|
|
|
|
|
| | US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran ConflictPage 4 of 13 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13) |
You mean a "rational" democracy that places bombs under its enemies beds and blows up innocent men, women and children in the process? When they are attacked from those locations and the enemy has a stated policy of using women and children as human shields for furtherance of attacking your women and children, then yes.
Did you even read what you responded too or are you simply unable to comprehend it?
Not even the Israeli air force is good enough to place bombs under its enemies beds. That has to be done deliberately, by hand, by an individual carrying out an assassination with no concern for the innocent and completely uninvolved lives of foreign nationals being taken along with it. Not because they were hostages, not because they were "human shields" but because warning them would have given away the assassination attempt.
You mean a "rational" democracy that steals the land of others for its own use, denies them their living and bulldozes their homes even when the family is still inside? When those are the homes used to prepare for suicide attacks and usage as tunnels to bring in more weapons to kill Israli citizens then sure.
And what about when it happens simply because some radical zionist group wants their land for their own little plush, gated community?
What about when it occurs while stealing someone else's farm simply because their farm happens to be where you want to put your new settlement?
You mean a "rational" democracy that crushes people with tanks and heavy equipment, that bombs schools and hospitals, that shoots children in the head? Do you refer to peaceniks in a war zone deliberately placinbg themselves in the way of armored bulldozers during a military operation?
It could be that but, it could also be a 10 yr old child armed with a pebble against your 64 ton tank.
Oh, and the occupied territories are hardly a "war zone" (given to hyperbole much, are you?). Either way, deliberately killing unarmed, peaceful civilians even if they are in the way of your armored bulldozer is still a violation of international law and a war crime, even in a war zone. Did you forget that little part because I KNOW they teach it in the Forces (I'm seeing definite hints of 2 Commando *sswipes in these lines).
@my little kitten
Here's an excellent video for you to watch. It documents much of what has been said (especially the part about shooting children).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6604775898578139565
by Bathsheba Ratzkoff and Sut Jhally
P.S. Ratzkoff is both Jewish and Israeli, is she anti-semitic too or just 'self-hating' in your books? | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/3/2009 10:26:06 PM | Mungojoe
Did you even read what you responded too or are you simply unable to comprehend it?
Yes I did however, knowing that secret clandestine assassinations are not part of your knowledge base felt that we could move onto something that I knew you would bring up anyhow and thus skip a step.
Mungojoe
And what about when it happens simply because some radical zionist group wants their land for their own little plush, gated community?
What about when it occurs while stealing someone else's farm simply because their farm happens to be where you want to put your new settlement?
This is something that both you and I can agree on. I see the reasons why in that the land cannot be permitted to be returned and used by Palestinians until there is complete peace however, being a democracy with all the bribery and corruption as well as a free economy, certain parties have good reason in Israel to place pressure on the government for use of this land.
Mungojoe
Oh, and the occupied territories are hardly a "war zone"
When there is an armored bulldozer tearing down a house with a tunnel underneath it sure is.
Mungojoe
(I'm seeing definite hints of 2 Commando *sswipes in these lines).
Explain this comment please. Not that it means much coming from somebody that can't stick to one job, much less a country or army, you just have my curiosity piqued.
Oh, shoot, you forgot to address this comment;
Mungojoe
You mean a "rational" democracy that covets the land of others, invades nations, occupies their land and kills their people?
Unlike the Arabs who began this cycle of death by invading Israel who, was intent on abiding by Res 181 with six armies the day after they declared independence and, their intent to adhere to the Resolution.
(May 15, 1948), Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, at Cairo press conference, (reported in the New York Times, May 16, 1948) declared "jihad", a holy war. He then stated:
"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades".
"We desire death like you desire life." Try making peace with that. Mungo.
Mungojoe
Actually, I have, for several years, Army to be exact and in the Canadian Army, also for several years and a tour as a UN peacekeeper on the Golan (where the IDF likes to shoot and bomb peacekeepers with uncanny regularity).
Could you elaborate on the incidents where Peacekeepers were shot and bombed with 'uncanny regularity' by Israel please Mungo? And wondering, what was your job while there and, where were you stationed? | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/4/2009 1:36:21 AM | mungo...
paleez don't put words in my mouth...I don't like the ones spilling' out of yours let alone the spin you're putting on mine.
I am not anti-Arab. I'm pretty open when it comes to individuals; I live in a very diverse city with people of many backgrounds, I work in a creative field with intelligent people from all groups. I spoke of the Hitler over there...and he is one. Go watch this little gem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo&feature=related
And with what's happening in Iran now, killing protesters, can you seriously show your face and defend him and that regime???
If you'll notice at the end of my previous post I said there was a mid east crisis...What I also said, and I stand by, and by the way, kudos to you, Fandango...is that the Israelis go out of there way to warn civilians, and that Hamas uses their own women and children as shields. They are strategically placed, so that when there are unfortunately, casualities, the PR machine can show the atrocities against mankind that the terrorist Israeli is supposedly doing. By the way, why aren't you up in arms about the people being killed in Iran right now because they abhor their current regime, the one you seem so adamant about defending. Funny, people who actually live under that rule are willing to die to get him out, and you're over here all cushy singing his praises.
You have not heard me use one derogatory word about the Palestinians...what I have said is the truth...Jewish people, the Israelis, aren't a threat to the world. They don't bomb trains, buildings, go on suicide missions, behead people, cut out tongues and who knows how many antiquated barbaric practices that passes as the norm by some of the govt's of in their neighboring territories. The Israelis are about survival; every time there is a peace, they aren't the ones to break it. I know Israelis who sleep in bomb shelters, kids who are brought up that way as a way of life, going to the army at a young age because they are surrounded by people who didn't want to live side-by-side.
And then google Arabs for Israel; just found them. Very interesting site...if it's for real (don't know much about them). That's inspiring, not this one-sided ANTI-SEMITIC dung all over again. You make it sound like just for shits and giggles, the Israelis kill people , usurp their land...just cause they do. You act like the Israelis have no right to their own land, have no provocation to retaliate, no history of threat by militant groups...it's all one way in your world. Stop pontificating that anti-Israeli propaganda to me. Save it for the group that's eager to jump on your bandwagon. I'll walk.... | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/4/2009 3:45:30 AM | KuddleKitty
You act like the Israelis have no right to their own land, have no provocation to retaliate, no history of threat by militant groups...it's all one way in your world. Stop pontificating that anti-Israeli propaganda to me. Save it for the group that's eager to jump on your bandwagon. I'll walk....
Many do, not just Mungo. They forget that the Arabs flat out rejected partition while the Israelis accepted it and the borders yet, were attacked from day one and, continued to be attacked over the years. The land from which they were attacked from was taken and used as defensive positions against further attacks.
That's not saying that Israel is without sin as they should not be using that land to further their own propagation be it temporary or permanent rather, it should be used for what it was intended - a bulwark against the irrational hatred much of the Arab world has against them.
