Why Muslims Hate U.S. (Split from "Just War" and N

[Vympel]

Oh little things like large troop movements on the border, numerous public bellicose statements, little things like that...

Like Israel didn't make public bellicose statements and move a few divisions of troops within its own borders

Frankly, when I hear people repeat loudly, publicly, and often that they hate me and mean to destroy me, and then I observe them making threatening gestures which give me every indication they may carry out those threats, I don't require anything more than that to tell me that pre-emptive action is both necessary and justified.

Israel's generals disagree with you.

I'd like to see convincing justification for the shelling of civilian targets which are inside the borders of another country.

Already provided. As Mike Wong pointed out, it was deliberate provocation with the intent to grab the Golan Heights. In addition, read my previous post to see the true situation, not your horribly oversimplistic version that is conveniently totally unreferenced. Israel was treating the DMZ as it's own land and was going over the line. Hence all the Syrian complaints, not to mention the clashes and raids committed by both sides.

I'd also like to see your justification for the raid on Samu, Mr. Israel-can-do-no-wrong.

The wheels of diplomacy were turning right up until the Japanese attack on December 7th 1941 as well. Diplomats frequently play for time. And massive troop build ups along the border are universally recognized as threatening.

On what planet is two more divisions in the Sinai a massive troop build up? Nasser had no intention to attack, and everyone knew it.

The Ruhr Valley was not British or French land. Period. So by that reasoning, when German troops reoccupied it, it would have been entirely inappropriate for the French and British to march in and put an end to Hitler's ambitions while Germany was still weak. Nevermind that hindsight tells us it would have saved millions of lives. It was not French and British land. Period.

Are they producing these horribly inane anologies in a factory somewhere?

- It was Germany's own land whose lack of militarization was governed by Treaty, not it's own land with which it could do whatever it wanted (Syria Golan Heights)
- There was no contested DMZ which France was violating
- If Britain and France had have pushed Germany out of this treaty guaranteed land, they wouldn't have annexed it to ensure their defense.

Put more thought into your analogies next time, and try to match them up to the situation we're talking about.

You're right. It's absolutely essential to maintain the supposed moral high gound, no matter what. You just have to let them attack you first, and if they strike harder than you can withstand, and you end up being destroyed... well, at least you'll have the consolation of knowing that you were morally in the right.

See next post to see the facts of the situation, my simplistic foe.

Oh, forgive me for presuming you were intelligent enough to verify the information independently.

Fuck off. It is entirely on you to reference every claim you make. Your reply "I have no idea where this stuff comes from, nor do I care, because it says what I want to believe, why don't you do my work for me?"

See the post after my first response to see your simplistic crap (not saying it's bullshit, just simplified to the point of being dishonest as hell) annihilated in a barrage of historical accuracy and balanced commentary.

[Coyote]

Hello all.

A few things to bear in mind, I am not necessarily trying to expand the scope of this but bring to light new considerations that may or may not be of importance.

Regarding the statements of the various Generals, Prime Ministers, and other Chiefs of Staff about how there was no threat to Israel in 1967, I think it is important to remember that these figures are frequently engaged in politcs even while in uniform, and many high ranking officers might say something about a war now safely past because they are seeking to further later political careers, especially in various left-wing movements. At the upper echelon of Israeli command the line bwteeen politics and service is almost completely blurred; far more so than in other Western armies. Whether this is the case or not with every quoted officer I cannot say one way or another.

On the other hand, the fiery rhetoric of both Arab state leaders and their news media does not have to take into consideration an electorate or popular base. They say what they say, and we may never know how much of it was intended to just be posturing and how much may have been actual stated intent.

Some mopre things to bear in mind from the book I got much of my figures from, the Martin-Gilbert Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict:

"Arab Refugee camps (shown on a map). The countries in which these camps were located were reluctant to absorb them, encouraged anti-Israeli feeling, and supported terrorist training aimed against Israeli life and property" (page 54)

"In April of 1949, at the UN Palestine Conciliation Comission at Lausanne, Israel offered to repatriate 100,000 Arab refugees within the framework of a general settlement. The Arab delegations refused the offer. In 1950 the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) proposed resettling Arab refugees in Sinai, Jordan, and Syria, but the Arab governments also rejected this proposal. In 1952 the UN Refugee Rehabilitation Fund offered the Arab states $200 million to find 'homes and jobs' for the refugees. The Arab states used some of the money for relief work, but did not even apply for thegreater part of the fund." (page 54)

Israeli and UN attempts to negotiate for the refugees behalf were rebuked by Arab states who wanted to incite the refugees to carry out terrorist attacks against Israel.

