Re: Doing Research - please narrow
 

Maxime Rodinson, Israel: A Colonial-Settler State?:

-Written at least, I believe, 20 years ago, by a Marxist, but the best presentation of the Arab case against Israel; clearly written and, I believe, a convincing case.


David J. Goldberg, To the Promised Land:

-Good chapters on the seminal Zionist thinkers and leaders.


Meron Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape:

-Recent book about how the Israelis have transformed the Palestinian landscape by a former deputy mayor of Jerusalem.


Boas Evron, Jewish State or Israeli Nation?

-Not easy reading, but, as the title indicates, discusses the difficulties of a Jewish State.


These would be my top four.

Re: As alternative as Nike
 

It should also be pointed out that Israel, especially in 1967, is a very small country in terms of land area, only 6 miles wide in some places -- pre 1967 borders. Thus it would be much more difficult for it to survive a first attack and would thus have to view a preemptive action as defensive.


This idea is clearly supported by the action that occured in the 1973 war. Here Israel was caught by surprise and almost didn't survive.


Another point which our friend Cyrus seemed not to mention is that at the end of the 1973 war the Israeli army had gotten a tank brigade on the other side of the Suez and behind the Egyptian Army. (I believe if I remember correctly that this force was led by General Ariel Sharon.) At our request, this brigade stoped and the war ended. If they didn't stop, Cairo could have been destroyed.


This of course brings up an obvious question. If the Egyptians or Syrians had their tanks heading essentialy unopposed towards a big Israeli city such as Tel Aviv would they have stopped.


Fortunately, many things changed since then beginning with the Sadat trip to Jerusalem, and for a while it appeared that we were very close to a real and lasting peace. But the last remaining gap was not closed and hostilities began again.


By the way, since I'm getting old, I remember watching CBS News with Walter Chronkite interviewing Andwar Sadat where he stated that he would be willing to go to Jerusalem and meet with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Of course no one could believe what Sadat had said and since English was a second language to him it was assumed that he had somehow misunderstood the question and couldn't mean what he said.


But this led to a peace treaty, and Israel returned the Sinai, and both sides have honored this treaty all these years. Another point is that the Gaza Strip which was originally part of Egypt did not get returned.I believe that the Egyptians didn't want it back. Perhaps if they had, there wouldn't be as many problems as there are today.

Re: As alternative as Nike
 

Excellent post. In my despair over the last week's events and what our future might hold, it helps to think of Sadat and Begin.


Sadat was widely viewed as a light-weight when he took over in Egypt after Nasser. He turned out to be anything but that. And Begin started out as a guerilla fighter who was not averse to using terroristic methods against the British. His book, The Revolt, was widely used as a guiding handbook by many guerilla organizations, including those of the Palestinians. Yet, he turned out to be dedicated to democratic principles when the state of Israel was formed and, although his politics were far too far to the right for my tastes, it was indeed he who signed the longlasting peace treaty with Egypt. We forget that Egypt had traditionally been Israel's most obstreperous and militaristic Arab enemy in the 1950s, 60s and early 70s.

Terrific Point (n/m) *NM*
 

Re: Zionism == racism
 

But wasn't the General Assembly at that time dominated by countries like the Soviet Block that were enemies of Israel? And wouldn't these countries go to great length to pass a resolution like you cite whether it was true or not?

Your nearest travel office
 

Mason Malmuth wrote: ""Wasn't the [United Nations] General Assembly at that time dominated by countries like the Soviet Block that were enemies of Israel? And wouldn't these countries go to great length to pass a resolution like you cite whether it was true or not?""


Another great myth of the Cold War! Which apparently isn't going to be laid to rest anytime soon.


There WAS indeed a Soviet bloc and it was specifically comprised of the following countries : USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Cuba, Mongolia and Vietnam. Did I forget anyone?


China and Albania were routinely at odds with the Soviets, for supposedly ideology differences. Other communists countries such as Yugoslavia and Rumania were unreliable. They preferred to cast their vote with the Non-Aligned bloc.


At the time, remember, there was no marxist Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Angola or Somalia. Cambodge was safely pro-American while for every "soviet-influenced" country from the above list, the U.S. could field a steadfast ally of their own: the United Kingdom, West Germany, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Australia, Canada, etc.


Beyond the two superpowers' satelite orbits, were many semi-"maverick" countries such as Sweden, etc. They were definitely not abiding by the Soviet bloc's wishes. France thought she was still a superpower, for instance.


...Which leaves us with the greatest part of the votes, the Non-Aligned nations. Which comprised African countries such as Tanzania, etc. Even the Arab Middle East countries that were voting routinely against Israel had a stake in the affair. What is always omitted from the analysis was that most of these counties were run by rabidly anti-communist leaders. Nasser had members of the Egypt CP executed sporadically. So did Qaddafi (sp?) with his own "atheists", Assad, and, of course, King Hussein of Jordan.


The "great Soviet bloc of votes in the U.N." is bunk.

My people will call your people
 

Tom, I'm sorry but the argument was not whether Israel's actions in the 6-day War constituted a "pre-emptive strike" or a "Zionist attack". The argument was about which country started that war. And anyway you want to label it, it was Israel which ..opened hostilities. Is that neutral enough as terms go?


A lot of people it seems, as SammyB's claims showed, still want to cling on to the belief that Israel was always been attacked, etc etc. This is just not so.


And it is not a matter of "taking sides" or "different analysis" here. This is the historical record. Israel was the aggressor (sorry! they "opened hostilities") in 1967.


--Cyrus

Massive is an understatement
 

""Another point ... is that at the end of the 1973 war the Israeli army had gotten a tank brigade on the other side of the Suez and behind the Egyptian Army. (I believe if I remember correctly that this force was led by General Ariel Sharon.) At our request, this brigade stoped and the war ended. If they didn't stop, Cairo could have been destroyed.""


The Yom-Kippur was was started by the Arabs. They were the aggressors that time. This is a historical fact. (Aside to Tom Haley, there.)


And the Arabs could have made things really nasty for the Israeli side if it wasn't for the massive American aid that immediately started and turned the tide, along with full intelligence assistance. There was no respective Soviet aid to the attacking Arabs or from anyone else for that matter. In retrospect, if it was the Arabs that would have been stopped before winning, and Israel's wings had been clipped a bit, the chances for a lasting peace would have been subsequently greater.


This little aspect of the story is routinely and conveniently left out when retelling the Yom Kippur war - instead, we focus on the "military genius" of people like Sharon. I have seen his "genius" at work inside Shabra & Shatila. (No, these are not porn stars, fellow consumers.)

Re: Massive is an understatement
 

"In retrospect, if it was the Arabs that would have been stopped before winning, and Israel's wings had been clipped a bit, the chances for a lasting peace would have been subsequently greater."


That's an interesting statement. How do you know that? Weren't Syria and Egypt sworn to the complete destruction of Israel at that time?

What, no Edward Said?!
 

I would go for his "Politics of Dispossession" as a primer, if I wanted the view of a moderate, Palestinian, Christian professor of Columbia.