US inability to rein in Israel will fuel extremism in region

[abso]

Is Israel's Palestinian policy, or the US's support of Israel, REALLY the source of extremism against the US/Israel for the average Muslim on the street?

not just for the average muslim on street, its for the terrorists themselfs, thats the reason they attack US.

1- US army bases in ME
2- Blind Support for israel

[SassyLady]

i am not talking about ancient history, i am talking about a modern war, which is still going right now.

maybe you think that palestinians would just forget about their land, but they wont, neither will i if i were in their place.

egypt didn't forget about its land and we fought for it, with army and politics, even when israel wanted to keep a tiny little piece called Taba, egypt fought for it politicaly and got it back in 1988, its just a very small piece, but we dont let go of any of our lands, thats the way we are, we got a court verdict, we got Taba back, so the same as egyptians did, dont expect any arab to let go of his land.


letting go of the land isnt an option
moving palestinians into egypt isnt an option
moving palestinians into jordan isnt an option

the only option is the right way, to return the land, then we all live together peacefully.

maybe there will be another war as you say, and maybe israel will gain more land or will lose all of its land, none knows, but the fact is that we all dont want any more wars, so lets hope for peace.

How much of the land Israel currently has do you think they should give back? All of Israel?

[abso]

How much of the land Israel currently has do you think they should give back? All of Israel?

NO, not all of israel, just the occupied territories.

i remeber that i answered to you, they are four areas,

West Bank
Gaza Strip
the Golan Heights
East Jerusalem

those four areas are recognized by EU and USA to be occupied areas, and by international law, they should be returned to their owners, but Israel doesnt agree with that and doesnt want to return them.

and by moving civilians into those area israel is breaking the international law:

The establishment of Israeli settlements are held to constitute a transfer of Israel's civilian population into the occupied territories and as such are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

In 2000, the editors of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Palestine Yearbook of International Law (1998–1999) said "the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory" amounts to a war crime. This is obviously applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories."

In 2004 the International Court of Justice, in an advisory, non-binding opinion—noted that the Security Council had described Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the occupied territories as a "flagrant violation" of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Court also concluded that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law and that all the States parties to the Geneva Convention are under an obligation to ensure compliance by Israel with international law as embodied in the Convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli...es_allegations

[SassyLady]

NO, not all of israel, just the occupied territories.

i remeber that i answered to you, they are four areas,

West Bank
Gaza Strip
the Golan Heights
East Jerusalem

those four areas are recognized by EU and USA to be occupied areas, and by international law, they should be returned to their owners, but Israel doesnt agree with that and doesnt want to return them.

and by moving civilians into those area israel is breaking the international law:

The establishment of Israeli settlements are held to constitute a transfer of Israel's civilian population into the occupied territories and as such are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

In 2000, the editors of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Palestine Yearbook of International Law (1998–1999) said "the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory" amounts to a war crime. This is obviously applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories."

In 2004 the International Court of Justice, in an advisory, non-binding opinion—noted that the Security Council had described Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the occupied territories as a "flagrant violation" of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Court also concluded that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law and that all the States parties to the Geneva Convention are under an obligation to ensure compliance by Israel with international law as embodied in the Convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli...es_allegations

And which international law was Egypt, Jordan and Syria breaking when they made plans to attack Israel?

[abso]

And which international law was Egypt, Jordan and Syria breaking when they made plans to attack Israel?

none, planning to attack someone isnt a violation of any law.

and as i said, there were no plans to attack from the egyptian side, you would like to beleive so, but that isnt true, most of all family have been in the army, and i have personally spoken with some old retired generals of the egyptian army who were in the army at that time.

egypt just massed its troops on the border because of the false russian info that said that israel is massing its troops on the syrian borders, so Nasser was obligated to mass his troops because of the mutual defensive pact between us and syria, but he knew that he didnt have enough weapons, he just had a larger army in numbers, but with very old tech weapons that cant compete with the advanced american weapons given to israel at that time, so he hoped that israel would back down then he wont have to go to war with a nearly destroyed army.

all the talk the you find in the media about Nasser intentions to go to war with israel, was just for the egyptian army, to encourage them and give them enthusiasm in case we actually go to war, just for the press, not what he actually believed of intended.

USSR never agreed to give egypt its latest weapons like US is doing with israel, thats why Sadat got tired from them before 1973 war and kicked their experts out, even weapon shipments which were scheduled to arrive before the war got late, and we had to go to the 1973 war without them, thats why Sadat ended our friendship with USSR and formed strong relations with USA, because USSR have let us down and didnt provide us with adequate weapons.

[SassyLady]

none, planning to attack someone isnt a violation of any law.

and as i said, there were no plans to attack from the egyptian side, you would like to beleive so, but that isnt true, most of all family have been in the army, and i have personally spoken with some old retired generals of the egyptian army who were in the army at that time.

egypt just massed its troops on the border because of the false russian info that said that israel is massing its troops on the syrian borders, so Nasser was obligated to mass his troops because of the mutual defensive pact between us and syria, but he knew that he didnt have enough weapons, he just had a larger army in numbers, but with very old tech weapons that cant compete with the advanced american weapons given to israel at that time, so he hoped that israel would back down then he wont have to go to war with a nearly destroyed army.

all the talk the you find in the media about Nasser intentions to go to war with israel, was just for the egyptian army, to encourage them and give them enthusiasm in case we actually go to war, just for the press, not what he actually believed of intended.

USSR never agreed to give egypt its latest weapons like US is doing with israel, thats why Sadat got tired from them before 1973 war and kicked their experts out, even weapon shipments which were scheduled to arrive before the war got late, and we had to go to the 1973 war without them, thats why Sadat ended our friendship with USSR and formed strong relations with USA, because USSR have let us down and didnt provide us with adequate weapons.

Not only did Nassar start massing his troops on the border but he closed the Straits after Israel said it would be a declaration of war. To me, that is saying, "bring it on", which Israel did. Nassar should never signed the pact with Jordan and Syria....and he should not have moved some of his troops to Jordan to help them. He knew that Iraq had also moved troops into Jordan and he sent some of his to help.

Israel would have been stupid to wait for Jordan or Egypt to attack.

[abso]

Not only did Nassar start massing his troops on the border but he closed the Straits after Israel said it would be a declaration of war. To me, that is saying, "bring it on", which Israel did. Nassar should never signed the pact with Jordan and Syria....and he should not have moved some of his troops to Jordan to help them. He knew that Iraq had also moved troops into Jordan and he sent some of his to help.

Israel would have been stupid to wait for Jordan or Egypt to attack.

would have been stupid, but also would have been right.

as i said, there was tension at that time, Nasser didnt know if israel is going to war or not, he had to do what he did, he had no other options.

he closed the Straits to stop any shipments to arrive to israel, that is a natural response to the info that was sent to him from the USSR.

In a letter written to the New York Times in June 1967 lawyer Roger Fisher argued that:

The United Arab Republic had a good legal case for restricting traffic through the Strait of Tiran. First it is debatable whether international law confers any right of innocent passage through such a waterway.... {Secondly]... a right of innocent passage is not a right of free passage for any cargo at any time. In the words of the Convention on the Territorial Sea: 'Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state... taking the facts as they were I, as an international lawyer, would rather defend before the International Court of Justice the legality of the U.A.R's action in closing the Strait of Tiran than to argue the other side of the case...

closing the straits was the only response, it was for security reasons, israel has no right to pass any cargo at its whim, if we believe that the cargo can carry weapons which will be used against us, then we have the right to protect ourselfs by closing the straits, US would do the same if it was in our situation.

so closing the straits wasnt an aggressive move, it was the only response to the info we had at that time, if you have an info that a country is going to war against you, then you will do everything in your ability to prevent that and to protect yourself, but that didnt involve firing the first shot, because we would ever do that.

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

Yitzhak Rabin reported that the cabinet was deadlocked over the issue of the blockade.

Interior Minister Haim-Moshe Shapira in particular had pointed out that the Straits had been closed from 1951 to 1956 without the situation endangering Israel's security.

In a 30 March 1968 Ma’ariv interview Defense Minister Moshe Dayan explained: "What do you mean, [the war was] unavoidable? It was, of course, possible to avoid the war if the Straits [of Tiran] had stayed closed to Israeli shipping.

The U.S. also tried to mediate, and Nasser agreed to send his vice-president to Washington to explore a diplomatic settlement. Most American diplomats who worked in the Middle East were sympathetic to Nasser's views on the Straits, with several of them arguing that the U.S. should ignore both its on-the-record promises to Israel regarding the Straits being open and international law; a few diplomats who were not as impressed by threats from Arab nations advised the Johnson Administration to back the flotilla option as a "show of force" that would forestall war from breaking out. The meeting did not happen because Israel launched its offensive.

