babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Israel as a threat to its neighbours

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Israel as a threat to its neighbours
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 15 September 2002 08:21 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A lot of attention has been placed on Iraq as a possible threat to its neighbours through expansionism, "weapons of mass destruction", etc, etc. This is used as the justification for the bombing campaign on Iraq.


I find this marvellously analogous to the way in which Israel is seen not only by the Muslim goverments in the area, but also by the people. Israel is seen as a territorial threat (capable, in recent memory, of conquering nearby Muslim lands), a threat to self-determination (domination and near-enslavement of a local population), and a threat to life (weapons of mass destruction). Israel is seen as a colonizer, a reminder that the Muslim world does not have control over its own destiny, that ideologies, etc, etc are liable to be imposed from without, that resources in Muslim lands are there for the grabbing. This threat is seen as far away as Pakistan as an immediate, existential threat, always looming over any political discourse. Its offers of peace, chimerical and never sincere; its long-term intentions, malicious; its democracy, capable of producing monstrosities as reviled as any Arab leader. Ultimately, it and the politics surrounding it are taken as a sign that the almighty US will step in
whenever Arab and Muslim peoples assert themselves.

So when people talk about Iraq as a threat, consider that the Arab world sees Israel in the same light. And not without justification.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 September 2002 08:36 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would like to add that George W. Bush poses a threat to the entire globe. A nation that possesses weapons of mass destruction which has used them in the past and without any hesitation or remorse now threatens global peace.

It is up to the world community to isolate this dangerous rogue nation led by this madman who froths at the mouth for mass murder and to bring about a regime change.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Spring Hope
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 417

posted 15 September 2002 10:24 PM      Profile for Spring Hope     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let alone its arsenal of hundreds of A-bombs, will someone count up the string of U.N. resolutions made to rectify misdeeds inflicted by Israel upon Arabs which Israel has defied ever since 1949 and for which it has not been threatened with enforced "regime change"?

Then protest "our" media pundits who repeat this same accusation about Iraq onesidedly when it is made as a justification for Bush's impending war on that nation. If this blindness, nay, propoganda on "our side" disgusts me, what it must do to the masses in Islamic countries?!!!


From: Vancouver | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 16 September 2002 04:31 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What must it do?... That's a good question.

The image of zealous pilots flying planes into buildings, throwing their own lives away in order to strike a blow against the "Great Satan" comes to mind.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 16 September 2002 12:30 PM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wasn't there a UN resolution calling for the creation of Israel? Wasn't this resolution ignored by Israel's neighbours, who instead invaded Israel many times over the next 50 years?

That being said, Israel has ignored resolutions calling for its end of the Occupation of the West Bank.

Doesn't anyone listen to the UN?


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 16 September 2002 12:47 PM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Count how many times Israel has attacked its neighbours since 1948, and compare that to how many times Arab states have attacked Israel.

Your assertion is another myth, like "A land without people for a people without land."


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 16 September 2002 12:47 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Doesn't anyone listen to the UN?

heh heh Sure people do. Do you want both names?


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
singh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3081

posted 16 September 2002 12:50 PM      Profile for singh        Edit/Delete Post
Get an atlas. Find the names of the countries that surround Israel and/or who have attacked Israel since 1948. How many of those countries have a freely elected parliament resembling Israel's (or ours)? How many have a free press? How many extend full rights to women? Final question: would you enjoy living in those less-than-democratic neighbours of Israel? Probably not.

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: singh ]


From: victoria | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 16 September 2002 12:53 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think this U.N. bashing is unfair. As long as great powers are determined to act unilaterally, there is little it can do. It doesn't have a significant military enforcement mechanism so long as countries such as the U.S. refuse to concede such authority.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1351

posted 16 September 2002 12:56 PM      Profile for Mimichekele   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Thank you josh.

The UN as a collective security institution can only accomplish what its member states "allow" it to accomplish.

Attacking the UN makes little sense under those circumstances.

If states don't pay their bills, if states don't make available reconstruction funds or UNICEF funds or peacekeeping troops or relief supplies, if states don't respect UN supported policies and human rights doctrine, it is not the UN that is to blame I would say.


