I was referring to your “something similar to Indian reservations” comment. I disagree with the analogy.
Palestinians will regard Israeli military retribution as unjustified (or not) regardless of population.
Nor do I see having a greater population is going to help them much against such retribution. There is little a large crowd of third-world civilians can do against retribution by a modern military force, who does not actually care to police them.
I think this is very important, because everyone talks about refugees and such, but you are very much correct for a few reasons…hope you don’t mind my shpeal. 
If Palestinians don’t get their own state, it does become more of an Israeli problem. And an Egyptian problem, a Syrian problem, and Jordanian problem. And a UN problem. And my problem and your problem because it’s a U.S. problem. The U.S. is engaged in nearly every conflict in the world, either as brokers, financiers, supporters, or key players. Maybe not as much in 1948, but it is the case now.
Israel doesn’t want to annex the West Bank - the only time this was considered was in 1948 with an idea that the yishuv could govern a whole area (which was not annexation) but it obviously wasn’t put forth since the Arab nations had already rejected that idea. (Had the Arab population in the area been okay with Jewish Palestine, oh how history would have been different.)
Actually, Israel’s Declaration of Independence does not mention borders. If you read the books about the events leading up to the declaration, it will tell you that there was a discussion over this - do you include all of the Palestine Mandate, do you mention the UN suggested areas, what about Jerusalem [which was under siege by Jordan at this time], what about the West Bank kibbutzim that had been attacked, yada yada. There wasn’t even a consensus on a name until the day or two before.
So I think this idea - this idea that borders should be so easy, or that Israel is a 20th (–first?) century imperialist machine, or whatever, is just false. It’s missing context.
The Palestinians (pre-Israel, everyone was called that - Jews too) were content to live under Arab rule - and later, the British (and French to the north). The Jewish community was the exception. There was semi-autonomous government in some places (Jerusalem is an example) but this was kind of an old land that most of the world ignored for the longest time. Borders weren’t very closed up until after WWI. Israel declared Independence right as the Mandate expired.
I do not know of any legal document with official Israeli borders unless you count the Israeli ones. What we see on a map are armistice lines, territories, and where Israel meets another sovereign nation. The closest de-facto border with the West Bank besides some imaginary lines in the sand that Israel has is the fence - but that’s not complete and it’s under dispute.
If you go from, say, Colorado to Wyoming on 1-25, there’s a sign that says WELCOME TO WYOMING! and that’s Wyoming’s official welcome to you but details are left to zoning commissions. If you visit the Statue of Liberty in New York, you’re kind of in New Jersey, too. It’s just that the U.S. is so big and established that we don’t think the way Israelis and Palestinians do. Israel is the size of like, Connecticut. So land matters. About sixty years ago, the concern was over farm-able land, so I guess it’s no surprise that Israel’s first university was centered around ag technology. There are Israeli settlements outside of the “Green Line” that used to be considered non arable but that’s not the case now!
I said it earlier and I was criticized for this, but the only official borders Israel has are the ones with Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and now Gaza. And maybe Syria, but then you have the Golan Heights in question. Anyway.
As far as the territories go, Gaza seems to be a done deal. (The area of the Gaza strip actually has a really cool history if you are bored someday.)
Gaza was under Egyptian control after the 48 war and the West Bank & Jerusalem was under Jordanian control. But very few of these refugees were integrated into the societies of their respective countries. (Jordan has a sorry history with the West Bankers, bleh.)
So as Israel is conducting its foreign policy after 1967/8, the only thing it has to go on is its own history and the knowledge that it really is surrounded by enemies. And so far its history has been this: people came, they settled, it was good, more people came, it got bad, it got worse, big war happened, another big war happened, got really worse, they declare independence after decades of waiting (since '22 or even '19) and go to war cause time is up and this shit is gonna go down.
A big myth is that the U.S. just ‘gave’ Israel someone else’s land. Uhhhh no. How do you think Israel was able to stand up to all those invading armies? There was an official movement for a Jewish land in Palestine since 1917.
