Discussion
Ayahuasca said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
Implement the 1947 UN partition plan:
You mean, the one that the Israelis agreed to and the Arabs rejected and chose war instead?Good long term solution, but not the answer to my question which was what do you do RIGHT NOW to stop Hamas firing its rockets?
Anyway, Hamas have stopped firing their rockets (although some reports say they have 2000 left).
Grumfutock said:
zuby84 said:
You're right there, if anyone else did what Israel did - it would not be called a "fair and open Western style democracy" - it would be muttered in the same breath as many other countries with despicable leadership and quite frankly it is beginning to.
RUSSIA!So yes, a lot of similarities with Israel and Russia - thanks for illustrating my point
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Countdown said:
And, for what it's worth, the Arabs didn't start the 1967 war.
No, and the Germans didn't start WW2. After all, we declared war on them. 
Israel's attack in the 1967 war bears a greater resemblance to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Wednesday 3rd September 23:18
Ayahuasca said:
Civilian deaths - on either side - are obviously tragic and regrettable, so I am genuinely interested in what you would do -if you had the power - right now, to stop Hamas launching missiles at Israel?
Civilian deaths - on either side - are obviously tragic and regrettable, so I am genuinely interested in what you would do -if you had the power - right now, to stop Israel stealing more and more land from the Palestinians, killing thousands of civilians every few years whilst Israel maintains the illegal (UN defined) occupation of Palestine?I know deep down, you want Palestinians to roll over and just continue to be oppressed and yet more land taken away from them; but be realistic - what would you do if you were a Palestinian?
Alpinestars said:
Did mankind exist before Abraham and Moses? I'd imagine so.
Were those predecessors Jewish? No I don't think so.
So would it be ok if those "non jews" decided to return to their "homeland" by displacing the current population?
Well you can't have one rule for one group of people and another rule for another.... unless you're Israeli of course and then double-standards really do apply and you can twist your own version of history.Were those predecessors Jewish? No I don't think so.
So would it be ok if those "non jews" decided to return to their "homeland" by displacing the current population?
I wonder what the excuses for the most extreme Israeli supporters would be in 50 years time when trying to explain why they took the recently newly seized land in the West Bank:
1) We bought the land from the Arabs fair and square
2) The land was uninhabited so I don't know what they're complaining about
3) There wasn't even a country called The West Bank - so how could we have stolen land from something that didn't even exist?!??
4) There were missiles being fired from the West Bank and we had to go and secure the area. Occupation was the only way to do this (no missiles btw)
5) Don't show me that silly map again, Scuffers said it's a fake!
And when they realise that they've been caught lying they'll say
5) We were there first na na na na
6) Stop picking on the Jews you anti-Semite
I sometimes think as to how the World allowed Apartheid in South Africa or legalised racial discrimination in the USA in recent history. It seems almost inconceivable to me that all this happened over the last 1-2 generations. History will also treat Israel as a pariah state and we will think; how on Earth did we let that happen?
There were (and still are) people supporting apartheid and racial segregation making every single excuse in the book as to why it's warranted and how "this is different" - it's not. Mankind makes the same old excuses over and over and really does never learn from it's mistakes.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Countdown said:
And, for what it's worth, the Arabs didn't start the 1967 war.
No, and the Germans didn't start WW2. After all, we declared war on them. He stated that, "judging by the seven divisions which he sent to Sinai after the closure of Aqaba, he knew that we would consider his gesture to be a casus belli." In other words, the reason additional forces were sent into the Sinai, was because Nasser feared Israel might attack Egypt.This is also confirmed in point 13 in this link when Nasser conveyed to U.S. president Lyndon Johnson his fears of an Israeli attack.
Nasser added that “your own State Department called in my Ambassador to the U.S. in April or May and warned him that there were rumors that there might be a conflict between Israel and the UAR*.” *United Arab Republic (Egypt).
The CIA also confirmed that Nasser's military presence in the Sinai was defensive stating: “Armored striking forces could breach the UAR’s double defense line in the Sinai in three to four days and drive the Egyptians west of the Suez Canal in seven to nine days. Israel could contain any attacks by Syria or Jordan during this period” Linky.
Israel sought U.S. support by exaggerating the Arabs' military capabilities according to the CIA which stated:
"Two days later, Tel Aviv muddled this clear intelligence picture by submitting to Washington a Mossad estimate that claimed the Israeli military was badly outgunned by a Soviet-backed Arab war machine. The Israelis may have been trying to exploit the special relationship they had with James Angleton, chief of CIA counterintelligence. For years, Angleton had run the Israeli account out of his Counterintelligence Staff, without involving the Directorate of Plans's Near East Division. That unusual arrangement may have given Tel Aviv a sense that Washington accorded its analyses such special import that US leaders would listen to its judgments on Arab-Israeli issues over those of their own intelligence services."
"Helms had the Office of National Estimates (ONE) prepare an appraisal of the Mossad assessment, which was ready in only five hours. ONE flatly stated: “We do not believe that the Israeli appreciation . . . was a serious estimate of the sort they would submit to their own high officials.” Rather, “it is probably a gambit intended to influence the US to . . . provide military supplies . . . make more public commitments to Israel . . . approve Israeli military initiatives, and . . . put more pressure on [Egyptian President] Nasser.” ONE further concluded—contrary to Tel Aviv's suspicions—that “the Soviet aim is still to avoid military involvement and to give the US a black eye among the Arabs by identifying it with Israel”; Moscow “probably could not openly help the Arabs because of lack of capability, and probably would not for fear of confrontation with the US.” It was this latter ONE judgment that caused Dean Rusk to remark to Helms, “if this is a mistake, it's a beaut.” The same judgment triggered an order from the president to Helms and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Earle Wheeler to “scrub it down.” Helms returned to CIA headquarters and told the Board of National Estimates to produce a coordinated assessment by the next day."
"Informed by these assessments, President Johnson declined to airlift special military supplies to Israel or even to publicly support it. He later recalled bluntly telling Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban, “All of our intelligence people are unanimous that if the UAR attacks, you will whip hell out of them.”"
Ayahuasca said:
......what do you do RIGHT NOW to stop Hamas firing its rockets?
What Israel did right then was to use various weapon types of dubious legality: Flechette
DiME, AP and White Phosphorous
None of which achieved the objective.
Ayahuasca said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
Implement the 1947 UN partition plan:
You mean, the one that the Israelis agreed to and the Arabs rejected and chose war instead?Good long term solution, but not the answer to my question which was what do you do RIGHT NOW to stop Hamas firing its rockets?
Show good will and initiate dialogue.
Show the world you are a true democracy by treating Palestinians and Israelis equally and fairly.
Use the effective propaganda machine to promote peace and shout about peace, not war, hatred and negativity.
Stop the illegal settlements and publicly denounce them as counter-productive to peace and security.
Announce a plan to work together with any Palestinian who wants peace for both Arabs and Jews alike, not one at the expense of the other.
Permanently link Israel's "Right to Exist" to "Palestinians' Right to exist". The two should never be mutually exclusive.
It will take a brave Israeli leader to be vocal about the list above, but the benefits will consign the likes of Hamas to history as the pros will deny them of the very 'toxic' fuel they need to stay alive.
allnighter said:
Ayahuasca said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
Implement the 1947 UN partition plan:
You mean, the one that the Israelis agreed to and the Arabs rejected and chose war instead?Good long term solution, but not the answer to my question which was what do you do RIGHT NOW to stop Hamas firing its rockets?
Show good will and initiate dialogue.
Show the world you are a true democracy by treating Palestinians and Israelis equally and fairly.
Use the effective propaganda machine to promote peace and shout about peace, not war, hatred and negativity.
Stop the illegal settlements and publicly denounce them as counter-productive to peace and security.
