I find alot of this confusing, firstly because our media consistently portrays Palestine as the victim and Israel as the aggressor.

A few years ago a news story showed a palestine boy hiding behind his father as bullets were allegedly fired by soldiers from Israel. I naturally felt very angry towards Israel. Then imagine a few years later to find out the the reporters film was staged.

Melanie Phillips has written about this.

Then there was the claim that Israelie jets targetted and ambulance and a picture showed a hole in its roof, without any damage to the interior of the ambulance, it turns out that the ambulance was being used as a rocket launcher.

Whatever else may be said about what is happening in Israel/Palestine the over-riding fact of the matter is that the so caled "settlers" and their world-wide backers and supporters are beyond any kind of rational dialogue.
Why?
Because they firmly believe that Israel/Palestine was (long ago) "promised" to them by their self-serving tribal deity.
They thus have "god's" backing/mandate for their actions.

End of story! No correspondence will be entered into!

JamesH, I presume when you refer to a hoax Palestinian ambulance, you're referring to this story http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance , which is comprehensively reviewed here http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/ambulance-attack-evidence-stands-the-test/2006/09/01/1156817099370.html I think that a report from a real newspaper with a correspondant in Beirut, that includes interviews with witnesses is more credible than a conspiracy theory blog post from the US. But maybe that's just me?

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to post a link to the Melanie Phillips article you mentioned?

It seems like the real campaign being fought in the Middle East is the propaganda war. I'm not sure who's winning, but the truth seems to have gone missing.

Interesting that Israel is disparaged for its treatment of "Israeli Arabs", yet there is no mention of the treatment of Jews and non-Muslims in Arab lands- or the fact that many Israeli Jews arrived there after being chucked out of Arab countries in which they had lived for generations (longer, in fact, than many so-called Palestinians have lived in "Palestine").

One wonders which borders will satisfy the "Palestinians"? Hamas have recently publicly stated (no doubt they say something else in private) that they will accept the 1967 borders, yet the Arabs have been whingeing (and fighting) about the 1967 (and 1948) borders since the formation of Israel.

Why is the world so keen to support Muslims trying to regain the territory won in conquest, of dar-ul-Islam, now regained by its rightful owners? Should we support Osama bin Laden's claim to Spain?

Ho Hum,

What you and those like you ignore is the fact that it was only after two invasions by massive combined Arab armies that the settlers you speak of came into existence. The 1967 6 day war was the second time in 20 years that the combined might of the Arab world tried to exterminate Israel. They gave it another go in 1973.

If you really want to see racism, look to how non muslims are treated in the Arab world. If you hold this beside the treatment of Israeli Arabs and can’t see the difference then you are ignorant and stupid.

Have a look at the Hamas charter if you want to see how truly racist this organization is. Some highlights

>> Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

>> "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

>> "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

>> "After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

Hitlers Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are two of the most popular books in the Arab world. Yet these are the people Lowenstein calls the true representatives of the Palestinian people

Until such times as Arabs stop blowing themselves up in crowded restaurants and schools, I think it is unsurprising that Israelis don’t want to live in the same buildings. It’s an unfortunate fact of the ongoing war.

Actually there are interesting parallels between David and Goliath and Israel and Palestine. While received wisdom is that little David was a brave hero for going out and facing big Goliath, some consideration would show David to have been a coward hiding behind superior weaponry. David, with his projectile weapon, outranged Goliath; and consequently could, and did, stand outside Goliath's range and shot him. Goliath was not only big, but apparently dumb as well - he brought a knife to a gun fight!

Paul L writes "what you and those like you".

What an all inclusive amazing statement. Which by the way is typical of those on the "right" wherever they are---including the "right" wing jihadists.

Such language makes it all the easier to wage righteous "holy" war and thereby indiscriminately slaughter all and everyone.

It is also the kind of mass scape-goating language which was used to justify the "final solution" and the various pogroms against the Jews which were a feature of European history.

And all exercises in mass slaughter and genocide.

And yes such mass scape-goating language is very much part of the vicious Islamic jihadists.

And what do you really know about me besides?

And what has what I said in my original posting got to do with racism?

It is an indisputable fact that many if not most (even all) of the current and more recent "settlers" believe that their ancient tribal deity promised them an eternal claim on ALL the lands of Israel/Palestine. And they are thus acting on that presumption.

As though someone born in say New York or Melbourne has in Reality and Truth anything to do with the more than 2000 year old mutterings of some tribal (cultic) prophet or holy man.

Such a presumption is delusion---plain and simple.

And a very dangerous one at that.

Dangerous because such delusional actions could very well trigger of world war three---seriously.

Meanwhile Real God, the Divine Conscious Light does not choose or favour, or make promises to anyone or any group, large and small.

There never was or is a "promised land" nor a "chosen" people.

There are two ancient adages that sum up the attitude of many Australians to the middle-east conflict.

The first is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The second is that the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

As the muslim terrorists that publicly proclaim Australia as their enemy are also enemies of Israel, and are friends of the palestinians, this makes Israel our ally and the palestinians our enemy.

As for the allegation of "occupation", my dictionary defines the word as applying to a country occupying the territory of another recognised country. When the territory does not belong to a recognised country, it is regarded as "disputed territory". Could a poster please advise the country that is internationally recognised as the owner of the the territories Israel is occupying?

Thanks to Dr Peter Slezak and Antony Loewenstein for their article on the crimes of Israel.

The authors do leave aside a very important question. How do you resolve the situation? The two state suggestion is not an answer since it legitimises the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians then and now and will result in permanent Palestinian Bantustans.

Apartheid foresaw its eventual demise and, under internal and external pressure, the rainbow nation arose.

I see the way forward in all of Palestine as being a democratic multi-ethnic state where all those who want to can live

Israel was not attacked by all the might of arab armies at any time in history. IN 1947 when Israel started ethnically cleansing the Palestinians Israel did not exist, they had a handful of very well armed terrorist groups though who killed and maimed the British and the Palestinians to steal the land.

In 1967 no arab nation attacked Israel, Israel attacked them all the night before and destroyed all of their planes and equipment in just 4-6 hours. This is so well documented that the US Congress papers were published in Haaretz Newspapers last year showing that not only did Israel launch an unprovoked pre-emptive strike, the US were well aware they were going to.

In 1948 the arabs didn't even come to help the 1.3 million Palestinians who owned 94% of the land, in fact Jordan sold out to Israel.

Fair dinkum will you fantasists get over yourselves and get with the facts instead of the drivel?

The book "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" by Ilan Pappe has the maps, the settlements destroyed, photos of Palestinians being driven into the sea while the British and UN watched and took happy snaps and the Israeli's have been tormenting and torturing the Palestinians and Lebanese ever since.

Not one arab has bulldozed the house of any Israeli, settled in their backyard, stolen their land or anything of the kind but Israel has stolen 70% now of Palestine.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html

Exploding the myths.

Marilyn, your post is so unbalanced and full of holes it's almost laughable.

Fact: after Israel's declaration of independence on 14 May 1948 troops from Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Iraq invaded the newly-declared territory.

Fact: in 1973 Egyptian and Syrian troops moved into the Sinai and Golan Heights (areas under Israeli control since 1967) in a surprise attack.

Fact: in 1967 Israel's pre-emptive strike was prompted by Egypt massing 100,000 troops on the Israeli border and calling for a joint Arab action against Israel. How the Israeli response can possibly be considered an "unprovoked" pre-emptive attack, as you put it, I'm not sure.

Marilyn, I appreciate that you feel strongly about the Palestinian cause but igoring the actions of the Palestinians and other Arab states throughout this conflict only serves to discredit your point of view. Both sides have been in the wrong. Things are not black and white as you would have us believe.

Lowenstein knows that the Lebanese Phalangists militia were responsible for the deaths of Lebanese(PLO) civilians in Sabra and Shatilla, even if Israel had control of the area. He would also know of the Damour Massacre 6 years earlier in 1976 during which the PLO massacred maronite Christians. In fact the group known as the Phalangist Damouri Brigade was the one which carried out the massacres in Sabra and Shatilla.

Marilyn

Lowensteins references to Ilan Pappe and the rest of the new Historians are not surprising. However to suggest that somehow they represent a consensus among historians would be entirely inaccurate. Interestingly Benny Morris had this to say about Ilan Pape work “Pappe’s book was "truly appalling," subjugated history to political ideology, and "contained errors of a quantity and a quality that are not found in serious historiography” If you really want to pretend that a communist with virtually no reputation for truth (Pappe) tells the real story then you’ll believe anything.

Benny Morris views the intifada as a "political-terroristic assault on Israel's existence (and also as an offshoot of fundamentalist Islam's ongoing assault on the West.”

Your appalling understanding of the history of Israel’s three major wars against Arab armies is unforgivable in this context. To Spy’s account all I would add is the 1967 Egyptian blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat and the ordering out of UNEF forces. Egypt was undoubtedly preparing for war against Israel.

The Hamas Charter

>> The Islamic Resistance Movement … strives to raise the banner of Allah OVER EVERY INCH OF PALESTINE

>> The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. “

>> Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE EXCEPT UNDER THE WING OF ISLAM

A flash of commonsense, Paull, for your apparent thoughts abut future peace in the Middle East.

It is interesting in an introduction to political philosophy, we are advised to treat government as a successful family.

As one near the end of his days, I do pay much credit to my now deceased wife of over sixty years.

As mentioned in an earlier Post, I did point how my wife was the one who would not accuse so much, but suggest we talk about it, calming me down, especially in front of the kids.

You do also learn similar in political philosophy, whom too many of our contributers term left-wing rubbish.

Just recently, I also picked up info about understanding Israelies risking their reputations by moving into Arab areas mainly offering help in orchards and such.

Could we call these Israelies left-wing loonies similar to those who attend universities trying to learn how to share the blame in the Middle East without war?

Cheers - BB, WA.

BB

I don’t consider political philosophy left wing rubbish, only the self hating strain that you carry on with. You speak as if all political philosophers share the same opinion. That is patently false and indeed is a scary statement as it shows a lack of critical thought. Political philosophy is a broad church with many followers. You speak about political philosophy as if it were somehow a unitary thing which has found the solution, like in mathematics. Political philosophy doesn’t provide answers like that no matter how much you pretend it is so.

Your ideas concerning sharing the blame are valid, however it seems you can’t actually practice this philosophy. It seems you are always criticising the democratic west and yet stay silent or even support the autocratic and dictatorial regimes of the middle east and third world. When I can see people like you acknowledge that while the west, including the US has behaved badly at times, we have been a potent force for good in the world then I will begin to acknowledge the errors of the west. But the left attempts at moral equivalency in blame sharing(or worse) between the democratic and undemocratic nations is not only flawed it’s counterproductive.

