TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Demoratic countries should no longer support Israel, when…
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Diginut, I believe you're missing the point.

Let me soothe your worries first though by telling you that I have indeed read all of Benny Morris' interview (I did post the link after all) and I've also read his book His position is clear. There WAS ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population by the Zionists, and he tries to justify it from the JEWISH/ZIONIST perspective (i.e it HAD to be done for their own survival). But it's still ethnic cleansing, period.

Now, the fact that it was done for their own survival is debatable, but for the sake of argument, I will concede this point for now. This however, STILL does not justify what they did to the Palestinian population (ethnically cleansing them), even if it was for their own survival, BECAUSE the Palestinian population wasn't the main party responsable for THEIR persecution. Morris claims it was a matter of survival for the Jewish people specifically because of the Holocaust, Nazi Germany etc, NOT anything (major at least) related to the Palestinian population. And this is indeed the difference between this and the example you gave about the first Intifada. Their situation was bleak BECAUSE of the Israelis, no one else.

So in conclusion, yes, of course I feel for the Jewish people in general because they have been persecuted throughout the ages, including the Holocaust. But they still ethnically cleansed a population, period. Sure, they might have done it for reasons of survival, but they did it on the back of a people who were (relatively, if not completely) innocent of their persecution. This, in my opinion, and in any way you spin it, is NOT just.

Edit:/ After re-reading the article again and Diginut's point, I admit I am drawing on other resources (specifically his book) and not really addressing Diginut's point regarding persecution IN 1948 specifically. I construed it as Jewish persecution in general, which I view as the reason for creating an Israel. More about this later

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Now, the fact that it was done for their own survival is debatable, but for the sake of argument, I will concede this point for now. This however, STILL does not justify what they did to the Palestinian population (ethnically cleansing them), even if it was for their own survival, BECAUSE the Palestinian population wasn't the main party responsable for THEIR persecution. Morris claims it was a matter of survival for the Jewish people specifically because of the Holocaust, Nazi Germany etc, NOT anything (major at least) related to the Palestinian population. And this is indeed the difference between this and the example you gave about the first Intifada. Their situation was bleak BECAUSE of the Israelis, no one else.

I can't say I agree. I'm not arguing with whether or not it was ethnic cleansing, but I think it was justified. It had nothing to do with persecution after/before/during the holocaust, it had to do with the 70,000 Arabs around them that clearly did not want them there.

"Ethnic cleansing" carries moral weight because it's so intimately associated with acts of genocide, or general mass killing or torture. But the Zionists killed maybe hundreds out of millions - in the long run the death toll was probably much, MUCH lower this way. As for any rape or other war crimes that happened, I don't justify those, but I do disassociate them with the expulsion itself because they were isolated incidents that were unnecessary and largely independent of the transfer. The people who perpetrated those crimes should pay for it, but not the state of Israel itself.

Just as you might call a terrorist a "freedom fighter", and perhaps validly so, many Zionists would call the cleansing a mere "population transfer".

And where you say that Israel is the sole party responsible for Palestine's oppression, while that may be true to an extent, a lot of this oppression didn't start until the intifada. Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment and hypothetically say that Israel IS intentionally oppressing the Palestinian people and ruining their lives; they would have a lot more trouble doing this if they didn't have an excuse for it, and right now their excuse is the suicide bombers and molotov lobbers. Whether or not their excuse is a valid one is not my point - you take away that violence and you take away their excuse, and I'm not keen to believe that Israel would continue to perform such oppression if they had no excuse - and I'm not keen to believe that they would just find another excuse. How about giving it a shot and seeing whether or not that theory is true?

Like I said before, it's all a rich tapestry. We can either sit here playing the blame game or try to work out a long term solution that saves face for both people. Or we can just accept that conflict is part of human nature and that the violence isn't going to end any time soon. But IMHO, simple condemnation is meaningless and gets us nowhere.

You'll notice that even though I do defend Israel on many accounts, I also don't attack Palestine. I've never started one of these threads or intentionally provoked one of these arguments. I practice what I preach, and I don't think complaining and condemning can result in anything positive or constructive. We all have our own opinions and the only way to come to any real understanding is to stop trying to indict the other party as the sole perpetrator of all immoral acts.

quote:

I can't say I agree. I'm not arguing with whether or not it was ethnic cleansing, but I think it was justified. It had nothing to do with persecution after/before/during the holocaust, it had to do with the 70,000 Arabs around them that clearly did not want them there.

Check my edit

quote:

And where you say that Israel is the sole party responsible for Palestine's oppression, while that may be true to an extent, a lot of this oppression didn't start until the intifada. Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment and hypothetically say that Israel IS intentionally oppressing the Palestinian people and ruining their lives; they would have a lot more trouble doing this if they didn't have an excuse for it, and right now their excuse is the suicide bombers and molotov lobbers. Whether or not their excuse is a valid one is not my point - you take away that violence and you take away their excuse, and I'm not keen to believe that Israel would continue to perform such oppression if they had no excuse - and I'm not keen to believe that they would just find another excuse. How about giving it a shot and seeing whether or not that theory is true?

We never really got into this at all, and we haven't discussed it yet as far as I'm concerned. What I referred to in my previous post was the initial ethnic cleansing. We can discuss this if you want now or at a later point in time, and I'll assume you put it in there to stimulate debate.

quote:

I practice what I preach, and I don't think complaining and condemning can result in anything positive or constructive. We all have our own opinions and the only way to come to any real understanding is to stop trying to indict the other party as the sole perpetrator of all immoral acts.

I never pointed to Israel as the SOLE perpatrator of all Arab/Palestinian woes or the SOLE perpetrator of all immoral acts. Again, we haven't discussed this yet to the extent where you can actually deduce this from my opinions. My original claim was simple. There WAS an ethnic cleansing. I never expounded much about the topic, gave my full views YET or discussed it in any detail worthy of it being discussed, specifically with you. Now, if you weren't referring to me specifically, then I take everything back

Having said all of that, i respect your opinions on this topic and welcome any discussion regarding matters related to this topic. In fact, I will go ahead and give you my views on ALL contentious topics regarding this issue. I have to introduce some history to give a backgroud to my views, and I will do so only superficially for now. I will expound on these topics more rigourously and less nonchalantly later on, but for now, this should give you a pretty good idea of where I stand regarding some of the issues that surely we will discuss in the future I don't expect you to respond to everything now or perhaps later for that matter, because it's quite long and an exhausting read Anyway, here goes nothing

1)Zionism as an ideology:
The Zionist movement had, at it's inception in 1897, desires of establishing a Jewish homeland. Although many countries were selected originally, including Uganda, Argentina etc, British mandated Palestine was chosen at the end (after many years of deliberation within the movement itself), mainly for religious and sentimental reasons, in connection of course with the concept of the Holy Land. Furthermore, the MAIN reason for the establishment of a Jewish state was for the protection of Jews world-wide, who had suffered continuous persecution throughout history. Finally, and this is clear from zionist ideology as propounded by it's inceptors (Hertzl) and continued by it's major figures (Ben Gurion etc), Zionism had expansionist goals: from the Nile to the Euphrates they claimed.

2)The Balfour declaration:
This culminated in the Balfour agreement in 1917 where Britain accepted, in principle, to "give" that land away to the Jews, although they explicitly stated that NO harm was to be done to the local population.

3)The years between Balfour and WWII:
Mass immigration to Israel begins (it had originally started before, but not in great numbers) to "colonize" Palestine. Rich jews buy Palestinian land and settle there, but attempts at "buying" the land from the locals only results in about 6% of historic Palestine. The locals were indeed wary of what was about to come, popular revolts started, inter-sectarian strife occured etc, which led the British to ban any further Jewish immigration to Palestine.

4)WWII and the Holocaust:
Meanwhile, Jews are being persecuted in Europe, and this phenomenon culminates in the Holocaust. 11 million people die, including 6 million jews.

5)The UN's role in the creation of the state of Israel:
The league of Nations becomes the UN and the issue of the creation of a jewish home and a Palestinian home is front and center. The issue is voted for in the GA, and passes with a nice margin (33 to 13, with 10 abstentions). I believe that the Holocaust and jewish sympathy had a lot to do with this vote. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the UN did not have the jurisdiction to make the decision it did based on the actual document that they proposed (GA resolution 181) because it has been convincingly argued that they violated their own charter (more on this later). Even if we discount all of this, it was a general Assembly Resolution and thus not legally binding under international law. Finally, it was never reproposed (as many GA resolutions are) and thus has no "strong" worth.

6)At the dawn of the Arab Israeli war in 1948:
Massacres and criminal acts of vandalism, if not "terrorism" (though I will have to check this with our newly minted definition ) were committed by the Irgun/Stern gangs to create the "environment" suitable for this ethnic cleansing (Deir Yassin, Lodi, King David hotel etc).

7)The Arab Israeli war in 1948-1949:
Claiming that resolution 181 was unfair (and it was, and I will talk about that later), the Arabs pledged to help the Palestian population (as the latter did not have an organized army) against the Zionists and "attacked" them. Personally, I think the Arab governments, in this instance (and many others actually) betrayed the Palestinians (see King Abdullah of Jordan the arse ). The Israelis won the war, and occupied some of the areas that were supposed to be Palestinian according to the partition plan. Meanwhile, 750 000 Palestinians were forcefully expulsed from Palestine by the Zionists, awaiting to go back home once the war was over. Jordan, of course, occupied the West Bank, Egypt the Gaza strip etc...

Now, the point I believe you were addressing originally falls here. Was the ethnic cleansing something that was STRICTLY a result of the events in 1948, or was it more than that? If indeed it was, then you can attempt to "justify" it as you did above. Again, that position is debatable, and even Morris himself has wavered over this issue. Recently of course (and according to his book and the interview) he is of the opinion that it was justified "for reasons of survival" due to an Arab threat in 1948 specifically to annhilate them.
HOWEVER, I am of the opinion that although that may be true, this ethnic cleansing had its roots not SOLELY or particularly because of events in 1948, but was inherent in the zionist ideology all along, a view promulgated many times over the course of it's history by Zionist "greats". The events in 1948 happened as they did and provided a "convenenient" atmosphere to promote the traditional expansionist zionist ideology (more on this later). Of course, the governments of certain Arab countries were more than willing to play along as long as they got a share of the pie (see Jordan and the West Bank). They really are no better than the Zionist leadership when it comes to this. There are some very reliable sources that say that Abdullah the arse was in direct contact with the Zionist leadership and was negociating away Palestinian land (more on this later).

8)GA Resolution 194 (1949): Right of Return
Claimed that all refugees were to return to their homes, specifically. Furthermore, this resolution was extremely important because Israel's acceptance into the UN was conditional upon it's acceptance of this resolution. Finally, it was re-preposed in the GA over 100 times, and shot down in the SC every single time.

9)1967 War: 6 day War
Pre-emptive strike by Israel supposedly because of Egyptian troop movement along the Sinai border. Israel occupies Arab Land in West bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights.

10)Resolution 242: The creation of the occupied territories
Specifically says (at least in french ) that Israel must withdraw from all territories it occupied during the 1967 war. That included all of Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank + the Sinai and the Golan heights.

11)1973 Yom-Kippur War: The beginning of heavy American involvment in the region
Interesting war for the simple fact that the States wasn't that interested in the situation (relatively speaking) until 1967, when they aligned themselves with Israel. But after this war specifically (1973), there is INTENSE American involvment in the region, especially through Kissinger's foreign policy, that of course, helped further destabilize the region and affected this whole situation even more. (see Lebanon, more on this later)

12) First Intifada:
To sum it up not so succinctly, Palestinians are fed up of the oppression, the lack of hope, the miserable living conditions they were under mainly because of Israel's role in oppressing them (more on this later). I must admit also that the Arab governments and the PLO, wanting to "exploit" the situation in Palestine to their advantage, did not help remediate the situation. However, and although the Arab governments as a whole are incompetent, Israel did MORE than it's fair share to ignite this uprising. Note that in the midst of all of this, the PLO gives up it's claims on historic Palestine and settles for 23% of it, specifically the Occupied territories.

13)1993-2000: Oslo "Peace" Accords
Personally, I believe Israel was NOT interested in peace when it came to these accords. They systematically violated many agreements signed upon, delayed many troop withdrawls from certain areas in the West Bank and Gaza, and doubled the rate of expansion settlements in the occupied territories. There was a clear and sytematic pattern of "colonization" of the area, and the "Peace" cover was perfect for that (more on this later). Arafat and the PLO, during all of this mess, of course were busy being corrupt and putting foreign aid into their pockets.

14)Camp David (2000) and the "Most Generous deal ever proposed":
Most definitely was NOT generous, at least according to International Law. Palestinians were left with a non-contiguous pseudo-state in the West Bank and Gaza composed of little cantons that were 2 square miles big, surrounded by Israeli check points. They had no right to an army or to their resources (water, air space), and had borders with ONLY Israel. Furthermore, they had only funtional control (not sovereignty) over certain very small parts of East Jerusalem and some holy sites where they could stick a Palestinian flag on. Finally, the refugee issue was almost not discussed, and no refugees where allowed to return to their homes (this was later ammended in Tabba in October of 2000, where about 70000 to 100000 refugees would have been given the right to come back, out of a total of 4 million). I need not say that Isreal met NONE of the clauses guranteed under international law.
The ONLY positive thing that Arafat has done in his entire life is reject this deal, and mercifully so.