Announce a plan to work together with any Palestinian who wants peace for both Arabs and Jews alike, not one at the expense of the other.
Permanently link Israel's "Right to Exist" to "Palestinians' Right to exist". The two should never be mutually exclusive.
It will take a brave Israeli leader to be vocal about the list above, but the benefits will consign the likes of Hamas to history as the pros will deny them of the very 'toxic' fuel they need to stay alive.
The Palestinians, tragically, have been ill-served by their leaders. Arafat apparently accumulated x billion dollars of personal wealth at a time when his people were destitute.
Ayahuasca said:
Civilian deaths - on either side - are obviously tragic and regrettable, so I am genuinely interested in what you would do -if you had the power - right now, to stop Hamas launching missiles at Israel?
I'd tell them that violence is not the answer. A 2 state solution is. Of course this Israeli govt isn't interested in that, so I'd tell them to show the world what this Israeli govt is like and call for more boycotts of their economy. Violence hasn't worked, but I think crippling the economy of Israel will.allnighter said:
top rolling your eyes. Israel's attack on Egypt was not preemptive judging by what Yitzhak Rabin stated in this article.
He stated that, "judging by the seven divisions which he sent to Sinai after the closure of Aqaba, he knew that we would consider his gesture to be a casus belli." In other words, the reason additional forces were sent into the Sinai, was because Nasser feared Israel might attack Egypt.This is also confirmed in point 13 in this link when Nasser conveyed to U.S. president Lyndon Johnson his fears of an Israeli attack.
Nasser added that “your own State Department called in my Ambassador to the U.S. in April or May and warned him that there were rumors that there might be a conflict between Israel and the UAR*.” *United Arab Republic (Egypt).
The CIA also confirmed that Nasser's military presence in the Sinai was defensive stating: “Armored striking forces could breach the UAR’s double defense line in the Sinai in three to four days and drive the Egyptians west of the Suez Canal in seven to nine days. Israel could contain any attacks by Syria or Jordan during this period” Linky.
Israel sought U.S. support by exaggerating the Arabs' military capabilities according to the CIA which stated:
"Two days later, Tel Aviv muddled this clear intelligence picture by submitting to Washington a Mossad estimate that claimed the Israeli military was badly outgunned by a Soviet-backed Arab war machine. The Israelis may have been trying to exploit the special relationship they had with James Angleton, chief of CIA counterintelligence. For years, Angleton had run the Israeli account out of his Counterintelligence Staff, without involving the Directorate of Plans's Near East Division. That unusual arrangement may have given Tel Aviv a sense that Washington accorded its analyses such special import that US leaders would listen to its judgments on Arab-Israeli issues over those of their own intelligence services."
"Helms had the Office of National Estimates (ONE) prepare an appraisal of the Mossad assessment, which was ready in only five hours. ONE flatly stated: “We do not believe that the Israeli appreciation . . . was a serious estimate of the sort they would submit to their own high officials.” Rather, “it is probably a gambit intended to influence the US to . . . provide military supplies . . . make more public commitments to Israel . . . approve Israeli military initiatives, and . . . put more pressure on [Egyptian President] Nasser.” ONE further concluded—contrary to Tel Aviv's suspicions—that “the Soviet aim is still to avoid military involvement and to give the US a black eye among the Arabs by identifying it with Israel”; Moscow “probably could not openly help the Arabs because of lack of capability, and probably would not for fear of confrontation with the US.” It was this latter ONE judgment that caused Dean Rusk to remark to Helms, “if this is a mistake, it's a beaut.” The same judgment triggered an order from the president to Helms and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Earle Wheeler to “scrub it down.” Helms returned to CIA headquarters and told the Board of National Estimates to produce a coordinated assessment by the next day."
"Informed by these assessments, President Johnson declined to airlift special military supplies to Israel or even to publicly support it. He later recalled bluntly telling Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban, “All of our intelligence people are unanimous that if the UAR attacks, you will whip hell out of them.”"
And as usual a totally biased and incomplete version of events. He stated that, "judging by the seven divisions which he sent to Sinai after the closure of Aqaba, he knew that we would consider his gesture to be a casus belli." In other words, the reason additional forces were sent into the Sinai, was because Nasser feared Israel might attack Egypt.This is also confirmed in point 13 in this link when Nasser conveyed to U.S. president Lyndon Johnson his fears of an Israeli attack.
Nasser added that “your own State Department called in my Ambassador to the U.S. in April or May and warned him that there were rumors that there might be a conflict between Israel and the UAR*.” *United Arab Republic (Egypt).
The CIA also confirmed that Nasser's military presence in the Sinai was defensive stating: “Armored striking forces could breach the UAR’s double defense line in the Sinai in three to four days and drive the Egyptians west of the Suez Canal in seven to nine days. Israel could contain any attacks by Syria or Jordan during this period” Linky.
Israel sought U.S. support by exaggerating the Arabs' military capabilities according to the CIA which stated:
"Two days later, Tel Aviv muddled this clear intelligence picture by submitting to Washington a Mossad estimate that claimed the Israeli military was badly outgunned by a Soviet-backed Arab war machine. The Israelis may have been trying to exploit the special relationship they had with James Angleton, chief of CIA counterintelligence. For years, Angleton had run the Israeli account out of his Counterintelligence Staff, without involving the Directorate of Plans's Near East Division. That unusual arrangement may have given Tel Aviv a sense that Washington accorded its analyses such special import that US leaders would listen to its judgments on Arab-Israeli issues over those of their own intelligence services."
"Helms had the Office of National Estimates (ONE) prepare an appraisal of the Mossad assessment, which was ready in only five hours. ONE flatly stated: “We do not believe that the Israeli appreciation . . . was a serious estimate of the sort they would submit to their own high officials.” Rather, “it is probably a gambit intended to influence the US to . . . provide military supplies . . . make more public commitments to Israel . . . approve Israeli military initiatives, and . . . put more pressure on [Egyptian President] Nasser.” ONE further concluded—contrary to Tel Aviv's suspicions—that “the Soviet aim is still to avoid military involvement and to give the US a black eye among the Arabs by identifying it with Israel”; Moscow “probably could not openly help the Arabs because of lack of capability, and probably would not for fear of confrontation with the US.” It was this latter ONE judgment that caused Dean Rusk to remark to Helms, “if this is a mistake, it's a beaut.” The same judgment triggered an order from the president to Helms and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Earle Wheeler to “scrub it down.” Helms returned to CIA headquarters and told the Board of National Estimates to produce a coordinated assessment by the next day."
"Informed by these assessments, President Johnson declined to airlift special military supplies to Israel or even to publicly support it. He later recalled bluntly telling Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban, “All of our intelligence people are unanimous that if the UAR attacks, you will whip hell out of them.”"
You make no mention of the PLO attacks on Israel in the lead up to war, no mention of the Syrian/Egypt mutual defense pact, no mention of the Egypt/Jordan defense pact, no mention of the false reports Egypt received from Russia of an impending Israeli attack on Syria, no mention of Egyptian forces expelling the UN from Sinai, no mention of Egypt closing the straits of Tiran, no mention of Iraqi troops being deployed in Jordan and no mention of Egyptian troops also being deployed in Jordan.
You talk of the 7 Egyptian division being "defensive". you do realise that those 7 divisions amounted to 100,000 troops, 930 tanks and 1,100 pieces of artillery, this was half the Egyptian army? You ignore the fact that whilst this force may not of been capable of assaulting Israel successfully on its own, if you combine it with the Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi forces, numbering over 300,000 and massed on Israels other borders, you have a force more than capable of attack. It out numbered Israel by over 2-1 in everything. We will ignore the pilots, combat aircraft and support supplied by Pakistan and seven other Arab nations.
With Russia providing false intelligence reports to Nasser telling him of Israel troops massing on the Syrian border then he would of quiet logically of believed that these 7 divisions would be more than capable of attacking and penetrating a very weakly held border. Remember this force was a very mobile one and made up of armoured units, not something you generally do if you want to defend.
As always the situation is far more complex than you are trying to project and the Arabs far more culpable than you would have us believe.
Edited by Grumfutock on Thursday 4th September 08:12
enioldjoe said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
Abbas will do.
He's not (currently) the most popular Palestinian leader, but he'll do.
The one who funded the Munich massacre and did his Phd in holocaust denial ?He's not (currently) the most popular Palestinian leader, but he'll do.
Here's a photo of the happy couple:
"I have no desire to argue with the figures. The Holocaust was a terrible, unforgiveable crime against the Jewish nation, a crime against humanity that cannot be accepted by humankind. The Holocaust was a terrible thing and nobody can claim I denied it."
Abbas quoted in Haaretz 2003.
He doesn't deny the Holocaust. What the evil old bugger does is to turn it on it's head and say the Holocaust happened, but the Zionists plotted with the Nazis to cause it.
Still, it's going to be difficult indeed to find a Palestinian leader and an Israeli leader who don't have their hands steeped in blood.
As long as they can sign the piece of paper and get the agreement to hold, does it really matter?
TheRealFingers99 said:
Still, it's going to be difficult indeed to find a Palestinian leader and an Israeli leader who don't have their hands steeped in blood.
As long as they can sign the piece of paper and get the agreement to hold, does it really matter?
I think that is the most accurate and sensible thing anyone has said on this thread in a very long time!As long as they can sign the piece of paper and get the agreement to hold, does it really matter?
And stop posting pictures! (Joke)
968 said:
Rubbish.
The Israelis like to peddle this myth, i.e. they are only after peace. Nothing can be further from the truth. The reality is what we have seen in Gaza and now the land grab of 400 hectares in the West Bank. The current government and it's predecessor has perpetuated conflict after conflict so that they can justify stealing more and more land. I find your surmising the 'bloodbath' rather ironic considering the massive number of deaths suffered by the Gaza in the highly disproportionate and frankly brutal war waged by Israel.
If Israel had any intention of peace, they would have seriously acted upon the various resolutions which have required them to remove their illegal settlements in the West Bank. Of course, they never have been serious, and consequently, the settlement program has increased in pace over the last few years.
All that Israel has achieved in this war is to increase support for Hamas in Gaza, massively.
I'm not sure what your alleged quote of King Hussein has anything to do with this issue, since, a) he's dead and b) he's Jordanian.
968,The Israelis like to peddle this myth, i.e. they are only after peace. Nothing can be further from the truth. The reality is what we have seen in Gaza and now the land grab of 400 hectares in the West Bank. The current government and it's predecessor has perpetuated conflict after conflict so that they can justify stealing more and more land. I find your surmising the 'bloodbath' rather ironic considering the massive number of deaths suffered by the Gaza in the highly disproportionate and frankly brutal war waged by Israel.
If Israel had any intention of peace, they would have seriously acted upon the various resolutions which have required them to remove their illegal settlements in the West Bank. Of course, they never have been serious, and consequently, the settlement program has increased in pace over the last few years.
All that Israel has achieved in this war is to increase support for Hamas in Gaza, massively.
I'm not sure what your alleged quote of King Hussein has anything to do with this issue, since, a) he's dead and b) he's Jordanian.
Nice car BTW.
You're overlooking some very recent history.
Israel gave up occupying Gaza and what happened?
Rockets, and plenty of them.
Phil
TheRealFingers99 said:
I wish I hadn't. I can't work out whether Netanyahu is telling the assembly how big the fish he caught was, or boasting about his penis! 
I think you will find his is explaining how much land his going to leave the Palestinians (scale 1:1). Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Thursday 4th September 10:18
Thought I would get it in before somebody else!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff