3.14159265... wrote:The peace treaties offered by Israel are SHIT. They offered the palestinians nothing.
Here is a map of both the original lines Israel claimed, and was offered as the boundries of the nation of Israel.
This offer was rejected within 1 day of the founding of Israel.
Israel proceeded to defeat the 5 Arab nations who attacked it, and took the territory from which it had been attacked.
Note that most of British Palistine was made into the east bank, including Jordan. Jordan was one of the 5 nations who invaded Israel during it's founding. The Arab palistinian state was another organization that declaired Israel as illegitimate, and supported the war of annihilation.
Peace was offered. It was rejected.
Isreal won. Over the 7 years after the victory, about 200 Israeli citizens per year
where killed by Palistinian raids.
In September 1955, Egypt blockaded the Israeli port of Eilat, in violation of the cease-fire agreement from the previous war: note that a trade blockade is an act of war.
Then Egypt nationalized the Suez canal. France, Britian and Israel went to war with Egypt.
That was that war...
Leading up to 1967:
Nasser's pan-Arabism had numerous supporters in Jordan (in spite of Hussein, who felt it threatened his authority); and so, on May 30, Jordan signed a mutual defense treaty with Egypt, thereby joining the military alliance already in place between Egypt and Syria. President Nasser, who had called King Hussein an "imperialist lackey" just days earlier, declared: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."
In 1967, Egypt kicked the UN peacekeeping force out of the Siani (from the previous war), blockaded Israeli ports (same one as last time!), and massed troops on the border with Israel. As did Jordan and Syria.
Israel responded by attacking the Egyptian airforce. Egypt, Jordan and Syria attacked in response
So, was this an unnessicary preemptive act of aggression?
Let's look at Israels tactical situation:
At this point, Jordan controlled the west bank: so their forces where 17 km from cutting Israel in half.
At the end of May 1967, Jordanian forces were given to the command of an Egyptian General Abdul Munim Riad. On the same day, Nasser proclaimed: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations."
I don't know: this appears to be a preparation for a war of annihilation against Israel.
If someone carrying a gun walks up to you, grabs your wallet and pushes you down, says "if you move, I'm gonna kill you", and starts calling his friends over...
It is self defense, even if you pull out a gun and shoot him.
Nassar wrote:"If Israel embarks on, an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel."
(president of Egypt at the time)
"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." However, he reminded his audience of the wars where Arabs were the ones who made the final decision to attack. Each of them took a terrible toll in human lives in Israel, up to 1% of the total population in the War of Independence. In this instance, he felt pre-emption was justified, and therefore quickly added: "This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term."
The Arabs where not about to attack: Israel feared the consiquences if they waited until the Arab nations where ready.
"was surrounded by Arab states dedicated to its eradication. Egypt was ruled by Gamal Abdel Nasser, a firebrand nationalist whose army was the strongest in the Arab Middle East. Syria was governed by the radical Baathist Party, constantly issuing threats to push Israel into the sea."
When your government makes statements about pushing a nation into the sea, and doesn't acknowledge your state's right to exist, that nation isn't a peace with you.
The USA was busy in Vietnam: it couldn't guarantee Israeli security against a pan-Arab invasion.
Thus the 6-day war.
8 Arab leaders got together in Khartoum after the 6 day war.
1. The conference has affirmed the unity of Arab ranks, the unity of joint action and the need for coordination and for the elimination of all differences. The Kings, Presidents and representatives of the other Arab Heads of State at the conference have affirmed their countries' stand by an implementation of the Arab Solidarity Charter which was signed at the third Arab summit conference in Casablanca.
2. The conference has agreed on the need to consolidate all efforts to eliminate the effects of the aggression on the basis that the occupied lands are Arab lands and that the burden of regaining these lands falls on all the Arab States.
3. The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.
4. The conference of Arab Ministers of Finance, Economy and Oil recommended that suspension of oil pumping be used as a weapon in the battle. However, after thoroughly studying the matter, the summit conference has come to the conclusion that the oil pumping can itself be used as a positive weapon, since oil is an Arab resource which can be used to strengthen the economy of the Arab States directly affected by the aggression, so that these States will be able to stand firm in the battle. The conference has, therefore, decided to resume the pumping of oil, since oil is a positive Arab resource that can be used in the service of Arab goals. It can contribute to the efforts to enable those Arab States which were exposed to the aggression and thereby lost economic resources to stand firm and eliminate the effects of the aggression. The oil-producing States have, in fact, participated in the efforts to enable the States affected by the aggression to stand firm in the face of any economic pressure.
5. The participants in the conference have approved the plan proposed by Kuwait to set up an Arab Economic and Social Development Fund on the basis of the recommendation of the Baghdad conference of Arab Ministers of Finance, Economy and Oil.
6. The participants have agreed on the need to adopt the necessary measures to strengthen military preparation to face all eventualities.
7. The conference has decided to expedite the elimination of foreign bases in the Arab States.
Note the bold part. Note that much of the above is an affirmation of policy, not the creation.
This was implemented, including continued border raids with Israel over the Egyptian border.
In 1973, there was an attack by Egyptian and Syrian invasion of Israel. This is known as the Yom Kippur war (it was an attack on a Jewish holy day, probably with the goal of catching Israel with a reduced military defense, much like the earlier Israeli attack on Egyptian airbases in the 6-day war).
This war was more costly on Israels side: for the first 2 days of the war, Egyptian and Syrian forces advanced. After that, the war turned around. It was ended by a UN cease-fire, after Israel had pushed into both Egyptian and Syrian territory.
You can note that Israel suffered much higher casualty rates, because even though it knew war was coming, it decided that a pre-emptive strike was not an option this time around. In exchange, it got resupply from the USA during the war (of ammo and the like).
(note that the Arab sides where using mainly European and Soviet equipment).
This war ended with half of Egypt's armed forces encircled, Israeli troops in shelling range of the capital of Syria, and a Russia/USA/UN backed ceasefire.
This war ended with direct talks and normalized relations between Egypt and Israel.
As mentioned, it also ended with massive Israeli casualties:
n Israel, however, the casualty rate was high. Per capita, Israel suffered three times as many casualties in 3 weeks of fighting as the United States did during almost a decade of fighting in Vietnam
Its like accept us as better humans, cuz we are better, and we take what we want and keep what we want cuz we are stronger.
I would argue "because Israel paid in blood for every foot of territory, and your leaders profess to want to deatroy us" would be a different interpritation.
When you elect or support leaders whose position is "we will destroy your nation and drive it into the sea", you should expect to be considered enemies.
Sure thats what the powerful have always done, but Israel also likes to sit and cry and say its the vicitms of hate and arabs are being mean to it with their evil suicide bombings. Then america wants to be the father figure and helps em out with it.
Being successful at improving your security situation does not mean that you are obligated to surrender your improved security. The death rates that Israel suffered from Arab attacks give testiment to the danger it is in.
Israel launched some "pre-imptive" attacks, like the pr-imptive attack on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Not all pre-emptive attacks are the same. While Isreals attack in the 6-day war was pre-emptive, it was after
Egypt did a clear act of war: blockading an Israeli port. After
making plans and threats to drive Israel into the sea. After
refusing to negotiate with, accept the existence of, or make peace with your nation.
Its easier to be opposition in a democracy than a dictatorship. Actually thats kinda the point of democracies, it puts responsibility in the hands of the people as well as the power.
So the man with food who does not feed the starving is evil, while the man with no food who cannot feed the starving isn't?
Ok so lets say Britian had won the American-British war, and some patriots continued to fight, now if they stopped their quality of life would have gone up, yep good idea, very good.....
Are you referring to the American Rebellion against the Crown, or the war of 1812? I'll assume the first...
The American Rebellion against the Crown was a tax revolt, and mainly due to the incompetence of the child-king George (or rather, the greed and stupidity of his advisors). Both sides had good reason to fight, and good points on their sides.
Had the American rebels been crushed, and continued to assasinate and mass murder loyal British subjects, the British would have been justified in a crackdown on the American colonies. It was a price that the Americans knew they might have to pay. In the end, with the help of continental European powers, holding onto America proved too expensive for the British, and they withdrew.
Many loyal British subjects where persecuted, and where forced to flee to the colony of Canada to the north. Other people decided to pretend to be British loyalists, in exchange for the free land being given out by the Crown in Canada to fleeing British Loyalists. :)
Note that had Britian won, the masacre of the American tribes might not have happened: one of the factors that led to the revolt was the desire of the American colonists to shove the natives out of the way, dispite treaties the natives had signed with the British crown.
While British North America did expand westward, much of that expansion was driven by the need to avoid losing territory to the Americans, and often involved treaties with the native tribes that where honoured far more often than the American equivilents.
But that's a tangent. :)
Note that I don't consider either side in the Israeli-Arab conflict to be blameless.