PDA

View Full Version : Problems and Politics of the Middle East


Bloggingheads
03-18-2008, 11:17 PM

piscivorous
03-18-2008, 11:43 PM
If you would like to see the latest opinion data, from inside Iraq, it is here Security Gains Reverse Iraq’s Spiral (http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1060a1IraqWhereThingsStand.pdf). It's an opinion poll and I'm not a real fan of opinion polls; so make of it what you will.

TwinSwords
03-19-2008, 02:13 AM
Wow! Juan Cole! Woohoo! An honor and a privilege for Bloggingheads.tv.

Dr. Cole, I hope you come back again.

Eastwest
03-19-2008, 03:22 AM
At last!: An extended, intelligent, and nuanced discussion of the Iraq & Iran problem probing the backstory in a way largely undistorted by partisan political spin.

Juan Cole is a breath of fresh air. SC queried him reasonably well and allowed Cole's depth of understanding to illuminate what has often been so murky in agenda-ridden mainstream pseudo-press.

Great get for BHTV. Thanks to both participants.

EW

DenvilleSteve
03-19-2008, 10:37 AM
Yes, Gaza is cut off, and Gazans are suffering; and they did break through the barrier into Egypt to buy food and other necessities (and smuggle in lots of weaponry). But before the thousands of rockets started raining down on Israeli civilian population centers several years ago, and before Gaza was taken over by an (Iranian-backed, Islamist, terrorist) organization that seeks Israel's destruction, goods moved freely in and out of Gaza, many thousands of Gazans had regular employment within Israel, and of course there were (and still are) plans to link up Gaza and the West Bank in any two-state solution.

so why did Israel not withdraw from the territories when the state of peaceful coexistance you describe was in effect? Possibly because Israel is never going to give up the West Bank? And why did Israel start the occupation in the first place. There were no attacks on Israel from Gaza pre 67 war. And very few from the WB ( much less than the number of attacks since the occupation ).

DenvilleSteve
03-19-2008, 10:46 AM
At last!: An extended, intelligent, and nuanced discussion of the Iraq & Iran problem probing the backstory in a way largely undistorted by partisan political spin.

Juan Cole is a breath of fresh air. SC queried him reasonably well and allowed Cole's depth of understanding to illuminate what has often been so murky in agenda-ridden mainstream pseudo-press.


right. GWB and the red state US military do the hard work of ridding the ME of Saddam, put a stop to the looming nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq, enable the Kurds to have a state of their own, end the oppression of the Iraqi Shia, .... All the while, Juan Cole and other sideline dwelling urban types snipe away at the inconsequential.

DenvilleSteve
03-19-2008, 11:11 AM
Possibly because the Palestinians launched the second Intifada.

very lame response. You are blaming the Palestinians for responding to violence with violence.

Please explain why the occupation was necessary in the first place. Jordan was doing an excellent job of administering and policing the WB prior to the 67 war. Jordan has never been a military threat to Israel.

DenvilleSteve
03-19-2008, 11:43 AM
Juan Cole says Iran would not build nukes because they are expensive. How was Pakistan able to afford them? I assume Iran's oil revenue would enable it to finance a nuke program more easily than Pakistan.

DenvilleSteve
03-19-2008, 11:54 AM
Cleamons says Iran will not develop nukes because it does not need them. Thanks to Bush and Cheney, this might be true.

If Saddam was still in power, would Iran still not need nukes? Arguably, both Iran and Iraq would have to have nuke programs because neither side would trust the other. Once that happens, the mideast nuclear arms race has begun, and the world is closer than ever to destroying itself.

-Steve

gwlaw99
03-19-2008, 12:10 PM
very lame response. You are blaming the Palestinians for responding to violence with violence.

Please explain why the occupation was necessary in the first place. Jordan was doing an excellent job of administering and policing the WB prior to the 67 war. Jordan has never been a military threat to Israel.

