… or until you can do better than simply cutting and pasting from antisemitic newsgroups and websites. Come back when you’ve actually gone down to the library and checked them out for yourself.
Zev Steinhardt
**Exodus
I do not sign Your texts.**
Let me put it this way:
If the Palestinian people would be the oppressors and the Jews the oppressed in what I would call Israel/Palestine:
- I mean that history would be just otherway round in this area for the last 60 years.
- The Jews has always been oppressed "otherwhere geografically and historicallly.
So if it would be otherway round, I would defend the Human rights, etc., etc. of the Jews.
For me it is abhorring, that Jews after they history of oppression, has learned how to oppress, how to falsely propagate etc. against other people/ethnic groups.
I think that the majority of the Jews are normal thinking people, but I can see that there is also people like the settlers that just steals land from others, just like the nazi’s did steal in Germany, Austria, yes all over Europe.
The Jews did not kill the refugees like the nazi’s did.
I am sure that they, the Israelians was also robbed in other countries.
Does this justify what they are doing?
NO! Absolutely not!
In my view Israel should keep the borders of UN and stick with it.
Otherwise the war will go on and on and on.
Endlessly.
Exodus,
You are new to this, I can’t say that your beginnings are promising as regards content. The SDMB is dedicated to the principle of fighting ignorance, which it inherits from it’s parent and source Cecil Adams column ‘The Straight Dope’.
You’ll find a complete spectrum of viewpoints in here with one thing in common; the dedication to balanced, informed debate. There are exceptions, they are usually viewed with little respect if any. It might get heated at times, but usually it is reason that prevails, not biased opinion and utter idiocy like the stuff in your posts.
You have answered me, inadequately albeit, but answered you have.
You have been answered, adequately as it would be.
Based on those answers I would suggest that it is now up to you to either retract or refrain from further comment on a subject matter where you have displayed a close to complete lack of command and yet spread frightful amounts of distorted, offensive dogma.
Sparc
I can’t believe you guys can even think of taking seriously a guy who quotes Zyuganov as any kind of political authority. I’m crawling off to the bathroom to puke now; see ya later.
But Jews did bring it on themselves!
Did Constadine begin by hating Jews? No, he only started to hate Jews when they refused to see the light of Christinity and wouldn’t convert during the Roman adoption and expansion of the Christian faith. The millenia of persecution that followed was the Jews’ fault for refusing to see the one true wisdom and thereby condemning their souls.
Did Mohammad initially hate Jews? No, they were allies at first and he only hated them when they again refused to see the light and acknowledge him as the new and true prophet.
Did Martin Luther initially hate Jews? No, he presumed that would rally behind him and convert in droves to the return to the true faith that his version of Christianity offered. Only when they refused to do so did he write his many vitriolic antisemetic tracts.
A stubborn stiff-necked people who insult the new games in town again and again by staying true to their own ancient beliefs. And having the gall to continue to survive as a distinct and other entity! They bring on themselves.
Now let’s talk about those harlots in halter tops and why they just asking to be raped.
(BTW, Eva, I think that it was the misquotes and lies about the Holy texts that pushed Zev’s buttons. Them thar texts are things that he knows kinda well … )
Well, it was that and his other quote:
that did it for me.
I’ve post to Usenet newsgroups and run across those “Talmud quotes” from time to time. I just didn’t think I’d run across them here. I was happy to see that in my first two and a half years here I was able to escape from that sort of idiocy. I’m hoping that this is simply an isolated incident.
Zev Steinhardt
…and, of course, Exodus’s rantings have nothing to do with whether Palestinian bombers have any excuse or not…
Zev Steinhardt
Just to clarify, I was puking at Exodus, not Zev or anyone else. I seem to have gotten it out of my system, though.
Back to the OP, anyone?
zev and Eva,
You’re wrong, this is not a complete sidetrack that we are letting ourselves be dragged into. It does have something to do with the OP. It has very much to do with the OP as far as I can see.
The OP posits that there is no excuse for the atrocities of the suicide bombers, which in my opinion is correct. In a sidetrack that I was in many ways a party to we went into the debate of the finer details of understanding the grounds while still condemning the action.
