"The Palestinians will not recognize Israel's right to exist"

[Auteur]

Auteur, you are trying to make it seem as if the Arabs were not going to attack. You are also trying to make it seem like Israel was the aggressor and the Arabs were the underdog. Israel was to be attacked on THREE fronts, and very few people expected for them to survive. I don't know why you insist on twisting and distorting the facts concerning this war.
LEt me ask you strait up: Do you think Israel was justified in her pre-emptive strike ?

I don't think anyone is justified in starting a war, if there is any possible way out of it. And there was- honest negociation over the status of Palestine and the Arab inhabitants and refugees, and Israel's relationship with its neighbours.

It is easy to get tunnel vision in these sort of things, and look only at event A causing event B. This sort of limited view is what perpetuates the cycle of violence, as we have seen in numerous other parts of the world as well. One side is getting even with the other, who committed an assault to get even for the previous outrage, etc, etc.

How much of the Arab buildup was posturing, and who much would have been carried through with, we don't know. We do know that Israel initiated war again in the Middle East, for the third time in 20 years. In what other region of the world would we not find militancy in the neighbours of such a country?

Israel was not quite in the dire position they like to claim retroactively. As I said, the had an advanced nuclear weapons program, a guarantee from the world's #1 superpower, and considerable technical advantage over the Arab states. But they chose war, and immediately afterward seized on and consoladated their new lands.

 

[Auteur]

Concerning the bold, Israel offered to return all of the land it occupied back following the 6 day war in exchange for a peace treaty:
They offered Gaza and the Sinai back to Egypt, but they refused (Peace treaty was later made in 1979 and the Sinai was returned)
They offered the West Bank back to Jordan in exchange for a peace treaty, but they refused (a peace treaty was later signed in 1994)
They offered the Golan Heights back to Syria in exchange for peace, but they refused as well, following the signing of the Khartoum resolution.
Israel offered land for peace. It's really that simple

Under what terms? The extinguishment of the legitimate rights of the Arab inhabitants of the region in question, the acceptance of the seizure of land by military conquest, the further seizure of private land from Arabs in Israel, the acceptance of a virtual colonial takeover of a part of the Arab world?

It was the same thing in Oslo, sure the Israeli's offered peace- on impossible terms. What other country would have accepted such terms? If, for example, King George 3rd had said to American revolutionaries, sure you can have a peace treaty. I'm keeping some of the choicest parts of the eastern seaboard though, keeping a tight reign on borders and security, and don't think about an army and navy- that might be a threat at some point, so forget it. The minutemen would have been loadin' up the squirrel guns again, would they not?

 

[Hossfly]

Some people here cannot recognize sarcasm even when it bits them in their tuches.

Gee!

That's OK, Lipush. At least he/she/it is giving the Top Banana a well-earned rest from calling the IDF "baby killers" and has taken over as the Second Banana in their little skit. All you can do is chuckle at his/her/it's meshugenah nonsense.

 

[toastman]

Concerning the bold, Israel offered to return all of the land it occupied back following the 6 day war in exchange for a peace treaty:
They offered Gaza and the Sinai back to Egypt, but they refused (Peace treaty was later made in 1979 and the Sinai was returned)
They offered the West Bank back to Jordan in exchange for a peace treaty, but they refused (a peace treaty was later signed in 1994)
They offered the Golan Heights back to Syria in exchange for peace, but they refused as well, following the signing of the Khartoum resolution.
Israel offered land for peace. It's really that simple

Under what terms? The extinguishment of the legitimate rights of the Arab inhabitants of the region in question, the acceptance of the seizure of land by military conquest, the further seizure of private land from Arabs in Israel, the acceptance of a virtual colonial takeover of a part of the Arab world?

It was the same thing in Oslo, sure the Israeli's offered peace- on impossible terms. What other country would have accepted such terms? If, for example, King George 3rd had said to American revolutionaries, sure you can have a peace treaty. I'm keeping some of the choicest parts of the eastern seaboard though, keeping a tight reign on borders and security, and don't think about an army and navy- that might be a threat at some point, so forget it. The minutemen would have been loadin' up the squirrel guns again, would they not?

Under what terms? Under the term that belligerency against Israel would cease.
Once again, you completely over - analyze things for the purpose of I don't know what. I understand if you want to further investigate these issues to gather more details, but the fact remains that Israel offered ALL the land back to whom it belonged to before the war, in exchange for peace. That's it. Yet somehow you still find a way to de legitimatize Israel. Ridiculous

 

[georgephillip]

More

"'The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man' is a phrase of uncertain origin that has been cited by scholars and in publications as the text of a cable sent by a Jewish fact-finding mission to Palestine in the 1890s.[1]

"It is generally portrayed as an early but ignored implication that a Jewish homeland would not be reestablished in Palestine without interfering with the existing population."

The bolded phrase is controversial as far as primary sources are concerned:

"(Shai) Afsai argued that 'post-1996 English-language uses of the 'married to another man' story can be traced back to Mohamed Heikal’s Secret Channels, often by way of Avi Shlaim’s The Iron Wall (2000); that all those who tell the story never provide a primary source for it and often provide no source at all; and that there has been no basis for recounting the story as a historical event that occurred during the early years of the Zionist movement.

"In short, the story is unsubstantiated and writers should not treat it as historical fact.'"

However, many early Zionists arriving in Palestine between 1918 and 1948 found themselves among a small minority of Native Jews, and the European newcomers made no attempt to conceal their plans for dominating all the land between the River and the sea; The indigenous majority responded accordingly.

The bride is beautiful but she is married to another man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When you say the indigenous majority acted accordingly, can you elaborate ??

Among many example$...

"The 1920 Nabi Musa riots or 1920 Jerusalem riots took place in British-controlled, pre-British Mandate of Palestine between Sunday, 4 and Wednesday, 7 April 1920 in and around the Old City of Jerusalem..."

When the "War to End All Wars" ended in 1918, Woodrow Wilson's edict regarding self-determination was not applied to Palestine. Jew and Arab were denied their right to decide at the polls who would govern Palestine:

"'National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. Self determination is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action. . . . '
—Woodrow Wilson with his famous self-determination speech on 11 February 1918 after he announced his Fourteen Points on 8 January 1918.

"By extension the term self-determination has come to mean the free choice of one's own acts without external compulsion.[12][13]"

Two years later, the expected radicalization of Palestinian Arabs was well underway, just as the dominant Empire of the day desired:

"The contents and proposals of both the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and Paris Peace Conference, 1919, which later concluded with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, were the subject of intensive discussion by both Zionist and Arab delegations, and the process of the negotiations were widely reported in both communities.

"In particular, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, led to an undertaking by the victorious powers, predominantly Great Britain and France, to assume a 'holy mission of civilization' in the power vacuum of the Middle East. Under the Balfour Declaration, a homeland for the Jewish people was to be created in Palestine.

"The principle of self-determination affirmed by the League of Nations was not to be applied to Palestine, given the foreseeable rejection by the people of Zionism, which the British sponsored.

"These post-WW1 arrangements both for Palestine and other Arab societies led to a 'radicalization' of the Arab world.[5]"

1920 Nebi Musa riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

The OP is funny, because many right-wing Zionists refuse to recognize the right of a Palestinian state to exist west of the Jordan river.

Many pro-Occupation posters on this board are reluctant to name the eastern border of... "The Land of Israel (Hebrew: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל ʼÉreṣ Yiśrāʼēl, Eretz Yisrael) is a name for the territory roughly corresponding to the area encompassed by the Southern Levant (also known in English as Land of Canaan, Palestine, the Promised Land, or simply the Holy Land).

"The definition of the limits of this territory varies between biblical passages, specifically Genesis 15, Exodus 23, Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 47. Elsewhere in the Bible, this land is often referred as 'from Dan to Beersheba'".

Maybe they're waiting for Moses?

Georgie Boy, what is Jordan's Western Border?

Possibly the river of the same name?

"Except for small sections of the borders with Israel and Syria, Jordan's international boundaries do not follow well-defined natural features of the terrain. The country's boundaries were established by various international agreements, and, with the exception of the border with Israel, none was in dispute in early 1989.

Geography of Jordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

"However, many early Zionists arriving in Palestine between 1918 and 1948 found themselves among a small minority of Native Jews, and the European newcomers made no attempt to conceal their plans for dominating all the land between the River and the sea; The indigenous majority responded accordingly."

I had no idea Georgie was that old - or that he'd ever been to Eretz Yisroel........ Otherwise, how could he possibly have known this happened?

"Anti Zionists know best"!

Better than Likud?

"The Land of Canaan or Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel) was, according to the Hebrew Bible, promised by God to the Children of Israel. In his 1896 manifesto, The Jewish State, Theodor Herzl repeatedly refers to the Biblical Promised land concept.[6] Likud is currently the most prominent Israeli political party to include the Biblical claim to the Land of Israel in its platform."

Arab?Israeli conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

The OP is funny, because many right-wing Zionists refuse to recognize the right of a Palestinian state to exist west of the Jordan river.

Many pro-Occupation posters on this board are reluctant to name the eastern border of... "The Land of Israel (Hebrew: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל ʼÉreṣ Yiśrāʼēl, Eretz Yisrael) is a name for the territory roughly corresponding to the area encompassed by the Southern Levant (also known in English as Land of Canaan, Palestine, the Promised Land, or simply the Holy Land).

"The definition of the limits of this territory varies between biblical passages, specifically Genesis 15, Exodus 23, Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 47. Elsewhere in the Bible, this land is often referred as 'from Dan to Beersheba'".

Maybe they're waiting for Moses?

Since I have no idea who you might be referring to, that 'observation' has zero value to me. The snide reference to Moses is not funny but offensive. The whole tone is demeaning and disruptive.

Not as "demeaning and disruptive" as Area C:

"The Oslo II Accord created three temporary distinct administrative divisions in the West Bank, the Areas A, B and C, until a final status accord would be established. The areas are not contiguous, but rather fragmented depending on the different population areas as well as Israeli military requirements..."

"Area C (full Israeli civil and security control, except over Palestinian civilians): circa 72% (first phase, 1995).[1][2] In 2011: 61%.[3][4] These areas include all Israeli settlements (cities, towns, and villages), nearby land, most roadways that connected the settlements (and which are exclusively for Israeli use) as well as strategic areas described as 'security zones.'[3]

"There were 1,000 Israeli settlers living in Area C in 1972.

"By 1993, their population had increased to 110,000.

"As of 2012 they numbered more than 300,000 – as against 150,000 Palestinians, the majority of whom are Bedouin and fellahin.[5]"

Administrative divisions of the Oslo Accords - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To instill an even greater degree of disruption on Palestinian lives, Areas A & B are cut up by tendrils of Area C which produce Arab bantustans the size of a square city block. All in the name of finding a suitable partner for peace, of course.

 

[Auteur]

Concerning the bold, Israel offered to return all of the land it occupied back following the 6 day war in exchange for a peace treaty:
They offered Gaza and the Sinai back to Egypt, but they refused (Peace treaty was later made in 1979 and the Sinai was returned)
They offered the West Bank back to Jordan in exchange for a peace treaty, but they refused (a peace treaty was later signed in 1994)
They offered the Golan Heights back to Syria in exchange for peace, but they refused as well, following the signing of the Khartoum resolution.
Israel offered land for peace. It's really that simple

Under what terms? The extinguishment of the legitimate rights of the Arab inhabitants of the region in question, the acceptance of the seizure of land by military conquest, the further seizure of private land from Arabs in Israel, the acceptance of a virtual colonial takeover of a part of the Arab world?

It was the same thing in Oslo, sure the Israeli's offered peace- on impossible terms. What other country would have accepted such terms? If, for example, King George 3rd had said to American revolutionaries, sure you can have a peace treaty. I'm keeping some of the choicest parts of the eastern seaboard though, keeping a tight reign on borders and security, and don't think about an army and navy- that might be a threat at some point, so forget it. The minutemen would have been loadin' up the squirrel guns again, would they not?

Under what terms? Under the term that belligerency against Israel would cease.
Once again, you completely over - analyze things for the purpose of I don't know what. I understand if you want to further investigate these issues to gather more details, but the fact remains that Israel offered ALL the land back to whom it belonged to before the war, in exchange for peace. That's it. Yet somehow you still find a way to de legitimatize Israel. Ridiculous

They offered the land back, with numerous caveats, such as demilitarization, inclusion of water rights, small adjustments to secure better tactical lines, ect. A bit of a kick in the nether parts considering Israel had just taken these areas by illegal means under international law, yes?

More importantly, nothing was said here about Palestinians, the very people that this was all about. There were to be left to their fate. Yet all you can offer is hand-wringing anxiety over Israel's security. Israel had struck out three times- brutaly in '48/49, cynicaly in '56, and comprehensively in '67. Are you surprised at the hard line feelings of those recipients of bullets and bombs?

So they offered land back. If Germany had offered, in 1942, to hand back France,the low countries, Denmark and Norway to the western allies, and say: hey, we went over the top there, but let's be friends. You can have it all back. Just sign a peace treaty. The Jews? Don't worry about them. We'll handle the Jews. Give them citizenship. Trust us. The Pols? We know how to handle Pols. Don't worry. Just sign on the bottom line. What do you think- should they have gone for it?

 

[toastman]

Under what terms? The extinguishment of the legitimate rights of the Arab inhabitants of the region in question, the acceptance of the seizure of land by military conquest, the further seizure of private land from Arabs in Israel, the acceptance of a virtual colonial takeover of a part of the Arab world?

It was the same thing in Oslo, sure the Israeli's offered peace- on impossible terms. What other country would have accepted such terms? If, for example, King George 3rd had said to American revolutionaries, sure you can have a peace treaty. I'm keeping some of the choicest parts of the eastern seaboard though, keeping a tight reign on borders and security, and don't think about an army and navy- that might be a threat at some point, so forget it. The minutemen would have been loadin' up the squirrel guns again, would they not?

Under what terms? Under the term that belligerency against Israel would cease.
Once again, you completely over - analyze things for the purpose of I don't know what. I understand if you want to further investigate these issues to gather more details, but the fact remains that Israel offered ALL the land back to whom it belonged to before the war, in exchange for peace. That's it. Yet somehow you still find a way to de legitimatize Israel. Ridiculous

They offered the land back, with numerous caveats, such as demilitarization, inclusion of water rights, small adjustments to secure better tactical lines, ect. A bit of a kick in the nether parts considering Israel had just taken these areas by illegal means under international law, yes?

More importantly, nothing was said here about Palestinians, the very people that this was all about. There were to be left to their fate. Yet all you can offer is hand-wringing anxiety over Israel's security. Israel had struck out three times- brutaly in '48/49, cynicaly in '56, and comprehensively in '67. Are you surprised at the hard line feelings of those recipients of bullets and bombs?

So they offered land back. If Germany had offered, in 1942, to hand back France,the low countries, Denmark and Norway to the western allies, and say: hey, we went over the top there, but let's be friends. You can have it all back. Just sign a peace treaty. The Jews? Don't worry about them. We'll handle the Jews. Give them citizenship. Trust us. The Pols? We know how to handle Pols. Don't worry. Just sign on the bottom line. What do you think- should they have gone for it?

Considering it was a war of self-defense , AND Israel won the war, it is them who dictates the terms of the treaty. Oh so they asked for de-militarization of the land they offered back ?? Wow, is that really such an outlandish request ? No, it wasn't and YES, it was for Israels security.
Illegal under international law or not, Israel was well within her right to capture those pieces of land after being attacked on not one, not two but THREE fronts.
You people always mention int'l law, but what does int'l law say about three countries ganging up on one little country with the goal of dismantling an internationally recognized country?
You are really grasping at straws

 

[toastman]

Under what terms? The extinguishment of the legitimate rights of the Arab inhabitants of the region in question, the acceptance of the seizure of land by military conquest, the further seizure of private land from Arabs in Israel, the acceptance of a virtual colonial takeover of a part of the Arab world?

It was the same thing in Oslo, sure the Israeli's offered peace- on impossible terms. What other country would have accepted such terms? If, for example, King George 3rd had said to American revolutionaries, sure you can have a peace treaty. I'm keeping some of the choicest parts of the eastern seaboard though, keeping a tight reign on borders and security, and don't think about an army and navy- that might be a threat at some point, so forget it. The minutemen would have been loadin' up the squirrel guns again, would they not?

Under what terms? Under the term that belligerency against Israel would cease.
Once again, you completely over - analyze things for the purpose of I don't know what. I understand if you want to further investigate these issues to gather more details, but the fact remains that Israel offered ALL the land back to whom it belonged to before the war, in exchange for peace. That's it. Yet somehow you still find a way to de legitimatize Israel. Ridiculous

They offered the land back, with numerous caveats, such as demilitarization, inclusion of water rights, small adjustments to secure better tactical lines, ect. A bit of a kick in the nether parts considering Israel had just taken these areas by illegal means under international law, yes?

More importantly, nothing was said here about Palestinians, the very people that this was all about. There were to be left to their fate. Yet all you can offer is hand-wringing anxiety over Israel's security. Israel had struck out three times- brutaly in '48/49, cynicaly in '56, and comprehensively in '67. Are you surprised at the hard line feelings of those recipients of bullets and bombs?

So they offered land back. If Germany had offered, in 1942, to hand back France,the low countries, Denmark and Norway to the western allies, and say: hey, we went over the top there, but let's be friends. You can have it all back. Just sign a peace treaty. The Jews? Don't worry about them. We'll handle the Jews. Give them citizenship. Trust us. The Pols? We know how to handle Pols. Don't worry. Just sign on the bottom line. What do you think- should they have gone for it?

As for Israel striking out like you say in those three wars, I disagree. All wars were due to Arab aggression and the wars of 48-49 and '67 were attempts to destroy the Jewish state where the Arabs lost terribly when they thought, and the world thought that they would have an easy win. So of course once they lost, they play the victims. Typical Arab mentality

 

[Auteur]

Considering it was a war of self-defense , AND Israel won the war, it is them who dictates the terms of the treaty. Oh so they asked for de-militarization of the land they offered back ?? Wow, is that really such an outlandish request ? No, it wasn't and YES, it was for Israels security.
Illegal under international law or not, Israel was well within her right to capture those pieces of land after being attacked on not one, not two but THREE fronts.
You people always mention int'l law, but what does int'l law say about three countries ganging up on one little country with the goal of dismantling an internationally recognized country?
You are really grasping at straws

So you agree with the Holocaust then? That is the extension of your logic here- might makes right. Those that win set the terms. When Germany seized Europe in '40/41, the terms were: exterminate the Jews. Or do you now want to backtrack, and include a measure of ethics and morality into your calculations?

And again, Israel was not attacked. Provocations were issued. Troops were moved. But no attack took place, not on three fronts, nor on one. The only attacks that took place on that first morning of the war were Israeli ones, that, as my previous quotes referenced, had been long pre-planned for such an occasion. History is actually full of such activities, from the movement of Roman Legions to the Berlin blockade. They were an attempt to gain geopolitical advantage, hopefully short of war.

And again, you want to present the idea of massive imbalance in forces in the Middle East at that time. Yet Israel was the only country with a nuclear weapons program, the only one with guarantees from the foremost superpower, and further had the wherewithall to support a modern military infrastructure, such facilities then being lacking within the Arab world, to a large extent. The countries "ganging up" were essentially peasant societies, in possession of weapons systems often beyond their abilities.

I'm not grasping at straw toastman, but I am grasping at my keyboard when I see the same old tired cliches and mis-information trotted out about Israel and the Middle East.

 

[MHunterB]

Speaking of 'tired clichés and misinformation', Auteur has done a good job of that himself...... particularly with the gross 'Nazi' analogy.

 

[Auteur]

As for Israel striking out like you say in those three wars, I disagree. All wars were due to Arab aggression and the wars of 48-49 and '67 were attempts to destroy the Jewish state where the Arabs lost terribly when they thought, and the world thought that they would have an easy win. So of course once they lost, they play the victims. Typical Arab mentality

1948/49: Jewish immigration has reached its apex, as has violent opposition to it. The Brit's are on their way out. Independence is imminent. The borders drawn by the UN would make for a virtually indefensible state. And furthemore, the high state of turmoil offers a once in a lifetime opportunity: the seizure of large amounts of Arab land. The course of action taken, since documented by such as Benny Morris, and even the Jewish political principles of the time, was to expell as many Arabs as possible. Chuck them out if they will go, kill them if need be. This was deemed essential to the then fledgling Jewish state. The reaction to this major blood letting and ethnic cleansing was an invasion by various Arab forces. The destruction of Palestinian Arabs was a reality, not a threat. The Jewish "state" at the time was one based on terrorism and force, and not yet recognized by the world community.

This ethnic cleansing was well underway by the time the Arabs intervened. The destruction of the Jewish state might have come about, or might not. We don't know. We do know that the motivation for the Arab invasion was pretty obvious, and did not come out of the blue, or from any random sort of bloodlust.

1956: Israel agrees to play the fall guy to cover the operation to re-take the Suez Canal for British and French interests. They invade Egypt so that the latter can play the role of "peacekeepers" conveniently landing on the canal zone with overwhelming force, which of course later they may as well hang on to. The move was completely cynical and in disregard of human life.

1967: Arab posturing give Israel a chance to expand and improve its security. Long laid plans are put into effect, and a surprise attack takes place, decimating Arab forces. This dovetails quite nicely with long term goals for domination, as Israel now has a nuclear weapons program, in addition to a larger land base.

All three of these conflicts were ultimately initiated by Israel, with the Arabs playing the role of incompetent respondant.