|
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 |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I see your now backtracking on your original claim that Arabs were barred from the army, which was a piece of evidence you gave for it being an 'ethnocracy' (whatever the means).
| Quote: |
| already explained the regional peace treaties and iniatives... |
Yes, but you seem to naively assume that these treaties will be honoured by future governments. If Egypt were to become an Islamic state (quite likely at some point in the future) they might well be hostile to Israel's existence. It is therefore nonsense to say that Israel faces no threat from its neighbours. I can think of no other state in the world that is so threatened by its neighbours. Moreover, as I have explained, when you are dealing with Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia, which is proposing such a plan, you have to understand the Islamic definition of a treaty. To them it is simply a chance to gather themselves until they are strong enough to overwhelm the enemy.
In fact, Arafat said in an interview with a South African journalist in 1994 "I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca", in reference to an agreement the prophet Mohammed made with a Meccan tribe, which he later broke.
| Quote: |
| But they are barred from certain positions within the military so their participation is limited even if they choose to join. |
Do you have any evidence to back this up? Even if that is true, it would be for reasons of national security as Israeli Arabs would be far more likely to give away state secrets to Israel's enemies than Jews. That is just logic. It's discriminatory, but it certainly serves as no basis for calling Israel undemocratic. In fact, I think muslims should be barred from similar positions in the UK.
| Quote: |
| they are not even close to bieng equal in israel |
What rights, specifically, do they not have that Israelis do have? You are making these assertions but are providing scant evidence, in the way of links, to support them.
| Quote: |
| Many Israelis will try to convince you that full democratic rights are given to all her citizens but this is patently untrue. |
Israeli Arabs have the right to vote, do they not? What democratic rights are they denied, specifically?
| Quote: |
| israel cannot be both a jewish state and a democratic state. |
So, what exactly are you saying?
Why not? Israel is like any other nation state, in that it represents a distinct people. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, Japan is not democratic, because it is a Japanese state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
My 2 Cent
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i dont want to be frightfully rude, but have you read ANYTHING ive written during the past 48 hours? again u knitpick on one factoid like i said and i still going aroudn the houses with you.
Do i have to repeat all the evidence about discrimination regarding Israeli Arabs. There is plenty of evidence regarding Israel Arabs including a reference to them on the wikipedia link about the Israeli Army before... it refers to discrimation and polices etc.
Before you were confused as to the difference between palestanians and israeli-arabs and i really dont have the time to explain it to you.
Also I spent a lot of time in Israel and Palestine, and met many Isreali Arabs -- esp around the Galillee area.
no surprises here but outrage when this happened in 2000:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050929/wl_mideast_afp/mideastisraelarab_050929182335
Nazareith is an arab city in Israel for example, so the disparity between the communities to me was quite stark. Many arabs are treated like dirt, and arab citizens are not able to fully particpate in the state, and are alienated, disenfrancised, and disconnected. In Israel if you are not high up on the military ladder, you are nothing... notice the last few PM's of Israel were Generals??!!
You know blacks and indians had votes and parliments under apathraid in south Africa but it was wasnt a democray either.
I think for the most part Wikipedia tries to be neutral so check it out... most journals and op-ed pieces are propaganda --- thats goes for much in both sides in the debate.
i dunno check out bitterlemons.org
and read 'the controvery of zion' by jermany wheatcroft but most importanlty 'israel - challenges to identity, democracy, and state.'
really it doesnt matter what who said... this is politics. its a game, and things are too globalised and spun to take this all so seriously.
Even if egppt came islamic state, it will still be under the western umbrealla like Saudi (the most funamentalist state in the world), so i wouldnt worry about it too much.
Finally you are correct... japan is indeed a japanese state.
but unfortunatly Israel is not an Israeli state... like you said its a jewish state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What rights, specifically, do they not have that Israelis do have?