First we had a few posters react irrationally to that discussion and display some less than well founded feelings re Palestinians.
Now we have a blatant example before us of opinions that attempt not to understand, but to justify by shifting blame in irrational ways.
I’ll put it another way: The abominable opinions we have just been privy to thanks to Exodus is the one and only attempt so far in this thread to actually counter the OP’s assertion that there is no viable excuse for suicide bombings.
*Should we let that pass by ignoring the posts that so say? *
No way. Not that I think that we can change this very posters opinion, but to let them stand uncontested and unanswered is against every last principle that I try to live by.
I firmly believe that silence and turning your back is the same as condoning the extension of these horrid opinions, in other words acting on them.
If we as individuals have understood the inalienable rights that every human being enjoys; trying to understand the ones who stray and countering hatred with reason and emotional appeal is our goddamned responsibility.
In other words: when faced with this extremely offensive and intolerant kind of ignorance here displayed it is the responsibility of anyone with enough brains to know that the world and its inhabitants are neither black nor white to counter it as best we can and to the level we dare.
As an aside I might mention that IMHO this doesn’t mean that we have to be lambs. Sometimes the situation demands violence in sheer self defense, but then only as a last resort, and then we must be aware that we thereby tread into the twilight zone of escalating violence and the unclear morality which ensues.
I’m infused by these principles and I sure-as-goddamned-fucking-hell-has-nine-levels-according-to-Dante will not be silent in the hope that these opinions go away when they face me. Was Exodus a regular poster I would drag him to the Pit - not to make him amend, but to dismantle his demagogy of hatred. As it is we have no choice but to fight were we stand.
Sparc
PS Thanks especially to zev and DSeid for mounting counter arguments that display far more ground, humor and wit than I am presently able to muster. DS
Sparc, I agree with you completely that it is not only short-sighted, but even dangerous to let this insanity pass by unchallenged. I am just unable to keep the bile from rising in my throat long enough to formulate a solid counterargument, as I tend to be one of those people who a) has a bad habit of taking international politics personally, and b) want things to make sense on a fundamental human level, which Exodus’ posts do not.
When confronted with senselessness, therefore, I am at a loss. Fresh out of ideas. I feel like I’m beating my head against the wall. If you can summon the energy, however, to go another round, more power to you.
[hijack, but maybe not unrelated after all] Is anyone else besides me curious why Exodus chose the screen name that he did?
About the last posts and mine among them. (Just very shortly, have to go to work.)
-
As I see Israel wants the Palestinian to stop suicide bombing.
(My opinion is that how ever they fight, they should not kill or hurt civilians.) -
Palestinians do not trust them for quite many reasons.
-
I do not think that the reasons are in something written some thousend years ago.
-
Posted “famous frases”, as the Palestinians say, because I belive that their mistrust, hate etc. comes from the history that the living people still remember: 10 - 60 years.
If any Russian general would had said: "“When we have settled the land, all the Finns will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.”
Would I trust him?
Lay down and wait “for better times to come”, to get a citizenship?
Like hell I would not. And do You not think it would be a very well known quote in my country (Finland) after that?
“When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.” — Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces (New York Times, 14 April 1983)
My point is - in the question can the suicide bombings have an excuse (a reason), that first we have to know why they are doing it?
I think I know why they are doing it, and if they would hit military objects, I would say that they have an excuse.
I would even say that it is their obligation to fight.
Naturally they should negotiate, but with whom? The tanks?
That “he hit first and now I hit back”, is totally bullshit.
“After UN gave me what I got, I stole more, and when he hits back, I get the opportunity to take it all”, would be more correct.
When Finland made peace with Stalin, we did not trust him. But even England , US and France were in the negotiations.
Little by little the trust grow, and now I am living here, and I can buy land here etc.
OK. It took 60 years. It will take the same in Palestine and Israel, I think.
But where are the international forces that could calm down the situation and the negotiations could begin.
Do not say that it was in Camp David. That was crap.
They gave Arafat worse conditions than in Oslo.
And this guy could not trust them. He was only muttering the four-letter word: “Oslo, Oslo”.
Summa Summarum: I think the fight has all the excuses needed, but the means should change.
History will condemn us if we only sit and do nothing.
I repeat: Why not UN-forces + US-forses if US does not trust UN.
Sorry for my haste, but the question remains:
- Why the hate?
- Do they have a right to fight?
- And with what means?
- What are the alternatives?
I really see all these question in the original OP.
If we just keep us to OP, litterally, we are discussing a question like: “Do You still hit Your wife? Yes or no?”
Henry:
I find it disingenious to keep going back to a handful of dispicable quotes from the Israeli side and use them as condemnation of all Israeli intentions. The amount of hate emanating from the Palestinian side dwarfs that from the Israeli side. Sure, there are isolated quotes here and there from Israeli extremists that are unpleasant. But there are hundreds of times as many, from Arafat on down to school textbooks, chronicling vile hatred from the Palestinians. To use 20 year old quotes which don’t reflect the current situation is ludicrous in the current situation of most Israelis supporting a Palestinian state acheived by negotiation and most Palestinians supporting suicide bombings.
For the past two years, Israelis have been looking for a road to a Palestinian state. The Palestinians, except for the most moderate among them, are trapped in looking for destruction of the Israeli state.
Also, I have seen no good explanation that oppression leads to suicide bombings. Suicide bombings are a recent import into the region, brought there after success with Hizbollah in Lebanon and with Islamic Jihad elsewhere. If you look at other groups which have been oppressed, if you look at the Palestinians until about 15 years ago, you didn’t see any suicide bombings.
Suicide bombings stem from only one thing. Hate. That hate is fueled by two particular brands of Islamic fundamentalism. That is it, until recently when amongst the Palestinians suicide bombings were legitimized as a national form of struggle and Fatah started using them. Even among secular Fatah, though, suicide bombings are fueled in part by religion. The oppression is only a catalyst. IMHO, suicide bombings would continue because of hate and religious fervor even without an occupation.
Look at Lebanon. While most attacks are not suicide bombings, Hizbollah continues to attack a border agreed upon by Lebanon, Israel, and the UN. They claim that the Sheba’a Farms are still occupied, but according to the UN Blue Line, it is part of Israel. So they continue attacks on civilian populations. There is no occupation anymore, there is only hate and religious fervor. That is what I fear for the future of the Israeli/Palestinian situation if there is unilateral separation without an address of social issues on the Palestinian side.
This is a rather twisted statement. Israel has gained land from the Arab countries, but each time it was either directly attacked, or some act of war by the other side proceeded its attack. Would you suggest that if a country starts a war with another country and loses, the winning country should get nothing from such a war? Surely the loss of land is perfectly fair as, when your country became involved in the war that risk was there. Would you suggest that Israel’s actions in its own defense were some sort of attempt to conquer those lands? Unless I have completely misunderstood what I have learned about some of Israel’s wars I can’t understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
Also, I would like to remind you that you are currently skating the fine line between “understanding” the suicide bombings and justifying them. You are suggesting that negotiations are impossible for the Palestinians, so a violent effort is the only option. You also mention the tanks. Yet, are not the tanks a direct result of the suicide bombings?
By the same reasoning, are not the suicide bombings the direct result of the tanks, the rapes, the execution-style murders, the bulldozers, the theft, the shootings of schoolchildren–?
Squish, I would love to hear you evidence of times in which civilians were directly targeted. And rape? I would love to hear your evidence. Now, on to your claim. Israel would pull out of the west bank if only the suicide bombings would stop. Now, the suicide bombings would not necessarily stop. Do you want to know why? Many of the terrorist organizations behind the suicide bombings have vowed to destroy Israel. To them, whether Israel pulls out of the West Bank or not is irrelevant.
edwino wrote:
“I find it disingenious to keep going back to a handful of dispicable quotes from the Israeli side and use them as condemnation of all Israeli intentions. The amount of hate emanating from the Palestinian side dwarfs that from the Israeli
side.
Sure, there are isolated quotes here and there from Israeli extremists that are unpleasant.”
Israeli extremists??? like Ben Gurion?, like Moshe Dayan?, like Yitzhak Shamir?, like Ariel Sharon? like Raphael Eitan?, etc. etc.
Are You speaking shit about our heroes? (Excuse me the language).
