Skip to main content

View Diary: Baker Schools Huckabee on Israeli Settlements (290 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well (0+ / 0-)

    Yes and no. First of all, the territory that has been occupied since '67 was indeed taken from nations that invaded, but was not actually territory of those nations (Golan Heights aside). The West Bank and Gaza were PALESTINIAN territory occupied by Jordan and Egypt. So Israel took land from Jordan and Egypt that Jordan and Egypt took from Palestine. So really, they don't quite fit your description. The Golan Heights does.

    Ancient claims aren't really valid in modern times. Let's stick with the fact that the UN created two independent nations of Israel and Palestine and the surrounding nations invaded. Israel defended itself. Palestine was conquered by the Muslim neighbors and then occupied by Israel.

    •  Growing up in Europe in the 1970ties (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah, wbramh, al ajnabee

      I seem to remember that the general attitude in this matter was decidedly pro-Israel. While refraining from legally recognizing Israel's seizure of the West Bank and Gaza, it was pretty much assumed that Israel's presence in these territories was politically legitimate in terms of strategic self-defense. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was seen as a tragic necessity, and temporary in nature. It had to last as long as a peaceful solution could not be negotiated, but no one assumed that it would last forever. Perceptions began to shift with Arik Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. That war blow a big hole in the strict self-defense rationale. The whole Eretz Israel thing didn't help. But the self-defense rationale still held firm, and to some extent it still does. Consider this: When Saddam invaded Kuweit, Bush I and his European allies kicked him out on grounds that he had annexed a sovereign state. Nobody ever even remotely considered military action against Israel over the seizure of the Westbank and Gaza – because the West recognized, however implicitly, the strategic necessity of Israel's presence in these territories. And everyone knew that the party that held the Golan heights was in a position to bomb the other's capital (or was in that position until the emergence of new tactical missiles in the 1980ties, wich rendered the Golan heights strategically obsolete), so no one really expected Israel to move out of there either.

      John McCain: Life begins at inheritance

      by Berliner2 on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 08:17:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that and Israel starting the 1967 war blows a... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        al ajnabee, thethinveil

        ...hole in the self-defense rational as well.

        I'm a part of the reality-based community, not the personality-based community.

        by Uberbah on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 01:46:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's the most outrageous (0+ / 0-)

          comment of the day.
          Syria and Egypt had moved their armies to Israel's borders and there was, and is, no serious historical doubt that they were intending to attack Israel.  At no time did those countries attempt to hide their  ultimate intentions. What the Arabs didn't expect was Israel decimating their air support before the enormous Arab armies could advance across the border.

          •  Well, destroying (0+ / 0-)

            the Arab air forces on the ground on June 5 was seen as a legitimate act of self-defense where I grew up. It was a pioneering effort in preemptive warfare, if you will, but it was the little guys beating the shit out of the big guys. Think David and Goliath: There was a biblical template for what Israel achieved, and that certainly did not hurt the country's image in the West. In terms of starting the war, there had been skirmishes leading up to the outbreak of the six days of open hostility, and when Nasser closed the Suez canal for Israeli ships he was not exactly extending a hand of peace to his neighbors, either.

            John McCain: Life begins at inheritance

            by Berliner2 on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:18:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  that and it was Israel that started the 1967 war, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      capelza, thethinveil

      Israel that launched attacks on it's neighbors, so even the 'taking land from invaders' bit is a canard.

      Israel defended itself.

      No, they attacked.

      I'm a part of the reality-based community, not the personality-based community.

      by Uberbah on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 01:45:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Israel uses the Golan as a DMZ (0+ / 0-)

      It is a strategic neutral zone. It was also the high ground used by the Syrians to mount an effective rocket attack on Israeli towns. Unlike Egypt, the Syrians have maintained hostilities, so while the Golan is different, Israel's security is very much tied into denying the Golan from Syrian artillery and tanks.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site