15)The Second Intifada:
Again, not so succintly, born out of the frustration of the Oslo "peace" process, which was a farce (more on this later).

16)Suicide bombings:
My position is that in general, they are not legitimate forms of resistance because they do not discriminate betwen guily and innocent when they kill. In this case however, I must admit I have not made up my mind to FULLY condemn them, as I understand their rationale behind doing what they do. Whether I agree with it or not is the issue, and frankly, I hesitate at this point to fully condemn them, although I am leaning that way.

To address the point you posed in your devil's advocate paragraph, regarding suicide bombings and molotov cocktails, they already "gave it a shot" during the Oslo Peace accords which turned out to be a disaster as Israel contiued it's settlement activity and expantionist policy. The intifada and the suicide bombings were a RESULT of Oslo. Things were getting WORSE, not better for the Palestinians during this period of "peace". There are numerous very good articles both by Palestinian and Israeli intellectuals that show this. They use statistics and figures such as GDP, curfew, total closure days, rate of settlement increase, rate of unemployment, bulldozing of buildings etc to make their points (more on this later). Again, my point is that they have tried it, and it's failed miserably.

At any rate, the above, again, is a very "casual" summary of my positions on the main contentious issues. I will of course argue each point in finer detail and present sources and so forth at a later date. All of this was done from memory, so I might have to tweak certain things here and there, specifically regarding statistics. To sum up my point of view on this whole affair, this situation is a mess and I blame Israel specifically, and to a lesser extent (although definitely not in any small degree) the Arab governments and the PLO (especially Arafat, who is a corrupt self-serving ATROCIOUS leader).

In terms of constructive solution to this problem, I USED to be a supporter of the two-state solution until Camp David, when I discovered that Israel was never going to give the Palestinians a JUST state, with gurantees that fell in line with international law, though I wish they would.

Now, I believe the situation is a mess, and frankly, I don't really see a solution on the horizon. Deep down, I've always been secretely a proponent of Edward Said's idea of a secular democratic state where both people live on the land known as Israel, Palestine or whatever you want to call it with one secular government that respected both people as equal citizens of the state. Of course this is idealistic and utopic, but this is what I sincerely hope for.

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus 9)1967 War: 6 day War Pre-emptive strike by Israel supposedly because of Egyptian troop movement along the Sinai border. Israel occupies Arab Land in West bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights.

Perhaps you'd better expound on this topic a bit more . One of the topics of the Arab-Israeli conflict I'm somewhat versed upon are the events and provocations that led up to the 6 days war. The Arab states were fully anticipating and attempting to provoke an Israeli first-strike as evidenced by their actions leading up to the crisis. Some of the long term buildups to the crisis included the Egyptian eviction of the UNEF forces from the Sinai (and subsequent shift of troops into the Sinai), followed by the closure of the straights of Tiran. The gradual but continuous buildup of Arab forces in the Sinai, Syria, and Jordan, along with the growing war rhetoric by Arab heads of state, then made the eventual war more and more inevitable. As a matter of fact Nasser and Amer had planned an Egyptian first strike, Operation Dawn, which was narrowly cancelled in the last few hours. At any rate, I can collect my sources and organize my argument if you wish to debate the issue .

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus 14)Camp David (2000) and the "Most Generous deal ever proposed": Most definitely was NOT generous, at least according to International Law. Palestinians were left with a non-contiguous pseudo-state in the West Bank and Gaza composed of little cantons that were 2 square miles big, surrounded by Israeli check points. They had no right to an army or to their resources (water, air space), and had borders with ONLY Israel. Furthermore, they had only funtional control (not sovereignty) over certain very small parts of East Jerusalem and some holy sites where they could stick a Palestinian flag on. Finally, the refugee issue was almost not discussed, and no refugees where allowed to return to their homes (this was later ammended in Tabba in October of 2000, where about 70000 to 100000 refugees would have been given the right to come back, out of a total of 4 million). I need not say that Isreal met NONE of the clauses guranteed under international law. The ONLY positive thing that Arafat has done in his entire life is reject this deal, and mercifully so.

First thing that needs to be said is that as soon as I read the word "cantons", I realized you were talking about the original summit, but not paying attention to the second Camp David meeting which took place afterwards between the same negotiators (discussed later in this post). But read on before responding to that...

Two questions:

1. Can you refer me specifically to what clauses of international law you are talking about here? I know that resolution 242 contained many vaguely-stated requirements, but IMHO, the suggestion that Israel met *none* of them is a matter of opinion. I'm not saying you are dead wrong, but seeing as how the clause contained terminology like "just solution" and "territorial inviolability", it is hard to make an objective case for either side.

It is easy for us to look at what Israel didn't offer, but what they did offer was almost sickening to the Israelis:

quote:

The U.S. plan offered by Clinton and endorsed by Barak would have given the Palestinians 97 percent of the West Bank (either 96 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from Israel proper or 94 percent from the West Bank and 3 percent from Israel proper), with no cantons, and full control of the Gaza Strip, with a land-link between the two; Israel would have withdrawn from 63 settlements as a result. In exchange for the three percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third. Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state, and refugees would have the right of return to the Palestinian state, and would receive reparations from a $30 billion international fund collected to compensate them. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places, and would be given desalinization plants to ensure them adequate water. The only concessions Arafat had to make was Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years.

(link below, and the full proposal is here).

2. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Israel and the USA failed in their attempt to come up with a reasonable proposal for peace and that what they offered to Arafat was unacceptable on a moral level and also according to international law. How do you respond to the often-dismissed testimony that even though the deal was not acceptable at face value, Barak and Clinton were still eager to make a deal and that Arafat destroyed the possibility of further negotiation with his attrocious behaviour at the meeting, including but not limited to his failure to make a counter-offer?

A few quotes from this link, which does contain footnotes for all of the claims within:

quote:

According to Ben-Ami, Israel tried to find a solution for Jerusalem that would be “'a division in practice...that didn't look like a division;'” that is, Israel was willing to compromise on the issue, but needed a face-saving formula. The Palestinians, however, had no interest in helping the Israelis; to the contrary, they wanted to humiliate them.” Nevertheless, Ben-Ami said Israel dropped its refusal to divide Jerusalem and accepted "full Palestinian sovereignty" on the Temple Mount and asked the Palestinians only to recognize the site was also sacred to Jews.[1a] Arafat’s only contribution was the assertion that, in reality, no Jewish Temple ever existed on the Temple Mount, only an obelisk; the real Temple existed in Nablus, he said. Not only did he not make any accommodation to Israel, Ross said, “he denied the core of the Jewish faith.” [2] This stunning remark illustrated how Arafat had become caught up in the mythology he had created and indicated to the Americans that he was incapable of the psychological leap necessary — the one Anwar Sadat had made — to achieve peace. As a result, President Clinton’s press conference following the summit laid most of the blame for the outcome on Arafat. [3]

quote:

Abu Mazen, one of the lead Palestinian negotiators, said even before the summit the Palestinians "made clear to the Americans that the Palestinian side is unable to make concessions on anything." He also maintained the whole process was some sort of trap. [5b]

quote:

The Palestinian negotiators wanted to accept the deal, and Arafat initially said that he would accept it as well. But, on January 2, “he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.” [8] He could not countenance Israeli control over Jewish holy spots, nor would he agree to the security arrangements; he wouldn’t even allow the Israelis to fly through Palestinian airspace. He rejected the refugee formula as well.

(the above quote refers to the unofficial but well-documented Camp David II plan, which I am not sure if you are taking into account or not).


Even if Arafat did the "right thing" in rejecting the final proposal, the problem is the way he went about it. The manner in which he rejected it and the reasons which he rejected it did not leave much hope to the Israelis for any further peace talks.

In a word, he systematically rejected the notion of any plan that that was not a unilateral concession to all the demands of the Palestinian hardliners. Other Palestinian negotiators WANTED to accept the plan. Arafat's behaviour amounted to little more than a refusal even to recognize Israel as a sovereign state, and in particular, a refusal to put an end to the conflict itself.

Of course that is just my opinion, but you'll have a hard time convincing me otherwise. My point is not that the final plan (the Camp David meeting after the original summit) was 100% fair, but that the way Arafat handled it - to get informal here - put an immediate end to the show and didn't leave an opening for a sequel. I don't necessarily blame Palestine for wanting more than Israel offered at the original Camp David summit, but I do blame Arafat himself for the ultimate failure of the peace talks.

I'm not as well versed in what happened in '67 and '48, since all of that happened before my lifetime; however, it seems as though someone else knows what they're talking about in that department so I'll leave it to them.

wow before I read Mr. I Love Food's history lesson ( ) let me get back to Benny.

Benny does not specifically say it was the policy of Israel to transfter/ethnically cleans the Arabs from Israel in 1948 -> He does mention that Ben Gurion prefered such a route. And looking back at it, Ben Gurion seemed right.

However, Ben Gurion was not followed blindly in any of his decission. Furthermore we have no evidence that he ever made a decission. There is no document, no order, no testimony that say "Ben Gurion ordered us to kill or transfer all Arabs we encountered" anywhere.

What Benny tells us is that there was a "wink and a nod" that this was a supposed "understanding". There is no evidence to this, this is his interpertation of the feelings and events between the people at that time.

Assuming it was a "wink and a nod" however, it was clearly not a very strict policy. It was not the rule, and was clearly not followed by all.

Again, it is only these revisionist historians that think this "wink and nod" occured, and when you look at the evidence, there is little more than "gut" and "hunch" to back it up.

The best evidence against an organized and coordinated ethnic cleansing or transfer of Arabs during the 1948 war are the Israeli Arabs themselves.

Israeli Arabs make about 15% of the total Israeli population, a number close to a million if I recall.

If Israel had articulated a clear and direct policy, you would not see any Arabs there today, surely not a million of them.

As Bennis tells us in his very own article, Arab deaths during this "transfer" were around 500 or so. I'm sorry, Israel has killed over 2000+ Palestinians in the pass two years... perhaps this is also a "transfer" policy?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satell...d=1066799672944

Poll: 59% of Palestinians support continuation of terror after state is created
Oct. 22, 2003 | By JANINE ZACHARIA

Fifty-nine percent of Palestinians believe that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad should continue their armed struggle against Israel even if Israel leaves all of the West Bank and Gaza, including East Jerusalem, and a Palestinian state is created, a new survey shows.

Similarly, 80 percent of Palestinians say that, under those circumstances, the Palestinians should not give up the "right of return."

The poll of Palestinians, Israeli Jews, and Israeli Arabs was released in Washington on Wednesday by Itamar Marcus, founder of Palestinian Media Watch and written by pollster Frank Luntz. It was conducted by two polling firms, the Public Opinion Research of Israel and The Palestinian Center for Public Opinion.

The poll also examined Israeli and Palestinian attitudes towards the US and towards terrorism.

Nintey-six percent of Israeli Jews say the people who piloted the planes on September 11 were terrorists, while 37 percent of Palestinians share that view.

Slightly more than one in four - 26 percent - of Palestinians believe Israelis planned the 9-11 attacks.

Forty-two percent of Palestinians and 61 percent of Israeli-Arabs stated that they support the people who are attacking Americans in Iraq. Zero percent of Israeli Jews said they did.

Marcus said he believes such opinions are "not coming from a vacuum" and that the survey demonstrates a "connection between Palestinian media and education and Palestinian beliefs and opinions."

During the Iraq war, Palestinian Authority-sponsored television glorified the killing of American soldiers, a theme that has continued until now in various media, Marcus said.

Article 2.

http://www.jnewswire.com/news_archi...030903_poll.asp

Poll: Most Palestinians support terror attacks [60%]
Jerusalem Newswire ^ | September 3, 2003

(jnewswire.com) - A public survey conducted by the Office of Palestinian Information last week shows a solid majority of Palestinian Arabs support terrorist attacks against Israeli Jews. Nearly all of those polled said they absolutely oppose the detention of terrorists belonging to groups such as Hamas and the Palestine Islamic Jihad by PA forces. The poll

The poll was conducted among a random sampling of 1,102 Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza from August 21-28, and was reported in the Hebrew edition of the leftist Israeli daily newspaper Ha'aretz Wednesday. Some 60.2 percent of respondents said they supported ongoing terrorist attacks against Israel, and 56 percent felt such attacks serve Palestinian "national interests." An overwhelming 88.8 percent opposed curbing terrorism by detaining those Palestinians responsible for the violence. Nearly 80 percent were against the PA's recent decision to freeze contacts with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Ha'aretz correspondent Arnon Regular noted the poll was part of a normal program used by Palestinian decision makers. Was Washington wrong?

The results of the poll appear to strongly contradict Washington's commonly expressed "belief" that the Palestinian public opposes terror and would support Palestinian compliance with a reasonable peace plan, the IMRA news agency noted. US President George W. Bush has on several occasions referred to the Palestinian killers of Jewish men, women and children as an outcast few who do not represent the majority of "peace-loving" Palestinians.

