What Nelson Mandela said about the Palestinian people...

From the leader of the ANC, who shot down a plane load of civilians...but then the PLO and their ilk fire rockets indiscriminately into other countries.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
The first was a typo, it was meant to say late 1970's, my error.

Fair enough, but it does set the tone for what follows.

How did israel come to control the sinai peninsula? Oh that's right, the six day war, where all of the surrounding countries readied to (and) attack(ed) israel. So israel took that over to prevent another incident and gave it back as soon as egypt was willing to sign a peace agreement. I'm OK with taking land and using it to barter peace.

Unfortunately this is not the case at all. Israel was never attacked in 1967, because it was the one doing the attacking. And judging from the resorts and villages Israel was building in Sinai from '73 forward, I really rather doubt there was intention to give it back until muscled by Carter into it - Sort of like how israel has been steadily colonizing Golan, also captured in this war, and also legally not Israel's.

There is, of course, much more detail involved - the Soviets are in it up to their shoulders - but the basic fact is that israel was not attacked in '67, nor were there plans to conduct an attack against Israel.

Third, I didn't say there was a right to be recognized, rather a recognized right to exist.

Thing is, no nation on earth has a "right to exist." Nations exist until they cease to exist. Further it is not something that falls on the Palestinians to glad-hand Israel on this. Israel's status is not dependent on what Palestinians think. Does Israel exist? Okay, then it exists, and a gaggle of Hamas nose-pickers isn't going to change that. sort of like China and Taiwan. Does Taiwan exist? Yes, Taiwan exists, and Beijing's refusal to recognize both its existence andd this supposed "right" to exist, doesn't change its existence. And I think we can agree that China carries way more clout in regards to Taiwan, than Hamas does towards Israel.

Fourth, The many deals that israel has offered have been great for palestinians. And I notice you left out the fact that Arafat the wise responded not by just walking away but sending suicide bombers into israel.

No, point of fact they have not been great for the Palestinians. And Arafat had nothing to do with suicide bombings - Hamas and Fatah were rivals and enemies back then even more than they are today.

Fifth, Israel recognized the right of a palestinian state to exist in 1948 and it's attempts to barter for peace suggest they do accept this. Meanwhile the famous three No's of khartoum say that the Arabs and Palestinians will not ever recognize israel.

No, Israel certainly did not. When Israel declared its independence in 1948, it did so with the boundaries suggested for the Jewish partition in 1947. However, Israel was in occupation of a great deal of territory beyond those bounds. This effectively neutered any reciprocal declaration of statehood by Palestinians in the "Arab" portion of the partition, because you can't declare yourself an independent nation if you are not in control of the territory you are claiming.

Israel isn't attempting to barter for peace. As i pointed out to you, you cannot use territory you do not own as a bargaining chip to claim other territory you don't own. If Israel were bargaining for peace, it would take the current Arab league offer that has been endorsed by the PLO - mark the Armistice line as the border, recognize Palestine, then try to juggle up land swaps it wants with a sovereign Palestine.

And the Khartoum Resolution has been defunct since 1979, when Egypt - the most powerful m ember of the Arab league - broke ranks.

Maybe try one more time.

You can try as often as you like. In fact I welcome it. The more you learn, the better-off you'll be.

"Unfortunately this is not the case at all. Israel was never attacked in 1967, because it was the one doing the attacking."

Well, you're right in a sense and wrong in another sense. Yes, israel attacked egypt first (because of troop build up on ALL surrounding borders, and in nassers words, the desire to: "destroy israel" and all of those behind it. But israel pleaded with Jordan to stay out of the conflict and instead, jordan attacked israel. Which israel responded to.

If there is to be peace, nations must recognize the right of other nations to exist. That's all I'm getting at. I'm not saying it's a right that's guaranteed by anything, simply that for peace to exist nations must respect one another.

Yes, you can use territory you don't own to barter for peace. Let's say we (the US) invade mexico to help secure our borders. We take control of that land. A year later, mexico wants it back, and we're willing to give them so long as they agree to keep the secure borders. Mexico doesn't have to agree, but if they want their territory, they kind of have to. It's kind of along the lines of your "there is no right to exist" argument.

Arafat had everything to do with the bombings, here is just one example:

Arafat Sends 30 Suicide Bombers To Jerusalem Middle East Newsline | 04/05/02 Posted on 4/4/2002, 10:37:42 PM by Davea ARAFAT SENDS 30 SUICIDE BOMBERS TO JERUSALEM TEL AVIV [MENL] -- Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat has approved plans to send 30 suicide bombers to Jerusalem, Israeli military intelligence officers said. The officers said Arafat approved plans for a combined effort by his Fatah movement and such Islamic opposition groups as Hamas and Islamic Jihad to send at least 30 suicide bombers to Jerusalem. The officers said Jerusalem was chosen because of its symbolic importance to Arafat and his efforts to convert the city into a Palestinian capital. "The operation is meant to carry out Arafat's threat to send what he terms a million martyrs to Jerusalem," an intelligence officer said. "When Arafat talks of martyrs, he means suicide bombers." In all, the officers said, nearly 100 suicide attackers are being prepared for missions in Israeli cities. They said the attackers are being equipped with explosive belts and trained on how to avoid Israeli troops and cross from the West Bank into the Jewish state.

As for the arab league offer. They're offering nothing. They still refuse to recognize israel's jewish state. Why would a jewish state accept an offer that doesn't even recognize them?

As for the khartoum resolution, that's a really special way to look at it. If one member of the UN goes against the sanctions on Iran does that mean the sanctions are lifted by all of the other countries. Of course not. One member state breaking the rules does not make the agreement between the rest of them, defunct.

a reply to: TheTengriist
That little 'plot twist' about Israel starting the Seven Day War with an unprovoked attack on Egypt is complete nonsense, and anyone with a military or military history background will agree.

That's one thing I respect about Israel as a nation. They never let political-correctness or international pressure prevent them from taking prudent defensive action.

All that one really has to do to see this conflict for what it is, is honestly answer these two questions:
If israel laid down it's weapons and vowed to never fight again, what would happen?
If the surrounding arab states laid down their weapons and vowed to never fight again, what would happen?

Of course, in the fist scenario; Israel is destroyed, massacred, and ruined.
In the second scenario; there is peace.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
"Unfortunately this is not the case at all. Israel was never attacked in 1967, because it was the one doing the attacking."

Well, you're right in a sense and wrong in another sense. Yes, israel attacked egypt first (because of troop build up on ALL surrounding borders, and in nassers words, the desire to: "destroy israel" and all of those behind it. But israel pleaded with Jordan to stay out of the conflict and instead, jordan attacked israel. Which israel responded to.

Well no, I'm right in all senses. As you point out, Israel did the attacking. Israel did the invading.

Nasser had indeed moved a portion of his military into the Sinai - as a defensive measure. Just as he had gone to the other Arab states to expand his defense pact with Syria to include others. Including Jordan. When Israel attacked Egypt, the defense pact was triggered, and these othern ations went to war against Israel.

Now as I just mentioned, Egypt and Syria already had a mutual defense pact. And a few months prior, there had been fighting between Israel and Syria - Syrian forces fired mortars at Israeli troops from Golan. Israeli warplanes responded. However the defense pact was not triggered, because Syria had been the aggressor in that instance. However, the Soviets disagreed, and were very loud that the defense pact had been activated and that Egypt should strike back. Assad demurred.

However, fast-forward those few months. Again, the Soviets are talking with Assad... and they provide Assad with intel saying Israel plans to attack Egypt. The intel was probably bogus, but there's no reason to ignore it when your ally tells you "those guys who invaded you ten years ago are planning to do it again." Assad responds defensively - by placing a small force in the Sinai and expanding that mutual defense agreement. Yes, a small force. In the words of then-general Chief of Staff, Yizhak Rabin,
"We did not think that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to Sinai on May 14 would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it. "

The entire thing was a set-up by the Soviets. Why? well, it's 1967. What is going on in the realm of cold War, in 1967? Well over in southeast Asia, there's a proxy war going on, with the US just starting to get mired down in Vietnam. So, from Khrushchev's line of thinking, why not lure the Americans into a sand trap as well? The thinking was likely that either Egypt would launch an attack (it didn't) or that the war would be slow and grinding (it wasn't - largely because Nasser wasn't willing to commit his full forces to fight it) and that the US would get involved to aid Israel.

