Ex Tank
My information comes from A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson.
Regarding ealy support of the UN resolution, he writes:
While discussing the numerous attacks and battles from 1948-1967, Johnson doesn’t discuss arms shipments by the US (or anyone for that matter), other than noting that the Soviet union started arming the Arab states around 1955. As regards US shipments, I misspoke myself earlier when I said the US started shipping arms after the 1967 war. It was the 1973 Yom Kippur war:
Upon reflection, I have no idea what the status of US arms shipments were prior to this. Johnson doesn’t say we did, but he doesn’t say we didn’t, either…post in haste, repent at leisure. I leave it to my betters to fill in the gaps.
The problem here is that you want to re-define words to mean the opposite of their common usage.
It is simply a fact that Israel proper has never been attacked since 1948. You can’t dispute that. So, what you do is to try to justify Israel’s aggression, calling it “pre-emptive” and what-not. Now, that in and of itself is fine. You can make an argument that Israel’s aggression was justified. Obviously, I would disagree, but you can make that argument.
However, when you say that Israel proper has been attacked, then you enter into the realm of make-believe.
“Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat… First and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play…in our war against the occupier.”
-former Israeli head of state Yitzhak Shamir, Hehazit, 1943; reprinted in Al-Hamishmar, Dec. 24, 1987, translated in Middle East Report, May-June 1988
Do you think Israel has the right to continue to exist?
If the Palestinians were given all the land you think they should have (occupied territories i’m assuming), do you seriously think they wouldn’t still try to destroy Israeli"s?
Chumpsky: how selective of you. You must have conveniently missed this from the same post:
The reason you didn’t see it is because you didn’t want to see it.
You aren’t interested in truth, or honest debate, Chumpsky. All you want is to continue spreading anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian lies to justify your overdeveloped martyr complex.
As far as the Six Day War went: surrounding a country with a quarter million troops and over 2,000 tanks can legitimately be seen as an act of agression by any other non-Arab/non-Muslim nation in the world.
If Canada and Mexico lined up along the U.S. border with all of their armed forces, and made public statements to the effect that they were going to wipe the U.S.A. off of the map, then we would have every right to launch a pre-emptive attack rather than just sit and wait for them. Any country would.
He’s using the 1948 UN mandate borders. Technically, these have never been violated during war by the opposing Arabs. Soi I suppose that is how he is justifying his delusion.
However, he leaves out the shelling of the original Israeli mandate by Syrian forces prior to the Six Day War. That constitutes an attack, Chumpsky.
This is a red herring. Whether or not somebody believes Israel has a right to exist has no bearing on finding a solution to the current problem.
And, to tell you the truth, I don’t understand what is meant by the question. Do I think that Israel has right to live in peace within secure and recognized borders? Yes. Do I think that the founding of the state of Israel was concomitant with a monstrous crime committed against the Palestinians? Yes.
It’s a stupid question. Some might, some might not. Your racist assumptions allow you to treat “the Palestinians” as if they were one homogeneous mass, which is ridiculous.
I propose that Israel abide by international law, in particular U.N. Security Council resolution 242, which calls for an immediate withdrawal of the territory conquered in the 1967 war.
I basically agree with the rest of the world outside of the U.S./Israel that in the short term the best solution is the two-state solution, with the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and regional security guarantees for all states in the region. This solution has been on the table since the mid-1970’s, and has consistently been rejected by the U.S./Israel. Well, that isn’t quite true, since they have refused to even consider it.
In the end, Israel will only contribute to its own destruction by continuing its brutal occupation of Palestinian land. A monstrous crime committed day in day out cannot lead to any good, especially when there is such a clear solution at hand. Internal decay and demoralization, combined with the growing international opposition will lead, in the end, to Israel’s destruction. This will probably mean the end of life on Earth as well, by the way.
Israel has approximately 200 nuclear warheads capable of hitting at least Russia’s major cities. They also have what they call the “Samson option.” You know, if it all goes to shit, they launch those warheads and take the rest of the world down with them.
Yes, Jews can be evil, just like everybody else. I suppose it was just a matter of time that the old “opposition to Israeli policies” = “anti-semitism” argument was taken down off the shelf, dusted off and thrown into the mix.
By the way, I learned about the Samson option by reading such leading anti-Semites as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and Norman Finkelstein.
Maybe you should actually try credible sources. The Samson option has never been an Israeli policy. Merely an alleged policy. There is no evidence to support it.
Got a cite for that? Because according to all the info at FAS.org, Israel has between 100 and 200 warheads total. They are also believed to have only 50 Jericho 2 missiles, which have the range to reach targets in SW Russia only. Cite.
And, just so you know, the combined nuclear arsenal of the world amounts to about 20,000 warheads (Cite). Even assuming 20 megaton warheads each (which is vastly overestimating the size of the average warhead), the combined megatonnage would be about 400,000 megatons.
Compare this to the 100 million megaton-equivalent asteroid impact at the end of the Cretaceous. You may be interested to learn that said impact did not end life on Earth.
To the original question: Would I support Palestinian guerillas?
Or an Eskimo guerilla, or whatever, in case of attack of their country?
In The particular question I see Israel as a state with the UN boarders. Military actions outside that is an attack.
The following article from yesterday I have a permission to reprint here fully:
Answer: Yes I would give these people, the Palestinians, money for guns, or guns directly.
Everyones duty is to defend his/her motherland.
No, asking for your opinions on the subject is simply that: asking for your opinion. It’s no logical fallacy when the question is explicitly an implied tangent.
Mine were honest questions.
You seem to be so against Israel, thinking its committing horrible crimes.
What if the Palestinians were given the areas you suggest?
What then, would happen if they (some of them) kept attacking Israel?
Would you support suppressing them then?
Youre just following the party line anyway.
Are there any communists who support Israel? No.