Please read carefully. The Palestinians has also read this. Many times. Over and over. We all should.
So:
“It’s not a matter of maintaining the status quo.
We have to create a dynamic state, oriented towards expansion.”
- **Ben Gurion **
“Take the American declaration of Independence. It contains no mention of territorial limits. We are not obliged to fix the limits of the State.”
- Moshe Dayan (Jerusalem Post, 08/10/1967)
“The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism.
Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It’s that simple.”
- Yitzhak Shamir (Maariv, 02/21/1997)
“Without [the settlements] the IDF [Israeli Defense Force] would be a foreign army ruling a foreign population.”
- Defense Minister Moshe Dayan (quoted in Aronson, Geoffrey, Settlements and the Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations; Institute for Palestinian Studies)
“The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya [immigration], and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country.”
-
Yitzhak Shamir (“Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders”;
Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service, November 1990)
“Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours…
Everything we don’t grab will go to them.”
- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.
“We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel…
Force is all they do or ever will understand.
We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.”
-
Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces
Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.
“If I was an Arab leader I would never make [peace] with Israel.
That is natural: we have taken their country.”
- David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99.
“Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages.
You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist.
Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either.
Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman.
There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”
- Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.
“It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time.
The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.”
- Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.
"We should prepare to go over to the offensive.
Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria.
The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine.
We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai."
-
David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff.
From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.
“How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.” - -
Golda Meir, March 8, 1969
And how about this fing terrorist-extremist:*
“I am a black South African, and if I were to change the names, a description of what is happening in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank could describe events in South Africa.”
- Archbishop Desmond Tutu, during Christmas visit to Jerusalem, December 25, 1989 (Ha’aretz; cited in Palestine Perspectives, January/February 1990)
And if You want more quotes (from very well known extremists), just whistle.
edwino wrote:
“But there are hundreds of times as many, from Arafat on down to school textbooks, chronicling vile hatred from the Palestinians.”
Repetition is the mother of all learning:
“Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages.
You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist.
Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either.
Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman.
There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”
- Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.
So what would You think if You lived in Holland and the leaders of France would speak as above, for the last five decades?
Listen to the (assumed) teacher in Holland:
“Now children, listen, they are just talking; the French leaders are most gully-gully-people, extremists perhaps, but very good people.
Their helicopters, tanks are in reality made of chocolate. they will melt in the sun some day. And they moved to our country just as guests. They will leave soon and give all those beautiful condos to us! See how good neighbours we have?
But yesterday, little Tom, was throwing a stone at one of the tanks!!!
Where do You think he has learned that kind of bad manner?
And see, now he is “evaporated”. See what God does to all naughty boys!”
Comment: For further reading read the book “1984” by Orwell.
edwino wrote:
“To use 20 year old quotes which don’t reflect the current situation is ludicrous in the current situation of most Israelis supporting a Palestinian state achieved by negotiation and most Palestinians supporting suicide bombings.”
…which don’t reflect the current situation???
I tell You a big, big secret: They support what ever to get rid of the occupants, oppressors etc.
Just to be very clear: Whoever who comes armed to my country (Finland), should arrest me at once. I am found in my attic fabricating Molotov-Coctails, bombs etc.
(Btw. I have the constitutional right to do so, and I have even swore an oath to do so, in the army 1970)
However, I do not support killing of civilians.
edwino wrote:
“For the past two years, Israelis have been looking for a road to a Palestinian state.
The Palestinians, except for the most moderate among them, are trapped in looking for destruction of the Israeli state.”
O God!, for two years!!! That long???
Let me tell You, the train went long time ago, now Israel, the most powerful army, is in really deep shit. Within 10 years or so.
Wait, wait! So when Israel is trapped in looking for destruction of Palestine…, what should that be called? “Looking for a road to peace?” The Final Peace? RIP?
Beside, if Israel goes back inside it’s boarders, settlers and all, the terrorists has absolutely no growing ground anymore.
The terrorists will be shouting: “See we won!” (Even if the final work was made by UN, US, EU and You and me. I mean all of us.)
So let them shout.
They would be politically dead in an hour, if they would shout: “Let’s bomb some more! it’s such a fun!”
And Arafat will sign this contract any day.
edwino wrote:
“Also, I have seen no good explanation that oppression leads to suicide bombings.”
Just read something about the history of Palestine the last 50 years, and You will. I can put here some treads if You like.
edwino wrote:
“Suicide bombings are a recent import into the region, brought there after success with Hizbollah in Lebanon and with Islamic Jihad elsewhere. If you look at other groups which have been oppressed, if you look at the Palestinians until about 15 years ago, you didn’t see any suicide bombings.”
Do we agree that this kind of activity can only spring up from some activity.
It can not be exported in boxes with the label “HATE. 12 kg:s, Open carefully”.
My question: Who is feeding the baby (of hate)? (Hint, read my earlier “ancient” quotations.).
edwino wrote:
“Suicide bombings stem from only one thing. Hate. That hate is fueled by two particular brands of Islamic fundamentalism.”
Fueled yes, but who gave the birth and feeds the baby of Hate?
Naturally this is a question of chicken and egg, but we are now where we are, and we should do something.
The train has gone but the rails are still there.
edwino wrote:
“Look at Lebanon. While most attacks are not suicide bombings, Hizbollah continues to attack a border agreed upon by Lebanon, Israel, and the UN. They claim that the Sheba’a Farms are still occupied, but according to the UN Blue Line, it is part of Israel.”
I would like to know more about this. (Sincerely).
edwino wrote:
“So they continue attacks on civilian populations. There is no occupation anymore, there is only hate and religious fervor.”
As above. If it’s very long, or there are copyright-questions etc. , please E-mail me.
Mandos wrote:
“Israel has gained land from the Arab countries, but each time it was either directly attacked, or some act of war by the other side proceeded its attack.
Would you suggest that if a country starts a war with another country and loses, the winning country should get nothing from such a war?”
Do You think that any country that has a “moral right to take pre-steps in a war (making more “lebensraum”) “as Hitler pointed out, “the winning country should get nothing from such a war?”
Did USA take Hanover, Kiel-canal? Would it had the right to do so? No! USA liberated Europe, and I think 99% of us Europeans are grateful for that. Even we Finns (and Germans) that fought against the Allied Forces.
Had Stalin the right to take “East-Germany”?
Had Stalin the right to take Finnish Karelia?
If they had the right, USA have the right (and capacity) to take every country that it feels threatening. Like Grenada. (And Hollywood can make a Clint Eastwood-film about it.)
Mandos wrote:
“Surely the loss of land is perfectly fair as, when your country became involved in the war that risk was there. Would you suggest that Israel’s actions in its own defense were some sort of attempt to conquer those lands?”
Yes, certainly yes. I believe so, but that will take some pages. First look at the “ancient quotations” above. They were all made before some war, during a war, or after a war.
Mandos wrote:
“Unless I have completely misunderstood what I have learned about some of Israel’s wars I can’t understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.”
Look above + some tens of other reasons.
One I give here (my comments in brackets). This is a Palestinian text, but please read the other side also. Carefully and think a little bit.
It took some time for me to melt this, because the propaganda about this war has been immense.
However I believe that the truth is that nobody was threatning Israel at that time.
Actually the Israeli generals and top-politicians says so. But please read by Yourself:
Israel began planning the re-conquest of the Sinai soon after its forced withdrawal in 1956. (I can not prove this).
In 1967, as in 1956, Israel waited for favorable circumstances to put its plan into action.
In 1967, however, Israel had a greater appreciation of the necessity and utility of a sophisticated publicity campaign, waged through the international media, to convince Western opinion that any Israeli military actions could only be construed as acts of
self-defense.
This publicity campaign was two-pronged: stressing that the Arabs attacked Israel and that Israel was in danger of annihilation. Both presuppositions were patently false.
In the early hours of 5 June 1967, Israel announced to a credulous Western world that the Egyptian Air Force had initiated hostile actions.
In fact, it was the Israelis who had attacked the Egyptians and destroyed virtually the entire Egyptian Air Force while its fleet was still on the ground.
General Matityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli conquest, committed what the Israeli public considered blasphemy when he admitted the true thinking of the Israeli leadership:
"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war"
(Ha’aretz, 19 March 1972).
Israeli Air Force General Ezer Weizmann declared bluntly that "there was never any danger of extermination"
(Ma’ariv, 19 April 1972).
Mordechai Bentov, a former Israeli cabinet minister,
also dismissed the myth of Israel’s imminent annihilation:
"All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories"
(Al Hamishmar, 14 April 1972).
After the 1967 war Israel, claimed it invaded because of imminent Arab attack. It claimed that Nasser’s closing of the Straits of Tiran constituted an act of war. It also cited Syrian shelling on the demilitarized zone of the Syrian-Israeli border.
The claim that the Arabs were going to invade appears particularly ludicrous when one recalls that a third of Egypt’s army was in Yemen (what the f*** were they doing there???) and therefore quite unprepared to launch a war.
On the Syrian front, Israel was engaging in threats and provocations that evidenced many similarities to its behavior in the lead up to the Gaza raid of 1955.
The demilitarized zone on the Syrian-Israeli border was established by agreement on 20 July 1949. Israeli provocations were incessant and enabled Israel to increase and extend its sovereignty by encroachment over the entire Arab area.
According to one UN Chief of Staff, Arab villagers were evicted and their homes destroyed.
(E.L.M. Burns, Between Arab and Israeli, Ivan Obolensky, 1962, pp. 113-114).
Another Chief of Staff described how the Israelis ploughed up Arab land and "advanced the ‘frontier’ to their own advantage"
(Carl von Horn, Soldiering for Peace, Cassell, 1966, p. 79).
Israel attempted to evict the Arabs living on the Golan and annex the demilitarized zone. When the Syrians inevitably responded, Israel claimed that “peaceful” Israeli farmers were being shelled by the Syrians.
Unmentioned was the fact that the “farmers” were armed and using tractors and farm equipment to encroach on the demilitarized zone.
(David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: the Roots of Violence in the Middle East, Faber and Faber, 1984, pp. 213-15).
Shortly after the Syrian response on 7 April 1967, the Israeli Air Force attacked Syria, shooting down six planes, hitting thirty fortified positions and killing about 100 people (Hirst, op. cit., p. 214).
It was unlikely that any Syrian guns would have been fired if not for Israel’s provocation. Israel’s need for water also played a role in the 1967 attack.
(This seem to be still a big question; the water.)
The invasion completed Israel’s encirclement of the headwaters of the Upper Jordan River, its capture of the West Bank and the two aquifers arising there, which currently supply all the groundwater for northern and central Israel.
The Israelis followed-up their massive retaliation with stern warnings.
On 11 May 1967, General Yitzhak Rabin said on Israeli radio:
"The moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian Government"
(Godfrey Jansen, “New Light on the 1967 War”, Daily Star, London, 15, 22, 26 November 1973).
(To be continued…)
Syria sought Egypt’s assistance under their Mutual Defense Pact of November 1966.
Nasser could not afford to stand idly by. He ordered the removal of the small UN force stationed in Sinai and closed the Straits of Tiran. This action provided the casus belli that Israel soon invoked.
Nasser’s move was a gesture of solidarity with Syria and no threat to Israel’s economy or its security. The closure of the Straits did not force Israel into war.
Claims of economic strangulation were absurd since only 5 percent of Israel’s trade depended on free movement through the Straits of Tiran.
No Israeli merchant vessel had passed through the Straits during the previous two years.
(Michael Howard and Robert Hunter, Israel and the Arab World: the Crisis of 1967, Adelphi Papers 41, Institute for Strategic Studies, 1967, p. 24).
In sum, the threat to Israel’s survival in 1967 was non-existent. According to the British newspaper The Observer, Nasser’s purpose was clearly “to deter Israel rather than provoke it to a fight” (The Observer, London, 4 June 1967).
New York Times columnist James Reston reported that “Egypt does not war […] certainly is not ready for war” (New York Times, 4 and 5 June 1967).
The Israelis themselves were perfectly aware of this, given their sophisticated military intelligence capabilities.
Later, in the first few days of the war, they were so concerned that their plans for attacking Syria would be discovered that they deliberately attacked the USS Liberty, killing 33 American sailors, in an attempt to prevent it from monitoring war preparations. (This was news for me!)
