|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| numazawa wrote: |
| I support myself. Does that count? |
Actually, I think Malkin and people like them know that Palestinian and Jordanian farmers wear keffiyehs and that people in France and Canada wear them. Anyway, Ray wasn't wearing a keffiyeh. The colors were wrong. This is about creating anti-Arab hysteria by the Daniel Pipes camp like they did with the Arab school that was supposed to open in New York and never did because of the hate campaign sparked by people like Pipes. They feel threatened by any acceptance of Arabs or any positive images, and Pipes prefers that the IDF vanquish the Palestinians i.e. use enough force to make the Palestinians surrender and submit. That was tried by Sharon, Eitan, Netanyahu, Rabin and others. It simply doesn't work.
I wonder what they will do with their lives once Israel signs a peace agreement with Syria and Lebanon? What will they write about when the Israelis and Palestinians finally sign an agreement. Anyway, this whole talk about Palestinian terrorism and ignoring the occupation
is dishonest. Both sides have engaged in terrorism. Even Shamir said, "We will fight terror with terror". Sharon said, "We will bomb them to the negotiating table!". And the IDF didn't exactly spread good will in Lebanon. Yes, Hamas engages in terrorism and so does Hezbollah, and Israel has engaged in war crimes in Lebanon and Palestine. Why is one okay and the other one is not? I take both are human beings with the same DNA. |
Well you can ask what each side fights for .
and in the case of Lebanon if Hizzbollah is an organziation which is not out to destory Israel then Israel might have done too much. However if Hizzbollah is an organization
and while Hamas and Hizzbollah hit Israel with everything they have Israel has not done so.
and for balance in 1948 Israel enemies launched war to expel or slaughter all the Jews in the area. Including the arab jews. and one of the leaders of that war against Israel was the mufit of Jerusalem a convicted nazi war criminal and a particpant in the holocaust.
That is a war crime. No question about it.
Arab nations in revenge for Israel persecuted their Jewish populations.
That is true as well.
Besides there would be no occupation if Yasser Arafat had accepted Bill Clintons' offer I am not talking about Camp David in the summer of 2000 I am talking about the offer in December of 2000.
Arafat didn't accept it. |
You actually are not going by the historical record here. The Jewish militias actually attacked Palestinian villages even before the Arabs
sent in their forces in 1948. This is actually historical fact. Also, many people were ethnic cleansed. You had people from Lydd or Lod in Hebrew who were expelled including among those who were cleansed from Lod was George Habash, a Palestinian Christian, who in bitterness and anger became a terrorist. But what came first Habash's terrorism or his being expelled as a child from his town? The latter of course.
You mention Hezbollah, but long before Hezbollah existed, Israel bombed the hell out of Lebanon and that's when Jewish support in America started slipping for Israel. That's quite well known. Also, Israel kind of exposed the Christian allies in Lebanon to the Druze who then bombarded the hell out of them. Then, there was the encouraging of the Christian militias to commit massacres in the Palestinian camps, and don't tell me Israel didn't encourage it. They saw what was happening and Phillip Habib was told by Bashir that Israel wanted him to kill Palestinians, and he didn't want to clean up the camps. After he was killed, Elie Hobeika did it. Israel does have obligations as an occupying power, and it had one in Lebanon.
As far as Lebanon, under the IAF and IDF about 20,000 people were killed in Lebanon due to the Israeli invasion. That is a large figure for a population of about 4 million. So as far as Israel having not hit Lebanon with all it had, I disagree. Charles Fischbein who was an executive in the Jewish National Fund also disagreed, and he resigned from the JNF in protest. This was before Hezbollah even existed. Hezbollah emerged after that. Hezbollah and Hamas were both the result of occupation. By the way, Israel encouraged Hamas in the 1980s to go against the PLO and that backfired, so Israel created a problem for itself. Victor Ostorovsky and others said as much. I am not disagreeing that Palestinians didn't shoot Katyushas at northern Israel and hit Kiryat Shimona. They did.
However, the Shalom Ha Galil operation by the IDF went way too far.