Pre-state Israel already had an army! And an Air Force made up of ragtag old aircraft. The conflicts leading up to the war turned militias into a working military, and the 48 war shaped it. Some had fought in WWII, some had worked with the British (the British did not recognize a Jewish military but somehow they coordinated with it, whatever) and some were literally just farmers. But the movement for statehood was decades old and those early Zionists were not kidding.
A second myth is that the Arab invasion of the area was a surprise. It had technically already started, and the U.S. asked the Jewish leaders to not declare independence as to avoid war. But it had been thirty years since the Balfour Declaration so they weren’t listening. (The idea that AIPAC dictates foreign policy or that the US and Israel have always been bffs is so laughable it is stunning. In 1981, Regan was threatening sanctions. Countries will always do what is in their own best interests.)
There was a concerned effort to form a government, infrastructure, schools, etc., loooong before 1948. The Jewish State was pretty functional. The people you know as *Palestinians *today didn’t have that. And there was no coordinated movement for a “Palestinian” government as it was expected they would come under control of another Arab country. The people you see today that are refugees of the 1948 war are ones who were largely caught in a crossfire. 
So my point? My point is, the Jewish history of modern Israel was built on the kibbutzim, socialist ideals, Jewish sovereignty, the option of self-selected groups (there’s a town or kibbutz for every type) and western and Jewish law (which don’t conflict as much as you’d think). Jewish immigration equaled a new era. Arabs benefited, too. All of Palestine was open to whomever would come. (Think of early American homesteading…)* Settlements* are, well, the last frontier, I guess. Settlements were in the Sinai, in Gaza, in the Golan Heights, on the Jordan…there was no concept of PLO back then. And yeah, it was fueled by opposition. Teasing a baby with candy and all that.
The early proposals for Jewish and Arab states were drawn around, yup, population centers (obviously those demographics have changed!) and it was expected that each group would respect religious minorities. The only natives misplaced were the Bedouin, and for that I have an incredible amount of sympathy. 
The Arabs living in the area where from surrounding places, just like many Jews were from Europe. Some Arabs and some Jews had much longer pre-Mandate histories for sure. But everyone was kind of an ‘immigrant’ if you take a critical look at things.
The demographics of Palestine have changed in many ways: What is a Palestinian now is not the same as what it was in 48. Half of Jordan is technically Palestinian. 
But yes, the refugees - or the stateless ones - have increased quite a bit. High birth rates and such. They were under the mandate, then Jordan or Egypt, and since 67, under Israeli control because Israel controlled the territories.
It’s kind of sad, actually. The Arab states had a vested interest in the area but when they backed off, the non-Israeli population suffered the most. The PLO was designed to take back the Mandate for Arabs - and it was backed by other Arab nations who were already quite sour with Israels '48 victory.
Israel “inherited” the Palestinian problem from other Arabs…but by that time, it was already a target by the refugees. Anti-Zionism had been in play for decades, so it wasn’t entirely new.
So: Not only did that population swell considerably and move around geographically (all of them have), but the Palestinian population is also very young. The young and poor populations tend to be the ones most likely to go to war, especially if they are a few generations removed from any degree of sovereignty.
The Eretz Yisrael Zionists have to give it up. The time of the old kibbutz is over. Time to turn inward and take care of what you’ve built. But Netanyahu has a government to appeal to, an election, and his own legacy.
Neither side will accept what the other offers. So…I donno. The West Bankers need a state. Unfortunately, the blame is on Israel instead of sharing it with Arab countries or Jordan, and Jordan is going to wash their hands of it because they miss their tribal-dominated demographics.
Sometimes I wonder why Israel hasn’t been attacked (save terrorist groups) by any sovereign nations in so long. I guess I realized that inheriting the refugee problem isn’t worth it. They already have a refugee problem and instead of integrating them into society, letting them work or whatnot, they restrict movement and point fingers at Israel.
A disproportionate part of the blame is placed on Israel. I am not saying that Israel is faultless, but in a broader context, Israel has been a pawn in other people’s games.