Balance of forces: 1967
Israel:
264,000 troops
800 tanks
300 combat aircraft

Arab States:
547,000 troops
(Egypt, 240,000; Algeria, 60,000; Lebanon, 12,000; Iraq, 70,000; Syria, 50,000; Jordan, 50,000; Kuwait, 5,000; Saudi Arabia: 50,000)
2,504 tanks
957 combat aircraft

14 May: Egypt mobilizes
16 May: Egyptian forces move eastward acrosss Sinai
(Sinai was supposed to be a DMZ under Armistace agreement)
Egypt demands removal of United Nations border forces, causus belli.
19 May: 19 May: UN troops withdraw, Cairo radio announces: "This is our chance, Arabs, to deal Israel a mortal blow of annihilation to blot out its entire prescence in our holy land"
22 May: Egypt declares the Strait of Tiran closed to Israeli shipping, Cair radio announces: "The Arab people is firmly resolved to wipe Israel off the map." (all from Page 66)

"By 31 May 1967 Egypt had moved 100,000 troops, 1,000 tanks and 500 heavy guns into the Sinai "buffer zone" (DMZ). By 4 June Israel was outnumbered 3-to-1 by the Arab forces on the borders. Egyptian ships continued to blockade the Strait of Tiran, and Egypt refused to life the blockade. On 5 June Israel decided to pre-empt an Arab attack, and struck at airbases throughout Egypt." (Page 67)

A 100,000 troops is much more than 2 Divisions, and it is accepted military doctrine that the minimum number of troops required to carry out an attack against a prepared defense is 3-to-1.

In the Golan Heights:

"Before the Battle of the Golan Heights, Syrian Artillery had bombarded the Israeli civilian settlements (which they had been accustomed to bombard from 1949-1967), destroying or burning 205 houses, 175 acres of fruit orchards, and 75 acres of grain." (Page 69)

I stand by the claim that the 1967 threat was realistic, and that Israel acted in self-defence. This is my opinion on the matter. However, once the threat had been eliminated, that is where my feelings and those of many officials in Israel differ: I am among the community of (mostly left-wing) Israelis who say that we should have secured the borders and then returned to the 1967 line.

David ben-Gurion, the founder of Israel, even tried to convince the Knesset (Parliament) that the land should be given back rahter than subjugate the Arabs living there. Security hawks and the powerful Settlers movement convinced the Parliament that Israel would have ot face the war over again if they gave the land back; unfortunately they were the ones that carried the day.

As to actions since then, there is little that can b excused regarding the occupation of the WB and GS. Israel, as the victorious and more powerful partner, having demonstrated its mastery of the region, now had the responsibility to use that power/influence to assist the Palestinians in setting up a stable, democratic and free state. The botched this opportunity and the Terrorist movement that followed was sparked into action by this and supported beyond normal means by the complaince of many resentful Arab states.

In this post I am not trying to justify Israeli actions in the Terrirories, nor am I trying to demonize the Arabs. Some things happend that made both sides look just, as well as inexcusable, at the same time. Naturally, both sides tried to use their moments of righteousness to cover their moments of ethical depravity, but the majority of us here are quite capable of seeing beyond that.

I hope this helps, rather than obscures, some of the things being discussed.

[Perinquus]

Like Israel didn't make public bellicose statements and move a few divisions of troops within its own borders

Israel's generals disagree with you.

You mean the generals who took the Arab threat seriously enough that they felt they had to take pre-emptive action? Those generals?

Read the post after this one and eat your words, my simplistic foe.

On what planet is two more divisions in the Sinai a massive troop build up? Nasser had no intention to attack, and everyone knew it.

Everyone knew it...? You've got to be kidding me!?!

Oh, and this is quoted directly from a cited source, just to keep you happy.

Israel did indeed simultaneously attack Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq on June 5, 1967. It had little choice. For weeks leading up to that day, Israel's Arab enemies upped the temperature by amassing troops on the borders of the tiny Jewish state, while threatening murder and mayhem. Consider the following:

May 14, 1967: Egypt's President Gamal Nasser demands the withdrawal of United Nations force--established in 1957 as an international "guarantee" of safety for Israel--from the Sinai peninsula. The UN meekly obeys; the United States and Britain fail to rouse the Security Council to take action.

