 |
| |
|
|
Edan
|
|
This thread needs some humor. Here's some, From "Yes, Prime Minister":
quote:
Humphrey: Nuclear weapons are there to make people believe that Britain is defended.
Bernard: The Russians?
Humphrey: No, not the Russians, the British. The Russians know it's not.
|
quote:
Sir Humphrey: With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.
Jim Hacker: I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.
Sir Humphrey: It's a deterrent.
Jim Hacker: It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't.
Jim Hacker: They probably do.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know.
Jim Hacker: They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
I love Social Constructivism. It's complete bollocks in this instance but it's still interesting.
A major reason to doubt this perspective is that fact that realism has dominated the discourse of international realations for the past seven centuries or more. Such staying power over such a long period of time that has seen such profound change in all other areas of daily life strongly suggests that it is the basic structure of the international system that determines how states think and act toward each other. |
The interaction between states has changed fundamentally in the last 700 years. For example, people today think the notion of transnational soverign systems are absurd, yet 700 years ago the Pope still could excersice real temporal power, and the Holy Roman Emperor, and individual elected by heterogenous nobles representing feudal lords or trading cities had power-and you had things like the Hanseatic League-a set of trading cities gathered together for self-defense.
In fact, international relations has changed dramatically in the last 700 years. Back in 1304 one king could just swallow up another kingdom and for the people in the groud, it only means one new lord. Back in 1304 someone could still claim universal temporal power and that God had granted them power.
The fact is the very notion of sovereign states is at best 360 years old, and even now it has come under attack as the idea of individual human rights gathers power.
And lets even look at your premise-why 700 years? Human history is 5000 year long. If this has been the "system" for 700 years, you are telling me it wasn't for 4300 previous years of human history (and a pre-history of indeterminate length)-so then you have no claim to say that is "reality", only a system that has proven successful for now, but which could , just as every systmne before it, change.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:35
|
|
quote:
Yet most Arab armies moved in only after Israeli forces attacked into those araes given to palestinians, and on many occasions did not travel beyond the pertition lines the UN had set up.
|
And on many other occasions they occasions they did travel beyond those lines. I hope that you aren't serious in this argument.
quote:
Maybe it had to do with those 750,000 people kicked out of their homes? |
has nothing to do with the point, of course. A cease-fire was established. If I were the egyptians, I'd of course, support them, as well, but no due to love for your international law. 
quote:
Why did you skip the 1956 War? Oh, yes, that was Israel working with the UK and France to attack the Arabs. BUt given Israel history of wanting peaceful relations with it's neighbors, those nasty Arabs were ebing utterly irrational by gearing for war.
|
And was used to deter Egypt, and gain geopolitical ground vis a vis the european powers. It was quite a brilliant geopolitical victory! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
And on many other occasions they occasions they did travel beyond those lines. I hope that you aren't serious in this argument. |
Serious about what? To say the Arabs rushed in to destroy Israel is not backed up by the facts. Yes, at some points they did cross the lines- of course, this all happened after the Israelis begun driving out all the Arabs in their side of the line and others not on their side of the partition lines. Neither side is innocent, and once the Arabs rejected the partition plan the Israelis had no intention to just defend what they were being promised, but went for the whole enchilada. If the Arabs moved in to destroy Israel, the Israelis moved to destroy Palestine.
quote:
has nothing to do with the point, of course. A cease-fire was established. If I were the egyptians, I'd of course, support them, as well, but no due to love for your international law. |
Given that Israel took no steps to either allow people back to their homes or write a consitution, neither side can claim to have been following international law. Pot, Kettle, Black.
quote:
And was used to deter Egypt, and gain geopolitical ground vis a vis the european powers. It was quite a brilliant geopolitical victory! |
Hardly. Egypt moved closer to the USSR. The US was pissed at Israel and UK and France-the UK did not move any closer. The only thing gained was a close relation between France and Israel as long as both saw the Arabs as the great enemy. If anything, it took several years to make up for the diplomatic fall-out of the act.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
|
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:35
|
|
quote:
Serious about what? To say the Arabs rushed in to destroy Israel is not backed up by the facts. Yes, at some points they did cross the lines- of course, this all happened after the Israelis begun driving out all the Arabs in their side of the line and others not on their side of the partition lines.
|
Driving out all of the arabs? and that is supported by facts?
The arab armies sure as hell did try to get Israel, but they had no logistics, and generally force, to do so.
quote:
Neither side is innocent, and once the Arabs rejected the partition plan the Israelis had no intention to just defend what they were being promised, but went for the whole enchilada. If the Arabs moved in to destroy Israel, the Israelis moved to destroy Palestine.
|
It's not a mirror you're facing. Sure, Israel tried to get as much as it could, but it never even imagined that they could grab the entire territory of the mandate.
quote:
Given that Israel took no steps to either allow people back to their homes or write a consitution, neither side can claim to have been following international law. Pot, Kettle, Black.
|
Given that YOU are the one upholding the sanctity of Intl. law in this thread, and not me, I have a very clear right to attack your defensive argument of "people were thrown out of their houses", while you have no right to say "but they did it too!". I told you, if I were the Egyptians, I'd do it as well. You, on the other hand, are countinuing to approach the analysis of intl. relations in the terms of 'right' and 'wrong'. Goddamn Neocon.
quote:
Hardly. Egypt moved closer to the USSR.
|
Since Israel decided not to align itself with the USSR, at that point, it wasn't much of a problem.
quote:
The US was pissed at Israel and UK and France-the UK did not move any closer.
|
You are kidding, right?  A huge amount of ammution, weaponary, hell, even the nuke can be attributed to this!
The US pissed at Israel? as you've said, Egypt hooked up with the USSR, the US won't assist egypt.
quote:
The only thing gained was a close relation between France and Israel as long as both saw the Arabs as the great enemy. If anything, it took several years to make up for the diplomatic fall-out of the act. |
What diplomatic fallout? As I've said, Israel got itself a nuke, and plenty of weaponary out of this one. Sure, maybe the Brits and the french suffered, but we're talking about Israel's deal.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
Driving out all of the arabs? and that is supported by facts? |
Look at the Arab demographics in Israel: most Arabs who ended up in Israel live in Areas not originally meant to be Israeli anyway. You guys did a very good job of driving Arabs out of the areas promised to Israel from the start. After all, the 750,000 had to come from somewhere.
quote:
It's not a mirror you're facing. Sure, Israel tried to get as much as it could, but it never even imagined that they could grab the entire territory of the mandate. |
That is an argument based on relative strength, not aims-if you did not imagine you could get it all was not based on not wanting it all, only you thought you were not strong enough to do it. hat does not make you fundamnetally better, only more realistic about comparing strengths.
quote:
Given that YOU are the one upholding the sanctity of Intl. law in this thread, and not me, I have a very clear right to attack your defensive argument of "people were thrown out of their houses", while you have no right to say "but they did it too!". I told you, if I were the Egyptians, I'd do it as well. You, on the other hand, are countinuing to approach the analysis of intl. relations in the terms of 'right' and 'wrong'. Goddamn Neocon. |
I don't seek the "sanctity" of international law- I do give it more consideration that you or most here becuase I believe in the notion of legitimacy of action, and international law is ONE (but not the only) area to claim legitimacy.
quote:
Since Israel decided not to align itself with the USSR, at that point, it wasn't much of a problem. |
It gave Egypt a weapons supplier-peace with Egypt did not come until Egypt decided to side with the US-hence the next two wars.
quote:
You are kidding, right? A huge amount of ammution, weaponary, hell, even the nuke can be attributed to this! |
And all of that becuase France saw Israel incorrectly as a way to fight of the Arab's making trouble in Algeria. All that French weaponsry did not come beause of the whole Suez attempt, which was a disaster for France-it was PART of that relationship. The French giving you guys weapons goes back before 1956.
quote:
The US pissed at Israel? as you've said, Egypt hooked up with the USSR, the US won't assist egypt. |
And it did not hook up with Israel, hence Israeli reliance on France.
quote:
What diplomatic fallout? As I've said, Israel got itself a nuke, and plenty of weaponary out of this one. Sure, maybe the Brits and the french suffered, but we're talking about Israel's deal. |
As I said above, the excercise did not begin your relation with France, it was part of an ongoing thing driven by France's war in Algeria and their blaming Nasser for it. Nasser gained immensely from the whole mess. All in all, the Suez excersiced helped the rejectionists among Arab regimes politically and set the stage for the future wars. So no, it was not some huge diplomatic gain at all. Remember the US demanded and made Israel leave Gaza and created very bad blood with the Eisenhower administration.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
|
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:35
|
|
quote:
Look at the Arab demographics in Israel: most Arabs who ended up in Israel live in Areas not originally meant to be Israeli anyway. You guys did a very good job of driving Arabs out of the areas promised to Israel from the start. After all, the 750,000 had to come from somewhere.
|
While they did flee for the fear of their lives, they weren't driven out. not most of them, anyway.
quote:
That is an argument based on relative strength, not aims-if you did not imagine you could get it all was not based on not wanting it all, only you thought you were not strong enough to do it. hat does not make you fundamnetally better, only more realistic about comparing strengths |
And that's exactly what I have in mind.
quote:
And it did not hook up with Israel, hence Israeli reliance on France. |
Oh no, there were much larger forces that prevented the hook up at that point, for example certain americans' gulf interests,. When american interests changed, the hook up occured.
quote:
As I said above, the excercise did not begin your relation with France, it was part of an ongoing thing driven by France's war in Algeria and their blaming Nasser for it. Nasser gained immensely from the whole mess.
|
As he was awfully incompetent, Israel shouldn't have any problem with that.
quote:
All in all, the Suez excersiced helped the rejectionists among Arab regimes politically and set the stage for the future wars. So no, it was not some huge diplomatic gain at all.
|
Wait a second, helped the rejectionists? who exactly wasn't a "rejectionist" at that point, anyway, besides Abdallah, maybe?
quote:
Remember the US demanded and made Israel leave Gaza and created very bad blood with the Eisenhower administration.
|
Question is, what Israel lost from that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
While they did flee for the fear of their lives, they weren't driven out. not most of them, anyway. |
Juts nothing was done to dissaude them from the fear of their lives, and the Irsalei forces did provide a few examples as to why they might have to fear.
quote:
Oh no, there were much larger forces that prevented the hook up at that point, for example certain americans' gulf interests,. When american interests changed, the hook up occured. |
The fact the Egyptians and Syrians were being driven further into the soviet camp did play a role in the US coming to side with Israel by the mid-60's.
quote:
As he was awfully incompetent, Israel shouldn't have any problem with that. |
Wrong tense. And Israel did have problems with that.
quote:
Wait a second, helped the rejectionists? who exactly wasn't a "rejectionist" at that point, anyway, besides Abdallah, maybe? |
The people we never hear about cause they never made it to prominance-that's whom.
quote:
Question is, what Israel lost from that? |
From 1956-1961? US aid. As I said, it took years for Israel to recover diplomatically with the US- years as in by the late Kennedy, early Johnson years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
|
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:35
|
|
che:
quote:
Only because the one force the Israelis knew they'd have a hard time defeating was the Arab Legion, which is why the West Bank wasn't taken and Jerusalem divided. This is why the Israelis tried to make a deal with Jordan before the war began, to split Palestine between the two countries. |
oooh, I am sure ample evidence of that exists. 
In any case, Israel did try to fight the arab legion, where it wanted to, and lost, just like in eastern Jerusalem, and THAT'S why Israel didn't hold it, not due to a deal with Jordan.
quote:
All of the rest of Palestine was taken, even in areas where you were not atacked, as in West Galilee. Only the UN forced the Israelis out of Gaza and likely only because you were trying to take the Sinai at the time. |
Wait, so Israel should only counter-attack on a certain front? It can initiate warfare?
Syria, around the sea of Galilee, for example. The Egyptians towards Beer-Sheva.
quote:
Juts nothing was done to dissaude them from the fear of their lives, and the Irsalei forces did provide a few examples as to why they might have to fear.
|
doesn't qualify for driven out. anyway, it's a boring game of semantics.
quote:
The fact the Egyptians and Syrians were being driven further into the soviet camp did play a role in the US coming to side with Israel by the mid-60's. |
yep, some of that. It wouldn't have happened without the Suez war.
quote:
Wrong tense. And Israel did have problems with that. |
Yup, wrong tense. happens. And yes, Israel did have some problems with Nasser, but it's kinda to be expected if you have a country 10 times your size and hating your guts. All things considered, he was all talk, no walk.
quote:
The people we never hear about cause they never made it to prominance-that's whom.
|
Ahh, ok.
quote:
From 1956-1961? US aid. As I said, it took years for Israel to recover diplomatically with the US- years as in by the late Kennedy, early Johnson years. |
How much aid israel could've expected anyway, with an Egypt and Syria firmly in the non-aligned camp, and their favors being fought over by the US and SU?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-04-2004 07:48
)
Why did Lebanon not attack Israel, but simply occupied West Galilee if they were trying to destroy Israel? Why did Syria flee from a single old howitzer? Why did Iraq and Jordan not move forward in the West Bank? Why did Egypt divert half their forces to confront Jordan? Why did the Jordanians refuse to aid the Egyptians when you attacked Egypt in the fall of '48?
|