Israel’s shaky alliances with old enemies are crumbling. In a weird way, Israel acts as the scapegoat for the refugee problem while the refugees act as a buffer between Israel and old enemies. It’s like Hot Potato meets Foreign Policy and the biggest potato just landed in Netanyahu’s lap.
I meant post WWII but thinking about it further I suppose korea also had its border altered after the korean war and eritrea had its civil war with Ethiopia but these all seem different than what is going on in israel. So I guess we can stick with might makes right. We’ll see how long that works for Israel… BTW, have you seen that Egypt just opened its border with gaza? What happens if the arab spring results in a bunch of democratic states that want to pick a fight with Israel?
Sure Israel can kick their collective butts right now but will this always be the case? What happens if pakistan gets involved?
At some point Israel is not going to hold the upper hand.
Really none of it sounds like an enviable future and it is too bad the current Israeli government is unable to see that.
A cite would be appreciated. Did Jordan have a treaty obligation that was triggered when Israel preemptively attacked Egypt? Like I said, my depth of knowledge is wikipedia deep so please enlighten me. What is the Jordanian side of the argument? Or is there really no merit to the arab side of this argument?
As a critic of israel, I suppose you would be just as sanguine if Israel loses the next war in the middle east.
I meant after WWII. But I withdraw that line of reasoning, I think it has merit but its obviously not sancrosanct.
You see, thats the thing. 1967 doesn’t seem to be a simple instance of arab aggression. It seems like Israel attacked first.
Dio posted"Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Why do you love Israel so much anyway? I though you claimed to be a Muslim?"
I was correcting Dio.
Where did I quibble about this in this thread?
I quibbled about this in a previous thread because moderators seem to have a habit of tolerating personal remarks about me only to blow the whistle on both sides when I return snark for snark.
I understand that the “he started it” defense (some would call it self defense) isn’t very satisfying but there you have it.
Going forward, I will limit myself to just reporting (in vain) these personal attacks when i see them.
What other PAC has annual conferences attended by the President, the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House and as many other senators and congressmen as it cares to invite?
Maybe there are lots of them, can anyone elnlighten me?
Dennis Ross is basically known as israel’s lawyer. One of the top AIPAC people said recently that if Ross had been one of Obama’s inner circle when Obama made the demand that Israel stop settlement building a while ago that “the silly demand would never have been made”. I’m phrasing from memory but basically Ross speaking to Fox news is about as far away from an objective source as you can get.
So are you saying that teh Israeli offer wasn’t really a sincere offer it was an attempt to get a Palestinian offer on the table, or to define the Palestinian offer? Meanwhile, Arafat viewed every inch of Israel as a concession?
As the years have gone over the Palestinians have taken any US peace initiatives less and less seriously, because they’re basically kabuki theatre to let the US and Israel look like they’re serious about making peace. Compare and contrast any Israeli “offer” with the Anglo-Irish peace agreement -
Israel want to dictate who they’ll negotiate with. The Brits/Unionist sat down and negotiated in good faith with terroprists.
Israel won’t even suspend settlement building during negotiations while the Brits and the Unionists made huge concessions before even sitting down with the Republicans to show they were going to make a good faith attempt at peace.
Any terrorist acts during the years-long negotiations didn’t have the Brits/Unionists shut them down, rather they doubled down and tried harder to make an agreement. the biggest terrorist atrocity of the entire 40 year modern-era Northern Ireland troubles didn’t stop the process.
Looking at how israel are contiuing their illegal 40+ year occupation and continuing to build illegally while claiming to want peace and comparing it to the Irish situation tells you everything you need to know about how serious the Israelis are about making peace.
Technically, they did. It was a preemptive attack. Here’s my brief timeline, starting in May (stuff happened in April, including cross border raids by Syria, and a dogfight between Syrian and Israeli planes):
May 5: Palestinians shell Kibbutz Manara.
May 11: In response to Israeli complaints, UN Sec. General U Thant condemns the attacks and calls for peace. The Security Council blocks the issue but any resolution is blocked by the Soviets. Israel asks the US for help, but is refused, informed that the US will “remain neutral” in the region.
May 15: Israel Independence Day. Israel plans a military parade in West Jerusalem for that date, raising tensions in the neighboring countries. In recognition of this, Israel only sends troops into West Jerusalem for the parade, not tanks or artillery. Meanwhile, Anwar Sadat, at the time, president of Egypt’s National Assembly, visits Moscow, where he’s told, falsely by the Soviets, that Israel is planning to invade Syria the week of May 16th-22nd. Doctored reports are given as proof. Egypt declares a state of emergency and troops are sent to the border with Israel.
May 16: Egypt asks the UN forces in the Gaza Strip and the Sinai, put there by the UN as a buffer between Egypt and Israel, to withdraw.
May 17: The Egyptian air force conducts reconnaissance of the Israeli reactor at Dimona. Syria deploys forces in the Golan. Israel calls up 18,000 reserves and orders mines laid along the Egyptian border.
May 18: The Commander of Egyptian Forces in the Sinai announces troops are ready and that they are looking forward to this “holy war”.
May 19: Israel calls up 80,000 reserves, and asks the US, France, and the UK for help, but they all refuse.
May 22: Egypt closes the Straits of Tiran to Israel. Jordan sends tanks to the border, Syria sends more troops into the Golan.
May 23-26: US warns Israel not to take unilateral action, proposes a multinational escort of ships through Tiran. Israel takes US words under “consideration”, and seeks but fails to get a commitment by the US to defend Israel if attacked. General Rabin collapses from a combination of stress, lack of sleep, and too many cigarettes, and is given a two day leave of absence. His replacement, Ezer Weisman, prepares a more aggressive battle plan in the event of war. Meanwhile, in Egypt, General Amar comes up with a plan, Operation Dawn, to seize the Negev. Israel orders full mobilization.
May 27-29: Eban returns to Jerusalem from Washington to attend an emergency cabinet meeting regarding the crisis, in which the option of a preemptive attack is considered. The cabinet decides not to attack, but to keep forces on alert. Meanwhile, Egypt asks the Soviets for support should war come. The Soviets urge caution and refuse to commit, warning the Egyptians not to make aggressive moves. Operation Dawn is called off, but the Egyptian ambassador to the Soviet Union assures Nasser that, should war come, the Soviet Union will support Egypt. Prime Minister Eshkol of Israel addresses the country in a radio address, and sounds confused and panicky. Israelis panic.
May 30-June 4: Jordan signs a mutual defense pact with Egypt, letting the PLO back in Jordan and putting the Jordanian army under Egyptian control. Eshkol turns the position of Defense Minister to Moshe Dayan, and announces the formation of a unity government, bringing Begin in. Egyptian troops continue to enter Sinai. Jordan draws up plans, should war come, to surround Western Jerusalem. The Syrians also plan offensive operations. Morrocco, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia send troops to the Sinai. The US sends signals that it is softening on an Israeli attack. The Arab states announce a ban on oil sales to countries that support Israel, and the Soviets send a fleet to the Eastern Med as “observers”. France announces a ban on weapon sales to Israel, and the US urges Israel to not make any preemptive strikes. On June 4, the Israeli Cabinet meets and decides to attack the next day.
On June 5, the war begins.
If you want any specific information on the lead up to war, let me know.
I recommend reading Six Days of War by Michael Oren - it’s a very good, general history of that conflict. Written from the Israeli perspective (Oren was the Israeli ambassador to the US), but highly praised as factual.
The Six-Day War was, in essence, Nassar’s folly.
The setting for the war was the establishment of a UN peacekeeping force, the UNEF, between the Egyptians and Israelis.
As a result of a series of miscalculations and miscommunications in which the Soviets played a malign and mysterious role (they falsely warned Nassar that the Israelis were massing on the Syrian border), and taunts from the Jordainians that Nassar was “hiding behind UNEF’s skirts”, Nassar embarked on a series of measures that were obvously angling for war, as far as the Israelis were concerned:
First, he ordered the UNEF to leave - and they did.
Second, he moved his army into the Sinai, to replace the UNEF.
Third, he closed the Straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping - in the face of an Israeli statement that closing the Straights was an act of war.
Fourth, after this, Egypt and Jordan signed a defence pact (that was on May 30).
On June 6, Israel attacked with its preemptive strike.
In answer to your specific questions - yes, Jordan had an obligation to coordinate its military plans with Egypt, but they entered into that obligation literally a few days before the war, and certainly they could (and would) have ignored it, if they had been aware of the true situation (Nassar was lying to them up the yin-yang to get them to commit).
Second, it is true that Israel fired the first shots in the war, but the blame clearly lies with Nasser (and the Soviets, who had lied up the yin-yang to him) - with a side-helping of blame for the UN, for cowardly withdrawing its force, and the Israelis, for taking Nassar’s bluster seriously (though they could hardly do otherwise). Nasser could have easily avoided the war, had he wanted to, by the simple expedient of not ordering the UNEF to leave.
According to Oren, Nasser did not actually want things to go as far as they did - for one, part of his army was still busy in Yemen, so he wasn’t in fact ready for an all-out war - but he was trapped my the momentum of events he had himself set in train: for example, he had (allegedly) ordered the UNEF to leave, hoping and expecting them to ignore him - so that he could score points with his fellow Arab leaders and the Arab “street”; when they actually left, he was as surprised and shocked as the Israelis, but with this difference - the Israelis assumed this was all part of his drum-roll towards war. Closing thge straights was his final, irrevocable mistake - the Israelis had flat-out told him that doing so would mean war.
Well this seems to contradict the notion that Jordan invaded israel. It seems to contradict portrayals of israel being the victims of invasion. Israel attacked Egypt and egypt retaliated with its treaty partners.
Like I said, I don’t think israel has to wait until its nose is bloodied before it strikes but the analogy has been Russia taking land in Germany after Germany invaded it. The analogy seems to gloss over some galring differences between the two situations.
If the rationale is Israel is doing it because it has the muscle to do so, then fine but that doesn’t seem to be a formula for a lasting peace of regional prostperity.
Jordan did invade Israel. The Israelis attacked Egypt in a pre-emptive strike; but they did not attack Jordan. They wanted Jordan to sit out the war, and the Jordanian King seriously considered it. However, Nasser persuaded him otherwise, basically by lying to him about the military situation.
I dunno where you are getting your first sentence from.
Verses the famed objectivity of Hussein Agha? How long has he been advising the PNA again? You may not like Ross, but he’s not wrong here. The failure of Camp David/Taba to go forward is on Arafat.
First, I have yet to see a transition to democracy anywhere. Second, what makes you think democratic states are more likely to go to war?
So, Israel should make concessions, ignore terrorist attacks, and negotiate with Hamas - even though Hamas has outright declared that any negotiations it undertakes with Israel are purely strategic and a waste of time. If it doesn’t, it isn’t serious, and the Palestinians are fully justified in ignoring any and all peace offers.
Apples to earlobes. What do the Palestinians want?
That’s relatively common. They are the power player.
Anyone can negotiate with a terrorist. But negotiating with someone who doesn’t see the same end goal as you is pointless.
GTFO! no way. Cause I was so reading about a 10 month settlement freeze last year where oh yeah nothing happened and Obama was like, er, plz wait longer! We’ll set up a mtg! BRB!
What does this have to do with Israel? Nothing.
Nah. Just shows how little you know about foreign policy, Israeli history, and, you know, saying things that make sense.
I don’t hold odd beliefs. Despite the fact that it is the policy, despite the fact that it is popular and despite the fact that most sides of the argument agree that it is true, I struggle with and remain unconvinced that Jews are to be held to a much lower standard of behaviour than normal, civilized human beings.
Accordingly I cannot accept the state-sponsored looting and endless lies. The shrug that “well, what can you expect?” which is applied to the looters, occupying army and Israelis generally, that dismissive shrug fails to convince me.
My questions had priority.
Animosity? I’m not the one wedded to the position that Jews are lowly sub-humans. That’d be the “lesser standard” crowd. Revise your interpretation, nothing I’ve put forward is false, demonstrable or otherwise.