PDA

View Full Version : Re: Why the Royal Australian Air Force went for Israeli Python-4 AAM's over US AIM-9L's


Urban Fredriksson
July 5th 03, 02:57 PM
In article >,
JGB > wrote:

But they didn't. And I think you mean AIM-9X instead of
AIM-9L, as RAAF already had AIM-9M.

And they didn't choose Python 4 either, but ASRAAM.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
Things that try to look like things often look more like
things than things do.

elZee
July 5th 03, 04:09 PM
Great read!
--
elZee

"JGB" > wrote in message
om...
> http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html

Keith Willshaw
July 5th 03, 06:56 PM
"JGB" > wrote in message
om...
> http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html

They didnt, they bought ASRAAM instead. The article states Python
was considered not that it was selected.

www.airpowerint.com/dtol_articles/dtol_hornet.htm

www.adbr.com.au/data/ind_2000.htm

Keith

Kevin Brooks
July 5th 03, 10:15 PM
(JGB) wrote in message >...
> http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html

Wrong again. First you claim that Python is an AMRAAM (it isn't), then
you say it has been placed into service by the USAF (it hasn't), and
now you claim that the RAAF has opted for it (and it hasn't). Why are
you so hung up on Python, and why can't you get *any* of the facts on
it right? BTW, one country that *has* purchased Python from Israel
is...the PRC.

Brooks

JGB
July 5th 03, 10:56 PM
"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "JGB" > wrote in message
> om...
> > http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html
>
> They didnt, they bought ASRAAM instead. The article states Python
> was considered not that it was selected.
>
> www.airpowerint.com/dtol_articles/dtol_hornet.htm
>
> www.adbr.com.au/data/ind_2000.htm
>
> Keith<

Oh, well, maybe Rafael will have better luck with its new version,
Python 5, But then, we all know that technical superiority rarely
rates
as the main reason why any system is is ultimately selected. Politics
and financing usually are usually the dominant criteria in which
system
get picked. Anyhooo...


http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/paris/paris_03/pd2rafaelpg24.html


Rafael touts its follow-on IR Python-5

Israel’s Rafael company has announced the development of the
Python-5 infrared (IR) air-to-air missile as a follow-on to the
Python-4. Python-4 has been widely regarded as one of the more capable
IR missiles on the market and the Python-5 design retains the previous
model’s airframe design, inertial navigation system, rocket
motor, warhead and proximity fuse.

Python-5, which will compete with the U.S. AIM-9X and other
next-generation IR missiles is billed by Rafael as a combination of
the proven technologies of the Python-4 design and a new dual-waveband
imaging seeker. The Python-5 also incorporates a new computer
architecture, state-of-the-art IR counter countermeasures and a new
program of flight control algorithms.

The new missile supposedly achieves full sphere capability by a
lock-on-after-launch feature combined with its target acquisition and
tracking performance. The dual-waveband seeker is a focal plane array
design that–in conjunction with the new algorithms developed for
the missile–can acquire and take out even small targets against
all manner of adverse backgrounds or ground clutter.

The new Python-5 has passed all developmental and operational testing.
It is currently being offered along with Rafael’s Derby active
radar homing missile in order to offer customers a full range of
modern air-to-air weaponry.

Keith Willshaw
July 6th 03, 08:00 PM
"JGB" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "JGB" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html
> >
> > They didnt, they bought ASRAAM instead. The article states Python
> > was considered not that it was selected.
> >
> > www.airpowerint.com/dtol_articles/dtol_hornet.htm
> >
> > www.adbr.com.au/data/ind_2000.htm
> >
> > Keith<
>
> Oh, well, maybe Rafael will have better luck with its new version,
> Python 5, But then, we all know that technical superiority rarely
> rates

Actually it rates highly but so does security of supply and frankly
thats not assured for the Python.

Keith

JGB
July 6th 03, 10:29 PM
"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "JGB" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "JGB" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html
> > >
> > > They didnt, they bought ASRAAM instead. The article states Python
> > > was considered not that it was selected.
> > >
> > > www.airpowerint.com/dtol_articles/dtol_hornet.htm
> > >
> > > www.adbr.com.au/data/ind_2000.htm
> > >
> > > Keith<
> >
> > Oh, well, maybe Rafael will have better luck with its new version,
> > Python 5, But then, we all know that technical superiority rarely
> > rates
>
> Actually it rates highly but so does security of supply and frankly
> thats not assured for the Python.<

Nonsense. Another excuse. It can always be manufactured in the States
under license. Boeing will be manufacturing the Arrow II.


>
> Keith

lihakirves
July 6th 03, 11:55 PM
JGB wrote:

>
> Nonsense. Another excuse. It can always be manufactured in the States
> under license. Boeing will be manufacturing the Arrow II.

Boeing will only manufacture about 50% of the missile components.

"In February 2003, IAI signed an agreement with Boeing to establish the
production infrastructure to manufacture components of the Arrow missile
in the US. Boeing will be responsible for the production of
approximately 50% of the missile components in the US. Boeing will
produce various missile components and co-ordinate the production of
existing Arrow missile components already being manufactured by more
than 150 American companies. IAI will be responsible for integration and
final assembly of the missile in Israel."

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/surface_missiles/arrow/Arrow.html

Keith Willshaw
July 7th 03, 12:17 AM
"JGB" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
news:<be9rkt$7ht$1that technical superiority rarely
> > > rates
> >
> > Actually it rates highly but so does security of supply and frankly
> > thats not assured for the Python.<
>
> Nonsense. Another excuse. It can always be manufactured in the States
> under license. Boeing will be manufacturing the Arrow II.
>

That was not the deal offered, Rafael was trying to sell the missile
not Boeing, US manufacturers were of course pushing Aim-9X

Keith

Quant
July 7th 03, 03:22 AM
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html
>
> Wrong again. First you claim that Python is an AMRAAM (it isn't), then
> you say it has been placed into service by the USAF (it hasn't), and
> now you claim that the RAAF has opted for it (and it hasn't). Why are
> you so hung up on Python, and why can't you get *any* of the facts on
> it right? BTW, one country that *has* purchased Python from Israel
> is...the PRC.
>
> Brooks


Wrong as usual.
China don't have the python 4 he talked about.
And as usual you also know you're wrong (its called lying).

Chile and India use it.

John Cook
July 7th 03, 05:29 AM
Hmmm... the ASRAAM is it really a 'Short' range missile or an
AMRAAM????.

It sort of gets a bit blurry with ASRAAM.

Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-

Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

Kevin Brooks
July 7th 03, 02:09 PM
(Quant) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html
> >
> > Wrong again. First you claim that Python is an AMRAAM (it isn't), then
> > you say it has been placed into service by the USAF (it hasn't), and
> > now you claim that the RAAF has opted for it (and it hasn't). Why are
> > you so hung up on Python, and why can't you get *any* of the facts on
> > it right? BTW, one country that *has* purchased Python from Israel
> > is...the PRC.
> >
> > Brooks
>
>
> Wrong as usual.

Nope, the PLAAF has had the Python 3 in service for years, and...

"China and Israel continue to cooperate on the J-10 fighter program,
and Israel is reported to be competing with Russia to provide China
with a new, helmet-sighted, air-to-air missile. Israel may also be
offering China its PYTHON-4 missile, which uses the same Elba helmet
display as the American AIM-9X missile slated to enter U.S.
inventories in the next decade." (Source:
www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/chinasess4.html )

And at least one site indicates the J-10 already has the Pythin 4
capability,
see: home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/info/j10.htm

And then there is:

"Israel also is reported to be trying to sell China its new Python 4
air-to-air missile, the best air-to-air missile now in use.13 This
missile uses an Elbit helmet sighting system." Source:
www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1146.cfm

The last one tracks with the numerous previous reports that Israel is
indeed trying to sell not onlt the HMSS but also and advanced radar to
the PLAAF for the J-10.

Meanwhile Janes was reporting the following: "Israel blocks
manufacture of Python 4 in USA" (12/06/00, Janes Defence Weekly). So,
while quite willing to allow the PRC to manufacture Pythin, Israel is
not so willing to allow its "close ally" the US that ability. Stranger
and stranger...


> China don't have the python 4 he talked about.

Maybe, maybe not. Others have not ruled that out as forcibly as you
seem to.

> And as usual you also know you're wrong (its called lying).

From a gabnder at the above, it would appear that you have once again
jumped the gun...

>
> Chile and India use it.

Gee, are you "lying" here? What about Singapore....?

Brooks

Kevin Brooks
July 7th 03, 02:12 PM
John Cook > wrote in message >...
> Hmmm... the ASRAAM is it really a 'Short' range missile or an
> AMRAAM????.
>
> It sort of gets a bit blurry with ASRAAM.

I see your meaning, but in all fairness, there is really only one
missile family known as "AMRAAM", and that is the AIM-120 series. I
think the better (generic) term for the other missiles you are
referring to would be "BVRAAM".

Brooks

>
> Cheers
> John Cook
>

Kevin Brooks
July 7th 03, 02:17 PM
"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "JGB" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> news:<be9rkt$7ht$1that technical superiority rarely
> > > > rates
> > >
> > > Actually it rates highly but so does security of supply and frankly
> > > thats not assured for the Python.<
> >
> > Nonsense. Another excuse. It can always be manufactured in the States
> > under license. Boeing will be manufacturing the Arrow II.
> >
>
> That was not the deal offered, Rafael was trying to sell the missile
> not Boeing, US manufacturers were of course pushing Aim-9X
>
> Keith

Add to that the fact that in December of 2000 Janes was reporting that
Israel was blocking the potential manufacture of the Python 4 in the
US; your point concerning security of supply becomes that much more
meaningful in that light.

Brooks

JGB
July 7th 03, 03:28 PM
"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "JGB" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> news:<be9rkt$7ht$1that technical superiority rarely
> > > > rates
> > >
> > > Actually it rates highly but so does security of supply and frankly
> > > thats not assured for the Python.<
> >
> > Nonsense. Another excuse. It can always be manufactured in the States
> > under license. Boeing will be manufacturing the Arrow II.
> >
>
> That was not the deal offered, Rafael was trying to sell the missile
> not Boeing, US manufacturers were of course pushing Aim-9X
>
> Keith<

Are you familiar with the Polish helicopter deal a few years back
with Israel that Beoing had quashed by leaning on congress to lean
on Poland with not too subtle intimations regarding Poland's membership
in NATO? That one cost ISrael $400 million in lost sales to Poland. $1.2 B
contract with CHina for Phalcons, quashed. Past deals with Ecuador, PEru,
Taiwan for Kfirs back in the '70s quashed. Trust me, Israel EARNS the aid the US
gives it. It pays for it.

Keith Willshaw
July 7th 03, 04:08 PM
"JGB" > wrote in message
om...
> (Quant) wrote in message
>...

> >
> > Wrong as usual.
> > China don't have the python 4 he talked about.
> > And as usual you also know you're wrong (its called lying).<
>
> I believe Israel sold China the Python 3, which is an old generation
> AAM from the 1980s, of no real threat to the US. But the Harpoon cruise
> missiles the US sold to EGypt are a very real, lethal threat to Israel.


Python 3 provided a marked improvement in Chinese capability
in comparison to the missiles previously in service and as an agile
all aspect Mach 3 AA missile is a very real threat to ANY aircraft.

Keith

Keith Willshaw
July 7th 03, 04:43 PM
"JGB" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
news:<beaana$rsf$1
>
> Are you familiar with the Polish helicopter deal a few years back
> with Israel that Beoing had quashed by leaning on congress to lean
> on Poland with not too subtle intimations regarding Poland's membership
> in NATO? That one cost ISrael $400 million in lost sales to Poland. $1.2 B
> contract with CHina for Phalcons, quashed.

The US does tend to frown on the sale of advanced weapons systems
to a potential adversary. The reasons are obvious I'd have thought.

> Past deals with Ecuador, PEru,
> Taiwan for Kfirs back in the '70s quashed.

Kfir C2's were in fact sold to both Colombia (111) and
Ecuador(12) in 1976

> Trust me, Israel EARNS the aid the US
> gives it. It pays for it.

What worries many of us is what the US is paying for it
in terms of future security, selling advanced weapons
to China isnt a very friendly act.

Keith

Edward & Lisa Lim
July 7th 03, 05:39 PM
> Gee, are you "lying" here? What about Singapore....?
>

Singapore does not officially admit to have Python 4, but the telltale signs
are there. Singapore's Vipers are equipped with the DASH-3 HMS, thus, make
your own conclusion.

Cheers

Quant
July 7th 03, 06:02 PM
"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "JGB" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "JGB" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html
> > >
> > > They didnt, they bought ASRAAM instead. The article states Python
> > > was considered not that it was selected.
> > >
> > > www.airpowerint.com/dtol_articles/dtol_hornet.htm
> > >
> > > www.adbr.com.au/data/ind_2000.htm
> > >
> > > Keith<
> >
> > Oh, well, maybe Rafael will have better luck with its new version,
> > Python 5, But then, we all know that technical superiority rarely
> > rates
>
> Actually it rates highly but so does security of supply and frankly
> thats not assured for the Python.
>
> Keith



What's wrong with the "security of supply" from Rafael?
Chile preferred the python (Maybe because of the price).
India also preferred it (One of the reasond probably was not trusting
the American "security of supply").

JGB
July 7th 03, 06:19 PM
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> > "JGB" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> news:<be9rkt$7ht$1that technical superiority rarely
> > > > > rates
> > > >
> > > > Actually it rates highly but so does security of supply and frankly
> > > > thats not assured for the Python.<
> > >
> > > Nonsense. Another excuse. It can always be manufactured in the States
> > > under license. Boeing will be manufacturing the Arrow II.
> > >
> >
> > That was not the deal offered, Rafael was trying to sell the missile
> > not Boeing, US manufacturers were of course pushing Aim-9X
> >
> > Keith
>
> Add to that the fact that in December of 2000 Janes was reporting that
> Israel was blocking the potential manufacture of the Python 4 in the
> US; your point concerning security of supply becomes that much more
> meaningful in that light.<

I was not aware of that, and thank you for pointing it out. I still think
it's an excuse because (a) I doubt if ISrael is any more insecure source
than a domestic source, and (b) even so, the US could always switch
to AIM-9X or any other missile if there really was such a problem.
I still believe it is protectionism. Not that it is wrong to protect
a domestic source of military supplies, but to be critical of Israel for
taking aid, while selling its enemies three times as much, and then
being critical when it sells some countries the US has some issues with,
and also blocking such sales with threats of cutting off said aid, all while
protecting one's own local industries against Israeli competition is a
bit much, no? But let's face it, US procurement officers are not going
to get jobs in Israeli defense companies after they retire, eh? So I
can understand the natural bias in favor of domestic sources even if they
are not quite as good. But let's not be hypocritical or huffy about it.
DoD business is monkey business like every other business. :)
> Brooks

Quant
July 7th 03, 06:23 PM
(JGB) wrote in message >...
> (Quant) wrote in message >...
> > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html
> > >
> > > Wrong again. First you claim that Python is an AMRAAM (it isn't), then
> > > you say it has been placed into service by the USAF (it hasn't), and
> > > now you claim that the RAAF has opted for it (and it hasn't). Why are
> > > you so hung up on Python, and why can't you get *any* of the facts on
> > > it right? BTW, one country that *has* purchased Python from Israel
> > > is...the PRC.
> > >
> > > Brooks
> >
> >
> > Wrong as usual.
> > China don't have the python 4 he talked about.
> > And as usual you also know you're wrong (its called lying).<
>
> I believe Israel sold China the Python 3, which is an old generation
> AAM from the 1980s, of no real threat to the US. But the Harpoon cruise
> missiles the US sold to EGypt are a very real, lethal threat to Israel.
> >


Harpoons, Patriots...
The Irony is that the Egyptian army has good relations with the
Chinese military industries. China probably already got intresting
parts from those systems to examine at home.

> > Chile and India use it.

Quant
July 7th 03, 06:52 PM
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> (Quant) wrote in message >...
> > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html
> > >
> > > Wrong again. First you claim that Python is an AMRAAM (it isn't), then
> > > you say it has been placed into service by the USAF (it hasn't), and
> > > now you claim that the RAAF has opted for it (and it hasn't). Why are
> > > you so hung up on Python, and why can't you get *any* of the facts on
> > > it right? BTW, one country that *has* purchased Python from Israel
> > > is...the PRC.
> > >
> > > Brooks
> >
> >
> > Wrong as usual.
>
> Nope, the PLAAF has had the Python 3 in service for years, and...
>
> "China and Israel continue to cooperate on the J-10 fighter program,
> and Israel is reported to be competing with Russia to provide China
> with a new, helmet-sighted, air-to-air missile. Israel may also be
> offering China its PYTHON-4 missile, which uses the same Elba helmet
> display as the American AIM-9X missile slated to enter U.S.
> inventories in the next decade." (Source:
> www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/chinasess4.html )
>

In other words, your more-than-a-hint that China has python 4 is
wrong.


> And at least one site indicates the J-10 already has the Pythin 4
> capability,
> see: home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/info/j10.htm
>

This is not what the article says (and this is probably why you didn't
brought quotes from it).


> And then there is:
>
> "Israel also is reported to be trying to sell China its new Python 4
> air-to-air missile, the best air-to-air missile now in use.13 This
> missile uses an Elbit helmet sighting system." Source:
> www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1146.cfm
>

No evidence, just an opinion article with from the Heritage with a
header:
"How America's Friends Are Building China's Military Power"


> The last one tracks with the numerous previous reports that Israel is
> indeed trying to sell not onlt the HMSS but also and advanced radar to
> the PLAAF for the J-10.
>
> Meanwhile Janes was reporting the following: "Israel blocks
> manufacture of Python 4 in USA" (12/06/00, Janes Defence Weekly). So,
> while quite willing to allow the PRC to manufacture Pythin,

Not True

> Israel is
> not so willing to allow its "close ally" the US that ability. Stranger
> and stranger...
>
>
> > China don't have the python 4 he talked about.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Others have not ruled that out as forcibly as you
> seem to.
>
> > And as usual you also know you're wrong (its called lying).
>
> From a gabnder at the above, it would appear that you have once again
> jumped the gun...
>
> >
> > Chile and India use it.
>
> Gee, are you "lying" here? What about Singapore....?
>

After a quick google search

Chile:
"Chile will be the first F-16 customer for which Lockheed Martin has
integrated the Rafael Python 4 off-boresight missile" (AviationNow)
http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/02fidae/airfrm07.htm

India:
Python 4, Derby For Indian Jaguars & Mirages
http://www.defense-update.com/news/india-missiles.htm


Singapore:
Don't know about Singapore but I've found:
"Singapore aircraft are allegedly also fitted with Python 4
air-air-missiles by Rafael".
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH0005/FR0005d.htm


But China don't have it.


> Brooks

Keith Willshaw
July 7th 03, 09:58 PM
"Quant" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
news:<be9rkt$7ht$1
>
>
>
> What's wrong with the "security of supply" from Rafael?

1) The base consumption level is lower and if the product becomes
unprofitable
Israel could drop it altogether and opt for AIM-9

2) Israel is in an unstable region of the world in which the disruption of
the Rafael
plant is rather more likely than that of BAE or Raytheon.

3) There are considerable political complications doing defense business
with Israel. It would be unfortunate if your Arab Oil suppliers cut you
off because you bought Israeli weapons for example.

> Chile preferred the python (Maybe because of the price).
> India also preferred it (One of the reasond probably was not trusting
> the American "security of supply").

More probably because India was subject to a US arms embargo
at the time as a result of its nuclear weapons program.

Keith

Kevin Brooks
July 7th 03, 10:19 PM
(Quant) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > (Quant) wrote in message >...
> > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > > http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html
> > > >
> > > > Wrong again. First you claim that Python is an AMRAAM (it isn't), then
> > > > you say it has been placed into service by the USAF (it hasn't), and
> > > > now you claim that the RAAF has opted for it (and it hasn't). Why are
> > > > you so hung up on Python, and why can't you get *any* of the facts on
> > > > it right? BTW, one country that *has* purchased Python from Israel
> > > > is...the PRC.
> > > >
> > > > Brooks
> > >
> > >
> > > Wrong as usual.
> >
> > Nope, the PLAAF has had the Python 3 in service for years, and...
> >
> > "China and Israel continue to cooperate on the J-10 fighter program,
> > and Israel is reported to be competing with Russia to provide China
> > with a new, helmet-sighted, air-to-air missile. Israel may also be
> > offering China its PYTHON-4 missile, which uses the same Elba helmet
> > display as the American AIM-9X missile slated to enter U.S.
> > inventories in the next decade." (Source:
> > www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/chinasess4.html )
> >
>
> In other words, your more-than-a-hint that China has python 4 is
> wrong.

You DO need to repeat that reading comprehension course; I said that
Israel had sold the Python to the PLAAF, not any specific version.
That is undeniably true, as the PRC even has their own version of
Python 3 in production. As to whether that includes the Python 4 or
not at this point, the jury seems to still be out (and Israel does not
seem to be very forthcoming with exactly *what* they have provided to
the PRC, or what they are trying to currently market to them). Wonder
why?

>
>
> > And at least one site indicates the J-10 already has the Pythin 4
> > capability,
> > see: home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/info/j10.htm
> >
>
> This is not what the article says (and this is probably why you didn't
> brought quotes from it).

Read the specs, friend. Python 4 is indeed listed as an available
weapon for the J-10 in the aforementioned. Still having problems with
that reading, huh?

>
>
> > And then there is:
> >
> > "Israel also is reported to be trying to sell China its new Python 4
> > air-to-air missile, the best air-to-air missile now in use.13 This
> > missile uses an Elbit helmet sighting system." Source:
> > www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1146.cfm
> >
>
> No evidence, just an opinion article with from the Heritage with a
> header:
> "How America's Friends Are Building China's Military Power"

Which is one heck of a lot more than you have offered other than your
own less-than-lofty pronouncements. can you find any sites that say
that Israel has not either offered or already sold Python 4 to the
PRC?

>
>
> > The last one tracks with the numerous previous reports that Israel is
> > indeed trying to sell not onlt the HMSS but also and advanced radar to
> > the PLAAF for the J-10.
> >
> > Meanwhile Janes was reporting the following: "Israel blocks
> > manufacture of Python 4 in USA" (12/06/00, Janes Defence Weekly). So,
> > while quite willing to allow the PRC to manufacture Pythin,
>
> Not True

LOL! Ever heard of the PL-8? It is a licensed copy of the Python 3.
See:
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/weapon/pl8.asp

>
> > Israel is
> > not so willing to allow its "close ally" the US that ability. Stranger
> > and stranger...
> >
> >
> > > China don't have the python 4 he talked about.

Well, it seems we KNOW they have the Python 3, and as I have shown
you, there is significant buzz about them either already having, or
having been offered at least, the Python 4. Please show us something
other than your fervid rants that claims otherwise.

> >
> > Maybe, maybe not. Others have not ruled that out as forcibly as you
> > seem to.
> >
> > > And as usual you also know you're wrong (its called lying).
> >
> > From a gabnder at the above, it would appear that you have once again
> > jumped the gun...
> >
> > >
> > > Chile and India use it.
> >
> > Gee, are you "lying" here? What about Singapore....?
> >
>
> After a quick google search
>
> Chile:
> "Chile will be the first F-16 customer for which Lockheed Martin has
> integrated the Rafael Python 4 off-boresight missile" (AviationNow)
> http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/02fidae/airfrm07.htm
>
> India:
> Python 4, Derby For Indian Jaguars & Mirages
> http://www.defense-update.com/news/india-missiles.htm
>
>
> Singapore:
> Don't know about Singapore but I've found:
> "Singapore aircraft are allegedly also fitted with Python 4
> air-air-missiles by Rafael".
> http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH0005/FR0005d.htm
>
>
> But China don't have it.

So, you were "lying" before, when you said that only Chile and India
had it, huh? Therein lies the problem of trying to (even in the face
of third party references otherwise) call somebody a "liar"; it can
boomerang back and bite you squarely in the pesterior. You might
therefore find sitting a bit uncomfortable for a while...

Brooks

>
>
> > Brooks

Kevin Brooks
July 7th 03, 10:39 PM
(JGB) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> > > "JGB" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> news:<be9rkt$7ht$1that technical superiority rarely
> > > > > > rates
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually it rates highly but so does security of supply and frankly
> > > > > thats not assured for the Python.<
> > > >
> > > > Nonsense. Another excuse. It can always be manufactured in the States
> > > > under license. Boeing will be manufacturing the Arrow II.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That was not the deal offered, Rafael was trying to sell the missile
> > > not Boeing, US manufacturers were of course pushing Aim-9X
> > >
> > > Keith
> >
> > Add to that the fact that in December of 2000 Janes was reporting that
> > Israel was blocking the potential manufacture of the Python 4 in the
> > US; your point concerning security of supply becomes that much more
> > meaningful in that light.<
>
> I was not aware of that, and thank you for pointing it out. I still think
> it's an excuse because (a) I doubt if ISrael is any more insecure source
> than a domestic source,

Think again; when they have already said "no", then they have
established the fact that they want to be able to control our access.
That is their right--but it is also good enough reason for us to
choose another, more reliably obtained system.

and (b) even so, the US could always switch
> to AIM-9X or any other missile if there really was such a problem.

No way. Imagine that we had selected Python, and we bought the first
year's production run. Meanwhile, we have killed AIM-9X (we can't
after all purchase two entirely different AAM's for the same
requirement). Year number two )or three, or five, or whatever) comes
up, and Israel decides it is truly ****ed over some US decision and
refuses to sell further Pythons--which puts the US in a real bind, as
we can't just snap our fingers and pick up AIM-9X where we left off X
years previously.

> I still believe it is protectionism. Not that it is wrong to protect
> a domestic source of military supplies, but to be critical of Israel for
> taking aid, while selling its enemies three times as much, and then
> being critical when it sells some countries the US has some issues with,
> and also blocking such sales with threats of cutting off said aid, all while
> protecting one's own local industries against Israeli competition is a
> bit much, no?

Big difference. The US is *paying* for that Israeli R&D and much of
their procurement costs. The only Israeli programs that we can
outright deny Israel the right of selling elsewhere are those that
have US contributions to them. Israel wants to run its own show,
fine--stop requesting US funds and support. As far as Phalcon went,
Israel decided it would rather not **** off the US and risk ****ing
off the PRC--their decision in the end. That the US was pursuing its
own interests should be understandable.

But let's face it, US procurement officers are not going
> to get jobs in Israeli defense companies after they retire, eh? So I
> can understand the natural bias in favor of domestic sources even if they
> are not quite as good. But let's not be hypocritical or huffy about it.
> DoD business is monkey business like every other business. :)

Nobody is that huffy about it; I don't recall much serious
consideration of Python in this regard in the first place. The last
Israeli missile that we procured (and last I knew were still
procuring, even though the USAF did not really want it) was Have Nap
(IIRC that was the designation); that USAF procurement types may still
be tasting a bit of bile over that politically motivated procurement
program is also understandable, IMO.

And before you accuse me of some ludicrous anti-Israel bias, I'd add
that we have had some pretty good success with some Israeli products,
Litening targeting pods being a good example (and note that in that
case the supply security issue has been ameliorated by having a US
partner firm produce them for the US customers; had Israel gone the
same route with Python, who knows? Producing components for a US
partner would have been much more profitable than being an "also ran"
when the com[petition was over). But like any source, you offer some
good and some not-so-good products (I can recall our getting a batch
of .45 cal ammo from IMI that we learned to try to avoid like the
plague; don't know why, but as surely as I'd load a magazine with
those rounds in my old M1911A1, it would jam repeatedly--pull those
rounds and replace them with (my own) Federal ammo, and it worked
smooth as a sewing machine).

Brooks

> > Brooks

Andrew Chaplin
July 7th 03, 10:49 PM
Kevin Brooks wrote:
<snip>
> And before you accuse me of some ludicrous anti-Israel bias, I'd add
> that we have had some pretty good success with some Israeli products,
> Litening targeting pods being a good example (and note that in that
> case the supply security issue has been ameliorated by having a US
> partner firm produce them for the US customers; had Israel gone the
> same route with Python, who knows? Producing components for a US
> partner would have been much more profitable than being an "also ran"
> when the com[petition was over). But like any source, you offer some
> good and some not-so-good products (I can recall our getting a batch
> of .45 cal ammo from IMI that we learned to try to avoid like the
> plague; don't know why, but as surely as I'd load a magazine with
> those rounds in my old M1911A1, it would jam repeatedly--pull those
> rounds and replace them with (my own) Federal ammo, and it worked
> smooth as a sewing machine).

