Comments on: Guest post from Melanie Phillips

By: Meaders

Meaders — Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:25:00 +0000

Eric - how delightful to find you lurking around these parts. Since you ask, here's Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli chief of staff during the Six-Day War, on what the Egyptian army was doing at the time:

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to Sinai in May [1967] would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (Le Monde, Feb 2, 1968)

A bluff, in other words; and one known to Israeli command - or else why would they have launched the assualt? This analysis of the Arab armies' military incapacity is broadly confirmed by the remarks to Ha'aretz of Gen Matityahu Peled, Israeli commander of logistics during the 1967 war, on the "bluff" of Israel's imminent "annihilation" (to use your word) at the hands of marauding Arabs.

Hope that answers your question.

Mr Riprock - ah, the old spot-the-typo-duck-the-argument trick. Convincing stuff.

By: dash riprock

dash riprock — Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:07:00 +0000

When someone accuses Israel of "beligerence" (sic) and "violating international law" for the 1967 war, any attempt at intelligent debate has clearly been lost. As such, I will sadly depart. But thank you, it’s been fun.

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:35:00 +0000

The "three no's" are hardly surpising, given Israel's beligerence and violation of international law by launching the 1967 war in the first place.

What a load of crock.

What do you think the armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria had been doing in the lead up to the war? Knitting?

They were intent on launching and provoking a war of with Israel, in order to wipe it from the map. What were the Israelis meant to do, lie down and accept annihilation?

By: Meaders

Meaders — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:38:00 +0000

The "three no's" are hardly surpising, given Israel's beligerence and violation of international law by launching the 1967 war in the first place. For the Arab nations to recognise that a "fair" bargain would include the return of territories seized unlawfully would be to cede ex post legitimacy to a wholly illegitimate act of international aggresion.

Nor is the response justification for continuing an illegal occupation. Israel simply has no excuse.

"I think anyone who looks at the Zionist enterprise as a historical imperative or a moral positive is now tarred in Europe as some kind of psychotic, rabid right-winger, which is ridiculous..."

Hmm. Funny, that; though, alas, not quite true.

By: dash riprock

dash riprock — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:22:00 +0000

I don’t think this is the place to get into it all, but there was no agreement on borders in 1968. Immediately after the 1967 war, Israel in effect offered to return the conquered lands in return for peace. The reaction of the Arab world was a rare united front, codified as the famous "Three No’s of Khartoum": No recognition, no negotiations and no peace with Israel. (see, e.g.; http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_khartoum.php) So, the Arabs (and their international supporters) are now saying that, regardless of their own rejection of the ’67 borders, both before and after the war they started over those borders, Israel should be forever bound to them. Even as a non-Israeli, I find that unfair.

By: john b

john b — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:51:00 +0000

Agh, I’ll get my coat; corrected again. FWIW, I absolutely support the right of the state of Israel to exist and defend itself (although not its right to occupy land beyond the borders agreed in 1968).

By: dash riprock

dash riprock — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:39:00 +0000

and, to boot, I’m not Israeli.

By: dash riprock

dash riprock — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:37:00 +0000

Many of them are (much like a consistent majority of all Israelis from the polls I have seen), but the impression I got was that the term "Likudnik" is still used pejoratively to describe that section of the Likud and the far-right that still oppose a Palestinian state. Regardless, I think anyone who looks at the Zionist enterprise as a historical imperative or a moral positive is now tarred in Europe as some kind of psychotic, rabid right-winger, which is ridiculous.

By: john b

john b — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:58:00 +0000

Dash – apologies for misreading your political views; I’ve corrected the post accordingly. Although I thought Arik, if not many of the boys, were broadly in agreement with a Pali state now?

By: European Loser

European Loser — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:00:00 +0000

Making up a scenario in which "pro-Israeli extremists" do the same thing is such a blatant sop to European political correctness that you should all be embarassed.

'Never attribute to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity' - or by a hackish writer's need for a constant supply of funny-accented dodgy foreigner types to fill up the stupid scripts for a stupid television programmes.