May 15: Three Egyptian army divisions and 600 tanks roll into the Sinai. World community does nothing.

May 17: Cairo Radio's Voice of the Arabs: "All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel."

May 18: Voice of the Arabs announces: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

May 18: Nasser announces blockade of Straits of Tiran in the Red Sea, severing Israel's southern maritime link to the outside world. Israel considers the closure an act of war. (US President Lyndon Johnson later says: "If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Straits of Tiran would be closed.")

May 20: Syria's defence minister (now president) Hafez el-Assad says: "Our forces are now ready not only to repulse the aggression but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ..."

May 27: Nasser: "Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

May 30: Nasser : "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."

May 30: Jordan's King Hussein signs a five-year mutual defence pact with Egypt and the two set up a joint command, making clear its stance in any future conflict.

My 31: Egyptian newspaper Al Akhbar reports: "Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two ..."

May 31: Iraqi President Rahman Aref announces: "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."

June 4: Iraq joins Nasser's military alliance against Israel.

June 5: Six Day War begins: Israeli Airforce attacks airfields in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq.

June 10: Israel and its enemies accepted UN Security Council cease-fire demands. The war ended, leaving Israel in control of the Sinai peninsula, eastern Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Judea-Samaria and the Gaza Strip. (The Sinai was returned to Egypt between 1978 and 1982, as part of an Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.)


"Never in human history can an aggressor have made his purpose known in advance so clearly and so widely. Certain of victory, both the Arab leaders and their peoples threw off all restraint. Between the middle of May and fifth of June, world-wide newspapers, radio and, most incisively, television brought home to millions of people the threat of politicide bandied about with relish by the leaders of these modern states. Even more blatant was the exhilaration which the Arabic peoples displayed as the prospect of executing genocide on the people of Israel ... In those three weeks of mounting tension people throughout the world watched and waited in growing anxiety--or in some cases, in hopeful expectation--for the overwhelming forces of at least Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq to bear down from three sides to crush tiny Israel and slaughter her people."

- Samuel Katz, Battleground: Fact and fantasy in Palestine

In May 1967, Egypt and Syria took a number of steps which led Israel to believe that an Arab attack was imminent. On May 16, Nasser ordered a withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Forces (UNEF) stationed on the Egyptian-Israeli border, thus removing the international buffer between Egypt and Israel which had existed since 1957.

The same week that President Nasser and King Hussein signed a mutual defense pact, followed almost immediately by a defense pact between Cairo and Baghdad, Arab states began mobilizing their troops. Against this backdrop, Nasser and other Egyptian leaders intensified their anti-Israel rhetoric and repeatedly called for a war of total destruction against Israel.

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.

Are they producing these horribly inane anologies in a factory somewhere?

You forget that France and Britain never contended it was their land. Dumbass. Unlike Israel.

I don't think the Israelis ever contended the Golan Heights were theirs either, since the border had been negotiated after the armistice of 1949, and the Israelis abided by that agreement. What the Israelis contended (correctly) was that the Golan Heights were strategically vital - which was my original point. From a purely military standpoint, they absolutely are indespensible to hold. When it looked as if the Arabs were planning to attack, Israel moved to secure this territory to protect itself from invasion. Waiting to be attacked first could have proved suicidal.

See next post to see the facts of the situation, my simplistic foe.

I just did. See the post after my first response to see your simplistic crap annihilated in a barrage of historical accuracy and balanced commentary.

Regardless, it's honest to actually reference what the fuck you're saying. How do I know you're not making shit up for chrissakes?

Maybe the fact that I pasted teh quote from an earlier post of Coyote's - which I did give him credit for, if you'd bothered to read it.

[Vympel]

"In April of 1949, at the UN Palestine Conciliation Comission at Lausanne, Israel offered to repatriate 100,000 Arab refugees within the framework of a general settlement. The Arab delegations refused the offer. In 1950 the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) proposed resettling Arab refugees in Sinai, Jordan, and Syria, but the Arab governments also rejected this proposal. In 1952 the UN Refugee Rehabilitation Fund offered the Arab states $200 million to find 'homes and jobs' for the refugees. The Arab states used some of the money for relief work, but did not even apply for thegreater part of the fund." (page 54)

Israeli and UN attempts to negotiate for the refugees behalf were rebuked by Arab states who wanted to incite the refugees to carry out terrorist attacks against Israel.

