Saving one's honor

[question everything]

The 1967 war started when Egypt kicked out the UN troops on the border between it and Israel, and then blockaded the Straits of Tiran - a world wide recognizable act of war declaration.

Jordan and Syria decided to join, too, and attacked Israel.

Israel won on all three front - fair and square. At that time, with no support from the US (Johnson had his own problems in Vietnam) and with an old reliable friend - France - turning its back.

While Israel was celebrating, taunting the Arabs, expecting them to ask for a peace treaty, some Israelis, notably Uri Avneri, warned about the importance of honor in the Arab world. They also talked about the importance of generosity and magnanimity in the Arab world. They said that Israel should be the one to start negotiating peace treaties, returning of land taken, and final talks about permanent borders and, Avneri, again, suggested that a Palestinian state be established in the West Bank and in Gaza that were annexed in 1950 by then Trans Jordan and Egypt, respectively. Such annexation were recognized only by Pakistan and Great Britain. Further, Avneri suggested, a federation should be established between Israel and Palestine.

But the Israeli government would not hear about these ideas and one could almost understand this - a smashing military victory that no one could have anticipated.

Indeed, it was said that Egypt's Sadat had to restore his country's honor by invading in 1973 and had the Israeli army under attack, before he would consider a peace treaty with Israel and ending hostilities, in 1977.

Thus, even before the anticipated Nassrallah's speech about a victory, I was thinking that, if saving one's honor is so important for the Arabs, fine, you can have it. You can claim victory.

Now, will you cease your hostilities and work for final peace between Israel and all its neighbors?

Yes, of course Israel should withdraw from the West Bank. It was ready to do so; this is how Olmert won the elections. Further, the PA was preparing a referendum that would recognize Israel and some claim that this is why Hamas and Hezbollah attacked - to prevent any chances of cozy relations between Israel and the PA.

OK, flame away.

[breakaleg]

1. here...

You say that Nassrallah declaring victory was to save his honour. Does that mean you feel like Israel "won" this round?

And then you go on to say "Now, will you cease your hostilities and work for final peace between Israel and all its neighbors?". The implication being Israel will allow you to claim victory, now are you willing to work out a peace agreement. But Israel started this war, not Lebanon. It's Israel who doesn't seem to want peace at the moment - they just destroyed much of Lebanon for no apparent reason - the 2 soldiers weren't returned, Hezbollah is still around.

I guess I don't believe the premise on which you based your argument.

[question everything]

2. No, Israel did not win, but I don't know what kind of a victory

is celebrated by Nassrallah, with Lebanon is in ruins and many dead and wounded - for what? He did not get his prisoners back either, if anyone is willing to believe this excuse.

But I hope that Israel will "let" him - not that he needs anyone's permission - to claim the victory, if it would allow him and Hamas and the PA to negotiate with Israel as equals, and to abandon their dreams to eliminate Israel - and the world Jewry - from the face of the earth.

[Igel]

3. He got part of it right.

But he is secular.

For the religious, for those whom Islam is a crucial part of their identity such as Hezb and Hamas, the same rule holds. They must restore their honor, and personally vindicate the god that they claim in a frenzy of self-nullification is both greatest and so weak that non-believing humans are strong enough to violate him. But the price the religious would demand is not one that anybody should be willing to pay.

Even for the secular, sometimes the price they require that the loser pay is too high.

This accounts, to a large extent, for the first intifada--the one in the 30s. And for the problems in the '20s.