I’m very sorry. One should not hold Western democracies to suicidal standards.
So, please tell me what standards I’ve held Israel to that you object to and be as specific as you can.
Thanks in advance.
No, we were not.
Huh? The United States had recognized Israel back in 1948 - the day Israel declared itself a country.
Superman and his self defined sense of righteousness prevailing over force, reality, the actual outcomes of wars and realpolitik seem to be real in his world. That and no need for consistency in his beliefs. Note the possession being 9/10s of the law being totally A-Okay for him with regards to Stalin and Eastern Europe - yet he is bewildered as to why we ‘allowed’ the Soviets to set up a communist North Korea. Possession being 9/10s of the law seems not to apply there. He also can’t seem to make up his mind about ‘to the victor go the spoils’ or ‘whichever side started the war should be punished’.
Its also quite noticeable in his the Arabs are scum and Israel can do no wrong view of the war that in his
he ignores two inconvenient facts. Israel started the wars in 1956 and 1967. The 1967 war can justifiably be called a pre-emptive war, but Israel started the war and was the aggressor nonetheless. None of that applies to the 1956 war though. The 1956 war was plainly and clearly an act of aggression instigated by, and the war started by Israel, Britain, and France with no justification of pre-emption.
Actually, that’s not entirely true. Israel and Egypt had been fighting a low-level border war for several years prior to 1956, with the Egyptians sponsoring Palestinian militants (called “Fedayeen” at the time) and Israel launching counter-raids to root them out.
From here:
Whether or not this justified full-scale war is a matter for debate, but I wouldn’t call the situation “plain and clear”.
Plus, Egypt had closed the Canal to Israeli shipping, as well as blockading the Straits of Tiran in violation of agreements and international law, effectively shutting Israel off from trade with Asia.
Your profile says you live in New York. Who is “we”?
That pressure made it impossible for Israel to go after Arab capitals.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity.
Gaza was not liberated.
And desperate, oppressed people fight back. See also: Nat Turner, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, Umkhonto we Sizwe, the Viet Minh, and so on.
Wait…you think Israel was on the verge of capturing Damascus, Cairo, and Amman until they were stabbed in the back by the Americans? Was this in 1948, 1956, 1967, or 1973? Or all of them?
Yeah, in 1967 the Israelis smashed up the Egyptians and took the Sinai peninsula. But the Egyptians had ordered a retreat from Sinai, which made it pretty easy. You think they’d have retreated from Cairo the same way? The Sinai is a worthless desert. Why do you think the Israelis were glad to hand it back to the Egyptians?
Anyway, this is all very silly. Yeah, Israel conquered and occupied the West Bank in 1967. And now what? What should happen there? Should it become part of Israel?
The problem with that is that you’ve got lots of Christian and Muslim people who live there. They can’t be made citizens of Israel without turning Israel into a multiethnic state, which can’t happen. So the only options are mass expulsion or apartheid. Well hey, at least they brought it on themselves, eh?
Israel can’t annex the West Bank and remain both a liberal democracy and a Jewish state. It would have to pick one or the other. And the current trend line looks to be the abandonment of liberal democracy, because there’s absolutely no sign of withdrawal from West Bank and absolutely no interest in a multiethnic polity. I’m not saying the Israelis want this to happen, but they can’t allow them political rights in Israel and they can’t withdraw from the West Bank, so where does that leave them?
And if they had conquered more territory in 1956, or 1967, or 1973, they’d be in the same boat, only worse. Either the territory would be worth something, in which case they would have been non Israelis living there who would have to be dealt with, or it would be worthless like the Sinai, in which case why bother occupying it.
In the second two paragraphs you seem to understand the historical situation, but that’s at odds with the pop history slogan in the first sentence about ‘hands behind back’.
The US didn’t fight the Korean War ‘with one or two hands behind its back’ except in the sense it didn’t send more than a relatively modest proportion of its ground combat power to Korea. A quite modest proportion compared to the US Army of WWII. But again there was a real political constraint, imposed by the American public at that time, not ‘feckless leaders’, against a full mobilization. And otherwise it’s as you correctly said in the second and third paragraphs, relative to the military force the US public was willing to tolerate maintaining, the US would have had to weaken itself (further) in Europe etc to send more troops to Korea. And the Soviets, themselves, sent none of their strictly ground combat forces (just air forces units and ground air defense troops but many fewer than the total US commitment; the Soviets had the PRC and its huge army as ally, hence ‘don’t fight a land war in Asia’ from maritime power like the US’s POV).
As I said, and Little Nemo is not correct on that point as I read the history, the UN Army as it existed could have pushed the combined Chinese Peoples Volunteers/Korean Peoples Army force further north in mid 1951: the Communist force was more exhausted by the failure of it spring offensives than the UN force in repelling them. But it would cumulatively have cost a lot of more individual replacements to be sent to fill in casualties of such a campaign, and how far and what then? Again, defending the whole border of NK and China (look at a map, it’s 3 times or more longer than the DMZ line depending how count) was not feasible. So you’d leave a smaller NK anyway, and make it harder to reach an armistice. With US public fed up enough about the war as it was to be a big reason Truman didn’t run again (which he was eligible to do). The idea of an easy complete US/UN victory in Korea is and was (it’s been around a long time) a populist fantasy.
That doesn’t count going nuclear, but it’s all the more ridiculous to present that as an easy ‘why didn’t they just’ solution without huge ramifications.
We?
I think he messed up the quotes. The second two paragraphs were from my post.
I am speculated here but I believe JBGUSA may be Jewish and therefore identifies with Israel as well as the United States.
I’ve encountered that attitude before. I’m not fond of it.
More Catholic than the Pope and all that.
Ravenman does an excellent job of summarizing OP. But I’ll add that OP also has misconceptions about wars Ravenman doesn’t mention. With ten million soldiers already dead, the cease-fire in W.W.I was premature? This claim is so peculiar I was almost tempted to click OP’s link.
I agree with the sentiment, but it doesn’t really apply to the conflicts you mentioned. Those conflicts ended in less than complete victory because complete victory was impossible at a reasonable cost, so ending the war was just better. But I do agree in general that if we are forced into war, rather than choosing it, that we should finish it and the nation that started it should never be in a position to threaten us again. That doesn’t mean destruction or subjugation, which is all the unimaginitive Europeans could come up with after WWI, but forced secularization and democratization and modernization should definitely be on the table.
Just so you know the rest of the world kind of looks down on ethnic cleansing.
Okay we can agree destruction would have been a bad idea. But how are you going to impose things like secularization and democratization and modernization unless you start with subjugation? You have to take over a country and run it in order to make those kind of fundamental changes.