(JGB) wrote in message . com...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message om...
(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 ...
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;
Never heard of it; never happened. When, where, proof. evidence of any
kind???
Never happened? Do a Google on it and you will come up with an amazing
number of hits for this "never happened" event. One sample:
"The massacres started early: Major General R. Dare Wilson, who served
with the British troops trying to keep peace in Palestine before the
end of the British Mandate, reported that on Dec. 18, 1947, the
Haganah murdered 10, mostly women and children, in the Arab village of
al-Khisas with grenades and machine gun fire. Wilson also described
how on Dec. 31 the Haganah slaughtered another 14, again mostly women
and children, again using machine guns and throwing grenades into
occupied homes, this time in Balad Esh-Sheikh. [12]
Throughout 1948, the massacres continued: 60 at Sa'sa' on Feb. 15; 100
murdered in Acre after its May 18 seizure by the Haganah; several
hundred at Lydda on July 12, including 80 machine-gunned inside the
Dahmash Mosque; 100 at Dawayma on Oct. 29, with an Israeli eye-witness
reporting that "the children were killed by smashing their skulls with
clubs"; 13 young men mowed down by machine guns in open fields outside
Eilabun on Oct. 30; another 70 young men blindfolded and shot to
death, one after another, at Safsaf the same day; 12 killed at Majd
al-Kurum, also on Oct. 30, with a Belgian U.N. observer writing that
"there is no doubt about these murders"; an unknown number killed the
next day at al-Bi'na and Deir al-Assad, described by a U.N. official
as "wanton slaying without provocation"; 14 "liquidated," according to
the Israeli military's report, at Khirbet al-Wa'ra as-Sauda on Nov. 2.
[13]
A particularly repugnant method of killing employed by the Jewish
militias was the blowing up of houses with their occupants still
inside, often at night. The militia would place explosive charges
around the stone houses, drench the wooden window and door frames with
gasoline, and then open fire, simultaneously dynamiting and burning
the sleeping inhabitants to death. [14]"
Source: http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller3.html
His number at Baldat al-Shaikh (which he refers to by the alternative
Balad Esh-Sheikh) is quite different from that "five hundred" used in
the other report, but then that is just haggling over the *degree* of
guilt, not that it exists.
You might also do a Google on "Stern Gang" and "Irgun" if you are
interested in reading *the other side* of the story... the Israelis
(collective) are hardly innocent lambs when it comes to terrorism and
murder.
the
Massacre of Dair Yasin (Apr. 10, 1948) in which a whole village of 500
unarmed Palestinian civilians were slaughtered by Israelis;
EVen the Palestinians themselves don't use this lie anymore. I have a
BBC tape where the villagers were interviewed, and altogether, perhaps
114 died, including possibly 25 which indeed were executed ("massacred').
The original figure of 254 was made up by Jewish leftist in order to
discredit Begin and the Irgun which was a rival of the Ben Gurion and
the mainstreat leftists who controlled the zionist movement. And even
the old villagers affirm there were no rapes or mutilations as was
originally alleged and circulated for decade.
Gee, only 114? I guess that makes it OK then (sarcasm switch to "on"
position). By the way, at what point does an atrocity become an
atrocity, in your opinion? If 114 is good-to-go, then all of those
recent Palestinian suicide bombings don't count either?
BTW, I did not mention the massacres by Arabs of hundreds of Jews that occured
in the 1920s and '30s, not to mention during the '48 war.
Check out the founding date for the Irgun, if you want to be
completely fair about this issue. How about the killing of Bernadotte?
Was that OK as well?
the
Massacre of Lid (July 11, 1948) in which about 426 unarmed
Palestinians were slaughtered;
More fabricated myths of events that never occurred.
You'd call it Lod, and the number of dead, and their status as
combatants/non-combatants, receives different treatment in various
sources. There was reference to the forced eviction of the Arab
civilians by Rabin, who was present when it happened and commented
about the need to use "warning shots" as they herded them down the
road.
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?
Listen Kevin, most of the stuff you listed either never happened or
were WILDLY exaggerated,
Given that you think 114 is an OK amount of dead, or for that matter
the 25 that you acknowledge were executed, I am not surprised that you
find this all rather inconsequential. Now, even though you acknowledge
at least one incident of cold-blooded executions, can you tell me how
many Israelis, in the entire history of the nation, have been
arrested, tried, and/or convicted of terrorist-type attacks on
Palestinians? Given that the Stern Gang and Irgun did really exist,
and did really do some rather nasty things, one would think that some
number of Israelis have been held accountable for acts which occured
over the last 50-plus years...but to my knowledge, the answer would be
along the lines of the Bernadotte murder, where the case remains
"unsolved"...but hey, that's OK, right? Israelis are to be applauded
for committing murders and executions, but
by-golly-those-Palestinians-better-cough-up-every-terrorist-RIGHT
NOW...?
just like "Comical ALi's" assertions of no
US marines in Baghdad. Massive lying is an old ARab tradition.
And apparently a new Israeli one.
At any rate, if we want to go back to determine who spilled blood first,
Arabs or Jews, I can confidently assert that Muhammad the Prophet committed
a massacre of 600 Jews near Medina (Yathrib originally founded by Jews in
Arabia), enslaving their women and children, robbing them of their wealth, and
ethnically cleansing the remainder out of the Hijaz (northern Arabia and
what is now Jordan), an edict which stands to this day. ARabs drew FIRST
blood, both in the seventh century and in the 20th century. They put their
mosques on Jewish soil, not the other way round. THere are no synagogues
on ARabian soil. Arabs are the aggressors; Jews are the defenders.
No, it is not about who was first--it is about realizing that the
violence has gone *both* ways, instead of trying to portray all
Muslims as evil murderers and all Israelis as White Knights. But you
can't admit to that, because it would tarnish your "Israel is
good/Arabs are evil" foundation for this entire discussion.
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*?
I don't know how true it is, but the Israeiis did lose 50 planes in that
war, and Pakis have long proudly claimed that their pilots were among
the few Muslim pilots that downed ISraeli jets. They make the claim, and
I have no verification of it, one way or the other.
Is it germane? Well, it might have something to do with why the US is hesitating
to supply Pakistan with the F-16s it paid for long ago. That, and the fact
that I suppose they can carry nuclear weapons.
The first is a non-issue as regards the F-16's; they were embargoed
because of the nuclear program. The US frowns on proliferation...but
Israel? Different view, apparently, as backed up by their cooperation
with the former South African nuclear weapons program...
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?
First of all, as I have often stated before, nukes are a Jewish invention and
that fact alone gives ISrael the right to have them.
Now that is perverted logic if I have ever heard it. Nerve gas was a
German invention--does that give Germany the right to posses it?
And all of the other
states in the region are recognized and no one is threatening to wipe them
off the map.
Except Israel, with its nukes, right?
I don't think there is a nation on earth, including the US, that
has a greater right to nukes than does Israel. And Israel has the right to
preemptively strike at any state in the region that is hostile to ISrael
and seeking WMD to destroy Israel.
More perverted logic. The way you portray it, Israel is a purely
Machiavellian Institution, and whatever it chooses to do defines
"right", instead of having policies that follow "right".
In fact, i believe the main reason the
US went to war in Iraq was to avoid a possible nuclear strike by Israel on
Iraq.
You are joking, right?
At any rate, no Arab or Muslim had anything to do with inventing
nukes as did Jewish scientists.
More warped reasoning. Israel had nothing to do with the invention of
either the motorcar or the airplane--so they have no right to them?
If Iran or any state in the region threatens
Israel with WMD it can expect a nuclear attack by Israel at any time. Israel
is too small to wait to absorb a first strike.
Puhlease...get real.
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.
WE defend the Taiwanese more than we defend Israel.
LOL! Harken back to 73 and the DEFCON status that Nixon placed us at
in response to Soviet rumblings vis-a-vis the Yom Kippur War. Recall
that US Patriots and crews went to Israel during ODS. And remember
that we are not giving Taiwan billions of bucks each and every year.
Consider those FACTS, and then you might begin to get a clue...
WE sell Israel's enemies
military equipment but the US does not sell the PRC military equipment to
use against Taiwan.
You keep saying that, and then you never can come up with any real
evidence that Egypt or Jordan are really still "enemies" of Israel...
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?
IN terms of OFFENSIVE weaponry, the equipment sold to China was no match
for US equipment.
But you said we were foolish for not buying Python ourselves, and now
you claim it is an inferior product. Want it both ways, don't you? And
how are Python, Phalcon, that Elbit/Elta radar for the J-10, and that
HMSS all lumped together as purely "defensive" weapons? You are as far
off the mark here as you were when you classified Python (now
apparently a piece of worthless junk, in your opinion) as "AMRAAM"...
At any rate, I reiterate, if the US sells Egypt and Saudi
Arabia modern equipment, why shouldn't Israel sell to China, Cuba or anyone
who can pay for it? Israel also sells to the US. So ISrael ought to do
the same as the US, and arms BOTH sides. Why is this wrong?
Because we are footing the bill. Can the aid to Israel, and they can
sell to whomever they darned well choose--but they should not be
allowed to have it both ways. Kind of like what my father used to tell
me--"As long as I pay the bills, you live by *my* rules." We are
paying the bills.
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.
The US already forced Israel to give them back every inch of the Sinai already.
AND gives Egypt $2.8 billion in annual aid. SO what could they gain from
attacking ISrael NOW? Unless they felt they could destroy it and get away
with it.
Exactly. Which proves they are no longer a serious threat to Israel.
Now that was not that hard to admit, was it?
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.
All Muslims who say that the Temple MOunt does not belong to the Jews
at all, and that they have the right to Jerusalem, and that ISrael is
sitting on Arab/Muslim land is anti-Jewish and hence a mortal enemy, just
like the Nazis. They deny the right of Jewish existence.
BZZZ! Sorry, you automatically lose this debate by virtue of trying to
use a backhanded delivery of the Nazi Card. Can't win without it, huh?
The US can always leave the area; Israel has to live there.
Which is why they should learn to be a decent neighbor.
Israel is living amidst criminals and looters just the same as were seen
n Iraq, whose only desire is to destroy and LOOT what the Jews built there
over the last century.
Not unlike the looting of former Arab villages by...Israelis.
It's why the Palestinians left,figuring that the
Jews would be crushed in a matter of weeks and that they would then be
able to loot everything the Jews had built over 30 or more years prior to
1948. They gambled wrong, and lost, but refused to give up their quest.
I don't think they ever will. Time will tell.
read a bit and you will find that a lot of them left under duress,
with folks like the Stern Gang and Irgun pushing from behind while the
Palmach did its own share of forced evictions (like Lod).
UN Res 242.
What about it?
It clearly stated that that Israel was to give up those settlements
and that land.
Does not. It says Israel must return occupied territories. It returned
90% of them already, but will not "return" disputed lands without peace
treaties. There is a peace treaty with Jordan. There is no country called
Palestine to make a treaty with. Syria refuses to negotiate unless it is
promised everything back in advance. Utter insanity. Why should aggressors
be allowed to get ALL of the land back, especally when it is disputed land?
Golan is first mentioned in the bible. Israel does not have to return Jewish
land, only occupied Arab land.
Yeah, sure. First the nazi Card, now the Bible defense...
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?)".
Some Egyptian parliamentarians have called for Egypt to build nuclear weapons.
Sorry, you already agreed that you were wrong about Egypt being a
serious threat.
I go along with the Bush-Sharon policy that any state now seeking to acquire
nukes has to be attacked before it gets them.
That is NOT the Bush policy.
Turkey is not an Arab state, though it is Muslim. The ARab muslims are the
craziest of the lot. They started the whole mess in the first place.
Sorry, you quite clearly said all Muslims. Now you want to say that
Muslims who happen to live in a nation providing payments to Israel
for weapons are OK folks... double standard much?
Brooks