IF tommorow the Palestinian people peacably protested in the street+did so for month

[GePap]

Damn! we get so far, and then this regular ME crap breaks out yet again!!!

I like the article. I have read enough to interpret the fatc for myself, free from the judgements of the author. I have also read in college some very well written and argued books demolishing the Israeli position on almost everything. they well well written, had lots of references,a nd so forth. i also knew the author was biased. No amount of facts can overcome a pre-set bias. At best, they can moderate one, which is why i am glad ned showed that link. I am sure that my reaction to it is not the same as Ned's, and that we still disgaree greatly on various points, but even biased pieces can help, if they introduce new facts.

As I said with azazel, I highly doubt that the leadeship of Israel wanted a war in 1967, and that a war came upon them. I also don't buy, for a second, that Syria or jordan were also looking for a war in 1967. notice the article, not a single mention comes up of aggressive Syrian or Jordanian moves in 1967. Edan has posted some links to jordanian acts, but they ae more acts aftre war starts than well prepared plans. So, I have not yet seen anywhere some grand, mastyer plan by the arabs in 1967 to attack Israel from all sides and crush them. Even Nassers statement about destroying Israel, which i looked up in too personal books, with a slight bias towards Israel, were conditional (if Israel provokes a war then....)

So I will hold to my original though. 1967 is war brought on by Nasser trying to regain the stature he had lost since 1956 by being aggressive towards Israel; a stance that brought on a war he and the other Arab states were not ready for, which israel did not want, was not looking for, but once the oppurtunity came, took full advantage of its military superiority to imporve its general position vis a vi the Arab states. No one is an angel, no one is a demon.

Which is the point: there are too many people arguing here that all arabs are this, all Israelis are that. Bull. There are plenty of Arabs that would not mind seeing Israel destroyed, for many different reasons (national ambition, anti-semitism, religious fervor, whatever) just as there are many Israelis who would love to see the end of the Palestinian people, and a whole host of disaster to fall upon the Arabs, for various reasons (national ambtion, racism, religious fervor, whatever).

[Az]

you don't want me to get that set of MLK quotes AGAIN, gsmoove.

GePap: I really hope that someday, the arab archives will be open. So far, I cannot say the syrians or jordanians wanted war, but I cannot say they didn't either. it's all a big question mark.

One could say that Jordan didn't REALLY want the war, but didn't dislike the idea enough to refrain for caving in to Nasser's pressure. But that's just guessing from what we know so far, that is not much.

Which is the point: there are too many people arguing here that all arabs are this, all Israelis are that. Bull. There are plenty of Arabs that would not mind seeing Israel destroyed, for many different reasons (national ambition, anti-semitism, religious fervor, whatever) just as there are many Israelis who would love to see the end of the Palestinian people, and a whole host of disaster to fall upon the Arabs, for various reasons (national ambtion, racism, religious fervor, whatever).

oh, but of course many Israelis would like the palestinian problem to dissappear. Many Israelis wouldn't mind just waking up and finding that the 3 million palestinians have just dissappeared. But I don't think there is a minority beyond the fringe ( most "National Union" voters ) that would support the forceful removal of the palestinians.

The arabs? I just don't know. I seem to get along ok with some Israeli arabs I know at the uni. nothing special, just "hi, wassup" and discussing classes. But that's about the level of communication with most people I know. I am sure if you ask people in Syria, they'll tell something a bit different, but I just don't know, really.

All in all, best ME thread in months.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel
So, all Israel wants is to kill arabs? you're better than that, che.

Did I write that? No.

I just reminded Ned that Begin and Sharon had ulterior motives in agreeing to peace with Egypt in 1977(especially on the same terms Sadat had offered in 1971).

[GePap]

Judging from how much Arab states fight among themselves and the treatment Palestinians are give by their Arab bretheren when they are actualy in an Arab state, my guess about how many actively hope to see the end of Israel is that the number is not high (though since there are so many more Arab's, the actual numbers are so much higher).

The average man on the street in mst Aarb capitals doesn't want war anymore than any israeli. The vast majority of people in the world are apolitical and are more worried about family and personal affairs than anything else.

The biggest probem is that both sides (and this is a human condition, not just reserved for both sides) are stuck looking at the situation as protrayed through historical fact that have little to do with the actual situation. For Israelis: they expect the same treatment they got in europe, ie. rampant anti-semitism being a natural things. thus, everyone, specially backward Arabs(fleeing European anti-semitism but bringing European mores) is out to destroy them. Every fact that feeds this is reinforced, every fact that doesn't is an abberation.
For the Arabs: Jews are just one more foriengn group out to destroy arab independence and stiffle their national ambitons (Just like those dman Europeans!). They don;t want that land to live in: they want to rule and subjugate us.Every fact that feeds this is reinforced, every fact that doesn't is an abberation.

[chequita guevara]

I think you take to naive a view of Israeli leadership in 1967, GePap. I don't think Israel was looking to start a war, but once it saw an opportunity to get three pieces of land whih it wanted, it went for it. Nasser gave them the excuse they needed to cover their expansionism with a fig leaf of defense.

They intended to keep the Sinai originally. You don't build settlments in land you are planning on returning. You build them in land you plan on keeping.

[Az]

I just reminded Ned that Begin and Sharon had ulterior motives in agreeing to peace with Egypt in 1977(especially on the same terms Sadat had offered in 1971).

maybe Sadat had ulterior offer in agreeing to what was offered by Israel ( peace according to international boudaries ) previously rejeected by the egyptians and all other arabs in the Khartoum declaration.

Did I write that? No.

trolling is a legitma... wait, that doesn't sound right.

another thing, is that Begin didn't want the operation in Lebanon the way Sharon wanted it. I would go as far as to say that it went against his pricniples. Sharon was entirely incharge of the military operation, and had a feeling that he could create something in lebanon that was stable and positively inclined to the Israelis, and would stop the creation of a palestinian state in Lebanon. Ironically, the Syrians had a certain sharing of interests, in the sense, they both didn't want any strong palestinian entity in lebanon, But the syrians wanted the lebanonian government as a puppet pressure tool against Israel. I'd say that Sharon's motive was not an anti-palestinian one (the Syrians have more or less taken care of THAT threat back in the 70s, and btw caused at least as much damage in the more than half of a decade they were there), but to prevent the creation of a highly anti-Israeli state, unlike the previously almost-neutral stance.

Thing is that Israel had lots of true allies in Lebanon, that could hardly be considered a single national entity, and we, sadly betrayed them, and left them either to the hands of Hizbullah, or to immigrate to Israel, leave their land and start from scratch ( and didn't give them much help at that either ).

I signed a petition calling the government to help all of the christian lebanonian refugees in Israel.

[Az]

They intended to keep the Sinai originally. You don't build settlments in land you are planning on returning. You build them in land you plan on keeping.

the settlements came only in the 70's.

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I think you take to naive a view of Israeli leadership in 1967, GePap. I don't think Israel was looking to start a war, but once it saw an opportunity to get three pieces of land whih it wanted, it went for it. Nasser gave them the excuse they needed to cover their expansionism with a fig leaf of defense.

They intended to keep the Sinai originally. You don't build settlments in land you are planning on returning. You build them in land you plan on keeping.

You are speaking about the aftermath of the war Che, not how it begun.

Hey look, we have a three person agreement that the 1967 was not begun due to israeli actions and provocations!

I overall agree with you intepretation of the aftermath of June 5th 1967. But up to this point, the discussion was over the time before June 5th.

[gsmoove23]

Urgh! Not the MLK quote, its too painful to read . Besides, he pales in comparison to the Ghandhinator .

I had the interesting experience of living with a palestinian from Jordan in Britain last year. He was a devout muslim, no contact with women, had to consult an imam to see if he could eat just about anything. To be honest I was a little taken aback when I heard where he was from(I had just come from NYC a month after 9/11). We got to be pretty good friends and one night we were watching some downloaded videos in a friends room. The friend played a video of the 1st plane hitting one of the towers on 9/11 and my muslim friend broke out laughing. I was taken aback but then the other guy played a video someone had made of a mosque where you could here the call to prayer right before a huge jetliner crashed into it and I couldn't help but break out laughing. The muslim friend seemed to be offended by it so we played it a couple of more times and I decided to forget about his laughing at 9/11.

I happen to know that he supported terrorism. In fact he told me that Hamas was better because they were religious(He also hated Arafat and the 'foreigners' in his camp). In the beginning he had told me he was against them but as time went on and we got to know each other better the truth came out. It was hard to reconcile this with who he was. The guy wouldn't hurt a fly(supporting terrorism is one thing, carrying it out is another), was one of the most moral people I knew(regarding anything other then terrorism ) and I would still trust him with my American, western value lovin' life if I had to. Very confusing.

[Az]

Che says that Israel has originally intended to keep all of these lands for good. And onse again, Israel is the evil bastard of a nation trying to fool poor Nasser. I say no.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by GePap


You are speaking about the aftermath of the war Che, not how it begun.

Hey look, we have a three person agreement that the 1967 was not begun due to israeli actions and provocations!

I overall agree with you intepretation of the aftermath of June 5th 1967. But up to this point, the discussion was over the time before June 5th.

You agree with interpretations of the aftermath but you would claim that these motives suddenly appeared to Israeli leadership in the days leading up to June 5th? I would think Israeli leadership was a little more forward thinking then that.

[Az]

nice little aneqdote.

You agree with interpretations of the aftermath but you would claim that these motives suddenly appeared to Israeli leadership in the days leading up to June 5th? I would think Israeli leadership was a little more forward thinking then that.

many of the ministers didn't even think that Israel could win militarily.

Plus, I insist on my claim that Eshkol wanted to give back the land conquered in exchange for peace. That was of course regected by the notorious Khartoum declaration.

[GePap]

Why? Why did they have to be more forward thinking than say, Nasser when he undertook his little campaign in May 1967?

There are countless times in history when things simply come up, and one either goes for it, ro doesn't. We are also ignoring the realities of time. The aftermath is a span of months, year, not a few days. After all Azazel is correct that settlements in Gaza and Sinai took years to start, though they came very quickly to the west bank, which happened to be one of the sdurpise aquisitions of 1967.

[gsmoove23]

Eshkol would have under no circumstances been able to convince his government to do such a thing. There were too many bent on absorbing the territories into Israel proper for it to work, not to mention under no circumstances would Israel give up eastern Jerusalem and under no circumstances would the arabs have accepted any deal without it.

[GePap]

Azazel: I do not think that the israeli leadership as a whole (since Israel is a democracy the word of a single leader is not law) wanted to give the West bank back: notice the wrangling over UNSCR 242, and the whole bit about "lands" v "the lands". After 1967, israel intended to keep some territory gained. I do not see many israelis giving up the wailing wall once they had it in hand.

gsmoove23:

Very few leaders in the world ever have "a plan". Most go with the moment. I see evidence in the actions of the israeli leaqdership to point to a plan, anymore than I see one in the leadership of any of the neighboring Arab states.