What I meant is what it doesn't matter if he didn't convince the rest of the Arab world (indeed, so what?). With Egypt out of the picture, no Arab state would enter military conflict with Israel. They obviously weren't interested, given that they refused to seriously bother with Sadat's proposals. Do you really think Israel have a damn if Sadat showed his lovely face to them or not? I didn't find anything of the sort to prove so. All I read is about how the US constantly tried to pressure Israel to get serious in the talks until America finally gave up. . No, you simply made a dumb interpretation of my observation. Hafez Al Assad was extremely close to making peace with Israel, but I am sure he wasn't telling his citizens how lovely peace would be with the Jewish State! Well, duh, who else would supply Egypt with arms? Both America and Israel were surprised that "the Egyptian president would give up a such a powerful bargaining chip without receiving any compensation from the US..." http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...=the Egyptian president would give up&f=false You most likely didn't know this, but Sadat had another reason besides closer ties to the US when he kicked he Soviets out: he didn't want their interference when going to war with a Israel if diplomacy failed: It is clearly you who has a simplistic view of the Soviet expulsion. Absolute crap. America had to come in and save Israel's butt. Some Zionists just find it difficult to give credit where credits due. You know, like when Hezbollah whooped Israel's ass in 2006. I could only imagine how you you were feeling at the time. Miscalculation? LOL. War was his only choice. Diplomacy was getting him no where, and if he could make Israel realise it's vulnerability, he would emerge successful, and he did. Israel knew it could not maintain the status quo. This is simply history. Not according to its charter. Why should I care what some colonial power and some Russian Jews thought on the matter? Only the naive Westerner thinks that the Arabs were literally going to push the Jews into the sea, so you can take your moral outrage elsewhere.
Of course it mattered. If he had convinced the rest of the Arab world, there would have been peace decades ago. as seriously as Sadat, who didn't bother to treat their reply to Jarring seriously. Or did you completely miss that small point? Yes, I think they gave a serious damn that Sadat refused to meet face to face. You should read some more. The US tried to pressure Israel into making pre negotiation concessions they were not prepared to make. And the US gave up, because it had achieved its goal of reducing the influence of the USSR in egypt. Are you referring to the talks in the 90"s that failed? He wasan't extremely close to making peace. He was scared ape poopy because his deal with the soviets went south the the collapse of the USSR. You really shouldn't try to re-write history like that. Who's supplying them now? Both America and Israel were surprised that "the Egyptian president would give up a such a powerful bargaining chip without receiving any compensation from the US..." http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=... Egyptian president%2 0would give up&f=false You most likely didn't know this, but Sadat had another reason besides closer ties to the US when he kicked he Soviets out: he didn't want their interference when going to war with a Israel if diplomacy failed: [/quote] So, what you are saying is that Sadat already planned to go to war with Israel when he booted out the regular soldiers? Even tho there were still 20,000 soviet military advisers in country and he was serious about peace? Perhaps you should make up your mind before offering up contradictory interpretations of a history you are only vaguely familiar with. And you might actually want to read that book you linked to. Especially the part about the collapse of the rogers plan. Egypt and Israel were merely pawns in the bigger game being played out. A fact you apparently cannot quite grasp. clear as mud it seems. What a student of non-history you appear to be. The US resupplied Israel, but before it had any effect, the war was over. It seems those soviets made it clear that they were going to intervene since the IDF was 40 km from damascus and roughly the same distance from Cairo on the western side of the canal. IOW, if the USSR hadn't intervened, Egypt and Syria would have fallen although there was no way Israel could actually occupy those regions for long. Big egyptian/syrian victory, wot? NOt sure what you mean by giving credit where it is due. As to the Lebanese debacle, I was rather surprised at the idiotic tactics the IDF used, thinking that they could simply over power dug in defences around narrow passages thru the terrain. I was also rather surprised at the excellent strategy utilized by Hezbollah as I didn't think they had it in them. Rest assured, the IDF learned some very very valuable lessons in that clustermuck. They don't usually make the same mistake twice. Wow, What a marvellous interpretation of a complete military failure. Almost as tho you think he expected to lose to "scare" the Israelis into peace. Israel could have maintained the status quo as the settlements in the Sinai and their military dominance suggests. no its a loser's attempt to turn their humiliating defeat into a glorious victory. [VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=dhRUe-gz690#t=167[/VIDEO Wrong again. The UN was following its "charter" when it issued 181 and 242. According to the UN, part of palestine was for the jews. Now that is truly hilarious, but then again, I don't expect you to actually understand why its so funny. Oh really? so I guess when arab leaders say anything to their people, their enemies and to the world we are to simply ignore their words and look deep into their hearts to find their true meaning. From everything I've read about the civil war and the follow on Al-Nakba, it was pretty damn evident that that is PRECISELY what the united arab armies intended. But since they failed so miserably, I am not surprised that people like you would attempt to dismiss such wild arsed claims as nothing more than kidding.
Right, because the Arabs are such a cohesive group that really care about each other. Either way, Sadat was a president who cared more about Egypt's own national interests than that of the perceived Arab brotherhood. Except that Sadat repeatedly advanced proposals. Israel wanted the status quo. This is all documented history, so there is no point in being in denial. Unsubstantiated nonsense; the US stopped bothering because 1) the government believed at the time that a strong Israel would deter war, 2) the Nixon administration had more important things to worry about (like reelection, and Nixon certainly didn't want to upset the Zionist lobby): http://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/arab-israeli-war-1973 Where do you get this crap from? Syria and Israel were indeed close to peace; disagreement over a few kilometres of land was what (mainly) broke down the talks. So, again, was Assad exclaiming to his people how great Israel is while he was conducting there peace talks? http://bakerinstitute.org/media/files/Research/ac6ea642/wp_israelsyria.pdf Are you seriously comparing now to 1973? No, this is just your silly interpretation of what I said (and backed up). He shot two birds with one stone: closer ties with thus US (thus more pressure on Israel), and the ability to attack Israel by surprise if diplomacy failed: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...=Ezer Weizman remarked in his memoirs&f=false Please, enlighten us. I'll concede I was exaggerating. Nevertheless, the situation was for Israel wasn't so great, given that they had to call on help from America. My whole point is that Israel didn't win as it did in '48 and '67. Could have? Possibly, but why would they have wanted to be in that situation? As to "scaring them into peace," no, just making them realise that the diplomatic route is better for them than maintaining the status quo. So says Jonsa, who has yet to substantiate anything he has claimed so far. It's not funny at all. What European Jews thought about Palestine is totally inconsequential. It wasn't their land. Welcome to the world of politics, where the real things are said behind closed doors. And you are mistaken to believe that an American will get the same message an Arab gets when a message is given to with in Arabic. It has nothing to do with "kidding." Educate yourself on the cultural influence language can have on a society: http://www.american.edu/soc/faculty/upload/understanding-cultural-preferences-on-arab.pdf
They are exactly the ones you see on the map, besides Golan Heights. Yes, the UN allowed Israel to assume Palestine's borders as its own, since they were a stable democratic nation. The Palestine government was dissolved. There are no cease fire lines anymore. Palestine is an autonomous state of Israel. Not an independent country. Unlike the line of control and the DMZ, the UN clearly defined what belongs to who. They are everything that you would see in a map, with the exclusion of Golan Heights, which belongs to Syria. Its not an annexation. Israel owns Palestine. After the first Jihad against Israel, the nation met with several terrorist leaders, and wrote a law that allowed the Palestine congress have semi autonomy status. In actuality, this situation would be more like Michigan annexing Wisconsin. Not Russia annexing Ukraine. Do you know what I mean? The whole argument that Israel is illegally colonizing is false. Citizens should not be restricted from going places within their own nation. Israel did a bad job giving Palestine autonomy. The federal government has nearly no control over laws Palestine makes, even though the territory is within its nation. Israels borders are not disputed. They are clearly set by the UN. The whole argument that Israel is invading Palestine is fallacious. Its in there own nation. - - - Updated - - - They are exactly the ones you see on the map, besides Golan Heights. Yes, the UN allowed Israel to assume Palestine's borders as its own, since they were a stable democratic nation. The Palestine government was dissolved. There are no cease fire lines anymore. Palestine is an autonomous state of Israel. Not an independent country. Unlike the line of control and the DMZ, the UN clearly defined what belongs to who. They are everything that you would see in a map, with the exclusion of Golan Heights, which belongs to Syria. Its not an annexation. Israel owns Palestine. After the first Jihad against Israel, the nation met with several terrorist leaders, and wrote a law that allowed the Palestine congress have semi autonomy status. In actuality, this situation would be more like Michigan annexing Wisconsin. Not Russia annexing Ukraine. Do you know what I mean? The whole argument that Israel is illegally colonizing is false. Citizens should not be restricted from going places within their own nation. Israel did a bad job giving Palestine autonomy. The federal government has nearly no control over laws Palestine makes, even though the territory is within its nation. Israels borders are not disputed. They are clearly set by the UN. The whole argument that Israel is invading Palestine is fallacious. Its in there own nation.
Look up panarabism. He was a disciple of Nassar and tried to hold the UAR together. And yet he didn't repeately advance proposals. He answered the jarring letter with noted preconditions to any peace negotiations. He tried to get the US to pressure Israel by threatening to go to war but maintained unacceptable pre-conditions to the negotiations like a DMZ and "peacekeepers" along the border. Seems he totally forgot his nation's history with "peacekeepers". In the interim he repeatedly told his people and his fellow arabs that expelling the Israelis and liberating the palestinians were his overarching priorities. Ending the war of attrition with honour and victory was a favority theme of his. And that is actual history. No, it was all in the your last reference, which apparently you didn't read. The US knew all along that the IDF was better equipped, trained and motivated than any of the surrounding arab armies - this was not news, nor had the US actually done much at that point to ensure it. I am aware of Nixon's re-election concerns at the time. Like I have said repeatedly, The egyptian/Israeli situation was merely one small gaming region for the US and Soviets fighting a much different kind of global war. Both the arabs and the Israelis were mere pawns in that game. Oh so I was correct. You jumped ahead to the 90's, when we were discussing the 70's. Assad was not running around telling his people how great the Israelis were. The talks broke down because NEITHER side was willing to make the necessary final concessions. Imagine the Israelis not really trusting a fascist dictator like Assad. You asked a dumb question which I answered with a question, that apparently flew completely over your head. Never mind. He didn't have closer ties with the US. He still had over 20,000 soviet advisors (like US advisors in VietNam - a common cold war tactic). The US wasn't falling for such a move as your first book link detailed, but you obviously didn't read http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TAlXAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=the%20Egyptian%20president%20would%20give%20up&f=false pages 141 to 204. Enlighten yourself. they won even more decisively than they ever had before. Their call for help was for resupply which as I stated arrived at the end of the shooting. Sure it allowed the IDF to not hold back on ammo (iirc they only had a couple days supply left) but that was it. I don't think they wanted to maintain the status quo, but they were prepared to do so if their demands for peace were not met. You claimed they couldn't have maintained the status quo, and yet they totally trounced both the Egyptian and Syrian armies rendering them a non-threat in the short to medium term. Huh? how in the world do you arrive at that? It made THE EGYPTIANS realize that the diplomatic route was the only route to regaining their lost lands. You might recall that it wasn't until 1974 that the last Israelis left the west bank of the canal. So says me? That you attempt to hold on to the fiction that the arabs were thoroughly trounced in 73 despite their excellent surprise attack and the presence of formidable soviet anti-tank defences, is hilarious. 40 Km from Damascus, 40 Km from Cairo on the western bank of the canal, and you want some link to prove this well known historical fact? I doubt the arabs could have sustained another such glorious victory. truly hilarious actually. A clumsy and rather clownish dismissal. According to the UN, the British Mandate authority, the the Americans and the Russians, they all thought that the jews owned a piece of palestine. Ironic how you can dismiss stuff you don't like or don't want to think about, but history doesn't work like that. If it wasn't for the rest of the world determining that the jews should have a homeland, there would be nothing to discuss, now would there? Oh my, thanks for the chuckle. So what you are attempting to demonstrate is that when an arab leader says he is committed to liberation of all of historic palestine, he actually doesn't necessarily mean it. A rather pathetic attempt at justifying his rhetoric. You should read your reference more carefully. Particularly the part about arabic's "emotional responses", "role of context", and "absence of detail". It seems this paper merely reinforces my point about his rhetoric and the fashion in which his listeners would interpret his words. Anyway, many thanks for this reference. I found it informative. If Luntz spoke arabic, he would be the king maker in the middle east.
Disciple of Nasser?! Do you have anything to support this nonsense? http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...a=X&ei=4ciDU4C3E4qWqAb1pIHwDw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAQ BS; have you not read about the Ismail proposals (Sadat's last attempt for diplomacy before the war)? Israel rejected them completely and didn't bother to join the conversation; Israel simply did not want to give the Sinai back; http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...d to uphold its diplomatic principals&f=false Never said it was "news." That the IDF was far stronger than the Arabs is why the US government felt (albeit for a while) that the status quo can be maintained. Yet he was engaged in peace talks with Israel. How is what I asked a dumb question? Only in your warped reality; http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...=In light of Kissinger's explanations&f=false Advance to chapter 12 so you can see the error of your thinking. Once again; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#Response_in_Israel Demands like not letting go of the Sinai any time soon, right? You're not getting it. The status quo fell apart as soon as Egypt crossed the Canal. The war was a psychological blow to Israel- it wasn't invincible anymore. It could no longer be certain that the Arabs can't do it any harm. This is basic political history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and I don't see how you can subscribe to the simplistic pro-Zio interpretation of what took place; Of course, I'm not denying that, and neither did Sadat think that war was the only route to regain the land. But as I said, since diplomacy was going no where, war was his only choice. Do you really believe he went in thinking he may actually defeat Israel? I already said it was a political success, and a military failure. You just seem to want to focus on how they lost military. They did, we get it. Do you have anything else to offer besides kindergarten-level ridicule? Again, why should I care what the British or UN thought? Founding a Jewish state in Palestine went against the UN charter (as I showed above), and yet you expect me to give a damn about the UN's rulings. You mean the Western world, which killed millions of Jews and wouldn't even allow Jews to settle in their land (America turned back a ship-load of Jews escaping the Holocost, for example). So the hypocritical West can go (*)(*)(*)(*) itself.
Yes, once again not what he says, but what a couple of writers thought he was thinking. Maybe you should read his speeches. Oh sorry I forgot, diplomacy is conducted behind closed doors so what he says in public is irrelevant. Sorry, but for some reason you seem to think that the egyptian offer of "peace" where the pre-condition was withdrawal to the armistice lines of 48, Egypt agreeing with whatever Jordan and the WB palestinians agreed to vis a vis borders, and allowing gaza self determination, was reasonable, when Israel, as victor held all the cards. And for all of that, Sadat was willing to offer "security guarantees". Some peace deal that. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...d to uphold its diplomatic principals&f=false [/quote]Never said it was "news." That the IDF was far stronger than the Arabs is why the US government felt (albeit for a while) that the status quo can be maintained. [/quote] The only people on the planet that didn't think the status quo could be maintained were the arabs. Even AFTER the yom kippur war it took 6 years to strike a deal. that was six more years of the new status quo. Hell it took the Israelis 5 or 6 months to leave the western bank of the canal. in the 90's and he couldn't strike a deal either, even if he did get some of his territory back. the dumb question was who else was going to supply Egypt with weapons. I can think of any number of nations who would have jumped at the chance. Including France, Britain, Germany, US, the Czechs, to name but a few. I guess my warped reality is the one we all live in then. http://russiapedia.rt.com/on-this-day/july-18/ [quote[Advance to chapter 12 so you can see the error of your thinking.[/quote] It appears you didn't read chapter 12 either. Its pretty clear in that chapter that the Egyptian offer was not all that serious, since it was totally predicated on Israel returning to the green line. I suggest you read pages 210 to 212, instead of just the chapter title. The Egyptians lost the 67 war, lost the war of attrition and then they lost the yom kippur war. Resounding defeats that ultimately forced them to the peace table. You can't seriously be suggesting that anger with the political and military leadership over getting caught with their pants down in the early stage of the war translates into some kind of defeat or victory for Egypt and Syria? Isn't it funny, in Israel it was not enough to win they were pissed the arabs were able to spring a suprise attack. In Egypt, they were perfectly happy to consider landing a punch in the nose a glorious victory despite them being able to see the Israeli tanks from the top of the pyramids. wrong. that was the status quo. What they were looking for was a substantial quid pro quo to return the sinai that went far beyond vague "security guarantees". You've already said what Sadat says in public and to his people is not to be taken to seriously, so why should the Israelis take him at his word when it comes to the security of Israel. You do know your way around an unrealistic expectation. Yes the status quo was shattered. What part of Israel tanks 40KM from Cairo on the western bank of the canal and the egyptian third army completely surrounded in sinai did you not understand. The status quo was returned to such within days. I doubt you'll find ANY military commander who would think that no harm could come to them or their men or their nation in a shooting war. NONE. It sure as hell wasn't a failure of the military to defend Israel, it was the shock of the arabs mounting a surprise attack. And don't you know all kinds of changes were made after that little debacle. Are you suggesting he went to war knowing he was going to LOSE? Seriously with all that Soviet hardware including devasting anti-tank weapons and all those soviet advisors training his army? That is without doubt one of the greatest slurs you could throw at him or any other national leader. wow. (The sole exception being the Count Rupert MountJoy, Prime minister of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.) A political success? You mean Sadat was able to twist this crushing defeat into a black knight victory at home? The Syrians weren't too pleased with him and neither were the Jordanians. Yep he then had to go cap in hand to Israel and deal directly to get back his land. Glorious political victory - NOT.
Jonsa, Goomba, et al, While our friend "Jonsa" treads heavily, at the end of the day - he speaks the truth. This is the BLUF: (COMMENT) It is what it is. The Arab Palestinian either accepts it or not. It is unlikely that the Jihadist Movement and the Arm Struggle pledged by the Fedayeen are likely to change it. The continuation of the conflict will not benefit the Palestinian. Either the Palestinian seek an early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice; or the status quo remains. It is up to them. There is no special dispensation granted the Palestinians to pursue Jihad and armed struggle no matter what the cause. Most Respectfully, R
Short of the above (Rocco's) a short civil war will be generated and the Arabs will be overwhelmed in a day or two and their burning desire for a "Faux State" will dissipate in thin air... The more they lie, the more they think they are right to confront an independent Israel who will be determined for obvious reasons of survival, use BRUTE FORCE to solve the continuous false Arab desiderata.
Like the Arab world trying to play a 'FAST ONE' on the naive, uneducated throng, here we have the typical echo trumpeted by one who knows, yet, he plays the other side of the fence. There was 'NO PALESTINE STATE' per se... Palestine was the assigned name given to southern Syria... The British Mandate unfortunately used this terminology in Naming the 'Palestine Mandate.... I am still bewildered, why they did not mention the 'Iraq Mandate' when they called it the 'MESOPOTAMIAN MANDATE'... What the Mandate had in mind and everyone knows about this, is in the preamble of the Mandate for Palestine, I quote: LONDON: PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTYS STATIONERY OFFICE The Council of the League of Nations: Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and so forth and so on.