You failed to answer this question and the only evidence you have provided, so far, that Israel is not a democracy, is the rather weak argument that Israeli Arabs may not be able to rise to senior positions in the security forces. That is hardly grounds for saying it is not a democracy.
| Quote: |
| are now nitpicking over semantics... |
Asking you to provide evidence of how Israel is not a democracy is not nitpicking, but a challenge to the main thrust of your argument. You said Israel was not a democracy, yet you have provided scant specific evidence of any rights that Arabs are denied that Jews have. One piece of evidence you have provided has already been shown to be false.
| Quote: |
| In Israel if you are not high up on the military ladder, you are nothing |
Not true, although having served in the military does confer on you certain benefits, but since Arabs are free to join the military, such policies do not directly discriminate against them. You do not have to be high up on the ladder to enjoy these benefits, you merely have to serve.
| Quote: |
| arab citizens are not able to fully particpate in the state |
Like how? Apart from being able to vote, form their own political parties, and campaign on political issues, how are they not allowed to 'fully participate'. If you're going to throw around assertions like that you really should back them up.
| Quote: |
| are alienated, disenfrancised, and disconnected |
This is extremely vague, which is useful, since it means you don't actually need to provide evidence of how Israel is not a democracy.
| Quote: |
| You know blacks and indians had votes and parliments under apathraid in south Africa but it was wasnt a democray either. |
No, they had their own seperate and powerless assemblies to represent their interests. They had no say in the election of the national assembly, because if they were allowed that, they could have outvoted whites. Arab Israelis have exactly the same democratic rights as Jews and making comparisons to South Africa is silly, lazy, and stinks of ignorant left wing rhetoric.
Now, let's see some factual evidence to back up your assertion that Israel is not a democracy, and that Palestinians are denied fundamental rights not denied to Jews. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
My 2 Cent
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
you really are a complete idiot...
do i retype everythign again for you?
whats the point? u are not going to read it anways so i just wasting my time.
You constantly go back over the one point u made relating to the word 'barring', and this is your only comeback.
CONGRATULATIONS!
maybe if you could respond to any of the other points i raised (or anyone elses points) this 'debate' might interest me again.
Pathetic.
I sited housing, education, riots, jobs, civil servise, unemployment. This is factual evidence from political history, socialiogy books(try reading a few sometime), not to mention my own personal experience of staying int he region for extended peroids over the course of 4 years, reading many more books (i gave u refereences to a couple of those already), meeting many many more people both arab and jew, and not believing the usual media and political bullshit. Go on the ground and see for yourself.... you really dont know what you are talking about... its actully quite funny.
You are a lost cuase. pig ignorant moran who like a kid - why? why? why? I used to annoy my sister by doin the same thing... just dont listen to the other persons answers and respond again and again saying the same word ... 'Why?!'
Do some reading, get informed, talk to people, travel to the region, and maybe you wont have to ask this ridiculaous questiona all the time, and make such intellecutally lazy, moronic, and indeed incomprehenibly stupid comments in discussions like this.
Since you cant accept anything i have said.... just believe what the he11 you want and be happy in life.
in fact i hope you are born an Israeli-arab in the next life... who knows maybe you will get a job and become prime minister of Israel one day?
prove me wrong!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Frankly, they are both politicians and I wouldn't trust either of them. |
there is no comparison . Clintom might be flawd but they are in different leagues , Arafat was a typrical mideast thug leader.
| Quote: |
BETTER THAN YOU!!!
This is childish arguement. |
Well I tell you when the UN treats the states in the region fairly then you will have a point.
| Quote: |
| You taking about a war that was in the making for 3 years before? Israel thought itself invincible after '67 and rejected peace offer after peace offer from Egypt until Sadat made empty threats, and a surprise attack. |
what peace offers are you talking about? When Sadat asked for peace he got it in 1979. the fact is that Israel caught unpreprepared was very vunrable.
and Nasser massed forces in 1967. He threatend war and he got war.
| Quote: |
| Notice how peace came quickly after that. Nixon's administation were even glad that Israel was left to bleed a little, and directly intervened in the armitice afterwards on golan and sinai - kissinger shuttles etc - this was a grand gesture was really just a cold war power play. |
Ok what is your point.?
what were Israel's enemies offering before 1967?
| Quote: |
| Israel was by now a regional superpower... had moved fully into the US sphere after '67, high on its own feelings of invincibility and arrogance. Also a nuclear power if that was to be forgotten. |
and they were still vunrable.
and what were Israel's enemies offering before 1967?
| Quote: |
| Regardless, they did indeed get a bloody nose and learned valueable lessons from the October war 73, and finally had to change their rejectionist polices vis a vis the egyptions-- which brought Camp David. |
any proof of this . Besides I don't know what the point is here?
It doesn't change what I am trying to say - that israel was vunrable when it didn't keep its forces on alert.