A few months after the war, Yitzhak Rabin remarked:
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it"
(Le Monde, 29 February 1968).
Israeli General Peled was even more frank:
"To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal [Israeli army]"
(Ha’aretz, 19 March 1972).
Finally, in 1982, the Israelis admitted that they had started the war (although official Zionist propaganda in the United States still does not acknowledge this fact).
Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech delivered at the Israeli National Defense College, clearly stated that:
"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him"
(Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982).
Dear Mandos, I was not there, so read this Palestinian text with a thought.
The quotes are accurate, all the other is written not by me, but I have the permission to use this text.
Mandos wrote:
“Also, I would like to remind you that you are currently skating the fine line between “understanding” the suicide bombings and justifying them.”
Bombing, killing, enemy soldiers, invaded to Your country: Yes!
Civilians: Absolutely NO!!!
And it is not “skating the fine line”, it is my duty if my country (Finland) is attacked, occupied, by another nation. Eskimos or who-ever!
Mandos wrote:
“You are suggesting that negotiations are impossible for the Palestinians, so a violent effort is the only option. You also mention the tanks. Yet, are not the tanks a direct result of the suicide bombings?”
It is “chicken and egg”, but I see it like this: When UN made the borders, then was the time to begin to heel the wounds.
Some 30 years ago, a Arab told me that in the beginning the Jews were OK. The Englishmen were the “occupiers” etc… But I do not know how it was, but I am sure that a bridge could have been built.
Now they can not even discuss with each other. And I would say that Sharon, the 100-times stronger part, is not so keen to discuss. He wants to stop the bombings, yes, but he wants also to keep the Palestinian as a third class people.
You can read further about the Palestinian human rights, there are many sources to that.
Mandos wrote in the next post:
“… Now, on to your claim. Israel would pull out of the west bank if only the suicide bombings would stop.”
So the 200.000 illegal settlers has been packing their things for some decades now? No I do not believe that.
Mandos wrote:
“Now, the suicide bombings would not necessarily stop. Do you want to know why? Many of the terrorist organizations behind the suicide bombings have vowed to destroy Israel.”
Terrorist organizations are not the same as Palestinians. Or do You think:
Terrorist = Palestinian, Arab, etc.???
Well, if we think like this, Israel should first occupy everything west to Eufrat.
Then take a breath and put a sign “Next stop river Indus”.
There are 3 solutions:
1) Israel takes “more lebensraum” and mentally castrate/kill all “die untermenchen”. Make bandustans etc. (A camp is a camp, You know).
2) The war is going until the world says: “Enough!”
3) UN and USA (EU or who are most fit) will go inside Palestine and keep the order there: Giving people water, putting (asking) the settlers where they belong => to Israel, let students go to the schools, put up elections, etc. etc.
I highly recommend the alternative number 3.
But as long as the world does not do anything else than talks:
Every man and woman, in every part of the world!
When Your country is occupied, it is not Your privilege to fight for Your country.
It is Your duty!
P.S. I hope no stupid ***hole ask: “Does this mean murdering children?”
(Got this question about 10 times and always answered: NO!)
If (s)he does ask, the answer is: “Do target on the army, the oppressors will kill every kind of objects, including children.”
Thank You for reading!
Have a nice day.
Henry B - I have followed your posts in this thread with no small amount of interest. I am in complete agreement with you that the past conduct of Israel needs to be closely examined in order to understand why the Palestinians have resorted to suicide bombings, and at the same time it is possible to condemn the suicide bombings as a misguided tactic.
I believe, however, that a joint US/UN solution, or a solution in which the US plays a solo role, will only serve to worsen the situation, if that is possible.
A solo US solution wil only anger the Palestinians more because they are well aware that the US already gives $3 billion a year in monetary and military aid to Israel. If the US went in of its own accord to settle the conflict, the Palestinians would (rightly, IMO) see the US as continuing to support Israel’s side, only more openly.
As for a joint US/UN solution, all too often the US has used the UN as a fig leaf for its own direct involvement. I feel I need only point out the horrific abuses Somalians suffered at the hands of UN troops in the early 90s to illustrate my point.
