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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Canadian psychologist killed in Jerusalem bombing

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Canadian psychologist killed in Jerusalem bombing
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 30 January 2004 11:48 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
http://tinyurl.com/28z44
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 30 January 2004 11:59 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Chesie was very active years ago with the Jewish Students Network. In Israel he was a psychologist who worked with victims of terror. That his family would now become victims is beyond the pale of irony. I weep for them and all the innocent lives that were lost yesterday as a result of evil terrorism.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 06 February 2004 04:00 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And now this. Pretty poor on the government's part.

Canadian diplomats snub family of homicide bomb victim


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 06 February 2004 04:11 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A foreign affairs spokeswoman in Ottawa last night defended the government's response to the tragedy, citing a host of "unusual measures" Ottawa has taken to convey sympathies. Marie-Christine Lilkoff said the Canadian Embassy in Tel Aviv contacted the family within 24 hours of the attack offering condolences and consular assistance.

Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham has sent letters of condolence to both the mother and wife of the victim, as has Canada's ambassador to Israel, Donald Sinclair. Graham also condemned the attack in a press release, a move that "is not standard practice," Lilkoff said.

"Ambassador Sinclair has also offered to meet the family at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem to convey his condolences and the condolences of the government of Canada," she said. "And he has offered to pay a condolence visit to the family in Toronto when he returns in the near future.

"But the Canadian ambassador to Israel does not have jurisdiction beyond the Green Line," she added. "This is consistent with Canada's policy regarding the occupied territories. Canada has never sent its ambassador to a settlement in any official capacity, and this longstanding policy will not change."



From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 06 February 2004 04:39 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sarcasmobri:
[QB][/QB]
Ya so what. It is all so much diplomatic BS. A Canadian was murdered and no Canadian diplomat went to visit the grieving family. Let's stop looking for stupid excuses and all agree here that it was insensitive and unecessary. A Canadian was slaughtered...enough said?

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 06 February 2004 05:06 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So this guy lived on the West Bank?
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 06 February 2004 07:37 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
So this guy lived on the West Bank?

So what according to Canada's own consular services it provides assistance to canadians iving in the WB.

The first link gives general info about those services.

quote:
Need Assistance Abroad? You Can Count On Us!
Canada's offices abroad are there to help you in case of an emergency. Consular staff, both in our foreign offices and in Ottawa, can:

contact your family and friends;
arrange help in a medical emergency or assist in the event a death;
arrange evacuation in the event of a war or natural disaster;
comfort and assist victims of robbery and other violence;
provide assistance in dealing with the criminal justice system;
see that you are treated fairly under the country's laws if you are arrested;
help in the location of missing persons and abducted children;
replace passports; and
legalize documents.
As thousands of Canadians have discovered, few problems are beyond the capabilities of our dedicated, resourceful staff.


Canadians abroad

The second link tells Canadians how to access these services and which Consulates and Embassies handle issues in particular areas of the world. If you scroll to West Bank ...you will get all the info you need.

So since Canada's Embassy in Israel deals with Gaza and the WB why did the "dedicated, resourceful staff" of the embassy not visit the grieving widow of a Canadian murdered in that area it has responsibility for?

Canadian Embassy in Israel responsible for West Bank and Gaza


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 06 February 2004 07:45 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is a delicate question - I was horrified by the murder of this man - in Israel proper - but people don't have the right to live on stolen land, so it is a bit of a quandary.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 06 February 2004 07:55 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The solution is simple: the ambassador meets the widow in Tel Aviv. What could be simpler than that? The ambassador doesn't make a massive/damaging/morally wrong diplomatic statement, and the family gets to meet him.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 06 February 2004 08:13 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fine solution - either Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Visiting the family in Jerusalem (proper) is not recognition of Jerusalem as de facto capital of Israel - it is where the Canadian citizen was killed.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 06 February 2004 10:40 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The solution is simple: the ambassador meets the widow in Tel Aviv. What could be simpler than that? The ambassador doesn't make a massive/damaging/morally wrong diplomatic statement, and the family gets to meet him.

What is morally wrong with meeting the wife and children of a murdered citizen? I assume you would feel the same way if the Ambassador was meeting with the family in the west bank if a Palestinian-Canadian was killed by the Israelis?

Politically wrong at worst is what it would be.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 06 February 2004 11:08 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the Ambassador visited a Palestinian-Canadian's mourning family in the West Bank, he would not be visiting an Israeli settlement. So it would be appropriate for him to visit.

As it says in the article, the uniform policy of almost all diplomats to the region is expressly not to visit (internationally illegal) West Bank settlements under any official circumstances whatsoever, which is the appropriate policy. It is appropriate, however, to visit (internationally legitimate) Palestinian villages and cities.

If some people are adamant that he visit the settlement in an official capacity, than I question their motives, especially since the widow can meet him without him going to a settlement on which she is living illegally in a manner that legitimizes her presence there and the tragedy for others that it represents.

[ 06 February 2004: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 06 February 2004 11:40 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The widow and the children were sitting shiva for 7 days followed by the shloshim (30 day mourning period). The bereaved do not, by Jewish law and custom, go "out to visit" people. By Jewish law it is the other way around.

This was mean-hearted.

Once again Canadian diplomats choose to let politics get in the way of morality. They should be ashamed of themselves.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 07 February 2004 12:01 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't seriously believe that a bunch religious freak settlers squatting on the West Bank actually give a damn about whether or not they get an official visit from a Canadian diplomat. They are just trying to make a political issue of it so they can get some unsuspecting Jewish voters in Canada to turn against the Liberals and vote for the new Conservative Party which probably gets advice on foreign policy from David Frum.

If a close relative of mine were murdered, I would grieve with my immediate friends and family. If anything I would be sceptical of diplomats froma country I had abandoned amny years ago showing up at the funeral fishing for a nice photo opp.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 07 February 2004 12:12 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ya so what. It is all so much diplomatic BS.

Ya so I thought someone should post the content of the article you misrepresented. I don't agree with the consular position, but it's not as extreme as you made it out to be, Mishei.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 07 February 2004 12:53 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
They are just trying to make a political issue of it so they can get some unsuspecting Jewish voters in Canada to turn against the Liberals and vote for the new Conservative Party which probably gets advice on foreign policy from David Frum.

Oh my.

Brace yourself for a serious Mish-ing, Stockholm.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 07 February 2004 08:12 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I don't seriously believe that a bunch religious freak settlers squatting on the West Bank actually give a damn about whether or not they get an official visit from a Canadian diplomat. They are just trying to make a political issue of it so they can get some unsuspecting Jewish voters in Canada to turn against the Liberals and vote for the new Conservative Party which probably gets advice on foreign policy from David Frum.

If a close relative of mine were murdered, I would grieve with my immediate friends and family. If anything I would be sceptical of diplomats froma country I had abandoned amny years ago showing up at the funeral fishing for a nice photo opp.


These were not "religious freak settlers". Your characterization of Chesie and his family is not just insulting but IMHO a personal attack against a lovely family you know nothing about.

Have you no shame whatsoever?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 07 February 2004 10:48 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, if you knew this fellow, why don't you tell us about him?

Much as I strongly protest the settlements - and could not accept a Canadian diplomat visiting them for any humanitarian reason - I thought Stockholm's comment was rather insensitive. The man was killed in Jerusalem.

Yes, of course the family are sitting shiva. But I'm sure the Canadian diplomatic corps can figure out some way of honouring the memory of a Canadian, moreover someone involved in important humanitarian work among survivors of attacks, without giving any kind of tacit recognition of the settlements. Yes, I think they were wrong to be living on land stolen from the Palestinians. But that does not diminish the tragedy of his death.

Mishei will disagree, but the slogan "the Occupation is killing us all" springs to mind.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 07 February 2004 11:59 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
These were not "religious freak settlers". Your characterization of Chesie and his family is not just insulting but IMHO a personal attack against a lovely family you know nothing about.

Well then why did he choose to live in the reactionary religious freak settler community in the occupied territories with all those freakish animals with heavy Brooklyn accents who babble about how its "their land". (The only land that might be theirs is Coney Island).

"Lovely" families in Israel live in pre-1967 Israel and back parties that oppose Likud and its evil rightwing step-sister parties.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 07 February 2004 02:08 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
those freakish animals with heavy Brooklyn accents

Double oh my.

At least Stockholm's consistent: he's equally insensitive to both sides.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 07 February 2004 02:10 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's right! I respect people on both sides who are non-religious, believe in pluralism, woman's rights, gay rights, social democracy and a peaceful negotiated settlement to the dispute with no recourse to violence.

Everyone else is a piece a garbage!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 07 February 2004 02:20 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

Well then why did he choose to live in the reactionary religious freak settler community in the occupied territories with all those freakish animals with heavy Brooklyn accents who babble about how its "their land". (The only land that might be theirs is Coney Island).

"Lovely" families in Israel live in pre-1967 Israel and back parties that oppose Likud and its evil rightwing step-sister parties.



Firstly he lives literally on the outskirts of Jerusalem not far from Bethlehem. The area is under negotiation and even the PA recognizes that some land between Jerusalem and Bethlehem will be annexed in a settlement where Israel will give other land as compensation. It amazes me that you jump to a conclusion then assume the worst of Chesie based on your own prejudicial sterotypes. This is the sign of bigotry.

As for Chesie this article in the Canadian Jewish News describes him well.


CJN


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 07 February 2004 08:19 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Whatever he is like, and whatever Mishei's beliefs and/or hopes about who the land he was living on might end up belonging to after some hypothetical agreement, it remains true that it's part of the West Bank, as in outside the borders of what international law considers part of Israel. Just because it's part of a particularly well-established "fact on the ground" doesn't change that. Some duly constituted Palestinian authority may some day cede it to Israel in return for some considerations elsewhere--but that merely underlines the fact that it is the Palestinians' to cede.

If this man and his family are such great people, then I'm sure it is not his family who are complaining, nor would he if he were alive be calling for Canada to set a major international precedent aiding in the dispossession of all Palestinians by legitimizing the occupation of their land, just so a few people can have a comfort visit from someone they've never met.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 07 February 2004 11:46 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
Whatever he is like, and whatever Mishei's beliefs and/or hopes about who the land he was living on might end up belonging to after some hypothetical agreement, it remains true that it's part of the West Bank, as in outside the borders of what international law considers part of Israel. Just because it's part of a particularly well-established "fact on the ground" doesn't change that. Some duly constituted Palestinian authority may some day cede it to Israel in return for some considerations elsewhere--but that merely underlines the fact that it is the Palestinians' to cede.

If this man and his family are such great people, then I'm sure it is not his family who are complaining, nor would he if he were alive be calling for Canada to set a major international precedent aiding in the dispossession of all Palestinians by legitimizing the occupation of their land, just so a few people can have a comfort visit from someone they've never met.


Im sure you are right . Nonetheless it would have been the human thing to do and the right thing to do. I very much doubt that one visit to a grieving family would upset the entire Israeli/ Palestinian balance and it might, just might show that despite all the angst and sadness Canada rises above it to show compassion. But Rufus I guess you are right..that might be too much.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 February 2004 05:11 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Diplomatic incidents have been created over events with virtually no malicious intent behind them. Bush Sr. barfing in Tokyo, anyone?
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 08 February 2004 09:11 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does anyone serious think that the family of this poor unfortunate really are all distraught because they didn't get an in-person visit from some flunky from the Canadain embassy??

They obviously just wanted to score political points and I'll bet that if a diplomat had shown up they would have invited the media and made a big production out of throwing the guy out to protest the fact that Canada is only 99.999% pro Sharon as opposed to 100%.

Why would anyone be stupid enough to leave a wonderful country like Canada to live in an awful, poor, violence ridden country like Israel where these religious freaks in black coats tell you what you can eat, when you can drive and who you can sleep with. Anyone who would willingly move from Canada to Israel needs to see a psychologist.

I could see an Ethiopian or a Russian seeing life in Israel as a big step up, but anyone from North America or western Europe who moved there would have to be a real fanatic.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 08 February 2004 09:32 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

Why would anyone be stupid enough to leave a wonderful country like Canada to live in an awful, poor, violence ridden country like Israel where these religious freaks in black coats tell you what you can eat, when you can drive and who you can sleep with. Anyone who would willingly move from Canada to Israel needs to see a psychologist.

.


Israel is none of the above and this statement is so hate-filled it points out precisely the prejudices you hold.

I know many secular Jews who have made aliya (emigrated to Israel) who live full and peaceful lives. Your distorted views of Israelis and those who choose to live there are chauvinistic and bigoted. But at least it exposes you for what you are making much of what you post here about Israel both in the past and future totally suspect.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 08 February 2004 10:47 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Once again Canadian diplomats choose to let politics get in the way of morality. They should be ashamed of themselves.

-- M

Perhaps she found a way to make the politics work for her morality.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 February 2004 11:35 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it's stupid to expect diplomats, whose job it is to make their every official move a reflection of Canadian foreign policy, to pay an official visit to the occupied west bank to comfort the occupiers, even after such a tragedy.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 08 February 2004 12:31 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is a perfect compromise that could make everyone happy. Why doesn't the Canadian embassy in Tel Aviv host a memorial reception for the victim and invite the family. That way Canada expresses its remorse over the death of a native son and the diplomats don't have to make anwanted political statement by setting foot in the occupied territories.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 08 February 2004 12:49 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm's solution (after the mourning period) makes perfect sense to me.

By the way, several Israelis I know (in various ways, including academic work in the Mediterranean) adamantly agree about the undue influence of the ultra-Orthodox in relation to their numbers, through the weight of the religious parties. There is a lot of resentment about the things Stockholm mentioned and the fact that the ultra-Orthodox are often excempted from military service.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 08 February 2004 02:01 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
Stockholm's solution (after the mourning period) makes perfect sense to me.

By the way, several Israelis I know (in various ways, including academic work in the Mediterranean) adamantly agree about the undue influence of the ultra-Orthodox in relation to their numbers, through the weight of the religious parties. There is a lot of resentment about the things Stockholm mentioned and the fact that the ultra-Orthodox are often excempted from military service.


Yes it is a good compromise. That said, Chesie served in the military and would not fit the bigoted view some people have of the ultra orthodox

[ 08 February 2004: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 February 2004 02:02 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But he lived on stolen land in the occupied territories, right?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 08 February 2004 04:04 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, that's the sticking point, isn't it? He may have been the most decent person who ever lived in every other respect, but by living where he did, he was a de facto participant in an illegal and unconscionable act of conquest. And Canada is entirely right not to give even a symbolic stamp of approval to that conquest, which is what an official visit would be. Unfortunate, but that's how it is.

