Sauron

Because the solitary comment that "Jordan renounced its claims to the WB" could be interpreted as "Jordan OK'ed the Israeli takeover of the West Bank". There is a difference between:

(a) renouncing a claim to something and not giving a shit who eventually comes into possession of it; and

(b) deliberately transferring title to someone else, with the specific intent that they actually DO take possession of it

Your comment implied (a). But (b) is the reality. Clear now?

Sauron

Yep. So?

The pivotal claim that was raised earlier was that countries who declared war against Israel, then signed a peace treaty and recognized Israel, would get their land back.

So pointing out that:
* a single individual on the West Bank, who
* may (or may not) have had military designs against Israel

well; it's NOT the same as saying that the entire West Bank, or its political representatives, declared war. You can't justify taking the entire chunk of land, based upon what one individual might have done.

Oh, really?

I'll need citations for this. You're not going to simply slip this in under the wire, and hope that it goes unnoticed.

Correct on (1). The Arab states used the Palestinian cause as a pawn, or as a whipping boy, to quiet the domestic audiences and/or to increase their chances of being re-elected.

But incorrect on (2). Given the modern state of technology, even the state of technology 30 years ago, any attack against Israel would be under way almost at the same time that it was detected. The geography is too narrow, the mileages too small, to create any meaningful buffers against invasion. So any Israeli seizures of additional land taken in the name of "shorter and more defensible borders" are transparently false.


As do I. In point of fact, I support the state of Israel (1967 borders). I am not an idealist; Israel is not going away just because some brilliant legal argument is brought forth for the whole world to see.

And I think that in history, the Jewish contribution has been phenomenal - when I think of music, art, literature, medicine, science, and a dozen other disciplines, I find that people of Jewish faith figure prominently in all these areas. The world would be far poorer, and the light of civilization much dimmer, had Jews never visited us and shared their gifts with the rest of us.

However, past contributions to society are not a blank check, or a "get out of jail free" card, that entitles them to get away with human rights abuses. Nor do they get to "skate" on previously earned goodwill - since that goodwill has been worn thin of late.

Judging fairly and impartially - that is what I am all about.


That's possible. Very possible. The population of Jordan is 70% Palestinian - most of the original population came north with the dead king's father, out of Arabia, after he lost control to the Saudi family. So faced with a Jordanian elite that were ruling over a country that was 70% non-Jordanian, it's not surprising that he would search for uncommon allies.

Sauron

In the interest of fairness, I would agree with you. (The worst example of the Palestinians screwing up was when Arafat rejected Ehud Barak's offer at Wye River. What a disaster).

The difference between me and Loren, however, is that I can admit that my "side" (so to speak) has fucked up and broken truces, or failed to capitalize on a chance for peace.

Loren cannot seem to bring himself to admit any such thing when it comes to Israel.

Given that clear distinction between us, I ask you:

which of the two of us is dealing honestly with reality, and which of us is just a mindless apologist?

Nope. Keep fighting the good fight of faith.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Sauron
1. It was the Israelis who were the first to attack in 1967, not the Arabs.

If the Arabs weren't planning to attack, why was their army there on the border to be hit by Israel?

2. An attack is a valid response to an act of theft. Your position assumes that the attack was the action, when in reality it was the re-action to a previous event.

Nobody stole anything in 56 or 67.

3. The Arab countries were not "allies" of the Palestinians, in any meaningful sense - there was no military alliance or joint agreement to coordinate military operations. They were simply Arabs and also Muslims.

Alliances don't have to be between equals.

4. To try and punish the Palestinians for what the surrounding Arabs did is nonsense. The surrounding Arab countries are the ones that Israel fought in the war. Yet the Palestinians living on the land are the ones who are suffering.

Because the Arabs want it that way. The Palestinians are *PAWNS*. That's why talking peace with them doesn't do any good.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Sauron
A really bad lie, Loren.
Israel took land in 1948. They took all the land that the UN allotted to the Palestinian state.

Then where are the occupied territories? Mars?

Sauron

You claimed that Israel didnt start 'taking land' until 17 years after its existence.

You were wrong, since Israel took land within the first year of its existence. Period.

The current occupied territories are in Gaza, WB and Golan.

Any more pointless questions?

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Sauron
Correct on (1). The Arab states used the Palestinian cause as a pawn, or as a whipping boy, to quiet the domestic audiences and/or to increase their chances of being re-elected.

I'm glad you see this much at least.

But incorrect on (2). Given the modern state of technology, even the state of technology 30 years ago, any attack against Israel would be under way almost at the same time that it was detected. The geography is too narrow, the mileages too small, to create any meaningful buffers against invasion. So any Israeli seizures of additional land taken in the name of "shorter and more defensible borders" are transparently false.

If the only threat were of a big army appearing on the horizon your argument would be valid.

However, Israel faces a major threat from infiltrators. Shorter borders *DO* matter.

As for more defensible: The point is terrain, not distance. They took the high ground.

As do I. In point of fact, I support the state of Israel (1967 borders). I am not an idealist; Israel is not going away just because some brilliant legal argument is brought forth for the whole world to see.

If they could have the 1967 borders and peace I think they would go for it. However, as it stands, retreating to the 1967 borders wouldn't do a thing. The Palestinians would still be the pawns of the Arabs that like the situation as is.

Sauron

Irrelevant. You claimed that they attacked first. THey did not.
You are wrong. You lose. Simple as that.

No, they stole it in 48. The attack in 1956 was a reaction to that. The Israelis started the war in 1967, so using that year as an example only hurts your case.


Really, REALLY stupid response. This has nothing to do with equals, or the structure of alliances.

My analysis didn't highlight equality, or inequality. It pointed out that there were no military connections between the Palestinians and the frontline Arab states.

And of course, you've failed to provide evidence of any such alliances. As usual, you make vague claims that support your simplistic zionism - but when it comes to actually doing the hard work of supporting a claim; well, you're a lightweight.

No, because Israel wants it that way. The entire mechanism of control is in Israel's hands - not in the Arab hands. It doesn't matter if the Arabs want it - or if they are 100% against it. They don't own the control of the scenario. That is in Israel's hands.

Corwin

I have a really simple question.

If Israel is so evil and Zionist and expansionist.... and they want nothing more than war and destruction and to destroy the poor innocent palestinians....

Why are the Palestinians even still there? Or Jordan or Syria for that matter?

The same argument that holds true for the US applies to Israel. If we were the monsters some of you seem to think we are, (we being either the US or Israel...) don't you think that entire region would be a field of smoldering glass?

Either of us has the power to completely annhilate them.

Neither of us has, even in the fact of great provocation, used this power.

Sauron

Cool. I love simple handing out clear, simple answers.

World opinion. And American opinion.

Can't piss off the rich old uncle. And if the Israelis invaded and wiped out Jordan, it would definitely invalidate their holocaust "get out of jail free" card.

Same question, same answer.

Plus, with the American question thrown in - if we were to do as you suggest, we'd have a hard time ever exerting any influence in the region. Also keep in mind that until the fall of the USSR, the United States had an external reason to act as though it gave a shit about human rights. Because the moment that we failed to do so, the USSR would capitalize on our fuck-up.

Now, since the USSR is gone, there isn't any competition in the "marketplace of political ideas". The US thinks it is the only game in town.

Nuclear weapons (if that is what you're talking about) are almost obsolete, for the reason that no one except a superpower has ever been willing to use them. And then, only in cases of dire self-defense.

That rules out Israel. And it also rules out the USA, since nothing going on in Israel really falls into the category of "dire self-defense" of the USA.