What do you think of Israel's creation and expansion since then?

[Nightcrawler]

Many people don't believe that there is a political movement by the jews called zionism that started in the 19th century to use the superiority of european technologies, economies, knowledge and military to recreate ancient Israel in the region called Palestine.

Many people instead believe that the creation of Israel was circumstantial due to the prosecution of jews in Europe and Russia and the holocaust during ww2 and also due to the aggressivness and intolerance of arabs living in the region called Palestine, as well as through the just newly founded surrounding arabic countries.

The same people then explain the creation of Israel as a jewish and souvereign nation as due to security-reasons and the expansions since then, which resulted in a 4 times bigger Israel than in 1948/49, as the logical consequence of wars arabic countries started and lost.

When someone claims that the expansions of Israel as well as the creation of Israel as a jewish souvereign state is not circumstantial but planned strategy by zionists to recreate ancient Israel, that goes from Nile to Euphrat, he/she is usually declared as a conspiracy-nut.

If that is what you have in mind, then you are free to see me as a conspiracy-nut, because that's exactly what I'm claiming in this thread:

1. a) The motivation for zionists to pursue the recreation of ancient Israel in a region that is populated by arabs of which most are muslims, is to finally create a truly safe haven for all jews, because anti-semitism was again widely active in Europe and Russia and in other parts of the world.

1. b) Off course the question arises, why was the zionist-movement founded in the 19th century and not way earlier? Because political, economical, technological developemts created a huge difference between Europe and the ottoman-empire, which was slowly but surely crumbling, and the zionist-movement wanted to use that opportunity to get jews back into the region called Palestine from which the roman empire had driven out the ancient jews thousands of years ago.

1. c) New information-technologies like newspapers made it possible to propagate the idea in many countries and the financial capabilities of the zionists made it possible to lobby in the ranks of the strongest european might at that time, the British Empire.

1. d) The interests of the British Empire and the zionist-movement overlapped as Britain had the interest to create a second outpost (the first was Egypt) in the middle-east from which to fight the ottoman-empire and chose the region called Palestine and colonised it.

1. e) Not long after colonisation of Palestine the British colonists let the first wave of jewish immigrants into the area. Before that first jewish immigration wave, there were already a small portion of arabic jews in Palestine, which lived for centuries there in autonomic communities inside the ottoman empire.

1. f) That first wave of jewish immigrants was invited by the zionist-movement to "come home" by using the myth of the deserted land. Basically they propagated the idea that Palestine is really a deserted area, where noone lives and works, that just belongs to rich landowners that live in the area nowadays called Syria and Turkey, and that are willing to sell the land to the jews.

1. g) While the zionist-movement bought land from the absent landowners, the zionists used the british army to help them in driving out the people that really lived and worked on that land for centuries and settled the jewish immigrants on it. In order to be secure from any angry arabic ressentiments those settlers were equipped with guns. The settler-movement that started then was always based on the rifle and the plow.

Up until that moment everything went over, eventhough ethically seen unjust, internationally legal under colony-laws. But the arabic ressentiments grew with every new immigration-wave, because those always resulted in a new wave of expropriated and driven out "palestinians", which finally resulted in arabic riots during which many "palestinians" died through the guns of the british army as well as through the guns of jewish settlers, but jewish settlers were also often victims.
I'm not sure if shortly after the first arabic riots or shortly before, but then the first jewish terror-groups were founded which had the goal of protecting jewish settlements, as well as to deter arabic attacks, to retaliate any arabic attacks, but also to terrorise "palestinian" landowners so that they are forced to sell their land, in short to further the zionistic agenda through illegal activities.
That started the second phase:

2. a) Britain feared to lose control over the colony that was shaken by arabic riots and jewish terrorist-acts against arabs. Britain, after squashing the arabic rebellion bloodily, conducted an investigation regarding the motives of the rebellion and came to the conclusion that it was the waves of jewish immigrants coupled with the driving out of "palestinians". The arabs obviously felt that they would soon be outnumbered by the jewish immigrants and completely driven out of the region called Palestine, and they felt that the British colonists were siding with the immigrants and helping them with its army.

2. b) That was the time when Britain decided to reduce jewish immigration and after that decision the zionist-movement searched and found a new political helper in the US, and that was about the time when the jewish terror-groups not only targeted arabs but also the british colonists.

2. c) ww2 was glooming on the horizon, which should weaken Britain's stand in the region called Palestine considerably. Secret US-support for the jewish terrorist-groups, which resulted in a lot of British casualties as well as arabic casualties, but also in jewish casualties through arabic riots, and the ongoing ww2, as well as the holocaust made it impossible for Britain to keep the colony, and made it difficult to keep the policy of lowered jewish immigration, so Britain gave the colony after ww2 over to the UN.

2. d) The UN at that time consisted of the US, the Soviet-Union, Britain, France and China. The UN, aka the US, decided that Britain should open up the colony for unrestricted jewish immigration, which meant unrestricted driving out of "palestinians".

2. e) This triggered a chain-reaction between US-supported zionistic terror-groups, the armed settler-movement, the slowly but surely driven out "palestinians" and their reactions, until the UN decided to create two states, Israel and Palestine. Israel should be at the sea, while Palestine should be east of it and be inhabitated by the driven out palestinians and those that are not. Both, the zionists as well as the "palestinians" rejected the partition-plan for similar reasons, both wanted everything.

Then phase 3, creation and expansion of Israel, started:

3. a) Israel was founded with diplomatic US-support, and the surrounding arabic countries reacted with war, which they lost and which led to the first expansion of Israel and the driving out of further 700,000 palestinians.

3. b) It wasn't until the sixties when Nasser was leader of Egypt, that the arabs discussed to start a war with Israel again. Israel took the threats and discussions as a justification to start the 67-war, during which Egypt lost Gaza and Sinai and Jordan lost the important Westbank.

3. c) Unfortunately for Israel though, since the Nazi-experiments with driving out of native populations in Poland and elsewhere, the idea to massively drive out palestinians from Gaza and Westbank is not acceptable to the worldcommunity anymore, so Israel decided to install an apartheit-regime in the new territories and to let jewish settlers in, expropriate a bit here and there and espescially reserve the water in those territories mostly for Israel and the settlers, and basically use the apartheit-regime to make life for palestinians as miserable as possible so that they voluntarily would want to leave.

3. d) The different wars up until then already created millions of palestinian refuggees in the surrounding arabic countries, resistance-groups formed among the palestinians which over the time worked together until they united to the PLO.

3. e) All the while Egypt learned from the mistakes from the past wars and restructured and reequipped its army and started a war in 73 in order to regain Sinai, which Israel didn't want to give back in diplomatic negotiations before that war. Up to that war Israel saw itself as way superior to the arabic armies, the US thought similar. But that war changed everything, during which Egypt nearly conquered whole Israel, were it not for the last-minute-influx of US-weapons and ammunition which changed the tide and let Israel win the war.
Nonetheless the experience was a deep shock to Israel and led to the decision to aquire nukes and led also to the 77-peace with Egypt, in which Israel gave back Sinai and espescially neutralised one of its strongest enemy.

That led to phase 4 which comes tommorow, if God wills.

Nightcrawler

[BRussell]

Oops, triple post. Sorry.

[Powerdoc]

Israel exist, I don't have to think about it's creation, nor I have to think about the creation of the US, australia, or any other countries in the world.

Zionis existed before the creation of Israel, but without the Holocaust, Israel would have been way different fom what is is right now. You can't change back history.

If your point is to say that Israel is an evil and rogue nation, it's pointless, because same can be said of many Israelians neighbours, and in a more general way, nearly all the countries of the world, if you look at their past or present records.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Israel exist, I don't have to think about it's creation, nor I have to think about the creation of the US, australia, or any other countries in the world.

That argument seems self-defeating.

By that token you would not have to think about them if they ceased to exist either.

If that is the case than existing or not is irrelevant - unless one is to argue that certain countries have a right to exist. No-one has such a right, they either do or do not.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by segovius
That argument seems self-defeating.

By that token you would not have to think about them if they ceased to exist either.

If that is the case than existing or not is irrelevant - unless one is to argue that certain countries have a right to exist. No-one has such a right, they either do or do not.

I am self-defeating about the future of this thread.

But, you are right, the meaning of my post was that it was useless to argue if countries have a right to exist. It's seems that Nightcrawler by asking what do you think of Israel's creation, question it's legitimacy, and therefore it's right to exist.

Of course as usual, you express this in a much better way than I did. ;)

[segovius]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
I am self-defeating about the future of this thread.

Yes Powerdoc, you don't have to be Nostrodamus to see that it's right to exist will be shortly questioned :D

[hardeeharhar]

The whole premise of this thread is wrong. People who have even considered Israeli history know of the early state's ties to Zionism. People also who have considered its history know that the early groups who pushed for its creation contained terrorists and terror tactics.

If the concern is that people don't know this, then there are far more important things in the world to focus your attention on.

[e1618978]

3. b) It wasn't until the sixties when Nasser was leader of Egypt, that the arabs discussed to start a war with Israel again. Israel took the threats and discussions as a justification to start the 67-war, during which Egypt lost Gaza and Sinai and Jordan lost the important Westbank.[/B]

You are blaming the 1967 war on Isreal? Unreal.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
You are blaming the 1967 war on Isreal? Unreal.

Who attacked first?

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Who attacked first?

Syria, by shelling Isreal from the golan heights:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570433/Six-Day_War.html

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
Syria, by shelling Isreal from the golan heights:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570433/Six-Day_War.html


That's not what others say:

Link (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/ArabIsra_The1967War(TheSix-DayWar).asp)


After a period of relative calm, border incidents between Israel and Syria, Egypt, and Jordan increased during the early 1960s, with Palestinian guerrilla groups actively supported by Syria. In May, 1967, President Nasser, his prestige much eroded through his inaction in the face of Israeli raids, requested the withdrawal of UN forces from Egyptian territory, mobilized units in the Sinai, and closed the Gulf of Aqaba to Israel. Israel (which had no UN forces stationed on its territory) responded by mobilizing.

The escalation of threats and provocations continued until June 5, 1967, when Israel launched a massive air assault that crippled Arab air capability. With air superiority protecting its ground forces, Israel controlled the Sinai peninsula within three days and then concentrated on the Jordanian frontier, capturing Jerusalem's Old City (subsequently annexed), and on the Syrian border, gaining the strategic Golan Heights. The war, which ended on June 10, is known as the Six-Day War.


or this:

Link (http://www.adl.org/ISRAEL/Record/67War.asp)



Arab mobilization compelled Israel to mobilize its troops, 80 percent of which were reserve civilians. Israel feared slow economic strangulation because long-term mobilization of such a majority of the society meant that the Israeli economy and polity would be brought to a virtual standstill. Militarily, Israeli leaders feared the consequences of absorbing an Arab first strike against its civilian population, many of whom lived only miles from Arab-controlled territory. Incendiary Arab rhetoric threatening Israel's annihilation terrified Israeli society and contributed to the pressures to go to war.

Against this background, Israel launched a pre-emptive* strike against Egypt on June 5, 1967 and captured the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. Despite an Israeli appeal to Jordan to stay out of the conflict, Jordan attacked Israel and lost control of the West Bank and the eastern sector of Jerusalem. Israel went on to capture the Golan Heights from Syria. The war ended on June 10.


*pre-emptive being the term that would make this agression OK. It doesn't.

[e1618978]

Egypt moved 100,000 troops to the border, and at the same time the Egyptian leader was saying that he was intending to cover Isreal with the blood of the jews.

Egypt and Syria started the problems, and they deserved to get their ass kicked (and they did).

[segovius]

This thread raises some interesting issues. Here's two we could explore:

1) If Statehood can be achieved by terrorist acts perpetrated by terrorist organisations, as was the case with Israel, and the resulting State can be deemed legitimate with a 'right to exist' and all that mullarkey, does that mean that terrorist activities are only illegitimate when they have not yet achieved their goal ?

In that case, should we not be more tolerant to terrorists in case they do achieve their goals and then we will have to recognize their legitimacy ?

South Africa and Mandela are another good example of this but there are many others.

2) If Orthodox Jews themselves claim that Israel does not have a right to exist (and they do) then should not they be the arbiters of this rather than other parties who have no direct involvement ?

[shetline]

Originally posted by e1618978
Egypt moved 100,000 troops to the border, and at the same time the Egyptian leader was saying that he was intending to cover Isreal with the blood of the jews.
Okay... once I would have let pass. Twice? Twice I've got to call you on.

It's Israel, I-S-R- 'A' before 'E' -L.

And now back to our regularly scheduled squabbling. :D

[BRussell]

How was Israel created by terrorism, and in what ways do Orthodox Jews say that Israel doesn't have a right to exist?

[Scott]

http://www.protestwarrior.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/muslim_land_miva_large.jpg

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by BRussell
How was Israel created by terrorism,


By bombing British hotels in the middle of Palestine.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
Egypt moved 100,000 troops to the border, and at the same time the Egyptian leader was saying that he was intending to cover Isreal with the blood of the jews.

Egypt and Syria started the problems, and they deserved to get their ass kicked (and they did).

I didn't ask you who put how many soldiers where. I asked you to tell me who attacked first. You said it was Syria, now you say Egypt moved 100,000 soldiers to the border and whatnot. You say Egypt and Syria deserved [how so?] to have their asses kicked and that they did. Someone got their asses kicked before Egypt and Syria but that doesn't mean they deserved it or that it was right.

So who started the war again?

[New]

The creation of Israel was a huge error, but very understandable in light of the holocaust and the state of the world anno 1948.

It can't and won't be undone, and though discussing history is an amusing exercise it bears no fruits, except some good general education.

Let's talk about the current expansion/withdrawal instead. What's really happening right now, and where will it end?

[Anders]

If there ever was a legitimate reason for pre-emptive war I would say Israel qualify to the finale with the 67 war. And I am certainly not a Israel supporter.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
By bombing British hotels in the middle of Palestine. That's what created Israel? I thought it might have had something to do with the United Nations resolution calling for the formation of the country in the aftermath of the Holocaust?

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by BRussell
That's what created Israel? I thought it might have had something to do with the United Nations resolution calling for the formation of the country in the aftermath of the Holocaust?

Then you have missed the entire pre-holocaust era. Read up on it.

[Aurora]

Im not a big supporter either but lets not rewrite history. Its very clear that Eygpt kicked out the russians from their country and then attacked Isreal.... If it was the other way around then Isreal would be controling Egypt and Syria today. They attacked and did get their arses handed to them by a very inferior and outnumbered Isreali army. I dont Blame Isreal one bit for holding some of that territory. Just think if Egypt and Syria hadnt attacked they would still have that land.

[New]

Originally posted by Aurora
Im not a big supporter either but lets not rewrite history. Its very clear that Eygpt kicked out the russians from their country and then attacked Isreal.... If it was the other way around then Isreal would be controling Egypt and Syria today. They attacked and did get their arses handed to them by a very inferior and outnumbered Isreali army. I dont Blame Isreal one bit for holding some of that territory. Just think if Egypt and Syria hadnt attacked they would still have that land.

sure your not mixing wars here? Read up on it...

[segovius]

Originally posted by BRussell
How was Israel created by terrorism

Irgun and the Stern Gang were terrorist organisations who led a campaign of terror against the British including non-military targets with the sole aim of establishing the State of Israel.

in what ways do Orthodox Jews say that Israel doesn't have a right to exist?

According to Orthodox Judaism, the State of Israel will not be established until after the arrival of the Messiah. As they hold that this has not yet happened they object to Israel as a false State.

They also object to Zionism - primarily on religious grounds but also because they believe that Zionists had a symbiotic relationship with the Nazis which they exploited at the cost of Jewish lives in order to establish a Zionist State.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Then you have missed the entire pre-holocaust era. Read up on it. How about you help me out by providing some sources that show that Israel was created via the bombing of hotels in the pre-holocaust era?Thanks in advance.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by BRussell
How about you help me out by providing some sources that show that Israel was created via the bombing of hotels in the pre-holocaust era?Thanks in advance.


Read segovius' post.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by New
sure your not mixing wars here? Read up on it... I think you right i did a little mixing of 67 and 73 sorry. But Isreal was attacked by Egypt in 73 not the otherway as Nightcrawler would like us to think.

[New]

Originally posted by BRussell
How about you help me out by providing some sources that show that Israel was created via the bombing of hotels in the pre-holocaust era?Thanks in advance.

It's a pretty clear historical fact that the zionist campaign of terror against the britsh mandate rule effectively made them give up and pull out.

[New]

Originally posted by Aurora
I think you right i did a little mixing of 67 and 73 sorry. But Isreal was attacked by Egypt in 73 not the otherway as Nightcrawler would like us to think.

Absolutely. And the first days of egyptian advancement in Sinai were pretty impressing. Until it was stopped that is.


BOY! It's been a long time since we did this guys! Bring it on!

[Aurora]

I think if the Muslim world took a more live and let live approach to others and their and thinking they would be much more prosperous then they are today due to their endless fighting between themselves and neighbors. Just look at the past 50 years. Perhaps they are getting that war isnt the way to go.

[New]

I think if the western world/the USA took a more live and let live approach to others and their and thinking they would be much more liked then they are today due to their endless fighting between themselves and their neighbors. Just look at the past 1000 years. Perhaps they are getting that war isnt the way to go.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Aurora
I think if the Muslim world took a more live and let live approach to others and their and thinking they would be much more prosperous...

Much more prosperous ? Saudi ? Dubai ? UAE ? Kuwait ? Iran ? Brunei ffs :wow:

Pool those resources and they could buy the US and a few other fringe satellites a few times over.....

[Aurora]

Originally posted by segovius
Much more prosperous ? Saudi ? Dubai ? UAE ? Kuwait ? Iran ? Brunei ffs :wow:

Pool those resources and they could buy the US and a few other fringe satellites a few times over..... I refer to Palastine,Syria,Iraq,Iran and what the heck is a Brunei:err:

[Anders]

Originally posted by New
I think if the western world/the USA took a more live and let live approach to others and their and thinking they would be much more liked then they are today due to their endless fighting between themselves and their neighbors. Just look at the past 1000 years. Perhaps they are getting that war isnt the way to go.

How on earth did you come to the last conclusion?

[Aurora]

Originally posted by New
I think if the western world/the USA took a more live and let live approach to others and their and thinking they would be much more liked then they are today due to their endless fighting between themselves and their neighbors. Just look at the past 1000 years. Perhaps they are getting that war isnt the way to go. The world loved us before George. I cant help we have a screwed up Adminisration ran by Big Business special interest just as i cant help that the Democrats havent a clue on how to represent working Joe's in this country.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Aurora
and what the heck is a Brunei:err:


:lol:

oh boy...

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
I didn't ask you who put how many soldiers where. I asked you to tell me who attacked first. You said it was Syria, now you say Egypt moved 100,000 soldiers to the border and whatnot. You say Egypt and Syria deserved [how so?] to have their asses kicked and that they did. Someone got their asses kicked before Egypt and Syria but that doesn't mean they deserved it or that it was right.

So who started the war again?

Syria and Egypt. From my earlier link:

"In the years before the Six-Day War, the Arab countries continually refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Jewish state, and Arab nationalists led by Nasser called for the destruction of Israel. Egypt and Jordan supported Palestinian fedayeen (guerrillas), who attacked troops and civilians in Israeli territory, then retreated to the Egyptian-controlled Gaza Strip or the Jordanian-controlled West Bank. From its Golan Heights region, Syria regularly shelled Israeli farms."

Also, moving the troops in and making death threats counts as an attack in my book.

[New]

Originally posted by Anders
How on earth did you come to the last conclusion?

I obviously didn't...

[New]

Originally posted by e1618978
Also, moving the troops in and making death threats counts as an attack in my book.

Well, your book is wrong then. That the Syrians couldn't control the PLO hardly justifies annexing their land against international law.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

What do I think of Israel's creation?
One of the best things to happen last century and as far as I'm concerned: the best of that century.

Expansion since then?
That is way too vague a question.

I was glad it's expanded in 1967 , I was happy it contracted in 1978-1980 (the retroession if the Sinai as part of the peace treaty with Egypt), I'd eventually be glad to see it contract a little more as part of further peace treaties.

When younger, I humbly participated in building and defending Israel's existence, so that's not gratuitous scribbling on some bulleting board.

As I understand, some of the participants here have trouble coming to terms with the existence of that particular country, I suggest they get used to the fact for it's not going away.

Originally posted by Segovius
If Statehood can be achieved by terrorist acts perpetrated by terrorist organisations,…

That's a myth perpetuated by old Irgun/Stern nostalgists and their unlikely anti-Israelis allies for this circumstance.

The terror acts perpetrated by said various groupuscules back in the nineteen-thirties and forties were amateur at best, and had no contribution to making the British leave (and may have contributed to making them stay longer), as the latter stayed much longer in other places of the empire where they were the target of much harsher violence (Malaya, Borneo, N. Ireland).

If Orthodox Jews themselves claim that Israel does not have a right to exist (and they do) then should not they be the arbiters of this rather than other parties who have no direct involvement ?
So now, a fringe of fundamentalist crazies (the ultra-religious being a minority and the anti-Zionist ones a minority within a minority) should be the arbiters of their people's lives? I guess that'd make you good for the stake.

As for the various claims that Israel's existence is either wrong or an “error”, along with the usual bits about how Zionists run international finance, control America, and make your life hell, those don't deserve my time or attention.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by New
Well, your book is wrong then. That the Syrians couldn't control the PLO hardly justifies annexing their land against international law.

I'm talking about positioning troops for attack, and publically stating intentions of war in graphic and bloody terms. This had nothing to do with the PLO.

Egypt's actions caused the 6 days war.

[e1618978]

In a speech delivered on 26 May the President of Egypt, Colonel Nasser, declared:

"The blockade of Sharm el-Sheikh means our waging an all-out war against Israel. This is going to be a total war. Our fundamental aim is the annihilation of Israel."

This was before the war started.

[e1618978]

Other quotes from Nasser from before the war:

"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."

"The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war."

The first four real acts of war were all perpetrated by Egypt and Syria -

- The blockade of the port
- shelling from Syria
- Troop movements in Egypt
- Statements of war intent

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
Syria and Egypt. From my earlier link:

"In the years before the Six-Day War, the Arab countries continually refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Jewish state, and Arab nationalists led by Nasser called for the destruction of Israel. Egypt and Jordan supported Palestinian fedayeen (guerrillas), who attacked troops and civilians in Israeli territory, then retreated to the Egyptian-controlled Gaza Strip or the Jordanian-controlled West Bank. From its Golan Heights region, Syria regularly shelled Israeli farms."

Also, moving the troops in and making death threats counts as an attack in my book.


And I gave you two other links, which show something else. They say that Israel attacked others in an pre-emptive* manner. Now, wether there were provocations or not, that is something that may have influenced the war but not started it.

Why Israel attacked is, frankly, a matter of history as far as I'm concerned, but it did attack first and it did so whilst ignoring even America who clearly told Israel to seek a peaceful solution to the issue.

Now, this has nothing to do with the existence of Israel in its pre-defined UN brokered borders, but it has everything to do with its existence on illegal, occupied, Palestinian, Syrian, etc., borders.

A country comes to existance as the shift of power happens and as the society that is behind that country becomes powerful enough to create and sustain that country. Fair enough. No country has a 'right' to exist. They all earn that right. However, it must exist in such a manner so that it doesn't limit the existence of others. It also must not ignore the legitimate concerns of others. This is true of any country, especially other countries in the Middle East.

Therefore, for a peaceful resolution to this Mother Of All Issues, Israel must understand that no territory, other than that defined by UN in 1947-8, belongs to it, and that it must give up occupied territory to its original owners. This includes Syrians as well as Palestinians. And it must do so in a timely manner. Palestinians must have a state in which they can exist, physically, economically and culturally. Same goes with Israelis and anyone else in the Middle East.

It is becoming increasingly clear for the both parties (Palestinians and Israelis) that this cycle of violence cannot continue; and it is a tragedy that the solution to this issue is looking very much like the original solution offered by the UN, which, for various reasons, was put aside. So, war and war and war... and in the end, they go back to the original solution.

I guess that in order for two parties to sit down and actually come to an agreement about something, it is necessary for both of the parties to fight each other in such a manner that there isn't much will, let alone power, left to fight anymore. Only then do they become smart enough to understand that this shit, just isn't leading anywhere.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
Other quotes from Nasser from before the war:

"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."

"The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war."

The first four real acts of war were all perpetrated by Egypt and Syria -

- The blockade of the port
- shelling from Syria
- Troop movements in Egypt
- Statements of war intent

We got your point, but its flawed for several reasons.

1. The blockade of the port makes up for only economic sanctions, and does not constitute a reason for war.

2. Shelling from Syria is just something that is a speculation and has not been proven. I know of your links. I gave you mine.

3. Troop movements in Egypt can happen at any time, any place and for any reason. Egypt was and is a sovereign country and it can move its troops in its soil all it wants. It does not make up a reason for war.

4. Statements of war intent do not make up a reason for agression either; many people have made statements that are similar or even worse than that, though war, was something that did not happen. Bush once said about Iraqis: "Bring them on." Is that a "statement of war"?

Do not continue with the FUD. Its pointless.

[e1618978]

I looked at both your links, and they both confirmed my points.
Egypt and Syria staged an attack on Isreal, and Isreal responded.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
I looked at both your links, and they both confirmed my points.
Egypt and Syria staged an attack on Isreal, and Isreal responded.

You must have looked at other links. It clearly states that Israel launched the attack first.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
You must have looked at other links. It clearly states that Israel launched the attack first.

Isreal launched an attack first, by Egypt started the war.

I put a curse on you - what happend to Isreal in 1967 will happen to your country, and lets see what tune you sing then. 8-)

[tonton]

So let me get this straight... Egypt had imposed economic sanctions, threatened to invade and to destroy a country's system of governance because they didn't like the way the country was run?

Sounds like the US to me.

I'm sure you were urging Iraq to attack.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by tonton
So let me get this straight... Egypt had imposed economic sanctions, threatened to invade and to destroy a country's system of governance because they didn't like the way the country was run?

Sounds like the US to me.

I'm sure you were urging Iraq to attack.

I was wondering when you all were going to get to this.

I have no reason to believe one way in one situation and a different way in the othere situation - I am a hypocrit, and I revel in my hypocracy. There is a small difference of a democratic nation (Israel) being compared to a hostile and nasty dictatorship (Iraq), though.

Egypt still started the war - and if Israel had not attacked when they did, then it would not longer exist as a country, and millions of jews would have been raped and slaughtered by Egyptican and Syrian soldiers.

[Frank777]

e's posted compelling evidence that Egyptian leaders actually, positively, decisively, declared war on a foreign country in public statements. Then they started moving troops towards the border.

They started the war.

Comparing that situation to Bush declaring "Bring 'em on" while the US forces were already engaged in battle, is either purposely fraudulent or incredibly stupid.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

And while we're at it with the creation of various countries and their subsequent changes in size, I'll say it loud and clear:
Russia! It's got to be and got pretty big too, but I'm okay with it.
Canada? I still wonder how it happened but I'm glad it did.
Switzerland, let's keep it anyway shall we?
Norway is about as cold than Sweden but I say it's fine its sovereignity got to be restored some hundred or so years ago.
Syria hates my guts but why be resentful? I say it's good it was created by the French and I'm all for it.
And vive la France too!
Hmmm… Belgium, now there's something weird, but I like waffles and the ligne claire school of comics art, so Belgium stays.
Everybody knows Gandhi opposed partition but Pakistan's creation is, on the whole, a good thing.
Yet the same is also true for Bengladesh.

And so many others…


…Whose creation is never questioned.
Have you ever asked yourself how is it that of all the countries in the world only one is singled out for the fact of its very existence?

That indicates a seriously acute problem residing in the mind of those doing the singling out.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by New
It's a pretty clear historical fact that the zionist campaign of terror against the britsh mandate rule effectively made them give up and pull out. I've heard of the militant zionist groups of that period, but I wasn't aware they were considered instrumental to, let alone the proximal cause of, the creation of Israel.

In any case, you said earlier that it probably doesn't pay to get into this. It seems there's some hope now, with Abbas and Sharon both notching things down a bit, and the summit next week. What do you think will come of it?

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by Aurora
I think you right i did a little mixing of 67 and 73 sorry. But Isreal was attacked by Egypt in 73 not the otherway as Nightcrawler would like us to think.

Wrong, sir, if you read carefully my first post in this thread, you will find that I clearly said that Egypt attacked Israel and started by this the war of 73! But in the case of 67 you are right I said that Israel started that war.

Nightcrawler

[New]

e1618978 / Frank777, you need to get of the propaganda fix. Even though egypt was escalating the conflict level. The israeli leadership at the time has pretty much admitted that they ceased the opportunity to attack first...

BRussell, ofcourse the militants didn't cause the creation of israel. The jewish national movement worked hard and focused on that for many years..
But the environment created by the militants, who went on to become israeli leaders, and the Palestinian protests ofcourse. gave the british reason/excuse to pullout of the area, even before their UN mandate periode was over.

The british pretty much backed away from their responsibilities.

And Immanuel is right. We need to get over the creation part and discuss where things should go from here.

[Nightcrawler]

After Israel aquired nukes and made peace with Egypt, so that a strong enemy could be neutralised, phase 4 started:

4. a) Without having to worry about Egypt, the only hinderance to Israel's zionistic goals was the PLO, the network of numerous palestinian resistance-groups that slowly but surely developed into a govermental-like political entity and that achieved with some spectacular plane-kidnappings as well as with guerillia-warfare against israeli troops in the occupied areas, and with occasional retaliation-operations against israeli civilians, to bring the topic of the miserable situation of palestinians on the media-table of the worldcommunity, that would otherwise have just been forgotten.

4. b) The PLO headed by the founder of the Fatah-organization Jassir Arafat had its headquarters in the palestinian refuggeecamps in Jordan, but were banned from there by the king of Jordan, after the PLO tried to gain souvereignity over parts of Jordan. It was a bloody military-operation during which much of the military power of the PLO was destroyed and a lot of fighters killed.

4. c) Weakened, the PLO regrouped in Lebanon. That was the time when the PLO decided to try to negotiate a peace-agreement with Israel. Before that squashing in Jordan, the goal of the PLO was to conquer whole Israel and to achieve the return of the palestinian refuggees to the area of Israel. But the realities were after the defeat in Jordan, that the PLO couldn't achieve any military victory over whole Israel, and started to propose peace-offers to Israel, in which they claimed that the palestinians would respect the existence of Israel in the borders before the 67-war.

4. d) Israel under the defense-minister Sharon saw the golden opportunity to finally defeat the will of the palestinians completely by destroying their political representative and military potential. Israel started to train and equipp christian militants in Lebanon, that should do the job for Israel during a civil-war in Lebanon, that was already waging on. It didn't work, the PLO, eventhough weakened was still strong enough to keep up with the christian militant-groups.

4. e) Israel then started to provoke the PLO by flying airraids and bombing a few palestinian refuggeecamps. The PLO kept calm because they just started a peace-offensive, which Israel wants to torpedate with any means, as any peace-agreement would mean Israel's borders would be fixed with no future possibility for expansion.
The intensity of the airraids grew with time, and the PLO eventually reacted with a retaliation-operation that killed one Israeli and injured a few others. That incident was then taken by Israel as justification for the military ground-invasion of Lebanon, in order to finally get rid of the PLO.

4. f) Syria jumped in to help Lebanon and stopped the invasion of Israel about in the middle of Lebanon by using landmines. Israel then started to defeat the PLO in southern Lebanon with the help of airbombardments by dropping shells, phosphorous and cluster-bombs in civilian towns and refuggeecamps in which Israel thought were PLO-outposts.

4. g) The US intervened once with a UN-peaceforce and Israel withdrew until the US-forces withdrew and Israel invaded again. During that US-intervention the US was able to negotiate an aggreement that called the surviving PLO-members to withdraw from southern-Lebanon, while Israel withdrew, too. The PLO did so and Israel did so too, but when the US-forces withdrew after they lost about 300 US-soldiers in a suicide-bombing by the Iran-supported militant-group Hezbollah, Israel started again air-bombardments and groundinvasion against palestinian refuggeecamps, eventhough the PLO left.

4. h) Israel went even as far as instrumentalising christian militants to execute a massacre on palestinian civilians in two refuggee-camps in Lebanon. Unfortunately those massacres made it into the media and the public outcry forced Israel to withdraw from Lebanon except for a security-stripe 40 km into southern-Lebanon. The reason? That was the distance the rockets of the Hezbollah-militant-group could fly.

4. i) From then on, the anti-PLO-war of Israel was overlapped by a anti-Hezbollah-war in that security-zone in Lebanon that lasted until 2000, when Israel withdrew as the public of Israel saw no political goal in losing israeli soldiers in that guerillia-war.

Meanwhile after all the bloody adventures of Israel in Lebanon to prevent the following, the PLO achieved to make it publically known that the palestinians were ready to negotiate a peace-aggreement. That started phase 5, the peace-initiative-phase, which I will deal with tommorow, if God wills.

Nightcrawler

P.S.: This is no anti-Israel-thread that should demonize Israel and conclude with the verdict that Israel should be abolished. No, this is just a thread to refocus the much too shorttermed perspective, that is used in mainstream-history/media, that completely ignores underlying israeli ideologies and longterm-strategies.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
And while we're at it with the creation of various countries and their subsequent changes in size, I'll say it loud and clear:
Russia! It's got to be and got pretty big too, but I'm okay with it.
Canada? I still wonder how it happened but I'm glad it did.
Switzerland, let's keep it anyway shall we?

[snip]

And so many others… …Whose creation is never questioned.

Have you ever asked yourself how is it that of all the countries in the world only one is singled out for the fact of its very existence?

I think that the problem is the perception of Israel as a colonialist enterprise.

Israel is not going anywhere and this is right. But it seems to be the country's misfortune to be in a phase of its establishment that's difficult to reconcile with the current international consensus on colonialism.

[e1618978]

Personally, I agree with some of the things on the original list, but by saying that everything that went wrong between the Arabs and the Israelis over the last 50 years is the Jews fault (which is the tone of the post) you paint yourself as an anti-semite.

Both sides are at fault in most of the items, but the current trend that I see (amoung the some in the "Blue States") is anti-semitism. The anti-semitism and anti-"Red State" bigotry in the blue states is twisting some of the "Blue State" people into the modern equivalant of the old southen white bigots.

I have been to Israel, and part of that time I was in Bethlehem (which is in the Palastinian area - west bank?). Both the Israelis and the Palastinians were great - great food, great times, great people. It is not like you have one set of angels and one set of devils or something.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I think that the problem is the perception of Israel as a colonialist enterprise.

Yes, it's vaguely possible that maybe this (http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=553) has something to do with that 'perception'.

[New]

Originally posted by e1618978
Personally, I agree with some of the things on the original list, but by saying that everything that went wrong between the Arabs and the Israelis over the last 50 years is the Jews fault (which is the tone of the post) you paint yourself as an anti-semite.

Both sides are at fault in most of the items, but the current trend that I see (amoung the some in the "Blue States") is anti-semitism. The anti-semitism and anti-"Red State" bigotry in the blue states is twisting some of the "Blue State" people into the modern equivalant of the old southen white bigots.

I have been to Israel, and part of that time I was in Bethlehem (which is in the Palastinian area - west bank?). Both the Israelis and the Palastinians were great - great food, great times, great people. It is not like you have one set of angels and one set of devils or something.

If blame should be put anywhere, Britain and the UN where responsible, and failed miserably.

Not for lack of trying though, the swedish royal, count Folke Bernadotte was assasinated for trying to mediate a peaceful division.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/folke.html

[Powerdoc]

4. f) Syria jumped in to help Lebanon


One of my friend is a lebanon, and even if he is not a big fan of Israel, I think that he disagree with this one. His hope, is that Leban get rid of Syria.
Right now Syria is controlled by syria, the lebanon's governement is the puppet of Syria.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by New
BRussell, ofcourse the militants didn't cause the creation of israel. The jewish national movement worked hard and focused on that for many years..
But the environment created by the militants, who went on to become israeli leaders, and the Palestinian protests ofcourse. gave the british reason/excuse to pullout of the area, even before their UN mandate periode was over. Just to be clear about what I was responding to, the specific statement was made that Israeli statehood was "achieved by terrorist acts perpetrated by terrorist organizations," and then another individual agreed with that statement. It's that analysis that I don't buy, not the suggestion that terrorist groups existed whose intent was the creation of a Jewish state.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
Isreal launched an attack first, by Egypt started the war.

I put a curse on you - what happend to Isreal in 1967 will happen to your country, and lets see what tune you sing then. 8-)

Let me get this straight:

Israel attacked first, but Egypt started the war? This makes no sense to me. Sorry, but this is utter crap.

And my country? I call it USA. Lets see what tune you sing now.

[shetline]

Originally posted by e1618978
Isreal launched an attack first, by Egypt started the war.

I put a curse on you - what happend to Isreal in 1967 will happen to your country, and lets see what tune you sing then. 8-)
ISRAEL!!!

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Let me get this straight:

Israel attacked first, but Egypt started the war? This makes no sense to me. Sorry, but this is utter crap.

And my country? I call it USA. Lets see what tune you sing now.

In this thread (and every other thread, come to think of it) we are just going to have to agree to disagree. There is no common ground.

{and I will endevour to call it Israel in the future, sorry, but be comforted in that it is only one of many words I don't know how to spell}

[New]

Originally posted by BRussell
Just to be clear about what I was responding to, the specific statement was made that Israeli statehood was "achieved by terrorist acts perpetrated by terrorist organizations," and then another individual agreed with that statement. It's that analysis that I don't buy, not the suggestion that terrorist groups existed whose intent was the creation of a Jewish state.

Weell... one has to separate the long process behind, and the events at the time of the declaration of the establishment of the state.

Like killing the UN mediator for instance.

These events were important, because Israel is today the product of the war that followed. And the later wars.
One can only speculate on how things would have been different if the british had stayed, or if the UN had decided to intervene, and so on. Jerusalem was, for instance, intended as a UN controlled international zone.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
One of my friend is a lebanon, and even if he is not a big fan of Israel, I think that he disagree with this one. His hope, is that Leban get rid of Syria.
Right now Syria is controlled by syria, the lebanon's governement is the puppet of Syria.

I agree, today Syria is not very welcome in Lebanon anymore, because Israel has withdrawn from most of Lebanon's territory, except for the Sheeba-farms.

Syria wants to stay because it takes the stance that Lebanon is really a province of Syria.

Nightcrawler

[Nightcrawler]

I think it was the US-president Reagan, that kicked off phase 5 by taking the PLO-offers for peace seriously and forced Israel to the negotiation-table:

5. a) The idea behind the peace-initiative was to force the palestinians to accept the idea of "homelands", the same model used in South-Africa, so that Israel could keep most of the water-rich areas of the Westbank and control the numerous palestinian homelands from the outside.

5. b) Arafat finally tired from fighting for the palestinians accepted most of the US/Israel-ideas, and the peace-initiative was also the phase, when more and more land in the Westbank and Gaza was expropriated from the palestinians and given over to settlers. In Gaza for example 8,000 israeli settlers took over more than a third of the land, while over a million palestinians were crammed into the rest, that was less than two third. Similar things happened in the Westbank, where the water-rich areas were given over to israeli settlers.

5. c) During the peace-phase more and more palestinian-land got lost, more and more israeli streets were built, on which palestinians were not allowed to travel, more and more checkpoints and fences were built in the occupied areas than during the war-times since 67. What an irony...until in 1987 the first palestinian mass-rebellion broke out, called intifada.

5. d) That rebellion was the most unexpected and extraordinary development ever, it was a mostly civil rebellion, the palestinians didn't want to pay taxes anymore to Israel, they threw away their identity-cards, that they had to show at checkpoints, children threw stones on israeli soldiers, etc... It took Rabin numerous years and bloody and brutal methods, including massemprisonments, tortures, bonesbreaking, shooting at demonstrators, collective punishments, etc... to squash the rebellion.

5. e) Eventhough the squashing of the rebellion was eventually successfully, it also brutalised the palestinian population and gave Arafat more legitimation and led to a few changes in the peace-initiative, that led to the Oslo-agreement in 1993, in which Israel accepted the PLO as a representative of the palestinians and accepted to give the control of the Westbank and Gaza gradually over to the palestinians. Also important is that the Oslo-pact said that the status of Jerusalem must be discussed, and defines East-Jerusalem as belonging to palestinians...

5. f) The Oslo-accords should pave the way for a palestinian state, that forces Israel to follow a timed plan to withdraw its military and to give palestinians free movement in the occupied areas and espescially to stop the building of further israeli settlements. But even though it was signed by Israel, the israeli governments didn't pull it through, withdrawals were delayed, free movement was not granted to palestinians, and more important israeli settler-activity was not stopped but even increased.

5. g) The tensions grew and exploded in 2000 when Sharon visited in East-Jerusalem the big mosque and stated publically that East-Jerusalem should be forever in israeli hands. That visit, the statement, the not fulfilled steps of the Oslo-agreement and also the assassination of political leaders among the palestinians triggered the second intifada, but this time it would be an armed rebellion. The interesting notion is though that the second intifada was not only directed against Israel and its occupation but also against Arafat and Co, that were seen as servants of Israel's policies in parts of the population, espescially in Gaza where Hamas, an islamistic organization, that is an offshoot of the egyptian muslim-brotherhood and that was founded with the help of Israel, in order to divide the political will of the palestinians and in order to weaken the PLO.

5. h) Sharon, the warcriminal, came again to power in Israel and used the second intifada as an excuse to reoccupy the few areas Israel already had withdrawn from, boycotted Arafat and put him under housarrest, increased the checkpoints, and reduced the already limited movement of palestinians, banned all palestinian workers from Israel, and again forced settler-activities and expropriations in the Westbank, collective punishments for terror-acts of palestinians, destroying of infrastructure... started the building of the wall in the westbank...

5. i) Palestinian terror grew considerably in this second intifada espescially commited by Hamas and quite a few isreali civilians died and were injured, but the israeli army was able to kill quite a few times more palestinian civilians on top of a refreshed occupation and harrassment. That cycle of violence went on until Arafat, who Sharon made responsible for the intifada, died and Sharon didn't have any excuse to further blockade peace-development, and phase 6 started, which is still unwritten as it happens today.


All in all since the first european jews arrived in Palestine over hundred years ago, about 24,000 jews/israelis died in the numerous wars and terror-operations, including civilian as well as military casualties up until today.

Israel was able to kill 24,000 palestinian/lebanese civilians in just a few months of the year 1982 in the Lebanon-war, and who knows how many palestinians were killed in Israel and the occupied areas in the last hundred years?

Nightcrawler

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I think that the problem is the perception of Israel as a colonialist enterprise.

And back in the nineteen-fifties it was the State Department perceiving of Israel as a bolshevik entreprise, so what else is old? These perceptions are self-serving bias.

Israel is not going anywhere and this is right. But it seems to be the country's misfortune to be in a phase of its establishment that's difficult to reconcile with the current international consensus on colonialism.
Actually, the establishment of Israel is part of decolonisation: locals get angry on the empire and get in violent conflict with other locals who don't accept them as legitimately locals, you'll find variations of that theme abounding in the decolonisation phase, and often much more violently so than the Arab-Israeli conflict although our conflict is more photogenic.

[Sceptic]

Israel shouldn't have been established in the way it was. It was pretty much a recipie for disaster.

The expansions and settlement building obviously don't help the peace process. Israel pretty much owes its existence to US aid, which of course leaves the US in a precarious position re: relations with the Muslim world.

I'm of the opinion that the past and present leaders on each side are as bad as each other.

I feel sorry for the innocent people that die on both sides on a daily basis. There are no obvious solutions or quick fixes. I'd say 100 years from now, there will still be violence.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

This previous message is illustrative of the worn clichés it is almost wholly a caricature

Three examples:
Originally posted by Sceptic
Israel shouldn't have been established in the way it was.
According to what criteria?
And are other countries judged according the same standard, if at all?
Should one expect a list of other countries whose establishment “shouldn't have been the way it was”?

It was pretty much a recipie for disaster.
Compared to which: The People's Republic of China, Pakistan, North Korea, South Korea, Vietnam, India, Bengladesh, Croatia?

Israel pretty much owes its existence to US aid,…
Pretty much nonsense.
Israel's gross domestic product for 2003 was around US$120 billion, U.S. aid to Israel is around US$3 billion per year.
When Israel was established, in 1948, it was under arms embargo by the U.S. and was not a recipient of U.S. aid, unlike communist Yugoslavia, for example.
And nowdays Israel does not depend on the U.S. military for its defence unlike so many Western allies.

[Sceptic]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
This previous message is illustrative of the worn clichés it is almost wholly a caricature

Three examples:

According to what criteria?
And are other countries judged according the same standard, if at all?
Should one expect a list of other countries whose establishment “shouldn't have been the way it was”?


Compared to which: The People's Republic of China, Pakistan, North Korea, South Korea, Vietnam, India, Bengladesh, Croatia?


Pretty much nonsense.
Israel's gross domestic product for 2003 was around US$120 billion, U.S. aid to Israel is around US$3 billion per year.
When Israel was established, in 1948, it was under arms embargo by the U.S. and was not a recipient of U.S. aid, unlike communist Yugoslavia, for example.
And nowdays Israel does not depend on the U.S. military for its defence unlike so many Western allies.

Compared to countries which haven't experienced multiple wars and endless violence since their creation? I guess if your standard for comparison is North Korea, Israel's creation has been smooth and trouble free.

re US aid, doesn't the US pretty much guarantee Israel's survival? Even if the aid is relatively small, there political support, when very few other countries support Israel, and their big brother attitude pretty much guarantees Israel's survival.

Anyway what's done is done. Unfortunately I don't see much change in the future.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Sceptic
re US aid, doesn't the US pretty much guarantee Israel's survival?


that would be the their nukes

[Frank777]

I think Israel's survival has been guaranteed by the fact that they've thoroughly beaten any country that's tried to threaten their survival. With or without US aid.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by Sceptic
Compared to countries which haven't experienced multiple wars and endless violence since their creation?
That leaves very few countries, which are most lucky and mostly lucky.

I guess if your standard for comparison is North Korea, Israel's creation has been smooth and trouble free.
I don't have any such standard since I don't question whether any country should have been established or not.

re US aid, doesn't the US pretty much guarantee Israel's survival?
No. It's marginally helpful for the yearly government budget, Israel would fare better without it on the long run.

Even if the aid is relatively small, there political support, when very few other countries support Israel and their big brother attitude pretty much guarantees Israel's survival.
It guarantees Israel's restraint, which is why Israel didn't crush Egypt and Syria in 1967 and again in 1973, because the U.S. demanded it. Of course only a country supportive of Israel would have Israel's attentive ear, and if Israel had no reliable ally it would have been much more decisive against its enemies.
So the U.S.' support of Israel, among other things, guaranteed Egypt and Syria's survival, twice.

As for Israel's survival it is due to its citizens building and developing a country taking it from the brink of annihilation to a First-World level of development (politically, economically, technologically) in less than fifty years, and to these citizens efficiently defending it when needs be.

Had more countries given more support to Israel they'd have had Israel's attentive ear as well, and more influence in the Middle-East as a result. Their loss.

Anyway what's done is done. Unfortunately I don't see much change in the future.
Fatalism breeds stagnation.

[New]

immanuel, Israel would not exist if it wasn't for western aid. From the UN, the US, France and Britain. But a lot of states came to be in this fashion. But establish a state by violence and expelling much of the local population is something that has grown less accepted in the past century.

But done is done.

The problem with Israel right now is the growing religious fundamentalism. Among israelis. Zionism, good or bad, used to be a secular enterprise. Now it has been embraced by the religious right.

Lea Rabin stated that she did not recognize the israel she helped creat anymore. She considered moving.

I think this is the greatest threat to israel at the moment.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by New
immanuel, Israel would not exist if it wasn't for western aid. From the UN, the US, France and Britain.
The U.N. didn't do anything to help Israel exist, in 1948 it was willing to recognise it after it succeeded in that survival thing.
Britain was arming and assisting Transjordan and Egypt to a lesser extent, while France was Syria's provider.
I had already mentioned the U.S. arms embargo I believe.

Most arms bought then by Israel were WW2 suprlus via various intermediates, the most notable official arms deal with a state being the Czechoslovakian contract.


But a lot of states came to be in this fashion.
Some had foreign troops fighting on their behalf against their enemies, Israel didn't have that chance though.

But establish a state by violence…
Establish a state while violence is committed in order to prevent its very existence as well as the physical existence of its citizens, one has to fight back of one prefers life rather than death.

…and expelling much of the local population is something…
I am guessing you don't mean how not even one local Jewish inhabitant was left to live under any condition in areas conquered by Egyptian, Transjordanian, and Syrian armies.
Ah yes I forgot, Jews don't get to be seen as “local population” they are “evil colonialists” and all that.

…that has grown less accepted in the past century.
I recall much acceptance of far more bloody ethnic and other conflicts by the hallowed international community during the last decade of the past century, with quite an atrocious one in a corner of Europe not to mention less fortunate continents.
This decade doesn't look all that bright either, while much undue attention is concentrated on the Middle-East, more unspeakable deeds are being done elsewhere.

But done is done.
Done indeed.

The problem with Israel right now is the growing religious fundamentalism.
The religious right has been losing the battle over the Israeli public opinion in the least twelve years, Sharon's government today is more to the “left” than Rabin's ten years ago as it has accepted the principle of a Palestinian state. But I don't expect you to keep in touch with Israeli domestic affairs.
As far as Israeli lifestyle goes, it's laid-back Mediterranean and Scandinavian-grade permissive, with recognised enclaves of retrograde traditional communities, quite the multiculturalist dystopia.

The problem in question being not with Israel but with those who still haven't come to terms with its existence.

Among israelis. Zionism, good or bad, used to be a secular enterprise. Now it has been embraced by the religious right.
Zionism is the broad concept of Jews-as-people, that is their having a legitimate claim to self-determination in the general geographic area where they once had it; not unlike Greeks or Norwegians or any other more recent tribe.
Within the Zionist project there always were secularists, clericalists, nationalists, internationalists, anarcho-syndicalists, socialists, free-marketeers, even the odd fascists and marxists-leninists; the Zionist mainstream was more about liberal-democratic right and social-democratic left, but these days it's more of an amorphous centre where you'll find most of those who recently voted Likud, Labour, and Shinui. These three should get a room and form the one big Centre party which the larger Israeli public wishes for.

Lea Rabin stated that she did not recognize the israel she helped creat anymore. She considered moving.
The late Leah Rabin is decaesed and interred (in Israel), so I won't discuss what she said or didn't say as translated in some web site, if you'll forgive the old-fashioned civility.

[New]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
The U.N. didn't do anything to help Israel exist, in 1948 it was willing to recognise it after it succeeded in that survival thing.
Britain was arming and assisting Transjordan and Egypt to a lesser extent, while France was Syria's provider.
I had already mentioned the U.S. arms embargo I believe.

Most arms bought then by Israel were WW2 suprlus via various intermediates, the most notable official arms deal with a state being the Czechoslovakian contract.
Yes, the UN did a lot to make Israel to exist. I know it's popular to believe you did everything by yourself. (we do that a lot in Norway as well). But it's just not true. Had the UN chosen another line. Say, totally against any partition, one can only speculate, but I doubt Israel would exist in the same fashion as today.

When I say the US has helped, I'm talking about military aid up until today. It's been huge. And Israel got it's nuclear technology from france.

Some had foreign troops fighting on their behalf against their enemies, Israel didn't have that chance though.

Establish a state while violence is committed in order to prevent its very existence as well as the physical existence of its citizens, one has to fight back of one prefers life rather than death.

The creation of Israel has never been just about fighting back. That is only half the truth.

I am guessing you don't mean how not even one local Jewish inhabitant was left to live under any condition in areas conquered by Egyptian, Transjordanian, and Syrian armies.
Ah yes I forgot, Jews don't get to be seen as “local population” they are “evil colonialists” and all that.
Seems to me that these people were doing fine (for an ethnic minority), before zionism became a factor in the region.

I recall much acceptance of far more bloody ethnic and other conflicts by the hallowed international community during the last decade of the past century, with quite an atrocious one in a corner of Europe not to mention less fortunate continents.
This decade doesn't look all that bright either, while much undue attention is concentrated on the Middle-East, more unspeakable deeds are being done elsewhere.

One injustice never justifies another.

The religious right has been losing the battle over the Israeli public opinion in the least twelve years, Sharon's government today is more to the “left” than Rabin's ten years ago as it has accepted the principle of a Palestinian state. But I don't expect you to keep in touch with Israeli domestic affairs.
As far as Israeli lifestyle goes, it's laid-back Mediterranean and Scandinavian-grade permissive, with recognised enclaves of retrograde traditional communities, quite the multiculturalist dystopia.
Oh, I pay pretty close attention, having a jewish family an all. But I don't expect you to know that. That israel through ten years has come more to terms with a palestinian state is only to be expected. That Sharon's government is more "left" is a pretty hollow statement. It's a coalition... It's more "right" as well.

Zionism is the broad concept of Jews-as-people, that is their having a legitimate claim to self-determination in the general geographic area where they once had it; not unlike Greeks or Norwegians or any other more recent tribe.
Within the Zionist project there always were secularists, clericalists, nationalists, internationalists, anarcho-syndicalists, socialists, free-marketeers, even the odd fascists and marxists-leninists; the Zionist mainstream was more about liberal-democratic right and social-democratic left, but these days it's more of an amorphous centre where you'll find most of those who recently voted Likud, Labour, and Shinui. These three should get a room and form the one big Centre party which the larger Israeli public wishes for.
So you admit that it's no longer mainly a social democratic movement then?

The late Leah Rabin is decaesed and interred (in Israel), so I won't discuss what she said or didn't say as translated in some web site, if you'll forgive the old-fashioned civility.
That's a pretty embarrassing way to silence an opinion. The "besserwisser" tone of your post is not very becoming...

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by New
Yes, the UN did a lot to make Israel to exist.
No action was taken by the U.N. on the ground to enable or assist Israel's establishment.
Proposing a partition plan and doing nothing to implement it or even to prevent those intent on implementing it being thwarted out of being, amounts to: doing nothing.
On the other hand the U.N. did nothing to help the Arab armies as well, but I wouldn't call that “lots of making” either.

When I say the US has helped, I'm talking about military aid up until today.
The U.S. started helping Israel long after its establishement had been won.

It's been huge. And Israel got it's nuclear technology from france.
Israel wouldn't have had the bomb without France's help but it was no charity, more of a cooperation.
France had technology, resources, and the Sahara testing grounds, Israel had some fine physicists but little else.
Which is not to berate France's assistance and partneship as for a time it was even closer than with the U.S. in later years.

The creation of Israel has never been just about fighting back. That is only half the truth.
Since the war was about undoing any Jewish state which might come to exist, it was fighting back all right.

Seems to me that these people were doing fine (for an ethnic minority), before zionism became a factor in the region.
The Norwegians were doing finer under foreign rule, than these people.


Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
I recall much acceptance of far more bloody ethnic and other conflicts by the hallowed international community during the last decade of the past century, with quite an atrocious one in a corner of Europe not to mention less fortunate continents.
This decade doesn't look all that bright either, while much undue attention is concentrated on the Middle-East, more unspeakable deeds are being done elsewhere.
One injustice never justifies another.
I don't claim it does. You were telling me how bad things had “grown less accepted in the past century” and I was showing how they were no less accepted and still tragically are.

Oh, I pay pretty close attention, having a jewish family an all. But I don't expect you to know that. That israel through ten years has come more to terms with a palestinian state is only to be expected.
It was not not necessarily so, the important thing here is that it was.

That Sharon's government is more "left" is a pretty hollow statement. It's a coalition... It's more "right" as well.
In Israel, the main left/right argument from 1967 to 2000 has been about whether one should relinquish territory in order to get peace or not. That argument has been definitely won by the “left” side, and the current government stands even more firmly by it than the Labour government of ten years ago.

So you admit that it's no longer mainly a social democratic movement then?
I wrote earlier it is not a single movement, but several distinct and often diverging ones.
As said earlier, Israeli public opinion today is mainly in the centre.

That's a pretty embarrassing way to silence an opinion..
I will not discuss quotes without context taken from people who are absent and deceased, but I don't mind discussing opinions of those present, alive, and able to talk back, and whose I am certainly incapable of silencing.

[New]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
No action was taken by the U.N. on the ground to enable or assist Israel's establishment.
Proposing a partition plan and doing nothing to implement it or even to prevent those intent on implementing it being thwarted out of being, amounts to: doing nothing.
On the other hand the U.N. did nothing to help the Arab armies as well, but I wouldn't call that “lots of making” either.
Inaction is hardly fitting. The League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1919 on the basis of the ludicrous colonial consept that "...the territories inhabited by peoples unable to stand by themselves would be entrusted to advanced nations until such time as the local population could handle their own affairs."
In the meantime ofcourse the demographics where being radically changed. With the help of the very same britain.

The U.S. started helping Israel long after its establishement had been won. True. But US militray aid (and air support!) has made Israel unbeatable ever since. Edit: The attitude of israeli military actions since seem colored by this to me...

Since the war was about undoing any Jewish state which might come to exist, it was fighting back all right. Sure, but don't pretend Israel didn't have territorial ambitions beyond what it was offered by the UN/britain. Certain zionist groups were conducting violent operations against arab villages before the arab states declared war.
I know it doesn't fit the nice picture of "fighting for your excistence", but it's still true.


The Norwegians were doing finer under foreign rule, than these people. The norwegian people were not an ethnic minority. Take the norwegian Sami people for instance. There you have a prime example of truely bad treatment of an indigenous people.


One injustice never justifies another.
I don't claim it does. You were telling me how bad things had “grown less accepted in the past century” and I was showing how they were no less accepted and still tragically are.
I think they are less accepted. hence the example from the League of Nations above. Not to saying that the world is a wonderful place, but people are reacting differently to injustice than they were 50 years ago.

In Israel, the main left/right argument from 1967 to 2000 has been about whether one should relinquish territory in order to get peace or not. That argument has been definitely won by the “left” side, and the current government stands even more firmly by it than the Labour government of ten years ago. err..? Labour is in the current government, are they not?

As said earlier, Israeli public opinion today is mainly in the centre. That would be the israeli centre. It would hardly qualify as the centre in any western european state...

I will not discuss quotes without context taken from people who are absent and deceased, but I don't mind discussing opinions of those present, alive, and able to talk back, and whose I am certainly incapable of silencing. Is this limited to Lea Rabin, or do you refuse to discuss the opinions of all deceased people. Like Gandhi and Hitler?

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by New
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
No action was taken by the U.N. on the ground to enable or assist Israel's establishment.
[…]
Inaction is hardly fitting. The League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate…
Deterring the nineteen-twentyish League of Nations is not related to my earlier statement, which still stands.
The U.N. did not take any action to implement Israel's existence or preservation.

The U.S. started helping Israel long after its establishement had been won.
True. But US militray aid (and air support!) has made Israel unbeatable ever since. Edit: The attitude of israeli military actions since seem colored by this to me...
Israel did not enjoy U.S. air support in 1967 or in 1973, you might be reffering to 1991, in which Israel didn't intervene (which further illustrate my point that U.S. support restrains Israel). The attitude of Israeli military action have been more restrained since Israel enjoys U.S. favour, that is a definite colouration.

Since the [1948] war was about undoing any Jewish state which might come to exist, it was fighting back all right.
Sure, but don't pretend Israel didn't have territorial ambitions beyond what it was offered by the UN/britain.
Britain wasn't offering anything (except active support to Transjordan), the U.N. proposed a partition plan and offered nothing to provide for its implementation.
Nothing was on offer.
So one takes what one needs, which at the end of the battle wasn't much.

So while I don't pretend Israel took no initiative, it would be dead if it didn't, I don't pretend the fundamental issue of the war was anything else than the very existence of Israel, either.

Certain zionist groups were conducting violent operations against arab villages before the arab states declared war.
As Britain was mostly guarding the coast, land borders were wide open for Arab armed irregulars from abroad aiding those already on the ground, so the war had already begun long before Syria, Egypt, and Iraq joined in.
The Transjordan Arab Legion was already inside before May 1948, left with the British and then returned.
You wouldn't expect those pesky zionists to sit tight while all this was happening, well perhaps you would I don't know.

The norwegian people were not an ethnic minority.
They were under the rule of another ethnos, and when it comes to “doing fine” under such a rule as per your previous statement, the Norwegians were doing better than the Jews.
Perhaps you are hinting that since Jews were no ethnic majority anywhere in 1900 (well, they already were in Jerusalem since the eighteen-fifties but who cares) they would have no claim to self-determination, one opinion I could not agree with.

I think they are less accepted. hence the example from the League of Nations above. Not to saying that the world is a wonderful place, but people are reacting differently to injustice than they were 50 years ago.
Reacting differently? Yes. People have different views and biases, which brings differently slanted hypocrisies as well.
But when it comes to acceptance of mild abuses to extreme atrocities, these are just as accepted or else they wouldn't be just as widespread, no difference there.

err..? Labour is in the current government, are they not?
It joined the current government after Shinui left, the direction of the government remains the same.

That would be the israeli centre. It would hardly qualify as the centre in any western european state...
It is mostly pragmatic rather than ideological stream, a blend of populism and elitism, tamed social-democracy and neutered neo-liberalism; it is a very generic centre.

Is this limited to Lea Rabin, or do you refuse to discuss the opinions of all deceased people. Like Gandhi and Hitler?
I can discuss the corpus of written work and public action of deceased people who are therefore in the realm of history: that's how they can “talk back” despite their being dead; that is essentially different from some extracting isolate paraphrases without context or background, which I cannot discuss.

[New]

Israel did not enjoy U.S. air support in 1967 or in 1973, you might be reffering to 1991, in which Israel didn't intervene (which further illustrate my point that U.S. support restrains Israel). The attitude of Israeli military action have been more restrained since Israel enjoys U.S. favour, that is a definite colouration.
I'm not sure where your getting this. During the Yum Kipur war the US opened an "air bridge" an gave Israel an unrestricted supply of it's most modern weapons. The six day war was a bit different. Israel actually ATTACKED the US in that war. not that we've heard much about that incident though...


Britain wasn't offering anything (except active support to Transjordan), the U.N. proposed a partition plan and offered nothing to provide for its implementation.
Nothing was on offer.
So one takes what one needs, which at the end of the battle wasn't much.
What do you call the Balfour Declaration then? the jewish population in the are trippled in the years after Balfour and up to the imigration ban.

As Britain was mostly guarding the coast, land borders were wide open for Arab armed irregulars from abroad aiding those already on the ground, so the war had already begun long before Syria, Egypt, and Iraq joined in.
The Transjordan Arab Legion was already inside before May 1948, left with the British and then returned.
You wouldn't expect those pesky zionists to sit tight while all this was happening, well perhaps you would I don't know.
Hmm... that explains why they were expanding the area under zionist control even before war was decleared... not...

They were under the rule of another ethnos, and when it comes to “doing fine” under such a rule as per your previous statement, the Norwegians were doing better than the Jews.
Perhaps you are hinting that since Jews were no ethnic majority anywhere in 1900 (well, they already were in Jerusalem since the eighteen-fifties but who cares) they would have no claim to self-determination, one opinion I could not agree with.. Well, I would claim that Swedes and Norwegians are pretty much the same ethnic group.
Who has the right to self determintation is a difficult question, but no one has the right to steal other people land and displace them. No matter what the reason is. We have laws against that.

Your romanticizing of israeli society and politics is expected. But israel still has censorship of it's news, is the most militarized country in the world (with the psychological implications that has), and has a pretty racist attitude among even the different jewish ethnicites.
The israeli parliament may be democratic, but israeli politics resembles Poland in the 17th century...

Israel has not been under any real threat since the 50s, but a lasting peace with the palestinians would bring israels internal contradictions to the surface. In addition it would give the US reason to decrease it's financial aid.
Israel is in many ways still in a "wartime economic mode" and to change will have serious consequences.
I think some israeli politicians recognize this.

On the other hand israel has all the right conditions to build a booming information-age-economy (It's already quite impressing). I think the young generation of israelis deserve this. And less military service...

[Frank777]

Originally posted by New
Israel has not been under any real threat since the 50s,..

:wow:

[dmz]

You've both have fooled around and discussed this issue reasonably -- this could lead to innocent bystanders learning something new, so forwarned is forearmed. I would like to add that this discussion is ENTIRELY to civil, and unless you both start using the "F" word or at least a few scatalogical references, I'm afriad I just wont be able to read any further.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by New
I'm not sure where your getting this. During the Yum Kipur war the US opened an "air bridge" an gave Israel an unrestricted supply of it's most modern weapons. The six day war was a bit different.
I understood “air support” as the U.S. military offering actual air support in the way of interdiction or of anti-aerial defence.
In 1973, past the most crucial hours for Israel after one week of fighting, the U.S. indeed provided equipement to Israel, while the Soviets have thus been providing Egypt and Syria all along.

Israel actually ATTACKED the US in that war. not that we've heard much about that incident though...
Israel had not attacked the U.S. in the Kippur War or in any war. In 1967, Israeli warplanes mistakenly attacked a U.S. navy due to poor coordination between the two countries, the incident has been heard about a lot (and anti-Israelis keep fanning the flames) but that does not amount to Israel having “ATTACKED the US” (sic).
Recently there was this matter of Canadian troops mistakenly attacked by U.S. troops in Afghanistan or vice-versa, although I don't recall it referred to as “U.S. ATTACKS Canada (or vice-versa)”

What do you call the Balfour Declaration then?
In 1948?
It had been in Whitehall's wastebasket since at least the 1939 White Paper.


Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
You wouldn't expect those pesky zionists to sit tight while all this was happening, well perhaps you would I don't know.
Hmm... that explains why they were expanding the area under zionist control even before war was decleared... not...
No war had actually been declared.
As the U.N. General Assembly had voted in favour of proposing the partition plan, the British gave a deadline for their withdrawal anbd started packing, intentionally letting the situation on the ground deteriorate to the point of chaos; as Arab armed groups were making it cristal clear they were going to prevent any Jewish state from existing by the time the British left.
Those pesky zionists were could hardly sit idly at this point.
In may 1948, after the British indeed left, the surrounding Arab states' armies joined the fray.

Who has the right to self determintation is a difficult question, but no one has the right to steal other people land and displace them.
As the Arabs attacked the Jews (and they were certain they would win) they took no time to consider the eventuality of defeat.
Some populations were displaced, from both sides, and property was lost on both sides, that Arabs were allowed to remain on the Israeli-controlled side and were granted citizenship, while no Jews was allowed to remain on the Arab-controlled side, show plainly which side was intent on stealing and displacing as a matter of principle.
Which of course doesn't justify the injustices Israel committed in that war but should not obfuscate the underlying issue as any such injustice was only corollary to a violent conflict to which there were and are two sides.

Your romanticizing of israeli society and politics is expected.
Unless your consider describing averageness as romaticising, your expectations are unfounded.

But israel still has censorship of it's news,…
In matters of national security as all countries do, on the other hand it is much less insistent on the raison d’État than some countries.

…is the most militarized country in the world (with the psychological implications that has),…
A crude exaggeration, probably based on it having a citizens' army and a less pacifistic slant than some countries.

…and has a pretty racist attitude among even the different jewish ethnicites.
Another crude exaggeration.
Israeli mosques and Muslim schools tend to burn less than in some corners of Europe recently.

The israeli parliament may be democratic, but israeli politics resembles Poland in the 17th century...
Do you mean widespread feudalism, serfdom, pogroms, illiteracy?

Israel has not been under any real threat since the 50s,…
It was under a direct real threat to its existence in 1973, and since then it's only Israeli superior technolgical and organisational efficiency (developed democracies tend to be that way) and the maintaining of a capable military (an aspect some democracies sadly tend to neglect) which have kept it from such threats.

…but a lasting peace with the palestinians would bring israels internal contradictions to the surface.
Contadictions are quite on the surface already, loudly debated and are actually exacerbated by the atmosphere of ongoing conflict. Of course, some countries are ruled by iron fist and dismiss contradictions by the way of firing squads, and other niceties.

In addition it would give the US reason to decrease it's financial aid.
I am of the opinion that the yearly U.S. financial aid is today more of a hindrance than anything else and that U.S.-Israeli relations should move to a more mature form of partnership.

Israel is in many ways still in a "wartime economic mode"…
Rationing of food and fuel?
Frequent confiscations of civilian equipment for military use?
Strict state controls of prices and wages?
Strict state control of movements of capital?
Now that has not been true since the nineteen-fifties.

On the other hand israel has all the right conditions to build a booming information-age-economy (It's already quite impressing). I think the young generation of israelis deserve this. And less military service...
I agree, this would happen should the matter of Israel's existence and its legitimacy be accepted by all.

[New]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
I understood “air support” as the U.S. military offering actual air support in the way of interdiction or of anti-aerial defence.
In 1973, past the most crucial hours for Israel after one week of fighting, the U.S. indeed provided equipement to Israel, while the Soviets have thus been providing Egypt and Syria all along.
It's amusing how you need to point out that the help came after "the most crucial hours of fighting". The US provided an enormous amount of modern equipment, and where actually on highest alert. It is quite likely that the US would have intervened if things had gone worse for Israel. The fear of soviet intervention was of course also a factor.

Israel had not attacked the U.S. in the Kippur War or in any war. In 1967, Israeli warplanes mistakenly attacked a U.S. navy due to poor coordination between the two countries, the incident has been heard about a lot (and anti-Israelis keep fanning the flames) but that does not amount to Israel having “ATTACKED the US” (sic).
Recently there was this matter of Canadian troops mistakenly attacked by U.S. troops in Afghanistan or vice-versa, although I don't recall it referred to as “U.S. ATTACKS Canada (or vice-versa)”

My mistake, I was referring to 67. The incident is a bit more curious than that. And worth closer look. Here are two oposing views:
Attack on USS Liberty (http://www.ussliberty.org/)
jewish library on USS liberty (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty.html)

No war had actually been declared.
As the U.N. General Assembly had voted in favour of proposing the partition plan, the British gave a deadline for their withdrawal anbd started packing, intentionally letting the situation on the ground deteriorate to the point of chaos; as Arab armed groups were making it cristal clear they were going to prevent any Jewish state from existing by the time the British left.
Those pesky zionists were could hardly sit idly at this point.
In may 1948, after the British indeed left, the surrounding Arab states' armies joined the fray.
The british were under pressure from zionists to leave. They even killed the UN mediator. The palestinians however had no strong national movement at the time, and were responding to the partition plans by strikes and local violent uprisings. The surrounding arab states were resolved to not accept the jewish state. But their military capacity wasn't very impressing, and in short time israel had captured 26% of the designated palestinian area in the partition plan. Land that in many cases had no significant jewish population.

As the Arabs attacked the Jews (and they were certain they would win) they took no time to consider the eventuality of defeat.
My point is that both sides attacked each other. The jewish side was also dissatisfied with the UN plan and wanted to move borders, they wanted a continuous area of land. But even this seems hard to admit.

Some populations were displaced,
75% of palestinians were displaced. There were massacres. Like Deir Yassin.

from both sides, and property was lost on both sides, that Arabs were allowed to remain on the Israeli-controlled side and were granted citizenship, while no Jews was allowed to remain on the Arab-controlled side, show plainly which side was intent on stealing and displacing as a matter of principle.
There was very little jewish population in the arab areas. What happened in other arab countries is a different, and tragic story, but it is not entirely black and white.

You shock me by saying that one side was intent on stealing and displacing.
I think this is a shameful statement. Especially in a conflict were stealing on both sides has been the norm...

Which of course doesn't justify the injustices Israel committed in that war but should not obfuscate the underlying issue as any such injustice was only corollary to a violent conflict to which there were and are two sides.Injustice is never corollary.

In matters of national security as all countries do, on the other hand it is much less insistent on the raison d’État than some countries..
Torture, secret prisons, collective punishment, assasinations in other countries...

Do you mean widespread feudalism, serfdom, pogroms, illiteracy? No, Poland had a long period of very powerful parliament, where every member could veto the kings decissions. This had it's obvious problems.

It was under a direct real threat to its existence in 1973, and since then it's only Israeli superior technolgical and organisational efficiency (developed democracies tend to be that way) and the maintaining of a capable military (an aspect some democracies sadly tend to neglect) which have kept it from such threats. BS. The arab states were at that point only interested in reclaiming their lost land. The egyptian army had actually orders not to even proceed to the israeli border, but to secure the Suez.

I am of the opinion that the yearly U.S. financial aid is today more of a hindrance than anything else and that U.S.-Israeli relations should move to a more mature form of partnership.
What would that be?

I agree, this would happen should the matter of Israel's existence and its legitimacy be accepted by all.
It's good that we agree on some things then. :)
Acceptance of Israel by "all" is ofcourse not very likely. But the good thing is that Israel is accepted by all important parts of the conflict.

Let's not forget that.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by New
It's amusing how you need to point out that the help came after "the most crucial hours of fighting".
It was not at all amusing at the time.
It took a week for the U.S. to send the C-5s, and while that assistance was certainly indispensable, it was not present in the earlier more urgent days.
And the Soviets were sending their own equipment to the other side all along.

The US provided an enormous amount of modern equipment, and where actually on highest alert. It is quite likely that the US would have intervened if things had gone worse for Israel.
Fotrunately we'll never know, although given it took them a week to send any help, I admit having had my doubts back then.

The fear of soviet intervention was of course also a factor.
The Soviets threatened they would intervene should their local partners collapse (collpase which they almost did which is why Washington instructed Israel to stop its advance which it did), I personally did not believe Moscow would risk WW3 just for Syria and Egypt, but then we'll never know.

My mistake, I was referring to 67. The incident is a bit more curious than that. And worth closer look. Here are two oposing views…
And you know mine.

The british were under pressure from zionists to leave.
That pressure was puny even for the waning British Empire which handled much more enduring and difficult pressure of actual guerilla in Malaya and Borneo in the nineteen-sixties (and UK still are in Ulster to this day).

The palestinians however had no strong national movement at the time,…
Theirs was not as effective as the competition's as proven by the outcome, which could have been otherwise.

The surrounding arab states were resolved to not accept the jewish state. But their military capacity wasn't very impressing,…
It is costumary to say so nowadays because they lost.
At least they had actual standing armies from the outset and were provided equimpment from France and Britain, and in the case of Transjordan, were staffed with British officers.
Actually, at the time and in the following years many tended to over-estimate the Arab countries' military capability.

and in short time israel had captured…
As happens when one wins.

My point is that both sides attacked each other. The jewish side was also dissatisfied with the UN plan and wanted to move borders, they wanted a continuous area of land. But even this seems hard to admit.
Not at all, given the situation one faces one seeks to strengthen one's stand as one can.
Unlike the war over the partition of the Indian Subcontinent (taking place at the about the same time), this was not a conflict over boundaries, since both India and Pakistan had accepted the principle of partition; here we had one side rejecting partition altogether and the other seeking to implement its self-determination with the means at its disposal.
While some of the latter's actions were questionable, that it was fighting for its existence was not.

There was very little jewish population in the arab areas.
There was no Jew left in areas which came under Egyptian or Transjordan control.

You shock me by saying that one side was intent on stealing and displacing.
I think this is a shameful statement. Especially in a conflict were stealing on both sides has been the norm...
The Arab side was very clear about its intention of annihilating the Jews in Palestine, that they allowed not even one Jew to live where they have prevailed further shows it.

Injustice is never corollary.
It's an inevitable corollary to violent conflicts.

No, [seventeenth-century] Poland had a long period of very powerful parliament, where every member could veto the kings decissions. This had it's obvious problems.
Like a feudal illiterate society and the occasional pogrom?
And are you intent on arguing that is comparable to Israel today?

BS. The arab states were at that point only interested in reclaiming their lost land. The egyptian army had actually orders not to even proceed to the israeli border, but to secure the Suez.
Both Egypt and Syria had the ability to defeat Israel, and thus to threat its very existence; it is their military ability that one had to take in account while assessing threat at the the time, not to mention that both countries officially opposed Israel's very existence (Syria still does, although it does presently lack the capacity to do anything about it).


Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
I am of the opinion that the yearly U.S. financial aid is today more of a hindrance than anything else and that U.S.-Israeli relations should move to a more mature form of partnership.
What would that be?
There are many forms of alliance which do not include a yearly allowance.


I agree, this would happen should the matter of Israel's existence and its legitimacy be accepted by all.
It's good that we agree on some things then.
Fine.


Acceptance of Israel by "all" is ofcourse not very likely. But the good thing is that Israel is accepted by all important parts of the conflict.
By “all” I meant all concerned in that conflict. Although it is very disturbing that the legitimacy of any country's existence be unaccepted by anyone for any reason.