Stockholm's compromise works for me. Let's hope they do something along those lines.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 08 February 2004 04:07 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
But he lived on stolen land in the occupied territories, right?
Wrong. The land came into Israeli hands after a defensive warwith Jordan. It had been Jordanian territory. Negotiations have been attempted to make portions of the West Bank an independent Palestinian state. Unfortunately the Palestinian leadership do not seem interested.

[ 08 February 2004: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 08 February 2004 08:25 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I know many secular Jews who have made aliya (emigrated to Israel)

Yes, I understand that these very strange specimens of the human race do exist. I can't for the life of me understand what could possibly motive them to do something so irrational. To go from living in Canada to living in Israel is like going from filet mignon to hamburger helper. At most I could see a few snowbirds wanting to go to Eilat every year from December to March to escape winter - but even then, why not Mexico or California or Tuscany or Provence?


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

posted 08 February 2004 10:34 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, that's a hilarious distortion of the West Bank history. Fact is, the entire West Bank settlement enterprise is criminal, no matter how Israel came into possession of it.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 08 February 2004 10:41 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Fact is, the entire West Bank settlement enterprise is criminal, no matter how Israel came into possession of it.

Just out of curiosity was it also criminal when Jordan seized the West Bank in 1948? and is it criminal that to this day the eastern half of Palestine is occupied by the Jordanians?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 08 February 2004 11:04 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not this again...

"The eastern half of Palestine"?

Do you mean the "Trans-Jordan" of the British Mandate? It isn't part of Palestine.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 08 February 2004 11:39 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
Mishei, that's a hilarious distortion of the West Bank history. Fact is, the entire West Bank settlement enterprise is criminal, no matter how Israel came into possession of it.
Well Mandos you can distort history all you like but the fact is that Isarel came into possession of the West Bank following the 6 day way in June 1967. The land was previously under Jordanian control. Those are the facts whether you like them or not.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 February 2004 11:54 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"came into possession". *snicker*. I love that euphemism for "stole".

Can I "come into possession" of your VCR, your TV set, your computer, and your car?

After all, once I "come into possession" of them, that will be a "fact".


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 09 February 2004 12:04 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, don't ya hate it when you're walking along the street, minding your own business, and BOOM! a whole big chunk of someone else's territory falls out of the sky into your lap?

I hate when then happens, cuz then, naturally, I'm forced to hold onto that territory for 37 years, build homes on it, settle it with my friends & family, and divert its water resources for my own use.

All involuntarily, of course. I just can't help myself.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 February 2004 12:39 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yeah, don't ya hate it when you're walking along the street, minding your own business, and BOOM! a whole big chunk of someone else's territory falls out of the sky into your lap?

Some might argue that as a Canadian, that's exactly what happened to you.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 09 February 2004 01:31 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Not this again...
"The eastern half of Palestine"?

Do you mean the "Trans-Jordan" of the British Mandate? It isn't part of Palestine.


"Palestine" as we all know has never actually existed as an independent entity. It was all part of the Ottoman province of Syria for 100s which consisted of what is now Lebanon and Syria and Jordan and Israel. Immediately after WW1, the French were given a mandate over the northern part of the Ottoman province of Palestine and they promptly divided it into two colonies: Syria and Lebanon. The British were given what is now Israel and Jordan and the ENTIRE area was called Palestine. Then several years later, the British decided to split the mandate into two administrative units: the western half of Palestine was henceforth to be called Palestine and the eastern half of Palestine was to be called Transjordan (as in that part of Palestine that is across the Jordan). They could just as easily have named the two parts "East Palestine" and "West Palestine" (imagine how inconvenient that would have been to the "Palestinians" today).

The population of east Palestine (aka "Jordan") is about 2/3 Palestinians, but they are ruled by a viciously oppressive Hashemite minority which is actually a branch of the corrupt Saudi royal family. Maybe someday the poor oppressed palestinans east of the Jordan river will start suicide bombings in Amman to rid themselves of the Hashemite occupiers!

Ironically to add further complication, in the 1920s, 30s and 40s, the term "Palestinian" was used to describe the Jews of Palestine and in fact the news paper "The Palestine Post" was the major daily newspaper of the Jewish community. The Arabs of the area NEVER referred to themselves as "Palestinian" in those days - they were just generic "Arabs". The use of the term Palestinian to describe the Arab inhabitants of the western part of the former British mandate only came into general usage in the 1960s.

Which is not to say that these people (whatever they really ought to be called) haven't been ill-treated and are not deserving of redress. But they have been victimized at least as much by Jordan as they have by Israel.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 09 February 2004 03:43 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Then several years later, the British decided to split the mandate into two administrative units: the western half of Palestine was henceforth to be called Palestine and the eastern half of Palestine was to be called Transjordan (as in that part of Palestine that is across the Jordan).

Yes, the whole area that now comprises the states of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan used to all be known as "Syria" under the Ottomans. We've been over this many times already.

The British always made a distinction between Palestine and Trans-Jordan under the Mandate. T.E. Lawrence, in Seven Pillars of Wisdom refers to Palestine as the area we also call "Palestine." He doesn't, by the way, call Iraq "Iraq" but instead uses "Mesopotamia." Does this mean that, like the Palestinians, no Iraqis exist?

Zionists like to call Jordan a "Palestinian" state so that they can claim the Palestinians (whose very existence they force themselves to question, as their existence refutes the myth that Palestine was "a land without people for a people without land") can leave Palestine and move somewhere else - and still be at home. It's wrong, it's Orwellian and you aren't going to convince many here that it's correct.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 09 February 2004 05:23 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Some might argue that as a Canadian, that's exactly what happened to you.

No, not at all. That land didn't just fall in my lap, I took it. (OK, well, I didn't take it, but my ancestors did.) Canada was founded on conquest and theft of land. That's my point. Mishei presents Israel's acquisition of the territories as virtually accidental, something that just "happened" without any desire for it on the part of Israeli politicians, which is demonstrably not the case. There's mountains of internal documentary evidence about that now, not to mention 37 years of actual on-the-ground practice (settlements, etc.).

The difference is that Canada is at least taking some effort, however half-hearted and inadequate, to address the wrongs of our past, whereas Israel's dispossession of the indigenous population is still going on. One would've hoped that we'd have reached a higher plane of behaviour than that which accompanied the European takeover of this continent centuries ago.

Stockholm:

quote:
The Arabs of the area NEVER referred to themselves as "Palestinian" in those days - they were just generic "Arabs". The use of the term Palestinian to describe the Arab inhabitants of the western part of the former British mandate only came into general usage in the 1960s.

Centuries ago, before North America was "settled", there were no such things as "American" or "Canadian" nationalities. Now there are. Over the course of time, national groupings emerged with their own distinct identity and self-awareness. Are those nationalities illegitimate because they haven't existed since the dawn of time? All existing "nationalities" came into being out of nothing at some point in the past.

Maybe it's true that there was no "Palestinian" nationality a hundred years ago, or even well into this century. Well, now there is. Out of the crucible of dispossession, conquest, ethnic cleansing, and fifty years of endless conflict, a national consciousness HAS been forged, and it isn't going away. Attempts to deny or obscure its existence by pointing to arcane quibbles of colonial jurisdiction a century ago are entirely pointless and a waste of time.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 09 February 2004 08:15 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That's my point. Mishei presents Israel's acquisition of the territories as virtually accidental, something that just "happened" without any desire for it on the part of Israeli politicians, which is demonstrably not the case. There's mountains of internal documentary evidence about that now, not to mention 37 years of actual on-the-ground practice (settlements, etc.).

No, if you could read I said quite specifically that it was as a result of a defensive war launched by Jordan against Israel in 1967. In fact, your documentary evidence is quite to the contrary when it comes to Jordan. Try reading Michael Oren's "The Six Day War". It was clear that Isarel had no desire to go to war with Jordan but circumstances were such that King Hussein felt he had no choice but to support Nasser in a regional pact so he attacked Israel.

Yes I know you would like it to be your vision of history but your vision is wishful fantasy that of course paints Israel as the demon. Just wasn't that way no matter how hard you may wish it to be so.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 09 February 2004 09:03 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And needless to say if the Arabs had simply accepted the UN partition in 1947 instead of sending armies of machete waving fanatics against Israel think of what they would have today: all of the west bank, all of Gaza, the Golan heights, Jerusalem under international administration and large chunks of what is pre-1967 Israel but which would have been in the Arab state envisioned in 1947. All this could have been theirs, but the Arabs insisted on going to war. It wasn't enough to get 70% of a loaf, they went for 100% and ended up with nothing.

For 50-odd years, the Arabs keep playing hardball accepting no compromise and attacking at every chance they get. Every single thing they have done has backfired and left them in a weaker position than they were in before. Why don't they learn from their mistkes and realize that if they had accepted compromise and negotiation instead of war, they would currently be way, way ahead of where they are.

Does anyone in the Arab world acknowledge that going to war 1947-48 was a huge mistke and that they should have recognized a good deal when they had one.?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 09 February 2004 09:17 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A former Canadian ambassador in Israel and elsewhere in the region has weighed in on this issue: former Canadian ambassador

Good points: Ariel Sharon's land grab can't be cautioned under cover of the pain of a grieving family - but it is important that the death of this Canadian citizen not get forgotten in the fray.

Stockwell Day seems to be yet another of those fundamentalist Christians who've embraced Israeli hardliners - wasn't day involved in a private school that made disparaging comments about the Jews? I remember something to that effect, but the memory is a bit fuzzy.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 10 February 2004 12:10 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is he one of those fundamentalist Christians who "supports" Israel in order to bring on the apocaylpse, at which point the Jews will all convert or burn in hell?

