Vanunu Goes Free

[GePap]

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

You don;t have to have a gun to the back of a refugee in order to be responsible in the end for their being a refugee. MOst refugees aren't driven out-they leave for sensible reasons.

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

So becoming part of the Cold War game was a giant plus for Israel? Okie dokie......

Ahh, ok.

Yes, them.

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?

Egypt was not courted by the US after 1956 (the crisis preceeding the invasion by UK-France-Israel) so certainly they were not in this camp.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon


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.

Is there any actual content in this post or are you trying to bury people in BAM! ?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel
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.

Just ask neo-Zionist Benny Morris!

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.

You attacked Jerusalem. You couldn't take it. Most places the Israelis attacked the Arab Legion they failed, like at Latrun.

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?

Initiating warfare negates your claim that it was a defensive war. Thank you. Game, set, match!

Like where?

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

The Syrians were trying to grab a peice of land they felt was theirs, which old French maps showed was part of Syria. Their 5,000 man armor column turned tail and ran when hit by a rusty old howitzer. This is prof they were trying to destroy you?

Yes, the Egyptians moved to Beer-Sheva, but they split their forces and send half to block the Syrians. Either the Egyptians severely understimated the Israelis, having only sent 10,000 men into Palestine, or they were rather attmpting to secure the Gaza area (which was twice as large in the original partition. They met Israeli forces in Arab territory, i.e., you were on the offensive as well.

[Az]

You don;t have to have a gun to the back of a refugee in order to be responsible in the end for their being a refugee. MOst refugees aren't driven out-they leave for sensible reasons.

the whole argument was about you saying they were driven out.

So becoming part of the Cold War game was a giant plus for Israel? Okie dokie......

Israel, non-aligned, would've been eaten up by aligned arab members, so yes, you betcha!

Egypt was not courted by the US after 1956 (the crisis preceeding the invasion by UK-France-Israel) so certainly they were not in this camp.

That was quite a serious crisis, a severe one, really. The US hated that Nasser was spreading his nationalist ideas around the arab world. But this was amendable, and the US could've harnessed him to their own needs. Being aligned with the SU is kinda unforgivable.

It took 25 years to ammend that rift.

[Edan]

On the 1956 war:

It was quite a brilliant geopolitical victory!

[/quote]Hardly. [/quote]

Also not mentioned was the impact this had on getting Egypt to reign in their Fedayeen attacks, and also how it got UN troops into the Sinai (as hollow as that was, it did help give some warning when they were kicked out) as well as a pledge by Eisenhower to support Israel's access via the strait.

From 1956-1961? US aid

What aid? Israel hadn't really been recieving any notable amounts of aid before 1956.

'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.

What are you smoking? It was Russia that was supplying falsified information about an Israeli attack on Syria - although Egypt and Syria had evidence that the intelligence was false and conveniently ignored it.

You also had the blockade - an act of war and the casus beli for the war.

Plus, you had Operation Dawn - evidence that Egypt was certainly planning to attack.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap



Egypt was not courted by the US after 1956 (the crisis preceeding the invasion by UK-France-Israel) so certainly they were not in this camp.

Egypt had stopped being courted before Suez - with the withdrawl of the offer to finance the Aswan Dam.

Edit: Whoops, after rereading that I see we'resaying the sam ething

(OTOH, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Jordan were in that camp)

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
the whole argument was about you saying they were driven out.

Ahemm.. as I said, even if a gun was not held to their baks, israel still bears responsibility for the refugees from what lands they came to control. You were the one to attempt to place a distinction between being forced by Israeli troops to leave, and leaving out of fear-I am saying that distinction does not matter.

Israel, non-aligned, would've been eaten up by aligned arab members, so yes, you betcha!

BY 1956 Israel was receiving large aid from France as it was.

That was quite a serious crisis, a severe one, really. The US hated that Nasser was spreading his nationalist ideas around the arab world. But this was amendable, and the US could've harnessed him to their own needs. Being aligned with the SU is kinda unforgivable.

It took 25 years to ammend that rift.

Yes, so your claim Egypt was solidly in the non-aligned camp and still being courted by the US was false.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Egypt had stopped being courted before Suez - with the withdrawl of the offer to finance the Aswan Dam.

Hence the:

(the crisis preceeding the invasion by UK-France-Israel)

[Az]

Che:

Just ask neo-Zionist Benny Morris!

I think Benny Morris got hit by a bowling ball in the head when he was a baby. He sounds very confused in his interviews. But, of course, I am interested in how could he know about it, anyway.

You attacked Jerusalem. You couldn't take it. Most places the Israelis attacked the Arab Legion they failed, like at Latrun.

Erm, no, we were already in Jerusalem, and were pushed out of there.

Initiating warfare negates your claim that it was a defensive war. Thank you. Game, set, match!

Initiating warfare on a knew front, while facing the same foe doesn't.

The Syrians were trying to grab a peice of land they felt was theirs, which old French maps showed was part of Syria. Their 5,000 man armor column turned tail and ran when hit by a rusty old howitzer. This is prof they were trying to destroy you?

That's a lot fo bull. Degania and South of the Kineret was never Syrian, on any map, for example, and there was fighting with the Syrians there.

Yes, the Egyptians moved to Beer-Sheva, but they split their forces and send half to block the Syrians. Either the Egyptians severely understimated the Israelis, having only sent 10,000 men into Palestine, or they were rather attmpting to secure the Gaza area (which was twice as large in the original partition. They met Israeli forces in Arab territory, i.e., you were on the offensive as well.

How exactly would egypt block syria? open a map.


GePap:

Ahemm.. as I said, even if a gun was not held to their baks, israel still bears responsibility for the refugees from what lands they came to control. You were the one to attempt to place a distinction between being forced by Israeli troops to leave, and leaving out of fear-I am saying that distinction does not matter.

I were simply attempting to point out that they weren't physically driven, in most cases. It's not my fault you read something different into it.

BY 1956 Israel was receiving large aid from France as it was.

And none of the arabs were really aligned. When they would've become aligned, and some of them would've at some point. France's help wouldn't be enough.

Yes, so your claim Egypt was solidly in the non-aligned camp and still being courted by the US was false.

You're jumping to conclusions, by making false assumptions. Just because Egypt had a breakdown in relationships with the US, doesn't mean it stopped being non-aligned, and moved to the side of the SU. It would be like saying that Israel, that had extremely cool relations with the US, at the time, was aligned with the SU.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel

You attacked Jerusalem. You couldn't take it. Most places the Israelis attacked the Arab Legion they failed, like at Latrun.

Erm, no, we were already in Jerusalem, and were pushed out of there.

So was the Arab Legion, that's why you could only sieze half the city.

Initiating warfare negates your claim that it was a defensive war. Thank you. Game, set, match!

Initiating warfare on a knew front, while facing the same foe doesn't.

Lebanon didn't attack you. The snatched a piece of land that was designated to be part of Palestine. Then they sat on their thumbs until you attacked them six months later.

How exactly would egypt block syria? open a map.

Er, I meant they were trying to block Jordan.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

I were simply attempting to point out that they weren't physically driven, in most cases. It's not my fault you read something different into it.

I never said "physically driven", but whatever-the point is that there were lots of refugees.

And none of the arabs were really aligned. When they would've become aligned, and some of them would've at some point. France's help wouldn't be enough.

Iraq and Jordan were both aligned with the UK-SA with the US. As for Egypt and Syria, Syria was alrady leaning towards the soviets, and after the split with the US and talking abou non-alignment (a position the US did not accept) Nasser had burned his bridges. And up to 1967 French help was more than sufficient-heck, as you said, they gave you nuke secrets, something the US would not have done.

You're jumping to conclusions, by making false assumptions. Just because Egypt had a breakdown in relationships with the US, doesn't mean it stopped being non-aligned, and moved to the side of the SU. It would be like saying that Israel, that had extremely cool relations with the US, at the time, was aligned with the SU.

Part of the reason Israel justified its 1956 attack was due to the Egyptians buying weapons from the Czech's, a Soviet puppet. The split from the US was pretty clear. Yes, israel was split from the US-and hence was with France. Jordan wa with the UK, not the US at the time. Back in the 50's the influence of the two old European powers was nto dead.

[Az]

So was the Arab Legion, that's why you could only sieze half the city.

We didn't have to seize half of the city. We already were there.

Lebanon didn't attack you. The snatched a piece of land that was designated to be part of Palestine. Then they sat on their thumbs until you attacked them six months later.

ooh wow, this is much more complex than that! vis a vis the government of lebanon, there wasn't much fighting, anyway, that's why I haven't realized why you talked about it being one sided. The majority of the fighting in Galilee was against paramilitaries from abroad, and the Druze, that were IIRC, Lebanonese mercenaries ( since they pledged allegiance to Israel after being beaten twice in battle, and Israel always treats those Druze who fought against them with a lot of real respect, which can be said only about the Legion, perhaps )

Er, I meant they were trying to block Jordan.

Block Jordan from doing what? occupying the west bank? I wonder if there is any real evidence for this.

Iraq and Jordan were both aligned with the UK-SA with the US. As for Egypt and Syria, Syria was alrady leaning towards the soviets, and after the split with the US and talking abou non-alignment (a position the US did not accept) Nasser had burned his bridges. And up to 1967 French help was more than sufficient-heck, as you said, they gave you nuke secrets, something the US would not have done.

That's mostly true. I still fail to see how Israel's leadership could've played this one better than they did.

Part of the reason Israel justified its 1956 attack was due to the Egyptians buying weapons from the Czech's, a Soviet puppet. The split from the US was pretty clear. Yes, israel was split from the US-and hence was with France. Jordan wa with the UK, not the US at the time. Back in the 50's the influence of the two old European powers was nto dead.

not dead, then but, as history would show, it would become dead, over time. And how does buying weapons from Czechs justifies an attack on Egypt? I never heard this one, not as a 'justification'. Israel had Czech weaponary, as well.

[Sirotnikov]

I never said "physically driven", but whatever-the point is that there were lots of refugees.

But it is important because is sets the blame for the refugees. A claim could be made it's somewhat responsible as Israel was a part in that war.

However, there is evidence that the Arab side shares most of the blame - because it told the arab popuation to leave (efraim karsh gives a proof of a specific case in Haifa), and because the Arab side began spreading rumors about Israeli massacares, hoping to enrage the arab population and lead them to fight. Instead, they ran away.

The arabs declared their intention to wipe Israel off, and when the attacked, Israel similarly responded.

The fact that the Arabs were not effective, not coordinated, lousy fighters (except for Jordan) and tried to rob each other of land, and hence failed miserably - has nothing to do with intention.

It was not Israel's intention, at the time, to get a larger chunk of land - mostly because they were sure it would fail. They intended to counter attack a (somewhat) coordinated attack from Ara countries.

Just because Israel tactically was agressive and continued forward when it was winning, doesn't make it an agressor, anymore than the Allies in WWII.

[PLATO]

Mending Wall - Robert Frost

SOMETHING there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
"Stay where you are until our backs are turned!"
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of outdoor game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
He is all pine and I am apple-orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, "Good fences make good neighbors."
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
"Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down!" I could say "Elves" to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there,
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
I have never been much impressed with the proposition that the threat of nuclear retaliation deters those who like to start wars.

Erm, quite. But it has been 100% effective at preventing NUCLEAR wars.

Originally posted by East Street Trader
And the present situation with Iraq has done nothing to make the proposition seem any more credible. Bush and Blair precipitated a war in this case specifically because they believed Iraq had hideous weapons.

Happily they were mistaken.

But their belief certainly did not deter them.

Personally, I didn't care. Saddam Hussein was the most evil of a whole set of Middle East dictators... and the US and the UK helped him in his crimes.

Hence, it falls to us to right the wrong we have done.

He's our baby. We had to spank him. Ask Al Qaeda.