Egypt never attacked Israel. Egypt didn't even muster sufficient forces to defend the Sinai, much less launch an attack on Israel. the two divisions that Nasser parked in the desert were a statement to Israel, saying "we're on to you." Jordan was involved because it was obligated - Israel asking Jordan to sit it out would be a lot like Russia asking the UK to sit out a Russian invasion of Poland.

Now as for Nasser's "vow" to "destroy Israel"? Well, you're right in a sense and wrong in another sense. Yes, the words "destroy israel" did in fact pass Nasser's lips. Specifically he vowed that this would be the result if Israel attacked Egypt. While clearly that worked out very well for him, the fact is the "vow" was conditional on what Israel may choose to do.

If there is to be peace, nations must recognize the right of other nations to exist. That's all I'm getting at. I'm not saying it's a right that's guaranteed by anything, simply that for peace to exist nations must respect one another.

it's really hard to make this argument and expect someone to take you seriously, when you are defending an occupation state that has spared no effort in preventing the existence of, much less recognition of, the state it is occupying.

Arafat had everything to do with the bombings, here is just one example:

And I can't help but note the sourcing here;
"Israeli military intelligence officers said" and "an intelligence officer said."
Perhaps you have something more concrete than anonymous parties with a strong vested interest in a particular narrative?

As for the arab league offer. They're offering nothing. They still refuse to recognize israel's jewish state. Why would a jewish state accept an offer that doesn't even recognize them?

Except that full diplomatic recognition of Israel is part of the offer.

As for the khartoum resolution, that's a really special way to look at it. If one member of the UN goes against the sanctions on Iran does that mean the sanctions are lifted by all of the other countries. Of course not. One member state breaking the rules does not make the agreement between the rest of them, defunct.

No, but think of it this way, sticking with the UN comparison.

If the UN votes to place sanctions on iran... and the nthe United States, UK, China, and Russia all decide "Yeah, nevermind, let's ignore that," then does it matter that Fance, Ghana, and Chile are still on board with the idea? "Oh no," Iran says, "we won't get any fancy salt from the Andes to put on our mcDonalds fries!"

Point is, when the most powerful party or parties in an agreement ditch the agreement, the agreement might still stand, but it's toothless.

so currently, Egypt and Jordan have backed out formally. Palestine recognizes Israel. Saudi Arabia officially maintains the "three nos" but is in up to its neck with israel otherwise. Who's that leave? Sudan? Yemen? Oh I know, Oman is going to make all the difference, right?

The Khartoum Resolution is like one of those Galapagos tortoises where only males are still alive - it still exists, but it's not going to get anything done anytime soon.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: TheTengriist
That little 'plot twist' about Israel starting the Seven Day War with an unprovoked attack on Egypt is complete nonsense, and anyone with a military or military history background will agree.

Except for the part where Israel started the war with an unprovoked attack on Egypt. Besides that part, you're right, I'm sure any number of grunts and jarheads would happily "correct" me. Doesn't make them correct, but i'm sure there's some number of them just the same.

That's one thing I respect about Israel as a nation. They never let political-correctness or international pressure prevent them from taking prudent defensive action.

So long as you're cheering Russia for its similar pre-emptive defense in Ukraine I guess.

No, Jordan attacked israel before israel did anything to jordan, so you're not right in all senses. As for the rest of your post, it's really a lame attempt to discredit what the facts are. Ad-hominem attacks on sources. Deflecting and minimalizing troop buildup. and dismissal of the khartoum resolution with flat out lies about palestine recognizing israel as a jewish state.

It's obvious you have been reading way too much propaganda from the pro-palestinian folks. You don't even have the concrete facts straight. When we can't even agree on the facts of the situation, it makes it impossible to reconcile the resulting positions. I understand where you are coming from, you are speaking from what you've read. Your position makes complete sense in that light.

My many hours of studying and writing about this conflict in my college courses as well countless hours of independent study leads me to believe you've been brainwashed. But that's just my opinion, I'm sure you believe me to be brainwashed too. That's fine with me, I'm comfortable with my knowledge and position (though always expanding and changing it) on this issue.

I'll close with this again:

All that one really has to do to see this conflict for what it is, is honestly answer these two questions:
If israel laid down it's weapons and vowed to never fight again, what would happen?
If the surrounding arab states laid down their weapons and vowed to never fight again, what would happen?

Of course, in the fist scenario; Israel is destroyed, massacred, and ruined.
In the second scenario; there is peace.