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


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

Which Came First - Terrorism or "Occupation"?

There were 3000 terrorist attempts before the '67 war.

The following is a partial list of documented acts of Arab
errorism, all occurring prior to the beginning of the Israeli
administration of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967:


snip for brevity

Uhmmm...you seem to have left out:

"The Massacre of Baldat al-Shaikh (Dec. 31, 1947) in which over 600
unarmed Palestinian men, women and children were slaughtered; the
Massacre of Dair Yasin (Apr. 10, 1948) in which a whole village of 500
unarmed Palestinian civilians were slaughtered by Israelis; the
Massacre of Lid (July 11, 1948) in which about 426 unarmed
Palestinians were slaughtered; the Massacre of Kufr Qasim (Oct. 29,
1956) in which 50 Palestinian men, women and children were killed; the
Massacre of Khan Younis refugee camp (Nov. 3, 1956) in which 250
Palestinians were killed and nine days later, another 275 Palestinians
were killed..." (Source: www.bsudailynews.com/vnews/display.v/
ART/2002/12/03/3dec367c1b9df )

That too is only a partial list. Rememeber that bit about shades of
gray?


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...

http://www.scramble.nl/pk.htm

"The Six-Day War between Israel and a number of Arab countries in
1967.
During this conflict the PAF sent personnel to Egypt, Jordan and Syria
to support the Arabs in their battle against the Israelis. PAF pilots
managed to shoot down ten Israeli aircraft, including Mirages,
Mystères and Vautours, without losses on their own side. The PAF
pilots operated with Egyptian, Jordanese and Iraqi combat aircraft. "

Uhmmm...do you have anything a bit more concrete? And just how did
these Pakistanis manage to go 10-0 during a war where most Arab
airpower was destroyed on the ground or never got into the fight?
Lastly, why bother? Your point regarding alleged Pakistani pilots
involved in the 67 War would be germane to the present issues exactly
*how*?


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?

In fact, the presumed challenge of the PRC to the US is as nothing
compared
to the challenge of the Muslims to ISrael.

So now it is all Muslims who are the enemy of Israel? Are you racist
much? Uhmmm...what about those *Turkish* Muslims that Israel is
selling so much combat power to these days?

Pakistan is a nuclear state
with
at least 150 nukes, and Iran soon will be. When you add in Egypt,
Syria,
Saudi Arabia and all the vast numbers enemies of ISrael's very
existence,
the PRC threat to the US is less than a gnat to a whale compared to
the
Muslim threat to Israel.

Oh, nooo, Mr. Bill! Nations in the outlying region may become nuclear
powers, or already are?! How dare they! That is obviously the sole
purview of Israel (which is a nuclear power as well, predating those
you mention by a period of decades)... Come on, get real--you are
condemning other nations for the very same course of action that
Israel has taken?


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?

Every Muslim is ipso facto an enemy of ISrael,

Yup, racist. And not a very original one at that.

unless he is of that
very
small minority that accepts that the Israelites mentioned in the Koran
and today's Jews have some historic connection. Look, is every Chinese
an enemy of America?

Nope. I like the Taiwanese.

ANd yet you hold up the sale of a few antiquated
weapons
by ISrael to the PRC as some big deal while you arm the Arabs and
other
Muslims to the teeth.

Antiquated weapons? I guess I should expect that kind of laughable
description from a guy who couldn't tell the difference beween AMRAAM
and Python, and who was quite convinced that not only the US but also
the RAAF had deployed the latter. Phalcon sure as heck is/was not
"antiquated", nor is the radar that the Israelis are marketing to the
PRC for the J-10, nor is the HMSS that they are also trying (if they
have not already done so--sort of murky) to sell to the PLAAF. You
have been singing the praises of Python, which the PRC produces under
license (-3 variant), and we have numerous reports that later models
have been, or are being, marketed to the PLAAF as well, but now all of
a sudden in order to suit your argument you want to call them
"antiquated" as well? Flip-flop much?


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.

Israel was better off with inferior Soviet equipment in ARab hands.

The evidence does not support that theory. While Egypt was being armed
by the Soviets they fought two major wars (67 and 73) with israel,
while since the US has taken over as a major security partner with
Egypt they have fought...nada, zip, none.

While the
argument that the US has better control over its more sophisticated
equipment
in Arab hands has some merit, I wouldn't be totally dismissive of Arab
capabilities to eventually master this technology. I'm not that
racist.

Yep, you are if you like to use that "all Muslims" brushstroke that
you are so quick with.

The US can always leave the area; Israel has to live there.

Which is why they should learn to be a decent neighbor.


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.

Not I; the Muslims. It is they who have to leap ahead by 1400 years.
Right
now too many of them prefer the 7th century.

There you go again, with that tarbrush of your's....


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.

It's not true peace.

When was the last time they were shooting at each other? Over twenty
years without any significant conflict between the two nations, given
the nature of the region overall, is truly amazing. If that is not
"peace" then what the hell do you define "peace" as? Hint--"peace"
does not require that everyone hold hands and sing "Kumbayah"; it can
exist in an environment where significant distrust, or even animosity,
remains, but as long as the system in place keeps the two parties from
resorting to aggression and bloodshed, then it is indeed "peace".

THe peace between Russia and the US was often
warmer
at some times. THeir press publishes the vilest antisemitic stuff that
would
make Julius Rosenberg blanch.

Ever heard of Meyer Kahane? Or his followers?

Until the ideology or theology of Islam
changes
radically regarding the JEwish state and other "infidels" in their
midst,
every "peace" is merely "hudna" or a temporary ceasefire. It wasn't
until
Russia rejected the ideology of communism that true peace between the
US
and Russia became possible. There will be only a possibility of
"sulha" or
true reconciliation and peace between the Jewish state and the Islamic
nation
when the latter recognizes Jewish rights and rejects the more radical
elements
of Islamic thought. If the fundamental ideology or theology is not
modified,
the people cannot reconcile their deepest beliefs with coexisting
alongside
a group that is unacceptable according to those beliefs. Might as well
try
to get Nazi Germany to live peacefully alongside Israel. Little bits
of territory, whether they be Alsace-LOrraine, the Sudetenland, or the
West Bank
and Golan are the distractions and not the core of the problem that
has to
be solved.

Those "distractions" are major thorns in the side of every attempt to
find a peaceful solution. They don't *have* to be, but Israel seems to
like it that way.



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.

What about it?

It clearly stated that that Israel was to give up those settlements
and that land.


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.

Yep, and it still ain't holding water...



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?

Those are loans that Israel will be making from banks in the
international
capital markets. They are not US gov't loans. Israel lost $12 billion
in the
intifada (which is the equivalent of the US losing $1.2 TRILLION after
9/11)
and simply wants to borrow on the int'l market, but needs a good
cosignor
to get the loans at a lower rate. Israel has never defaulted on a
loan.

What the hell are you talking about? The article in question dealt not
with the intifada, or loans. It dealt with the fact that Israel was
joining the que to ask for more US money, some $12 billion in this
case, as part of the US's attempt to build a coalition to conduct what
became known as OIF. They wanted 12 billion ON TOP of their "normal"
$3 billion plus in US aid. Period.


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.

Supporting evidence of WHAT???

All of your assertions, i.e., "Egypt remains a grave threat to
Israel", "Israel only sells antiquated military goods to the PRC",
"Begin and Bentov were left-wing radicals whose statements regarding
the 67 War are inconsequential", and maybe "All Muslims are rabid
Israel-haters (except for Turkey, which is OK because they pay for
things from Israel, right?)".

Brooks