(JGB) wrote in message . com...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
(JGB) wrote in message . com...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
(phil hunt) wrote in message ...

Couldn't Israel have funded construction itself? Another small
country, Sweden, manages to.

No. Israel has grown rather dependent upon the billions annually
provided in US aid (depending upon whose numbers you use, US aid would
be equal to somewhere around between 3 and 6% of their GDP). According
to year 2000 numbers, Israel had a GDP that was just over half that of
Sweden, and a lower per-capita GDP to boot. Go-it-alone is not a
likely avenue for israel; they even required South African capital to
develop their BVRAAM, the Derby.

YEs, but isn't it interesting, Kevin, that in 1970 Israel's GNP was
$3,050 per capita versus Japan's $3,000 at the time (look it up).
Yet today, after perhaps $80 billion in US aid since, Israel's per capita
GNP, is now, as you state, half of Japan's or Sweden's. Mind you, in 1970
Israel had already taken the "territories" before the major stream of
US aid and arms had really begun. Besides the never ending wars the
Arabs have forced on Israel,

Please. 56 was not forced upon them, and if you are honest about it,
neither was 67:

So you say. Sure, if the US had the West Coast blockaded by the
Chinese or Japanese navy, that would constitute no threat. I agree
that blockading ISrael's only port facing Asia, Eilat, was no threat
to America, but it sure was to Israel. As was the encroachment of the
Egyptian army deep into the Sinai. No threat to America, but a very
great threat to Israel. Kevin knows which are real threats to Israel
because Kevin doesn't live in Israel and hasn't a clue.

"As Mordecai Bentov, at the time a member of the Israeli government,
said, "The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in
every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation
of new Arab territory." " Source:
http://www.wrmea.com/Washington-Report_org/www/backissues/0791/9107040.htm

A lot of Jewish leftists say a lot of things that bear little
resemblance
to reality.

Ahem. Read a bit more before you stick your other foot in your mouth
in this regard. FYI, at the time of the war, both Begin and Bentov
were sort of Hawkish. It was later that they admitted that Israel was
no so much forced into war, as it was taking advantage of rather
clumsy policy decisions on the part of Nasser, who IIRC claimed he was
acting in support of Syria against claimed Israeli provocations. Like
most things in this world, not so much a case of black/white as it is
varying shades of gray. Hindsight seems to have afforded both of those
former Israeli leaders a bit more balanced view of the situation (not
to mention a more complete one, as they were sitting on the Israeli
Cabinet at the time--and you were...?) than what you seem to maintain.
I'll wager Begin and Bentov are a bit more accurate than the anonymous
"JGB"...


Add in Begin's later similar comments, and your case that the 67 War
was somehow forced on the Israelis starts getting weaker by the
minute....

What, no claim that Begin was a closet weakling/leftist?


not to mention the boycotts and the like,
the new arms race, where nearly $6 billion in US arms sold to EGypt,
Not a threat to Israel; if you think it is, then please provide actual
evidence.

The only evidence you would accept, and indeed enjoy with great
edification,
is if Dimona or an Israeli city were blown up. INdeed, just before the
outbreak
of war, Egyptian jets did indeed successfully invade Israeli airspace,
got
quite close to Dimona, and were NOT succressfully intercepted! If you
were
indeed serious about the subject, I'd suggest you do some serious
research.

The above translates to, "I have no evidence whatsoever that Egypt
remains a major threat to Israel, so i'll harken back to '73 and try
to obfuscate a bit." Sorry, but that doesn't fly very far. Try again?



Saudi Arabia couldn't even handle Iraq; not a real threat to Israel in the
conventional war sense, and apparently has more than its own share of
internal problems with which to keep it busy anyway.

What it can do is transfer arms and supplies to other ARab states.

And those states will just *immediately* pick up those weapons and
storm Israel, right? Uhmmm...you do know that all of those nifty
advanced US arms that SA has aquired come complete with a requirement
for US approval for transfer to a third party? If you don't believe
that, ask IAI--they lost out on selling the Kfir to a nation or two
back in the late 70's/early 80's because of US refusal to authorize
the transfer of the US engine they were using.


the UAE and Jordan,

LOL! Have you examined exactly what the strength of the Jordanian Air
Force is recently? And you think it poses a threat to Israel?! A
handful of ex-USAF F-16A's?! And since when has the UAE been on the
Israelis threat scope? Get real.

If you really knew anything at all, you'd know that the Jordanian army
was probably the BEST that Israel every faced in the ME. Not big, but
quite
good.

And the Israelis defeated it quite handily each time they faced it.
Now, in today's environment, in the topographical setting that exists
between Jordan and Israel, tell me how *any* army is going to
succesfully conduct an offensive while the other side controls the
air? Did you miss out on that whole Desert Storm event a few years
back?

It takes more than equipment. It takes good people and training.

Yep, it does. And Jordan, compared to its neighbors, is apparently
pretty good--but still no match for Israel, and nobody but you is
disputing that tidy little fact.

BTW, did you know that Pakistani pilots downed a number of Israeli
planes
in '67? I don't dismiss either the Jordanians or the Pakistanis if
Israel
had to face them.

Odd, but Michael Oren's recent book, "Six Days of War: June 1967 and
the Making of a Modern Middle East" (Presidio, 2002), seems to have
missed that little factoid (and Oren, being a former Israeli
governmental official, would have presumably picked up on that, as he
was rather careful to address how all of the regional nations
reacted--yet he never *once* mentions Pakistan...). I hate to be
repetitive, but any real evidence of this? Given your distinct
aversion to providing *any* evidence, that is...


YOu, on the other hand are ready to dismiss EVERY
threat
to Israel,

You just have not presented a realistic one yet. Syria would *like* to
be a threat to Israel, but it just can't pull it off (look at the
performance of their troops during ODS, not to mention Lebanon). Egypt
has more to lose from another war with Israel than it could possibly
gain (and the performance of their ground units in ODS was not exactly
top-of-the-line, either). Jordan, while professional in military
matters, is just too shallow in the depth department, and they know it
(maybe that is one reason why they have a peace treaty with Israel).
The UAE?! Gimme a break...

but build up every inconsequential possible threat to the
US.

We do face a potential threat, on a regional basis, from the PRC in
the not-too-distant future; denying the obvious in that regard will
not do you any good. We are following a policy of cautious
constructive engagement at present, but that is only going to be
successful for as long as we are prepared to be more forceful (and
having the PRC realize that) when/if required. Israel's continued
provision of late-generation military products and technology to the
PRC can hardly be considered a *good* thing by USians, now can it?

The reality is, that Israel is a tiny state comprised of mostly 5
million
Jews, most of the male population of whom serves for weeks annually
in the reserves for most of their adult
lives, and which faces not only 4 million Arab enemies internally,

Ah, so all of the Palestinians are enemies of Israel, even those that
are Israeli citizens?

literally next door, but also 250 million Arabs and countless hundreds
of millions of more Muslim
supporters whose main dream is to eliminate the JEwish state. No
state, no
Sparta, has ever had to face anything even remotely lopsided in all of
recorded history. And its main large benefactor, the US, also arms the
other
side quite well. THAT is the REALITY that Israelis face EVERY day
regardless
of what you or any outsider not living there may think or imagine.

If you would climb down off that soapbox long enough to actually
engage your brain and *think* a bit, you would realize that the US
providing military support to neighboring (and not so neighboring)
Arab nations is a *good* thing. Ever stopped to realize the degree of
US control that accompanies those weapons packages? Check out the
story of the Egyptian plan to conduct a retaliatory strike against the
Sudanese after that failed assasination attempt on Mubarak a few years
back. Reports indicate what prevented the Egyptians from acting was US
refusal to support the operation; all of thast high-tech US weaponry
requires a pretty good logistical tail to make it effective, and when
the US says, "no" (which in this case was wrong, IMO; we should have
let Egypt hammer them), it carries great weight.


forces Israel not only to require
the $3 billion in aid annually to keep up, but also requires a massive
internal effort to keep a military reserve and a military-industrial
complex so heavy and so distortive of Israel's economy, and diversive in
forcing so much of its talent into arms production, which overall
is sterile in terms of fostering economic growth, that I honestly wish
the US, and the rest of the world, would simply impose a GLOBAL embargo
on ALL AID AND ARMS SALES into the region completely!

Israel could solve a lot of its own problems by faithfully negotiating
the establishment of a palestinian state in the West Bank and a return
of the Golan to Syria in return for Syrian recognition of Israel's
right to exist and the creation of a security zone under MNF/UN
auspices as has existed in the Sinai since around 78.

The US could have negotiated an end to the Cold War by returning
ALaska.

No, it couldn't. You are getting desperate now...hardly surprising
given that your entire argument seems to be bouyed solely upon the
force of your own hot air...

Listen, what you spout is similar nonsense. Islam itself was built on
the death
of Judaism which it replaces. Islam cannot tolerate a Jewish state by
its
very nature as it is still interpreted. THAT is the true essence of
the
conflict, and it has nothing to do with any meager postage-sized
parcels of land.

I don't think so, and as we have seen with the treaties between Israel
and Egypt/Jordan, it does not have to be the case. You seem to be
hell-bent on taking a ":this is the way it was a thousand years ago,
so this is the way it has to be now and forevermore." Not very
logical, IMO.

Until the Mullahs and Qadis and Imams of Islam
recognize the RIGHT of the JEWISH NATION to exist in her homeland, no
"returning" of anything is going to lead to any true peace.

The return of the Sinai helped lead to true peace between Egypt and
Israel, so your argument does not seem to meet the test of actual
events very well.

The issues
of land and "settlements" and all of
that are negotiable ONLY as details once the FACT of Jewish nationhood
in
the Land of Israel is truly accepted by the Muslim peoples. All the
rest
is blarney.

UN Res 242.


If the Egyptians,
Saudis and other Arab and Muslim states had NO access to advanced arms
from the West or East, and had to develop and produce all their own
internally, Israel would be better off even without the aid or arms
sales to it!!! I am totally convinced of it. The Israeli arms industry
is way too big, and way too controlled by the US thanks to the aid,
that overall is a drag on the economy, but nonetheless necessary as long
as the enemy and hostile Muslim states have access to US and other
international sources of modern arms. This is why Israel's growth has
lagged. If the world stops selling the Muslims states $10 billion in
arms annually, Israel would be able to stop taking $3 billion in US
aid AND STILL BE ECONOMICALLY BETTER OFF in the long run.

Face reality--the Israelis don't *want* to see US aid end, it has
become their teat which provides neverending succor. Heck, they even
tried to hold us up over this last conflict:

Face reality, no congressman challenges the end of aid, not because of
AIPAC
or huge mythical power in Dakota or Kansas, but because $7 billion in
annual
arms sales, and all the jobs and votes they represent, would go down
with
a unilateral end to aid.

Sorry, but if that were the case, what of those congressmen who have
no military industry in their districts (and there are quite a
few--look at Iowa, Montana, Wyoming, and various districts across the
rest of the nation. Your argument that this is somehow all tied to US
defense industry viability just does not hold up.


www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/ 2003-02-24-unwilling-cover_x.htm

"Israel is seeking $12 billion on top of the $3 billion it receives
annually."

That is TWELVE freakin' billion dollars...and you think they want to
give up that kind of loot? Again, get real.

LOAN GUARANTEES, not money. Or in plain language, a consignor so that
it
can get loans on world capital markets at reasonable interest rates.

LOL! When was the last time Israel had to pick up the tab for one of
these major "loans"? Hmmm?

That
is not talking about the US forking over $12 billion US dollars from
the
treasury to Israel and you know it. That is typical BS.

No, it is indeed what was requested, and NO, it was not all for "loan
guarantees"; they were also requesting *grants*. Do your homework and
come up with something besides "JGB says so" and then get back to me,
'cause from where I stand JGB's record is hurtin' because he can't
seem to come up with *any* supporting evidence.

Brooks