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

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by 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.

They had to be more forward thinking because the outcome of 67 is something that various leaders, some who were in the cabinet at the time, had been hoping and planning for since before independance.

Settlements came very quickly to the West Bank because that was the most coveted land, no other reason. East Jerusalem was annexed almost imediately and the idea of 'changing facts on the ground' began to be implemented.

[Az]

Settlements in the west bank, esp. Northen Jerusalem (which hardly can be called a settlement ,though it is out of the borders of 67' ) were built, because Israel had always wished for Jerusalem to be unified under it's rule, call it Nationalism, the pinnacle of the Zionist movement, or whatever. For example East Jerusalem was immideately annexed, while the west bank wasn't, showing that the governments (and then it was all the same Labour government, same plan, different people ) wanted it to be a bargaining card against the Jordanians, or whoever they had to bargain against for peace on the eastern frontier. One could claim that they didn't annex the west bank or parts of it due to the large palestinian population. The fact that Israel DID annex arab eastern jerusalem disproves that.

I'd say that Israel would probably move much more swiftly towards encorporating that land if the land was empty, but:
a)if the land would be empty, it wouldn't be wrong, and there would be nothing to discuss.
b) IT WASN'T, and Israel never had any hopes of incorporating it into itself, otherwise, Israel would have annexed the mostly jewish populated settlement blocks, that have a long history of jewish presence.

[Arrian]

The friend played a video of the 1st plane hitting one of the towers on 9/11 and my muslim friend broke out laughing.

He sounds like a real nice guy.

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.

You know, after the bomb goes off, or the 13 yr-old shoots up his school, or whatever, you always see interviews of family and friends saying "he was such a nice, quiet, sweet boy! I can't believe it."

Aside from that, I have found this thread to be a pretty darn good read. I hadn't touched it since I read the initial post, figured it would turn into a Siro/Eli vs. Gnu/Mobius thread and fled. So now I've read 12 pages of people actually trying to debate history with the use of sources, and found it worthwhile. As someone with a History degree, it's nice to see that every so often.

-Arrian

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by GePap
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.

This is untrue, the Israeli cabinet had a number of plans as any cabinet or administration has at any given moment for any current situation. Best case and worst case scenarios, planning is absolutely necessary though plans do not always work. The best laid plans...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel
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.

And yet they annexed the Golan, built settlements in the Sinai and occupied territories. Israel made no moves to leave the Occupied territories until the Intafada. It's hard not to draw the conclusion that Israel planned to be there for a very long time, probably counting on the Arabs to refuse to recognize their existence long enough for the international community to agree that the land should stay with Israel (which wasn't an unreasonable assumption).

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Arrian
He sounds like a real nice guy.

Arrian you're an ass. I didn't tell the story to prove a point, I don't see what point you could prove with one guy. I just wanted to tell the story. What do you do if you become close friends with a person who turns out later to have views you find abhorrent?

[Az]

And yet they annexed the Golan, built settlements in the Sinai and occupied territories. Israel made no moves to leave the Occupied territories until the Intafada. It's hard not to draw the conclusion that Israel planned to be there for a very long time, probably counting on the Arabs to refuse to recognize their existence long enough for the international community to agree that the land should stay with Israel (which wasn't an unreasonable assumption).

Israel annexed the golan in the early 80's, when no breakthrough with syrians was made. Who would the leave the occupied territories to, anyway? they couldn't just leave, since any leadership that would come, would still be bent on the destruction of Israel, and Jordan didn't want any part of it, by then. The Sinai settlements were started in the 70's, not immideately. Israel rejected some offers to peace there, but so did the egyptians? I guess Israel had a moral obligation to jump on any offer the egyptians have gave it.

on a side note, from a clearly pov of utility, Sinai would have been MUCH better off, if it stayed Israeli.

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara And yet they annexed the Golan,

After it was clear that Syria was unwilling to make peace. Israel was willing to gie up the Golan heights in the mid 90s when it appeared there might be some chance of peace.

built settlements in the Sinai and occupied territories.

And dismantled them in exchange for peace.

Israel made no moves to leave the Occupied territories until the Intafada.

I was unaware that the Intifada was in the 70s. Israeli Politicians had been and have been willing to trade land for peace since the late 60s (and indeed, they agreed to Resolution 242, because it promised peace, recognition and security in exchange for land).

About the only land, I think that Israel wasn't willing to discuss was East Jerusalem - until 2000, anyway.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Edan
About the only land, I think that Israel wasn't willing to discuss was East Jerusalem - until 2000, anyway.

East Jerusalem and a large number of settlement blocks throughout the West Bank. Regarding E. Jerusalem Barak only offered a small bit of it and Israel as a whole seemed to be resoundingly against that.

Giving back the Sinai of course served as a way Israeli leaders could fulfill the unclear wording of 242 regarding 'lands'.

[Az]

East Jerusalem and a large number of settlement blocks throughout the West Bank. Regarding E. Jerusalem Barak only offered a small bit of it and Israel as a whole seemed to be resoundingly against that.

those settlement blocks are really not such a large amount, a few percent of the entire territory, and entirely populated by jews. They're in territorial continuity with Israel. STILL, ISRAEL DIDN'T ANNEX THEM.

Giving back the Sinai of course served as a way Israeli leaders could fulfill the unclear wording of 242 regarding 'lands'.

oh, yes, OF COURSE. you seem to know a lot, as all entrenched people seem to do.

a fairly nice piece on the Golan Heights, doesn't fully represnt my views, but it's a nice article.

http://www.mideastinfo.com/archive/paper3.htm

( hardly a paper, but still, some nice reading IMO )

ok, that's it I am off to bed.

[gsmoove23]

Well I guess I got a little snippy with the 'of course'. It certainly wasn't the only reason for the trade.

As for West Bank settlements not offered by Barak, they are not all in continuity with Israel, only a few percent of entire territory if you don't consider large security zones that surround them and they are illegally populated by Jews. No they are not annexed, but they have never been up for offer, and if a deal was signed in which they were allowed to stay they would eventually be annexed.

I love your article. Israeli leaders always seem to be 'confused' by rejection of the supposedly generous offers of leases. I'm not sure what a lease would entail but I assume it would also allow Israeli forces to be maintained in the area? I also like it brushing over the 70,000 that 'fled' Israeli occupation in the Golan and the further 15,000 that 'fled' in 73.

[Arrian]

Arrian you're an ass. I didn't tell the story to prove a point, I don't see what point you could prove with one guy. I just wanted to tell the story. What do you do if you become close friends with a person who turns out later to have views you find abhorrent?

I was reacting to your statement that the guy "wouldn't hurt a fly" and how you his beliefs and his nonviolent nature were difficult to reconcile. All I was saying is that beliefs like that can lead someone who is not by their nature violent to do some pretty violent things. I also tend to react poorly to anyone laughing at 9/11. Forgive me if you think I pounced on your story. I guess I thought you were trying to make a point with it (the bit where he laughed at 9/11 and then you laughed at the prayer call, and everything was a-ok).

As for what I would do if I were friends with someone who had views abhorrent to me, I can only say that I would probably have been done with the guy once he laughed at the plane hitting the tower and told me he supports terrorism. That's where I get off. I have friends with different views than I, one in particular, and we debate things all the time - but there is a point at which you can no longer even have a rational discussion. If I cannot have a rational discussion with someone, I cannot remain their friend.

As for me being an ass, well, you're entitled to think so.

-Arrian

[gsmoove23]

Sorry for the ass thing, just would far prefer some discussion on the story like you did here rather then just writing it off.

I considered punching the guy but I just don't work like that. I had similar experiences in NY where friends of mine started seriously spouting off about killing arabs too. There I decided to let it go because of 9/11 here I decided to let it go because the guy was a palestinian and I'm sure he had his reasons too. Still think the guy could have used a punch in the face though.

[Arrian]

I see. My original post, minus the "nice guy" bit, which I admit was a bit nasty, was intended as a discussion of the story. My second post did a better job of it, though.

I wouldn't have punched him either. I probably would have attempted to ascertain whether or not he felt that civilians were valid targets based upon their citizenship (US, Israeli, whatever). It sounds like he does believe that. Assuming that is correct, I simply wouldn't have had anything more to say to him, as arguing with someone who thinks that way is impossible (see numerous threads involving Cybergnu that deal with that subject).

-Arrian
(off to play some Civ)

[Az]

As for West Bank settlements not offered by Barak, they are not all in continuity with Israel, only a few percent of entire territory if you don't consider large security zones that surround them and they are illegally populated by Jews. No they are not annexed, but they have never been up for offer, and if a deal was signed in which they were allowed to stay they would eventually be annexed.

The settlement blocks ARE in continuity with Israel. get your facts straight. I didn't say that all settlements were, but the blocks, where most of the Israeli population lives are. As to everything else, in a settlement they would be annexed, IF that's what to be agreed.

I love your article. Israeli leaders always seem to be 'confused' by rejection of the supposedly generous offers of leases. I'm not sure what a lease would entail but I assume it would also allow Israeli forces to be maintained in the area? I also like it brushing over the 70,000 that 'fled' Israeli occupation in the Golan and the further 15,000 that 'fled' in 73.

'fled'? do I feel irony in your post? do you claim that they were forcefully removed? Why then there is a non-jewish population in that region? Remind, you the article was written in the mid 90s, and the possible solutions to the crisis were considered. but I guess you don't care much for that. The only reason Syria wants the golan is because "it's theirs". Like a big "up yours, Israel". Not as actually they care what is going on there, as much as their leadership doesn't care for the rest of their country. But heck, If I'd think there would be the possiblity of a stable peace with Syria, without any confrontation from Lebanon as well, I'd give it away. But guess what? That just ain't going to happen.