Great analysis by the ambassador, BTW.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2004 01:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And needless to say if the Arabs had simply accepted the UN partition in 1947 instead of sending armies of machete waving fanatics against Israel... (etc. etc.)

When did the UN hold the plebicite to determine whether or not a majority of the local population (both Jews and Arabs) agreed with partitioning the Palestine Mandate?

quote:
Maybe someday the poor oppressed palestinans east of the Jordan river will start suicide bombings in Amman to rid themselves of the Hashemite occupiers!

What about Black September, 1970. And in the same vein, what about the overthrow of Faisal in Iraq in 58.

[ 11 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 11 February 2004 01:19 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I suppose babblers' sensibilities have become so calloused that someone can call The Arabs® "machete waving fanatics" and nobody bothers to point out the description's inherent racism.

For one thing, it portrays the Arab/Muslim world as a monolithic horde of unthinking savages.

Another quibble is that machetes are used in jungles, and hence uncivilized homeless desert nomads would have little use for them.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 February 2004 01:43 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What about Black September, 1970

That's a good question. That was over 30 years ago and we haven't heard a peep from the Palestinians in Jordan since.

In the meantime, the overwhelmingly Palestinian population still has to live under the oppressive rule of the Hashemites. If they were smart, they would overthrow King Abdullah's tinpot dictatorship and then rename the country Palestine and then push for unifying it with the parts of the occupied territories that Israel wants to rid itself of anyways (ie: 99% of it) and then you get a nice big country called Palestine and everyone lives happily ever after.

The Hashemite royal family can probably get their cousins in the Saudi royal family to give them a palace in which to live a life of luxury in exile.

It all makes so much sense. Why am I the only one that comes up with these brilliant plans.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2004 01:52 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If they were smart, they would overthrow King Abdullah's tinpot dictatorship...


And, the Palestinians tried overthrowing Hussein in 1970, just as you asked. That is Black Septemeber. They lost, more or less.

quote:
...and then rename the country Palestine and then push for unifying it with the parts of the occupied territories that Israel wants to rid itself of anyways (ie: 99% of it) and then you get a nice big country called Palestine and everyone lives happily ever after.

But genius, this was exactly the way it was prior to 1967. Jordan controlled the west bank. It was Israel that insited on the border modification, to where it is now.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 February 2004 02:19 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But genius, this was exactly the way it was prior to 1967. Jordan controlled the west bank. It was Israel that insited on the border modification, to where it is now.


No, Jordan had every opportunity to sign a peace treaty with Israel based on thre pre-1967 boundaries. They always refused. Incidentally, Israel launched pre-emptive strikes at Egypt and Syria in 1967, but NOT at Jordan. The Jordanians themselves declared war on Israel and then they lost the West Bank. Israel had no intention of conquering the West Bank in that war.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 11 February 2004 02:57 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Incidentally, Israel launched pre-emptive strikes at Egypt and Syria in 1967, but NOT at Jordan. The Jordanians themselves declared war on Israel and then they lost the West Bank. Israel had no intention of conquering the West Bank in that war.

Gee, they sure rushed to give it back to CisJordan afterwards.

Or hell, if the Israeli Government had "no intention of conquering the West Bank", then why didn't they just grab all of Jerusalem and give the rest of it to the UN under an international mandate?

I see you also admit that the "Defensive war" of 1967 was, for the most part a joke since you yourself note that Israel took "pre-emptive strikes" against two nations.

Gee, that sounds a bit like the United States and things like blasting buildings to smithereens in the Sudan when there was no state of war extant between the US and Sudan.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 February 2004 03:20 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Or hell, if the Israeli Government had "no intention of conquering the West Bank", then why didn't they just grab all of Jerusalem and give the rest of it to the UN under an international mandate?

I see you also admit that the "Defensive war" of 1967 was, for the most part a joke since you yourself note that Israel took "pre-emptive strikes" against two nations.


There was a very interesting book published last year all about the 6 day war. It detailed how the Israelis had never really had designs on the West Bank (Jerusalem itself was another matter). They quite rightly felt that occupying an area that was home to over a million Arabs was more trouble than it was worth. The trouble was that in 1967, the Jordanian forces crumbled so totally that Israel was left in control of the whole west bank literally overnight. The idea at the time was to use the trritory as a bargaining chip for a comprehensive peace treaty, but for a variety of reasons that did not come to pass.

It is a point of fact that Israel fired the first shot in 1967, but it is also a fact that Egypt had unilaterally blockaded the Straights of Tiran and ordered the UN peacekeepers out of the Sinai and was massive all its troops on the Israeli border. Perhaps Egypt had very benign peaceful reasons for doing this. only Nasser knows for sure.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 February 2004 03:26 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Perhaps Egypt had very benign peaceful reasons for doing this. only Nasser knows for sure.

I've heard, and this could be incorrect, that the massed troops were really part of a surprise birthday party for Israel, not the invading force they might otherwise appear to be. The tanks, of course, were huge birthday presents in disguise.