As far as the Arabs expelling Jews or mistreating them, that definitely occured. The expulsion of Palestinians occured first and neither of them were good things to do. I also do not discount the massacre of some Jews in 1929 in the city of Hebron of Palestinian Jews. Those things happened, I know the history.
Hamas is not an organization that is good at all. Yes, it engages in terrorism, and yes it doesn't recognize Israel, but when it comes to terrorism both the Arabs and Jews have engaged in terrorism, so why bring up only one side? They are both human beings.
You mentioned Bill Clinton's offer. It was not only Arafat who rejected it, but the PLO would not have accepted it. Have you studied the maps and what the peace treaty would have included? I have. It would have divided Palestine into two parts essentially in the West Bank. In the middle of the West Bank are huge settlements that Israel insisted on keeping which would have essentially bisected the West Bank. Israel would also have controlled the borders with Jordan. The Palestinians would only get a toe-hold in East Jerusalem. That's a horrible agreement, and you think Arafat could have signed on to that? Gush Shalom presented the maps in detail.
Arafat did say that the Taba proposal was a good start, and he liked Taba, but that was the end of it, so Arafat did respond positively to Taba which was more generous. Arafat and Israel both screwed up in 2000. It was not just Arafat. Israel kept chasing Syria for an agreement and Syria was being stupid in its response and too cool and conservative. So, much time was wasted and the Palestinians were ignored for a while, and then all of a sudden there was this rush for an agreement and Arafat got too suspicious and didn't respond in a way he should have. I don't mean he should have accepted the agreement, but he should have been clearer in counter offers and the like, so I find fault with all sides in 2000, not just with Arafat as you do. For you, the Arabs are to blame for everything.
Why is that? Shouldn't Israel take responsibility for its history and its actions, too? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
[
Arafat didn't accept it. |
| Quote: |
You actually are not going by the historical record here. The Jewish militias actually attacked Palestinian villages even before the Arabs
sent in their forces in 1948. This is actually historical fact. Also, many people were ethnic cleansed. You had people from Lydd or Lod in Hebrew who were expelled including among those who were cleansed from Lod was George Habash, a Palestinian Christian, who in bitterness and anger became a terrorist. But what came first Habash's terrorism or his being expelled as a child from his town? The latter of course. |
I am going by the historical record . Israels enemies rejected the 1948 compromise. And their leader Fawzi Qawuqji vowed to drive all the jews into the sea.
That certainly sounds like a call for slaughter or ethnic cleansing. What does it sound like to you?
Of course Israel's enemies sided with the Nazis, but that doesn't count 
| Quote: |
| On the day that Israel declared its independence, the Arab League Secretary-General Azzam Pasha said, "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades" (Howard M Sachar, A History of Israel, New York: Knopf, 1979, p. 333). In an official cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the UN Secretary-General on May 15, 1948, the Arab states publically proclaimed their aim of a "United State of Palestine" in place of the Jewish and Arab, two-state, UN Plan. They claimed the latter was invalid, as it was opposed by Palestine's Arab majority, and maintained that the absence of legal authority made it necessary to intervene to protect Arab lives and property.[2] Meanwhile, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni stated, "I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!" (Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter, Eds., Myths and facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Washington DC: Near East Report, 1982, p. 199). |
http://en.allexperts.com/e/0/1948_Arab-Israeli_War.htm
what does it sound like to you?
which shows one thing :That Israel's enemies had the same thing in mind or worse in 1948.
So there was a cruel war . One side lost.
Benny Morris says that most Palestinians were expelled either by intention or by war but what he also says is that Israel's enemies intended to do the same or worse.
| Quote: |
History Learning Site > Modern World History > The Middle East 1917 to 1973 > Israel and the 1948 War
In May 1948, Israel became an independent state after Israel was recognised by the United Nations as a country in its own right within the Middle East. If relations in pre-war Palestine had been fraught with difficulties, these difficulties paled into insignificance after Israel became a state in its own right. Immediately on being granted its independence, Israel was attacked by a number of Arab nations. If Israel had faltered at this first hurdle, she would have ceased to exist as a state regardless of what the United Nations had decreed.
Before World War Two, Haganah had been, from the British viewpoint, a terrorist organisation that used violence to defend the Jewish Agency. Haganah attacked Palestinian Arabs and aspects of British rule in Palestine. By the time Israel had gained its independence, Haganah was effectively the army for Israel. Many members of Haganah had gained military experience during World War Two � ironically fighting for the same British military that they had been attacking before the war.
Israel was attacked on the same day it gained its independence � May 14th. The armies of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq attacked Israel. With such a combined force attacking Israel, few would have given the new country any chance of survival.
In fact, Israel had internal problems regardless of what was happening on its borders. The regular army had to be used to disband Irgun and the Stern Gang. Both of these had been classed as terrorist organisations by the British in pre-war Palestine. David Ben-Gurion, Prime Minister and Defence Minister wanted the Israeli army to remain non-political and using a combination of diplomacy and force, he removed both groups as a threat. The leaders of both groups were arrested but members of them did join the army. At the height of the 1948 War, Israel�s army numbered 100,000.
Though the attack on Israel was a surprise one, Israel was surprisingly well equipped at a military level. The country had a navy and many in her army were experienced in combat as a result of World War Two. Israel had also bought three B-17 bombers in America on the black market. In July 1948, these were used to bomb the Egyptian capital, Cairo.
The Arab nations that attacked Israel faced one major problem. There was nothing to co-ordinate their attacks. Each essentially attacked as a separate unit rather than as a combined force. However, the Israeli Army was under one single command structure and this proved to be very important. Israeli victories came on all the war fronts.
The Arab nations involved negotiated their own peace talks � a further sign that they were only united by their desire to attack Israel. Egypt signed a peace settlement in February 1949, and over the next few months Lebanon, Jordan and Syria did the same culminating in peace in July 1949. Iraq simply withdrew her forces but did not sign any peace settlement.
As a result of their military victory, Israel was able to expand the territory given to the state by the United Nations. However, this could only be at the expense of the Arab population that lived in these areas.
In the summer of 1949 there was no obvious leader in the Arab world who could head a campaign by the Arabs. Egypt seemed the most likely leader if only because of her size. However, the Egyptian Royal Family was far from popular and it was in this setting that Nasser rose to power. The scene was set for almost perpetual conflict between the Arab nations and Israel that culminated in the 1956, 1967 and 1973 wars. |
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/israel_and_the_1948_war.htm
| Quote: |
| You mention Hezbollah, but long before Hezbollah existed, Israel bombed the hell out of Lebanon and that's when Jewish support in America started slipping for Israel. That's quite well known. Also, Israel kind of exposed the Christian allies in Lebanon to the Druze who then bombarded the hell out of them. Then, there was the encouraging of the Christian militias to commit massacres in the Palestinian camps, and don't tell me Israel didn't encourage it. They saw what was happening and Phillip Habib was told by Bashir that Israel wanted him to kill Palestinians, and he didn't want to clean up the camps. After he was killed, Elie Hobeika did it. Israel does have obligations as an occupying power, and it had one in Lebanon. |
Israel was being hit from Lebanon.
Time magazine lost in court when they said that said that Israel encouraged the massacre.
Did Israel do anything to stop it? No they didn't. As the occupying power are they in a way responsible ? Yes. but Israel didn't encourge the massacre thye didn't need to. The Philagist forces were out for revenge because their president was assassinated.
If you have any proof that Israel ordered it , or told them to do it put it up.
| Quote: |
As far as Lebanon, under the IAF and IDF about 20,000 people were killed in Lebanon due to the Israeli invasion. That is a large figure for a population of about 4 million. So as far as Israel having not hit Lebanon with all it had, I disagree. Charles Fischbein who was an executive in the Jewish National Fund also disagreed, and he resigned from the JNF in protest. This was before Hezbollah even existed. Hezbollah emerged after that. Hezbollah and Hamas were both the result of occupation. By the way, Israel encouraged Hamas in the 1980s to go against the PLO and that backfired, so Israel created a problem for itself. Victor Ostorovsky and others said as much. I am not disagreeing that Palestinians didn't shoot Katyushas at northern Israel and hit Kiryat Shimona. They did.
However, the Shalom Ha Galil operation by the IDF went way too far. |
well Israel was being hit from Lebanon. Israel didn't go into Lebanon to annex it went into Lebanon to crush the PLO who was trying to destoy it.
Would have never happened if the PLO wasn't hitting Israel from Lebanon.
| Quote: |
| As far as the Arabs expelling Jews or mistreating them, that definitely occured. The expulsion of Palestinians occured first and neither of them were good things to do. I also do not discount the massacre of some Jews in 1929 in the city of Hebron of Palestinian Jews. Those things happened, I know the history. |
The expulsion in Palestine transjordan happened because Israel's enemies were trying to do the same thing or worse to the Jews of the area in war.
In that area there was no first.
and while Jews in Arab land often but not all the time had it not to bad -better than Europe they were still almost always second class citizens.
| Quote: |
| Hamas is not an organization that is good at all. Yes, it engages in terrorism, and yes it doesn't recognize Israel, but when it comes to terrorism both the Arabs and Jews have engaged in terrorism, so why bring up only one side? They are both human beings. |
Cause Hamas is out to destroy Israel . Israel just offered 92% of the West Bank. I don't think it was a good offer at all . Nevertheless the difference is clear.
| Quote: |
| You mentioned Bill Clinton's offer. It was not only Arafat who rejected it, but the PLO would not have accepted it. Have you studied the maps and what the peace treaty would have included? I have. It would have divided Palestine into two parts essentially in the West Bank. In the middle of the West Bank are huge settlements that Israel insisted on keeping which would have essentially bisected the West Bank. Israel would also have controlled the borders with Jordan. The Palestinians would only get a toe-hold in East Jerusalem. That's a horrible agreement, and you think Arafat could have signed on to that? Gush Shalom presented the maps in detail. |
How would they know exactly what Bill Clinton offered?
You are talking about Camp David in the summer anyway. I am talking about Bill Clintons offer in December of 2000.
| Quote: |
ROSS: Now, that was an Israeli desire. That was not what we presented. But we presented something that did point out that it would take six years before the Israelis would be totally out of the Jordan Valley.
So that map there that you see, which shows a very narrow green space along the border, would become part of the orange. So the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous.
HUME: Cantons being ghettos, in effect...
ROSS: Right.
HUME: ... that would be cut off from other parts of the Palestinian state.
ROSS: Completely untrue.
And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage. |
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,50830,00.html
YOU ARE MIXING UP THE TWO
And Bill Clinton supports the account of Dennis Ross.
| Quote: |
Arafat did say that the Taba proposal was a good start, and he liked Taba, but that was the end of it, so Arafat did respond positively to Taba which was more generous. Arafat and Israel both screwed up in 2000. It was not just Arafat. Israel kept chasing Syria for an agreement and Syria was being stupid in its response and too cool and conservative. So, much time was wasted and the Palestinians were ignored for a while, and then all of a sudden there was this rush for an agreement and Arafat got too suspicious and didn't respond in a way he should have. I don't mean he should have accepted the agreement, but he should have been clearer in counter offers and the like, so I find fault with all sides in 2000, not just with Arafat as you do. For you, the Arabs are to blame for everything.
Why is that? Shouldn't Israel take responsibility for its history and its actions, too |
?[/quote]
I will go with the what Bill Clinton said.
and I will go with what Dennis Ross said.
Arafat wanted a substantial right or return and would not accept compensation in lieu of that right.
Where did I say that Israel ought not take responsibilty for its actions?
I don't only blame the arab side.
As for Israel they ought to withdraw to 1967 borders and pay compensation.
Which is more than its enemies ever have done.
By the way if Israel's enemies really want to get rid of Israel that is fine. (Israel was a mistake anyway.) but this is the price for getting rid of Israel let them all accept liberal democracy so much so that it becomes the culture of the mideast. If they can't do that then let them accept Israel and if they can't do that either then let them go to the devil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joo, I have not heard of this account from any Israeli peace group or negotiating team or from Shlomo Ben Ami regarding this other Clinton plan. Why didn't Shlomo Ben Ami mention this? I have a long talk with him and Finkelstein on radio, and there is no mention of what you are talking about. It doesn't seem to be mainstream.
