Subject:
|
Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:46:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
654 times
|
| |
|
|
> > What is apparent to me is that they want territories that Israel stole in the
> > 60s back and they aren't willing to compromise on it. Maybe they should and
> > maybe not. How compromising would you be if I took something of yours a while
> > back?
>
> well, I can see why Israel _had_ to take those territories in '67 - it comes
> down to the "defensible borders" thing...
I think this is false, can you justify it?
Let's just look at one front. The claimed issue for engaging Syria was that
Israeli farmers were being harassed by the Syrians - they (the farmers) made
a presentation to the Israeli cabinet which reportedly concluded the issue.
Mosh Dayan’s (MoD at the time) record of events when asked about this:
"I can tell you with absolute confidence, the delegation that came to
persuade Eshkol to take the heights was not thinking of these things. They
were thinking about the heights' land."
...and later:
"it's possible to talk in terms of' the Syrians are b*stards, you have to
get them and this is the right time, and other such talk, but that is no
policy. You don't strike at every enemy because he is a b*stard but because
he threatens you. And the Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a
threat to us."
So, can you justify your view Dan – or is it yet more pro-Israeli propaganda?
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Barak offer Arafat in one of the "agreements" a palestinian state in the west bank and gaza, including a capital in east Jerusalem? and was turned down, because Arafat wanted more? (...) well, I can see why (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
