15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 05:21 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

George is correct that Israel did the pre-emptive strike in 1967 and thus can be said by some to have started it, but he is incorrect if he claims that this was not a valid self defense move on the part of Israel. It was Advocate who claimed that "The Arabs" started the 1967 War".

I merely pointed out the truth, namely that the conflict was started by a preemptive Israeli attack on Egypt, followed within hours by attacks on Jordan and Syria.

Japan argued that her attack on Pearl Harbor was done in self-defense, just as Hitler rationalized his attacks on Poland and the USSR. That doesn't make the arguments true.

Foxfyre wrote:

It would not be correct to say that Israel would have been a threat to Egypt et al. Egypt had thrown the UN whatever out of the Sinai and had put a large army including I think something like a 1000 tanks near the Israel border. So Israel made the pre-emptive strike against primarily Egypts air force and Jordan and Syria than attacked.

The outcome of the war itself clearly demonstrated that Israel was indeed a serious threat to Egypt, and all its neighbors - Foxfyre's nonsensical claim to the contrary notwithstanding.

Israel had never permitted UN observers on her side of the Saini border, despite repeated UN Security Council requests that she do so. Nassar's foolish expulsion of the UN observers merely created equal conditions on both sides of the disputed border.

Israel's pre-emptive (and unannounced) strike was devestating to the Egyptian Air Force (which was clearly not prepared for or expecting a war). The initial attacks also included a massive assault on Egypt's land forces in the Siani.

The Israeli attacks on Jordan and Syria followed in a more or less continuous fashion - as called for in the Israeli war plan. There was no "pause" to see what Syria and Jordan would do as Foxfyre aappears to suggest.

Foxfyre wrote:

So tiny little Israel acquired Eastern Jerusalam, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and Gaza in six days time and nobody has presumed a direct attack on Israel since.
Tiny little Israel, equipped with the latest Western aircraft and tanks acquired Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Sinai in a well-planned and skillfully executed preemptive attack that exploited Nassar's foolish errors & posturing, and Egypt's unreadiness for War..

It is simply not true that "nobody has presumed a direct attack on Israel since". The Palestinian Intifada and the Hamas-led attacks from Gaza and Lebanon were real enough - and they continue.

Foxfyre wrote:

But Israel didn't start it.

No, Israel really did start the conflict in 1967 - just as you have acknowledged here. The tortured rationalizations and evasive misuses of words that Advocate so earnestly repeats here do not hide the obvious truth. I am surprised that you buy it all.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 05:35 pm
Quote:
Tiny little Israel, equipped with the latest Western aircraft and tanks


And the other countries were equipped with the latest Soviet aircraft and tanks.
And since the Soviets were constantly saying that their weapons were superior to those of the west.

So, if the planes, tanks, and other equipment were equal, that says that the Israeli soldier was a better soldier.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 05:37 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

...
Japan argued that her attack on Pearl Harbor was done in self-defense, just as Hitler rationalized his attacks on Poland and the USSR. That doesn't make the arguments true.

...

There were no buildups of American troops on Japan's or Germany's borders. Therefore there was no justification for a pre-emptive strike by either Japan or Germany.

And the Israelis argued that their attacks on Egypt, Jordan, and Syria were in self-defense.

That alone doesn't make their argument true either. What does make the Israeli argument true is the buildup of Egyptian, Jordanian ,and Syrian troops on their respective borders with Israel. For Israel to have waited until those build ups were completed and attacks were launched against Israel would have been foolish. Had there been no such buildups in progress, Israel would then have had no justification for its pre-emptive strikes.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 05:44 pm
Israel and America, LBJ, told so many lies over the Liberty. But the victims said nothing, Why? "Liberty crew members were ordered to remain silent about the attack and were threatened with courts martial and imprisonment if they talked. They were not called to testify in a Navy court of inquiry, and Congress never convened an investigation of the incident." link But then there were, "New revelations in attack on American spy ship"
Veterans, documents suggest U.S., Israel didn't tell full story of deadly '67 incident

John Crewdson
Chicago Tribune
Wednesday October 03, 2007

Bryce Lockwood, Marine staff sergeant, Russian-language expert, recipient of the Silver Star for heroism, ordained Baptist minister, is shouting into the phone.

"I'm angry! I'm seething with anger! Forty years, and I'm seething with anger!"

Lockwood was aboard the USS Liberty, a super-secret spy ship on station in the eastern Mediterranean, when four Israeli fighter jets flew out of the afternoon sun to strafe and bomb the virtually defenseless vessel on June 8, 1967, the fourth day of what would become known as the Six-Day War.

For Lockwood and many other survivors, the anger is mixed with incredulity: that Israel would attack an important ally, then attribute the attack to a case of mistaken identity by Israeli pilots who had confused the U.S. Navy's most distinctive ship with an Egyptian horse-cavalry transport that was half its size and had a dissimilar profile. And they're also incredulous that, for years, their own government would reject their calls for a thorough investigation.

"They tried to lie their way out of it!" Lockwood shouts. "I don't believe that for a minute! You just don't shoot at a ship at sea without identifying it, making sure of your target!"

Four decades later, many of the more than two dozen Liberty survivors located and interviewed by the Tribune cannot talk about the attack without shouting or weeping.

Their anger has been stoked by the declassification of government documents and the recollections of former military personnel, including some quoted in this article for the first time, which strengthen doubts about the U.S. National Security Agency's position that it never intercepted the communications of the attacking Israeli pilots -- communications, according to those who remember seeing them, that showed the Israelis knew they were attacking an American naval vessel.

The documents also suggest that the U.S. government, anxious to spare Israel's reputation and preserve its alliance with the U.S., closed the case with what even some of its participants now say was a hasty and seriously flawed investigation.

In declassifying the most recent and largest batch of materials last June 8, the 40th anniversary of the attack, the NSA, this country's chief U.S. electronic-intelligence-gatherer and code-breaker, acknowledged that the attack had "become the center of considerable controversy and debate." It was not the agency's intention, it said, "to prove or disprove any one set of conclusions, many of which can be drawn from a thorough review of this material," available athttp://www.nsa.gov/liberty .

An Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, called the attack on the Liberty "a tragic and terrible accident, a case of mistaken identity, for which Israel has officially apologized." Israel also paid reparations of $6.7 million to the injured survivors and the families of those killed in the attack, and another $6 million for the loss of the Liberty itself.

But for those who lost their sons and husbands, neither the Israelis' apology nor the passing of time has lessened their grief.

One is Pat Blue, who still remembers having her lunch in Washington's Farragut Square park on "a beautiful June afternoon" when she was a 22-year-old secretary for a law firm.

Blue heard somebody's portable radio saying a U.S. Navy ship had been torpedoed in the eastern Mediterranean. A few weeks before, Blue's husband of two years, an Arab-language expert with the NSA, had been hurriedly dispatched overseas.

As she listened to the news report, "it just all came together." Soon afterward, the NSA confirmed that Allen Blue was among the missing.

"I never felt young again," she said.

Aircraft on the horizon

Beginning before dawn on June 8, Israeli aircraft regularly appeared on the horizon and circled the Liberty.

The Israeli Air Force had gained control of the skies on the first day of the war by destroying the Egyptian air force on the ground. America was Israel's ally, and the Israelis knew the Americans were there. The ship's mission was to monitor the communications of Israel's Arab enemies and their Soviet advisers, but not Israeli communications. The Liberty felt safe.

Then the jets started shooting at the officers and enlisted men stretched out on the deck for a lunch-hour sun bath. Theodore Arfsten, a quartermaster, remembered watching a Jewish officer cry when he saw the blue Star of David on the planes' fuselages. At first, crew members below decks had no idea whose planes were shooting at their ship.

Thirty-four died that day, including Blue, the only civilian casualty. An additional 171 were wounded in the air and sea assault by Israel, which was about to celebrate an overwhelming victory over the combined armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and several other Arab states.

For most of those who survived the attack, the Six-Day War has become the defining moment of their lives.

Some mustered out of the Navy as soon as their enlistments were up. Others stayed in long enough to retire. Several went on to successful business careers. One became a Secret Service agent, another a Baltimore policeman.

Several are being treated with therapy and drugs for what has since been recognized as post-traumatic stress disorder. One has undergone more than 30 major operations. Another suffers seizures caused by a piece of shrapnel still lodged in his brain.

After Bryce Lockwood left the Marines, he worked construction, then tried selling insurance. "I'd get a job and get fired," he said. "I had a hell of a time getting my feet on the ground."

With his linguistic background, Lockwood could have had a career with the NSA, the CIA, or the FBI. But he was too angry at the U.S. government to work for it. "Don't talk to me about government!" he shouts.

U.S. Navy jets were called back

An Israeli military court of inquiry later acknowledged that their naval headquarters knew at least three hours before the attack that the odd-looking ship 13 miles off the Sinai Peninsula, sprouting more than 40 antennas capable of receiving every kind of radio transmission, was "an electromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of the U.S. Navy," a floating electronic vacuum cleaner.

The Israeli inquiry later concluded that that information had simply gotten lost, never passed along to the ground controllers who directed the air attack nor to the crews of the three Israeli torpedo boats who picked up where the air force left off, strafing the Liberty's decks with their machine guns and launching a torpedo that blew a 39-foot hole in its starboard side.

To a man, the survivors interviewed by the Tribune rejected Israel's explanation.

Nor, the survivors said, did they understand why the American 6th Fleet, which included the aircraft carriers America and Saratoga, patrolling 400 miles west of the Liberty, launched and then recalled at least two squadrons of Navy fighter-bombers that might have arrived in time to prevent the torpedo attack -- and save 26 American lives.

J.Q. "Tony" Hart, then a chief petty officer assigned to a U.S. Navy relay station in Morocco that handled communications between Washington and the 6th Fleet, remembered listening as Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, in Washington, ordered Rear Adm. Lawrence Geis, commander of the America's carrier battle group, to bring the jets home.

When Geis protested that the Liberty was under attack and needed help, Hart said, McNamara retorted that "President [Lyndon] Johnson is not going to go to war or embarrass an American ally over a few sailors."

McNamara, who is now 91, told the Tribune he has "absolutely no recollection of what I did that day," except that "I have a memory that I didn't know at the time what was going on."

The Johnson administration did not publicly dispute Israel's claim that the attack had been nothing more than a disastrous mistake. But internal White House documents obtained from the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library show that the Israelis' explanation of how the mistake had occurred was not believed.

Except for McNamara, most senior administration officials from Secretary of State Dean Rusk on down privately agreed with Johnson's intelligence adviser, Clark Clifford, who was quoted in minutes of a National Security Council staff meeting as saying it was "inconceivable" that the attack had been a case of mistaken identity.

The attack "couldn't be anything else but deliberate," the NSA's director, Lt. Gen. Marshall Carter, later told Congress.

"I don't think you'll find many people at NSA who believe it was accidental," Benson Buffham, a former deputy NSA director, said in an interview.

"I just always assumed that the Israeli pilots knew what they were doing," said Harold Saunders, then a member of the National Security Council staff and later assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs.

"So for me, the question really is who issued the order to do that and why? That's the really interesting thing."

The answer, if there is one, will probably never be known. Gen. Moshe Dayan, then the country's minister of defense; Levi Eshkol, the Israeli prime minister; and Golda Meir, his successor, are all dead.

Many of those who believe the Liberty was purposely attacked have suggested that the Israelis feared the ship might intercept communications revealing its plans to widen the war, which the U.S. opposed. But no one has ever produced any solid evidence to support that theory, and the Israelis dismiss it. The NSA's deputy director, Louis Tordella, speculated in a recently declassified memo that the attack "might have been ordered by some senior commander on the Sinai Peninsula who wrongly suspected that the LIBERTY was monitoring his activities."

Was the U.S. flag visible?

Though the attack on the Liberty has faded from public memory, Michael Oren, a historian and senior fellow at The Shalem Center in Jerusalem, conceded that "the case of the assault on the Liberty has never been closed."

If anything, Oren said, "the accusations leveled against Israel have grown sharper with time." Oren said in an interview that he believed a formal investigation by the U.S., even 40 years later, would be useful if only because it would finally establish Israel's innocence.

Questions about what happened to the Liberty have been kept alive by survivors' groups and their Web sites, a half-dozen books, magazine articles and television documentaries, scholarly papers published in academic journals, and Internet chat groups where amateur sleuths debate arcane points of photo interpretation and torpedo running depth.

Meantime, the Liberty's survivors and their supporters, including a distinguished constellation of retired admirals and generals, have persisted in asking Congress for a full-scale formal investigation.

"We deserve to have the truth," Pat Blue said.

For all its apparent complexity, the attack on the Liberty can be reduced to a single question: Was the ship flying the American flag at the time of the attack, and was that flag visible from the air?

The survivors interviewed by the Tribune uniformly agree that the Liberty was flying the Stars and Stripes before, during and after the attack, except for a brief period in which one flag that had been shot down was replaced with another, larger flag -- the ship's "holiday colors" -- that measured 13 feet long.

Concludes one of the declassified NSA documents: "Every official interview of numerous Liberty crewmen gave consistent evidence that indeed the Liberty was flying an American flag -- and, further, the weather conditions were ideal to ensure its easy observance and identification."

The Israeli court of inquiry that examined the attack, and absolved the Israeli military of criminal culpability, came to precisely the opposite conclusion.

"Throughout the contact," it declared, "no American or any other flag appeared on the ship."

The attack, the court said, had been prompted by a report, which later proved erroneous, that a ship was shelling Israeli-held positions in the Sinai Peninsula. The Liberty had no guns capable of shelling the shore, but the court concluded that the U.S. ship had been mistakenly identified as the source of the shelling.

Yiftah Spector, the first Israeli pilot to attack the ship, told the Jerusalem Post in 2003 that when he first spotted the Liberty, "I circled it twice and it did not fire on me. My assumption was that it was likely to open fire at me and nevertheless I slowed down and I looked and there was positively no flag."

But the Liberty crewmen interviewed by the Tribune said the Israeli jets simply appeared and began shooting. They also said the Liberty did not open fire on the planes because it was armed only with four .50-caliber machine guns intended to repel boarders.

"I can't identify it, but in any case it's a military ship," Spector radioed his ground controller, according to a transcript of the Israeli air-to-ground communications published by the Jerusalem Post in 2004.

That transcript, made by a Post reporter who was allowed to listen to what the Israeli Air Force said were tapes of the attacking pilots' communications, contained only two references to "American" or "Americans," one at the beginning and the other at the end of the attack.

The first reference occurred at 1:54 p.m. local time, two minutes before the Israeli jets began their first strafing run.

In the Post transcript, a weapons system officer on the ground suddenly blurted out, "What is this? Americans?"

"Where are Americans?" replied one of the air controllers.

The question went unanswered, and it was not asked again.

Twenty minutes later, after the Liberty had been hit repeatedly by machine guns, 30 mm cannon and napalm from the Israelis' French-built Mirage and Mystere fighter-bombers, the controller directing the attack asked his chief in Tel Aviv to which country the target vessel belonged.

"Apparently American," the chief controller replied.

Fourteen minutes later the Liberty was struck amidships by a torpedo from an Israeli boat, killing 26 of the 100 or so NSA technicians and specialists in Russian and Arabic who were working in restricted compartments below the ship's waterline.

Analyst: Israelis wanted it sunk

The transcript published by the Jerusalem Post bore scant resemblance to the one that in 1967 rolled off the teletype machine behind the sealed vault door at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, where Steve Forslund worked as an intelligence analyst for the 544th Air Reconnaissance Technical Wing, then the highest-level strategic planning office in the Air Force.

"The ground control station stated that the target was American and for the aircraft to confirm it," Forslund recalled. "The aircraft did confirm the identity of the target as American, by the American flag.

"The ground control station ordered the aircraft to attack and sink the target and ensure they left no survivors."

Forslund said he clearly recalled "the obvious frustration of the controller over the inability of the pilots to sink the target quickly and completely."

"He kept insisting the mission had to sink the target, and was frustrated with the pilots' responses that it didn't sink."

Nor, Forslund said, was he the only member of his unit to have read the transcripts. "Everybody saw these," said Forslund, now retired after 26 years in the military.

Forslund's recollections are supported by those of two other Air Force intelligence specialists, working in widely separate locations, who say they also saw the transcripts of the attacking Israeli pilots' communications.

One is James Gotcher, now an attorney in California, who was then serving with the Air Force Security Service's 6924th Security Squadron, an adjunct of the NSA, at Son Tra, Vietnam.

"It was clear that the Israeli aircraft were being vectored directly at USS Liberty," Gotcher recalled in an e-mail. "Later, around the time Liberty got off a distress call, the controllers seemed to panic and urged the aircraft to 'complete the job' and get out of there."

Six thousand miles from Omaha, on the Mediterranean island of Crete, Air Force Capt. Richard Block was commanding an intelligence wing of more than 100 analysts and cryptologists monitoring Middle Eastern communications.

The transcripts Block remembered seeing "were teletypes, way beyond Top Secret. Some of the pilots did not want to attack," Block said. "The pilots said, 'This is an American ship. Do you still want us to attack?'

"And ground control came back and said, 'Yes, follow orders.'"

Gotcher and Forslund agreed with Block that the Jerusalem Post transcript was not at all like what they remember reading.

"There is simply no way that [the Post transcript is] the same as what I saw," Gotcher said. "More to the point, for anyone familiar with air-to-ground [communications] procedures, that simply isn't the way pilots and controllers communicate."

Block, now a child protection caseworker in Florida, observed that "the fact that the Israeli pilots clearly identified the ship as American and asked for further instructions from ground control appears to be a missing part of that Jerusalem Post article."

Arieh O'Sullivan, the Post reporter who made the newspaper's transcript, said the Israeli Air Force tapes he listened to contained blank spaces. He said he assumed those blank spaces occurred while Israeli pilots were conducting their strafing runs and had nothing to communicate.

'But sir, it's an American ship!' muchmore
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 06:49 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

George is correct that Israel did the pre-emptive strike in 1967 and thus can be said by some to have started it, but he is incorrect if he claims that this was not a valid self defense move on the part of Israel. It was Advocate who claimed that "The Arabs" started the 1967 War".

I merely pointed out the truth, namely that the conflict was started by a preemptive Israeli attack on Egypt, followed within hours by attacks on Jordan and Syria.


No, the conflict ws NOT started by a pre-emptive Israeli attack on Egypt. The conflict was started by Egypt and allies and their inflammatory threats (previously posted at some length), massive build up of Egyptian forces to accompany the threatening rhetoric, ordering all UN "witnesses" out of the Sinai, plus blocking Israelis supply routes from the Sea. Israel did stay on full alert for three weeks before that pre-emptive strike, but with Syria and Jordan already threatening, they decided it prudent to act. I believe the record will show that Israel's attack on the Egyptian airforce is what prompted Jordan to attack East Jerusalem. Israel did not strike the first blow on Jordan.

Quote:
Japan argued that her attack on Pearl Harbor was done in self-defense, just as Hitler rationalized his attacks on Poland and the USSR. That doesn't make the arguments true.


Come on George. Hitler knew Poland was no threat to Germany, so that is a really lame comparison. On the other hand, yes we had exerted some economic pressures on Japan, but we had not threatened them with any kind of military assault. And had we received threats of annihilation from Japan and knew the Japanese fleet was approaching Pearl Harbor, would you have thought the USA to be making an unwarranted pre-emptive strike if we had taken out that fleet--at least the carriers--before they had opportunity to take out ours?

Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:

It would not be correct to say that Israel would have been a threat to Egypt et al. Egypt had thrown the UN whatever out of the Sinai and had put a large army including I think something like a 1000 tanks near the Israel border. So Israel made the pre-emptive strike against primarily Egypts air force and Jordan and Syria than attacked.

The outcome of the war itself clearly demonstrated that Israel was indeed a serious threat to Egypt, and all its neighbors - Foxfyre's nonsensical claim to the contrary notwithstanding.

Israel had never permitted UN observers on her side of the Saini border, despite repeated UN Security Council requests that she do so. Nassar's foolish expulsion of the UN observers merely created equal conditions on both sides of the disputed border.

Israel's pre-emptive (and unannounced) strike was devestating to the Egyptian Air Force (which was clearly not prepared for or expecting a war). The initial attacks also included a massive assault on Egypt's land forces in the Siani.

The Israeli attacks on Jordan and Syria followed in a more or less continuous fashion - as called for in the Israeli war plan. There was no "pause" to see what Syria and Jordan would do as Foxfyre aappears to suggest.


Oh I am sure that Egypt wasn't expecting that pre-empting attack or they would have had their planes out of the way. As for the attack on Jordan, I do believe they attacked before Israel retaliated. And then since Syria had officially thrown in with Egypt and Jordan, Israel took care of them too much as we determined to do to Germany when Germany declared war on us after Pearl Harbor.

In the past you have compared the higher death rates of the Palestinians when compared to those suffered by Israel in various skirmishes, all initiated by the Palestinians. And now you seem to see Israel as the aggressor because they turned out to have the superior military. What kind of logic is this strange idea that a superior force and greater tactical skills should not result in greater damage to an enemy than what the enemy is able to effect on you? I wonder if the USA would have prevailed in WWII with that kind of logic?

Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
So tiny little Israel acquired Eastern Jerusalam, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and Gaza in six days time and nobody has presumed a direct attack on Israel since.


Tiny little Israel, equipped with the latest Western aircraft and tanks acquired Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Sinai in a well-planned and skillfully executed preemptive attack that exploited Nassar's foolish errors & posturing, and Egypt's unreadiness for War..


And who supplied Syria and Egypt with all those MIGs that Israel took out?


Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:

But Israel didn't start it.

No, Israel really did start the conflict in 1967 - just as you have acknowledged here. The tortured rationalizations and evasive misuses of words that Advocate so earnestly repeats here do not hide the obvious truth. I am surprised that you buy it all.


I did not intend to say that Israel started the conflict in 1967 and I do not believe I said that. If someone is determined to attack you and you prevent him from striking the first blow, it was not you who started the fight.

Advocate and I disagree on most things and I sure don't depend on him for my information on Israel. I do hold a conviction, perhaps shared by Advocate, that Israel would be a good neighbor and friend to the Palestinians and all other of their Arab neighbors at such time as the Arabs acknowledge Israel's right to exist and do their utmost to stop all terrorist attacks against Israel. I know you disagree with that and have expressed in the past that this is asking too much from the Palestinians and further your conviction that Israel is unviable and cannot survive anyway against a greater Arab birth rate. You may be right, but I do not think that is for anyone but Israel to decide.

If the West withdraws its support from Israel then Israel might have to decide sooner than later.

I do not in my wildest imgination think that peace with prevail in the Middle East once Israel is destroyed or evicted, however.

I see the Arabs making peace as the only reasonable path to peace in the Middle East. And, as I have said, if Israel did not then reward that by being a good friend and neighbor to all their Arab neighbors, I would be right up there in front as a primary critic.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 07:15 pm
By the way, If any nation were to be threatened by a build up of forces on its borders by the same nations that had launched an attack against it less than 2 decades earlier, it sure would be prudent for that nation to attack those same nations before they completed their buildup and launched their second attack.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 02:23 am
Nice to see George telling it like it is.

Ican, you are a hopeless twonk.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 11:53 am
McTag wrote:
Nice to see George telling it like it is.

Ican, you are a hopeless twonk.


McT, Why are you talking to a "hopeless twonk?"
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 01:21 pm
At him, you mean. I've learned you can't talk "to" him.

Nice to see you, c.i.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2008 10:27 am
ican711nm wrote:
By the way, If any nation were to be threatened by a build up of forces on its borders by the same nations that had launched an attack against it less than 2 decades earlier, it sure would be prudent for that nation to attack those same nations before they completed their buildup and launched their second attack.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 02:59 am
As aid donors meet in London to discuss the humanitarian disaster in Gaza, the Independent cites unpublished UN findings that describe the destitution and "food insecurity" among the territory's 1.5 million residents as having reached unprecedently critical levels. Adeeb Yusef, 45, tells the Independent's Israel correspondent, Donald Macintyre, that he has lost 2.5 stones since Israel tightened its blockade on all goods, except humanitarian essentials, after Hamas seized control of Gaza by force in June. Yusef's children are also eating less and losing weight.

Blockade puts Gaza on brink of serious food crisis, says UN
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 11:05 am
Actually, many countries around the world has a food crisis; including the US. Many so-called middle-income families are turning to food banks to feed their families in increased numbers - while donations drop.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 01:11 pm
As predicted and observed many times, liberal collectivists and their mindless followers continue to be allowed to screw up the world economy.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 01:17 pm
ican711nm wrote:
As predicted and observed many times, liberal collectivists and their mindless followers continue to be allowed to screw up the world economy.


Certainly - what else can you expect from politicians called "the Mideast Quartet" Laughing
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 02:14 pm
If you're flying above 3,000 agl, then if the flight direction is westerly, the altitude is even; If the flight direction is easterly, the altitude is odd. If you're flying at or below 3,000 agl, the flight direction is "every whichaway but loose.":wink:
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 08:12 pm
While Israel expands its settlements in the West Bank the US merely shuffles around appointed officials all the while ignoring this egregeous violation of the terms of the road map.

From a couple of weeks ago:

Abbas appeals for more US help in peace process

By MATTHEW LEE and MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH, Associated Press Writers

Wed Apr 23, 5:17 PM ET



Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas appealed to the Bush administration Wednesday for more support in peace talks with Israel that have bogged down five months after both sides pledged to reach a deal by January.

In a meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ahead of talks with President Bush on Thursday, Abbas said time was running out if that target laid out at the Annapolis Conference in November was to be met and that more pressure must be exerted on Israel to stop the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

"Five months after Annapolis, the gap is still wide between the Palestinians and the Israelis," chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat quoted Abbas as telling Rice in the hour-and-a-half meeting. "He emphasized that there is a gap that separates the two parties. Time is running, time is precious. And this phase needs decisions."

He said Abbas told Rice that Israel's continuing expansion of settlements, a halt to which is a major component of the so-called roadmap blueprint for peace, "is one of the greatest obstacles that stands in our way to reach an agreement with the Israelis."

"Israel must stop their settlement expansion," Erekat said. "It is a major commitment according to the first phase of the roadmap."

Abbas' spokesman Abu Rudeina, echoed Erekat's remarks, saying the Palestinian and Israeli positions were still far apart.

"That requires American intervention," Rudeina said.

Abbas is struggling for authority in the West Bank against the militant Hamas movement that controls Gaza. Bush hopes to achieve a peace deal between the Palestinians and Israel before he leaves office in January. Bush met on Wednesday with Jordan's King Abdullah II to discuss the process.

The White House meetings are a prelude to next month's trip by Bush to the Middle East to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel. He also is expected to visit Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The administration had been holding out hope it could arrange a peace summit during the visit, perhaps at the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheik, where Bush is now set to see Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The idea was to have Arab leaders endorse an interim statement demonstrating at least some progress, officials said.

But there are deep misgivings about such a meeting among both Arabs and the Israelis, given the slow pace of negotiations, and prospects for the summit are slim, officials said.

Abbas wants a framework peace agreement by January with timetables and specifics leading to the creation of a Palestinian state and not just a "declaration of principles" as suggested by some Israel officials. He has said his talks with Bush on Thursday will focus on achieving a real deal on core issues and not just promises.


The White House did not give a readout on the Bush-Abdullah meeting. The Jordanian Embassy said Abdullah, who later saw Abbas, stressed the importance of U.S. involvement and Washington's role in overcoming obstacles to progress, particularly in pressing Israel on the settlements and easing Palestinian access.

"King Abdullah said it is important that Israel refrains from measures that would jeopardize negotiations with the Palestinians and called for an end to all Israeli settlement activities, a lifting of the blockade and restrictions on the movement of Palestinians," the embassy said.

Rice is stepping up efforts to boost the authority of Abbas by appointing a senior State Department official to run former British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Mideast office. Blair is now an envoy to the Palestinians for the international diplomatic quartet on the Middle East.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 10:20 am
The US support for Israel and their apartheid is a shameful, blatant, ignorance of humanity and ethics. No politician worth their salt has ever spoken against the Jewish discrimination against the Palestinians, and they never will; it's not politically expedient.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 01:26 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
The US support for Israel and their apartheid is a shameful, blatant, ignorance of humanity and ethics. No politician worth their salt has ever spoken against the Jewish discrimination against the Palestinians, and they never will; it's not politically expedient.

It's prudent to begin and continue discriminating against all those people who repeatedly declare their opposition to your existence and forcefully oppose it, or who tolerate such people in their midst.

It is "a shameful, blatant, ignorance of humanity and ethics" for a group to mass murder non-murderers.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 05:56 am
It was simply unfair the way the UN set up Israel in the middle of a place where people already lived. Ever since the Arabs and Palestinians were just made to either accept it or keep fighting and be labelled a terrorist.

There is dispute over the reason why so many non Jewish people lost land they owned at the time of the creation of Israel but you got to ask your self, would Israel as a state been able to exist without a large amount of people leaving to make room for them to build their homes and businesses?

John Mearsheimer Eviscerates the 'Times' Review of '1948'

In my view, I can see why some Arabs/Palestinians would say that Israel shouldn't exist; but Israel does exist and there is really no way to undo it without causing more harm than good. I do think though that nothing is ever going to be solved until the US starts looking at Palestinians as human beings and not just enemies of Israel and thus our enemies. Every time I hear (even Obama) talk about how great an ally Israel is; I think to myself, what have they done for us that is so great other than just existing as a non Arabic state in an Arabic part of the world?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 10:37 am
revel wrote:
It was simply unfair the way the UN set up Israel in the middle of a place where people already lived. Ever since the Arabs and Palestinians were just made to either accept it or keep fighting and be labelled a terrorist.

There is dispute over the reason why so many non Jewish people lost land they owned at the time of the creation of Israel but you got to ask your self, would Israel as a state been able to exist without a large amount of people leaving to make room for them to build their homes and businesses?

John Mearsheimer Eviscerates the 'Times' Review of '1948'

In my view, I can see why some Arabs/Palestinians would say that Israel shouldn't exist; but Israel does exist and there is really no way to undo it without causing more harm than good. I do think though that nothing is ever going to be solved until the US starts looking at Palestinians as human beings and not just enemies of Israel and thus our enemies. Every time I hear (even Obama) talk about how great an ally Israel is; I think to myself, what have they done for us that is so great other than just existing as a non Arabic state in an Arabic part of the world?


US politicians continue to repeat the old canard that "Israel is a democracy." They just haven't lived the life of a Palestinian in Israel.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 08:18:29