The Arabs have never been blameless. They certainly didn't give a shit about the refugees.

Balance of forces: 1967
Israel:
264,000 troops
800 tanks
300 combat aircraft

Arab States:
547,000 troops
(Egypt, 240,000; Algeria, 60,000; Lebanon, 12,000; Iraq, 70,000; Syria, 50,000; Jordan, 50,000; Kuwait, 5,000; Saudi Arabia: 50,000)
2,504 tanks
957 combat aircraft

Only Egypt, Syria and Jordan count in the Arab States estimates for the purposes of defining the threat. The thought that every single country would've attacked Israel is fantasy.

14 May: Egypt mobilizes
16 May: Egyptian forces move eastward acrosss Sinai
(Sinai was supposed to be a DMZ under Armistace agreement)
Egypt demands removal of United Nations border forces, causus belli.

Egpyt requested that UNEF be re-deployed to both sides. Why did Israel refuse?

19 May: 19 May: UN troops withdraw, Cairo radio announces: "This is our chance, Arabs, to deal Israel a mortal blow of annihilation to blot out its entire prescence in our holy land"

Cairo Radio. Not exactly the highest echelons of the Egyptian government, yes? This is like the US drawing strategic inferences of Russia from editorial proclamations in Pravda.

22 May: Egypt declares the Strait of Tiran closed to Israeli shipping, Cair radio announces: "The Arab people is firmly resolved to wipe Israel off the map." (all from Page 66)

Cairo Radio again. See Finklestein extract for a more balanced view of the Straits of Tiran situation. Also, why did Israel attack before Nasser was due to go to Washington to discuss re-opening the straits to Israeli flagged shipping (i.e. ships could still go to Israel, just not those flying an Israeli flag I believe)

"By 31 May 1967 Egypt had moved 100,000 troops, 1,000 tanks and 500 heavy guns into the Sinai "buffer zone" (DMZ). By 4 June Israel was outnumbered 3-to-1 by the Arab forces on the borders. Egyptian ships continued to blockade the Strait of Tiran, and Egypt refused to life the blockade. On 5 June Israel decided to pre-empt an Arab attack, and struck at airbases throughout Egypt." (Page 67)

A 100,000 troops is much more than 2 Divisions, and it is accepted military doctrine that the minimum number of troops required to carry out an attack against a prepared defense is 3-to-1.

Two MORE divisions were moved into the area. There were about seven total, IIRC. Of course, quotes from prominent Israelis reveal that this 3 to 1 numerical advantage was not a threat of 'annihilation', a view shared by the US considered Israeli superiority in training and material.

In the Golan Heights:
"Before the Battle of the Golan Heights, Syrian Artillery had bombarded the Israeli civilian settlements (which they had been accustomed to bombard from 1949-1967), destroying or burning 205 houses, 175 acres of fruit orchards, and 75 acres of grain." (Page 69)

And the Israeli raid on Samu in the West Bank destoyed almost 150 homes and incensed Arab opinion. In addition, Israeli civilian settlements were in the DMZ, and were viewed by the Syrians as illegal encroachment. The Israelis thought it was their land. It was never decided.

I stand by the claim that the 1967 threat was realistic, and that Israel acted in self-defence. This is my opinion on the matter. However, once the threat had been eliminated, that is where my feelings and those of many officials in Israel differ: I am among the community of (mostly left-wing) Israelis who say that we should have secured the borders and then returned to the 1967 line.

The claim to self-defense would be incredibly easy to maintain had they withdrawn to the 1967 line.

David ben-Gurion, the founder of Israel, even tried to convince the Knesset (Parliament) that the land should be given back rahter than subjugate the Arabs living there. Security hawks and the powerful Settlers movement convinced the Parliament that Israel would have ot face the war over again if they gave the land back; unfortunately they were the ones that carried the day.

Bugger. Good post, even though you disagree with me

[Darth Wong]

As long as we're citing quotes as proof of bellicosity:

"In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." Menahem Begin (quoted from "The Fateful Triangle", Noam Chomsky)

And:

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."- Yitzhak Rabin (Israel's Chief of Staff during the Six Day War), February 28, 1968

And:

"[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it must - invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge ... And above all - let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space."- from Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries in 1955.

Oh no, it certainly couldn't be about Israel acquiring space, right? Not even when the Israeli PM writes those precise words in his own diary. Some Arab nations continue to spew silly rhetoric to this day, even when it's blatantly obvious that they're just posturing; it seems to be a fixture of their politics (look at Saddam promising to tear the Americans a new asshole; everyone knows he's bullshitting). To use them as proof that the Israelis did not really start that war is silly.

[Coyote]

On a side note, getting and keeping land in Israel is a place where Politcs and Religion mesh. In each Armistace agreement involving Israeli ocupation of the Sinai Peninsula, religious authorities in Israel have declared that the Sinai was never a part of the land promised to them in the Bible and that Israel has no defendable claim to that territory. This halakhic decision was instrumental in returning the land to Egypt during the 1983 Camp David peace accords.

The same halakhic ruling has been issued regarding the Golan Heights: ir was not part of the "Promised" land, so Israel has no historical claim to the land. Their sole claim rests on the fact that whenever the Syrians have had free reign in the Golan, they have used the land as a launching point for attacks of opportunity.

The same decision of religious law applied to the pullout of Southern Lebanon.

The West Bank and Gaza Strip, however, are supposedly part of the original Israel, and now the same religious authorities are arguing over whether keeping the land is a greater mission than the sanctity of life. Jewish law at once declars what land is "Promised" to Israel but also says that life is Sacred and in most circumstances sacrifices can and should be made to preserve life. Now, fulfilling one ancient law directly violates another ancient law, and many in the religious community and authorities are divided as to what to do about it.

I and many others agree that the sanctity of life law overrides the territorial law, the problem is gettin the current Vested Interests to agree. Also, secular military authorities have bought into the idea hat they'd have to fight for the same land again and that to preserve it is in the best interests of Israel's security. But, in the last two yars, that pov from the military has been in decline and a new generation of officers is slowly rising in the ranks that believe the Occupation is eroding Israel's security instead of enhancing it. However, it will be some time before change can be affected in this typically conservative community.

[Perinquus]

The claim to self-defense would be incredibly easy to maintain had they withdrawn to the 1967 line.

But withdrawing to the 1967 would have been giving up control of the strategically indispensible Golan Heights, and my original contention (by which I firmly stand) is that this is a militarily foolish thing to do. That ground is too important strategically to leave in the hands of a proclaimed enemy.

[Vympel]

Maybe the fact that I pasted teh quote from an earlier post of Coyote's - which I did give him credit for, if you'd bothered to read it.

Still haven't read the MidEast Insight article, have you?

All that above crap has been posted before on this very thread- one-sided simplisitc nonsense, I'm not going to bother responding to it again. Didn't even bother reading the thread, did you?

[Vympel]

The same halakhic ruling has been issued regarding the Golan Heights: ir was not part of the "Promised" land, so Israel has no historical claim to the land. Their sole claim rests on the fact that whenever the Syrians have had free reign in the Golan, they have used the land as a launching point for attacks of opportunity.

Attacks of opportunity on CONTESTED land, Coyote. Read the MidEast insight article posted on page 5. Israel thought it was their land, Syria didn't. And the Israelis launched similar attacks of opportunity (e.g. Samu- though that was Jordan).

[Perinquus]

Oh no, it certainly couldn't be about Israel acquiring space, right? Not even when the Israeli PM writes those precise words in his own diary. Some Arab nations continue to spew silly rhetoric to this day, even when it's blatantly obvious that they're just posturing; it seems to be a fixture of their politics (look at Saddam promising to tear the Americans a new asshole; everyone knows he's bullshitting). To use them as proof that the Israelis did not really start that war is silly.

Oh don't get me wrong. I don't think for a moment that the Israelis are innocent as babes (though on the balance I would say that they are less blameworthy than the Arabs - not blameless mind you, simply less blameworthy). But from a strictly military/strategic standpoint there is a logic to acquiring the Golan Heights, on whatever pretext. Whether the Arabs were simply posturing in this case or not, they were hostile to Israel, and might still attack at a later time. Were I a general charged with the defense of Israel, I would want to get and hold those heights by whatever means I could, and I certainly would not rest easy leaving them in the hands of an ememy who might attack at any time. This is not a moral judgement, just a strategic one, and in that sense, the Golan Heights were a Damoclean sword hanging over Israel's head.

[Coyote]

The Arabs have never been blameless. They certainly didn't give a shit about the refugees.

I know better by now, after frequent discussions with you, Darth Wong, Arthur Tuxedo, Durandal and others that this in not your positions. My post was just lining up some of the things that were happening at the time.

Only Egypt, Syria and Jordan count in the Arab States estimates for the purposes of defining the threat. The thought that every single country would've attacked Israel is fantasy.

In 1967, the border states were the only threats indeed. Later in the 1973 war most of the states mentioned did contribute at least token forces as a show of solidarity; but for 1967 their involvement was only an implication at best. It is my opinion that, had Israel been sufficiently weakened, the other Arabs states would have joined in to share the Great Victory, but I have no access to documents to prove this, it is just my estimation of human and political nature.

Egpyt requested that UNEF be re-deployed to both sides. Why did Israel refuse?

That I'm not sure of. What details do you have regarding this?

Cairo Radio. Not exactly the highest echelons of the Egyptian government, yes? This is like the US drawing strategic inferences of Russia from editorial proclamations in Pravda.

True, but these press agencies are frequently used as mouthpieces for official State propaganda and declarations. Distorted for morale purposes most likely (in both cases) but there is still a statement of idea carried within the message.

...See Finklestein extract for a more balanced view of the Straits of Tiran situation. Also, why did Israel attack before Nasser was due to go to Washington to discuss re-opening the straits to Israeli flagged shipping

As someone stating the Israeli side of the equation, I'd guess that they saw the Nasser visit to Washington as a stall tactic; putting on a good face for the world while buying time for two things-- more force buildups on the Arab side and more time for the Israeli economy to break down under the mobilization of all the worker/reservists. Using peace talks to stall and drag a situation while playing the part of the good publicity seeker is a common tactic; the Vietnamese did it to the US in Paris.

On the side more critical to Israel, someone could say that the Israelis decided to attack before a resolution against them could be reached; or they just got paranoid, or they wanted a chance ot smash the concentrated Arab forces so as to preserve their own regional superiority. Or, some would say, to grab land before peace could be reached, thus achieving all the above.

Two MORE divisions were moved into the area. There were about seven total, IIRC. Of course, quotes from prominent Israelis reveal that this 3 to 1 numerical advantage was not a threat of 'annihilation', a view shared by the US considered Israeli superiority in training and material.

I tend to agree that this was not an "annihilation" scenario, despite the rhetoric, but it was a buildup for an offensive without question, from my pov. The Arab states were going to attack,I feel, to what ends I am not sure. Perhaps hey wanted to guage how easily or difficult Israel was goingto fall, and then escalate things with the help of their neighbors if they felt they could hold the upper hand long enough. The Arab states have a saying when it comes to Isarel: "Israel can win a thousand wars against us, but we only have to win once."

And the Israeli raid on Samu in the West Bank destoyed almost 150 homes and incensed Arab opinion.

And as you guys never claimd Arab blamelessness I, too, do not fully buy the statement that Israel is totally without fault in this buildup as well. I am sure some decided that something was going to happen sooner or later and that it was better to get it started then instead of wait until, for example, the Arabs developed some other advantage.

The claim to self-defense would be incredibly easy to maintain had they withdrawn to the 1967 line.

It certainly would be a more defensible/believable position. It would have given them a great deal more political clout and public sympathy today had they forseen this situation.

[Vympel]

That I'm not sure of. What details do you have regarding this?

Just Finklestein's work on pre-six day war events (entire piece posted on page 3):

Acknowledging its legality, U Thant nonetheless expressed ‘deep misgivings’ about Nasser’s decision to terminate the UNEF mission, especially in light of ‘the prevailing tensions and dangers throughout the area’.

The Secretary-General did not, however, reserve criticism for Egypt alone. First, he recalled that the Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission (EIMAC), established as part of the agreements that ended the 1948 war, had been requested by Egypt as a viable mechanism to undertake UNEF’s responsibilities. The Israeli Cabinet in late May officially rebuffed any and all such proposals.

U Thant also proposed that Israel allow the UNEF to be repositioned on its side of the border. Indeed, the Secretary General pointedly recalled that the original February 1957 General Assembly resolution mandating deployment of the UNEF envisaged that it would be stationed on both sides of the Egyptian-Israeli armistice demarcation line. Egypt had acceded to the General Assemhly request, Israel had not.

Israel dismissed as entirely unacceptable U Thant’s suggestion that UNEF redeploy on the Israeli side of the line. Repeated entreaties by the US, Great Britain and Canada fell on deaf ears. Even an alternative proposal at the end of May to reactivate UNEF on both sides of the Egyptian-Israeli frontier and along the Gaza Strip was peremptorily dismissed by Israel.

I guess the only question is then whether Israel should now withdraw from the Golan Heights. Would Syria contemplate attack in today's political climate? I doubt it- Syria is on the Security Council, and Egypt buys US weapons. The war's over, IMO.

[Coyote]

The same halakhic ruling has been issued regarding the Golan Heights: ir was not part of the "Promised" land, so Israel has no historical claim to the land. Their sole claim rests on the fact that whenever the Syrians have had free reign in the Golan, they have used the land as a launching point for attacks of opportunity.

Attacks of opportunity on CONTESTED land, Coyote. Read the MidEast insight article posted on page 5. Israel thought it was their land, Syria didn't. And the Israelis launched similar attacks of opportunity (e.g. Samu- though that was Jordan).

I'll check out the article but from the context it sounds like part of the negotiations that took place in 1999 between Barak and Syria. The original border never had the opportunity to be surveyed with actual marker stakes, compass reading, etc. The border, I was given the impression, was a vague thing.

In 1999 talk stalled on a few meters of shoreline on Lake Kinneret (the "Sea of Galilee") which was vague back in 1948 and still vague today. Any pullout from the Golan will be a complicated affair, since delicate things like water rights and access will be hotly contested by both sides. Also, militarization status wiull be contested since "X" number of kilometers of DMZ within Syria will have to correspond to "X" number within Isrel, and many Israeli generals fera losing the element of "strategic depth".

Of course, more and more military leaders in Israel were affected by lessons from the Gulf War, when Saddam's missiles proved that "strategic depth" was not as important as it once was. I actually believe that deals regarding the Golan will be much easier to negotiate than any Palestinian agreementl since the emotional and religious angles are not acute, and really both governments are rational and level headed in regards ot not getting their populations into meat grinders.

My optomistic appraisal of the situation, anyway.

[Coyote]

Israel dismissed as entirely unacceptable U Thant’s suggestion that UNEF redeploy on the Israeli side of the line. Repeated entreaties by the US, Great Britain and Canada fell on deaf ears. Even an alternative proposal at the end of May to reactivate UNEF on both sides of the Egyptian-Israeli frontier and along the Gaza Strip was peremptorily dismissed by Israel.

I cannot say why they would refuse. I can guess-- perhaps the Israeli gov't saw it as a tacit admisison of guilt, or that it would mean that Egyptian forces would have reign to go back into the Sinai up to the UNEF line. Or just that it would mean giving up control of a patch of land; something that would seem suicidal to many Israeli decision makers at the time who were obcessed with 'strategic depth' and just wanted to maintain sovereignty.

I guess the only question is then whether Israel should now withdraw from the Golan Heights. Would Syria contemplate attack in today's political climate? I doubt it- Syria is on the Security Council, and Egypt buys US weapons. The war's over, IMO.

I agree; the war between Israel and the Arab states has run its course. Slowly, Israeli society is beginning to see this but there are still so many old veterans alive who cling to the fear of massed invasion. Most of the Arab states accept that fact that Israel is here to stay and much of the conflict is the resolving of difficulties among the Palestinians. In fact, I believe most of the Arab states want o see the issue resolved, for as long as there is strife with the Palestinians many ordinbary Arab citizens continue to be agitated and seek radical action as an outlet. The Arab rulers don't like this any more than anyone else does.

In Israeli media, the Arabs are frequently portrayed as tired of fighting for a cause and for land that is not theirs. Sometimes there are leaks of impatience and criticism with the Palestinina leadership for not pursuing a resolution more honestly. Some of the things said by Assad in Syria about Arafat are distinctly unflattering, he belives the man to be a dishonest and corrupt opportunist, according to some reports (Left wing Israeli newspapers like "Ha'Aretz", my favorite). The Arabs states provide rhetorical and financial support, but their interest in maintaining real war is largely illusory.

[Coyote]

Okay, Arthur Tuxedo....

I'm not particularly interested in who's an asshole or not, I'm happy to dispense with all the recriminations and crap like that to stick with what's going on.

That said... I went back and reread many of our posts and I can only say that my ability to maintain objectivity in this sort of discussion is, as I have admitted to others and now to you, very difficult for me to maintain. I admit getting defensive and trigger happy at times when I should not; I know that most of us on this board are actually in agreement on the MidEast situation and it is only in the finer details that any of us tend to disagree.

I have very close, emotional ties to Israel and on one occassion which haunts me vividly I was given very good reason to believe that my girlfriend over there and two of our mutual friends had been killed or wounded in a bomb attack on the "My Coffee House" in Tel Aviv last May or so. She was okay but it was a very intense two hours of not knowing. So I do, sometimes, jump the gun on this issue and it has caused me to run afoul of my compatriots here on this board before. I fear this may have happened between you and me and if so this hyperemotioanl reaction is entirely a result of my own psychology and I offer you my apology if you've had to suffer for it.

So, on to business at hand.

Nice history lesson. What's that got to do with the present situation?

I was simply displaying that the reasons we are arming Israel go farther beyond the current situation. That it has become a self-perpetuating cycle of Arab world anger and Israeli defense needs encouraging one another is the fucked up result.

You didn't answer why the Jews deserve their own nation.

Simply because I think they do, and they have as much claim as others who made it (East Timor, Slovenia) as those who didn't (the H'Mong, Tibet, the Kurds). And yes, the Palestinians deserve their own nation too. Both groups will have to work out a deal to delineate which of the contested lands are theirs and then leave each other alone.

I don't know enough about pre-1947 conditions to argue here.

Equally unfair that 50% of the population had 94% of the land? What the hell? ...What did the Jews have that the Hispanics don't that gave them the right to have a nation?

Well, unfortunately, that's the way people are. If 50% of a given population in a region as 94% of the land, and the other 50% is squeezed onto the remaining 6%, there will be feelings of resentment and strife. And remember, that 6% was only the plots where land had been bought with money and a title changed hands. There may well have been many acres of land with Jewish squatters on it, trying to do what the Arabs had done, to secure a better life for themselves.

As for the Hispanics, I'm sure there is a land reform movement started in their community; but like the Kurds and Basque I am not familiar with the details so I cannot comment. Arthur, you seem to be taking my recognition of political reality as a statement that the Jews were "more entitled" to the land than the Arabs. I didn't say that the Jews/Israelis were better or had 'more rights', only that they tried to negotiate a land sharing deal and were rejected. Perhaps for reasons you think were justified, perhaps not-- but that is a matter of opinion.

Israel is the stronger party, not the weaker! What do you mean "Israel has a right to defend itself"? They already have all the high-tech weaponry, tanks, planes, and nukes...

Yes, but that does not make them immune from attack. America has all these things as well yet we were definitely the defending team on 9/11. A party does not have to be the powerbroker to be the attacker, powerful nations are sometimes attacked by weaker enemies, especially in the world of terrorism. The question is, "is the terrorism motivated and carried out by just and reasonable motives?" Here is the point of argument. I contend that the Palestinians have a very good reason to be angry and would understand guerrilla attacks under some auspices; but the attacks on civiolians and especially children negates a lot of the credibility behind their cries of persecution.

All Israel's violence does is make these groups even more radical and pissed off and unites the Arab world against both them and us.

This is a very good point and one that is hard to deal with in the real world, since at once Saudi Arabia (for example) wants us to help defend them from Iraq but on the other hand rails against us as "infidels" et al. If we were to seriously manipulate our clout with both the Arabs and the Israelis and worked to better the Palestinians as a people (with real chances to achieve a decent standard of living) we could eliminate a lot of the problems we have with the Arab world.

Another thing to consider is the lack of political freedom and information in that same Arab world; much of what the public knows about us is through information channels of questionable objectivity. If we were able to deal fairly and directly with the Arab people, I know from personal experience that we would have good relations with most of the folks over there. Getting around their own repessive governments will be hard but I admit taking away one of their pillars of justification would be a good way to start.

[quote'"Coyote"]

And no, when this is over, no one will be "crowing victory," this is fratricide and time that we should have spent on real Fundies.

Real fundies don't interest me. I can't learn anything from them, and they're incapable of learning anything from anyone.

EDIT (12/24/02): I should apologize for being so nasty in the post before this. I thought you were more dogmatic than you turned out to be, and I have actually learned and grown from this debate.

I feel much the same way, and I again apologize for letting my emotions override my objectivity.