A country with such a small population
| Quote: |
| Wikipedia: In 1971, Sadat, in response to an initiative by UN intermediary Gunnar Jarring, declared that if Israel committed itself to "withdrawal of its armed forces from Sinai and the Gaza Strip" and to implementation of other provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 242 as requested by Jarring, Egypt would then "be ready to enter into a peace agreement with Israel." Israel responded that it would not withdraw to the pre-June 5, 1967, lines.[1] |
Ok Israel didn't reject peace, just the complete withdrawal.
But is there anything that shows Egypt (when it was ruled by Nasser) was wiilling to give up war against Israel?
| Quote: |
| Anyways, let's leave this episode for another arguement. |
OK
| Quote: |
| It says leave occupied land. |
in exchange for peace
| Quote: |
| The resolution is the formula proposed by the Security Council for the successful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in particular, ending the state of belligerency then existing between Egypt, Jordan and Syria versus Israel. It insists upon the termination of all states of war in the area; guarantees the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of all Middle Eastern nations; and calls for a "just settlement" of the question of the refugees. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_242
| Quote: |
| There was no intifida back in '67 remember? |
Yes but Israel was still under attack then.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
So 242 did mention ceasefire and quiet....
from all participants... egypt (peace treaty'79), Jordan (peace treaty '94) and syria (no peace treaty). |
|
| Quote: |
The resolution is the formula proposed by the Security Council for the successful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in particular, ending the state of belligerency then existing between Egypt, Jordan and Syria versus Israel. It insists upon the termination of all states of war in the area; guarantees the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of all Middle Eastern nations; and calls for a "just settlement" of the question of the refugees.
The resolution's most important feature is the "land for peace" formula, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories it had occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace with its neighbors. This was an important advance at the time, considering the fact that there were no peace treaties between any Arab state and Israel until the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty signed in 1979. |
syria has still been at war with Israel.
| Quote: |
| So are you saying for the Palestanians to enjoy a life without occupation by foreign forces of Isreal - the resolution is dependent on Syria? That was the orginal idea behind the draft of 242? |
No , I am saying that the Palestinian side has never said if Isreal withdraws to 1967 borderst that they won't attack , that the conflict is over.
| Quote: |
| Today here is no threat of aggression from these nations, so Israel should follow international law and withdraw from occupied land. There is no debate on this one... its the law. |
no threat Syria is still at war with Israel. Israel faces the threats from Hezzbollah, Arafats forces, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad and most of the nations in the region.
How about the Palestinian side saying that if Israel withdraws they will never , never attack.
Arafat never said so.
He said that if Israel withdraws , and allows right of return and makes some other concessions that the war is over.
but he never said if Israel just withdraws the war is over.
Withdrawal for peace. Not unilateral withdrawal for nothing.
| Quote: |
242 has noting to do with Palestanian militiants, uprisings etc.
nothing. |
no but it had the principle of land for peace.
if the Palestinian side wants israel to leave then it ought to declare that if Israel does so then there will be no more attacks.
Arafat never said so.
| Quote: |
| yes as explained already. There was no Palestian campaign when 242 was written, so this arguement does not hold water. |
but Araft still attacked israel. Hamas and the other groups still attacked Israel.
If they want Israel to leave then declare no more attacks if Israel does.
| Quote: |
| We are going in circles here. |
whatever , anyone who demands right of return is not really offering peace
| Quote: |
| How are they backed by western powers? the US gives 2b to Egypt defends Kuwait and buys oil from Saudi. |
| Quote: |
| every regime has been, was, or is backed by the West. Every country was created by the West, and installed, or proped up by the West. Explains why Arabs think the US/UK are liars who say their 'values' are superior yet have and continue to support regional thugs and scumbags... jordan, egypt, libya (they are 'goodies' again!) etc. |
who was installed by the west?
The west supports Libya? What do you mean by support they buy their oil?
| Quote: |
| Again lets debate the key points... and not go around the houses quoting op-ed pieces and ignoring key facts. |
Ok , and what I put up about the Saudi principle wasn't and oped an piece.
| Quote: |
| It was a proposal or offer for regional peace. an idea. No demands were made... language is important here. |
then they ought to take out 194.
| Quote: |
| The arab iniatiave mearly said this is an issue that must be dealt in the spirit of 194 (compensation which Israel have already agreed to in principal so there is not much of a problem for Israel here) ... you think its possible just to avoid all references to the refueggee issue? What kind of plan would that be?[ |
that is not what the initiave said.
it refered to 194 and then several countres said that Palestinian refugees would not be resettled in other nations.
I think that there ought to be a principle of compensation in lieu of the right of return.
but in fact Bill Clintons offer was very similar to the Saudi planexcept for the Right of Return and Arafat rejected it w/o a counter offer.
My point is this : Israel doesn't have to leave the west bank until it gets an agreement from the Palestinian side that if it does so that the war is over.
Arafat never said so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
My 2 Cent
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
what peace offers are you talking about? When Sadat asked for peace he got it in 1979. the fact is that Israel caught unpreprepared was very vunrable.
and Nasser massed forces in 1967. He threatend war and he got war.
|
The six-day war was 2 years in the making, as we discussed earlier, and was explained on the wikepedia like we have both refered to.
The first peace plan to cede terrortory was the israeli inspired 'Allon plan' in 1967, which basically governs terrortorial compormise from the Isreali point of view right up until today... undermines greatly the so called 96% offer in 2000 also as this was basically a re-draft of the same plan. The Jordan valley has always played heavially in Isreali security/water concerns and nothing much has changed since '67 in that respect.
http://www.mideastweb.org/alonplan.htm
Furthermore, Sadat made attempts to engage with Israel starting in 1971. These attempts were rejected. Having thrown out Soviet advisors, Sadat put out more feelers to the Nixon team, but Kissinger rejected the attempts. In effect, Sadat's war was made to create peace (albiet syria didnt have the same view)... overnight israel's bubble and aura of invincibility disapeared, while egypt being the strongest arab force regained its position, and could bargain as an equal with the jewish state...
result: Egypt gets back Sinai, Israel gets peace treaty, giving Israel more leverage to issolate the Palestianians co-opting egyptian pressure.... a year late, 1980 Jersaualam and golan is anexed, and Begin had a free hand to flush out Arafat in Lebannon... none of this would not have been possible without the peace treaty with their strongest enemy.
| Quote: |
| Notice how peace came quickly after that. Nixon's administation were even glad that Israel was left to bleed a little, and directly intervened in the armitice afterwards on golan and sinai - kissinger shuttles etc - this was a grand gesture was really just a cold war power play. |
| Quote: |
Ok what is your point.?
what were Israel's enemies offering before 1967? |
| Quote: |
| Regardless, they did indeed get a bloody nose and learned valueable lessons from the October war 73, and finally had to change their rejectionist polices vis a vis the egyptions-- which brought Camp David. |
| Quote: |
any proof of this . Besides I don't know what the point is here?
It doesn't change what I am trying to say - that israel was vunrable when it didn't keep its forces on alert.
A country with such a small population |
Israel has a small but highly militarised society, a strong airforce, but post 67 it became complacent. There was intelligence of Egypian movements before the 73 war, but Israel actaully started to belive its own invincibility... Thats my point. After rejecting peace offers before yom kippur, they quickly realised the benifits of settling the dispute of their western border... this quickly followed in Camp David. '73 make Israel wake up to their vunrabalities, and pushed them to settle the dispute with Egypt. That's why I mentioned Nixon/Kissinger: they were glad to see israel get a bloody nose -- later making a direct invervention as conditions would be ripe for diplomacy in the war's aftermath.
I not sure if Nasser was offering anything pre-67. The events of that year marked a major epoch in ME history. Israel's victory was total and they moved firmly under the US umbrealla, and Naser pan-arabism finally ran out of steam (now the emergence of Fatah instead was a new issue to deal with, with the Jordanians finally ceded their 'right' as 'representatives of the Palestanian people') It created a whole new set of realities, so what went before has little value today.
Joo
| Quote: |
| syria has still been at war with Israel. |
Yes, but this has nothing to do with the Palestanians. Israel left Sinai after '67, now there leaves two seperate fronts - Syria, and Palestanians in West Bank/Gaza... the Jordanians ceded responsility and have made the peace with Israel already.
| Quote: |
| So are you saying for the Palestanians to enjoy a life without occupation by foreign forces of Isreal - the resolution is dependent on Syria? That was the orginal idea behind the draft of 242? |
Joo
| Quote: |
No , I am saying that the Palestinian side has never said if Isreal withdraws to 1967 borderst that they won't attack , that the conflict is over.
no threat Syria is still at war with Israel. Israel faces the threats from Hezzbollah, Arafats forces, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad and most of the nations in the region.
How about the Palestinian side saying that if Israel withdraws they will never , never attack.
Arafat never said so.
He said that if Israel withdraws , and allows right of return and makes some other concessions that the war is over.
but he never said if Israel just withdraws the war is over.
Withdrawal for peace. Not unilateral withdrawal for nothing. |
You raise some points.
The Syrian issue has come close to agreement between the parties before over the past 10 years. It hasn't happened but the final issue related to a matter of metres around the Galillee... in the future, in the right time, this issue will be resolved im sure, but Syria is not exaclty in the US good books right now, but its on the diplomatic shelf.
Realistilly Israel is not threatened by nations in the region. Besides Syria, Israels borders are secure, and it faces little in terms of real threats from its neighbours. Israel is still the kinpin... a regional superpower. Every country in the Arab world know this. Israel has moved so closely to the US, that it is now practially a US military outpost. Coupled with Israels peace treaties with its neighbours, the elimination of Iraq as even resembling a regional force, and the growing importance of its close military and ecomonic ties with Turkey, all in all Israel's external security is looking pretty good these days.
There are threats from various factions, that is undisputiable. Arafat is no longer an issue, hizbollah are contained are offer no real threat, hamas are gaza based and eventaully they and Israel will have to negiotate if they receive a mandate from the people. Jihad remain a dispirate element, with no real mandate from the Palestanian people.
The best the PA can do is what they are doing. Reigning in elements which undermine their ongoing negioations and confidence building measures with Israel. It would suit Sharon to see the Palestanians fight amongst themselves, perhaps in a civil war, but the PA can't promise with certitude anyting relatiing to these groups setting up sporadic attacks.
Thats a non-starter.
The fact is the intifida has run down, and the PA are now doing all they can.
The Palestianians have already recognized Israel, removed offending articles in their national charter, and fully agree to condemn militants, and living side by side in peace with Israel.
Whenever Palestine becomes into existance, you can be sure it won't have the weapons, or knowhow to lauch a war with Israel.
| Quote: |
who was installed by the west?
The west supports Libya? What do you mean by support they buy their oil? |
Every country in the ME with the exection of Egypt was created by Western powers after WW1. Syria, Lebanon, Saudi, Yemen, UAE, Jordan etc. Until this day, corrupt Kings, and autocratic rulers were installed and in turn promised to deliver oil to the West for below its real value, and the West in turn supports them. By supporting them brings stability to the region, and stability bring in the flow of oil...at a low low price. A barrel of oil should really be around $150 a barrell. This mutually dependent relationship has been described as a 'brutal friendship' by many observers.
Libya is back under Western backing after years in the cold. This turnabout started in 1999, when Ghadaffi handing over the Lockerbie suspects, and paid compensation over the next 3/4 years. Now diplomatic relations have blossomed with the UK in particualar, and the US is close behind on the diplomatic front. Rest assured, Ghadaffi is still the same cunt he always has been, but the newspapers or politicans just decide to ignore ackward realities. typical.
| Quote: |
it refered to 194 and then several countres said that Palestinian refugees would not be resettled in other nations.
I think that there ought to be a principle of compensation in lieu of the right of return.
|
I agree with you. Right of return is just a political football... its not feasialbe nor realistic, and it has been a stumbling block, but as i noted before, Taba 2001, things came closer than ever to finding agreement as the Palestanians started to accept reality. Here is an account of Taba written by Israels head of Refugee negotiating team, Yossi Bellin.
http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/beilin.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| My 2 Cent wrote: |
Many arabs are treated like dirt, and arab citizens are not able to fully particpate in the state, and are alienated, disenfrancised, and disconnected. In Israel if you are not high up on the military ladder, you are nothing... notice the last few PM's of Israel were Generals??!!
|
So, what you're saying is Israel, a nation under siege, in a daily struggle for its very existence, is ruled by a warrior caste. And you're shocked, shocked! that an Arab cannot "rise through the ranks" to one day lead that nation.
Just kinda breaks your heart, doesn't it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
My 2 Cent
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| My 2 Cent wrote: |
Many arabs are treated like dirt, and arab citizens are not able to fully particpate in the state, and are alienated, disenfrancised, and disconnected. In Israel if you are not high up on the military ladder, you are nothing... notice the last few PM's of Israel were Generals??!!
|
So, what you're saying is Israel, a nation under siege, in a daily struggle for its very existence, is ruled by a warrior caste. And you're shocked, shocked! that an Arab cannot "rise through the ranks" to one day lead that nation.
