the Middle East Conflict: Which side is the agressor?




 
--
 
September 22nd, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 

Topic: the Middle East Conflict: Which side is the agressor?


This topic is the result of the "Iran and nukes" Discussion. Israel's nukes were compared to future Iranian capablities. It was also hinted that Israel is an agressive nation. I want to comment, and I will aprciate a good discussion, especially people who disagree with me and want to prove me wrong(in a respectful way please).

Alright let me start by the first and most important claim to Israel being the defnsive side in this conflict:
In 1948 the Jews expeted the UN partition plan, the arabs did not. This caused the war of independence.IMHO This makes the arab side the starter of violence in the Israeli-Arab conflict.
September 22nd, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
I will agree with you that most of your countries conflicts have been in defense against the Arab States. Your war of Indepence was fought mainly against the Brit's however wasn't it? And wasn't that because until the land issue was satisfied the Brit's were not going to remove their troops?
September 22nd, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Well, that's sortof obvious. The stated goal of every combined Arabic attack on Israel has been the same: to completely remove the nation of Israel. Iran doesn't have any sort of basis to compare their situation to Israel's. They are relatively secure and not under imminent threat of invasion. Israel always has been.
--
September 22nd, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
Quote:
fought mainly against the Brit's however wasn't it?
No.....Not at all. There was a struggle with the UK, but not a war. The Brits decided the whole thing is out of hand and let the UN decide about. The UN decided on a partition to 2 states. The Jews agreed the Arabs did not. An internal war errupted 1947(after the UNs decision), between the local Arabs(Palestinians) and Jews(soon to be Israelis)....On 14 May 1948 Israel declared independece. The next day the neighboring arab nations invaded. the war raged till the summer of 1949.
September 22nd, 2004  
FlyingFrog
 
I only know from the point of view of Arabs, Israel is the robber who robbed the house of Palestanians. Then how can you say a robber is "defending" the house which he robbed from others?

But I have to say too: I don't know exactly why Arabs think Israel is the robber, and it still ocupies land of other Arab countries like Syria's, I only know the brits created a lot of problems in the world after they were deadly weakend by Hitler's Nazi Germany and lost the British Empire after WW2.
September 22nd, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
Okay Sherman I stand corrected. But I'm don't consider Israel the aggressor any way.
September 22nd, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
Well FlyingFrog, Its true that Israel took the lands of the Palestinian-Arabs in 1948 and later in 1967....But that is not robbery. In 1948 Israel was attacked and won. The ground we conqoured was not very large. We held on to it as the country was small as it was, and very hard to defend against arab attack. 1967 is a diffrent thing: Israel did attack first, but this is after much provocation by Egypt and Syria.

Listen, as I already have summrys of these conflicts on my under-construction site ill let you guys have a sneak peak:

1948 war of independence:
http://www.geocities.com/nnnachman/1948.html

1967 Six-Days War:
http://www.geocities.com/nnnachman/1967.html

Note also that being defensive on the Super-Stratigic level dose not nesesrialy mean being defensive on the Super-Tactical one....You can take an area to defend your homeland....That is not the same as taking it to launch attacks on other countries(examp: Golan Heights under Syrian rule, 1948-1967)
September 22nd, 2004  
FlyingFrog
 
I checked your site, but how dare you to put this in Title?

1948 War Of Inependence
September 22nd, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Well, I can understand the Palestinian plight certainly, but the underlying thing is that Israel did not "rob" the Palestinians. The UK gave them what they had agreed to give them. Unfortunately, the UK had promised the same prize to both Palestine and to the Jews. The setup of two separate states after WW2 was an attempt to keep their promise to both parties.

The Palestinians and Arabs saw fit to attempt to forceably remove the Jewish State, and they lost. Similar to the invasion and annexation of Tibet, the side with the more powerful military strength has decided the matter in spite of what the weaker side wanted.
September 23rd, 2004  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
From CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html

ran has said it will react "most severely" to any Israeli action against its nuclear facilities, issuing the warning after Israel said the United States was selling it 500 bunker buster bombs.

Israeli military officials said Tuesday that the Jewish state will receive nearly 5,000 smart bombs, including the 500 one-ton bombs that can destroy two-yard-thick (two-meter-thick) concrete walls.

In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor before it could begin operating.

On Wednesday Israel said that Iran would never abandon plans to develop nuclear weapons and called for quick action by the U.N. Security Council "to put an end to this nightmare."

Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, asked Wednesday about the sale of the monster bombs, told reporters: "Israel has always been a threat, not only against Iran, but all countries."


It seems both sides see the other as the agressor.