A Syrian official was on 60 Minutes tonight. He made the observation that Bush has asked Syria to get rid of its WMDs, yet has said nothing to Isreal. Syria claims that Isreal has pretty much what they have and more. I’m honestly not trying to take sides in the Isreali-Arab conflict, but I’d like to know whether people think this is a valid point, and, if so, whether what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander.
Has Syria ever been attacked without provocation by it’s surrounding neighbours on numerous occasions?
To provide a bit of background info, MSNBC has a map showing what’s stored where. (Lest anyone claim that Israel has no such capabilities).
http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/israel.htm
This is a pretty good read. Wonder why they won’t sign off on the treaties? Seems the Muslim world has reason to believe we’re arm in arm with Israel.
That’s irrelevant, as Powell or Rumsfeld rightly said regarding Iraq WMD’s, and I paraphrase, you plan for a potential enemy’s capabilities not their intentions.
IMO Syria has every right to possess WMD’s as deterrent to an aggressive neighbour. It’s how deterrence works.
I’m not sure if the “Jews for Justice” are considered representitive or a legitimate source, but from here
I don’t know enough about the situation to argue these (or any) points, but would like to hear clarification as to whether it is historically accepted that Israel only ever acted in self defence, or not?
As to the OP, this
[quote]
(http://www.cactus48.com/partition.html) by Truman may answer the question:
*
Yes, by Israel.
In 1967, Israel doubled its size, grabbing land from Jordan, Syria (the Golan Heights) and Egypt. And let’s not forget Palestine.
As far as I know, they’re still holding on to that ladn, even though the UN issued Security Council Resolution 242, stressing “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calling for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”.
According ot the UN, the conflict displaced another 500,000 Palestinians who fled to Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.
So who’s the aggressor, here?
In response to the claims that Israel was the aggressor in 1967 please note the part where I said “without provocation”. Prior to the 1967 war Egypt had blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli Shipping and begun moving troops into the Sinai (after having thrown out the UN troops who were there to act as a buffer). Added to this was a growing rhetoric from a number of Arab leaders espousing that soon they would attack Israel and wipe it off the face of the planet (or as they liked to put it, driving Israeli’s “into the sea”). From this page:
Following this Egypt forced Israel’s hand constantly. Jordan threw their hat into the ring and the rhetoric and threats escelated even further.
Did Israel attack first? Sure. Were they the aggressors? Judging by the behaviour of the leadership of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan, I don’t think so.
Whoa. Any chance we could avoid discussions of the '67 war? I mean, Skip, is there any relevence as to whether Syria has ever been attacked without provocation by its neighbors anyway?
The US has never been attacked without provocation by its neighbors, and I would guess we have more WoMD than anyone else. How is that the justification?
Syria continues to repeat that they support removing all WoMD from the ME region. Then they point to Israel. Personally, I’m not even concerned if that tactic is reasonable or valid. I do know it is politically expedient.
The US has already (or very nearly) lost the Arab street. Continuing to apply the WoMD doctrine against Arab but not against Israel certainly won’t play well. As they say in this area, “that dog won’t hunt”.
…against Arab nations* but not against Israel…
Skip:
I would also like to avoid a hijack to the '67 war. But let me point out to you that the Jewish Virtual Library / American Israeli Cooperative Enterprise is far from being a unbiased source on the subject. A bit to close to the official Israeli line, wouldn’t you say?
RandySpears: While I agree that the site as has a bias, do you contest any of the facts put forward with regard to the threats, rhetoric and actions of the Arab leaderhsip of the time towards Israel?
skip:
Start a thread on the 67’ war and we will discuss it. Until then it is sufficient to say that you have provided a recount of events as reported by one party in the conflict.
My post was merely in response to Aro and eljfe claiming that Israel attacked Syria without provocation in 1967. I really don’t have any desire to argue over the 1967 war either.
No, it is not a valid point. Just because we don’t mind one country having WMDs doesn’t mean we’ll tolerate it when others have them.
Marc
Marc, and how does that, exactly, contribute to the “stability of the region” - a stated goal of the US administration?
Only our “friends” have the right to threaten their neighbors?
Or, as it plays in the ME, Zionists are allowed whatever toys they want, because the US wants to keep Arabs subservient.
And what’s wrong with that? Israel, remember, is the only country in that region with a real, functioning democratic government. It is the only country in the Middle East with anything resembling a comittment to human rights (admittedly, they have had human rights violations - but then again, so have we. and they don’t have rape rooms.) If there’s anything close to a legitimate, humane government in the region, it’s in Israel. So yeah, it’s entirely appropriate we support them. “Making the Middle East safe for democracy” is a good thing.
Or, as it plays in the ME, Zionists are allowed whatever toys they want, because the US wants to keep Arabs subservient.
Or perhaps the US would not like to have a dictatorial, quasi-facist government like Syria have access to nuclear weapons (or other WMD), which if anything would make the Israeli’s even more nervous and definitely reduce the stability of the region.
Skip:
I agree with you that it lies within the interests of Israel that Syria not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Just as it lies within the interests of Syria that Israel not be allowed to have them.
But you must admit that there is a problem with always siding with one party in a conflict and at the same time still claim credibility as a mediator.
Nukes! Israel has nukes?
Funny, the US was absolutely positive that Saddam had WoMD (including a nuke program), their intelligence being so good and all.
But the US won’t admit that Israel has nukes.
As for democracy in Israel, please tell me about the representation of the Palestinians in the occupied territories (or in Israel proper, if you prefer).