Most Palestinians see fresh peace talks as error

[theliq]

That's so silly. It didn't take a miracle for Israel to win. It took better tactics, better trained troops and a well executed plan.

By America

Are you trying to say that the United States won the 1967 War for Israel?

Of course,you fool.....America had been Arming and giving Israel, Billions of US Dollars since 1948 and before............and TRAINING........your grasp of the 67 War is abismal

 

[P F Tinmore]

I hope this thread gets back to the actual topic.

We can go back and forth on the various wars all the way back to Moses and before if we want to, but that isn't really going to resolve anything at all.

I think it was a mistake not to divide the poll between Gaza and West Bank as I think there are significant difference between the two in how they are affected by Israel.

Also, there seems not to have been any real questions regarding what they DO want. Simply focusing on the talks is OK, as it at least addresses a current issue, but these people do have opinions about what happens to West Bank and Gaza.

The Palestinians are just calling for their rights. A state, political parties, negotiations, what Israel wants or will accept, are all things that have to fit their demands.

 

[toastman]

By America

Are you trying to say that the United States won the 1967 War for Israel?

Of course,you fool.....America had been Arming and giving Israel, Billions of US Dollars since 1948 and before............and TRAINING........your grasp of the 67 War is abismal

How many American troops fought for Israel ?

How many American fighter Jets were used in the war to bomb enemy targets ?

An how does America arming and giving money to Israel equate to them winning the war for Israel when in fact it was Israeli intelligence that was the main deciding factor in who won the war. And when in fact it was Israeli warplanes that risked their lives by flying over enemy airspace to bomb enemy military targets. And when in fact it was Israeli troops who entered enemy territory ?

Could it be that you are so biased against Israel, and so unbelievably anti - Israel that you try to delegitimize any of their success? Ya, that sounds about right.

And then you have the nerve to tell Kondor that HIS grasp of the 6 day war is abismal??

Way to make a fool out of yourself

 

[Kondor3]

By America

Are you trying to say that the United States won the 1967 War for Israel?

Of course,you fool.....America had been Arming and giving Israel, Billions of US Dollars since 1948 and before............and TRAINING........your grasp of the 67 War is abismal

How is this any different than the Soviets arming the Arab nations, on the opposing side?

We do not say that the Russians LOST the war for the Arabs because the Arabs were using Soviet equipment and training.

Conversely, we cannot say that America WON the war for the Israelis because the Israelis were using American equipment and training.

Oh, and, by the way, the amount of equipment that the US had supplied to the Israelis in the period 1948-1962 was very minimal; most of their guns, munitions and rolling stock and aircraft were European (much of it French) in design and manufacture; some of it surplus bargain-basement stuff, some of it state-of-the-art for those times.

We only began to sneak fairly sizable quantities of arms into Israel through Germany beginning in 1962, to offset the growing Arab inventories being supplied by the Soviets, an $80million arrangement that was dragged out into the open in 1965, and whose later installments included the delivery of a number of M48 Patton Tanks, but, by 1967, the majority of Israeli weaponry and rolling stock and munitions and air assets were still of European or local design and NOT American.

We only jumped in, on a grander scale, midstream when the French imposed an Arms Embargo upon Israel, breaking a long-standing tradition of arms-sales and training between the two, and, we began to step in to fill the vacuum, to replace weaponry and munitions expended in the 1967 War, and only truly racheted-up military aid and cooperation with Israel during and after the 1973 Yom Kippur War; long after the 1967 War was over.

And, of course, no US military units were deployed in active combat operations; not much of anything besides a showing of the flag on the part of the 6th Fleet and some modest intelligence and logistics support as a highly underwhelming offset to similar support being provided to the Arab combatants by both the Soviets and other regional Arab 'powers'.

The US won the 1967 Six-Day War for Israel?

Not by any sane and rational standard that I've been exposed to, to date.

Oh, and, by the way...

My grasp of the 1967 War is NOT "abismal" (sic).

My grasp of the 1967 War is modest, and not bad, for a non-stakeholding amateur and blogger.

Your grasp of MY grasp, on the other hand, was truly 'abysmal' (sic).

 

[Hossfly]

Don't be such an IDIOT, Israel have Nuclear Weaponary,and would use it. Such pro Israel IDIOTS like this CRETIN.....thinks everyone is stupidyou fool

Yeah, but our Nuclear Weaponary only works on old ugly-bearded Persians.

But you won't tell on us, right?

As I said "Another IDIOTIC CRETIN" I rest my case.

Israel may have nukes but they wouldn't use them, even on Iran, unless Iran used them first. That's the way civilized humans do things.

 

[theliq]

Are you trying to say that the United States won the 1967 War for Israel?

Of course,you fool.....America had been Arming and giving Israel, Billions of US Dollars since 1948 and before............and TRAINING........your grasp of the 67 War is abismal

How many American troops fought for Israel ?

How many American fighter Jets were used in the war to bomb enemy targets ?

An how does America arming and giving money to Israel equate to them winning the war for Israel when in fact it was Israeli intelligence that was the main deciding factor in who won the war. And when in fact it was Israeli warplanes that risked their lives by flying over enemy airspace to bomb enemy military targets. And when in fact it was Israeli troops who entered enemy territory ?

Could it be that you are so biased against Israel, and so unbelievably anti - Israel that you try to delegitimize any of their success? Ya, that sounds about right.

And then you have the nerve to tell Kondor that HIS grasp of the 6 day war is abismal??

Way to make a fool out of yourself

Where were the fighter planes from,who trained the Israeli Airforce???????whose supplied the Israeli weapons.......I have nerve and never take a backwards step.

To spew that I am anti-Israeli is complete RUBBISH....that I speak the truth,which you seem incapable of comprehending ...... Is the problem YOU HAVE.

Viva Israel,Viva Palestine.steve

 

[theliq]

Yeah, but our Nuclear Weaponary only works on old ugly-bearded Persians.

But you won't tell on us, right?

As I said "Another IDIOTIC CRETIN" I rest my case.

Israel may have nukes but they wouldn't use them, even on Iran, unless Iran used them first. That's the way civilized humans do things.

So as you say....Israel WOULD USE THEM(unless Iran used them first !!!!!!That's the way CIVILISED people(human beings)do things.

I think you are somewhat confused Hoss.

1.Iran don't have Nuclear Capability.

2.Israel DO and would use them on anyone.Civilized.....Don't THINK SO.

By your admission...........I'm the liq bringing Nations together with truth and RIGHT.

Suffer The Palestinians,come unto God/Jah.

Guys I'm right,of course I am

 

[theliq]

Are you trying to say that the United States won the 1967 War for Israel?

Of course,you fool.....America had been Arming and giving Israel, Billions of US Dollars since 1948 and before............and TRAINING........your grasp of the 67 War is abismal

How is this any different than the Soviets arming the Arab nations, on the opposing side?

We do not say that the Russians LOST the war for the Arabs because the Arabs were using Soviet equipment and training.

Conversely, we cannot say that America WON the war for the Israelis because the Israelis were using American equipment and training.

Oh, and, by the way, the amount of equipment that the US had supplied to the Israelis in the period 1948-1962 was very minimal; most of their guns, munitions and rolling stock and aircraft were European (much of it French) in design and manufacture; some of it surplus bargain-basement stuff, some of it state-of-the-art for those times.

We only began to sneak fairly sizable quantities of arms into Israel through Germany beginning in 1962, to offset the growing Arab inventories being supplied by the Soviets, an $80million arrangement that was dragged out into the open in 1965, and whose later installments included the delivery of a number of M48 Patton Tanks, but, by 1967, the majority of Israeli weaponry and rolling stock and munitions and air assets were still of European or local design and NOT American.

We only jumped in, on a grander scale, midstream when the French imposed an Arms Embargo upon Israel, breaking a long-standing tradition of arms-sales and training between the two, and, we began to step in to fill the vacuum, to replace weaponry and munitions expended in the 1967 War, and only truly racheted-up military aid and cooperation with Israel during and after the 1973 Yom Kippur War; long after the 1967 War was over.

And, of course, no US military units were deployed in active combat operations; not much of anything besides a showing of the flag on the part of the 6th Fleet and some modest intelligence and logistics support as a highly underwhelming offset to similar support being provided to the Arab combatants by both the Soviets and other regional Arab 'powers'.

The US won the 1967 Six-Day War for Israel?

Not by any sane and rational standard that I've been exposed to, to date.

Oh, and, by the way...

My grasp of the 1967 War is NOT "abismal" (sic).

My grasp of the 1967 War is modest, and not bad, for a non-stakeholding amateur and blogger.

Your grasp of MY grasp, on the other hand, was truly 'abysmal' (sic).

