Author Topic: Isreali pullout (Read 1871 times)

mosgood · « **on:** August 17, 2005, 08:20:18 AM »

Was I the only one that was shocked to see Sharon , who has been such a hardliner, actually go through with this pullout? Or for that matter, fight for the pullout at all?

Staga · « **Reply #1 on:** August 17, 2005, 09:35:16 AM »

Well most modern countries aren't accepting occupying areas belonging to other countries and building settlements on it (Nazies used term "Lebensraum").
This is one small step towards peace in middle east and I think Sharon understands it's necessary to do.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #2 on:** August 17, 2005, 09:43:47 AM »

they won that land fair and square on the battlefield. They are using "security concernes" as an excuse to apease the palistinians.

It's pretty sad if you ask me.

Eagler · « **Reply #3 on:** August 17, 2005, 09:47:45 AM »

it is a HUGE step

too bad the local/national news seems to think a hi-speed car chase deserves more air time than the history Israel is making with its pullout

FalconSix · « **Reply #4 on:** August 17, 2005, 10:32:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
they won that land fair and square on the battlefield.

Does that rule apply to all nations (like Germany, Japan, Iraq, NK etc.) or just Israel?

Clifra Jones · « **Reply #5 on:** August 17, 2005, 11:54:15 AM »

Nixon to China
Reagan to the USSR
Sharon to the Palistinians

What this shows is that it takes the strong to negotiate for peace.

The weak appeasers are never taken seriously enough to broker a true peace.

It takes a true warrior to hold out the hand of peace and friendship, a hand that also can wield the sword that will smit you down if you try to decieve him.

Peace is achieved through strength of arms, will and purpose. Appeasement has never achieved a lasting peace. It has only delayed the inevitable conflict.

One last thought, it is ironic that most of the major wars in the modern era was preceeded by some form of peace treaty. Let us hope that this is not the case here.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 17, 2005, 12:17:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
it is a HUGE step

too bad the local/national news seems to think a hi-speed car chase deserves more air time than the history Israel is making with its pullout

It is a huge step. But the Palisitians will blow it again.

Isreal can give them everything they want and hamas will still blow up women and kids.

Hangtime · « **Reply #7 on:** August 17, 2005, 12:33:19 PM »

It's about damn time.

Sandman · « **Reply #8 on:** August 17, 2005, 12:34:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
they won that land fair and square on the battlefield.

Hmmm... if my knowledge of history is correct, I believe Israel lost that land "fair and square on the battlefield" to the Roman Empire.

soda72 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 17, 2005, 12:38:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Clifra Jones
One last thought, it is ironic that most of the major wars in the modern era was preceeded by some form of peace treaty. Let us hope that this is not the case here.

It's interesting that most people don't mention the washington treaty and how it affected world war II..

Washington treaty

The treaty may have prevented a war between Britian and the United States. But it also made us vulnerable when Japan started to build up arms...

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 17, 2005, 12:39:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... if my knowledge of history is correct, I believe Israel lost that land "fair and square on the battlefield" to the Roman Empire.

What, they cant win it back?

Sandman · « **Reply #11 on:** August 17, 2005, 12:45:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GtoRA2
What, they cant win it back?

Not likely, but they can let a few powerful friends win it back for them.

Hangtime · « **Reply #12 on:** August 17, 2005, 12:46:51 PM »

That's where we come in. You know. Team America, World Police.

National Borders in this day and age are fixed. With Kuwait, the word went out.. cross a border with an Army, yer gonna get yer bellybutton kicked.

Clifra Jones · « **Reply #13 on:** August 17, 2005, 01:03:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by soda72
It's interesting that most people don't mention the washington treaty and how it affected world war II..

Washington treaty

The treaty may have prevented a war between Britian and the United States. But it also made us vulnerable when Japan started to build up arms...

Thanks Soda, you always learn something on this BBS.

I always get nervous whenever some important treaty is signed. It always seems to be a harbengor of war.

hacksaw1 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 17, 2005, 02:02:05 PM »

I'm for everything possible to arrive at peace, but I don't think this Jewish evacuation will do the trick, not that I am necessarily for (or against) settlements either. In May of 1967 Israel was already at the "'67 border." So why did Egypt and allies threaten and provoke and mobilize troops, with Nasser claiming he'd crush Israel? Must be they hoped they could destroy the Israeli nation, not regain any yet-to-be lost territories.

Before June of 1967 the residents of the West Bank were under Jordanian authority, and those of Gaza under Egyptian. And the PLO was founded in 1964, when the "Palestinians" were either under Jordanian or Egyptian jurisdiction. So what exactly was the Palestinian Liberation Organization planning to regain from 1964 to 1967, exactly what lost territory? That of pre- June 1967 Israel?

After the June 1967 war Israel immediately offered to negotiate the return of territories for recognition of its basic right to exist. The Arab Khartoum response was the 3 noes - no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel. So what could Israel do?

Very few settlements in the "unoccupied territories" were initiated until after the 1973 Yom Kippur war, and I think most Israelis would roll their eyes (or worse) if you told them it was for "Lebensraum." The thought after the bloody 1973 surprise attack (on Israel's most holy day, when all is shut down) was to seriously increase defensive depth for the nation. And that in the face of continued Arab rejection of direct negotiations. Even so, not too long later, Israel relinquished the Sinai in return for a cool peace with Egypt.

Sharon decided on the unilateral disengagement while Yasser Arafat was still the "Rais" (PA main man) and directing (in part anyway) the Intifada Al-Aksa. My take on that move by Sharon was to stress Arafat, by threatening to depart without negotiated settlements on issues like seaports, airports, border crossings, immigration, emigration, work permits in Israel, etc, etc. Then Arafat goes the way of all mankind, after Sharon has pushed so hard for the disengagement. In the meantime, Fatah went into disarray to some degree after Arafat's demise, and Hamas gained much popular support in Gaza. The present PA is weak, leaving Hamas a serious player. Sorry, Hamas won't be satisfied with '67 borders, nor '48 borders, nor proposed UN resolution 181 borders, nor Jewish Yeshuv community borders. So I don't see any long term peace here. Not till there is basic agreement by all parties, including Muslim clerics and their followers, that Israel of any small size has a right to exist.

Regards,

Cement