IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New No time for point by point rebuttal...
There is some validity to your view. But I believe it's wrong in general, but I don't think we're going to convince each other. :-)

But on one point I must comment.

And you might note - Egypt came to their understanding with Israel after being soundly trounced.

Not in 1973 they weren't.

[link|http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/MiddleEast/YomKippurWar.html|Yom Kippur War] is a decent quick summary.

The path leading up to the Yom Kippur war had two major factors. First, there was a failure to resolve territorial disputes arising from the Arab-Israeli War of 1967. These disputes involved the return of the Sinai to Egypt and the return of the Golan Heights to Syria. UN Resolution 242 and Egyptian President Sadat\ufffds peace initiative failed to bring peace. Sadat wanted to sign an agreement with Israel provided the Israelis returned all the occupied territories, but Israel refused to withdraw to the pre-1967 armistice lines. Since no progress was being made toward peace, Sadat was convinced that to change things and gain legitimacy at home, he must initiate a war with limited objectives.

The second factor leading up to the war was the assurance Israel\ufffds general staff felt that Israel was safe from Arab attack for the indefinite future. Therefore, Israel felt no reason to trade territory for peace. Israel felt this way because of the Israel Defense Force\ufffds strength, the disarray of the Arab world, and the large buffer zone around Israel formed by the Sinai, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. Thus in spite of Sadat\ufffds threats of war throughout 1972 and much of 1973, Israel\ufffds commanders were unprepared for the October attack of Egypt and Syria. They misinterpreted the buildup of armed forces along the canal as military exercises instead of an attack.

The surprise attack on two fronts from Egypt and Syria began on October 6, 1973, which was Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year for the Jewish people. Egypt\ufffds forces swiftly crossed the Suez Canal and overran the Bar-Lev line. Syria moved into the Golan Heights and nearly reached the 1967 border with Israel (overlooking the Hula Basin). Israel was outnumbered in the north nearly 12 to 1 (there were 1,100 Syrian tanks versus 157 Israeli tanks); therefore, the first few days of the war saw Israeli counterattacks fail as Israel suffered hundreds of casualties and lost nearly 150 planes.

The tide of the war began to turn on October 10. The Syrians were pushed back and Israel advanced into Syria proper. The Soviet Union responded by sending airlifts to Damascus and Cairo, which were answered on October 12 and 13 by massive US airlifts to Israel. Israeli forces crossed the Suez Canal and surrounded the Egyptian Third Army on October 21.

[...]

The war\ufffds repercussions were far-reaching. An estimated 8,500 Arab soldiers were killed, and economic losses equaled the GNP for one year. The war also increased the Arabs\ufffd dependency on the Soviet Union. Approximately 6,000 Israeli soldiers were killed or wounded in 18 days, and Israel\ufffds losses were equivalent to their annual GNP. The image of an invincible Israeli army from the 1967 war was destroyed, Arab confidence was increased, and Israel became more dependent on the US for military, diplomatic, and economic aid. Internationally, the war emboldened the organization of petroleum exporting countries to double its oil prices. The US experienced gasoline shortages because of an embargo placed on countries that assisted Israel. The rise in oil prices began a trend of worldwide inflation and a recession in 1974-1975.


The 1973 war wasn't as lopsided as the 1967 war. Another timeline is [link|http://history.acusd.edu/gen/20th/nixon-mideast.html|here].

And I recall reading a story in Time magazine about the war in which it was claimed that Israel had nuclear weapons on standby in case things got worse. They certainly viewed it at the time as a serious threat to their existence, as did the US.

Israel had huge losses, as did Egypt and Syria. It wasn't a simple "sound trouncing" inflicted on Egypt by Israel.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Then at least indicate WHICH point you think is wrong.
There is some validity to your view. But I believe it's wrong in general, but I don't think we're going to convince each other. :-)

Which "view"?

* What I observe to be the Israeli mindset.
* My likely actions in a similar situation
* My view on the PLO's motivation and history.
* Specific details of how I understand the IDF to work.
* Questions as to how it could be fixed.

Which of those is wrong?

Its rather rude to lump all that together with "you're wrong, but I'm not going to even tell you what you're wrong about or why".

If you think so, say about what.

And you might note - Egypt came to their understanding with Israel after being soundly trounced.

Not in 1973 they weren't.

No, you're right, they weren't AS soundly trounced then - BUT neither did they recover what they'd lost in the '67 war, correct?

When they were trounced.

And *that* is what brought them to the bargaining table - the failure to win with force of arms.

Right now the PLO is still willing to only use force.

Nothing you said shows how to *change* that, much less "Simply" negotiate.

So no, I don't think I'm wrong - the PLO wants to fight. The initial story was about the Israeli's finally going ahead and fighting - and trying to knock the fight out of them.

I see that as a perfectly reasonable prediction.... and futher, given the failures at the bargaining table, I'm not certain its an unreasonable idea.

Again, how would you get the PLO to the bargaining table, and make them use good faith?

Addison
New Sorry I haven't been clear.
By "simple" I mean it's clear what must be done. A new type of solution doesn't need to be found, but rather the same old tired approach of negotiations with visible tangible rewards and disincentives must be used.

Which "view"?

The view that Israel's policy of blowing up people is reasonable and understandable.

And *that* is what brought [Egypt] the bargaining table - the failure to win with force of arms.

Many argue that it's Sadat that brought Israel to the table via the 1973 war, not the other way around. See the link above.

Again, how would you get the PLO to the bargaining table, and make them use good faith?

Neither side is negotiating in good faith at the moment. It's not all the PA's fault.

Carrots and Sticks have to be used, just as in the past. Someone, maybe the US, has to talk to both sides - Israel and the PA - with a substantial package of incentives and disincentives to get them to discuss what they'll accept and not accept. Outside parties like the US has to find a way to help build consensus.

It's a "simple" process. Is it easy? No. I don't have a magic formula, but I know what process has to be used. Blowing up people (by either side) isn't going to solve the problem.

Finally, I think this came up earlier in this thread... Here's a counterpoint on Barak's offer to the PA earlier this year:

[link|http://www.palestinemonitor.org/mustafa/notbarakproposal.htm|Why Palestinians could not accept Barak's proposal] It's possible to have honest disagreements about how generous the Barak proposal was and whether it would have made a viable Palestinian state possible.

I think I've said my peace on this topic.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Thanks.
Much clearer now.

The view that Israel's policy of blowing up people is reasonable and understandable.

Gotcha. Well, that's of course debatable. But under the circumstances, I'd be doing something similar. I'm not much of a "turn the other cheek" kind of guy. :)

Many argue that it's Sadat that brought Israel to the table via the 1973 war, not the other way around. See the link above.

Possibly - but even so - it was the failure of force of arms (IMO) to "win" that caused the negotiation. Sometimes, its not an option. (the ob-WWII reference - both Japan and Germany tried to "negotiate" before all was lost (Hitler after he had most of Europe, initially). Would negotiation there have been in the best interests? (intentionally not specifing who or what's best interest).

Neither side is negotiating in good faith at the moment. It's not all the PA's fault.

All? No. Israel's done some damn stupid things. Right now, though, the PA is not interested in any negotiations, and so I will assign the current blame on them, mostly. Bluke's quotes are not very incorrect about the skewed view that their leaders have preached and told the people under them, while Israelis have had a much more "balanched" view available to them, IMO.

Someone, maybe the US, has to talk to both sides - Israel and the PA - with a substantial package of incentives and disincentives to get them to discuss what they'll accept and not accept. Outside parties like the US has to find a way to help build consensus.

(Why is it the US's problem? :))

By "simple" I mean it's clear what must be done. A new type of solution doesn't need to be found, but rather the same old tired approach of negotiations with visible tangible rewards and disincentives must be used.

I still don't see it as that simple. I don't know what 3rd parties are (able) to offer each side, in order to get concensus. The PA will be happy with the removal of Israel, but needless to say, I don't think Israel will accept. :)

I don't know what the US can offer. Adding to the problem is the other countries in the middle east, willing to offer support in proxy for the PA... And those countries (right now) aren't available for stick use from the US (since we depend on the oil, etc).

Addison
     A solution is offered to the war in the Middle East - (DonRichards) - (22)
         Prediction, more than a solution. - (addison) - (21)
             But, it won't bring peace. - (a6l6e6x) - (20)
                 What will? - (addison) - (19)
                     Always an excellent question.. - (Ashton)
                     Simple, really. - (Another Scott) - (9)
                         Not that simple. - (addison) - (4)
                             No time for point by point rebuttal... - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                 Then at least indicate WHICH point you think is wrong. - (addison) - (2)
                                     Sorry I haven't been clear. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                         Thanks. - (addison)
                         Quite rational - (Silverlock) - (3)
                             The same thing was said about Egypt and Jordan and ... -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                 The destruction of Israel is in their Government charter? - (Silverlock) - (1)
                                     Only so much fits in a Subject line... :-) - (Another Scott)
                     Prediction vs. balanced view - (a6l6e6x) - (4)
                         Re: Prediction vs. balanced view - (addison)
                         You're assuming that saner heads will prevail... - (Simon_Jester) - (2)
                             I'm *hoping* that saner heads will prevail, one day. - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                                 There 's the problem in a nutshell - (Silverlock)
                     "Sometimes you've got to beat someone senseless... - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
                         Re: "Sometimes you've got to beat someone senseless... - (addison) - (1)
                             Living by the sword. - (a6l6e6x)

They just don't work, in the real world outside Gosling's beard.
69 ms