There's four problems happening here which prevent peace from breaking out - Israel needs a track record from a stable entity proving they are committed to peace before any progress can be made as they won't, nor can they be expected to give up one iota of security given the forces against them (four nations of the original six and the Palestinians) have not agreed to unconditional peace; - the Palestinians have not had an environment or government with the strength to transpose flash in the pan peace initiatives into a lasting and convincing negotiating entity; - forces within Israel profit from the use of captured and occupied land thus adding fuel to any anti peace initiative and last; - Palestinian groups wishing true peace (and yes, they are there as you have observed) do not find fertile ground on which to apostatize their theism as some groups in Palestine (such as Hamas) remain in power using an anti Israel fervor and are hard pressed to give both up.
That's not to say that it can never happen however, the cycle of hatred has to be broken with poor behavior on both sides frowned upon. Myself, I believe that a concrete start would be giving up the settlements in return for a treaty and, paying rent to the PA for use of the land with financial penalties for any actions not in spirit with the agreement. Possibly once they have something in common such as a financial agreement they might cross a psychological barrier and make progress in other areas. One thing is for certain, continual berating of Israel is only going to encourage Palestinians to keep using their own as fodder for propaganda which in turn, will only increase protectionism by the Israelis and the IDF as they carry out their prime function which is to stop attacks and attackers at any cost. | |
|
| |
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/4/2009 9:37:43 AM | The Palestinians rejected partition because they wanted a single country with equal rights for all. (Encyclopedia Of The Palestinian Problem) Partition is tantamount to saying: we are giving your house to people we have wronged in Europe and you now have to live out in your yard.
What is preventing peace from breaking out is the zionists relentless pressure to drive off the Palestinians using methods that have gotten people hung after the second world war in Germany and Japan. These crimes against humanity include: collective punishment, mass murder, looting, deprivation of food, deprivation of water and denial medical atention.
The claim of a devine right of "Lebenstraum" is false when most of the zionists hail from the US and Eatern Europe where they maintain residences in their absence. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/4/2009 10:18:36 AM |
You act like the Israelis have no right to their own land, have no provocation to retaliate, no history of threat by militant groups...it's all one way in your world. Stop pontificating that anti-Israeli propaganda to me. Save it for the group that's eager to jump on your bandwagon. I'll walk....
You don't actualy read what others write , do you?
I've never said any of those things yet somehow, that's what you get from it. Just a sad expose of your state of mind.
paleez don't put words in my mouth...I don't like the ones spilling' out of yours let alone the spin you're putting on mine.
Then drop the shrill, harpy-like screeches of "anti-semite" everytime someone posts a truth about the massive contribution of Israel's radical zionists to the continuation of this problem. No-one is putting those screams and the utter denial of facts in your mouth, you are producing them of your own accord.
Did you even read what you responded too or are you simply unable to comprehend it? Yes I did however, knowing that secret clandestine assassinations are not part of your knowledge base..
Then how did I know to mention it? You seem to forget that many of these incidents haven't been well kept secrets (kind of hard to do when you cause indiscriminate civilian casualties in the process). I do truly like your uncanny ability to assume others cannot know those things which you know nothing about.
Oh, and the occupied territories are hardly a "war zone" When there is an armored bulldozer tearing down a house with a tunnel underneath it sure is.
And when that bulldozer is there to steal land or crush civilian protesters? Even the circumstance you described does not make it a "war zone".
(I'm seeing definite hints of 2 Commando *sswipes in these lines). Explain this comment please.
Your comments remind me of the ignorant *sswipe thugs that infected 2 Commando, resulting in the disbanding of CAR
They forget that the Arabs flat out rejected partition while the Israelis accepted it and the borders yet, were attacked from day one and, continued to be attacked over the years. The land from which they were attacked from was taken and used as defensive positions against further attacks.
Unlike the Arabs who began this cycle of death by invading Israel who, was intent on abiding by Res 181 with six armies the day after they declared independence and, their intent to adhere to the Resolution.
After the Israeli War of Independence, every single war except the '73 Yom Kippur War was intiated by Israel.
In the '56 Suez Crisis, it was Israel who did the attacking.
In the '67 6 Day War and the subsequent occupations (some of which still continue today), it was Israel who did the attacking. The War of Attrition was merely a continuation of this war started by Israel.
In the '78 invasion of Lebanon, it was Israel who did the attacking.
In the '82 invasion of Lebanon and the subsequent 8 yr occupation, it was Israel that did the attacking.
The '73 Yom Kippur War would never have started if not for the continued, unrelenting occupation of Palestinian, Syrian and Egyptian territory that resulted from Israel's war of aggression in '67.
This "Oh, we're constantly under attack" BS might fly if THE MAJORITY of the wars had not actualy been started by Israel or Israel at least returned to its '67 borders WITHOUT continuing its strangle-hold over Palestinian civilians IN THEIR OWN LAND. Of course, they have refused to do that for over 40 years, all due to the strangle-hold that the radical zionists have on the Israeli gov't.
The Israeli gov't and the radical zionists who control it bear every bit as much blame as the Arab nations and more so than the Palestinians in the occupied territories. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/4/2009 5:36:58 PM | Mungojoe
how did I know to mention it? You seem to forget that many of these incidents haven't been well kept secrets (kind of hard to do when you cause indiscriminate civilian casualties in the process). I do truly like your uncanny ability to assume others cannot know those things which you know nothing about.
Well, let’s hear your version of the bombs under the bed assassinations supported by reputable media then Mungo. Some examples without the usual over inflated propaganda collateral casualties would be in order as any fool can just pull numbers out of their ass.
Mungojoe
when that bulldozer is there to steal land or crush civilian protesters? Even the circumstance you described does not make it a "war zone".
A bit over the top don’t you think? Even a die hard Palestinian Hamas supporter would have problems equating leveling a home occupied by a suicide bomber or, one under which a tunnel used to smuggle in Iranian rockets with a deliberate and costly mob of a D12 Armored bulldozer simply to crush a civilian protestor.
In any case, enemy logistics is a valid target. A home used to prepare for battle or, disguising a tunnel used to ship materials of war is a valid target just like a military supply line would be.
Mungojoe
comments remind me of the ignorant *sswipe thugs that infected 2 Commando, resulting in the disbanding of CAR
Which comments Mungo? And you still did not clarify the following;
Mungojoe
I have, for several years, Army to be exact and in the Canadian Army, also for several years and a tour as a UN peacekeeper on the Golan (where the IDF likes to shoot and bomb peacekeepers with uncanny regularity).
When were you there, what was your job, where were you stationed and can you tell us some of these incidents where Peacekeepers on the Golan were shot and bombed with uncanny regularity?
Mungojoe
the Israeli War of Independence, every single war except the '73 Yom Kippur War was intiated by Israel.