From: Toronto - but I'd prefer being back in Montreal spotting Nazis | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1351

posted 16 September 2002 12:58 PM      Profile for Mimichekele   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Despite the above, the UN, its regional bodies and agencies feed, clothe, educate, medicate and inoculate tens of millions of people every year in all regions of the planet.

It's still a pretty good deal.

They have my vote.

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mimichekele ]


From: Toronto - but I'd prefer being back in Montreal spotting Nazis | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
CyberNomad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2926

posted 16 September 2002 01:01 PM      Profile for CyberNomad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think this U.N. bashing is unfair.

It's Israel bashing, josh. Israel bashing! (If you can't beat them, smear them!)

From: St. Catharines ON | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 16 September 2002 01:15 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It doesn't have a significant military enforcement mechanism so long as countries such
as the U.S. refuse to concede such authority.

What countries such as the U.S.? There are no countries like the U.S. when it comes to military.
The Russians got left in the dust technology wise when teh coldwar busted their bank accounts. The Chinese where never in the game conventionally to begin with so just which countries are you talking about?

Britain has the latest gear but no where near what the U.S. has. France, Germany, Australia the same to a lesser extent than Britain.

So what you are talking about is that without the U.S. military backing up the U.N. there is very little other than finger wag that it can do to any country.

As well without saying the exact words, the U.S. has said that they would only allow the best commanders to have control over the American military and expressly American troops. It is their opinion that American commanders are better than anyone one else and so they naturally are the only ones who can command the U.S. military.

Maybe the U.N. should get a few guys together and go arrest Hussain and bring him to justice just to show the Americans that they are wrong.


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 16 September 2002 01:21 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, the U.N. could create an effective military force without the U.S. to impose its resolutions on the Iraq's of the world. But it sure would help if the U.S. joined in.

In any event, military enforcement is not what the U.N. was created to do.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 16 September 2002 01:22 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It doesn't have a significant military enforcement mechanism so long as countries such as the U.S. refuse to concede such authority.

Well, you know what, the rest of its members (a rather large proportion of the planet's population) could get off their asses and do something about it too. Everyone criticizes the US until they are their friend and then they can't get down on the ground fast enough to worship. SO, if the Arabs (say Saudi Arabia) or the Europeans (say France) or any other group actually want to show the US that they MUST concede, then they need to build up their own power (economically or militarily) and more importantly, assert their own right to be heard and be part of the UN decisionmaking process.

All this demanding America to quit its global hegemony role - it has shown no sign of doing so, ever as far as I can tell - so the power will have to be wrested from it! And that means politicians with a bit more backbone are required in democratic countries and 'benevolent dictators' perhaps in countries yet to make that transition.

Maybe opening the cauldron of hell in the Middle East won't be such a bad thing in the long term! A lot of good ideas (and, at least initially, action) seem to result from the darkest periods of human history.

(NB: No, that does not mean I want the cauldron opened because there is no way of predicting what effects it would have, it was just a (flippant) thought...)


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 16 September 2002 01:22 PM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Maybe the U.N. should get a few guys together and go arrest Hussain and bring him to justice just to show the Americans that they are wrong.

Arrest him for what? What are the charges?

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Arch Stanton ]


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 16 September 2002 01:25 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How about ethnic clensing? Or maybe setting the oil fields afire after retreating during the Gulf war. Is there nothing that this guy has ever done that would enable the U.N. to do anything?

Edited to add:

quote:
In any event, military enforcement is not what the U.N. was created to do.

And so even small countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and other can tell the U.N. to piss off without fear of consequences. The U.N. has no way to back up sanctions or anything else unless the U.S. does the backing up on anything larger than a small town full of fluffy bunnies.

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Slick Willy ]


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1351

posted 16 September 2002 01:28 PM      Profile for Mimichekele   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Maybe we can agree that Israel has attacked on some occasions and Arab states have attacked on some occasions.

In addition, my reading of UN resolutions also indicates that ALL belligerents in that region have a long-standing habit of picking and choosing which resolutions they agree to implement and of ignoring all the other ones.

For example, article 11 of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) of
11 December 1948 talks about the return of refugees given certain conditions. Israel has not implemented this, hence it is in violation. Other articles of the same resolution call on parties to respect religious sites. The surrounding Arab states smashed and destroyed Jewish religious shrines, hence a violation.

Art 11 reads:

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible

Art. 7 reads in part:

7. Resolves that the Holy Places - including Nazareth - religious buildings and sites in Palestine should be protected and free access to them assured, in accordance with existing rights and historical practice; ... the Commission should call upon the political authorities of the areas concerned to give appropriate formal guarantees as to the protection of the Holy Places and access to them, and that these undertakings should be presented to the General Assembly for approval

Art 9 reads:

9. Resolves that, pending agreement on more detailed arrangements among the Governments and authorities concerned, the freest possible access to Jerusalem by road, rail or air should be accorded to all inhabitants of Palestine

There are numerous examples of non-respect of General Assembly and Security Council resolutions on all sides.

All resolutions should be respected. How they are enforced is the debate.

One difference between the Iraq disarmament resolutions and resolutions dealing with the Israeli-Arab conflict (eg 242, 343, 194 etc...) may be significant. Josh or Jeff House or one of our other resident lawyers should perhaps comment.

Many Israeli-Arab resolutions are under Chapter 6 of the UN Charter - Chapter 6 governs peaceful diplomatic resolution of conflicts.

The Iraq resolutions tend to be under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter - chapter 7 is the "war fighting" part of the UN's constitution or charter, the section that explicitly authorizes military attacks against a member state

Perhaps the UN decided that the Israeli-Arab conflict had two or more sides at fault. The Iraq situation, since it is covered under Chapter 7, seems to be by consensus of the UN a case of clear-cut one-sided lawlessness by the Iraqi government.

I don't know if that makes sense or means anything but this has always struck me as significant. The dozens of Iraq resolutions are all under Chapter 7. The Israeli-Arab resolutions going back to 1947 are not - in fact, not a single one is under Chapter 7 if I am not mistaken (this doesn't change the fact Israel is in violation of quite a few resolutions)

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mimichekele ]


From: Toronto - but I'd prefer being back in Montreal spotting Nazis | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 17 September 2002 11:16 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Its offers of peace, chimerical and never sincere; its long-term intentions, malicious; its democracy, capable of producing monstrosities as reviled as any Arab leader.
Of course this is just more nonsence.

When Egypt offered a genuine peace, Israel made a genuine peace. When Jordan wanted to negotiate a genuine peace Israel entered into a peace treaty. All 3 now live in peace.

If Israel was a true "colonizer" why would it have pulled out of Northern Lebanon unilaterally?

No, as usual just another attempt at demonizing Israel.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 17 September 2002 01:06 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei: Quite predictably, you miss the point of this thread. Of-damned-course I know that Israel has signed agreements with Egypt and Jordan. How ignorant do you think I am?


The point is, how do the Arabs and Muslims as a people see it? They see it not as a peace, but somewhere between a Trojan horse and a divide-and-conquer strategy on the part of Israel and shortsighted/colluding Arab leaders. In other words, chimerical and insincere. It's hard for them not to see it otherwise, because it inhibits the ability of the Arab and Muslim masses to express their will regarding Israel; it gives Israel an incentive to deal with dictators and vice versa; it allows Israel to continue with its objectionable policies relatively unhindered by opposition from the narrow, self-serving Egyptian and Jordanian leaders, making solidarity impossible. Those treaties are a bad thing, not a good thing, a exertion of power and control by a nuclear-armed invader.


And don't be disingenuous about leaving Lebanon: do you think they left it out of the kindness of their hearts? No! The whole justification for it in Israel is that the hold on Lebanon was costly and strategically pointless. Under those conditions, rather than conditions of contrition, leaving Lebanon is almost as much of a colonial act as entering it. Because even though the actual occupation of Lebanon is gone, the threat from Israel is still there, fresh in recent memory, with no sign whatsoever that Israel is ready to treat Arabs as equals or with respect, just like the patronizing "peace treaties." All-in-all it proves the point: that Israel is a threat to its neighbours in a way more profound that Iraq is.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1351

posted 17 September 2002 01:22 PM      Profile for Mimichekele   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Peace treaties are a "bad thing"?

I thought the whole point was about how to get the various belligerents in the Middle East to sign mutually acceptable peace treaties.

