Saturday, 21 May 2011

Israel and the Fine Art of Sophistry

Posted by Lambcut

Israel likes to complicate the politics of conflict. Complicated concepts are difficult to debate and communicate to our attention deficit disordered Western hive-mind. But it’s really not that hard to understand.

In 1967 Israel won the Six Day War. It was a decisive victory and significantly expanded Israel’s territory.

Yesterday, Barrack Obama called for Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders. The proposal is part of a peace plan that’s been dragging on unrealised for decades.

Today, Benjamin Netanyahu said that the 1967 borders are indefensible. Israeli spinners are pouring out lots of fabulous and complex arguments for why it is so.

The fact remains that Israel won the territory as a result of decisive military conquest. It has been defending the territory adeptly for 43 years. It has expanded the territory incrementally by means of illegal settlement. It is territory gained by such means that is at the root of Obama’s call. For Netanyahu to assert that the 1967 borders are indefensible is demonstrably untrue and mischievous. But Israel will go on spinning it with breathtaking sophistry and the West will go on listening with the understanding and attention span of a gnat.


KG said...

"In 1967 Israel won the Six Day War. It was a decisive victory and significantly expanded Israel’s territory."

You conveniently leave out the fact that it ws a war fought in self defence, against overwhelming odds. And that the territory won was retained in order to afford Israel some "defence in depth" against organisations and states sworn to destroy her.
And you have the nerve to whine about "sophistry"!
I'll assume you're uninformed rather than malicious, but if the former is the case perhaps you should refrain from making judgments about things you know nothing about.

Anonymous said...

Dear KG,

I stated the fact that Israel won the Six Day War decisively. And it did. I didn't make any judgement on the reasons for the aggression. If you want facts, here's some for you.

November 29, 1947: United Nations general assembly passes a partition plan dividing the British Mandate of Palestine into two states. Accepted by the Jewish leadership but rejected by the Arab leadership.

1947-1949: The Nabka, meaning "disaster" or "cataclysm" in Arabic. Up to 900,000 Palestinians flee or are expelled from their homes in the part of the land that becomes the state of Israel.

April 9, 11, 1948: Deir Yassin massacre. Between 100 and 254 Palestinian villagers, mainly women, old people and children are killed during and after an attack on the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem by Irgun members.

May 15: Declaration of Israel as the Jewish state. British withdraw from Palestine. Arab-Israeli war. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Lebanon declare war on Israel. Egypt, Jordan and Syria invade Israel.

April, 1949: Israel and Arab states agree an armistice. Israel has taken about 50 per cent more land than was originally allotted to it by the UN partition plan.

1956: Egypt nationalises Suez Canal (July 26). France, Britain and Israel plan invasion of Egypt. Israel invades the Sinai peninsula (October 29). Pressure from the US and USSR force France, Britain and Israel to withdraw.

May, 1964: The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) is founded in Cairo by the Arab League. The PLO states its goal as the destruction of the Israel through armed struggle, and the restoration of an "independent Palestinian state" between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea.

June, 1967: Six Day war. Israel launches a pre-emptive attack on Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Israel captures Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan. In this year, Israel begins settlement programme in areas captured during the Six Day war.

Yours sincerely,

1 -

Blair said...

I can't for the life of me understand why Israel doesn't just annex the West Bank anyway. The "two state solution" is bollocks.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Lambcut you kinda shot yourself in the foot right up front by misspelling the word 'defense.' Somehow you have it beginning with 'agr.......'

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Charming people, your Arab friends. I suggest you have a look at the Wiki account of the Six Day War.

This, from captured Jordanian orders issued during the first week of June:-

"The Jordanians also planned for the capture of Motza and Sha'alvim in the strategic Jerusalem Corridor. Motza was tasked to Infantry Brigade 27 camped near Ma'ale Adummim: "The reserve brigade will commence a nighttime infiltration onto Motza, will destroy it to the foundation, and won't leave a remnant or refugee from among its 800 residents".[31]"

No doubt you understand the meaning 'not leaving a remnant or refugee'?

Anonymous said...

Dear Adolf

I don't need to refer to Wiki.I know the meaning of not leaving a remmant or a refugee. I have been to Sabra and Shatila.


Donal Dhu said...

Lambcut, the so called Palestinians were ordered to leave their homes by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who incidentally during WWII spent several years in Berlin as a Guest of the NazI Regime. His reason was a military one, in that if the Arabs civilians evacuated the Arab armies could deal with any people they came accross be they Jewish civilians or jewish armed forces. In only one village were the inhabitants forced from their homes and that was because the Israelis ordered the villagers to give up their arms. They refused.

Nemesis said...

Lambcut....I have read your take on Israel and while I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, perhaps you could have been a little more balanced by presenting an example, just one of the many hundreds, of the Arab atrocities that were committed against the Jews for hundreds of years prior to Israel coming into existence in 1948.

And surely you must realise that in any war, ground that is gained is never given back to the enemy. Only a stupid people would commit that mistake!

Also, if you believe that peace can be finally realized between the Arabs and the Jews by the Jews giving up the land they have won, then your naivety concerning this historical issue, is simply astounding!

Anonymous said...

Dear Donal Dhu

Common sense alone should tell you that families don’t voluntarily abandon homes and land they have owned for centuries. They have to be forced or terrified.

Israel perpetrates several tranches of rather irrelevant spin in relation to this - Arab armies ordered Palestinians to flee, Arab radio broadcasts ordered the Palestinians to leave, Palestinians do not really come from Palestine and so on. This sort of nonsense has been set aside not least by Israeli historians such as Ilan Pappé and Benny Morris.

And bear in mind that even if such spin were true (and it clearly is not), it would not negate Palestinian right of return.


Bez said...

What a disgusting, leftard post. I submit that roarprawn cannot ever be considered a right-wing blog again, after putting up and actually defending this position.

Blair said...

The Palestinians can have "their" land back when Germany gets Silesia and East Prussia back off Poland and Russia, Austria gets Trentino-South Tyrol back off Italy, and Hungary gets Transylvania back off Romania. Or do you only get to keep land you fought hard for against an aggressive neighbour if you're not Jewish?

Anonymous said...

Dear Bez
Freedom of expression is an innately conservative value. This blog was started by Busted Blonde and is run by the Brunette. Both are right of Genghis Khan and therefore tolerate opposing views to be expressed. I too am conservative but not such an ideologue that I allow matters of conscience to be dictated by political ideology. The Brunette and I do not see eye to eye on this matter but we give each other a hearing. You might consider doing the same.

Yours sincerely

Anonymous said...

Dear Blair

Now you are being silly. Withdrawal to the 1967 borders is a withdrawal to the borders established as a result of direct military conquest.

Yours sincerely

Bez said...

Lambcut: there is freedom of expression and there is defending a rabid leftist position. The first I agree with, the second I consider despicable. While the first is within the purview of any blog (particularly a conservative one) the second is irreconcilable with maintaining the label to be a member of the right-wing blogosphere. While the opinion itself should be discussed within the right-wing sphere to great detail, the fact you actually hold that belief puts you squarely in the camp of the standard and the watermelons. Reading their filth is enough to keep me abreast of leftist viewpoints and I'll henceforth remove this communist blog in conservative drag off my RSS feed.

Anonymous said...

I couldn't give a shit about any of this.
Israel = best place to live in M.E.
Everywhere else = awful.
Mossad can have my passport anytime they want.

WAKE UP said...

Watching Netanyahu tell Obama to get fucked yesterday was one of the great moments in television history. Obama looked like a little boy who just had a spanking.

And you, Lambcut, have no idea what you're talking about.

Blair said...

Lambcut - well what is the difference? The only difference is that Israel has not formally annexed the bulk of the West Bank and Gaza, otherwise the land obtained in the 1967 war has exactly the same moral status as that obtained in the 1948 war.

Fair is fair. Jordan and Egypt invaded Israel, they lost, they lost land, they shouldn't get it back. Germany invaded Poland, they lost, they lost East Prussia, they shouldn't get it back. Why would you ever think it right that a nation get back land they lost in a war when they started the war in the first place?

Anonymous said...

Dear Blair

The IDF has extraordinary funding from the US and the West generally. Isreal could potentially have lost moral high ground even with its funding sources, if it had annexed Gaza and the West Bank, in those circumstances. I am well aware Israel’s neighbouring enemies (yes, I know they are enemies) have external funding, but not enough to create a military that is in anyway comparable to Israel's. They certainly don’t get funding from the only competing financial force, the West’s good and righteous friends, the Saudis. Therein lies the difference on a "moral" basis.
If the West stopped funding the IDF, directly or indirectly, then you could rightly argue fair conquest.


Anonymous said...

As I understand it you are suggesting the 1967 borders are able to be defended based on the fact Israel won the six day war. Yet again it shows selective understanding of what actually occured.

The main reason Israel was able to so conclusively win was their preemptive strike that destroyed most of their enemies' planes on the ground. Without Israeli air superiority the outcome could have been significantly different.

With modern anti aircraft defencees and Israels enemies learning from previous mistakes I would suggest Netanyahu is correct that those previous borders are indefensible.


Anonymous said...

Dear Paranormal

US lawyer Gil Maguire blogs on Israel-Palestine issues. He replies to your contention very well in an article you can find at:


Blair said...

Oh come on Lambcut, now you are arguing that it's not fair because Israel has more money, and gets help from Amerikkka?

Is that all you've got? Your criteria for the justice of land obtained in conflict is whether the besieged party had help or not?

I simply don't find that relevant.

Andy R said...

Israel's got THE BOMB - If anyone tries to invade them, they can turn the M.E to glass.

Although we can't confirm this - as they won't allow weapons inspectors to check their stockpiles.

Lambcut said...

Dear Andy R

Israel does indeed have "the bomb". However, turning the Middle East into glass might be a tad self defeating. If Israel hit any of its neighbors in the Levant it would be like dropping "the bomb" on its own head. Its not a very big area geographically.