Article 3.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satell...p=1078027574121

Palestinians salute Iraqi 'intifada'
Jerusalem Post ^ | Apr. 7, 2004 | KHALED ABU TOAMEH

Hundreds of Palestinians marched in the streets of Ramallah on Wednesday to condemn the US and express their support for the resistance attacks against the coalition forces in Iraq.

The protesters carried placards denouncing American "massacres" against the Iraqi people and shouted slogans calling for retaliatory attacks against the US. They expressed their full support for the insurgents in Iraq who are waging a war of attrition against the US-led coalition forces, pointing out that the Iraqis and the Palestinians were fighting the same war against the powers of evil.

Representatives of various Palestinian factions – including Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad – participated in the anti-American demonstration.

The demonstrators called on Arabs in neighboring countries to take to the streets to protest against the US and urge their governments to support the Iraqi resistance. They also shouted slogans condemning the Arab heads of state as traitors and collaborators with Israel and the US.

Similar demonstrations took place in Gaza. Palestinian Authority officials did not comment on the events in Iraq in public to avoid voicing criticism of the US. A senior PA official in Ramallah said PA Chairman Yasser Arafat was following the developments in Iraq "with great interest."

A senior Hamas official described the current violence in Iraq as "another chapter of repression against the Iraqi people and their resistance."

The official added: "Palestine and Iraq are one body. We express our condemnation for the arbitrary killings that the Iraqi people are being subjected to at the hands of the occupation coalition forces led by the US." Lauding the "brave" Iraqi resistance, the Hamas official called on all Arab and Muslim countries to interfere to stop the American military offensive against the insurgents and help the Iraqi people expel the occupiers.

The Islamic Jihad organization issued a statement in the Gaza Strip strongly condemning the "American massacres" against the Iraqi people and calling on the Iraqis to step up their attacks against the coalition forces.

"The massacres in Iraq expose the intentions of the US and prove that it did not come to bring democracy and freedom, but for hegemony, control, theft, and colonialism," said the statement.

It welcomed the Iraqi "intifada" and called on the Arabs and Muslims to support the Iraqis and Palestinians "against American and Zionist terrorism in Iraq and Palestine." The Palestinian People's (Communist) Party said the defeat of the Americans in Iraq would bring about the collapse of US plans on the international arena.

Khaled Mansour, senior member of the Palestinian People's Party in Ramallah, hailed the "courageous" Iraqi resistance, saying it was a "natural response and a legitimate right of a people being subjected invasion and the theft of its resources."

Mansour said the US military operations in Iraq were similar to the Israeli measures against the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. "A people under attack and invasion, whose sons are being thrown into prison by the thousands, and whose houses are being demolished, has the right resist and defend itself," he added.

He said the Iraqi resistance provided a glimmer of hope that strengthens the Palestinians' struggle and "affirms to all that the fighting peoples are capable of defeating the US schemes in the region."

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus 10)Resolution 242: The creation of the occupied territories Specifically says (at least in french ) that Israel must withdraw from all territories it occupied during the 1967 war. That included all of Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank + the Sinai and the Golan heights.

Although, I disagree completly with almost 100% of what you said, and think it to be complete opinion with little historical authenticity (which is ok, you did state this is how you feel on the subjects, so you gave fair warning). Others have pointed you on 2 points, and I could point them out on all the others.. but it wouldn't be any fun because u wouldn't have enough time to get to all of them. So we'll leave them for saga.

Let me though make this one point:
All UN treaties (and all Israel-Arab treaties for that matter, including those with the Palestinians such as Oslo) are to be disputed against the ENGLISH translation when any disputes or inconsistancies appear in the translations.

Usually treaties are prefaced with this comment.

Take that you French bastards

Wow. Suddenly, all the zionists come out of the woodwork. This should be fun

At any rate, I cannot hope to answer everyone's posts as there is a LOT of information to sift through regarding every point of contention. However, I WILL eventually go through every one in detail, and hopefully we can have a nice constructive discussion where we can actually learn something, and perhaps even change each other's minds on certain issues.

Now, since this is something that I know we are all passionate about, and similarly would like to learn about in more detail, this is what I propose: Let's make a thread for every point of contention, ask it to be a sticky, so that there is a similee of order when we want to actually discuss a point. You all make interesting points in your posts, but at the same time refer to different points of contention etc that I cannot hope to answer in the detail they deserve over-night or rigourously, and furthermore simultaneously, though I WILL in due time. Finally, the above idea would allow us to add specific information or arguments about a specific point of contention in that specific thread, and would allow us to refer to them at future dates.

Furthermore, I don't pretend like I know everything, because I know I don't. The opinions that I posted are based on the information that I know up to this point in time, and I'm always open to new information that you may supply.

Finally, I DO have a lot of work to do that is neither related to politics nor the Palestinian/Israeli question. I'm currently working on my thesis in Chemical Engineering/Mathematics, so you're going to have to give me a little time to organize my sources and present my arguments in a rigorous way, seeing as I'm debating against four or five of you. Also, organizing this discussion with specific threads and so forth will allow others who are actually interested in the discussion to participate in, though I'd strongly encourage ONLY people who SERIOUSLY want to engage in solid and fair debate to join in.

Now, regarding the actual posts you've made, I will not have time to answer them in a befitting fashion as I'm leaving to Montreal in about six hours for Easter. Well, actually, for Bal en Blanc So maybe we can "move" the points into these new threads that we will hopefully make in order not to "lose" them.

Now as I said, I don't plan on answering the posts YET, but just quickly, some comments are in order:

Occrider:

quote:

Perhaps you'd better expound on this topic a bit more . One of the topics of the Arab-Israeli conflict I'm somewhat versed upon are the events and provocations that led up to the 6 days war. The Arab states were fully anticipating and attempting to provoke an Israeli first-strike as evidenced by their actions leading up to the crisis. Some of the long term buildups to the crisis included the Egyptian eviction of the UNEF forces from the Sinai (and subsequent shift of troops into the Sinai), followed by the closure of the straights of Tiran. The gradual but continuous buildup of Arab forces in the Sinai, Syria, and Jordan, along with the growing war rhetoric by Arab heads of state, then made the eventual war more and more inevitable. As a matter of fact Nasser and Amer had planned an Egyptian first strike, Operation Dawn, which was narrowly cancelled in the last few hours. At any rate, I can collect my sources and organize my argument if you wish to debate the issue .

Ya I don't like arguing the 1967 war from the "Arab perspective" too much and I didn't give an "Arab" opinion on this in my points because frankly, it's not very convincing. However, it's still a point of contention because no one really knows exactly what happened, and no one will, until the Arab archives are opened (if that ever happens). Having said that, there are some things that one can say with a fairly comfortable degree of accuracy, and you've pointed out some, but there is a lot of information that needs to be added to what you've said (ex. Soviet disinformation regarding Israeli movement along the Sinai that caused Naser to move his troops etc.). At any rate, this is a point of contention for me NOT because what you (or others) have said is bull, or because I plan on arguing this point from the "Arab perspective" (as I know that Arab governments are NOT innocent), but because there are several points that need to be looked at in more detail.

Diginut:

I'm not going to quote your paragraph as it's too big, but simply say that the points you bring up are interesting. Though I didn't mention specifically what you call Camp David II (though it should be called Camp David III, the original one being in 1978 with Sadat), of course I need to take that into account when arguing the "Camp David initiative" (let's call it that). This specific topic is one that I've always been interested in, and I'll make sure to address it in the every detail that it deserves.

Now, regarding your original point that I misconstrued, the revisionists, including Morris, believe there was a "population transfer/ethnic cleansing" in 1948. It did happen. We haven't discussed whether it was JUSTIFIED or not, yet, as this is a COMPLETELY seperate point. This is where we can actually debate the issue. We can even perhaps attempt to objectively define ethnic cleansing, although that might be a bit difficult, and I've seen "population transfers" being equated to ethnic cleaning according to some definitions. Furthermore, along the lines that you argue it, it would have to include somewhat of a "moral component", something we agreed to dismiss in our definion regarding terrorism for instance. I might be wrong on this point however, so feel free to correct me.

Yoepus: Again, not going to quote your paragraph(s). Just quickly though:

Regarding Benny:
See my response regarding that to Diginut.

Regarding the French and the Resolutions:
I will make sure to translate them WITHOUT bias, or if you prefer, you can run certain parts of them through a translator, or get some French zionist supporter to translate them for you. Furthermore, if there are any ambiguities, I don't see why English should win by default and why the debate then becomes based on the ENGLISH version. Why? Says who? YOU? French is an official language of the UN and it's resolutions, so you have really no strong reasons in a serious discussion to dismiss the French version in such cases on GROUNDS of your hatred for France and the French culture, or simply because that version would contradict a point YOU would like to make I would love to see you actually use any similee of that argument in the UN or in a court of law, as your position and yourself would quite frankly be ridiculed. Not that I take you or your positions very seriously anyway

Finally, as a "disclaimer", my last statement was a personal attack at you NOT because we are at opposite ends of the spectrum (as I have absolutely no problem debating anything with Diginut who I respect as a debater), but simply because your comments and one-liners are extremely lame at best, or superficially annoying at worst, and furthermore laced with ad-hominems and so forth. Of course, I can't tell you what to do since I don't believe in policing, so play that game at your own risk

That is all, see you all next week.

It's a nice idea Epicurus, but good luck getting an IP thread stickied in this forum. Anyway, looking forward to hearing the rest.

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Regarding Benny: See my response regarding that to Diginut.

I don't think thats adaquet. But I'm sure well get to it eventually again.

quote:

Regarding the French and the Resolutions: I will make sure to translate them WITHOUT bias, or if you prefer, you can run certain parts of them through a translator, or get some French zionist supporter to translate them for you. Furthermore, if there are any ambiguities, I don't see why English should win by default and why the debate then becomes based on the ENGLISH version. Why? Says who? YOU? French is an official language of the UN and it's resolutions, so you have really no strong reasons in a serious discussion to dismiss the French version in such cases on GROUNDS of your hatred for France and the French culture, or simply because that version would contradict a point YOU would like to make I would love to see you actually use any similee of that argument in the UN or in a court of law, as your position and yourself would quite frankly be ridiculed. Not that I take you or your positions very seriously anyway

Wooow now! Seems like legal interpertation of treaties struck a nerve with you! Who would have ever guessed, either that or your a Frankophile

Look first off, my French bashing is what I do. Its fun, I don't think of it as serious, and I don't think they think of it as serious. I have many French friends, and I make fun of them all the time. They make fun of me too (imagine that). Sorry if you are so PC that you can't tolerate a bit of light senced humor every now and then to take your mind off the deeply contested arguments.

Please note, unless you happened to have been born to a French women and don't know who your father is (and if so, I apologize) I have made no ad hominem attacks on you. On the same note I would think it best of you to refrain of such attacks on myself in the future if you would like to retain your diginuty ( "ahh you did it again! You evil man you! You made a lame ass joke and tried to make me laugh! OH YOU WILL PAY" ).

And for your future reference, I don't consider the paragraph before your words 'personal attack' as a "personal attack", I consider the words after 'personal attack' as the personal attack.

The rest I believe is valid sarcastic commentary.

Now, don't bash one liners either. I believe they are valid, if not call em out. I can usually back up 100% of what I say, and if not i have no problem admitting I'm wrong.

Now back to the treaty translation argument.. let me not admit I'm wrong...

First, do a google search for "In case of divergence of interpretation the English text shall prevail" and see how many hits you get or click
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...il.&btnG=Search .

MANY MANY UN documents have this postface to them as well. And it is the standard form now.

Second read all of: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20P...ecurity%20Counc

Ok aybe not all, I didn't even read all. Lemme point out a few paragraphs:

quote:

Of these four languages, two, the English and the French, had, under the Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council in force in November, 1967, the status of working languages, and the others the status of official languages. The regulatory texts-in this case the Charter of the United Nations and the Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council do nothing to refine the concept of the status of the working languages as compared with the official languages, and the distinction is even more blurred in fact, since on the one hand the procedure of simultaneous interpretation (as distinguished from consecutive interpretation, and translation) is now employed in the meetings of the Security Council, and on the other hand the Secretariat is expeditious in issuing the documents simultaneously in all the languages. By rule 45 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure, verbatim records of the meetings of the Security Council shall be drawn tip in the working languages; but by rule 46: "All resolutions and other important documents shall forthwith be made available in the official languages...".2 To some extent, it may be assumed for practical purposes that the working languages have a standing roughly equivalent to that of the authentic texts of an international treaty, although the analogy must be treated with considerable caution, bearing in mind that in the law of treaties the status of "authentic text" derives from the agreement of the parties, and is not imposed by mere procedure. That standing itself will when necessary relate back to the language in which the negotiation and drafting took place, there being all the difference in the world between a negotiated language version and one produced mechanically by some translation service, however competent. Here it must also be recalled that the function performed by interpretation, when the object of the exercise is a treaty being interpreted by its parties for the purposes of its own application by them, in the nature of things differs from that of interpretation of a resolution of an international organ, especially when the interpretation is being undertaken not by a party for the purposes of application by it, but fly a State which was not even a member of the organ when the resolution in question was adopted. As stated, the draft of resolution 242 (1967) was submitted by the United Kingdom and naturally the original text is English. It is an historical fact, which nobody has ever attempted to deny, that the negotiations between the members of the Security Council, and with the other interested parties, which preceded the adoption of that resolution, were conducted on the basis of English texts, ultimately consolidated in Security Council document S/8247.

Third, consider both sides of the argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Sec..._Resolution_242 (scroll down to semantic dispute)

quote:

The Russian and the Spanish readings support the English one (both official languages, only four official languages were designated for this document Russian, Spanish, English, and French. Both English and French were designated 'working languages'). Arguments against "all territories" reading Opposers of the "all territories" reading remind that it was specifically disapproved by the UN Security Council, which is clearly seen in the fact that the phrase was amended. They claim that in interpreting a resolution of an organ of an international organization, one must look to the process of the negotiation and adoption of the text. This would make the text in English, the language of the discussion, take precedence. Moreover, according to them the nature of the French language requires the use of a definite article in places where English does not, so the inclusion of the definite article in the French text does not imply what the inclusion of the definite article in the English text would. Finally, as they claim that the only reason for the re-appearance of this reading was translator error, which obviously does not justify the change in the document's meaning.

Fourth, consider this information :

quote:

The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, Lord Caradon declared after the vote: "It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear"* This literal interpertation, without the implied "all", was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those invovled in drafting the resolution. On October 29, 1969, for example the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories". *source: Prosper Weil, "Territorial Settlement in the Resolution of November 22, 1967", in John Morre, ed., The Arab-Israeli Conflict, p321

Now I'll agree with you in this incident there is no direct specification that "In case of divergence of interpretation the English text shall prevail". However, this seems to have been implied as English was the "real" working language of this document, although French was also designated as such, the parties did not debate or draft the resolution in French, and hence was more symbollic and formal than anything else (which just about summarizes the French).


As for your "sub threads" idea - I agree with you. Just go ahead and either link ro start them. But I doubt, and would discourage Israel-Pal threads to be stickied.


Anyway have a good easter and enjoy the French-speaking lands of Canada.. I know it will be hard

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Wow. Suddenly, all the zionists come out of the woodwork. This should be fun

I'm no zionist ... I don't fancy their mustard much less claim to have the audacity to cut it (inside joke you're probably not aware of)

quote:

Occrider: Ya I don't like arguing the 1967 war from the "Arab perspective" too much and I didn't give an "Arab" opinion on this in my points because frankly, it's not very convincing. However, it's still a point of contention because no one really knows exactly what happened, and no one will, until the Arab archives are opened (if that ever happens). Having said that, there are some things that one can say with a fairly comfortable degree of accuracy, and you've pointed out some, but there is a lot of information that needs to be added to what you've said (ex. Soviet disinformation regarding Israeli movement along the Sinai that caused Naser to move his troops etc.). At any rate, this is a point of contention for me NOT because what you (or others) have said is bull, or because I plan on arguing this point from the "Arab perspective" (as I know that Arab governments are NOT innocent), but because there are several points that need to be looked at in more detail.

Well there is a significant amount of information out there about that time period that is available to historians (much of it primary sources too!) ... unfortunately one probably wouldn't happen upon that information very easily on the web, only dry historians with nothing better to do have tenacity to go through mounds of historical documents/interviews to put together an accurate chronology of the chain of events leading to a crisis .

With respect to the soviet disinformation of an Israeli buildup (which was on the Syrian border, not the Sinai ... it provoked an Egyptian reaction however, due to the Syrian-Egyptian defense treaty signed in 1966), the soviets provided this information to Sadat on his visit to Moscow on April 29. Due to the rather tenuous "friendship" between Egypt and Syria however, Nasser dispacthed his chief of the general staff, Gen. Muhammad Fawzi, to Damascus on May 14 to investigate the claims. Fawzi conferred with Syrian Chief of Staff Ahmad Suweidani, viewed aerial photographs, and flew in a private plane himself to observe the border. He found that there were no IDF concentrations, and a rather relaxed Syrian Army. Fawzi reported his findings to Nasser that, "There is nothing there. No massing of forces. Nothing." The same assessement came from the Chief of Egypt's military intelligence Lt. Gen. Muhammad Ahmad Sadiq, who sent Israel Arabs to investigate Northern Galilee, and stated that, "There are no force concentrations, nor is there justification, tactical or strategic, for such concentrations." 1

So in fact, I think all evidence leads us to conclude that Nasser knew in fact that the Soviet intelligence was inaccurate. However, he chose to ignore it. Now it's probably not because he necessarily wanted to start a war, but because a remilitarization of the Sinai was immmensely advantageous to him politically. A pullback from teh Sinai would have been humiliating, and the continual confrontational buildup of forces impassioned the Arab world in support of Nasser's "defiant" stance against the Zionists. He probably viewed it as a win-win situation whereby he could gain teh benefits of remilitarizing the Sinai while avoiding the risk of war.

All in all, it is far too difficult to properly lay down the groundwork and context of the entire conflict in a TA post ... I could probably do a half-decent job in a 15-20 page paper or so. I will summarize my conclusions however: I do not believe that Nasser really wanted war with Israel. Acutally I would say he was largely ambivalent ... he might not have minded a short conflict whereby the Arab Defense League was against Israel alone followed by quick UN intervention (a sentiment shared by Syria I'm sure), but he didn't really have ferverent ambitions for war. This differed from many ministers in his cabinet however, particularly egyptian commander in chief Amer who, more or less, salivated at the idea of war with Israel. What did happen, however, was that the political jockeying among Arab states themselves, to see who could outdo the other in their escalations and rhetoric against Israel, eventually led to the straw that broke the camel's back. In so doing, Israel was pushed and prodded towards the viewpoint that war was inevitable (in preparation reservists were called to active duty, a staggering blow to the Israeli economy, thousands dug trenches, prepared anti-tank ditches, readied 14,000 hospital beds, and dug 10,000 graves 2 ). Eventually, faced with the possiblility of an overwhelming Arab attack from 3 fronts (even an Iraqi army was mobilized and positioned in Syria), Israel was forced to respond to the perceived threat. So in effect while Israel did initiate hostilities, the Arab mobilization and escalations was essentially an implicit declaration of war whether they realised the ramification of their actions or not. The whole situation possesses interesting similarities to World War I whereby the mobilization of armies sealed the inevitability of war ... a situation which may appear bizarre to us now, but makes perfect sense with pespective and an understanding of logistics. At any rate, that's my opinion.


-----------------------------------

1 Fawzi, Harb al-Thalath Sanawat, pp. 71-72. Parker, The Politics of Miscalculation in the Middle East, pp. 14, 44.
2 Red Cross: Foreign Ministry to Le Hague, May 30, 1967


Edit: Does anyone know how to use superscripts in TA?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So in effect while Israel did initiate hostilities, the Arab mobilization and escalations was essentially an implicit declaration of war whether they realised the ramification of their actions or not. The whole situation possesses interesting similarities to World War I whereby the mobilization of armies sealed the inevitability of war ... a situation which may appear bizarre to us now, but makes perfect sense with pespective and an understanding of logistics. At any rate, that's my opinion.

Good post Occrider, aside from that mustard and not being a zionist bit


I always take the simple approach for 1967 "who's responsible".
In May of 1967 Egypt sealed off the straits of Tiran blockading the Gulf of Aqaba to all shipping bound to Israel.

There you have it.

Israel had a valid casus belli.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Good post Occrider, aside from that mustard and not being a zionist bit I always take the simple approach for 1967 "who's responsible". In May of 1967 Egypt sealed off the straits of Tiran blockading the Gulf of Aqaba to all shipping bound to Israel. There you have it. Israel had a valid casus belli.

You would be very interested in reading about the innerworkings of the Israeli cabinet leading up to war. The Israeli Prime Minister, Eshkol, strongly opposed Moshi Dayan's promptings for war up until the very last minute when even he could not disregard the ramifications of all the events that had transpired. Many here would be surprised to learn that one of the final turning points in Eshkol's decision's was foreign minister Eban's failure to convince the US to challenge the blockade of the straits of Tiran. That ultimately led Israel to the belief that it would be internationally isolated should an arab attack occur on all borders ... thus its survival was ultimately at stake. Troubling times ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider You would be very interested in reading about the innerworkings of the Israeli cabinet leading up to war. The Israeli Prime Minister, Eshkol, strongly opposed Moshi Dayan's promptings for war up until the very last minute when even he could not disregard the ramifications of all the events that had transpired. Many here would be surprised to learn that one of the final turning points in Eshkol's decision's was foreign minister Eban's failure to convince the US to challenge the blockade of the straits of Tiran. That ultimately led Israel to the belief that it would be internationally isolated should an arab attack occur on all borders ... thus its survival was ultimately at stake. Troubling times ...

No joke. There is a very valid reason why blockades are uncomprimsingly viewed as the equivalent of a formal decleration of war.

The blockade of the Straits of Tiran that Egypt carried out as not just an unbearable nussiance. The port of Eilat was (and is) hugely strategic, then transiting 80% of Israel's oil imports (today ironically enough, Israel's #1 oil provider is Egypt).

Oil during the 1960s was very hard for Israel to obtain as the Arabs embargoed its sales and excerted their influence to regional providers to do the same. Israel relied on (secret) agreements with East African nations and far east Asian providers typically for their demands.

The point that I'm trying to make is this. By blockading the straits of Tiran Egypt would have effectively cut off Israel's access to oil.
The outcome would not only have crippled Israel's economy to the stone age but would have also imobolized its armed forces.

To allow such a circumstance to exist, would have been worse than war.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus The blockade of the Straits of Tiran that Egypt carried out as not just an unbearable nussiance. The port of Eilat was (and is) hugely strategic, then transiting 80% of Israel's oil imports (today ironically enough, Israel's #1 oil provider is Egypt). Oil during the 1960s was very hard for Israel to obtain as the Arabs embargoed its sales and excerted their influence to regional providers to do the same. Israel relied on (secret) agreements with East African nations and far east Asian providers typically for their demands.

Ironically enough, in 1967 the largest oil provider to Israel was Iran I believe .

But lifeline imports traverssing the straits of Tiran aside, there was another event, from the Israeli perspectives, that would preclude an Arab desire for war. One was the closure of the straits, and the other was an attack against the Israeli reactor at Dimona. It didn't quite help the situation when the Egyptian airforce began reconnaisance raids against Dimona.

Epicurus, I'd like to know how you explain the Zionists' clear "yes" to the partition plan as opposed to the vehement rejection from the Arab side. How does that fit the "inherent desire for expansion" of the Zionist idelogy? I agree that ideologically the whole "Holy Land" was a goal, but contrary to the Arabs/Palestinians (who have a sad history of not missing an oppurtunity to miss an oppurtunity) the Zionists were actually realistic and pragmatic. Do you think the the top priority of a people that just experienced the most horrific genocide in history was waging wars and conquesting Napoleon style? Survival and autonomy and independence were much more important and relvant. According to you the Jews were just eagerly waiting to be attacked on the day of their country's creation so that the final step to "Great Israel" could be made. Again it makes little sense that after having finally achieved sovereignity they'd willingly take the immensly high risk of fighting 7 Arab nations just to expand and drive the Arab population away. That kind of logic reminds me of today's conspiracy theories that state that Israel itself orchestrates suicide bombing so that it would have a legitimate cause for attacking the territories and "expanding". Or the even more ridiculous claims concerning 9/11, we all know them.

You admit that the years of Oslo have lead to a severe drop of the Palestinians' life standards. Yet you blame Israel. Looks like a contradiction seeing that it's been this period when Palestinians lived under their own autonomous rule. More than 95% of the people were NOT "occupied" but inhabitants of "Arafatistan". It was him and his Tunis gang that are solely responsible for the downfall of the Palestinian society. They wasted all the money without maintaining even the most basic infrastructure. A country with the highest rate of policemen/inhabitants in the world lived in anarchy since those policemen were nothing but corrupt militias working for warlords like Rajoub, Arafat and Dahlan. Instead of preparing the Palestinians for a compromise, at least regarding the sensitive refugee issue, Arafat kept insisting on the "march to Jerusalem", calling even cities like Haifa Arab territories that need to reconquered. There's no official Palestinian map showing "Israel". Television and School textbooks are packed with antisemitic incitment, streets were called after "martyrs", universities have held exhibitions celebrating suicide bombings. Arafat used Hamas and Djihad as a tool during Oslo (successfully removing Peres in 1996) then lost control over them and now seeks a coalition with them realizing that they're the ones in power now. He actively supported the creation of this martyr cult killing any hopes for peace in the years to come. As Diginut pointed out, it's become clear that Arafat won't accept any peace offer a priori. He'd rather die as a martyr and a rebel, than as founder of a country. He hates Israel and loves himself more than he loves his own people. The settlements are the sum of bricks. While they might have provoked they can always be reomved which has indeed been part of various offers. The vicitims of the years of terrorism will not be back again.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.