|
Anaxagoras -> RE: Israel (10/17/2012 11:35:11 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
Thats Incorrect. There was pressure for Nasser to do something. That pressure came from what some refer to as Arab Street,
That pressure was a consequence of the Israeli farming in 1965 of the dimiliatarized zones established after 1948 along the Syria/Israeli border, which lead to struggle for water, and then to military actions from both sides. The "Arab Street?" How freakin convenient.[8|]
Once again you are being highly selective with regard to history. You have already been advised that both Jordan and Israel sought water resources in that parched piece of land at the same time. Similarly Syria aided and abetted the PLO, which started attacking Israel at the time:
quote:
In 1965, 35 raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched. The targets were always civilians.(3) Most of the attacks involved Palestinian guerillas infiltrating Israel from Jordan, the Gaza Strip, and Lebanon. The orders and logistical support for the attacks were coming, however, from Cairo and Damascus. Egyptian President Nasser’s main objective was to harass the Israelis, but a secondary one was to undermine King Hussein’s regime in Jordan. [...]
Another major cause of conflict was Syria’s resistance to Israel’s creation of a National Water Carrier to take water from the Jordan River to supply the country. The Syrian army used the Golan Heights, which tower 3,000 feet above the Galilee, to shell Israeli farms and villages. Syria’s attacks grew more frequent in 1965 and 1966, forcing children living on kibbutzim in the Huleh Valley to sleep in bomb shelters. Israel repeatedly protested the Syrian bombardments to the UN Mixed Armistice Commission, which was charged with policing the cease-fire, but the UN did nothing to stop Syria’s aggression — even a mild Security Council resolution expressing “regret” for such incidents was vetoed by the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Israel was condemned by the United Nations when it retaliated.
Its around 1965 that your pal Gamal "peace-nik" Nasser announced, “We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand; we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.” [8|]
BTW "Arab Street" is just an expression referring to the broad views of the Arab-Islamic ME so no need to make an issue of it! Ever heard the term "Palestinian Street"? [X(]
quote:
quote:
Thats a fairly warped thing to say. Morris did a great deal to establish those facts. It being
systematic or not is absolutely crucial. It completely changes its dimension and intent.
[T]he evidence that Morris adduces does not support his temperate conclusions. ...[S]pecifically, Morris's central thesis that the Arab refugee problem was "born of war, not by design" is belied by his own evidence which shows that Palestine's Arabs were expelled systematically and with premeditation." Masalha accused Morris of treating the issue as "a debate amongst Zionists which has little to do with the Palestinians themselves", and of ignoring the long history that the idea of "transfer" (removal of the Palestinians) had among Zionist leaders. In his response, Morris accused Finkelstein and Masalha of "outworn preconceptions and prejudices" and reiterated his support for a multifaceted explanation for the Arab flight.
Would that happen to be the same Norman Finkelstein who wrote "The Holocaust Indistry" http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=169&x_article=985 which fabricated evidence and is regularly cited by neo-Nazi's. This guy has also praised terrorist groups like Hizbullah, and features anti-Semitic cartoons on his website. Classy!
quote:
And in Operation Hiram:
In the village of Safsaf: Evidence of a massacre in which 52-64 villagers were killed by the IDF comes from several contemporaneous Israeli government sources and Arab oral history. The evidence suggests that 52 men had their hands tied, were shot and killed, and were buried in a pit. Several women were allegedly raped, including a 14-year-old, and possibly killed.[3] At least two internal inquiries were initiated during 1948-9 by the IDF, but their reports remain classified.
A wee bit of ethnic cleansing arising out of war? Really? Tying their hands behind their backs and executing them was a necessary part of battle? Raping the women. was that in the plan of battle?
I don't quite know what your point is here. Morris revealed these issues by his research which lesser historians used to bash Israel by stripping these events of their context. Yet you criticise him. I think it has something to do with the fact that Morris' views differ with your own and that of other pro-Palestinians. The hate they have for him now is at times murderous http://frontpagemag.com/2011/steven-plaut/the-near-lynching-of-prof-benny-morris/2/ when he speaks.
I already pointed out that some Israeli troops appear to have committed a level of localised ethnic cleansing (based on what I read). All I know of the two events is that there was a pitched battle on both sides, and that it was far from easy for Israel to take both areas. It is best to be circumspect because the broad effects upon Palestinians has often been highly exaggerated but if the accounts are accurate then clearly what happened was awful. What I have been saying to you is that old Jewish communities that existed in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem were completely cleansed of Jews. Thus both sides were at fault. However, you clearly have not accepted that point to any meaningful extent.
Morris found no evidence http://www.thejc.com/blogs/richmillett/benny-morris-lse-1948 of systematic ethnic cleansing. Its very convenient to reject his findings when convenient:
quote:
Morris questions the narrative, that many Zionists hold dear, that the Palestinians simply left during the 1948 war on the orders of the surrounding Arab countries with a view to returning once the Jews had been defeated.
He cited incidences of transfer of Palestinians and massacres of Palestinians by Jewish/Israeli militias during the 1948 war, although, he said, whether any of this happened as a matter of “policy” is another matter; no governmental documentation was ever discovered that indicated such orders, and it is likely that such decisions were made independently by generals on the ground during individual battles
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Oh yes, I am sure we can find a number of atrocities on both sides. But I would think after the Shoah, Israel would scrupulously refrain from even the hint of inhumanity.
Thats a stupid thing to say. Jews are at the end of the day just people, and many of whom suffered at the hands of Arab-Muslims and Europeans in the immediate past. If anything that would brutalise their sensibilities. They were fighting a war in which the Arab League had promised to annihilate every last one of them. They were fighting against professional armies that were better armed (by the British for the most part). Before getting 50 Spitfires from the Eastern Europe they put together two planes from parts and and wrecks FFS.
quote:
quote:
Israel compensated a fair number at the time, and allowed some to return. Its not a satisfactory solution and all the peace agreements included a substantial compensation package. The Jewish populace of the Arab world lost considerably more at the same time and got nothing. No one is pretending this is an ideal situation but one to make up for loss.
They are getting it back by taking land in the West Bank, aren't they?
Yeah 2% in total. Its been said in numerous articles that the land Jews owned in the Middle East was a multiple of what Israel possessed (based on the 1949 armistace lines AFAIK).
quote:
quote:
Why should they abandon their past, and negate their legal right to settle there as was established in Article Six http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art6 of the British Mandate by the League? There is absolutely no reason except for a peace agreement, which BTW I support. Those agreements which BTW the PA repeatedly walked out of.
Give us a break here, Anax. Article Six of the Mandate was superceded when the United Nations partitioned Palestine with fixed boundaries. The right of anyone to live in the WB is subject to the establishment of an Arab state.
That is untrue. UN 181 was not legally binding since it was a UN General Assembley resolution. Since it was merely a recommendation, the Arab world completely rejected it. The Arab world launched a war of extermination some months later, with the publicly stated intent of doing so. Article Six of the British Mandate charter established the legal right for Jews to settle, and Article 80 of the UN Charter makes it explicitly clear that all prior international agreements are to be respected. Moreover, after the 1948/9 War, the Armistace Lines were intended to be temporary boundaries as was stated in the texts of the agreements. Neither side accepted the boundaries as being in any way territorial or political.
quote:
At this point I am no longer impartial on this issue as I was when I first began to explore it in this thread and other readings. [...]
LOL thats more of your faux naif nonsense. You have quite frequently expressed a strong antipathy toward Israel on CM in the distant and more recent past.
quote:
So, it is a mess. And I notice often when you are confronted by the misdeeds of Israel you make comment upon one of the posters here, or you dismiss the sources or historians, or you blame the arabs. One way or another in your presentation Israel is never at fault. Curious that.
More of your nonsense. I haven't dismissed sources on this thread but I have criticised historians when it is deserved, and I cited the reasons for doing so explicitely. Whats your problem? Tweak frequently attacked me on here as did Polite. Both crossed a line into name calling, and Tweak even started an OP today attacking me - yet you cannot even muster enough balance to stay silent on that fact. Oh no, you would rather blame me! You have some sort of perverse desire to blame Israel at all costs as does Tweak. And you do the same with those that disagree with you, e.g. you project onto me that I think Israel is blameless when I have repeatedly acknowledged localised ethnic cleansing occurred.
quote:
quote:
Did the Zionists become so falsely unimpeachable because of the Shoah? I think that is the case. I find it here in the community where I live. George Antonius wrote that the Shoah was a product of war between Christian nations and it has been compounded by making the Arabs pay the price. I would give you the cite but it is somewhere in my kindle, from which retrieving specific items are a bitch if they were not underlined. But it is in Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of Palestine] if you wish to pursue it.
Fisk also observes: “There is a fierce irony in all this. Israel came into being after a classic colonial guerrilla war against an occupation army; yet within fifty years, Israel’s own army--now itself the occupation force—would be fighting an equally clasic anti-colonial guerrilla war in the West Bank and Gaza. The connection however often seems lost on the Israeli government.”
To say Israel has become blameless because of the Holocaust is a crock of shit. The country is condemned and lambasted vastly more than any other, whilst far worse crises at a given time are usually ignored (e.g. Darfour). BTW not even one UN resolution mentions the larger expulsion of Jews from the Arab world, yet hundreds refer to the Palestinians.
BTW Robert Fisk is another crock, a proven liar http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=26988 who invented the "massacre" at Jenin etc. You happy now? [:)]
|
|
|
|
