[karajorma]

I don't mind most of the population of Israel, they seem like regular ordinary people.  The 'settlers' seem like belligerent assholes, and they deserve whatever is coming their way.

I would agree with that statement. Anyone who did settle in the occupied territories did so in full knowledge of the fact that they were moving to land that was seized from other nations. Pretty hard to believe that they are the innocent parties in this.

[SpardaSon21]

My history isn't as good as it should be, so what exactly happened in 1967?  Was that the Six Day War?

[MP-Ryan]

My history isn't as good as it should be, so what exactly happened in 1967?  Was that the Six Day War?

Indeed.  Israel got wind of a combined attack coming from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria.  They struck pre-emptively, seizing the Golan heights from Syria, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Gaza Strip and Sinai Penninsula from Egypt.  Egypt since got the Sinai back after renouncing the goal of Israeli destruction.  The remaining territories are under de-facto Israeli control.  There have been negotiations to return both Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, but none have been successful for a variety of reasons.  The West Bank is basically the area reserved for the country of Palestine.  However, Israel continues to settle people there in the hopes of establishing a claim for a permanent buffer zone to keep rockets from being able to reach its large population centers.

The Yom Kippur War (6 years later) was basically round 2.  Jordan abstained from conflict that time around, and Egypt and Syria both got their asses kicked (again).  Since that peace, the majority of the attacks on Israel have been of a terrorist-type, versus warfare between armies.

[SpardaSon21]

So from what you've said, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt were trying to destroy Israel, Israel kicked their asses, and people like Turambar are complaining that Israel took some land from the people who were trying to wipe them out?

[Bobboau]

yes, exactly.

[MP-Ryan]

So from what you've said, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt were trying to destroy Israel, Israel kicked their asses, and people like Turambar are complaining that Israel took some land from the people who were trying to wipe them out?

More or less.  There's a lot more to it than that; Israel is not entirely the cooperative good guy, but their Arab neighbours basically operated from 1948 to 1979 on the premise that they wanted to destroy Israel by force to make way for Palestine.  The Yom Kippur War in the 70s is what actually paved the way for peace negotiations, which [justifiably] Israel has been somewhat stubborn in.

[Turambar]

Yes, because beating up a kid does entitle you to his lunch.  Why don't we just keep Iraq and Afghanistan for ourselves?

[Scotty]

If that kid is yelling to the whole playground about how he's going to beat your face in, I'd have taken his lunch too.

[MP-Ryan]

Yes, because beating up a kid does entitle you to his lunch.

Wrong analogy.  Defending yourself and beating up the whole gang of bullies that want to break your face for no other reason than you are you, however, does entitle you to tell them to stay the **** away from you lest you have to defend yourself again.

I recall this little debate in another thread.  Contrary to popular belief, there are some people in this world that hate and will kill you for no other reason than because their you are different than them.  Jews have learned this the hard way for centuries, and the present situation in Israel is largely the result of a historical problem - many Arabs do not believe Jews have a place in the "Holy Lands" and therefore would be more than happy to wipe Israel off the map.  They've been saying that since it was first formed in 1948, and I wonder why so many people like yourself seem to forget that.

The conflict in general is not about settlements, or borders, or Palestinian rights.  It's about Israel's right to exist, and a large Arab population that doesn't historically believe that.  It's only because Israel has successfully defended itself in four hot-wars that they've come to accept that Israel is not going to be destroyed by force of arms.  That is the biggest elephant in the room when it comes to peace negotiations - the fact that many of the neighboring Arab states and large numbers (but probably not a majority) of Palestinians have no interest in seeing an agreement with security guarantees for Israel, because they fundamentally do not believe it has a right to be secure.

I don't support human rights violations, I don't like the settlements Israel keeps putting up in the West Bank, and I don't like the fact that Israel isn't a truly equal society with truly equal democracy... BUT, until the other side of this conflict comes to terms with Israel's right to existence, security, and peace for its citizenry, I will always support the Israeli position over that of the Palestinians.  The election of Hamas, whose policy platform is that Israel does not have the right to exist, just goes to show how far we have to go before we can get a peaceful resolution.

[NGTM-1R]

That doesn't make it right or legitimate, bro. Just means people let history repeat itself.

You actually said bro. There are not enough :cripes: in the world.

But more seriously, yes, it's legitimate as legitimate gets, because denying its legitimacy like you mean it will result in millions of people dying and that's a whole ****ing lot less legitimate than the right of the state of Israel to exist.

It was also done to illustrate a simple fact: anyone making a "historical" claim to the land is at best deluded. Kosh forgot the Egyptians and the Babylonians and the Hittites but he can be forgiven for not wanting to deal with that either. Palestine has no historical right to exist and neither does Israel and anyone making a claim about who the land "historically" belongs to is slapfighting about whose imaginary friend is more awesome.

[Mongoose]

Not only that, but we can essentially say the same thing about every single scrap of soil on this planet.  Last time I checked, European settlers weren't the first humans to set foot in the Americas, the Normans weren't the original inhabitants of the British Isles, and the Dutch didn't originate from southernmost Africa...but there you are.  Everyone has taken land from someone else in the past, and if we were all to attempt to give it back, no one would have anywhere to live.  The only thing that makes the state of Israel unique is that it just happens to be one of the more recent examples.

[karajorma]

Indeed.  Israel got wind of a combined attack coming from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. They struck pre-emptively

I don't think it's quite that cut and dried. For a start the Israelis insisted that they were repelling an invasion until America told them that that was a load of ****ing bollocks and that they didn't believe them!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_relating_to_the_Six-Day_War seems to cover the issue somewhat fairly giving both sides of the argument.

We'll probably never know for certain what was planned so claiming that there definitely was an attack coming despite the mountains of evidence for and against that theory is pretty silly.

[MP-Ryan]

Indeed.  Israel got wind of a combined attack coming from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. They struck pre-emptively

I don't think it's quite that cut and dried. For a start the Israelis insisted that they were repelling an invasion until America told them that that was a load of ****ing bollocks and that they didn't believe them!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_relating_to_the_Six-Day_War seems to cover the issue somewhat fairly giving both sides of the argument.

We'll probably never know for certain what was planned so claiming that there definitely was an attack coming despite the mountains of evidence for and against that theory is pretty silly.

I *did* say it wasn't quite that simple.   The pre-emptive strike theory is what is typically taught in Western history, and there IS a good chunk of historical evidence (on the side calling it an offensive attack) that Egypt was actually planning for war, just not as early as Israel struck.

Since it's unlikely we'll ever be able to piece together the whole picture (in part because all the documents from the Arab side will never see the light of day, given the state of the countries involved), and we have the benefit of historical hindsight concerning the actions of the same Arab nations both before and after 1967, the fact that most Western history books call it a pre-emptive war is generally a reasonable assessment, though there are many pieces of evidence that suggest it should be looked on with some nuance.

[Grizzly]

that Egypt was actually planning for war, just not as early as Israel struck.

But every country tends to plan for wars. It does not neccisarely mean that they are actually going to war. Otherwise the Cold War would have turned pretty bloody quite quickly.

[Bobboau]

ok, try replacing the word 'planning' with 'preparing'.

[karajorma]

Maybe you should re-read all the quotes on that link I gave you.

[MP-Ryan]

Maybe you should re-read all the quotes on that link I gave you.

I did before even responding (if you're referring to the notes at the bottom of the page).  I do admit there's a fair bit of recently-declassified information that I wasn't originally aware of, but it doesn't change the overall picture that significantly.

[karajorma]

Seriously? Even despite the fact that the quotes include the admission by the Israelis that they deliberately provoked the Syrians after the cease-fire so that they could claim the Golan Heights? Despite America flat out stating to the Israelis several times that all their intelligence says that they don't believe that Nasser planned a war? Despite several prominent Israelis flat out stating that they didn't believe at the time that Egypt was a threat?

Like I said, there is plenty of evidence on both sides of the argument. Given that, I find it rather silly to come down on one side or the other.

[Scotty]

And yet, you seem to be coming down rather solidly on one side or the other yourself.  Funny how that works.

[karajorma]

How am I coming down one one side or the other? I have on numerous occasions said that both sides are so stupid that the best thing to do would be to kick both sides out and give the land to someone more reasonable.

Everyone knows that the Palestinian leaders are in general a bunch of wankers. What most people forget is that the Israelis leaders are ALSO a bunch of wankers who have done **** all to improve the situation and instead have done virtually everything in their power to make things worse. So I spend a lot of time pointing that fact out and probably comes across as being pro-Palestinian.

I'm most certainly not.