two thousand years previous, had both always maintained a presence in palestine and never relinquished their claim To them it was always the homeland. End of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century they began in small numbers moving into Palestine. Palestine was at that point a region of the Ottoman Empire inhabited by a variety of Arab groups in fairly small numbers. Where Jews moved in, Arabs moved in as well, as Jews brought with them investments and jobs. Problems really began when certain elements of the Arab leadership of the time saw, in these Jews, an opportunity for personal political hay, and began to stoke up fear of this "other" for personal purposes. most notorious of these was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalum, who spearheaded quite a few riots and massacres before joining up with the Nazis. Some Jewish elements fought back and some choose to go the route of reprisals. There were early self-defense groups and early Zionist terroist groups both. Jewish immigration increased of course during HaShoah.

I suspect you know about the promises made by Britain ... suffice it to say that a small Israel was born and that Arabs of the region left. It is a mattter of debate as to how much they left at encouragement of Arab leaders and how much they were "encouraged" none too gently by Zionist interests. Meanwhile no debate an equal number of Jews were forced out of Arab lands.

Arab leadership did not absorb the refugees nor create a Palestine out of the areas then controlled. It served leadership to keep the refugees there and to keep the conflict up. Israel turned out o be a tough nut to beat though, and what was possibly originally felt to be a short-term starage issue until the whole region was Arab, turned into a persistent issue, as multiple wars failed to destroy Israel.

The Six Day War changed the dynamic. Arab governments gave up destroying Israel, but were still well served by maintaining a conflict with an "other". They refused to recognize or to negotiate with Israel but also gave up the fight to beat her. Israel made the same mistake with the refugees that early Arab leadership made: they assumed that this was a short-term situation until arab leadership came around and appeased elements within the country by building settlements. Big mistake, IMHO, both ethically (annex or don't; if not then you are stewards serving the interests of the occupied.) and strategically. Palestinians (for that is what this previously ragtag mixed bag of Arabs had become, a distinct identity) went into the terror tactic resistence mode. Israel ceased being the underdog and became the big dog.

Throughout too many seperate groups have had their self-interests served by keeping the conflict alive and Palestinians have been manipulated throughout, to this day. now it is not that the big governments need the ditraction of the other to rally against to distract away from their own despotic ways, but that Islamist fundamentalists need a boogeyman to rally people against modernity and the West with.

Peace is ill-served by trying to make up for percieved past injustices, accurate or fictional. Someday the planets will align and each side will have leaders that care more about a shared future of mutual benefit than short term gain or revenge for what they think is the past. When Jupiter aligns with Mars.

07-24-2006, 06:33 PM

Easy. Taking sides as between Israel and the Arabs inevitably involves blowing up Arabs, or at least condoning it when Israel does.

I think I'll pull a patented rjung one liner and simply say: Horseshit.

-XT

BrainGlutton

07-24-2006, 06:34 PM

Irrational, but with a slight difference - the irrationality of (some) religious Zionists does not require killing the other off.

It does if the "other" insists on living on the West Bank.

WindFish

07-24-2006, 06:35 PM

The situation is very complicated. To me, it's oversimplifying to consider Israelis as European colonists and Arabs in Israel as having no rights. Israeli Arab citizens participate in the democracy. Sure, they have "second class citizen" problems but so do Sephardic or "oriental" Jews in Israel.

And those non-Eurpoean Jews came from Arab lands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands), Africa, and the Soviet Union. The Palestinian demand for right of return or compensation -- I wonder if the same benefit would apply to Iraqi or Syrian or Yemini Jews who had to flee their homes?

There's also a lot of cultural clashes. Tolerance of "humiliation" is viewed much differently in Western (including Israeli) culture and the Arab and Muslim culture. In the West, we wonder why didn't Arafat come with a counter-offer at Wye? To some part, it's because the initial offer from the Israeli side was "humiliating". It's tough for us in Western cultures to understand (I don't think I really understand it very much myself).

BrainGlutton

07-24-2006, 06:36 PM

Or, looked at differently, involves recognizing the legitimate right of Jews to defend themselves from attack.

[shrug] Which necessarily involves blowing up Arabs. A "legitimate" explosion is still an explosion.

Least Original User Name Ever

07-25-2006, 12:24 AM

http://www.ajds.org.au/intifada/bargwarti.htm Simple isnt it.

Little Nemo

07-25-2006, 10:33 AM

Simple isnt it.
What I read is that every time a deal is offered to the Palestinians, they're in a worst position than they were the last time and less is being offered. Leaving aside any issues of "fairness" you'd think they'd see the direction of the trend and try to stop it.

Loopydude

07-25-2006, 01:02 PM

What I read is that every time a deal is offered to the Palestinians, they're in a worst position than they were the last time and less is being offered. Leaving aside any issues of "fairness" you'd think they'd see the direction of the trend and try to stop it.

That's my general feeling as well. My prediction is they'll be left with pretty much nothing in the end, largely because they cannot accept, right or wrong, that Israel isn't going anywhere for a very long time, and nothing will change that.

Hampshire

07-25-2006, 01:19 PM

The "holy" land that they both claim they deserve and will fight till the end of time for needs to be dealt with in the same way my mother dealt with my brother and I when we both wanted the same toy. Neither of us could have it and she destroyed it.
They need to evacute everyone from the land and then make it inhabitable in some way.
Then give the jews some place that nobody wants anyway, like NewJersey.

BrainGlutton

07-25-2006, 03:52 PM

They need to evacute everyone from the land and then make it inhabitable in some way.

I think you mean uninhabitable.

Dirty nukes might do the trick.

Or is there any way to, well, flood and permanently submerge everything between the Mediterannean and the Jordan?

clairobscur

07-26-2006, 05:42 AM

[QUOTE=moof12 The Arabs, though historically not native to the region, have lived in Israel and the vast surrouding areas for the last 400 years. [/QUOTE]

Arabs *are* native to the region. Do you believe that the people living in the arab world all descend from the members of a handful of arabic tribes and that the huge populations living previously in the fertile crescent, in Egyptia, Mesopotamia, north-Africa, etc.. vanished into nothingness? "Arabs" in Palestine or anywhere else for the most part descend from the populations who had been living there or moving there in the past, both before and after the Arab conquest. They adopted (and/or participated in the creation of) an arab culture, they converted to Islam, but they aren't newcomers in the sense white american people, for instance, are.

Besides, the arab conquest took place 1300 years ago, not 400 years ago.

Least Original User Name Ever

07-26-2006, 09:11 AM

I do not see all these complications as relevant until they address one point. For generations the Palestinians occupied a land area. The powerful Jewish politiiians in the world got the UN to get the land turned over to people not living there. The residents were rounded up ,mistreated and evicted. For some reason they feel wronged. You must be able to empathise with that. No matter wahat side of the Zionist caldculus you acccept or reject ,in your heart you must understand that someone got screwed big time.
They continue to be screwed to this day. The Israelies have had ample time to set things right. I do not see them trying. They armed themselves to the teeth(actually the US did) and got aggressive. Argue whether or not they had to become a nasty aggressive state if you wish. But ,in my mind the Palestinians got screwed out of their homeland. And Israel has become a bad neighbor.

FinnAgain

07-26-2006, 10:05 AM

Virtually none of that is accurate, unfortunately.

The land was not turned over to 'people not living there'. It was partitioned along ethnic majority lines, and to begin with, the local Arab populace didn't own a majority of the territory anyways. Whether or not you want to blame the laws which governed land ownership under the Turks and the British, most of the land still wasn't owned by the people who would later become known as Palestinians.

For the most part, the residents -were not- 'rounded up and evicted'. Some were, indeed, especially during the Siege of Jerusalem. Others fled, both because of Arab propaganda/orders, the actions of Arab 'irregulars', the violence by groups like the Stern Gang, etc... For the most part, however, the exodus was not at the point of the sword. Such bombastic and untrue claims serve nothing.

The Israelis have made numerous offers of righting things. Original UN resolutions called for either resettlement or compensation. The Israelis built houses for the Palestinians, and other nations (and various Palestinian militant groups) either refused to allow people to move out of the refugee camps, or actually murdered those who tried.

Israel suggested that it might absorb upwards of 100,000 refugees, and negotiate for compensation for others, but the offer was refused as it would mean recognizing the state of Israel's right to exist. At the Refugee Conference in Homs Syria in 1957, the Arab participants adopted a resolution stating "Any discussion aimed at a solution of the Palestine problem which will not be based on ensuring the refugees' right to annihilate Israel will be regarded as a desecration of the Arab people and an act of treason."

Israel has also suggested that, as there were a comprable number of Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries at the same time, that the Arab nations might help to absorb the Palestinan refugees, while Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees. For the most part, the Arab nations not only refused to absorb them, but set up laws creating an official policy of discrimination against them, forbidding them employment in many circumstances, for instance.

The phrase "The Arabs are willing to fight to the last drop of Palestinian blood is spilled" is not entirely innacurate.

Israel has made offers of absorbing refugees, has absorbed tens of thousands, and offered back the lion's share of the 1967 gains in exchange for peace. They were met with the Three Noes.

If you don't see the Israelis trying, then you're ignoring the actual history of the region.

In addition, their original military buildup was without the US' help. If you're curious, The Pledge by Leonard Slater is a good place to start. It's also innacurate to say that Israel 'got aggressive'. They've fought a series of defensive wars against nations which since pre-1948 have had stated genocidal goals. Since '48, of course, the US has taken part in arming Israel. But to declare that they're the aggressors is, simply, to ignore reality in favor of rhetoric.

The Palestinians could have had their homeland in 1948. There would be no refugees, and there would've been two functional states living in peace and prosperity since 1948.

I'll leave it up to you do ask yourself who declared war on whom, what effect that had on the region, and who the actual agressors have been in every major war there. I'll also leave it up to you to do some actual reading on Israeli peace initiatives and cooperation with their neighbors, rather than claiming that Israel has been a 'bad neighbor' to those regimes which've been trying to drive them into the sea for decades.

Malthus

07-26-2006, 11:27 AM

It does if the "other" insists on living on the West Bank.

Are you saying that to be a Zionist, one *must* kill Arabs living on the West Bank? :dubious:

Seems they have been doing a piss-poor job of it. In spite of ruling the place for decades with overwhelming military force, they have somehow failed to institute a general massacre.

Least Original User Name Ever

07-26-2006, 11:41 AM

Who declared war on who. Their lands were in their minds taken away. You say an opportunity was given to then to sanction the land grab. They would then have been granted some kind of acceptance. Nice deal.
The Iraelies have been extremely agressive. They even sent their secret police into foreign lands ,without permission and kidnapped old Natzis. They violated national integrity. However their superiort understanding of right and wrong makes such acts permissable. They even spy on their allies like the US.

BrainGlutton

07-26-2006, 11:45 AM

Are you saying that to be a Zionist, one *must* kill Arabs living on the West Bank? :dubious:

I wouldn't say that, but some Dopers (usernames escape me) have indeed asserted in GD that you can't be a good Zionist if you don't insist on an Israeli West Bank ("Judea and "Samaria" being, after all, the real core territory of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah), meaning the Arabs have got to go sooner or later.

BrainGlutton

07-26-2006, 11:57 AM

Some radical Israeli nationalists, BTW, go even further and claim Israel should include all the territory of the empire of King David. I recall reading in the Washington Post, during the 1982 Israeli intervention in Lebanon, that some Israelis were distributing leaflets with maps of that ancient kingdom, including Lebanon, and asserting a historic Israeli claim to it.

That's the problem with "historical claims" to territory. They always overlap with other groups' historical claims.

FinnAgain

07-26-2006, 12:02 PM

I notice that you have now abandoned most of your original claims, and are trying to change the subject instead.

Who declared war on who.

Well, it could either be the ones who declared war, or the ones who had war declared upon them. Could go either way.

Their lands were in their minds taken away.

"In their minds?"
We've done this debate to death, both in the Pit and GD. The did not own the land that was 'taken'. Again, we can blame that on the legal structure of the Ottoman Empire, or the British Empire, but disingenously claiming that the actual ownership of the land doesn't matter if something different was "in their minds", and using that to deliberately ignore who actually started a war isn't exactly a good debating practice.

Or can I attack people if I claim I own something that I don't, too? And then say that they're the one who attacked me? Well, I mean, I can say it, but do you really expect someone who knows the facts to be convinced?

You say an opportunity was given to then to sanction the land grab.

Sorry, no, you imagined that. Or can you cite, anywhere, where I said that? Can't, can you? You are, perhaps, disingenously claiming that a 'land grab' occured when land that didn't belong to them in the first place was partitioned?

Or are legal property rights now 'in people's heads'?

They would then have been granted some kind of acceptance. Nice deal.

I have no idea what this means.
But it does seem that you've taken the 'in their minds' rhetoric, which ignores actual land ownership, and you've used that to spin the issue into some strange chimera about 'land grabs' and 'some kind of acceptance'.

Please explain how land owned by the Ottoman Empire and British Empire was, actually and legally, owned by those who you claimed it was 'grabbed' from. Claiming that they had something in their heads isn't exactly a land deed, now is it?

The Iraelies have been extremely agressive.

The fact that you keep repeating it doesn't make it true. Nor does your willful ighnorance of who the actual aggressors in the numerous wars of the region make your screed true.

They even sent their secret police into foreign lands ,without permission and kidnapped old Natzis.

Which Arab countries, exactly, did they do this to?
And while we're at it, are we supposed to feel sympathy for the butchers because they were 'old' when they were captured? That those who avoided justice were 'kidnapped' rather than being captured and forced to pay for their crimes against humanity?

They violated national integrity.

If this is your standard for 'aggression', spying or covert ops against war criminals? Ignoring the fact that you've now deliberately shifted the goalposts away from supposed 'aggression' towards their neighbors, your logic would still label every nation on earth as 'aggressive' towards every other one. Which, of course, robs the word of any meaning at all. Not exactly a useful definition.

They even spy on their allies like the US.

This is proof of what... exactly? Do you honestly think that nations don't spy on their allies? Do you think we don't spy on Israel? But, even if we take this definition of 'aggression' as a valid definition, one that robs the word of any contextual meaning, you still have ignored your original claims in favor of changing the subject.

Such sleight of hand doesn't exactly prove your point.

I wouldn't say that, but some Dopers (usernames escape me) have indeed asserted in GD that you can't be a good Zionist if you don't insist on an Israeli West Bank ("Judea and "Samaria" being, after all, the real core territory of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah), meaning the Arabs have got to go sooner or later.

Are you sure that's what it means? Have there been any plans on saying that the Arab citizens of Israel, some of whom serve in the Knesset, have 'got to go sooner or later'?

Even if we are to take as gospel the claim that 'some dopers' have advanced such a position, how does that answer Malthus' challenge about the definition of the word "Zionist"?

Some radical Israeli nationalists, BTW, go even further and claim Israel should include all the territory of the empire of King David.

Does a 'radical' serve as a good indicator of the mainstream of a movement?

canadian

07-26-2006, 12:50 PM

Does a 'radical' serve as a good indicator of the mainstream of a movement? Depends, as always, what movement is being discussed. But the general principle is, if it's your enemy, then yeah. Otherwise, if it’s a movement you identify or side with, then hell, no. Since your conclusions are made up long time ago, exercise such as this (i.e. discussing on this forum) just comes as confirmation and strengthening rather than exploration and discovery.

07-26-2006, 01:03 PM

FinnAgain, your post #86 was a hell of a good summary of events. Having posted similary things in the past though, I can say that though you are fighting the good fight, its probably in vain. You are attempting to fight with facts against entrenched 'gut feelings' and decades of revisionist history...well, that and pure ignorance in a few posters. Its like attempting to fight a bunch of buzzing flies with a hammer...by the time you nail one, two more have sprung up.

Still, I wanted you to know your efforts are appreciated. I've been following you in the various threads dealing with this recent flare up...and I think you've done a masterful job. FWIW.

-XT

Malthus

07-26-2006, 01:19 PM

I wouldn't say that, but some Dopers (usernames escape me) have indeed asserted in GD that you can't be a good Zionist if you don't insist on an Israeli West Bank ("Judea and "Samaria" being, after all, the real core territory of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah), meaning the Arabs have got to go sooner or later.

Seems pretty thin to me. Why not rely on what the Israelis have actually *done*, rather than some genocidal assumptions concerning hot air blown by some unnamed persons on an Internet chat board?

Looks to me like there is no real debate within Israel itself. Israel has recently withdrawn from the Gaza Strip, has plans to do the same from the WB. I don't see any real plans in the works for an expansion of the type you are talking about.

There are quite legitimate beefs about the Israeli handling of their relations with Palistinians. In particular, the Israelis are using Palistinian instragence as an excuse to clip off some prime pieces of territory for their own state. But hyperbolic accusations of genocidal intent just make those complaining of Israeli or Zionist actions or intentions appear absurd.

Fact is, there is no "equivalence" of the sort you appear to imply between the Zionists and their enemies. This does not make the Zionists 100% right in every self-interested action they do, obviously, but I certainly believe that "self defence against genocide" is a more legitimate form of violence than "attempt to commit genocide".

FinnAgain

07-26-2006, 01:27 PM

FinnAgain, your post #86 was a hell of a good summary of events.

Awww shucks, thank you kindly.

Having posted similary things in the past though, I can say that though you are fighting the good fight, its probably in vain.

Probably right, all things considered. I'm hopeful that, at least here in GD, I can craft my arguments well enough to at least get a coherent point of view presented to members of the Peanut Gallery.

You are attempting to fight with facts against entrenched 'gut feelings' and decades of revisionist history...well, that and pure ignorance in a few posters. Its like attempting to fight a bunch of buzzing flies with a hammer...by the time you nail one, two more have sprung up.

A very good analogy. I do get tired of refuting the same claims over, and over, and over again. But hey, I've got a thing for lost causes. I want peace in the middle east, after all.

Still, I wanted you to know your efforts are appreciated. I've been following you in the various threads dealing with this recent flare up...and I think you've done a masterful job. FWIW.

Worth quite a bit. I've gotten little other than abuse most of the time, and it's a bit of sunshine to see that my efforts are appreciated. Thank you kindly.

Least Original User Name Ever

07-26-2006, 04:26 PM

I notice that you have now abandoned most of your original claims, and are trying to change the subject instead.

Well, it could either be the ones who declared war, or the ones who had war declared upon them. Could go either way.

"In their minds?"
We've done this debate to death, both in the Pit and GD. The did not own the land that was 'taken'. Again, we can blame that on the legal structure of the Ottoman Empire, or the British Empire, but disingenously claiming that the actual ownership of the land doesn't matter if something different was "in their minds", and using that to deliberately ignore who actually started a war isn't exactly a good debating practice.

Or can I attack people if I claim I own something that I don't, too? And then say that they're the one who attacked me? Well, I mean, I can say it, but do you really expect someone who knows the facts to be convinced?

Sorry, no, you imagined that. Or can you cite, anywhere, where I said that? Can't, can you? You are, perhaps, disingenously claiming that a 'land grab' occured when land that didn't belong to them in the first place was partitioned?

Or are legal property rights now 'in people's heads'?

I have no idea what this means.
But it does seem that you've taken the 'in their minds' rhetoric, which ignores actual land ownership, and you've used that to spin the issue into some strange chimera about 'land grabs' and 'some kind of acceptance'.

Please explain how land owned by the Ottoman Empire and British Empire was, actually and legally, owned by those who you claimed it was 'grabbed' from. Claiming that they had something in their heads isn't exactly a land deed, now is it?

The fact that you keep repeating it doesn't make it true. Nor does your willful ighnorance of who the actual aggressors in the numerous wars of the region make your screed true.

Which Arab countries, exactly, did they do this to?
And while we're at it, are we supposed to feel sympathy for the butchers because they were 'old' when they were captured? That those who avoided justice were 'kidnapped' rather than being captured and forced to pay for their crimes against humanity?

If this is your standard for 'aggression', spying or covert ops against war criminals? Ignoring the fact that you've now deliberately shifted the goalposts away from supposed 'aggression' towards their neighbors, your logic would still label every nation on earth as 'aggressive' towards every other one. Which, of course, robs the word of any meaning at all. Not exactly a useful definition.

This is proof of what... exactly? Do you honestly think that nations don't spy on their allies? Do you think we don't spy on Israel? But, even if we take this definition of 'aggression' as a valid definition, one that robs the word of any contextual meaning, you still have ignored your original claims in favor of changing the subject.

Such sleight of hand doesn't exactly prove your point.

Are you sure that's what it means? Have there been any plans on saying that the Arab citizens of Israel, some of whom serve in the Knesset, have 'got to go sooner or later'?

Even if we are to take as gospel the claim that 'some dopers' have advanced such a position, how does that answer Malthus' challenge about the definition of the word "Zionist"?

Does a 'radical' serve as a good indicator of the mainstream of a movement?
You downplay them spying on their allies./ Its not just the US its that we have made them possible. They owe us a lot. We deserve better. I found it disrespectful of a country that has sent billions there.
Standard for agression. let me see maybe 2 soldiers kidnapped in a raid. Answer more thab 2 weeks of bombing. Destroying the infrastructure and killing the innocent. Maybe some guily .if so unproven. the innocents are provable.
Do the Indians have a claim for most of our lands. I makes no sense at all unless you are disposed to accept everything on one side and reject all claims on the other.
In their minds is what we would feel if our land was taken. Forinstance the community seized it for emminent domain. and gave it to a company to make profits on it. You could justify it as right,but the land owner would feel his rights
were usurped. He would know who it really belonged to.
Your site is above. #76 I think.

Little Nemo

07-26-2006, 06:47 PM

They even sent their secret police into foreign lands ,without permission and kidnapped old Natzis.
What's the world coming to when you can't even pick on the Nazis anymore without somebody complaining?

Bryan Ekers

07-26-2006, 06:57 PM

What's the world coming to when you can't even pick on the Nazis anymore without somebody complaining?
Well, they're victims of the Jews, too. Just ask 'em.

Little Nemo

07-26-2006, 07:23 PM

Maybe, but they were going into foreign countries without permission and taking away the Jews years before the Israelis started doing it back on them.

FinnAgain

07-26-2006, 07:30 PM

You have now totally and completely abandoned any pretense of defending your claims of Israeli 'aggression' towards its neighbors, as well as many of your other arguments. You've simply attempted to change the subject rather than addressing it.

If you refuse to debate the very points you are claiming, I'll simply ignore the rest of your posts in this thread until you change your actions. I think we could both agree that's quite fair. After all, if you don't want to debate your own points, why should I?

You downplay them spying on their allies./ Its not just the US its that we have made them possible. They owe us a lot. We deserve better. I found it disrespectful of a country that has sent billions there.

The local football team called.
Evidently their goalposts have been moved to an entirely different state and they're curious what info you have for them.

You start with claims that spying = aggression, and then reduce your claim, without ever admitting any form of mistake, to a claim of spying = disrespect?

And I'm curious, do you think we don't spy on our allies? Do you think we don't spy on Israel?

Standard for agression. let me see maybe 2 soldiers kidnapped in a raid.

Ignorant of the concurrent rocket attacks targeted against civilians, the fact that attacking military targets is an act of war, or deliberately ignoring those facts in order to make a disingenuous rhetorical point? Ditto for Lebanon's governmental complicity in the arming of Hezbollah.

And by the way, as long as we're not aiming to butcher the English language, you might as well use words with their accepted definitions (http://merriamwebster.com/dictionary/aggression). If you're using the third defintion, virtually a synonym for 'violence', then you've robbed the word 'aggression' of its most useful meaning, and reduced it to mere fluff.

All you would have ended up saying is: "Israel responds with violence to violence directed at it." Shocking. Truly.

Answer more thab 2 weeks of bombing.

And here you'd think that attacks against Israeli civilians and the Israeli military would be a casus belli. Who knew that when a country starts a war with you, you can't bomb them.

Destroying the infrastructure and killing the innocent.

What's that you say, Israel's bombs don't have the ability to avoid innocents? Hezbollah guerillas hiding in dense civilian areas don't somehow make sure that when they're attacked they don't involve the people living around them?

While I'm at it, were the Allies the aggressors in WW II? After all, they killed innocents.

As for valid targets of war, here I thought that targets such as roads, airports, bridges, etc... were all valid if attacked for reasons of military necessity... like stopping the flow of men and weapons to Hezbollah.

Do the Indians have a claim for most of our lands.

Do false analogies prove anything?

I makes no sense at all unless you are disposed to accept everything on one side and reject all claims on the other.

Of course that's the only way it could make sense. Not if someone actually knows about history and the events that actually happened.

And, of course, you haven't accepted everything on 'side' says, deliberately ignoring actual history and rejecting all the claims the other 'side' has made... claims based on pesky facts.

In their minds is what we would feel if our land was taken.

You keep using that phrase. What on earth do you think it proves? "In their minds?" So? In my mind, I'm the King of the Moon. I suppose that, with that being the case, the US landing a space ship on my sovereign lunar surface is an act of war.

Right?

If I start killing US soldiers and they use force on me, they're the aggressors, right?

Forinstance the community seized it for emminent domain. and gave it to a company to make profits on it.

Could I interest you in an analogy that isn't obfuscative? Or, better yet, as analogies are always suspect, how about we discuss the actual issue? Novel concept, I know.

Yet again, as you keep ignoring it: the Palestinians did -not- own the majority of the land. Did not. Nuh-unh. Nopers. Not. No.

You could justify it as right,but the land owner would feel his rights
were usurped.

Again, what 'rights' do non-owners of land have to own the land? Can you provide something other than evasion?

Your site is above. #76 I think.

What on earth are you talking about?

Least Original User Name Ever

07-27-2006, 12:45 AM

Bryan Ekers

07-27-2006, 01:18 AM

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/ I must have made this up too. The Israelis are apparently blameless in the problems and I just cant understand that. There are American made munition dropping in Lebanon and its a one sided slaughter. I can not feel good about it.
From that cite:Hartford Web Publishing is not the author of the documents in World History Archives and does not presume to validate their accuracy or authenticity nor to release their copyright.
That doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Interesting how the title of that compiation says it's a history of Israeli aggression from 1967 onward but neglects to mention the Yom Kippur War (which started with a sneak attack by Egypt and Syria) in 1973.

07-27-2006, 02:29 AM

Did you try clicking on any of the links in that so called history? Click on the one labled "The history of the Six-Day War, June 1967". One would presume that this would take you to a discussion ABOUT the 6-Day war, some background about the conflict, maybe some facts (or even fiction) about what actually transpired. At least I would presume so. But no. It takes you to 3 links entitled: "USS Liberty: Did Israel commit one war crime to hide another? ", "Truths about the Six-Day War: U.S. CIA & military secretly helped Israelis" and "Twists and turns of standoff". These links lead to further bullshit.

This site is so blatantly anti-Israeli that its fairly sickening to even dig through it. Its no wonder that L.O.U.N.E is spouting what s/he has been spouting in this (and other related) threads of this kind if THIS is the tripe s/he has been reading.

Interesting how the title of that compiation says it's a history of Israeli aggression from 1967 onward but neglects to mention the Yom Kippur War (which started with a sneak attack by Egypt and Syria) in 1973.

I'm sure the site found that even THEY couldn't spin the Yom Kippur war in such a way as to make the Arabs look good and the Israeli's look bad. So...it was just inconvinent for them to include it on their wonderful web site. L.O.U.N.E. has probably never heard of the conflict and thinks you made it all up...you evil person you!

Here is a cite discussing the Yom Kippur War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War) if L.O.U.N.E is interested. Here is a brief section discussing the events leading up to the war:

Events leading up to the war

Anwar Sadat in 1972 publicly stated that Egypt was committed to going to war with Israel, and that they were prepared to "sacrifice one million Egyptian soldiers." From the end of 1972, Egypt began a concentrated effort to build up its forces, receiving MiG-21s, SA-2, SA-3, SA-6 and SA-7 Surface-to-air missiles (SAM), RPG-7s, T-55 and T-62 Tanks, and especially the AT-3 Sagger anti-tank guided missile from the Soviet Union and improving its military tactics. Political generals, who had in large part been responsible for the rout in 1967, were replaced with competent ones.

The role of the great powers, too, was a major factor in the outcome of the two wars. The policy of the Soviet Union was one of the causes of Egypt's military weakness. President Nasser was only able to obtain the material for an anti-aircraft missile defense wall after visiting Moscow and pleading with the Kremlin leaders. He claimed that if supplies were not given, he would have to return to Egypt and tell the Egyptian people Moscow had abandoned them, and then relinquish power to one of his peers who would be able to deal with the Americans. The Americans would then have the upper hand in the region, which Moscow could not permit.

One of Egypt's undeclared objectives of the War of Attrition was to force the Soviet Union to supply Egypt with more advanced arms and war materiel. Egypt felt the only way to convince the Soviet leaders of the deficiencies of most of the aircraft and air defense weaponry supplied to Egypt following 1967 was to put the Soviet weapons to the test against the advanced weaponry the United States supplied to Israel.

Nasser's policy following the 1967 defeat conflicted with that of the Soviet Union. The Soviets sought to avoid a new conflagration between the Arabs and Israelis so as not to be drawn into a confrontation with the United States. The reality of the situation became apparent when the superpowers met in Oslo and agreed to maintain the status quo. This was unacceptable to Egyptian leaders, and when it was discovered that the Egyptian preparations for crossing the canal were being leaked, it became imperative to expel the Russians from Egypt. In July 1972 Sadat expelled almost all of the 20,000 Soviet military advisors in the country and reoriented the country's foreign policy to be more favorable to the United States.

The Soviets thought little of Sadat's chances in any war. They warned that any attempt to cross the heavily fortified Suez would incur massive losses. The Soviets, who were then pursuing détente, had no interest in seeing the Middle East destabilized. In a June 1973 meeting with U.S. President Richard Nixon, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev had proposed Israel pull back to its 1967 border. Brezhnev said that if Israel did not, "we will have difficulty keeping the military situation from flaring up"—an indication that the Soviet Union had been unable to restrain Sadat's plans (Rabinovich, 39).

In an interview published in Newsweek (April 9, 1973), President Sadat again threatened war with Israel. Several times during 1973, Arab forces conducted large-scale exercises that put the Israeli military on the highest level of alert, only to be recalled a few days later. The Israeli leadership already believed that if an attack took place, the Israeli Air Force would be able to repel it.

Almost a full year before the war, in an October 24, 1972, meeting with his Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, Sadat declared his intention to go to war with Israel even without proper Soviet support (Rabinovich, 25). Planning was done in absolute secrecy—even the upper-echelon commanders were not told of war plans until less than a week prior to the attack, and the soldiers were not told until a few hours beforehand. The plan to attack Israel in concert with Syria was code-named Operation Badr (the Arabic word for "full moon").

It really illustrates those peace loving Arabs...in contrast to those aggressive and warmongering Israeli's.

The Israelis are apparently blameless in the problems and I just cant understand that. There are American made munition dropping in Lebanon and its a one sided slaughter.

Couple of points about the whole 'one sided slaughter' thing. First point is...so what? As has been pointed out to you numerous times, Israel didn't start the conflict. If I go up and kick a guy who is bigger and stronger than me in the nuts, why would I be surprised if he then comes over and kicks my ass?? Second point being...where do you get the impression its 'one sided'? HB is putting up quite a fight from what I've been reading...and THEY are tossing rockets into Israel (indiscriminately at civilian targets btw...they aren't even pretending to target only military targets). From what I read today several IDF soldiers were killed just today attempting to take out a HB command post.

The other points I want to make is...appearently you CAN'T understand whats really going on, based on the numberous threads you have attempted to trot out your line of BS in. It really is more complex than you seem to understand.

As to US munitions being used...so what? Iranian, Chinese, Russian, etc munitions are ALSO being used (from various sources). You don't seem to be bitching about THAT little fact.

I can not feel good about it.

I'll let you in on a little secret...NO ONE feels good about this (well, maybe the good folks over at HB do...and there are probably some Iranians who aren't exactly wringing their hands in misery over events as well). Even the Israeli's aren't exactly jumping for joy over whats going on. But there comes a time when enough is enough, when just one more attack breaks the ole dromedaries spine. Hezbollah has finally pushed things to that point, and Israel is no longer willing to let things slide, or go back to the status quo. The only acceptable solution (from their perspective) is for HB to be removed completely from southern Lebanon. If the Lebanese want to end this thing they are going to HAVE to deal with that...one way or the other. There are several nations who are poised to help them remove HB from southern Lebanon...by force if necessary. But its going to be up to the Lebanese to decide if they really want peace...or not.

-XT

07-27-2006, 02:40 AM

Just for drill, here is a decent history of the 6-Day war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War) (same Wiki source)...since the one you provided L.O.U.N.E doesn't actually TALK about the 6-day war (in any meaningful way).

Here is another brief blurb about the reasons for the war:

Main reasons for the war
For Egypt, the 1956 Suez War was a military defeat but a political victory. Heavy diplomatic pressure forced Israel to withdraw its military from the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, UNEF, to keep that border region demilitarized and prevent guerrillas from crossing the border into Israel. As a result the tense situation on the border between Egypt and Israel gradually diminished. The war's aftermath saw the region return to an uneasy balance without any real resolution of the region's difficulties. At the time, no Arab state had recognized Israel.

Syria began sponsoring guerilla raids into Israel in the early 1960s as part of its "people's war of liberation"[citation needed], designed to deflect domestic opposition to the Baath Party. Israel and Syria also had an ongoing dispute about water and territorial rights along their 1949 cease-fire line. On April 7, 1967, a minor border incident escalated into a full-scale aerial battle over the Golan Heights, resulting in the loss of six Syrian MiG-21s to Israeli Air Force (IAF) Dassault Mirage III, and the latter's flight over Damascus. Other border incidents in which Israel and Syria exchanged artillery, tank and aircraft fire increased the tensions along this front. The Israeli government was under heavy pressure to put an end to Syrian shellings of border villages.

On May 18, 1967, Egypt formally requested the withdrawal of UNEF from Sinai. UN Secretary-General U Thant complied, thus removing the international buffer which had existed along the Egyptian-Israeli border since 1957. Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser then began the re-militarization of the Sinai, and concentrated tanks and troops on the border with Israel.

On May 22, Egypt announced that the Straits of Tiran would be closed to "all ships flying Israel flags or carrying strategic materials", with effect from May 23.[10] Israel viewed the closure of the Straits with alarm and demanded the US and UK open the straits as they guaranteed they would in 1957. Harold Wilson's proposal of an international maritime force to quell the crisis was adopted by US President Johnson, but received little international support. The Israeli cabinet met on May 23 and decided to wait 48 hours for the Tiran straits to be reopened before launching a pre-emptive strike, as well as sending Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister Abba Eban to Washington to meet with President Johnson. The US administration insisted that Israel allow more time for a diplomatic solution to be reached, and warned Israel not to attack. A similar message was received in Israel from the Soviet Premier, Alexey Kosygin, and the Israeli cabinet decided on May 28 to wait an additional two weeks before taking further action[11].

In his speech to Arab trade unionists on May 26, Nasser announced: "If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle will be a general one... and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel."[12]

On May 30, Jordan signed a five-year mutual defensive treaty with Egypt, thereby joining the military alliance already in place between Egypt and Syria. Jordanian forces were placed under the command of Egyptian General Abdul Munim Riad. This put Arab forces just 17 kilometres from Israel's coast, a jump-off point from which a well coordinated tank assault would likely cut Israel in two within half an hour. Such a coordinated attack from the West Bank was always viewed by the Israeli leadership as a threat to Israel's existence. On the same day, Nasser proclaimed: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations."[13]

At the same time, several other Arab states not bordering Israel, including Iraq, Sudan, Kuwait and Algeria, also began mobilizing their armed forces.

On the evening of June 1, Israeli minister of defense Moshe Dayan called Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin and the GOC, Southern Command Brigadier General Yeshayahu Gavish to present plans to be implemented against Egypt. Rabin had formulated a plan in which Southern Command would fight its way to the Gaza Strip and then hold the territory and its people hostage until Egypt agreed to reopen the Straits of Tiran while Gavish had a more comprehensive plan that called for the destruction of Egyptian forces in the Sinai. Rabin favored Gavish's plan, which was then endorsed by Dayan with the caution that a simultaneous offensive against Syria should be avoided.[14]

Newly declassified documents reveal that the United States of America had worked feverishly behind the scenes attempting to "hold the Israeli tiger" in the days leading up to war. The Johnson Administration received guarantees from Egypt that it would not strike first and arranged a diplomatic visit from Egyptian envoy Zakaria Mohieddin who was scheduled to depart on June 6, 1967. The diplomatic cable stated "we hope it will be possible for him to come without delay" and there were high hopes in the Johnson Administration that the visit would lead to the end of the crisis.

On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria

Enjoy! :p

-XT

Sevastopol

07-27-2006, 08:01 AM

How about because Israel is a modern democracy with civil rights, a well functioning economy, and people who are very much like us? You might as well ask why we are allied with Japan, or Britain, or many of the former Soviet countries who are now moving towards NATO.

Historically, Israel was critically important to the U.S. because most of the Arab countries sided with the Soviet Union during the cold war. This is also the source of our strong 'friendship' with Saudi Arabia, despite the mischief they've gotten into lately.

And speaking as a person who grew up in a fundie Christian community, I can tell you that the honest affection for Israel has little to do with the belief in the imminent second coming. What I learned in church is that the Jews are God's chosen people, and as such they didn't need to come to Jesus for salvation like everyone else did. People in the church also recognized that the Jews had been great stewards of Christian relics and holy sites, and that the Arabs were not. Jews may not be Christians, but they are fellow travelers. The Arabs were often seen as the enemy, the people who would like to kill Christians and Jews or turn them into second class citizens. That alone made Jews and Christians allies. This is all very richly anecdotal for which thanks are due. The tiniest of quibbles is that it does not particularly respond to the question; which was:
Will have to do a bit more reading. One more question - Isreal and the US are supposed to be allies - why? What's in it for the US?Bolding added.

What indeed? Perhaps the easier response is to contemplate the losses to the US should its relationship with Israel terminate.

I must confess to finding a list of such measurable demerits a little difficult to compose. Fortunately there are many voices here with more creative power than I presently command.

Jackmannii

07-27-2006, 08:11 AM

What's in it for the US?What indeed?Not a difficult question to answer. On practical grounds, promoting and protecting democracy in the Middle East as an example for other area nations with minimal freedoms is surely in the American interest.

Gaining insight into effective anti-terrorist activities from a nation that has had to learn to cope with them for decades is also valuable. Israeli intelligence (Mossad) has shared information with their counterparts in the U.S. and other countries and given warning about movement of terrorists out of the region.

Noone Special

07-27-2006, 08:21 AM

What's in it for the US?
It gives the US a (generally) reliable ally and toehold in the region (you do realize that 6th fleet ships often use Haifa port for R&R and supplies) -- At, what cost in US soldiers' lives? Yes, I thought it was zero.
Compare to Iraq.

It also gives the US a only-very-slightly-roundabout way of subsidizing the American arms industry (you do realize that nearly all the $1.8 B Israel gets every year must be spent as $$ in the US, don't you?)
Again -- cost to US taxpayers is, at most (if you ignore the fact that most of it is used to buoy US industries, provide American jobs, etc...), $1.8B a year. Actually, as I said, probably a lot less (if not a net gain for the US economy)
Again, compare to Iraq.

And this is all just hard-nosed, bottom-line stuff, not even bringing up wishy-washy concepts such as Democracy, Western ideals, freedom, friendship...

Sevastopol

07-27-2006, 08:31 AM

I completely agree with the subsidy to the US arms industry. OTOH the US has plenty of reliable allies in the region, so I can't give you that one. Had Israel contributed troops to Iraq, then the point would be sound.

But most of all you are correct to repudiate Jackmannii's wishy-washy stuff. Overall though, I'm more and more convinced the better way to think it through is just as I've outlined above.

BrainGlutton

07-27-2006, 09:24 AM

Here's (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060731/nasrallah_game) an article speculating on why Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, decided, after things were relatively quiet for so long, to start lobbing shells into northern Israel, precipitating a predictable military response. The author thinks Nasrallah is partly just rendering service to his backers in Iran and Syria, but mainly, he acted out of desperation to prevent Hezbollah in Lebanon from being disarmed and reduced to just another political party.

Thing Fish

07-27-2006, 01:10 PM

In response to the OP, the best short history of the conflict that I am aware of that does not attempt to demonize either side is Healing Israel/Palestine by Rabbi Michael Lerner, available from www.tikkun.org (http://www.tikkun.org) .

I have been having trouble posting to this thread for some reason, so I will try to post this now and, if successful, will return with some of my own thoughts.

Thing Fish

07-27-2006, 01:48 PM

Ah, there it goes. I think Dseid 's post #74 is a good brief summary of the relevant history. I would stress, however, that the vast majority of the Jews who immigrated from Europe to Palestine in the pre-State period did so not because they were inflamed with Zionist ideology and just decided to leave their homes and go steal other people's land, but because they were fleeing from discrimination and in many cases the very real threat of violent death. (and those who were Zionist ideologues at that time were much more likely to be secular socialists than religious zealots, btw). The notion that they were vicious imperialists enabled by "powerful Jewish politicians around the world" (which country exactly was it that had numerous Jews in positions of high political power in the late Forties?) is just a canard bordering closely on anti-Semitism.

Finnagain 's long post somewhere in the mid-80s is a generally accurate overview of the way in which cynical Arab governments (and, more recently, radical Islamist movements) have manipulated the pan-Arab and pan-Muslim sentiments of their people to focus their anger at the oppressors of the Palestinians while being distracted from their own corrupt and dictatorial governments; meanwhile, they make no effort to actually contribute constructively to the resettlement of Palestinian refugees.

LOUNE 's link in #79 provides a cogent analysis from the Palestinian perspective of the shortcomings of Israel's negotiation posture. For the last 35 years, even while occasionally negotiating with Palestinian leaders, Israeli governments of all parties have continued to condone the settlement of Jewish civilians in the territory occupied in 1967, in clear violation of international law. Recently, Israel has built its "separation wall" largely on Palestinian land, furthering the de facto annexation of much of the West Bank. To be clear, I am not saying that Israel does not have the right to maintain as much of a military presence in the Occupied Territories as it deems necessary to protect its citizens, nor that it does not have the right to build a wall for that purpose -- but it does not have the right to permanently annex that territory, nor to settle civilians there. Even after the recent evacuation of Gaza, the settlements in the West Bank continue to grow, making Israel's alleged commitment to peace look extremely dubious.

The outline of the ultimate solution is clear, though getting there will be politically complicated. There will be a Palestinian state encompassing most of the land occupied by Israel in 1967; any alteration of the borders will be arrived at through a process of genuine mutual negotiation, not unilateral "generous offers". The right of Palestinians who fled Israeli territory in 1948 to return to Israel will be recognized; however, since Israeli Jews will (justifiably) never accept becoming a minority in their own country, financial compensation will have to be offered to those choosing not to return, such that very few of them will actually choose to return (and such compensation should also be offered to Jews forced out of Arab countries around that time). Almost certainly, an international peacekeeping force will be required to enforce this agreement for many years; if we see how difficult it has been for the posters on this thread, who presumably have no direct connection to the conflict, to treat each other respectfully, how much less should we expect the people who have actually fought each other for so many years to arrive at a position of mutual trust and respect within a short time! But I still hold out optimism in the long run; who would have believed a hundred years ago that France and Germany would be in a mutually agreed-upon economic union and no longer find it necessary to fortify their mutual border?!

Malthus

07-27-2006, 03:20 PM

Thing Fish

07-27-2006, 03:40 PM

Least Original User Name Ever

07-27-2006, 03:44 PM

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Editorials/2003 Editorials/May-August 2003/Israeli aggression in the past and present, By Hassan El-Najjar and Michael Bokerelli.htm Every incidense you will reject. I will of course have to see you as a reasonable observer. I have no dog in this fight. Im not jewish or arab. I want to see peace in the middle east. I think Isralies contribute to the unrest. How any one can find them blameless and reject every counter case I dont know.

Bryan Ekers

07-27-2006, 04:47 PM

I think Isralies contribute to the unrest. How any one can find them blameless and reject every counter case I dont know.
Well of course, they contribute. Rather actively contribute, too. Most of the time, they're not the ones who start it, though, and they've made the largest number of attempts to end it.

I assumethis (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Editorials/2003%20Editorials/May-August%202003/Israeli%20aggression%20in%20the%20past%20and%20present,%20By%20Hassan%20El-Najjar%20and%20Michael%20Bokerelli.htm) is the link you were trying for (Al Jazeera editorial from 2003 on Israeli aggression, past and present). In the article, Michael Bokerelli asks some questions and Hassan El-Najjar (I don't know who either of these men are, by the way) answers them. Notably (relevant excerpts taken):

Bokerelli: I would just like to ask you to explain yourself when you use the terms Israeli agression [sic] and israeli [sic] wars. I certainly hope you are not referring to the War of Independance [sic], the 6-Day War, the Yom Kippur War, and the War of Attrition. These wars were all declared on Israel but the Arab world, not the other way around.

Hassan: The 1948 war, which you describe as the war of independence and I describe as An-Nakba (the Calamate or the Disaster), is the original example of Israeli aggression. By the end of that war...

Hassan relabels the 1948 war but ignores who actually started it. Further, he describes all military actions of Arabs as being merely reactive to earlier Israeli actions. This is very convenient, since his earliest cite of proto-Israeli aggression goes as far back as 1897, and from this, apparently, all 20th-century Arab attacks can be justified.

If I could do so without violating the SDMB policy on copyright, I'd copy and paste (with attribution) the entire article and invite analysis of Hassan's remarks. I'm willing to bet they wouldn't stand up to careful factual scrutiny.

Captain Amazing

07-27-2006, 04:56 PM

OTOH the US has plenty of reliable allies in the region, so I can't give you that one. Had Israel contributed troops to Iraq, then the point would be sound.

I don't think the US really wanted Israel to contribute troops to Iraq. Israel did provide intelligence support, though, and there's some evidence that Israel is training anti-insurgent Kurdish forces in Northern Iraq.

Sevastopol

07-28-2006, 05:03 AM

I don't think the US really wanted Israel to contribute troops to Iraq. Israel did provide intelligence support, though, and there's some evidence that Israel is training anti-insurgent Kurdish forces in Northern Iraq. Makes for an interesting sort of alliance doesn't it? When exactly has Israel contributed troops to a US war or cause?

By intelligence support I assume you mean: "Keeping quiet so as not to be a wet blanket."

Are there still no takers on the challenge to list the losses to the US should its relationship with Israel terminate? Perhaps I've underestimated my own powers of creation.

FRDE

07-28-2006, 05:50 AM

I completely agree with the subsidy to the US arms industry. OTOH the US has plenty of reliable allies in the region, so I can't give you that one. Had Israel contributed troops to Iraq, then the point would be sound.

Years ago, Israeli friends of mine told me that Israeli scouts helped out in the first Gulf War

Since quite a lot of Israelis are of Iraqi origin, one can be pretty sure that they have made themselves useful.

It would be a bit tactless broadcasting it though.

Another amusing thing I was told, is that when going undercover in Gaza or the West Bank, they would use spray on beard stubble.

Malthus

07-28-2006, 10:32 AM

In a perfectly just world, Israel would compensate the Palestinian refugees (or their descendants) and the Sephardim would be compensated by the governments of the countries they fled from. In reality, I think this compensation is going to have to come from some sort of international fund. Israel probably can't afford to pay out the required sums by itself (and I will admit ignorance when it comes to having an idea of what the sums are going to be). Maybe the US can redirect those billions it currently gives in military aid to Israel (which, as has been pointed out, are really a thinly disguised government subsidy to the arms industry).

Seems to me, given that the numbers of Shephardim and Palistinians displaced are about equal, that most of the Shephardim became citizens of Israel, and that it is Israel which would theoretically be on the hook to compensate Palistinians, whereas the Arab & Iranian governments would theoretically be on the hook to compensate the Shephardim, that the easiest and most fair solution would be to have the Arab & Iranian governments cut out the middleman and directly compensate the Palistinians, and the Israelis directly compensate the Shephardim.

Least Original User Name Ever

07-28-2006, 10:40 AM

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002331----000-.html we are all terrorists according to US code.

Captain Amazing

07-28-2006, 11:19 AM

Makes for an interesting sort of alliance doesn't it? When exactly has Israel contributed troops to a US war or cause?

By intelligence support I assume you mean: "Keeping quiet so as not to be a wet blanket."

Are there still no takers on the challenge to list the losses to the US should its relationship with Israel terminate? Perhaps I've underestimated my own powers of creation.

By intelligence support, I mean intelligence prewar on Iraqi communications, monitoring Iraqi communications, and infiltration of and monitoring insurgent groups. You know, intelligence support.

Here are the losses to the US should its relationship with Israel terminate:

1. Loss of a market for both civilian and millitary goods
2. Loss of a listening post in the Middle East
3. Loss of naval basing and repair facilities at Haifa
4. Loss of prestige internationally as a result of betraying an ally
5. Loss of domestic support, for the same reason and also because Israel is well thought of in the US
6. Further Middle East instability as Israel, now without a major ally, takes a more aggressive foreign policy stance
7. A setback in US foreign policy, which is to encourage and support liberal democracies.

Captain Amazing

07-28-2006, 11:22 AM

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002331----000-.html we are all terrorists according to US code.

Not according to the section of US code you cited, at least.

BrainGlutton

07-28-2006, 11:41 AM

6. Further Middle East instability as Israel, now without a major ally, takes a more aggressive foreign policy stance

How could Israel possibly take a more aggressive foreign policy stance?!

(N.B.: The disposition of the OT's is not "foreign policy" strictly speaking.)

Least Original User Name Ever

07-28-2006, 12:01 PM

The pro Israelies reject any and all discussion that questions their motives or actions. Even the implication that the region is less secure is summarily rejected. How is this a discussion. I feel about Israel like I feel about gun ownership. If it hadnt been alowed to happen the world would have been safer. But it is too late to change that. Although some Arab nations disagree. The guns are there and Israel is there. I believe it is way past time to hold mideast discussions. They should include all the mideast but not US or Europe Or Russia and china. They must define on the international level their grievances and aims.
The UN is too political and would insert world opinion,which could lead discussion astray.

Least Original User Name Ever

07-28-2006, 12:41 PM

Heres an addendum. I believe that Israels response has been way overboard. They are making everybody less safe. Most nations are seeking Abombs. Im time they will get them. I dont think it can be stopped. I suspect that in blind hatred and somekind of perverted idea of justice they will be used. It could be the distruction of us all. Every little imagined affront that is responded to in force puts us that much closer. Every skirmish makes the end closer. I take almost no military action as just.The cost is too great. Peace can only be gotten at the table facing each other. Til then,every action is serrious and a threat to us all.
When I was a kid and told my dad my brother did it. He said we are talking about you. That is another matter. When nations say they did it first, i wonder if we will ever grow up and accept our responsibilities for what we do. Nobody forced Israel to bomb Lebanon. They chose to. There were other options. I do not tyhink it was wise. This is my totally uninformed opinion. My crime is I am a peacenik and try to find peaceful solutions. They almost always exist.

Jackmannii

07-28-2006, 05:19 PM

I completely agree with the subsidy to the US arms industry. OTOH the US has plenty of reliable allies in the region, so I can't give you that one.And speaking of "reliable allies" (and arms sales), the U.S. has announced plans that would reward those nations. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/AR2006072801122.html) And to add a little perspective on arms sales to Mideast governments, here's an interesting report. (http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32689.pdf) You'll note that Israel ranks third among nations in the region in purchases of arms and allied equipment and services from the United States. But most of all you are correct to repudiate Jackmannii's wishy-washy stuff.Your sarcasm detector is on the fritz, I see. :D

Sam Stone

07-28-2006, 07:47 PM

How could Israel possibly take a more aggressive foreign policy stance?!

Are you kidding? You're aware that Israel is only using a very tiny part of its military force against Lebanon, right? I know the media doesn't portray it as such, but Israel has actually been very surgical in its bombings.

You want to see what open warfare in the Middle East looks like? Go study the Iran/Iraq war. If Israel wanted, it could simply pummel Lebanon back into the stone age, killing hundreds of thousands.

Israel could react to violence in Gaza the way Kuwait dealt with Palestinians - round up hundreds of thousands of them, and simply kick them out of the country. Or it could deal with them the way some Arab countries have dealt with their insurrectionist populations - Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Shiites and Kurds to quiet them down. He destroyed the entire Marsh Arab culture.

Israel could respond to terrorist bombings by rounding up and executing the terrorist's entire extended family and friends. That's also a favorite trick of dictators.

Israel could respond to attacks from Hezbollah by firing missiles at Iran or Syria. Nukes, if it had to.

Israel could send out assassination squads to start picking off leaders of countries antagonistic to them.

Israel could decide to simply annex southern Lebanon, expel the indigenous people, and move in settlers.

Israel could ethnically cleanse every Palestinian from its country and annex Gaza and the West Bank.

Israel hasn't done these things because A) unlike Iran and Syria, it's a civilized nation that really wants peace and doesn't want to kill people it doesn't have to, and B) because with the U.S. at its back, its very existence is not currently threatened.

Take away the U.S., make Israel's situation more precarious, give the Arabs around it a little more reason to be aggressive, and suddenly you have a fight for Israel's very existence. And under those circumstances, Israel will use every tool it has at its disposal to survive - including the 100 to 200 nuclear weapons it is reputed to have. Any country would do the same if faced with annihilation.

jimmmy

07-28-2006, 08:15 PM

Makes for an interesting sort of alliance doesn't it? When exactly has Israel contributed troops to a US war or cause?

Israel absorbed the Scuds that Saddam fired at them during the First Gulf War. They did not retaliate or respond -- which I think we can all agree, is a very un-Israeli thing to do. They did this at the behest of Bush I and realized like Saddam that their involvement would splinter the international alliance.

Imagine any country - say the U.S. - getting hit by 39 Missiles (some hit Tel Aviv) and not responding to serve a greater international good.

----------

I would make the point that I think that Hezbollah and the current conflict is best viewed as a piece of the Israeli-Iranian conflict. Yes it is born of the history of the PLO and the troubles of the Palestinians (& is why Israel entered Lebanon in 1982 and satred the dominoes falling) ... but the current events and the Iranian arming and support of Hezbollah has everything to do with Iranian Shiite Revolutionary Radicalism & much less to actually due with Al Queda-stlye Islamicism or Palestinian aspirations.

Sevastopol

07-31-2006, 05:39 AM

By intelligence support, I mean intelligence prewar on Iraqi communications, monitoring Iraqi communications, and infiltration of and monitoring insurgent groups. You know, intelligence support. Goodo.Here are the losses to the US should its relationship with Israel terminate:

1. Loss of a market for both civilian and millitary goods
2. Loss of a listening post in the Middle East
3. Loss of naval basing and repair facilities at Haifa
4. Loss of prestige internationally as a result of betraying an ally
5. Loss of domestic support, for the same reason and also because Israel is well thought of in the US
6. Further Middle East instability as Israel, now without a major ally, takes a more aggressive foreign policy stance
7. A setback in US foreign policy, which is to encourage and support liberal democracies.

1. No
2. So what
3. So what
4. Gain in prestige internationally for grasping the nettle.
5. Not a loss to the US
6. Doubtful. Not a loss to the US - how could Israel be agressive without the US alliance?
7. Doubtful. Not a loss to the US - foreign policy is the means not an end.

Sevastopol

07-31-2006, 05:48 AM

Israel absorbed the Scuds that Saddam fired at them during the First Gulf War. They did not retaliate or respond -- which I think we can all agree, is a very un-Israeli thing to do. They did this at the behest of Bush I and realized like Saddam that their involvement would splinter the international alliance.

Imagine any country - say the U.S. - getting hit by 39 Missiles (some hit Tel Aviv) and not responding to serve a greater international good.. To his/her credit Captain Amazing answered a question directly. I happen to think not well, but directly. Learn from good example.

It appears 'No" is the answer to my question. Which is a surprise. I expected lovers of military history to innundate replies of Vietnam/Kosovo/Grenada/&etc. Not "no, never" How odd. What are the two things we hear about Israel?:

- The close alliance with the US; and
- The superb training/skill &etc of Israeli armed forces.

Those 2 in combination raise an obvious question. Yet, "No"? How odd.

Shodan

07-31-2006, 07:29 AM

Goodo.

1. No
2. So what
3. So what
4. Gain in prestige internationally for grasping the nettle.
5. Not a loss to the US
6. Doubtful. Not a loss to the US - how could Israel be agressive without the US alliance?
7. Doubtful. Not a loss to the US - foreign policy is the means not an end.
Cite, please. Your mere assertion is less than worthless.

Regards,
Shodan

07-31-2006, 12:59 PM

1. No
2. So what
3. So what
4. Gain in prestige internationally for grasping the nettle.
5. Not a loss to the US
6. Doubtful. Not a loss to the US - how could Israel be agressive without the US alliance?
7. Doubtful. Not a loss to the US - foreign policy is the means not an end.

To his/her credit Captain Amazing answered a question directly. I happen to think not well, but directly. Learn from good example.

To his/her credits, Jimmy and Captain Amazing actually gave full sentence responses instead of a bullshit monosylabic bullet list. I especially found the 'so what' responses informative. :dubious: 'Learn from the good example'.

-XT

Sevastopol

08-01-2006, 03:21 AM

To his/her credits, Jimmy and Captain Amazing actually gave full sentence responses instead of a bullshit monosylabic bullet list. ...(my emphases)Here are the losses to the US should its relationship with Israel terminate:

1. Loss of a market for both civilian and millitary goods
2. ... These are a full sentences?...Gain in prestige internationally for grasping the nettle...These words are monosylabic (sic)?

Ahem. My rejoinder to CA has as much backing as the assertions themselves. Make of them what you will. Inquire further. Discuss. Quarrel; I will back thee.

WindFish

08-01-2006, 12:15 PM

Makes for an interesting sort of alliance doesn't it? When exactly has Israel contributed troops to a US war or cause?
I would argue that the Israeli strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera) in 1981 benefitted the U.S. since it (1) set back Saddam's nuclear weapons program and (2) did not risk U.S. entanglement in the region.

The recent events of the 2003 Iraq war and its aftermath may clarify what a mess the U.S. could wade into otherwise.

monavis

08-01-2006, 08:08 PM

I am far from an expert on the Mid east situation but from what I have read and heard it seems to me the majority of Jews and Arabs would like a peaceful settlement,but a few radicals from both sides have the intention of not letting such a thing happen.

To me, Hezbollah and the radical Iranian leader are of the same mind as the Nazi's there only purpose is to get rid of the Jewish people. Hezbollah had no reason to capture the Soldiers except to inflame the Israeli's( being that they are a puppet of Iran).

It was the radical Party of Sharon who were responsible for the death of Rabin. Now learned to be a big mistake. It was the closest ever to having peace.

Now Israel feels it is fighting for it's very existence,because of the radical statements of the Iranian leader.

Monavis

monavis

08-01-2006, 08:14 PM

Jackmannii

08-01-2006, 09:29 PM

These words are monosylabic (sic)?"No", in addition to being monosyllabic, is a childish expression of denial, pointedly expressing your contempt for facts.Ahem. My rejoinder to CA has as much backing as the assertions themselves.It's already been demonstrated just a few posts back via specific cite that Israel (as well as numerous Arab nations) provides a market for U.S. military goods, as was stated by Captain Amazing. Your rejoinder is therefore ludicrous.These are a full sentences?No, (but to paraphrase you) they at least are a grammatical. :)

08-01-2006, 09:32 PM

"No", in addition to being monosyllabic, is a childish expression of denial, pointedly expressing your contempt for facts.

Well, I did miss that second 'l' in monosyllabic so he MUST be right in his assertions (this of course leaves off the well known fact that I cna't splle four shiht)...

-XT

Sevastopol

08-02-2006, 07:07 AM

So xtisme's persuaded of the foolishness of making criticisms about writing style, and in such a few posts.

J'ii you'll note my earlier post where I agree with N'Special about the market for American arms. I'm interested to see if you believe that the special relationship terminating would cause Israel to cease purchasing US armaments.

Jackmannii

08-02-2006, 07:14 AM

I still haven't seen any cites to back up your "responses". Contribute some and there can be a further discussion.

As it is, I have no interest in doing much in the way of further research so that you can come back with "No" and "So what".

One piece of reading for you - Jay Nash's compendium "Spies" discusses the historical role of Mossad (the Israeli spy agency) in briefing both American and European governments about Arab terrorists entering their countries. So much information was imparted to the French at one point that they complained about not having enough agents to track all the suspects on their soil.

Sevastopol

08-02-2006, 07:18 AM

That's not how it works. That Israel currently buys armaments from the USA is not the issue.

It has been asserted that if the relationship broke, then the arms purchases would stop. If cites are needed, that's where.

Jackmannii

08-02-2006, 08:54 AM

It has been asserted that if the relationship broke, then the arms purchases would stop. That's an overstatement. A reference was made to "loss" of purchases, not "complete cessation" (although it is a reasonable assumption that if there was a total breakdown in relations, arms sales would stop. We are not to my knowledge currently selling arms to Syria and Iran.

If you want to stick with "No", "So what" and other word games, so be it.

08-03-2006, 03:27 AM

So xtisme's persuaded of the foolishness of making criticisms about writing style, and in such a few posts.

:p Is THAT what you thought I was being critical about? Your writing style? No, it was the content free 'no' 'so what' responses silly! I'd be the LAST person on this board to criticize anyone about their writing style, punctuation or grammer my man....as my own is truely horrible.

-XT

Sevastopol

08-03-2006, 03:54 AM

That's an overstatement. A reference was made to "loss" of purchases, not "complete cessation" (although it is a reasonable assumption that if there was a total breakdown in relations, arms sales would stop. We are not to my knowledge currently selling arms to Syria and Iran.

If you want to stick with "No", "So what" and other word games, so be it.No, you are precisely and entirely incorrect. Captain Amazing's reference was to:...Loss of a market for both civilian and millitary goods... That does mean complete cessation, does it not?

But that wouldn't happen, would it. Both you and CA are mistaken.

From your invaluable cite above: The two biggest purchasers of US armaments in the Near East are; Saudi Arabia and; Egypt. Neither of those is an ally of the US. What would displace Israel as the third largest purchaser, if the US was also unaligned to that country?

Jackmannii

08-03-2006, 07:50 AM

FRDE

08-03-2006, 08:15 AM

I get your point - the Saudi Government is friendly with the USA
- and regretting the eviction of US troops

The Egyptian Government has been friendly towards the USA, possibly since 1956, but definitely from about 1975 when the USA 'bought' peace and dignity.

Both states suffer from a load of nutters that they would like to disappear overnight.

The trouble is that peasants breed like rabbits

... Hmm... Syria has the same problem
- a sophisticated and educated ruling elite, trying to stay on top of a juvenile and easiliy fanaticized underclass,

Least Original User Name Ever

08-03-2006, 10:37 AM

Are you kidding? You're aware that Israel is only using a very tiny part of its military force against Lebanon, right? I know the media doesn't portray it as such, but Israel has actually been very surgical in its bombings.

You want to see what open warfare in the Middle East looks like? Go study the Iran/Iraq war. If Israel wanted, it could simply pummel Lebanon back into the stone age, killing hundreds of thousands.

Israel could react to violence in Gaza the way Kuwait dealt with Palestinians - round up hundreds of thousands of them, and simply kick them out of the country. Or it could deal with them the way some Arab countries have dealt with their insurrectionist populations - Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Shiites and Kurds to quiet them down. He destroyed the entire Marsh Arab culture.

Israel could respond to terrorist bombings by rounding up and executing the terrorist's entire extended family and friends. That's also a favorite trick of dictators.

Israel could respond to attacks from Hezbollah by firing missiles at Iran or Syria. Nukes, if it had to.

Israel could send out assassination squads to start picking off leaders of countries antagonistic to them.

Israel could decide to simply annex southern Lebanon, expel the indigenous people, and move in settlers.

Israel could ethnically cleanse every Palestinian from its country and annex Gaza and the West Bank.

Israel hasn't done these things because A) unlike Iran and Syria, it's a civilized nation that really wants peace and doesn't want to kill people it doesn't have to, and B) because with the U.S. at its back, its very existence is not currently threatened.