Israel of course mistook the revellers for armies preparing to invade, they shot, and the rest, as they say, is history.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2004 07:10 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There was a very interesting book published last year all about the 6 day war. It detailed how the Israelis had never really had designs on the West Bank (Jerusalem itself was another matter). They quite rightly felt that occupying an area that was home to over a million Arabs was more trouble than it was worth. The trouble was that in 1967, the Jordanian forces crumbled so totally that Israel was left in control of the whole west bank literally overnight. The idea at the time was to use the trritory as a bargaining chip for a comprehensive peace treaty, but for a variety of reasons that did not come to pass.

Few points here. Nice if you would reference the title and author of the book. Who knows, I might like to pick it up.

You say that Israel launched two pre-emptive strikes and then Jordan just fell in to place. Then say that Jerusalem was a definite target. Given that the taking Jerusalem would mean attacking the Jordanian army that sounds contradictory.

Also, wasn't Jordan an ally of Egypt and Syria with a mutual protection pact? In that case it was at least an even bet that Jordan would declare giving Israel the Causus Belli, no?

Also, two divisions in the Sinai is not what I would call a massive build up? Tentative steps toward counterering a threatening Israeli military posture is another possibility. But then of course two divisions can lead to four and who knows where that might lead. But, and this is the big but...

If Israel was so secure that it felt able to attack two, and possibly three of its neighbours in lighting (pre-emptive) strikes and suceed, does it sound like they really considered the Arab armies much of a threat? That is a pretty big gamble if they were.

So, if the Arab are so easy to take down, and the Israeli's are confident of this, then doesn't that bring into question the need for pre-emption?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 February 2004 08:06 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You say that Israel launched two pre-emptive strikes and then Jordan just fell in to place. Then say that Jerusalem was a definite target. Given that the taking Jerusalem would mean attacking the Jordanian army that sounds contradictory.



The book is "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East" by Michael B. Oren (Author)

No, I'm not saying that Jerusalem was a war target in 1967. I mean that there was a consensus in Israel that it would be nice to be able to visit the Western Wall etc... in the old city of Jerusalem (something the Jordanians forbid..in fact they went out of their way to desecrate any Jewish shrines and symbols in their territory). No one in Israel particularly wanted to occupy Hebron and Nablus etc...


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2004 08:12 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for the info on the book. I'll look for it.

I misunderstood your commentary on Jerusalem.

But Jordan did (does) have a mutual protection pact Syria and Egypt. Am I right? I think such was recently reaffirmed.

So Jordan would be breaking its treaty obligations not to declare war on Israel after it attacked its neighbors.

And wan't there the Yalon plan (sp,) or was that something that came up after the war?

[ 11 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 11 February 2004 08:20 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israeli General Matityahu Peled similarly stated: "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war" (Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972).

General Peled also stated "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal [Israeli army]" (General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972).

Yitzhak Rabin himself stated: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on May 14 would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it" (Le Monde, 29 February 1968).


Click

quote:
A story, which received wide publicity in the Hebrew press in Israel but was ignored by Western newspapers, apart from an account in Le Monde written by Amnon Kapeliuk, concerns a statement made by Levi Eshkol, Israel's prime
minister, in the Knesset on 12 June 1067, immediately after the war, that: "The existence of the Israeli state hung on a thread but the hopes of the Arab leaders to exterminate Israel were brought to nought."

This claim was demolished on 11 March 1972 when Reserve General Matityahu Peled, a lecturer in the history of the Middle East at the University of Tel Aviv, who had been chief of the logistical command during the 1967 war and was one of the 12 members of the army General Staff, said at a symposium at the Zavta Club in Tel Aviv: "The thesis according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war." Israelis, he added, were under no threat of destruction "either as individuals or as a nation". While
Egypt had 80,000 soldiers in Sinai, Israel had "hundreds of thousands of men poised against them".


Palestine Media Watch

From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2004 09:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow, thats good stuff.

Listen Stockholm, i've been looking into it and this history of the war (one that mentions how the Israeli commanders became 'international heros' because of their victories) doesn't mention a Jordanian declaration of war. Just massive suprise air assault followed by rapid land advance.

How is it that you establish that Jordan declared war on Israel? I dont understand it.

quote:
On May 30, mounting public opinion led to the appointment of Dayan as minister of defense. Levi Eshkol, who had been both prime minister and minister of defense since Ben-Gurion's resignation in 1963, retained the prime minister's position. Dayan immediately made a series of public declarations that war could be avoided, while secretly planning a massive preemptive strike against the Arab enemy. On the morning of June 5, Israel launched a devastating attack on Arab air power, destroying about 300 Egyptian, 50 Syrian, and 20 Jordanian aircraft, mostly on the ground. This action, which virtually eliminated the Arab air forces, was immediately followed by ground invasions into Sinai and the Gaza Strip, Jordan, and finally Syria. Arab ground forces, lacking air support, were routed on all three fronts; by the time the UN-imposed cease-fire took effect in the evening of June 11, the IDF had seized the entire Sinai Peninsula to the east bank of the Suez Canal; the West Bank of Jordan, including East Jerusalem; and the Golan Heights of Syria. Unlike the aftermath of the 1956 War, however, the IDF did not withdraw from the areas it occupied in 1967.


Armed Conflict Events Data

Notice how this very specific account (which does not imply that it is for sure accurate) details the destruction of 20 Jordanian aircraft on the ground in the intial attack, while stating that Lebanon was second in line for ground invasion, and then Syria. Frankly last minute changes to strategy such as a very rapid suprise exploitation drive through the WB, sound unlikely to me when you consider the highly disciplined nature of the IDF and precision planning that went into the operation.

It seems to me more likely that the complete take over of the WB was an established command option, depending on how initial phases went. We are talking about only six days -- not a lot of time to go through all the channels and figure out the larger international political ramifications of actually siezing all of the WB, on the spur of the momment as opposed to just Jerusalem. No. That must have had prior authorization from the pmo.

But this is something else: this war starts on June 5th and ends on June 11th. Then one and a half months (July 26) later this detailed plan this detailed plan involving the partition and settlement of the WB is presented to PM by the defence minister Yigal Alon. You are suggesting that all of this sort of popped into view off the cuff, and that people hadn't been mulling these ideas over before hand?

War and occupation and (projected) territorial annexation by accident? Cooked up over 2 months time no less. I'm sorry its not very convincing.

At any rate the idea that the WB might be a bargaining chip in a future peace negotiations seems to have lasted less than a month.

I'm perfectly willing to accept a tit for tat build up of forces and then a pre-emptive strike, after the blockade and forces moving into the Sinai. I can see that has some justice. But all of this land seizure business makes me doubt the overall moral integrity of the Israeli leadership in this case.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 11 February 2004 09:52 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Try this:

quote:
War was not far behind on Israel’s eastern front. Israel had conveyed a message to King Hussein of Jordan asking him to stay out of the conflict, but on the first morning of the war Nasser called Hussein and encouraged him to fight. Nasser reportedly told Hussein that Egypt had been victorious in the morning’s fighting—an illusion the Egyptian public believed for several days. At 11:00 am Jordanian troops attacked the Israeli half of Jerusalem with mortars and gunfire and shelled targets in the Israeli interior. Israel’s air force, having immobilized the Egyptian air force, turned its attention to Jordan. By evening, the Jordanian air force had been largely destroyed, again with minimal Israeli casualties. At midnight Israeli ground forces attacked Jordanian troops in Jerusalem, and by the morning of June 6, Israeli troops had nearly encircled the city.


Encarta MSN on 6 day war


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2004 10:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, you are saying that Jordan attacked Israel by fullfilling treaty commitments for mutual self defence. Ones which state that and attack against one is an attack against the other. Would you then say that England's decision to honour its alliances by declaring against Germany was the cause of the war between England and Germany that began in 1939, not the invasion of Poland by Germany?

It seeme to me that legally speaking by the terms of the treaty, when Israel bombed the Egyptian airforce they attacked Jordan.

One reading is that these commitments were made in part to dissuade Israel from attacking Egypt and Syria by a show of solidarity. The ink had barely dried on the document. I an opposite reading is possible too, is suppose.

[ 12 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 12 February 2004 08:12 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
So, you are saying that Jordan attacked Israel by fullfilling treaty commitments for mutual self defence. Ones which state that and attack against one is an attack against the other. Would you then say that England's decision to honour its alliances by declaring against Germany was the cause of the war between England and Germany that began in 1939, not the invasion of Poland by Germany?

It seeme to me that legally speaking by the terms of the treaty, when Israel bombed the Egyptian airforce they attacked Jordan.

One reading is that these commitments were made in part to dissuade Israel from attacking Egypt and Syria by a show of solidarity. The ink had barely dried on the document. I an opposite reading is possible too, is suppose.

[ 12 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Only for those who want to blame Israel for all the evils in the Middle East.

I urge you to read Michael Oren's "Six days War".


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 12 February 2004 11:07 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes I know you would like it to be your vision of history but your vision is wishful fantasy that of course paints Israel as the demon.

quote:
Only for those who want to blame Israel for all the evils in the Middle East.

quote:
Why? Because for many Babblers Israel MUST play the role of the demon in order for their blinkered view of the world to work.

Time for a new straw man, Mishei. This one's getting a bit dilapidated.

I'm sure you have plenty more.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 12 February 2004 11:32 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by beluga2:

Time for a new straw man, Mishei. This one's getting a bit dilapidated.

I'm sure you have plenty more.


I really dont need any more while this one remains so active here amongst some.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 February 2004 11:57 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know you are, but what am I? Nyah nyah.

In other news, this thread is no longer about the Canadian psychologist killed in Jerusalem, so I'm closing it.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca