Tyranny of the Minorities

When you have a country approximately the size of an average New Mexico country surrounded by large, well armed armies that are prepared to and are committed to destroy it, and a preemptive strike is the only way to survive, I'm not going to fault Israel for firing the first shot.

Oh Oh----Solon you should have quit while you were ahead.

A PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE MAKES NO SENSE STRATEGICALLY OR POLITICALLY??????

We've just seen where Israel desrtoyed the Egyptian air force while it was on the ground. If they hadn't Israel probably wouldn't have suvived.
Your philosophy is excellent Solon but your knowledge of military strategy and tactics is sadly lacking.

Peace can come through ignorance or understanding. Often the United States turns a blind eye toward a war it cannot understand; Sympathy and apathy seemingly manage to meet in a happy medium under the rulers of the Freeworld.

I once thought there was no justification for war. Then I looked again and saw the unbelievable and unconscionable ruthlessness and cruelty humans are able and willing to inflict on other humans. And that's when I realized that there is no guarantee that the absence of war is peace; and I realized that war is not necessarily the worst thing.

Justification has no place in war, only in politics. Of course human beings have capicity for hate and destruction, but we can and will work as a race to ignore or at lease supress our worst instincts. Peace may not be as simple as the lack of war, but it's close.

I don't think so Solon. The absence of war was not peace in the Balkans where you had people systematically exterminating other people--ask Yilmaz about that--or in Europe when Hitler and his thugs systematically murdered seven million Jews and other 'undesirables'--or in Iraq where Saddam and his thugs systematically tortured and murdered 300,000 of his own people or in Israel when its neighbors were on record as wanting it obliterated from the face of the earth. None of the people being threatened or killed thought the absence of war was peace.

There are definitions of a just war and stopping genocide is one of them. We can't stop it all. But it is not wrong to do what we can.

Foxfyre

I think I know the reason why your statement above is true: Human nature can be very ugly. Right now in our western civilization slight changes in Human BEHAVIOR are putting a thin veneer over the ugliness of human nature but it is still there just below the surface. At the Abu Graib prison it surfaced suddenly. In the society of the Muslim world human nature has no mask or veneer. Beheadings, stoning to death, hands chopped off, fathers killing sons and daughters because of some perceived broken rule of the Koran is common practice and enforced by their church. Human nature has not changed over the centuries and IMO it never will therefore war in inevitable. This being the case---pre emptive war is the only possible choice for our surival just as in the case of the Israelis during the "67 war.

Human nature may be generally unpleasent, but that doesn't mean it can't change. Pre-emptive strikes are not self defence, nor are they insurance against a future attack. War will remain, with the approval of most people or without it.

Some folks just follow the beat of a different drummer----oh well I still liked your quote Solon.

I stand rightfully corrected about the six day war and the US not actually joining Israel. I thought I heard that somewhere, but I was mistaken.

I found an interesting website that has a timeline for all this.

http://www.peoplesgeography.org/Timeline.htm

My outrage of the syrian occupation of parts of lebanon is only lightened by the fact that they are not building settlements there, it is just as an illegal occupation as that of the israelis. But I don't see the relevance of syrian occupation of lebanese beka valley region in connection to the israeli occupation of palestine, is there a connection that I am missin.
Also the occupation and the results have caused many UN resolutions against israel, the last one being yesterday. There have been many many more resolutions that were vetoed by the us, for an example you can just look at the list between 1955-1992 at http://www.mideastfacts.com/resolutions.html
I am merely insisting that israel be subjected to the same standards and treatment any other soveigrn state is.

Also I find some of the attitudes here concerning war very very disturbing. War cannot under any circumstance be seen as a good thing, it should always be a last resort in conflict resolution, after all the other feasable means have been exhousted. But once war becomes inevitible it must be fought, I agree with that, but the decision should not be taken lightly, because in war people die.

And perception if you bother to do a little research about the events of the six day war, you will see that the israeli strike cought the egyptians completely off-guard. Would you perhaps suppose that a country in preperation for war would have its military at a heightened state of alert. You know put up CAPs, have their airdefence assets fully alertded, and perhaps their ground forces would be in an offensive stance (formation). History tells us that the israelis cought the egyptians off guard, the air force was not at any level of alert, all the aircraft unarmed, parked by the runways. Egyptian divisions in the sinai were in defensive formations etc. etc. What Nasr was doing at the time is he was barking louder than he could bite (actually his intention to bite is also doubtful). They had not even gone through the first stages of coordination with the other arabs, that would have been necessary to mount a joint attack on israel. In effect he was trying to consolidate his position as the leader of the arab world by issuing threats at israel, threats that to carry out he would have needed time to prepare, but israel did strike preemotively in an effective way, and won the war it started. That I can agree with you all. But it doesnt change the fact that the occupation and building of settlements is illegal as testified to by the security council resolution 242, that even america didnt veto.

yilmaz

good post

Ah com'on Yilmaz

When you blockade another countries seaport, as Egypt did to Israel, just prior to real hostilities, what do you expect. I can't help it if Nasser is that stupid. Bears a striking resemblance to another Boasting Arab----Saddam.

He was the original, saddam is merely a sideshow compared to nasr. You can do a little research about the guy if you wish. He was some character. Blocking another countries port cant be all that bad, can it. After all the US has blockaded cuba and a few other countries in the past. and also in the gulf of aqaba the distances are so small that one could possibly make the argument of territorial waters, I am sure the egypians did at the time make that claim, and porbably would have stuck in an international court. Regardless of what happened and what the outcome was I think that you all should abbonden that hippocrasy and double standards that color your perceptions when issues relating israel are brought up. They are an occupying power, that or they are an appartheid society, take your pick.

If the occupied lands are valid spoils of war the people living there must be allowed citizenship, and they are not. They are kept in refugee camps and are subjected to oppression. That would make israel just like apperthide era south africa.

Or they are occupiers of a land captred in a war. An occupation that by international law is illegal.

Like I said take your pick. I consider them to be occupiers, for I never once thought that israel would in any way attempt to integrate the palestinians into their society. Which in my opinion would have been one of the best solutions. But I believe that to be an opportunity missed. The time for that was about 83-86.

Israel was so outmanned and outgunned by those determined to obliterate it, a first strike, catching the enemy off guard, was their ONLY option for survival. Their only other option was to allow themselves to be exterminated by nations perfectly willing, in fact commited, to doing just that.

Some here seem to think being obliterated was the moral choice for Israel to make.

Hint: A naval blockade is an act of war. Isreal was reacting to an act of war.

Incidentally, settling other people's land is also an act of war.

But then the question: Does land seized from the aggressors, as a result of an unprovoked attack from those same aggressors, remain the property of the aggressor? Or does it become a legitimate spoils of war?

The notion that it was "legally" seized land is one of the most ridiculous concepts I have ever seen. It has legal basis only in primitive times in which conquest was an acceptable way of gaining land, booty and slaves.

But that is not what I was talking about. I'm talking about the Israeli settlers who systemically settle outside their borders, not the Israeli government that annexes militarily conqured land.

Why? If the enemy was launching artillery, etc. from the occupied territories, which was definitely the case especially from the Golan Heights, is it imperative on Israel to return that land to the original countries so they can regain that strategic advantage?

Or am I missing something? Israel is settling on land that was not acquired as a result of the six-day war?

After seeing what Israel had done to the Palestinians latest, I don't know how in the world anyone can say the Palestinians are "tyranny of the minorities."