Take away the U.S., make Israel's situation more precarious, give the Arabs around it a little more reason to be aggressive, and suddenly you have a fight for Israel's very existence. And under those circumstances, Israel will use every tool it has at its disposal to survive - including the 100 to 200 nuclear weapons it is reputed to have. Any country would do the same if faced with annihilation.
Thank you for only killing half of us when your military might could have killed us all. Sometimes people just dont know what to be grateful for. Only blowing up half the roads and anfrastructure. Wow, what remarkable restraint. It is believed Israel has nukes. I am gtrateful the bomb hasnt been used. What biblical restraint they have shown.

gum

08-03-2006, 10:46 AM

Thank you for only killing half of us when your military might could have killed us all. Sometimes people just dont know what to be grateful for. Only blowing up half the roads and anfrastructure. Wow, what remarkable restraint. It is believed Israel has nukes. I am gtrateful the bomb hasnt been used. What biblical restraint they have shown.

Go complain to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his weapon delivery to Hezbollah.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4CC21D25-66EA-45BC-B627-168C47D936CF.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5242566.stm

Least Original User Name Ever

08-03-2006, 11:46 AM

Go complain about Bushes emergency sending of bombs to israel. They are both obtaining outside weapons. Is there a point.Bush and Israel have much more fire power. It is shooting fish in a barrel. They are practically defenseless. The missles are like anti aircraft shells. They are not guided. Very few have done significant damage. Israel meanwhile has decimated cities. They are supposed to have warned civilians to leave. But if the roads, airports and bridges are gone its not so simple.
Oh yes, Bush sent stromg sophisticated weaponry.Rumor says he gave bunker busters.

Damuri Ajashi

08-03-2006, 12:05 PM

The KKK? Gas chambers? Genocide? Are you seriously saying that the Jews were any more persecuted than Christians in Palestine? Are you seriously trying to lay any blame for the holocaust at the feet of the Palestinians?

WTF are you talking about?

If we said that the Kurds were terribly persecuted and needed their own homeland to protect themselves from future genocide and we decided that the best place to put that homeland was to chop Israel in half and give it to the Kurds. Then the Kurds moved in and kicked you out, how would you feel?

In much the same way that the KKK didn't have much interest in lynching blacks - until they got 'uppity'. As long as Jews were happy remaining occasionally-persecuted second class citizens, things were fine. But once they began asserting their rights and demanding their own homeland where they might protect themselves from future gas chambers and genocides, well, they just needed killin', is all.

FinnAgain

08-03-2006, 12:31 PM

If we said that the Kurds were terribly persecuted and needed their own homeland to protect themselves from future genocide and we decided that the best place to put that homeland was to chop Israel in half and give it to the Kurds. Then the Kurds moved in and kicked you out, how would you feel?

I'd feel that you were using the same bit of discredited rhetoric that's trotted out and torn to pieces time and time and time again in this forum.

The land that was partitioned was partitioned along ethic majority lines. The Arab residents of the area, due to Turkish and British property laws, did not own much land at all. They did not have their territory 'chopped in half' and given to anybody, at all.

So other than the fact that your analogy has nothing to do with actual history, it's great.

Alessan

08-03-2006, 12:38 PM

If we said that the Kurds were terribly persecuted and needed their own homeland to protect themselves from future genocide and we decided that the best place to put that homeland was to chop Israel in half and give it to the Kurds. Then the Kurds moved in and kicked you out, how would you feel?

Actually, if the U.S. were to leave Iraq now, and the Kurds were to forge their own independent nation in Kurdistan, I say they should keep it - if they're willing to fight for it. THAT would be a better analogy for what happened in 1948. As I've said a thousand times before, the British didn't give anything to anybody. They just left.

(Incidentally, Sam you should differentiate between Jews and Christians under Arab rule, and Jews and Christians unde Ottoman rule, which up until 1917 included Palestine. Say what you want about the Turks, they were one of the most egalitarian empires ever. Sure, you had to be a Muslim to get anywhere in public service, but other than that they left you alone).

08-03-2006, 02:08 PM

Unless you were Armenian I suppose...

-XT

Sevastopol

08-03-2006, 04:44 PM

The two biggest purchasers of US armaments in the Near East are; Saudi Arabia and; Egypt. Neither of those is an ally of the US. Wrong (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/fyi/news/11/09/saudi.arabia/index.html) on both (http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/training/fpo_nea_all.html) counts.

I suggest you return to this debate once you have taken the opportunity to correct your lack of knowledge on the subject. Well that is just a flat out lie now isn't it. It is your own cite provided earlier that shows the purchases by Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Yet in the face of evidence provided by your own self, you make a decision to lie about it? What's up with that?

I mean ...You'll note that Israel ranks third among nations in the region in purchases of arms and allied equipment and services from the United States. From your source:
NEAR EAST
AGREEMENTS
2003
1 Egypt $1.7 Billion
2 Saudi Arabia $700 Million
3 Israel $580 Million

On the other hand, I clearly did understate the relationship between the US and SA & Egypt. Nonetheless that is a semantic quibble, unless you wish to argue that those allies hold an equivalent position to Israel from the US pov.

Jackmannii

08-03-2006, 06:01 PM

Well that is just a flat out lie now isn't it. It is your own cite provided earlier that shows the purchases by Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Yet in the face of evidence provided by your own self, you make a decision to lie about it? What's up with that?It should be obvious, even to you, that the two links I provided were to refute your claim that Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not allies of the United States.

I could add a variety of unflattering adjectives to describe the process of dismissing one's blunders with the excuse that they are merely "semantic".

But it's nice to see that at least on this occasion, you're not anti-semantic. :D

Sevastopol

08-04-2006, 04:45 AM

It should be obvious, even to you, that the two links I provided were to refute your claim that Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not allies of the United States.

I could add a variety of unflattering adjectives to describe the process of dismissing one's blunders with the excuse that they are merely "semantic".

But it's nice to see that at least on this occasion, you're not anti-semantic. :D Fortunately, the irony sense is highly tuned, otherwise I'd perceive a couple of insults in there, where profound esteem is intended. Flattering as all this is, the real issue is the losses to the US should the relationship with Israel terminate. We should return to that.

Do you have anything to suggest that Israel would purchase fewer armaments? Not to get too particular with my words here, (although many of my best friends are semantic): That is, if the particular US/I relationship were to become on par with that of the US and say Saudi Arabia or Norway.

Captain Amazing

08-04-2006, 10:35 AM

Do you have anything to suggest that Israel would purchase fewer armaments? Not to get too particular with my words here, (although many of my best friends are semantic): That is, if the particular US/I relationship were to become on par with that of the US and say Saudi Arabia or Norway.

But the US/Israeli relationship is on par with the US/Saudi or US/Norway relationship. If anything, we have a closer military relationship, at least, with both Norway (mutual defense pact, through NATO) and Saudi Arabia (no formal defense pact, but until recently, US bases, and we defended the country during the first Gulf War)

Sevastopol

08-05-2006, 06:01 AM

Seems not. (http://www.palestinemonitor.org/factsheet/A%20breakdown%20of%20United%20States%20Aid%20to%20Israel.htm) Thanks antechinus.US aid to Israel

...
*

The Israeli government is the largest recipient of US financial aid in the world.
*

In 1997, the total of US grants and loan guarantees to Israel was USD 5.5 billion; ie, USD 15,068,493 per day.

From 1949 to 1998, the US government gave USD 84.8 billion in foreign aid and other US federation grants to Israel. This is more than it gave to all the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean put together, whose combined total population is 1,054,000,000.
...
A breakdown of United States Aid to Israel
...

Military Aid

The United States provides direct and indirect military aid to Israel. FY 2001 funding requests relevant to Israel:

Foreign Military Financing (FMF): grants to foreign governments financing the purchase of American made weapons, services and training.

FMF Budget Request FY 2001: Total budget request: USD 3.54 billion
Budget request for Israel: 1.98 billion
Budget request for Egypt: 1.3 billion
Budget request for Jordan 75 million...

Israel therefore receives 50% of the Foreign Military Financing budget request.
...

Jackmannii

08-05-2006, 10:27 PM

Sevastopol

08-06-2006, 07:25 AM

Jackmannii

08-06-2006, 03:40 PM

An interesting source, Sevastopol. Unfortunately I could not find on the "About Us" page a single name of any person involved in running the site or gathering the information. The site is supposedly run by Palestinian non-governmental organizations, but none of the organizations are identified either. Can you clarify who these people are? My, aren't you full of questions, which by the way I am always happy to answer.In that case, could you do so? Saying that you found about about the site from someone slse does not answer my question, nor does it justify your launching into complaints about the supposed evasions of other posters.If we knew (about who was behind the website), we might understand why they did not provide data ... showing that U.S. military assistance and sales to Arab nations considerably exceeds that given to Israel. Probably because it does not? Nope.

In case you've forgotten already, here's a source (http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32689.pdf) I provided earlier in this thread, showing arms sales agreements between the U.S. and nations in the Middle East. For one recent period, (2000-2003), these agreements accounted for a total of 17.7 billion dollars in military sales to just four Arab nations in the Middle East (U.A.E, Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia). Israel's total for military sales for the same period was 5.1 billion dollars.
For further perspective, total annual U.S. military aid to Israel (including the largest source of such aid, the Foreign Military Financing program) is stated by various sources to have averaged about 1.8-2.2 billion dollars a year in recent years (another major recipient of aid under FMF is Egypt).