What’s the answer, then? I don’t have a complete one, to be sure, but a large step in the right direction would be to cut off all US aid to Israel immediately.
Henry, not only have you chosen a Palestinian text to support your argument, you have not even told us where to find the text. Also, you say that the quotes are accurate. With what methods did you check this accuracy? It would seem to me that anything taken from a Palestinian or Israeli website in this dispute is rather worthless. After all, the bias is there, so the accuracy is tainted. Find a source that isn’t tainted with bias, please. Oh, and do tell us what this source is.
Thank You Olentzero for Your kind words. I did not think that anyone would follow my writings in a positive way.
But to the point:
I also think that US should not be there “raising feelings”.
But it is not very good that someone from Finland, writing from Russia would say that aloud.
And there is also the “what do they think at home” if US is not there as “someone we can trust”? “These Europeans, Asians, etc., can they be trusted?” I mean how does the American common citizen feel if “our boys are left out?”
Maybe the US could be like observators? And the other ones would face the public?
Then there is a third point; in order to not harm the settlers too much, they will be alarmed enough anyhow, there is a huge need of money: Bush has promised money, cutbacks in the unneeded military aid added to that, will be a hugh sum. And I am sure that EU will also put money in this.
But how to tell USA; give Your money, and go home!
It would be unfair.
I think US should be there in some balanced numbers and that all the UN-guys and girls should have the same kind of uniforms without visible “purple hearts” or something else where You can see from 100 yards that that guy is a Yankee.
But when it comes to put up again the watering system, the whole infrastructure and schooling-system, the Americans should be working in an “overbalanced” amount.
And they should always work together with an Palestinian engineer, social worker or whatever, just to get the good will out as well and as fast as it can be done.
Naturally there are big security questions, but everything should be very well planned together with the Palestinian political system, to get as good guarantees as possible beforehand.
The US citizens could also be arabic-americans and to the rest
there should be schooling about the culture etc. that they will be facing.
I have seen with my own eyes, when soldiers “from abroad” has behaved like everything could be available if You just have money. E.g… in Greece, and some other countries You get everything for free if You are not a Besser-wisser and the mightiest person in the world.
E.g… if I see a tourist here in Vologda, I always try to help them with “where to go and where they absolutely should not go. And they can stay over night at my place, but if they begin to brag with money or something like that, I just politely show them to the nearest hotel. This is a little bit hard to explain.
I happen to have a contact to Nepal and I know hoe the Finnish social workers work. To tell the truth, they should never had gone there in the first place. They understand absolutely null!
I was originally working here in Vologda in a prison as a teacher. And I met some good-meaning social workers from another Nordic country. I was glad they were here only three days!
So, in fact, all those that works in UN or in a foreign country should first study quite hard. I was lucky when I moved to Russia some 6 years ago. I got a very bright guy as an interpreter. He told me always what is seen and what is real. First I thought he was exaggerating or joking, but I learned a lot, without too big mistakes.
And here I am speaking about a neighbouring country, not a totally “exclaiming What’s that! with my finger in my mouth”-culture.
In Stockholm I run a monthly paper that only wrote about different cultures living in the area where I lived. We were about 33.000 citizen and 101 language was spoken there as mother languages, according to the records of the social workers.
And even that was kept together. There was no police-station in the whole area.
It was unbelievable! But there where very much educated people, because most of these people were refugees.
But also Palestinians are very well educated.
OK, this is not the OP, I just wanted to tell that if we begin today, to train UN-people, we will have something achieved within, let’s say 3 years. Some bigger stability within maybe 5 years, and normal conditions within 10 - 15 years.
If we do not begin, the war will go on for let’s say some 100 - 600 years (former Yugoslavia, Ireland etc.)
Just back to OP:
Please read the article by Helena Cobban. Her article is in the Commentary/Opinion in The Christian Science Monitor:
It is quite as the Palestinians has told it to be.
Frankly I think that many reporters are just writing from Jerusalem about Palestine.
But she was there, in Palestine.
Mandos!
I’ll be back with all the sources.
I and my neighbour has only one telephone-line together, and I am overdue the time again. I mean I have been on the Net for hours. But I will be back within 3 - 4 hours.
Thank You for reading.