Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Ah okay,I thought you were having a dig at Palestinians. That's so true tbh,we need an unbiased Analysis on both sides.
    Not at all! I personally believe that the events up to the 1980s were largely provoked by the arabs, for the reasons I stated in my other posts. But with regards the recent clashes, I think they're both as bad as each other.

    I unequivocally disagree with the blockade that Israel places on palestine, it's abhorrent. I read somewhere that people in the Israeli government have calculated the number of calories that the palestinian population would require so that they can limit it through this blockade. On the other hand, palestinians bombing israel is equally atrocious. And I really do not understand how the palestinians can launch rockets into israel day in, day out, and then complain when israel decides to retort.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Not at all! I personally believe that the events up to the 1980s were largely provoked by the arabs, for the reasons I stated in my other posts. But with regards the recent clashes, I think they're both as bad as each other.

    I unequivocally disagree with the blockade that Israel places on palestine, it's abhorrent. I read somewhere that people in the Israeli government have calculated the number of calories that the palestinian population would require so that they can limit it through this blockade. On the other hand, palestinians bombing israel is equally atrocious. And I really do not understand how the palestinians can launch rockets into israel day in, day out, and then complain when israel decides to retort.
    My friend is travelling to Palestine this summer,so will be interesting to see what she thinks of the whole thing. She's doing this outreach program thing with Palestinian youth to highlight the problems faced by young Palestinians.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    My friend is travelling to Palestine this summer,so will be interesting to see what she thinks of the whole thing. She's doing this outreach program thing with Palestinian youth to highlight the problems faced by young Palestinians.
    Situation on the ground is pretty awful, what with the lack of supplies. Not to mention the constant encroaching by israeli settlers on palestinian land. Sadly, I don't see a solution to this issue any time soon :/
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    At a free Palestine event
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Situation on the ground is pretty awful, what with the lack of supplies. Not to mention the constant encroaching by israeli settlers on palestinian land. Sadly, I don't see a solution to this issue any time soon :/
    What do you think of the 2 state solution?
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    I've dug up my old dissertation on the wars with Israel now. I think it's fairly undeniable that opposition to the partitioning of palestine, as it then was, was predominantly coming from the arabs. Whether the Jewish concurrence was in good faith or not, it was the arabs who overtly opposed it.
    On the whole, yes, but my point was that it's simplistic. It's not a case of resolution - the Palestinians say no - therefore war. The Yishuv leadership had few illusions that the plan was actually going to be implemented, either de jure or de facto. They had long expected and prepared for a war (the Palestinians, by contrast, were almost completely unprepared for war). This is all without discussing the actual content of the partition proposal.


    I'm pretty sure even the most contemporary historical view on this is that the jury is very much out. The egyptians, jordanians and syrians had all mobilised their military forces and placed them on to the border with palestine. And whilst there is some evidence to suggest egyptian mobilisation was defensive, the syrian military force was very clearly intending to invade.
    I've never heard this claim. Indeed, quite the opposite - in the lead-up to the Six Day War there were fears of an Israeli attack on Syria (though the Soviets exaggerated this threat). The Syrian Army was considerably smaller and weaker than the Egyptian Army, and going to war without Egypt would have been unthinkable.

    And it was reasonable (in my opinion) for the israelis to assume that if Syria did attack, that egypt would support them.
    Even if they had thought that, they could have prevented or at least forestalled such an Egyptian action by agreeing to the redeployment of UNEF on the Israeli side of the border with Egypt.

    This view would be supported by the egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran, which contravenes international law and sets a precedent for egyptian hostility towards the israelis.
    Nasser had been willing to negotiate and submit to arbitration over the Straits closure - for example, he offered to let the ICJ decide on it.

    Given how dependant the Israelis were on the imports through this passage - especially for oil
    Not very dependent at all - oil being the only significant exception. Apart from oil, only a very small proportion of Israel trade passed through Tiran. Very few Israeli-flagged ships actually passed through the straits. And besides which, Egypt stopped enforcing the blockade after a few days anyway.

    And that's before you take into account that we know egypt and syria had already shown their willingness to undertake unprovoked military action against the israelis, when they invaded in 1948.
    This is quite an anachronistic portrayal of the 1948 War. For a start, the Arab states were actually in general quite reluctant to fight at first - it was the huge flows of Palestinian refugees into their territory, as well as domestic pressure and a perceived need to save face, that caused them to intervene in the already-raging civil war.

    Furthermore, Israel had been unilaterally declared (a move that surprised the Arab states) by the Jewish Agency a matter of hours before Arab troops moved into what had been Mandatory Palestine. At the time it had no recognition and, more importantly, had not defined its territory, thus rendering the idea that the Arab troops could be 'invading Israel' rather dubious.

    Also, by this logic, Egypt could make the same argument regarding the 1956 Israeli attack on Egypt as proof of Israel's belligerence.

    All this is true, but the 1948 war between the israelis and the arabs was indisputably initiated by an arab invading force from egypt and syria.
    Not true, the war had been raging within Mandatory Palestine for months already. May 1948 merely marks the point when the war significantly changed as:
    - the British left.
    - The Yishuv/Jewish Agency became Israel and Haganah/Irgun/Lehi were merged into the IDF
    - The surrounding Arab states entered the war.

    So whether a plan for this partition to be implemented was ever on the table is essentially moot, as political attempts to settle were curtailed when an arab force attacked the israelis.
    See above. There were several months between the partition resolution and the Arab states entering the war. The resolution was known by pretty much everyone to be dead substantially before May 1948.

    I mean that in each instance, the loss of land to the israelis was a result of aggression initiated by arab forces. Whether the jury is out on the six days war or not, the hostilities in 1948 which lead to the first loss of land to israel was because the arabs attempted to invade israeli land.
    What, in your opinion, was "Israeli land" immediately prior to the Arab states' troops entering Palestine?


    I'm not sure I agree with that position. I'd struggle to believe that Sadat was going to enter a war he knew he'd lose, essentially signing up to tens of thousands of his own people dying, as a bargaining ploy.
    Well, Sadat had publicly declared he would be willing to sacrifice a million soldiers to retake Sinai, but admittedly that's a posturing public statement so hard to draw much from.

    He didn't expect to lose, he believed he would be able to recapture a strip of land along the east bank of the Suez Canal, which he would be able to dig in and hold. This would provide a minor victory over Israel which he believed he would be able to use to either convince Israel to make peace (likely via the Americans), or use as a bridgehead for a further offensive at a later date. This is largely what the Egyptian Army succeeded in doing in the first phase of the Yom Kippur War - it was advancing beyond the captured east bank strip (due to a perceived need to strike due to Syria's military collapse) that cost Egypt the war.

    But beyond this, I find it even harder to believe the syrians would sign up to this. What exactly did they gain out of this arrangement?
    Hafez Assad wrongly believed he would be able to retake Golan by force.

    And that's not the point anyways. My point was that the Yom Kippur war was an example of an unprovoked military attack on israel by her arab neighbours.
    They didn't attack Israel, they never reached Israeli territory. They launched attacks into what was legally their own sovereign territory.


    I don't agree with that. Even if I went along with you that the six days war was unprovoked, the other two instances of war between israel and her arab neighbours were undeniably initiated by the arabs.
    I thought you were talking about the 1948 Nakba/exodus of Palestinians when you talked about "evicting the Arabs"? I don't see how the other wars play into that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Final year of uni. Attended a free Palestine event with a friend. Got speaking to a few of the activists
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    History shows that the two groups can live side by side and indeed help defend each other.

    If they could do it for over 1000 years, then they could start doing it again.
    Interesting comparison is Bosnia - the international community (at least officially) believes that Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs can live together harmoniously in one state as they generally have for centuries, despite the horrors of the 1990s. With Israel/Palestine, by contrast, they assume ethnic partition to be the desirable solution.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    I read somewhere that people in the Israeli government have calculated the number of calories that the palestinian population would require so that they can limit it through this blockade.
    Thank you for very interesting information. I'm waiting further revelations regarding these evil Zionists. :cool:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Indeed, but too many external factors are influencing the situation, for example, Jordanian and Egyptian interests (both historically and today).
    It's a difficult conflict to resolve, there's too many parties who makes it difficult to come to a solution. (Hamas, illegal settlements etc)
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    On the whole, yes, but my point was that it's simplistic. It's not a case of resolution - the Palestinians say no - therefore war. The Yishuv leadership had few illusions that the plan was actually going to be implemented, either de jure or de facto. They had long expected and prepared for a war (the Palestinians, by contrast, were almost completely unprepared for war). This is all without discussing the actual content of the partition proposal.


    But all this is by the by given that it was arab forces who begun the fighting in 1948. 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.


    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I've never heard this claim. Indeed, quite the opposite - in the lead-up to the Six Day War there were fears of an Israeli attack on Syria (though the Soviets exaggerated this threat). The Syrian Army was considerably smaller and weaker than the Egyptian Army, and going to war without Egypt would have been unthinkable.



    Even if they had thought that, they could have prevented or at least forestalled such an Egyptian action by agreeing to the redeployment of UNEF on the Israeli side of the border with Egypt.
    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?



    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Nasser had been willing to negotiate and submit to arbitration over the Straits closure - for example, he offered to let the ICJ decide on it.
    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 so in and of itself could be argued to be grounds for a military response.



    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Not very dependent at all - oil being the only significant exception. Apart from oil, only a very small proportion of Israel trade passed through Tiran. Very few Israeli-flagged ships actually passed through the straits. And besides which, Egypt stopped enforcing the blockade after a few days anyway.
    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. Cutting out 90% of israel's oil import is an act of aggression.



    (Original post by anarchism101)
    This is quite an anachronistic portrayal of the 1948 War. For a start, the Arab states were actually in general quite reluctant to fight at first - it was the huge flows of Palestinian refugees into their territory, as well as domestic pressure and a perceived need to save face, that caused them to intervene in the already-raging civil war.

    Furthermore, Israel had been unilaterally declared (a move that surprised the Arab states) by the Jewish Agency a matter of hours before Arab troops moved into what had been Mandatory Palestine. At the time it had no recognition and, more importantly, had not defined its territory, thus rendering the idea that the Arab troops could be 'invading Israel' rather dubious.

    Also, by this logic, Egypt could make the same argument regarding the 1956 Israeli attack on Egypt as proof of Israel's belligerence.
    I'm not particularly interested in why exactly the arab nations decided to attack; the fact is, they did decide to attack the israelis. 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. 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.



    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Not true, the war had been raging within Mandatory Palestine for months already. May 1948 merely marks the point when the war significantly changed as:
    - the British left.
    - The Yishuv/Jewish Agency became Israel and Haganah/Irgun/Lehi were merged into the IDF
    - The surrounding Arab states entered the war.
    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.



    (Original post by anarchism101)
    See above. There were several months between the partition resolution and the Arab states entering the war. The resolution was known by pretty much everyone to be dead substantially before May 1948.
    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.



    (Original post by anarchism101)
    What, in your opinion, was "Israeli land" immediately prior to the Arab states' troops entering Palestine?
    The land set out under the UN recommendation. Israel showed no real appetite to expand beyond this until much later in the conflict.




    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Well, Sadat had publicly declared he would be willing to sacrifice a million soldiers to retake Sinai, but admittedly that's a posturing public statement so hard to draw much from.

    He didn't expect to lose, he believed he would be able to recapture a strip of land along the east bank of the Suez Canal, which he would be able to dig in and hold. This would provide a minor victory over Israel which he believed he would be able to use to either convince Israel to make peace (likely via the Americans), or use as a bridgehead for a further offensive at a later date. This is largely what the Egyptian Army succeeded in doing in the first phase of the Yom Kippur War - it was advancing beyond the captured east bank strip (due to a perceived need to strike due to Syria's military collapse) that cost Egypt the war.



    Hafez Assad wrongly believed he would be able to retake Golan by force.
    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.

    On the other hand, that line of thought requires us to believe that Assad was a mug.


    (Original post by anarchism101)
    They didn't attack Israel, they never reached Israeli territory. They launched attacks into what was legally their own sovereign territory.
    That's semantics, come on.




    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I thought you were talking about the 1948 Nakba/exodus of Palestinians when you talked about "evicting the Arabs"? I don't see how the other wars play into that.
    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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Thank you for very interesting information. I'm waiting further revelations regarding these evil Zionists. :cool:
    I dunno if you've been reading what I've said, but I've been supporting the israelis up to the 1980s, and said that both israel and palestine are as bad as each other more recently. So I'm hardly coming out massively against Israel. Also, I wasn't just making that up:

    http://imeu.org/article/putting-pale...ockade-of-gaza

    I disagree with this kind of economic warfare. But equally, I've already expressed my opposition to much of what palestine has done, so I don't think I've been slating the Israelis especially?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    What do you think of the 2 state solution?
    I personally don't think that the two state solution would really change anything. The Palestinians would still hate the Israelis, and the Israelis would still be much richer than the Palestinians, so I imagine that we'd see much the same. Palestinians throwing rockets at Israel, and Israel retaliating.

    The only way I see an actual end to the fighting is if either the Israelis all left, or muslims and jews learn to get along. Unfortunately, both of those seem pretty far-fetched.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Samosa)
    It's a difficult conflict to resolve, there's too many parties who makes it difficult to come to a solution. (Hamas, illegal settlements etc)
    Indeed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Final year of uni. Attended a free Palestine event with a friend. Got speaking to a few of the activists
    ..and it didn't occur to you that, y'know.. a Palestinian activist in what is one of the most pro-Palestine countries/cities in the Western world might be a tad bit biased and hence liable to get 'creative with the truth' in the presence of (someone who seems to be) a fellow 'Arab'?:mute:

    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    The only way I see an actual end to the fighting is if either the Israelis all left, or muslims and jews learn to get along
    You don't think that if the Arabs all left things would calm down? :confused:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    You don't think that if the Arabs all left things would calm down? :confused:
    If all the arabs left palestine, there'd still be arabs in egypt, syria, jordan......who would no doubt start causing trouble with israel, and vice versa. If all the arabs left the middle east then sure, but that's just as unlikely.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    ..and it didn't occur to you that, y'know.. a Palestinian activist in what is one of the most pro-Palestine countries/cities in the Western world might be a tad bit biased and hence liable to get 'creative with the truth' in the presence of (someone who seems to be) a fellow 'Arab'?:mute:

    You don't think that if the Arabs all left things would calm down? :confused:
    Of course. But one thing we have to remember is that the issue of Israel and Palestine is very important to a lot of people from the region. they were probably speaking from the heart(emotionally) and very saddened by the whole things,so yes it is a tad biased. I would like to hear the Israeli side too
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    I personally don't think that the two state solution would really change anything. The Palestinians would still hate the Israelis, and the Israelis would still be much richer than the Palestinians, so I imagine that we'd see much the same. Palestinians throwing rockets at Israel, and Israel retaliating.

    The only way I see an actual end to the fighting is if either the Israelis all left, or muslims and jews learn to get along. Unfortunately, both of those seem pretty far-fetched.
    Deep within my heart,I do believe peace can be achieved and that both Israelis and Arabs can live side by side just as they once did.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Final year of uni. Attended a free Palestine event with a friend. Got speaking to a few of the activists
    Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cato the Elder)
    Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.
    Why are you quoting me when I'm not even corresponding with you? Foo asked me a question,I answered it. If you want to cry about it,go cry to someone else
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,978

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
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.