ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Your recollections of the 1967 war are flawed - you are confusing events that happened in 1948, and of course ignoring the 1956 war in which israel also peremptorily attacked Egypt.

I am not advocating any particular fate for Israel, however, history does provide numerous indicators of what will likely happen.

If Israel retains a confrontational attitude towards her neighbors and insists on the permanence of the Jewish character of the Israeli state (and the relative impotence of any evolving Palestinian state) then the evolving population pressures from her neighbors and the internal Israeli population of Arabs will require ever greater unequal treatment of people by Israel, just to maintain the status quo. This will inevitably increase the political isolation of Israel - a phenomenon that is already visibly happening. The likely long-term result doesn't look good for them.

My opinion is that Israel's best interests would be well served by an accomodation with the Palestinians that could lead to a single state, able to function as a modern, independent political and economic entity. Israel has a lot to offer her neighbors in that both economically and politically it is a far more productive and effective state than any of them. The present Israeli population would likely dominate the economic and therefore political life of the new state for a long time. The process would certainly involve both risks and economic sacrifices for the Israelis (just as did the very effective program of unification of Germany after the collapse of the GDR), however, I believe those risks are far less than those they face on their present course.

This thread reminds me of fantasy baseball. The predictions seem to reflect logic that is obviously removed from the nuances of the reality. Its absurd in my opinion. Anything can transpire. But what I believe is being ignored is that Israel may not take its direct marching orders from Washington, but they do consider the consequences of their actions with Washington in mind.

I agree with that.

Unfortunately Washington has too often taken its orders from Israel (and AIPAC working together). However, based on current political trends in this country that appears likely to change - there will no doubt be some stops and starts in the process, but change seems to be coming, mostly from the left in American politics. I believe the era of unqualified U.S. sponsorship of Israel is nearing its end.

Well, that can have an unintended effect, since if Israel feels it has its back against the proverbial wall, with no backing from the western powers, they might prove Kissinger correct. I thought Kissinger used to say Israel had a Masada Complex. Do you know of Masada, where the ancient Israelis committed suicide, rather than have the Romans capture them? It's still in their collective mind, since all Israeli draftees complete their basic training with a ceremony on that mountain plain.

Yes - I've been there - a guest of the IAF.

However I am skeptical of the supposed suicidal complex. Israel has changed a great deal in the last few decades - it is a thoroughly modern state (at least socially and economically), and not at all like the images that still linger from the early generation of the country's history. Kissinger gave that opinion a long time ago - perhaps he was right then.

I was referring to those Germans who refer to themselves as "Aryans."



All for the measly expense of keeping an entire people perpetually oppressed, and an entire region destabilized.



The debate is over the morality of the necessary oppression of one people so that another people can live as they do.

This undermines your position that the Jewish people need Israel where Jews can be Jews in complete safety with little or no discrimination (there is, by the way, anti-Semitism in Israel itself perpetrated by people deemed Jews by the state of Israel)

If there was peace in that area, the Israelis would live no differently. The Israelis are not gaining economically from the adversarial situation.

And, that region is destabilized by decades of hostility from surrounding nations, and now surrounding aspiring nations.

By the way, the verbal picture I painted above of a nice 1950's Christian community, with all the homes decorated with lovely Christmas decorations, was at the expense of the inner-city ghetto community, within a relatively short commuting distance. It takes money, and a decent job to afford those lovely suburban homes. Don't tell me the analogy doesn't apply.

So, the oppression of the Palestinian people by the Zionists is something like those inner-city communities not wanting to see homes with Christmas decorations? Oy vey!

Unless the state of these suburbanites and inner-city ghetto communities cordoned off the inner-city ghetto communities and refuse them the rights of citizenship in their own country, the analogy is patently ridiculous.

The Jews that live outside of the large urban centers tend to be of value to the surrounding Christian community - store owner, professional. So, Gentiles tend to leave Jews, that they have found a utility for, at peace. But, the more neer-do-well American Jew that might have some college, but is not a professional, nor an entrepreneur, usually stays in the large urban centers that tend to be cosmopolitan enough to accept many diverse people. And, the reason they find relative safety there is because again, Jews in these large urban centers serve a utilitarian purpose to the larger Gentile community, i.e., teacher, social worker, nurse, etc. Or, if they are more affluent, Gentiles can accept, in our wealthy nation, that a wealthy Jew makes jobs for others. Hopefully, we'll always have prosperity. I wouldn't want to see want can happen if there every was an inflation like the Weimar Republic.

So, Jews tend not to go everywhere in the U.S. That's a fact, as you surely observe.

You never watch "Cops" on tv? That takes the place of a wall. The inner city has cars; they know where they can't go, or they are stopped.

I believe much of the Israeli Palestinian issue is really a red-herring for two different socio-economic groups in an adversarial relationship. I believe very much like our inner-city and suburbia circa 1950. (The Infitada was their urban riot, in effect).

As usual, George distorts the facts and makes ridiculous statements. Israel did not mount a preemptory attack on Egypt in 1956. Due to unrelenting attacks by Egypt on Israel up to the war, the countries were in a state of war. Moreover, Israel never attacked Egyptian forces, but stayed in the background as ordered by the Brits.

A single country is not a viable solution. The vast majority of Pals are Muslims, who are intolerant of non-Muslims, much less Jews. For instance, a large population of Christian Pals have been persecuted and largely run out of the WB and Gaza. One can imagine how a Muslim majority would treat the Jews in this new state.

As usual Advocate is dead wrong. Israel invaded Egyptian territory in Gaza and the Suez peninsula - even before the (carefully orchestrated) Anglo French ultimatun was given, reaching the vicinity of the Suez Canal by the time the British & French forces were airlifted there a week or so later. The UN demanded that the agressors withdraw and after some delays they did. However, Israel, in defiance of the UN and international law, retained the Gaza strip.

All of this can be readily verified with a quick Google search.

Perhaps Advocate will claim the discrepancy is but a trivial detail - like his calling McCain & Romney "WASPS". However a quick scan of his post above reveals the fact that he is wrong on nearly every element of his nonsensical assertion..

Thanks for not contradicting me.

Evidently there is no level to which you will not stoop.

There was a bit more to the 1956 skirmish with Egypt than "Israel invaded" however. And if I remember right, Israel only held the Gaza strip for about 4 months in 1956 until it bowed to UN pressure to give it up. It took it again in the 1967 war with Israel against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.

The Jewish Virtual Library version
The Suez War of 1956

In the fall of 1948, the UN Security Council called on Israel and the Arab states to negotiate armistice agreements. Egypt agreed, but only after Israel had routed its army and driven to El Arish in the Sinai. At that time, the British were ready to defend Egypt under an Anglo-Egyptian treaty. Rather than accept the humiliation of British assistance, however, the Egyptians met the Israelis at Rhodes.

UN mediator Ralph Bunche brought them together at the conference table and was later honored with a Nobel Peace Prize. He warned that any delegation that walked out of the negotiations would be blamed for their breakdown.

By the summer of 1949, armistice agreements had been negotiated between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Iraq, which had also fought against Israel, refused to follow suit. Bunche succeeded at Rhodes because he insisted on direct bilateral talks between Israel and each Arab state.

Meanwhile, on December 11, 1948, the General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on the parties to negotiate peace and creating a Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC), which consisted of the United States, France and Turkey. All Arab delegations voted against it.

After 1949, the Arabs insisted that Israel accept the borders in the 1947 partition resolution and repatriate the Palestinian refugees before they would negotiate an end to the war they had initiated. This was a novel approach that they would use after subsequent defeats: the doctrine of the limited-liability war. Under this theory, an aggressor may reject a compromise settlement and gamble on war to win everything in the comfortable knowledge that, even if he fails, he may insist on reinstating the status quo ante.

Egypt had maintained its state of belligerency with Israel after the armistice agreement was signed. The first manifestation of this was the closing of the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping. On August 9, 1949, the UN Mixed Armistice Commission upheld Israel's complaint that Egypt was illegally blocking the canal. UN negotiator Ralph Bunche declared: "There should be free movement for legitimate shipping and no vestiges of the wartime blockade should be allowed to remain, as they are inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of the armistice agreements."

On September 1, 1951, the Security Council ordered Egypt to open the Canal to Israeli shipping. Egypt refused to comply.

The Egyptian Foreign Minister, Muhammad Salah al-Din, said early in 1954:

The Arab people will not be embarrassed to declare: We shall not be satisfied except by the final obliteration of Israel from the map of the Middle East (Al-Misri, April 12, 1954).

A New Type of Warfare
In 1955, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser began to import arms from the Soviet Bloc to build his arsenal for the confrontation with Israel. In the short-term, however, he employed a new tactic to prosecute Egypt's war with Israel. He announced it on August 31, 1955:

Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of Pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the land of Palestine....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death.

These "heroes" were Arab terrorists, or fedayeen, trained and equipped by Egyptian Intelligence to engage in hostile action on the border and infiltrate Israel to commit acts of sabotage and murder. The fedayeen operated mainly from bases in Jordan, so that Jordan would bear the brunt of Israel's retaliation, which inevitably followed. The terrorist attacks violated the armistice agreement provision that prohibited the initiation of hostilities by paramilitary forces; nevertheless, it was Israel that was condemned by the UN Security Council for its counterattacks.

The escalation continued with the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran, and Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956. On October 14, Nasser made clear his intent:

I am not solely fighting against Israel itself. My task is to deliver the Arab world from destruction through Israel's intrigue, which has its roots abroad. Our hatred is very strong. There is no sense in talking about peace with Israel. There is not even the smallest place for negotiations.

Less than two weeks later, on October 25, Egypt signed a tripartite agreement with Syria and Jordan placing Nasser in command of all three armies.

The continued blockade of the Suez Canal and Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, combined with the increased fedayeen attacks and the bellicosity of recent Arab statements, prompted Israel, with the backing of Britain and France, to attack Egypt on October 29, 1956.

Israeli Ambassador to the UN Abba Eban explained the provocations to the Security Council on October 30:

During the six years during which this belligerency has operated in violation of the Armistice Agreement there have occurred 1,843 cases of armed robbery and theft, 1,339 cases of armed clashes with Egyptian armed forces, 435 cases of incursion from Egyptian controlled territory, 172 cases of sabotage perpetrated by Egyptian military units and fedayeen in Israel. As a result of these actions of Egyptian hostility within Israel, 364 Israelis were wounded and 101 killed. In 1956 alone, as a result of this aspect of Egyptian aggression, 28 Israelis were killed and 127 wounded.

One reason these raids were so intolerable for Israel was that the country had chosen to create a relatively small standing army and to rely primarily on reserves in the event of war. This meant that Israel had a small force to fight in an emergency, that threats provoking the mobilization of reserves could virtually paralyze the country, and that an enemy's initial thrust would have to be withstood long enough to complete the mobilization.

Great Power Collusion
Earlier, President Dwight Eisenhower had successfully persuaded the British and French not to attack Egypt after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. When the agreement on the canal's use proved reliable over the succeeding weeks, it became more and more difficult to justify military action. Still, the French and British desperately wanted to put Nasser in his place and recapture their strategic asset.

The French had grown increasingly close to the new Israeli government, politically, diplomatically, and militarily. The British attitude toward Israel had hardly changed from the mandatory period. Residual bitterness over the nearly three-decade-long battle fought with the Zionists, combined with the ongoing alliance with Jordan, discouraged any shift in policy.

The French concluded, however, that they could use Israel's fear of Egyptian aggression and the continuing blockade as a pretext for their own strike against Nasser. The British couldn't pass up the chance to join in.

The three nations subsequently agreed on a plan whereby Israel would land paratroopers near the canal and send its armor across the Sinai Desert. The British and French would then call for both sides to withdraw from the canal zone, fully expecting the Egyptians to refuse. At that point, British and French troops would be deployed to "protect" the canal.

Israel Routs Egypt
When the decision was made to go to war in 1956, more than 100,000 soldiers were mobilized in less than 72 hours and the air force was fully operational within 43 hours. Paratroopers landed in the Sinai and Israeli forces quickly advanced unopposed toward the Suez Canal before halting in compliance with the demands of England and France. As expected, the Egyptians ignored the Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw since they, the "victims," were being asked to retreat from the Sinai to the west bank of the Canal while the Israelis were permitted to stay just 10 miles east of the Canal.

On October 30, the United States sponsored a Security Council resolution calling for an immediate Israeli withdrawal, but England and France vetoed it. The following day, the two allies launched air operations, bombing Egyptian airfields near Suez.

Given the pretext to continue fighting, the Israeli forces routed the Egyptians. The IDF's armored corps swept across the desert, capturing virtually the entire Sinai by November 5. That day, British and French paratroops landed near Port Said and amphibious ships dropped commandoes on shore. British troops captured Port Said and advanced to within 25 miles of Suez City before the British government abruptly agreed to a cease-fire.

The British about-face was prompted by Soviet threats to use "every kind of modern destructive weapon" to stop the violence and the United States decision to make a much-needed $1 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund contingent on a cease-fire. The French tried to convince Britain to fight long enough to finish the job of capturing the Canal, but succeeded only in delaying their acceptance of the cease-fire.

Though their allies had failed to accomplish their goals, the Israelis were satisfied at having reached theirs in an operation that took only 100 hours. By the end of the fighting, Israel held the Gaza Strip and had advanced as far as Sharm al-Sheikh along the Red Sea. A total of 231 Israeli soldiers died in the fighting.

Ike Forces Israel to Withdraw
President Eisenhower was upset by the fact that Israel, France and Great Britain had secretly planned the campaign to evict Egypt from the Suez Canal. Israel's failure to inform the United States of its intentions, combined with ignoring American entreaties not to go to war, sparked tensions between the countries. The United States subsequently joined the Soviet Union (ironically, just after the Soviets invaded Hungary) in a campaign to force Israel to withdraw. This included a threat to discontinue all U.S. assistance, UN sanctions and expulsion from the UN (see exchanges between Ben-Gurion and Eisenhower).

U.S. pressure resulted in an Israeli withdrawal from the areas it conquered without obtaining any concessions from the Egyptians. This sowed the seeds of the 1967 war.

One reason Israel did give in to Eisenhower was the assurance he gave to Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. Before evacuating Sharm al-Sheikh, the strategic point guarding the Straits of Tiran, Israel elicited a promise that the United States would maintain the freedom of navigation in the waterway. In addition, Washington sponsored a UN resolution creating the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) to supervise the territories vacated by the Israeli forces.

The war temporarily ended the activities of the fedayeen; however, they were renewed a few years by a loosely knit group of terrorist organizations that became know as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

Fox, thanks for the accurate statement of facts. George won't be happy as these conflict with his very own version of the facts.

Sure, when I want an impartial view of what happened in a war, I ask the aggressors how it really went down. Why, they couldn't possibly have any reason or motivation to minimize their role in things.

Cycloptichorn

I won't presume to judge what George might or might not be happy about. He is at least arguing from a reasoned perspective from his point of view with some history to back it up. While I think Cyclop is being petulantly insulting here, he is correct that the Jewish Virtual Library is not the most objective source we can tap which I noted in my implied discplaimer that the source is the Jewish point of view. However, the history they relate cannot be dismissed out of hand either any more than all that the Palestinian sympathisers publish can be be dismissed out of hand.

George sometimes omits certain facts that are perintinent in evaluation what happened in a particular event. I don't know if the JVL does that also or whether they just don't identify their 'sins' as glaringly as they identify those of the others. I do not have any sense that either is being intentionally misleading or dishonest, however.

It is possible to disagree wtihout holding the other person in contempt.

Just for the sake of truth, here (below) is Advocate's statement about the events of 1956 that started this spurt of dialogue. "Israel did not mount a preemptory attack on Egypt...." is a patently false statement. Israel invaded Egyptian territory - then including Gaza - and, after wiping out the border defenses, sent a large army across Siani (also Egyptian territory) to await coordination with Anglo French forces that arrived a few days later. There had been no Egyptian attack on Israel.



The "provocation" for this attack was Egypt's "seizure" of the Suez canal which threatened British interests in the region. The canal had been built, under license from Egyptian governments, by a French consortium (using forced labor provided by Egypt) and was opened in 1869. Britain perceived that this was a potential threat to its own colonial interests, and in a series of financial, diplomatic, and military moves established itself as the "protector" of the canal, though this was opposed by many Egyptians. Nasser's action to seize the canal followed Western refusals to finance his Aswan dam project. His announced motive for seizing the canal was to use the revenues to finance the dam project. Britain, France and Israel saw Egyptian control of the canal as a threat to their strategic interests, and launched the invasion, which was immediately condemned by most Western nations. Under intense diplomatic (and financial in the case of Britain) pressure from the United States and the UN, they were forced to withdraw, though Israel persistently refused to give up Gaza for a long period afterwards.