Combination long case/weak load? We had similar problems with some
ammo lots (our own production) in the Browning HP Mk II* and could
only use it in SMGs.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

JGB
July 8th 03, 12:37 AM
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> (Quant) wrote in message >...
> > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html
> > >
> > > Wrong again. First you claim that Python is an AMRAAM (it isn't), then
> > > you say it has been placed into service by the USAF (it hasn't), and
> > > now you claim that the RAAF has opted for it (and it hasn't). Why are
> > > you so hung up on Python, and why can't you get *any* of the facts on
> > > it right? BTW, one country that *has* purchased Python from Israel
> > > is...the PRC.
> > >
> > > Brooks
> >
> >
> > Wrong as usual.
>
> Nope, the PLAAF has had the Python 3 in service for years, and...
>
> "China and Israel continue to cooperate on the J-10 fighter program,
> and Israel is reported to be competing with Russia to provide China
> with a new, helmet-sighted, air-to-air missile. Israel may also be
> offering China its PYTHON-4 missile, which uses the same Elba helmet
> display as the American AIM-9X missile slated to enter U.S.
> inventories in the next decade." (Source:
> www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/chinasess4.html )
>
> And at least one site indicates the J-10 already has the Pythin 4
> capability,
> see: home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/info/j10.htm
>
> And then there is:
>
> "Israel also is reported to be trying to sell China its new Python 4
> air-to-air missile, the best air-to-air missile now in use.13 This
> missile uses an Elbit helmet sighting system." Source:
> www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1146.cfm
>
> The last one tracks with the numerous previous reports that Israel is
> indeed trying to sell not onlt the HMSS but also and advanced radar to
> the PLAAF for the J-10.
>
> Meanwhile Janes was reporting the following: "Israel blocks
> manufacture of Python 4 in USA" (12/06/00, Janes Defence Weekly). So,
> while quite willing to allow the PRC to manufacture Pythin, Israel is
> not so willing to allow its "close ally" the US that ability. Stranger
> and stranger...
>
>
> > China don't have the python 4 he talked about.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Others have not ruled that out as forcibly as you
> seem to.
>
> > And as usual you also know you're wrong (its called lying).
>
> From a gabnder at the above, it would appear that you have once again
> jumped the gun...
>
> >
> > Chile and India use it.
>
> Gee, are you "lying" here? What about Singapore....?
>
> Brooks<

As long as the US insists on selling the Arabs surrounding Israel, and
in still some cases technically at war with her sophisticated
weapons systems, I don't understand the
objection to ISrael selling China (a nation NOT at war with the US)
some of its sophisticated weaponry as well!? If the US wants to
negotiate
a mutual agreement with Israel, where if the US ceases to sell Egypt
then Israel will cease to sell China, it ought to do so. It should
be reciprocal. Why should the US be allowed to sell Israel's sworn
enemies
modern deadly weaponry while Israel is called a traitor when it seeks
to do the same to countries that don't even border on the US? Now if
the US and MExico
were in a technical state of war, and Israel was selling it weaponry,
I
could understand the objection. But China is practically on the other
end
of the earth with respect to the US. Why the double standard?

jukita
July 8th 03, 01:21 AM
Kevin Brooks wrote:

> And before you accuse me of some ludicrous anti-Israel bias, I'd add
> that we have had some pretty good success with some Israeli products,
> Litening targeting pods being a good example (and note that in that
> case the supply security issue has been ameliorated by having a US
> partner firm produce them for the US customers;

Israel manufacturers sensors for all US Litening pods.

"The team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and Rafael, the Israeli Armament
Development Authority, has been awarded the contract to supply the
sensor pods to both the Guard and the Reserve. Rafael supplies the
forward (sensor) section, and Northrop Grumman supplies the aft
(electronics) section of the pod."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/litening.htm

JGB
July 8th 03, 04:05 AM
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> > > > "JGB" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> news:<be9rkt$7ht$1that technical superiority rarely


> > > Add to that the fact that in December of 2000 Janes was reporting that
> > > Israel was blocking the potential manufacture of the Python 4 in the
> > > US; your point concerning security of supply becomes that much more
> > > meaningful in that light.<
> >
> > I was not aware of that, and thank you for pointing it out. I still think
> > it's an excuse because (a) I doubt if ISrael is any more insecure source
> > than a domestic source,
>
> Think again; when they have already said "no", then they have
> established the fact that they want to be able to control our access.
> That is their right--but it is also good enough reason for us to
> choose another, more reliably obtained system.<

I guess they don't want it reverse engineered either, or sold to Egypt
or Saudi Arabia. After all, we steal technology just as they do.
Nonetheless, I suppose you make a good point.

> and (b) even so, the US could always switch
> > to AIM-9X or any other missile if there really was such a problem.
>
> No way. Imagine that we had selected Python, and we bought the first
> year's production run. Meanwhile, we have killed AIM-9X (we can't
> after all purchase two entirely different AAM's for the same
> requirement). Year number two )or three, or five, or whatever) comes
> up, and Israel decides it is truly ****ed over some US decision and
> refuses to sell further Pythons--which puts the US in a real bind, as
> we can't just snap our fingers and pick up AIM-9X where we left off X
> years previously.<

Not likely, but as you say, if the US does not control production, it
won't buy it. It's the prerogative of being a big power.
>
> > I still believe it is protectionism. Not that it is wrong to protect
> > a domestic source of military supplies, but to be critical of Israel for
> > taking aid, while selling its enemies three times as much, and then
> > being critical when it sells some countries the US has some issues with,
> > and also blocking such sales with threats of cutting off said aid, all while
> > protecting one's own local industries against Israeli competition is a
> > bit much, no?
>
> Big difference. The US is *paying* for that Israeli R&D and much of
> their procurement costs. >

Methinks you overstate the amount of R&D money that comes from Uncle
Sam.
I personally knew of quite a number of good Israeli R&D based
companies that
have never seen a penny of US aid. Most of it stays in the US anyhow.
And most of the US aid barely offsets the massive amount of US arms we
sell to Israel's enemies surrounding her. Israel's R&D HAS to be
superior
because in the future it won't be facing soviet built MiG but US built
F-15s and F-16s in Egyptian, Saudi or Jordanian hands. And so Israeli
companies must be more innovative and BETTER because Israel must now
be able to defeat US-built systems in enemy hands rather than
Soviet-built equipment as in the past.

>The only Israeli programs that we can
> outright deny Israel the right of selling elsewhere are those that
> have US contributions to them. Israel wants to run its own show,
> fine--stop requesting US funds and support.<

Ha. Oh, yeah, just like Sweden. Only Sweden doesn't face a miasma of
enemies
armed to the teeth by America.

> As far as Phalcon went,
> Israel decided it would rather not **** off the US and risk ****ing
> off the PRC--their decision in the end. That the US was pursuing its
> own interests should be understandable.<

Of course. And the US isn't paying Israel $3 billion for nothing
either.
When it says "sit" ISrael has to sit. And when it says "roll over"
Israel
has to roll over. And when it says, "play dead" Israel has to, well...
>
> But let's face it, US procurement officers are not going
> > to get jobs in Israeli defense companies after they retire, eh? So I
> > can understand the natural bias in favor of domestic sources even if they
> > are not quite as good. But let's not be hypocritical or huffy about it.
> > DoD business is monkey business like every other business. :)
>
> Nobody is that huffy about it; I don't recall much serious
> consideration of Python in this regard in the first place. The last
> Israeli missile that we procured (and last I knew were still
> procuring, even though the USAF did not really want it) was Have Nap
> (IIRC that was the designation); <

Yeah, that was a dud. And I don't believe that anyone should have to
buy a dud
from anyone for political reasons, in either direction. I believe in
merit; that either country should only have to buy the BEST system on
the market that meets the objective criteria and specification laid
down.
To buy less than the best for the buck is to cheat yourself and not
play fair.

>that USAF procurement types may still
> be tasting a bit of bile over that politically motivated procurement
> program is also understandable, IMO.
> And before you accuse me of some ludicrous anti-Israel bias, I'd add
> that we have had some pretty good success with some Israeli products,
> Litening targeting pods being a good example (and note that in that
> case the supply security issue has been ameliorated by having a US
> partner firm produce them for the US customers; had Israel gone the
> same route with Python, who knows? Producing components for a US
> partner would have been much more profitable than being an "also ran"
> when the com[petition was over). But like any source, you offer some
> good and some not-so-good products (I can recall our getting a batch
> of .45 cal ammo from IMI that we learned to try to avoid like the
> plague; don't know why, but as surely as I'd load a magazine with
> those rounds in my old M1911A1, it would jam repeatedly--pull those
> rounds and replace them with (my own) Federal ammo, and it worked
> smooth as a sewing machine).<

I'm fully aware that Israel produces cheap junk as well as some really
nifty
stuff. I say the only fair way to do things is to have a shootout,
where
all competitive systems are identically tested under the most
realistic conditions, and may the best one win - and damn all the
politics. I know that
that is pie-in-the sky Xanadu, but that's the way things should be if
this
were a fair world.
>

Kevin Brooks
July 8th 03, 04:20 AM
Andrew Chaplin > wrote in message >...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> <snip>
> > And before you accuse me of some ludicrous anti-Israel bias, I'd add
> > that we have had some pretty good success with some Israeli products,
> > Litening targeting pods being a good example (and note that in that
> > case the supply security issue has been ameliorated by having a US
> > partner firm produce them for the US customers; had Israel gone the
> > same route with Python, who knows? Producing components for a US
> > partner would have been much more profitable than being an "also ran"
> > when the com[petition was over). But like any source, you offer some
> > good and some not-so-good products (I can recall our getting a batch
> > of .45 cal ammo from IMI that we learned to try to avoid like the
> > plague; don't know why, but as surely as I'd load a magazine with
> > those rounds in my old M1911A1, it would jam repeatedly--pull those
> > rounds and replace them with (my own) Federal ammo, and it worked
> > smooth as a sewing machine).
>
> Combination long case/weak load? We had similar problems with some
> ammo lots (our own production) in the Browning HP Mk II* and could
> only use it in SMGs.

I don't know. But IIRC the cases were *aluminum*, which may have had
something to do with it I guess. The only other ammo related problem I
ever ran into (other than an Army-wide stoppage of Mk 19 training at
one point due to some touchy 40mm HEDP fuzes) was with .50 cal linked;
we were running an M2 range with ammo obtained from another entity (a
TDA, the Armor-Engineer Board) which had a big surplus it wanted to
get rid of before the end of the TY. We thought it was a real bonanza
for us, until we discovered on the range that the link system for the
..50 cal MG mounted on the CEV/M60 series MBT's, which is what we got,
was not compatible with the M2. Out of around 10K rounds I had on hand
delivered to the range, we managed to send *one* downrange before
discovering the problem (most of us being completely ignorant that
there *was* a difference). It was not a pretty in the BN S-3 or S-4
shops that day...

Brooks

Kevin Brooks
July 8th 03, 01:57 PM
(JGB) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > (Quant) wrote in message >...
> > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > > http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html
> > > >
> > > > Wrong again. First you claim that Python is an AMRAAM (it isn't), then
> > > > you say it has been placed into service by the USAF (it hasn't), and
> > > > now you claim that the RAAF has opted for it (and it hasn't). Why are
> > > > you so hung up on Python, and why can't you get *any* of the facts on
> > > > it right? BTW, one country that *has* purchased Python from Israel
> > > > is...the PRC.
> > > >
> > > > Brooks
> > >
> > >
> > > Wrong as usual.
> >
> > Nope, the PLAAF has had the Python 3 in service for years, and...
> >
> > "China and Israel continue to cooperate on the J-10 fighter program,
> > and Israel is reported to be competing with Russia to provide China
> > with a new, helmet-sighted, air-to-air missile. Israel may also be
> > offering China its PYTHON-4 missile, which uses the same Elba helmet
> > display as the American AIM-9X missile slated to enter U.S.
> > inventories in the next decade." (Source:
> > www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/chinasess4.html )
> >
> > And at least one site indicates the J-10 already has the Pythin 4
> > capability,
> > see: home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/info/j10.htm
> >
> > And then there is:
> >
> > "Israel also is reported to be trying to sell China its new Python 4
> > air-to-air missile, the best air-to-air missile now in use.13 This
> > missile uses an Elbit helmet sighting system." Source:
> > www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1146.cfm
> >
> > The last one tracks with the numerous previous reports that Israel is
> > indeed trying to sell not onlt the HMSS but also and advanced radar to
> > the PLAAF for the J-10.
> >
> > Meanwhile Janes was reporting the following: "Israel blocks
> > manufacture of Python 4 in USA" (12/06/00, Janes Defence Weekly). So,
> > while quite willing to allow the PRC to manufacture Pythin, Israel is
> > not so willing to allow its "close ally" the US that ability. Stranger
> > and stranger...
> >
> >
> > > China don't have the python 4 he talked about.
> >
> > Maybe, maybe not. Others have not ruled that out as forcibly as you
> > seem to.
> >
> > > And as usual you also know you're wrong (its called lying).
> >
> > From a gabnder at the above, it would appear that you have once again
> > jumped the gun...
> >
> > >
> > > Chile and India use it.
> >
> > Gee, are you "lying" here? What about Singapore....?
> >
> > Brooks<
>
> As long as the US insists on selling the Arabs surrounding Israel, and
> in still some cases technically at war with her sophisticated
> weapons systems, I don't understand the
> objection to ISrael selling China (a nation NOT at war with the US)
> some of its sophisticated weaponry as well!? If the US wants to
> negotiate
> a mutual agreement with Israel, where if the US ceases to sell Egypt
> then Israel will cease to sell China, it ought to do so. It should
> be reciprocal. Why should the US be allowed to sell Israel's sworn
> enemies
> modern deadly weaponry while Israel is called a traitor when it seeks
> to do the same to countries that don't even border on the US? Now if
> the US and MExico
> were in a technical state of war, and Israel was selling it weaponry,
> I
> could understand the objection. But China is practically on the other
> end
> of the earth with respect to the US. Why the double standard?

No double standard. The difference is we are providing some $14K per
Israeli in various forms of aid each year. It kindo f sucks when you
provide *that* level of aid and get in return not only espionage
directed at your own, but advanced weapons sold to those who you won't
sell to yourself because you realize they are indeed a serious
potential regional threat (or maybe not so regional, seeing as how the
PRC (actually one of its PLA spin-off companies) bribed their way into
control of port operations on the Panama Canal).

Brooks

JGB
July 8th 03, 07:47 PM
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > (Quant) wrote in message >...
> > > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> >
> > As long as the US insists on selling the Arabs surrounding Israel, and
> > in still some cases technically at war with her sophisticated
> > weapons systems, I don't understand the
> > objection to ISrael selling China (a nation NOT at war with the US)
> > some of its sophisticated weaponry as well!? If the US wants to
> > negotiate
> > a mutual agreement with Israel, where if the US ceases to sell Egypt
> > then Israel will cease to sell China, it ought to do so. It should
> > be reciprocal. Why should the US be allowed to sell Israel's sworn
> > enemies
> > modern deadly weaponry while Israel is called a traitor when it seeks
> > to do the same to countries that don't even border on the US? Now if
> > the US and MExico
> > were in a technical state of war, and Israel was selling it weaponry,
> > I
> > could understand the objection. But China is practically on the other
> > end
> > of the earth with respect to the US. Why the double standard?

> No double standard. The difference is we are providing some $14K per
> Israeli in various forms of aid each year. <

Except that at least $8,400 of that $14K is going into the pockets
of US workers in defense industries inside the US. Nor do most
ISraelis
live inside F-15s or Apaches. But what you're saying is, that the aid
is actually a LEASH, to be used to keep Israel in line. You don't want
ISraelis to make a living selling arms the same way US defense workers
do, but rather give them welfare checks so that they will be dependent
on the US holding the aid leash in the right hand, and who can then
belittle them for taking it while selling ISrael's bordering enemies
advanced arms
with left hand. Right?

>It kindo f sucks when you
> provide *that* level of aid and get in return not only espionage
> directed at your own,<

You mean like when the US flew U-2s over Israel to spy on Dimona back
in the early '60s? Or when ISrael was forced to accept inspectors to
come
into Dimona sent by Kennedy and Johnson? Or do you mean when the US
leaves
Israel in the lurch during the Six Day War, and instead of sending a
flotilla
to open up the blockade that that the Egyptians put on the Port of
Eilat
(which they promised to do in the '57 Dulles-Eban memorandum), the US
instead sends its most sophisticated spy ship, the LIberty, to
spy on ISraeli combat movements? All while tiny ISrael is fighting ALL
ALONE
on all fronts? Then the US sends a spy ship smack up close to the
ISraeli coast?

>... but advanced weapons sold to those who you won't
> sell to yourself because you realize they are indeed a serious
> potential regional threat (or maybe not so regional, seeing as how the
> PRC (actually one of its PLA spin-off companies) bribed their way into
> control of port operations on the Panama Canal).<

Why are you ****ed about the Panama Canal when you stopped England,
France
and ISrael in 1956 from halting Nasser's nationalizing the Suez Canal?
Or when you fail to meet your written obligation to ISrael, which
withdrew
from the Sinai in 1957 BASED ON GOOD FAITH of the written promise
given
by Dulles to Eban to send a flotiall if Nasser ever tried it again, to
induce Israel to withdraw at that time. And then, you ignore your
written promise
a mere decade later when Nasser indeed does a repeat performance,
thereby forcing ISrael to open the EGyptian blockade all alone and by
itself? And
Israel is supposed to trust the US after that?

And who the hell is going to be crazy enough to try to blockade the
Panama Canal? China? Russia? Israel? You cannot be serious about this
mumbo jumbo that the PRC could ever control and deny US ships from
using the Canal. That is about
as absurd a concept as the moon being made of green cheese. I don't
think
the PRC is going to risk a nuclear war with the US to block US ships
from
traversing the canal. How silly can one get?

JGB
July 8th 03, 08:06 PM
"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Quant" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> news:<be9rkt$7ht$1
> >
> >
> >
> > What's wrong with the "security of supply" from Rafael?
>
> 1) The base consumption level is lower and if the product becomes
> unprofitable
> Israel could drop it altogether and opt for AIM-9<

Israel can't afford to use second-rate equipment, especially since the
US is supplying that equipment to its bordering enemies. It has to produce
a superior product or lose the coming war, which in Israel's case means
losing the country. The US can afford to fight and lose wars and come back
again. Israel does not have that luxury. To the US, second rate equipment
only means the loss of a few pilots. To Israel it means the possible loss
of its total existence.


> 2) Israel is in an unstable region of the world in which the disruption of
> the Rafael
> plant is rather more likely than that of BAE or Raytheon.<

Who knows these days who is more secure? The US has lost tall buildings
in the center of Manhattan.

> 3) There are considerable political complications doing defense business
> with Israel. It would be unfortunate if your Arab Oil suppliers cut you
> off because you bought Israeli weapons for example.<

It's unfortunate that the US has put itself in the position where a few
Arabs can grap it by the balls in that way. After all, it was the US
and Britain that discovered and developed that oil in the first place.
Israel wouldn't take that crap from the Arabs.

> > Chile preferred the python (Maybe because of the price).
> > India also preferred it (One of the reasond probably was not trusting
> > the American "security of supply").<

I don't know about Chile, but the Pakistani Airforce is a very good outfit
and the Indian Air Force would need a superior product to beat the Pakis
in the air. The Pakis are well trained.

> More probably because India was subject to a US arms embargo
> at the time as a result of its nuclear weapons program.<

Not necessarily. Israel produces more bang for the buck, and Israel cannot
be pressured by Pakistan to sell her an equivalent missile. Hence, Pakistan
must buy an inferior AAM from the US, or the UK, France or Russia. When
it comes to any future possible conflict with Pakistan, India wants to win.
And if a pilot KNOWS he is going up against a good pilot in a good plane,
he wants to have a better fire control system and AAM to win. It's that
simple.

JGB
July 8th 03, 08:24 PM
"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "JGB" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> news:<beaana$rsf$1
> >
> > Are you familiar with the Polish helicopter deal a few years back
> > with Israel that Beoing had quashed by leaning on congress to lean
> > on Poland with not too subtle intimations regarding Poland's membership
> > in NATO? That one cost ISrael $400 million in lost sales to Poland. $1.2 B
> > contract with CHina for Phalcons, quashed.
>
> The US does tend to frown on the sale of advanced weapons systems
> to a potential adversary. The reasons are obvious I'd have thought.<

POLAND was not a potential ADVERSARY! While waiting to be admitted
into
NATO, Poland was leaning towards an Israeli/Polish helicopter deal,
where
a Polish helicopter would be upgraded, and all the electronics and
weaponry
would be Israeli, over purchasing Apaches from Boeing. The contract
was to be
for $800 million, of which Israeli companies stood to make about half.
Well Boeing wasn't going to lay back and take that crap, so it leaned
on congress which then apparently leaned on Poland. I mean, the US
wasn't taking Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and others into NATO
just to have more countries to defend, for Chrissake! :) It needs more
MARKETS for F-16s and Apaches :) That's the reason for the NATO
expansion in the first place!!! :)
It sure as hell wasn't going to sign treaties of defense with these
countries
only to let Israel sell them their weapon systems :)

> > Past deals with Ecuador, PEru,
> > Taiwan for Kfirs back in the '70s quashed.
>
> Kfir C2's were in fact sold to both Colombia (111) and
> Ecuador(12) in 1976<

Oh yeah, at the time there was objection to ISrael selling Kfirs to
Taiwan,
as we were cozying up with the PRC and didn't want them ****ed. Now we
don't
want ISrael selling the PRC for fear of what it could do to Taiwan!
Give me
a break! :)
>
> > Trust me, Israel EARNS the aid the US
> > gives it. It pays for it.
>
> What worries many of us is what the US is paying for it
> in terms of future security, selling advanced weapons
> to China isnt a very friendly act.<

Whose security? Why do we have any military in East Asia anyway? Do
the Japanese or the Koreans want the US there nowadays?

Quant
July 8th 03, 08:52 PM
jukita > wrote in message >...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > And before you accuse me of some ludicrous anti-Israel bias, I'd add
> > that we have had some pretty good success with some Israeli products,
> > Litening targeting pods being a good example (and note that in that
> > case the supply security issue has been ameliorated by having a US
> > partner firm produce them for the US customers;
>
> Israel manufacturers sensors for all US Litening pods.
>
> "The team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and Rafael, the Israeli Armament
> Development Authority, has been awarded the contract to supply the
> sensor pods to both the Guard and the Reserve. Rafael supplies the
> forward (sensor) section, and Northrop Grumman supplies the aft
> (electronics) section of the pod."
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/litening.htm


Many items the US use are produced in Israel. Cluster bombs and the
ITALD (decoy against AA missiles) comes to mind.

During the war in Iraq the Arab media made a fuss about pictures of
used ITALD found by Iraqis with "Made in Israel" on it. :)

Kevin Brooks
July 8th 03, 10:52 PM
(JGB) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > (Quant) wrote in message >...
> > > > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > >
> > > As long as the US insists on selling the Arabs surrounding Israel, and
> > > in still some cases technically at war with her sophisticated
> > > weapons systems, I don't understand the
> > > objection to ISrael selling China (a nation NOT at war with the US)
> > > some of its sophisticated weaponry as well!? If the US wants to
> > > negotiate
> > > a mutual agreement with Israel, where if the US ceases to sell Egypt
> > > then Israel will cease to sell China, it ought to do so. It should
> > > be reciprocal. Why should the US be allowed to sell Israel's sworn
> > > enemies
> > > modern deadly weaponry while Israel is called a traitor when it seeks
> > > to do the same to countries that don't even border on the US? Now if
> > > the US and MExico
> > > were in a technical state of war, and Israel was selling it weaponry,
> > > I
> > > could understand the objection. But China is practically on the other
> > > end
> > > of the earth with respect to the US. Why the double standard?
>
> > No double standard. The difference is we are providing some $14K per
> > Israeli in various forms of aid each year. <
>
> Except that at least $8,400 of that $14K is going into the pockets
> of US workers in defense industries inside the US. Nor do most
> ISraelis
> live inside F-15s or Apaches. But what you're saying is, that the aid
> is actually a LEASH, to be used to keep Israel in line. You don't want
> ISraelis to make a living selling arms the same way US defense workers
> do, but rather give them welfare checks so that they will be dependent
> on the US holding the aid leash in the right hand, and who can then
> belittle them for taking it while selling ISrael's bordering enemies
> advanced arms
> with left hand. Right?

Nope, wrong.

>
> >It kindo f sucks when you
> > provide *that* level of aid and get in return not only espionage
> > directed at your own,<
>
> You mean like when the US flew U-2s over Israel to spy on Dimona back
> in the early '60s?

What U-2's?

Or when ISrael was forced to accept inspectors to
> come
> into Dimona sent by Kennedy and Johnson?

Again, a terrible price to pay for US aid; not that I have ever heard
that the incident you mentioned actually happened, though.

Or do you mean when the US
> leaves
> Israel in the lurch during the Six Day War, and instead of sending a
> flotilla
> to open up the blockade that that the Egyptians put on the Port of
> Eilat
> (which they promised to do in the '57 Dulles-Eban memorandum), the US
> instead sends its most sophisticated spy ship, the LIberty, to
> spy on ISraeli combat movements? All while tiny ISrael is fighting ALL
> ALONE
> on all fronts? Then the US sends a spy ship smack up close to the
> ISraeli coast?

LOL! First, if you are preaching a pro-Israel argument, bringing the
USS Liberty into the agenda is the *last* thing you want to do; there
are a lot of us who wish the USN counterstrikes *had* been allowed
(which would have left israel without a naval force that would amount
to much). And preaching about "tiny Israel" in the 67 War doesn't
garner much sympathy either. Again, go back and read Begin's later
comments about the real lack of *necessity* for israel to have gone to
war in the first place...but you know more about it than Mr. Begin
did, right?

>
> >... but advanced weapons sold to those who you won't
> > sell to yourself because you realize they are indeed a serious
> > potential regional threat (or maybe not so regional, seeing as how the
> > PRC (actually one of its PLA spin-off companies) bribed their way into
> > control of port operations on the Panama Canal).<
>
> Why are you ****ed about the Panama Canal when you stopped England,
> France
> and ISrael in 1956 from halting Nasser's nationalizing the Suez Canal?

LOL again. Try a reading comprehension course. Who said I am ****ed
about the PC? I happen to believe that giving it to the Panamanians
was one of the only intelligent acts of the Carter administration. I
am, however, quite suspicious of why a PLA-sponsored firm reportedly
engaged in rather high-stakes bribery, etc., to gain that contract...

> Or when you fail to meet your written obligation to ISrael, which
> withdrew
> from the Sinai in 1957 BASED ON GOOD FAITH of the written promise
> given
> by Dulles to Eban to send a flotiall if Nasser ever tried it again, to
> induce Israel to withdraw at that time.

So you say...anything to back up this ranting?

And then, you ignore your
> written promise
> a mere decade later when Nasser indeed does a repeat performance,
> thereby forcing ISrael to open the EGyptian blockade all alone and by
> itself? And
> Israel is supposed to trust the US after that?

I could actually care less whether israel trusts the US; I do know,
however, that the US sure as heck can't trust Israel.

>
> And who the hell is going to be crazy enough to try to blockade the
> Panama Canal? China? Russia? Israel?

Back to that reading comprehension course with you...

You cannot be serious about this
> mumbo jumbo that the PRC could ever control and deny US ships from
> using the Canal. That is about
> as absurd a concept as the moon being made of green cheese. I don't
> think
> the PRC is going to risk a nuclear war with the US to block US ships
> from
> traversing the canal. How silly can one get?

Gee, you do get all wound up rather easily, don't you? The PRC having
an ability to influence PC operations does indeed pose a situation
that we would have to monitor, as it is the shortest route for rapid
reinforcement of the Seventh Fleet in the event a serious crisis were
to erupt over taiwan (you know, that little island that Israel fell
all over itself to cultivate ties with, then just as quickly fell all
over itself to cut those ties in favor of selling all of that nifty
military hardware to the PRC?).

Brooks

Quant
July 8th 03, 11:10 PM
(JGB) wrote in message >...

>
> You mean like when the US flew U-2s over Israel to spy on Dimona back
> in the early '60s? Or when ISrael was forced to accept inspectors to
> come
> into Dimona sent by Kennedy and Johnson? Or do you mean when the US
> leaves
> Israel in the lurch during the Six Day War, and instead of sending a
> flotilla
> to open up the blockade that that the Egyptians put on the Port of
> Eilat
> (which they promised to do in the '57 Dulles-Eban memorandum), the US
> instead sends its most sophisticated spy ship, the LIberty, to
> spy on ISraeli combat movements? All while tiny ISrael is fighting ALL
> ALONE
> on all fronts? Then the US sends a spy ship smack up close to the
> ISraeli coast?
>


Thanks, I didn't know all that. Its the first time I hear about the 57
memorandum.

It reminds me all the concessions Israel now pushed to give even
though its clear that Israel will be the only side who fulfils his
commitments. Another reason we shouldn't rely on any promise of
nuclear umbrela from the US or any other "on paper" guarantees someone
is offering us.

Keith Willshaw
July 9th 03, 12:44 AM
"JGB" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Quant" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > news:<be9rkt$7ht$1
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What's wrong with the "security of supply" from Rafael?
> >
> > 1) The base consumption level is lower and if the product becomes
> > unprofitable
> > Israel could drop it altogether and opt for AIM-9<
>
> Israel can't afford to use second-rate equipment, especially since the
> US is supplying that equipment to its bordering enemies. It has to produce
> a superior product or lose the coming war, which in Israel's case means
> losing the country. The US can afford to fight and lose wars and come back
> again. Israel does not have that luxury. To the US, second rate equipment
> only means the loss of a few pilots. To Israel it means the possible loss
> of its total existence.
>

If you think the Aim-9 series of missiles is second rate you ought
to change your choice of recreational drug. I'm a great fan
of both ASRAAM and Python but lets not get silly here.

Keith

Paul J. Adam
July 9th 03, 01:35 AM
In message >, JGB
> writes
>I believe Israel sold China the Python 3, which is an old generation
>AAM from the 1980s, of no real threat to the US.

Okay: you fly along and I'll fire a Python 3 at you.

Back in 1982, British pilots were getting >80% hits with the AIM-9L
Sidewinder (the Python 3 is supposed to be better) against Argentinian
pilots in Israeli-built planes, trained by Israeli pilots, and whose
courage was demonstrated beyond doubt.

Israel casually exporting third-generation IR-AAMs is a serious
proliferation issue.

>But the Harpoon cruise
>missiles the US sold to EGypt are a very real, lethal threat to Israel.

What crucial targets can they hit?

Why is Egypt a real, current threat? (Peace treaty in 1977, if I
remember right, and no aggression in thirty years)


Either proliferating weapons is fine (in which case Israel can make no
complaint about who the US and its allies sell what to) or it isn't. If
Israel wants to be listened to about the dangers of proliferation, it
needs to be less export-driven about its own sales policy.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

Paul J. Adam
July 9th 03, 01:43 AM
In message >, JGB
> writes
>"Keith Willshaw" >
>wrote in message >...
>> Python 3 provided a marked improvement in Chinese capability
>> in comparison to the missiles previously in service and as an agile
>> all aspect Mach 3 AA missile is a very real threat to ANY aircraft.
>>
>> Keith<
>
>So what? Is China at war with the US?

Egypt isn't at war with Israel, but you're whining about US sales there.

>Egypt borders on Israel, a few minutes from ISrael flying time, and has a
>very cold "peace" with Israel.

Egypt is a US ally that has a very 'cold' peace with Israel and is at
risk of pre-emptive attack, AS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE! (if you're going
over the top, so will I)

>Saudi Arabia practically borders on
>Israel and is still technically at war with Israel,

When has Saudi Arabia waged active war against Israel?