From wikipedia

The IDF's strategic plan was to remain on the defensive along the Jordanian front, to enable focus in the expected campaign against Egypt. However, on the morning of 5 June, Jordan began shelling targets in west Jerusalem, Netanya, and the outskirts of Tel Aviv.[103] The Royal Jordanian Air Force attacked Israeli airfields. Despite this, both air and artillery attacks caused little damage, and Israel sent a message promising not to initiate any action against Jordan if it stayed out of the war. Hussein replied that it was too late, "the die was cast".[104] On the evening of June 5 the Israeli cabinet convened to decide what to do; Yigal Allon and Menahem Begin argued that this was an opportunity to take the Old City of Jerusalem, but Eshkol decided to defer any decision until Moshe Dayan and Yitzhak Rabin could be consulted.[105] Uzi Narkis made a number of proposals for military action, including the capture of Latrun, but the cabinet turned him down. The Israeli military only commenced action after Jordanian forces made thrusts in the area of Jerusalem, occupying Government House (used as the headquarters for the UN observers), which was seen as a threat to the security of Jerusalem

Maybe next time Bob can get Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein on with Cole and they can all argue who hates Israel more.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
03-19-2008, 12:38 PM
mvantony,

The idea that a state of peace is present when there is a military occupation is a bizarre one. Most people of the world and international law allow for any people the right to resist against a foreign military occupation, including with violence.

Now, this is not to say that all the tactics used by the Palestinians are morally or legally justified, nor is it even necessarily true that violent resistance is always the most advantageous response of an occupied people. Still, your failure to recognize the right of Palestinians to resist suggests you do not accord them the same level of human dignity as you accord to your own people. How would Israel respond if it was occupied by a Muslim state that had seized it through violence. Do you have any doubt that Israel would respond with violence?

And by the way, "withdrawing" from Gaza while surrounding it and choking the people off, while continuing the occupation of the West Bank, even expanding settlements there, is not "peace" or an "end to occupation" either. Again, if you would be willing to put yourself in the place of the Palestinians you would realize that.

Peace.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
03-19-2008, 01:45 PM
The right to resist the Israeli occupation. You asked what violence was the second intifada responding to? The answer is it was a response to the violence that is inherent in and part and parcel of any military occupation.

It is refusal to even understand or acknowledge the basic fact of the occupation that leads me to suggest that you do not accord Palestinians the same human dignity that you would give to your own people. Your comments here only completely reinforce that impression in my mind.

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

gwlaw99
03-19-2008, 02:10 PM
The right to resist the Israeli occupation. You asked what violence was the second intifada responding to? The answer is it was a response to the violence that is inherent in and part and parcel of any military occupation.

It is refusal to even understand or acknowledge the basic fact of the occupation that leads me to suggest that you do not accord Palestinians the same human dignity that you would give to your own people. Your comments here only completely reinforce that impression in my mind.

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

Sorry but you don't have a "right to resist" when your resistence torpedos the final stages of a peace agreement and you don't have a "right to resist" by blowing up pizza parlors and then making an art project (http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/1166105.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1939057D9939C83F106664E0D748FA1B994 5A5397277B4DC33E)depicting the blown up pizza parlor with body parts (http://www.camera.org/images_user/sbarro2.jpg).

look
03-19-2008, 02:16 PM
Here's a brief account of the Six-Day War, of which the three most salient points are that Russia tricked Egypt into acting, the UN complied with Nasser's demand that UN buffer forces be withdrawn from the Sinai, and the world refused to comply with LBJ's request for a volunteer armada to run the blockade which Egypt had blocking Israel's only port to the south (an open act of war).

Why is this still important? Because that three-week period between May 16 and June 5 helps explain Israel's 40-year reluctance to give up the fruits of the Six Day War -- the Sinai, the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza -- in return for paper guarantees of peace. Israel had similar guarantees from the 1956 Suez War, after which it evacuated the Sinai in return for that U.N. buffer force and for assurances from the Western powers of free passage through the Straits of Tiran.

BNET (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20070520/ai_n19164122)

Also, here's an interesting take which infers that the result of the Annapolis summit was to give new life to Pan-Arabism.

Monday night, Dec. 10 Cairo announced plans to resume diplomatic relations with Tehran. An Egyptian emissary was sent to Iran to discuss the resumption of relations after 27 years. DEBKAfile’s Middle East sources report that this step was part of an initiative for Saudi Arabian, Jordanian and Egyptian leaders to come together in a new summit to embrace the Syrian ruler and bridge their policy differences with the radical Syrian-Tehran line.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas will be invited and urged still more emphatically to starting patching up his Fatah’s quarrel with the extremist Hamas and adapt to the newly emergent Arab reality with a tougher line against Israel. DEBKAfile’s Middle East sources report: The road to radicalization embarked on by this central Arab bloc is the direct result of the dialogue Washington has opened with Tehran, while also reflecting the ubiquitous Arab drive for unity.

Saturday, Abbas sent Ahmad Qureia, head of the Palestinian negotiating team with Israel, to Damascus for guidance from Syrian officials on future tactics in these negotiations.

He was preceded by Bassam Iwadallah, personal adviser to Jordan’s King Abdullah, who informed Syrian officials of the king’s initiative for a new Arab summit to restore their ruler to the Arab fold. The Jordanian official disclosed that the king was fully engaged in bids to heal the rifts between Saudi Arabia and Syria, and the Palestinians and Syria.

Bashar Assad responded favorably by sending Syrian foreign minister Walid Moualem to Amman Sunday, Dec. 9, where he was personally received by Abdullah. He also sent the Damascus-based Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal to Riyadh Saturday, on two errands:

1. To let Hamas’ Saudi bankers hand out the directive for a nod to Fatah overtures to his movement for a reconciliation - with effect in Gaza and Lebanon.

2. To embody the Assad regime’s willingness to begin coordinating its policies with fellow Arab rulers.

DEBKAfile reports that Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert will find a different Abbas when they meet Wednesday, Dec. 12, to start the talks for a Palestinian state that were kicked off at the Middle East conference in Annapolis last month. The Palestinian leader will now be following fresh guidelines from the Arab bloc which is emerging from the chrysalis of Washington’s direct engagement with Tehran, rather than conforming with the spirit of Annapolis.


Debka (http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4847)

Wonderment
03-19-2008, 04:39 PM
The idea that a state of peace is present when there is a military occupation is a bizarre one. Most people of the world and international law allow for any people the right to resist against a foreign military occupation, including with violence.

Occupation is an act of war, and this occupation has been judged illegal by a solid consensus of international law experts and diplomats (with some Israeli and American dissenters). In addition to the occupation, Israel has compounded the crime with illegal settlements and an apartheid regime that lasted 35 years in Gaza and is ongoing in the WB. (As Cole said, Gaza today is an "Israeli-run prison," so "withdrawal" there has hardly been a success either.)

Having said that, "the right to resist...including with violence" is one that, in my opinion, should never be exercised. Common sense also dictates that if it is exercised, extreme caution is required, especially with a foe as brutal and desperate as the Israelis.

Worth saying also is that most resistance to Israel's occupation has been nonviolent. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians protest, vote, argue their case, support civil and human rights groups, etc., etc.

Still, your failure to recognize the right of Palestinians to resist suggests you do not accord them the same level of human dignity as you accord to your own people. How would Israel respond if it was occupied by a Muslim state that had seized it through violence. Do you have any doubt that Israel would respond with violence?

Needless to say, Israel would respond with immense violence. I can only imagine what would happen if the US were occupied by a foreign power. I'm sure we would see terrorism within a few weeks that would make Bin Laden blush. However, it doesn't follow that if you oppose Palestinian violence, you are not according them equal human dignity. Most Israelis would like the occupation to end and a viable Palestinian state to emerge. Nor is the end game much of a mystery: Palestinians get Gaza, WB and a contiguous strip between them. Jerusalem gets shared. Settlements are gone (basically). A compromise on the number of returning Palestinians is made.

You could write up this agreement on two pages and get 80% buy-in on both sides. The Geneva Accords provided one blueprint. The Bushies will probably come up with another one before they leave. Oslo was on the right track. The Road Map contemplated most of this. Barak and Arafat almost cut a deal. Even the odious Ariel Sharon made a kind of weird progress. In fact, there are dozens of plans with minor variations here and there, all leading to a viable 2-state resolution of the conflict.

The problem is the two sides have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the negotiating table. The classic symbol of this is when Clinton pulled Rabin and Arafat by the ears and got them to shake hands. Rabin was literally squirming. But he did it.

A US president, and only a US president, given current hegemonic conditions, can make this happen. They all need to sit down, including Hamas, and cut the deal. This is not outside the realm of possibility with Clinton or Obama. Even Condeleeza Rice (!!!!) can get tremendous international support for movement in the right direction.

Having the slightest degree of hope for Israel-Palestine requires tremendous "audacity." Obama, if elected, will have enormous diplomatic capital compared to the universally despised Bush. It's a window of opportunity.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
03-19-2008, 05:37 PM
Wonderment,

Thanks for your comments. Just to be clear, I was not arguing that anyone who opposes Palestinian violence fails to accord them basic human dignity. I was saying that anyone who fails to even recognize there is an occupation or who asks "To what violence was the second intifada responding?" has failed to accord the Palestinians basic human dignity.

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
03-19-2008, 05:44 PM
Wonderment,

Put pressure on Israel to do something it doesn't want to? Don't you realize that that is a totally unacceptable position in U.S. politics?

Hillary surrogate Ann Lewis criticizing the Barack Obama position that one does not have to wholeheartedly adopt the views of Likud to be pro-Israel : "To that, Lewis retorted: "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702440_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008031702549

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

gwlaw99
03-19-2008, 06:52 PM
fails to even recognize there is an occupation or who asks "To what violence was the second intifada responding?" has failed to accord the Palestinians basic human dignity.

Starting the Intifada when you on the verge of a peace agreement that would end the Israeli presence in all of gaza and 95% of the west Bank means only one thing, you do not care about peace at all, you only care about the destruction of your ememy.

Wonderment
03-19-2008, 07:31 PM
Put pressure on Israel to do something it doesn't want to? Don't you realize that that is a totally unacceptable position in U.S. politics?

Hillary surrogate Ann Lewis criticizing the Barack Obama position that one does not have to wholeheartedly adopt the views of Likud to be pro-Israel : "To that, Lewis retorted: "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties."

Well, there are two ways to look at this. You can say:

1) It doesn't matter. They're all in AIPAC's pocket.

or

2) Some candidates would be better than others, in spite of the ritual kissing up they'll all have to do to AIPAC.

I'm very pessimistic about the future of the region, but I do hold out some slim hope that the Dem. rhetoric about change and Dem. desire to improve America's image in the world (in part, by being less grotesquely biased in favor of Israel) may provide some opportunities to advance the peace process. Bill Clinton really wanted to close the deal, and so will Obama or Hillary. Bush never really gave a shit, and neither will McBomb.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
03-19-2008, 08:30 PM
gwlaw,

You've got it figured out, man. They don't love their children or their mothers either. They don't want peace like other humans (or should I just say like humans?)

Does thinking this way make it easier for you to not care when the government you support kills them? Even their children?

Like the Steve Earle song says one day we'll be able to wash all this "hatred from our souls"

Or as Bobby Sands said, "Our revenge will be the laughter of our children."

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

JLF
03-19-2008, 09:55 PM
Red State Military? God, I hope not. Remove the apolitical military from the corporate statism that is the United States and you have at best a Third World banana republic and at worst Hitler's Germany with nuclear weapons.

bjkeefe
03-19-2008, 11:05 PM
Twin:

I'm with you. It was a real treat to hear from Juan Cole. I'd like to see him come back, and possibly, engage in a debate with someone, too. But if he's reluctant to get into it with someone who's going to interrupt him before he gets a chance to finish, I would welcome him in another interview format.

bjkeefe
03-19-2008, 11:21 PM
At the pain of breaking my vow never to engage in a debate about Israel and the Palestinians, I do feel a little bad about Abu Noor's solitary voice here, so let me add a bit of support to his perspective.

While I think Israel is a valuable ally and the most respectable country in the Middle East, and deserves US support for any number of reasons, I also think that they have a lot to answer for regarding their treatment of the Palestinian people. Also, while I deplore violence, especially when directed against civilians, I do have some sympathy for the downtrodden lashing out, and in the only way in which they are capable.

Whenever Gershom Gorenberg is on BH.tv, I am reminded that most Israelis and most Palestinians want peace, probably in the form of a two-state resolution of some sort. I am also reminded that the extremists on both sides have a disproportionate amount of clout in preventing this from happening.

I think the reaction of a lot of Jews, especially those outside of Israel, to any criticism at all of Israel's actions tends to the extreme and does not help matters. It reminds me of the dullards closer to home who chant "USA! USA! USA!" and immediately react to any criticism of the American government by shouting "treason!" It cannot possibly be the case that after more than half a century of dealing with an angry segment of the population in a very crowded area, Israel has committed no sins. It is more than a little immature to think this, and to react as though this were true. Grown-up love means admitting the flaws and dealing with them.

