The interview with historian Benny Morris that appears in today’s Foreign Policy website raises interesting questions. Morris, as interviewer Evan R. Goldstein points out, was once a hero of the academic Left, and a leading advocate of the rights of Palestinians. But reality has over the years forced Morris to reconsider much of his early assumptions.
Now, he has, like the majority of his countrymen, become “more cynical about the prospects for a two-state solution.” He makes a basic argument: “The Palestinian national movement has never … reconciled itself to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.” Once a supporter of the Oslo Accords, Morris has become what Goldstein calls an “embittered pessimist.” Like the shattered Israeli Left and once strong peace movement, Israelis know that they are not on the verge of peace, and that given Palestinian and Arab attitudes, the conflict may not be resolvable.
Every new American presidential administration, including that of Barack Obama, starts with the assumption that they are positioned as no one before has been to restart the “peace process.” The policy makers in the Obama administration think that given a new attitude and favorable response in the world to Obama’s charismatic personality, that he will succeed where others have failed.
If so, President Obama is poised to learn a tough lesson. He could save himself a great deal of trouble and useless “negotiating” by listening to Morris, and trying to come up with other solutions than another round of meaningless peace negotiations. It took the events of 2000 to shatter Morris’s own illusions. Not only did Arafat reject the offers of Barak and Clinton, but, says Morris, “they launched a terroristic and guerrilla war …suggesting that they are not just after the territories but want to drive the Jews out of Palestine.” Israel later unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005- though of course the Palestinians still call it “occupied Gaza,”-and the Palestinian response to Israel’s withdrawal “turned it into a base for rocket attacks.” Morris, who once went to prison for refusing to serve as a reservist in the occupied territories, now holds that the Palestinian’s irredentism is not going to disappear.
The proof is in the pudding. Israel agrees with Morris. The left-wing parties barely exist, and the center-right has won every Israeli election since 2001. Morris argues that the Palestinians believe the Jews have no legitimate right to be in Palestine and that they never did. The problem is the same one that existed in 1947 and 1948, when the Zionist movement accepted partition. Only they did. The Arab states then, and the Palestinian leadership now, do not. As Morris says: “Jewish Israeli society and Palestinian Arab societ are in a different place in terms of history, culture, and values.” Morris cites Muslim terrorism, the Muslim attitude towards women, and the long history of violence and hatred. That means, he sorrowfully concludes, that “it is inconceivable that a society of Jews and Arabs could function right now as one state in Palestine.” Morris has one potential solution: attaching the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan- already a majority Palestinian area- and making that the new Palestinian state.
That, of course is an old solution, rejected many times by Jordan, as well as Palestinian nationalists. But Morris argues it is more realistic and possible than any of the alternatives.
I, for one, think that Morris’ analysis of the hopelessness of a two-state solution as it is now proposed is correct. And it is not surprising. My wife and I have written a new book, which is being published today, and will be in bookstores by May 12th if not before. Its title is A Safe Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel, and is published by Harper/Harper Collins. You can order it here on Amazon.com.
One of the things we have found is that if you look back at Israel’s origins, and the problems facing President Truman from 1945 to 1948, is the continued rejectionism of the Arab and Palestinian leadership back then. When the UN set up a special commission to investigate a potential solution for Palestine, Jamal Husseini, vice chair of the Arab Higher Committee, told the UN that Palestinian Arabs would not collaborate with the UN commission and would not even testify before it. When the UNSCOP commission finally came out for a two state solution, the Arab League denounced partition and Zionism as completely illegitimate. Palestine, as the minister of foreign affairs for Trans-Jordan put it, had to be “an Arab state.” Husseini added that the Arab would drench the Holy Land “with the last drop of our blood in the lawful defense of all and every inch of it.” They had a simple goal: “no partition, no further Jewish immigration and no Jewish State.” Going back to ancient times, he and other Arab leaders argued that Jews had no ties to Palestine at all, and that the Zionists sought to take it “from the Arab inhabitants.”
When the UN finally voted for partition on Nov. 29, 1947, the Arab delegates stormed out of the UN hall. Prince Faisal of Saudi Arabia and Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League, stood up, one journalist wrote, “their white robes and headdresses shook as the mentioned to the delegates from the other Arab states to follow them. At the door…Pasha shouted, ‘Any line of partition drawn in Palestine will be a line of fire and blood.” And as the world learned, when Israel was created on May 15, 1948—five Arab nations immediately invaded the new Jewish state.
The story is the same, decades ago, and today. The Israelis opt for peace; the Arabs opt for an all Arab Palestine, without Jews. Sometimes, history does not move very far.
When we use words like “problem” and “solution” we tacitly suppose that each “problem” has a “solution” that will come with it, to be discovered through the exercise of logic. This is quite appropriate in the realm of home work assignments or examination tests in math and science.
The “problem” the UN was supposed to solve with the creation of Israel was not a mathematical issue at all. The absolute hate towards the jews has been “written”, as often repeated in the movie “Lawrence of Arabia”, some 14 centuries ago, and there is no detectable effort to unwrite it, anymore than the UN is about to negociate a resolution on the “Excesses of the Koran”.
The obstacle to the security of Israel is not a “problem”, like any logical challenge would be, so any statement regarding the pursuit of a “solution” is at best a contrivance towards some other purpose.
Instead of admitting honestly that there is no legal remedy to the existencial threats faced by Israel, we keep “discussing” the “solution”.
The rare palestinians who are offering any respect towards the jews, like Wafa Younes (spelling?), the young lady who conducted a small orchestra of a dozen or so palestinian kids, who performed a concert for a jewish retirement home recently, are repudiated by the palestinians authorities.
I hope her and her musicians are safe, but I worry.
The so-called “peace process” is still an abstraction, which cannot materialize unless some serious behavior modification comes first.
Detoxification from alcohol and other substances is possible, but it takes a long time and a lot of courage. We don’t hear about “haters anonymous” groups popping up left and right in the middle east. In the meantime, Israel can only be practical and diligent about its security, because rockets, amateurish or else, cannot be countered by feelings alone.
As long as followers of the CFR think humans are good inside, and you just have to talk enough to fine peace, there is not going to be any peace.
To the Muslims, the land the Jews have now was once Islamic, and must be returned. To the Jews, some of the land they are in called Israel is the land they once had before 70AD.
Everything outside of Islamic countries is the house of war. So, give them war. Power is the only thing the Ummah understands. I am confident Israel understands that.
How many times must the Islamic countries make war with Israel before the world wakes up?
“The story is the same, decades ago, and today. The Israelis opt for peace; the Arabs opt for an all Arab Palestine, without Jews. Sometimes, history does not move very far.”
*heart-heavy-sigh* Indeed.
Your book comes out around my birthday! You wouldn’t have a spare copy you could send as a birthday prezzie to leetle me?
There is an untried solution to this dilemma. It is an international consensus solution. A deal brokered by the US is obviously not going to work since the Muslims of the Middle East fundamentally do not trust the Western powers that created the state of Israel. But Israel is a fact and is not going away. So rather than the US continuing its quiotic quest to solve this issue it should admit failure. And it should then go to China for help. China should be the first stop in an attempt to build an international consensus on dealing with this issue. The goal should be to create an internationl process and international mechanisms for a long-term, comprehensive and legitimate solution. It would address all the issues on both sides and would probably involve creating entirely new processess and a new vocabulary for dealing with these kinds of intractable problems between nations. It’s time to change directions in dealing with this issue.
George Washington on Israel
“A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.” ~George Washington Farewell Address
“The nation which indulges toward another habitual hatred or habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interests.” ~ George Washington
“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
Dear lefties, how’s the North Korea and South Korea “two-state” solution working out for you?
To think that “peace” through some agreement with the Palestinian lunatics is possible is almost a litmus test for whether a man is capable of clear thinking based on a raft of well-documented evidence. To persist in believing in such a possibility is akin to believing that humans will soon grow gills and live under water. When I hear a man or woman talk about hope for “peace” with the Palestinians, I don’t bother, it’s like talking to a 911 “truther” or a Scientologist. I realize many otherwise intelligent people hold this untenable belief; they are wrong. The only peace Israel can hope for is based on the Arab fear of a certain death; but that founding has been the case for many nations and many peoples throughout history. Welcome to the terms of the Nation State, Israel.
Given that it is a folly now, what should be the attitude of those who wish to settle Judea and Samaria on behalf of God’s Chosen Ones? Should Israel and America allow them to settle, knowing that such settlements make a future settlement along two-state lines impossible? These sorts of questions bring the present into contact with the future.
The fact is, there is NO moral alternative to the two-state solution. The other key fact is that only Israel, not the Palestinians, have the power to PERMANENTLY take the proposal for a two-state solution off the table, by permitting the settlement of the disputed land.
Therefore, they must not be allowed to do so.
I repeat, because you Zionist crackpots hate to hear it, and because its true: THERE IS NO MORAL ALTERNATIVE TO A TWO STATE SOLUTION.
Israel’s greatest threat is Jewish self-hatred. Far too many of its citizens have bought into the bizarre notion that their country filths on the generally darker skinned Palestinians. White guilt, it must be added, is perhaps the number one threat of all the Western nations. Most Westerners seem to engage in self-hatred. Jews don’t have a monopoly in this regard. The Arabs unfortunately do not possess blue eyes and blond hair. This alone would help the Israelis to think and act more rationally in responding to their relentless and deadly foes.
How come my last comment is still stuck in moderation? *sniffle*
Don’t worry Delia. We haven’t forgotten you. Keep writing.
# 6 David Thomson. There is no ‘Jewish self-hatred’ here in Israel. Please note that the Israeli Left (jewish parties) won only 3 seats of 120 seats in the latest election her. The centre left labor party has split in two with 6 more members of parliment aligning themselves with the left and the other 7 going with the right. ‘Jewish self hatred is a phenomena of the jews in the west. A zone where jews have competing pressures and must tow the anti zionist narrative if they are to gain acceptance or feel unthreatened. Further most Israeli Jews dont have blond hair or blue eyes(MSM propaganda) with the spheradim or ‘Arab-Jews’ and their decendants making up 60% + of the Jewish population and most other Jews either from Europen Spheradi origins.
Dont believe what is written in the MSM, you will find that the vast majority of Israeli Jews dont trust ‘Palistinian Arabs’, nor do we trust EU memeber states or the recently elected Obama regime. The general feeling here is that the PC Left in the US and Europe is pro Islamic and anti Jew. We are expecting an influx of Jews from Europe and the US into Israel as current anti semitism and pro muslim passions get further inflamed. Many here predict that this latest round of so called peace negotiations under Obama will strengthen Israel as it gains Jewish population and as it finds new freinds such as India and maybe even China.
There was a Palestinan woman who said that she wanted to have lots of children and make suicide bombers of them that is why Golda Meir was dead wrong when she said “There will be peace when Arabs love thir childfren more than they hate us”. There will be no peace as long as Palestinans can count on international aid to raise their children so tghey can treta him as expendable ammo. There will be no peace as Kassams are free because they cabn count on us to foot the bill of their needs. There will be no peace as long as they don’t have to fear Isreli retaliation because we will rebuild everything destrolyed;
There will be peace when Palestinans are forced to earn their beard through their sweat. When each child, ecah Kassam will mean more work and more poverty, when they will have to pay friom their pockets the rebuilding of what Israleis hacve da
Poor Benny. Reality intrudes. His fantasy of Arab negotiating partners have turned into wild beasts that need to be caged.
If benny weren’t such a treasonous lefty Bible hater he might have saved himself a lot of grief. The Arab national personality is spelled out plainly in the book of Genesis. “Yishmael hu pere adam” (“Ishmael is a wild jackass of a man”).
Putting wild Muslims in a cage is a dicey proposition as Obama is learning as he tries to find new cages around the world for Gitmo detainees.
I have a better suggestion for Benny: Put what remains of the Israeli left in a cage. The lefties are docile sheep and more easily caged.
As for dealing with the Muslims, I’m with Leatherneck. Forget cages. Think tactical nukes.
This illustrates one of the many perversions in Caryl Churchill’s “Seven Jewish Children,” besides the fact that it comes as near to the blood libel as makes no never-mind.
One of the sides in the conflict has, in fact, dehumanized its opponents, filled its children with hate, is a society suffused with vicious and murderous rhetoric, and calls for the extinction and extermination of the other side. But it’s not Israel.
It’s considered divisive to point out that the PA’s undertaking at Oslo to end its incitement to killing has been absolutely ignored and, if anything, intensified. Yet it is Israel from whom concessions are sought.
Some progress might be achieved if the Palestinians were required to deal with the consequences of their actions. So far they see no reason to; they can launch wars and terror campaigns and no matter what they’re always allowed to go back to square one.
If I were a cynic I’d say that if Israel weren’t made up of Jews no one in the world would hold a brief for its enemies. I’m sure there’s some more innocent explanation but damned ifr I can figure it out.
“If I were a cynic I’d say that if Israel weren’t made up of Jews no one in the world would hold a brief for its enemies.”
You are only half right. The fact that the Israelis are predominantly Jewish is indeed relevant. Nonetheless, the skin color of the Palestinians is even more important! White guilt is perhaps the greatest threat to the very survival of Western Civilization.
Re #10. White guilt? I wonder who is holding my share of ‘White Guilt’. It’s nowhere around here.
This isn’t really that complicated a matter to understand. In 1947 the state of Palestine was divided into two states by the UN, one Arab and one Jewish. Almost immediately after this the leaders of the Jewish state declared Israel an independent state. The first Arab Israel war the result and they have been fighting ever since.
It easy to understand the Palestinian mind set and anger at what they consider Jewish invaders. Consider this: There was a certain amount of ethnic cleansing involved in removing the Arabs that remained in the Jewish partition. After the Palestinian Arabs were forced off their land Jews from all around the world filtered into the new state of Israel. To the Palestinian people this must have seemed not unlike the Northern Ireland Christians hated of Protestants invaders from the British Empire. Since then, with their superior military power, Israel has continued to annex, partition, and fence off even more Palestinian territory.
I doubt seriously that there will be a political solution to this problem anytime in the near future. In all likely hood Israel and the Palestinian people will still be killing each other for decades, maybe generations to come. Think Northern Ireland.
Nonetheless, the skin color of the Palestinians is even more important
If that were true tyhey would care for Sudan’s Blacks. They don’t.
“Re #10. White guilt? I wonder who is holding my share of ‘White Guilt’. It’s nowhere around here.”
Really? How do you explain Obama winning the electoral votes of Indiana? Our present White House occupant would not have captured the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination if he were white. This man’s slim resume is a total embarrassment. And he was talking about the “57 states” before the election. Now he speaks about the Austrian language. Dan Quayle was never cut so much slack. He was never forgiven for his “potatoe” blunder.
“If that were true tyhey would care for Sudan’s Blacks. They don’t.”
You are overlooking something very important: Sudan’s blacks are being victimized by dark skinned Muslim extremists! That’s all that matters to guilt tripped white Westerners. Alas, if only the blacks of Sudan were victims of blue eyed and blond haired whites. In that case, the world would instantly come to their rescue.
You are overlooking something very important: Sudan’s blacks are being victimized by dark skinned Muslim extremists!
Thay are being victimized by dark skinned Arab extremists.
Yes: the problem is the Arabs. They are everyone’s problem, especially their own. There’s no use in getting your panties in a wad; no other description is truthful. No one’s contemplating genocide or some such nonsense. Nevertheless, they suck. End of story.
uburoisc I agree with you. BTW did you that Obama’s first call to an oversea leader was to Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority? Obama is a disaster in so many ways and yet his approval rating is still near 60%. To quote one former assistant Sec. State while talking years ago on the Iranian bomb,”what is it going to take to wake people up?”
“Thay are being victimized by dark skinned Arab extremists.”
They are Muslims fanatics, first, last, and foremost. The fact that they are Arab is of secondary importance. And what is the reason behind your hesitation to acknowledge their adherence to Islamic extremist values?
George Washington on Israel
“A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.” ~George Washington Farewell Address
“The nation which indulges toward another habitual hatred or habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interests.” ~ George Washington
“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
The Arabs are waging siege war against Israel
and are not interested in any permanent peace
except on their terms. A temporary armistice
with Israel is permissible when the situation
warrants it[reorganize, rearm, resupply,
refinance etc.].
Don’t be fooled, this is just a temporary
peace. Every non-Muslim who gives them
credence is further proof that they are
right and Israel is wrong. By the way
there is many ways to wage jihad besides
warfare. Just like in the rest of the
world the situation determines the method.
“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.” ~ Thomas Jefferson”
I think that Thomas Jefferson would have made an exception for France. The male Jane Fonda of that era made all sorts of excuses to minimize the horrors of the French Revolution. Furthermore, we are doing Israel no particular favors. We have a thoroughly give and take relationship with that country. America is still in debt for its bombing of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapon installation.
#15 Asheville Jack,
British troops went to northern Ireland to protect the catholic community,during the civil rights movement .
They were being treated like second class citizens the same as blacks in the U.S
The forming of the free state in 1922 partitioned through consent.
Since then there has been referendem after referendum,the north wants to remain British.
This is agreed with the south.
In the U.K we would support an united ireland through consent and democracy,but not through terrorism.
America and Lybia were the biggest funders of the I.R.A. Who killed british and irish civilians,nearly killed Thatcher,did kill other MP’s , killed members of the royal family.
Did a Mortar attack on Downing st.
Still the money for the ’cause’ came flooding in ,even with pleading from our leaders.
Following the bombing of the Brighton Hotel were the conservative conference(convention)was held.
Should the response from maggie been ,to encircle Belfast, shut down electricity and water.Allow no-one to leave.
The I.R.A are not in uniform so don’t blame us for collateral damage,the cowards are hiding with civilians.
Bombared from land,sea and air, into a densly populated urban area.
Use white phospherous depleted uranium,DIME,
other carciogenic’s ,so if they don’t die then ,a high number will get cancer.
When aid does come,bomb them as well and think it is funny.
Would that of been the right response?
There were drinks in Boston called,’kill a brit’ and ‘carbomb’
So where you with us or with the terrorists?
Those who are wedded to their leftist ideology(as religious mandates) rather than reality, are the same deluders who brought the disaster of Oslo upon the heads of innocent Israelis.
True to form, Israel’s leading leftists, with Nobel ‘Peace’ Prize fantasist Peres at its helm,plus Yossi Beilin and a few others in tow, decided-for NO rational reason-that peace was theirs for the grabbing, just as long as they offered the Arabs enough ‘concessions’.
True to reality, appeasement NEVER works. The proof of which is that MORE Jews died and were maimed for life due to Oslo and its aftermath, than in the wars combined.Some peace.
It is as if a mental illness grips those who believe that they can engineer reality, despite all the horrid facts on the ground.
Of course, these so called enlightened Israelis had more than willing partners in the demented left in Washington & the Euro capitals.
Now, fast forward to those pesky little facts. Despite being offered the sun, moon and the stars, not one PA leader is able to deliver ‘peace’.
Morris, like a true leftist that he was, had to learn the hard way.
Tragically, the Israeli sidewalks are splattered with Jewish blood from their delusional thinking.
Finally he realizes that the conflict/war between the PA(and the wider Arab world)and Israel is NOT about territory-it NEVER was. It is a religious, civilizational conflict. Therefore, giving MORE land does the opposite. It whets their Islamist appetites and encourages them to go for broke.
For IF Israel’s leaders had the cajones to use all the might of the valiant IDF/IAF, Hibullah would be gone, Hamas would be dust and Iran would be trembling.
Will Israel’s learn in time these salient lessons, Obama be damned?
So we have one lefty who sees the light. I wish that would happen in this country.
David Thomson did you ever think to somewhat else, but of french revolution ?
french revolution is your nightmare, though your country had a little guilt on it, she throw the franco-american alliance under the bus when poor king Louis XVI need badly some support and his money back
though Thomas Jefferson was no contempting adversary, he read our litterature, and Voltaire was his favorite matter to think of
“Thay are being victimized by dark skinned Arab extremists.”
They are Muslims fanatics, first, last, and foremost. The fact that they are Arab is of secondary importance. And what is the reason behind your hesitation to acknowledge their adherence to Islamic extremist values?
If they are Muslim extremists first then why are they attacking other Muslims whose only sin is not being part of the herrensvolk? Now I agree that for a true dyed in the wool Muslim lesser people have to imitate Arabs in everything and until they arabize completely they will be second class Muslims like told by war theoriciona Al Hindi (not an Arab) who galdly quoted the following Haddith: “Treat the Arab like an Arab and the mixed blodd like a mixed blood. the Arab is entitled to two shares (of booty) and the mixed blood to one.
BTW why your hesitation to acknowledge for Arab racism?
“BTW why your hesitation to acknowledge for Arab racism?”
No problem whatsoever. The Arabs likely do claim the darker skinned Africans aren’t really good Muslims. Is Muslim theology, in actual practice, inherently racist? Has skin color always determined one’s standing within the Islamic community?
No problem whatsoever. The Arabs likely do claim the darker skinned Africans aren’t really good Muslims. Is Muslim theology, in actual practice, inherently racist?/i>
Yes. Arabs are to be supposed to be best amongst men, then Muhammad’s tribe best between Arabs and so on until Muhammad. Notice also that the fact Koran cannot be translated automatically makes those who can read it superior to other men. Being able to memorize it in whole in Arabic gives you the right to wear the highly regarded name “Shafez” or Hafez (don’t rmember) and this is a lot easier when you undestand it…
And you will have a hard time avoiding hell if you don’t make the pilgrimage. That makes it a lot easier for Arabians (ie the people of the Arab peninsula) not to mention that non-Arab contributions to shariah are virtually zero.
Has skin color always determined one’s standing within the Islamic community?</i<
Yes. Arabs may not be enslaved. Blacks be they Muslims or not have been routinely enslaved and quite often castrated. Also in eight centuries and many kingdoms not a single king or Caliph in occupied Spain was ever a Spanish muslim. They were ever Arabs except for limited number of Berber kings who while being in charge of the palace guard slaughtered the Arab king. Muslims of Spanish stock paid additional taxes and faced sevdere discriminations.
You could also look about the fate of the Muslim conqueror of Spain who happened to not be Arab enough.
In the early 1970s the Arab side in the Israel-Arab dispute won a great victory in world public opinion, by redefining the way the world viewed the problem.
Until then, most people accepted the Zionist narrative, in which a couple of million Jews living in a poor, tiny territory were facing over 100 million Arabs living across millions of square miles of territory, blessed with staggeringly large oil resources. In the 1970s, thanks mostly to the vast propaganda skills and resources of the Soviet bloc and its wide circles of influence, most people in the world came to accept the Arab narrative: the dispute was between the Jews and an even smaller group of people– the “Palestinians,” living in an even tinier territory and with far fewer resources even than the Jews. Instead of seeing Israel as a brave David facing a huge, greedy Goliath, the world saw Israel as the Goliath who had swallowed everything and left its opponent with nothing.
Whether or not historic facts support this or that narrative is irrelevant. This shift presented many huge diplomatic, political, and psychological problems for Israel and Israelis. However, their society proved flexible enough to adapt to the new situation, and the “Palestinian” narrative was eventually accepted to a large degree by most of the elite public.
Although the opponents of Zionism exulted in their victory, it has proven rather hollow. In the ensuing decades Israel has thrived, even in the face of wide and deep hostility. The economy is much stronger and more successful than ever, and the military has retained its relative superiority to its enemies. When all is said and done, there are nearly three times as many Jews living in Israel than there were before 1967. Israel has grown from a charity case dependent on foreign aid to a dynamic, respected export dynamo. In most ways its culture has become richer, more open, and more self-confident. Unlike the solipcistic, provincial Israelis of the 1950s and 1960s, today’s Israelis can see and respect the Other’s point of view, try to accomodate it, yet still go on with their lives.
So, the Jews have not especially suffered from the grat propaganda defeat of the 1970s. Have the Arabs or Palestinians benefited from their victory? Hardly. Instead, I believe, this “victory” has turned into an unparalleled disaster. Had Sadat come to Israel a few years before he did in December 1977, he and Begin might well have been able to achieve a comprehensive peace on all fronts. Just as Israel returned all of Sinai (with its oil and its strategic depth), so Israel might have returned most of the West Bank to Jordan–very fews Jews lived there as yet. Unfortunately, by then Jordan had bowed to political reality and no longer considered itself sovereign west of the Jordan River, and the Palestinian leadership was too flush with its victories and its new diplomatic status in the world, which rested mostly on the “Palestinian” narrative. Only a handful of West Bank notables accepted Begin and Sadat’s joint invitation to participate in the peace process– and a few of those brave individuals were assassinated by the PLO for their pains.
In 1977 Jordan was a stable country with 55 years of history behind it; it is still stable 32 years later. There are many reasons why Palestinian Arab politics is, by contrast, unstable; but whatever the cause, it is extremely unlikely that the fissiparous leadership of Fatah and Hamas could possible evolve in the foreseeable future into a coherent, functioning government.
Is it too late to turn back the clock and explore the Jordanian option? I think it’s worth a try. Of course, only those who are genuinely interested in Israeli-Arab peace, and in helping the Palestinian Arabs will bother. There may be too many people with an interest in perpetuating the Palestinian narrative; but their interests should not trump the interests of the actual living, breathing Palestinians
The “Palestinians” already have an independent state named Jordan that represents 80% of the land mandated by the US, Britian, and the League of Nations to be the Jewish homeland.
After its defeat in the early 1900′s, the Ottoman empire was divided into the present-day Arab states with a small portion set aside for the Jewish Homeland.
But, the British, who sucked-up to the Arab sheiks in exchange for oil rights, disregarded their own Mandate and gave 80% of the Jewish Homeland to the Hashemite King because he was miffed that the Brits gave Iraq to King Faisal. The land became known as TransJordan, and later Jordan. Today, 75% of its population are “Palestinian” Arabs.
Reality check: there has never been an independent nation known as “Palestine” in the history of the world. There has never been a separate group of people known as “Palestinians,” and they are indistinguishable from any other Arabs, plain and simple.
In 1947-48, there was no effort, whatsover, to create an independent “Palestinian state.” In fact, in 1947, Jews were called Palestinians, not Arabs!
The UN’s partition plan called for an independent “Jewish state” and an independent “Arab state.” The Jews accepted the plan, and the Arabs rejected it and launched a war of extermination against the tiny state of Israel, which exists on less than .06% of the land in the Middle East.
Nothing has changed since then.
The Arabs still want to drive the Jews into the Sea. The only thing that did change was the creation of the greatest hoax in the history of Mankind. In 1964, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, or PLO, was born with Yassir Arafat in charge, and it was this terrorist organization that created the myth of “Palestine” and “Palestinians” out of thin air.
Their charter called for an independent “Palestinian” state from the Jordan River to the Medeterranian Sea — in other words, Israel would cease to exist.
The PLO became the Palestinian Authority, or PA, and the language in the charter callong for the destruction of the Jewish state is STILL THERE, 45 years later.
After Arafat’s death, terrorist Mahmoud Abbas took over and he, too, has never recognized Israel as an independent Jewish state nor will he ever do so. Calling him a “moderate” is like calling Heinrich Himmler the Minister of Peace.
The West Bank belongs to the Jews and the Arabs are the occupiers. There are Jewish settlements in the West Bank that have existed continuously for over 3,000 years, and Israel has every right to expand these settlements with the UN’s blessings. This hasn’t stopped the terrorists from expanding their Big Lie, that every Jewish settlement is “illegal.”
Ther are over 300,000 illegal ARAB settlements in the West Bank alone, many of which were built on land purchased by Jewish groups. Yet, you will never hear about them in the Leftist media.
Gaza, too, was also part of ancient Israel, but Israel wants no part of it. After the Arab wars on Israel, in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973, Egypt captured Gaza, only to cede it back to Israel.
This is the reason why Gaza has NEVER been occupied by Israel.
They don’t want Gaza anymore than Israel does — but Egypt SHOULD be required to take control of it.
Also, in the history of warfare between nations, and according to the Laws of Nations and Rules of War, any sovereign nation who was attacked and then subsequently defeated their aggressor, IS ENTITLED TO KEEP ANY LAND IT CAPTURED.
Only Israel has been denied this right, as well as their right to self-defense.
Uh, Mags, I agree with you about N. Ireland, but careful with your accusations regarding phosphorous and DU munitions. There’s plenty of info out there about how NGO’s trump up the “facts” on the usage of these weapons.
Benny Morris is just the latest in a long line of leftists to be mugged by reality.
Israel is facing a new type of war. It is economic. The Arabs are trying to boycott Israeli products from being sold in the European Union. Norway has just enacted a new law forcing all Israeli products to be labeled as such so consumers can discriminate. I know of such a movement in France.
We as Americans can support Israel by simply boycotting Norwiegan products. That alone is not enough. The embacies and consulates of Norway should be informed of the boycott and told why. Let’s see how Norway likes the taste of a boycott.
Oscar, salmon and cod can be bought from Canada
but you’ll have problem if you say to your grand kids that Christmas father isn’t coming with a reindeered char
Well, the “Jordan Solution” has been tried once before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan
Marie Claude
Santa Claus comes from Rovaniemi in Finland not from Norway. So no problem.
A bleak picture from Ron Radosh, but dead-on accurate. There is little Israel can do now except to protect its people as best they can.
Professor Guvinoff (1) has it right. Words like “solution” and “problem” have little meaning here. Neither does history anymore, nobody knows that better than Benny Morrison, and Ron’s excellent article is really all about that.
Neither is this a left-right thing. It would be if there were different visions about how to achieve real peace. I suppose ‘war vs negotiation’ is how some folks see a left-right split. No, both sides are sick of this and both options are on the table. Nobody can abandon the military option, and nobody will give up the eventual dream of a negotiated peace.
Some folks here are worried about the US getting too entangled. Agreed. We have other hot spots to worry about where our people are actually on the line getting shot at. Not to mention economic and other issues.
Israel has asked for little here. Sell them the Phalynx and whatever else they need to protect against the missiles. Give basic diplomatic support as we have for decades under many administrations both Democrat and Republican. Not a time for a big US political commitment now and no need for one.
Israel will take care of itself. It fights for its own existence and legitimacy every day and so it has been since long before the current state was founded.
Shalom,
Spindok
Never again
So tell me. Markus, if the settlements are a threat to the two-state solution, why does no one say the presence of Arab villages within the Green Line are an equal threat? We both know the answer – the Jews are willing to share the land and the Arabs are not, as Israel has shown time and again. Israel has time and again made real sacrifices for peace, while the Palestinians have not given up a thing – not even their goal of slaughtering Jews and ending the existence of Israel. Not to mention that the Arabs have turned down a state time and again, and that their attempts to end Israel’s existence far pre-date the settlements or Israel’s control of the West Bank.
As for Asheville Jack, you omit that those Arabs who stayed behind became full citizens of Israel, and that Jews who stayed behind in the Arab controlled areas were massacred or expelled. In fact, most of the Jews who poured into Israel in 1948 were forcibly expelled from Arab countries where their families had lived for centuries as persecuted minorities. They were roughly the same number as Arabs who fled the newly created Israel. Does that change your calculus any? Time does not permit me to debunk your assertions about the “Palestinian People” that supposedly existed in 1948.
JFM thanks for the precision, but northern Norway is also inhabited by Sami, I doubt that they have something to do with the boycott of israeli products. I guess they’ll miss oranges on their christmas tree too
In fact, most of the Jews who poured into Israel in 1948 were forcibly expelled from Arab countries where their families had lived for centuries as persecuted minorities
In many cases their ancestors had been living in these “Arab” countries since before the Roman conquest. Some of them since the destruction of the Jewish kingdoms by Babylon. Over one thousand years before the arrival of the Arabs.
in these “Arab” countries in the french colonies they became full french citizen
I got news for all of you. Santa Claus was a Syrian Orthodox monk.
in these “Arab” countries in the french colonies they became full french citizen
France did a few noble things during its existence and I would tell more about them if you did’nt anger me with your mudslinging. Vichy revoked the citizenship granted to North-African Jews by the Republic. After Torch it remained in force during the period where French North Africa was ruled by America backed (1) Darlan, Giraud and Georges. The revocation alongside the remainder of Vichy discriminatory legislation was revoked only after De Gaulle managed to climb to power. Considering this good deed it will be only eleven bullets for him.
(1) I would tend to say “Roosevelt backed” instead
“I would tell more about them if you did’nt anger me with your mudslinging.”
moi ? non, I am only contradicting you (or any person) who calls us many names and allotted us many falsh intentions
Glad you finally say something positive of De Gaulle and acknoledge that Roosvelt was antisemit
Fortunately Jews in North Africa had not the same worries like their coreligionnaires had on the continent
Though french population managed to save more than 3/4 of them, and this, in spite of death threat. It’s rather zealous administration servants that helped Vichy.
umm, tell me good things about us that are not an anglo-saxon reading of the revolution terror too, umm BTW, our revolutionnaires gave the first in EU a citizenship to Jews.
Oscar, you’re right, but it’s Santa Klaus or Saint Nicolas, his fest is on the 6th of december while Christmas father was a pagan reminiscence, stil copied on Santa Klaus and that Cocacola helped to display on the world scale.
I still remember when I was young, there was no Christmas father for Christmas, but only small Jesus fest, and we were given toys at this occasion though, while in Germany, Switzerland, children get their gifts for Santa Klaus fest
In Spain, children get their rewards on the 6th of january for the Epiphany fest
http://www.socdigest.org/news/02dec04.html
#19 Asheville JAck –
Consider this: There was a certain amount of ethnic cleansing involved in removing the Arabs that remained in the Jewish partition. After the Palestinian Arabs were forced off their land…
Consider this: You have no idea what you’re talking about. These Arabs left on their own free will, being told by the nations about to declare war on Israel that they would return after the annihilation. When Israel won the war, none of the Arab nations wanted to take in the “refugees”. Arabs that didn’t leave the Jewish State are fully integrated citizens of Israel with representation in the Kinesset.
You’re talk of ethnic clensing from Israel is B.S.
Marie,
Concerning Israel, France has a variable history, but not altogether bad, just based on self-interest which I can understand. Israel would not exist today were it not for French assistance at certain critical times (ie Dimona). On the other hand… we know many sorry chapters.
Sadly though I worry about those Jews left in France. The government is trying to protect them and there remains a strong commitment against discrimination of any kind in certain quarters. Yet Jews today there are at risk if they are visibly so, at least that is what many of them report. They are not at all in danger where I live.
When I was a child in a US military family, stationed in Germany, we used to travel to Strasbourg where there was a kosher butcher. I wonder if they are still there.
Anyway the Jewish chapter in Europe, including France, is now reduced to a quaint remnant of its former self. Those that remain, well don’t expect them to keep silent.
So we wait and see what happens next. All eyes are on Iran now and that is realpolitik and a high stakes game. French have reason to worry about the nuclear missiles, now being assembled by the Iranians, in reach of its own population and without significant political influence there.
Where are the French missile defenses? We have heard much about the US and Israeli versions, which are co-mingled. France has been quiet about any sort of defensive shield. Is that a cover for “we don’t have one” or “we dont want to talk about it”?
I choose the first, “we dont have one”
That would be a problem, if it is true.
Spindok
Marie Claude
Oui vous. Remember the other day when subject was Spain and you came repeating the drivel of your Sartian story books? Nobody was talking about France.
Sadly though I worry about those Jews left in France. The government is trying to protect them and there remains a strong commitment against discrimination of any kind in certain quarters. Yet Jews today there are at risk if they are visibly so, at least that is what many of them report. They are not at all in danger where I live.
do you live in France ?
Well, Jews were/are the scapegoat for anything by a part of our muslims immigrants that are frustrated. Though this is mostly due to Al Jazeera and Arab TV that they can get from satellit antens. Though the main part of them are conscious that this is a political manipulation. But it’s true that a brainswashed youth could be dangerous for them.
Otherwise our tradition of integration has absorbed the jewish population since the revolution. Bonaparte gave them the opportunity to join public services and the army. Since then they are part of our political and intellectual spectrum. You can’t differ french modern civilisation from its jewish contribution. It’s a great mixture.
When I was a child in a US military family, stationed in Germany, we used to travel to Strasbourg where there was a kosher butcher. I wonder if they are still there.
Strasbourg is still a favorite jewish place, since they were expelled from the french kingdom at the pest times. Though I wouln’t swear there still are kosher butchers, these professions have become rare due to modern evolution of the slaughtering houses. Though many of them have a kosher department as well as Halal. It’s funny to notice that these also are the traditional ones, a guess some common finances allow that.
Anyway the Jewish chapter in Europe, including France, is now reduced to a quaint remnant of its former self. Those that remain, well don’t expect them to keep silent.
They aren’t
they participate in all the medias
So we wait and see what happens next. All eyes are on Iran now and that is realpolitik and a high stakes game. French have reason to worry about the nuclear missiles, now being assembled by the Iranians, in reach of its own population and without significant political influence there.
Where are the French missile defenses? We have heard much about the US and Israeli versions, which are co-mingled. France has been quiet about any sort of defensive shield. Is that a cover for “we don’t have one” or “we dont want to talk about it”?
Yes, Iran is a big deal in our policy, since they were responsible for many terrorist attacks on the french soil, planes and Lebanon.
umm, we have missiles, but our army is discreet about them, our army is called “la muette”, (the mute) means that it kepts secretly its infos on arms and tactics.
got a video of the last missile test :
http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/missiles+landes/video/x89dmg_3-tir-dessai-m51_webcam
Le missile M51 est destiné à succéder au M45 pour équiper les sous-marins nucléaires lanceurs d’engins (SNLE) de nouvelle génération de la Force océanique stratégique française (FOST).
La France a procédé jeudi avec succès à son troisième tir d’essai d’un missile stratégique intercontinental M51 selon la DGA (Délégation générale pour l’armement). Ce dernier est destiné aux sous-marins nucléaires lanceurs d’engins de nouvelle génération, à commencer par Le Terrible, lancé en mars et qui en recevra 16 exemplaires. D’une hauteur de 12 mètres et d’un poids maximal de 56 tonnes avec ses six têtes nucléaires, le M51 disposera, par rapport aux M45 actuels, d’une portée sensiblement accrue (de l’ordre de 8.000 km contre 6.000 km) et d’une précision améliorée. Ce troisième “vol expérimental” et “premier essai sous-marin” a été “réalisé depuis le pas de tir immergé du centre d’essais de lancement de missiles (CELM)” de Biscarosse, dans les Landes, a précisé le ministère de la Défense.
Le tir a été “effectué, comme toujours, sans arme”, autrement dit sans tête nucléaire, et “conformément à l’ensemble des engagements internationaux de la France en matière de sécurité, de transparence et de non-prolifération”. Le ministère avait annoncé fin 2004 la notification à EADS Space Transportation d’une commande d’un montant de 3 milliards d’euros pour la production du M51, le coût global du développement du programme s’élevant à 5 milliards d’euros. Ces missiles doivent équiper les sous-marins français à partir de 2010. Les deux essais précédents remontaient au 9 novembre 2006 et au 21 juin 2007.
(source : DGA
“Nobody was talking about France”
But you were, and not nicely
umm, still waiting that my post to Oscar and to Spindok are edited, uh, may-be the link that I provided makes the difference
Spindok
Sadly though I worry about those Jews left in France. The government is trying to protect them and there remains a strong commitment against discrimination of any kind in certain quarters. Yet Jews today there are at risk if they are visibly so, at least that is what many of them report. They are not at all in danger where I live.
do you live in France ?
Well, Jews were/are the scapegoat for anything by a part of our muslims immigrants that are frustrated. Though this is mostly due to Al Jazeera and Arab TV that they can get from satellit antens. Though the main part of them are conscious that this is a political manipulation. But it’s true that a brainswashed youth could be dangerous for them.
Otherwise our tradition of integration has absorbed the jewish population since the revolution. Bonaparte gave them the opportunity to join public services and the army. Since then they are part of our political and intellectual spectrum. You can’t differ french modern civilisation from its jewish contribution. It’s a great mixture.
When I was a child in a US military family, stationed in Germany, we used to travel to Strasbourg where there was a kosher butcher. I wonder if they are still there.
Strasbourg is still a favorite jewish place, since they were expelled from the french kingdom at the pest times. Though I wouln’t swear there still are kosher butchers, these professions have become rare due to modern evolution of the slaughtering houses. Though many of them have a kosher department as well as Halal. It’s funny to notice that these also are the traditional ones, a guess some common finances allow that.
Anyway the Jewish chapter in Europe, including France, is now reduced to a quaint remnant of its former self. Those that remain, well don’t expect them to keep silent.
They aren’t they participate in all the medias
So we wait and see what happens next. All eyes are on Iran now and that is realpolitik and a high stakes game. French have reason to worry about the nuclear missiles, now being assembled by the Iranians, in reach of its own population and without significant political influence there.
Where are the French missile defenses? We have heard much about the US and Israeli versions, which are co-mingled. France has been quiet about any sort of defensive shield. Is that a cover for “we don’t have one” or “we dont want to talk about it”?
Yes, Iran is a big deal in our policy, since they were responsible for many terrorist attacks on the french soil, planes and Lebanon.
umm, we have missiles, but our army is discreet about them, our army is called “la muette”, (the mute) means that it kepts secretly its infos on arms and tactics.
a video of the last missile M51 test can be seen on Dailymotion “missile Landes 2008″
Le missile M51 est destiné à succéder au M45 pour équiper les sous-marins nucléaires lanceurs d’engins (SNLE) de nouvelle génération de la Force océanique stratégique française (FOST).
La France a procédé jeudi avec succès à son troisième tir d’essai d’un missile stratégique intercontinental M51 selon la DGA (Délégation générale pour l’armement). Ce dernier est destiné aux sous-marins nucléaires lanceurs d’engins de nouvelle génération, à commencer par Le Terrible, lancé en mars et qui en recevra 16 exemplaires. D’une hauteur de 12 mètres et d’un poids maximal de 56 tonnes avec ses six têtes nucléaires, le M51 disposera, par rapport aux M45 actuels, d’une portée sensiblement accrue (de l’ordre de 8.000 km contre 6.000 km) et d’une précision améliorée. Ce troisième “vol expérimental” et “premier essai sous-marin” a été “réalisé depuis le pas de tir immergé du centre d’essais de lancement de missiles (CELM)” de Biscarosse, dans les Landes, a précisé le ministère de la Défense.
Le tir a été “effectué, comme toujours, sans arme”, autrement dit sans tête nucléaire, et “conformément à l’ensemble des engagements internationaux de la France en matière de sécurité, de transparence et de non-prolifération”. Le ministère avait annoncé fin 2004 la notification à EADS Space Transportation d’une commande d’un montant de 3 milliards d’euros pour la production du M51, le coût global du développement du programme s’élevant à 5 milliards d’euros. Ces missiles doivent équiper les sous-marins français à partir de 2010. Les deux essais précédents remontaient au 9 novembre 2006 et au 21 juin 2007.
(source : DGA
Oscar, you’re right, but it’s Santa Klaus or Saint Nicolas, his fest is on the 6th of december while Christmas father was a pagan reminiscence, stil copied on Santa Klaus and that Cocacola helped to display on the world scale.
I still remember when I was young, there was no Christmas father for Christmas, but only small Jesus fest, and we were given toys at this occasion though, while in Germany, Switzerland, children get their gifts for Santa Klaus fest
In Spain, children get their rewards on the 6th of january for the Epiphany fest
But you were, and not nicely
My memories are that I was talking about Spain and then you came.
Iwas talking of Spain too, but what I was saying didn’t please you, thus you attacked me on France
About Spain both it wasn’t your business and it wasn’t in your field of expertise. AFAIK you don’t speak Spanish to begin with so you have to rely in second hand sources and the communist grip in the immediate postwar, plus the fact that one side named itself “republican” makes France about the worst place in the world to get half objective info about Spanish civil war.
Finally because contempt for franquism (Franco was not an angael but the French never had ny problems with communist dictators who were ten times worse), Spain’s action in WWW is along with antiamericanism a way for suppressing uncomfortable memories about 1940-1944 and thus restore self pride.
Clausewitz says “A cowardly surrendering destroys a nation. The poison of defeat will sap the energies of future generations”. And that is why Hitler quotes this sentence and says: “Therefore a wise victor will initially set moderate peace conditions and will only gradually ask for more so every additional demand will not trigger a rebellion against the yoke”. And that is why, because he wanted to destroy France’s very soul that he didn’t ask for the French fleet in 1940. Because the French government would have broken negotiations and its government fled to North Africa.
And the antidote to this poison is not the gaullist way of hating the country who helped you to restore your freedom and prosperity but doing things you can be proud of. Like the French general who requested to be downgraded to colonel in order to be allowed to lead the forces France was sending to Korea or the soldiers who in the final stages of Dien Bien Phu kept volunteering for parachuting into wat had become a death trap despite the fact that they were no paras, that they hadn’t done a single jump in their lives. These and a France committed to the cause of freedom should have been the role models of post-WWII French instead of DE Gaulle and its vison of France trying to play one side against the other, a spider in a web littered with decaying corpses.
“About Spain both it wasn’t your business and it wasn’t in your field of expertise”.
so ???? was it only yours ? then you should have request the exclusivity of commenting !
I may be not an expert but I know Spain, plus I like Spanish people !
but you can’t miss an occasion to show your hate for anything French
“but the French never had ny problems with communist dictators who were ten times worse”
neither had America too, didn’t she work with Stalin and send some of her best tecnicians to help the soviet to construct manufactures of cars and tanks ?
umm the decision to attack France was the result of the Ribbentrop agreement with Russia, the passivity of all the neighbour states, and the greediness of Franco and Mussolini that hoped to get a part of the french colonies cake
qu’est-ce que tu es ? pas un historien, pas un specialiste, mais un manipulateur d’opinion, de quel bord ? je pense que tu es un sionniste avec une origine sefarade
AFAIK you don’t speak Spanish to begin with so you have to rely in “second hand sources and the communist grip in the immediate postwar, plus the fact that one side named itself “republican” makes France about the worst place in the world to get half objective info about Spanish civil war.”
I don’t speak fluently spanish, but I can understand and read some of it
second hand sources are not all communists and not all of postwar, umm, my sources were written in english and of american authors
“Finally because contempt for franquism (Franco was not an angael but the French never had ny problems with communist dictators who were ten times worse), Spain’s action in WWW is along with antiamericanism a way for suppressing uncomfortable memories about 1940-1944 and thus restore self pride.”
umm, american memories for 1940-1944 also are selective and self glorificative
Dans la mémoire collective de la région, les Américains sont souvent jugés plus sévèrement que les Britanniques. Des légendes courent le Bocage et les villes sur l’aveuglement des pilotes des énormes «forteresses volantes» de l’US Air Force, lâchant leurs bombes à 10 000 mètres d’altitude
…. lexpress.fr/informations/la-victoire-en-pleurant_607416. html
“Clausewitz says “A cowardly surrendering destroys a nation. The poison of defeat will sap the energies of future generations”. And that is why Hitler quotes this sentence and says: “Therefore a wise victor will initially set moderate peace conditions and will only gradually ask for more so every additional demand will not trigger a rebellion against the yoke”. And that is why, because he wanted to destroy France’s very soul that he didn’t ask for the French fleet in 1940. Because the French government would have broken negotiations and its government fled to North Africa”
you’re right, but not sure that your intention is fair :
- Puis, en Mai 1940, c’est l’invasion de la France par l’Allemagne, une partie des troupes françaises et anglaises se replie sur Dunkerque pour y être évacuée, la Marine française y subit de lourdes pertes.
- En juin 1940, la défaite française étant imminente un armistice est signé entre l’Allemagne et la France à Rethonde.
- Dans les conditions d’armistice, il est prévu que la flotte française ne sera pas livrée, mais sera démobilisée et désarmée sous le contrôle de l’Allemagne et de l’Italie
Puis du fait de la situation catastrophique de la France, et de l’absence de volonté du nouveau gouvernement, celui de Pétain de poursuivre le combat dans le reste de l’empire, la France signa l’armistice à Rethonde le 22 juin 1940.
- La flotte française va être l’objet de nombreuses discussions dans le cadre de l’élaboration de ces conditions d’armistice.
- Lors des pourparlers, la délégation française avait prévu que si les allemands demandaient la livraison de la flotte, I’armistice serait refusé.
- Les allemands dans un article 8 de la convention d’armistice demandaient à la France de rassembler dans des ports à déterminer, la flotte française, de la démobiliser et la désarmer et ceci sous contrôle allemand et italien.
- Concernant la désignation des ports, il fut question des ports d’attache du temps de paix des navires, cela posa un problème notamment pour les cuirassés rattachés à des ports du Nord de la France, donc en zone occupée, mais l’Allemagne a assouplit ses exigences pour permettre la signature de l’armistice, elle remplace
le mot “port d’attache” par port méditerranéen, donc des ports en zone libre.
- L’Allemagne pour rassurer la France déclara solennellement, qu’elle n’avait pas l’intention d’utiliser la flotte de guerre française à ses propres fins, à l’exception des unités nécessaires à la surveillance des côtes et au dragage des mines.
- Concernant les navires français se trouvant en dehors des eaux territoriales françaises, ils devront être rappelés en France, à l’exception de ceux destinés à assurer la sauvegarde des intérêts français dans l’empire colonial.
- Donc cet armistice ne fut pas perçu comme déshonorant pour la flotte, ce qui permit sa signature le 22 Juin 1940.
- Mais cet armistice laissait planer des doutes, notamment sur l’intention des allemands à respecter leurs engagements, ceci inquiétait notamment l’amirauté anglaise et Churchill, qui avaient peur de voir tomber la 4ème marine du monde entre les mains d’Hitler.
…. droit.univ-nantes.fr/labos/cdmo/centre-droit-maritime-oceanique/cdmo/neptunus/nept/nep0/nep0_1. pdf
(retablish the htlm codes)
so ???? was it only yours ?
Say that I know a bit about Spanish history. “Ah what a good vassal if he had a good lord” cried the people of Castilia when the Cid marched to exile after the King banned him for forcing him to swear he was innocent from his brother’s murder. “May you be killed not by hidalgos but by villains, riding not horses but mules, wearing no silk clothes but hides and using not swords but horn-handled knives if you here falsely swear” was the oath the Cid forced the King to swear. Did I mention that my Spanish is good enough I could apply for a job to spy on Spain? (That is if Spain had something valuable to spy on)
About opening arms to communist dictators I wan’t talking of pâcts with Stalin during the war but of the post war puppet regimes in East Europe. Those weren’t forced by necessity.
For passivity of neighbouring countries I suppose you expected the Czech to attack Germany. Too bad they were no longer around. Or was it the Poles? You had remained passive while Germany crushed them without doing anything to relieve the pressure on them all while twho thirds of the German Army were in Poland and the Ruhr laid nearly defenceless within your reach. Or did you expect Romania and Hungary to stretch their necks after seeing what (nothing) you had done for Czechoslovakia and Poland?
For Spain being a factor in WWII you are crazy. There are entire books about the diplomatic contacts in tghe last month before WWII, there were intensive contacts with Rome and Tokyo (the pact with Stalin led a colding of relations between Germany and its two partners in the Steel Pact. There was none with Spain, it was never a factor in Hitler’s plans before the fall of France and BTW during the Munich crisis Franco had already proclaimed Spain would remain neutral. It is true that in May 1940 a dozen French divisions were facing Spain instead of Germany but that was pure stupidity from the French high command not FRanco’s action. To begin with there was nothing valuable to guard before the plane factories in Toulouse and it would have taken ages to the unmotorized Spanish Army to reach them. Also I rermind you that unlike Mussolini Franco didn’t attack France when she was down. I fear you are again in the “French looking for scapegoats to Collaboration” mode.
BTW it is false that I hate everything French. I hate an ambitious general who spent the whole WWII biting the hand who fed him and designing schemes aimed at improving his personal position more than of hastening France’s liberation. I hate the post WWII concept of a whorish France selling itself to the highest bidder like incarnated by De Gaulle first and later by Chirac and Villepin. I hate the nowadays French, frustrated little men who remind me of Procust the Greek bandit who liked to shorten anyone taller than himself.
But I greatly admire that general who took a cut in rank and pay in order to go to Korea, those French soldiers who made their fist parachute drop ever on Dien Bien Phu and Lieutenant Messmer hijacking a ship at gun point in order to join the British (that was before De Gaulle’s speech). They bring a whiff of Arthurian legend. Who wouldn’t envy those fortunate enough to have such men as compatriots? So here you have three counterexamples against your assertion that I hate everything French. A single one was enough to refute it.
BTW, “sionniste” takes a single N instead of two.
Here it is. General Monclar. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Général_Monclar
Read his bio. Grievous wounds during WWI entitling him to retirement. He remains in the Army. Only French victory in 1940 (Narvik). Joins Free France not on 1944 but obn the dark day of June 21th, 1940. For Korea he went from Army Corps General (that is the third highest rank in the Army) to Lieutenant-Colonel (below colonel).
May his name shine forever.
And the antidote to this poison is not the gaullist way of hating the country who helped you to restore your freedom and prosperity but doing things you can be proud of.Like the French general who requested to be downgraded to colonel in order to be allowed to lead the forces France was sending to Korea or the soldiers who in the final stages of Dien Bien Phu kept volunteering for parachuting into wat had become a death trap despite the fact that they were no paras, that they hadn’t done a single jump in their lives.
I wasn’t aware of that. Fortunately I have a customer who is a former “engagé” in french air forces. I ask him about these facts, he said it’s true. Himself was on the way to be sent to Dien Dien Phu, and at the last minut he was sent to Germany. But these Guis that were jumping for the first time were military “engagés” and not new conscripteds.
Also he heard of the downgraded colonel, but couldn’t remember who he was.
These and a France committed to the cause of freedom should have been the role models of post-WWII French instead of DE Gaulle and its vison of France trying to play one side against the other, a spider in a web littered with decaying corpses.
yeah, may-be, but they hadn’t the charism to lead a political career, nor the academic knowledge.
I am not complaining of De Gaulle, he was all that and a good stratege.
I surely miss the kind of man nowadays. We wouldn’t be trapped in this abstracted EU no government.
Say that I know a bit about Spanish history. “Ah what a good vassal if he had a good lord” cried the people of Castilia when the Cid marched to exile after the King banned him for forcing him to swear he was innocent from his brother’s murder. “May you be killed not by hidalgos but by villains, riding not horses but mules, wearing no silk clothes but hides and using not swords but horn-handled knives if you here falsely swear” was the oath the Cid forced the King to swear. Did I mention that my Spanish is good enough I could apply for a job to spy on Spain? (That is if Spain had something valuable to spy on)
yeah, but the Cid of Corneille you don’t know
I wouldn’ advise you to become a spy nowadays in Spain, you might end on Carzon listing, umm, and your romanesque spirit would betray you
“For passivity of neighbouring countries I suppose you expected the Czech to attack Germany. Too bad they were no longer around. Or was it the Poles? You had remained passive while Germany crushed them without doing anything to relieve the pressure on them all while twho thirds of the German Army were in Poland and the Ruhr laid nearly defenceless within your reach. Or did you expect Romania and Hungary to stretch their necks after seeing what (nothing) you had done for Czechoslovakia and Poland?”
umman, America that wanted so much Nations league (SDN) ?
OK I’m going to bring you a russian version of this era from an argumentation he had with a friendly Polish, who was attacking the French too :
st-andrews.ac.uk/~pv/munich/czdoc01.html
It is sad but it is you who don’t know history.
There were such pacts, but they were a necessity, because the USSR had been trying to made an alliance AGAINST Hitler from the very beginning of “Munich crisis” and until 1939. Still and all none of the ‘West Powers’ had agreed. They had been just marking time.
USSR could stop the WWII before it happened. But neither England, nor France or USA wanted it to be stopped. USSR was ready to fight alone, the only problem was Poland which didn’t give passage through its territory to the Soviet Army. England and France could say their words but they refused
I know about that secret addition to the pact, I know that Poland was devided. But you made that happen by yourown actions held prior the devision of Poland. We were left face to face with Hitler Germany, we had to defend ourselves and so we moved our borders as far away from our native lands as possible. That gave us more time when Hitler attacked.
As I already said we could stop Hitler when he had taken part of Czechoslovakia, but you Poles didn’t let us do this (and other western countries also did nothing to let us fight Hitler on its territory when his Third Reich was weak).
You didn’t let us do this not in fear of our invasion, but because in that case (Poland) you couldn’t take part in tearing Czechoslovakia apart and you wouldn’t take (occupy) “some northern parts of Slovakia and” receive “from Czechoslovakia territories around Suchá Hora and Hladovka, around Javorina, and in addition the territory around Lesnica in the Pieniny Mountains, a small territory around Skalité and some other very small border regions”.
So you used ‘Munich crisis’ to enlarge your territories but you just didn’t look into not so far future. You could help prevent WWII and you wouldn’t lost your independence for many years, but because of your greediness you lost that chance. You have nobody to blame for this but yourself.
For Spain being a factor in WWII you are crazy. There are entire books about the diplomatic contacts in tghe last month before WWII, there were intensive contacts with Rome and Tokyo (the pact with Stalin led a colding of relations between Germany and its two partners in the Steel Pact. There was none with Spain, it was never a factor in Hitler’s plans before the fall of France and BTW during the Munich crisis Franco had already proclaimed Spain would remain neutral. It is true that in May 1940 a dozen French divisions were facing Spain instead of Germany but that was pure stupidity from the French high command not FRanco’s action. To begin with there was nothing valuable to guard before the plane factories in Toulouse and it would have taken ages to the unmotorized Spanish Army to reach them. Also I rermind you that unlike Mussolini Franco didn’t attack France when she was down. I fear you are again in the “French looking for scapegoats to Collaboration” mode.
“Despite his sympathy for the Axis powers’ New Order, Franco at first declared Spanish neutrality in the conflict. His policy changed after the fall of France in June 1940, when he approached the German leader Hitler; Franco indicated his willingness to bring Spain into the war on Germany’s side in exchange for extensive German military and economic assistance and the cession to Spain of most of France’s territorial holdings in north-west Africa. Hitler was unable or unwilling to meet this price, and, after meeting with Franco at Hendaye, France, in October 1940, Hitler remarked that he would as soon have three or four teeth pulled out as go through another bargaining session like that again. Franco’s government thenceforth remained relatively sympathetic to the Axis powers, while carefully avoiding any direct diplomatic and military commitment to them. Spain’s return to a state of complete neutrality in 1943 came too late to gain favourable treatment from the ascendant Allies. Nevertheless, Franco’s wartime diplomacy, marked as it was by cold realism and careful timing, had kept his regime from being destroyed along with the Axis powers”
wais.stanford.edu/ztopics/week020105/spain_050201_franco.htm
umm there are controversions, but still good presomptions of Franco’ s objectives, but as a realist and pragmatic man he wanted to see how the events would turn, but surely if Hitler had won on the balance, a part of of France (?) but rather Marroco would have become spanish
BTW it is false that I hate everything French. I hate an ambitious general who spent the whole WWII biting the hand who fed him and designing schemes aimed at improving his personal position more than of hastening France’s liberation.
really ? this hand was feeding him like you feed a prisonner, with all the contempt that the Brits can express.
I hate the post WWII concept of a whorish France selling itself to the highest bidder like incarnated by De Gaulle first and later by Chirac and Villepin. I hate the nowadays French, frustrated little men who remind me of Procust the Greek bandit who liked to shorten anyone taller than himself.
De gaulle managed to get our independance from the Nazis and from the Anglo-Saxons
But I greatly admire that general who took a cut in rank and pay in order to go to Korea, those French soldiers who made their fist parachute drop ever on Dien Bien Phu and Lieutenant Messmer hijacking a ship at gun point in order to join the British (that was before De Gaulle’s speech). They bring a whiff of Arthurian legend. Who wouldn’t envy those fortunate enough to have such men as compatriots? So here you have three counterexamples against your assertion that I hate everything French. A single one was enough to refute it.
you like the warriors, so do I, but they had no opportunity to become our policy deciders, Mesmer got the position of Minister of the armies and defense under De Gaulle government.
BTW, “sionniste” takes a single N instead of two.
Ah thanks, it happens that I may write it with a single N too, depends on my attention and on my speed
De gaulle managed to get our independance from the Nazis and from the Anglo-Saxons
Other countries liberated by the AngloSaxons managed to keep their independence without De Gaulle. What De Gaulle cared for was not France’s independence (non gaullist Free French ever end telling they were interested in fighting Germans and not in helping him to his political side) but power for himself and after 1958 trying to play kingmaker in the Cold War (a key in the kingamker role is favour one side until it is near victory, then shift: kings don’t need kingmakers).
The Cid de Corneille
Corneille used a play from Tirso de Molina named “Las mocedades del Cid” (the fets from the Young Cid). My quote is not from Tirso but from the medieval “Cantar del Mio Cid” written a few decades after his death.
For Spanish Civil War you can look at the book by Anthony Beevor. If your Spanish were good enough I would refer you to one the “reactionary” Spanish historians like Pio Maoa (a former resistant to Franco’s regime who now hates communism) as a counterweight to what you find elsewhere. However he bases mainly on the own documents of the Republican side. And I would avise you to go the hourse mouth like books and texts by Republican politicians like Azańa or Besteiro. I would also advise you to read Orwell’s “1984″.
Since you are so interested in knowing who I work for:
Я работаю в КГБ.
But you already guessed it, isn’t it?
Вы работаете на КГБ Голливуда LMAO
Я думаю, вы кого-то интересное и культивировали, а партийной
I already read Orwells “1984″
Other countries liberated by the AngloSaxons ?
these countries are Nato occupied countries and not free to buy arms and or planes from whatever manufacturers but Americans’
What De Gaulle cared for was not France’s independence (non gaullist Free French ever end telling they were interested in fighting Germans and not in helping him to his political side) but power for himself and after 1958 trying to play kingmaker in the Cold War (a key in the kingamker role is favour one side until it is near victory, then shift: kings don’t need kingmakers).
umm, yeah, they “collaborated” we all know that LMAO,
that can’t be true, he was the one that left power when the parliament and or the popular vote didn’t endorse him anymore, in 1946 first, in 1969… while a Mitterand (and a Chirac) stayed in Power
A deux reprises, le général de Gaulle dirige deux gouvernements dont l’action est capitale en France : à la Libération, il est président du Gouvernement provisoire de la République française (GPRF), du 3 juin 1944 à sa démission, le 20 janvier 1946, avant la naissance de la IVe République. Il est ensuite le dernier président du Conseil de la IVe République de juin à décembre 1958.
Le Comité français de la Libération nationale (CFLN), créé le 3 juin 1943, et quelques mois coprésidé par les généraux Giraud et de Gaulle, est remplacé par le Gouvernement provisoire de la République française un an après, le 3 juin 1944 ; le général de Gaulle en devient le seul président. Le GPRF intègre toutes les tendances de la résistance extérieure et intérieure ; il est remanié en septembre 1944, au retour à Paris, pour former un gouvernement d’unanimité nationale. Ce gouvernement accomplit une œuvre considérable en reprenant une grande partie du programme du Conseil national de la Résistance (CNR) et de la France libre : légiférant par ordonnances, il engage la reconstruction de la France et introduit des novations sociales majeures (droit de vote accordé aux femmes, nationalisation des banques et des grandes entreprises, création de la Sécurité sociale…).
De Gaulle multiplie les voyages en France même, pour s’assurer du respect de la légalité républicaine, se faire connaître et connaître lui aussi un pays qu’il a quitté depuis le 17 juin 1940. Il se rend aussi aux États-Unis et au Canada (juillet 1944) et en URSS (décembre 1944) ; la France participe à la création de l’ONU et devient membre permanent du Conseil de sécurité. Sur le prétexte du refus du vote des crédits militaires, il quitte le pouvoir le 20 janvier 1946, laissant la place à Félix Gouin ; en fait le retour des partis politiques ne lui laisse pas présager d’amélioration en matière institutionnelle.
Revenu au pouvoir en mai 1958, à l’appel du Président Coty, sous la pression des événements d’Algérie, de Gaulle devient président du Conseil de la IVe République. L’Assemblée nationale vote l’investiture le 1er juin, par 351 voix contre 250. De Gaulle avait posé ses conditions : les pleins pouvoirs pendant six mois et l’institution d’une procédure exceptionnelle de révision de la Constitution. Outre les voyages en Algérie et dans l’Empire en vue du référendum constitutionnel, de Gaulle s’attelle à la poursuite de la modernisation de la France, pour qu’elle puisse intégrer la Communauté européenne à la date prévue par le traité de Rome : réforme financière, mesures économiques pour équilibrer le budget. Dans le même temps, la diplomatie gaullienne se développe notamment avec les Allemands, puisque le Chancelier Adenauer est reçu à Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises en septembre 1958, mais aussi réflexion sur la défense européenne, face à l’emprise américaine, en proposant un directoire de l’OTAN à trois (Américains, Britanniques et Français). C’est vers le long terme que de Gaulle se tourne, sans se limiter à la crise algérienne qui retient cependant son attention quotidienne.
OK the Vth constitution made that the president has kinda the power of a king, but it is in consideration that France is an ungovernable country otherwise (remember how many times governments changed because their policy coundn’t meet the quorum at the national assembly)
Churchill also said “how can one govern France with so many cheezes and wines”
I retranslate the cyrillic version, that google apparently can’t retranfigurate into english or french
je pense que tu es interessant et cultivé, mais par contre trop partisan