Plenty of references in the article, and again if they were justified why did they lie?
Plenty of references in the article, and again if they were justified why did they lie?
After the war, Israeli officials admitted that Israel wasn't expecting to be attacked when it initiated hostilities against Egypt.[18][19] Mordechai Bentov, an Israeli cabinet minister who attended the June 4th Cabinet meeting, called into question the idea that there was a "danger of extermination" saying that it was "invented of whole cloth and exaggerated after the fact to justify the annexation of new Arab territories."[20][21] Israel received reports from the United States to the effect that Egyptian deployments were defensive and anticipatory of a possible Israeli attack,[14] and the US assessed that if anything, it was Israel that was pressing to begin hostilities.[21] Abba Eban, Israel's foreign minister during the war, later wrote in his autobiography that Nasser's assurances he wasn't planning to attack Israel were credible: "Nasser did not want war. He wanted victory without war." [22] Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld has written that while the exact origins of the war may never be known, Israel's forces were "spoiling for a fight and willing to go to considerable lengths to provoke one".[23
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_relating_to_the_Six-Day_War#Combat_support
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_relating_to_the_Six-Day_War#Combat_support
It's a little late to respond to your "kitchen sink" battery of questions, not to mention how you're jumping back and forth in time.
Considering that the Arab nationalism of "Palestinians" as a people was circa the 17th century, we could argue that the Jews predate them? Of course if we had a time machine, we could ask Nebuchadnezzar whether he considered Jewish Palestinians and Arab Palestinians to be significantly different? As for the predominantly Sunni Palestinians of today, perhaps we could ask them their views on the Christina Palestinians, Samaritans and the Ahl al-Tawhid?
Since we know that the Jewish people (not to be confused with the Isrealites of the Northern Kingdom) share common genomic traits with Arab Palestinians, it's probably a safe bet that somewhere predating the breakout of the Kingdom of Judah and the Philistines, there was some measure of cultural intermixing.
I'm rather surprised that you didn't mention the diaspora (the 6th century BCE Jewish diaspora, not the Palestinian diaspora of the 19th century). But I digress. The essential conflict isn't over ancestral right of dominion (none of the modern day tribes have it any longer), but a socio-religious conflict. Ancestral dominion predates the bible in regards to the Levant region and quite frankly, predates known history. Any claim of ancestral right is nothing more than affectation to support the claimant's selfish desires.
Your study of the conflict appears to focus on the religious aspects, while mine centers on the socio-cultural aspect. Ancestral and religious affairs only interest me to the extent they're used to support the claims of the various warring factions. I honestly have no interest in supporting either side's religion, as I'm neither Jewish nor Muslim. My interest is in what effect it has on the world political stage and the security of our nation. The conflict itself has the potential to spawn the next World War, and for that reason alone their petty squabbles should be contained if they can't be eliminated.
Simply put, this is a culture war masquerading as a religious war. Neither side has clean hands, but one side has extended far more olive branches than the other.
You're intermixing the historical context of the Semitic peoples with the modern cultural definition of anti-Semitic behaviors. When you say "anti-Semitic" today, no one assumes you're talking about Arabs or Muslim Palestinians. They assume you're talking about the Jewish people. FWIW, the person I was addressing the comment to has since responded in this thread, but he hasn't addressed my comments. His continued talking points throughout this thread were not "without favoritism to the Jews". They were outwardly hostile and sardonic towards the Jewish Israelis who stand against Hamas and Hezbollah. Absent any clarification of his stance on the matter, I continue to stand by my comment.
Overall, good discussion!
It's a little late to respond to your "kitchen sink" battery of questions, not to mention how you're jumping back and forth in time.
Considering that the Arab nationalism of "Palestinians" as a people was circa the 17th century, we could argue that the Jews predate them? Of course if we had a time machine, we could ask Nebuchadnezzar whether he considered Jewish Palestinians and Arab Palestinians to be significantly different? As for the predominantly Sunni Palestinians of today, perhaps we could ask them their views on the Christina Palestinians, Samaritans and the Ahl al-Tawhid?
I was speaking about this nationalism...
The Israeli Labor Party's Yitzhak Rabin, the then Defense Minister, added deportations in August 1985 to Israel's "Iron Fist" policy of cracking down on Palestinian nationalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada
Since we know that the Jewish people (not to be confused with the Isrealites of the Northern Kingdom) share common genomic traits with Arab Palestinians, it's probably a safe bet that somewhere predating the breakout of the Kingdom of Judah and the Philistines, there was some measure of cultural intermixing.
I'm rather surprised that you didn't mention the diaspora (the 6th century BCE Jewish diaspora, not the Palestinian diaspora of the 19th century). But I digress. The essential conflict isn't over ancestral right of dominion (none of the modern day tribes have it any longer), but a socio-religious conflict. Ancestral dominion predates the bible in regards to the Levant region and quite frankly, predates known history. Any claim of ancestral right is nothing more than affectation to support the claimant's selfish desires.
Some scholars are now questioning the dispora so I left it out. I agree with your statement about ancestral rights but didn't the Jews claim of those rights cause much of this issue?
Your study of the conflict appears to focus on the religious aspects, while mine centers on the socio-cultural aspect. Ancestral and religious affairs only interest me to the extent they're used to support the claims of the various warring factions. I honestly have no interest in supporting either side's religion, as I'm neither Jewish nor Muslim. My interest is in what effect it has on the world political stage and the security of our nation. The conflict itself has the potential to spawn the next World War, and for that reason alone their petty squabbles should be contained if they can't be eliminated.
I'm trying to learn and see it from a different perspectives, I see more of the religious because that's what I learned when I was younger. But I still see that the call to establish an Israeli state and much of what has resulted from it was and still is to many based and justified on the claim of being a "chosen people"(even though it's not said) through a bloodline that is not there and actions(religion) that are not followed. Other than that I again agree with your statements above. I wonder if America may one day have to decide whether to keep supporting Israel or risk world war and what it will do.
Simply put, this is a culture war masquerading as a religious war. Neither side has clean hands, but one side has extended far more olive branches than the other.
I agree to an extent but given the expansion of Israel and it's control it has more room to offer olive branches while the palestinians have often been treated roughly, have less power and must feel they have no chance to do anything but be oppressed or resist as they can. I wonder if our colonist founding fathers felt that way? And yes both sides have dirty hands. Just trying to see both sides.
You're intermixing the historical context of the Semitic peoples with the modern cultural definition of anti-Semitic behaviors. When you say "anti-Semitic" today, no one assumes you're talking about Arabs or Muslim Palestinians. They assume you're talking about the Jewish people. FWIW, the person I was addressing the comment to has since responded in this thread, but he hasn't addressed my comments. His continued talking points throughout this thread were not "without favoritism to the Jews". They were outwardly hostile and sardonic towards the Jewish Israelis who stand against Hamas and Hezbollah. Absent any clarification of his stance on the matter, I continue to stand by my comment.
On the other hand many on here make harsh statements about other groups both political and ethnic and I just feel that no group should be above criticism by claiming the race card, the anti-Semitic(Jew hater), or "unpatriotic" card, that's pc and prevents fair debate.
Overall, good discussion!
I think you make good discussion and fair debate even when I might not completely agree with you.
Thanks!
To wit:
I was speaking about this nationalism...
The Israeli Labor Party's Yitzhak Rabin, the then Defense Minister, added deportations in August 1985 to Israel's "Iron Fist" policy of cracking down on Palestinian nationalism.
That would be one of my prime examples of bad faith on the Israeli side.
Some scholars are now questioning the dispora so I left it out. I agree with your statement about ancestral rights but didn't the Jews claim of those rights cause much of this issue?
I believe the diaspora happened, I'm just not certain about the root cause(s). I don't feel qualified to agree or disagree. In some areas my research is still fairly shallow. After all, more than a few people make this subject their life's work!
I'm trying to learn and see it from a different perspectives, I see more of the religious because that's what I learned when I was younger. But I still see that the call to establish an Israeli state and much of what has resulted from it was and still is to many based and justified on the claim of being a "chosen people"(even though it's not said) through a bloodline that is not there and actions(religion) that are not followed. Other than that I again agree with your statements above. I wonder if America may one day have to decide whether to keep supporting Israel or risk world war and what it will do.
From my perspective, blind support for the Jewish state to the exclusion of facts, appears to come predominantly from those who believe the "chosen people" argument. For that reason alone I do not subscribe to it. As for America, I think the powers that be have already made that decision. I think this has been communicated to Israeli leadership and is the very reason they exercise restraint to their current levels (there's no way we could support the acts committed in the 60's - 80's today). For their part, I believe Israel will hew to our demands until such time as they believe they can fully stand on their own, or they find a more favorable benefactor. On that day, all bets are off.
I agree to an extent but given the expansion of Israel and it's control it has more room to offer olive branches while the Palestinians have often been treated roughly, have less power and must feel they have no chance to do anything but be oppressed or resist as they can. I wonder if our colonist founding fathers felt that way? And yes both sides have dirty hands. Just trying to see both sides.
I'd agree with that overall. The main reason I can't support the Palestinian position stems from their steadfast refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. That and the substantive style of their negotiation tactics, which is to ask for the impossible and steadfastly refuse concessions on their demands. In other words, bad faith negotiation tactics. That and the whole terrorism thing. Guerrilla tactics against enemy forces is one thing, used against a civilian population is another. Not that America hasn't resorted to that under dire circumstances ourselves. Dresden and Tokyo come to mind.
On the other hand many on here make harsh statements about other groups both political and ethnic and I just feel that no group should be above criticism by claiming the race card, the anti-Semitic(Jew hater), or "unpatriotic" card, that's pc and prevents fair debate.
Agreed. The only reason I went to the "nuclear option" was the level of vitriol and refusal to concede to the honest points of others by that person. In other words, dishonest debate tactics piss me off (though I reciprocate towards those who frequently use them from time to time, just so they're reminded of what it feels like to be on the receiving end).
I honestly didn't think this thread would make it to 12 pages. Just shows that we can politely disagree from time to time!
Thanks!
To wit:
I honestly didn't think this thread would make it to 12 pages. Just shows that we can politely disagree from time to time!
You're correct about the blind support, the issue of the dispora and genetics speak to issues of who is or isn't the "chosen people", which alters that argument greatly.
I wonder if the Palestinians and other Arabs would acknowledge Israel's right to exist if they agreed to go back to the original Balfour agreement and borders?
Israel is restraining because the world, except for America has gone against it. They know they will not get another benefactor which makes some fear they might use the Samson option rather than waiting for God to save them.
When it comes to civilian casualties Israel caused far more through the two Intifadas than the Palestinians ever have.
These 12 pages show what can happen when some folks don't just say **** you I'm always right and you're always wrong.
You're intermixing the historical context of the Semitic peoples with the modern cultural definition of anti-Semitic behaviors. When you say "anti-Semitic" today, no one assumes you're talking about Arabs or Muslim Palestinians. They assume you're talking about the Jewish people. FWIW, the person I was addressing the comment to has since responded in this thread, but he hasn't addressed my comments. His continued talking points throughout this thread were not "without favoritism to the Jews". They were outwardly hostile and sardonic towards the Jewish Israelis who stand against Hamas and Hezbollah. Absent any clarification of his stance on the matter, I continue to stand by my comment.
Overall, good discussion!
Yep, words have meaning.
And I have stated a couple of times, that the Israelis themselves are having a far more fair discussion about this than Americans are. It's a lot easier to (incorrectly) throw out the anti-semitism card than it is to justify continued expansion of areas by Israei settlers, bulldozing olive groves, and penning in a small country.
I disagree completely with Israel's policies, and so do a lot of it's own people.
Agree or disagree, doesn't really matter. What does matter is how America's involvement will affect our nation. We continue to send planes, war materials, money to Israel, and most of the world sees us as one country. Yes, we send money to other countries, and that is wrong also, the Americans who earned that cash should decide if they want to send it elsewhere, not some politician influenced by lobbyists.
"It wouldn't work because the American people are stupid. Their attention span is so pathetically short, they don't even remember what the original complaint was. As soon as the bobblehead says "racist", their pea brains automatically shift to "why are you a racist Mr. Complainer?". The average American news consumer couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the bottom!"
Saw this in another post......thought it was appropriate.
Saw this in another post......thought it was appropriate.
Glocktogo, it is certainly true that the Palestinian leadership is guilty of many failures in the past.
The old saying among US diplomats was Arafat never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
However, doesn't the Israeli policy of expansion of settlements, on land that still belongs to Palestinians legally, also contribute to ongoing hostilities?
And Netanyahu expands settlements at the same time US leaders are attempting to Shepard peace talks.
It makes it appear to be a deliberate attempt, on Netanyahu's part, to scuttle the talks.
I am willing to place blame on both sides. Many and perhaps most people on this forum are not.
The old saying among US diplomats was Arafat never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
However, doesn't the Israeli policy of expansion of settlements, on land that still belongs to Palestinians legally, also contribute to ongoing hostilities?
And Netanyahu expands settlements at the same time US leaders are attempting to Shepard peace talks.
It makes it appear to be a deliberate attempt, on Netanyahu's part, to scuttle the talks.
I am willing to place blame on both sides. Many and perhaps most people on this forum are not.
Similar threads
