Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Setton

Trump to recognise Jerusalem

537 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Area201

Looking at the history of the region, the problem stems from Palestine's rejection of the 1948 resolution and subsequent going to war against the new state of Israel.

Had they accepted this offer originally they would have much more land that was proposed. Jerusalem was not proposed to be the capital of Israel, but then the war changed control. Had they not declared war with Israel along surrounding Arab armies the status would have been internationally based - "Jerusalem was granted special status and was meant to be placed under international sovereignty and control".

The Arab nations gambled and rejected the original plan - and lost (much land including control over Jerusalem). The Orangutan got something right for once.

Edited by Area201
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
4 hours ago, Area201 said:

Looking at the history of the region, the problem stems from Palestine's rejection of the 1948 resolution and subsequent going to war against the new state of Israel.

Had they accepted this offer originally they would have much more land that was proposed. Jerusalem was not proposed to be the capital of Israel, but then the war changed control. Had they not declared war with Israel along surrounding Arab armies the status would have been internationally based - "Jerusalem was granted special status and was meant to be placed under international sovereignty and control".

The Arab nations gambled and rejected the original plan - and lost (much land including control over Jerusalem). The Orangutan got something right for once.

They took Jerusalem in '67, not '48, and Israel started the war in 1967, not the Arabs.

Would you, in 1948, have accepted the Partition plan, if a large force of Europeans had invaded your country and demanded half of it? Would you accept this now in whichever country you reside?

Claiming the Palestinians are somehow at fault for what happened in 1948 is dishonest on many levels. Claiming they are somehow responsible for both wars is laughable.

You should also be made aware that the Israelis leadership has almost always been extremist. They would not have stopped within the Partition Plan. They tried to take Gaza and the Good Heights long before 1967, and, if you listen to Netanyahu (just last week), you will hear exactly why they think they have a right to all of the land: it says so in the Bible.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco
8 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

They took Jerusalem in '67, not '48, and Israel started the war in 1967, not the Arabs.

Would you, in 1948, have accepted the Partition plan, if a large force of Europeans had invaded your country and demanded half of it? Would you accept this now in whichever country you reside?

Claiming the Palestinians are somehow at fault for what happened in 1948 is dishonest on many levels. Claiming they are somehow responsible for both wars is laughable.

You should also be made aware that the Israelis leadership has almost always been extremist. They would not have stopped within the Partition Plan. They tried to take Gaza and the Good Heights long before 1967, and, if you listen to Netanyahu (just last week), you will hear exactly why they think they have a right to all of the land: it says so in the Bible.

I neither recognise nor accept your version of events.

It is simply historical revisionism and I will not debate your version because it is simplistic and simply wrong. In this age of accessible knowledge there is no excuse for it. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
7 minutes ago, keithisco said:

I neither recognise nor accept your version of events.

It is simply historical revisionism and I will not debate your version because it is simplistic and simply wrong. In this age of accessible knowledge there is no excuse for it. 

It's the recorded history of the conflict. It cannot be debated because this is what happened. If you'd read any of the material from that era then you'd know this. Maybe you should read the thread.

And lucky for you then that my post wasn't directed at you.

Thanks for taking the time to reply just to say you won't discuss the subject. It's entirely redundant, but thanks nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
49 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It's the recorded history of the conflict. It cannot be debated because this is what happened. If you'd read any of the material from that era then you'd know this. Maybe you should read the thread.

And lucky for you then that my post wasn't directed at you.

Thanks for taking the time to reply just to say you won't discuss the subject. It's entirely redundant, but thanks nonetheless.

I am not having cake tonight. 

Sorry, thought you'd like to know other things random people won't be doing. Isn't that the idea? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Area201
13 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

They took Jerusalem in '67, not '48,

Wiki and maps I found say they took portions of Jerusalem in '48, then only in '67 control over the Arab East Jerusalem also. Again, your ignoring the original UN plan for a sovereign internationally controlled Jerusalem which was rejected by the Arabs. Obviously both sides want all the land. You need a third (international) party to help mediate and find a solution, which they did. 

rYtdEOS.jpg?1

This is from my earlier research on the subject of who started the war. In 48 Arab states did.

Looks like the Egyptian daily of the times had the right idea and foresaw consequences of rejecting the Plan. "..the first important Arab voice who supported the partition was the influential Egyptian daily "Al Mokattam": "We stand for partition because we believe that it is the best final solution for the problem of Palestine...rejection of partition...will lead to further complications and will give the Zionists another space of time to complete their plans of defense and attack...a delay of one more year which would not benefit the Arabs but would benefit the Jews, especially after the British evacuation."

Instead "We will sweep them [the Jews] into the sea". The Syrian president, Shukri al-Quwatli, told his people: "We shall eradicate Zionism".

"Arabs remained adamant even when Abba Eban and David Horowitz from the Jewish Agency made one last attempt to work for a compromise in a meeting. The meeting was held in September 1947 with Azzam Pasha, the Arab League Secretary-General, where he gave a blunt statement saying, “The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It’s likely, Mr. Horowitz that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won’t get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we’ll succeed, but we’ll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it’s too late to talk of peaceful solutions.”

 

13 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

and Israel started the war in 1967, not the Arabs.

In 67, you're partially right Israel in a "preemptive strike against three Arab states". They had reason to. 

"In the period leading up to June 1967, tensions became dangerously heightened. Israel reiterated its post-1956 position that the closure of the straits of Tiran to its shipping would be a casus belli and in late May Nasser announced the straits would be closed to Israeli vessels. Egypt then mobilised its forces along its border with Israel, and on 5 June Israel launched what it claimed were a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields."

"Arab casualties were far heavier than those of Israel: fewer than a thousand Israelis had been killed compared to over 20,000 from the Arab forces. Israel's military success was attributed to the element of surprise, an innovative and well-executed battle plan, and the poor quality and leadership of the Arab forces. Israel seized control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. Israeli morale and international prestige were greatly increased by the outcome of the war and the area under Israeli control tripled."

Conclusion: After rulers going back and forth for thousands of years, entering the early part of the 20th century I think the UN recognized the need of self determination for both Palestinian Arabs and Jews, and found a best solution. The Arabs failed to recognize the unique opportunity and refused a reasonable international solution, instead going to war, which only made the Zionists happy as it gave them the power to take even more land. Since they did not accept the partition, they get the little they have now that comes from losing a war. Furthermore, the situation is now that Israel has nuclear weapons and doesn't bide entirely by international laws.

"Since the arabs rejected it, they really have no right/reason to complain about it now. They made their bed and now they can blow themselves up in it." Lauren Source

aBPFvwj.png?1
 

The more the Arabs rejected the internationally recognized deals, the more they threatened to eliminate Israel, the more opportunity Israel took to gain more land thru war. Foolish if you ask me, and yes, if I was Palestinian I would recognize the difficult situation and accept the original UN deal. Given the history in the region it's not like a totally foreign power comes to your nation and takes your land from you. That was not the case and you know it. 

I actually was more pro Palestine before I researched the history of the region and had to switch my position in favor of Israel.

Edited by Area201
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
5 hours ago, keithisco said:

I neither recognise nor accept your version of events.

It is simply historical revisionism and I will not debate your version because it is simplistic and simply wrong. In this age of accessible knowledge there is no excuse for it. 

Whether you recognise or accept it means diddly squat.  By making this claim and in the next sentence claiming you will not debate it just shows your ignorance and places you in that elite category of a so called "troll".

Try harder next time before spouting your "Sentence".  Everything Expand said is well and truly documented and has been many times on these threads.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
1 hour ago, Area201 said:

Wiki and maps I found say they took portions of Jerusalem in '48, then only in '67 control over the Arab East Jerusalem also. Again, your ignoring the original UN plan for a sovereign internationally controlled Jerusalem which was rejected by the Arabs. Obviously both sides want all the land. You need a third (international) party to help mediate and find a solution, which they did. 

rYtdEOS.jpg?1

This is from my earlier research on the subject of who started the war. In 48 Arab states did.

Looks like the Egyptian daily of the times had the right idea and foresaw consequences of rejecting the Plan. "..the first important Arab voice who supported the partition was the influential Egyptian daily "Al Mokattam": "We stand for partition because we believe that it is the best final solution for the problem of Palestine...rejection of partition...will lead to further complications and will give the Zionists another space of time to complete their plans of defense and attack...a delay of one more year which would not benefit the Arabs but would benefit the Jews, especially after the British evacuation."

Instead "We will sweep them [the Jews] into the sea". The Syrian president, Shukri al-Quwatli, told his people: "We shall eradicate Zionism".

"Arabs remained adamant even when Abba Eban and David Horowitz from the Jewish Agency made one last attempt to work for a compromise in a meeting. The meeting was held in September 1947 with Azzam Pasha, the Arab League Secretary-General, where he gave a blunt statement saying, “The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It’s likely, Mr. Horowitz that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won’t get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we’ll succeed, but we’ll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it’s too late to talk of peaceful solutions.”

 

You can't acquire land through conflict (4th Geneva), this is what the Jews are doing.  The UN has been adamant throughout this time that the 67 borders are the legitimate separation between the two antagonists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Area201
Just now, Black Red Devil said:

You can't acquire land through conflict (4th Geneva), this is what the Jews are doing.  The UN has been adamant throughout this time that the 67 borders are the legitimate separation between the two antagonists.

I got a bit carried away with looking at the big picture here, but really this was about the move of US embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing as capital. They seem to have already been stalling this move for decades. 

"Congress actually passed a law 22 years ago saying that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. But every President has delayed the implementation for 6 months at a time since then. Now that Trump has decided to no longer delay, the law will go into effect and Jerusalem will legally be the capital of Israel under US law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act#Presidential_waiver"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
1 hour ago, Area201 said:

In 67, you're partially right Israel in a "preemptive strike against three Arab states". They had reason to. 

"In the period leading up to June 1967, tensions became dangerously heightened. Israel reiterated its post-1956 position that the closure of the straits of Tiran to its shipping would be a casus belli and in late May Nasser announced the straits would be closed to Israeli vessels. Egypt then mobilised its forces along its border with Israel, and on 5 June Israel launched what it claimed were a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields."

"Arab casualties were far heavier than those of Israel: fewer than a thousand Israelis had been killed compared to over 20,000 from the Arab forces. Israel's military success was attributed to the element of surprise, an innovative and well-executed battle plan, and the poor quality and leadership of the Arab forces. Israel seized control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. Israeli morale and international prestige were greatly increased by the outcome of the war and the area under Israeli control tripled."

Conclusion: After rulers going back and forth for thousands of years, entering the early part of the 20th century I think the UN recognized the need of self determination for both Palestinian Arabs and Jews, and found a best solution. The Arabs failed to recognize the unique opportunity and refused a reasonable international solution, instead going to war, which only made the Zionists happy as it gave them the power to take even more land. Since they did not accept the partition, they get the little they have now that comes from losing a war. Furthermore, the situation is now that Israel has nuclear weapons and doesn't bide entirely by international laws.

"Since the arabs rejected it, they really have no right/reason to complain about it now. They made their bed and now they can blow themselves up in it." Lauren Source

aBPFvwj.png?1
 

The more the Arabs rejected the internationally recognized deals, the more they threatened to eliminate Israel, the more opportunity Israel took to gain more land thru war. Foolish if you ask me, and yes, if I was Palestinian I would recognize the difficult situation and accept the original UN deal. Given the history in the region it's not like a totally foreign power comes to your nation and takes your land from you. That was not the case and you know it. 

I actually was more pro Palestine before I researched the history of the region and had to switch my position in favor of Israel.

So with this logic, you believe the Japanese had a Right to attack Pearl Harbour in a preemptive attack? 

In August 1941 the US imposed an embargo on oil shipments to Japan. The Japanese responded by attacking the US naval fleet at Pearl Harbor.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
7 minutes ago, Area201 said:

I got a bit carried away with looking at the big picture here, but really this was about the move of US embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing as capital. They seem to have already been stalling this move for decades. 

"Congress actually passed a law 22 years ago saying that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. But every President has delayed the implementation for 6 months at a time since then. Now that Trump has decided to no longer delay, the law will go into effect and Jerusalem will legally be the capital of Israel under US law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act#Presidential_waiver"

And this is why Trump's decision is controversial.  From your article.

The act also called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city and for it to be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel. Israel's declared capital is Jerusalem, but this is not internationally recognized, pending final status talks in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The proposed law was adopted by the Senate (93–5),[3] and the House (374–37).

The USA doesn't represent International Law.  Trump through his declaration has done something no previous President did, he picked a side. 

Edited by Black Red Devil
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Area201
Just now, Black Red Devil said:

So with this logic, you believe the Japanese had a Right to attack Pearl Harbour in a preemptive attack? 

In August 1941 the US imposed an embargo on oil shipments to Japan. The Japanese responded by attacking the US naval fleet at Pearl Harbor.

Each case is unique and it's own context. The U.S is guilty of many unprovoked attacks, and sending out economic hitmen throughout the world. Japanese gambled and got two nuclear bombs dropped on them in defeat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
25 minutes ago, Area201 said:

Each case is unique and it's own context. The U.S is guilty of many unprovoked attacks, and sending out economic hitmen throughout the world. Japanese gambled and got two nuclear bombs dropped on them in defeat. 

I understand this, but is it right or wrong?  Are pre-emptive attacks acceptable?  You claimed yes.  On the same basis you could also say Russia had a Right to annex Crimea though an invasion.  Unique and different in context but still a preemptive attack due to a "so called" reason.  Not all end with a massive defeat by the attackers.

Edited by Black Red Devil
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Area201
Just now, Black Red Devil said:

I understand this, but is it right or wrong?  Are pre-emptive attacks acceptable?  You claimed yes.  On the same basis you could also say Russia had a Right to annex Crimea though an invasion.  Unique and different in context but still a preemptive attack due to a "so called" reason.

Not if you "stage" or fabricate a threat that's not there, that is most common way, then it's totally not acceptable. What was Russia's excuse of being "threatened"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
2 hours ago, Area201 said:

Wiki and maps I found say they took portions of Jerusalem in '48, then only in '67 control over the Arab East Jerusalem also. Again, your ignoring the original UN plan for a sovereign internationally controlled Jerusalem which was rejected by the Arabs

So we were both half right and half wrong.

You didn't answer my question. If an invasion of Europeans came to colonise your country and it was declared by an outside force that half of it would be taken away, would you accept such a thing happening? 

People always try to paint the Palestinians and other Arabs as somehow acting unreasonably when they defended their land. They were not being unreasonable at all.

2 hours ago, Area201 said:

This is from my earlier research on the subject of who started the war. In 48 Arab states did. In 67, you're partially right Israel in a "preemptive strike against three Arab states". They had reason to. 

Good. I had been hoping someone would challenge the assertion that the war was an act of aggression. (Interesting post, by the way).

Yes, it's true that many Arabs, including Nasser, had spoken loudly to other Arab leaders and officials about the menace of Israel, but this was little more than bluster and posturing and an attempt to look strong in the face of heavy criticism in reaction to Israel's aggressive actions - the same sort of rhetoric was also coming from Israel - but the reality was that the Arab countries knew they could not win a war against Israel and had no definitive plans and definitely no intentions to go to war. I'll lift a lot material straight from Image and Reality, with the author's permission. It should be noted that the text is not his opinion, but the testament of the many authoritative sources on the subject, many of whom were directly involved in the goings on of the overall conflict.

As a preface, it is important to note Eban's speech to the UN:

Quote

 

So on the fateful morning of 5 June, when Egyptian forces moved by air and land against Israel’s western coast and southern territory, our country’s choice was plain. The choice was to live or perish, to defend the national existence or to forfeit it for all time.

 

- Abba Eban, United Nations General Assembly 

And this will become relevant:

Quote

 

Propaganda is the art of persuading others of what you do not necessarily believe yourself.

 

Abba Eban, in Contemporary Aphorisms

Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Kindle Locations 3269-3272). Verso. Kindle Edition. 

A little bit of context:

Quote

E.L.M. Burns, chief of staff of United Nations forces in the Middle East during the mid-1950s, testifies that before Israel’s raid on Gaza in February 1955, ‘the facts did not indicate … a critical situation’. Kennett Love likewise reports that ‘violence was infrequent on the Egyptian-Israeli frontier before Gaza’. Indeed, according to Donald Neff, ‘Nasser since coming to power two-and-a-half years earlier, had shown scant interest in the usual Arab expressions of hatred for Israel’. The Arab nationalist leader’s energies were focused inward as he sought to shepherd Egypt into the modern world. But the unprecedentedly bloody Israeli assault, which left thirty-eight Egyptian soldiers and civilians dead and nearly as many wounded, changed everything. It was – in Burns’s words – the ‘decisive event [that] set a trend which continued until Israel invaded the Sinai in October 1956’.

Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Kindle Locations 3293-3299). Verso. Kindle Edition. 

Egypt had looked very much like they were moving away from the previously standard position of hating Israel and wanting their destruction, or at the very least softening rather significantly. It was Israel's raid on Gaza in '55 which again led the two countries down a path of conflict. One that saw Israel invade the West Bank for the first time (to my knowledge).

Then:

Quote

In mid-November 1966, Israel embarked on its largest military action since the Suez war. An armored brigade of nearly 4,000 men attacked the West Bank town of Samu in the Hebron hills, methodically destroying 125 homes, a clinic, a school, and a workshop, and killing eighteen Jordanian soldiers as well. (One Israeli soldier was killed.) Condemning the raid at the United Nations, US Ambassador Arthur Goldberg noted that the toll it took ‘in human lives and in destruction far surpasses the cumulative total of the various acts of terrorism conducted against the frontiers of Israel’. ‘I wish to make it absolutely clear,’ he pronounced, ‘that this large-scale military action cannot be justified, explained away or excused by the incidents which preceded it and in which the Government of Jordan has not been implicated.’

Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Kindle Locations 3300-3305). Verso. Kindle Edition. 

The reason for Israel's attacks was to 'punish' Hussein for not curbing the cross-border guerrillas who had been targeting Israel (to little effect). Odd Bull, chief of staff of UN forces in the Middle East, said this: ‘the Jordanian authorities did all they possibly could to stop infiltration’, with other UN observers going as far as to say: ‘Jordan’s efforts to curb infiltrators reached the total capabilities of the country’.

Quote

Indeed, until the June 1967 war, more Palestinians were killed by Jordanian soldiers attempting to enter Israel than by the Israelis themselves. And, only a few months before the Samu attack, King Hussein had taken the extraordinary step of arresting most of the Palestine Liberation Organization staff in Amman and closing its offices.

Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Kindle Locations 3311-3314). Verso. Kindle Edition. 

And a note on those guerrillas:

Quote

The main reason … was that the boundary was so drawn that the Arabs in that area were the victims of great economic hardship, since their villages were cut off from the land which for generations had been the source of their livelihood. … It is not difficult to picture the state of desperation to which they were driven when they were obliged to contemplate Israeli farmers exploiting the land which they and their forefathers had cultivated for so many hundreds of years. … It was these sorts of people who were responsible for infiltration over the demarcation line, their aim being to steal from what had not so long ago been their own land, to carry out acts of sabotage, and so on.

Odd Bull, War and Peace in the Middle East, (p. 61)

The "terrorists", as Israel preferred to paint them, were people who were directly affected by the Partition Plan you seem to think was completely acceptable.

The perceived objective of Israel had been noted by others at the time:

Quote

Samu’s main legacy was the poisoning of relations and exacerbating of already bitter rivalries in the Arab world. As one historian observed, ‘by its raid on Samu, Israel, as it no doubt calculated, sharpened Arab divisions, radicalized opinion, and set its lamentably weak and hopelessly quarrelsome neighbors lurching amid mutual plots and accusations, to the very edge of the precipice’. In particular, a new round of mutual recriminations was fueled with Radio Jordan, for example, taunting Nasser for his ‘empty rhetoric’ in not rising to the Kingdom’s defense and for using the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) stationed in Sinai and Gaza as a pretext for not confronting Israel.

Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Kindle Locations 3314-3319). Verso. Kindle Edition. 

Nasser had been coming under more and more pressure from other Arab leaders, effectively minimising his influence in the region. I mentioned before that this was a reason for the Arab 'bluster' and rhetoric regarding Israel's aggressions in the lead up to '67. 

I also mentioned that the same rhetoric came from Israel itself:

Quote

In early April, a border incident between Israel and Syria climaxed in a major aerial engagement. Six Syrian planes were shot down, one over Damascus. Tensions between the two countries continued to mount in the ensuing month. In the second week of May, Israeli officials threatened to launch a full-scale attack on Syria. General Yitzak Rabin, the chief of staff, was alleged to have announced on Israeli radio that ‘the moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian government’. The Israeli chief of military intelligence menacingly warned of a ‘military action of great size and strength’ against Syria. Prime Minister Eshkol declared that Israel ‘may have to teach Syria a sharper lesson’ than that of early April. In a front-page dispatch headlined ‘Israelis Ponder Blow at Syrians – Some Leaders Decide That Force Is the Only Way to Curtail Terrorism’, the New York Times reported that ‘some Israeli leaders have decided that the use of force against Syria may be the only way to curtail increasing terrorism. … This has become apparent in talks with highly qualified and informed Israelis.’ Citing ‘authoritative sources’, the Jerusalem Post reported that ‘a major military clash with Syria seemed inevitable’, in the form of a military expedition that would ‘take the wind out of the Syrians’ sails once and for all’.

Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Kindle Locations 3320-3329). Verso. Kindle Edition. 

It was clear that Israel was gearing up for war, with their military leaders and even Prime Minister all but openly declaring it. The Arabs, along with the rest of the world, as you can imagine, took this very seriously.

Quote

 

Secretary-General U Thant observed that, ‘in recent weeks, … reports emanating from Israel have attributed to some high officials in that State statements so threatening as to be particularly inflammatory in the sense that they could only heighten emotions and thereby increase tensions on the other side of the lines’. U Thant later recalled that

rumors of an impending blow against Syria were current throughout Israel. … [T] hey reached Cairo and other Arab capitals, where they generated the belief that Israel was about to mount a massive attack on Syria. … Bellicose statements by Israeli leaders … created … panic in the Arab world.

The US State Department ‘cautioned’ Israel against the ‘unsettling effects’ of its ‘threatening statements’, and the US chargé d’affaires in Cairo advised Egypt’s Foreign Minister that the Israeli threats should be taken ‘most seriously’. Le Monde editorialized that ‘it was only a matter of time’ before Israel launched an attack on Syria.

 

Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Kindle Locations 3331-3339). Verso. Kindle Edition. 

And back to that man, Eban:

Quote

 

Eban ridicules the rumors of an impending Israeli assault on Syria as ‘one of the most effective false alarms in history’, as if it were not the ‘bellicose statements by Israeli leaders’ (U Thant) that fomented these rumors. Indeed, Eban himself conceded that, ‘if there had been a little more Israeli silence, the sum of human wisdom would probably have remained intact’.

 

Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Kindle Locations 3340-3342). Verso. Kindle Edition. 

He then went on to blame the Soviets for passing intelligence to the Arabs, claiming that it was false intel. But:

Quote

 

the Soviet intelligence report was not wide of the mark in its general thrust. Richard Parker reports that, by mid-May, ‘the question was not whether Israel was going to strike’ at Syria, but ‘when and how’, and that ‘everyone knew [it] was about to happen’. Michael Brecher states flatly in his authoritative study that Israel’s Cabinet had decided in early May that, if ‘noncoercive methods of persuasion’ against Syria failed, it ‘would launch a limited retaliation raid’. The Soviets, according to Parker, had ‘gotten wind’ of the Israeli Cabinet decision.

 

Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Kindle Locations 3345-3349). Verso. Kindle Edition. 

Eban. I wonder if he ended up believing his own propaganda. Oh well.

The War

All of these events understandably led to Nasser deploying a deterrent force of troops in the Sanai, which resulted in the UNEF forces completely withdrawing - though this was not the actual intention of his actions, according to the Secretary General U Thant himself.

Quote

 

The Egyptian leader apparently did not intend so dramatic a concatenation of gestures. He wanted only that UNEF readjust its deployment in the Sinai but did not desire a UNEF withdrawal, especially from Sharm-el-Shaykh. Confronted with an all-or-nothing ultimatum from UN Secretary-General U Thant that left him with no ‘face-saving device’ (Rikhye), Nasser opted for complete withdrawal.

 

Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Kindle Locations 3356-3359). Verso. Kindle Edition. 

Eban reacted in predictable fashion, but the realities, as I mentioned twice before, were quite different to his claims:

Quote

To Eban, ‘the wanton irresponsibility’ of Nasser’s action ‘defies indulgence’. Indeed, he rates it ‘one of the most unprovoked actions in international history’. Yet in a memo to President Johnson, National Security Advisor Walt Rostow recognized that Nasser ‘probably feels his prestige would suffer irreparably if he failed a third time to come to the aid of an Arab nation attacked by Israel’. Odd Bull, chief of staff of the UN forces, similarly recalled in his memoir that Nasser ‘was obliged to act if his reputation in the Arab world was not to suffer, because he had been subjected to a lot of criticism on the ground that he was sheltering behind UNEF’. Even Moshe Dayan conceded that ‘the nature and scale of our reprisal actions against Syria and Jordan had left Nasser with no choice but to defend his image and prestige in his own country and throughout the Arab world, thereby setting off a train of escalation in the entire Arab region’.

Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Kindle Locations 3360-3366). Verso. Kindle Edition. 

Not quite the picture that you try to paint. That last quote comes from the man who became Minister of Defence on the day Israel attacked in 1967. Sources don't come much more authoritative than that.

The truth is, the whole conflict might have been avoided if Israel had - as Nasser had - accepted to allow UNEF to keep the peace.

Quote

 

In his memoir, U Thant conjectured that ‘if only Israel had agreed to permit UNEF to be stationed on its side of the border, even for a short duration, the course of history could have been different. Diplomatic efforts to avert the pending catastrophe might have prevailed; war might have been averted’. His speculation received an authoritative endorsement from Odd Bull, who stated that ‘it is quite possible that the 1967 war could have been avoided’ had Israel acceded to the Secretary-General’s request.

 

Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Kindle Locations 3381-3385). Verso. Kindle Edition. 

But there was yet another chance for peace. 

Quote

In late May, the UN Secretary-General journeyed to Cairo personally to mediate the crisis. His minimum aim was to get both parties to agree to a ‘breathing spell’ which would ‘allow tension to subside from its present explosive level’ and give the Security Council time ‘to deal with the underlying causes’ and ‘seek solutions’. In this spirit, U Thant presented Nasser with a proposal reportedly backed by the United States. Essentially, it called for a two-week moratorium in the Straits of Tiran similar to the one that U Thant had arranged during the Cuban missile crisis – Israel would refrain from sending and Egypt from inspecting ships – and a renewed effort at diplomacy. A special UN representative would be appointed for the area. Egypt assented, a gesture that the Secretary-General reckoned as ‘very significant’. There was, however, one insuperable hitch. As U Thant recalled: ‘Israel did not agree to either of these conditions.’ The rationale adduced by Israel’s ambassador was that Egypt ‘was bent on war’. Indeed, he got the motive right – but the country wrong. Brian Urquhart, a senior UN official, concluded in his memoir that ‘Israel, no doubt having decided on military action, turned down U Thant’s ideas’.

Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Kindle Locations 3392-3401). Verso. Kindle Edition. 

But, yet again there was an attempt at mediation between the two countries. I'll give you one guess as to what happened:

Quote

 

The United States also tried its hand at mediation. Robert Anderson, a former Treasury Secretary, and Charles Yost, a retired ambassador, met with Egyptian officials in late May and early June. A ‘breakthrough in the crisis’ – in Neff’s words – was apparently reached. Nasser indicated that he was open to World Court arbitration of the dispute over the Straits of Tiran, and perhaps also – accounts are very contradictory – to an easing of the blockade that would allow for the passage of oil pending the Court’s decision. Crucially, the Egyptian leader agreed to send his vice-president to Washington by week’s end to explore a diplomatic settlement. 

The Washington meeting never happened. Israel struck before it could take place. In so doing, it not only preempted negotiations but broke a pledge given to Johnson at the end of May not to take unilateral action before two weeks.

 

Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Kindle Locations 3402-3408). Verso. Kindle Edition. 

Clearly, Israel was hell-bent on war, while Nasser was open to negotiation. 

And the US was not happy one bit:

Quote

 

the mood in Washington in early June was that ‘we had a good chance to de-escalate the crisis’. But the Israeli attack put a stop to that. ‘We were shocked … and angry as hell’, Rusk continued in a passage worth quoting in full,

when the Israelis launched the surprise offensive. They attacked on a Monday, knowing that on Wednesday the Egyptian vice-president would arrive in Washington to talk about re-opening the Strait of Tiran. We might not have succeeded in getting Egypt to reopen the strait, but it was a real possibility.

 

Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Kindle Locations 3410-3414). Verso. Kindle Edition. 

Even Middle East Record noted the realities of the situation:

Quote

 

Middle East Record is a quasi-official Israeli publication assembled by the Shiloah Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies in Tel Aviv. In volume 3, a comprehensive synthesis of the June war, the editors observe that ‘a number of facts seem to indicate Abdel Nasser’s belief in the possibility of terminating … the conflict through diplomacy’. Specifically, they point to ‘the display of his willingness to revive’ EIMAC; ‘his suggestion that the issue of navigation through the Straits of Tiran be taken to the international Court of Justice’; and ‘his vagueness’ at the end of May ‘on the exact definition of the materials that were not to be permitted through the Straits to Israel’.

 

Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Kindle Locations 3416-3421). Verso. Kindle Edition. 

But Eban said:

Quote

 

'Israel has never worked harder to prevent a war than it did’ in June 1967. Indeed, with the Israeli victory in mind, he told the Knesset that ‘wars are most often won by those who have made the greatest efforts to prevent them’. Yet, the one – and only – diplomatic undertaking that Israel embraced in 1967 was with gunboats. It lent support to a US-backed plan, ultimately abortive, to break Nasser’s blockade with a multinational armada. In view of the record surveyed above – repudiation of UN mediation efforts on the one hand, and preemption of US mediation efforts on the other – Eban’s testimonial that ‘Israel has never worked harder’ casts an unwonted light on the actual history of Israeli diplomacy.

 

Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Kindle Locations 3421-3426). Verso. Kindle Edition. 

'Israel has never worked harder to prevent war than it did' in the lead up to the 6 Day War, said Eban. Incredible the chutzpah of the man. Though it does bring you back to that second quote of his in this post. He sure knew his propaganda.

Quote

Propaganda is the art of persuading others of what you do not necessarily believe yourself.

[My emphasis in all the quoted text].

It's getting late so I don't have the time to properly finish this reply. In fact, come tomorrow I might just make a thread on it with this post as the base. The realities of the situation are far from what you seem to believe, Area201. But you seem like an intelligent guy, so hopefully you should be well on the way to seeing that for yourself.

The next post will be directed towards Eban's first quote above: that Israel was on the precipice of annihilation. This is also completely false, as I will show tomorrow.

@Saru Give me a PM if you need the evidence of my having Dr. Norman Finkelstein's permission to quote so much of his text. I can forward you the emails. I know the forum has strict copyright rules and don't want to run the risk of having this post removed. Thanks.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
3 hours ago, Area201 said:

The more the Arabs rejected the internationally recognized deals, the more they threatened to eliminate Israel, the more opportunity Israel took to gain more land thru war. Foolish if you ask me, and yes, if I was Palestinian I would recognize the difficult situation and accept the original UN deal. Given the history in the region it's not like a totally foreign power comes to your nation and takes your land from you. That was not the case and you know it. 

It is illegal to acquire territory through the course of a war. Any territory at all.

The original UN deal is pretty much what the Palestinians are asking for - even Hamas. Actually, with quite a bit more land going to Israel than was originally proposed, as it happens. Israel are the ones violating international law and colonising the Occupied Territories, and have been for 50 years. 

It was exactly 'like a totally foreign power comes to your nation and takes your land from you'. Something like 90% of the Jews in Palestine in 1948 were Europeans - most, I believe, being Polish who actually had homes when they left to colonise another's land. 

I recommend you buy the book I quoted so often above. It really does dispel many of the myths and cases of outright propaganda you see in relation to this conflict.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Area201
4 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Odd Bull

What a name - but that's inconsequential. Yes I'm familiar with Dr. Norman Finkelstein's work in advocating the Palestinian cause. It was very striking how he compared the ghetto conditions of the gaza strip to how the Jews themselves were treated in Warsaw ghetto, for example. 

Most of what you referenced here focuses on the 6 Days War of 1967 and preceding events. It is like a game of chess for Israel and they have been winning indeed. They literally started out with a checkered board in the original UN Partitian you notice. But lets go back to the thread's main issue at hand - recognition of Jeruselum by U.S by moving their embassy there. The U.S is a sovereign nation who is not invading Palestine or making other sovereign nations move their embassies there - it's doing it on it's own. No one else has to follow or should they. They are not killing Palestinians or taking land either. 

This all could have been avoided in 1948. From what I've read Israel had a slight edge in what they get in the deal, which maybe was on purpose to draw Arabs in to go to war and take more land. But my question to you is, what would have been an acceptable plan? My guess is nothing. No plan of any sort to allow Israel to be created would have been accepted. That's the root problem. I understand the 1967 borders are UN accepted and any further advance by Israel is breaking international law etc. Israel doesn't abide by international law - they have nukes and they play a game of not saying they do or not, etc. They are a people who had enough and are self-determined to survive and claim their land even if it means breaking international law, which they do. 

Why hasn't Palestine/Israel made any progress in last 22 years to come with a peace deal that recognizes both states? It hasn't happened, and it will never happen. So U.S Pres Orangutan (who I really don't like) is going forward with where the U.S. wishes to be their embassy. It's not anyone else's embassy, a matter between the U.S and Israel. Anyway that's just how I see it. It's not a subject I spend much time on but really complex situation. (I love trying to work out this type).

 

Edited by Area201
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
4 hours ago, Area201 said:

Not if you "stage" or fabricate a threat that's not there, that is most common way, then it's totally not acceptable. What was Russia's excuse of being "threatened"? 

That's not how International Law works I'm afraid.  While not perfect there are international laws that all 193 UN Member countries have adhered and are bound to.  Casus belli only applies if a country is under an armed attack by another nation.  Otherwise the world would be constantly at war with each other.  It would be like the Dark or Middle Ages only worse because with the weapons we have these days we'd be blown into oblivion within a few years. By your example the US or Russia would have a good case for a preemptive attack since they have nuclear missiles pointed at each other. If that's not a direct threat I don't know what is.

Anyway we've gone OT big time, better get back on deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
4 hours ago, Area201 said:

But my question to you is, what would have been an acceptable plan? My guess is nothing. No plan of any sort to allow Israel to be created would have been accepted.

The Palestinians were never going to accept what happened. How could they? It's staggering to think that anyone should accept such terms.

I think a Jewish home would have been fine for me, personally, if I was a Palestinian. They had already bought 2 million dunams of land, so they had somewhere to live, and if not for WW2, this probably is what would have happened. So, yeah, a national home in Palestine where they could live peacefully and once the Palestinians saw that they had no ambitions to steal their land to create a new country, think would largely have gone back to the way they had been for hundreds of years. This was never what they wanted, though. They wanted more than a 'home' and that term always meant more to Zionists than was properly defined.

4 hours ago, Area201 said:

Israel doesn't abide by international law - they have nukes and they play a game of not saying they do or not

Unfortunately, that isn't how things work, even if it does seem to make sense. All it would take would be a single US presidency to withdraw its veto for a whole term and, nukes or not, Israel could easily be forced into complying. Cut them off from the world with crippling, Iranian-style sanctions and various other strong-armed tactics and they would have no choice. While Israel's leadership have generally all been religious nutjobs, most of their population are normal, everyday people who have no interest in fulfilling a thousands of years old "prophecy". It would work. Israel is a tiny country that relies heavily on its industry and economy.

It is only through the influence of fundamentalist evangelicalism and AIPAC in the US, and likely Israel's own threat of aligning with Russia, that we have not seen this happen already. But I don't think this will last forever.

5 hours ago, Area201 said:

Why hasn't Palestine/Israel made any progress in last 22 years to come with a peace deal that recognizes both states? It hasn't happened, and it will never happen. So U.S Pres Orangutan (who I really don't like) is going forward with where the U.S. wishes to be their embassy. It's not anyone else's embassy, a matter between the U.S and Israel. Anyway that's just how I see it. It's not a subject I spend much time on but really complex situation. (I love trying to work out this type).

It's not really genuine to only blame the side under occupation for there not being any peace. They are the victims and Israel is undoubtedly in the wrong with the occupation. This is not even controversial, but the realities of the situation, the facts of the situation. So to blame them as their land is continually stolen and they are ethnically cleansed even further in slow motion with US - "we spread freedom" - support, while the world watches, is actually a pretty ridiculous stance to take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
On 12/16/2017 at 9:19 PM, ExpandMyMind said:

The transfer of settlers is not only just illegal under international law, it's an outright war crime. This is itself makes the occupation illegal - it's a clear attempt to alter the demographics of the Occupied Territories and a prelude to the eventual annexation of land.

I've already told you and shown you: illegal war = illegal occupation. The occupation became officially illegal the moment 242 passed and the legality and justification for it is not in question.

Also, as I already quoted before:

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/7D35E1F729DF491C85256EE700686136

Unofficially, the very first Resolution regarding the conflict stated the 'inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war'. It's illegal to acquire land by war and this is exactly what happened, this was clearly set out in the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Trials.

We can keep going round in circles if you want but your position has long been debunked.

No, ExpandMyMind, "My position" has NOT been debunked.

Once more, when asked to find any "international law" that declares an occupation to be illegal, you have failed to do so.

The issue of settlers - as I have pointed out many many times now - is not relevant to the issue of wether an occupation per se is illegal. As I have stated at least twice now, the building of new settlements, or the managed migration of Israeli's into the occupied territories, is indeed illegal. We agree on that.

The acquisition of territory is not relevant, as Israel has not formally annexed any territory. (though it comes close with the Golan Heights.).

But what you have NOT done is find anything declaring the occupation itself is illegal, as I have stated many times now.

OK... the nearest you have come to is UN SC Resolution 242. I believe that UNSC Resolutions CAN be cited as part of "International Law". So then... are you stating that Res242 is the ONLY support for the idea that "occupations are against International Law" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

No, ExpandMyMind, "My position" has NOT been debunked.

Once more, when asked to find any "international law" that declares an occupation to be illegal, you have failed to do so.

The issue of settlers - as I have pointed out many many times now - is not relevant to the issue of wether an occupation per se is illegal. As I have stated at least twice now, the building of new settlements, or the managed migration of Israeli's into the occupied territories, is indeed illegal. We agree on that.

The acquisition of territory is not relevant, as Israel has not formally annexed any territory. (though it comes close with the Golan Heights.).

But what you have NOT done is find anything declaring the occupation itself is illegal, as I have stated many times now.

OK... the nearest you have come to is UN SC Resolution 242. I believe that UNSC Resolutions CAN be cited as part of "International Law". So then... are you stating that Res242 is the ONLY support for the idea that "occupations are against International Law" ?

You're arguing something that doesn't really matter and thinking it somehow proves your point. 'Occupation', specifically, doesn't need to be mentioned in law in order for an occupation to be illegal. There are plenty of other laws that make it illegal - like, every act that led to and prolongs it. I have already showed you beyond a doubt that the acquisition of land and the transfer of civilian population to a war-zone are breaches of international law, as is a war of aggression. Practically the entire international community along with legal scholars worldwide support this. Your argument is nonsense, to put it bluntly. 

Here, I'll make it as simple as I can for you:

Shooting someone in the face isn't "illegal" - the particular act isn't mentioned anywhere in law - but the actions of harming and killing someone are both illegal and well-defined in law. Your argument is that it's totally legal to shoot someone in the face because the law doesn't specifically mention you're not allowed to shoot someone in the face. You're not acknowledging that there are other laws in place to prevent the act from being legal.

Your argument is an absolute logical fallacy.

It is an illegal occupation.

 

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

I say we let the Palestinians who actually live in East Jerusalem decide who that part of the city belongs to.  Do they really want their city to be run by terrorists? Do they want to see everything they worked so hard for be taken from them? Let them decide which government they want to be ruled under.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

You're arguing something that doesn't really matter and thinking it somehow proves your point. 'Occupation', specifically, doesn't need to be mentioned in law in order for an occupation to be illegal. There are plenty of other laws that make it illegal - like, every act that led to and prolongs it. I have already showed you beyond a doubt that the acquisition of land and the transfer of civilian population to a war-zone are breaches of international law, as is a war of aggression. Practically the entire international community along with legal scholars worldwide support this. Your argument is nonsense, to put it bluntly. 

Here, I'll make it as simple as I can for you:

Shooting someone in the face isn't "illegal" - the particular act isn't mentioned anywhere in law - but the actions of harming and killing someone are both illegal and well-defined in law. Your argument is that it's totally legal to shoot someone in the face because the law doesn't specifically mention you're not allowed to shoot someone in the face. You're not acknowledging that there are other laws in place to prevent the act from being legal.

Your argument is an absolute logical fallacy.

It is an illegal occupation.

 

"Occupation doesn't need to be mentioned in law in order for an occupation to be illegal"

ExpandMyMind, I'm arresting you for antidisestablishmentarianism. The is no mention of it in law, but I have declared that it is illegal anyway. Because it suits my world-view for it to be so !

Your comparison of "shooting someone in the face" is facile and irrelevant, because it is NOT a meaningful comparison.

And you accuse ME of a logical fallacy ? :P

I'm happy to sit back and let the members of the forum read our posts, and make their own minds up.

 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
6 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I'm happy to sit back and let the members of the forum read our posts, and make their own minds up.

As am I.

Meanwhile:

US outnumbered 14 to 1 as it vetoes UN vote on status of Jerusalem

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/us-outnumbered-14-to-1-as-it-vetoes-un-vote-on-status-of-jerusalem

Again, world consensus is clear.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

US outnumbered 14 to 1 as it vetoes UN vote on status of Jerusalem

Miss Haley said its "An insult" that won't be forgotten.

“It’s scandalous to say we are putting back peace efforts,” she added. “The fact that this veto is being done in defence [defiance?] of American sovereignty and in defence [defiance?] of America’s role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us; it should be an embarrassment to the remainder of the security council.”

Me thinks that US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, is both embarrassed and somewhat cross. She was probably charged with getting at least 2 votes for the measure. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.