On May 25, 1967, Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban landed in Washington “with instructions to discuss American plans to re-open the Strait of Tiran”. As soon as he arrived, he was given new instructions in a cable from the Israeli government. The cable said that Israel had learned of an imminent Egyptian attack, which overshadowed the blockade. No longer was he to emphasize the strait issue; he was instructed to ‘inform the highest authorities of this new threat and to request an official statement from the United States that an attack on Israel would be viewed as an attack on the United States.”According to most sources, including those involved, the new instructions were sent at the instigation of Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin, who was eager to force an American decision – either Johnson would have to commit to specific American action then, or Israel would be free to act on its own. Historian Michael Oren explains Eban's reaction to the new instructions: "Eban was livid. Unconvinced that Nasser was either determined or even able to attack, he now saw Israelis inflating the Egyptian threat - and flaunting their weakness - in order to extract a pledge that the President, Congress-bound, could never make." He described the cable as an '... act of momentous irresponsibility... eccentric...' which 'lacked wisdom, veracity and tactical understanding,' and later came to the conclusion that the genesis of the cable was Rabin's indecisive state of mind.

Despite his own skepticism, Eban followed his instructions during his first meeting with Secretary Rusk, Under Secretary Rostow, and Assistant Secretary Lucius Battle. American intelligence experts spent the night analyzing each of the Israeli claims. On May 26, Eban met with United States Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, and finally with President Lyndon B. Johnson. In a memo to the President, Rusk rejected the claim of an Egyptian and Syrian attack being imminent, plainly stating "our intelligence does not confirm [the] Israeli estimate".

According to declassified documents from the Johnson Presidential Library, President Johnson and other top officials in the administration did not believe war between Israel and its neighbors was necessary or inevitable. "All of our intelligence people are unanimous that if the UAR attacks, you will whip hell out of them", Johnson told Eban during a visit to the White House on May 26.

This assertion was made in accordance with a CIA assessment that Israel could “defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts . . . or hold on any three fronts while mounting successfully a major offensive on the fourth." Consequently, Johnson declined to airlift special military supplies to Israel or even to publicly support it. Eban left the White House distraught.

In a lecture given in 2002, Oren said, "Johnson sat around with his advisors and said, ‘What if their intelligence sources are better than ours?’ Johnson decided to fire off a Hotline message to his counterpart in the Kremlin, Alexei Kosygin, in which he said, ‘We've heard from the Israelis, but we can't corroborate it, that your proxies in the Middle East, the Egyptians, plan to launch an attack against Israel in the next 48 hours. If you don't want to start a global crisis, prevent them from doing that.’ At 2:30 a.m. on May 27, Soviet Ambassador to Egypt Dimitri Pojidaev knocked on Nasser's door and read him a personal letter from Kosygin in which he said, ‘We don't want Egypt to be blamed for starting a war in the Middle East. If you launch that attack, we cannot support you.’ Amer consulted his sources in the Kremlin, and they corroborated the substance of Kosygin's message. Despondent, Amer told the commander of Egypt's air force, Major General Mahmud Sidqi, that the operation was cancelled." According to then Egyptian Vice-President Hussein el-Shafei, as soon as Nasser knew what Amer planned, he cancelled the operation.

On May 30, Nasser responded to Johnson's request of 11 days earlier and agreed to send his Vice President, Zakkariya Muhieddin, to Washington on June 7 to explore a diplomatic settlement in "precisely the opening the White House had sought". Historian Michael Oren writes that Rusk was "mad as hell" and that Johnson later wrote "I have never concealed my regret that Israel decided to move when it did".

Within Israel's political leadership, it was decided that if the US would not act, and if the UN could not act, then Israel would have to act. On 1 June, Moshe Dayan was made Israeli Defense Minister, and on June 3 the Johnson administration gave an ambiguous statement; Israel continued to prepare for war. Israel's attack against Egypt on June 5 began what would later be dubbed the Six-Day War. According to Martin van Creveld, the IDF pressed for war: "...the concept of 'defensible borders' was not even part of the IDFs own vocabulary. Anyone who will look for it in the military literature of the time will do so in vain. Instead, Israel's commanders based their thought on the 1948 war and, especially, their 1956 triumph over the Egyptians in which, from then Chief of Staff Dayan down, they had gained their spurs. When the 1967 crisis broke they felt certain of their ability to win a 'decisive, quick and elegant' victory, as one of their number, General Haim Bar Lev, put it, and pressed the government to start the war as soon as possible". Some of Israel's political leaders, however, hoped for a diplomatic solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

read it carefully....


Nasser was told by USSR not to start the war and he agreed, and he was also told by USA not to start the war and again he agreed, only to see Israel starting the war, that is what happened, believe it or not, its the facts.

Amer wanted war, but Nasser cancelled his plans, he agreed to send his vice president to USA for diplomatic solution, but Israel attacked even before the meeting takes place, Nasser was obligated by his promise to USSR and USA that he wont start the war, but it seems that Israel wasnt obligated by anything.

[Kathianne]

if land won in war belongs to the victor, then there is no need for international law anymore, we all should fight each other to gain more land.

was never palestinian land ?, okay

with all due respect, if you dont like my attitude (which i try to keep it respectable) or opinions, you dont have any obligation to discuss anything with me, feel free to ignore me, have a nice day

I don't think you would like your attitude, if you saw it for what it was. You slip in figures like the 1400 innocents killed by ISRAEL in Gaza. Some probably wonder what that was, so here:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/0...lians-unlawful

Gaza/Israel: Hamas Rocket Attacks on Civilians Unlawful
Launches from Populated Areas Endanger Israelis and Palestinians
August 6, 2009

Hamas rocket attacks targeting Israeli civilians are unlawful and unjustifiable, and amount to war crimes. As the governing authority in Gaza, Hamas should publicly renounce rocket attacks on Israeli civilian centers and punish those responsible, including members of its own armed wing.
Iain Levine, program director at Human Rights Watch

(Jerusalem) - Hamas should repudiate unlawful rocket attacks against Israeli population centers and hold those responsible for them to account, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have over several years launched thousands of rockets at Israeli cities and towns, including hundreds during Israel's three-week military offensive in Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009. A UN fact-finding investigation into serious violations of the laws of war by both sides in the Gaza conflict, led by Judge Richard Goldstone, is due to report back to the UN Human Rights Council in September....

[Kathianne]

if land won in war belongs to the victor, then there is no need for international law anymore, we all should fight each other to gain more land.

was never palestinian land ?, okay

with all due respect, if you dont like my attitude (which i try to keep it respectable) or opinions, you dont have any obligation to discuss anything with me, feel free to ignore me, have a nice day

Funny how Palestinians turn to the UN for condemnations of Israel and use those from the stacked deck to try to turn this into a legal defense via international law. They turn to US to force Israel to do their bidding, all the while claiming US is doing Israel's bidding. Now if for one moment those leaders were convinced of the duplicity assumed by civilians in the region, do you really think that the US was an instigator? Hmmm? Has it ever dawned on you that perhaps you are being fed more than a few lies by the leaders?

[abso]

I don't think you would like your attitude, if you saw it for what it was. You slip in figures like the 1400 innocents killed by ISRAEL in Gaza. Some probably wonder what that was, so here:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/0...lians-unlawful

i dont agree with rocket attacks and never will, but the fact is that israel is occupying palestinian lands, and the stupid people who use the rockets as method of resistence, believe that they are resisting the occupation, so i condemn them for their method, not their goal.

but about israel, it have two goals and one method, a goal to protect its civilians, and a goal to keep the occupied lands, and a method of killing alot of palestinains to make them stop.

so i condemn israel for its method, and also for their goal of keeping an occupied land, but i agree with them that they should protect their civilians.

[abso]

Funny how Palestinians turn to the UN for condemnations of Israel and use those from the stacked deck to try to turn this into a legal defense via international law. They turn to US to force Israel to do their bidding, all the while claiming US is doing Israel's bidding. Now if for one moment those leaders were convinced of the duplicity assumed by civilians in the region, do you really think that the US was an instigator? Hmmm? Has it ever dawned on you that perhaps you are being fed more than a few lies by the leaders?

the problem is that you dont even acknowledge that palestinians is not one party.

the PLO wants peace with israel, and they are asking for the land in exchange for peace, but israel is refusing, and that is actually empowering Hamas.

the more israel refuses to give the land back, the more palestinians are in favour of Hamas, because they find no result in what PLO is trying to do

so there are two side, PLO and Hamas, PLO has peaceful means, while Hamas got tired of talking and just fight, and by refusing to give the land back in exchange for peace, Israel is just telling the palestinians that there are no point in the negotiations that PLO is trying to make, and that they just have to give up and lose hope, and that is what people who join hamas does, they lost hope in negotiations and they lost all the hope that israel will return the land peacefully.

[Kathianne]

the problem is that you dont even acknowledge that palestinians is not one party.

the PLO wants peace with israel, and they are asking for the land in exchange for peace, but israel is refusing, and that is actually empowering Hamas.

the more israel refuses to give the land back, the more palestinians are in favour of Hamas, because they find no result in what PLO is trying to do

so there are two side, PLO and Hamas, PLO has peaceful means, while Hamas got tired of talking and just fight, and by refusing to give the land back in exchange for peace, Israel is just telling the palestinians that there are no point in the negotiations that PLO is trying to make, and that they just have to give up and lose hope, and that is what people who join hamas does, they lost hope in negotiations and they lost all the hope that israel will return the land peacefully.

Abso you totally focus on the land, without any analysis of what led to the conflict which resulted on the conquering of land. You ignore that Syria was launching missiles, prior to the beginning of the war. How many conflicts from Arab states, with support from non-Arab Muslim states, prior to '67? What were the 'causes' of those earlier conflict? The existence of Israel was the cause. That cause has never been renounced by the current aggressors.

[abso]

Abso you totally focus on the land, without any analysis of what led to the conflict which resulted on the conquering of land. You ignore that Syria was launching missiles, prior to the beginning of the war. How many conflicts from Arab states, with support from non-Arab Muslim states, prior to '67? What were the 'causes' of those earlier conflict? The existence of Israel was the cause. That cause has never been renounced by the current aggressors.

the earlier problems that you are talking about, is more complicated, and they are history, we wont achieve anything be discussing them and wasting days.

but i concentrate on the current issues, and what we can do about them, i often enjoy talking about history, any history of any kind about any subject, but nowdays i dont have much time to broaden my discussions even more, so i prefer to stay with a certain subject and discuss its implications in our time, not its roots in the past.

[Kathianne]

the earlier problems that you are talking about, is more complicated, and they are history, we wont achieve anything be discussing them and wasting days.

but i concentrate on the current issues, and what we can do about them, i often enjoy talking about history, any history of any kind about any subject, but nowdays i dont have much time to broaden my discussions even more, so i prefer to stay with a certain subject and discuss its implications in our time, not its roots in the past.

No, we are talking from the time of 1948, which is not ancient history, in spite of the fact I wasn't born yet.

Choices and repercussions. Jordan flooded with refugees after '67 war, why? Their participation. Results, Jordan pushed towards moderation after.

[abso]

No, we are talking from the time of 1948, which is not ancient history, in spite of the fact I wasn't born yet.

Choices and repercussions. Jordan flooded with refugees after '67 war, why? Their participation. Results, Jordan pushed towards moderation after.

if you still dont acknowledge that israel started 67 war, then there is no point in discussing it, as i said, USSR and USA asked Egypt not to start, and we complied with those requests, although we had info coming from our spy in israel that israel is going to attack, we abided by our promise, and we didnt start the attack, and as a result, all our fighters were destroyed on the ground by the suprise air attack.

avoiding the war was a possibility, but israel didnt want that chance, they wanted more land, and they took it, but dont keep saying that Egypt was going to attack while we promised your country that we wont, and Syria would have never attacked unless Egypt is going to attack along with it.

as for 1948, i know its not ancient history, but its an old war, that doesnt matter now, yes, it wasnt their land, and it wasnt their right to annex it and start a country in it in the first place, the british helped them, then they attacked the british with jewish terrorists, and palestinians tried to resist, egypt intervened with its army, egypt had a traitor in the palace who bought a defective weapons deal, the defective weapons hindered the ability of the egyptian army to win the battle, then the battle ended and the situation was stabilized and the state of israel became a fact.

then years passed, and the world now recognize an israelian state based on the 1967 borders, so all the conflicts happened before 1967 doesnt matter, because its not the issuse now, the land that israel had before 1967, is recognized by egypt, and many arab and islamic countries, so whats the point in talking about how they acquired this land, or what happened after that, acquired it by war or by peace or by any other mean, its theirs now, and everyone admits that, what do you want to discuss about things prior to 1967 !!!