Just kinda breaks your heart, doesn't it? |
haha.
no im not shocked at all.
Some people seem to be shocked but i guess it shouldnt be too surprising.
i guess it wouldnt matter if Israel didn't propagate the myth of being a fully democratic state with equality for all her citizens, and then have people actually believe the lie (see above). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The six-day war was 2 years in the making, as we discussed earlier, and was explained on the wikepedia like we have both refered to. |
okay but there would have been no war if Nasser had not massed troops.
| Quote: |
| The first peace plan to cede terrortory was the israeli inspired 'Allon plan' in 1967, which basically governs terrortorial compormise from the Isreali point of view right up until today... undermines greatly the so called 96% offer in 2000 also as this was basically a re-draft of the same plan. The Jordan valley has always played heavially in Isreali security/water concerns and nothing much has changed since '67 in that respect. |
http://www.mideastweb.org/alonplan.htm
| Quote: |
| Furthermore, Sadat made attempts to engage with Israel starting in 1971. These attempts were rejected. Having thrown out Soviet advisors, Sadat put out more feelers to the Nixon team, but Kissinger rejected the attempts. In effect, Sadat's war was made to create peace (albiet syria didnt have the same view)... overnight israel's bubble and aura of invincibility disapeared, while egypt being the strongest arab force regained its position, and could bargain as an equal with the jewish state... |
ok that doesn't mean that Egypt when Nasser was in power was no threat to Israel.
| Quote: |
| result: Egypt gets back Sinai, Israel gets peace treaty, giving Israel more leverage to issolate the Palestianians co-opting egyptian pressure.... a year late, 1980 Jersaualam and golan is anexed, and Begin had a free hand to flush out Arafat in Lebannon... none of this would not have been possible without the peace treaty with their strongest enemy. |
Ok, I wasn't arguing this point with you.
| Quote: |
| Israel has a small but highly militarised society, a strong airforce, but post 67 it became complacent. There was intelligence of Egypian movements before the 73 war, but Israel actaully started to belive its own invincibility... Thats my point. After rejecting peace offers before yom kippur, they quickly realised the benifits of settling the dispute of their western border... this quickly followed in Camp David. '73 make Israel wake up to their vunrabalities, and pushed them to settle the dispute with Egypt. That's why I mentioned Nixon/Kissinger: they were glad to see israel get a bloody nose -- later making a direct invervention as conditions would be ripe for diplomacy in the war's aftermath. |
Ok I wasn't arguing this point.
| Quote: |
| I not sure if Nasser was offering anything pre-67. The events of that year marked a major epoch in ME history. Israel's victory was total and they moved firmly under the US umbrealla, and Naser pan-arabism finally ran out of steam (now the emergence of Fatah instead was a new issue to deal with, with the Jordanians finally ceded their 'right' as 'representatives of the Palestanian people') It created a whole new set of realities, so what went before has little value today. |
It has value when talking about the 1967 war and why there is occupation today.
| Quote: |
| Yes, but this has nothing to do with the Palestanians. Israel left Sinai after '67, now there leaves two seperate fronts - Syria, and Palestanians in West Bank/Gaza... the Jordanians ceded responsility and have made the peace with Israel already. |
It does in that Israel got the land in a arguably defensive war.
For Israel to withdraw for no security guarantees is asking a lot from the Israeli side.
| Quote: |
| You raise some points. |
thanks. we agree on what an eventualy settlement ought to look like I think. Our disagreement is where to place the blame or responsibilty for the current situation.
| Quote: |
The Syrian issue has come close to agreement between the parties before over the past 10 years. It hasn't happened but the final issue related to a matter of metres around the Galillee... in the future, in the right time, this issue will be resolved im sure, but Syria is not exaclty in the US good books right now, but its on the diplomatic shelf. |
Ok
| Quote: |
| Realistilly Israel is not threatened by nations in the region. Besides Syria, Israels borders are secure, and it faces little in terms of real threats from its neighbours. Israel is still the kinpin... a regional superpower. Every country in the Arab world know this. Israel has moved so closely to the US, that it is now practially a US military outpost. Coupled with Israels peace treaties with its neighbours, the elimination of Iraq as even resembling a regional force, and the growing importance of its close military and ecomonic ties with Turkey, all in all Israel's external security is looking pretty good these days. |
Israelis still die in attacks.
