Arab Nations Must Recognize Israel
The Intelligencer
POSTED: January 15, 2008
President Bush certainly picked an odd time to reformulate in a radical way U.S. policy toward Israel: On his first official visit to Israel, he declared in strong terms that the Israelis ought to end their “occupation” of territory seized during 1967 Six-Day War. What’s more, he suggested that Palestinians should be paid compensation for property lost during the establishment of Israel.
Thank goodness Bush is a lame duck, or else he might have time to foist such a reckless non-solution upon Israel.
Let’s remember who attacked whom in 1967. Arab nations gathered forces in an attempt to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth. But they underestimated the capabilities of the Israeli armed forces, and six days after they attacked the Arab forces were vanquished and Israel had captured buffer territory necessary to preserve its security.
Forty years later, Israel still needs those buffers. And to suggest revisiting events of decades ago and conjure up reparations of some sort in the name of a “peace process” is the height of foolishness.
The problem of peace with Israel is not about reparations or foolish notions about returning back the consequences of past wars. It is quite simply about Israel’s neighbors recognizing that it has a right to exist.
If and when Middle Eastern powers unequivocally recognize that right in all its implications — among them lifting restrictions on trade and ending their funding and material support of terrorist organizations, then maybe it would be appropriate to reexamine borders.
Until then, however, neither Bush nor any future president will serve the cause of peace by implying that Israel is wrong to err on the side of caution regarding its slender territory. Israel never has waged a war of aggression against its neighbors, but they have waged open and covert war against Israel since its founding.
Member Comments
View Comments: | 1-20 | Post a comment
|
beanranch
|
|
|---|---|
|
01-26-08 1:08 AM
|
Gosh! I'm sure what you're saying makes perfect sense to you. My sympathies. The Kurds are indeed oppressed;by another one of our allies. See the pattern? I am truly sorry that you have no empathy for a dead troublemaker or whatever perverted term you choose. It is a pity that you have no respect for someone who was trying[correctly or not] to save a family's home. I'm hoping that at least you have SOME compassion for the girl's parents, although I seriously doubt it. WWJD? Probably slap you silly.
|
|
ohvllyres
|
|
|
01-25-08 4:17 PM
|
Now to actually finish my 4:10 post: If you want to have sympathy for the really oppressed give it to Kurds in turkey.
|
|
ohvllyres
|
|
|
01-25-08 4:14 PM
|
WTF (What the frell)...the site filter is deleting the word J*e*w*s! (but not the word Jewish) In the 4:10 Post where you see **** that is where the word J*e*w*s should be minus the *'s.
|
|
ohvllyres
|
|
|
01-25-08 4:10 PM
|
..they can pound sand w/ the UN. IF they REALLY want a "homeland" they should see Syria where the historical region (NOT country b/c historically it NEVER was a country but like the OH Valley) called "palestine"--but wait--can't make **** bad guys that way. In '37 arab ldr Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi EVEN SAID that pali is in Syria. The arab higher cmte in '47 said: "palestine was part of the Province of Syria". AND EVEN PLO leader, Ahmed Shuqeiri, shortly later told the UN: "It is common knowledge that palestine is nothing but southern Syria." So why aren't they fighting w/ Syria?--b/c Syria isn't a Jewish state & they couldn't make making Syria bad guys work so they decided it was easier to make the **** that. And as I said below the current land the pali's want back is lost to them b/c THEY started a war & lost. BTW, the term "palestine" (actually palaestina) was coined by the Romans. If you want to have sympathy for the really oppr
|
|
ohvllyres
|
|
|
01-25-08 4:07 PM
|
If you object to "troublemaker" then you (& the site filter) REALLY wouldn't like the terms I'd really like to use. I fully stand by my assessment. She stuck her nose in where she had NO business & got what she deserved for NOT GETTING OUT OF THE WAY. There's a fine line btwn courage & stupidity--she CROSSED the line into stupidity. As a matter of fact, I say the authorities had the right to shoot her in the 1st place for even being there TO interfere w/ the work.. I have 0 sympathy for her. The only problem I have w/ her death is the "martyr" treatment my some. BTW, Jesus came back from the dead--the troublemaker didn't have that power did she? As for the pali's...
|
|
beanranch
|
|
|
01-24-08 10:22 PM
|
wwjd?
|
|
beanranch
|
|
|
01-24-08 10:18 PM
|
Troublemaker!??! Are you insane? Whether or not you agree with her politics, she was standing up for an oppressed peoples right to live on their own land. THEIR OWN LAND! GET IT? She got what she deserved? You are some piece of work. She had courage; what you have is almost beyond description. To put it kindly, you have some form of mutated chutzpah. To put it less kindly, you make my skin crawl.
|
|
ohvllyres
|
|
|
01-22-08 3:18 PM
|
I as a citizen of this country am embarrassed that she was from here.
|
|
ohvllyres
|
|
|
01-22-08 3:17 PM
|
beanranch, In response to facts you bring up the name of a (to put it nicely) dead troublemaker. IMHO, she got what she deserved. She didn't have a "dog in the fight" but yet she just decided to go to a foreign country & stick her nose/body in where it didn't belong & then she was dumb enough not to get out of the way...even he fellow troublemakers that were there that day say she deliberately went over & sat down IN FRONT of the dozer & refused to get out of it's path. Those things don't stop on a dime. Tough for her. To me she was no different than somebody breaking into a house & getting shot for her trouble or someone dumb enough to smoke crack or those dim-wits that steal copper involving 'live' wires & get electrocuted to death. Talk about not using "best judgment" as you referred to previously. I personally knew someone that was killed by a piece of heavy equipment but in THAT case he DIDN'T get in the way of it on purpose like this t
|
|
beanranch
|
|
|
01-21-08 8:08 PM
|
Tell it to Rachel Correy.
|
|
ohvllyres
|
|
|
01-21-08 5:33 PM
|
Israel did NOT start the war, PERIOD. And as far as I'm concerned, since Israel DID NOT start the war then ANY lands acquired from their attackers in the war falls under "the spoils of war" & belong to Israel, Period. As a matter of fact, IMHO, it was a mistake by Israel to give back the Sinai to UAR/Egypt & some of the other land seized during the war which amounts to appx 93% of said war acquired/seized land. In regards to the UN...they should go pound sand.
|
|
ohvllyres
|
|
|
01-21-08 5:32 PM
|
'67: 5/15-18 UAR & Syria mass troops by Israel. 2 acts sounding like declarations of war to me-VS Israel. 1:Via Voice of the Arabs radio: "The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war-extermination of Zionist existence." & 2:5/20 Hafez Assad said to/re Israel "The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united--the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." 5/23 Nassar said to/re Israel "We are ready for war." & 5/27 said "Our basic objective--the destruction of Israel." & 5/28 said "We will not accept any--coexistence with Israel." 5/30 Jordan signs pact w/ UAR & Nassar said: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation." Iraq's says "Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map." 6/4 Iraq joins anti-Israel alliance. At that
|
|
ohvllyres
|
|
|
01-21-08 5:28 PM
|
The notion that Israel started the '67 war is fairytale/myth. FACTS (Note: United Arab Republic, UAR, was the now Egypt's official name from '58-'71 b/c of a pact w/ Syria but Syria succeeded from in '61 but the now Egypt kept the name officially until '71 but often referred to themselves as Egypt even when still officially UAR.): '65 Israel was attacked 35 times by arabs, 41 arab attacks incl but not solely by Syria on Israel in '66 & 37 arab attacks on Israel in JUST the 1ST 4 months of '67. {BTW, in several attacks terrorist Arafat was involved during these yrs.} Nasser of UAR kept threatening war on Israel in the time leading to the '67 war. In '66 UAR & Syria signed a new military alliance. So @ this point Israel is restraining themselves {more than I certainly would} in the face of REPEATED ATTACKS UPON THEM. Then.... On 4/7/67 Syria launches an attack from the Golan Heights against Israel & finally Israel retaliates against Syria by shooting down 6 Syrian military a
|
|
beanranch
|
|
|
01-16-08 11:56 PM
|
Evangelical "Christians" say we must support Israel. Yes, Israel has a right to exist, since in fact, it DOES exist. But "Israel-right or wrong",as a slogan, makes no more sense than "America-right or wrong". Let's face it, Israel has been acting like an ******* for some time now. It's funny how Israelis can criticize their nation's policies, but if anyone here does it, they get labeled anti -semitic. Of course, the Palestinians haven't exactly always used the best judgement either, but sometimes desperate people use desperate measures.
|
|
SonsOfLiberty
|
|
|
01-15-08 12:51 PM
|
Who are we to say what another sovereign nation must or must not do? Americans would be up in arms if some two bit country did the same to us. That is, of course, unless the UN did it and then our elected "leaders" in Washington would say that it was OK and we'd go about our merry way.
|
|
Georgetwin
|
|
|
01-15-08 10:28 AM
|
Heil FaiDillinGermany!
|
|
FaiDillinGer
|
|
|
01-15-08 8:31 AM
|
Well, you say you doubt that israel attacked the arabs. i suggest that you look for information just a little and your doubts will be squashed. Israel attacked the arabs in 67. Israel was not attacked by the arabs Even if you think that they cant be blamed for attacking them, it doesnt allow you to tell a lie and make them the victims. let me remember you that there are still several UN resolutions that we are still waiting for israel to comply with, dating back to this war of 1967 (especially the UN resolutions saying that they must give all theses lands taken by force back to the arabs)
|
|
Battle
|
|
|
01-15-08 6:05 AM
|
Like his old man before him, "W" has just shown his "New World Order" colors. Bush has turned on the Israelis like the snake he is. Bush declaring that the temple mount in Jerusalem was now the "property of all people". Who gave that idiot the right to make any divisions of property lines, for anyone ? As far as middle-east peace goes, how do you make peace with people who are trying to kill you, everyday of your life. I doubt that the '67 war started with Israel performing a pre-emptive strike, but even if they did, who can blame them ? (With all those armies massing at their border.) Present day Israel could use another Moshe Dayan and Golda Meir. And speaking of George W. Bush, he also just signed a presidential order forcing states to demand a mandatory national ID system, thru each states drivers licenses divisions. Any state, failing to comply, will be "swiftly dealt with".
|
|
FaiDillinGer
|
|
|
01-15-08 4:39 AM
|
or maybe is it yet another israeli propaganda website
|
|
FaiDillinGer
|
|
|
01-15-08 4:38 AM
|
When you say let's remember who attacked who in 1967.... i expect from someone writing an article and considering himself a journalist to know the facts. Israel, in 1967, made a surprise attack against its arab neighbours. The arabs did not attack israel. It was the first pre-emptive war i can remember of. following the arab defeat, the war of attrition was launched... and that eventually lead to the 73 war. So please, as a journalist, you are supposed to remain objective, and not take any sides. thats the first thing you need to know when you want to be a good journalist. any reponse to this would be appreciated, especially by the person who wrote this article. thank you
|





