1967

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"In June 1967, Israel broke through its temporary borders, and, under the auspices of a military conquest, embarked upon an extensive colonial project in the newly conquered territories. The historical timing is intriguing: by the late 1960s it seemed that the crises of de-colonization were coming to an end. During the 1950s and the 1960s, anti-colonial movements in Asia and Africa stripped the old colonial powers of the vestiges of the empires they had established at the end of the nineteenth century, and in some cases, since the early modern period. Disillusionment with de-colonization was still lying ahead of the liberated nations: the replacement of direct political rule by indirect domination, the failure of the new elites to fulfill the promises associated with political liberation, and the disenchantment from illusions of “modernization” and unrestrained “development” (in this respect one could have learned much from the longer, bitterer experience of Latin America). In 1967, two years after France’s final exit from Algiers, while the USA just began to flounder in the mess of Vietnam, Israel opened a new chapter in the history of the conflict: it imposed its military rule over a million and a half Palestinians deprived of political rights, but refrained from annexing most of the territories—except for Jerusalem (1967) and the Golan Heights (1981). The military occupation had begun.

Israel became a regional power. It erased the “shame of 1956”—Israel’s forced withdrawal from the Sinai just a few weeks after David Ben Gurion’s triumphant declaration of the founding of Israel’s Third Kingdom. Now his followers could show that the future belonged to them. The military victory blinded the eyes of many—not just those of Israel’s leaders who were drunk with power. It also concealed essential aspects of the new phase from most of the critics of the occupation. The military conquest and the following repression rule, with its horrors and brutal practices, draw attention concealed the renewed colonial project.

In hindsight, it is easy to recognize that the Israeli occupation is essentially a colonial project enacted under the auspices of a military occupation. The occupation provides ideal conditions for the process of dispossession and settlement: it is implemented against residents with no rights of citizenship, under the protective shield of a military occupation which employs emergency regulations and unrestrained power. A large jumble of military regulations, remnants of Jordanian and Ottoman laws, Israeli law and military adjudication enables the colonial process to progress effectively and rapidly, to seize natural resources, land and water and to establish facts on the ground. The settlements are no added bonus to the occupation, no accident that occurred under pressure from the Messianic and nationalistic right; they are its heart and soul and its raison d’être.

Israel’s colonial project in the occupied territories has three main branches: a string of settlements, a network of roads, and a system of roadblocks and barriers. The settlements control essential resources, cut up the occupied area and create a colonial frontier that is constantly on the move, pushing further the dispossession process. The roads separate the colonial masters from their subjects; they allow the army and the settlers spatial control and rapid movement, and serve as a network of additional barriers separating Palestinian villages and towns. The system of roadblocks and barriers, travel permits and terminals, concrete walls and fenced enclaves keep the indigenous population locked up under constant supervision, free to manage their hardship."

more

[zalinda]

1. This is certainly not my understanding of what happened

PBS just had a program on the 6 day war. It was very in depth, with interviews on both sides Israeli and Arab. It was Egypt's president Gamal Abdel Nasser who brought about the war. He brought in Syria and Jordan, and kicked out the UN peace keeping team. Israel had no choice but to fight. They attacked just days before Nasser was going to attack them. They took out all of Egypt, Syria and Jordan air forces in one day, that was their first attack. If Nasser had backed down, Israel would not have gained any ground. In fact, most of the territory that they acquired was not planned. But, after the war ended, they decided to keep the land.

The Arabs thought that they would take over Israel very easily, and they hid from their people that they were losing. Because of the lies, they dug themselves in deeper because they did not communicate with the other countries and each listened to the public radio broadcasts for their information. Did you ever wonder why there is such a hatred for Israeli's, the English and Americans? The Arabs told their people that the Jews won because the US and Britain helped them, which was a bold faced lie. They keep the lie going for all these years feeding the hate because they could not stand the embarrassment of a small country like Israel beating not one, but three Arab countries.

I had never understood the hatred until I saw the PBS special, now I understand. It's stupid! Bruised egos, hating for 40 years, stupid.

zalinda

[LeftishBrit]

2. Israel didn't start the 1967 war...

this is very misleading.

[Malikshah]

3. *That* is very misleading.

Who struck and destroyed the AF of the countries? Who struck first?

Read Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall, it is quite revealing and in no way misleading on this issue.

[number6]

5. very good book

Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall

been reading it...

[zalinda]

4. They didn't start it because they wanted to

They started the attack first because they needed the element of surprise to go against not 1, but 3 countries coming after them.

President Johnson knew what was going on, as well as Russia. The Israeli intelligence was the only thing that saved Israel from being demolished. Israel asked Johnson for help and he said no.

The program was very interesting, and enlightening.

zalinda