Even back in 1973, I didn't understand why Israel went to war with Egypt. Now Yigal Kipnis in this article (and his book: 1973: The Road to War) explain that the Yom Kippur war was, in fact, unnecessary, and that peace could have been maintained. Apparently Henry Kissinger was making progress with Anwar Sadat and had a reasonable peace proposal for Golda Meir, who rejected it due to political concerns.
Yom Kippur, the unnecessary war? - latimes.com:
If, in fact, a treaty at that time could have been negotiated, how would history have unfolded in the many decades since? Would the Palestine problem have been resolved? Syria been more democratic? Lebanon would have never self destructed? Golda Meir's single political decision destroyed immense amounts of infrastructure in Egypt and Israel and resulted in the death of thousands of people.
My question is: why was this fact kept secret for so long? The answer may be that if the American citizens knew that Israel had an opportunity for peace, but chose, instead to attack Egypt, that it would weaken the US support for the immense amount of foreign aid the US provided (and still provides) to Israel. Instead, Israel's 6-day war was touted as being a masterful stroke of genius and military skill, when in fact, it was simply won by overwhelming force with the most modern technology. My guess is that Israel and Israel's supporters will continue to try to downplay this revelation, and most news outlets will either not mention it, or keep it on the back page.
Israel continues to masquerade as a "victim" in the Middle East, while they continue to maintain the most modern of weapons, including nuclear weapons. Israel argues against any of their neighbors having "weapons of mass destruction" when they probably have more than all of their neighbors combined!
I believe the same sort of thing happened when George W Bush attacked Afghanistan, and Iraq. Afghanistan was reported to be willing to negotiate a turnover of Al Qaeda operatives to the US, if we would provide some "financial assistance." -- but Bush wanted to start a war to make it look like he was doing something in response to 9/11. His attack on Iraq also was clearly an impatient response to rumors that Saddam had WMD. So far, I think the way Obama has handled the Syrian situation makes perfect sense -- if we can extract the chemical weapons without starting a war, we are way ahead. Yeah, the right-wingers accused him of being "wishy-washy" and indecisive by not attacking Syria, as he threatened to do. He had to take that heat. I wish Golda Meir and George W Bush had used better judgment--similar to Obama's. They may have faced criticism from political foes at the time, but waiting to attack was the right thing to do.
Yom Kippur, the unnecessary war? - latimes.com:
If, in fact, a treaty at that time could have been negotiated, how would history have unfolded in the many decades since? Would the Palestine problem have been resolved? Syria been more democratic? Lebanon would have never self destructed? Golda Meir's single political decision destroyed immense amounts of infrastructure in Egypt and Israel and resulted in the death of thousands of people.
My question is: why was this fact kept secret for so long? The answer may be that if the American citizens knew that Israel had an opportunity for peace, but chose, instead to attack Egypt, that it would weaken the US support for the immense amount of foreign aid the US provided (and still provides) to Israel. Instead, Israel's 6-day war was touted as being a masterful stroke of genius and military skill, when in fact, it was simply won by overwhelming force with the most modern technology. My guess is that Israel and Israel's supporters will continue to try to downplay this revelation, and most news outlets will either not mention it, or keep it on the back page.
Israel continues to masquerade as a "victim" in the Middle East, while they continue to maintain the most modern of weapons, including nuclear weapons. Israel argues against any of their neighbors having "weapons of mass destruction" when they probably have more than all of their neighbors combined!
I believe the same sort of thing happened when George W Bush attacked Afghanistan, and Iraq. Afghanistan was reported to be willing to negotiate a turnover of Al Qaeda operatives to the US, if we would provide some "financial assistance." -- but Bush wanted to start a war to make it look like he was doing something in response to 9/11. His attack on Iraq also was clearly an impatient response to rumors that Saddam had WMD. So far, I think the way Obama has handled the Syrian situation makes perfect sense -- if we can extract the chemical weapons without starting a war, we are way ahead. Yeah, the right-wingers accused him of being "wishy-washy" and indecisive by not attacking Syria, as he threatened to do. He had to take that heat. I wish Golda Meir and George W Bush had used better judgment--similar to Obama's. They may have faced criticism from political foes at the time, but waiting to attack was the right thing to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment