• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abbas Raises Entrance Price

Mira said:
But that doesn't mean that they don't pick up the reports from wire agencies if they don't send a team.

Where they can play a role is how much space they give a story if any at all.
Click to expand...
I didn't argue about a role or anything, my argument was very very specific, surrounding the decision of place.
 
Apocalypse said:
I didn't argue about a role or anything, my argument was very very specific, surrounding the decision of place.
Click to expand...

You have to remember another thing Apocalypse, that the times when people used to subscribe to one newspaper are gone.

With internet and cable television, everyone has access to several news sources.

If that hadn't been the case, do you think I would be reading Ha'arets and the Jerusalem Post on a daily basis ?
 
Mira said:
You have to remember another thing Apocalypse, that the times when people used to subscribe to one newspaper are gone.

With internet and cable television, everyone has access to several news sources.

If that hadn't been the case, do you think I would be reading Ha'arets and the Jerusalem Post on a daily basis ?
Click to expand...
Reading Ha'Aretz on a daily basis ensures one a shortened life.
 
Apocalypse said:
While you personally believe that all of the wars were started by Israel (As claimed by one of your early posts), the six-day war was indeed the only Israeli first strike, coming after the blockage of the Straits of Tiran by Egypt, which is, an act of war.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but you do actually have to block the straits for this even to be considered. Plus theres a few other niggling details about what actually went on.

Also the 73 strike occurred when Israel was actually sitting and settling on Egyptian territory.
 
Apocalypse said:
I didn't argue about a role or anything, my argument was very very specific, surrounding the decision of place.
Click to expand...

A "place" covers a wide range. When there was the war on Gaza, the journalists were sent there via Tel Aviv, but then the fact that they weren't allowed to enter Gaza was not either in their hands or the hands of their empoloyers. The fact also that they were guided to the bombed Israeli towns was the choice of the Israeli press office.
 
Apocalypse said:
You just base my analysis.
The settlements are seen as a bigger offense than the terrorist attacks and the rocket launching aimed at civilians.

This adds to the physical power of the Israeli state, and a lot of people in peaceful areas gain the image of a bullying and abusive state that sends its sons to drink Palestinian blood every once in a while, if only to show them who's the boss around.
Click to expand...

Yes absolutely, that is the way settlements are seen. And that is as it should be. Settlements are aimed at civilians also.

However, people moslty do not see Israelis as out to drink Palestinian blood, their water maybe, but not their blood. :)
 
creation said:
Maybe so, but you do actually have to block the straits for this even to be considered. Plus theres a few other niggling details about what actually went on.

Also the 73 strike occurred when Israel was actually sitting and settling on Egyptian territory.
Click to expand...
The Sinai became an Israeli territory at the end of the six-day war, that's how things work in wars, especially at wars when the annexing side is the defender.
The right way to handle this was to make peace with Israel, which unfortunately was only done after the third loss.

What the Arab states have done on 1973 was an act of obvious aggression, only less obvious when compared to the first war, at 1948.
 
Apocalypse said:
The Sinai became an Israeli territory at the end of the six-day war, that's how things work in wars, especially at wars when the annexing side is the defender.
Click to expand...
This is a false claim, and completely is in contrast to international law. Territory cannot be acquired through force, regardless if it is defensive or aggressive. This is part of the UN Charter (Article 2)
Apocalypse said:
The right way to handle this was to make peace with Israel, which unfortunately was only done after the third loss.
Click to expand...
Actually, the correct response should have been giving up all territorial claims to land under military occupation (E. Jerusalem, Golan, Sinai, Gaza, and the West Bank). In fact, that was what the Israeli government had planned after the 1967 war (to return Sinai and Golan to Egypt and Syria). The offer was conveyed to the US, but never transmitted to Egypt or Syria. The offer was later withdrawn in October of 1967.
 
Apocalypse said:
The Sinai became an Israeli territory at the end of the six-day war, that's how things work in wars, especially at wars when the annexing side is the defender.
The right way to handle this was to make peace with Israel, which unfortunately was only done after the third loss.

What the Arab states have done on 1973 was an act of obvious aggression, only less obvious when compared to the first war, at 1948.
Click to expand...

No thats not how it works in wars. I assume you are referring to the oft quoted 'law of nations' which many Israelis claim gives them the right to claim territory taken in defensive war.

Im most interested in this notion, but few israelis or their supporters are willing to advance this argument detail beyond the ruminations of some esteemed lawyers i.e. there doesnt seem to be anything to it in codified international law.

As for how to handle it. Even A Eban, the Israeli foreign minister admits that M Dayan could have created a programme for exchanging the Sinai for peace long before 1973.. He did not. Later he did. What was the breakthrough that changed that? The breakthrough of Egyptian troops.

One cannot be an aggressor onto one's own land, one is by definition defending one's territory. Unless somehow of course you think that the Sinai became Israel's when it moved onto it. This argument is untenable in international relations as it gives every one the opportunity to create a pretext for war and then use this notion to claim taken territory - thats why this notion is not held up by the international community.

As for the first war, there is no UNSC resolution condemning the Arab States invasion of Palestine in 1948. Israel was already exceeding the borders it had just declared Sovereignty over. The Arab States had every right to protect what remained of the non-state entity of Palestine. Whatsmore despite ample opportunity to do so the Arab forces never entered the Israeli state, some invasion..
 
creation said:
As for how to handle it. Even A Eban, the Israeli foreign minister admits that M Dayan could have created a programme for exchanging the Sinai for peace long before 1973.. He did not. Later he did. What was the breakthrough that changed that? The breakthrough of Egyptian troops.
Click to expand...

A strong case can be made that the 1973 War may have served as a catalyst for later peacemaking by changing the prevailing psychology. In his memoirs, Sadat mentioned that the war allowed Egypt to regain its "self-confidence." Sadat wrote:

We have recovered our pride and self-confidence after the October 1973 battle, just as our armed forces did. We are no longer motivated by “complexes”—whether defeatist “inferiority” ones or those born out of suspicion and hate. And this is why the opposing sides met soon after the battle dust had settled to talk matters over.

In his memoirs, Henry Kissinger also recounted a conversation he had with President Sadat concerning his decision to launch the 1973 war. Kissinger explained:

Why had he been so persistent [to launch the 1973 war], I asked? Why not wait for the diplomatic initiative we had promised? To teach Israel that it could not find security in domination, replied Sadat, and to restore Egypt’s self-respect—a task no foreigner could do for it. Now that he had vindicated Egyptian honor, Sadat told me, he had two objectives: to regain “my territory,” that is to say, to restore the 1967 boundary in the Sinai, and to make peace.
 
Last edited:
Degreez said:
Actually, the correct response should have been giving up all territorial claims to land under military occupation (E. Jerusalem, Golan, Sinai, Gaza, and the West Bank). In fact, that was what the Israeli government had planned after the 1967 war (to return Sinai and Golan to Egypt and Syria). The offer was conveyed to the US, but never transmitted to Egypt or Syria. The offer was later withdrawn in October of 1967.
Click to expand...
You know, I read that bolded portion on Wiki while looking for where you got it. And it Is confirmed there.

But I find it Difficult to believe that those two arab countries didn't know, even tho it indeed may not have been "conveyed by the USA".

There was Two-and-a-half MONTHS between the offer being Voted on by the Israeli 'Unity Govt' and the Arab Rejectionism at Khartoum.

Wiki- Six day War
[...]
According to Chaim Herzog:
On June 19, 1967, the National Unity Government [of Israel] voted unanimously to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace agreements. The Golans would have to be demilitarized and special arrangement would be negotiated for the Straits of Tiran. The government also resolved to open negotiations with King Hussein of Jordan regarding the Eastern border.[148]​
The Israeli decision was to be conveyed to the Arab nations by the United States. The US was informed of the decision, but not that it was to transmit it. There is no evidence of receipt from Egypt or Syria, and some historians claim that they may have never received the offer.[149]

Later, the Khartoum Arab Summit resolved that there would be "no peace, no recognition and no negotiation with Israel." ....
The 1967 War also laid the foundation for future discord in the region - as on November 22, 1967, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 242, the "land for peace" formula, which called for Israeli withdrawal "from territories occupied" in 1967 in return for "the termination of all claims or states of belligerency."...
Click to expand...

Btw, the Same Wiki entry Continues:
[......]

The framers of Resolution 242 Recognized that some Territorial Adjustments were Likely, and therefore DELIBERATELY* did not include words 'all' or 'the' in the official English language version of the text when referring to "territories occupied" during the war, although it is present in other, notably French, Spanish and Russian versions. It recognized the right of "every state in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt in 1978, after the Camp David Accords, and disengaged from the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2005, though its army frequently re-enters Gaza for military operations and still retains control of border crossings, seaports and airports.

The aftermath of the war is also of Religious significance. Under Jordanian rule, Jews were effectively Barred from visiting the Western Wall (even though Article VIII of the 1949 Armistice Agreement provided for Israeli Jewish access to the Western Wall).[155] Jewish holy sites were not maintained, and their cemeteries had been Desecrated.
After the annexation to Israel, Each religious group was Granted administration over Its holy sites. Despite the Temple Mount's importance in Jewish tradition, the al-Aqsa Mosque is under sole administration of a Muslim Waqf, and Jews are barred from conducting services there.[156]
[.........]
Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
You know, I read that bolded portion on Wiki while looking for where you got it. And it Is confirmed there.

But I find it Difficult to believe that those two arab countries didn't know, even tho it indeed may not have been "conveyed by the USA".

There was Two-and-a-half MONTHS between the offer being Voted on by the Israeli 'Unity Govt' and the Arab Rejectionism at Khartoum.



Btw, the Same Wiki entry Continues:
Click to expand...

You may find it diffilclt to believe that the arab countries didnt know, but you should consider the desires expressed for more land in internal Israeli politics. At that time, through their interception of Israeli media, that is likely all they knew - that Israel had the land, was glad to have the land, and was wanting to keep it.

For example there was wide spread consensus in Israeli politics that Sharm el Sheik had to be held in 1969, Gahal, later Likud, wanted to retain most of the occupied territories in the Sinai.

Territorial adjustments, or land swaps has never been dispute. What is in dispute is Israeli settlment and annexation or the notion that the West Bank is disputed etc etc.
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
A strong case can be made that the 1973 War may have served as a catalyst for later peacemaking by changing the prevailing psychology. In his memoirs, Sadat mentioned that the war allowed Egypt to regain its "self-confidence." Sadat wrote:

We have recovered our pride and self-confidence after the October 1973 battle, just as our armed forces did. We are no longer motivated by “complexes”—whether defeatist “inferiority” ones or those born out of suspicion and hate. And this is why the opposing sides met soon after the battle dust had settled to talk matters over.

In his memoirs, Henry Kissinger also recounted a conversation he had with President Sadat concerning his decision to launch the 1973 war. Kissinger explained:

Why had he been so persistent [to launch the 1973 war], I asked? Why not wait for the diplomatic initiative we had promised? To teach Israel that it could not find security in domination, replied Sadat, and to restore Egypt’s self-respect—a task no foreigner could do for it. Now that he had vindicated Egyptian honor, Sadat told me, he had two objectives: to regain “my territory,” that is to say, to restore the 1967 boundary in the Sinai, and to make peace.
Click to expand...

Thank you

Of course there was a lot more to it than Egyptian pride.

Sadat was forced into conflict really because the Israelis could not leave Sharm el Sheik. Ill expand later if requested.,
 
creation said:
....

Territorial adjustments, or land swaps has Never been dispute. What is in dispute is Israeli settlment and annexation or the notion that the West Bank is disputed etc etc.
Click to expand...
!!

It's ALWAYS been in dispute and is [still] is.

Palestinians (amazingly the only thing Fatah/Hamas DO agree on) is that they are demanding the Exact 1967 borders.

Hamas offering Truce/'Hudna' [only for such] and Abbas NOT even Negotiating until those 1967 borders are pre-conceded, and most recently asking the UN for a New Resolution giving them those lines. (Since resolution 242 does Not)
 
mbig said:
!!

It's ALWAYS been in dispute and is [still] is.

Palestinians (amazingly the only thing Fatah/Hamas DO agree on) is that they are demanding the Exact 1967 borders.

Hamas offering Truce/'Hudna' [only for such] and Abbas NOT even Negotiating until those 1967 borders are pre-conceded, and most recently asking the UN for a New Resolution giving them those lines. (Since resolution 242 does Not)
Click to expand...

Well the PA has already agreed to land swaps in the past. After all, why argue over land which they get back in other ways?
 
creation said:
Well the PA has already agreed to land swaps in the past. After all, why argue over land which they get back in other ways?
Click to expand...
IOW, you have no real rebuttal.
BOTH Hamas and Fatah are NOT accepting swaps and Both demanding Exact 1967 borders.

My earlier point that Abbas was "playing it right" (still stands!) but has an expiration date.. after which the world will turn against those unwilling to negotiate.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
IOW, you have no real rebuttal.
BOTH Hamas and Fatah are NOT accepting swaps and Both demanding Exact 1967 borders.

My earlier point that Abbas was "playing it right" (still stands!) but has an expiration date.. after which the world will turn against those unwilling to negotiate.
Click to expand...

What real rebuttal would you like?

Could you please source these claims of exact border demands?

If it is so, could you explain to us why this is so abhorrent? After all isnt this simply a sensible negotiating tactic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom