3 ms·

> I don't think it's very hotly debated at all. There seems to be a consensus that whether they were right to be so concerned or not, Israel's motives in preemp

> I don't think it's very hotly debated at all. There seems to be a consensus that whether they were right to be so concerned or not, Israel's motives in preempting Egypt were about security, not territorial expansion. The issue is actually hotly debated. To this day, former Egyptian generals say that they only placed a force in the Sinai in order to discourage the Israelis from attacking Syria, which the Egyptians thought the Israelis were doing. Additionally, the Israeli government itself does not seem to have viewed Egyptian forces in the Sinai as a serious threat. The Israelis planned and trained for their air operation against Egypt long in advance, which means they were considering a first strike for a long time. At the very least, the simple story the Israelis like to tell ("We were attacked and defended ourselves") does not hold water. > But the history here is complicated and it's important to get it right. The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is not really that complicated. Fundamentally, Israel wants to keep East Jerusalem, the West Bank and, to a lesser extent, Gaza. As long as Israelis think they can hold onto those territories at an acceptable price, they will. The US, by giving Israel unconditional backing, has abetted the occupation.

tptacek 3y ago
In response to false Soviet intelligence reports that claimed Israel had mobilized on the Syrian border, Egypt and Syria mobilized on the Israeli border. Egypt blockaded the Strait of Tiran. They overflew the Israeli nuclear weapons facilities at Dimona. They expelled the UNEF from Sinai --- troops whose presence had been established by the UN in large part to assure Israel that Egypt wasn't going to attack. And, of course, as we now know, Egypt had an actual plan to invade, with the intent of eradicating Israel; it's disputed whether Nasser knew about it or how serious that planning was, but it's not disputed that it existed --- it created a diplomatic incident between the US and the Soviet Union. It's very difficult to make an argument that Israel wasn't threatened, existentially, or that its actions were motivated by anything other than self-defense. The whole crisis was a shitshow of poor intelligence and bad faith (Israel's hands weren't clean either; some of the escalation, and Jordan's involvement in the conflict, probably stemmed from the Samu raid). But Israel hit Egypt because Egypt made war inevitable. I don't think West Bank and Gaza occupation is all that complicated. We probably agree about it. Palestinians should have sovereignty and self-determination in those territories. Israeli West Bank settlements should be dismantled. But that's obviously not all people are talking about when they talk about the "occupation". We're on a thread about the "from the river to the sea". The motte is the West Bank. The bailey is Tel Aviv.
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  > It's very difficult to make an argument that Israel wasn't threatened, existentially, or that its actions were motivated by anything other than self-defense. I don't think it's difficult at all. The force that Egypt moved into the Sinai peninsula was far too small to invade Israel, and in internal Israeli government discussions, they don't seem to have viewed Egypt as an imminent military threat. > The motte is the West Bank. The bailey is Tel Aviv. The problem is that the mainstream view in Israel is "from the river to the sea" (the Israeli version, of course), and that that's the de facto reality on the ground. Most of the people chanting "from the river to the sea" want a one-state solution with equal democratic rights for Arabs and Jews.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - JamesBarney 3y ago
    I'm not aware of anyone who is familiar with the situation who think that a 1 state solution is viable. If you can point to any essays or blog posts where someone lays out, how you get the Israelis to agree with it and how you keep the 1 state from devolving into a brutal civil war I'd love to read it. The 1 state solution turns a Palestinian self determination and Israeli security issues into an existential issue for both sides. This raises the stakes considerably. I can't see it ending in anything but 100's of thousands of dead and a complete meltdown of the middle east.
    - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
      Most people familiar with the situation recognize that a two-state solution is no longer viable, if it ever even was in the first place. Israeli settlement of the West Bank and East Jerusalem have made it impossible to create a viable Palestinian state, and there is very little political will in Israel to enact a two-state solution. The one-state solution has already been implemented by the Israeli government. There is one state that rules everything between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea. It's called Israel. Israel has ruled that territory for 56 years, which is most of Israel's existence. There is no indication that Israel will give up that territory in the foreseeable future. The only realistic question now is whether the one state that exists will become a full democracy, or whether it will continue to disenfranchise 40% of its population. Continuing to pay empty lip service to the two-state solution 20 years after the "peace process" died is just useless. As for how to get the Israelis to agree to finally enfranchise the Palestinians, I think that will take external pressure. Israel has been able to maintain the status quo so long because it has unconditional American backing. If that backing is removed, Israel will be in a very different and much more difficult situation.

tptacek 3y ago

In response to false Soviet intelligence reports that claimed Israel had mobilized on the Syrian border, Egypt and Syria mobilized on the Israeli border. Egypt blockaded the Strait of Tiran. They overflew the Israeli nuclear weapons facilities at Dimona. They expelled the UNEF from Sinai --- troops whose presence had been established by the UN in large part to assure Israel that Egypt wasn't going to attack. And, of course, as we now know, Egypt had an actual plan to invade, with the intent of eradicating Israel; it's disputed whether Nasser knew about it or how serious that planning was, but it's not disputed that it existed --- it created a diplomatic incident between the US and the Soviet Union. It's very difficult to make an argument that Israel wasn't threatened, existentially, or that its actions were motivated by anything other than self-defense. The whole crisis was a shitshow of poor intelligence and bad faith (Israel's hands weren't clean either; some of the escalation, and Jordan's involvement in the conflict, probably stemmed from the Samu raid). But Israel hit Egypt because Egypt made war inevitable. I don't think West Bank and Gaza occupation is all that complicated. We probably agree about it. Palestinians should have sovereignty and self-determination in those territories. Israeli West Bank settlements should be dismantled. But that's obviously not all people are talking about when they talk about the "occupation". We're on a thread about the "from the river to the sea". The motte is the West Bank. The bailey is Tel Aviv.

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
> It's very difficult to make an argument that Israel wasn't threatened, existentially, or that its actions were motivated by anything other than self-defense. I don't think it's difficult at all. The force that Egypt moved into the Sinai peninsula was far too small to invade Israel, and in internal Israeli government discussions, they don't seem to have viewed Egypt as an imminent military threat. > The motte is the West Bank. The bailey is Tel Aviv. The problem is that the mainstream view in Israel is "from the river to the sea" (the Israeli version, of course), and that that's the de facto reality on the ground. Most of the people chanting "from the river to the sea" want a one-state solution with equal democratic rights for Arabs and Jews.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- JamesBarney 3y ago
  I'm not aware of anyone who is familiar with the situation who think that a 1 state solution is viable. If you can point to any essays or blog posts where someone lays out, how you get the Israelis to agree with it and how you keep the 1 state from devolving into a brutal civil war I'd love to read it. The 1 state solution turns a Palestinian self determination and Israeli security issues into an existential issue for both sides. This raises the stakes considerably. I can't see it ending in anything but 100's of thousands of dead and a complete meltdown of the middle east.
  - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
    Most people familiar with the situation recognize that a two-state solution is no longer viable, if it ever even was in the first place. Israeli settlement of the West Bank and East Jerusalem have made it impossible to create a viable Palestinian state, and there is very little political will in Israel to enact a two-state solution. The one-state solution has already been implemented by the Israeli government. There is one state that rules everything between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea. It's called Israel. Israel has ruled that territory for 56 years, which is most of Israel's existence. There is no indication that Israel will give up that territory in the foreseeable future. The only realistic question now is whether the one state that exists will become a full democracy, or whether it will continue to disenfranchise 40% of its population. Continuing to pay empty lip service to the two-state solution 20 years after the "peace process" died is just useless. As for how to get the Israelis to agree to finally enfranchise the Palestinians, I think that will take external pressure. Israel has been able to maintain the status quo so long because it has unconditional American backing. If that backing is removed, Israel will be in a very different and much more difficult situation.