Why can't we just get rid of Israel? problem solved..no?EDIT: lotsa good info..thx much guys :)

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
i see no need for reevaluation. the local Muslim population was opposed to Zionist movement well before it gained the support it did though ww2 as well as before the formal formation of a Jewish state in the region; i never argued otherwise and such facts are no reason to change my evaluation of the situation. incase you didn't realize; Muslims base their religion on Judeo-Christian beliefs and respect the same teachings that the anti-Zionist Jewish community does.
 

Drphibes

Member
Feb 20, 2004
68
0
0
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: Drphibes
would you kill tem if the continued expanding and bulldozed your home. The first terrorist action was an israelie terrorist group that killed a bunch of palastinians in the 1950's.
Although I don't like getting into these threads, that has to be the most ignorant thing I've ever read in my life. Research Hebron 1929.


Link This might be why the palistines were angry at the jews and may have spurred the events in 1929 as you pointed out. So fast forward to 1950's and the formation of the jewish state of israel did the jews put it behind them no: On April 16 the United States formally proposed the temporary trusteeship. The Arabs accepted it conditionally; the Jews rejected it. The General Assembly was unenthusiastic. Meanwhile, the Zionists proceeded with their plans to set up a state. Civil order in Palestine had almost totally broken down. For example, in mid-April, the Irgun and LEHI (the Stern Gang), two Zionist terrorist organizations, attacked the poorly armed Arab village of Deir Yassin, near Jerusalem, and killed 250 men, women, and children. The Arabs retaliated by killing many Jews the next day.(62) Before the British left in May, the Jews had occupied much additional land, including cities that were to be in the Palestinian state.

The Suez Crisis, 1956

On October 29, 1956, the Israeli army invaded Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. Soon after, the forces of Great Britain and France launched air attacks against Egypt.

That crisis had its roots in two factors: friction at the armistice line, established after the 1948 war between Israel and Egypt, and control over the Suez Canal. Another factor was the withdrawal of the U.S. offer to help finance the High Aswan Dam in upper Egypt, a prized project of the country's new ruler and champion of Arab nationalism, Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Eisenhower and Dulles did not trust Nasser because he tried to steer a neutral course between the United States and the Soviet Union, and they were especially displeased with his recognition of Communist China. The administration first tried to win Nasser over, but when that failed, it tried obsessively to undermine him and worse.(68) The wish to undermine Nasser was important in forging a U.S.-Israeli "strategic relationship." The offer to finance the dam and provide arms (with conditions Nasser could not accept) were the carrots dangled before the charismatic Egyptian. When Nasser turned to the Soviets in September 1955 to purchase arms when he could not buy them from the United States without strings attached, his actions were seized on as proof that he was in the Soviet camp and thus an enemy of the United States.(69) (The events in Iran were not lost on Nasser.)

The United States also had antagonized Nasser in 1955 when it set up the Baghdad Pact (later called the Central Treaty Organization, or CENTO), an alliance of northern tier nations, including Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq (the only Arab country in the alliance). Great Britain was also a member. The United States was not a formal member but was clearly a guiding force. Nasser saw the pact as an attempt to split the Arab world and interfere with the "positive neutralism" he sought for it. Iraq at the time was friendly to the West and not disposed to the Arab nationalism that Nasser aspired to create and lead.(70) The Baghdad Pact was one of the things that had the ironic effect of bringing the Arabs and Soviets closer.

In mid-1956 the United States abruptly withdrew its offer to help finance the High Aswan Dam, just as the Egyptians had decided to accept the administration's conditions. The American reversal brought cancellations of aid for the dam from Great Britain and the World Bank as well. A week after the U.S. decision, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal Company, which since 1869 had been owned by French nationals and the British government and operated under an Egyptian concession. The British and French governments reacted angrily; for the French, it was not irrelevant that Nasser was helping the Algerians, who were seeking independence. The U.S. reaction was calmer, as Eisenhower and Dulles distinguished between ownership and freedom of navigation. (Nevertheless, the New York Times denounced Nasser as "the Hitler on the Nile.")(71) The U.S. administration warned Great Britain and France against responding precipitously and pressed for negotiations. A conference was convened, but Nasser refused to attend or accept its pro-posals. Nevertheless, international traffic on the canal continued normally under Egyptian administration. When Great Britain and France failed to get satisfaction from the United Nations, they began making plans for war.

Israel was not able to use the canal, but the Jewish state's aims regarding Egypt went beyond that grievance. Since the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, Palestinian refugees had often crossed into Israel seeking to regain property and possessions expropriated by the government and to reach relatives. Some engaged in violence. Israel began responding with massive reprisal raids against entire villages in the Arab countries. Most significant was the attack on the town of Gaza in February 1955, when children as well as men were killed. That attack prompted Egypt to end direct peace talks with Israel and to turn to the Soviet Union for arms. It was only at that point that Egypt sponsored an anti-Israeli guerrilla organization whose members were known as the Fedayeen. In August Israel attacked the Gaza Strip village of Khan Yunis, killing 39 Egyptians. The attacks in the Gaza Strip, masterminded by officials loyal to Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, subverted Nasser's efforts to make peace with Israel. Ben-Gurion's successor, Moshe Sharett, re-sponded positively to Nasser's overtures, but Gen. Moshe Dayan and others undermined Sharett.(72) During the winter of 1955, for example, Israeli warplanes flew over Cairo repeatedly to demonstrate Egyptian military impotence.

The Israeli government had earlier tried to prevent a warming of U.S.-Egyptian relations by having saboteurs bomb American offices in Cairo in 1954, an episode that became known as the Lavon Affair.(73) When Egypt uncovered the operation, Israel accused Nasser of fabricating the plot. Two of the 13 men arrested were hanged, and their hangings were used as a pretext for Israel's February 1955 attack on Gaza. Six years later, the Israeli government's complicity was confirmed.

