Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cato the Elder)
    I can do whatever I want. Unlike your precious Syria where I would be killed for speaking my mind.
    Don't be so bitter,darling. Hatred doesn't look good on anybody.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    As you may be aware, when it came to the later they didn't just prepare to strike, they struck, and struck first. In this day and age you better believe Israel will know what's going down before much of any Arab army's military command do!

    Indeed not, what I was getting at was that Israel isn't terribly concerned about those countries getting hot and bothered (excepting Iran) - not least because all three are in a state of disarray after the Arab Spring, and Egypt remains at the beck and call of the USA (and hence Israel, by proxy)

    True, but you'd perhaps be surprised how blasé some of the Israeli military establishment are about IDF et al flexing their muscles/keeping their eye in from time to time

    Unacceptable given: A) The parameters of challenge set; B) The legitimate claim of self-defence e.g. I’m old enough to remember what life was like for Israelis prior to the wall going up (trust me, it wasn’t unprovoked, they had to face random death and destruction [cumulatively] on the same scale as the Paris attacks in major cities year in year out). Also, a neutral can see the sense in containing the capacity of a terror-state (Hamas), that refuses to renounce terrorism, to materially aid and orchestrate terror attacks from relevant territories

    Arguably within it’s operational area

    The hypotheticals under discussion are all a little far fetched, are they not? :dontknow:

    Good
    Ofcourse I understand. I always think about the poor Palestinian children who live in Gaza,especially when Israel start their ground invasions. Omg wallah my heart break when I heard about those 4 Palestinian boys who were purposefully shot dead by Israeli soldiers on the beach
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Also, I wasn't just making that up:

    http://imeu.org/article/putting-pale...ockade-of-gaza
    Thanks for pro-Palestinian source. :cool:

    "Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) is a 501(c)(3) pro-Palestinian[1] non-profit organisation"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instit..._Understanding
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Thanks for pro-Palestinian source. :cool:

    "Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) is a 501(c)(3) pro-Palestinian[1] non-profit organisation"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instit..._Understanding
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pa...89G0NM20121017
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19975211
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/wo...kade.html?_r=0
    http://www.thenational.ae/news/world...-gaza-blockade

    If you google 'Palestine blockade calorie calculation' you'll see it being reported on by a hundred and one different groups. A Supreme Court ruling forced the Israeli government to reveal the details of this a few years back. I'm not anti-Israel by any means, but pretending Israel is whiter than white isn't realistic either.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pa...89G0NM20121017
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19975211
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/wo...kade.html?_r=0
    http://www.thenational.ae/news/world...-gaza-blockade

    If you google 'Palestine blockade calorie calculation' you'll see it being reported on by a hundred and one different groups. A Supreme Court ruling forced the Israeli government to reveal the details of this a few years back. I'm not anti-Israel by any means, but pretending Israel is whiter than white isn't realistic either.
    Let's take the first article:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pa...89G0NM20121017

    'Israel calculated the number of calories Palestinians would need to avoid malnutrition under its blockade of the Gaza Strip'
    'The study, "Food Consumption in the Gaza Strip - The Red Lines", estimated the required daily calorie intake in the territory at 2,279 per person'
    'The calorie calculation was based on a model formulated by Israel's Health Ministry and was largely in line with average Israeli consumption. According to Britain's National Health Service, the average man needs 2,500 calories to maintain his weight and a woman requires 2,000.'

    And? What criminal is in this research?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Pretty sure you have to prepare to strike, in order to be able to strike!
    Indeed, but no point if Israel is going to absolutely own 'em before their generals have had so much of a chance as to parade the troops!

    My point was simply that the six days war was not the last time arab nations prepared to attack Israel
    Indeed not, nor will the later conflict be, I’m sure (sadly), but Arab leaders should learn from history, save any unnecessary human suffering/embarrassment (mostly on the pair of Arabs, as per the tone of the above)

    it doesn't require a national army to cause problems
    Indeed not. Asymmetric warfare, clandestine ops, and terror are really the only options they’ve got re: causing bloody disruption, short of total war (which would of course be a massive own goal and give Israel a pretext to expand it’s ‘operational area’)

    the Israeli military being forced to go and kill arabs every so often isn't exactly good for peace in the middle east
    Yes and no. From a Benthamite/utilittarian, philosophical perspective one could argue it’s favourable for Israeli forces to be battle hardened and to appear fearsome, unremitting (as a form of deterrence), as it serves as to dissuade belligerents from having a pop (thus minimising suffering, primarily of Arabs)

    I'm not talking about the building of the wall. I'm talking about the strict control of what gets into Palestine
    They’re related amigo, and the wall is of course visually/linguistically emblematic of the broader blockade

    specifically controlling the amount of calories that get into palestine to try and keep the people sufficiently weak that they cannot cause trouble
    Cunning strategy of legal torture. If I were an Israeli e.g. who had lost a family member/still felt the community was threatened due to heated/worked up/well armed militia operating inside/from Gaza then I expect I’d support such a policy, I’m afraid. Could you say for certain that you wouldn’t?

    no doubt the hamas fighters are plenty fed
    Divide and rule (the people see their democratically elected terrorist leaders stuffing their faces, while they feel hungry, and how do you think they react?). Again, somewhat tortuous and arguably immoral, but you can see a perverse logic to it

    I'd be very interested to hear your argument for why Israeli appropriation of palestinian land is within its operational area, cause it's an argument that escapes not just me but damn near every other country in the world - and I think we all know that the USA is hardly objective on the matter
    Northern Ireland is within our operational area. Have we ever democratically mandated occupation of it? No. Would we be less secure if we demilitarised it or ceded more of it to the Republic of Ireland e.g. during the troubles, yes; looking at a map, and the history of insurgency in/around Gaza should answer your question, in this context. I should probably add that, personally, I would like to see Israel vacate all illegally settled, occupied, territories, and Palestine gain independent statehood

    I don't see any prospect of peace between Israel and her arab neighbours
    Indeed not, sadly – the most we can hope for is a sustainable ceasefire, Israel becoming less militantly right-wing and defensive, and giving Palestine due concessions, and Palestine transitioning to a non-violent secular democratic society

    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Omg wallah my heart break when I heard about those 4 Palestinian boys who were purposefully shot dead by Israeli soldiers on the beach
    Not to excuse said act but, unfortunately, when you have conscription, probabilistically, you’re always going to get sporadic tragic atrocities committed by regulars in tense/hostile times/territories :sad:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Let's take the first article:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pa...89G0NM20121017

    'Israel calculated the number of calories Palestinians would need to avoid malnutrition under its blockade of the Gaza Strip'
    'The study, "Food Consumption in the Gaza Strip - The Red Lines", estimated the required daily calorie intake in the territory at 2,279 per person'
    'The calorie calculation was based on a model formulated by Israel's Health Ministry and was largely in line with average Israeli consumption. According to Britain's National Health Service, the average man needs 2,500 calories to maintain his weight and a woman requires 2,000.'

    And? What criminal is in this research?
    I think it'd be naive in the extreme to suppose this research wasn't done with the sole interest of calculating how much food to allow to enter palestine. Especially considering the leak around this time where an Israeli official told the US government that they were actively trying to keep palestine 'on the verge of economic collapse'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Indeed, but no point if Israel is going to absolutely own 'em before their generals have had so much of a chance as to parade the troops!

    Indeed not, nor will the later conflict be, I’m sure (sadly), but Arab leaders should learn from history, save any unnecessary human suffering/embarrassment (mostly on the pair of Arabs, as per the tone of the above)

    Indeed not. Asymmetric warfare, clandestine ops, and terror are really the only options they’ve got re: causing bloody disruption, short of total war (which would of course be a massive own goal and give Israel a pretext to expand it’s ‘operational area’)

    Yes and no. From a Benthamite/utilittarian, philosophical perspective one could argue it’s favourable for Israeli forces to be battle hardened and to appear fearsome, unremitting (as a form of deterrence), as it serves as to dissuade belligerents from having a pop (thus minimising suffering, primarily of Arabs)
    The thing is though, this kind of warfare does benefit palestine politically. They endure the majority of the casualties, but Israel gets condemned for 'overreacting'. Whilst I disagree with this - I think the Israeli reaction to Palestinians lobbing rockets at them is totally justified - the political pressure and bad press it creates is a victory of sorts for the arabs.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    They’re related amigo, and the wall is of course visually/linguistically emblematic of the broader blockade

    Cunning strategy of legal torture. If I were an Israeli e.g. who had lost a family member/still felt the community was threatened due to heated/worked up/well armed militia operating inside/from Gaza then I expect I’d support such a policy, I’m afraid. Could you say for certain that you wouldn’t?
    I'm quite sure I would support that policy, were I in that scenario. But that's because I'd share their bias. From an unbiased standpoint, I'm of the opinion that this is wrong, not to mention contravenes international law.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Divide and rule (the people see their democratically elected terrorist leaders stuffing their faces, while they feel hungry, and how do you think they react?). Again, somewhat tortuous and arguably immoral, but you can see a perverse logic to it
    If that's the kind of logic we're going to use to justify our military action, then we should bring back World War Two, Blitz style bombing. Or better yet, the kind IEDs and small explosives used by groups like hamas and al-qaeda. If we kill enough of the civilians then they'll eventually decide that surrendering hamas to the Israelis is a better option. But the whole point is, we don't do that. We're claiming to be better than hamas and al-qaeda, so if we stoop to their level we've essentially lost already.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Northern Ireland is within our operational area. Have we ever democratically mandated occupation of it? No. Would we be less secure if we demilitarised it or ceded more of it to the Republic of Ireland e.g. during the troubles, yes; looking at a map, and the history of insurgency in/around Gaza should answer your question, in this context. I should probably add that, personally, I would like to see Israel vacate all illegally settled, occupied, territories, and Palestine gain independent statehood
    I have very limited knowledge of the Troubles, but my understanding was that the issue was precisely that the predominantly protestant Northern Ireland wanted to be a part of Britain, whereas the catholics wanted a unified, independent Ireland. And I'm not convinced it's a very good comparison anyway, given as Northern Ireland has been a part of Britain for a long long time, whereas Israel is currently trying to actively expand. I don't think there's any real case for disputing that the settlements on the West Bank are totally illegal.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Indeed not, sadly – the most we can hope for is a sustainable ceasefire, Israel becoming less militantly right-wing and defensive, and giving Palestine due concessions, and Palestine transitioning to a non-violent secular democratic society.
    I think the middle east will have descended into chaos long before the societies develop sufficiently for secularism to take root. I think it's far more likely that the end of oil will cause the whole middle east to tear itself apart as the nations fight for whatever resources are left, which will see huge death tolls across the region.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    I think it'd be naive in the extreme to suppose this research wasn't done with the sole interest of calculating how much food to allow to enter palestine. Especially considering the leak around this time where an Israeli official told the US government that they were actively trying to keep palestine 'on the verge of economic collapse'.
    Economic sanctions doesn't necessarily mean the wish to starve people. The data in your source doesn't support it. Using "naive" as argument is not serious to justify such words as "abhorrent".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Economic sanctions doesn't necessarily mean the wish to starve people. The data in your source doesn't support it. Using "naive" as argument is not serious to justify such words as "abhorrent".
    Well I'd be interested to hear what you think the reasoning was behind an Israeli study into the calorific requirements of palestine, at the same time as Israel significantly tightened her blockade of palestine and an Israeli official admitted to trying to leave palestine on the brink of collapse. I'm also curious as to why the Israeli government opposed the publishing of this report, if it was sanctioned entirely innocently.

    The source said that Israel had sanctioned a report into the calorific requirements of palestine, and had admitted to attempting to leave palestine on the verge of economic collapse. Whilst perhaps this doesn't explicitly prove that Israel is attempting to starve out palestine, I think it's pretty obvious that's what they're doing.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Damien96)
    OK, I agree.

    Zionism is an unhelpful word that has been corrupted. That is why I asked. Israel has always been a homeland of Jews, however and all states are born out of blood shed and injustice. Israel has a right to exist as does Palestine.

    Much language against Israel is pure anti-semitism from people who should know better. The type of people that see nuance where it doesn't exist in other conversations but let their inner bigot loose regarding Israel.
    Quite right.

    Criticise the actions of Israel all you like. But when people say they're "anti-Zionists" and when they call people stuff like "Zios" as an insult and blah blah what they're actually saying is they're against the existence of the Jewish state and therefore Israel. Because that's what Zionism is.

    So they're not against Israel because of Israel's actions so it doesn't matter what Israel does or does not do, they'll still always be against Israel. When these people say that they won't hate Israel if they stop doing X, Y Z or if they revert to 1967 borders, it's an outright lie. Which is fitting because most of these types are of highly questionable character which is why they usually never condemn Hamas (a terrorist group) or the actions of Palestinian terrorists when they deliberately target civilians. It also explains why these people are so eager to swallow all the crap given to them by very dubious sources (often terrorists and extremely staunch anti-semites) like Pallywood and Hamas propaganda. They love it.

    It also explains why these people never ever criticise anybody who harms Palestinians (eg when Hamas use them as human shields, when ISIS attack their refugee camps, when their politicians are thrown off buildings in celebration of Hamas "election" victories or when Egypt helps enforce the blockade) but go absolutely nuts when a Jew so much as sneezes in the direction of a Palestinian. You really have to question the true agenda of these people.

    Again, I'm not talking about people who are against Israel currently because of the actions of the Israeli government blah blah but rather these "Anti-Zionist" types. These people who are at pains to at the caveat before their hate-filled rants that they're not anti-Jewish but anti-Zionist, before coming out with crap that you'd find in Hamas literature and in the speeches of creatures who openly want all Jews killed. Not only is it so obviously utterly transparent and disingenuous but even by their own admission their issue with Israel is not their actions but their existence. This is pure Hamas and people expect Israel to deal with these types. You're living in dreamland.

    A lot of these types don't necessarily hate Jews but are very ignorant and easily-led to the extent that they swallow hook, line and sinker some of the most outrageous and vile propaganda from the most disgusting anti-Semites there are. They really ought to be careful because currently they're acting as the useful idiots for terrorists like Hamas and others who'd love nothing more than to kill all the Jews (such as Jeremy Corbyn's mate Sheikh Raed Salah).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Quite right.

    Criticise the actions of Israel all you like. But when people say they're "anti-Zionists" and when they call people stuff like "Zios" as an insult and blah blah what they're actually saying is they're against the existence of the Jewish state and therefore Israel. Because that's what Zionism is.

    So they're not against Israel because of Israel's actions so it doesn't matter what Israel does or does not do, they'll still always be against Israel. When these people say that they won't hate Israel if they stop doing X, Y Z or if they revert to 1967 borders, it's an outright lie. Which is fitting because most of these types are of highly questionable character which is why they usually never condemn Hamas (a terrorist group) or the actions of Palestinian terrorists when they deliberately target civilians. It also explains why these people are so eager to swallow all the crap given to them by very dubious sources (often terrorists and extremely staunch anti-semites) like Pallywood and Hamas propaganda. They love it.

    It also explains why these people never ever criticise anybody who harms Palestinians (eg when Hamas use them as human shields, when ISIS attack their refugee camps, when their politicians are thrown off buildings in celebration of Hamas "election" victories or when Egypt helps enforce the blockade) but go absolutely nuts when a Jew so much as sneezes in the direction of a Palestinian. You really have to question the true agenda of these people.

    Again, I'm not talking about people who are against Israel currently because of the actions of the Israeli government blah blah but rather these "Anti-Zionist" types. These people who are at pains to at the caveat before their hate-filled rants that they're not anti-Jewish but anti-Zionist, before coming out with crap that you'd find in Hamas literature and in the speeches of creatures who openly want all Jews killed. Not only is it so obviously utterly transparent and disingenuous but even by their own admission their issue with Israel is not their actions but their existence. This is pure Hamas and people expect Israel to deal with these types. You're living in dreamland.

    A lot of these types don't necessarily hate Jews but are very ignorant and easily-led to the extent that they swallow hook, line and sinker some of the most outrageous and vile propaganda from the most disgusting anti-Semites there are. They really ought to be careful because currently they're acting as the useful idiots for terrorists like Hamas and others who'd love nothing more than to kill all the Jews (such as Jeremy Corbyn's mate Sheikh Raed Salah).
    Zionism is a racist, colonialist and imperialist ideology.

    To be anti-Zionist is to be anti-racist, anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    The thing is though, this kind of warfare does benefit palestine politically. They endure the majority of the casualties, but Israel gets condemned for 'overreacting'
    Sympathy is one thing, political progress is another. However much the world acts horrified when Israel inflicts mass casualties on Palestinians this strategy has not served them at all well in practical terms as no-one (US/EU) is prepared to really lean on them - indeed the only real heat seems to come from Israelis!

    the political pressure and bad press it creates is a victory of sorts for the arabs
    A shallow victory, for Hamas, at most. The only way such thugs can hang on to power is if the situation is dire for their people (who should never have voted a paramilitary terror organisation into power in the first place)

    From an unbiased standpoint, I'm of the opinion that this is wrong, not to mention contravenes international law
    International law is supposed to protect individual rights and preserve peace. If a neighbour is violating individual rights and wrecking peace then, in the absence of concerted efforts to address this by key actors in the region/internationally, a government has an obligation to perform it’s primary role: to protect its constituents. This is a logical, objective reality. A government, and the constituents who demand action of it, may be considered ‘biased’ but only in so far as they are subject to human nature e.g. a desire to remain alive

    we don't do that. We're claiming to be better than hamas and al-qaeda, so if we stoop to their level we've essentially lost already
    Who’s claiming that? Israelis perhaps, but not I. How many Germans do you think starved to death during the World Wars e.g. because of our blockades? How many people were vapourised/died slow and agonising deaths in Japan e.g. because of our nukes? How many people died needlessly in places that we carpet bombed like Dresden? We Westerners like to think that our states are unimpeachable, such is our vanity and ignorance. The British establishment bombed boats carrying Jewish refugees attempting to make it to Israel FGS!

    the issue was precisely that the predominantly protestant Northern Ireland wanted to be a part of Britain
    That and the fact that the British arbitrarily partitioned the island (ignoring the will of the people in what have become the border regions) and militarised the North, following the war of independence. No plebiscite was ever afforded to the people of either the North or the island as a whole

    I don't think there's any real case for disputing that the settlements on the West Bank are totally illegal
    Immoral, yes, but illegal?- questionable e.g. which UN recognised sovereign state have they denuded in so doing?

    I think the middle east will have descended into chaos long before the societies develop sufficiently for secularism to take root
    Alas my conclusions are similarly pessimistic

    I think it's far more likely that the end of oil will cause the whole middle east to tear itself apart as the nations fight for whatever resources are left, which will see huge death tolls across the region
    Aye, that is, if the nascent proxy US/Israel/Saud vs. Russia/Iran/Syria cold war presently unfolding in Iraq and the Levant doesn’t drag the whole region into devastating conflict, or the coming water crisis doesn’t get there first
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People have a good reason to be anti-Semites. The Jews have had plenty of opportunities to change but they never will. It is only because of the Holohoax that they've been allowed to get away with so much. Is is psychological warfare against us to stop people from standing up against them (again) as the Germans did..

    Look up the history of Jewish expulsion and there's always good reasons behind it..




    Look at the history of 6 million and this is just from the new york times alone!

    Name:  6million.jpg
Views: 60
Size:  245.5 KB
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Well I'd be interested to hear what you think the reasoning was behind an Israeli study into the calorific requirements of palestine, at the same time as Israel significantly tightened her blockade of palestine and an Israeli official admitted to trying to leave palestine on the brink of collapse.
    Prevent malnutrition as a result of economic sanctions. Exactly as is said in the article and in the document itself.
    I'm also curious as to why the Israeli government opposed the publishing of this report, if it was sanctioned entirely innocently.
    No one governmental or private structure wants its internal document be published. It doesn't necessary makes such documents criminal. The really important documents are classified.
    The source said that Israel had sanctioned a report into the calorific requirements of palestine, and had admitted to attempting to leave palestine on the verge of economic collapse.
    "while avoiding a humanitarian crisis". You skipped the rest of the sentence..
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Prevent malnutrition as a result of economic sanctions. Exactly as is said in the article and in the document itself.

    No one governmental or private structure wants its internal document be published. It doesn't necessary makes such documents criminal. The really important documents are classified.

    "while avoiding a humanitarian crisis". You skipped the rest of the sentence..
    sorry but what Israel is doing in Gaza is sickening to say the least,please stop defending the actions of your racist government
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Zionism is a racist, colonialist and imperialist ideology.

    To be anti-Zionist is to be anti-racist, anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist.
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    They really ought to be careful because currently they're acting as the useful idiots
    :cool:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Reported.

    I'm shocked. :cool:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    But all this is by the by given that it was arab forces who begun the fighting in 1948.
    You're not consistent on this point through your post. Here you say (or at least imply by context), that the fighting began with the Arab states' invasion in May 1948, yet later you acknowledge that fighting had been going on in Palestine since 1947. So which is it?

    Whether the partition plan was dead in the water or otherwise - I'm not knowledgeable enough to dispute that - would hardly justify a military intervention.
    Arguably, but it's important to remember that at the time Palestine appeared to be something of a legality/sovereignty vacuum.

    But the syrians would never have been going to war without the egyptians, as they knew they'd always have egyptian backing should it come to that. And it's funny that you mention UNEF. I'd argue that egypt demanding that UNEF leave sinai, at the same time as significantly strengthening the presence of egyptian forces in the same place, is a pretty clear indicator of egypt's intentions. If egypt's military presence was purely defensive, then why on earth would they demand UNEF leave?
    Collective self-defence in the case of an attack on Syria or Jordan. A significant factor was King Hussein's condemnation of Nasser supposedly hiding behind UNEF to avoid such a commitment when Israel had attacked the Jordanian-held West Bank the previous year. And again, if Israel's intentions were purely defensive, why did it reject UNEF's offer to redeploy on the Israeli side of the border?


    That's not the point. That he did it at all clearly suggests that egypt takes exception to israel, and it is an act that contravenes international law
    If that was so clearly true, then Israel had nothing to fear from the ICJ.

    so in and of itself could be argued to be grounds for a military response.
    Far from necessarily true. We're talking about a waterway, not sovereign territory. Even if you argue that Israel had the right to use military force to enforce its access to what it claimed was an international waterway, that's rather different from a carte blanche to attack Egypt in any way.

    Not very dependant, apart from oil? That's like saying humans aren't dependant on plant life and algae, except for the oxygen they make.
    You were the one who claimed they were dependent on Tiran, especially for oil. 'Especially' doesn't mean 'only'.

    Cutting out 90% of israel's oil import is an act of aggression.
    No, it isn't. Israel has no inherent right to import a particular quantity of oil. In fact, what they were importing through them was completely irrelevant to the legal questions regarding the Straits. Israel's position was that it was an international waterway through which Israel had a right to passage. Egypt's position was that it was the territorial water of Egypt and Saudi Arabia (and Jordan, to a lesser extent).

    I'm not particularly interested in why exactly the arab nations decided to attack; the fact is, they did decide to attack the israelis.
    You’ve simply repeated the claim I was arguing against. My point wasn’t about why they attacked, at least not primarily, but rather about how we should interpret that attack. Israel was, at the time, an unrecognised state declared unilaterally (and indeed, surprisingly) a matter of hours earlier – after the Arab states had made the decision to attack – with no designated territory to ‘invade’ as such. In summary, to simply say “the Arab states decided to attack Israel” is a very anachronistic, hindsight-oriented view of the sequence of events reliant on it being inevitable and everyone knowing them to be inevitable.
    And I'm skeptical of your timeline there. A state of israel was declared in may 1948, but arab violence towards the israelis started pretty much as soon as the UN recommendation came out in november 1947.
    As did Jewish attacks on Arabs. In fact, there was plenty of violence going on (though less intensely) before November 1947 as well - it's a fairly arbitrary date.

    Arab Liberation Armies started arriving in palestine from the turn of the year, along with egyptian presence in the form of the Army of the Holy War. Jews were blockaded and starved out in Jerusalem months before the declaration of a state of Israel.
    In what way was the Army of the Holy War an “Egyptian presence”, at least at this stage? The Army of the Holy War was overwhelmingly a local force set up by local Palestinian leaders, and is generally contrasted with the Arab Liberation Army, which was set up by the Arab League as an attempt to counterbalance the Holy War Army and diminish the influence of Palestinian figures, consisted of more foreign volunteers (though Palestinians still formed the bulk), and was supplied by the Arab League. It was also, more implicitly, intended to block or limit King Abdullah’s expansionist ambitions. The Holy War Army did later in the war fall under areas controlled by Egyptian forces and was forcibly reorganised under Egyptian control, but it was not created as such.




    See above. The other arab states had entered the war long before this point. May 1948 merely marked the point where it became a war against Israel, rather than a war against the jews in palestine.
    See above. Violence against the jews in palestine and intervention from other arab countries was well underway by the turn of the year, never mind May.
    How had the Arab states entered the war before May 1948? A few paramilitaries aligned to them hardly constitutes entering a war, especially when you consider that Israel was also receiving outside help at various points during the war, notably from France and Czechoslovakia, never mind the fact that the vast bulk of its manpower had of course recently arrived from elsewhere.

    The land set out under the UN recommendation. Israel showed no real appetite to expand beyond this until much later in the conflict.
    Yet earlier you cited the Siege of Jerusalem – not within the area assigned to the Jewish State under the UNSCOP plan – as a case of Arab aggression?
    Israel’s Declaration of Independence deliberately made no reference to the UNSCOP-proposed borders for precisely the reason that they wanted to expand beyond them, given the opportunity. Indeed, right from the start Ben-Gurion and others said they regarded partition as merely temporary, and that the large Arab population (UNSCOP initially put it at a slight minority, though more updated stats suggested Arabs may have been a thin majority) still left within the proposed Jewish state boundaries threatened the state’s viability.

    The scope of Israeli territorial ambitions through the 1948 war is multi-faceted and debatable. In part, they mostly (though far from wholly) stayed within the UNSCOP borders due to fear of British intervention. Once that’s out of the picture, it’s a bit less clear. Some figures, such as Yigal Allon, claimed that had it not been for the Arab states’ invasions, Israel would have taken all of Mandatory Palestine. I’m a bit more sceptical about that, because Israel had already wanted to give a chunk of the UNSCOP-proposed Palestinian areas (at least temporarily) to the Jordanians, and with the exception of Jerusalem didn’t particularly want to acquire the (almost entirely Palestinian) West Bank anyway, at least not at that point in time.

    They got over the Suez canal, yes. But the progression of the war showed they had no capabilities whatsoever of pushing past the israeli positions in the sinai. And the only reason the egyptians pushed for a ceasefire was because the Israelis broke the Egyptian line, landed tanks on the western bank of the Suez and cut off the supply lines to the egyptian army. I can't rule it out, but for this to have been planned requires a hell of a lot of foresight on the part of Sadat.
    The Israelis were able to break the Egyptian line because of the Egyptian attack on 13/14 August, pushed by Sadat in hope of relieving the Syrians (who, by this point, were on the back foot), which wrecked the Egyptian forces’ missile-defended positions on the canal east bank.

    On the other hand, that line of thought requires us to believe that Assad was a mug.
    Assad heavily overestimated his army’s capacities.

    That's semantics, come on.
    No, it’s a significant distinction. Israel is legally entitled to hold its own sovereign territory indefinitely with no conditions, that’s what having sovereign territory means. It is not entitled to hold Egyptian or Syrian territory indefinitely, but is required to eventually return it, at least as part of a reasonable peace deal. The questions are: i) if such a peace deal was theoretically on the table, would Israel be prepared to give up Sinai and Golan in exchange for it?, and ii) if the answer to that question was yes (if it was no, then this is largely irrelevant), had Sadat been willing to make such a peace deal?

    If Israel was, at the time, unwilling and unprepared to give up Sinai for a reasonable peace deal, as I would argue was the case, then military action was Sadat’s only real option.

    I presumed the person who made the initial comment was referring to every time that Israel took land that was initially to be part of palestine.
    OK, let’s write this specific point off then, it seems we’ve been confusing exactly what the other is talking about.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.