West Bank vs. Gaza - Palestinians have a clear choice - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Chocobot · #91 (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhodescholar

As usual you are wrong. The mood and expectations at the time was that the israelis were going to get crushed, as war had grinded on for years between israel and syria and israel and egypt.

If Im usually so wrong youve yet to counter. I dont expect much this time either.

The mood in the Isreali public was fearful. The mood among the military top brass was not so.

Lets see if you can please name an Isreali general who says that Isreali forces faced destruction at the time.

Chocobot · #92 (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhodescholar

Yeah, that worked REAL well in Gaza and lebanon

Actually it would have if isreal had ever stopped either bombing or cutting off gaza.

As for Lebanon, it really did work out well. Isreal was pressured out of someone else's country.

Maat222 · #93 (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhodescholar

As usual you are wrong. The mood and expectations at the time was that the israelis were going to get crushed, as war had grinded on for years between israel and syria and israel and egypt.

Totally wrong.
War has never ground on long for Israel, because they can't let it.
Unlike these other countries, Israel mobilized the majority of their population for war.
They can't sustain that very long.
If anyone ever kept up constant conflict, Israel would lose for sure.

And you have no idea what the mood in Israel has ever been.
They have always wanted war, have ambitions for more land, and are looking for any excuse to attack again.
They have invaded Lebanon and Gaza so often, it is hard to even keep count.

Chocobot · #94 (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhodescholar

Dude, STFU, really. You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag, you lie consistently, and probably drive more traffic away from this forum than anyone else.

Youre telling me to STFU?

Isnt your name Rhodes Scholar? Do you even know what that means?

So far in all the threads were you and I have countered each other, youve hardly managed to make one response.

If the traffic I drive away, is like you, then that can only be a good thing.

Chocobot · #95 (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhodescholar

Do you think there was no combat or fighting before June 67? That Egypt and Syria were not already sending in fedayeen into israel, not already firing mortars into the country, already blockading the country? That israel just decided to send its army into the Golan unprovoked?

Get some facts, sweetie - b/c right now, you don't have any.

Try reading some history.

Isreal had already invaded in 1956. Egypt had then requested a UN force to protect them. From whom? You guessed it, Isreal.

Re Golan, dont ask me, ask Moshe Dayan;

Moshe Dayan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plough someplace where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was.

Imperator · #96 (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

You can't "win" land in a war, it's against International law.
All land gets returned after a conflict, all refugees have the right to return home.

we disussed that like, 3 pages ago.

Chocobot · #97 (**permalink**) 07-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

I’d submit as I said in a lose lose situation there are no rules…if they lost they lost ALL, if they won, they have to give it back, according a protection to their and anyone’s enemies who don’t pay a very stiff price for gambling and instituting a war.

I don’t enjoy or wish for any more violence, but saying hey just get back to the line of pre- 67 is a non starter.

And I do realize that the everyday Palast. is paying the price for arab wars….but then again they would have benefited, so squaring that circle is more than difficult.

If it was as simple as 'if they lose then they lose all', then why has Isreal pushed for war and land at every turn?

One should never fall into the trap they've set for you in thinking that Isreal has never had any choice about its actions.

Re 67, and Isreal's ports, there never were any ships stopped by egyptian forces. So in fact there was no blockade.

Moreover the UN force at the border was in place to protect the egyptians, not the Isrealis. The border held far more Isreali troops than it did egyptian, there is no evidence of any imminent attack by arab forces and even the Isreali generals in later years admitted that they knew they were far superior to Arab forces.

Time to put away this self serving propaganda that somehow Isreal had no choice but to attack.

Imperator · #98 (**permalink**) 07-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chocobot

If it was as simple as 'if they lose then they lose all', then why has Isreal pushed for war and land at every turn?

One should never fall into the trap they've set for you in thinking that Isreal has never had any choice about its actions.

Re 67, and Isreal's ports, there never were any ships stopped by egyptian forces. So in fact there was no blockade.

Moreover the UN force at the border was in place to protect the egyptians, not the Isrealis. The border held far more Isreali troops than it did egyptian, there is no evidence of any imminent attack by arab forces and even the Isreali generals in later years admitted that they knew they were far superior to Arab forces.

Time to put away this self serving propaganda that somehow Isreal had no choice but to attack.

So the demand that UNEF leave, their take over of Ras el-Nasrani were they had (in the 50s installed gun batteries, before their capture in 56, as they had closed the strait them too, which was recognized by the UN as a blockade) and the artillery they emplaced there, after the UN left was what?

It closed the the navigable channels of the straits, as they also installed themselves in Sharm el-Sheikh which sits above them. This was a direct violation of the conditions under which Israel had returned control of the Sinai to Egypt after the Sinai Campaign. In addition, any blockade violated the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958.

As to the seriousness of their intent, to use force in toto, etc., in order to get the peacekeepers out of the front, you may want to read some history yourself, you are aware that UAR artillery landed ranging shots near a Yugoslav camp as they demanded their evacuation within 15 minutes to egg them on right? If they had no issue then, I doubt they would have had an issue with an Israeli ship so your throw away “well it never stopped an Israeli ship” is , well I can say the US never stopped a soviet ship in the Cuban blockade either. The soviets did not challenge the blockade neither did the Israelis, so that doesn’t make it a blockade? You might want to check some definitions as to what constitutes a ‘blockade’ etc.

100,000 troops in Gaza, Syrian mobilization, forced expelling of the UNEF forces put their by agreement, the take over of the straits, along with many Nasser and Amers bellicose saber rattling and other moves does not constitute imminence?

Further-
Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw on May 16. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised, Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. After the withdrawal of the UNEF, the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed (May 18, 1967):
As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence (Isi Leibler, The Case For Israel, (Australia: The Globe Press, 1972, p. 60).

And-
On May 18, 1967, Secretary-General U Thant agreed to the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force from Sinai and the Gaza Strip. On 23 May, as he was flying to Cairo, he heard that Egypt had re-imposed the naval blockade on the Straits of Tiran (see Section XI). Excerpt from a speech delivered by President Nasser to his troops in Sinai on May 23, 1967, announcing the new blockade, follows:
________________________________________
... Yesterday the armed forces [of Egypt] occupied Sharm el-Sheikh. What does this mean? It is an affirmation of our rights, of our sovereignty over the Gulf of Aqaba, which constitutes Egyptian territorial waters. Under no circumstances can we permit the Israeli flag to pass through the Gulf of Aqaba. The Jews threaten war. We say that they are welcome to war, we are ready for war, our armed forces, our people, all of us are ready for war, but under no circumstances shall we abandon our rights. These are our waters ...
Egypt Reimposes a Blockade on the Straits of Tiran

Wrong it was put in place to protect them both and supervise withdrawal of hostile forces; Israel from Sinai, to protect Israel from the fedayeen and guaranteed right of passage through the straits btw, you are attempting to re-write the mandate to suit your own purpose. Nasser broke that agreement.

Add to this al; post bellum the UN refused to name Israel the aggressor in the conflict, I assumed you knew that.

Chocobot · #99 (**permalink**) 07-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

So the demand that UNEF leave, their take over of Ras el-Nasrani were they had (in the 50s installed gun batteries, before their capture in 56, as they had closed the strait them too, which was recognized by the UN as a blockade) and the artillery they emplaced there, after the UN left was what?

It closed the the navigable channels of the straits, as they also installed themselves in Sharm el-Sheikh which sits above them. This was a direct violation of the conditions under which Israel had returned control of the Sinai to Egypt after the Sinai Campaign. In addition, any blockade violated the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958.

As to the seriousness of their intent, to use force in toto, etc., in order to get the peacekeepers out of the front, you may want to read some history yourself, Add to this al; post bellum the UN refused to name Israel the aggressor in the conflict, I assumed you knew that.

Interesting post Imp .Many thanks.

Rather than go into a detailed paragraph with my own interpretation of events before I was born I'll just quote Norman Finkelstein on the matter, look out for the bolded parts which Im sure everyone will find most interesting;

Norman G. Finkelstein Finkelstein on the June 1967 war

Quote:

Jerome McDonnell: Norman Finkelstein is Assistant Professor of Political Science at DePaul and is the author of Beyond Chutzpah: on the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. And I’ll talk with him towards the end of the hour about the very public debate over his tenure bid at DePaul but we’ll spend most of our time today with the Six Day War. And Norman Finkelstein told me about the build up to the war.

Norman Finkelstein: In order to understand the biuld up to the war the best place to begin is November, 1966. There was an Israeli retaliatory, as they call it, attack on a Jordanian village called Samu. In the course of this attack on Samu they blew up around 125 buildings and killed a large number of Jordanian soldiers.

When that attack happened the Jordanians and also the Syrians began to attack Nasser for not coming to their defense. Here was this Egyptian president claiming to be the leader of Arab nationalism and Pan-Arabism and he was doing nothing. Nasser was being taunted for his, as it were, impotence in the face of Israeli aggression.

And there were various incidents in the Syrian Golan Heights and also by Syrian-backed Palestinian commandos. Now there there’s a certain amount of confusion which is important to clarify. Moshe Dayan, who became the defense minister during the June ‘67 war, gave an interview in 1976 in which he acknowledges, and now I’m more or less quoting him, that 80%, he said at least 80%, but I’ll say 80% of the incidents with the Syrians were instigated by us. That we were engaged, now I’m using my language, but it’s I think a correct paraphrase, we were engaged in a land grab in what were called the demilitarized zones between Syria and Israel. And in the course of this land grab there were conflicts arising with the Syrians. And it was only as a result of these conflicts that the Syrians then would fire artillery from the Golan Heights on the Israelis. So Moshe Dayan himself acknowledged that was instigated by the Israelis.

In April, just let me get right up to the point where the count down, as it were, begins. In April 1967 one of those incidents instigated by the Israelis then unfolded into an aerial battle with the Syrians. And the Israelis knocked down 6 Syrian planes, 6 Syrian Migs, including 1 over Damascus. And it was at this point again when Nasser is being taunted that “you’re not doing anything.”

Things then start deteriorating between Israel and the Syrians. Come the beginning of May Israel is making clear that it’s going to engage in a large scale strike against Syria and now the test is for Nasser. Are you going to do anything about it? The Israelis are announcing over and over again, the generals, the statesmen, that we’re going to give Syria now a serious blow. And it’s at that point that Nasser announces, or Nasser tells Secretary General [not "of State"] U Thant, that the peace keeping force which had been stationed between Israel and Egypt in the Sinai, that peace keeping force should be withdrawn. And that’s the beginning of the count down to the war.

JM: A lot of people seem to think that Arab nationalism was in part threatening the State of Israel. That really what was happening was Arab nationalism threatening the State of Israel, when basically, in the Straits of Tiran this was a situation where Egypt decided, well, this was something that we’re going to blockade there. Israel thought this was in our national interest, we’re being existentially threatened by these countries, this was the last straw, and then that was kind of the thrust of where it started.

NF: The problem with that is, here it’s the devil in the details. You have to know the facts in order to understand what actually happened.

It is correct that the Israelis always feared a kind of, what they called, Ataturk, a secular nationalist in Turkey who modernized the country. And they were fearful of the equivalent in the Arab world of an Ataturk. And they saw that equivalent being Nasser, a secular nationalist who was gonna mobilize the Arab world.

Now when Nasser came to power he wasn’t at all interested in Israel. He was interested in modernizing Egypt but the Israelis were fearful of a modern Egypt, especially a modern Egypt preaching Pan-Arab nationalism.

And so the record is very clear. 1953, 1954, Ben Gurion, the Prime Minister, and people like Moshe Dayan, they are determined, and here I don’t think there’s any controversy in the scholarly record, they are determined to provoke Nasser into a war so they can knock him out. And there was a famous raid in February 1955 in Gaza, many Egyptian soldiers are killed, they’re hoping, they’re hoping, they’re hoping to provoke Nasser into a war. It doesn’t work and in 1956 they simply launch an attack of their own with the Brittish and the French, the so called Sinai Campaign. What happens in ‘67 is, through the concatenation of events, they see a new opportunity to knock out that threat which they always feared, namely Nasser or a modernizing force in the Arab world. And they used the opportunity of June ‘67 to crush Nasser.

So in one sense it’s true they were fearful of an Arab nationalism but you have to understand what that fear was. They feared any modernization of the Arab world because they viewed themselves as a kind of alien entity in the Arab world which was was existentially in conflict with that world. And the only way to preserve their security, in their minds, is to keep taking out the club and breaking the skull of the Arabs.

The famous Israeli adages, “The Arabs only understand the language of force,” you have to keep hitting them for them to get the message to stay in line. When Israelis talk about their deterrence capacity, deterrence means, as they state themselves, they have to fear us because if they don’t fear us then at some point they’re going to attack us. That’s how the Israelis see it.

Just on the specific points, quickly.

Number one, the first dramatic moment is when Nasser removes the peace keeping force from the Sinai. That’s considered the first step towards the war. But there was an easy solution to that problem. All Israel had to say was, restation the UN forces on our side of the border. If they were effective on the Egyptian side, they would have to have been equally effective on the Israeli side.

U Thant in his memoir, the Secretary General, the main military figure there, a fellow named Odd Bull, from Norway, in his memoir, they all say the war could’ve been averted had Israel simply restationed those UN forces on its side of the border. And even Tom Segev in his new book 1967 he says, albeit, in a footnote, had they restationed the forces on their side, the Israeli side, the war could’ve been prevented.

The question of the Straits of Tiran. Ok. Number one, U Thant had made an offer, he said let’s do what happened in Cuba during the Missile Crisis. Let’s have a moratorium. The moratorium would be, Egypt promises not to fire on foreign vessels that go through the Straits of Tiran, Israel promises it won’t send through Israeli-flagged vessels. Egypt says, fine. Israel says, no.

Now, another unknown fact. Everybody refers to the blockade in the Straits of Tiran. There was no blockade. I know you’ll be surprised to learn that. It’s a little known fact. The first couple of days the Egyptians searched ships. By the end of the week they stopped searching the ships. The ships were going right through. We know that because the main figure there, he actually just passed away this week, Indar Jit Rikhye, he wrote a book called The Sinai Blunder, and he was in charge of the UN forces there. There was no blockade. He writes it in the book, I even asked, kind of surprised, I called him to check on it a couple of years ago and he laughed. He said there was no blockade.

Number three. Nasser said, you say you have the rights of passage in the Straits of Tiran, we say you don’t. If you want, go to the World Court. Let the World Court adjudicate it. Nasser said, yes. The Israelis said, no.

The important point is, if under international law you’re duty bound to exploit all diplomatic options before going to war, Israel didn’t exploit any diplomatic options for a very good reason. It wanted the war. Why? Because they were confident it would be a walkover, it would be won very quickly and very easily.

Now that may come as surprise to listners but the record is very clear on that. Let me just briefly, quickly, go through it.

May 1967, Israel’s big fear is not going to war. It’s big fear is a repetition of 1956. That is, we go in, we knock them out, but the Americans say, get out. They’re afraid not of the Arabs, they’re afraid of the American reaction. So throughout May they’re sending their people, many, to the United States, what will the US do? They’re asking Johnson, McNamara, the CIA, they’re asking everyone, James Angleton, what will the US do? The first 2 weeks the US is saying, you’re not going. The Israelis are saying, what do you mean we’re not going, they’re threatening us, they’re gonna attack us, they’re gonna destroy us, it’s gonna be another Holocaust. Each time they said that President Johnson asked another one of the intelligence agencies, there were at least a half dozen, he keeps asking them, what’s gonna happen if there’s a war? Over and over again the intelligence agencies keep saying 2 things. Number one, there’s not chance Nasser’s going to attack. None at all. And number two, if he does attack, to quote Lyndon Johnson, as he said to the Israeli Eban, “you’re gonna whip their ass.” In fact the CIA predicted the war would be 7 days long, 7 to 10 days.

Now, you may say, that’s the American intelligence, what about the Israeli? We know exactly what the Israeli intelligence was because June 3, 2 days before the war, the head of Israeli intelligence, Meir Amit, he comes to Washington. He’s trying to feel them out, how will they react? He meets with the Americans and the American say this is our intelligence. And you know what Amit says to them? We do not dispute any of your findings, any of your projections. That means June 3 he agrees no chance Nasser will attack and, if by some weird twist of fate he does, “you’ll whip their ass” to quote President Johnson.

Their only concenr was, what will the Americans say? And by the first week in June they were getting signals, through back channels, that the Americans were gonna let them do it, because the Americans didn’t like Nasser either, and they decide, let them do it. That was their concern. There was never concern about the Arabs. They knew exactly what would happen. It was the Americans, they didn’t want a repeat of ‘56.

joyb · #**100** (**permalink**) 07-24-2009

You read it:

U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242
NOVEMBER 22, 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

It clearly calls for a withdrawal, everyone at the SC knew that Israel had done nothing more than a landgrab and that they had manufactured the crises preceding the war, so they passes a binding resolution committing them to a withdrawal .. it doesn't say anything about negotiating a settlement on the territory, it simply compels them to withdraw from it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhodescholar

242 calls for a negotiated settlement, not a compulsory withdrawal. Read it.

joyb · #**101** (**permalink**) 07-24-2009

..and as far as the current situation in Palestine/Israel, with 500,000 settlers living in the WB in jewish only settlements and roads, with the ethnic cleansing policies and house demolitions, with Palestinians confined to extremly crowded areas, with the segregation that exists in israel itself (vs the arab israeli population), with jewish settlers terrorising Palestinians on a daily bases with such acts as raiding towns and villages, throwing rocks at school children, burning olive trees, poisoning wells. when you compare israel to south africa or the american segregated south in the 1950s, Israels racist policies are so far beyond both those situations.. the country is so racist it makes the kukluxklan look like nelson mandela.. and yet no-one in the west says shit, not only are they not sanctioned but they get foreign aid and trade benefits, when their racist policies are brought up at the UN racism conference-the western nations boycot the conference-they then describe muslim societies as "intolerant" .. it really is such an outragous situation , most of the citizenry in europe and even in america are against supporting this luny country yet change in policy never happens, with zerobama it's the same ol shit

Rhodescholar · #**102** (**permalink**) 08-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by joyb

You read it:

I don't need to sweetie, since I know it. Here's an excellent read for the interested adults on whether 242 requires israel to completely exit the WB, which it obviously doesn't:

The Unmaking of U.N. Resolution 242: The Story of how Resolution 242 was Undone Before it was Even Finished New Society

Imperator · #**103** (**permalink**) 08-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhodescholar

I don't need to sweetie, since I know it. Here's an excellent read for the interested adults on whether 242 requires israel to completely exit the WB, which it obviously doesn't:

The Unmaking of U.N. Resolution 242: The Story of how Resolution 242 was Undone Before it was Even Finished New Society

You are obviously deranged sir, how dare you foist this truth upon us……. NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

joyb · #**104** (**permalink**) 08-04-2009

it says what it says, writing a revision about the events that took place doesn't change it's simplified language, which is interpreted by most in the international community to mandate israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders; but even if this resolution is open to interpretation; that doesn't change the fact that Israel is an aphartied state and it needs to deliver human rights in a 2 state solution, the 67 area being only 22% of that country but less when the occupied golan heits is considered, the population living in the territories is more than 22 or 18% of the total and then there are refugees , so independent of any un resolutions israel continues to have serious legitimacy issues as a racist aphartied state, if there is not adequate withdrawal then there is an aphartied scheme and not 2 states.

Wisdom_Seeker · #**105** (**permalink**) 08-04-2009

When it comes to Israel's behaviour? I think this recent news says it all really:

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Israel evicts Palestinian families

Israel is not interested in a two state solution, it wants Palestinians to dissapear

WS.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode