07-23-2003, 11:04 AM
"What do you think are Israel´s ends, other than protecting its citizens ?"
It is impossible to provide a complete list of ends for a complex entity. What are the ends of Israeli peaceniks? Mostly to stop the killing. What are Ariel Sharon's ends? To provide a peace by the end of his life without compromising his legacy as a defender of Israel. What were the original aims of Israel? To provide a safe homeland for Jews. What are the aims of the "Greater Israel" movement? To control the entirety of the (vaguely defined) Israel of yore, and to establish unquestioned Jewish hegemony. What are the aims of the US, vis a vis Israel? To protect an invaluable ally in the unstable middle east, it being assumed that such a friend would have to be armed to the teeth.
What, of these, dictates Israeli policy? All of them, at most times. Are they wildly contradictory? You betcha. Same with most states, but with Israel, they walk a much finer line, with much more serious concequences.
What are important are the results.
Nations are not permitted, by international law established by the UN, to obtain territory through war. That the occupying power was not the aggressor in the war does not alter this concept, nor effect its underlying reasons. Strategic value of the territory involved does not alter this concept (see: Alsace and Lorraine).
Certainly you have provided a valid reason for the colonization of the Golan Heights. I concede the point. Two points remain, however. First, regardless of how good an idea it is from a tactical standpoint, it remains illegitimate. Second, this tactic is far from restricted to that area. At what point does it cease being strategy, and start being merely provocation?
There was a time when Israel could have stopped it, or at least seized the ethical high ground. Had they decided against a "Greater Israel" policy in the aftermath of '73, things would be different. Either some equitable peace would have emerged, or it would be clearly on the heads of the surrounding Arab countries, with no particularily good arguments to the contrary. The UN certainly wouldn't hold the position they do today. A little magnanimity goes a very long way. The aftermath of WWII shows this, and WWI shows by contrary example. So long as "they hit us first" is sufficent excuse for the expansion of Israel, this is never going to stop until one side drops dead.
As you say, I too pray that Palestine never gets the tools to fulfill that prophecy.
Jester
It is impossible to provide a complete list of ends for a complex entity. What are the ends of Israeli peaceniks? Mostly to stop the killing. What are Ariel Sharon's ends? To provide a peace by the end of his life without compromising his legacy as a defender of Israel. What were the original aims of Israel? To provide a safe homeland for Jews. What are the aims of the "Greater Israel" movement? To control the entirety of the (vaguely defined) Israel of yore, and to establish unquestioned Jewish hegemony. What are the aims of the US, vis a vis Israel? To protect an invaluable ally in the unstable middle east, it being assumed that such a friend would have to be armed to the teeth.
What, of these, dictates Israeli policy? All of them, at most times. Are they wildly contradictory? You betcha. Same with most states, but with Israel, they walk a much finer line, with much more serious concequences.
What are important are the results.
Nations are not permitted, by international law established by the UN, to obtain territory through war. That the occupying power was not the aggressor in the war does not alter this concept, nor effect its underlying reasons. Strategic value of the territory involved does not alter this concept (see: Alsace and Lorraine).
Certainly you have provided a valid reason for the colonization of the Golan Heights. I concede the point. Two points remain, however. First, regardless of how good an idea it is from a tactical standpoint, it remains illegitimate. Second, this tactic is far from restricted to that area. At what point does it cease being strategy, and start being merely provocation?
There was a time when Israel could have stopped it, or at least seized the ethical high ground. Had they decided against a "Greater Israel" policy in the aftermath of '73, things would be different. Either some equitable peace would have emerged, or it would be clearly on the heads of the surrounding Arab countries, with no particularily good arguments to the contrary. The UN certainly wouldn't hold the position they do today. A little magnanimity goes a very long way. The aftermath of WWII shows this, and WWI shows by contrary example. So long as "they hit us first" is sufficent excuse for the expansion of Israel, this is never going to stop until one side drops dead.
As you say, I too pray that Palestine never gets the tools to fulfill that prophecy.
Jester