Thread: Who Truly Deserves a State? The Kurds or the Palestinians?

Originally Posted by DA60

And what exactly do you mean by this?

What I mean is that post-67, it was the held belief at the time that as long as Israel was in a position of military superiority and confidence, war will not materialize. However, this belief proved to be erroneus due to the fact that Israel was not really interested in a lasting settlement (why should it; the Arabs won't dare attack) even though Sadat clearly was:

International initiatives for the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict failed largely as a result of Israeli intransigence. After Anwar Sadat succeeded Gamal Abdel Nasser as President in September 1970, there was a distinct shift in Egyptian policy away from military activity towards the quest for a political solution. Sadat's public declaration in February 1971 of his readiness for a peaceful agreement with Israel was a significant turning-point in the generation-old conflict. But the deadlock over the implementation of UN Resolution 242 could not be broken because Israel flatly refused to return to the lines of 4 June 1967. On 4 February 1971, Sadat put forward his own plan for an interim settlement, based on a limited Israeli pull-back from the Suez Canal and the reopening of the canal for international shipping, but this plan, too, was rejected by Israel. Continued Israeli stone-walling persuaded Sadat, by November 1972, that a resort to force was essential in order to break the pattern of standstill diplomacy. From that point he started planning the military offensive which was code-named `Operation Spark'.

Under the leadership of Golda Meir, Israel kept raising her price for a political settlement just when Egypt became convinced of the need for a historic compromise. Immobilism was the hallmark of Mrs. Meir's foreign policy. Holding on to the territories acquired in 1967 gradually replaced the quest for a settlement as Israel's top priority. Mrs Meir continued to proclaim Israel's desire for peace but this was a pious hope rather than a plan of action. Her actual strategy was to let Sadat sweat it out, with his range of options constantly narrowing, until he was left with no choice but to accept Israel's terms for a settlement. The consequences of this strategy were to miss the opportunities for a peaceful settlement of the dispute and drive Israel's opponents to launch another round of fighting.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%...li%20Wars.html

It was the prevalent status quo that led the Arabs to war. Sadat wanted to break the political stalemate (and maybe even regain the territory that Israel had conquered); to do this, Israel had to be made vulnerable (he knew the Arabs wouldn't be able to 'destroy' Israel). This is why the '73 war is seen as a victory for the Arabs. One, it broke the myth of Israeli invincibility; and two, it brought Israel to the negotiation table.

For more info:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Decade-Decision-American-Arab-Israeli-Conflict/dp/0520034694"]Amazon.com: Decade of Decision: American Policy Toward the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1967-76 (9780520034693): William B. Quandt: Books[/ame]

Originally Posted by Goomba

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%...li%20Wars.html

Avi Shlaim, no less. Why am I not surprised, the most biased, the most dishonest (and proud of it) of all 'revisionist historians'. He is as credible as the rest of your ilk like Finkelstein, Chomsky etc.

David Harris
Executive Director, AJC, and Senior Associate, St. Antony's College, Oxford (2009-11)

When it comes to Israel, where he once lived, Shlaim can barely contain himself, throwing any semblance of scholarship to the wind and working himself into a lather at its mere mention.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...b_1325341.html

Same people who reject wikipedia and BBC bring the most virulently anti-Israel opinions into the debate and try to sell it as facts. Can they get any more pathetic, dishonest and dangerous than that?

The Kurds have earned their state. A Palestinian state would become a terrorist entity.

Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo

A Palestinian state would become a terrorist entity.

So it would be just like Israel then.

Originally Posted by Borat

Avi Shlaim, no less. Why am I not surprised, the most biased, the most dishonest (and proud of it) of all 'revisionist historians'. He is as credible as the rest of your ilk like Finkelstein, Chomsky etc.

Same people who reject wikipedia and BBC bring the most virulently anti-Israel opinions into the debate and try to sell it as facts. Can they get any more pathetic, dishonest and dangerous than that?

The above is corroborated in other works (one which I provided above; yes, unfortunately for you Borat you'll have to pay or take a trip to a library). As always, you've merely attacked the messenger and did not tackle any of the above. Interestingly, your favorite source (Wiki) too concurs with the above (lol).

Yet more substantiation for the above:

http://books.google.com/books?id=y7N...hrough&f=false

A free preview to boot!

Originally Posted by Goomba

As always, you've merely attacked the messenger

I rarely attack the messenger (that was not me who declared BBC lying and wiki biased in this very thread) but the fact that you had to resort to the opinion of one the most biased, one-sided and dishonest anti-Israel "historians" on the planet to "prove" your point speaks for itself.

PS I read one of his book, his intellectual dishonesty, double standard and propensity to manipulate facts are staggering.

Originally Posted by DA60

I asked more then that.


You are obviously against Israel's 1967 attack.

Are you just as against Egypt's 1973 attack?

Did you ask more than that? My apologies I thought id covered most of it.

Indeed Im against Israels attack. It had no need, and did so in order to gain land.

Im not just as against egypts attack, because egypt had no choice but to force Israel off its land. Israel had already proven ots determination to gain and keep any land it was alble to take.

The 73 war, started by Israel of course, was entirely not the arabs fault.

Originally Posted by The Third Man

So it would be just like Israel then.

Assume for the sake of argument that what you have posted is true. In that case it doesn't make sense to establish a second terrorist entity.

Originally Posted by Borat

I rarely attack the messenger (that was not me who declared BBC lying and wiki biased in this very thread) but the fact that you had to resort to the opinion of one the most biased, one-sided and dishonest anti-Israel "historians" on the planet to "prove" your point speaks for itself.

I did not resort to his 'opinion'; as I said, what he wrote his corroborated in other works (which I provided). It is possible that he may have conveyed and espoused falsehoods and misinformation elsewhere, but that is totally irrelevant here (given the fact that what I posted is, again, well known and corroborated in other works). You are simply upset with the facts; that is wholly understandable, for it happens to all of us.