What you posted about 1948 doesn't give the whole picture. It doesn't portray things properly. The Arab states did not have a chance against the Jewish militias which became the army. The article doesn't mention that the King of Jordan who was later assasinated supported Israel and only engaged Israel in a very limited action for face saving, and King Abdullah was assasinated in Jerusalem as a result of that. That's very much missing there. The Iraqis were still under British influence at that time and they responded too late. King Abdullah I was interested in Greater Syria and was interested in beating his Arab rivals.
Their contribution was not meaningful. The Syrians only gained their independence in 1943 from France. They didn't have a built up, well-trained army to fight with Israel. There was the Troupes Populaires from the French days which became the Syrian Army, but they were not as trained as the Israelis who had capable commanders and good weapons.
You would think the Arabs would have had some massive army against Israel, but they didn't. Israel had so many military advantages, and that is why they smashed the Arabs. In reality, military wise, the Arabs were the underdogs clearly if you investigate. Numbers don't mean that much. The Aztecs had bigger numbers than the Spanish.
You also state that the Arabs attacked first. The Jewish militias were eliminating Palestinians and villages before the Arab armies even engaged them. An example of this was the massacre at Deir Yassin.
Deir Yassin did happen. Actually, I used to believe like you that the Israeli side. You are using the standard account tht is used out there, but it's not true. Anyway, the Jewish soldiers who fought against the Arabs had to fight it no matter what they thought about their leadership or fighting a war, because they would have suffered consequences for that.
Once a war starts, you have to sometimes forget who is right and wrong
if you will get killed and join in the war. Many Jews did that and had no choice. The massacres and the ethnic cleansing was to create a Jewish majority for a Jewish democracy. The Israeli historian Benny Morris talks about that. Many Israeli historians talk about that now.
It is definitely true that the Palestinians attacked from Lebanon. However, do you really think they were much of a threat to Israel?
Why did Israel really go into Lebanon for the Shalom Ha Galil operation?
You definitely have the official story line for it, and I can understand that.
But why did Israel really go in there beyond that? One, to help install a strong Catholic Maronite supremacy in Lebanon which Ben Gurion thought about long before Begin even became prime minister and to help crush their rivals, and the PLO was becoming a political problem beyond just firing weak rockets.
The PLO in the 1970s was gaining a lot of world-wide support and asked for a two state solution. Begin being with the Likud was against that completely. He even said I will not be the one to give up Judea and Samaria. He wanted to hold on to the West Bank and Gaza. He didn't expect Sharon to cause as much chaos as he did in Lebanon. Sharon had his own plans. The Israelis were kind of outraged. The Likud believed in Greater Israel. They didn't want to compromise like Labour.
Many people who are powerful don't want to compromise. It is good Egypt and Israel made peace. However, Kissinger really had to persuade Israel that it would be good and that it would isolate Syria from Egypt and protect Israel. Politics down there is very, very complicated and not what meets the eye. Some thought they were entitled to the West Bank and did not want peace with the Palestinians at all. They found it to be a threat.
As far as the massacre, if you were an Israeli soldier or officer and you objected to what Elie Hobeika and the LF was doing at Chatila, you were ordered to not do anything. Some in the IDF wanted to do something, but they were told by the command not to do anything. However, the problem was that Israel told the Phalangists to go into West Beirut and clean up the "terrorists". This was done after the PLO had already left Beirut and the US Government gave the other factions assurances, and Israel in a sense double crossed them and the US. The IDF under Sharon is responsible for what happened, because they didn't honor the agreement they made which led to the withdrawal of the PLO. The Israelis didn't pull the trigger, but they did tell their allies to kill the terrorists. They were encouraging them to engage in some violence after the PLO left. Israel was responsible to honor what it told the US side. It did not. It made the US look bad as well. The US worked tirelessly to work on getting the PLO out of Beirut.
You said the Phalangists were there. Technically, it was the Lebanese Forces which sprang from the Phalangists and the men under the command of Elie Hobeika. Not all the Lebanese Forces agreed with Hobeika. Hobeika's fiancee was massacred by Palestinians in Damour, so I do understand what motivated him partially, but Israel was the occupying power for whatever reason and didn't stop it. However, you did not mention that Saad Haddad's men were there.
Saad Haddad was the commander of the Southern Lebanese Army which later was led by Antoine Lahad who is now in Israel. So, Israel's proxy militiamen were also there committing the massacre. These guys weren't supposed to be there. Saad Haddad admitted before he died that his men were there. I am not here to condemn Sharon, Haddad, Lahad or anyone, but terrorism has happened from all sides, and Israel and the Arabs are both responsible for terrorism and sometimes those with bigger guns like the Israelis do horrendous things and as Rabin said the killing and violence needs to end for the sake of all the Jewish and Arab children. Israel was responsible for Sabra and Shatila in some way or another.
You should also consider that Begin survived World War II, he thought of the Nazis all the time and kept trying to compare the Arabs to the Nazis
and was part of the right wing, and he took things too far and the Israeli public objected. Mistakes were made. The Arabs make mistakes and so do the Israelis. It is time for a new page, for peace for both sides and not calling one terrorist and the other clean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Adventurer"]
| Quote: |
| Joo, I have not heard of this account from any Israeli peace group or negotiating team or from Shlomo Ben Ami regarding this other Clinton plan. Why didn't Shlomo Ben Ami mention this? I have a long talk with him and Finkelstein on radio, and there is no mention of what you are talking about. It doesn't seem to be mainstream. |
I have heard it from Clinton and Ross.
| Quote: |
| Previous peace talks broke down in 2000 with Israel offering about 91 percent of the West Bank, all of Gaza and a link between the two, a formula backed by then-U.S. President Bill Clinton. Issues including Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees were not resolved. Within months, bloody violence erupted between Israelis and Palestinians, halting peace talks until last November. |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24820293/
| Quote: |
Clinton, who tried but failed to make peace in the Middle East the legacy of his presidency, decried the current cycle of violence in Israel.
"I don't think there is a military solution to this," he said. "But I know there's not a terrorist solution to it."
Clinton also said he disagreed with President Bush that peace can be achieved only when Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is gone from power.
Nevertheless, he said it is important for the United States to remain involved because "Israelis believe that America is the only big country that cares if they live or die."
The ex-president said the best solution to the Middle East conflict is an interim settlement that would "establish a Palestinian state now."
But he stressed that the creation of such a state must be preceded by security assurances for Israel and a timetable to resolve other issues.
Clinton said Arafat made a "disastrous mistake" by turning down past peace proposals that would have given the Palestinian leader control of 97 percent of the West Bank.
Yet, Clinton said, "There is reason for hope.
"I think this will be resolved on the terms the Palestinians walked away from." |
| Quote: |
| What you posted about 1948 doesn't give the whole picture. It doesn't portray things properly. The Arab states did not have a chance against the Jewish militias which became the army. The article doesn't mention that the King of Jordan who was later assasinated supported Israel and only engaged Israel in a very limited action for face saving, and King Abdullah was assasinated in Jerusalem as a result of that. That's very much missing there. The Iraqis were still under British influence at that time and they responded too late. King Abdullah I was interested in Greater Syria and was interested in beating his Arab rivals. |
Well I have some advice.Don't invade.Don't start a war.
on't side with the Nazisand don't talk about Annihilation.
Plus Finkelstein is not a mainstream source.
But you are correct in this : Nothing justifies expeling Palestinians from their land. but I did put what happened in context. In 1948 Israel did some horrible things but so did their enemies. No side has a clean record in this conflict.
As I said before there is every reason to believe that Israels enemies had the same thing in mind or worse.
| Quote: |
Their contribution was not meaningful. The Syrians only gained their independence in 1943 from France. They didn't have a built up, well-trained army to fight with Israel. There was the Troupes Populaires from the French days which became the Syrian Army, but they were not as trained as the Israelis who had capable commanders and good weapons. |
What does that mean? Don't start a war. I have already said Israels actions were not justified but neither were the actions of their enemies.
| Quote: |
| You would think the Arabs would have had some massive army against Israel, but they didn't. Israel had so many military advantages, and that is why they smashed the Arabs. In reality, military wise, the Arabs were the underdogs clearly if you investigate. Numbers don't mean that much. The Aztecs had bigger numbers than the Spanish. |
That Israels enemies launched a war means they deserve a share of the blame.
For the record the British even expected the arab side to win.
| Quote: |
You also state that the Arabs attacked first. The Jewish militias were eliminating Palestinians and villages before the Arab armies even engaged them. An example of this was the massacre at Deir Yassin.
Deir Yassin did happen. Actually, I used to believe like you that the Israeli side. You are using the standard account tht is used out there, but it's not true. Anyway, the Jewish soldiers who fought against the Arabs had to fight it no matter what they thought about their leadership or fighting a war, because they would have suffered consequences for that.
Once a war starts, you have to sometimes forget who is right and wrong
if you will get killed and join in the war. Many Jews did that and had no choice. The massacres and the ethnic cleansing was to create a Jewish majority for a Jewish democracy. The Israeli historian Benny Morris talks about that. Many Israeli historians talk about that now. |
and Israels enemies sided with the Nazis. Plus I went to wikipedia and it clearly shows violence on both sides. No one started it.
Benny Morris is also on record saying that Israel's enemies intended to do the same or worse to Israel.
| Quote: |
It is definitely true that the Palestinians attacked from Lebanon. However, do you really think they were much of a threat to Israel?
Why did Israel really go into Lebanon for the Shalom Ha Galil operation?
You definitely have the official story line for it, and I can understand that.
But why did Israel really go in there beyond that? One, to help install a strong Catholic Maronite supremacy in Lebanon which Ben Gurion thought about long before Begin even became prime minister and to help crush their rivals, and the PLO was becoming a political problem beyond just firing weak rockets. |
No they were not a huge threat but they ought not to have attacked Israel. They share the blame.
| Quote: |
The PLO in the 1970s was gaining a lot of world-wide support and asked for a two state solution. Begin being with the Likud was against that completely. He even said I will not be the one to give up Judea and Samaria. He wanted to hold on to the West Bank and Gaza. He didn't expect Sharon to cause as much chaos as he did in Lebanon. Sharon had his own plans. The Israelis were kind of outraged. The Likud believed in Greater Israel. They didn't want to compromise like Labour.
Many people who are powerful don't want to compromise. It is good Egypt and Israel made peace. However, Kissinger really had to persuade Israel that it would be good and that it would isolate Syria from Egypt and protect Israel. Politics down there is very, very complicated and not what meets the eye. Some thought they were entitled to the West Bank and did not want peace with the Palestinians at all. They found it to be a threat. |
The PLO never was interested in a 2 state solution. That is why Arafat turned down Bill Clintons' offer.
| Quote: |
| As far as the massacre, if you were an Israeli soldier or officer and you objected to what Elie Hobeika and the LF was doing at Chatila, you were ordered to not do anything. Some in the IDF wanted to do something, but they were told by the command not to do anything. However, the problem was that Israel told the Phalangists to go into West Beirut and clean up the "terrorists". This was done after the PLO had already left Beirut and the US Government gave the other factions assurances, and Israel in a sense double crossed them and the US. The IDF under Sharon is responsible for what happened, because they didn't honor the agreement they made which led to the withdrawal of the PLO. The Israelis didn't pull the trigger, but they did tell their allies to kill the terrorists. They were encouraging them to engage in some violence after the PLO left. Israel was responsible to honor what it told the US side. It did not. It made the US look bad as well. The US worked tirelessly to work on getting the PLO out of Beirut. |
they did not tell them to massacre people. Again Time Magazine lost in court for saying that.
| Quote: |
| You said the Phalangists were there. Technically, it was the Lebanese Forces which sprang from the Phalangists and the men under the command of Elie Hobeika. Not all the Lebanese Forces agreed with Hobeika. Hobeika's fiancee was massacred by Palestinians in Damour, so I do understand what motivated him partially, but Israel was the occupying power for whatever reason and didn't stop it. However, you did not mention that Saad Haddad's men were there. |
Sure to a certain extent Israel is responsible. But they did not order a massacre. I am sure they could have cared less if one occurd though.
| Quote: |
| Saad Haddad was the commander of the Southern Lebanese Army which later was led by Antoine Lahad who is now in Israel. So, Israel's proxy militiamen were also there committing the massacre. These guys weren't supposed to be there. Saad Haddad admitted before he died that his men were there. I am not here to condemn Sharon, Haddad, Lahad or anyone, but terrorism has happened from all sides, and Israel and the Arabs are both responsible for terrorism and sometimes those with bigger guns like the Israelis do horrendous things and as Rabin said the killing and violence needs to end for the sake of all the Jewish and Arab children. Israel was responsible for Sabra and Shatila in some way or another. |
I almost agree with you.
| Quote: |
You should also consider that Begin survived World War II, he thought of the Nazis all the time and kept trying to compare the Arabs to the Nazis
and was part of the right wing, and he took things too far and the Israeli public objected. Mistakes were made. The Arabs make mistakes and so do the Israelis. It is time for a new page, for peace for both sides and not calling one terrorist and the other clean.[ |
I agree with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joo, I agreed with about 80% of what you wrote when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I disagree that the PLO was not interested in a two state solution. Arafat actually first referred to one in 1976 and Kamal Jumblatt, his Druze ally, mentioned that. He was later assasinated in 1976. The Palestinians while talking about a two state solution was also firing rockets into Israel. Israel was not interested under Likud in giving up Judea and Samaria. Labour was somewhat interested in the idea.
It is also a question of timing from both sides. Things are not linear from either side especially the Israeli side since Labour and Likud are somewhat different. You may point out that Likud made peace with Egypt. That is true. They were convinced, however, by Kissinger, because it would divide the Arab camp militarily.
In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon knowing Egypt would not interfere and Syria didn't want a full-scale war. Neither side wanted that. In a sense, when Syria executed Kamal Jumblatt they did Israel and Syria both a favour, because Jumblatt and Arafat and wanted to force Israel to deal with them by using guerrilla tactics. Syria did not want Israel in Lebanon.
There is no other explanation for his assasination. Jumblatt did not want to destroy Israel. He did seek to confront and negotiate. Israel's Likud at that particular did not want to do anything expect the latter. Labour has been the party of peace in comparison.
As far as Time Magazine losing in court, it does not change that Israel's proxies were there. If you have the men of Saad Haddad who were supposed to be more to the South and not in Beirut over there helping in a massacre then you can say that is possible. It is hard to prove these things in court. Elie Hobeika never got to testify. He was blown up.
He was going to.
The Syrians probably blew him up. I don't think Syria is as against Israel as people think. At times, it will liquidate some of Israel's enemies and at times encourage them. It's this weird game that is played and Israel knows it. According to Phillip Habib who was a Lebanese Christian American official, he had conversations with Bashir Gemayel about cleaning up Palestinian camps. This was before Sabra and Shatila. However, that's circumstantial evidence. And Elie Hobeika who was going to testify was assasinated. It was possibly done by Syria, because he was no longer useful and who knows if Syria was trying to Israel a favor.
As strange as that sounds, Syria sometimes liquidates some enemies of Israel.
It is easy to say don't start a war. History is not that simple. The Palestinians were getting pushed out, the Arabs felt it was their land, and it was their land before their Jewish relatives started returning from the diaspora. So, it was inevitable for both sides to confront each other that way. They responded to a European script basically with the Zionist organization responding to European ideas of nationalism and so did the Arabs, and Jews who were fleeing Europe were simply used as the fuel of Jewish nationalism which helped fuel Arab nationalism. In a sense, the effects of World War II are still with us and it manifests itself in the Arab-Israeli conflict. It will take time to bring the two sides to peace, but it will happen.
It is very interesting discussing ideas with you.... You seem to be level-headed and try to see things from different perspectives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