And withdrawing from occupied land in Lebanon
is a "colonial" move? I thought it was the occupying that was colonial. I thought ending occupations was a good thing.

You lost me there. Totally lost me.

The more I read and learn about the Middle East, the less I connect with all the rhetoric, the less I understand.

Gallic shrug of the shoulders.

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Mimichekele ]


From: Toronto - but I'd prefer being back in Montreal spotting Nazis | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 17 September 2002 01:28 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mutually acceptable peace treaties to whom? That is the question. It's acceptable to two different group: Israel, whose people are lulled by it into thinking that it makes everything OK, and despotic Arab leaders who use it as a prop to gain international legitimacy when they lack any at home--when, in fact, the treaties diminish their legitimacy. Surely this is obvious from the history of the Egyptian leadership.


Ending occupation is a good thing. I never said that it wasn't. But the attitude and conditions under which it is done also matter. In the internal Israeli discourse (see Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, etc, etc), ending the occupation of South Lebanon wasn't discussed in terms of Arab rights. It was discussed in a more strategic, security sense. It has been my contention on babble for a long time that this is a fundamental problem: the only way Israel will be able to make peace not just with Arab leaders but with Arab people is by framing its own internal discussion in terms of Arab rights, not security. It was the discourse of security that killed Oslo--or rather, made it useless..


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1351

posted 17 September 2002 01:35 PM      Profile for Mimichekele   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Why shouldn't Israeli debate be in terms of Israeli security interests? Isn't the internal debate in Egypt about Egyptian security interests? Don't the Palestinians debate what is in their interest? The same applies for other countries.

Why are you holding one of the belligerents to a higher standard than the other beligerents?

As I said, I no longer understand much of the rhetoric in this debate. It no longer makes any sense to me.

Israeli civilians have been getting killed and murdered for decades - their interest in security seems well-founded. Palestinian civilians have been getting killed and murdered for decades - their interest in their security, land, rights etc. seems well-founded. What is your point?

I am feeling really dense right now. It seems everytime I bring up what I think is a positive idea here on Babble or in the real world in a conversation, it gets swatted down by either the pro-Arab or the pro-Israeli side (or is the anti-Arab and the anti-Israeli side - my impression is that people get more gratification from being "anti") or both sides simultaneously.

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Mimichekele ]


From: Toronto - but I'd prefer being back in Montreal spotting Nazis | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 17 September 2002 01:45 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And don't be disingenuous about leaving Lebanon: do you think they left it out of the kindness of their hearts? No! The whole justification for it in Israel is that the hold on Lebanon was costly and strategically pointless. Under those conditions, rather than conditions of contrition, leaving Lebanon is almost as much of a colonial act as entering it. Because even though the actual occupation of Lebanon is gone, the threat from Israel is still there, fresh in recent memory, with no sign whatsoever that Israel is ready to treat Arabs as equals or with respect, just like the patronizing "peace treaties." All-in-all it proves the point: that Israel is a threat to its neighbours in a way more profound that Iraq is.

Mandros, please don't whistle and suck at the same time. Either Israel IS a colonial power or it is not. Your "justification" for Israel leaving lebanon in no way convinces me that it did so for "colonial" purposes. Quite the contrary. I know of few colonial powers that would be so willing to give up territory if the their purpose is indeed to colonize.

As for the average Muslim, you and I may not fully disagree. However, I believe that the despotic rulers of these nations (Syria, Iraq, Iran PA etc) should be held responsible for the evil picture they have painted of the USA and Israel.

Prior to the last intifada, Israelis and Jews were thriving. Both were close to a statehood deal. The economy for both the PA and Israel was the best ever....that was not enough for Arafat et al. he wanted it ALL...now he lives with the errors he has committed. More tragically his people are the ones who really suffer.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 17 September 2002 01:54 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am not whistling and sucking, Mishei, colonial powers enter and leave for their own strategic reasons. And the time of the sort of colonialism that requires an actual occupation has passed, as you can see easily by American hegemony in the world today. Israel is one of the last colonial powers to make territory a central issue, but it does so in a Biblically limited way. That doesn't make it any less colonialist any more than it makes the US less colonialist.


Also, even Bernard Lewis knows that resentment of Israel and the US is strongest in Arab countries that are friendliest to the US. And Pakistan's popular anti-Americanism was strong regardless of democracy or dictatorship--both of which were friends of the US and wanted to project that image.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 17 September 2002 02:24 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mimichekele: Of *course* I don't see Israel and the Palestinians on the same moral footing. I have always held on babble that they are to be held to different standards--that the occupier cannot make the same security demands, on a moral level, than the occupied, who isn't primarily asking for security anyway. The rights of the occupied must supercede the rights of the occupier in any settlement.


Look at it in practical terms: Israel's security demands in exchange for a settlement mean the practical restriction of individual Palestinian rights. Oslo proved that these things are in conflict: without really benefitting much of the Palestinian population, it put wealth and power into the PA elite's hands on Israel's behalf, actually compounding resentment towards Israel. What's really needed is a recognition that security will come to Israel only years after Palestinians achieve some sort of statehood (and this is by no means all that is required), and that Israel will have to live with danger for a while thereafter. Only then can Israel have a long-term settlement and long-term security.


There is no "neutral" solution to this conflict. Trying to pretend that you can have a solution without a greater moral concession on one side is self-delusion. I happen to think that Israel must make the greater concession.


The security discourse for Egypt exists, yes, but from a popular perspective it's most likely framed, as in Muslim countries in general, as the means by which Israel's arsenal can be used as a means to prevent Arab and Muslim action.

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 18 September 2002 06:48 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree that it is important to differentiate between people and government. Israeli government is a threat to the Arab and Moslem popluation of the region, because of its Jewish-supremacist policies. But the Israeli government is not a threat to its neighbouring Arab governments.
It is important to note that it is erroneous to call the currently existing middle-eastern states "Moslem governments". Israel's neighbouring states are secular totalitarian governments, anti-Moslem in all but name. (The last officially Islamic government in the middle-east was the Ottoman empire around 100 years ago.)
Israel depends on the existence and strength of its neighbouring dictatorships to keep the local population under control. It is in the mutual interest of all middle-eastern governments and foreign superpowers with interests in the region to have "peace" in the region.
The problem with "peace" is that it also implies oppression of the Moslem people in the middle-east. Any real democratic or popular power that threatens any currently established state is also a direct threat to Israel and all neighbouring states.

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: satana ]


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 21 September 2002 03:04 AM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israeli invasions vs Arab invasions:
1948-49 War: Day after Israeli declaration of Independance, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon invade Israel. [arab invasion]
1956: Israel convinced Egypt is planning an attack, prempts them and invades Egypt. [israeli invasion]
1967(six-day war): Israel again fearful of an Egyptian attack launches massive premptive air strike, occupies Sinai, West Bank, Golan Heights. [israeli invasion]
1973-1974 (yom-kippur war): Concerned that Arab complaints are not being listened to, on Oct. 6, 1973, the Jewish holy day Yom Kippur, a two-pronged assault on Israel was launched by Egypt and Syria, who garned support from Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. [arab invasion]
1982 (lebanon): Israel invades Lebanon in order to quell Palestinian militant activity operating from there. [israeli invasion]
(1991: Iraq fires over 30 Scud missles at Tel Aviv - not strictly an invasion, but definitely an act of war)

I count 3 to 2 for Israel.

Israel has always used its military forces to secure strategic and tactical advantage, but its fanatics have used the military successes for ideology and Zionist vision.

It is of note that Israel *has* returned captured territory to its enemies: Sinai, Lebanon, parts of Syria. It has the capacity to do this. It is reasonable to assume it can do it again, should it have a good reason to.

But Israel has little reason to abandon its militant policies. They have worked remarkably well. Israel now has peace with Egypt and Jordan, and a very stable border (though no technical peace) with Syria. Even its goal of eliminating Palestinian militants in Lebanon eventually worked (Hezbollah currently continues hostilities with Israel over Israeli occupation of the Sheebaa Farms in the Golan Heights - a political proxy war fought by Syria). And Occupation of the West Bank provided security for years - though the 2nd Intifada has shown that the situation has changed.

If Mandos is right, we can't accept moral equivalence, how far back do we take this? 1967? 1949? 35BC?


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca