« IDF Releases Gaza Casualty Stats, Says Hamas Duped World |
Main
| Head Count, Palestinian Style »
Your Daily Dose of Historical Revisionism
 Bruce Anderson, a columnist at The Independent provides your daily dose of historical revisionism:
The first act of the current tragedy began in 1967, after the Six-Day War. Plucky little Israel was master of the battlefield. She had overrun a vast acreage of Arab territory. Almost immediately, even by those who had never been enthusiastic about the State of Israel, distinctions began to be drawn between the pre-'67 boundaries and the 1967 conquests. Israel had a tremendous hand of cards, strategic and moral. There was never a better moment for "in victory, magnanimity.
Israel should have announced that unlike almost every previous military victor, she did not seek territorial gains; her sole war aims were peace and justice. To secure them, she was prepared to trade her conquests, with the obvious exception of the Holy Places in old Jerusalem. On such a basis, and with huge international support, a deal would have been possible. But there were problems. At its narrowest point, pre-'67 Israel was only 12 miles wide. A tank thrust from the West Bank could have cut the country in two. Although the generals cannot be blamed for failing to predict the era of asymmetric warfare in which tank thrusts would only occur in war movies, their insistence on a demilitarised West Bank complicated matters. Then a temptation emerged, like the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
Memo to Anderson: On June 19, 1967 (a week and change after the war), the Israeli government sent a message to the U.S. it was prepared to return Gaza and the Golan in return for signed peace treaties while separate negotiations would resolve the future of the West Bank, Gaza and refugees.
History refers to the famous Arab reaction from Khartoum as The Three No's.
Posted at
12:00 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b7869e2011168676196970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Your Daily Dose of Historical Revisionism:
Even to talk about Israel having overrun “a vast acreage of Arab territory” is questionable history. Israel’s claim to Judea, Samaria (the “West Bank”) and Gaza was stronger than Jordan’s and Egypt’s respectively, while her claim to the Golan Heights and even the Sinai is at least as good as that of Syria and Egypt respectively.
To refer to areas that were part of the area set aside for a Jewish national home (Western Palestine) as “a vast acreage of Arab territory” is somewhat revisionist!
Posted by: Maskil at Feb 16, 2009 1:19:46 PM
It's astounding that a journalist can be so ignorant about the basic history of the subject he writes about. The infamous "three no's" is commonly known at least to those who have an interest in Mideast history.
Posted by: Laura at Feb 16, 2009 7:12:55 PM
I am aghast at this mans whole approach and attitude.
Sure hes a clever writer but anyone with an ounce of true knowledge is not fooled with such bravado.
His last five words really sum it all up"it would be Israels fault".I DONT THINKS SO MR ANDERSON.
Posted by: DAVID CORP at Feb 17, 2009 8:06:36 PM
|
