I do understand your viewpoint BoGoWo. Closer to home, I live in a state that has a fairly large population of Native Americans whose ancesters once occupied the lot my house sits on. Now, if the Supreme Court should go nuts and decide to designate my neighborhood as the legal homeland for a batch of homeless Native Americans, I would have a problem. I would suddenly be subject to tribal government and would hold precarious rights to my property even if the whims of the council allowed me to continue to live in it. I would probably resent that a lot.
However there are thousands of square miles of property, some still considered sacred to the Native Americans, that are unoccupied. Such a 'new Indian nation' could be established in some of these with no serious problems.
It is important to note that Palestine was not that great a place when the U.N. established Israel. There were a few (very few) Palestinian families there and I believe they were offered relocation and opted to stay. (I'll have to look that up. I'm working from distant memory here.)
But did the world owe anything to Jews at all in 1948? I think it did.
Blatham re the kidnapping analogy, how does that apply? If my kids launched an unprovoked attack against you and were captured, I would be grateful I think if you released them, even one at a time at intervals. That I see is the correct analogy regarding Israel's 'occupied lands'.
fox
I just meant to say that though folks can say "Let's compromise midway", that doesn't necessarily mean justice is served. Often bargaining will be done in just this manner. One side will try to set itself up, as bargaining approaches, in such a way that the midpoint will actually be very much in their favor. This is, I am arguing, exactly what Sharon has done, and he did very much on purpose. The inequality in military might has allowed it.
Okay I see what you're saying. I have no problem, however, with the one holding the power also holding the advantage.
Foxfyre first read the post I have linked to. Your statements stink of your ignorance.
Throughout israels history it has fought 5 major wars with its neighbors.
1) 1948 israle declares an independent state and is attacked by the arabs, it wins and gets much more territory than was intended under the UN plan of division, and keeps it all. Eventually the arabs recognized right to exist in that territory, but that territory doesn't include the occupied lands.
2) 1956 israel attacks egypt in cooperation with britain and france, a clear war of aggression on egypt because nasr nationalized the suez.
3) 1967 israel attacks jordan-egypt-syria, claims it is preemptive but israel is the agressor, it was a clear war of aggression. They occupy the occupied lands and have since not withdrawn. Therefore it is not a legitimate spoils of war but an agression that has been so far supported by the US.
4)Egypt and syria attack israel with the aim of capturing 1)golan 2)sinai, they start kicking israeli ass, israel prapares to use its nukes, the US intervenes, airlifting vital supplies and giving israel aircraft, some of the planes used in that war had USAF markings on them, thats how desperate the israelis were, didn't even have time to remark the aircraft. Eventually the outcome of that war was the camp david peace accord.
5) 1982 israel attacks lebanon with the aim of expelling the plo from there, the plo leaves and israel continues occupation, later on the international community intervenes, israleis pull back teh UN enters, and that is why there were american marines there, and how they got killed.
The claim that the occupied territories are valid spoils of war is the same as claiming that saddam had the right to kuwait as spoils of war, he did afterall invade it. 67 war was not selfe defence, israel attacked first, therefore it was aggression. Israel claims that it was preemptive, but given the scale of defeat on the arab side it is clear that they were not even prepared for a fight. It was a clear war of aggression supported by the west.
And foxfyre if you have no problem with the powerful being advantaged than you should have no problems when the weak attack the powerful anyway they can. i.e. the suicide bombings, 9/11, and the like.
Also you say did the world owe anything to jews in 48..... of course not the world didnt owe them anything, the germans and to a lesser degree the allies did owe them something, but the world didnt owe anything. My country and its neighbors for one had nothing to do with the holocaust, or its prevention, it was the germans that did it and it was the allies that were at war with germany, you see the people of the world, especially the middle east did not have a moral imperative to justify israel, if the jews deserved a state it could very well have been carved out of central europe, not palestine, that would have served the moral imperative, but of course since god is a real estate agent he gets to dictate where people go, right. if you all can justify state of israel based on a 2000 year old book the islamic extremists are justified in doing everything they do, after all they are heeding their god.......
From the outset I admit that I am on the Palestinian side of the Israel/palestinan ongoing cirises.
One reason that last proposal by Sharon and Bush was an insult was because the Palestinans were not consulted. The two of them standing there with Isreal and American flags did not help matters to say the least.
Another reason it was insulting is that if legitimized parts of the Palestinan land under occupation to be given to Israel.
The State of Israel had no real right to be there in the first place. Yet the Arabs and the Palestinians just had to take it. Then they took more land and created more settlements which kept squeezing more non Jewish people out. So the Arabs tried to fight back and they almost won except that America joined in at the end and won that war for Israel. Israel had no right to the land that they got from that war in the first place and the fact that they might now be giving some of it back signifies nothing.
Yilmaz and Revel, the land given for the state of Israel was territory held by the British and was a U.N. initiative. Of course the Arabs who oddly didn't mind so much that Britain held the land almost immediately attacked the Jews. The 'Palestinian problem' did not develop until decades later.
Iraq launched an unprovoked attack on Kuwait and therefore of course would not be allowed to occupy that territory.
Israel took the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza Strip in the 6-day war in 1968 when their Arab neighbors launched an unprovoked attack against Israel. Therein is the difference.
Israel was formed on land occupied by Britain donated for a State of Israel and it was formed by a U.N. initiative. How was it illegal?
Whether Israel should return the occupied territories to the nations who attacked them in the first place is a legitimate debate.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/67_War.html
Foxfyre wrote:Yilmaz and Revel, the land given for the state of Israel was territory held by the British and was a U.N. initiative. Of course the Arabs who oddly didn't mind so much that Britain held the land almost immediately attacked the Jews. The 'Palestinian problem' did not develop until decades later.
Iraq launched an unprovoked attack on Kuwait and therefore of course would not be allowed to occupy that territory.
Israel took the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza Strip in the 6-day war in 1968 when their Arab neighbors launched an unprovoked attack against Israel. Therein is the difference.
Israel was formed on land occupied by Britain donated for a State of Israel and it was formed by a U.N. initiative. How was it illegal?
Whether Israel should return the occupied territories to the nations who attacked them in the first place is a legitimate debate.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/67_War.html
Quite frankly, I'm with foxfyre on this issue, although I do think that Sharon is clearly insane, and is doing nothing but making bad choices politically, the most potent being not considering how these choices influence the world's opionion about Israel. He is scarily similar to Bush.
Foxfyre, the war happened in 67 not 68, the aras didnt attack the israelis did, even your link should give you this info. Check this link
http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/S/Six-Day-War.htm
for what happenned and who started the war. Of course you can claim that israel was provoked into the attack, but to say that they defended themselves against an arab attack is the biggest lie I have heard on this forum. It is no different than what hitler did in attacking france, he preempted the french...... also the anology with saddams invasion of kuwait is more accurate than your claim of an "arab attack".
You are prooving beyond any doubt your ignorance of the middle-east conflict. The palestine was under british mandate, a mandate first by the league of nations and then the UN. Britain had failed to uphold its mandate, resulting in the whole mess. True the arabs didnt recognize the UN partition in 48 and israel won its independence in war, but the two following wars in 56 and 67 was israeli aggression. Under international law aggression is a war crime, and there can be no legitimate claim to land occupied through aggression.
Yilmaz you are correct that it was 1967. My 1968 was a typo. I do not agree however that Israel initiated the hostilities. The link I provided gives a reasonable concise chronology of what happened.
yilmaz101 wrote:Foxfyre, the war happened in 67 not 68, the aras didnt attack the israelis did, even your link should give you this info. Check this link
http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/S/Six-Day-War.htm
for what happenned and who started the war. Of course you can claim that israel was provoked into the attack, but to say that they defended themselves against an arab attack is the biggest lie I have heard on this forum. It is no different than what hitler did in attacking france, he preempted the french...... also the anology with saddams invasion of kuwait is more accurate than your claim of an "arab attack".
You are prooving beyond any doubt your ignorance of the middle-east conflict. The palestine was under british mandate, a mandate first by the league of nations and then the UN. Britain had failed to uphold its mandate, resulting in the whole mess. True the arabs didnt recognize the UN partition in 48 and israel won its independence in war, but the two following wars in 56 and 67 was israeli aggression. Under international law aggression is a war crime, and there can be no legitimate claim to land occupied through aggression.
I think you may be the one showing some ignorance of the situation in 1967 Yilmaz. Here is a couple of paragraphs from your link purporting to show that Israel was the aggressor in 1967.
" In addition to sponsoring Palestinian terror attacks against Israel (often through Jordanian territory, much to King Hussein's chagrin), Syria also began shelling of Israeli civilian communities in north-eastern Galilee, from gun emplacements on the Syrian-controlled Golan Heights. Although in 1964, Israel managed to destroy the water-diversion facilities, the border remained a scene of constant conflict, and the Israeli North was under continuous threat from Syrian guns.
On April 7, 1967, a comparatively minor border incident escalated with dizzying rapidity into a full-scale aerial battle over the Golan Heights, resulting in the loss of 7 Syrian MiG-21s and a flight of Israeli Air Force (IAF) aircraft over Damascus. Border incidents multiplied in frequency, and numerous Arab leaders, both political and military, called for an end to Israeli responses to these incidents. Egypt (then already trying to seize a central position in the Arab world under Nasser) accompanied these declarations with plans to re-militarize the Sinai, thereby obtaining a position convenient for invading Israel. Syria shared these views as well, although it did not prepare for an immediate invasion. The Soviet Union actively backed the military aspirations of the Arab bloc.
On May 17, Nasser demanded that the U.N.E.F. evacuate the Sinai Peninsula (hence: Sinai), a request which UN Secretary-General U Thant immediately complied with, surprising Israel. Nasser began re-militarization of the Sinai. On May 23, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, blockading the Israeli port of Eilat at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba. The closure of the straits was a known casus belli. Overnight, Nasser had become the hero of the Arab world; he had vindicated Arab pride by standing up to the Israelis, erasing the "last traces of aggression" from the 1956 war. Almost overnight, the always tense Middle East had slid from a relatively stable status quo to the brink of regional war. "
Ok, so let's see. Syria was bombing civilian targets inside Israel. Egypt initiated a blockade of an Israeli port city by blockading the Straits of Tiran, which was, per your article, a known casus belli. And yet, when Israel attacks, you can somehow ignore all this and claim the Israelis are the aggressors. I guess Israel is also the aggressors when Palestinians blow themselves up on buses and in market places in order to kill civilian targets.
I know that the news we get in America may slant toward Israel which is not always fair to the Palestinians. But we just have to remember that when reading the news.
But I think if you are going to go the name calling route and tell someone here that they are ignorant of history, then the link you post should back up what you are saying. The link you posted does not back you up.
Just goes to show you that the type of propaganda that comes out of Turkey is not the same that comes out of America.
Turkish propaganda favors Arab, Muslims and Palestine while American propaganda favors the truth. [/sarcasm]
Only some propaganda out of Turkey McG. Most Turkish people are our friends, actually pro U.S. I think. At least those I correspond with are.
I give Turkey nothing but kudos for wresting their country away from Islamic extremism and who, while maintaining their Islamic roots, have achieved a democracy that is a shining model for others to emulate.
Yilmaz
That was an excellent historical link and yes Israel did initialte the attack but only after Nasser put his hand around their throat by this:
"On May 17, Nasser demanded that the U.N.E.F. evacuate the Sinai Peninsula (hence: Sinai), a request which UN Secretary-General U Thant immediately complied with, surprising Israel. Nasser began re-militarization of the Sinai. On May 23, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, blockading the Israeli port of Eilat at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba. The closure of the straits was a known casus belli. Overnight, Nasser had become the hero of the Arab world; he had vindicated Arab pride by standing up to the Israelis, erasing the "last traces of aggression" from the 1956 war. Almost overnight, the always tense Middle East had slid from a relatively stable status quo to the brink of regional war."
It would seem that your link does not support your side of the story and I cannot blame Israel for initiating the attack. To do otherwise would have been suicide.
Your villain in this case is a boasting stupid Nasser cut from the same mold as Saddam----another stupid boasting arab.
Wouldn't the shelling from Syria constitute an act of war?
I think Israel initiated a strike against Egypt after Egypt blockaded Israel which, in my opinion, would have been considered an act of war by any country. The other critical factor is all the other allied Arab countries who had armies poised to attack surrounding Israel. This also would be interpreted as an act of war by any other country.
(It was Iraq amassing its army on the Saudi Arabian border that had the Saudis requesting immediate assistance from the U.S.)
Israel, a tiny country about the size of an average New Mexico county, took on and defeated them all in six days and did it all by themselves. Given that their neighbors had them overwhelmingly outgunned and outmanned and all were committed to obliterating them from the face of the earth, perhaps Israel can be forgiven for a preemptive strike or two.
I would have much more sympathy for the Palestinians if they didn't have a stated goal of wiping out the country of Israel and all its Jewish residents.
The story about the moderate Shiites is (to me) much more important, and I wonder why we have heard nothing about it in the press. I did hear that the top cleric in Iraq has ordered al Sadr and his men to vacate both of those holy cities, so maybe the gang warfare is about to come to an end.
It is time to see if Sistani holds any real power over his people. This will be a good test of leadership for him. I sincerely hope he can pull Sadr under his control, but from what I understand they don't care much for each other.
It's Sadr's militia that Sistani needs to get control of.
The moderates who do not take to desperate measures to achieve there goals are generally ignored by the media.
