Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Wednesday, 23 February 2011

Will Israel act like Mubarak, or like Gadaffi?

An excellent piece by MJ Rosenberg on Al-Jazeera analyses why the territories occupied by Israel will take their turn in the Arab Revolt. Now I always have to insert a caveat here; I defend absolutely and without reservation Israel's right to enjoy peace and security within her pre-1967 borders, but her attempt to hold onto East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the West Bank has always seemed suicidal to me, as well as indefensible. 

The question as to how Israel will relinquish the occupied territories and withdraw back into legal Israel is one that will dominate the media in days and weeks to come; will they be like Mubarak, bow to the inevitable and go with grace? Or will they, like Gadaffi, release the powers of Hell on the unarmed Palestinians?

Time will tell. 


Anonymous said...

Let the Arabs revolt. The Israelis will never relinquish what that now have simply because experience since 1948 tells them that they cannot trust any Arab leadership to honour their promises. They tried "land for peace" a couple of years ago but the Arabs showed their bad faith within hours of the settlers' departure. Until Hamas and Hizbollah no longer exist I suspect the status quo will remain.

Curmudgeon said...

What unarmed Palestinians?

BashTheMsm said...

there are very good strategic reasons for holding onto the occupied territories. pre-67 borders are indefensible. the narrowest point between samaria and the sea would be less than 15km, and most israeli cities would be within artillery range. the original UN partition really looks like a bad joke.

Anonymous said...

This will be the outcome.
It will be war.

English Pensioner said...

Syria, Jordan and Egypt declared war on Israel, and Israel captured some of their territories during that war before a ceasefire was reached.
Since Nations began, it has be the practice of the victor to keep the spoils of war, and this is particularly justified in this case where Israel was not the aggressor.
In due course, Israel reached a peace agreement with Egypt, and returned the Sinai desert, but no agreement has been reached with the other parties.
I have no trouble with their position, nor I suspect would anyone else were not that the contestants are Arabs and Jews. Anywhere else in the world, say South America, or the Far East, and no one would object to the victor doing what Israel has done.

Anonymous said...

Are you totally naive? What sort of additional cargo do you think the Iranian warships are carrying?
In addition to the extra troops for Assad?

Anonymous said...

Ho hum. Libya is apparently strafing civilians from fighter jets while Iran sends warships to Syria and Bahrain machine-guns people in the strets, and your concern is the hypothetical reaction that Israel will engage in at a future stage.

bwims said...

I haven't researched it, but I assume Israel is holding lands that it took because people there attacked it.

My question is: how many generations do you need to hold land before it becomes yours legally? The UK had held Gibraltar longer than the USA has been in existence, but Spain wants it back.

That country was born by force of arms (and let's not forget the original aboriginal inhabitants, etc.), and increased its holdings by annexation, viz Hawaii.

Will the USA return to British Dominion? Or turn it over to the Native Americans?

So, can anyone out there tell me, how long before occupied lands stay occupied?

Raedwald said...

Of course the inhabitants of Gibraltar and the Falklands want overwhelmingly to remain British, whereas I can't quite hear the same clamour from the West bank Palestinians to become Israelis.

And if holding onto stuff you've conquered by force or arms is OK, please tell me why we fought the first Iraq war?

Anonymous said...

Being unarmed is of course a lot easier if you are armed with long range surface-to-surface missiles (and you are happy to lob them into a large populated area without worrying about messy issues like targeting)

Don Cox said...

"And if holding onto stuff you've conquered by force or arms is OK, please tell me why we fought the first Iraq war?"

Holding onto territory you have gained is OK only if the other side started the war. In the case of the West Bank, the Arabs attacked.

If Kuwait had fought back and won, it would be entitled to keep any part of Iraq that it gained from the attacker.