And where did you "SNEAK" your Nuclear capability from ???????????????????????????steve

My Grasp of your Grasp....is the real Grasp...theliq

 

[Kondor3]

"...And where did you 'SNEAK' your Nuclear capability from?..."

You concentrate on Conventional Weapons (planes, etc.) and then, when confronted with evidence that US contributions to the Israeli conventional inventory was minimal until the last minutes prior to the 1967 War, and that the majority of Israeli weaponry during the 1967 War was of European or local design and manufacture rather than American, as you had intimated...

When confronted with that, THEN you decide to drag Nuclear Weaponry into the mix; pretending that that was your intention all along, and masking your failure to substantiate your assertions of America supplying the lion's share of conventional weaponry prior to 1967 and winning the war for the Israelis?

No, I don't think so. Nice try. Not.

Besides, Israel was not reliably believed to be in possession of nuclear weapons prior to the 1967 Six Day War, and only began such production after the War had concluded.

Nuclear weapons and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CIA assessments earlier that same year concluded that the Israelis were about ready to begin production and could probably produce one in 6-8 weeks, but most reliable and credible sources agree that they did not begin production until AFTER the war, and that these played no part whatsoever in influencing the outcome of the 1967 War.

If you can find credible evidence to the contrary you are welcome to produce it.

"...My Grasp of your Grasp....is the real Grasp...theliq"

Your grasp is certainly... uhhhh... well... something, that's fer shure.

 

[theliq]

"...And where did you 'SNEAK' your Nuclear capability from?..."

You concentrate on Conventional Weapons (planes, etc.) and then, when confronted with evidence that US contributions to the Israeli conventional inventory was minimal until the last minutes prior to the 1967 War, and that the majority of Israeli weaponry during the 1967 War was of European or local design and manufacture rather than American, as you had intimated...

When confronted with that, THEN you decide to drag Nuclear Weaponry into the mix; pretending that that was your intention all along, and masking your failure to substantiate your assertions of America supplying the lion's share of conventional weaponry prior to 1967 and winning the war for the Israelis?

No, I don't think so. Nice try. Not.

Besides, Israel was not reliably believed to be in possession of nuclear weapons prior to the 1967 Six Day War, and only began such production after the War had concluded.

Nuclear weapons and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CIA assessments earlier that same year concluded that the Israelis were about ready to begin production and could probably produce one in 6-8 weeks, but most reliable and credible sources agree that they did not begin production until AFTER the war, and that these played no part whatsoever in influencing the outcome of the 1967 War.

If you can find credible evidence to the contrary you are welcome to produce it.

"...My Grasp of your Grasp....is the real Grasp...theliq"

Your grasp is certainly... uhhhh... well... something, that's fer shure.

Who gives a SHIT about what you drivel.......you are an irrelevance with your spew...1. Americans did supply the Israelis in 67........2. The Israelis have Nuclear,even though they still deny it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and they would use it.....WHY are there no weapons inspections now or ever.

Iran has no Nukes...Israel DOES.....which is a danger to us all..steve

Just as well,I'm always in a Great,Happy Mood as Hoss will attest to.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Who gives a SHIT about what you drivel.......you are an irrelevance with you spew..."

You appear to have anger-management issues. I strongly recommend that you contact your therapist and physician, and ask them to tweak your meds again. Or, if that is off the mark, I strongly suggest a sobering cup of coffee.

"...1. Americans did supply the Israelis in 67..."

Your anger-management issues and tendency to engage in knee-jerk reaction appear to be blinding you to earlier references to American arms-supplies to Israel, but making the distinction that the lion's share of the Israeli inventory in 1967 was European and local in design and manufacturer, and that American gear only comprised a minority percentage of the overall Israeli arms inventory.

"...2. The Israelis have Nuclear..."

Of course they do. The issue here is whether or not such weaponry was a factor in the 1967 Six Day War. It is my contention that it was not, and I have cited supporting and credible sources for that purpose. You are welcome to counterpoiint in similar fashion.

"...even though they still deny it!..."

Deny it, or simply won't say one way or another; maintaining 'nuclear opacity'?

"...and they would use it..."

In extremis, yes, I believe you are correct in that assessment. Same with us.

"...WHY are there no weapons inspections now or ever..."

Whatever for?

"...Iran has no Nukes...Israel DOES.....which is a danger to us all..."

Iran is a medieval, dogmatic, martyrdom-encouraging, fundamentalist theocratic autocracy.

Israel is a sane, rational, modern and secularized state with mild religious undertones.

Of the two, Israel is far less of a risk as a nuclear power than Iran.

 

[theliq]

"...Who gives a SHIT about what you drivel.......you are an irrelevance with you spew..."

You appear to have anger-management issues. I strongly recommend that you contact your therapist and physician, and ask them to tweak your meds again. Or, if that is off the mark, I strongly suggest a sobering cup of coffee.

"...1. Americans did supply the Israelis in 67..."

Your anger-management issues and tendency to engage in knee-jerk reaction appear to be blinding you to earlier references to American arms-supplies to Israel, but making the distinction that the lion's share of the Israeli inventory in 1967 was European and local in design and manufacturer, and that American gear only comprised a minority percentage of the overall Israeli arms inventory.


Of course they do. The issue here is whether or not such weaponry was a factor in the 1967 Six Day War. It is my contention that it was not, and I have cited supporting and credible sources for that purpose. You are welcome to counterpoiint in similar fashion.


Deny it, or simply won't say one way or another; maintaining 'nuclear opacity'?


In extremis, yes, I believe you are correct in that assessment. Same with us.

"...WHY are there no weapons inspections now or ever..."

Whatever for?

"...Iran has no Nukes...Israel DOES.....which is a danger to us all..."

Iran is a medieval, dogmatic, martyrdom-encouraging, fundamentalist theocratic autocracy.

Israel is a sane, rational, modern and secularized state with mild religious undertones.

Of the two, Israel is far less of a risk as a nuclear power than Iran.

I don't know about "secularized State" there are a lot of PRE-ASSYRIAN Jewish Religious Nutters Around in Israel,who espouse that Secular Jews in Israel are NOT TRUE JEWS..Fact.

"Mildly Religious Undertones"......NOW I KNOW YOU ARE COMPLETELY MAD...you need extensive mental Help........NOW!!!!!! Come on Kondor,you ain't a bad bloke.........just cut the Zionist BULLSHIT.steve

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Yeah, but our Nuclear Weaponary only works on old ugly-bearded Persians.

But you won't tell on us, right?

As I said "Another IDIOTIC CRETIN" I rest my case.

Israel may have nukes but they wouldn't use them, even on Iran, unless Iran used them first. That's the way civilized humans do things.

Apparently, the US is not a civilized people then, applying your own standards set forth here.

The US used nuclear weapons first, it was not in response to attacks of nuclear weapons on us, and we did it twice, in Hiroshima and in Nagasaki .

If the US would use nuclear weapons offensively, why wouldnt Israel?

Are they more civilized then the US?

 

[Billo_Really]

Translation:

My question: "Then you, as Israeli Prime Minister, would wait until those warplanes had crossed into Israeli airspace, at near-supersonic speeds - mere seconds or minutes from any strategic or tactical target in the entire country...?"

Your answer: "Yes"

My question: "Really?"

Your answer: "Yes"

Did I interpret this correctly?

"Yes"

And that's Mr. Really, to you.

 

[Billo_Really]

Why wait for them to attack ? How do you know that it might not be too late?

It's a little too late, for you to be talking about them being too late.

Well, it's getting late and I need some sleep.

It was a given that Egypt and Syria were going to attack, so what's the issue exactly ?

That Israel has a history of making up reasons to attack sovereign nations that goes all the way back to the Zionist migrations at the turn of the last century. Zionists have made it clear by their actions (that have spanned over a century), they do not care about international law, the rights and suffering of others, or Judaism. All Zionists care about, is furthering their own fascist agenda.

From declaring the Wailing Wall theirs in '29, to all of Palestine theirs in '48, to their territorial expansion in '67 and to the Lebanese war in '06, they have been making up excuses every step of the way. And anyone who objects, becomes a target.

Say whatever you want to put lipstick on that pig, I'm telling you right now, that emperor, does not have any clothes.

Do you really think that they would mass their troops and tanks, etc.. while threatening Israel, just for fun ???

Massing troops doesn't mean an attack is automatically imminent. It could be a show of strength. Locker room chest thumping.

Israel took out their air force BEFORE they could do any damage.. They had secret confidential info about where their airports were BTW.

They also took out a US ship, which I'm still pretty pissed about.

It's called military intelligence

It's called "aggression", which is a war crime.

 

[Hollie]

As I said "Another IDIOTIC CRETIN" I rest my case.

Israel may have nukes but they wouldn't use them, even on Iran, unless Iran used them first. That's the way civilized humans do things.

Apparently, the US is not a civilized people then, applying your own standards set forth here.

The US used nuclear weapons first, it was not in response to attacks of nuclear weapons on us, and we did it twice, in Hiroshima and in Nagasaki .

If the US would use nuclear weapons offensively, why wouldnt Israel?

Are they more civilized then the US?

There is simply no reason for the Israelis to use nukes in a first strike role. Israel has shown repeatedly that its conventional forces are superior to any islamist nation or allied islamist nations.

There will be continuing skirmishes with various islamist terrorist syndicates: islamic jihad, Hamas, "hizzbollocks", etc., but those threats can be managed with conventional weapons and armies.

As we see more often than not in islamist societies, moslems are the greatest threat to other moslems. The internecine war being waged in Syria is just the latest example of that dynamic.

 

[Kondor3]

Translation:

My question: "Then you, as Israeli Prime Minister, would wait until those warplanes had crossed into Israeli airspace, at near-supersonic speeds - mere seconds or minutes from any strategic or tactical target in the entire country...?"

Your answer: "Yes"

My question: "Really?"

Your answer: "Yes"

Did I interpret this correctly?

"Yes"...

And, given that the full range of conditions were spelled out in Post No. 163, which you no doubt saw prior to responding...

...Meanwhile, I want to be very clear about something.

If you were the Israeli Prime Minister, and tasked with the defense of Israel...

If Nassar had mobilized, blockaded your port, finalized war-alliances with your other neighbors, declared his intention to destroy you in the next few days, and massed his deployed forces snug up against your borders...

If Nassar had 30 or more modern jet heavy bombers (Tupelov-16s), capable of carrying 20,000 lbs of bombs each and dropping from high altitudes, screened by scores of modern Soviet Mig-21 fighter escorts, on Egyptian airfields, as well as light and medium bombers and fighter escorts in Syria, Jordan and Iraq - all mustered and ready to strike...

Then you, as Israeli Prime Minister, would wait until those warplanes had crossed into Israeli airspace, at near-supersonic speeds - mere seconds or minutes from any strategic or tactical target in the entire country...

Knowing that by doing so, many of those enemy bombers would succeed in making it past your defenses, and would strike at Tel-Aviv and other civilian cities and towns, triggering hundreds, perhaps many thousands, of Israeli civilian casualties...

Knowing that by doing so, many of your own war-assets (airfields, air-squadrons, armored formations, troop concentrations, etc.) might suffer irreparable damage and cripple your nation's ability to defend itself from attack on all sides?

All in the name of Observance of the Letter of International Law?

Really?

You STILL responded "Yes".

For all intents and purposes, saying...

"Yes. I would wait until Arab warplanes had crossed into Israeli airspace; mere seconds or minutes from any strategic or tactical target within Israel; despite the fact that many bombers would get through my air defenses; despite the fact that I would suffer hundreds or thousands of civilian casualties from the bombing; despite the fact that my own air-assets or armored formations or troop concentrations might be irreparably damaged; thereby crippling my nation's defenses; all in the name of observing the strict letter of international law."

In light of the history and content of this particular exchange, there is no other way for a reasonable person to interpret what you have said.

Consequently, and sadly, I am obliged to observe...

Your own people would string you up from a lamppost as a traitor. Any people so-betrayed would do so. And you would deserve it.

More likely, some member of your General Staff would put a bullet through your brain, long before the mob of grief-maddened parents and spouses got hold of you. And you would deserve it.

But at least you would have the satisfaction, in your last few milliseconds of existence as you were launched into eternity, of having observed the letter of international law, even though it cost your people thousands of civilian lives and crippled your defenses and set the stage for the defeat and annihilation of your own people.

Nobody (myself, least of all) is saying that a preemptive strike is legal - in whole or in part - based upon Article 51 of the UN Charter or other preexisting or subsequent international law - but there are times when a preemptive strike is absolutely necessary in order to prevent a disaster and great harm to one's own people, when the adversary has already publicly declared his intentions and then maneuvered into position to carry out such threats. National survival trumps international law every time.

I am assuming that you are merely being obtuse in support of your own well-established position in support of the Palestinians and adherence to international law, and that, when faced with such a terrible choice in the Real World, that you would actually make a choice akin to that made by the Israeli Prime Minister in 1967.

I am assuming that you actually would preemptively strike your enemy's air-assets and to whittle them down and neutralize much of them, before they could inflict those thousands of civilian casualties and cripple your nation's defenses; in effect, that, by saying 'Yes', you are dissembling merely for the sake of showmanship and consistency with your established pattern of advocacy.

Most rational and sane and pragmatic people would have similar difficulty, believing that anyone, similarly sane and rational and pragmatic, could sacrifice his own people in favor of blind adherence to a provision of international law.

However, if I am wrong, and if this is TRULY what you would do when faced with just such a situation, then, sadly, I am left with no other choice but to judge you as an Idiot.

One capable of intelligent thought and articulation, but a Fool's Fool, not part of the Real World, and someone to write-off and to not take seriously, with respect to the affairs of Nations and Men.

It is my hope that you disabuse me of such a sad conclusion over time, but I am beginning to have my doubts as to whether that is even possible, in light of what you've just told us about your impracticality and intransigence and callous disregard for your own people, merely so that your own conscience can remain intact and lily-white within the framework of adherence to international law.

You may very well delude yourself that through such a blind adherence, you are demonstrating moral courage, but, the flip side of that argument is...

By failing to act to save your people before such damage can be inflicted, you are demonstrating moral cowardice by valuing your own personal integrity and conscience above the survival of your own people...

Rather than metaphorically falling on your sword, and soiling your conscience with the guilt of a first-strike against a declared and coiled and poised enemy force, sacrificing your conscience so that your people may live...

THAT is the ultimate sacrifice that Leaders of Nations and Men are occasionally asked to make in a genuine and legitimate national risk-danger framework...

THAT that is the chance that such leaders are sometimes obliged to take ...

And you, for one, do not appear to have what it takes, even on the theoretical discussion level, to meet such challenges.

Holding your own conscience above the survival of your own country, in a legitimate national-danger scenario. You appear to be selfish in matters of conscience, in the very worst of all possible ways.

Truly unmanly, disgusting, and pathetic.

My condolences.

 

[theliq]

Translation:

My question: "Then you, as Israeli Prime Minister, would wait until those warplanes had crossed into Israeli airspace, at near-supersonic speeds - mere seconds or minutes from any strategic or tactical target in the entire country...?"

Your answer: "Yes"

My question: "Really?"

Your answer: "Yes"

Did I interpret this correctly?

"Yes"...

And, given that the full range of conditions were spelled out in Post No. 163, which you no doubt saw prior to responding...

...Meanwhile, I want to be very clear about something.

If you were the Israeli Prime Minister, and tasked with the defense of Israel...

If Nassar had mobilized, blockaded your port, finalized war-alliances with your other neighbors, declared his intention to destroy you in the next few days, and massed his deployed forces snug up against your borders...

If Nassar had 30 or more modern jet heavy bombers (Tupelov-16s), capable of carrying 20,000 lbs of bombs each and dropping from high altitudes, screened by scores of modern Soviet Mig-21 fighter escorts, on Egyptian airfields, as well as light and medium bombers and fighter escorts in Syria, Jordan and Iraq - all mustered and ready to strike...

Then you, as Israeli Prime Minister, would wait until those warplanes had crossed into Israeli airspace, at near-supersonic speeds - mere seconds or minutes from any strategic or tactical target in the entire country...

Knowing that by doing so, many of those enemy bombers would succeed in making it past your defenses, and would strike at Tel-Aviv and other civilian cities and towns, triggering hundreds, perhaps many thousands, of Israeli civilian casualties...

Knowing that by doing so, many of your own war-assets (airfields, air-squadrons, armored formations, troop concentrations, etc.) might suffer irreparable damage and cripple your nation's ability to defend itself from attack on all sides?

All in the name of Observance of the Letter of International Law?

Really?

You STILL responded "Yes".

For all intents and purposes, saying...

"Yes. I would wait until Arab warplanes had crossed into Israeli airspace; mere seconds or minutes from any strategic or tactical target within Israel; despite the fact that many bombers would get through my air defenses; despite the fact that I would suffer hundreds or thousands of civilian casualties from the bombing; despite the fact that my own air-assets or armored formations or troop concentrations might be irreparably damaged; thereby crippling my nation's defenses; all in the name of observing the strict letter of international law."

In light of the history and content of this particular exchange, there is no other way for a reasonable person to interpret what you have said.

Consequently, and sadly, I am obliged to observe...

Your own people would string you up from a lamppost as a traitor. Any people so-betrayed would do so. And you would deserve it.

More likely, some member of your General Staff would put a bullet through your brain, long before the mob of grief-maddened parents and spouses got hold of you. And you would deserve it.

But at least you would have the satisfaction, in your last few milliseconds of existence as you were launched into eternity, of having observed the letter of international law, even though it cost your people thousands of civilian lives and crippled your defenses and set the stage for the defeat and annihilation of your own people.

Nobody (myself, least of all) is saying that a preemptive strike is legal - in whole or in part - based upon Article 51 of the UN Charter or other preexisting or subsequent international law - but there are times when a preemptive strike is absolutely necessary in order to prevent a disaster and great harm to one's own people, when the adversary has already publicly declared his intentions and then maneuvered into position to carry out such threats. National survival trumps international law every time.

I am assuming that you are merely being obtuse in support of your own well-established position in support of the Palestinians and adherence to international law, and that, when faced with such a terrible choice in the Real World, that you would actually make a choice akin to that made by the Israeli Prime Minister in 1967.

I am assuming that you actually would preemptively strike your enemy's air-assets and to whittle them down and neutralize much of them, before they could inflict those thousands of civilian casualties and cripple your nation's defenses; in effect, that, by saying 'Yes', you are dissembling merely for the sake of showmanship and consistency with your established pattern of advocacy.

Most rational and sane and pragmatic people would have similar difficulty, believing that anyone, similarly sane and rational and pragmatic, could sacrifice his own people in favor of blind adherence to a provision of international law.

However, if I am wrong, and if this is TRULY what you would do when faced with just such a situation, then, sadly, I am left with no other choice but to judge you as an Idiot.

One capable of intelligent thought and articulation, but a Fool's Fool, not part of the Real World, and someone to write-off and to not take seriously, with respect to the affairs of Nations and Men.

It is my hope that you disabuse me of such a sad conclusion over time, but I am beginning to have my doubts as to whether that is even possible, in light of what you've just told us about your impracticality and intransigence and callous disregard for your own people, merely so that your own conscience can remain intact and lily-white within the framework of adherence to international law.

You may very well delude yourself that through such a blind adherence, you are demonstrating moral courage, but, the flip side of that argument is...

By failing to act to save your people before such damage can be inflicted, you are demonstrating moral cowardice by valuing your own personal integrity and conscience about the survival of your own people...

Rather than metaphorically falling on your sword, and soiling your conscience with the guilt of a first-strike against a declared and coiled and poised enemy force, sacrificing your conscience so that your people may live...

THAT is the ultimate sacrifice that Leaders of Nations and Men are occasionally asked to make in a genuine and legitimate national risk-danger framework...

THAT that is the chance that such leaders are sometimes obliged to take ...

And you, for one, do not appear to have what it takes, even on the theoretical discussion level, to meet such challenges.

Holding your own conscience above the survival of your own country, in a legitimate national-danger scenario. You appear to be selfish in matters of conscience, in the very worst of all possible ways.

Truly unmanly, disgusting, and pathetic.

My condolences.

As a supporter of a free Palestine and Israel,Israel has no strategic fear of Palestine at all,why posters after all this time think otherwise is obsurd.

The closest we got to Peace in this schism was scuttled when the rabid Jews assassinated Mr Rabin the Israeli Prime Minister.....previously he was head of the Military,he realised that for both Israel and the Palestinians PEACE could and would be achieved.

Both Rabin and Simon Peres were Titans against the minority agitating Jews(we all know who and what they are) Mr Rabin paid the ultimate price,with his life.

Only Israel and Palestinians(Cousins and Semitic peoples) will resolve this matter.......other Arab nations are of no help to the Palestinians or Israelis...in fact quite the reverse.

The history of both nations are inter-twined.

Viva Palestine..Viva Israel

 

[Billo_Really]

And, given that the full range of conditions were spelled out in Post No. 163, which you no doubt saw prior to responding...

...Meanwhile, I want to be very clear about something.

If you were the Israeli Prime Minister, and tasked with the defense of Israel...

If Nassar had mobilized, blockaded your port, finalized war-alliances with your other neighbors, declared his intention to destroy you in the next few days, and massed his deployed forces snug up against your borders...

If Nassar had 30 or more modern jet heavy bombers (Tupelov-16s), capable of carrying 20,000 lbs of bombs each and dropping from high altitudes, screened by scores of modern Soviet Mig-21 fighter escorts, on Egyptian airfields, as well as light and medium bombers and fighter escorts in Syria, Jordan and Iraq - all mustered and ready to strike...

Then you, as Israeli Prime Minister, would wait until those warplanes had crossed into Israeli airspace, at near-supersonic speeds - mere seconds or minutes from any strategic or tactical target in the entire country...

Knowing that by doing so, many of those enemy bombers would succeed in making it past your defenses, and would strike at Tel-Aviv and other civilian cities and towns, triggering hundreds, perhaps many thousands, of Israeli civilian casualties...

Knowing that by doing so, many of your own war-assets (airfields, air-squadrons, armored formations, troop concentrations, etc.) might suffer irreparable damage and cripple your nation's ability to defend itself from attack on all sides?

All in the name of Observance of the Letter of International Law?

Really?

You STILL responded "Yes".

For all intents and purposes, saying...

"Yes. I would wait until Arab warplanes had crossed into Israeli airspace; mere seconds or minutes from any strategic or tactical target within Israel; despite the fact that many bombers would get through my air defenses; despite the fact that I would suffer hundreds or thousands of civilian casualties from the bombing; despite the fact that my own air-assets or armored formations or troop concentrations might be irreparably damaged; thereby crippling my nation's defenses; all in the name of observing the strict letter of international law."

In light of the history and content of this particular exchange, there is no other way for a reasonable person to interpret what you have said.

Consequently, and sadly, I am obliged to observe...

Your own people would string you up from a lamppost as a traitor. Any people so-betrayed would do so. And you would deserve it.

More likely, some member of your General Staff would put a bullet through your brain, long before the mob of grief-maddened parents and spouses got hold of you. And you would deserve it.

But at least you would have the satisfaction, in your last few milliseconds of existence as you were launched into eternity, of having observed the letter of international law, even though it cost your people thousands of civilian lives and crippled your defenses and set the stage for the defeat and annihilation of your own people.

Nobody (myself, least of all) is saying that a preemptive strike is legal - in whole or in part - based upon Article 51 of the UN Charter or other preexisting or subsequent international law - but there are times when a preemptive strike is absolutely necessary in order to prevent a disaster and great harm to one's own people, when the adversary has already publicly declared his intentions and then maneuvered into position to carry out such threats. National survival trumps international law every time.

I am assuming that you are merely being obtuse in support of your own well-established position in support of the Palestinians and adherence to international law, and that, when faced with such a terrible choice in the Real World, that you would actually make a choice akin to that made by the Israeli Prime Minister in 1967.

I am assuming that you actually would preemptively strike your enemy's air-assets and to whittle them down and neutralize much of them, before they could inflict those thousands of civilian casualties and cripple your nation's defenses; in effect, that, by saying 'Yes', you are dissembling merely for the sake of showmanship and consistency with your established pattern of advocacy.

Most rational and sane and pragmatic people would have similar difficulty, believing that anyone, similarly sane and rational and pragmatic, could sacrifice his own people in favor of blind adherence to a provision of international law.

However, if I am wrong, and if this is TRULY what you would do when faced with just such a situation, then, sadly, I am left with no other choice but to judge you as an Idiot.

One capable of intelligent thought and articulation, but a Fool's Fool, not part of the Real World, and someone to write-off and to not take seriously, with respect to the affairs of Nations and Men.

It is my hope that you disabuse me of such a sad conclusion over time, but I am beginning to have my doubts as to whether that is even possible, in light of what you've just told us about your impracticality and intransigence and callous disregard for your own people, merely so that your own conscience can remain intact and lily-white within the framework of adherence to international law.

You may very well delude yourself that through such a blind adherence, you are demonstrating moral courage, but, the flip side of that argument is...

By failing to act to save your people before such damage can be inflicted, you are demonstrating moral cowardice by valuing your own personal integrity and conscience about the survival of your own people...

Rather than metaphorically falling on your sword, and soiling your conscience with the guilt of a first-strike against a declared and coiled and poised enemy force, sacrificing your conscience so that your people may live...

THAT is the ultimate sacrifice that Leaders of Nations and Men are occasionally asked to make in a genuine and legitimate national risk-danger framework...

THAT that is the chance that such leaders are sometimes obliged to take ...

And you, for one, do not appear to have what it takes, even on the theoretical discussion level, to meet such challenges.

Holding your own conscience above the survival of your own country, in a legitimate national-danger scenario. You appear to be selfish in matters of conscience, in the very worst of all possible ways.

Truly unmanly, disgusting, and pathetic.

My condolences.

Congratulations!

You just broke the record for using the most words, to say nothing at all.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Congratulations! You just broke the record for using the most words, to say nothing at all."

Oh, I said plenty. Ask around.