Posted on 07/10/2006 2:13:42 PM PDT by kronos77
International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.
The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa's borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.
While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional borders alone — from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality to deadly religious extremism — the greatest taboo in striving to understand the region's comprehensive failure isn't Islam but the awful-but-sacrosanct international boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats.
(Excerpt) Read more at afji.com ...
Israel back to its pre-1967 borders? No way will that advance peace. No way would that make Israel more secure.
My point exactly.
Is this again Islamapeasment?
He attributes oceans of blood spilled to the rather artificial borders drawn across the middle east. I wonder if he has thought how much blood it would take to change them?
He is also sure that the answer to peace between the arabs and the Israelis is a return to the pre-1967 borders. I suppose he's forgotten that Israel was in its pre-1967 borders when half a dozen arab countries teamed up to wipe her off the face of the map.
Israel was the aggressor in the 6 day war.
You don't take over the sinai, a piece of jordan and syria in 6 days if you are not the aggressor.
"Arab mobilization compelled Israel to mobilize its troops, 80 percent of which were reserve civilians. Israel feared slow economic strangulation because long-term mobilization of such a majority of the society meant that the Israeli economy and polity would be brought to a virtual standstill. Militarily, Israeli leaders feared the consequences of absorbing an Arab first strike against its civilian population, many of whom lived only miles from Arab-controlled territory. Incendiary Arab rhetoric threatening Israel's annihilation terrified Israeli society and contributed to the pressures to go to war.
Against this background, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Egypt on June 5, 1967 and captured the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. Despite an Israeli appeal to Jordan to stay out of the conflict, Jordan attacked Israel and lost control of the West Bank and the eastern sector of Jerusalem. Israel went on to capture the Golan Heights from Syria. The war ended on June 10.
- Anti-Defamation League
Your own citation refutes you.
Europe is at least partially responsible for why Africa is the lowest developing continent, with some of it's countries stagnating or declining rather than developing at all.
Local, African, corrupt governance is also one of the main reasons for Africa's low economic status.
my citation is the best possible spin for israel.
bottom line, ISRAEL ATTACKED PREEMTIVELY.
This is what the japanese claim Pearl Harbor was about.
What do you claim Pearl Harbor was about?
Frankly, your comparison of the two says more about you than it does about either historical event.
The ADL says Israel attacked preemtively.
from wikipedia
While Allied propaganda cast the Nazis as the sole aggressor, Nazi propaganda eschewed these charges and cast the Third Reich as the defender of Europe, launching a preemptive strike in Operation Barbarossa to thwart Soviet aggression. Here, the age-old theme of "invading hordes from the East" was paired with the supposed Communist world takeover scheme to effectively rally many outside the Reich to the Nazi cause.
The first few days of the Patriotic War included the Soviet Union's own so-called preemptive strike. Following the June 22 German opening of hostilities through Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet Union began an aerial assault against Finland. From the Soviet point of view, the bombardment of Finnish residential districts on June 25, 1941 served a psychological purpose. However, the Finnish government had declared its intention to remain outside of the war, even its army was mobilized and preparing for both defense and offense. Finland's parliament had confirmed the status of nonbelligerence, but Soviet action contributed to further conflict between the Soviet Union and Finland in the Continuation War.
Some commentators have pointed out that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor could be regarded as a preemptive attack.
It is the policy of the United States that "preemptive war" or even preventive war may be waged in appropriate circumstances as part of the Bush doctrine.
Dude, you're just digging yourself deeper.
I obviously need to explain this to you.
PREEMPTION IS WHERE YOU ATTACK FIRST AND MAKE EXCUSES LATER.
ISRAEL ATTACKED FIRST TO STOP AN ARAB ATTACK
GERMANY ATTACKED RUSSIA TO STOP THEM ATTACKING FIRST
JAPAN DID THE SAME TO THE US.
RUSSIA DID THE SAME TO THE FINNS.
IT IS YOUR COMMENT NUMBER 4 THAT MAKES NO SENSE.
"Israel was in its pre-1967 borders when half a dozen arab countries teamed up to wipe her off the face of the map. "
The arabs did not attack. Israel attacked, and won. The arabs were never going to "wipe israel off the face of the map".
That's a very narrow definition of "aggressor" you're working with there. The aggressor is the one whose aims of conquest force the conflict.
I don't accept your idea of an aggressor because that would make european colonialism aggressors and would make the US the aggressor against the indians.
But while we are at it, I see that Israel took the west bank by force and intends to keep it. Further, Israel has always wanted the west bank and Jerusalem. Even by your definition, that makes them the aggressors in the 6 day war.
Israel took the West Bank along with the Golan because the strategic depth provided was necessary to insure its survival as a nation. This is defensive, not aggressive, in nature. Without the Arab seige Israel would not have taken those territories.
The European colonial experience was aggressive as well. The US expansion is a mix of both defensive and aggressive.
snip
Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and its natural right in their homeland, and were inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of their own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.
All through it, they speak of liberating their homeland. Not of creating a homeland, of liberating their homeland. Part of that land would be th very land where Israel is.
Sounds like wiping them off the map.
You are a moron because you don't know the difference between saying and doing.
The arabs will talk about wiping, but they will not succeed, have not tried to succeed, and most do not even want to succeed.
That is right, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon probably do not even want to wipe israel even if they could. Syria and Iran alone want to do that but they are alone and isolated.
The Saudis and Kuwaitis do not. I don't think the Iraqis do either.
This is also what makes Bush's iraq policy so intrigueing long term. Now that Libya flipped to neutral along with Afghanistan and Pakistan being sympathetic to our side, Syria and Iran are more and more isolated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.