Iran still talks about destroying Israel , and so do others.
| Quote: |
| There are threats from various factions, that is undisputiable. Arafat is no longer an issue, hizbollah are contained are offer no real threat, hamas are gaza based and eventaully they and Israel will have to negiotate if they receive a mandate from the people. Jihad remain a dispirate element, with no real mandate from the Palestanian people. |
That Arafat is gone does change the situation alot. I think Abbas is a much more professional leader.
But Israel still faces a certain degree of threat from nations and groups in the region
| Quote: |
The best the PA can do is what they are doing. Reigning in elements which undermine their ongoing negioations and confidence building measures with Israel. It would suit Sharon to see the Palestanians fight amongst themselves, perhaps in a civil war, but the PA can't promise with certitude anyting relatiing to these groups setting up sporadic attacks. |
that is probably right , I don't disagree with you there.
| Quote: |
Thats a non-starter.
The fact is the intifida has run down, and the PA are now doing all they can. |
I don't know if all they can , but I would say the Abbas seems to truly interested in coming to a peace deal.
| Quote: |
| The Palestianians have already recognized Israel, removed offending articles in their national charter, and fully agree to condemn militants, and living side by side in peace with Israel. |
They have not , Abbas in interviews has said that he is open to compromise on the most difficult issues.
But true recogniton is accepting the principle of compensation in lieu of the right of return.
| Quote: |
| Whenever Palestine becomes into existance, you can be sure it won't have the weapons, or knowhow to lauch a war with Israel. |
Launch a major war , not without help from another country. Will it be capable of attacks probably.
But the point is that if Israel withdraws they ought to get security guarantees for that withdrawal . That is my point here.
| Quote: |
| Every country in the ME with the exection of Egypt was created by Western powers after WW1. Syria, Lebanon, Saudi, Yemen, UAE, Jordan etc. Until this day, corrupt Kings, and autocratic rulers were installed and in turn promised to deliver oil to the West for below its real value |
I agree with that except for the real value of oil.
| Quote: |
| e West in turn supports them. |
how does the west support them ?
| Quote: |
| By supporting them brings stability to the region, and stability bring in the flow of oil...at a low low price. A barrel of oil should really be around $150 a barrell. This mutually dependent relationship has been described as a 'brutal friendship' by many observers. |
if the price of oil ought to be 150 a barrel then why isn't Mexico selling its oil for 150 a barrel? How about Russia , Norway and England?
For the most part it has always been the market that decides the price of oil
| Quote: |
| Libya is back under Western backing after years in the cold. This turnabout started in 1999, when Ghadaffi handing over the Lockerbie suspects, and paid compensation over the next 3/4 years. Now diplomatic relations have blossomed with the UK in particualar, and the US is close behind on the diplomatic front. Rest assured, Ghadaffi is still the same *beep* he always has been, but the newspapers or politicans just decide to ignore ackward realities. typical. |
No disagreement there. but he is not exactly a friend of the US or
England.
| Quote: |
I agree with you. Right of return is just a political football... its not feasialbe nor realistic, and it has been a stumbling block, but as i noted before, Taba 2001, things came closer than ever to finding agreement as the Palestanians started to accept reality. Here is an account of Taba written by Israels head of Refugee negotiating team, Yossi Bellin.
http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/beilin.html |
[/quote]
Ok .
1) there was still Clintons' offer I will show it to you later
2) Arafat was more hardline than his negotiators. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
My 2 Cent
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Furthermore, Sadat made attempts to engage with Israel starting in 1971. These attempts were rejected. Having thrown out Soviet advisors, Sadat put out more feelers to the Nixon team, but Kissinger rejected the attempts. In effect, Sadat's war was made to create peace (albiet syria didnt have the same view)... overnight israel's bubble and aura of invincibility disapeared, while egypt being the strongest arab force regained its position, and could bargain as an equal with the jewish state... |
| Quote: |
ok that doesn't mean that Egypt when Nasser was in power was no threat to Israel. |
They were in a state of war when Nasser was in power. Within ten years of '67, Nasser was gone, and so was any threat.
| Quote: |
| I not sure if Nasser was offering anything pre-67. The events of that year marked a major epoch in ME history. Israel's victory was total and they moved firmly under the US umbrealla, and Naser pan-arabism finally ran out of steam (now the emergence of Fatah instead was a new issue to deal with, with the Jordanians finally ceded their 'right' as 'representatives of the Palestanian people') It created a whole new set of realities, so what went before has little value today. |
| Quote: |
It has value when talking about the 1967 war and why there is occupation today.
For Israel to withdraw for no security guarantees is asking a lot from the Israeli side.
Israelis still die in attacks.
Iran still talks about destroying Israel , and so do others. |
Irans verbal threats/rhetoric is mostly of the comical North Korean variety. Turkey and Israel together with the US, have close security and joint airforce flyover exercises/operations which monitor the Iranians. Israel also has nuclear weapons. Realistic or credible threats of force from any other nation as such are hard to find.
| Quote: |
But the point is that if Israel withdraws they ought to get security guarantees for that withdrawal . That is my point here. |
I think a sudden unilataral withdrawel by Israel is a bad idea myself. There simply are too many outstanding issues for that to take place (water being primary concern), and what kind of withdrawal would we be talking about? Israel will never ever fully withdraw to even close to 1967, hence this varying territoral percentage being thrown about. Therefore, the Palestanians will be on the losing side of withdrawel no matter what. A negiotaion and compromise of issues of vital importance to both sides is nessasary if there is to be an agreed long term peace.
Gaza was unilataral as it was worthless, and sadly the only thing that resembled bilateral agreement were some small points in the disposal process of asphestos chemicals, and garbage.
There were no security agreements, but as the to orginal purpose of this discussion, real substantive dialgoue must occour so raids and rockets dont become a byproduct of 'unilaterial withdrawal' from Gaza in the long term, or indeed a future West Bank setup.
| Quote: |
how does the west support them ?
if the price of oil ought to be 150 a barrel then why isn't Mexico selling its oil for 150 a barrel? How about Russia , Norway and England?
For the most part it has always been the market that decides the price of oil |
No, OPEC controls the production and price quotas of oil on the market. Considering that Saudi has about 25% of the world's oil supply, they remain the domaniant controller of the world's oil supply, leaving other OPEC members to basically participate in a talking shop for the last 30 years, while Saudi remain the most important decider in co-ordinating and pricing the world's oil.
Norway which isn't in opec has a much smaller production capacity, and would prefer to sell oil at a higher price, but Saudi would be the complete opposite case-study in this regard.
For the West to support this arrangment of cheaper oil (US being worlds largest consumer of oil), the Saudi regime and other regimes (Qatar, Oman, UAE, Kuait) receives generous security and arms backing from the West. This relationship brings stabiltiy, military hardware, and security advisors, while giving massive profits to Western industries, business and contractors. If a problem in one country arrises, the Saudis can step in and over-produce to cover a shortfall affording to sell well below their market price.
These wealthy and despotic arab regimes then tie up their surpluses of dollars into swiss, french, british, and american bank accounts. This injection of capital fuels Western ecomonies to become primary lenders in the world's finanical market, while little of the oil weath trickles to back to develop the middle-east region itself.
| Quote: |
| Libya is back under Western backing after years in the cold. This turnabout started in 1999, when Ghadaffi handing over the Lockerbie suspects, and paid compensation over the next 3/4 years. Now diplomatic relations have blossomed with the UK in particualar, and the US is close behind on the diplomatic front. Rest assured, Ghadaffi is still the same *beep* he always has been, but the newspapers or politicans just decide to ignore ackward realities. typical. |
| Quote: |
No disagreement there. but he is not exactly a friend of the US or
England. |
He is back on a leash. Nobody is suggesting he is a friend exactly, but the regime is now supported openly at the highest levels. Tony Blair went out to visit him personally, and now direct commersial flights have resumed from Heathrow and Tripoli. As a result, British companies (BP, Shell) and contractors are flooding Libya setting up shop.
Read this news article from last year: the remumption of diplomatic ties by the US with libya. Total whitewashing or fudging from the Americans when they were asked about Quidaffi massacres, human rights abuse, even a plot to kill Crown Prince of Saudi!!! Diplomatic speak like 'We are concerned' smack of 'who cares - its time to do business'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1249741,00.html
Being honest though, the press and politicans have always made out that key personalities like Quadaffi or Saddam is the problem - the real problem is the nature of the entire regimes themselves.
| Quote: |
1) there was still Clintons' offer I will show it to you later
2) Arafat was more hardline than his negotiators. |
Fair enough.
I just referred to Taba where more progress was made on some key issues that broke down under Clinton's watch. By Taba, Bush was president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
|
| 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