>and certainly doesn't
>recognize its right to exist. Does that stop the US from selling them
>F-15's and F-16's and M-1 tanks and Harpoon Cruise missiles? I don't quite
>get the double standard. Explain it to me.

When did US (or allied) aircraft stage from Israel against Iraq in 1991
or 2003 or any time in between?

The missions had to be flown. They weren't flown from Israel. Part of
being a reliable ally is providing bases and flight rights. Israel
wasn't useful.


Which way does the money flow? There's the answer. The golden rule: the
US has the gold, so it makes the rules.

Israel is welcome to reject all US aid and assistance. (Bet it won't!).
The US makes profitable sales to countries Israel doesn't like. But the
US bankrolls Israel, not vice versa, therefore the US is able to make
its irritation about Israel's promiscuous exports stick while Israel
confines its protests to verbiage.

(And personally I'd be a _lot_ more worried about Syria than Egypt, but
that's just me.)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

Lyle
July 9th 03, 04:51 AM
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:44:32 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"JGB" > wrote in message
om...
>> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
>> > "Quant" > wrote in message
>> > om...
>> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>> > news:<be9rkt$7ht$1
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > What's wrong with the "security of supply" from Rafael?
>> >
>> > 1) The base consumption level is lower and if the product becomes
>> > unprofitable
>> > Israel could drop it altogether and opt for AIM-9<
>>
>> Israel can't afford to use second-rate equipment, especially since the
>> US is supplying that equipment to its bordering enemies. It has to produce
>> a superior product or lose the coming war, which in Israel's case means
>> losing the country. The US can afford to fight and lose wars and come back
>> again. Israel does not have that luxury. To the US, second rate equipment
>> only means the loss of a few pilots. To Israel it means the possible loss
>> of its total existence.
>>
>
>If you think the Aim-9 series of missiles is second rate you ought
>to change your choice of recreational drug. I'm a great fan
>of both ASRAAM and Python but lets not get silly here.
>
>Keith
>
dont the ASRAAM and the AIM9X have the same Huges IR Seeker.

JGB
July 9th 03, 03:51 PM
Lyle > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:44:32 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"JGB" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> > "Quant" > wrote in message
> >> > om...
> >> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> news:<be9rkt$7ht$1
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > What's wrong with the "security of supply" from Rafael?
> >> >
> >> > 1) The base consumption level is lower and if the product becomes
> >> > unprofitable
> >> > Israel could drop it altogether and opt for AIM-9<
> >>
> >> Israel can't afford to use second-rate equipment, especially since the
> >> US is supplying that equipment to its bordering enemies. It has to produce
> >> a superior product or lose the coming war, which in Israel's case means
> >> losing the country. The US can afford to fight and lose wars and come back
> >> again. Israel does not have that luxury. To the US, second rate equipment
> >> only means the loss of a few pilots. To Israel it means the possible loss
> >> of its total existence.
> >>
> >
> >If you think the Aim-9 series of missiles is second rate you ought
> >to change your choice of recreational drug. I'm a great fan
> >of both ASRAAM and Python but lets not get silly here.
> >
> >Keith
> >
> dont the ASRAAM and the AIM9X have the same Huges IR Seeker.<

If AIM-9X were better than Python then Israel would buy it in preference
to its domestic product. One thing Israel will never do for money
is risk its pilots or its country using an inferior first line product.
It will do a lot of other things for money, but not that!

Keith Willshaw
July 9th 03, 04:28 PM
"JGB" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "JGB" > wrote in message

> > Its clearly beyond your comprehension.<
>
> Very much so. This instinctive level of antisemitism is very strongly
embedded
> in the genes of some, and I admit it is difficult to comprehend on a
rational
> basis. Cest la vie. Can't fight Mother Nature. Racism is what it is and
ain't
> going to change based on any rational discourse.

So no you play the anti-semitism card , how predictable and sad

Keith

David Pugh
July 9th 03, 05:07 PM
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> The missions had to be flown. They weren't flown from Israel. Part of
> being a reliable ally is providing bases and flight rights. Israel
> wasn't useful.

As I recall, the primary reason they were not flown from Israel was that the
US didn't want to fly them from Israel (launching attacks from Israel
against a Muslim country -- even if flown by the US -- could have
destabilized the coalition).

Peter Stickney
July 10th 03, 02:38 AM
In article >,
"Keith Willshaw" > writes:
>> Does China border on the US?
>
> Did the USSR border on the USA ?

Why yes, actually. It wasn't until '91-'92 that Cuba realized its
dream of being the closest Communist Nation to the U.S. - Think
Alaska & Siberia.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

John Keeney
July 10th 03, 06:42 AM
Keith Willshaw > wrote in message
...
>
> Did the USSR border on the USA ?

Well, I'ld have to pretty much give that one a "yea".
While only Canadian and Mexican land actually contact the
land of the United States the next closest neighbor is Russia:
Big Diomede Island (Russia) and Little Diomede Island (Alaska,
U.S.A.) being about 2.5 miles apart in the Bering Strait. If you're
willing to do it on pack ice you can even walk out and stradle the
boarder much of the year.

JGB
July 10th 03, 07:40 AM
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > Lyle > wrote in message >...
> > > On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:44:32 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"JGB" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > >> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > >> > "Quant" > wrote in message
> > > >> > om...
> > > >> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> news:<be9rkt$7ht$1
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >

> > If AIM-9X were better than Python then Israel would buy it in preference
> > to its domestic product.
>
> Hardly. Face reality--the Israelis pay just as much, if not more,
> attention to placing increased emphasis on domestic products as we, or
> any other nation, does. If they *really* wanted only the very best,
> why do they procure Derby instead of the AIM-120? Why were they buying
> Shafrir (or whatever the name of that early version Sidewinder-derived
> pre-Python AAM was) instead of buying the latest Sidewinder variants?<

I cannot speak about the Derby or the AIM-120, etc., 'cause I know
nothing
about them. What I do know is that ISraeli pilots must be prepared to
win
in dogfights against Egyptian F-16s, Saudi F-15s and Syrian Migs and
Sukhs.
US pilots perhaps may never have to dogfight anyone that's any good
anymore,
but Israeli pilots MUST have the best to win in dogfights because of
the close proximity of the surrounding countries. There can be no
second chances.
Perhaps in earlier years when the Arabs were still using most old
Soviet junk, the Shafrir was adequate. I honestly do not know. I do
know that if they
are using the Python-4s and now '5s, it's not to save money or to
support
Rafael. It would be MUCH cheaper, practically free, to get AIM-9s from
the US.
But what good is cheap if you're going to lose the war?

> One thing Israel will never do for money
> > is risk its pilots or its country using an inferior first line product.
> > It will do a lot of other things for money, but not that!
>
> Then one wonders why they were so committed to Lavi...>

Oh, the Lavi was DEFINITELY a mistake! I was in Israel at the time and
I bent
the ear of every engineer who would listen, and said quite frankly
years before
the prototypes were finished, that while the US might fund development
of the Lavi to placate Israel and its lobbyists (because Israel did
not want to be dependent on anyone after its experience with France in
the aftermath of
the Six Day War), that the US would NEVER, EVER, EVER fund its actual
going into production. The US does not fund competition! The simple
fact is
that the Lavi wasn't much better than an F-16C, and would cost Israel
much
more due to the lack of economies of scales, as it might only need one
or
two hundred at most, whereas the US had produced close to 2000 F-16s,
and,
as I said, the US would never actually tolerate funding a competitor.
However, there was still a naive mindset at that time in Israel, and
the
Lavi was dubbed a "national project" for ISrael's independence, so
rational
thought went out the window. Overallitwasafiasc.Myspacebarjustquittoo.

Quant
July 10th 03, 12:19 PM
(JGB) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > Lyle > wrote in message >...
> > > > On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:44:32 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"JGB" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > >> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > >> > "Quant" > wrote in message
> > > > >> > om...
> > > > >> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> news:<be9rkt$7ht$1
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
>
> > > If AIM-9X were better than Python then Israel would buy it in preference
> > > to its domestic product.
> >
> > Hardly. Face reality--the Israelis pay just as much, if not more,
> > attention to placing increased emphasis on domestic products as we, or
> > any other nation, does. If they *really* wanted only the very best,
> > why do they procure Derby instead of the AIM-120? Why were they buying
> > Shafrir (or whatever the name of that early version Sidewinder-derived
> > pre-Python AAM was) instead of buying the latest Sidewinder variants?<
>
> I cannot speak about the Derby or the AIM-120, etc., 'cause I know
> nothing
> about them. What I do know is that ISraeli pilots must be prepared to
> win
> in dogfights against Egyptian F-16s, Saudi F-15s and Syrian Migs and
> Sukhs.
> US pilots perhaps may never have to dogfight anyone that's any good
> anymore,
> but Israeli pilots MUST have the best to win in dogfights because of
> the close proximity of the surrounding countries. There can be no
> second chances.
> Perhaps in earlier years when the Arabs were still using most old
> Soviet junk, the Shafrir was adequate. I honestly do not know. I do
> know that if they
> are using the Python-4s and now '5s, it's not to save money or to
> support
> Rafael. It would be MUCH cheaper, practically free, to get AIM-9s from
> the US.
> But what good is cheap if you're going to lose the war?
>
> > One thing Israel will never do for money
> > > is risk its pilots or its country using an inferior first line product.
> > > It will do a lot of other things for money, but not that!
> >
> > Then one wonders why they were so committed to Lavi...>
>
> Oh, the Lavi was DEFINITELY a mistake! I was in Israel at the time and
> I bent
> the ear of every engineer who would listen, and said quite frankly
> years before
> the prototypes were finished, that while the US might fund development
> of the Lavi to placate Israel and its lobbyists (because Israel did
> not want to be dependent on anyone after its experience with France in
> the aftermath of
> the Six Day War), that the US would NEVER, EVER, EVER fund its actual
> going into production. The US does not fund competition! The simple
> fact is
> that the Lavi wasn't much better than an F-16C, and would cost Israel
> much
> more due to the lack of economies of scales, as it might only need one
> or
> two hundred at most, whereas the US had produced close to 2000 F-16s,
> and,
> as I said, the US would never actually tolerate funding a competitor.
> However, there was still a naive mindset at that time in Israel, and
> the
> Lavi was dubbed a "national project" for ISrael's independence, so
> rational
> thought went out the window. Overallitwasafiasc.Myspacebarjustquittoo.


I know that a South American country (I don't remember which) was very
intrested in buying the Lavi instead of the F16's.

Many people in Israel still think it was a mistake to give up to
American preaure and that we should finish and manufacture of the
Lavi.

I don't have the information to calculate how profitable this project
was but its a fact that the dependence of Israel on the US is also
because of the American planes Israel has. On the 80's as you know, US
preasured Israel by stopping shipments of F-16 parts. This dependence,
as you know and wrote, has also its heavy price.

Again, I don't sure if the comparison is good, but look at the
Merkava. This project is one of the most profitable projects ever was
in Israel. The cost of manufactring the Merkava to the IDF is much
smaller than the cost of buying the M1A2 tanks and there's sde effect
such as industry of upgraing M60 tanks and selling tank systems to
India or upgraded tanks to Turkey.

Last thing, I want to remind you that after the cancellation of Lavi
project, thousands of workers were fired from IAI. For Israel - a
state in a size of a neighborhood 20 years ago, and a welfare state
with generous social policy - it was a major blow to the economy. It
actually has severe macro economic effects.

phil hunt
July 10th 03, 03:15 PM
On 10 Jul 2003 04:19:47 -0700, Quant > wrote:
>
>I don't have the information to calculate how profitable this project
>was but its a fact that the dependence of Israel on the US is also
>because of the American planes Israel has. On the 80's as you know, US
>preasured Israel by stopping shipments of F-16 parts. This dependence,
>as you know and wrote, has also its heavy price.

Does Israel manufacture jet engines? If it doesn't (and IIRC that
is the case), then it won't be independent in aircraft manufacture
anyway. I imagine there are many other itesm used in advanced
fighter aircraft, such as composite materials, which are simply
uneconomic for small production runs.

>Again, I don't sure if the comparison is good, but look at the
>Merkava. This project is one of the most profitable projects ever was
>in Israel. The cost of manufactring the Merkava to the IDF is much
>smaller than the cost of buying the M1A2 tanks

Do you have costs for this?

>and there's sde effect
>such as industry of upgraing M60 tanks and selling tank systems to
>India or upgraded tanks to Turkey.

How much commonality of parts do these have with Merkava?

--
Phil
"If only sarcasm could overturn bureaucracies"
-- NTK, commenting on www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_29.html

Tex Houston
July 10th 03, 05:50 PM
"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
> If you're
> willing to do it on pack ice you can even walk out and stradle the
> boarder much of the year.

Very funny line. Straddling the boarder would probably be a more pleasing
activity than walking out on the pack ice to straddle the border.

Tex

Quant
July 10th 03, 06:27 PM
(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> On 10 Jul 2003 04:19:47 -0700, Quant > wrote:
> >
> >I don't have the information to calculate how profitable this project
> >was but its a fact that the dependence of Israel on the US is also
> >because of the American planes Israel has. On the 80's as you know, US
> >preasured Israel by stopping shipments of F-16 parts. This dependence,
> >as you know and wrote, has also its heavy price.
>
> Does Israel manufacture jet engines? If it doesn't (and IIRC that
> is the case), then it won't be independent in aircraft manufacture
> anyway. I imagine there are many other itesm used in advanced
> fighter aircraft, such as composite materials, which are simply
> uneconomic for small production runs.
>

Engines were indeed large part of the problem. Israel wanted to
produce American engines in Israel. Then, first, there were technical
problems to do it, and then the American approach has been changed and
they retreated from their initial consent to enable to Israelis to
produce the engines by their own.


I searched the web and found the following quotes from:
"Dov S. Zakheim, Flight of the Lavi: Inside a U.S. Israeli Crisis"
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/lavi.html


The quotes:

1.
"The Israelis recognized that they would have to look overseas for the
plane's engines, as well as for other key components. Indeed, the more
sophisticated the plane they wished to build, the more dependent they
would be on foreign support.

To minimize their degree of dependence on foreign suppliers, the
Israelis conceived of a relatively simple plane, termed the Aryeh,
that would capitalize upon the technical advances that IAI was
expected to have achieved in the 1980s but would nevertheless remain
on the low end of the spectrum of sophistication associated with
ground attack aircraft. It was in that spirit that Minister of Defense
Ezer Weitzmann approached his American counterpart, Harold Brown, in
April 1980, to obtain American support for the coproduction of General
Electric F-404 engines in Israel."


2.
The situation was actually worse than even the Courant had reported,
and it offered some real insights into the management problems that
were bedeviling the aircraft. The Israelis had planned initially to
coproduce the engine with Pratt & Whitney, and then to produce the
follow-on engines entirely on their own. In the event, the Bet Shemesh
engine plant was incapable of carrying out even the initial, more
limited, task. Pratt & Whitney had reapportioned the coproduction work
several times, giving the Israelis increasingly less complex tasks.
Finally, frequent changes of managcmcnt, labor problems, and other
management deficiencies forced the cancellation of the coproduction
effort only a few weeks after our visit to Israel in April, although
the decision to cancel coproduction remained a closely held secret.
....




> >Again, I don't sure if the comparison is good, but look at the
> >Merkava. This project is one of the most profitable projects ever was
> >in Israel. The cost of manufactring the Merkava to the IDF is much
> >smaller than the cost of buying the M1A2 tanks
>
> Do you have costs for this?
>

Not an accurate cost, but yes.

The cost of one Merkava Mk3 including all the systems in it to the
Israeli Ministry of Defence is around $3 million. Merkava Mk4 could
cost up to $4 million.

To the US army it costs around $4.3 mn per M1A2 tank.
General Dynamics tried to sell 1000 M1A2 tanks to Turkey in a price of
$5 million per tank.


> >and there's sde effect
> >such as industry of upgraing M60 tanks and selling tank systems to
> >India or upgraded tanks to Turkey.
>
> How much commonality of parts do these have with Merkava?


All the upgraded parts I know of the M60's are based on the Merkava
project.

The armour is based on the same technology, we just fit it to the
M60's shape.
The fire control systems are the same.
The communication systems are the same.
The Israeli M60's tracks are Merkava tracks.
etc.

JGB
July 10th 03, 08:47 PM
(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> On 9 Jul 2003 23:40:26 -0700, JGB > wrote:
> >The simple
> >fact is
> >that the Lavi wasn't much better than an F-16C, and would cost Israel
> >much
> >more due to the lack of economies of scales, as it might only need one
> >or
> >two hundred at most, whereas the US had produced close to 2000 F-16s,
> >and,
> >as I said, the US would never actually tolerate funding a competitor.
>
> Couldn't Israel have funded construction itself? Another small
> country, Sweden, manages to.<

Yes, you're basically right that Sweden is an anomaly. A relatively small
country of about 8 or 9 million that manages to develop and produce
some of the finest military equipment in the world, as well as automobiles
and other high priced consumer goods. Still, Sweden's population is
nevertheless over 50% larger than Israel's, and it has not been involved
in a single war in well over a century, and sits on mountains of iron
with a highly educated population. Israel, by contrast, is a mere 54
years in the making, with smaller population, that was only recently
industrialized, and has been expending vast treasures and large amounts
of blood over that period of time with little letup. Israel bit off more
than it could chew with the Lavi in the early '80s. But at this time it
would not be sensible to produce a first rate platform on its own. Even
France, Germany, England and Russia will have a tough time keeping up with
latest generation US platforms, such as the F-22. They are getting WAY
too expensive! What ISrael has done is become a first rate producer of
subsystems and spare parts. For Israel, victory or defeat will come in the
first hours of any future major war anyway. It would probably be nuclear
anyhow. In retrospect, the Lavi was a mistake, but an understandable one
given that Israel had been let down many times in the past by its principle
arms suppliers. Frankly, the best thing that could happen to ISrael is if
the entire world would be a global arms and aid embargo on the ENTIRE
MIDDLE EAST, including Israel and the Arab and Muslim countries altogether.
Even with US aid, the strain of keeping up with Arab oil money that
lures US, French, Russian, English,German and others to sell the Arab states
all the arms they can get away with is simply too much. That's why I support
a TOTAL cutoff of ALL aid and arms sales to the ENTIRE region!

Kevin Brooks
July 10th 03, 09:10 PM
(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> On 9 Jul 2003 23:40:26 -0700, JGB > wrote:
> >The simple
> >fact is
> >that the Lavi wasn't much better than an F-16C, and would cost Israel
> >much
> >more due to the lack of economies of scales, as it might only need one
> >or
> >two hundred at most, whereas the US had produced close to 2000 F-16s,
> >and,
> >as I said, the US would never actually tolerate funding a competitor.
>
> Couldn't Israel have funded construction itself? Another small
> country, Sweden, manages to.

No. Israel has grown rather dependent upon the billions annually
provided in US aid (depending upon whose numbers you use, US aid would
be equal to somewhere around between 3 and 6% of their GDP). According
to year 2000 numbers, Israel had a GDP that was just over half that of
Sweden, and a lower per-capita GDP to boot. Go-it-alone is not a
likely avenue for israel; they even required South African capital to
develop their BVRAAM, the Derby.

Brooks

JGB
July 11th 03, 02:32 PM
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> (phil hunt) wrote in message >...

> > Couldn't Israel have funded construction itself? Another small
> > country, Sweden, manages to.
>
> No. Israel has grown rather dependent upon the billions annually
> provided in US aid (depending upon whose numbers you use, US aid would
> be equal to somewhere around between 3 and 6% of their GDP). According
> to year 2000 numbers, Israel had a GDP that was just over half that of
> Sweden, and a lower per-capita GDP to boot. Go-it-alone is not a
> likely avenue for israel; they even required South African capital to
> develop their BVRAAM, the Derby.<

YEs, but isn't it interesting, Kevin, that in 1970 Israel's GNP was
$3,050 per capita versus Japan's $3,000 at the time (look it up).
Yet today, after perhaps $80 billion in US aid since, Israel's per capita
GNP, is now, as you state, half of Japan's or Sweden's. Mind you, in 1970
Israel had already taken the "territories" before the major stream of
US aid and arms had really begun. Besides the never ending wars the
Arabs have forced on Israel, not to mention the boycotts and the like,
the new arms race, where nearly $6 billion in US arms sold to EGypt,
Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan, forces Israel not only to require
the $3 billion in aid annually to keep up, but also requires a massive
internal effort to keep a military reserve and a military-industrial
complex so heavy and so distortive of Israel's economy, and diversive in
forcing so much of its talent into arms production, which overall
is sterile in terms of fostering economic growth, that I honestly wish
the US, and the rest of the world, would simply impose a GLOBAL embargo
on ALL AID AND ARMS SALES into the region completely! If the Egyptians,
Saudis and other Arab and Muslim states had NO access to advanced arms
from the West or East, and had to develop and produce all their own
internally, Israel would be better off even without the aid or arms
sales to it!!! I am totally convinced of it. The Israeli arms industry
is way too big, and way too controlled by the US thanks to the aid,
that overall is a drag on the economy, but nonetheless necessary as long
as the enemy and hostile Muslim states have access to US and other
international sources of modern arms. This is why Israel's growth has
lagged. If the world stops selling the Muslims states $10 billion in
arms annually, Israel would be able to stop taking $3 billion in US
aid AND STILL BE ECONOMICALLY BETTER OFF in the long run.

Kevin Brooks
July 11th 03, 06:45 PM
(JGB) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > (phil hunt) wrote in message >...
>
> > > Couldn't Israel have funded construction itself? Another small
> > > country, Sweden, manages to.
> >
> > No. Israel has grown rather dependent upon the billions annually
> > provided in US aid (depending upon whose numbers you use, US aid would
> > be equal to somewhere around between 3 and 6% of their GDP). According
> > to year 2000 numbers, Israel had a GDP that was just over half that of
> > Sweden, and a lower per-capita GDP to boot. Go-it-alone is not a
> > likely avenue for israel; they even required South African capital to
> > develop their BVRAAM, the Derby.<
>
> YEs, but isn't it interesting, Kevin, that in 1970 Israel's GNP was
> $3,050 per capita versus Japan's $3,000 at the time (look it up).
> Yet today, after perhaps $80 billion in US aid since, Israel's per capita
> GNP, is now, as you state, half of Japan's or Sweden's. Mind you, in 1970
> Israel had already taken the "territories" before the major stream of
> US aid and arms had really begun. Besides the never ending wars the
> Arabs have forced on Israel,

Please. 56 was not forced upon them, and if you are honest about it,
neither was 67:

"As Mordecai Bentov, at the time a member of the Israeli government,
said, "The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in
every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation
of new Arab territory." " Source:
http://www.wrmea.com/Washington-Report_org/www/backissues/0791/9107040.htm

(And no, that is not an "Arab" source)

Add in Begin's later similar comments, and your case that the 67 War
was somehow forced on the Israelis starts getting weaker by the
minute....



not to mention the boycotts and the like,
> the new arms race, where nearly $6 billion in US arms sold to EGypt,

Not a threat to Israel; if you think it is, then please provide actual
evidence.

> Saudi Arabia,

Couldn't even handle Iraq; not a real threat to Israel in the
conventional war sense, and apparently has more than its own share of
internal problems with which to keep it busy anyway.

the UAE and Jordan,

LOL! Have you examined exactly what the strength of the Jordanian Air
Force is recently? And you think it poses a threat to Israel?! A
handful of ex-USAF F-16A's?! And since when has the UAE been on the
Israelis threat scope? Get real.

forces Israel not only to require
> the $3 billion in aid annually to keep up, but also requires a massive
> internal effort to keep a military reserve and a military-industrial
> complex so heavy and so distortive of Israel's economy, and diversive in
> forcing so much of its talent into arms production, which overall
> is sterile in terms of fostering economic growth, that I honestly wish
> the US, and the rest of the world, would simply impose a GLOBAL embargo
> on ALL AID AND ARMS SALES into the region completely!

Israel could solve a lot of its own problems by faithfully negotiating
the establishment of a palestinian state in the West Bank and a return
of the Golan to Syria in return for Syrian recognition of Israel's
right to exist and the creation of a security zone under MNF/UN
auspices as has existed in the Sinai since around 78.

If the Egyptians,
> Saudis and other Arab and Muslim states had NO access to advanced arms
> from the West or East, and had to develop and produce all their own
> internally, Israel would be better off even without the aid or arms
> sales to it!!! I am totally convinced of it. The Israeli arms industry
> is way too big, and way too controlled by the US thanks to the aid,
> that overall is a drag on the economy, but nonetheless necessary as long
> as the enemy and hostile Muslim states have access to US and other
> international sources of modern arms. This is why Israel's growth has
> lagged. If the world stops selling the Muslims states $10 billion in
> arms annually, Israel would be able to stop taking $3 billion in US
> aid AND STILL BE ECONOMICALLY BETTER OFF in the long run.

Face reality--the Israelis don't *want* to see US aid end, it has
become their teat which provides neverending succor. Heck, they even
tried to hold us up over this last conflict:

www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/ 2003-02-24-unwilling-cover_x.htm

"Israel is seeking $12 billion on top of the $3 billion it receives
annually."

That is TWELVE freakin' billion dollars...and you think they want to
give up that kind of loot? Again, get real.

Brooks

phil hunt
July 12th 03, 03:33 AM
On 10 Jul 2003 12:47:22 -0700, JGB > wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
>>
>> Couldn't Israel have funded construction itself? Another small
>> country, Sweden, manages to.
>
>Yes, you're basically right that Sweden is an anomaly. A relatively small
>country of about 8 or 9 million that manages to develop and produce
>some of the finest military equipment in the world, as well as automobiles
>and other high priced consumer goods. Still, Sweden's population is
>nevertheless over 50% larger than Israel's, and it has not been involved
>in a single war in well over a century, and sits on mountains of iron

Not really relevant, since (1) raw materials amount to an
insignificant fraction of the cost of a fighter aircraft, and (2)
national wealth isn't really determined by mineral deposits -- ask
any Japanese.

>with a highly educated population.

So has Israel.

Althogh Sweden's GDP is higher than Israel's, Israel spends a higher
fraction on defense, so the amount each country spends on its air
force (including procurement) is probably roughly comparable.

> Israel, by contrast, is a mere 54
>years in the making, with smaller population, that was only recently
>industrialized, and has been expending vast treasures and large amounts
>of blood over that period of time with little letup. Israel bit off more
>than it could chew with the Lavi in the early '80s. But at this time it
>would not be sensible to produce a first rate platform on its own. Even
>France, Germany, England and Russia will have a tough time keeping up with
>latest generation US platforms, such as the F-22.

Firstly, England doesn't have a government, so its isn't having a
tough time, or any other kind of time, doing anything.

The UK and Germany (together with Italy and Spain) together produce
an aircraft which is roughly comparable with the F-22: the F-22 is
more highly specified (F-22 has stealth and a higher power to weight
ratio, but a higher wing loading), but costs rather more than the
Typhoon, so on perfermance/price they are probably about the same.

>Frankly, the best thing that could happen to ISrael is if
>the entire world would be a global arms and aid embargo on the ENTIRE
>MIDDLE EAST, including Israel and the Arab and Muslim countries altogether.

This isn't going to happen, and if it did, I doubt if it would
help Israel. Sure, Israel has got more technology than the other
countries in the region, but without aid they can't afford to make
many high-tech weapons, and without imports it's going to have
difficulty making military jet engines.

The Muslim countries in the middle east have a much larger aggregate
GDP, and proably more of the highly skilled and educated people
needed to make morern weapons in the aggregate, so in the long term
they would be able to make more weapons, of all types than Israel.

--
Phil
"If only sarcasm could overturn bureaucracies"
-- NTK, commenting on www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_29.html

Kevin Brooks
July 12th 03, 07:31 AM
(JGB) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > (phil hunt) wrote in message >...
>
> > > > > Couldn't Israel have funded construction itself? Another small
> > > > > country, Sweden, manages to.
> > > >
> > > > No. Israel has grown rather dependent upon the billions annually
> > > > provided in US aid (depending upon whose numbers you use, US aid would
> > > > be equal to somewhere around between 3 and 6% of their GDP). According
> > > > to year 2000 numbers, Israel had a GDP that was just over half that of
> > > > Sweden, and a lower per-capita GDP to boot. Go-it-alone is not a
> > > > likely avenue for israel; they even required South African capital to
> > > > develop their BVRAAM, the Derby.<
> > >
> > > YEs, but isn't it interesting, Kevin, that in 1970 Israel's GNP was
> > > $3,050 per capita versus Japan's $3,000 at the time (look it up).
> > > Yet today, after perhaps $80 billion in US aid since, Israel's per capita
> > > GNP, is now, as you state, half of Japan's or Sweden's. Mind you, in 1970
> > > Israel had already taken the "territories" before the major stream of
> > > US aid and arms had really begun. Besides the never ending wars the
> > > Arabs have forced on Israel,
> >
> > Please. 56 was not forced upon them, and if you are honest about it,
> > neither was 67:<
>
> So you say. Sure, if the US had the West Coast blockaded by the
> Chinese or Japanese navy, that would constitute no threat. I agree
> that blockading ISrael's only port facing Asia, Eilat, was no threat
> to America, but it sure was to Israel. As was the encroachment of the
> Egyptian army deep into the Sinai. No threat to America, but a very
> great threat to Israel. Kevin knows which are real threats to Israel
> because Kevin doesn't live in Israel and hasn't a clue.
>
> > "As Mordecai Bentov, at the time a member of the Israeli government,
> > said, "The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in
> > every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation
> > of new Arab territory." " Source:
> > http://www.wrmea.com/Washington-Report_org/www/backissues/0791/9107040.htm<
>
> A lot of Jewish leftists say a lot of things that bear little
> resemblance
> to reality.

Ahem. Read a bit more before you stick your other foot in your mouth
in this regard. FYI, at the time of the war, both Begin and Bentov
were sort of Hawkish. It was later that they admitted that Israel was
no so much forced into war, as it was taking advantage of rather
clumsy policy decisions on the part of Nasser, who IIRC claimed he was
acting in support of Syria against claimed Israeli provocations. Like
most things in this world, not so much a case of black/white as it is
varying shades of gray. Hindsight seems to have afforded both of those
former Israeli leaders a bit more balanced view of the situation (not
to mention a more complete one, as they were sitting on the Israeli
Cabinet at the time--and you were...?) than what you seem to maintain.
I'll wager Begin and Bentov are a bit more accurate than the anonymous
"JGB"...

>
> > Add in Begin's later similar comments, and your case that the 67 War
> > was somehow forced on the Israelis starts getting weaker by the
> > minute....

What, no claim that Begin was a closet weakling/leftist?

>
> >> not to mention the boycotts and the like,
> > > the new arms race, where nearly $6 billion in US arms sold to EGypt,
> > Not a threat to Israel; if you think it is, then please provide actual
> > evidence.<
>
> The only evidence you would accept, and indeed enjoy with great
> edification,
> is if Dimona or an Israeli city were blown up. INdeed, just before the
> outbreak
> of war, Egyptian jets did indeed successfully invade Israeli airspace,
> got
> quite close to Dimona, and were NOT succressfully intercepted! If you
> were
> indeed serious about the subject, I'd suggest you do some serious
> research.

The above translates to, "I have no evidence whatsoever that Egypt
remains a major threat to Israel, so i'll harken back to '73 and try
to obfuscate a bit." Sorry, but that doesn't fly very far. Try again?

>
> >
> > Saudi Arabia couldn't even handle Iraq; not a real threat to Israel in the
> > conventional war sense, and apparently has more than its own share of
> > internal problems with which to keep it busy anyway.<
>
> What it can do is transfer arms and supplies to other ARab states.

And those states will just *immediately* pick up those weapons and
storm Israel, right? Uhmmm...you do know that all of those nifty
advanced US arms that SA has aquired come complete with a requirement
for US approval for transfer to a third party? If you don't believe
that, ask IAI--they lost out on selling the Kfir to a nation or two
back in the late 70's/early 80's because of US refusal to authorize
the transfer of the US engine they were using.

>
> > the UAE and Jordan,
> >
> > LOL! Have you examined exactly what the strength of the Jordanian Air
> > Force is recently? And you think it poses a threat to Israel?! A
> > handful of ex-USAF F-16A's?! And since when has the UAE been on the
> > Israelis threat scope? Get real.<
>
> If you really knew anything at all, you'd know that the Jordanian army
> was probably the BEST that Israel every faced in the ME. Not big, but
> quite
> good.

And the Israelis defeated it quite handily each time they faced it.
Now, in today's environment, in the topographical setting that exists
between Jordan and Israel, tell me how *any* army is going to
succesfully conduct an offensive while the other side controls the
air? Did you miss out on that whole Desert Storm event a few years
back?

> It takes more than equipment. It takes good people and training.

Yep, it does. And Jordan, compared to its neighbors, is apparently
pretty good--but still no match for Israel, and nobody but you is
disputing that tidy little fact.

> BTW, did you know that Pakistani pilots downed a number of Israeli
> planes
> in '67? I don't dismiss either the Jordanians or the Pakistanis if
> Israel
> had to face them.

Odd, but Michael Oren's recent book, "Six Days of War: June 1967 and
the Making of a Modern Middle East" (Presidio, 2002), seems to have
missed that little factoid (and Oren, being a former Israeli
governmental official, would have presumably picked up on that, as he
was rather careful to address how all of the regional nations
reacted--yet he never *once* mentions Pakistan...). I hate to be
repetitive, but any real evidence of this? Given your distinct
aversion to providing *any* evidence, that is...


YOu, on the other hand are ready to dismiss EVERY
> threat
> to Israel,

You just have not presented a realistic one yet. Syria would *like* to
be a threat to Israel, but it just can't pull it off (look at the
performance of their troops during ODS, not to mention Lebanon). Egypt
has more to lose from another war with Israel than it could possibly
gain (and the performance of their ground units in ODS was not exactly
top-of-the-line, either). Jordan, while professional in military
matters, is just too shallow in the depth department, and they know it
(maybe that is one reason why they have a peace treaty with Israel).
The UAE?! Gimme a break...

but build up every inconsequential possible threat to the
> US.

We do face a potential threat, on a regional basis, from the PRC in
the not-too-distant future; denying the obvious in that regard will
not do you any good. We are following a policy of cautious
constructive engagement at present, but that is only going to be
successful for as long as we are prepared to be more forceful (and
having the PRC realize that) when/if required. Israel's continued
provision of late-generation military products and technology to the
PRC can hardly be considered a *good* thing by USians, now can it?

> The reality is, that Israel is a tiny state comprised of mostly 5
> million
> Jews, most of the male population of whom serves for weeks annually
> in the reserves for most of their adult
> lives, and which faces not only 4 million Arab enemies internally,

Ah, so all of the Palestinians are enemies of Israel, even those that
are Israeli citizens?

> literally next door, but also 250 million Arabs and countless hundreds
> of millions of more Muslim
> supporters whose main dream is to eliminate the JEwish state. No
> state, no
> Sparta, has ever had to face anything even remotely lopsided in all of
> recorded history. And its main large benefactor, the US, also arms the
> other
> side quite well. THAT is the REALITY that Israelis face EVERY day
> regardless
> of what you or any outsider not living there may think or imagine.

If you would climb down off that soapbox long enough to actually
engage your brain and *think* a bit, you would realize that the US
providing military support to neighboring (and not so neighboring)
Arab nations is a *good* thing. Ever stopped to realize the degree of
US control that accompanies those weapons packages? Check out the
story of the Egyptian plan to conduct a retaliatory strike against the
Sudanese after that failed assasination attempt on Mubarak a few years
back. Reports indicate what prevented the Egyptians from acting was US
refusal to support the operation; all of thast high-tech US weaponry
requires a pretty good logistical tail to make it effective, and when
the US says, "no" (which in this case was wrong, IMO; we should have
let Egypt hammer them), it carries great weight.

>
> > forces Israel not only to require
> > > the $3 billion in aid annually to keep up, but also requires a massive
> > > internal effort to keep a military reserve and a military-industrial
> > > complex so heavy and so distortive of Israel's economy, and diversive in
> > > forcing so much of its talent into arms production, which overall
> > > is sterile in terms of fostering economic growth, that I honestly wish
> > > the US, and the rest of the world, would simply impose a GLOBAL embargo
> > > on ALL AID AND ARMS SALES into the region completely!
> >
> > Israel could solve a lot of its own problems by faithfully negotiating
> > the establishment of a palestinian state in the West Bank and a return
> > of the Golan to Syria in return for Syrian recognition of Israel's
> > right to exist and the creation of a security zone under MNF/UN
> > auspices as has existed in the Sinai since around 78.<
>
> The US could have negotiated an end to the Cold War by returning
> ALaska.

No, it couldn't. You are getting desperate now...hardly surprising
given that your entire argument seems to be bouyed solely upon the
force of your own hot air...

> Listen, what you spout is similar nonsense. Islam itself was built on
> the death
> of Judaism which it replaces. Islam cannot tolerate a Jewish state by
> its
> very nature as it is still interpreted. THAT is the true essence of
> the
> conflict, and it has nothing to do with any meager postage-sized
> parcels of land.

I don't think so, and as we have seen with the treaties between Israel
and Egypt/Jordan, it does not have to be the case. You seem to be
hell-bent on taking a ":this is the way it was a thousand years ago,
so this is the way it has to be now and forevermore." Not very
logical, IMO.

Until the Mullahs and Qadis and Imams of Islam
> recognize the RIGHT of the JEWISH NATION to exist in her homeland, no
> "returning" of anything is going to lead to any true peace.

The return of the Sinai helped lead to true peace between Egypt and
Israel, so your argument does not seem to meet the test of actual
events very well.

The issues
> of land and "settlements" and all of
> that are negotiable ONLY as details once the FACT of Jewish nationhood
> in
> the Land of Israel is truly accepted by the Muslim peoples. All the
> rest
> is blarney.

UN Res 242.

>
> > If the Egyptians,
> > > Saudis and other Arab and Muslim states had NO access to advanced arms
> > > from the West or East, and had to develop and produce all their own
> > > internally, Israel would be better off even without the aid or arms
> > > sales to it!!! I am totally convinced of it. The Israeli arms industry
> > > is way too big, and way too controlled by the US thanks to the aid,
> > > that overall is a drag on the economy, but nonetheless necessary as long
> > > as the enemy and hostile Muslim states have access to US and other
> > > international sources of modern arms. This is why Israel's growth has
> > > lagged. If the world stops selling the Muslims states $10 billion in
> > > arms annually, Israel would be able to stop taking $3 billion in US
> > > aid AND STILL BE ECONOMICALLY BETTER OFF in the long run.
> >
> > Face reality--the Israelis don't *want* to see US aid end, it has
> > become their teat which provides neverending succor. Heck, they even
> > tried to hold us up over this last conflict:<
>
> Face reality, no congressman challenges the end of aid, not because of
> AIPAC
> or huge mythical power in Dakota or Kansas, but because $7 billion in
> annual
> arms sales, and all the jobs and votes they represent, would go down
> with
> a unilateral end to aid.

Sorry, but if that were the case, what of those congressmen who have
no military industry in their districts (and there are quite a
few--look at Iowa, Montana, Wyoming, and various districts across the
rest of the nation. Your argument that this is somehow all tied to US
defense industry viability just does not hold up.

> >
> > www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/ 2003-02-24-unwilling-cover_x.htm
> >
> > "Israel is seeking $12 billion on top of the $3 billion it receives
> > annually."
> >
> > That is TWELVE freakin' billion dollars...and you think they want to
> > give up that kind of loot? Again, get real.<
>
> LOAN GUARANTEES, not money. Or in plain language, a consignor so that
> it
> can get loans on world capital markets at reasonable interest rates.

LOL! When was the last time Israel had to pick up the tab for one of
these major "loans"? Hmmm?

> That
> is not talking about the US forking over $12 billion US dollars from
> the
> treasury to Israel and you know it. That is typical BS.

No, it is indeed what was requested, and NO, it was not all for "loan
guarantees"; they were also requesting *grants*. Do your homework and
come up with something besides "JGB says so" and then get back to me,
'cause from where I stand JGB's record is hurtin' because he can't
seem to come up with *any* supporting evidence.

Brooks

JGB
July 12th 03, 03:51 PM
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > > (phil hunt) wrote in message >...
>

> > > Please. 56 was not forced upon them, and if you are honest about it,
> > > neither was 67:<
> >
> > So you say. Sure, if the US had the West Coast blockaded by the
> > Chinese or Japanese navy, that would constitute no threat. I agree
> > that blockading ISrael's only port facing Asia, Eilat, was no threat
> > to America, but it sure was to Israel. As was the encroachment of the
> > Egyptian army deep into the Sinai. No threat to America, but a very
> > great threat to Israel. Kevin knows which are real threats to Israel
> > because Kevin doesn't live in Israel and hasn't a clue.
> >
> > > "As Mordecai Bentov, at the time a member of the Israeli government,
> > > said, "The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in
> > > every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation
> > > of new Arab territory." " Source:
> > > http://www.wrmea.com/Washington-Report_org/www/backissues/0791/9107040.htm<

Which Came First - Terrorism or "Occupation"?

There were 3000 terrorist attempts before the '67 war.

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

Jan 1, 1952 - Seven armed terrorists attacked and killed a
nineteen
year-old girl in her home, in the neighborhood of Beit
Yisrael, in
Jerusalem.

Apr 14, 1953 - Terrorists tried for the first time to
infiltrate
Israel by sea, but were unsuccessful. One of the boats was
intercepted and the other boat escaped.

June 7, 1953 - A youngster was killed and three others
were wounded,
in shooting attacks on residential areas in southern
Jerusalem.

June 9, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a farming community
near Lod, and
killed one of the residents. The terrorists threw hand
grenades and
sprayed gunfire in all directions. On the same night,
another group
of terrorists attacked a house in the town of Hadera. This
occurred
a day after Israel and Jordan signed an agreement, with UN
mediation, in which Jordan undertook to prevent terrorists
from
crossing into Israel from Jordanian territory.

June 10, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrating from Jordan
destroyed a
house in the farming village of Mishmar Ayalon.

June 11, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a young couple in
their home in
Kfar Hess, and shot them to death.

Sept 2, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrated from Jordan, and
reached the
neighborhood of Katamon, in the heart of Jerusalem. They
threw hand
grenades in all directions. Miraculously, no one was hurt.

Mar 17, 1954- Terrorists ambushed a bus traveling from
Eilat to Tel
Aviv, and opened fire at short range when the bus reached
the area
of Maale Akrabim in the northern Negev. In the initial
ambush, the
terrorists killed the driver and wounded most of the
passengers. The
terrorists then boarded the bus, and shot each passenger,
one by
one. Eleven passengers were murdered. Survivors recounted
how the
murderers spat on the bodies and abused them. The
terrorists could
clearly be traced back to the Jordanian border, some 20 km
from the
site of the terrorist attack.

Jan 2, 1955 - Terrorists killed two hikers in the Judean
Desert.

Mar 24, 1955 - Terrorists threw hand grenades and opened
fire on a
crowd at a wedding in the farming community of Patish, in
the Negev.
A young woman was killed, and eighteen people were wounded
in the
attack.

Apr 7, 1956 - A resident of Ashkelon was killed in her
home, when
terrorists threw three hand grenades into her house.
Two members of Kibbutz Givat Chaim were killed, when
terrorists
opened fire on their car, on the road from Plugot Junction
to
Mishmar Hanegev.
There were further hand grenade and shooting attacks on
homes and
cars, in areas such as Nitzanim and Ketziot. One person
was killed
and three others wounded.

Apr 11, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire on a synagogue full
of
children and teenagers, in the farming community of
Shafrir. Three
children and a youth worker were killed on the spot, and
five were
wounded, including three seriously.

Apr 29, 1956 - Egyptians killed Roi Rotenberg, 21 years of
age, from
Nahal Oz.

Sept 12, 1956 - Terrorists killed three Druze guards at
Ein Ofarim,
in the Arava region.

Sept 23, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire from a Jordanian
position,
and killed four archaeologists, and wounded sixteen
others, near
Kibbutz Ramat Rachel.

Sept 24, 1956 - Terrorists killed a girl in the fields of
the
farming community of Aminadav, near Jerusalem.

Oct 4, 1956 - Five Israeli workers were killed in Sdom.

Oct 9, 1956 - Two workers were killed in an orchard of the
youth
village, Neve Hadassah, in the Sharon region.

Nov 8, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire on a train, attacked
cars and
blew up wells, in the North and Center of Israel. Six
Israelis were
wounded.

Feb 18, 1957 - Two civilians were killed by terrorist
landmines,
next to Nir Yitzhak, on the southern border of the Gaza
Strip.

Mar 8, 1957 - A shepherd from Kibbutz Beit Govrin was
killed by
terrorists in a field near the Kibbutz.

Apr 16, 1957 - Terrorists infiltrated from Jordan, and
killed two
guards at Kibbutz Mesilot.

May 20, 1957 - A terrorist opened fire on a truck in the
Arava
region, killing a worker.

May 29, 1957 - A tractor driver was killed and two others
wounded,
when the vehicle struck a landmine, next to Kibbutz
Kisufim.

June 23, 1957 - Israelis were wounded by landmines, close
to the
Gaza Strip.

Aug 23, 1957 - Two guards of the Israeli Mekorot water
company were
killed near Kibbutz Beit Govrin.

Dec 21, 1957 - A member of Kibbutz Gadot was killed in the
Kibbutz
fields.

Feb 11, 1958 - Terrorists killed a resident of Moshav
Yanov who was
on his way to Kfar Yona, in the Sharon area.

Apr 5, 1958 - Terrorists lying in ambush shot and killed
two people
near Tel Lachish.

Apr 22, 1958 - Jordanian soldiers shot and killed two
fishermen near
Aqaba.

May 26, 1958 - Four Israeli police officers were killed in
a
Jordanian attack on Mt. Scopus, in Jerusalem.

Nov 17, 1958 - Syrian terrorists killed the wife of the
British air
attache in Israel, who was staying at the guesthouse of
the Italian
Convent on the Mt. of the Beatitudes.

Dec 3, 1958- A shepherd was killed at Kibbutz Gonen. In
the
artillery attack that followed, 31 civilians were wounded.

Jan 23, 1959 - A shepherd from Kibbutz Lehavot Habashan
was killed.

Feb 1, 1959 - Three civilians were killed by a terrorist
landmine
near Moshav Zavdiel.

Apr 15, 1959 - A guard was killed at Kibbutz Ramat Rahel.

Apr 27, 1959 - Two hikers were shot at close range and
killed near
Massada.

Sept 6, 1959 - Bedouin terrorists killed a paratroop
reconnaissance
officer near Nitzana.

Sept 8, 1959 - Bedouins opened fire on an army bivouac in
the Negev,
killing an IDF officer, Captain Yair Peled.

Oct 3, 1959 - A shepherd from Kibbutz Heftziba was killed
near
Kibbutz Yad Hana.

Apr 26, 1960 - Terrorists killed a resident of Ashkelon
south of the
city.

Apr 12, 1962 - Terrorists fired on an Egged bus on the way
to Eilat;
one passenger was wounded.

Sept 30, 1962 - Two terrorists attacked an Egged bus on
the way to
Eilat. No one was wounded.

Jan 1, 1965 - Palestinian terrorists attempted to bomb the
National
Water Carrier. This was the first attack carried out by
the PLO's
Fatah faction.

May 31, 1965 - Jordanian Legionnaires fired on the
neighborhood of
Musrara in Jerusalem, killing two civilians and wounding
four.

June 1, 1965 - Terrorists attack a house in Kibbutz
Yiftach.

July 5, 1965 - A Fatah cell planted explosives at Mitzpe
Massua,
near Beit Guvrin; and on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem
near Kafr
Battir.

Aug 26, 1965 - A waterline was sabotaged at Kibbutz
Manara, in the
Upper Galilee.

Sept 29, 1965 - A terrorist was killed as he attempted to
attack
Moshav Amatzia.

Nov 7, 1965 - A Fatah cell that infiltrated from Jordan
blew up a
house in Moshav Givat Yeshayahu, south of Beit Shemesh.
The house
was destroyed, but the inhabitants were miraculously
unhurt.

April ? '66 - Explosions placed by terrorists wounded two
civilians
and damaged three houses in Moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit
Shean
Valley.

May 16, 1966 - Two Israelis were killed when their jeep
hit a
terrorist landmine, north of the Sea of Galilee and south
of
Almagor. Tracks led into Syria.

July 13, 1966 - Two soldiers and a civilian were killed
near
Almagor, when their truck struck a terrorist landmine.

July 14, 1966 - Terrorists attacked a house in Kfar Yuval,
in the
North.

July 19, 1966 - Terrorists infiltrated into Moshav
Margaliot on the
northern border and planted nine explosive charges.

Oct 27, 1966 - A civilian was wounded by an explosive
charge on the
railroad tracks to Jerusalem.


Copyright (c)1999 The State of Israel. All rights reserved.


> > BTW, did you know that Pakistani pilots downed a number of Israeli
> > planes
> > in '67? I don't dismiss either the Jordanians or the Pakistanis if
> > Israel
> > had to face them.
>
> Odd, but Michael Oren's recent book, "Six Days of War: June 1967 and
> the Making of a Modern Middle East" (Presidio, 2002), seems to have
> missed that little factoid (and Oren, being a former Israeli
> governmental official, would have presumably picked up on that, as he
> was rather careful to address how all of the regional nations
> reacted--yet he never *once* mentions Pakistan...). I hate to be
> repetitive, but any real evidence of this? Given your distinct
> aversion to providing *any* evidence, that is...<

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

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

> We do face a potential threat, on a regional basis, from the PRC in
> the not-too-distant future; denying the obvious in that regard will
> not do you any good. We are following a policy of cautious
> constructive engagement at present, but that is only going to be
> successful for as long as we are prepared to be more forceful (and
> having the PRC realize that) when/if required. Israel's continued
> provision of late-generation military products and technology to the
> PRC can hardly be considered a *good* thing by USians, now can it?<

In fact, the presumed challenge of the PRC to the US is as nothing
compared
to the challenge of the Muslims to ISrael. Pakistan is a nuclear state
with
at least 150 nukes, and Iran soon will be. When you add in Egypt,
Syria,
Saudi Arabia and all the vast numbers enemies of ISrael's very
existence,
the PRC threat to the US is less than a gnat to a whale compared to
the
Muslim threat to Israel.

> > The reality is, that Israel is a tiny state comprised of mostly 5
> > million
> > Jews, most of the male population of whom serves for weeks annually
> > in the reserves for most of their adult
> > lives, and which faces not only 4 million Arab enemies internally,
>
> Ah, so all of the Palestinians are enemies of Israel, even those that
> are Israeli citizens?<

Every Muslim is ipso facto an enemy of ISrael, unless he is of that
very
small minority that accepts that the Israelites mentioned in the Koran
and today's Jews have some historic connection. Look, is every Chinese
an enemy of America? ANd yet you hold up the sale of a few antiquated
weapons
by ISrael to the PRC as some big deal while you arm the Arabs and
other
Muslims to the teeth.

> > literally next door, but also 250 million Arabs and countless hundreds
> > of millions of more Muslim
> > supporters whose main dream is to eliminate the JEwish state. No
> > state, no
> > Sparta, has ever had to face anything even remotely lopsided in all of
> > recorded history. And its main large benefactor, the US, also arms the
> > other
> > side quite well. THAT is the REALITY that Israelis face EVERY day
> > regardless
> > of what you or any outsider not living there may think or imagine.
>
> If you would climb down off that soapbox long enough to actually
> engage your brain and *think* a bit, you would realize that the US
> providing military support to neighboring (and not so neighboring)
> Arab nations is a *good* thing. Ever stopped to realize the degree of
> US control that accompanies those weapons packages? Check out the
> story of the Egyptian plan to conduct a retaliatory strike against the
> Sudanese after that failed assasination attempt on Mubarak a few years
> back. Reports indicate what prevented the Egyptians from acting was US
> refusal to support the operation; all of thast high-tech US weaponry
> requires a pretty good logistical tail to make it effective, and when
> the US says, "no" (which in this case was wrong, IMO; we should have
> let Egypt hammer them), it carries great weight.<

Israel was better off with inferior Soviet equipment in ARab hands.
While the
argument that the US has better control over its more sophisticated
equipment
in Arab hands has some merit, I wouldn't be totally dismissive of Arab
capabilities to eventually master this technology. I'm not that
racist.
The US can always leave the area; Israel has to live there.

> > > forces Israel not only to require
> > > > the $3 billion in aid annually to keep up, but also requires a massive
> > > > internal effort to keep a military reserve and a military-industrial
> > > > complex so heavy and so distortive of Israel's economy, and diversive in
> > > > forcing so much of its talent into arms production, which overall
> > > > is sterile in terms of fostering economic growth, that I honestly wish
> > > > the US, and the rest of the world, would simply impose a GLOBAL embargo
> > > > on ALL AID AND ARMS SALES into the region completely!
> > >
> > > Israel could solve a lot of its own problems by faithfully negotiating
> > > the establishment of a palestinian state in the West Bank and a return
> > > of the Golan to Syria in return for Syrian recognition of Israel's
> > > right to exist and the creation of a security zone under MNF/UN
> > > auspices as has existed in the Sinai since around 78.<
> >
> > The US could have negotiated an end to the Cold War by returning
> > ALaska.
>
> No, it couldn't. You are getting desperate now...hardly surprising
> given that your entire argument seems to be bouyed solely upon the
> force of your own hot air...
>
> > Listen, what you spout is similar nonsense. Islam itself was built on
> > the death
> > of Judaism which it replaces. Islam cannot tolerate a Jewish state by
> > its
> > very nature as it is still interpreted. THAT is the true essence of
> > the
> > conflict, and it has nothing to do with any meager postage-sized
> > parcels of land.
>
> I don't think so, and as we have seen with the treaties between Israel
> and Egypt/Jordan, it does not have to be the case. You seem to be
> hell-bent on taking a ":this is the way it was a thousand years ago,
> so this is the way it has to be now and forevermore." Not very
> logical, IMO.<

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

> Until the Mullahs and Qadis and Imams of Islam
> > recognize the RIGHT of the JEWISH NATION to exist in her homeland, no
> > "returning" of anything is going to lead to any true peace. <

> The return of the Sinai helped lead to true peace between Egypt and
> Israel, so your argument does not seem to meet the test of actual
> events very well.<

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

>
> The issues
> > of land and "settlements" and all of
> > that are negotiable ONLY as details once the FACT of Jewish nationhood
> > in
> > the Land of Israel is truly accepted by the Muslim peoples. All the
> > rest
> > is blarney.
>
> UN Res 242.<

What about it?

> > > If the Egyptians,
> > > > Saudis and other Arab and Muslim states had NO access to advanced arms
> > > > from the West or East, and had to develop and produce all their own
> > > > internally, Israel would be better off even without the aid or arms
> > > > sales to it!!! I am totally convinced of it. The Israeli arms industry
> > > > is way too big, and way too controlled by the US thanks to the aid,
> > > > that overall is a drag on the economy, but nonetheless necessary as long
> > > > as the enemy and hostile Muslim states have access to US and other
> > > > international sources of modern arms. This is why Israel's growth has
> > > > lagged. If the world stops selling the Muslims states $10 billion in
> > > > arms annually, Israel would be able to stop taking $3 billion in US
> > > > aid AND STILL BE ECONOMICALLY BETTER OFF in the long run.
> > >
> > > Face reality--the Israelis don't *want* to see US aid end, it has
> > > become their teat which provides neverending succor. Heck, they even
> > > tried to hold us up over this last conflict:<
> >
> > Face reality, no congressman challenges the end of aid, not because of
> > AIPAC
> > or huge mythical power in Dakota or Kansas, but because $7 billion in
> > annual
> > arms sales, and all the jobs and votes they represent, would go down
> > with
> > a unilateral end to aid.
>
> Sorry, but if that were the case, what of those congressmen who have
> no military industry in their districts (and there are quite a
> few--look at Iowa, Montana, Wyoming, and various districts across the
> rest of the nation. Your argument that this is somehow all tied to US
> defense industry viability just does not hold up.
>
> > >
> > > www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/ 2003-02-24-unwilling-cover_x.htm
> > >
> > > "Israel is seeking $12 billion on top of the $3 billion it receives
> > > annually."
> > >
> > > That is TWELVE freakin' billion dollars...and you think they want to
> > > give up that kind of loot? Again, get real.<
> >
> > LOAN GUARANTEES, not money. Or in plain language, a consignor so that
> > it
> > can get loans on world capital markets at reasonable interest rates.
>
> LOL! When was the last time Israel had to pick up the tab for one of
> these major "loans"? Hmmm?<

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

> > That
> > is not talking about the US forking over $12 billion US dollars from
> > the
> > treasury to Israel and you know it. That is typical BS.
>
> No, it is indeed what was requested, and NO, it was not all for "loan
> guarantees"; they were also requesting *grants*. Do your homework and
> come up with something besides "JGB says so" and then get back to me,
> 'cause from where I stand JGB's record is hurtin' because he can't
> seem to come up with *any* supporting evidence.<

Supporting evidence of WHAT???

Kevin Brooks
July 13th 03, 02:22 PM
(JGB) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > (phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> >
>
> > > > Please. 56 was not forced upon them, and if you are honest about it,
> > > > neither was 67:<
> > >
> > > So you say. Sure, if the US had the West Coast blockaded by the
> > > Chinese or Japanese navy, that would constitute no threat. I agree
> > > that blockading ISrael's only port facing Asia, Eilat, was no threat
> > > to America, but it sure was to Israel. As was the encroachment of the
> > > Egyptian army deep into the Sinai. No threat to America, but a very
> > > great threat to Israel. Kevin knows which are real threats to Israel
> > > because Kevin doesn't live in Israel and hasn't a clue.
> > >
> > > > "As Mordecai Bentov, at the time a member of the Israeli government,
> > > > said, "The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in
> > > > every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation
> > > > of new Arab territory." " Source:
> > > > http://www.wrmea.com/Washington-Report_org/www/backissues/0791/9107040.htm<
>
> Which Came First - Terrorism or "Occupation"?
>
> There were 3000 terrorist attempts before the '67 war.
>
> The following is a partial list of documented acts of Arab
> errorism, all occurring prior to the beginning of the Israeli
> administration of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967:
>

<snip for brevity>

Uhmmm...you seem to have left out:

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

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

>
> > > BTW, did you know that Pakistani pilots downed a number of Israeli
> > > planes
> > > in '67? I don't dismiss either the Jordanians or the Pakistanis if
> > > Israel
> > > had to face them.
> >
> > Odd, but Michael Oren's recent book, "Six Days of War: June 1967 and
> > the Making of a Modern Middle East" (Presidio, 2002), seems to have
> > missed that little factoid (and Oren, being a former Israeli
> > governmental official, would have presumably picked up on that, as he
> > was rather careful to address how all of the regional nations
> > reacted--yet he never *once* mentions Pakistan...). I hate to be
> > repetitive, but any real evidence of this? Given your distinct
> > aversion to providing *any* evidence, that is...<
>
> http://www.scramble.nl/pk.htm
>
> "The Six-Day War between Israel and a number of Arab countries in
> 1967.
> During this conflict the PAF sent personnel to Egypt, Jordan and Syria
> to support the Arabs in their battle against the Israelis. PAF pilots
> managed to shoot down ten Israeli aircraft, including Mirages,
> Mystères and Vautours, without losses on their own side. The PAF
> pilots operated with Egyptian, Jordanese and Iraqi combat aircraft. "

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

>
> > We do face a potential threat, on a regional basis, from the PRC in
> > the not-too-distant future; denying the obvious in that regard will
> > not do you any good. We are following a policy of cautious
> > constructive engagement at present, but that is only going to be
> > successful for as long as we are prepared to be more forceful (and
> > having the PRC realize that) when/if required. Israel's continued
> > provision of late-generation military products and technology to the
> > PRC can hardly be considered a *good* thing by USians, now can it?<
>
> In fact, the presumed challenge of the PRC to the US is as nothing
> compared
> to the challenge of the Muslims to ISrael.

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

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

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

>
> > > The reality is, that Israel is a tiny state comprised of mostly 5
> > > million
> > > Jews, most of the male population of whom serves for weeks annually
> > > in the reserves for most of their adult
> > > lives, and which faces not only 4 million Arab enemies internally,
> >
> > Ah, so all of the Palestinians are enemies of Israel, even those that
> > are Israeli citizens?<
>
> Every Muslim is ipso facto an enemy of ISrael,

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

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

Nope. I like the Taiwanese.

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

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

>
> > > literally next door, but also 250 million Arabs and countless hundreds
> > > of millions of more Muslim
> > > supporters whose main dream is to eliminate the JEwish state. No
> > > state, no
> > > Sparta, has ever had to face anything even remotely lopsided in all of
> > > recorded history. And its main large benefactor, the US, also arms the
> > > other
> > > side quite well. THAT is the REALITY that Israelis face EVERY day
> > > regardless
> > > of what you or any outsider not living there may think or imagine.
> >
> > If you would climb down off that soapbox long enough to actually
> > engage your brain and *think* a bit, you would realize that the US
> > providing military support to neighboring (and not so neighboring)
> > Arab nations is a *good* thing. Ever stopped to realize the degree of
> > US control that accompanies those weapons packages? Check out the
> > story of the Egyptian plan to conduct a retaliatory strike against the
> > Sudanese after that failed assasination attempt on Mubarak a few years
> > back. Reports indicate what prevented the Egyptians from acting was US
> > refusal to support the operation; all of thast high-tech US weaponry
> > requires a pretty good logistical tail to make it effective, and when
> > the US says, "no" (which in this case was wrong, IMO; we should have
> > let Egypt hammer them), it carries great weight.<
>
> Israel was better off with inferior Soviet equipment in ARab hands.

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

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

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

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

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

>
> > > > forces Israel not only to require
> > > > > the $3 billion in aid annually to keep up, but also requires a massive
> > > > > internal effort to keep a military reserve and a military-industrial
> > > > > complex so heavy and so distortive of Israel's economy, and diversive in
> > > > > forcing so much of its talent into arms production, which overall
> > > > > is sterile in terms of fostering economic growth, that I honestly wish
> > > > > the US, and the rest of the world, would simply impose a GLOBAL embargo
> > > > > on ALL AID AND ARMS SALES into the region completely!
> > > >
> > > > Israel could solve a lot of its own problems by faithfully negotiating
> > > > the establishment of a palestinian state in the West Bank and a return
> > > > of the Golan to Syria in return for Syrian recognition of Israel's
> > > > right to exist and the creation of a security zone under MNF/UN
> > > > auspices as has existed in the Sinai since around 78.<
> > >
> > > The US could have negotiated an end to the Cold War by returning
> > > ALaska.
> >
> > No, it couldn't. You are getting desperate now...hardly surprising
> > given that your entire argument seems to be bouyed solely upon the
> > force of your own hot air...
> >
> > > Listen, what you spout is similar nonsense. Islam itself was built on
> > > the death
> > > of Judaism which it replaces. Islam cannot tolerate a Jewish state by
> > > its
> > > very nature as it is still interpreted. THAT is the true essence of
> > > the
> > > conflict, and it has nothing to do with any meager postage-sized
> > > parcels of land.
> >
> > I don't think so, and as we have seen with the treaties between Israel
> > and Egypt/Jordan, it does not have to be the case. You seem to be
> > hell-bent on taking a ":this is the way it was a thousand years ago,
> > so this is the way it has to be now and forevermore." Not very
> > logical, IMO.<
>
> Not I; the Muslims. It is they who have to leap ahead by 1400 years.
> Right
> now too many of them prefer the 7th century.

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

>
> > Until the Mullahs and Qadis and Imams of Islam
> > > recognize the RIGHT of the JEWISH NATION to exist in her homeland, no
> > > "returning" of anything is going to lead to any true peace. <
>
> > The return of the Sinai helped lead to true peace between Egypt and
> > Israel, so your argument does not seem to meet the test of actual
> > events very well.<
>
> It's not true peace.

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

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

Ever heard of Meyer Kahane? Or his followers?

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

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

>
> >
> > The issues
> > > of land and "settlements" and all of
> > > that are negotiable ONLY as details once the FACT of Jewish nationhood
> > > in
> > > the Land of Israel is truly accepted by the Muslim peoples. All the
> > > rest
> > > is blarney.
> >
> > UN Res 242.<
>
> What about it?

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

>
> > > > If the Egyptians,
> > > > > Saudis and other Arab and Muslim states had NO access to advanced arms
> > > > > from the West or East, and had to develop and produce all their own
> > > > > internally, Israel would be better off even without the aid or arms
> > > > > sales to it!!! I am totally convinced of it. The Israeli arms industry
> > > > > is way too big, and way too controlled by the US thanks to the aid,
> > > > > that overall is a drag on the economy, but nonetheless necessary as long
> > > > > as the enemy and hostile Muslim states have access to US and other
> > > > > international sources of modern arms. This is why Israel's growth has
> > > > > lagged. If the world stops selling the Muslims states $10 billion in
> > > > > arms annually, Israel would be able to stop taking $3 billion in US
> > > > > aid AND STILL BE ECONOMICALLY BETTER OFF in the long run.
> > > >
> > > > Face reality--the Israelis don't *want* to see US aid end, it has
> > > > become their teat which provides neverending succor. Heck, they even
> > > > tried to hold us up over this last conflict:<
> > >
> > > Face reality, no congressman challenges the end of aid, not because of
> > > AIPAC
> > > or huge mythical power in Dakota or Kansas, but because $7 billion in
> > > annual
> > > arms sales, and all the jobs and votes they represent, would go down
> > > with
> > > a unilateral end to aid.
> >
> > Sorry, but if that were the case, what of those congressmen who have
> > no military industry in their districts (and there are quite a
> > few--look at Iowa, Montana, Wyoming, and various districts across the
> > rest of the nation. Your argument that this is somehow all tied to US
> > defense industry viability just does not hold up.

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

> >
> > > >
> > > > www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/ 2003-02-24-unwilling-cover_x.htm
> > > >
> > > > "Israel is seeking $12 billion on top of the $3 billion it receives
> > > > annually."
> > > >
> > > > That is TWELVE freakin' billion dollars...and you think they want to
> > > > give up that kind of loot? Again, get real.<
> > >
> > > LOAN GUARANTEES, not money. Or in plain language, a consignor so that
> > > it
> > > can get loans on world capital markets at reasonable interest rates.
> >
> > LOL! When was the last time Israel had to pick up the tab for one of
> > these major "loans"? Hmmm?<
>
> Those are loans that Israel will be making from banks in the
> international
> capital markets. They are not US gov't loans. Israel lost $12 billion
> in the
> intifada (which is the equivalent of the US losing $1.2 TRILLION after
> 9/11)
> and simply wants to borrow on the int'l market, but needs a good
> cosignor
> to get the loans at a lower rate. Israel has never defaulted on a
> loan.

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

>
> > > That
> > > is not talking about the US forking over $12 billion US dollars from
> > > the
> > > treasury to Israel and you know it. That is typical BS.
> >
> > No, it is indeed what was requested, and NO, it was not all for "loan
> > guarantees"; they were also requesting *grants*. Do your homework and
> > come up with something besides "JGB says so" and then get back to me,
> > 'cause from where I stand JGB's record is hurtin' because he can't
> > seem to come up with *any* supporting evidence.<
>
> Supporting evidence of WHAT???

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

Brooks

Kevin Brooks
July 14th 03, 05:56 AM
(JGB) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > > > (phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> > > >
>
> > > Which Came First - Terrorism or "Occupation"?
> > >
> > > There were 3000 terrorist attempts before the '67 war.
> > >
> > > The following is a partial list of documented acts of Arab
> > > errorism, all occurring prior to the beginning of the Israeli
> > > administration of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967:
> > >
> >
> > <snip for brevity>
> >
> > Uhmmm...you seem to have left out:
> >
> > "The Massacre of Baldat al-Shaikh (Dec. 31, 1947) in which over 600
> > unarmed Palestinian men, women and children were slaughtered;<
>
> Never heard of it; never happened. When, where, proof. evidence of any
> kind???

Never happened? Do a Google on it and you will come up with an amazing
number of hits for this "never happened" event. One sample:

"The massacres started early: Major General R. Dare Wilson, who served
with the British troops trying to keep peace in Palestine before the
end of the British Mandate, reported that on Dec. 18, 1947, the
Haganah murdered 10, mostly women and children, in the Arab village of
al-Khisas with grenades and machine gun fire. Wilson also described
how on Dec. 31 the Haganah slaughtered another 14, again mostly women
and children, again using machine guns and throwing grenades into
occupied homes, this time in Balad Esh-Sheikh. [12]

Throughout 1948, the massacres continued: 60 at Sa'sa' on Feb. 15; 100
murdered in Acre after its May 18 seizure by the Haganah; several
hundred at Lydda on July 12, including 80 machine-gunned inside the
Dahmash Mosque; 100 at Dawayma on Oct. 29, with an Israeli eye-witness
reporting that "the children were killed by smashing their skulls with
clubs"; 13 young men mowed down by machine guns in open fields outside
Eilabun on Oct. 30; another 70 young men blindfolded and shot to
death, one after another, at Safsaf the same day; 12 killed at Majd
al-Kurum, also on Oct. 30, with a Belgian U.N. observer writing that
"there is no doubt about these murders"; an unknown number killed the
next day at al-Bi'na and Deir al-Assad, described by a U.N. official
as "wanton slaying without provocation"; 14 "liquidated," according to
the Israeli military's report, at Khirbet al-Wa'ra as-Sauda on Nov. 2.
[13]

A particularly repugnant method of killing employed by the Jewish
militias was the blowing up of houses with their occupants still
inside, often at night. The militia would place explosive charges
around the stone houses, drench the wooden window and door frames with
gasoline, and then open fire, simultaneously dynamiting and burning
the sleeping inhabitants to death. [14]"

Source: http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller3.html

His number at Baldat al-Shaikh (which he refers to by the alternative
Balad Esh-Sheikh) is quite different from that "five hundred" used in
the other report, but then that is just haggling over the *degree* of
guilt, not that it exists.

You might also do a Google on "Stern Gang" and "Irgun" if you are
interested in reading *the other side* of the story... the Israelis
(collective) are hardly innocent lambs when it comes to terrorism and
murder.

>
> > the
> > Massacre of Dair Yasin (Apr. 10, 1948) in which a whole village of 500
> > unarmed Palestinian civilians were slaughtered by Israelis; <
>
> EVen the Palestinians themselves don't use this lie anymore. I have a
> BBC tape where the villagers were interviewed, and altogether, perhaps
> 114 died, including possibly 25 which indeed were executed ("massacred').
> The original figure of 254 was made up by Jewish leftist in order to
> discredit Begin and the Irgun which was a rival of the Ben Gurion and
> the mainstreat leftists who controlled the zionist movement. And even
> the old villagers affirm there were no rapes or mutilations as was
> originally alleged and circulated for decade.

Gee, only 114? I guess that makes it OK then (sarcasm switch to "on"
position). By the way, at what point does an atrocity become an
atrocity, in your opinion? If 114 is good-to-go, then all of those
recent Palestinian suicide bombings don't count either?

>
> BTW, I did not mention the massacres by Arabs of hundreds of Jews that occured
> in the 1920s and '30s, not to mention during the '48 war.

Check out the founding date for the Irgun, if you want to be
completely fair about this issue. How about the killing of Bernadotte?
Was that OK as well?

>
>
> >the
> > Massacre of Lid (July 11, 1948) in which about 426 unarmed
> > Palestinians were slaughtered;<
>
> More fabricated myths of events that never occurred.

You'd call it Lod, and the number of dead, and their status as
combatants/non-combatants, receives different treatment in various
sources. There was reference to the forced eviction of the Arab
civilians by Rabin, who was present when it happened and commented
about the need to use "warning shots" as they herded them down the
road.

>
> > the Massacre of Kufr Qasim (Oct. 29,
> > 1956) in which 50 Palestinian men, women and children were killed; the
> > Massacre of Khan Younis refugee camp (Nov. 3, 1956) in which 250
> > Palestinians were killed and nine days later, another 275 Palestinians
> > were killed..." (Source: www.bsudailynews.com/vnews/display.v/
> > ART/2002/12/03/3dec367c1b9df
> > That too is only a partial list. Rememeber that bit about shades of
> > gray?<
>
> Listen Kevin, most of the stuff you listed either never happened or
> were WILDLY exaggerated,

Given that you think 114 is an OK amount of dead, or for that matter
the 25 that you acknowledge were executed, I am not surprised that you
find this all rather inconsequential. Now, even though you acknowledge
at least one incident of cold-blooded executions, can you tell me how
many Israelis, in the entire history of the nation, have been
arrested, tried, and/or convicted of terrorist-type attacks on
Palestinians? Given that the Stern Gang and Irgun did really exist,
and did really do some rather nasty things, one would think that some
number of Israelis have been held accountable for acts which occured
over the last 50-plus years...but to my knowledge, the answer would be
along the lines of the Bernadotte murder, where the case remains
"unsolved"...but hey, that's OK, right? Israelis are to be applauded
for committing murders and executions, but
by-golly-those-Palestinians-better-cough-up-every-terrorist-RIGHT
NOW...?

just like "Comical ALi's" assertions of no
> US marines in Baghdad. Massive lying is an old ARab tradition.

And apparently a new Israeli one.

> At any rate, if we want to go back to determine who spilled blood first,
> Arabs or Jews, I can confidently assert that Muhammad the Prophet committed
> a massacre of 600 Jews near Medina (Yathrib originally founded by Jews in
> Arabia), enslaving their women and children, robbing them of their wealth, and
> ethnically cleansing the remainder out of the Hijaz (northern Arabia and
> what is now Jordan), an edict which stands to this day. ARabs drew FIRST
> blood, both in the seventh century and in the 20th century. They put their
> mosques on Jewish soil, not the other way round. THere are no synagogues
> on ARabian soil. Arabs are the aggressors; Jews are the defenders.

No, it is not about who was first--it is about realizing that the
violence has gone *both* ways, instead of trying to portray all
Muslims as evil murderers and all Israelis as White Knights. But you
can't admit to that, because it would tarnish your "Israel is
good/Arabs are evil" foundation for this entire discussion.

>
> > > > > BTW, did you know that Pakistani pilots downed a number of Israeli
> > > > > planes
> > > > > in '67? I don't dismiss either the Jordanians or the Pakistanis if
> > > > > Israel
> > > > > had to face them.
> > > >
> > > > Odd, but Michael Oren's recent book, "Six Days of War: June 1967 and
> > > > the Making of a Modern Middle East" (Presidio, 2002), seems to have
> > > > missed that little factoid (and Oren, being a former Israeli
> > > > governmental official, would have presumably picked up on that, as he
> > > > was rather careful to address how all of the regional nations
> > > > reacted--yet he never *once* mentions Pakistan...). I hate to be
> > > > repetitive, but any real evidence of this? Given your distinct
> > > > aversion to providing *any* evidence, that is...<
> > >
> > > http://www.scramble.nl/pk.htm
> > >
> > > "The Six-Day War between Israel and a number of Arab countries in
> > > 1967.
> > > During this conflict the PAF sent personnel to Egypt, Jordan and Syria
> > > to support the Arabs in their battle against the Israelis. PAF pilots
> > > managed to shoot down ten Israeli aircraft, including Mirages,
> > > Mystères and Vautours, without losses on their own side. The PAF
> > > pilots operated with Egyptian, Jordanese and Iraqi combat aircraft. "
> >
> > Uhmmm...do you have anything a bit more concrete? And just how did
> > these Pakistanis manage to go 10-0 during a war where most Arab
> > airpower was destroyed on the ground or never got into the fight?
> > Lastly, why bother? Your point regarding alleged Pakistani pilots
> > involved in the 67 War would be germane to the present issues exactly
> > *how*?<
>
> I don't know how true it is, but the Israeiis did lose 50 planes in that
> war, and Pakis have long proudly claimed that their pilots were among
> the few Muslim pilots that downed ISraeli jets. They make the claim, and
> I have no verification of it, one way or the other.
> Is it germane? Well, it might have something to do with why the US is hesitating
> to supply Pakistan with the F-16s it paid for long ago. That, and the fact
> that I suppose they can carry nuclear weapons.

The first is a non-issue as regards the F-16's; they were embargoed
because of the nuclear program. The US frowns on proliferation...but
Israel? Different view, apparently, as backed up by their cooperation
with the former South African nuclear weapons program...

>
> > > > We do face a potential threat, on a regional basis, from the PRC in
> > > > the not-too-distant future; denying the obvious in that regard will
> > > > not do you any good. We are following a policy of cautious
> > > > constructive engagement at present, but that is only going to be
> > > > successful for as long as we are prepared to be more forceful (and
> > > > having the PRC realize that) when/if required. Israel's continued
> > > > provision of late-generation military products and technology to the
> > > > PRC can hardly be considered a *good* thing by USians, now can it?<
> > >
> > > In fact, the presumed challenge of the PRC to the US is as nothing
> > > compared
> > > to the challenge of the Muslims to ISrael.
> >
> > So now it is all Muslims who are the enemy of Israel? Are you racist
> > much? Uhmmm...what about those *Turkish* Muslims that Israel is
> > selling so much combat power to these days?
> >
> > Pakistan is a nuclear state
> > > with
> > > at least 150 nukes, and Iran soon will be. When you add in Egypt,
> > > Syria,
> > > Saudi Arabia and all the vast numbers enemies of ISrael's very
> > > existence,
> > > the PRC threat to the US is less than a gnat to a whale compared to
> > > the
> > > Muslim threat to Israel.
> >
> > Oh, nooo, Mr. Bill! Nations in the outlying region may become nuclear
> > powers, or already are?! How dare they! That is obviously the sole
> > purview of Israel (which is a nuclear power as well, predating those
> > you mention by a period of decades)... Come on, get real--you are
> > condemning other nations for the very same course of action that
> > Israel has taken?<
>
> First of all, as I have often stated before, nukes are a Jewish invention and
> that fact alone gives ISrael the right to have them.

Now that is perverted logic if I have ever heard it. Nerve gas was a
German invention--does that give Germany the right to posses it?

And all of the other
> states in the region are recognized and no one is threatening to wipe them
> off the map.

Except Israel, with its nukes, right?

I don't think there is a nation on earth, including the US, that
> has a greater right to nukes than does Israel. And Israel has the right to
> preemptively strike at any state in the region that is hostile to ISrael
> and seeking WMD to destroy Israel.

More perverted logic. The way you portray it, Israel is a purely
Machiavellian Institution, and whatever it chooses to do defines
"right", instead of having policies that follow "right".

In fact, i believe the main reason the
> US went to war in Iraq was to avoid a possible nuclear strike by Israel on
> Iraq.

You are joking, right?

At any rate, no Arab or Muslim had anything to do with inventing
> nukes as did Jewish scientists.

More warped reasoning. Israel had nothing to do with the invention of
either the motorcar or the airplane--so they have no right to them?

If Iran or any state in the region threatens
> Israel with WMD it can expect a nuclear attack by Israel at any time. Israel
> is too small to wait to absorb a first strike.

Puhlease...get real.

>
>
> > > > > The reality is, that Israel is a tiny state comprised of mostly 5
> > > > > million
> > > > > Jews, most of the male population of whom serves for weeks annually
> > > > > in the reserves for most of their adult
> > > > > lives, and which faces not only 4 million Arab enemies internally,
> > > >
> > > > Ah, so all of the Palestinians are enemies of Israel, even those that
> > > > are Israeli citizens?<
> > >
> > > Every Muslim is ipso facto an enemy of ISrael,
> >
> > Yup, racist. And not a very original one at that.
> >
> > unless he is of that
> > > very
> > > small minority that accepts that the Israelites mentioned in the Koran
> > > and today's Jews have some historic connection. Look, is every Chinese
> > > an enemy of America?
> >
> > Nope. I like the Taiwanese.<
>
> WE defend the Taiwanese more than we defend Israel.

LOL! Harken back to 73 and the DEFCON status that Nixon placed us at
in response to Soviet rumblings vis-a-vis the Yom Kippur War. Recall
that US Patriots and crews went to Israel during ODS. And remember
that we are not giving Taiwan billions of bucks each and every year.
Consider those FACTS, and then you might begin to get a clue...

WE sell Israel's enemies
> military equipment but the US does not sell the PRC military equipment to
> use against Taiwan.

You keep saying that, and then you never can come up with any real
evidence that Egypt or Jordan are really still "enemies" of Israel...

>
> > ANd yet you hold up the sale of a few antiquated
> > > weapons
> > > by ISrael to the PRC as some big deal while you arm the Arabs and
> > > other
> > > Muslims to the teeth.
> >
> > Antiquated weapons? I guess I should expect that kind of laughable
> > description from a guy who couldn't tell the difference beween AMRAAM
> > and Python, and who was quite convinced that not only the US but also
> > the RAAF had deployed the latter. Phalcon sure as heck is/was not
> > "antiquated", nor is the radar that the Israelis are marketing to the
> > PRC for the J-10, nor is the HMSS that they are also trying (if they
> > have not already done so--sort of murky) to sell to the PLAAF. You
> > have been singing the praises of Python, which the PRC produces under
> > license (-3 variant), and we have numerous reports that later models
> > have been, or are being, marketed to the PLAAF as well, but now all of
> > a sudden in order to suit your argument you want to call them
> > "antiquated" as well? Flip-flop much?<
>
> IN terms of OFFENSIVE weaponry, the equipment sold to China was no match
> for US equipment.

But you said we were foolish for not buying Python ourselves, and now
you claim it is an inferior product. Want it both ways, don't you? And
how are Python, Phalcon, that Elbit/Elta radar for the J-10, and that
HMSS all lumped together as purely "defensive" weapons? You are as far
off the mark here as you were when you classified Python (now
apparently a piece of worthless junk, in your opinion) as "AMRAAM"...

At any rate, I reiterate, if the US sells Egypt and Saudi
> Arabia modern equipment, why shouldn't Israel sell to China, Cuba or anyone
> who can pay for it? Israel also sells to the US. So ISrael ought to do
> the same as the US, and arms BOTH sides. Why is this wrong?

Because we are footing the bill. Can the aid to Israel, and they can
sell to whomever they darned well choose--but they should not be
allowed to have it both ways. Kind of like what my father used to tell
me--"As long as I pay the bills, you live by *my* rules." We are
paying the bills.

>
> > > Israel was better off with inferior Soviet equipment in ARab hands.
> >
> > The evidence does not support that theory. While Egypt was being armed
> > by the Soviets they fought two major wars (67 and 73) with israel,
> > while since the US has taken over as a major security partner with
> > Egypt they have fought...nada, zip, none.<
>
> The US already forced Israel to give them back every inch of the Sinai already.
> AND gives Egypt $2.8 billion in annual aid. SO what could they gain from
> attacking ISrael NOW? Unless they felt they could destroy it and get away
> with it.

Exactly. Which proves they are no longer a serious threat to Israel.
Now that was not that hard to admit, was it?

>
>
> > > While the
> > > argument that the US has better control over its more sophisticated
> > > equipment
> > > in Arab hands has some merit, I wouldn't be totally dismissive of Arab
> > > capabilities to eventually master this technology. I'm not that
> > > racist.
> >
> > Yep, you are if you like to use that "all Muslims" brushstroke that
> > you are so quick with.<
>
> All Muslims who say that the Temple MOunt does not belong to the Jews
> at all, and that they have the right to Jerusalem, and that ISrael is
> sitting on Arab/Muslim land is anti-Jewish and hence a mortal enemy, just
> like the Nazis. They deny the right of Jewish existence.

BZZZ! Sorry, you automatically lose this debate by virtue of trying to
use a backhanded delivery of the Nazi Card. Can't win without it, huh?

>
> > > The US can always leave the area; Israel has to live there.
> >
> > Which is why they should learn to be a decent neighbor.<
>
> Israel is living amidst criminals and looters just the same as were seen
> n Iraq, whose only desire is to destroy and LOOT what the Jews built there
> over the last century.

Not unlike the looting of former Arab villages by...Israelis.

It's why the Palestinians left,figuring that the
> Jews would be crushed in a matter of weeks and that they would then be
> able to loot everything the Jews had built over 30 or more years prior to
> 1948. They gambled wrong, and lost, but refused to give up their quest.
> I don't think they ever will. Time will tell.

read a bit and you will find that a lot of them left under duress,
with folks like the Stern Gang and Irgun pushing from behind while the
Palmach did its own share of forced evictions (like Lod).

>
>
> > > > UN Res 242.<
> > >
> > > What about it?
> >
> > It clearly stated that that Israel was to give up those settlements
> > and that land.<
>
> Does not. It says Israel must return occupied territories. It returned
> 90% of them already, but will not "return" disputed lands without peace
> treaties. There is a peace treaty with Jordan. There is no country called
> Palestine to make a treaty with. Syria refuses to negotiate unless it is
> promised everything back in advance. Utter insanity. Why should aggressors
> be allowed to get ALL of the land back, especally when it is disputed land?
> Golan is first mentioned in the bible. Israel does not have to return Jewish
> land, only occupied Arab land.

Yeah, sure. First the nazi Card, now the Bible defense...

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

Sorry, you already agreed that you were wrong about Egypt being a
serious threat.

> I go along with the Bush-Sharon policy that any state now seeking to acquire
> nukes has to be attacked before it gets them.

That is NOT the Bush policy.

>
> Turkey is not an Arab state, though it is Muslim. The ARab muslims are the
> craziest of the lot. They started the whole mess in the first place.

Sorry, you quite clearly said all Muslims. Now you want to say that
Muslims who happen to live in a nation providing payments to Israel
for weapons are OK folks... double standard much?

Brooks

JGB
July 14th 03, 05:29 PM
> > > > Which Came First - Terrorism or "Occupation"?
> > > >
> > > > There were 3000 terrorist attempts before the '67 war.
> > > >
> > > > The following is a partial list of documented acts of Arab
> > > > errorism, all occurring prior to the beginning of the Israeli
> > > > administration of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967:
> > > >
> > >
> > > <snip for brevity>
> > >
> > > Uhmmm...you seem to have left out:
> > >
> > > "The Massacre of Baldat al-Shaikh (Dec. 31, 1947) in which over 600
> > > unarmed Palestinian men, women and children were slaughtered;<
> >
> > Never heard of it; never happened. When, where, proof. evidence of any
> > kind???
>
> Never happened? Do a Google on it and you will come up with an amazing
> number of hits for this "never happened" event. One sample:<

Well, since there are over 50 ARabs for every Israeli Jew so I would
expect
to see their stories more represented than the ISraeli side of them. I
saw no
Jewish or Israeli references so the following is one of the many
dozens of
Palestinian claims I found regarding this alleged "massacre:"

"This massacre took place] following an argument which broke out
between Palestinian workers and Zionists in the Haifa Petroleum
Refinery, leading to the deaths of a number of Palestinians and
wounding and killing approximately sixty Zionists."

[My comment: Up to this point in the narrative, I read about an
argument
and sixty "zionists" being killed.]

"... A large number of the Palestinian Arab workers were living in
Baldat al-Shaikh and Hawasa, located in the southeast of Haifa.
Consequently, the Zionists planned to take revenge on behalf of fellow
Zionists who had been killed in the refinery by attacking Baldat
al-Shaikh and Hawasa.1
On the night of January 30-31, 1947, a mixed force composed of the
First Battalion of Palmakh and the Carmelie brigade (estimated at
approximately 150 to 200 Zionist terrorists) launched a raid against
the two towns under the leadership of Hayim Afinu'am.]2 They focused
their attack on the outskirts of Baldat al-Shaikh and Hawasa. Taking
the outlying homes by surprise as their inhabitants slept, they pelted
them with hand grenades, then went inside, firing their machine guns.3
The terrorist attack led to the deaths of approximately sixty citizens
inside their homes, most of them women, elderly and children.4 The
attack lasted for an hour, after which the Zionists withdrew at 2:00
a.m., having attacked a large number of noncombatant homes.5 According
to a report written by the leader of the terrorist operation, "the
attacking units slipped into the town and began working on the houses.
And due to the fact that gunfire was directed inside the rooms, it was
not possible to avoid injuring women and children."6}

[My comment: They say here that the resultant retaliatory strike COULD
NOT POSSIBLY AVOID hitting women and children. So they admit the
attack was not
specifically UPON women and children, but that they were collateral
damage.]
injuring women and children.


> "The massacres started early: Major General R. Dare Wilson, who served
> with the British troops trying to keep peace in Palestine before the
> end of the British Mandate, reported that on Dec. 18, 1947, the
> Haganah murdered 10, mostly women and children, in the Arab village of
> al-Khisas with grenades and machine gun fire. Wilson also described
> how on Dec. 31 the Haganah slaughtered another 14, again mostly women
> and children, again using machine guns and throwing grenades into
> occupied homes, this time in Balad Esh-Sheikh. [12]<
> Throughout 1948, the massacres continued: 60 at Sa'sa' on Feb. 15; 100
> murdered in Acre after its May 18 seizure by the Haganah; several
> hundred at Lydda on July 12, including 80 machine-gunned inside the
> Dahmash Mosque; 100 at Dawayma on Oct. 29, with an Israeli eye-witness
> reporting that "the children were killed by smashing their skulls with
> clubs"; 13 young men mowed down by machine guns in open fields outside
> Eilabun on Oct. 30; another 70 young men blindfolded and shot to
> death, one after another, at Safsaf the same day; 12 killed at Majd
> al-Kurum, also on Oct. 30, with a Belgian U.N. observer writing that
> "there is no doubt about these murders"; an unknown number killed the
> next day at al-Bi'na and Deir al-Assad, described by a U.N. official
> as "wanton slaying without provocation"; 14 "liquidated," according to
> the Israeli military's report, at Khirbet al-Wa'ra as-Sauda on Nov. 2.
> [13]<

Most of the above is bull, and upon closer examination of the facts,
it is
found that JEws were attacked FIRST, and in the retaliatory strikes,
civilians
caught up were collateral damage, often the immediate relatives of the
original
Arab attackers. It's all the usual Arab claims, that its okay for them
to
attack, but if the JEws hit back it's criminal.

> A particularly repugnant method of killing employed by the Jewish
> militias was the blowing up of houses with their occupants still
> inside, often at night. The militia would place explosive charges
> around the stone houses, drench the wooden window and door frames with
> gasoline, and then open fire, simultaneously dynamiting and burning
> the sleeping inhabitants to death. [14]"<

That's only AFTER the hagana would order them to come out and
surrender,
and they refused. As everyone knows, the Arabs gleefully put up their
own
wives, children and aged as shields, and often dress up as women
(literally)
to try to fool the Israelis who are usually loathe to shoot women and
children,
and will often either escape or strike using such lowlife ruses. I do
feel
sorry for Arab children and wives to have such "men" as their heads of
households.


> Source: http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller3.html
>
> His number at Baldat al-Shaikh (which he refers to by the alternative
> Balad Esh-Sheikh) is quite different from that "five hundred" used in
> the other report, but then that is just haggling over the *degree* of
> guilt, not that it exists.<

No, it is the *USUAL* Arab form of doing business: first exaggerate
the price
or story by a factor of 5 or 10 and then you can haggle down to a more
believable figure. The Arabs are shameless in this and see nothing
wrong with
it. At least the Leftist Jew who lied about the extend of Deir Yassin
only
DOUBLED the number actually killed. The Arabs always start their
exaggerations
or outright lies by an exaggeration factor of 5 to tenfold.


> You might also do a Google on "Stern Gang" and "Irgun" if you are
> interested in reading *the other side* of the story... the Israelis
> (collective) are hardly innocent lambs when it comes to terrorism and
> murder.<

First of all, they came into being LONG after Arab terrorism began,
indeed
well into the late 1940s, long after the first Palestinian leader, Haj
Amin El
Husseini helped the SS murder thousands of Jews in the Balkans, and
after his
planning a concentration camp that he was ready to set up outside
Nablus as soon as Rommel broke through. At any rate, Jewish terrorism,
which
was really lightweight stuff for the most part compared to the Arabs,
was
late in coming and was condemned by BenGurion's Left-wing Jewish
Agency which
helped the Brits to round them up.

> > the
> > > Massacre of Dair Yasin (Apr. 10, 1948) in which a whole village of 500
> > > unarmed Palestinian civilians were slaughtered by Israelis; <
> >
> > EVen the Palestinians themselves don't use this lie anymore. I have a
> > BBC tape where the villagers were interviewed, and altogether, perhaps
> > 114 died, including possibly 25 which indeed were executed ("massacred').
> > The original figure of 254 was made up by Jewish leftist in order to
> > discredit Begin and the Irgun which was a rival of the Ben Gurion and
> > the mainstreat leftists who controlled the zionist movement. And even
> > the old villagers affirm there were no rapes or mutilations as was
> > originally alleged and circulated for decade.
>
> Gee, only 114? I guess that makes it OK then (sarcasm switch to "on"
> position). By the way, at what point does an atrocity become an
> atrocity, in your opinion? If 114 is good-to-go, then all of those
> recent Palestinian suicide bombings don't count either?<

Most were killed when they fired from the homes, and naturally, having
been
given an offer to surrender (though it is said the sound truck got
caught
in a ditch and so the offer may not have been heard by the Arabs), the
Irgun irregulars returned fire and lobbed grenades into the homes from
which
the men were firing from behind their women and children, as usual.
Many men tried to escape dressed as women, and fired on the IRgun
irregulars,
who admittedly were not well trained being most recently arrived
concentration camp survivors, who indeed went overboard in rounding up
some of these
snivelling Arab dogs who would dress as women and fire from behind
their
own children, and had them shot and thrown down wells. There were
about
25 such, with the rest having died in normal battle which they could
have
avoided had they surrendered.

> >
> > BTW, I did not mention the massacres by Arabs of hundreds of Jews that occured
> > in the 1920s and '30s, not to mention during the '48 war.
>
> Check out the founding date for the Irgun, if you want to be
> completely fair about this issue. How about the killing of Bernadotte?
> Was that OK as well?<

When was the Irgun founded? I should think after 1939, certainly long
after
such atrocities as the cold blooded murder of 64 yeshiva students in
Hebron
in 1929 who weren't even zionists. As for Bernadotte, that is a tough
one.
He was using his "Jew savior" status from WWII to try to reverse the
Partition vote of NOvember 1947, which would have reversed the vote
and
quashed the idea of a Jewish state after the UN vote had been voted
on and passed. Should the Stern group have assassinated him for that?
I can't say. I know the Arabs assassinated people left and right for
much
less than that and I don't see why the JEws have to be THAT much
better than
the Arabs. If your opponent is a ruthless, soulless and bloodthirsty,
how
goody-goody can you be? I mean, the US bombed Japanese and German
cities to
rubble even though no US cities were bombed during WWII. Does that
mean
that Americans are more ruthless and bloodthirsty than the Germans or
Japanese? THe answer is, that when you are dealing with ruthless
creatures
you cannot be pristine and expect to win with the help of angels. Even
in the bible that's relatively rare.

(some more Arab fabrications and wild exaggerations deleted for
brevity).


> > Listen Kevin, most of the stuff you listed either never happened or
> > were WILDLY exaggerated,
>
> Given that you think 114 is an OK amount of dead, or for that matter
> the 25 that you acknowledge were executed, I am not surprised that you
> find this all rather inconsequential.<

In battle people get killed. If our troops are being fired upon from
houses in Baghdad, I should hope our troops will not overly risk their
lives.
Of course they ought to throw grenades into the houses and not overly
risk
their own lives trying to sneak inside and overly exposing themselves.
And if some women
and children that their fathers chose to hide behind are killed, well
whose fault is that? It's the fault of those shooting from their
houses,
of course. I mean, what are our troops supposed to do, stage
month-long
Waco siege around every house they are being fired upon from?
As for the 25 actually "massacred" afterwards, their craven
manner,using
women's clothing to disguise themselves, and fire on the Jews, and the
like,
warrant their summary removal from the gene pool.

> Now, even though you acknowledge
> at least one incident of cold-blooded executions, can you tell me how
> many Israelis, in the entire history of the nation, have been
> arrested, tried, and/or convicted of terrorist-type attacks on
> Palestinians? Given that the Stern Gang and Irgun did really exist,
> and did really do some rather nasty things, one would think that some
> number of Israelis have been held accountable for acts which occured
> over the last 50-plus years...but to my knowledge, the answer would be
> along the lines of the Bernadotte murder, where the case remains
> "unsolved"...but hey, that's OK, right? Israelis are to be applauded
> for committing murders and executions, but
> by-golly-those-Palestinians-better-cough-up-every-terrorist-RIGHT
> NOW...?<

Where are the Arab condemnations of Haj Amin El Husseini, Arafat's
uncle,
who worked with Hitler in Berlin in helping him with the Holocaust? A
declared war criminal, no less than any major Nazi SS bigwig, he
ultimately
escaped justice and died peacefully in Cairo in 1974. As a declared
war
criminal at the Nuremberg trials, no one in the Arab world seem to do
much
to help extradite him to justice.
But ISrael is not asking that every terrorist be "coughed up." Israel
is
demanding that the PA disband Hamas and all other terror groups in the
same way that the IRgun, Stern group and others were disbanded and
became
part of the singular IDF after 1949. There can only be ONE Palestinian
militia
and not a myriad of them operating independently, just as there is one
ISraeli army and not a dozen Israeli militias.


> just like "Comical ALi's" assertions of no
> > US marines in Baghdad. Massive lying is an old ARab tradition.
>
> And apparently a new Israeli one.
>
> > At any rate, if we want to go back to determine who spilled blood first,
> > Arabs or Jews, I can confidently assert that Muhammad the Prophet committed
> > a massacre of 600 Jews near Medina (Yathrib originally founded by Jews in
> > Arabia), enslaving their women and children, robbing them of their wealth, and
> > ethnically cleansing the remainder out of the Hijaz (northern Arabia and
> > what is now Jordan), an edict which stands to this day. ARabs drew FIRST
> > blood, both in the seventh century and in the 20th century. They put their
> > mosques on Jewish soil, not the other way round. THere are no synagogues
> > on ARabian soil. Arabs are the aggressors; Jews are the defenders.
>
> No, it is not about who was first--it is about realizing that the
> violence has gone *both* ways, instead of trying to portray all
> Muslims as evil murderers and all Israelis as White Knights. But you
> can't admit to that, because it would tarnish your "Israel is
> good/Arabs are evil" foundation for this entire discussion.<

I don't tarnish Americans by calling them evil just because they
killed more
German and Japanese civilians. I still maintain that in WWII, the
Japanese
and Germans were more evil than the Americans despite the latter.
....

> > > Uhmmm...do you have anything a bit more concrete? And just how did
> > > these Pakistanis manage to go 10-0 during a war where most Arab
> > > airpower was destroyed on the ground or never got into the fight?
> > > Lastly, why bother? Your point regarding alleged Pakistani pilots
> > > involved in the 67 War would be germane to the present issues exactly
> > > *how*?<
> >
> > I don't know how true it is, but the Israeiis did lose 50 planes in that
> > war, and Pakis have long proudly claimed that their pilots were among
> > the few Muslim pilots that downed ISraeli jets. They make the claim, and
> > I have no verification of it, one way or the other.
> > Is it germane? Well, it might have something to do with why the US is hesitating
> > to supply Pakistan with the F-16s it paid for long ago. That, and the fact
> > that I suppose they can carry nuclear weapons.
>
> The first is a non-issue as regards the F-16's; they were embargoed
> because of the nuclear program. The US frowns on proliferation...but
> Israel? Different view, apparently, as backed up by their cooperation
> with the former South African nuclear weapons program...<

That was way back in the 1970s, and only because the Arabs had bought
virtually
all the black African states into going against Israel. This despite
the fact
that in 1958 Israel was the first country in the UN to condemn
apartheid,
and had the largest technical aid assistance program in Africa,
proportionately
speaking. SO it was the perfidy of the black states that forced Israel
to
go over to doing business with SA.


....

> > First of all, as I have often stated before, nukes are a Jewish invention and
> > that fact alone gives ISrael the right to have them.
>
> Now that is perverted logic if I have ever heard it. Nerve gas was a
> German invention--does that give Germany the right to posses it?<

Was it? Or was it a British invention? At any rate, there is an
international
ban against anyone having nerve gas, whereas there is no such ban
against
nukes. What there is is the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty where
countries
that disavow making nukes are allowed to purchase nuclear materials on
the
world market. Since Israel is NOT a signatory, it may not purchase
nuclear
materials, such as reactors, on the world market. Contrary to popular
misunderstanding, the NPT and the IAEA do not make it illegal for
countries
to make nuclear weapons, PROVIDED they do not obtain any materials
abroad.
But if a country has EVERYTHING it needs to make nukes within its own
borders, it has the sovereign right to make nukes.

> And all of the other
> > states in the region are recognized and no one is threatening to wipe them
> > off the map.
>
> Except Israel, with its nukes, right?<

Israel has not officially declared itself a nuclear state, and had not
officially threatened anyone. But Israel has always claimed the right
to
preempt, just as the US now officially does.

> I don't think there is a nation on earth, including the US, that
> > has a greater right to nukes than does Israel. And Israel has the right to
> > preemptively strike at any state in the region that is hostile to ISrael
> > and seeking WMD to destroy Israel.
>
> More perverted logic. The way you portray it, Israel is a purely
> Machiavellian Institution, and whatever it chooses to do defines
> "right", instead of having policies that follow "right".<
>
> In fact, i believe the main reason the
> > US went to war in Iraq was to avoid a possible nuclear strike by Israel on
> > Iraq.
>
> You are joking, right?<

No, I am not. I agree that Iraq did not really pose a direct threat to
the
US. Saddam did pose a threat to ISrael, and if the US did not get rid
of him
using its mighty conventional power, ISrael would have had to do so
eventually
using nukes if it thought Saddam was developing them again.

> At any rate, no Arab or Muslim had anything to do with inventing
> > nukes as did Jewish scientists.
>
> More warped reasoning. Israel had nothing to do with the invention of
> either the motorcar or the airplane--so they have no right to them?<

ISrael has failed as a major manufacturer of planes and automobiles :)

> If Iran or any state in the region threatens
> > Israel with WMD it can expect a nuclear attack by Israel at any time. Israel
> > is too small to wait to absorb a first strike.
>
> Puhlease...get real.<

That's a REAL as I can get. ANd trust me,that's the MAIN reason why
Bush is
involved in the Middle East. It has little to do with oil or any
direct
threat to the US. It has mainly to do with avoiding an eventual
nuclear
war in the ME, if at all possible.

> > > > > > The reality is, that Israel is a tiny state comprised of mostly 5
> > > > > > million
> > > > > > Jews, most of the male population of whom serves for weeks annually
> > > > > > in the reserves for most of their adult
> > > > > > lives, and which faces not only 4 million Arab enemies internally,

>
> > > Nope. I like the Taiwanese.<
> >
> > WE defend the Taiwanese more than we defend Israel.
>
> LOL! Harken back to 73 and the DEFCON status that Nixon placed us at
> in response to Soviet rumblings vis-a-vis the Yom Kippur War.<

Rumblings? That was AFTER the war had already started and the Soviet
resupply of the Egyptians was already going on for days! Nixon didn't
want to be seen as not backing ISrael while the Russians were pumping
in resupplies to the Egyptians, and threatening direct intervention if
Sharon destroyed the Egyptian army! The US STOPPED Sharon from killing
the surrounded Egyptian armies in Sinai from thirst. Obviously, the
US
could not allow the Soviets to unilaterally intervene, but it did
pressure Sharon to let up. If not, SHaron would gone to Cairo and
forced
a surrender of Egypt.

>Rcall
> that US Patriots and crews went to Israel during ODS. And remember
> that we are not giving Taiwan billions of bucks each and every year.
> Consider those FACTS, and then you might begin to get a clue...<

The Patriots were always of symbolic importance, and only recently of
some limited value, though they did shoot down a few friendly planes.

As for not giving Taiwan a few billion bucks, we actually gave Taiwan
a
HELLUVA LOT more INDIRECT aid than to Israel. How? After the Vietnam
war
we looked the other way as Taiwan and the other "Asian Tigers" knocked
off US goods left and right, such as clothing, Apple Computers,
software
in Singapore, etc., to the tune of possibly TRILLIONS of dollars! And
despite
outcries by Apple and scores of other domestic companies, we did
nothing
about the cloning, knockoffs, and intellectual property ripoffs! Why
not?
Because after our defeat in Vietnam, we WANTED the Asian countries
surrounding China to get rich as quickly as possible, to immunize them
against communist
influence. Our domestic producers took a trillion dollar hit, or more.
These
countries didn't just go from rice paddies to chip fabrication plants
like
that, ya know! And this strategy of turning a blind eye in the '70s to
Asian ripoffs of US goods worked like a charm! It's not by a pure
fluke
that Taiwan, with only 20 million people has a foreign reserve SURPLUS
of
something like $90 billion dollars, the largest in the world!
It has more foreign reserves than all the aid the US has given to
ISrael
in 50 years combined! It and it didn't get that way purely from hard
work
and good luck either!

....

> At any rate, I reiterate, if the US sells Egypt and Saudi
> > Arabia modern equipment, why shouldn't Israel sell to China, Cuba or anyone
> > who can pay for it? Israel also sells to the US. So ISrael ought to do
> > the same as the US, and arms BOTH sides. Why is this wrong?
>
> Because we are footing the bill. Can the aid to Israel, and they can
> sell to whomever they darned well choose--but they should not be
> allowed to have it both ways. Kind of like what my father used to tell
> me--"As long as I pay the bills, you live by *my* rules." We are
> paying the bills.<

You've got that ass-backwards! We give ISrael aid in order to CONTROL
its
arms sales and its foreign policy, as well as competition with US
companies.
WE'd much rather give Israel $3 billion in aid than have it freely
sell to whomever it wanted to just as the US does,in order to earn its
own keep by itself.

Quant
July 14th 03, 07:48 PM
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > > > > (phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> > > > >
>
> > > > Which Came First - Terrorism or "Occupation"?
> > > >
> > > > There were 3000 terrorist attempts before the '67 war.
> > > >
> > > > The following is a partial list of documented acts of Arab
> > > > errorism, all occurring prior to the beginning of the Israeli
> > > > administration of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967:
> > > >
> > >
> > > <snip for brevity>
> > >
> > > Uhmmm...you seem to have left out:
> > >
> > > "The Massacre of Baldat al-Shaikh (Dec. 31, 1947) in which over 600
> > > unarmed Palestinian men, women and children were slaughtered;<
> >
> > Never heard of it; never happened. When, where, proof. evidence of any
> > kind???
>
> Never happened? Do a Google on it and you will come up with an amazing
> number of hits for this "never happened" event. One sample:
>

I did a google search on "Protocols of Elders of Zion" and found
numerous sites about it.

I never heard about a place called Baldat al-Shaikh. Where is it?

All the sites talking about this "Baldat al-Shaikh" are sites of Arabs
or leftist extremists. I didn't found even one decent site to pour
info on this subject. It sounds like an Urban legend to me.

There are many other Urban legends. The only story that has a grain of
truth in it is Dir Yasin.

btw, did yiu know that 1% !! of the Jewish population of Israel was
killed during the independence war? In American numbers it would be
2.8 million people.



> "The massacres started early: Major General R. Dare Wilson, who served
> with the British troops trying to keep peace in Palestine before the
> end of the British Mandate, reported that on Dec. 18, 1947, the
> Haganah murdered 10, mostly women and children, in the Arab village of
> al-Khisas with grenades and machine gun fire. Wilson also described
> how on Dec. 31 the Haganah slaughtered another 14, again mostly women
> and children, again using machine guns and throwing grenades into
> occupied homes, this time in Balad Esh-Sheikh. [12]
>
> Throughout 1948, the massacres continued: 60 at Sa'sa' on Feb. 15; 100
> murdered in Acre after its May 18 seizure by the Haganah; several
> hundred at Lydda on July 12, including 80 machine-gunned inside the
> Dahmash Mosque; 100 at Dawayma on Oct. 29, with an Israeli eye-witness
> reporting that "the children were killed by smashing their skulls with
> clubs"; 13 young men mowed down by machine guns in open fields outside
> Eilabun on Oct. 30; another 70 young men blindfolded and shot to
> death, one after another, at Safsaf the same day; 12 killed at Majd
> al-Kurum, also on Oct. 30, with a Belgian U.N. observer writing that
> "there is no doubt about these murders"; an unknown number killed the
> next day at al-Bi'na and Deir al-Assad, described by a U.N. official
> as "wanton slaying without provocation"; 14 "liquidated," according to
> the Israeli military's report, at Khirbet al-Wa'ra as-Sauda on Nov. 2.
> [13]
>
> A particularly repugnant method of killing employed by the Jewish
> militias was the blowing up of houses with their occupants still
> inside, often at night. The militia would place explosive charges
> around the stone houses, drench the wooden window and door frames with
> gasoline, and then open fire, simultaneously dynamiting and burning
> the sleeping inhabitants to death. [14]"
>
> Source: http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller3.html
>
> His number at Baldat al-Shaikh (which he refers to by the alternative
> Balad Esh-Sheikh) is quite different from that "five hundred" used in
> the other report, but then that is just haggling over the *degree* of
> guilt, not that it exists.
>
> You might also do a Google on "Stern Gang" and "Irgun" if you are
> interested in reading *the other side* of the story... the Israelis
> (collective) are hardly innocent lambs when it comes to terrorism and
> murder.
>
> >
> > > the
> > > Massacre of Dair Yasin (Apr. 10, 1948) in which a whole village of 500
> > > unarmed Palestinian civilians were slaughtered by Israelis; <
> >
> > EVen the Palestinians themselves don't use this lie anymore. I have a
> > BBC tape where the villagers were interviewed, and altogether, perhaps
> > 114 died, including possibly 25 which indeed were executed ("massacred').
> > The original figure of 254 was made up by Jewish leftist in order to
> > discredit Begin and the Irgun which was a rival of the Ben Gurion and
> > the mainstreat leftists who controlled the zionist movement. And even
> > the old villagers affirm there were no rapes or mutilations as was
> > originally alleged and circulated for decade.
>
> Gee, only 114? I guess that makes it OK then (sarcasm switch to "on"
> position). By the way, at what point does an atrocity become an
> atrocity, in your opinion? If 114 is good-to-go, then all of those
> recent Palestinian suicide bombings don't count either?
>
> >
> > BTW, I did not mention the massacres by Arabs of hundreds of Jews that occured
> > in the 1920s and '30s, not to mention during the '48 war.
>
> Check out the founding date for the Irgun, if you want to be
> completely fair about this issue. How about the killing of Bernadotte?
> Was that OK as well?
>
> >
> >
> > >the
> > > Massacre of Lid (July 11, 1948) in which about 426 unarmed
> > > Palestinians were slaughtered;<
> >
> > More fabricated myths of events that never occurred.
>
> You'd call it Lod, and the number of dead, and their status as
> combatants/non-combatants, receives different treatment in various
> sources. There was reference to the forced eviction of the Arab
> civilians by Rabin, who was present when it happened and commented
> about the need to use "warning shots" as they herded them down the
> road.
>
> >
> > > the Massacre of Kufr Qasim (Oct. 29,
> > > 1956) in which 50 Palestinian men, women and children were killed; the
> > > Massacre of Khan Younis refugee camp (Nov. 3, 1956) in which 250
> > > Palestinians were killed and nine days later, another 275 Palestinians
> > > were killed..." (Source: www.bsudailynews.com/vnews/display.v/
> > > ART/2002/12/03/3dec367c1b9df
> > > That too is only a partial list. Rememeber that bit about shades of
> > > gray?<
> >
> > Listen Kevin, most of the stuff you listed either never happened or
> > were WILDLY exaggerated,
>
> Given that you think 114 is an OK amount of dead, or for that matter
> the 25 that you acknowledge were executed, I am not surprised that you
> find this all rather inconsequential. Now, even though you acknowledge
> at least one incident of cold-blooded executions, can you tell me how
> many Israelis, in the entire history of the nation, have been
> arrested, tried, and/or convicted of terrorist-type attacks on
> Palestinians? Given that the Stern Gang and Irgun did really exist,
> and did really do some rather nasty things, one would think that some
> number of Israelis have been held accountable for acts which occured
> over the last 50-plus years...but to my knowledge, the answer would be
> along the lines of the Bernadotte murder, where the case remains
> "unsolved"...but hey, that's OK, right? Israelis are to be applauded
> for committing murders and executions, but
> by-golly-those-Palestinians-better-cough-up-every-terrorist-RIGHT
> NOW...?
>
> just like "Comical ALi's" assertions of no
> > US marines in Baghdad. Massive lying is an old ARab tradition.
>
> And apparently a new Israeli one.
>
> > At any rate, if we want to go back to determine who spilled blood first,
> > Arabs or Jews, I can confidently assert that Muhammad the Prophet committed
> > a massacre of 600 Jews near Medina (Yathrib originally founded by Jews in
> > Arabia), enslaving their women and children, robbing them of their wealth, and
> > ethnically cleansing the remainder out of the Hijaz (northern Arabia and
> > what is now Jordan), an edict which stands to this day. ARabs drew FIRST
> > blood, both in the seventh century and in the 20th century. They put their
> > mosques on Jewish soil, not the other way round. THere are no synagogues
> > on ARabian soil. Arabs are the aggressors; Jews are the defenders.
>
> No, it is not about who was first--it is about realizing that the
> violence has gone *both* ways, instead of trying to portray all
> Muslims as evil murderers and all Israelis as White Knights. But you
> can't admit to that, because it would tarnish your "Israel is
> good/Arabs are evil" foundation for this entire discussion.
>
> >
> > > > > > BTW, did you know that Pakistani pilots downed a number of Israeli
> > > > > > planes
> > > > > > in '67? I don't dismiss either the Jordanians or the Pakistanis if
> > > > > > Israel
> > > > > > had to face them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Odd, but Michael Oren's recent book, "Six Days of War: June 1967 and
> > > > > the Making of a Modern Middle East" (Presidio, 2002), seems to have
> > > > > missed that little factoid (and Oren, being a former Israeli
> > > > > governmental official, would have presumably picked up on that, as he
> > > > > was rather careful to address how all of the regional nations
> > > > > reacted--yet he never *once* mentions Pakistan...). I hate to be
> > > > > repetitive, but any real evidence of this? Given your distinct
> > > > > aversion to providing *any* evidence, that is...<
> > > >
> > > > http://www.scramble.nl/pk.htm
> > > >
> > > > "The Six-Day War between Israel and a number of Arab countries in
> > > > 1967.
> > > > During this conflict the PAF sent personnel to Egypt, Jordan and Syria
> > > > to support the Arabs in their battle against the Israelis. PAF pilots
> > > > managed to shoot down ten Israeli aircraft, including Mirages,
> > > > Mystères and Vautours, without losses on their own side. The PAF
> > > > pilots operated with Egyptian, Jordanese and Iraqi combat aircraft. "
> > >
> > > Uhmmm...do you have anything a bit more concrete? And just how did
> > > these Pakistanis manage to go 10-0 during a war where most Arab
> > > airpower was destroyed on the ground or never got into the fight?
> > > Lastly, why bother? Your point regarding alleged Pakistani pilots
> > > involved in the 67 War would be germane to the present issues exactly
> > > *how*?<
> >
> > I don't know how true it is, but the Israeiis did lose 50 planes in that
> > war, and Pakis have long proudly claimed that their pilots were among
> > the few Muslim pilots that downed ISraeli jets. They make the claim, and
> > I have no verification of it, one way or the other.
> > Is it germane? Well, it might have something to do with why the US is hesitating
> > to supply Pakistan with the F-16s it paid for long ago. That, and the fact
> > that I suppose they can carry nuclear weapons.
>
> The first is a non-issue as regards the F-16's; they were embargoed
> because of the nuclear program. The US frowns on proliferation...but
> Israel? Different view, apparently, as backed up by their cooperation
> with the former South African nuclear weapons program...
>
> >
> > > > > We do face a potential threat, on a regional basis, from the PRC in
> > > > > the not-too-distant future; denying the obvious in that regard will
> > > > > not do you any good. We are following a policy of cautious
> > > > > constructive engagement at present, but that is only going to be
> > > > > successful for as long as we are prepared to be more forceful (and
> > > > > having the PRC realize that) when/if required. Israel's continued
> > > > > provision of late-generation military products and technology to the
> > > > > PRC can hardly be considered a *good* thing by USians, now can it?<
> > > >
> > > > In fact, the presumed challenge of the PRC to the US is as nothing
> > > > compared
> > > > to the challenge of the Muslims to ISrael.
> > >
> > > So now it is all Muslims who are the enemy of Israel? Are you racist
> > > much? Uhmmm...what about those *Turkish* Muslims that Israel is
> > > selling so much combat power to these days?
> > >
> > > Pakistan is a nuclear state
> > > > with
> > > > at least 150 nukes, and Iran soon will be. When you add in Egypt,
> > > > Syria,
> > > > Saudi Arabia and all the vast numbers enemies of ISrael's very
> > > > existence,
> > > > the PRC threat to the US is less than a gnat to a whale compared to
> > > > the
> > > > Muslim threat to Israel.
> > >
> > > Oh, nooo, Mr. Bill! Nations in the outlying region may become nuclear
> > > powers, or already are?! How dare they! That is obviously the sole
> > > purview of Israel (which is a nuclear power as well, predating those
> > > you mention by a period of decades)... Come on, get real--you are
> > > condemning other nations for the very same course of action that
> > > Israel has taken?<
> >
> > First of all, as I have often stated before, nukes are a Jewish invention and
> > that fact alone gives ISrael the right to have them.
>
> Now that is perverted logic if I have ever heard it. Nerve gas was a
> German invention--does that give Germany the right to posses it?
>
> And all of the other
> > states in the region are recognized and no one is threatening to wipe them
> > off the map.
>
> Except Israel, with its nukes, right?
>
> I don't think there is a nation on earth, including the US, that
> > has a greater right to nukes than does Israel. And Israel has the right to
> > preemptively strike at any state in the region that is hostile to ISrael
> > and seeking WMD to destroy Israel.
>
> More perverted logic. The way you portray it, Israel is a purely
> Machiavellian Institution, and whatever it chooses to do defines
> "right", instead of having policies that follow "right".
>
> In fact, i believe the main reason the
> > US went to war in Iraq was to avoid a possible nuclear strike by Israel on
> > Iraq.
>
> You are joking, right?
>
> At any rate, no Arab or Muslim had anything to do with inventing
> > nukes as did Jewish scientists.
>
> More warped reasoning. Israel had nothing to do with the invention of
> either the motorcar or the airplane--so they have no right to them?
>
> If Iran or any state in the region threatens
> > Israel with WMD it can expect a nuclear attack by Israel at any time. Israel
> > is too small to wait to absorb a first strike.
>
> Puhlease...get real.
>
> >
> >
> > > > > > The reality is, that Israel is a tiny state comprised of mostly 5
> > > > > > million
> > > > > > Jews, most of the male population of whom serves for weeks annually
> > > > > > in the reserves for most of their adult
> > > > > > lives, and which faces not only 4 million Arab enemies internally,
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, so all of the Palestinians are enemies of Israel, even those that
> > > > > are Israeli citizens?<
> > > >
> > > > Every Muslim is ipso facto an enemy of ISrael,
> > >
> > > Yup, racist. And not a very original one at that.
> > >
> > > unless he is of that
> > > > very
> > > > small minority that accepts that the Israelites mentioned in the Koran
> > > > and today's Jews have some historic connection. Look, is every Chinese
> > > > an enemy of America?
> > >
> > > Nope. I like the Taiwanese.<
> >
> > WE defend the Taiwanese more than we defend Israel.
>
> LOL! Harken back to 73 and the DEFCON status that Nixon placed us at
> in response to Soviet rumblings vis-a-vis the Yom Kippur War. Recall
> that US Patriots and crews went to Israel during ODS. And remember
> that we are not giving Taiwan billions of bucks each and every year.
> Consider those FACTS, and then you might begin to get a clue...
>
> WE sell Israel's enemies
> > military equipment but the US does not sell the PRC military equipment to
> > use against Taiwan.
>
> You keep saying that, and then you never can come up with any real
> evidence that Egypt or Jordan are really still "enemies" of Israel...
>
> >
> > > ANd yet you hold up the sale of a few antiquated
> > > > weapons
> > > > by ISrael to the PRC as some big deal while you arm the Arabs and
> > > > other
> > > > Muslims to the teeth.
> > >
> > > Antiquated weapons? I guess I should expect that kind of laughable
> > > description from a guy who couldn't tell the difference beween AMRAAM
> > > and Python, and who was quite convinced that not only the US but also
> > > the RAAF had deployed the latter. Phalcon sure as heck is/was not
> > > "antiquated", nor is the radar that the Israelis are marketing to the
> > > PRC for the J-10, nor is the HMSS that they are also trying (if they
> > > have not already done so--sort of murky) to sell to the PLAAF. You
> > > have been singing the praises of Python, which the PRC produces under
> > > license (-3 variant), and we have numerous reports that later models
> > > have been, or are being, marketed to the PLAAF as well, but now all of
> > > a sudden in order to suit your argument you want to call them
> > > "antiquated" as well? Flip-flop much?<
> >
> > IN terms of OFFENSIVE weaponry, the equipment sold to China was no match
> > for US equipment.
>
> But you said we were foolish for not buying Python ourselves, and now
> you claim it is an inferior product. Want it both ways, don't you? And
> how are Python, Phalcon, that Elbit/Elta radar for the J-10, and that
> HMSS all lumped together as purely "defensive" weapons? You are as far
> off the mark here as you were when you classified Python (now
> apparently a piece of worthless junk, in your opinion) as "AMRAAM"...
>
> At any rate, I reiterate, if the US sells Egypt and Saudi
> > Arabia modern equipment, why shouldn't Israel sell to China, Cuba or anyone
> > who can pay for it? Israel also sells to the US. So ISrael ought to do
> > the same as the US, and arms BOTH sides. Why is this wrong?
>
> Because we are footing the bill. Can the aid to Israel, and they can
> sell to whomever they darned well choose--but they should not be
> allowed to have it both ways. Kind of like what my father used to tell
> me--"As long as I pay the bills, you live by *my* rules." We are
> paying the bills.
>
> >
> > > > Israel was better off with inferior Soviet equipment in ARab hands.
> > >
> > > The evidence does not support that theory. While Egypt was being armed
> > > by the Soviets they fought two major wars (67 and 73) with israel,
> > > while since the US has taken over as a major security partner with
> > > Egypt they have fought...nada, zip, none.<
> >
> > The US already forced Israel to give them back every inch of the Sinai already.
> > AND gives Egypt $2.8 billion in annual aid. SO what could they gain from
> > attacking ISrael NOW? Unless they felt they could destroy it and get away
> > with it.
>
> Exactly. Which proves they are no longer a serious threat to Israel.
> Now that was not that hard to admit, was it?
>
> >
> >
> > > > While the
> > > > argument that the US has better control over its more sophisticated
> > > > equipment
> > > > in Arab hands has some merit, I wouldn't be totally dismissive of Arab
> > > > capabilities to eventually master this technology. I'm not that
> > > > racist.
> > >
> > > Yep, you are if you like to use that "all Muslims" brushstroke that
> > > you are so quick with.<
> >
> > All Muslims who say that the Temple MOunt does not belong to the Jews
> > at all, and that they have the right to Jerusalem, and that ISrael is
> > sitting on Arab/Muslim land is anti-Jewish and hence a mortal enemy, just
> > like the Nazis. They deny the right of Jewish existence.
>
> BZZZ! Sorry, you automatically lose this debate by virtue of trying to
> use a backhanded delivery of the Nazi Card. Can't win without it, huh?
>
> >
> > > > The US can always leave the area; Israel has to live there.
> > >
> > > Which is why they should learn to be a decent neighbor.<
> >
> > Israel is living amidst criminals and looters just the same as were seen
> > n Iraq, whose only desire is to destroy and LOOT what the Jews built there
> > over the last century.
>
> Not unlike the looting of former Arab villages by...Israelis.
>
> It's why the Palestinians left,figuring that the
> > Jews would be crushed in a matter of weeks and that they would then be
> > able to loot everything the Jews had built over 30 or more years prior to
> > 1948. They gambled wrong, and lost, but refused to give up their quest.
> > I don't think they ever will. Time will tell.
>
> read a bit and you will find that a lot of them left under duress,
> with folks like the Stern Gang and Irgun pushing from behind while the
> Palmach did its own share of forced evictions (like Lod).
>
> >
> >
> > > > > UN Res 242.<
> > > >
> > > > What about it?
> > >
> > > It clearly stated that that Israel was to give up those settlements
> > > and that land.<
> >
> > Does not. It says Israel must return occupied territories. It returned
> > 90% of them already, but will not "return" disputed lands without peace
> > treaties. There is a peace treaty with Jordan. There is no country called
> > Palestine to make a treaty with. Syria refuses to negotiate unless it is
> > promised everything back in advance. Utter insanity. Why should aggressors
> > be allowed to get ALL of the land back, especally when it is disputed land?
> > Golan is first mentioned in the bible. Israel does not have to return Jewish
> > land, only occupied Arab land.
>
> Yeah, sure. First the nazi Card, now the Bible defense...
>
> >
> >
> > > > Supporting evidence of WHAT???
> > >
> > > All of your assertions, i.e., "Egypt remains a grave threat to
> > > Israel", "Israel only sells antiquated military goods to the PRC",
> > > "Begin and Bentov were left-wing radicals whose statements regarding
> > > the 67 War are inconsequential", and maybe "All Muslims are rabid
> > > Israel-haters (except for Turkey, which is OK because they pay for
> > > things from Israel, right?)".<
> >
> > Some Egyptian parliamentarians have called for Egypt to build nuclear weapons.
>
> Sorry, you already agreed that you were wrong about Egypt being a
> serious threat.
>
> > I go along with the Bush-Sharon policy that any state now seeking to acquire
> > nukes has to be attacked before it gets them.
>
> That is NOT the Bush policy.
>
> >
> > Turkey is not an Arab state, though it is Muslim. The ARab muslims are the
> > craziest of the lot. They started the whole mess in the first place.
>
> Sorry, you quite clearly said all Muslims. Now you want to say that
> Muslims who happen to live in a nation providing payments to Israel
> for weapons are OK folks... double standard much?
>
> Brooks

Quant
July 14th 03, 07:54 PM
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > > (JGB) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > > > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > > > > (phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> > > > >
>
> > > > Which Came First - Terrorism or "Occupation"?
> > > >
> > > > There were 3000 terrorist attempts before the '67 war.
> > > >
> > > > The following is a partial list of documented acts of Arab
> > > > errorism, all occurring prior to the beginning of the Israeli
> > > > administration of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967:
> > > >
> > >
> > > <snip for brevity>
> > >
> > > Uhmmm...you seem to have left out:
> > >
> > > "The Massacre of Baldat al-Shaikh (Dec. 31, 1947) in which over 600
> > > unarmed Palestinian men, women and children were slaughtered;<
> >
> > Never heard of it; never happened. When, where, proof. evidence of any
> > kind???
>
> Never happened? Do a Google on it and you will come up with an amazing
> number of hits for this "never happened" event. One sample:
>
> "The massacres started early: Major General R. Dare Wilson, who served
> with the British troops trying to keep peace in Palestine before the
> end of the British Mandate, reported that on Dec. 18, 1947, the
> Haganah murdered 10, mostly women and children, in the Arab village of
> al-Khisas with grenades and machine gun fire. Wilson also described
> how on Dec. 31 the Haganah slaughtered another 14, again mostly women
> and children, again using machine guns and throwing grenades into
> occupied homes, this time in Balad Esh-Sheikh. [12]
>
> Throughout 1948, the massacres continued: 60 at Sa'sa' on Feb. 15; 100
> murdered in Acre after its May 18 seizure by the Haganah; several
> hundred at Lydda on July 12, including 80 machine-gunned inside the
> Dahmash Mosque; 100 at Dawayma on Oct. 29, with an Israeli eye-witness
> reporting that "the children were killed by smashing their skulls with
> clubs"; 13 young men mowed down by machine guns in open fields outside
> Eilabun on Oct. 30; another 70 young men blindfolded and shot to
> death, one after another, at Safsaf the same day; 12 killed at Majd
> al-Kurum, also on Oct. 30, with a Belgian U.N. observer writing that
> "there is no doubt about these murders"; an unknown number killed the
> next day at al-Bi'na and Deir al-Assad, described by a U.N. official
> as "wanton slaying without provocation"; 14 "liquidated," according to
> the Israeli military's report, at Khirbet al-Wa'ra as-Sauda on Nov. 2.
> [13]
>
> A particularly repugnant method of killing employed by the Jewish
> militias was the blowing up of houses with their occupants still
> inside, often at night. The militia would place explosive charges
> around the stone houses, drench the wooden window and door frames with
> gasoline, and then open fire, simultaneously dynamiting and burning
> the sleeping inhabitants to death. [14]"
>
> Source: http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller3.html
>
> His number at Baldat al-Shaikh (which he refers to by the alternative
> Balad Esh-Sheikh) is quite different from that "five hundred" used in
> the other report, but then that is just haggling over the *degree* of
> guilt, not that it exists.
>
> You might also do a Google on "Stern Gang" and "Irgun" if you are
> interested in reading *the other side* of the story... the Israelis
> (collective) are hardly innocent lambs when it comes to terrorism and
> murder.
>


Israelis never perpetrate terror for a purpose of terror. Not even
once in the history of Israel, not even by one organization.

For example, before the Battle of Dir Yasin :
(taken from: http://www.etzel.org.il/ac17.htm)

Strict orders were given to the fighters not to harm children and
elders. Strict orders were given about treatment of captives. It was
specifically ordered to take captive every Arab that will surrender.
On an armored car a loudspeaker was installed and the Israelis
announced when they approached that anyone who will leave the village
will not be hurt. Israel lost 1% of its population in this war and
that the fightings were done by several different organizations and by
untrained civilians (we didn't have one organised army then). The
measures taken before the battle are something you won't find in other
places in history in similar situations. This battle is the only known
battle were Arab were murdered, or massacred if you want to, and still
the stories about rapes etc. are lies.


Urban legends were born on 2002 too, for example on the battle in
Jenin. Strict measures not to harm citizens were enacted by the IDF,
and still we all know the Urban legends of Jenin. On 2002 for a
change, Israel had the technology to prove the Arab lies and
photographed a fake funeral of Arabs in Jenin.



> >
> > > the
> > > Massacre of Dair Yasin (Apr. 10, 1948) in which a whole village of 500
> > > unarmed Palestinian civilians were slaughtered by Israelis; <
> >
> > EVen the Palestinians themselves don't use this lie anymore. I have a
> > BBC tape where the villagers were interviewed, and altogether, perhaps
> > 114 died, including possibly 25 which indeed were executed ("massacred').
> > The original figure of 254 was made up by Jewish leftist in order to
> > discredit Begin and the Irgun which was a rival of the Ben Gurion and
> > the mainstreat leftists who controlled the zionist movement. And even
> > the old villagers affirm there were no rapes or mutilations as was
> > originally alleged and circulated for decade.
>
> Gee, only 114? I guess that makes it OK then (sarcasm switch to "on"
> position). By the way, at what point does an atrocity become an
> atrocity, in your opinion? If 114 is good-to-go, then all of those
> recent Palestinian suicide bombings don't count either?
>
> >
> > BTW, I did not mention the massacres by Arabs of hundreds of Jews that occured
> > in the 1920s and '30s, not to mention during the '48 war.
>
> Check out the founding date for the Irgun, if you want to be
> completely fair about this issue. How about the killing of Bernadotte?
> Was that OK as well?
>
> >
> >
> > >the
> > > Massacre of Lid (July 11, 1948) in which about 426 unarmed
> > > Palestinians were slaughtered;<
> >
> > More fabricated myths of events that never occurred.
>
> You'd call it Lod, and the number of dead, and their status as
> combatants/non-combatants, receives different treatment in various
> sources. There was reference to the forced eviction of the Arab
> civilians by Rabin, who was present when it happened and commented
> about the need to use "warning shots" as they herded them down the
> road.
>
> >
> > > the Massacre of Kufr Qasim (Oct. 29,
> > > 1956) in which 50 Palestinian men, women and children were killed; the
> > > Massacre of Khan Younis refugee camp (Nov. 3, 1956) in which 250
> > > Palestinians were killed and nine days later, another 275 Palestinians
> > > were killed..." (Source: www.bsudailynews.com/vnews/display.v/
> > > ART/2002/12/03/3dec367c1b9df
> > > That too is only a partial list. Rememeber that bit about shades of
> > > gray?<
> >
> > Listen Kevin, most of the stuff you listed either never happened or
> > were WILDLY exaggerated,
>
> Given that you think 114 is an OK amount of dead, or for that matter
> the 25 that you acknowledge were executed, I am not surprised that you
> find this all rather inconsequential. Now, even though you acknowledge
> at least one incident of cold-blooded executions, can you tell me how
> many Israelis, in the entire history of the nation, have been
> arrested, tried, and/or convicted of terrorist-type attacks on
> Palestinians? Given that the Stern Gang and Irgun did really exist,
> and did really do some rather nasty things, one would think that some
> number of Israelis have been held accountable for acts which occured
> over the last 50-plus years...but to my knowledge, the answer would be
> along the lines of the Bernadotte murder, where the case remains
> "unsolved"...but hey, that's OK, right? Israelis are to be applauded
> for committing murders and executions, but
> by-golly-those-Palestinians-better-cough-up-every-terrorist-RIGHT
> NOW...?
>
> just like "Comical ALi's" assertions of no
> > US marines in Baghdad. Massive lying is an old ARab tradition.
>
> And apparently a new Israeli one.
>
> > At any rate, if we want to go back to determine who spilled blood first,
> > Arabs or Jews, I can confidently assert that Muhammad the Prophet committed
> > a massacre of 600 Jews near Medina (Yathrib originally founded by Jews in
> > Arabia), enslaving their women and children, robbing them of their wealth, and
> > ethnically cleansing the remainder out of the Hijaz (northern Arabia and
> > what is now Jordan), an edict which stands to this day. ARabs drew FIRST
> > blood, both in the seventh century and in the 20th century. They put their
> > mosques on Jewish soil, not the other way round. THere are no synagogues
> > on ARabian soil. Arabs are the aggressors; Jews are the defenders.
>
> No, it is not about who was first--it is about realizing that the
> violence has gone *both* ways, instead of trying to portray all
> Muslims as evil murderers and all Israelis as White Knights. But you
> can't admit to that, because it would tarnish your "Israel is
> good/Arabs are evil" foundation for this entire discussion.
>
> >
> > > > > > BTW, did you know that Pakistani pilots downed a number of Israeli
> > > > > > planes
> > > > > > in '67? I don't dismiss either the Jordanians or the Pakistanis if
> > > > > > Israel
> > > > > > had to face them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Odd, but Michael Oren's recent book, "Six Days of War: June 1967 and
> > > > > the Making of a Modern Middle East" (Presidio, 2002), seems to have
> > > > > missed that little factoid (and Oren, being a former Israeli
> > > > > governmental official, would have presumably picked up on that, as he
> > > > > was rather careful to address how all of the regional nations
> > > > > reacted--yet he never *once* mentions Pakistan...). I hate to be
> > > > > repetitive, but any real evidence of this? Given your distinct
> > > > > aversion to providing *any* evidence, that is...<
> > > >
> > > > http://www.scramble.nl/pk.htm
> > > >
> > > > "The Six-Day War between Israel and a number of Arab countries in
> > > > 1967.
> > > > During this conflict the PAF sent personnel to Egypt, Jordan and Syria
> > > > to support the Arabs in their battle against the Israelis. PAF pilots
> > > > managed to shoot down ten Israeli aircraft, including Mirages,
> > > > Mystères and Vautours, without losses on their own side. The PAF
> > > > pilots operated with Egyptian, Jordanese and Iraqi combat aircraft. "
> > >
> > > Uhmmm...do you have anything a bit more concrete? And just how did
> > > these Pakistanis manage to go 10-0 during a war where most Arab
> > > airpower was destroyed on the ground or never got into the fight?
> > > Lastly, why bother? Your point regarding alleged Pakistani pilots
> > > involved in the 67 War would be germane to the present issues exactly
> > > *how*?<
> >
> > I don't know how true it is, but the Israeiis did lose 50 planes in that
> > war, and Pakis have long proudly claimed that their pilots were among
> > the few Muslim pilots that downed ISraeli jets. They make the claim, and
> > I have no verification of it, one way or the other.
> > Is it germane? Well, it might have something to do with why the US is hesitating
> > to supply Pakistan with the F-16s it paid for long ago. That, and the fact
> > that I suppose they can carry nuclear weapons.
>
> The first is a non-issue as regards the F-16's; they were embargoed
> because of the nuclear program. The US frowns on proliferation...but
> Israel? Different view, apparently, as backed up by their cooperation
> with the former South African nuclear weapons program...
>
> >
> > > > > We do face a potential threat, on a regional basis, from the PRC in
> > > > > the not-too-distant future; denying the obvious in that regard will
> > > > > not do you any good. We are following a policy of cautious
> > > > > constructive engagement at present, but that is only going to be
> > > > > successful for as long as we are prepared to be more forceful (and
> > > > > having the PRC realize that) when/if required. Israel's continued
> > > > > provision of late-generation military products and technology to the
> > > > > PRC can hardly be considered a *good* thing by USians, now can it?<
> > > >
> > > > In fact, the presumed challenge of the PRC to the US is as nothing
> > > > compared
> > > > to the challenge of the Muslims to ISrael.
> > >
> > > So now it is all Muslims who are the enemy of Israel? Are you racist
> > > much? Uhmmm...what about those *Turkish* Muslims that Israel is
> > > selling so much combat power to these days?
> > >
> > > Pakistan is a nuclear state
> > > > with
> > > > at least 150 nukes, and Iran soon will be. When you add in Egypt,
> > > > Syria,
> > > > Saudi Arabia and all the vast numbers enemies of ISrael's very
> > > > existence,
> > > > the PRC threat to the US is less than a gnat to a whale compared to
> > > > the
> > > > Muslim threat to Israel.
> > >
> > > Oh, nooo, Mr. Bill! Nations in the outlying region may become nuclear
> > > powers, or already are?! How dare they! That is obviously the sole
> > > purview of Israel (which is a nuclear power as well, predating those
> > > you mention by a period of decades)... Come on, get real--you are
> > > condemning other nations for the very same course of action that
> > > Israel has taken?<
> >
> > First of all, as I have often stated before, nukes are a Jewish invention and
> > that fact alone gives ISrael the right to have them.
>
> Now that is perverted logic if I have ever heard it. Nerve gas was a
> German invention--does that give Germany the right to posses it?
>
> And all of the other
> > states in the region are recognized and no one is threatening to wipe them
> > off the map.
>
> Except Israel, with its nukes, right?
>
> I don't think there is a nation on earth, including the US, that
> > has a greater right to nukes than does Israel. And Israel has the right to
> > preemptively strike at any state in the region that is hostile to ISrael
> > and seeking WMD to destroy Israel.
>
> More perverted logic. The way you portray it, Israel is a purely
> Machiavellian Institution, and whatever it chooses to do defines
> "right", instead of having policies that follow "right".
>
> In fact, i believe the main reason the
> > US went to war in Iraq was to avoid a possible nuclear strike by Israel on
> > Iraq.
>
> You are joking, right?
>
> At any rate, no Arab or Muslim had anything to do with inventing
> > nukes as did Jewish scientists.
>
> More warped reasoning. Israel had nothing to do with the invention of
> either the motorcar or the airplane--so they have no right to them?
>
> If Iran or any state in the region threatens
> > Israel with WMD it can expect a nuclear attack by Israel at any time. Israel
> > is too small to wait to absorb a first strike.
>
> Puhlease...get real.
>
> >
> >
> > > > > > The reality is, that Israel is a tiny state comprised of mostly 5
> > > > > > million
> > > > > > Jews, most of the male population of whom serves for weeks annually
> > > > > > in the reserves for most of their adult
> > > > > > lives, and which faces not only 4 million Arab enemies internally,
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, so all of the Palestinians are enemies of Israel, even those that
> > > > > are Israeli citizens?<
> > > >
> > > > Every Muslim is ipso facto an enemy of ISrael,
> > >
> > > Yup, racist. And not a very original one at that.
> > >
> > > unless he is of that
> > > > very
> > > > small minority that accepts that the Israelites mentioned in the Koran
> > > > and today's Jews have some historic connection. Look, is every Chinese
> > > > an enemy of America?
> > >
> > > Nope. I like the Taiwanese.<
> >
> > WE defend the Taiwanese more than we defend Israel.
>
> LOL! Harken back to 73 and the DEFCON status that Nixon placed us at
> in response to Soviet rumblings vis-a-vis the Yom Kippur War. Recall
> that US Patriots and crews went to Israel during ODS. And remember
> that we are not giving Taiwan billions of bucks each and every year.
> Consider those FACTS, and then you might begin to get a clue...
>
> WE sell Israel's enemies
> > military equipment but the US does not sell the PRC military equipment to
> > use against Taiwan.
>
> You keep saying that, and then you never can come up with any real
> evidence that Egypt or Jordan are really still "enemies" of Israel...
>
> >
> > > ANd yet you hold up the sale of a few antiquated
> > > > weapons
> > > > by ISrael to the PRC as some big deal while you arm the Arabs and
> > > > other
> > > > Muslims to the teeth.
> > >
> > > Antiquated weapons? I guess I should expect that kind of laughable
> > > description from a guy who couldn't tell the difference beween AMRAAM
> > > and Python, and who was quite convinced that not only the US but also
> > > the RAAF had deployed the latter. Phalcon sure as heck is/was not
> > > "antiquated", nor is the radar that the Israelis are marketing to the
> > > PRC for the J-10, nor is the HMSS that they are also trying (if they
> > > have not already done so--sort of murky) to sell to the PLAAF. You
> > > have been singing the praises of Python, which the PRC produces under
> > > license (-3 variant), and we have numerous reports that later models
> > > have been, or are being, marketed to the PLAAF as well, but now all of
> > > a sudden in order to suit your argument you want to call them
> > > "antiquated" as well? Flip-flop much?<
> >
> > IN terms of OFFENSIVE weaponry, the equipment sold to China was no match
> > for US equipment.
>
> But you said we were foolish for not buying Python ourselves, and now
> you claim it is an inferior product. Want it both ways, don't you? And
> how are Python, Phalcon, that Elbit/Elta radar for the J-10, and that
> HMSS all lumped together as purely "defensive" weapons? You are as far
> off the mark here as you were when you classified Python (now
> apparently a piece of worthless junk, in your opinion) as "AMRAAM"...
>
> At any rate, I reiterate, if the US sells Egypt and Saudi
> > Arabia modern equipment, why shouldn't Israel sell to China, Cuba or anyone
> > who can pay for it? Israel also sells to the US. So ISrael ought to do
> > the same as the US, and arms BOTH sides. Why is this wrong?
>
> Because we are footing the bill. Can the aid to Israel, and they can
> sell to whomever they darned well choose--but they should not be
> allowed to have it both ways. Kind of like what my father used to tell
> me--"As long as I pay the bills, you live by *my* rules." We are
> paying the bills.
>
> >
> > > > Israel was better off with inferior Soviet equipment in ARab hands.
> > >
> > > The evidence does not support that theory. While Egypt was being armed
> > > by the Soviets they fought two major wars (67 and 73) with israel,
> > > while since the US has taken over as a major security partner with
> > > Egypt they have fought...nada, zip, none.<
> >
> > The US already forced Israel to give them back every inch of the Sinai already.
> > AND gives Egypt $2.8 billion in annual aid. SO what could they gain from
> > attacking ISrael NOW? Unless they felt they could destroy it and get away
> > with it.
>
> Exactly. Which proves they are no longer a serious threat to Israel.
> Now that was not that hard to admit, was it?
>
> >
> >
> > > > While the
> > > > argument that the US has better control over its more sophisticated
> > > > equipment
> > > > in Arab hands has some merit, I wouldn't be totally dismissive of Arab
> > > > capabilities to eventually master this technology. I'm not that
> > > > racist.
> > >
> > > Yep, you are if you like to use that "all Muslims" brushstroke that
> > > you are so quick with.<
> >
> > All Muslims who say that the Temple MOunt does not belong to the Jews
> > at all, and that they have the right to Jerusalem, and that ISrael is
> > sitting on Arab/Muslim land is anti-Jewish and hence a mortal enemy, just
> > like the Nazis. They deny the right of Jewish existence.
>
> BZZZ! Sorry, you automatically lose this debate by virtue of trying to
> use a backhanded delivery of the Nazi Card. Can't win without it, huh?
>
> >
> > > > The US can always leave the area; Israel has to live there.
> > >
> > > Which is why they should learn to be a decent neighbor.<
> >
> > Israel is living amidst criminals and looters just the same as were seen
> > n Iraq, whose only desire is to destroy and LOOT what the Jews built there
> > over the last century.
>
> Not unlike the looting of former Arab villages by...Israelis.
>
> It's why the Palestinians left,figuring that the
> > Jews would be crushed in a matter of weeks and that they would then be
> > able to loot everything the Jews had built over 30 or more years prior to
> > 1948. They gambled wrong, and lost, but refused to give up their quest.
> > I don't think they ever will. Time will tell.
>
> read a bit and you will find that a lot of them left under duress,
> with folks like the Stern Gang and Irgun pushing from behind while the
> Palmach did its own share of forced evictions (like Lod).
>
> >
> >
> > > > > UN Res 242.<
> > > >
> > > > What about it?
> > >
> > > It clearly stated that that Israel was to give up those settlements
> > > and that land.<
> >
> > Does not. It says Israel must return occupied territories. It returned
> > 90% of them already, but will not "return" disputed lands without peace
> > treaties. There is a peace treaty with Jordan. There is no country called
> > Palestine to make a treaty with. Syria refuses to negotiate unless it is
> > promised everything back in advance. Utter insanity. Why should aggressors
> > be allowed to get ALL of the land back, especally when it is disputed land?
> > Golan is first mentioned in the bible. Israel does not have to return Jewish
> > land, only occupied Arab land.
>
> Yeah, sure. First the nazi Card, now the Bible defense...
>
> >
> >
> > > > Supporting evidence of WHAT???
> > >
> > > All of your assertions, i.e., "Egypt remains a grave threat to
> > > Israel", "Israel only sells antiquated military goods to the PRC",
> > > "Begin and Bentov were left-wing radicals whose statements regarding
> > > the 67 War are inconsequential", and maybe "All Muslims are rabid
> > > Israel-haters (except for Turkey, which is OK because they pay for
> > > things from Israel, right?)".<
> >
> > Some Egyptian parliamentarians have called for Egypt to build nuclear weapons.
>
> Sorry, you already agreed that you were wrong about Egypt being a
> serious threat.
>
> > I go along with the Bush-Sharon policy that any state now seeking to acquire
> > nukes has to be attacked before it gets them.
>
> That is NOT the Bush policy.
>
> >
> > Turkey is not an Arab state, though it is Muslim. The ARab muslims are the
> > craziest of the lot. They started the whole mess in the first place.
>
> Sorry, you quite clearly said all Muslims. Now you want to say that
> Muslims who happen to live in a nation providing payments to Israel
> for weapons are OK folks... double standard much?
>
> Brooks

Peter Kemp
July 14th 03, 10:42 PM
On 14 Jul 2003 09:29:34 -0700, (JGB) wrote:


>"This massacre took place] following an argument which broke out
>between Palestinian workers and Zionists in the Haifa Petroleum
>Refinery, leading to the deaths of a number of Palestinians and
>wounding and killing approximately sixty Zionists."
>
>[My comment: Up to this point in the narrative, I read about an
>argument
>and sixty "zionists" being killed.]

Well you're not reading it correctly then. 60 casualties, including
both killed and wounded is what was said, and in almost every battle
(armed or otherwise) the number of wounded far far outweighs the
killed totals.

>"... A large number of the Palestinian Arab workers were living in
>Baldat al-Shaikh and Hawasa, located in the southeast of Haifa.
>Consequently, the Zionists planned to take revenge on behalf of fellow
>Zionists who had been killed in the refinery by attacking Baldat
>al-Shaikh and Hawasa.1
>On the night of January 30-31, 1947, a mixed force composed of the
>First Battalion of Palmakh and the Carmelie brigade (estimated at
>approximately 150 to 200 Zionist terrorists) launched a raid against
>the two towns under the leadership of Hayim Afinu'am.]2 They focused
>their attack on the outskirts of Baldat al-Shaikh and Hawasa. Taking
>the outlying homes by surprise as their inhabitants slept, they pelted
>them with hand grenades, then went inside, firing their machine guns.3
>The terrorist attack led to the deaths of approximately sixty citizens
>inside their homes, most of them women, elderly and children.4 The
>attack lasted for an hour, after which the Zionists withdrew at 2:00
>a.m., having attacked a large number of noncombatant homes.5 According
>to a report written by the leader of the terrorist operation, "the
>attacking units slipped into the town and began working on the houses.
>And due to the fact that gunfire was directed inside the rooms, it was
>not possible to avoid injuring women and children."6}
>
>[My comment: They say here that the resultant retaliatory strike COULD
>NOT POSSIBLY AVOID hitting women and children. So they admit the
>attack was not
>specifically UPON women and children, but that they were collateral
>damage.]
>injuring women and children.

Again reading comprehension not your spaciality. It makes no mention
of the terrorists even attempting to avoid women and children, nor of
them targetting anything except Palestinians. Unless you can point to
a phrase where the specific target was mentioned?

<snip hundreds more lines, without a word on military aviation>

JGB
July 15th 03, 01:07 AM
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, JGB
> > writes
> >If AIM-9X were better than Python then Israel would buy it in preference
> >to its domestic product.
>
> Yeah, right.
>
> No nation is immune to the "home field advantage" argument.<

In most cases, I agree, but with Israel NOT when it comes to such
decisive weapons as air to air missiles, radars, and the like. When it comes
to equipment of secondary importance that are not pivotal to the winning
or losing of a WAR, that may be true. But not when the very EXISTENCE of
your country DEPENDS on your pilots winning every dogfight! I don't think
Americans can understand that because the only existential wars the US
ever fought were the War of independence, the Civil War, and probably
WWII, though we did have British and Russian allies. ISrael generally
has to fight alone and MUST win its major wars or lose the country.
ISraeli pilot MUST have equipment second to none on the planet, or possibly
lose the country, no matter who manufactures it.

Paul J. Adam
July 15th 03, 06:07 PM
In message >, JGB
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>> No nation is immune to the "home field advantage" argument.<
>
>In most cases, I agree, but with Israel NOT when it comes to such
>decisive weapons as air to air missiles, radars, and the like.

Which explains why Israel flew the Mirage III (whose entire close air
combat repertoire consists of "bleed speed so fast the enemy
overshoots") equipped with the 'Helen Keller' Cyrano radar, and armed it
with the Matra R.530? Your argument fails to match the facts...

Examining their procurement history, they've bought (or been given)
whatever they could acquire, depending on who their ally de jour was;
and relied on superior training to get a winning performance. (Not a bad
formula, either).

Their home-grown development work tends to be politically motivated
rather than military-driven - for instance, maintaining an indigenous
AAM capability (and hence local control of supply and development) is
seen as more important than the notionally greater capability of foreign
purchase.

>I don't think
>Americans can understand that because the only existential wars the US
>ever fought were the War of independence, the Civil War, and probably
>WWII, though we did have British and Russian allies.

Who's 'we'? I'm British.

>ISrael generally
>has to fight alone and MUST win its major wars or lose the country.
>ISraeli pilot MUST have equipment second to none on the planet, or possibly
>lose the country, no matter who manufactures it.

By that argument, Israel would never have accepted the M60 tank for
frontline use, let alone kept it this long (to say nothing of the
upgunned Shermans...) Again, the history flatly contradicts your claims.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

JGB
July 15th 03, 07:12 PM
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> (JGB) wrote in message >...
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Most of the above is bull, and upon closer examination of the facts,
> > it is
> > found that JEws were attacked FIRST, and in the retaliatory strikes,
> > civilians
> > caught up were collateral damage, often the immediate relatives of the
> > original
> > Arab attackers. It's all the usual Arab claims, that its okay for them
> > to
> > attack, but if the JEws hit back it's criminal.
>
> Gee, it seems you have been parroting exactly the opposite; any
> atrocity committed against Palestinians by Israelis is OK, but golly,
> heaven forbid the Palestinians do likewise...<

Again! Arabs, starting with Muhammad, drew first BLOOD! Capice? THey killed
Jews first! Unless you can prove to me from ANY source that JEws killed
an Arab first! Even from Islamic literature! He who kills first should not
complain when he gets his desserts last.

> > > A particularly repugnant method of killing employed by the Jewish
> > > militias was the blowing up of houses with their occupants still
> > > inside, often at night. The militia would place explosive charges
> > > around the stone houses, drench the wooden window and door frames with
> > > gasoline, and then open fire, simultaneously dynamiting and burning
> > > the sleeping inhabitants to death. [14]"<
> >
> > That's only AFTER the hagana would order them to come out and
> > surrender,
> > and they refused. As everyone knows, the Arabs gleefully put up their
> > own
> > wives, children and aged as shields, and often dress up as women
> > (literally)
> > to try to fool the Israelis who are usually loathe to shoot women and
> > children,
> > and will often either escape or strike using such lowlife ruses. I do
> > feel
> > sorry for Arab children and wives to have such "men" as their heads of
> > households.
>
> LOL! No, "everybody" does not know any such thing. And wasn't there a
> rather famous case in Lebanon back in the eighties where an Israeli
> commando was dressed up as a woman in order to make a hit on a
> terrorist target? Which means you would be condemning the Israelis as
> well...?<

Yes, former Prime Minister Barak himself did so in his attack in Lebanon.
We do learn, ya know. We learned from the Nazis, the ARabs and everyone
else their ruses used to kill us. The Jews had to learn from their
enemies as we had no experience in such things since Roman times. Naturally
we learn from our enemies. We'd be dead or crazy not to.
>
> > > Source: http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller3.html
> So you are saying it was OK for the israelis to execute those folks,
> right? But the Palestinians are evil for merely exaggerating the scope
> of the tragedy? Odd sense of values you have there...<

Do unto thy enemies as they are doing unto you. America bombed civilians
to death in the hundreds of thousands to win WWII. But America did not
start with bombing of civilian targets. The Nazis and Japs started it, and
the US finished it. Why not?

> > > You might also do a Google on "Stern Gang" and "Irgun" if you are
> > > interested in reading *the other side* of the story... the Israelis
> > > (collective) are hardly innocent lambs when it comes to terrorism and
> > > murder.<
> >
> > First of all, they came into being LONG after Arab terrorism began,
> > indeed well into the late 1940s,
>
> Nope, try the late 30's, IIRC (1936 in the case of the IZL).<

Still well after Arab gangs were killing Jews by the score.
>
> long after the first Palestinian leader, Haj
> > Amin El Husseini helped the SS murder thousands of Jews in the Balkans, and
> > after his
> > planning a concentration camp that he was ready to set up outside
> > Nablus as soon as Rommel broke through. At any rate, Jewish terrorism,
> > which
> > was really lightweight stuff for the most part compared to the Arabs,
> > was
> > late in coming and was condemned by BenGurion's Left-wing Jewish
> > Agency which
> > helped the Brits to round them up.>

> Uhmmm...and how did the Israeli government help in rounding up the
> murders of Bernadotte? How many of those murderers were convicted for
> the atrocity at Deir Yassin?<

I don't know, but if your enemy has no scruples, why should you have more?
Total war is total war. They started it. Don't expect Israel to be Boy
SCouts while they are using every underhanded trick imaginable.

> > > > the
> > > > > Massacre of Dair Yasin (Apr. 10, 1948) in which a whole village of 500
> > > > > unarmed Palestinian civilians were slaughtered by Israelis; <
> > > >
> > > > EVen the Palestinians themselves don't use this lie anymore. I have a
> > > > BBC tape where the villagers were interviewed, and altogether, perhaps
> > > > 114 died, including possibly 25 which indeed were executed ("massacred').
> > > > The original figure of 254 was made up by Jewish leftist in order to
> > > > discredit Begin and the Irgun which was a rival of the Ben Gurion and
> > > > the mainstreat leftists who controlled the zionist movement. And even
> > > > the old villagers affirm there were no rapes or mutilations as was
> > > > originally alleged and circulated for decade.
> > >
> > > Gee, only 114? I guess that makes it OK then (sarcasm switch to "on"
> > > position). By the way, at what point does an atrocity become an
> > > atrocity, in your opinion? If 114 is good-to-go, then all of those
> > > recent Palestinian suicide bombings don't count either?<
> >
> > Most were killed when they fired from the homes, and naturally, having
> > been
> > given an offer to surrender (though it is said the sound truck got
> > caught
> > in a ditch and so the offer may not have been heard by the Arabs), the
> > Irgun irregulars returned fire and lobbed grenades into the homes from
> > which
> > the men were firing from behind their women and children, as usual.
>
> You ought to take up writing really bad B-movie scripts, the way you
> manage to get that "as usual" in.<


They're still doing the same kind of thing in Iraq. Terrorism IS Arab
warfare!!! They've never had any other kind in their history, starting
with Muhammad. They've never been able to fight in organized units the
way western armies learned to do in Greek times or earlier. WEre that
not the case, Israel would never have survived from day one. Arabs appear
incapable of the cohesion necessary to fight in organized units, except
in terrorist type organizations. The English trained Bedouins of the
Jordanian army fared somewhat better, for a while, but even so they seem
to lack the kind of cohesiveness and discipline under fire absolutely
essential to fight in the "modern" ways of warfare, unless, of course,
you consider terrorism to BE the most "modern" form of warfare.


> > Many men tried to escape dressed as women, and fired on the IRgun
> > irregulars,
> > who admittedly were not well trained being most recently arrived
> > concentration camp survivors, who indeed went overboard in rounding up
> > some of these
> > snivelling Arab dogs
>
> Yep, real sense of equitable treatment you exhibit here; dehumanizing
> the other side, eh?<

When they act like humans, I'll attribute it to them accordingly. The
Jordanians acted somewhat better, because they were English trained and
led.

> who would dress as women and fire from behind
> > their
> > own children, and had them shot and thrown down wells. There were
> > about
> > 25 such, with the rest having died in normal battle which they could
> > have
> > avoided had they surrendered.
>
> Your tale is truly spellbinding...but unfortunately, it is only a
> tale.<

It's the truth, unless you have a more convincing story.

>

> As for Bernadotte, that is a tough
> > one.
> > He was using his "Jew savior" status from WWII to try to reverse the
> > Partition vote of NOvember 1947, which would have reversed the vote
> > and
> > quashed the idea of a Jewish state after the UN vote had been voted
> > on and passed.
>
> Bull****. He was trying to come up with a compromise that would allow
> for both a Jewish State and a Palestinian Sate in what is now Israel
> and the Occupied Territories. <

WRONG!!! The Partition was already voted on! An Arab state was already
authorized, as well as a Jewish state!!! But due to the civil war that
immediately erupted (i.e., terror attacks on the Jews) after the
Partition vote in 1947, there was backpedaling. Bernadotte thought he
was trying to avoid bloodshed by trying to gather and file a report that
would have in effect reversed the Partition decision, and possibly put
all of Palestine under UN administration - something the Arabs wanted,
and the JEws certainly did not! The Arabs wanted to reverse the Partition
vote as they wanted an Arab state where the Jews would AT BEST be a
minority AGAIN! That's why the tough decision to "off him" was made by
the underground. Once again, the JEws were to be cheated, this time by a
supposed "Jew lover." They're the worst!


>His last proposal was for the Israelis
> to give up the Negev to the Arabs, while the Arabs would give up all
> of Galilee to Israel. *Both* sides rejected the proposal. As one
> contemporary author has noted, Bernadotte was the target of a "smear"
> campaign orchestrated by those who realized that, while he would be
> sympathetic to the jewish cause, he would also not roll-over
> completely to their every demand and desire. For that, he was
> condemned to die.<

I'm not aware of it.

> Should the Stern group have assassinated him for that?
> > I can't say.
>
> I am not surprised. Your selective moral stance (all things Jewish are
> "good", all things Arab "bad", no matter how distasteful the acts of
> *either* party are) is already well in evidence.<

If the Nazis kill you, you're in your rights to kill them. In the Bible,
the Prophet Samuel berates and indeed takes away the kingdom from Saul
and gives it to David because Saul did not annihilate totally Amalek as
he was ordered, whereas David was called a "man of God" for having stood up
to GOliath and cut his head off! THere is nothing in the OT Hebrew bible
that says that the Jews are to fight with velvet gloves when they
are fighting a mortal enemy who wants to annihilate us.

> I know the Arabs assassinated people left and right for
> > much
> > less than that and I don't see why the JEws have to be THAT much
> > better than
> > the Arabs.

> The Israelis have always *demanded* retribution or conviction of those
> that harmed Jews, but they have a strange history of not applying that
> in the reverse case. Double standard at its best!<

Demanded but hardly got it. How many Nazis died for the murder of 6 million
Jews? A few hundred at most? Where is the eye for an eye?

> If your opponent is a ruthless, soulless and bloodthirsty,<

> Dehumanizing again, I see. How do those adjectives apply to the IZL or
> Stern Gang members?<

They were retaliating, not initiating.

> how
> > goody-goody can you be? I mean, the US bombed Japanese and German
> > cities to
> > rubble even though no US cities were bombed during WWII.
>
> That's war, and conducted within the context of the laws of warfare.<

Bull****. What laws?

> We also held Calley accountable for his actions (or lack thereof) at
> My Lai.<

Was he executed?

> We convicted a US Army sergeant of rape and murder in Kosovo.
> How many Israelis have been held accountable for bad acts? Oh, that's
> right, I forgot: they *aren't* accountable, only the Arabs are...<

How many Arabs were executed for terrorism? Answer: NONE.
THERE is no death penalty in Israel, except for genocide. ONly Eichmann
was executed in Israel. Oh, sure, Israel will target terrorists, and kill
them on the battlefield before they surrender, but once they surrender,
they only get a jail sentence. And often they've been allowed to go in
exchange for something or other, as Hamas is now demanding.

> I have grown tired of what has become a completely off-topic
> discussion, and one that you apply such selective moral standards to.
> What's good for the goose is good for the gander; Israel has sown as
> well as reaped. If you can't bring yourself to face that fact, I am
> sorry for you. Hopefully you at least learned in this set of exchanges
> that the Python is not AMRAAM, Israel does indeed sell advanced
> weapons to the PRC, and neither the US nor RAAF have adopted Python. I
> am afraid the deeper moral issues are too far over your head.
> Adios.<

There is nothing over my head except roof, sky,space, galaxies and God.
I don't claim Israel is necessarily MORE moral than its mortal enemies,
nor do I know why she should be. But overall Israel has little to be
ashamed of when compared to the actions of others who've had much less
provocation. After all, 9/11 was the FIRST time a US city was bombed
by its foreign enemies, at least since WWII that I know of. The US has
not suffered even a minute fraction what Israelis have had to suffer
since 1920, and even earlier. As I said, I think Israel's overall record
has little, if anything in it to be ashamed of.


>

Matthew G. Saroff
July 16th 03, 01:44 AM
"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
>If you think the Aim-9 series of missiles is second rate you ought
>to change your choice of recreational drug. I'm a great fan
>of both ASRAAM and Python but lets not get silly here.
>
It's just that it's an old 5" airframe. With increasing
needs for agility, you require better kinematics (a bigger engine
with more fuel), and the airframe is getting long in the tooth.
The more modern IR AAMS have a 6" airframe, with about
50% more internal volume.
--
--Matthew Saroff
_____ * For a succesful technology, *
/ o o \ * reality must take precedence over *
______|_____|_____ * public relations, for Nature *
uuu U uuu * cannot be fooled." *
* - Richard P. Feynman *

JGB
July 16th 03, 03:36 PM
(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > writes:
> > In message >, JGB
> > > writes
> >>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> >...
> >>> No nation is immune to the "home field advantage" argument.<
> >>
> >>In most cases, I agree, but with Israel NOT when it comes to such
> >>decisive weapons as air to air missiles, radars, and the like.
> >
> > Which explains why Israel flew the Mirage III (whose entire close air
> > combat repertoire consists of "bleed speed so fast the enemy
> > overshoots") equipped with the 'Helen Keller' Cyrano radar, and armed it
> > with the Matra R.530? Your argument fails to match the facts...
>
> And the Super Mystere B.2. An effective aircraft as long as you
> didn't have to go anywhere or carry anything. All the disadvantages
> of a supersonic fighter (The need to monitor AOA closely, and some sot
> so nice pitch-up and adverse yaw characteristics, and a thirsty
> afterburner) combined with the slow speed and limited systems of a
> transonic fighter. Well, I do exaggerate some. Truth be told,
> though, if I had a choice between an SMB.2 nad a MiG-19, I think I'd
> take the MiG.
>
> Oh, yeah, and the Mystere IVA, which could have been an F-86, if it
> exercized and lost some of that weight.
>
> Until 1968 or so, when the first direct U.S> supplies showed up,
> Israel used whatever they could get their hands on, rather than
> whatever was best.<

Well, yeah, I agree that the used the BEST they could get their hands on.
At any rate, they won in each case without much US equipment to speak of.
Which probably speaks as much to the low quality of their opposition as
to their own capabilities. At any rate, they didn't have to face US
first line equipment in Arab hands as they must prepare for in the
even of any future major conflict with the Arab states. Israel can't
count on the US intervening to save it once a fight has begun. It takes
the US MONTHS to move an army of 150,000 to say Iraq, for example. Israel's
wars are usually decided in a matter of days or even hours.

phil hunt
July 16th 03, 04:15 PM
On 15 Jul 2003 11:12:59 -0700, JGB > wrote:
>>[...]
>> Gee, it seems you have been parroting exactly the opposite; any
>> atrocity committed against Palestinians by Israelis is OK, but golly,
>> heaven forbid the Palestinians do likewise...<
>
>Again! Arabs, starting with Muhammad, drew first BLOOD! Capice? THey killed
>Jews first! Unless you can prove to me from ANY source that JEws killed
>an Arab first! Even from Islamic literature! He who kills first should not
>complain when he gets his desserts last.

Just out of interest, JGB, have you ever read Orwell's _Notes On
Nationalism_?

--
Phil
"If only sarcasm could overturn bureaucracies"
-- NTK, commenting on www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_29.html

JGB
July 17th 03, 12:01 AM
(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> On 15 Jul 2003 11:12:59 -0700, JGB > wrote:
> >>[...]
> >> Gee, it seems you have been parroting exactly the opposite; any
> >> atrocity committed against Palestinians by Israelis is OK, but golly,
> >> heaven forbid the Palestinians do likewise...<
> >
> >Again! Arabs, starting with Muhammad, drew first BLOOD! Capice? THey killed
> >Jews first! Unless you can prove to me from ANY source that JEws killed
> >an Arab first! Even from Islamic literature! He who kills first should not
> >complain when he gets his desserts last.
>
> Just out of interest, JGB, have you ever read Orwell's _Notes On
> Nationalism_?<

No. But I would assume that just like 1984, it is most likely dated
and irrevelevant by now. I have always much preferred Aldous Huxley's
"Brave New World" which to me seemed far more prophetic and relevant.
At any rate, is there anything useful from "Notes on Nationalism" that I
ought to know?

Peter Kemp
July 17th 03, 12:12 AM
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:54:26,
(Arie Kazachin) wrote:

>In fact, US made every effort not to make public ANY help from Israel
>in fighting against muslims. We wouldn't know that US B-52s were protected
>(among other things) by Israeli made air-launched decoys if there wasn't
>a small parachute found in Baghdad with "TAAS Jerusalem" printed on it.
>Needless to say, this was only briefly mentioned in the news and never
>repeated again.

The procurement of TALD by the US is something that has been admitted
openly for some years (IIRC it was acknowledged as far back as Desert
Storm in 1991) so any claims the US was trying to conceal such a thing
is misguided. As for it's brief mention, why would it merit more?

Arie Kazachin
July 17th 03, 12:54 AM
In message > - "David Pugh"
-cay> writes:
>
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> The missions had to be flown. They weren't flown from Israel. Part of
>> being a reliable ally is providing bases and flight rights. Israel
>> wasn't useful.
>
>As I recall, the primary reason they were not flown from Israel was that the
>US didn't want to fly them from Israel (launching attacks from Israel
>against a Muslim country -- even if flown by the US -- could have
>destabilized the coalition).
>
>

In fact, US made every effort not to make public ANY help from Israel
in fighting against muslims. We wouldn't know that US B-52s were protected
(among other things) by Israeli made air-launched decoys if there wasn't
a small parachute found in Baghdad with "TAAS Jerusalem" printed on it.
Needless to say, this was only briefly mentioned in the news and never
repeated again.


************************************************** ****************************
* Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: *
************************************************** ****************************
NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name. Sorry, SPAM trap.
___
.__/ |
| O /
_/ /
| | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
| |
| | |
| | /O\
| _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
| * / \ o ++ O ++ o
| | |
| |<
\ \_)
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\_|

Peter Stickney
July 17th 03, 03:08 AM
In article >,
(JGB) writes:
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
>> In message >, JGB
>> > writes
>> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> No nation is immune to the "home field advantage" argument.<
>> >
>> >In most cases, I agree, but with Israel NOT when it comes to such
>> >decisive weapons as air to air missiles, radars, and the like<<
>
> ....
>> >ISrael generally
>> >has to fight alone and MUST win its major wars or lose the country.
>> >ISraeli pilot MUST have equipment second to none on the planet, or possibly
>> >lose the country, no matter who manufactures it.
>>
>> By that argument, Israel would never have accepted the M60 tank for
>> frontline use, let alone kept it this long (to say nothing of the
>> upgunned Shermans...) Again, the history flatly contradicts your claims.<
>
> I thought that in '67 Israel's frontline MBT was the British Centurion.

It was a mix. Centurions, many of them upgunned to 105mm L68 guns,
ex-FRG M-48s, and uprated Shermans, for the MBTs. AMX-13s for light
tanks. Some AMX 105mm SP howitzers, a bunch of M7 105mm SP Hows,
picked up from junkyards around the world, and M3 (WHite Halftrack)
APCs, for the Mech forces. The Infantry folks rode in whatever they
could get, ranging from taxicaps to semitrailers to buses, and had
various flavors of 105mm and 155m towed artillery.

The ex-German tanks wer kinda purchesed in a backdoor manner, too.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Kevin Brooks
July 17th 03, 03:10 PM
(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (JGB) writes:
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> >> In message >, JGB
> >> > writes
> >> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> >> >...
> >> >> No nation is immune to the "home field advantage" argument.<
> >> >
> >> >In most cases, I agree, but with Israel NOT when it comes to such
> >> >decisive weapons as air to air missiles, radars, and the like<<
> >
> > ....
> >> >ISrael generally
> >> >has to fight alone and MUST win its major wars or lose the country.
> >> >ISraeli pilot MUST have equipment second to none on the planet, or possibly
> >> >lose the country, no matter who manufactures it.
> >>
> >> By that argument, Israel would never have accepted the M60 tank for
> >> frontline use, let alone kept it this long (to say nothing of the
> >> upgunned Shermans...) Again, the history flatly contradicts your claims.<
> >
> > I thought that in '67 Israel's frontline MBT was the British Centurion.
>
> It was a mix. Centurions, many of them upgunned to 105mm L68 guns,
> ex-FRG M-48s, and uprated Shermans, for the MBTs. AMX-13s for light
> tanks. Some AMX 105mm SP howitzers, a bunch of M7 105mm SP Hows,
> picked up from junkyards around the world, and M3 (WHite Halftrack)
> APCs, for the Mech forces. The Infantry folks rode in whatever they
> could get, ranging from taxicaps to semitrailers to buses, and had
> various flavors of 105mm and 155m towed artillery.
>
> The ex-German tanks wer kinda purchesed in a backdoor manner, too.

But didn't the Syrians use the old German Panther as late as 56 (if not 67)?

Brooks

Paul J. Adam
July 17th 03, 08:46 PM
In message >, JGB
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>> By that argument, Israel would never have accepted the M60 tank for
>> frontline use, let alone kept it this long (to say nothing of the
>> upgunned Shermans...) Again, the history flatly contradicts your claims.<
>
>I thought that in '67 Israel's frontline MBT was the British Centurion.

Precisely. There's a good argument that the best MBT in the world in
1967, would have been a Chieftain with a reliable engine :) (Something
the Israelis have always shown talent for). Particularly since the
Chieftain replaced the Centurion... Looking at the design choices the
Israelis made with the Merkava (needs excellent protection, lots of
ammunition, top speed doesn't matter too much but does need to be able
to cross bad ground) the Chief would have been a much better bet than
the Centurion.

Certainly supplementing them with US M60s gets you very little: it's not
a _bad_ tank but it's far from "the best in the world". Israel didn't
choose the best, it accepted what it could get and then trained the
crews well.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

Peter Stickney
July 18th 03, 02:29 AM
In article >,
(Kevin Brooks) writes:
> (Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
>> In article >,
>> (JGB) writes:
>> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
>> >> In message >, JGB
>> >> > writes
>> >> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>> >> >...
>> >> >> No nation is immune to the "home field advantage" argument.<
>> >> >
>> >> >In most cases, I agree, but with Israel NOT when it comes to such
>> >> >decisive weapons as air to air missiles, radars, and the like<<
>> >
>> > ....
>> >> >ISrael generally
>> >> >has to fight alone and MUST win its major wars or lose the country.
>> >> >ISraeli pilot MUST have equipment second to none on the planet, or possibly
>> >> >lose the country, no matter who manufactures it.
>> >>
>> >> By that argument, Israel would never have accepted the M60 tank for
>> >> frontline use, let alone kept it this long (to say nothing of the
>> >> upgunned Shermans...) Again, the history flatly contradicts your claims.<
>> >
>> > I thought that in '67 Israel's frontline MBT was the British Centurion.
>>
>> It was a mix. Centurions, many of them upgunned to 105mm L68 guns,
>> ex-FRG M-48s, and uprated Shermans, for the MBTs. AMX-13s for light
>> tanks. Some AMX 105mm SP howitzers, a bunch of M7 105mm SP Hows,
>> picked up from junkyards around the world, and M3 (WHite Halftrack)
>> APCs, for the Mech forces. The Infantry folks rode in whatever they
>> could get, ranging from taxicaps to semitrailers to buses, and had
>> various flavors of 105mm and 155m towed artillery.
>>
>> The ex-German tanks wer kinda purchesed in a backdoor manner, too.
>
> But didn't the Syrians use the old German Panther as late as 56 (if not 67)?

Not Panthers, but Panzer IVs, and Jagdpanzer IVs. Reportedly, some
were still in service in 1967. I don't recall Syria having any part
of the 1956 war, other than providing a haven for the Egyptian Air
Force. Until the attempted forming of the United Arab Republic with
Egypt, Syria was pretty much too poor to buy weapons, and not as
attractive a Soviet client as the Egyptians.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Kevin Brooks
July 18th 03, 05:40 PM
(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Kevin Brooks) writes:
> > (Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
> >> In article >,
> >> (JGB) writes:
> >> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> >> >> In message >, JGB
> >> >> > writes
> >> >> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> >> >> >...
> >> >> >> No nation is immune to the "home field advantage" argument.<
> >> >> >
> >> >> >In most cases, I agree, but with Israel NOT when it comes to such
> >> >> >decisive weapons as air to air missiles, radars, and the like<<
> >> >
> >> > ....
> >> >> >ISrael generally
> >> >> >has to fight alone and MUST win its major wars or lose the country.
> >> >> >ISraeli pilot MUST have equipment second to none on the planet, or possibly
> >> >> >lose the country, no matter who manufactures it.
> >> >>
> >> >> By that argument, Israel would never have accepted the M60 tank for
> >> >> frontline use, let alone kept it this long (to say nothing of the
> >> >> upgunned Shermans...) Again, the history flatly contradicts your claims.<
> >> >
> >> > I thought that in '67 Israel's frontline MBT was the British Centurion.
> >>
> >> It was a mix. Centurions, many of them upgunned to 105mm L68 guns,
> >> ex-FRG M-48s, and uprated Shermans, for the MBTs. AMX-13s for light
> >> tanks. Some AMX 105mm SP howitzers, a bunch of M7 105mm SP Hows,
> >> picked up from junkyards around the world, and M3 (WHite Halftrack)
> >> APCs, for the Mech forces. The Infantry folks rode in whatever they
> >> could get, ranging from taxicaps to semitrailers to buses, and had
> >> various flavors of 105mm and 155m towed artillery.
> >>
> >> The ex-German tanks wer kinda purchesed in a backdoor manner, too.
> >
> > But didn't the Syrians use the old German Panther as late as 56 (if not 67)?
>
> Not Panthers, but Panzer IVs, and Jagdpanzer IVs. Reportedly, some
> were still in service in 1967. I don't recall Syria having any part
> of the 1956 war, other than providing a haven for the Egyptian Air
> Force. Until the attempted forming of the United Arab Republic with
> Egypt, Syria was pretty much too poor to buy weapons, and not as
> attractive a Soviet client as the Egyptians.

Thanks. So the Israelis were not the only military paupers in the
region, at least until sometime after 56. One has to wonder if the
Syrian PzKw IV's ever engaged Israeli Super Shermans in 67 or during
the years immediately prior.

Brooks

Kerryn Offord
July 19th 03, 03:12 AM
Kevin Brooks wrote:
<SNIP>
> Thanks. So the Israelis were not the only military paupers in the
> region, at least until sometime after 56. One has to wonder if the
> Syrian PzKw IV's ever engaged Israeli Super Shermans in 67 or during
> the years immediately prior.
>
> Brooks

"The Tanks of Tammuz" Shabtai Teveth talks about the Centurions firing
on Syrian Panzer tanks in Nov 1964 (p.53 & 75).
The second Nukheila incident... platoon of Centurions was supposed to
support a platoon of Shermans. The Shermans were to engage the Syrian
"old German panzers" at about 800m... A quick read indicates the
Shermans didn't take out the panzers (one failed to make the firing
line) and the Centurions pounced (on the chance to redeem themselves
after the poor showing on the first Nukheila incident) quickly
destroying both panzers (which IIRC were dug in on the Golan heights,
the Israelis shooting up hill...)

Peter Stickney
July 19th 03, 03:33 AM
In article >,
(Kevin Brooks) writes:
> (Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
>> Not Panthers, but Panzer IVs, and Jagdpanzer IVs. Reportedly, some
>> were still in service in 1967. I don't recall Syria having any part
>> of the 1956 war, other than providing a haven for the Egyptian Air
>> Force. Until the attempted forming of the United Arab Republic with
>> Egypt, Syria was pretty much too poor to buy weapons, and not as
>> attractive a Soviet client as the Egyptians.
>
> Thanks. So the Israelis were not the only military paupers in the
> region, at least until sometime after 56. One has to wonder if the
> Syrian PzKw IV's ever engaged Israeli Super Shermans in 67 or during
> the years immediately prior.

It wasn't until the 1960s, and the widespread Nationalization of the
Oil Industry, that the various National Governments in the region
could afford much in the way of weapons. The '56 war, adn the
intervening time between then & '67 saw teh most amazing collection of
castoff & one-offs. (Egyptian Shermans with the FL-10 turret off of an
AMX-13, anyone?) Of course, Israel wasn;t the only place in the
region where things were happening. There was, of course, the very
nasty war that the French were fighting in Algeria, and the
neighboring Arab countries were involved to some extent. The Iraqis
made a couple of attempts to take Kuwait, one of which was staved off
by the rapid introsuction of a British force of Paratroopers, the
Royal Tanks, and the RAF Transport Command's Mibile Strike Force of
Hunters. We ended up deploying an Airborne Task Force, and a Marine
Regiment to Lebanon, (Some nice film of the Marine Landing Craft
storming ashore, with the Marines being met by women in bikinis and
Ice Cream vendors came out of this. All invasions should work out
that way. Oh, yeah, and how Lebanon has changed) The Jordanians,
with King Hussein's remarkable diplomacy, managed to stay aloof, more
or less, and build up a small but very professional Army and Air
Force.
Figuring out Orbats & TO&E data must have driven the S-2 folks nuts.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Google