Really? I’d like to see your sources.
Mungojoe
the '56 Suez Crisis, it was Israel who did the attacking.
After Egypt conducted a virtual blockade of Israel by cutting off the Red Sea and ability to use the Suez.. All in violation with the Armistice of 1949..
Mungojoe
the '67 6 Day War and the subsequent occupations (some of which still continue today), it was Israel who did the attacking.
Mungo! Where do you get this stuff from? Here, some quotes;
May 17: Cairo Radio's Voice of the Arabs: "All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel."
May 18: Voice of the Arabs announces: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."
May 18: Nasser announces blockade of Straits of Tiran in the Red Sea, severing Israel's southern maritime link to the outside world. Israel considers the closure an act of war. (US President Lyndon Johnson later says: "If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Straits of Tiran would be closed.")
May 20: Syria's defence minister (now president) Hafez el-Assad says: "Our forces are now ready not only to repulse the aggression but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ..."
May 27: Nasser: "Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. "
May 30: Nasser : "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."
My 31: Egyptian newspaper Al Akhbar reports: "Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two ..."
May 31: Iraqi President Rahman Aref announces: "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."
That last one has the ring of Amadinijad doesn’t it?
Let’s see, ‘67 marked Nasser giving UNEF 24 hours to clear the Sinai and then blockading Israel again and moving his forces (freshly kitted out courtesy of the USSR) through the UN lines in the Sinai and massed on the southern border of Israel. The peace loving Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanians also massed on their respective borders preparing for a full scale attack. Israel, knowing they were not the welcome wagon and, with the ceasefire broken by Egypt preemptively took out the Egyptian air capability then followed suit with the others.
Mungojoe
The War of Attrition was merely a continuation of this war started by Israel.
Where the hell do you get this stuff from Mungo? Egypt started this one in order to place pressure on Israel to give up the Sinai with terms favorable to Egypt. Israel gained nothing and, stood to gain nothing by conducting this so please, cite your sources.
Mungojoe
The '73 Yom Kippur War would never have started if not for the continued, unrelenting occupation of Palestinian, Syrian and Egyptian territory that resulted from Israel's war of aggression in '67.
Gee. Thought they all had a armistice agreement so why would they be attacking anybody? Interestingly enough, in Egypt it is known as the ‘October War’ and, pretty much the only war in which the Arabs can claim they should have won. And won they would have were it not for the support of evil Uncle Sam landing supplies from stateside right onto the battlefield.
Mungojoe
In the '78 invasion of Lebanon, it was Israel who did the attacking.
They were attacking who? (Hint - PLO after being attacked themselves)
Mungojoe
In the '82 invasion of Lebanon and the subsequent 8 yr occupation, it was Israel that did the attacking.
Once again, they were attacking who?
Mungojoe
This "Oh, we're constantly under attack" BS might fly if THE MAJORITY of the wars had not actualy been started by Israel or Israel at least returned to its '67 borders WITHOUT continuing its strangle-hold over Palestinian civilians IN THEIR OWN LAND. Of course, they have refused to do that for over 40 years, all due to the strangle-hold that the radical zionists have on the Israeli gov't.
looks like the BS dos fly as the majority were started by Arabs Mungo. Anyhow, I’ll sum up for you; Everybody wanted to wipe them out from day one, armistice broken by Egypt to weaken them enough to wipe out, UN lines broken and combined forces amassed on all borders of Israel to once again - wipe them out, giving up, Egypt begins War of Attrition to wear down Israeli resolve to gain back Sinai, losing that, surprise attack combined with Syria for purpose of - wiping them out.
Mungojoe
The Israeli gov't and the radical zionists who control it bear every bit as much blame as the Arab nations and more so than the Palestinians in the occupied territories.
I think that if, after sixty years, people were still trying to wipe my country out, I would be equally stingy with my security as well. In any case, it’s easy to see why you believe as you do.
| |
|
| |
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/4/2009 9:07:29 PM |
After Egypt conducted a virtual blockade of Israel by cutting off the Red Sea and ability to use the Suez.. All in violation with the Armistice of 1949..
Israel wasn't blockaded, they still had full access to the Mediterranean. At the worst it simply required them to take the long way around.
And you know what else dude, I've actualy read the armistice agreement. It don't say squat about Israeli access to the Strait of Tiran or the Suez. Both of these waterways are within Egyptian territory, that kind of gives them an element of sovereignty, hmmm?
Here's a link, read it for yourself and then come back and show me where it says anything about either.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm01.asp
Israel's claim of this violating the armistice carries about as much water as the US claims of WMD's in Iraq.
the '67 6 Day War and the subsequent occupations (some of which still continue today), it was Israel who did the attacking. Mungo! Where do you get this stuff from? Here, some quotes; May 17: Cairo Radio's Voice of the Arabs: "All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel."
May 18: Voice of the Arabs announces: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."
May 18: Nasser announces blockade of Straits of Tiran in the Red Sea, severing Israel's southern maritime link to the outside world. Israel considers the closure an act of war. (US President Lyndon Johnson later says: "If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Straits of Tiran would be closed.")
May 20: Syria's defence minister (now president) Hafez el-Assad says: "Our forces are now ready not only to repulse the aggression but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ..."
May 27: Nasser: "Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. "
May 30: Nasser : "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."
My 31: Egyptian newspaper Al Akhbar reports: "Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two ..."
May 31: Iraqi President Rahman Aref announces: "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."
Interesting, no where in there is any mention of an actual Egyptian attack.
How about this timeline?
1964: Israel begins diverting water from the Jordan River, threatening water supplies in the West Bank which are fed by the Jordan. Jordan, with the help of Syria initiates its own diversion project further upstream to secure the water supply.
March 1965: IDF crosses into Syria and attacks the diversion project which is attempting to secure the water supplies further downstream which are being diverted by Israel in violation of the armistice.
May 1965: IDF crosses into Syria again and attacks the diversion project in violation of the armistice.
August 1965: IDF crosses into Syria yet again and attacks the diversion project in violation of the armistice.
November 11-13, 1966: Israeli border patrol strikes an uncleared mine and uses it as an excuse to launch a large scale attack on Jordan in violation of the armistice despite on-going peace talks with Jordan sponsored by the US. The raid draws immediate international condemnation, including the US.
November 20 1966: Jordan mobilizes its military to defend against further IDF raids and places blame on Egypt for failing to protect the West Bank and "hiding behind UNEF skirts". This plays a role in Egypt's later decision to expel UNEF.
1965-1967: IDF conducts regular operations in the DMZ between Israel and Syria in violation of the armistice. Syria charges that this is a deliberate effort to provoke Syria into a response. This charge is confirmed by no other than Moshe Dyan:
"After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was. I did that, and Laskov and Chara did that, and Yitzhak did that, but it seemed to me that the person who most enjoyed these games was Dado."
April 1967: Deliberately provocative incursions into the DMZ by Israel continue resulting in a response by Syria. IDF uses the response as an excuse to attack Syrian positions and villages. Syria responds in kind.
May 13 1967: USSR provides intelligence (later found to be incorrect) that the IDF was preparing an attack on SYria. This leads to al-Assad's quote: "Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian Army, with its finger on the trigger, is united..."
May 16 1967: In response to the Soviet intelligence and continued armistice violations by the IDF Nasser's Chief of Staff delivers the following letter to the UNEF commander:
"To your information, I gave my instructions to all U.A.R. armed forces to be ready for action against Israel, the moment it might carry out any aggressive action against any Arab country. Due to these instructions our troops are already concentrated in Sinai on our eastern border. For the sake of complete security of all U.N. troops which install OPs along our borders, I request that you issue your orders to withdraw all these troops immediately."
May 18 1967: Egypt reiterates its request the UNEF forces withdraw for their own protection in the event of an IDF attack as indicated in the Soviet intelligence report. U Thant requests that UNEF be moved to the Israeli side in order to maintain the armistice, Israel refuses.
May 19-22 1967: In the face of the continued Israeli refusal to allow UNEF forces into Israeli territory, UNEF withdraws. Egypt begins to move troops into the Sinai in preparation for the expected Israeli attack on Syria as outlined in the Soviet intelligence report. Egypt closes the Strait of Tiran to all Israeli flagged ships and those carrying arms to Israel. The move is purely symbolic as the Strait had not been used by any Israeli flagged ship in the previous two years and Eilat was not a strategically vital shipping port as Israeli strategic supplies were delivered via its Mediterranean ports.
May 26-30 1967: In continued response to the Soviet intelligence report of an Israeli build up in preparation to commence an attack Jordan joins Egypt and Syria in a mutual defense agreement. Nasser issues these statements of warning to Israel regarding any attack on an Arab country:
"The armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations."
"the two countries consider any attack on either of them is an attack on both and will take measures including the use of armed forces to repulse such an attack"
"If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel."
May/June 1967: U Thant visited Cairo for mediation and recommended a moratorium in the Straits of Tiran and a renewed diplomatic effort to solve the crisis. Egypt agreed and Israel rejected these proposals. The U.S. also tried to mediate, and Nasser agreed to send his vice-president to Washington to explore a diplomatic settlement. The meeting did not happen because Israel launched its offensive.
June 5 1967: Israel launches its attack built on pretext (see below)
You may notice that I also included many of those statements you listed except, I didn't take them out of context. Isn't it amazing how the story starts to change when seen in their proper context?
Subsequent to the war the Israeli leadership made the following statements regarding the Egyptian troop build up in the Sinai:
Yitzhak Rabin (Chief of General Staff in 1967):
"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."
Menachem Begin:
"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."
Haim Bar-Lev (Deputy Chief of Staff during the war):
"the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli."
Major General Mattityahu Peled (the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war) on the "survival" argument for initiating an attack:
"a bluff which was born and developed only after the war... When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war... Never of survival today."
"To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal"
Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban in a cable to Israel after a visit to Washington and receiving a cable indicating that Israel was preparing to attack:
"An act of momentous irresponsibility... eccentric...lacked wisdom, veracity and tactical understanding. Nothing was right about it"
Would you like me to go on with tearing down your preposterously oversimlified and out-of-context rationalizations for how Israel didn't start these wars?
I can, you know. I can do it all day... and loving it. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/4/2009 10:16:12 PM | Mungojoe
And you know what else dude, I've actualy read the armistice agreement. It don't say squat about Israeli access to the Strait of Tiran or the Suez. Both of these waterways are within Egyptian territory, that kind of gives them an element of sovereignty, hmmm?
Might want to read it again; "2. No aggressive action by the armed forces - land, sea, or air - of either Party shall be undertaken, planned, or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other; it being understood that the use of the term "planned" in this context has no bearing on normal staff planning as generally practised in military organisations."
You can add the Convention of Constantinople (1888) to your assignment as well. As well, A blockade is normally seen as an act of war.
Mungojoe
Interesting, no where in there is any mention of an actual Egyptian attack.
Golly. You really had better go back and study the agreement.
2. No aggressive action by the armed forces - land, sea, or air - of either Party shall be undertaken, planned, or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other;
3. The right of each Party to its security and freedom from fear of attack by the armed forces of the other shall be fully respected.
Expelling UNEF is an obvious action in violation of the intent of the armistice as is placing your military in position to attack. This action was followed by these quotes;
"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."
The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ..."
"Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. "
"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."
"Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two ..."
"This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."
So, with the armies of their enemies in violation of the armistice and uttering rhetoric such as that, the intent is clear and, the transgression has begun.
Mungojoe
How about this timeline?
OOOO. Squabbles between nations. That's good enough reason to kill every last man woman and child in Israel. LOL. Sides, the Jordanians can go to Greece to get water, I mean, to you it was nothing to expect Israel to have to put on an extra ten thousand Trudeau units to ship their goods when the Suez was closed to them so, what's the big deal here?
Mungojoe
Egypt reiterates its request the UNEF forces withdraw for their own protection in the event of an IDF attack as indicated in the Soviet intelligence report. "The armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria are poised on the borders of Israel ...
Seems Nasser felt the UN was protecting Israel rather than the other way around - ""As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. "
After they expelled the UN and pushed unopposed across the Sinai and didn't see one Israeli battle group. Sounds like after they didn't find an invasion force they might have had second thoughts but hey, why let reality come in the way of an Arab dream of killing every last Jew?
Mungojoe
You may notice that I also included many of those statements you listed except, I didn't take them out of context. Isn't it amazing how the story starts to change when seen in their proper context?
Not really. Something in line with "we are only showing up here on the borders of Israel to make a statement to stop being naughty" rather than "Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map." would be in order if your case is to be made.
Mungojoe
I can, you know. I can do it all day... and loving it.
The Little Mungojoe That Could. Please do. But, before you go any further with this, can you clear the following up?
Mungojoe
I have, for several years, Army to be exact and in the Canadian Army, also for several years and a tour as a UN peacekeeper on the Golan (where the IDF likes to shoot and bomb peacekeepers with uncanny regularity).
When were you there, what was your job, where were you stationed and can you tell us some of these incidents where Peacekeepers on the Golan were shot and bombed with uncanny regularity?
| |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/4/2009 10:56:55 PM |
Might want to read it again; "2. No aggressive action by the armed forces - land, sea, or air - of either Party shall be undertaken, planned, or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other; it being understood that the use of the term "planned" in this context has no bearing on normal staff planning as generally practised in military organisations."
Obviously you didn't read much did you? I'll repeat it:
No Israeli flagged ship had traversed the Straits of Tiran in the previous two years. All of Israel's strategic materials delivered by sea were delivered to their Mediterranean ports.
Beyond that, you are stretching the definition of "No aggressive action by the armed forces - land, sea, or air - of either Party shall be undertaken, planned, or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other" beyond the breaking point.
This action was followed by these quotes;
"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."
The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ..."
"Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. "
"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."
"Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two ..."
"This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."
And, once again you are placing them out of context and providing only partial quotes.
I'll repeat the in context quote for you again. Maybe you can understand them this time.
May 13 1967: USSR provides intelligence (later found to be incorrect) that the IDF was preparing an attack on Syria. This leads to al-Assad's quote: "Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian Army, with its finger on the trigger, is united..."
May 26-30 1967: In continued response to the Soviet intelligence report of an Israeli build up in preparation to commence an attack Jordan joins Egypt and Syria in a mutual defense agreement. Nasser issues these statements of warning to Israel regarding any attack on an Arab country:
"The armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations."
"the two countries consider any attack on either of them is an attack on both and will take measures including the use of armed forces to repulse such an attack"
"If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel."
But the real kicker in this is your complete and utter failure to acknowledge the following admissions by the Generals and leaders of Israel itself that the line you are spewing was and is utter BS.
I will repeat: admissions by the Generals and leaders of Israel itself that the line you are spewing was and is utter BS.
Yitzhak Rabin (Chief of General Staff in 1967):
"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."
Menachem Begin:
"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."
Haim Bar-Lev (Deputy Chief of Staff during the war):
"the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli."
Major General Mattityahu Peled (the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war) on the "survival" argument for initiating an attack:
"a bluff which was born and developed only after the war... When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war... Never of survival today."
"To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal"
So there we go, Rabin, Begin, Bar-Lev and Peled, all OPENLY ADMITTING that they MADE UP THEIR EXCUSE for starting the war and that NONE OF THEM actually believed that Israel was actually under any threat of attack.
Now, we could go on all day contradicting each other with the timelines and interpretations of the armistice but...
When the VERY GENERALS AND LEADERS THEMSELVES are OPENLY ADMITTING that they had no real reason to attack and made up their excuses after...
and still you try to say the opposite...
...well, only a fool would engage in such an act of desperation when even the Generals who planned and started the war say you are wrong.
This calls for a quote of a different sort:
What a maroon!
B. Bunny | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/4/2009 11:46:15 PM | Mungojoe
I have, for several years, Army to be exact and in the Canadian Army, also for several years and a tour as a UN peacekeeper on the Golan (where the IDF likes to shoot and bomb peacekeepers with uncanny regularity).
When were you there, what was your job, where were you stationed and can you tell us some of these incidents where Peacekeepers on the Golan were shot and bombed with uncanny regularity?
Mungojoe
No Israeli flagged ship had traversed the Straits of Tiran in the previous two years. All of Israel's strategic materials delivered by sea were delivered to their Mediterranean ports.
Kidding me? There's a reason for that in that Eilat wasn't a port until 1955 then shipping was closed though the straights. Foreign flagged ships destined for Israel were not permitted to enter or exit.
Mungojoe
Beyond that, you are stretching the definition of "No aggressive action by the armed forces - land, sea, or air - of either Party shall be undertaken, planned, or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other" beyond the breaking point.
When your ships and goods are confiscated going through the Suez, that to me, combined with the closure of the Straight of Tiran to your shipping is an act of war. As stated earlier, with your argument, the Jordanians could simply get water from Greece if that is the rationale you wish to use.
Mungojoe
I'll repeat the in context quote for you again. Maybe you can understand them this time.
They must have got some really shitty intel but, no matter for my argument. When you amass four armies on the doorstep with close to a half million men, it is definitely in violation of the armistice. Coupled with the out of context rhetoric and, the fact of traversing hundreds of miles to do so in Egypt's case, all bets are off.
And you blame Bush for not finding WMDs yet see no problem here. Long as it's poor Arabs who got the shitty intel and Jews on the other end, it's ok in your book.
Mungo
Mungojoe
But the real kicker in this is your complete and utter failure to acknowledge the following admissions by the Generals and leaders of Israel itself that the line you are spewing was and is utter BS.
Oh, I'll acknowledge that. Hell, Israel was in fine fighting form at that time, and motivated. You put a pissed off dog on my porch and at the merest provocation I'll attack it. At that time, Nasser gave Israel what the hawks wanted - a cementation of 1948.
Just for interest, here is what a friend of mine was listening to when she was 12
Egyptian leader Gamal Abdul Nasser's radio station Voice of the Arabs spoke in Hebrew.
"We have nothing for Israel except war - comprehensive war... marching against its gangs, destroying and putting an end to the whole Zionist existence... every one of the 100 million Arabs has been living for the past 19 years on one hope - to live to die on the day that Israel is liquidated."
Mungojoe
NONE OF THEM actually believed that Israel was actually under any threat of attack.
The Arabs would have just turned and gone home. Explained to their people that the Jews aren't that bad after all? Come now Mungo.
| |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 2:22:31 AM |
No Israeli flagged ship had traversed the Straits of Tiran in the previous two years. All of Israel's strategic materials delivered by sea were delivered to their Mediterranean ports. Kidding me? There's a reason for that in that Eilat wasn't a port until 1955 then shipping was closed though the straights. Foreign flagged ships destined for Israel were not permitted to enter or exit.
Excuse me dear but...
This too is utter BS.
The Straits of Tiran was open from 1957 to 1967 and for the two years prior to 1967 it was not used by Israeli flagged ships, Israeli strategic supplies were delivered to its Mediterranean ports. Foreign flagged ship were not blocked during this period nor specifically after the 1967 closing.
Beyond that, you are stretching the definition of "No aggressive action by the armed forces - land, sea, or air - of either Party shall be undertaken, planned, or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other" beyond the breaking point. When your ships and goods are confiscated going through the Suez, that to me, combined with the closure of the Straight of Tiran to your shipping is an act of war. As stated earlier, with your argument, the Jordanians could simply get water from Greece if that is the rationale you wish to use.
Again, I will point out that the Israeli Generals and leaders themselves have admitted that they did not have the grounds they claimed.
NONE OF THEM actually believed that Israel was actually under any threat of attack. The Arabs would have just turned and gone home. Explained to their people that the Jews aren't that bad after all? Come now Mungo.
Uh oh, there goes that reading problem again...
I'll repeat, with bolding this time...
Yitzhak Rabin (Chief of General Staff in 1967):
"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."
Menachem Begin:
"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."
Haim Bar-Lev (Deputy Chief of Staff during the war):
"the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli."
Major General Mattityahu Peled (the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war) on the "survival" argument for initiating an attack:
"a bluff which was born and developed only after the war... When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war... Never of survival today."
"To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal"
...and that italicized part? I think he was anticipating your comments, hmmm?
The Little Mungojoe That Could. Please do.
Not "could" or "do" but, "DID". A 'straight-up-pants-down-whuppin''. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 3:13:42 AM | Mungojoe
Excuse me dear but...
You may call me Fandango or fan if you like.
Mungojoe
The Straits of Tiran was open from 1957 to 1967 and for the two years prior to 1967 it was not used by Israeli flagged ships, Israeli strategic supplies were delivered to its Mediterranean ports. Foreign flagged ship were not blocked during this period nor specifically after the 1967 closing.
Oh golly. So what difference does it make? Blockading it to Israelis ships is still an act of war, even if the ships didn't need to use it.
Mungojoe
Uh oh, there goes that reading problem again...
Ya you can say that again;
Fandango
The Arabs would have just turned and gone home. Explained to their people that the Jews aren't that bad after all? Come now Mungo. Mungojoe I'll repeat, with bolding this time...
And I'll repeat; A half million menall geared on the borders of Israel with enough anti Jew rhetoric to fuel the Huffington Post for a week and, the Arab world whipped up to see a Jewish bloodbath or die of an erection, what were they doing if not about to attack? You can search your Wikipedia for quotes to blame Israel but they sure as hell didn't invite the entire Arab military to their doorstep complete with plans to destroy Israel as well as giving command to the Egyptians. What on earth were they doing there Mungo?
Explain this please, not simply wallow in post game Israeli bravado.
Mungojoe
Not "could" or "do" but, "DID". A 'straight-up-pants-down-whuppin''.
Actually, you seemed to have dropped a few points along the away namely;
Your contention that Israel sends out bulldozers specifically to crush protestors;
"The War of Attrition was merely a continuation of this war started by Israel."
"The '73 Yom Kippur War would never have started if not for the continued, unrelenting occupation of Palestinian, Syrian and Egyptian territory that resulted from Israel's war of aggression in '67."
"In the '78 invasion of Lebanon, it was Israel who did the attacking."
"In the '82 invasion of Lebanon and the subsequent 8 yr occupation, it was Israel that did the attacking."
And my question to your comment which you seem to keep overlooking;
Mungojoe I have, for several years, Army to be exact and in the Canadian Army, also for several years and a tour as a UN peacekeeper on the Golan (where the IDF likes to shoot and bomb peacekeepers with uncanny regularity).
When were you there, what was your job, where were you stationed and can you tell us some of these incidents where Peacekeepers on the Golan were shot and bombed with uncanny regularity? | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 3:18:14 AM | Mungojoe, I have some simple questions for you.
1) Do you believe Israel has a right to exist?
2) If the answer to the first question is yes, do you think it has a right to defend its borders?
An answer of no to the first would of course obviate the need to answer the second, since I'd know what your position is and your sympathies lie.
Btw, did I read somewhere above that you're actually "defending" Syria? A little dose of reality:
When the Lebanese Civil War broke out in 1975, Syria took the opportunity offered by the savagery to occupy Lebanon for thirty years. The occupation was brutal, characterized by the “disappearance” and torture of opponents, political assassinations, and exploitation of Lebanon’s economy. And, of course, Syria “still” continues to supply Hezbollah with Iranian arms, making Hezbollah a profoundly destabilizing force in Lebanese politics and a true barrier to an ultimate two-state solution for the Palestinians.
Also.....
MYTH
“Israel's 1978 and 1982 invasions of Lebanon proved its aggressive intentions.”
FACT
Israel has long sought a peaceful northern border. But Lebanon's position as a haven for terrorist groups has made this impossible. In March 1978, PLO terrorists infiltrated Israel. After murdering an American tourist walking near an Israeli beach, they hijacked a civilian bus. When Israeli troops intercepted the bus, the terrorists opened fire. A total of 34 hostages died in the attack. In response, Israeli forces crossed into Lebanon and overran terrorist bases in the southern part of that country, pushing the terrorists away from the border. The IDF withdrew after two months, allowing UN forces to enter. But UN troops were unable to prevent terrorists from reinfiltrating the region and introducing new, more dangerous arms. It was this buildup that led to Israel's 1982 invasion.
Jerusalem repeatedly stressed that Israel did not covet a single inch of Lebanese territory. Israel's 1985 withdrawal from Lebanon confirmed that. The small 1,000-man Israeli force, deployed in a strip of territory extending eight miles into south Lebanon, protected towns and villages in northern Israel from attack. Israel also repeatedly said it would completely withdraw from Lebanon in return for a stable security situation on its northern border.
Israel pulled all its troops out of southern Lebanon on May 24, 2000, ending a 22-year military presence there. The Israeli withdrawal was conducted in coordination with the UN, and, according to the UN, constituted Israeli fulfillment of its obligations under Security Council Resolution 425 (1978).
Israel hoped the Lebanese government would subsequently deploy its army along the southern border to disarm terrorists and maintain order, but this has not occurred, despite criticism from the United States, the UN and Israel.20 “From a point northward, we make the rules,” said Lebanese Defense Minister Khalil Hrawi, “and from a certain point on in the south, there is no presence of the armed forces, and the Hizballah coordinates their actions with themselves."21 Thus, Hizballah continues to enjoy free reign and threaten Israel's northern border.
| |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 3:55:48 AM | The source for the last part of the above can be found at:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf11.html#g
I urge people to explore it and educate themselves. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 6:51:42 AM |
Mungojoe, I have some simple questions for you.
1) Do you believe Israel has a right to exist?
2) If the answer to the first question is yes, do you think it has a right to defend its borders? Hmmm ... that looks familiar. Trying to suck someone else into making "OFF TOPIC" remarks as you did with me a while back? Shouldn't people be allowed/able to discuss topics without having to answer personal questions? Seems to me one could email the other if they want that kind of information ... eh?
The source for the last part of the above can be found at:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf11.html#g
I urge people to explore it and educate themselves. I personally don't place a lot of value on such sites as they have a tendency to be so one-sided that the information is really not dependable.
Does the jewish virtual library also list all the threatening quotes on the Palestinians from the Israeli prime ministers? Does it list the degrading remarks they have made about the Palestinians over the years?
If not, then I would question the reliability of any other information there. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 8:53:49 AM | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
as opposed to your sources which are always so balanced!
(OP: my error, wasn't referring to you in last paragraph of #70!) | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 9:15:01 AM |
Is it the US's responsibility to support Israeli objectives?
Is the middle east conflict more about protecting Israeli sovereignty than democracy and oil?
Will siding with Israeli incur the wrath is Russia, China?
What do you think?
Four answers:
First, Americans recognize in Israeli society a modern liberal democracy -- a country like their own, with vigorously contested elections, a free press, an independent judiciary, and a commitment to civil liberties and human rights that hasn't flagged despite six decades of terrorism and war. With all its flaws, Israel has the freest and fairest political system in the Middle East. Israel's Arab citizens are full-fledged voters -- women as well as men -- and are routinely elected to parliament. The region's lone Jewish state is the only one that guarantees complete freedom of worship to Christians and Muslims. To American eyes, Israel's democratic pluralism could hardly be more familiar.
Second, Israel is an invaluable American ally -- a stable and dependable base in a most unstable part of the globe. From military R&D to world-class intelligence services, from a deepwater port to sophisticated air facilities, from counterterrorist expertise to a solid democratic culture, Israel brings assets to its strategic relationship with the United States that few countries can match. And Americans don't have to be national-security mavens to appreciate the ally that destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor in 1981, and that pulled off Operation Entebbe -- the rescue of 100 hostages from Idi Amin's Uganda -- on July 4, 1976.
Third, American history is deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian soil, nourishing a special kinship between America's Christians and the Jewish people. The founders of the American republic were deeply influenced by the Hebrew scriptures and believed that they, like the Jews of old, had been taken out of bondage by God and led by Him to a Promised Land. Long before there was a modern state of Israel, American leaders expressed ''Zionist" leanings: ''I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation," former President John Adams wrote in 1819. Nearly two centuries later, millions of American Christians are passionate supporters of the Jewish state.
Finally, Americans sympathize so strongly with the Israelis because both face a common enemy. Unlike Walt and Mearsheimer, who can find ''no moral basis" for taking Israel's side, most Americans make a clear moral distinction between suicide bombers and their victims. If Israeli terrorists were deliberately blowing up Palestinian school buses, if rabbis were blasting Arabs as ''the sons of monkeys and pigs," American sympathies might not be so clear-cut. Most Americans are not confused, because most Americans understand what's at stake.
''The US has a special relationship with Israel in the Middle East," President John F. Kennedy said in 1962, ''really comparable only to that which it has with Britain." Today, Kennedy's words are truer than ever -- even if the Kennedy School dean has yet to figure it out.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/29/a_nation_like_ours/
"Is the middle east conflict more about protecting Israeli sovereignty than democracy and oil?"
If you believe in western democracy then the answer is simple... NO.
The premise of this question is flawed, Israeli democracy and sovereignty cannot be separated.
Oil, rather the free flow of natural resources by Sovereign nations is directly linked to the protection of Israel in the middle east. As well a free democracy in Iraq, Lebanon and other nations of the middle east.
What just happened in Iran, make no mistake is a direct product of free democracy in Lebanon, Israel and Iraq.
The desire for freedom grows like wild flowers. The US knows this and it has been the central tenant of US policy towards Israel since 1948.
The Mullas of Iran know this also only to them freedom represents a weed which will choke off their power.
The | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 9:52:18 AM |
Trying to suck someone else into making "OFF TOPIC" remarks as you did with me a while back?
That's "your" modus operandi, not mine. Btw, you ask questions of other posters all the time on here, but never did answer mine. The questions I pose to "anyone" on these threads are germane to topics they "themselves" bring up. To then hide behind silly, disingenuous arguments that it's not "fair" or against the "rules" is just cowardly.
I'll state it again, to "anyone", and these questions are absolutely ON TOPIC and goes to the core of this and "any" thread that deals with Israel.
Does Israel have a right to exist, and if so do they have the right any other nation does, the ability to defend its borders?
I personally don't place a lot of value on such sites as they have a tendency to be so one-sided......Does the jewish virtual library also list all the threatening quotes on the Palestinians from the Israeli prime ministers? Does it list the degrading remarks they have made about the Palestinians over the years?
And Israel haters get their information from prejudiced sources that hate Jews? Fair is fair. I'm sick of the double standard critics use to give themselves free rein to tap whatever sources they want to spew their anger and hate without being able to answer them with mine. If you hate Israel and the Jews, proudly state so and take the consequences. Don't hide behind rhetoric and demagoguery. Why hide, right? | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 10:24:51 AM | I’ll state my views.
Palestinians should have their own homeland and I’m for a two-state solution.
However, if the Palestinians are continually represented by radical organizations that call for its destruction, Israel would be supremely stupid to allow them to set up shop right next door? Any Palestinian self-government needs to unequivocally and unambiguously renounce terrorism and accept the existence of Israel in words “and” deeds. To accept anything less and allow groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to operate freely within a Palestinian state would just sign Israel’s own death warrant. And as Israeli leaders have stated since the state's inception, "Never Again".
This nazification of Israel (in the way they treat Palestinians) by demagogues like Ahmadinejad (and, more specifically, the Ayatollahs that really control Iran) along with other regional radicals should be called for what it is, truly vile and pure bunk, and not apologized for or swept under the rug.
If people believe such tripe I’d like to see the evidence? Tell me “when” Israel systematically eliminated the Palestinians in mass death camps and cooked the remains in giant ovens?
In the 60 years of Israeli existence, why is there still such a huge population of Palestinians surrounding Israel and throughout the Middle East? Why were they allowed to survive? Show me the wars of conquest Israel has indulged in to wipe out all pockets of Palestinians in Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon to rid themselves of the “Palestinian Problem” once and for all?
If Israel really “is” so evil and bloodthirsty for conquest, why haven’t they dealt with the direct threat to their existence and subjugated certain Arab nations that have continually harassed and spewed hate against Israel since its very creation (a creation Jews fought and died for, by the way, it wasn't just "given" to them)? Why hasn’t Israel marched through the Middle East and tried to take control of the countries that are so hostile to their birth as a nation and so violently against their continued survival? If Israel has the bomb, as is so commonly held, why haven’t they used it to intimidate and cow these enemies into submission?
On the other hand, the radical Islamists platform in the Middle East is very clear in words and actions. They don’t hide their message of hate and intolerance at all. That much should be straightforward enough to anyone with any semblance of intelligence and open-mindedness. They call for a caliphate where everyone is subject to strict Islamic, or Sharia, law. They call for the complete elimination of all infidel influence in what they consider sacred Islamic lands. This means not only Christian, but the “extermination” of Jews, which Islamists consider a virulent bacteria poisonous to Muslims that "demands" eradication.
It wasn’t always the case. There was a fertile secular Islamic movement in the Middle East before Arab nationalism took hold. This secularism was rooted in tolerance and a “live and let live” doctrine of minimal interference. Arab nationalism morphed into the radical Islam we now see which effectively crowded out moderate voices in the Arab world that espoused mediation and dialogue. We should be doing all we can to fight radical propaganda that drowns out the few voices of moderation still left in the region instead of vilifying Israel and stoking the fans of hate that want to drive it into the sea and wipe Jews off the map. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 11:49:02 AM |
And I'll repeat; A half million menall geared on the borders of Israel with enough anti Jew rhetoric to fuel the Huffington Post for a week and, the Arab world whipped up to see a Jewish bloodbath or die of an erection, what were they doing if not about to attack?
Have you spotted Gordon's head yet? You're so deep in "da nile" you must have reached Khartoum by now.
(yeah, I know it's a cheesy joke but I couldn't resist).
