Pope takes on 'increasingly unacceptable' Middle East conflict

[webfact]

Pope takes on 'increasingly unacceptable' Middle East conflict

JERUSALEM - Pope Francis celebrated mass at a contested Jerusalem site on Monday at the end of a whirlwind pilgrimage which saw him making a personal bid for Middle East peace.

The 77-year-old pontiff, who has made interfaith dialogue a cornerstone of his papacy, made an impassioned call for an end to religious intolerance, and insisted that believers must have free access to sites they consider sacred within the Holy City.

Despite his insistence the trip would be "purely religious" he waded into the sensitive politics of the region, issuing a unique invitation to the Israeli and Palestinian presidents to pray with him at the Vatican to end their "increasingly unacceptable" conflict.

Both accepted the invitation, although it was not clear when the visit would take place.

Full story: http://www.enca.com/world/pope-takes-increasingly-unacceptable-middle-east-conflict

-- eNCA 2014-05-27

[Ulysses G.]

The Palestinians have refused numerous peace deals and a path to their own state over many decades. The pope needs to convince them to stop stonewalling, but he knows that will not happen, so he tries to, unfairly, place equal blame on the Israelis. Unless he is going to look at the situation honestly, he should just butt out.

In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

Also, from 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians, but they did not bother..

Edited May 27, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Larry]

Good list, but let's not forget this one:

In 1967, after a stunning victory against three Arab states who waged a war of aggression with the stated goal of, as Egyptian Radio put it, pushing every Jew into the sea, and raping their women with bayonets, Israel offered to give these same three states back everything but Jerusalem. The Arabs' response was the infamous "three nos of Khartoum." of September 1, 1967 by a conference of eight Arab heads of state. The Three No's were "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it..." At that time, there was not a single "settler" in the areas taken.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Larry

[ubonjoe]

I have removed racial rant and replies to it.

[Morch]

I don't think that the Pope's visit to the Middle East will, in any way, promote chances for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

That said, I do believe the current Pope has a broad humanistic view on things, and a sincere intent to help if he can.

Almost unavoidably, both sides attempt to score political points from the visit. Personally I find it quite pathetic, really.

Interesting to note the harsh reactions to the visit from extremists, both Jewish and Muslim. An example not cited in

the OP, is that the Pope was accompanied by the Lebanese Maronite Patriarch (the last similar visit being in 1948), which

sparked a major political controversy in Lebanon.

The invitation for both leaders is a nice gesture, but doubtful if it would make a difference. A photo op with some extra

tit for tat politics more probable.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Morch

[RockyBeerbelly]

I have removed racial rant and replies to it.

Racial????? Its politics, it doesn't have anything to do with race!

Its a shame though that a pro Palestinian stand point is being moderated at TV.

[pkspeaker]

It's propaghanda , particularly since 1967; if Israel wanted to give the west bank to the Palestinians so that it could avoid being an occupation or apharthied regime, then why have they spent billions building settlements and and israeli settler only roads that link them to israel-proper? With the settler population increasing to more than 1/2 million?

Even if the Palestinians had been 'rejecting' israeli offers, they could have unilateraly turned the westbank into an autonomous region-even keeping some military presense in it but not confiscating lands and bringing in it's own population-and then governing it's settler population under a different set of laws and confining most of the indeginous palestinians to about 40% of it.

Israel made a decision to become an aphartheid state in the 1970's .

There has been no confirmed offer made by the israeli's since 1967, only 'rumored' offers, on non-of them can you pull up a white paper and actually see these 'borders' that they offered.

The Israeli opposition and PA Palestinian negotiators did create a proposed solution called the:

http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/summary

that includes a full deal with maps, borders.. but israel's likud govt rejects it or an aggreement similar to it, insisting that they will only give the palestinians about half the westbank, with most israeli settlements staying in place and under the israeli state. They also reject a one-state solution, ofcourse, as that would lead to a secular njon jewish state.

The Palestinians have refused numerous peace deals and a path to their own state over many decades. The pope needs to convince them to stop stonewalling, but he knows that will not happen, so he tries to, unfairly, place equal blame on the Israelis. Unless he is going to look at the situation honestly, he should just butt out.

In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

Also, from 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians, but they did not bother..

[Morch]

It's propaghanda , particularly since 1967; if Israel wanted to give the west bank to the Palestinians so that it could avoid being an occupation or apharthied regime, then why have they spent billions building settlements and and israeli settler only roads that link them to israel-proper? With the settler population increasing to more than 1/2 million?

Even if the Palestinians had been 'rejecting' israeli offers, they could have unilateraly turned the westbank into an autonomous region-even keeping some military presense in it but not confiscating lands and bringing in it's own population-and then governing it's settler population under a different set of laws and confining most of the indeginous palestinians to about 40% of it.

Israel made a decision to become an aphartheid state in the 1970's .

There has been no confirmed offer made by the israeli's since 1967, only 'rumored' offers, on non-of them can you pull up a white paper and actually see these 'borders' that they offered.

The Israeli opposition and PA Palestinian negotiators did create a proposed solution called the:

http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/summary

that includes a full deal with maps, borders.. but israel's likud govt rejects it or an aggreement similar to it, insisting that they will only give the palestinians about half the westbank, with most israeli settlements staying in place and under the israeli state. They also reject a one-state solution, ofcourse, as that would lead to a secular njon jewish state.

The Palestinians have refused numerous peace deals and a path to their own state over many decades. The pope needs to convince them to stop stonewalling, but he knows that will not happen, so he tries to, unfairly, place equal blame on the Israelis. Unless he is going to look at the situation honestly, he should just butt out.

In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis. The Palestinian Arabs rejected it.

Also, from 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians, but they did not bother..

May I, respectfully, present an opinion that seeing either side in this conflict as completely innocent of wrongdoing,

righteous, honest in its dealings with the other, or having a clear and reasonable vision accepted by its people - as

totally out of touch with reality?

Going over the whole list, or litany, of agreements, offers, wrongs, and transgressions from both sides is rather dull,

and misses the point. Furthermore, each side got its own PR version of events, with little room allowed to acknowledge

the other side's narrative. Digging all that up, doesn't help the sides achieve anything, other than getting mired in the

past and stocking the flames so that the conflict may go on.

The question is not so much about who did what to whom, who started it and so on and so forth. It's more to do with

possible present day solutions to improve, if not to solve, the impasse. Obviously, some compromise in involved - and

so far both sides cannot be said to be fully committed to making tough decisions, letting go of the past and moving

forward.

Edit: re-reading both the posts quoted, this also amplifies how each side cherry picks whatever suits him, ignoring

things not that easy to deal with. Omitting certain details, while highlighting others, making broad statements which

got little backing....that's exactly what keeps the Israelis and the Palestinians on a road to nowhere.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Morch

[simple1]

Good list, but let's not forget this one:

In 1967, after a stunning victory against three Arab states who waged a war of aggression with the stated goal of, as Egyptian Radio put it, pushing every Jew into the sea, and raping their women with bayonets, Israel offered to give these same three states back everything but Jerusalem. The Arabs' response was the infamous "three nos of Khartoum." of September 1, 1967 by a conference of eight Arab heads of state. The Three No's were "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it..." At that time, there was not a single "settler" in the areas taken.

Odd statement. The war was launched by Israel who had overwhelming fire power and at the time of the attack had nearly twice the number of combat troops deployed than the Arab States.

You have overlooked East Jerusalem was Muslim for centuries and at the time of the 1967 War was 80% populated by Muslims, in addition nearly all the land was Muslim owned. Israel had made it clear that the occupied West Bank & Gaza was not on the table for returning to the relevant Arab States. Not at all surprising they rejected the Israeli terms.

Documentation has now come to light that it had been policy for decades to undertake action to destabalise & clear out the Palestinians from their traditional homelands for occupation, that makes a lie of many denials; refer to "The Unmaking of the Middle East". Whilst the book is a broadside against Zionist/Israeli actions and policy, in combination with critic of the policy duplicity of a number of Western countries in the M.E., it is backed up by referals to actual letters and documentation for further research

Edited May 27, 2014 by simple1

[Ulysses G.]

Good list, but let's not forget this one:

In 1967, after a stunning victory against three Arab states who waged a war of aggression with the stated goal of, as Egyptian Radio put it, pushing every Jew into the sea, and raping their women with bayonets, Israel offered to give these same three states back everything but Jerusalem. The Arabs' response was the infamous "three nos of Khartoum." of September 1, 1967 by a conference of eight Arab heads of state. The Three No's were "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it..." At that time, there was not a single "settler" in the areas taken.

Odd statement. The war was launched by Israel who had overwhelming fire power and at the time of the attack had nearly twice the number of combat troops deployed than the Arab States.

Don't be ridiculous. "Launched" by Israel after weeks of Arab leaders threatening Israel with total annihilation. Along with with Egypt's ejection of United Nations forces, the closing of the Straits of Tiran, and the massing of troops on Israel's northern and southern borders, the hateful Arab rhetoric created a state of existential fear in Israel and the Arabs got exactly what they were asking for.

Egypt

"Our aim is the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel." – President Nasser of Egypt, November 18, 1965

"Brothers, it is our duty to prepare for the final battle in Palestine." – Nasser, Palestine Day, 1967

"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight . . . The mining of Sharm el Sheikh is a confrontation with Israel. Adopting this measure obligates us to be ready to embark on a general war with Israel." – Nasser, May 27, 1967

"We will not accept any ... coexistence with Israel. ... Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel .... The war with Israel is in effect since 1948." – Nasser, May 28, 1967

"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel . . . . to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations." – Nasser, May, 30, 1967 after signing a defense pact with Jordan's King Hussein

"We are now ready to confront Israel .... The issue now at hand is not the Gulf of Aqaba, the Straits of Tiran, or the withdrawal of UNEF, but the ... aggression which took place in Palestine ... with the collaboration of Britain and the United States." – Nasser, June 2, 1967

"Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria is in a position to cut Israel in two at Kalkilya, where Israeli territory between the Jordan armistice line and the Mediterranean Sea is only twelve kilometers wide ... ." – El Akhbar newspaper, Cairo, May 31, 1967

Cairo Radio Statements:

May 19, 1967: "This is our chance Arabs, to deal Israel a mortal blow of annihilation, to blot out its entire presence in our holy land"

May 22, 1967: "The Arab people is firmly resolved to wipe Israel off the map"

May 25, 1967: "The Gulf of Aqaba, by the dictum of history and the protection of our soldiers, is Arab, Arab, Arab."

May 25, 1967: "Millions of Arabs are ... preparing to blow up all of America's interests, all of America's installations, and your entire existence, America."

May 27, 1967: "We challenge you, Eshkol, to try all your weapons. Put them to the test; they will spell Israel's death and annihilation."

May 30, 1967: "With the closing of the Gulf of Akaba, Israel is faced with two alternatives either of which will destroy it; it will either be strangled to death by the Arab military and economic boycott, or it will perish by the fire of the Arab forces encompassing it from the South from the North and from the East."

May 30, 1967: "The world will know that the Arabs are girded for battle as the fateful hour approaches."

Jordan

"All of the Arab armies now surround Israel. The UAR, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Lebanon, Algeria, Sudan, and Kuwait. ... There is no difference between one Arab people and another, no difference between one Arab army and another." – King Hussein of Jordan, after signing the pact with Egypt May 30, 1967

Iraq

"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear – to wipe Israel off the map. We shall, God willing, meet in Tel Aviv and Haifa." – President Abdel Rahman Aref of Iraq, May 31, 1967

Palestinians

"D-Day is approaching. The Arabs have waited 19 years for this and will not flinch from the war of liberation." – Ahmed Shukairy, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, May 27, 1967

"This is a fight for the homeland – it is either us or the Israelis. There is no middle road. The Jews of Palestine will have to leave. We will facilitate their departure to their former homes. Any of the old Palestine Jewish population who survive may stay, but it is my impression that none of them will survive." – Shukairy, June 1, 1967

"We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants and as for the survivors – if there are any – the boats are ready to deport them." – Shukairy, June 1, 1967, speaking at a Friday sermon in Jerusalem

Syria

Syria's forces are "ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united.... I as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." – Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad, May 20, 1967

"Our two brotherly countries have turned into one mobilized force. The withdrawal of the UN forces ... means 'make way, our forces are on their way to battle.'" – Foreign Minister Makhous on his return from Cairo

Others

"The freedom of the homeland will be completed by the destruction of the Zionist entity and the expulsion of the Americans and the British from the region." – Algerian Prime Minister Houari Boumedienne

"We want war. War is the only way to settle the problem of Israel. The Arabs are ready." – Yemeni Foreign Minister Salam

Edited May 27, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

It's propaghanda

"Propaganda" means information and in this case it is factual information. The Palestinians have rejected peace deals and their own state time after time. That is beyond dispute.

False propaganda would be your dishonest claim that a state where 20% of the population is Arab with full voting rights and representation in the government is an "apartheid state". It is illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race and Arab citizens of Israel are represented in all parts of Israeli life. Arabs have served in senior diplomatic and government positions and an Arab currently serves as a justice on the Supreme Court. Israeli Arabs have their own political parties and representation in the Knesset. Arabs are members of the major Israeli political parties.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

Good list, but let's not forget this one:

In 1967, after a stunning victory against three Arab states who waged a war of aggression with the stated goal of, as Egyptian Radio put it, pushing every Jew into the sea, and raping their women with bayonets, Israel offered to give these same three states back everything but Jerusalem. The Arabs' response was the infamous "three nos of Khartoum." of September 1, 1967 by a conference of eight Arab heads of state. The Three No's were "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it..." At that time, there was not a single "settler" in the areas taken.

Odd statement. The war was launched by Israel who had overwhelming fire power and at the time of the attack had nearly twice the number of combat troops deployed than the Arab States.

You have overlooked East Jerusalem was Muslim for centuries and at the time of the 1967 War was 80% populated by Muslims, in addition nearly all the land was Muslim owned. Israel had made it clear that the occupied West Bank & Gaza was not on the table for returning to the relevant Arab States. Not at all surprising they rejected the Israeli terms.

Documentation has now come to light that it had been policy for decades to undertake action to destabalise & clear out the Palestinians from their traditional homelands for occupation, that makes a lie of many denials; refer to "The Unmaking of the Middle East". Whilst the book is a broadside against Zionist/Israeli actions and policy, in combination with critic of the policy duplicity of a number of Western countries in the M.E., it is backed up by referals to actual letters and documentation for further research

The 1967 war was launched by Israel, yes. Israel defines this as preemptive strike, a notion which might be argued. However, it cannot be said that the situation was stable prior to this, or that the actions of Israel's neighbors did not have something to do with it.

Israel did not have overwhelming firepower, not anything nearing "twice the number of combat troops deployed". Israel did, by taking certain calculated risks, concentrate power on specific fronts to achieve an advantage, while playing defensive on other fronts, until forces could be diverted.

The general state of mind after Israel's victory was cocky. "Hubris" comes to mind. One of the famous sayings was that they were waiting for a phone call from the Arab side. While it was quite obvious Jerusalem would not be handed back the notion of keeping hold of the West Bank was something that developed over time, and was not firmly decided right after the war. The hardline talk just after the war was more along the line of posturing for negotiations, not like they had a long term plan. I do not think that there was much attachment to the Gaza Strip, at least not from a heritage point of view. Needless to say, that the phone call never came, and both sides dug in their positions until the next round.

I am not sure which documentation you are referring to, but to say that Israel had a coherent long term policy planned and executed (for decades?) regarding the West Bank is quite absurd. Israel have seen a few government changes over this time, some hardliners, some made certain agreements with the Palestinian.

As for Jeremy Salt (yes, had a look following our last conversation ) - well, sorry. The man is on a one sided mission, as can be seen from other writings. Not what you'd call a highly objective observer. One of the banes (of blesses) of contemporary historical research is that there's quite a lot of documentation to choose from. While this may allow greater detail, it often allows one to adopt a point of view dismissive of alternatives.

Edit - a few lines accidentally cut:

But once again, this obsession with who hit first, who's more of a villain, etc....are basically leading nowhere. There is very little chance that all the events of the past will be agreed upon, and that's ok. The issue is more to do with what can realistically be done to improve this sorry state of affairs. Picking at scabs won't.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Scott

[Ulysses G.]

if Israel wanted to give the west bank to the Palestinians so that it could avoid being an occupation or apharthied regime, then why have they spent billions building settlements

They want to trade land for peace. The same reason that Israel handed over Gaza to the Palestinians. Israel gave up every single inch of the land, uprooting thousands of settlers and relinquishing strategically vital territory. Instead of getting peace in return, Israel got terror: Hamas control of Gaza, Qassam rockets pouring down on southern Israel, and the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit. However, naive or not, they have made the offer anyway and the Palestinians rejected it.

[simple1]

Good list, but let's not forget this one:

In 1967, after a stunning victory against three Arab states who waged a war of aggression with the stated goal of, as Egyptian Radio put it, pushing every Jew into the sea, and raping their women with bayonets, Israel offered to give these same three states back everything but Jerusalem. The Arabs' response was the infamous "three nos of Khartoum." of September 1, 1967 by a conference of eight Arab heads of state. The Three No's were "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it..." At that time, there was not a single "settler" in the areas taken.

Odd statement. The war was launched by Israel who had overwhelming fire power and at the time of the attack had nearly twice the number of combat troops deployed than the Arab States.

You have overlooked East Jerusalem was Muslim for centuries and at the time of the 1967 War was 80% populated by Muslims, in addition nearly all the land was Muslim owned. Israel had made it clear that the occupied West Bank & Gaza was not on the table for returning to the relevant Arab States. Not at all surprising they rejected the Israeli terms.

Documentation has now come to light that it had been policy for decades to undertake action to destabalise & clear out the Palestinians from their traditional homelands for occupation, that makes a lie of many denials; refer to "The Unmaking of the Middle East". Whilst the book is a broadside against Zionist/Israeli actions and policy, in combination with critic of the policy duplicity of a number of Western countries in the M.E., it is backed up by referals to actual letters and documentation for further research

The 1967 war was launched by Israel, yes. Israel defines this as preemptive strike, a notion which might be argued.

However, it cannot be said that the situation was stable prior to this, or that the actions of Israel's neighbors did not

have something to do with it.

Israel did not have overwhelming firepower, not anything nearing "twice the number of combat troops deployed".

Israel did, by taking certain calculated risks, concentrate power on specific fronts to achieve an advantage, while

playing defensive on other fronts, until forces could be diverted.

The general state of mind after Israel's victory was cocky. "Hubris" comes to mind. One of the famous sayings was that

they were waiting for a phone call from the Arab side. While it was quite obvious Jerusalem would not be handed back,

the notion of keeping hold of the West Bank was something that developed over time, and was not firmly decided right

after the war. The hardline talk just after the war was more along the line of posturing for negotiations, not like they had

a long term plan. I do not think that there was much attachment to the Gaza Strip, at least not from a heritage point of

view. Needless to say, that the phone call never came, and both sides dug in their positions until the next round.

I am not sure which documentation you are referring to, but to say that Israel had a coherent long term policy planned

and executed (for decades?) regarding the West Bank is quite absurd. Israel have seen a few government changes

over this time, some hardliners, some made certain agreements with the Palestinian.

As for Jeremy Salt (yes, had a look following our last conversation ) - well, sorry. The man is on a one sided mission,

as can be seen from other writings. Not what you'd call a highly objective observer. One of the banes (of blesses) of

contemporary historical research is that there's quite a lot of documentation to choose from. While this may allow greater

detail, it often allows one to adopt a point of view dismissive of alternatives.

Edit - a few lines accidentally cut:

But once again, this obsession with who hit first, who's more of a villain, etc....are basically leading nowhere.

There is very little chance that all the events of the past will be agreed upon, and that's ok.

The issue is more to do with what can realistically be done to improve this sorry state of affairs. Picking at scabs

won't.

Thought you would respond

As you say not much point in rehashing who did what when, but fascinating mechanisations by all concerned. So…

At the time of the 1967 war some claim the Arab total forces deployed of around 150k plus, but total manpower of around 500k. At the launch of the Israeli attack more than 250k combat troops actually deployed for the attacks. We all know the huge successes achieved, a great deal contributed to the very poor co-ordination of the Arab forces. Naturally the professionalism and quality of equipment of the Israeli forces was a major factor, far outgunned the opposition

Just a point I wasn't specifically to the West Bank but to the general policy of what would today be emotively termed ethnic cleansing. I did acknowledge Salt has a bias, but a great deal of detail that undermines the narrative of some posters. e.g. the 1967 pre-emptive strike planning was known to the Egyptians and others, not the detail. A great deal of the noise being created by Nasser et al was for domestic consumption and this was acknowledged by US & Israeli intelligence, he was not actually signalling a concerted attack on Israel.

[Ulysses G.]

"A great deal of the noise being created by Nasser et al was for domestic consumption and this was acknowledged by US & Israeli intelligence, he was not actually signalling a concerted attack on Israel.

Yeah, sure. Why would anyone pay attention to his - and all the other Arab countries - vicious threats? It is not like multiple Arab armies had ever attacked tiny Israel before.

We aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."

– President Nasser of Egypt, November 18, 1965

Edited May 27, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

You can almost imagine Benny's parting words: "Thanks for coming your holiness and don't rush back"

[pkspeaker]

By giving up ONLY gaza-which is tiny, over-populated and cut-off from the westbank AND israel, that was not a goodwill gesture since they did it with continued designs on the westbank-it doesn't allow sufficient freedom for the people in gaza and their co-patriots in the westbank, they have to giveup enough land and allow enough freedom of movement between the 2 territories .. they did a unilitaeral gaza withdrawel instead of palestinian state deal, ofcourse there would be continued resistence .. but most of the time since the israeli exit from gaza, palestinian violence has been negligible-resulting in very few israeli deaths, Gilad Shalit was eventually released unharmed in a prisoner swap, the violence isn't that bad so the door to a negotiated settlement is always open.

if Israel wanted to give the west bank to the Palestinians so that it could avoid being an occupation or apharthied regime, then why have they spent billions building settlements

They want to trade land for peace. The same reason that Israel handed over Gaza to the Palestinians. Israel gave up every single inch of the land, uprooting thousands of settlers and relinquishing strategically vital territory. Instead of getting peace in return, Israel got terror: Hamas control of Gaza, Qassam rockets pouring down on southern Israel, and the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit. However, naive or not, they have made the offer anyway and the Palestinians rejected it.

[Morch]

Good list, but let's not forget this one:

In 1967, after a stunning victory against three Arab states who waged a war of aggression with the stated goal of, as Egyptian Radio put it, pushing every Jew into the sea, and raping their women with bayonets, Israel offered to give these same three states back everything but Jerusalem. The Arabs' response was the infamous "three nos of Khartoum." of September 1, 1967 by a conference of eight Arab heads of state. The Three No's were "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it..." At that time, there was not a single "settler" in the areas taken.

Odd statement. The war was launched by Israel who had overwhelming fire power and at the time of the attack had nearly twice the number of combat troops deployed than the Arab States.

You have overlooked East Jerusalem was Muslim for centuries and at the time of the 1967 War was 80% populated by Muslims, in addition nearly all the land was Muslim owned. Israel had made it clear that the occupied West Bank & Gaza was not on the table for returning to the relevant Arab States. Not at all surprising they rejected the Israeli terms.

Documentation has now come to light that it had been policy for decades to undertake action to destabalise & clear out the Palestinians from their traditional homelands for occupation, that makes a lie of many denials; refer to "The Unmaking of the Middle East". Whilst the book is a broadside against Zionist/Israeli actions and policy, in combination with critic of the policy duplicity of a number of Western countries in the M.E., it is backed up by referals to actual letters and documentation for further research

The 1967 war was launched by Israel, yes. Israel defines this as preemptive strike, a notion which might be argued.

However, it cannot be said that the situation was stable prior to this, or that the actions of Israel's neighbors did not

have something to do with it.

Israel did not have overwhelming firepower, not anything nearing "twice the number of combat troops deployed".

Israel did, by taking certain calculated risks, concentrate power on specific fronts to achieve an advantage, while

playing defensive on other fronts, until forces could be diverted.

The general state of mind after Israel's victory was cocky. "Hubris" comes to mind. One of the famous sayings was that

they were waiting for a phone call from the Arab side. While it was quite obvious Jerusalem would not be handed back,

the notion of keeping hold of the West Bank was something that developed over time, and was not firmly decided right

after the war. The hardline talk just after the war was more along the line of posturing for negotiations, not like they had

a long term plan. I do not think that there was much attachment to the Gaza Strip, at least not from a heritage point of

view. Needless to say, that the phone call never came, and both sides dug in their positions until the next round.

I am not sure which documentation you are referring to, but to say that Israel had a coherent long term policy planned

and executed (for decades?) regarding the West Bank is quite absurd. Israel have seen a few government changes

over this time, some hardliners, some made certain agreements with the Palestinian.

As for Jeremy Salt (yes, had a look following our last conversation ) - well, sorry. The man is on a one sided mission,

as can be seen from other writings. Not what you'd call a highly objective observer. One of the banes (of blesses) of

contemporary historical research is that there's quite a lot of documentation to choose from. While this may allow greater

detail, it often allows one to adopt a point of view dismissive of alternatives.

Edit - a few lines accidentally cut:

But once again, this obsession with who hit first, who's more of a villain, etc....are basically leading nowhere.

There is very little chance that all the events of the past will be agreed upon, and that's ok.

The issue is more to do with what can realistically be done to improve this sorry state of affairs. Picking at scabs

won't.

Thought you would respond

As you say not much point in rehashing who did what when, but fascinating mechanisations by all concerned. So…

At the time of the 1967 war some claim the Arab total forces deployed of around 150k plus, but total manpower of around 500k. At the launch of the Israeli attack more than 250k combat troops actually deployed for the attacks. We all know the huge successes achieved, a great deal contributed to the very poor co-ordination of the Arab forces. Naturally the professionalism and quality of equipment of the Israeli forces was a major factor, far outgunned the opposition

Just a point I wasn't specifically to the West Bank but to the general policy of what would today be emotively termed ethnic cleansing. I did acknowledge Salt has a bias, but a great deal of detail that undermines the narrative of some posters. e.g. the 1967 pre-emptive strike planning was known to the Egyptians and others, not the detail. A great deal of the noise being created by Nasser et al was for domestic consumption and this was acknowledged by US & Israeli intelligence, he was not actually signalling a concerted attack on Israel.

I think the trouble with those estimates is that it depends how one counts. Israel's buffed up troop count is due to most of them

being reserves, called up for duty. How many of them were effective is another question. Also, these were stretched along

three fronts, not all concentrated vs. a single enemy. By the time the war started, Egypt already kicked the UN troops from

Sinai and had a massive presence there - estimated by itself at 100-150k. I think some sources confuse that number as the

total number of deployed Arab troops.

None of the sides really wanted the 1967 war. At least not at the time it took place. There were a series of intelligence reports,

on all sides, giving warnings of possible dates for the other side's attack. Some more founded than others, but the end result

was that the stakes were upped each time. The Arab rhetoric and diplomatic isolation gave Israel a nice push along, while at

the same time both committing the Arab leadership to bolder acts. Sadly, acknowledgment of how things developed is usually

done in hindsight.

Ethnic cleansing? There were hundreds of thousands Arabs living within Israel when the war started, at present they make

about 20% of the population. If there was such a policy, it's not very successfully implemented. As far as I am aware, there

were no regular mass deportations or massacres, directed at the Palestinians after 1967. There were clashes, there were

casualties, but not anything systematical that would constitute active ethnic cleansing. What many of Israel's governments

did do, some more willingly than others, is allow (or promote, depends on administration) land grabs, settlements, and in

general increasing Israeli presence in the West Bank (Gaza is now a non-issue on in the regard). While that by itself was

both wrong and a mistake - It still does not constitute ethnic cleansing, and the extent to which it was government policy is

very debatable. To say that it was a consistent well thought out long term policy, is quite hilarious. One need only look at the

decision process of the current Israeli government and see how ludicrous this claim is. The issue of Israeli settlements is

a divisive one within Israel as well.

[Ulysses G.]

By giving up ONLY gaza-which is tiny, over-populated and cut-off from the westbank AND israel, that was not a goodwill gesture since they did it with continued designs on the westbank-it doesn't allow sufficient freedom for the people in gaza and their co-patriots in the westbank, they have to giveup enough land and allow enough freedom of movement between the 2 territories ..

They don't have to give up anything until the Palestinians sign a peace deal - nor should they with the Palestinians track record. The violence has only decreased because the wall prevents suicide bombers from entering Israel, but they keep on pounding civilian areas with rockets and mortars, because they can't enter by land. The Palestinians have made their own bed, but all they do is whine about the consequence that they are responsible for themselves.

[Morch]

By giving up ONLY gaza-which is tiny, over-populated and cut-off from the westbank AND israel, that was not a goodwill gesture since they did it with continued designs on the westbank-it doesn't allow sufficient freedom for the people in gaza and their co-patriots in the westbank, they have to giveup enough land and allow enough freedom of movement between the 2 territories .. they did a unilitaeral gaza withdrawel instead of palestinian state deal, ofcourse there would be continued resistence .. but most of the time since the israeli exit from gaza, palestinian violence has been negligible-resulting in very few israeli deaths, Gilad Shalit was eventually released unharmed in a prisoner swap, the violence isn't that bad so the door to a negotiated settlement is always open.

if Israel wanted to give the west bank to the Palestinians so that it could avoid being an occupation or apharthied regime, then why have they spent billions building settlements

They want to trade land for peace. The same reason that Israel handed over Gaza to the Palestinians. Israel gave up every single inch of the land, uprooting thousands of settlers and relinquishing strategically vital territory. Instead of getting peace in return, Israel got terror: Hamas control of Gaza, Qassam rockets pouring down on southern Israel, and the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit. However, naive or not, they have made the offer anyway and the Palestinians rejected it.

It wasn't exactly a goodwill gesture at all, that is correct. If it was, it would have been a coordinated bilateral move. Gaza is indeed cutoff from the West Bank, but that was not quite as severe when Israel pulled out. Conditions changed after the Hamas took over.

Saying that Israel should have made a comprehensive deal is nice, probably even true. The problems with that is that you need someone on the other side to deal with, and that you need a general consensus amongst your people. The very same goes for the Palestinians. There is certainly an ongoing leadership crisis on both sides, and one must appreciate just how divided both sides are. Making any but superficial compromises is not easy under such circumstances.

Your comment on terror attacks and rocket firing being "negligible" is rather odd. The number of mortar and rocket attacks rose quite dramatically after Israel pulled out. Casualty wise, they are not a major threat, but it cannot be said that their effect in negligible. As means to instill terror and disrupt lives, they are very effective.

[Bwanatickey]

Oh God here we go again.

[Steely Dan]

I wonder whether the Pope saw fit to comment on the ethnic cleansing of Christians from the middle east, which is nowhere more apparent than in Bethlehem itself, which was once majority Chistian, but most have got up and left. There is one Country in the middle east where the Christian population has actually increased fourfold since 1948, namely Israel. So much for the ethnic cleansing myth indeed the treatment of Arab Christians by Israel and Muslim Arabs of the surrounding states shows quite clearly where the lack of tolerance and willingness to coexist comes from.

[pkspeaker]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/05/papal-visit-sheds-light-christians-plight-2014523131622377448.html

The christians in bethlaham and jerusalem have got-up-and-left because israel's policies, not because islamic intolerance..

About 50,000 Palestinian Christians live in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. In Israel, their numbers are closer to 130,000.

"Jerusalem's Palestinian Christians were 30,000 before the establishment of Israel, while today they are only 8,000," said Yousef Daher of the Jerusalem Inter-Church Center. "It's not emigration [that's] the result of this lack of numbers. This is not the issue. The issue is driving Christians out, barring them from worship."

A recent poll showed that a vast majority of Palestinian Christians identified the "[israeli] occupation" as the greatest challenge to their community. Economic factors, the stalled peace process, and mushrooming Israeli settlements in the West Bank were also high on the list.

iIf they increased in israel proper that underscores the point. Again, if israel had just occupied the west bank for 30 or 40 years w/o creating this settler-mess then there would almost certainly be more christians still there..

the other places where christians are being driven out is iraq and syria which have ongoing civil wars, the baathest/secular dictatorship governments there protected them until the civil-wars broke out..

[Ulysses G.]

A much more balanced view of why some Christians are leaving. It is because of being stuck between two warring people's and the need for security due to Islamic terrorism, not because of Israel's policies towards them.

CBN News spoke with Bishop Twal, the leader of one Catholic church in Jerusalem, about Christians leaving Jerusalem. He said he believes the exodus is due to increased violence and conflict.