Israel's bad relations with Egypt were also aggravated by the seizure of an Israeli ship, which was provocatively sent into the Suez Canal in September 1954. Both sides had seized each other's ships before, and this incident appears to have been provoked by Israel as a way to get Great Britain to compel Egypt to permit Israeli ships to use the waterway as part of a final agreement on the Suez Canal.(74)

Despite repeated provocations, Egypt, according to documents later captured by Israel, had attempted to prevent infiltration by the Fedayeen because of its fear of attack.(75) Nevertheless, in October 1956 Israel invaded Egypt, ignoring American pleas for forbearance. The United States took the matter to the UN Security Council, which called for a cease-fire and withdrawal. It also passed a resolution to create a 6,000-man UN emergency force to help restore the status quo ante.

Eisenhower's opposition to the conduct of Israel, Great Britain, and France--an anomaly in light of later U.S. policy--is explained by his opposition to old-style colonialism. The administration wanted to win the friendship of the newly independent countries of Africa and Asia and to keep them out of the Soviet orbit. That could not be accomplished if the United States were perceived to be on the side of Great Britain and France in so flagrant an act of imperialism as an attack on Egypt. Also important to the administration's calculus was its wish that London not challenge Washington's more subtle dominance in the Middle East. British and French irritation with American anti-colonialism was a source of problems among the leaders of the three nations.(76)

When the UN call for a cease-fire failed to contain the conflict, the Soviet Union threatened to intervene, and Premier Nicolai Bulganin even proposed to Eisenhower that their two countries take joint military action to end the war. Eisenhower rejected the proposal and warned the Soviets not to get involved.(77)

The fighting ended on November 7, when Britain and France bowed to the United Nations and agreed to withdraw. Israel, however, refused to withdraw from the Sinai until its conditions were met. Israel was especially adamant that Egypt not regain the Gaza Strip, which was to have been part of the Palestinian state under the UN partition. Eisenhower responded to Israel's position by threatening to cut off aid, although he apparently never did so.(78) By March 1957 Israel had withdrawn from all the occupied areas, but not before the United States had given assurances that UN troops would be stationed on Egyptian territory to ensure free passage of Israeli and Israel-bound ships through the Strait of Tiran and to prevent Fedayeen activity. The United States, in an aide-mÇmoire by John Foster Dulles, also acknowledged that the Gulf of Aqaba was international waters and "that no nation has the right to prevent free and innocent passage in the Gulf and through the Straits." The key to the final settlement was a French proposal that Israel be allowed to act in self-defense under the UN charter if its ships were attacked in the Gulf of Aqaba.(79)

Thus, the United States again became directly involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict and made what would later be construed as guarantees to Israel. Although Israel chafed under the frank rhetoric and surprising (in light of the U.S. election season) evenhandedness of Eisenhower and Dulles, it got essentially what it wanted from the Suez campaign.(80)



Jews arent covered with roses in all this either.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
i see no need for reevaluation. the local Muslim population was opposed to Zionist movement well before it gained the support it did though ww2 as well as before the formal formation of a Jewish state in the region; i never argued otherwise and such facts are no reason to change my evaluation of the situation. incase you didn't realize; Muslims base their religion on Judeo-Christian beliefs and respect the same teachings that the anti-Zionist Jewish community does.

I did realize that - and what i was hinting at is that source of the conflict is religous and has been there for centuries.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
81
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
no you guys need help, here is a [L =hint.]http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr63_files/anti-zionist_jews_demo.jpg[/L]
Wow, I never thought I'd ever see someone link to stormfront.org on AT...
 

Banana

Diamond Member
Jun 3, 2001
3,132
23
81
We could clear out Rhode Island and move all the Israelis there. It's much nicer than hot, dusty Palestine.

BTW, how did it come to be that Jewish people left Palestine way back when? Did they leave voluntarily? If so, then it seems kinda inappropriate to claim something (land) that they abandoned. (Yes--My knowledge of ME hx is very limited, so don't flame me, just enlighten me.)
 

Drphibes

Member
Feb 20, 2004
68
0
0
im sure its in the original link somewhere the thing is 72 pages long here it is if you want to go hunting.http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html
althoough it dosent really matter that happend in right before the 67 offensive in the area keep in mind this is 1956 and the events leading to this date. In 67 with israelie forces building military power on the siani border Nassar with arial photos given to him by the russians had to block the straits because attack was inevitable.

In six days during June 1967, the Israeli military devastated the air and ground forces of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan and occupied the Sinai, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, the West Bank (an area west of the Jordan River), including East Jerusalem. The Six-Day War established Israel as the premier military power in the Middle East. Israel's might was a product of American money and French armaments, in addition to dedicated personnel. The war also established the idea of Israel as a U.S. strategic asset in the region.

Before discussing the U.S. role in the war, it is nec essary to briefly explain how and why the war was fought. Its start is generally treated as a preemptive, defensive strike by Israel, necessitated by mortal threats from its neighbors.(98) The facts show otherwise. Kennett Love, a former New York Times correspondent and a scholar of the Suez crisis, wrote that Israel drew up "plans for the new war . . . immediately after the old. . . . The 1956 war served as a rehearsal for 1967."(99) That is important because it bears on the Arab reaction to the U.S. role, a reaction that has shaped subsequent developments in the region.(100)

After the 1956 Sinai campaign, the Israeli-Egyptian border was quiet, partly because of the presence of the UN Emergency Force. But that was not true of the border between Israel and Syria. The specific causes of friction between the two countries were disputes about fishing rights in Lake Tiberias, Israeli settlement activity in the demilitarized zone established after the 1948 war, guerrilla incursions into Israel, and Israeli development of a water project involving the Jordan River.(101)

Israel retaliated against the guerrilla activity with massive raids into Syria and sometimes into Jordan.(102) Syria, which had left the United Arab Republic in 1961, underwent a left-wing Ba'athist coup in 1966 and had good relations with the Soviet Union. Syria pointed to the quiet Israeli-Egyptian border and the lack of Egyptian response to the attacks on Syria as evidence that Nasser was not up to leading the Arabs. Nasser was accused of hiding behind the UN forces. Actually, Egypt was absorbed in civil wars in Yemen and the British Crown Colony of Aden (soon to be South Yemen) at the southern end of the Arabian peninsula. Intra- Arab rivalries were assuming greater importance in the mid- 1960s, with Nasser frequently bearing the brunt of Arab criticism.(103)

The Syrian-Israeli friction continued throughout early 1967. Then, in April, Israel said it would cultivate the entire demilitarized zone between the countries, including land that Syria contended was the property of Arab farmers. When the Israelis moved a tractor onto the land on April 7, the Syrians fired on them. To retaliate, 70 Israeli fighters flew over Syria and shot down 6 Syrian war planes near Damascus. There was no response from the United Arab Command, an essentially paper military undertaking organized by Nasser at an Arab summit in 1964. (At the same meeting, the Palestine Liberation Organization had been set up--ironically, as a means of reining in Palestinian nationalism.)(104)

Over the next several weeks, Israel threatened Syria. Gen. Yitzhak Rabin said in an Israeli radio broadcast on May 11 that "the moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian Government, because it seems that only military operations can discourage the plans for a people's war with which they threaten us."(105) The Israeli director of military intelligence, Aharon Yariv, added that Nasser would not intervene.(106) The Jewish state also directed massive military action against al-Fatah to stop infiltrations. Meanwhile, Israeli leaders did all they could to have their country appear in mortal danger.

The situation worsened when the Soviet Union told the Egyptians that Israel had massed forces on the Syrian border in preparation for a mid-May attack. The United Nations found no evidence of such preparation, but on May 14 Nasser moved troops into the Sinai. Yet U.S. and Israeli intelligence agreed that the action was, in Foreign Minister Abba Eban's words, "no immediate military threat," and several years later, in 1972, Gen. Ezer Weizmann admitted that "we did move tanks to the north after the downing of the aircraft."(107) Israel quickly and fully mobilized, prompting the Egyptians to ask the UN Emergency Force to leave the Sinai. The request did not mention the two most sensitive locations of the UN force, Sharm el-Sheikh (where it protected Israeli shipping) and the Gaza Strip, but the UN secretary general, U Thant, surprised everyone by replying that a partial withdrawal was impossible. Faced with a choice between the status quo and a complete UN withdrawal, Nasser chose the latter. When the United Nations offered to station its forces on Israel's side of the border, the Jewish state refused (as it had in the past). President Lyndon Johnson, fearing that the Israelis would "act hastily," asked Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to inform him in advance of any Israeli action.(108) Israel replied that a blockade of the Strait of Tiran would be a casus belli.

Meanwhile, Nasser told the Egyptian press that he was "not in a position to go to war."(109) Israeli military leaders believed him. General Rabin said later, "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."(110) Ben-Gurion himself said he "doubt[ed] very much whether Nasser wanted to go to war."(111)

It is in that context that the following events must be inter-preted. On May 21 Nasser mobilized his reserves. On May 22, with the UN forces gone and under the taunting of Syria and Israel, Nasser blocked--verbally not physically-- the Strait of Tiran, which leads from the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba and the Israeli port city of Elath.(112) The strait's importance to the Israelis was more symbolic than practical; no Israeli flag ship had used it in nearly two years, although Iranian oil was shipped to Israel through it.(113) Nevertheless, the closure was a worrisome precedent for the Israelis.

Despite a blizzard of diplomatic activity in and outside the United Nations, tensions rose over the next days, until, on June 5, Israel attacked Egypt--thereby launching what came to be known as the Six-Day War. (The Israeli government told the UN Truce Supervision Organization that its planes had intercepted Egyptian planes--a patent falsehood.) In short order, Israel destroyed the air forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. Israel prepared a letter to President Johnson assuring him that Israel, in the shorthand of U.S. ambassador Walworth Barbour, "has no, repeat no, intention [of] taking advantage of [the] situation to enlarge its territory, [and] hopes peace can be restored within present boundaries."(114) But that soon changed, as signaled by a request from David Brody, director of the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League, that Johnson not mention "territorial integrity" in his public statements about the war.(115)

On June 8, Egypt, having lost the Sinai to Israel, accepted the cease-fire called for by the United Nations. The next day Syria also accepted it, but Israel launched additional offensive operations. By June 10 Israel controlled the Sinai, the Gaza Strip, Sharm el-Sheikh, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and its capital city of Quneitra.(116) With the road to Damascus open, the Soviets threatened intervention if Israel did not stop. The Johnson administration signaled its readiness to confront the Soviets by turning the Sixth Fleet toward Syria. That was to be the first of two near-confrontations between the United States and the Soviet Union in Arab-Israeli wars. Then, according to Johnson, the U.S. government began to use "every diplomatic resource" to persuade Israel to conclude a cease-fire with Syria, which it did on June 10.(117)

The unseen side of the Six-Day War was Israel's nuclear capability. Although Prime Minister Eshkol promised in 1966 that Israel would not be the first nation to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East, it had been developing a nuclear capability almost since its founding. The locus of the program was the Dimona reactor in the Negev near Beershea.(118) Israel apparently received help over the years from the American firm NUMEC, the French, and the U.S. government, including the CIA.(119) It probably had operational nuclear weapons in 1967. According to Francis Perrin, the former French high commissioner for atomic energy who had led the team that helped Israel to build Dimona, Israel wanted nuclear weapons so it could say to the United States, "If you don't want to help us in a critical situation we will require you to help us; otherwise we will use our nuclear bombs."(120)

Israel never signed the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has not allowed inspection of its nuclear facilities since the late 1960s. According to Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at Dimona, the inspectors were consistently deceived in the early 1960s.(121) Israel had 12 to 16 warheads by the end of 1969, according to the Nixon administration. A CIA report concluded that Israel also tried to keep other Middle Eastern countries from developing nuclear weapons by assassinating their nuclear scientists.(122)

What was U.S. policy before and during the Six-Day War? In the tense days before the outbreak of hostilities, Johnson moved the Sixth Fleet to the eastern Mediterranean. On May 23, while declaring an embargo on arms to the area, he secretly authorized the air shipment to Israel of important spare parts, ammunition, bomb fuses, and armored personnel carriers.(123) After the war started, the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for Israel to return to its prewar boundaries, and Johnson refused to criticize Israel for starting the war.(124)

Author Stephen Green has written that the United States participated in the conflict even more directly. Green contends that pilots of the U.S. Air Force's 38th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron of the 26th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing flew RF-4Cs--with white Stars of David and Israeli Air Force tail numbers painted on them--over bombed air bases in Egypt, Syria, and Jordan to take pictures for the Israelis. They flew 8 to 10 sorties a day throughout the war, and the pilots carried civilian passports so they would appear to be contract employees if caught. When the enemy air forces were destroyed, the RF-4C mission was changed to tracing Arab troop movements at night, which enabled the Israelis to bomb the troops the next morning. The pilots also flew close-in reconnaissance sorties around the Golan Heights. Apparently, none of the flights proved decisive, but they did enable Israel to achieve its objectives quickly.(125) Ironically, the Arabs accused the United States of providing tactical air support, which apparently was untrue. In re- sponse to the accusations, President Johnson said publicly that the United States provided no assistance of any kind to the Israelis.

A critical question is whether the U.S. government gave Israel a green light to go to war. Israeli officials frequently consulted with U.S. officials in the days before June 5; they were looking for support, claiming that Israel had been promised access through the Strait of Tiran in 1956. U.S. officials often told the Israelis that "Israel will only be alone if it decides to go alone"--a statement that was interpreted by some Israelis as a nod to go ahead. That impression could have been confirmed by Secretary of State Dean Rusk's reported comment to a journalist, regarding the U.S. attitude toward Israel: "I don't think it is our business to restrain anyone."(126) Finally, Foreign Minister Abba Eban later wrote in his autobiography that when he visited Washington in late May, "what I found . . . was the absence of any exhortation to us to stay our hand much longer."(127)

The Six-Day War was a diplomatic disaster for the United States. That might have been foreseen, but President Johnson had other things on his mind. He seems to have been motivated by a desire to win Jewish American support for the war in Vietnam and to advance the "strategic relationship," begun by President Kennedy, with Israel against the Soviet Union.(128)

The cost in Arab alienation was great. Johnson had assured the Arabs that Israel would not attack and that he would oppose aggression. Yet he never called on Israel to withdraw from the conquered territories or to resolve the Palestinian question. Rather, the United States gave Israel substantial help, including diplomatic support that facilitated Israel's conquest of neighboring territories by providing critical delays.(129)

In no sense did the war bring stability to the Middle East, if indeed that was a U.S. objective. Nasser summed up the consequences: "The problem now is that while the United States objective is to pressure us to minimize our dealings with the Soviet Union, it will drive us in the opposite direction altogether. The United States leaves us no choice."(130)

Nasser's prediction was borne out by events. Within three years the Soviets were shipping military equipment to the Egyptians, including surface-to-air missiles to defend Egypt against Israel's U.S.-made F-4 Phantom jets. Thousands of Soviet troops, pilots, and advisers were provided. The Soviets also moved closer to Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organization. The United States responded by giving more weapons and planes to Israel.(131)

 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
no you guys need help, here is a hint.
Wow, I never thought I'd ever see someone link to stormfront.org on AT...

lol, i did a google image seach for anti-zionists to find the pic. the fact that it is hosted by a bunch of idiodic neo-nazis doesn't change the message of the picture itself. ;)
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
check your facts again.

What was the background of the Sinai Campaign in 1956?

In 1955, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser began to import arms from the Soviet bloc to build his arsenal for the confrontation with Israel. In the short-term, however, he employed a new tactic to prosecute Egypt's war with Israel. He announced it on August 31, 1955:

Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the Land of Israel....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death.
These "heroes" were Arab terrorists, or "fedayeen", trained and equipped by Egyptian intelligence to engage in hostile action on the borders and to infiltrate Israel to commit acts of sabotage and murder. The fedayeen operated mainly from bases in Jordan, so that Jordan would bear the brunt of Israel's retaliation, which inevitably followed. The terrorist attacks violated the armistice agreement provision that prohibited the initiation of hostilities by paramilitary forces; nevertheless, it was Israel that was condemned by the UN security council for its counterattacks.

The escalation continued with the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran, and Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956. On October 14, 1956 Nasser made clear his intent:

I am not solely fighting against Israel itself. My task is to deliver the Arab world from destruction through Israel's intrigue, which has its roots abroad. Our hatred is very strong. There is no sense in talking about peace with Israel. There is not even the smallest place for negotiations.
Less than two weeks later, on October 25, Egypt signed a tripartite agreement with Syria and Jordan, placing Nasser in command of all three armies. A massive arms deal with Czechoslovakia threatened to flood Egypt with new Soviet equipment. When Egypt sealed off the Israeli port of Eilat by blocking the Straits of Tiran, effectively stopping Israel's sea trade with much of Africa and the Far East, it was a violation of international agreements that amounted to an act of war.

 

Drphibes

Member
Feb 20, 2004
68
0
0
Eisenhower and Dulles did not trust Nasser because he tried to steer a neutral course between the United States and the Soviet Union, and they were especially displeased with his recognition of Communist China. The administration first tried to win Nasser over, but when that failed, it tried obsessively to undermine him and worse.(68) The wish to undermine Nasser was important in forging a U.S.-Israeli "strategic relationship." The offer to finance the dam and provide arms (with conditions Nasser could not accept) were the carrots dangled before the charismatic Egyptian. When Nasser turned to the Soviets in September 1955 to purchase arms when he could not buy them from the United States without strings attached, his actions were seized on as proof that he was in the Soviet camp and thus an enemy of the United States.(69) (The events in Iran were not lost on Nasser.)


egypt was forced to aquire arms from russia because they couldnt get them from the US in the begining he was trying to steer a neutral course
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
I was looking around a little more. Does anyone else see the glaring error in this story?

Encyclopedia: 1956 Suez War

"The Suez Crisis, also known as the Suez War , Suez Campaign or Kadesh Operation was a 1956 war fought on Egyptian territory. The conflict pitted Egypt against an alliance between France, the United Kingdom and Israel. The alliance between the two European nations and Israel was largely one of convenience; the European nations had economic and trading interests in the Suez Canal, while Israel had a pressing need to open the canal for Israeli shipping. By the conclusion of the war, only Israel enjoyed significant gains.

The roots of the crisis extend back to 1952, when officers in the Egyptian army overthrew the monarchy under King Farouk. Abandoning policies which were co-operative with European powers, the new government desired to undertake a more nationalistic and assertive stance. This led to conflict with Israel and the European powers over the Suez Canal.

Throughout 1956, conflict increased between Israel and Egypt, with Israel launching frequent incursions into Egyptian territory and Egypt increasingly defending itself. Egypt, under the leadership of President Gamal Abdul Nasser, blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba and closed the Suez canal to Israeli shipping. At the same time, Egypt nationalized the canal, a vital trade route to the east, in which British banks and business held a 44% stake.

The British Prime Minister of the time Anthony Eden needed to persuade the British public of the need for war and so, perhaps in an attempt to recall World War II-era patriotism he compared Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal with the nationalism of Mussolini and Hitler 20 years earlier. Eden had been a staunch opponent of Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement and he claimed that a display of force was needed to prevent Nasser becoming another expansionist military threat, propagandising him as a sort of 'Mussolini of the Nile'.

In the months that followed Egypt's nationalization of the canal, a secret meeting between Israel, France and Britain took place at SÚ?es, outside Paris. Details only emerged years later, as records of the meeting were suppressed and destroyed. All parties were agreed that Israel should invade and that Britain and France would subsequently intervene, instruct the Israeli and Egyptian armies to withdraw their forces either side of the canal, and then place an Anglo-French intervention force in the Canal Zone around Port Said. It was to be called "Operation Musketeer".

On October 29, Israel invaded the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula and made rapid progress towards the canal zone. As per the agreement, Britain and France offered to reoccupy the area and separate the warring armies. Nasser (whose nationalisation of the company had been greeted with delirium by Egyptian crowds) refused the offer, which gave the European powers a pretext for a joint invasion to regain control of the canal and topple the Nasser regime. The United Kingdom and France then began to bomb Egypt on October 31 to force the reopening of the canal.

Alarmed by the crisis, on November 7, 1956, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution which called for the United Kingdom, France and Israel to withdraw their troops from Egypt immediately.

The campaign progressed as planned at first, but the European forces never reached the canal itself. Although Israel captured the Gaza Strip in the course of the war, the whole episode is usually regarded in Britain as an embarrassment. Eden was forced to resign because of a combination of ill health and opposition from the Labour Party and even from within his own party over the invasion of Egypt.

The invading forces were forced to withdraw in March 1957 under pressure from the United States, which saw good relations with the third world as being more important than defending Anglo-French interests. Perhaps more significantly, the US also feared a wider war after the USSR's offer to intervene on the Egpytian side. After the withdrawal, the United Nations established the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) to keep peace in the area.

There were a few thousand casualties, mostly Egyptian, many civilian. In the course of the invasion it is claimed that the British stormed an Egyptian police station that held out under intense fire and killed almost all the policemen inside. There were claims of atrocities: it is reported that the French were seen machine-gunning to death peasants who had jumped into the canal in fear. There were also accusations of torture made against the British. Racism was a clear factor which allowed the invaders to justify their own inhumanity towards the Egyptian soldiers and civilians. The poorest area of Port Said, for example, was marked on British maps as "Wog-Town", it is said.

Part of the pressure that the United States used against Britain was financial, as Eisenhower threatened to sell the United States holdings of the British pound and thereby precipitate a collapse of the British currency.

Eden's resignation marked the end of the last attempt Britain would ever make to establish, as Scott Lucas writes, "that Britain did not require Washington's endorsement to defend her interests". In a way, it also marked the symbolic end of the British Empire, though it had in reality been in decline for decades, even before World War II. The crisis also marked the transfer of power to the new superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union.

The crisis also greatly improved Nasser's standing in the Arab world and help to promote pan-Arabism. It also hastened the process of decolonization as the remaining colonies of both Britain and France become independent over the next several years. "

Two graphic beers to the first that finds it.
 

Drphibes

Member
Feb 20, 2004
68
0
0
Israel and the Arabs?

The Creation of Israel

In the aftermath of World War I, Great Britain was granted a mandate over Palestine by the League of Nations. By 1947, however, the violence directed at British officers by Jews and Arabs, and the financial drain on the declining imperial power after World War II, moved Great Britain to turn to the United Nations for help. In April 1947 the Arab nations proposed at the United Nations that Palestine be declared an independent state, but that measure was defeated and instead, at Washington's suggestion, a UN commission was set up to study the problem.

The defeat of the Arab proposal is important to an understanding of subsequent events. During World War I the British sought Arab support against the Ottoman Turks, who ruled much of the Arab world. In return for their support, the British promised the Arabs their long-sought independence. The British, however, also made promises about the same territory to the Zionists who sought to establish a Jewish state on the site of Biblical Israel. The Balfour Declaration, issued on November 2, 1917, stated that "His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object. . . ." Significantly, however, the sentence ended with the words, "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." (The U.S. Congress endorsed the Balfour Declaration, using similar language, in 1922.)(44) Toward the end of World War I, however, the Bolsheviks exposed a secret Anglo-French agreement to divide the Ottoman Empire between Great Britain and France. Arab independence had never been seriously intended. Meanwhile, Great Britain was preparing to allow Jewish immigration into Palestine.(45)

Violence among Jews, Arabs, and British officials in Palestine before and after World War II led London to ask the United Nations in 1947 for a recommendation on how to deal with the problem.(46) The murder of millions of Jews by the Nazis and the deplorable state of the Holocaust survivors had stimulated the international effort to establish a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine, and American Zionists had declared in 1942 (in the Biltmore Program) "that Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth integrated in the structure of the new democratic world."(47)

In November 1947 the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to recommend partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. The two states were to be joined in an economic union, and Jerusalem would be administered by the United Nations. The Arabs would get 43 percent of the land, the Jews 57 percent. The proposed apportionment should be assessed in light of the following facts: The Jewish portion was better land; by the end of 1947 the percentage of Palestine purchased by Jews was less than 7 percent; Jewish land purchases accounted for only 10 percent of the proposed Jewish state; and Jews made up less than one-third of the population of Palestine.(48) Moreover, the Jewish state was to include 497,000 Arabs, who would constitute just under 50 percent of the new state's population.

The United States not only accepted the UN plan, it aggressively promoted it among the other members of the United Nations. Truman had been personally moved by the tragedy of the Jews and by the condition of the refugees. That response and his earlier studies of the Bible made him open to the argument that emigration to Palestine was the proper remedy for the surviving Jews of Europe. Yet he acknowledged later, in his memoirs, that he was "fully aware of the Arabs' hostility to Jewish settlement in Palestine."(49) He, like his predecessor, had promised he would take no action without fully consulting the Arabs, and he reneged.

Truman's decision to support establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine was made against the advice of most of the State Department and other foreign policy experts, who were concerned about U.S. relations with the Arabs and possible Soviet penetration of the region. Secretary James Forrestal of the Defense Department and Loy Henderson, at that time the State Department's chief of Near Eastern affairs, pressed those points most vigorously. Henderson warned that partition would not only create anti-Americanism but would also require U.S. troops to enforce it, and he stated his belief that partition violated both U.S. and UN principles of self-determination.(50)

But Truman was concerned about the domestic political implications as well as the foreign policy implications of the partition issue. As he himself put it during a meeting with U.S. ambassadors to the Middle East, according to William A. Eddy, the ambassador to Saudi Arabia, "I'm sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents."(51) Later, in a 1953 article in the American Zionist, Emmanuel Neumann, president of the Zionist Organization of America, conceded that Truman would not have worked so hard for the creation of Israel but for "the prospect of wholesale defections from the Democratic Party."(52) Truman's decision to support the Zionist cause was also influenced by Samuel I. Rosenman, David K. Niles, and Clark Clifford, all members of his staff, and Eddie Jacobson, his close friend and former business partner. Truman later wrote:

The White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders--actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats--disturbed and annoyed me.(53)

Pressure on Truman also came from non-Jewish fundamentalists and politicians.

In some cases, support for Jewish admission to and statehood in Palestine may have had another domestic political angle. That support sidestepped the sensitive issue of U.S. immigration quotas, which had kept European Jews out of the United States since the 1920s and had left them at the mercy of the Nazis. In other words, support for Zionism may have been a convenient way for people who did not want Jews to come to the United States to avoid appearing anti-Semitic. American classical liberals and others, including the American Council for Judaism, opposed the quotas, and it is probable that many of the refugees, given the option, would have preferred to come to the United States.(54)

By mid-November 1947 the Truman administration was firmly in the Zionist camp. When the State Department and the U.S. mission to the United Nations agreed that the partition resolution should be changed to shift the Negev from the Jewish to the Palestinian state, Truman sided with the Jewish Agency, the main Zionist organization, against them.(55) The United States also voted against a UN resolution calling on member states to accept Jewish refugees who could not be repatriated.(56)

As the partition plan headed toward a vote in the UN General Assembly, U.S. officials applied pressure to--and even threatened to withhold promised aid from--countries inclined to vote against the resolution. As former under-secretary of state Sumner Welles put it:

By direct order of the White House every form of pressure, direct and indirect, was brought to bear by American officials upon those countries outside of the Moslem world that were known to be either uncertain or opposed to partition. Representatives or intermediaries were employed by the White House to make sure that the necessary majority would at length be secured.(57)

Eddie Jacobson recorded in his diary that Truman told him that "he [Truman] and he alone, was responsible for swinging the vote of several delegations."(58)

While the plan was being debated, the Arabs desperately tried to find an alternative solution. Syria proposed that the matter be turned over to the International Court of Justice in The Hague; the proposal was defeated. The Arab League asked that all countries accept Jewish refugees "in proportion to their area and economic resources and other relevant factors"; the league's request was denied in a 16-16 tie, with 25 abstentions.(59)

On November 29 the General Assembly recommended the partition plan by a vote of 33 to 13. The Soviet Union voted in favor of the resolution, reversing its earlier position on Zionism; many interpreted the vote as a move to perpetuate unrest and give Moscow opportunities for influence in the neighboring region.

The period after the UN partition vote was critical. The Zionists accepted the partition reluctantly, hoping to someday expand the Jewish state to the whole of Palestine, but the Arabs did not.(60) Violence between Jews and Arabs escalated. The obvious difficulties in carrying out the partition created second thoughts among U.S. policymakers as early as December 1947. The State Department's policy planning staff issued a paper in January 1948 suggesting that the United States propose that the entire matter be returned to the General Assembly for more study. Secretary Forrestal argued that the United States might have to enforce the partition with troops. (The United States had an arms embargo on the region at the time, although arms were being sent illegally by American Zionists, giving the Jews in Palestine military superiority, at least in some respects, over the Arabs.)(61)

On February 24, 1948, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Warren Austin, made a speech to the Security Council hinting at such second thoughts. His proposal to have the five permanent council members discuss what should be done was approved, but they could not agree on a new strategy. The United States, China, and France reported to the full council that partition would not occur peacefully. The apparent weakening of U.S. support for partition prompted the Zionist organizations to place enormous pressure on Truman, who said he still favored partition. However, the next day at the United Nations, Austin called for a special session of the General Assembly to consider a temporary UN trusteeship for Palestine.

On April 16 the United States formally proposed the temporary trusteeship. The Arabs accepted it conditionally; the Jews rejected it. The General Assembly was unenthusiastic. Meanwhile, the Zionists proceeded with their plans to set up a state. Civil order in Palestine had almost totally broken down. For example, in mid-April, the Irgun and LEHI (the Stern Gang), two Zionist terrorist organizations, attacked the poorly armed Arab village of Deir Yassin, near Jerusalem, and killed 250 men, women, and children. The Arabs retaliated by killing many Jews the next day.(62) Before the British left in May, the Jews had occupied much additional land, including cities that were to be in the Palestinian state.

Something else was working in favor of continued support for the emerging Jewish state: U.S. domestic politics. The year 1948 was an election year and, according to memoranda in the Harry S Truman Library and Museum, Jacobson, Clifford, and Niles expressed fear that the Republicans were making an issue of their support for the Jewish state and that the Democrats risked losing Jewish support. Clifford proposed early recognition of the Jewish state.(63)

His position had been strongly influenced by a special congres-sional election in a heavily Jewish district in the Bronx, New York, on February 17, 1948. The regular Democratic candidate, Karl Propper, was upset by the American Labor party candidate, Leo Isacson, who had taken a militantly pro-Zionist position in the campaign. Even though Propper was also pro-Zionist, former vice president Henry Wallace had campaigned for Isacson by criticizing Truman for not supporting partition, asserting that Truman "still talks Jewish but acts Arab."(64) The loss meant that New York's 47 electoral votes would be at risk in the November presidential election, and the Democrats of the state appealed to Truman to propose a UN police force to implement the partition, as Isacson and Wallace had advocated.

The administration's trusteeship idea soon became academic. On May 14 the last British officials left Palestine, and that evening the Jewish state was proclaimed. Eleven minutes later, to the surprise of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations, the United States announced its de facto recognition.(65)

The significance to the Arabs of the U.S. role in constructing what they regard as another Western colonial obstacle to self-determination cannot be overstated. Dean Rusk, who at the time was a State Department official and would later become secretary of state, admitted that Washington's role permitted the partition to be "construed as an American plan," depriving it of moral force.(66) As Evan M. Wilson, then assistant chief of the State Department's Division of Near Eastern Affairs, later summarized matters, Truman, motivated largely by domestic political concerns, solved one refugee problem by creating another. Wilson wrote:

It is no exaggeration to say that our relations with the entire Arab world have never recovered from the events of 1947-48 when we sided with the Jews against the Arabs and advocated a solution in Palestine which went contrary to self-determination as far as the majority population of the country was concerned.(67)

Events leading to the 1948 war and the block of the straits of tiran
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Drphibes, you are new here so you probably don't realize that just posting articles from some biased site is not the way to have a discussion.
 

Drphibes

Member
Feb 20, 2004
68
0
0
if you want a different site ill find it how do we know that your sites arent biased. Palistine facts is a good site but they leave out the reason why the straits were blocked in the first place wich makes the public think he went and did it for no reason.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
I didn't say my sites weren't biased.

I do say that yours are.

See the difference?

I'll give you a hint on the error.

This is the first part of it..."The campaign progressed as planned at first, but the European forces never reached the canal itself."
 

Drphibes

Member
Feb 20, 2004
68
0
0
so now we are going to try to find unbiased web site hah like that exists. Oh and our own government uses studies done by the cato institue so by labeling it biased you label our own fedral system biased? There must be some quality facts in it as our own government uses them or maybe we could call into question facts our government uses..... anyone care to walk out onto that limb. More research done on palistine facts and these people fund it, Jewish Internet Association wouldnt be in there best intrest to down play any jewish wrong doing not saying the site is biased but it makes you wonder.

the cato artical was written by
Sheldon L. Richman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sheldon L. Richman is senior editor at the Cato Institute, book review editor of the Cato Journal, contributing editor to Regulation magazine, and associate producer of ?Cato Forum,? a weekly cable/satellite television program.
Mr. Richman's articles on population, federal disaster assistance, international trade, education, the environment, American history foreign policy, privacy, computers, and the Middle East have appeared in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, American Scholar, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Washington Times, Insight, Cato Policy Report, Journal of Economic Development, Freeman, World & I, Reason, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Middle East Policy, Liberty magazine, and other publications. He is a contributor to the Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics.
A former newspaper reporter, associate editor of Inquiry magazine, and senior editor at the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, Mr. Richman, 44, is a graduate of Temple University in Philadelphia.
Mr. Richman?s essay appeared in the June 1992 issue of Freedom Daily, published by The Future of Freedom Foundation.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Siwy

Senior member
Sep 13, 2002
556
0
0
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: Siwy

Actually, Israel doesn't have a formal, written constitution. It does have laws though; some good, some not so good bordering on racism.

If you think Israel is not run by the law of moses and the talmud, and religon has no bearing on the way it is governed then maybe you could explain the following:


israel DOES have a formal written codified law just not a single document codifying law as per the US constitution

- Christians, Muslims and Non-Jews do not get automatic citizenship and residents rights under Israel's Law of Return like Jews do.
- Arab areas receive proportionally less government spending than Jewish areas.
- Israeli Police is know to use much harsher methods against the non-Jews. For example in October 2000 snipers killed 13 Arab demonstrators or 1000 of Israeli Jews attacked non-Jewish homes in Nazareth and the police took the side of the Jews and fired live ammunition, tear gas and rubber bullets at the Arabs instead of Jews who were attacking!
- IDF generally does not investigate actions of security forces who kill and injure Palestinians under suspicious circumstances.
- Only Jewish foreign workers can obtain citizenship.
- Only Jewish students are eligible for academic assistance from Ministry of Education.

israel was made as a JEWISH state. gentiles have the rest of the world...arabs other non-jews have the other 99% of the middle east. in fact the baren land had virtually no inhabitants(except a few arabs and jews who stayed behind from the diaspora) until jews started returning from thier forced exile and recliaming the land and replinishing it.

every action you lay at the feet of the IDF can also be applied to(actually more so) the 'palestinian' police.

those who identify with the palestinians can always give a good speech ojn how the jews must be exterminated like many others through the centuries, strap a bomb to themselves and blow up a retirement home , a restaurant, or a school. we all know children, old people and people eating lunch are grave threats!

Initially you said that "israreli government is run by a constitution and a secular government" but now you're saying that "israel was made as a JEWISH state". I think you don't know the meaning of "secular" or maybe you don't know the meaning of "JEWISH". Either way you are contradicting yourself.

"gentiles have the rest of the world...arabs other non-jews have the other 99% of the middle east"
If I go as a gentile to Israel, I don't have all the rights that Jews do, at the same time when Jews come to my country they have all the rights I do. Do you find anything wrong with that picture?

"every action you lay at the feet of the IDF can also be applied to(actually more so) the 'palestinian' police."
Do you see me arguing against that? No. We are talking about police and government in Israel not Palestinian police in Palestine.

"those who identify with the palestinians can always give a good speech ojn how the jews must be exterminated like many others through the centuries, strap a bomb to themselves and blow up a retirement home , a restaurant, or a school. we all know children, old people and people eating lunch are grave threats!"
Are you trying to imply that I identify myself with Palestinian terrorists?
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Drphibes
so now we are going to try to find unbiased web site hah like that exists. Oh and our own government uses studies done by the cato institue so by labeling it biased you label our own fedral system biased? There must be some quality facts in it as our own government uses them or maybe we could call into question facts our government uses..... anyone care to walk out onto that limb. More research done on palistine facts and these people fund it, Jewish Internet Association wouldnt be in there best intrest to down play any jewish wrong doing not saying the site is biased but it makes you wonder.

the cato artical was written by
Sheldon L. Richman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sheldon L. Richman is senior editor at the Cato Institute, book review editor of the Cato Journal, contributing editor to Regulation magazine, and associate producer of ?Cato Forum,? a weekly cable/satellite television program.
Mr. Richman's articles on population, federal disaster assistance, international trade, education, the environment, American history foreign policy, privacy, computers, and the Middle East have appeared in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, American Scholar, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Washington Times, Insight, Cato Policy Report, Journal of Economic Development, Freeman, World & I, Reason, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Middle East Policy, Liberty magazine, and other publications. He is a contributor to the Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics.
A former newspaper reporter, associate editor of Inquiry magazine, and senior editor at the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, Mr. Richman, 44, is a graduate of Temple University in Philadelphia.
Mr. Richman?s essay appeared in the June 1992 issue of Freedom Daily, published by The Future of Freedom Foundation.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You seem to have some serious problems, first you post "so now we are going to try to find unbiased web site hah like that exists. " than you spend the rest of your post trying to prove that the Cato article is not biased in any way.

Get a grip boy.
 

Drphibes

Member
Feb 20, 2004
68
0
0
There must be some quality facts in it as our own government

im just proving the degree to wich its biased
 

DanTMWTMP

Lifer
Oct 7, 2001
15,907
13
81
yes...wooooooh..i read through all of them. Thanks for keeping this clean. My original post is probably extreme and if i offended any i'm sorry. The discussions in here were pretty good, and there were no real flame fest in here. I learned a lot from your posts, and thx much for the info guys.


i expected a more firey discussion, but it seems the majority of the posts are calm arguments. coool
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: Siwy

Initially you said that "israreli government is run by a constitution and a secular government" but now you're saying that "israel was made as a JEWISH state". I think you don't know the meaning of "secular" or maybe you don't know the meaning of "JEWISH". Either way you are contradicting yourself.

regarding the ETHNIC group of people known as "jews" there is no contradiction. i never mentioned religion, so why the lecture of the definition of the word secular when it has nothing to do with the points i actually made?

are you saying a person has to be of the jewish faith to be a jew according to israeli law? if you are, you're wrong. in fact many of the jews who fought in the war of independence and set up the govt. were secularists. would you like me to name a few?

;)