Vanunu Goes Free

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
Walls to pen people in or out are generally horrid.

As is this one.

Generally yes but not in this situation, it can be perceived as a wall of peace - it will finally and for good define the border, no settlers will dare settle again behind the wall, and it will be much harder for suicide bombers to get to Israel and kill themselves.

So after some time the wall is in place the passion will subdue and two sides will finally be ready to get to the final talks, and it will be much harder that some paramilitary pali units undermine the talks with some suicide bombing.

You need a driver for change, as history shows in last 50 years there was none in Israel, a wall is an excellent idea... very practical while it goes agains the genereal 'humanism' it certainly is a good way to get out of the constant war there.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
And on many other occasions they occasions they did travel beyond those lines. I hope that you aren't serious in this argument.

Serious about what? To say the Arabs rushed in to destroy Israel is not backed up by the facts. Yes, at some points they did cross the lines- of course, this all happened after the Israelis begun driving out all the Arabs in their side of the line and others not on their side of the partition lines. Neither side is innocent, and once the Arabs rejected the partition plan the Israelis had no intention to just defend what they were being promised, but went for the whole enchilada. If the Arabs moved in to destroy Israel, the Israelis moved to destroy Palestine.

has nothing to do with the point, of course. A cease-fire was established. If I were the egyptians, I'd of course, support them, as well, but no due to love for your international law.

Given that Israel took no steps to either allow people back to their homes or write a consitution, neither side can claim to have been following international law. Pot, Kettle, Black.

And was used to deter Egypt, and gain geopolitical ground vis a vis the european powers. It was quite a brilliant geopolitical victory!

Hardly. Egypt moved closer to the USSR. The US was pissed at Israel and UK and France-the UK did not move any closer. The only thing gained was a close relation between France and Israel as long as both saw the Arabs as the great enemy. If anything, it took several years to make up for the diplomatic fall-out of the act.

[Az]

Serious about what? To say the Arabs rushed in to destroy Israel is not backed up by the facts. Yes, at some points they did cross the lines- of course, this all happened after the Israelis begun driving out all the Arabs in their side of the line and others not on their side of the partition lines.

Driving out all of the arabs? and that is supported by facts?

The arab armies sure as hell did try to get Israel, but they had no logistics, and generally force, to do so.

Neither side is innocent, and once the Arabs rejected the partition plan the Israelis had no intention to just defend what they were being promised, but went for the whole enchilada. If the Arabs moved in to destroy Israel, the Israelis moved to destroy Palestine.

It's not a mirror you're facing. Sure, Israel tried to get as much as it could, but it never even imagined that they could grab the entire territory of the mandate.

Given that Israel took no steps to either allow people back to their homes or write a consitution, neither side can claim to have been following international law. Pot, Kettle, Black.

Given that YOU are the one upholding the sanctity of Intl. law in this thread, and not me, I have a very clear right to attack your defensive argument of "people were thrown out of their houses", while you have no right to say "but they did it too!". I told you, if I were the Egyptians, I'd do it as well. You, on the other hand, are countinuing to approach the analysis of intl. relations in the terms of 'right' and 'wrong'. Goddamn Neocon.

Hardly. Egypt moved closer to the USSR.

Since Israel decided not to align itself with the USSR, at that point, it wasn't much of a problem.

The US was pissed at Israel and UK and France-the UK did not move any closer.

You are kidding, right? A huge amount of ammution, weaponary, hell, even the nuke can be attributed to this!

The US pissed at Israel? as you've said, Egypt hooked up with the USSR, the US won't assist egypt.

The only thing gained was a close relation between France and Israel as long as both saw the Arabs as the great enemy. If anything, it took several years to make up for the diplomatic fall-out of the act.

What diplomatic fallout? As I've said, Israel got itself a nuke, and plenty of weaponary out of this one. Sure, maybe the Brits and the french suffered, but we're talking about Israel's deal.

[Gangerolf]

why do I keep reading the thread title as "Vanuatu goes free"?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
why do I keep reading the thread title as "Vanuatu goes free"?

I was doing the same thing at the beginning

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

Driving out all of the arabs? and that is supported by facts?

Look at the Arab demographics in Israel: most Arabs who ended up in Israel live in Areas not originally meant to be Israeli anyway. You guys did a very good job of driving Arabs out of the areas promised to Israel from the start. After all, the 750,000 had to come from somewhere.

It's not a mirror you're facing. Sure, Israel tried to get as much as it could, but it never even imagined that they could grab the entire territory of the mandate.

That is an argument based on relative strength, not aims-if you did not imagine you could get it all was not based on not wanting it all, only you thought you were not strong enough to do it. hat does not make you fundamnetally better, only more realistic about comparing strengths.

Given that YOU are the one upholding the sanctity of Intl. law in this thread, and not me, I have a very clear right to attack your defensive argument of "people were thrown out of their houses", while you have no right to say "but they did it too!". I told you, if I were the Egyptians, I'd do it as well. You, on the other hand, are countinuing to approach the analysis of intl. relations in the terms of 'right' and 'wrong'. Goddamn Neocon.

I don't seek the "sanctity" of international law- I do give it more consideration that you or most here becuase I believe in the notion of legitimacy of action, and international law is ONE (but not the only) area to claim legitimacy.

Since Israel decided not to align itself with the USSR, at that point, it wasn't much of a problem.

It gave Egypt a weapons supplier-peace with Egypt did not come until Egypt decided to side with the US-hence the next two wars.

You are kidding, right? A huge amount of ammution, weaponary, hell, even the nuke can be attributed to this!

And all of that becuase France saw Israel incorrectly as a way to fight of the Arab's making trouble in Algeria. All that French weaponsry did not come beause of the whole Suez attempt, which was a disaster for France-it was PART of that relationship. The French giving you guys weapons goes back before 1956.

The US pissed at Israel? as you've said, Egypt hooked up with the USSR, the US won't assist egypt.

And it did not hook up with Israel, hence Israeli reliance on France.

What diplomatic fallout? As I've said, Israel got itself a nuke, and plenty of weaponary out of this one. Sure, maybe the Brits and the french suffered, but we're talking about Israel's deal.

As I said above, the excercise did not begin your relation with France, it was part of an ongoing thing driven by France's war in Algeria and their blaming Nasser for it. Nasser gained immensely from the whole mess. All in all, the Suez excersiced helped the rejectionists among Arab regimes politically and set the stage for the future wars. So no, it was not some huge diplomatic gain at all. Remember the US demanded and made Israel leave Gaza and created very bad blood with the Eisenhower administration.

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave


I was doing the same thing at the beginning

Too much day-dreaming about the South Pacific perhaps?

[East Street Trader]

We have had several programmes on UK TV in which interviews have been conducted with numbers of people who live in the communities through which the wall is being built.

Some interviewed were in favour of the wall, expressing the hope that it might make shootings and bombings less common.

Others were against it. Never for doctrinal reasons but always because of some effect it is having on them because of their specifiic circumstances.

Quite a number of families - especially families where Israeli has married arab - are separated by it. Because in such families the husband usually works some way away from the family home and it turns out to be too difficult regularly to pass to and fro through it. Numbers of farmers were outraged because their land had either simply been expropriated or else the wall meant they could no longer reach the land to farm it. Noticeably the land over which the wall is built is arab owned.

In some areas neighbouring villages are now separated so that families with members in each can no longer see each other or else businesses that depend on custom which used to come from both sides are now having to close.

The programmes showed a hundred and one ways in which the erection of the barrier disrupts people's lives.

Which, I suppose, would always be the case. The Berlin Wall did much the same and if I imagine some wall put up in my neck of the woods exactly these sorts of effects would be bound to follow.

That all this division must and does directly flow from the decision to put the wall up is entirely certain. If it were equally a sure thing that dozens of lives will be saved by it and that all sorts of disruption presently caused by racial violence will be prevented then it would be possible to examine the balance of advantage and detriment and the wall might well win out. But there is no such certainty.

That significantly improved security will be won is hope at best.

And the history of the arab/Israeli conflict is one in which divisive measures predicated on preventing conflict by some form of force do not work. Indeed they breed the next generation of violence and hate.

What you noticed in the TV programmes is that despite the troubles there were plenty of perfectly normal and healthy contacts at the local level between arab and Israeli. it was often Israelis who had a complant to make about how the wall was disrupting what had been the position in their local communities.

To my mind the way to try to reduce the long term tensions on Israel's borders lies much more in the forging of such local links than ever it does in devising measures to insist on peace by imposing division.

There is a saying that good fences make good neighbours and I have seen enough disputes over land to subscribe to that. But to be good neighbours people must pass round and through and chat over their fences, not make them out of barbed wire.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel

Yet most Arab armies moved in only after Israeli forces attacked into those araes given to palestinians, and on many occasions did not travel beyond the pertition lines the UN had set up.

And on many other occasions they occasions they did travel beyond those lines. I hope that you aren't serious in this argument.

Like where?

[Az]

Look at the Arab demographics in Israel: most Arabs who ended up in Israel live in Areas not originally meant to be Israeli anyway. You guys did a very good job of driving Arabs out of the areas promised to Israel from the start. After all, the 750,000 had to come from somewhere.

While they did flee for the fear of their lives, they weren't driven out. not most of them, anyway.

That is an argument based on relative strength, not aims-if you did not imagine you could get it all was not based on not wanting it all, only you thought you were not strong enough to do it. hat does not make you fundamnetally better, only more realistic about comparing strengths

And that's exactly what I have in mind.

And it did not hook up with Israel, hence Israeli reliance on France.

Oh no, there were much larger forces that prevented the hook up at that point, for example certain americans' gulf interests,. When american interests changed, the hook up occured.

As I said above, the excercise did not begin your relation with France, it was part of an ongoing thing driven by France's war in Algeria and their blaming Nasser for it. Nasser gained immensely from the whole mess.

As he was awfully incompetent, Israel shouldn't have any problem with that.

All in all, the Suez excersiced helped the rejectionists among Arab regimes politically and set the stage for the future wars. So no, it was not some huge diplomatic gain at all.

Wait a second, helped the rejectionists? who exactly wasn't a "rejectionist" at that point, anyway, besides Abdallah, maybe?

Remember the US demanded and made Israel leave Gaza and created very bad blood with the Eisenhower administration.

Question is, what Israel lost from that?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel
It's not a mirror you're facing. Sure, Israel tried to get as much as it could, but it never even imagined that they could grab the entire territory of the mandate.

Only because the one force the Israelis knew they'd have a hard time defeating was the Arab Legion, which is why the West Bank wasn't taken and Jerusalem divided. This is why the Israelis tried to make a deal with Jordan before the war began, to split Palestine between the two countries.

All of the rest of Palestine was taken, even in areas where you were not atacked, as in West Galilee. Only the UN forced the Israelis out of Gaza and likely only because you were trying to take the Sinai at the time.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

While they did flee for the fear of their lives, they weren't driven out. not most of them, anyway.

Juts nothing was done to dissaude them from the fear of their lives, and the Irsalei forces did provide a few examples as to why they might have to fear.

Oh no, there were much larger forces that prevented the hook up at that point, for example certain americans' gulf interests,. When american interests changed, the hook up occured.

The fact the Egyptians and Syrians were being driven further into the soviet camp did play a role in the US coming to side with Israel by the mid-60's.

As he was awfully incompetent, Israel shouldn't have any problem with that.

Wrong tense. And Israel did have problems with that.

Wait a second, helped the rejectionists? who exactly wasn't a "rejectionist" at that point, anyway, besides Abdallah, maybe?

The people we never hear about cause they never made it to prominance-that's whom.

Question is, what Israel lost from that?

From 1956-1961? US aid. As I said, it took years for Israel to recover diplomatically with the US- years as in by the late Kennedy, early Johnson years.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Liar!

I remind you that it were Arab armies who declared their goal to destroy Israel in 1948.

And they made such a serious attempt at it. Why did Lebanon not attack Israel, but simply occupied West Galilee if they were trying to destroy Israel? Why did Syria flee from a single old howitzer? Why did Iraq and Jordan not move forward in the West Bank? Why did Egypt divert half their forces to confront Jordan? Why did the Jordanians refuse to aid the Egyptians when you attacked Egypt in the fall of '48?

I welcome you to read about the Fedayeen movement in the 50s.

After years of Palestinians trying to return to their farms being shot, of Israeli commando raids into Palestinian camps.

I welcome you to read about the reasons leading to 1967, the 4 years conflict between 1967 and 1971, The war of 1973.

'67 was an aggressive war on Israeli's part. If you hadn't been shelling Syria and threatening to invade, the Egyptians wouldn't have mobilized on your border. They were trying to get you to back down, not invade.

The war of '73 didn't take place before 1973, so it doesn't prove your point.

[Az]

che:

Only because the one force the Israelis knew they'd have a hard time defeating was the Arab Legion, which is why the West Bank wasn't taken and Jerusalem divided. This is why the Israelis tried to make a deal with Jordan before the war began, to split Palestine between the two countries.

oooh, I am sure ample evidence of that exists.

In any case, Israel did try to fight the arab legion, where it wanted to, and lost, just like in eastern Jerusalem, and THAT'S why Israel didn't hold it, not due to a deal with Jordan.

All of the rest of Palestine was taken, even in areas where you were not atacked, as in West Galilee. Only the UN forced the Israelis out of Gaza and likely only because you were trying to take the Sinai at the time.

Wait, so Israel should only counter-attack on a certain front? It can initiate warfare?

Like where?

Syria, around the sea of Galilee, for example. The Egyptians towards Beer-Sheva.

Juts nothing was done to dissaude them from the fear of their lives, and the Irsalei forces did provide a few examples as to why they might have to fear.

doesn't qualify for driven out. anyway, it's a boring game of semantics.

The fact the Egyptians and Syrians were being driven further into the soviet camp did play a role in the US coming to side with Israel by the mid-60's.

yep, some of that. It wouldn't have happened without the Suez war.

Wrong tense. And Israel did have problems with that.

Yup, wrong tense. happens. And yes, Israel did have some problems with Nasser, but it's kinda to be expected if you have a country 10 times your size and hating your guts. All things considered, he was all talk, no walk.

The people we never hear about cause they never made it to prominance-that's whom.

Ahh, ok.

From 1956-1961? US aid. As I said, it took years for Israel to recover diplomatically with the US- years as in by the late Kennedy, early Johnson years.

How much aid israel could've expected anyway, with an Egypt and Syria firmly in the non-aligned camp, and their favors being fought over by the US and SU?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What is would delegitimize realism as the reigning discourse of international relations after all this time and put a better system in its place? What determines whether this replacement will be benign or malign? I've yet to hear any real answer to these questions from either you or Aggie which makes it somewhat hard to believe that a change anytime in the foreseeable future is in the cards.

It's changing all the time. Try reading The Shield of Achilles for a start. GePap is right, there is nothing particularly realistic about realism.

Besides, sensible people realized after WWI that a state of nature between states could bring nothing but ruin, and they were proved right.