"It is not persecution. It is a consequence of a bad situation, of a conflict that pits Arabs and Israel face to face and we are between these two peoples," Twal said. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2010/May/More-and-More-Christians-Leaving-the-Holy-Land/

Edited May 28, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

An article on the Christian side of the visit, rather than the Israel-Palestine conflict angle. Interesting view of background and motivations not

entirely connected with the political mess:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/05/pope-francis-holy-land-trip-wasnt-about-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/371598/

Another interesting article, portraying the Lebanese Maronite Patriarch and his visit to Israel on this occasion. A good review of how Christian

leaders in the Middle East need to walk a fine line:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/a-cardinal-error-maronite-patriarch-of-antioch-to-meet-the-pope-in-israel-9432050.html

And lastly, an excerpt from the official website dedicated to the visit, which ought to make both the views in posts above satisfied (or not, as the case may be):

Christian Palestinians undergo the daily sufferings and humiliations, due to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since 1967 alongside their Muslim Palestinian compatriots. They suffer from all the economic, social, and psychological consequences of this injustice, and are often tempted to emigrate.

They also observe with anxiety the situation of Christian Arabs throughout the Middle East faced by an exclusivist Islamic movement that often refuses to recognize Christians as co-citizens with equal rights, equal obligations and equal opportunities.

http://popefrancisholyland2014.lpj.org/blog/2014/02/25/situation-of-christians-in-palestine/

Edited May 28, 2014 by Morch

[Jay Sata]

Israel has adopted the two state solution that existed in South Africa until the world boycotted them.

It is called apartheid.

With so called settlements everywhere in the West Bank and a separate road and infrastructure network there is no chance now of a two nation solution.

The pope had the courage to touch the apartheid wall in much the same way as he no doubt would have touched the Berlin Wall if it existed today.

[Morch]

Israel has adopted the two state solution that existed in South Africa until the world boycotted them.

It is called apartheid.

With so called settlements everywhere in the West Bank and a separate road and infrastructure network there is no chance now of a two nation solution.

The pope had the courage to touch the apartheid wall in much the same way as he no doubt would have touched the Berlin Wall if it existed today.

There are several formulations of the two state solution, not sure to which one you refer.

In essence, the 1948 partition was also a two state solution.

Under most versions, the Palestinian are not to become Israeli citizens, but have their own state.

As such they will not, in theory, be subjected to Israeli law - not quite sure what do you mean by "apartheid", then.

The wall itself does not (well, for the most part) separate Palestinians from Palestinians, but rather Palestinians from

Israelis. One could think about it as a future borderline (and yes, adjustments should and could probably be made).

While Arab citizens of Israel do face some discrimination, legally their have equal rights. This is nowhere near apartheid,

no matter how one wished to spin this.

The Israeli settlements and infrastructure in the West Bank are indeed a PITA, and many Israelis share this opinion.

It is quite certain that under any realistic future final agreement a host of them will be abandoned (as happened following

the peace treaty with Egypt and the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip). It is also quite certain that larger settlements (usually

nearer to Israel's border) will stay - probably following one form of another of land transfer.

The continuation of building and expansion of these settlements is irrational, undermines chances to reach an agreement,

and will end up as a huge bill if the situation ever does get solved.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Morch

[Jay Sata]

You say in theory they will not be subjected to Israeli law but of course that is a myth.

While Israel promotes the right for the diaspora to return the same is not allowed for millions of Palestinian refugees.

[Morch]

You say in theory they will not be subjected to Israeli law but of course that is a myth.

While Israel promotes the right for the diaspora to return the same is not allowed for millions of Palestinian refugees.

Well, the "in theory" bit was more in-line with there not being a final agreement. If the Palestinians will agree to a final

agreement subjecting them to Israeli law that would be a little silly of them, wouldn't it?

When I refer to "final agreement" that does not mean "same as the present situation" (which is obviously unsatisfactory

for both sides). It is acknowledged that finding an acceptable solution to this is not easy nor forthcoming.

If one wishes to decide it is a myth, then there isn't much point in trying to reach any agreement.

And then you hop to another issue, alright....

For starters, Israeli Jews who came from Arab/Muslim countries are not, generally, allowed to return. They are also denied

compensation or retrieval of property and possession lost.

There is no realistic formulation which deals with a full blown "right of return" for the Palestinian refugees. There is also not

much precedence for something of the sort. Allowing a partial "right of return" to whatever will constitute a Palestinian state

is quite conceivable, but that would place a heavy burden on a fledgling new country. Talking about a massive application of

"right of return" in regards to Israel is much more complicated - issues of nationality, properties which do not exist anymore,

and a shortage of land are all problematic issues. And besides, there is no feasible way for Israel to integrate such a mass

of hostile immigrants and maintaining itself as a country. Cannot offhand think of a precedent to this as well.

This is one area where compromises will have to be made on both sides, and probably a lot easier with outside support

(such as Arab/Muslim countries agreeing to grant citizenship to long term Palestinian refugees within their borders).

One cannot simply turn the clock back. Things doesn't work this way in real life.

[Jay Sata]

Israel will not permit outside help hence no UN peacekeeping force.

In the case of South Africa is was financial sanctions ,an economic boycott and a realisation that things would have to change that resolved the problem.

There are many moderate people in Israel who do not support the right wing philosophy.