Oooone... mooore.... tiiime (and this time I'll try to make it stand out for you)
Yitzhak Rabin (Chief of General Staff in 1967):
"I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT NASSER WANTED WAR. THE TWO DIVISIONS HE SENT INTO SINAI ON MAY 14 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENOUGH TO UNLEASH AN OFFENSIVE AGAINST ISRAEL. He knew it [B]AND WE KNEW IT.[/B]"
Menachem Begin:
"THE EGYPTIAN ARMY CONCENTRATIONS IN THE SINAI APPROACHES DID NOT PROVE THAT NASSER WAS REALLY ABOUT TO ATTACK US. We must be honest with ourselves. WE DECIDED TO ATTACK HIM."
Haim Bar-Lev (Deputy Chief of Staff during the war):
"THE ENTRANCE OF THE EGYPTIANS INTO THE SINAI WAS NOT A CASUS BELLI."
Major General Mattityahu Peled (the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war) on the "survival" argument for initiating an attack:
"A BLUFF WHICH WAS BORN AND DEVELOPED ONLY AFTER THE WAR... When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war... Never of survival today."
"TO PRETEND THAT THE EGYPTIAN FORCES MASSED ON OUR FRONTIERS WERE IN A POSITION TO THREATEN THE EXISTENCE OF ISRAEL CONSTITUTES AN INSULT NOT ONLY TO THE INTELLIGENCE OF ANYONE CAPABLE OF ANALYZING THIS SORT OF SITUATION, but above all an insult to the Zahal"
From the words of Israel's own leaders, accomplished generals and heroes of the War of Independence, all saying the same thing... that the justification was a sham, a bluff to justify a war of aggression and, by their own admissions, they knew it, even almost bragged of it.
By their own words they acknowledge that they knew Egypt wasn't planning to launch a first attack.
And still you won't even acknowledge that one clear fact.
Apparently they knew that some would latch on to it like a pitbull with a bone, ignoring the reality of even their own admissions to the contrary.
...and that italicized part? I think he was anticipating your comments, hmmm?
Obviously "think" was the wrong word. The man was obviously a psychic to rival the Amazing Kreskin. Peled sure got your number right.
The only point you are making by continuing to contradict THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS is one that is incompatible with a fedora.
And you blame Bush for not finding WMDs yet see no problem here. Long as it's poor Arabs who got the shitty intel and Jews on the other end, it's ok in your book.
Hmmm... Let's see...
In response to their bad intel, the Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians mobilized their forces to repel an attack and be prepared to respond with a COUNTER-attack.
In response to his "bad intel" (more like deliberately exaggerated intel), Bush launched a (what is it now, 6 year?) invasion and occupation.
*sings* "One of these things is not like the other..."
Mungojoe, I have some simple questions for you.
1) Do you believe Israel has a right to exist?
2) If the answer to the first question is yes, do you think it has a right to defend its borders?
My personal feelings are not relevant to the facts under discussion. My sympathies lie with the facts. Nice try, but I'm not biting.
But here are just a few more facts for you to chew on:
Close to 1/4 of all DPKO Peacekeeper deaths due to hostile action (referred to as "malicious" action in UN jargon) have been caused by Israeli action. The only other country to match this honour to date is the Congo (and during the Congo Crisis of '60-'64, it was a DPKO mission where the operation engaged in full-on offensive combat action as a formal function of the mission). Even the missions in Somalia and the former Yugoslavia can't match it for deaths due to hostile action.
Congo (ONUC, MUNOC): 167 deaths due to hostile action
Somalia (UNOSOM I/II): 114 deaths due to hostile action
former Yugoslavia (UNCRO, UNMIBH, UNMIK, UNMOP, UNPREDEP, UNPROFOR, UNPSG, UNTAES): 96 deaths due to hostile action
Mid-East missions involving a border with Israel (UNEF I/II, UNDOF, UNIFIL, UNTSO):160 deaths due to hostile action (approx. 130-135 due to Israeli action, approx. 25-30 due to other Mid-East actors such as Hezbollah, PLO, etc.)
Of those deaths attributable to Israeli action, over half involved missions other than UNIFIL (meaning UNEF I/II, UNDOF, UNTSO) which operated on or near one of Israel's borders. The remaining minority were part of UNIFIL.
As an interesting comparison...
...the total fatalities due to hostile action in DPKO Mid-East missions to Arabic countries NOT operating on Israeli borders (UNIIMOG, UNIKOM, UNOGIL, UNYOM): 1
Quite the contrast there... 5 missions on Israeli borders with 160 deaths due to hostile action (approx. 130-135 due to Israeli action) compared to 4 missions to Arabic countries not involving Israel with 1 death due to hostile action.
And those are JUST the ones who actualy died due to hostile action, it doesn't include those killed defusing munitions/clearing mines, the wounded or those shot at/bombed but not injured. Curious, hmmm? | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 12:22:37 PM | ^^^ Your answer tells me all I need to know.
I try to be clear in my views. Any good debate needs to have complete transparency in the core beliefs and foundations of thought regarding the people debating. This is crucial in avoiding any misunderstanding about what a position is and how differing sides arrive at their debating points.
I hate “any” terrorists and organizations that call for the destruction of Israel and the US, and that includes heads of state like that little turd Ahmadinejad and the cowardly Ayatollahs who hide behind him. And I have NO problem stating it and making it plain, upfront, and unambiguous. Are the critics willing to be just as honest in showing their obvious sympathies and support for the people and movements who continually spew hate, intolerance, and call for Israel’s destruction? Evidently not. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 12:55:51 PM | Mungojoe, bad intel or not, and I'll repeat;
A half million men all geared on the borders of Israel with enough anti Jew rhetoric to fuel the Huffington Post for a week and, the Arab world whipped up to see a Jewish bloodbath or die of an erection, what were they doing if not about to attack?
You have quotes from the Israeli leaders post war, what have you that states the presence of the Arab armies was a benign presence bearing olive branches? After all, the Armistice says;
"2. No aggressive action by the armed forces - land, sea, or air - of either Party shall be undertaken, planned, or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other; it being understood that the use of the term "planned" in this context has no bearing on normal staff planning as generally practised in military organisations."
So, unless amassing the entire armed forces in an attack position on the borders of another country is a planned exercise, this was an act of war.
Explain.
Your stats on the UN deaths does not address the question I posed. Have you a reading problem? I asked;
When were you there, what was your job, where were you stationed and can you tell us some of these incidents where Peacekeepers on the Golan were shot and bombed with uncanny regularity?
After all, you said........
What he said
I have, for several years, Army to be exact and in the Canadian Army, also for several years and a tour as a UN peacekeeper on the Golan (where the IDF likes to shoot and bomb peacekeepers with uncanny regularity).
Now cut the shit and tell us all about how Israel likes to shoot and bomb peacekeepers with uncanny regularity on the Golan according to your experience there. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
4
of
13 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
|
|
Home
login 