TwinSwords
03-20-2008, 01:50 AM
the red state US military
Would it be wrong of me to call you a dope?

I find it funny how in your twisted mental universe, my Democrat, blue state dad never served in the US Air Force, and my Democrat, blue state grandfather never served 30 years in the Marine Corp.

I don't know if the right response to your idociy is ROFL or STFU.

bjkeefe
03-20-2008, 03:54 AM
Michael:

I think you do the Palestinian people an injustice to say that they all launched the intifada. It is my strong impression that the extremists run the show, and the average Palestinian has no safe way to oppose them.

bjkeefe
03-20-2008, 04:41 AM
Michael:

Fair enough, although I think it would be helpful to try to make the distinction; e.g., "the Palestinian leadership," "the Israeli government," ...,

... "Bush & Co." ;^)

piscivorous
03-20-2008, 07:52 AM
gwlaw,

You've got it figured out, man. They don't love their children or their mothers either. They don't want peace like other humans (or should I just say like humans?)

Does thinking this way make it easier for you to not care when the government you support kills them? Even their children?

Like the Steve Earle song says one day we'll be able to wash all this "hatred from our souls"

Or as Bobby Sands said, "Our revenge will be the laughter of our children."

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

I hate to burst your bubble but apparently a significant proportions of the Palestinians are inimical to the pursuit of peace according to this NY Times piece Poll Shows Most Palestinians Favor Violence Over Talks (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/world/middleeast/19mideast.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

bjkeefe
03-20-2008, 08:45 AM
From this thread:

I hate to burst your bubble but apparently a significant proportions of the Palestinians are inimical to the pursuit of peace according to this NY Times piece Poll Shows Most Palestinians Favor Violence Over Talks (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/world/middleeast/19mideast.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

From another thread:

... It's an opinion poll and I'm not a real fan of opinion polls ...

Except, of course, when you find one that supports your argument.

piscivorous
03-20-2008, 09:02 AM
From this thread:



From another thread:



Except, of course, when you find one that supports your argument. Need I add that qualifier every time I post a link to an opinion poll. Perhaps I should just add it as a signature?

bjkeefe
03-20-2008, 09:19 AM
Need I add that qualifier every time I post a link to an opinion poll. Perhaps I should just add it as a signature?

The signature aspect seems a bit much. But the qualifier? Excellent suggestion. I propose you store the following as a keyboard macro, and run it to insert as a footnote whenever you cite an opinion poll:

Full Disclosure: I only accept opinion polls when they match what I already believe.


Actually, I was mostly just teasing you. But, there's always a little truth in any instance of kidding around, and here's this one's kernel: It seems to me that you have been quick to dismiss polls cited by others as unreliable, especially those taken in the Middle East. So, I don't really think you need to add a qualifier, but I did think you deserved to be poked.

piscivorous
03-20-2008, 09:31 AM
I took your poke int the manner you intended and my answer, as I am sure you are familiar enough with my rhetorical style to surmise, was along the same vein.

bjkeefe
03-20-2008, 09:41 AM
I took your poke int the manner you intended and my answer, as I am sure you are familiar enough with my rhetorical style to surmise, was along the same vein.

Well, as I said in the other thread (regarding listening to a speech as opposed to reading its transcript) its always a lot harder to pick up tone from text. Sorry that I didn't completely catch it this time.

bjkeefe
03-20-2008, 09:54 AM
Twin:

An excellent response, and I'd toss in my three uncles, grandfather, about five great-uncles, and other assorted relatives (Democrats, the lot of them, save one), but I don't know how much good it will do in this case. Steve seems to have a certain problem (http://bp1.blogger.com/_ghMq0uCDQM4/Rjj1HvxZ9rI/AAAAAAAAAAg/uUKEMpXPOAs/s1600-h/broken+record.jpg) in this area.

I mean, it's (http://forums.bloggingheads.tv/phorum/read.php?1,22176,22190) not (http://forums.bloggingheads.tv/phorum/read.php?1,21568,21638) like (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=67660&postcount=27) we (http://forums.bloggingheads.tv/phorum/read.php?1,6210,6253) haven't (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=67670#post67670) heard (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=67566#post67566) this (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=71884#post71884) song (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=68489#post68489) before (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=66435#post66435).

And again (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=72416&postcount=3).

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
03-20-2008, 11:52 AM
mvantony,

It's probably not worth either of our time for me to respond to every post. I am still perplexed by your lack of comprehension of the situation, but perhaps it is because you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying that any particular move by the Palestinian government or any individual Palestinian cannot be critiqued on the ground that it is not strategically productive, that that particular act is immoral (in that it targets non-combatants), or a host of other critiques. I am just saying that as long as the occupation goes again there will be at least some Palestinians who feel the right and need to resist, and some of those to resist violently. It is hard to be perplexed by this reality.

Obviously, those who participated in the second intifada did not feel that a peace deal that was acceptable to them was anywhere close. Most Palestinians did not see Oslo as leading anywhere. (It must be stated that neither did Israel maintain its obligations under Oslo). Obviously whole books have been written and diavlogs had about what happened at Camp David and after. We are not going to resolve it between us here. You buy into the Israeli narrative of what happened that serves to justify the notion that there is no "peace partner." I obviously do not buy into that narrative, but I am far from being an Arafat supporter. Personally, while I am not an expert on either Arafat or Fatah, most of everything I know about them leads me to despise them.

In any event, I like Brendan, had previously decided I would not participate in any further online back and forth regarding Israel/Palestine. Perhaps I should go back to that policy.

Peace.

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

DenvilleSteve
03-20-2008, 01:38 PM
Red State Military? God, I hope not.

I think that is what it has become. Democrats are not as patriotic as Republicans and are not as willing to put themselves at risk for the sake of others. This pattern seems to apply also to the people who work as police and firemen. My guess is there are a lot more John McCain types in the NYFD than Barrack Obamas.

-Steve

DenvilleSteve
03-20-2008, 01:53 PM
Would it be wrong of me to call you a dope?

I find it funny how in your twisted mental universe, my Democrat, blue state dad never served in the US Air Force, and my Democrat, blue state grandfather never served 30 years in the Marine Corp.

I don't know if the right response to your idociy is ROFL or STFU.

what is worse for you, my criticism of democrats or of Israel?

sorry I cant return the compliment of being upset at something you have posted. I have not found anything you have written interesting enough to get past the initial skim review.

The fact is there are many more republicans than democrats are serving in the US military. Esp in the combat arms. This is terrible because the threat against America from the spread of nuclear weapons is very real and imminent. The Muslim world is rightly outraged that the US sides with Israel against the Palestinians. As soon as Osama gets control of a nuke he will use it against America.

-Steve

DenvilleSteve
03-20-2008, 02:21 PM
Here's a brief account of the Six-Day War, of which the three most salient points are that Russia tricked Egypt into acting, the UN complied with Nasser's demand that UN buffer forces be withdrawn from the Sinai, and the world refused to comply with LBJ's request for a volunteer armada to run the blockade which Egypt had blocking Israel's only port to the south (an open act of war).


There is more to it than this. Egypt was invaded in 1956 by Israel, Great Britain and France. The restriction that prevented it having troops in the Sinai was imposed on it by the force of that invasion.

Israel had raided the West Bank town of Samu in Nov 66 in response to an IED attack in Hebron which killed 3 Israeli border police. Israel invaded with a force of 3000-4000 and killed 16 Jordanian soldiers.

King Hussein was heavily criticized for Jordan's inability to protect the WB from Israeli attack. As I understand from the Michael Oren book on the SDW, Hussein accepted an Egyptian military presence in the WB as protection against future attacks.

After the Israeli attack on Egypt that started the SDW, Jordan replied with an artilery attack on Israel. In the context of the Samu raid, this action was hardly something that warranted the Israeli invasion and occupation of the West Bank.

-Steve

look
03-21-2008, 05:09 PM
There is more to it than this. Egypt was invaded in 1956 by Israel, Great Britain and France. The restriction that prevented it having troops in the Sinai was imposed on it by the force of that invasion.

Israel had raided the West Bank town of Samu in Nov 66 in response to an IED attack in Hebron which killed 3 Israeli border police. Israel invaded with a force of 3000-4000 and killed 16 Jordanian soldiers.

King Hussein was heavily criticized for Jordan's inability to protect the WB from Israeli attack. As I understand from the Michael Oren book on the SDW, Hussein accepted an Egyptian military presence in the WB as protection against future attacks.

After the Israeli attack on Egypt that started the SDW, Jordan replied with an artilery attack on Israel. In the context of the Samu raid, this action was hardly something that warranted the Israeli invasion and occupation of the West Bank.

-Steve

It's kind of hard to follow this wiki account of the Suez Crisis, but it looks like Egypt violated the terms of agreement regarding the Canal:

Britain's desire to mend Anglo-Egyptian relations in the wake of the coup saw her strive for rapprochement with the latter throughout 1953 and 1954. Part of this process was the agreement, in 1953, to terminate British rule in The Sudan by 1956 in return for Cairo's abandoning of its claim to suzerainty over the Nile Valley region. In October 1954 Britain and Egypt concluded an agreement on the phased evacuation of British troops from the Suez base: the terms of which agreed for withdrawal of all troops within 20 months, maintenance of the base to be continued, and for Britain to hold the right of return for seven years.[13]

Also, it looks like Egypt was supporting cross-border raids into Israel, etc:

The Arab states, and President Nasser of Egypt in particular, created and supported the Fedayeen who conducted cross-border raids against Israelis. The Fedayeen were trained and equipped by Egyptian Intelligence to infiltrate Israel, engage in hostile actions within it and to commit acts of sabotage and murder. The Fedayeen also operated from bases in Jordan.

Their attacks violated the 1949 Armistice Agreements prohibiting hostilities by paramilitary forces, as did the Israeli counterattacks. However, only Israel was formally condemned by the UN Security Council.[24] The escalating tension and deaths contributed to an atmosphere of hostility and a desire for retaliation in Israel against the Fedayeen and their host countries.


I posted the two articles to show that there are two sides to the story. It depends on how you look at it...if you think the British mandate to form Israel was legitimate (because it involved land they won from the Ottoman Empire), then the Israelis have a legal right to occupy territories they won in a war waged against them.

I think that what is happening now is a bi-national sickness, like a bad marriage. I read a piece, by a famous Israeli blogger, I think, that said the shame of it all is that Israeli youth are being brutalized by the way they are trained to act against the Palestinians. That is, they are becoming what they oppose.

DenvilleSteve
03-22-2008, 12:56 PM
It's kind of hard to follow this wiki account of the Suez Crisis, but it looks like Egypt violated the terms of agreement regarding the Canal:

Also, it looks like Egypt was supporting cross-border raids into Israel, etc:

I posted the two articles to show that there are two sides to the story.


whatever agreement Egypt violated was negotiated within the context of European occupation of stategic locations in the Mideast.

as far as Egypt supporting cross border raids into Israel pre 67 war, the number of actual raids is low. From 1960 to 1967 there were very few attacks on Israel. ( according to Finkelstein, 14 killed in the 30 months immed before the war ) The Egyptians did not allow Yassir Arafat's Fatah to operate in Gaza.

look
03-22-2008, 05:16 PM
whatever agreement Egypt violated was negotiated within the context of European occupation of stategic locations in the Mideast.


The Suez Canal was opened in 1869, having been financed by the French and Egyptian governments. Technically, the territory of the canal proper was sovereign Egyptian territory, and the operating company, the Universal Company of the Suez Maritime Canal (Suez Canal Company) was an Egyptian-chartered company, originally part of the Ottoman Turkish Empire.

The canal was strategically important to the British, and hence to the other European powers. To the British, the canal was the ocean link with its colonies in India, the Far East, Australia, and New Zealand. Because the canal was strategically important, the area as a whole became strategically important. Thus, in 1875, the British government of Benjamin Disraeli bought the Egyptian share of the operating company, obtaining partial control of the canal's operations and sharing it with mostly-French private investors. In 1882, during the invasion and occupation of Egypt, the United Kingdom took de facto control of the canal proper, finance and operation.

The Convention of Constantinople (1888) declared the canal a neutral zone under British protection.[5] In ratifying it, the Ottoman Empire agreed to permit international shipping to freely pass through the canal, in time of war and peace.[6] As the successor of the Ottoman Empire, Egypt was bound by the treaty.[citation needed]


Wiki: Suez Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis)

tranquill
06-03-2008, 12:52 PM
Israelis blocked the Sufa again - now with farmers! Look here:

http://samsonblinded.org/news/kibbutzniks-try-to-block-sufa-crossing-again-2247