Whilst it would be nice if the conflict could be solved by a little neighbourliness like going next door to help bring in the crop, it will not be. Hamas is part of a pan-Islamic-fundamentalism sweeping the muslim world. This strain of Islamism has no room for compromise and has set it sights on winning its confrontations with the west.

Your support for the autocratic, in fact insane, leadership of Iran and their search for nuclear weapons ignores the fact that the Iranians are infinitely more likely to use them than Israel. They’ve already threatened to.

The Iranians are intent on disrupting the current balance of power in their favour for one reason alone, to advance Iran’s power and prestige in the region. This will inevitably lead to more instability. I don’t want to see Iran invaded I just want them to stop their nuclear push

There are a number of links to the media staged event I wrote about earlier;

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1647

<The boy was shown crouching with his father behind a barrel next to a concrete wall in an apparently vain attempt to shelter from the gun-battle between Israel and the Palestinians that was raging around them. In his commentary on the incident France 2’s Israel correspondent, Charles Enderlin, declared that the IDF had killed the boy.

This footage become the iconic image of the intifada and the Palestinian ‘struggle’ against Israel. >
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1612

The comments of Marilyn use the same logic as those who deny the holocaust existed. Simply deny any of the facts that inconveniently don't fit into your theories.

The simple fact is that the reason Israel is the most powerful military in the region is because it has to be.

The incursion into Israel, the murder of several soldiers and the kidnapping of 2 more, combined with the well documented offensive build up by Hezbollah would provoke almost any state into retaliation. (Turkey into Iraq).

The disproportionate use of force against the infrastructure of Lebanon as well as the military of Hezbollah is an effective tactic to destroy its offensive capability, and ensure that its support is eroded.

This tactic was effective against Serbia in Kosovo, and by the comparative stability of the border with Lebanon, has been here.

While Israel was the David, it is now the Goliath, but the Palestinians hands are also far from clean. It takes two to tango, and in the dance of death, Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah are consummate artistes.

Where Hamas has yet to even acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, has the majority support of the Palestinians, and continues to expand its offensive actions, the tactics of the Israelis while distasteful seem to be the only ones that work.

If outsiders point fingers at Israel for racism after 60 years of bloody conflict, one only has to see the effect in Australia against Muslims and Dr Haneef after a few incidents off shore.

I don't have the answers, but maybe the wall will give both sides the time out they need.

Dear (poor) Marilyn

Please read Paul L's post IN DETAIL and then also read SPY's

It's allll there.. the full story. 'Balance'... I've said all those things before.. independantly.

-Damour Massacre... http://www.truelebanon.bravehost.com/pics/dampics-slideshow.html
-Hamas Charter...
-The fake 'palestinian teenager' shooting story.

If anyone does not know about or understand the implications of these events/documents..then you are really unqualified to speak about the conflict.

JOHN PASSY :) onya moit.....

"I see the way forward in all of Palestine as being a democratic multi-ethnic state where all those who want to can live"

Why of course John ... when you are neither an Arab Muslim in Gaza or the West bank... nor a Jew in Israel.. everything is so easy, simple and clear... but of course.. you might want to rethink that after reading that Hamas Charter and realizing it is 'for real' and that this kind of thinking is an insurmountable barrier to your cloud 9 utopian dream.
The Settlers are the ones who base their presense on the 'promised land' idea.. the rest, secular Jews are simply using the 'might is right' method.

I used some pictures of the Damour Massacre in a solo protest/demo at RMIT one time. See how those Arabs treated Christians.. they were not even Jews...but they were 'in the way'.

Democritus

It is not just racism. To my mind Israel was founded on the genocide of the Palestinians, a genocide that continues to this day. The Wall is just another example of that. As are the blockade of Gaza, incursions there, de facto occupation, the destruction of Lebanon and so forth.

On the building of the Wall, let me paraphrase Ronald Reagan. "Mr Olmert, tear down your wall."

And to BOAZ_David, my idea a bout a democratic and secular Palestine is not new and I have elsewhere indicated that the spiral of opposition between Zionism and its victims makes this idea sound less and less realistic.

In fact mainstream Palestinian organisations once adopted it. It was part of the PLO charter I understand. The racist logic of Zionism makes this view unrealistic at the moment.

Finally as to Hamas, I note that their are voices within Israel calling for negotiations with the democratically elected Palestinian Government.

Passy,

Israel was founded on the back of the league of nations and the 1947 UN resolution to divide the mandate of Palestine into two countries, one for Jews and one for Arabs. But for the stupidity and ignorance of the Arabs at the time there would be a 60 year old country called Palestine. Instead 5 Arab armies were deployed to attempt to retake all of Palestine and expel the Jews.

You speak of the racist logic of the Zionists. What a joke. Please respond to this quote below from the Hamas Charter and then try and pretend that racism is the preserve of Zionists.

>> “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. “

My guess is you haven’t the guts to respond.

If Israel is the more racist explain the fact that there are Arabs in Israel’s Knesset, that Arabs study at Jewish universities. How many Jews do you know who are even allowed to live in Arab countries?

The PLO liked the one state notion because it would have handed them power without having to fight for it. To see how how a PLO led gov’t would fare in a one state situation all you need do is look back to Lebanon in the 1980’s. Absolute catastrophe comes to mind. If Jews made up the majority in the lands of Palestine there would be zero support for your wacky concept from the PLO or Arabs or soft-lefters like yourself.

You’re continuing use of the inaccurate and pejorative term, "Zionists" to describe Israelis marks you out as an anti-Semite.It is pathetic people like you who use the word genocide in conjunction with a security wall that have devalued that word and made it almost meaningless. The wall doesn’t kill anybody, in fact the wall has made a significant contribution to the reduced number of suicide bombers entering Israel.

I have to agree with Paul and further add, the vitriol of certain posters here blind them to recognise the existence of a basic premise - which in turn effected the concept and establishment of international law. From the horror of the Nazi Holocaust, pressure grew for the international recognition of a Jewish state - in 1948 Israel came into being.

U.N. Resolution 181, which called for the termination of the British Mandate in Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in that territory, is still valid today. This, simply stated, is not a premise for terror, albeit notwithstanding the perversion of some with logic.

Some appear well beyond the naiveté of ignorance and fail to understand a current political reality. Recent statements made by Hamas (a peoples' elected authority), advocating violence, opposing a two-state solution, and denying Israel's right to exist, as well as its direct involvement in terrorism, served to prompt the international Quartet ( US,, Europe, Russia and the UN) to set three conditions for any Palestinian government to attain international legitimacy and cooperation. These basic conditions are: recognizing Israel's right to exist, renouncing terrorism and violence, and accepting previous agreements and obligations, including the Roadmap.

Those, who in their loathing burst their spleen, fail also to recognise the institution of a half-century old secular authority. Those who merely condemn a modern state for its sovereignty are peace-imposters , or, the poseurs for peace in our time . There is little doubt, terrorism is bred on both sides of a boundary but the extreme anti-Israeli indoctrination, so pervasive in Palestinian society, nurtures a culture of hatred. A well documented and recognised charter, through an elected body (Hamas), lends further legitimacy to this hatred through party orchestrated terrorism.

Thanks Paul. I do have the guts to respond.

Let me first say I find deeply offensive and defamatory your comment that I am an an anti-Semite. Abuse is the refuge of those who cannot defend Zionism in either its historical or present day reality. How do you for example classify some Jewish writers on the subject who are pro-Palestinian? I suspect I know your answer but want to see you write it to show the bankruptcy of your comments and lack of thought.

I have a novel suggestion. Why not address the issues?

The fact that the UN decided to commit genocide against the Palestinian people does not make it right.

Ah Hamas. I do not support Hamas. The majority of Palestinians do. Israeli writers (some anyway) have called for Olmert to talk to Hamas. I am with them in recognising political reality.

The collapse (perhaps on-going) of Palestinian secularism and left nationalism is a complex matter but is in part explained by the systemic inability of Zionism or its imperialist backers to countenance any settlement with the Palestinians.

The article itself raises issues which are similar to this. Perhaps you could try to address them rationally.

I doubt most Palestinians support that part of the charter which calls for killing Jews, despite the fact that for the past 60 years Israel has forced many Palestinians off their land, herded them into bantustans, impoverished them and killed thousands upon thousands in the region.

I think in fact most Palestinians voted for Hamas because of the social services they provide and because of the corruption of Fatah, plus the fact they knew they would get representatives who were not going to give in to the Israelis or Americans (unlike the PLO.)

My post was not delusional, it is the truth. And historian like Pappe, Finkelstein, Gorenberg, Avnery and many others including Shlomo Ben-Ami are using their own history documents released in the late 1990's to correct the history instead of lying about it.

For heavens' sake, the Europeans murdered 6 million Jews not the arabs.
It is dangerous, deluded and ugly stuff and the world should be ashamed of itself.

Actually in his book "Journey into Darkness" Winton Higgins explains Australia's complicity in the murders of Jews in WW11 in a few words that are on display at the holocaust museum. There was a meeting in France in 1938 of 22 western nations to discuss the plight of Jewish refugees.

These are the 13 words that helped the nazis with their massacres in the world's most evil crime.

"As we have no racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one".

Winton goes on to say this "It's a tribute to the Canberra mandarin's art to pack so much callousness, dishonesty, pomposity and complacency into just 13 words."

When the St louis was turned away we took part, the other 21 nations at Evian also decided to deny the jews sanctuary, they shut up shop.

We bear as much responsibility for the horror that followed as any other nation on earth yet we dare to blame the Palestinians because we then decided to make them pay for our own complicity in mass murder.

Page 78 of the book by the way. WE also denied refugee status to the Dunera boys and locked them up. WE recently lost a high court case denying refuge to Russian jews because we claimed they should have gone to Israel. Thank god the high court were not that stupid because the refugee convention was written because of what we did to the jews in WW11.

The sick part of that is the right of return is guaranteed to every nation on earth except Palestine because the jews now won't allow it.

Grow up all you ranting fools and get to the truth.

".......pressure grew for the international recognition of a Jewish state - in 1948 Israel came into being......" (Quote:Relda)

Just like that?? You surely have to acknowledge that 'Israel came in to being' is a highly contentious issue. The land was already populated!

".......recognizing Israel's right to exist.....".(Quote:Relda)

And Palestine's.

"......Those, who in their loathing burst their spleen fail to recognize the institution of a half-century old secular authority....." (Quote:Relda)

The land was populated FAR longer then that 'half-century' you refer to.

And one more thing Relda;- it does little good to denigrate the intelligence of those who do not agree with your point of view. It is highly debatable WHO in their loathing burst their spleen!!

And surely it is a clear indication of what is causing the ongoing problems;...........the total incapacity to see things from both sides

".......pressure grew for the international recognition of a Jewish state - in 1948 Israel came into being......" (Quote:Relda)

Just like that?? You surely have to acknowledge that 'Israel came in to being' is a highly contentious issue. The land was already populated!

".......recognizing Israel's right to exist.....".(Quote:Relda)

And Palestine's.

"......Those, who in their loathing burst their spleen fail to recognize the institution of a half-century old secular authority....." (Quote:Relda)

The land was populated FAR longer then that 'half-century' you refer to.

And one more thing Relda;- it does little good to denigrate the intelligence of those who do not agree with your point of view. It is highly debatable WHO in their loathing burst their spleen!!

And surely it is a clear indication of what is causing the ongoing problems;...........the total incapacity to see things from both sides.

Marilyn, I responded to your claim that "Israel was not attacked by all the might of arab armies at any time in history." I presented facts about 3 wars. You chose to ignore those facts. Instead you went off on a tangent about Australia's complicity in the Holocaust - thereby failing to respond to the relevant issues.

You then went on to ignore or twist basic facts relating to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. No mention of the Jews' historical connection to the land (BTW, your link to the Haaretz article presents the opinion of a single historian whose area is 20th century France and Europe, not ancient history), no mention of the 1917 Balfour Declaration in which the British declared their commitment to the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in what was then Palestine.

The situation that has unfolded over the last 60 years is a tragedy for both Israelis and Palestinians. Both sides have legitimate claims to the land. Both sides have made mistakes.

Your approach to this complex issue is either intellectually dishonest or astonishingly ignorant.

Ginx,
Yes surely, it is rather contentious Israel promptly emerged as a functioning state and turn out to be, from the first, an enduring parliamentary democracy. There was no king, nor prince, nor aristocracy and no bishop; there wasn't a political system. However, they did constitute a coherent social entity - they were linguistically, culturally, religiously, and historically distinct. Perhaps of repugnence to others but this did enable them to maintain a separate national, cultural, religious and social identity. Their transition into sovereign statehood occured only through a straightforward need to survive. After WWII, the world rightly bound itself to this acknowledgement.

An important but often unacknowledged assistance to the creation of a Jewish State was provided by the Arab countries. Most of the Jewish populations that lived in these countries were expelled - this increased significantly the pressure aiming at the formation of the Jewish State. About half of the Jewish population of Israel now are Jews from Arab countries and their descendants.

Yes, two sides of the story do reveal, Jews should stop dreaming of returning to Hebron, where a Jewish community had lived on and off, for centuries, until the 1929 massacre; and Palestinians should stop dreaming of returning to Haifa or Jaffa, where their fathers and forefathers had lived prior to the 1948 war. Only such a pragmatic approach may lead to compromise, facilitating the emergence of a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel. The Israeli authorities must accept the legitimacy of a Palestinian State, and the Palestinian authorities must accept the legitimacy of the Israeli State.

Certainly, the Palestinian refugee problem was the result of the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war, which followed the proclamation of the State of Israel in May 1948. Moral consistency dictates, Jewish people should strongly empathise with such a dispossessed and suffering humanity. One might also add, however, the "right of return" is a convenient slogan used by certain Palestinian politicians who wish to destroy the particular character of Israel and turn it into a second Palestinian State. This objective is morally wrong and practically unattainable

On no other subject are the boundaries of objective reporting more finely drawn than Israel. For more than thirty-five years (at least), Palestinians have been denied a right of return to their homes, in breach of numerous United Nations resolutions and international law.

In demanding Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, the Security Council used words strikingly similar to those that demanded Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait in 1990. When Iraq did not comply, it was attacked by an American-led coalition and Kuwait was liberated.

When Israel has not complied, it has received increased western, principally American, economic and military support.

With honourable exceptions, events in Palestine are reporterd in the WEst in terms of two warring rivals, not as the oppression of an illegal occupier and the resistance of the occupied. The Israeli regime continues to set the international news agenda. Israelis are
'murdered by terrorists,' while Palestinians are 'left dead' after a
'clash with security forces.'

Distinction is rarely made between a huge, nuclear-armed military force with tanks, fighter jets and helicopter gunships, and crowds of youths with slingshots. (The suicide bombers are a relatively recent phenomenon, the product mostly of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which left 17,500 dead).

The BBC refers to Israel's policy of assassination as 'targeted killing,' the euphemism used by Israeli spokesmen. It is rarely reported that of the hundreds killed and thousands wounded, 90 percent have been Palestinian civilians, 45 per cent have been under eighteen, and 60 per cent were shot while in their homes, schools, and workplaces.

JamesH, I think you'd be better linking to serious news sites if you want to be taken seriously. The al-Durra case is obviously problematic, but I'd prefer to look here:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1159193481133&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
or here http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/07/video07_ed3_.php
or even here http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/959836.html

None of these support your contention that this was a "media staged event", the argument is over the veracity of the original news report and whether it was IDF or Palestinian fire that killed the child.

Completely off topic I know, but its interesting to note that Melanie Phillips is a defender of the teaching of "Creation Science" in schools http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000756.html And nice to see how reasoned and measured her tone is. "Illiberal secularist missionaries", "height of arrogance", "secularism has infested our National Curriculum" etc etc. I guess this shows what a credible source she is, eh?

Foxy,

Firstly, Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza and four settlements in the West Bank in 2005. How on earth you missed that I do not know. Israel’s reward was Hamas stepping up their rocket attacks on Israeli cities. Hamas has given Israel every indication that such concessions will only lead to renewed violence. Hamas treats these acts as acts of weakness and uses them to spur on their fighters towards their ultimate goal of one, Hamas led, Palestine, extinguishing Israel altogether.

Secondly you say “The suicide bombers are a relatively recent phenomenon, the product mostly of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon”

I am sure you are talking about the most recent war when Lebanese Hezbollah militia, strongly backed by the Iranian lunatics, staged incursions into Israel, rocketed Israeli cities and kidnapped Israeli soldiers. But suicide bombings were at their highest before this second Lebanon war and have declined ever since, which you would know if you bothered to check.

Thirdly the figure for Palestinian civilian casualties as a percentage of total deaths is under 50%. That number for Israelis is 70%. That is 70% of Israelis killed by Palestinians are civilians. Next time, quote a source for your outlandish figures rather than just making them up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Intifada_deaths.gif

Passy,

Anyone who uses the term Zionist as frequently and as broadly as you is an anti-semite. If the hat fits…

Why am I not surprised that you would pretend that Palestinians don’t really care about the “kill all the jews” paragraph in the Hamas charter. Institutional racism is an Arabic muslim birthright. Have a look at the Arabic textbooks the Saudis give to Arab countries for free. But you ‘think’ Palestinians aren’t interested in these things. I have read the Hamas Charter as I am sure many Palestinians have done. Who are you to suggest that they don’t really mean it?

Benny Morris ( a ‘New Historian’ himself) had this to say about Ilan Pape work “Pappe’s book was "truly appalling," subjugated history to political ideology, and "contained errors of a quantity and a quality that are not found in serious historiography”

Dear Paul L.,

As Antony Loewenstein says in his book, 'My Israel Question,' and I quote:

"...I wanted to know why it was almost treasonous to advocate a Palestinian state. I wondered why a Jew couldn't be both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian. And I couldn't understand why dissenting viewpoints were shunned and ridiculed. It almost seemed as if Jews wanted to maintain a ghetto mentality...

Palestinians have become 'unpeople,' seemingly unworthy of sympathy or understanding. 'Our people are important, but 'they' are not. This narrative has been constructed through a complex web of media, politics and lobbying, and has resulted in a skewed perspective on the defining conflict of our time. I spoke to Arabs, Palestinians, Jews, Christians, Muslims and atheists in Australia, the USA, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, France, United Kingdom and Switzerland to hear alternative voices, possible solutions and legitimate grievances.
Some will be familiar; many will not. Many of these individuals risk ostracism from their communities for speaking out.

I am often accused of bening anti-Israel and hostile towards the Jewish people. Nothing could be further from the truth. I support the rights of Israelis to live in peace and security, but not at the expense of the Palestinians.

Why do we constantly hear about Israel's need for 'security,' as though that justifies erecting walls, checkpoints and barriers?

Why is the world told to believe that the Palestinians should onle accept peace on Israel's terms? I've come to the sad realisation that many in the West simply don't like Arabs or Palestinians very much and therefore believe that we have the right to treat them as we wish."

I agree with Antony Loewenstein - in all of this the news media play a crucial role - they are the major conduit for the debate.

You accused me of not doing my research...and this from someone who
uses Wik...pedia as his main point of reference?

We must move past using dehumanisation and delegitimisation as weapons to be wielded against the Palestinians.

It is time for a radical rethinking of the conflict.

It is interesting that none of you mention the role that Henry Kissinger played in both the Six Day War and the one previous.

Unofficially Kissinger was able to confab with both sides, but his main pursuit was apparently as of Jewish religion he is said to have favoured his own kind, first making sure in the earlier conflict that the new Israelis where secretly armed from the US.

The most intriguing news, however, is contained in a recent report about rhetorical data from the Nixon era, either proving that while Nixon gave the okay to keep quiet about his regime favouring Israel going militarily nuclear, Kissinger was against Israel going atomic, believing that it would not only upset the balance of power in the Middle East between Arabs and Jews, but would expand such resentments the world over.

Reckon that as usual Paull will have a different story, his one about political philosophers officially having different views, meaning right or left, the only way we can explain it is that right-wing philosophy leans towards fascism and left-wing leads towards communism.

In most Australian universities, it could be said that the tendency for political philosophy, tends to be slightly left of centre.

Finally, it would be interesting to encourage a dialogue to prove whether Kissinger's view about an atomic Israel upsetting possibly a global balance of power has proven right or wrong.

Passy,

Considering that every Arab Israeli war from 1948 to 1976 was started by the Arabs with the sole intention of "pushing the Jews into the sea", the image of the harmless tolerant Palestinian who has been put upon by the big bad Zionist Israel is a little hard to swallow.

The continual targeting of Israeli civilians by the Hamas and Hezbollah whilst using their own civilians as cover has often left the IDF the choice between doing nothing or hitting civilian areas.

The complete delusion that a free Palestine would coexist in harmony with Israel and not continue the odious tactics presently employed is why Israel is determined to seed guarantees before conceding anything.

Paul L continues to defame me by calling me an anti-Semite when my whole point is, like many Jews, to question Zionism.

I accept his intimidation and denial of my right to free speech. These are the typical tactics of the ideologues of the right - shut down your opponents by defaming them and driving them from the process of free speech.

I refuse to indulge in this "discussion" when those of us who raise legitimate questions about Zionism and the foundation of the Israeli state on the bones of the Palestinians are immediately labelled anti-Semites. Why not address the issues Paul? Because you can't. Defamation is a substitute for discussion and debate.

Thanks for destroying my free speech through your defamations Paul L.

I hope your fascist tactics in driving me from this discussion make you happy.

The German V-2 rockets in London in 1944, because of their untargeted promiscuity, and lack of any warning were in many ways worse than the 1940 Blitz, despite its far higher casualties. By 1944-45, civilian morale in Britain seriously sagged. So one should sympathise now with what the inhabitants of northern Israel are often undergoing daily - this is not to demean the casualty figures that are a fraction of those exacted by Israeli bombing in Lebanon.

Fear and anger, however, are bad counselors when it comes to finding a way towards that "lasting peace", even if the danger is that in a few years' time, the rockets might carry Iran-made nuclear tips, fired not from neighbouring Lebanon but from the unreachable remoteness of Iran - a part of the political creature naming Israel an illegitimate, or bastard child of the U.N.

With some impotence, many perhaps agree that there is an urgent need for a new strategy to break the logjam in the Middle East as a whole.

As the terrifyingly imminent threat of a nuclear Iran is important, a radical gambit would be to go for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, running from the Mediterranean to the frontiers of nuclear Pakistan. This, however, would require an internationally backed, total clampdown on Iranian nuclear development. At the same time, it would involve Israel's relinquishment of its nuclear capability.

Israel's nuclear arsenal has so far done nothing to deter terrorism over the years - or even a conventional war. Denuclearising Israel may be the surest way to get support from the moderate Sunni Arab states to apply pressure on Iran – another gambit.

To assure Israeli security, such a scheme would have to be backed by a commitment to "take out" instantly any Iranian, or other Middle Eastern facility that threatened to cheat. There is an almost deafening logic to this, albeit unpalatable to those who place military might in a total negative light.

The alternative? An increasingly, but understandably paranoid Israel going it alone... the aftermath is unpalatable but I fear, inevitable.

I am still steamed up about being called an anti-Semite, so excuse my rant.

In Canberra we used to have an MLA who was elected on a no self government ticket who was a secret extreme right winger.

When Eric Butler and his fascist League of Rights attempted to hold a meting in Canberra (with the support of this MLA) I organised and led the demonstration against them. This involved a coalition of trade unions, ALP people, churches etc.

We managed to turn some people away. Then we went into the meeting (at my urging) to turn it into a people's history of the struggle against fascism. The cops threw me and the others out.

When this MLA was part of a coalition against some particular Government proposal I stood up and moved in a hall of thousands that we not associate with such an extreme right winger. The small l liberals howled me down because they didn't understand the nature of his politics or didn't care. It wasn't easy standing up in front of a crowd of people I wanted to relate to (but knew I would alienate by my actions) and oppose this MLA sympathiser with the League of Rights on principle.

When this MLA sympathiser with the League of Rights turned up to one of my political meetings I forced him to leave our meeting.

When the right wing skin heads began organising in a local pub I canvassed various groups to see what action we could take.

My whole life has been a struggle against racism. That is why I want serious and intelligent people to examine what Zionism is - a philosophy that for example excludes Palestinians because they are Palestinians from returning to their homelands.

Israel is a limited democracy - like white South Africa. It is no accident that both states were very close. They shared a common approach - democracy for some at the expense of the majority whom they force(d) into bantustans.

One day there will be a rainbow nation in the middle east.

Bushbred,

If you can’t see that there is a broad range of opinions in political philosophy on issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict then you can’t have been much of an academic. I agree that there is sometimes a strong left wing bias in academia, I’ve experienced it, but it doesn’t make their views valid.

Secondly, to repeat a story about Kissinger like you have without providing a source is worthless in an academic context. Who tells this story of yours? Nasser? Eisenhower? Nixon? Arafat? Does Kissinger actually back up any of your story?

As I’ve already mentioned at least twice, Israel didn’t have nukes in 1948 nor in 1967. It is likely Israel had a couple of nuclear weapons by the time of the Yom Kippur war in 1973. So tell me how nukes changed the balance of power? Israel was already the dominant military force in the Middle East by the time it got nukes.

Relda

I think you are probably on the right track with the denuclearization of the middle east. However Israel would need to rely on others to enforce the ban. That didn’t work very well with Saddam.

Passy,

You have suggested that a nation of people are racists/Zionists. That in itself is a racist statement since it suggests that a large group of people with a particular ethnic or national background have the same negative outlook.

I find it bizarre that you think that a claim of racism is a “destruction of your free speech”

Foxy,

I don’t use Wikipedia as my reference, I read everything I can about the conflict. Wikipedia is a simple, accurate and usually unbiased resource. The reasons I referenced Wikipedia are

1. To refute the figures you introduced
2. I didn’t want to quote the Israeli gov’t or the CIA factbook and the only other places I had seen those particular statistics were in books.

I can get other sources for you if you want. I notice you skipped over every other point I made.

You are a great one at twisting major events of history for your own benefit, Paull.

Please read the info I gave you about Kissinger, once again.

First I told you how Kissinger used his double-diplomacy as the Arabs became roused over the beginning of a new Israel, trying to calm the Arabs while at the same time gradually and somewhat secretly over the years sending the odd shipload of planes and tanks to Israel - certainly how Israel was able to defeat the poorly armed Arabs later.

Later again, as I mentioned, came the allowance of Israel to go atomic. Further, it was only recently that it was found in White House archives that while Nixon was slightly concerned about about a nuclear Israel, Kissinger was apparently dead against it, the reason I explained.

If you want the full history, Paull, you can get it all from the Murdoch library, and if you want to do a full course, it is called The Changing Global Political Economy, and while it advances every year in critiques on both politics and economics, it does also backtrack with accounts concerning prominent global political actors such as Kissinger, and incidently also much to do with the Council of Foreign Relations from which has grown the Trilateralists and the Bilderbergers, semi-secret elitist groups which have helped to keep George W Bush in power

Bushbred,

Poorly armed Arabs?

What rubbish. The British protectorate of Palestine went to extreme measures to limit the importation of arms and ammunition, and the munitions they received was mostly from US supporters and consisted of surplus from WW2. Whilst the Arab nations had no embargo and happily armed themselves to the teeth.

At the time the Arab nations attacked, their armies outnumbered the Israelis by nearly 10:1 and in all measures of heavy and light armament by nearly 4:1. What they lacked was discipline, co ordination, and desperation. They entered a battle the numbers told them they couldn't lose, and would have won if they even co ordinated their actions.

Israel's nuclear program was a super deterrent to prevent the type of treachery by the Arabs as seen in 67 and 76. The US were not happy that it went ahead, but were never in the position to stop it.

That the Arabs were the underdogs betrayed by the west is pure conspiracy type delusion. I am sure you can find many documents proposing this, as you can for a second gunman at Dallas.

Would like you to exhibit your credentials, Democritus, certainly you are right about the Arabs being disorganised, but according to what we learnt way back in 1976, from an American tutor, incidently, was as I have stated, Henry Kissinger made sure that the US supplied equipment to the Israelis was far superior to the antiquated armoury being freely given to the Arabs from outside sources.

As I also stated the US equipment as well as being the latest, the wily Kissinger had also predicted what was going to happen well before the crisis, thus being able to deliver the top-rate equipment in small lots over a long period

Similar to Paull, you seem to be too sure of yourself, making one wonder what universities you both have attended?

Dear Paul L,

Thank you for responding and I apologise for my inference that you only use the one source.

I too like to research my topic.

But I'm not going to get into any further discussions with you or anyone else on this thread - only because I don't see the point of
us arguing - when I feel that we're after the same thing - peace in the Middle East - to the satisfaction of all sides.

Take care.

Bushbred,

I didn't do politics at university, but I was taught not to accept blindly the opinions of one person. Perhaps you would care to lay out your credentials and possibly some of the details of the "modern" armaments supplied to Israel by the US in 1948 in spite of the embargo.

I certainly cannot find any sign of it. In fact most of Israel's arms appear to be sourced from Czechoslovakia, with the Arab states using more modern British and French weapons.

If you are going to cast aspersions on others, maybe you should not peddle unsubstantiated propaganda, whilst attempting to don the cloak of educated reasoning.

To Democritus

To yourself and others, including Paull, asking for more proof about Henry Kissinger doing the double-act in the early wars between Israel and the Arabs.

Well what went on would just about fill a small book. So if you were genuine political science students, you should have known, as I have already suggested.

Also Democritus, the term poorly armed I gave was genuine, because as the study report stated that though the Arabs had more than enough personnel and small arms, including artillery, carriers and so forth, they lacked heavy tanks and fighter planes, including bombers.

It was what Kissinger was so good at, pretty well running the whole show at the time, with access to pretty well any amount, especially of the latest tanks and planes.

Also as it was American loans the Israelis relied on, no doubt as the early Israelis were about broke, the US also paid for the Czech equipment, which is interesting because at the time East European factories were under the Soviets.

Also, Democritus, my role in later years after a mature-age post grad, has been getting free needed knowledge from Murdoch university on political philosophy - used during the 13 years taking groups in the Mandurah U3A until my wife passed away just on two years ago.

Finally, I don’t know about Paull, but I will say that the most people in our U3A group that it is hard to get the message through about not to blame the Arabs for most of the problems in the Middle East, and possibly the world, are those who have not attended universities - where of course they do encourage us more to try and share the blame.

Possibly why tutors don’t dwell so much on protecting America is because Pax Americana is possibly too much all powerful.

As we are told in political philosophy, better to have a Kantian-style Federation of Democratic Nations, rather than one all-powerful nation like America to oversee world problems.

Cheers - BB, WA

BB.

“As we are told in political philosophy, better to have a Kantian-style Federation of Democratic Nations, rather than one all-powerful nation like America to oversee world problems.”

I don’t know who you teachers were, but they have done you a serious disservice. The very idea that your teachers “told” you what to think is antithetical to the whole of the social sciences. The idea is to give you the background of political thought and then to make up your own mind in conjunction with what you have learned. Necessarily this will mean that you might have to choose one philosophers’ opinion over another’s. However this does not make you right merely because you are following the line of thought of someone famous. There are equally valid views out there that are devolved direct from famous philosophers that contradict completely your opinions. That doesn’t make them right or wrong. It is your inability to accept that your stories and your quotes only represent one view that amazes me. They are not authoritative.

>> “ because as the study report stated that though the Arabs had more than enough personnel and small arms, including artillery, carriers and so forth, they lacked heavy tanks and fighter planes, including bombers.

What study-report? You as a veteran should know that artillery and APC’s do not come under the term “small arms” Secondly the Jordanian army was trained by the British and had 25 pounders and Mark IV and Matilda tanks. The Egyptians had a tank battalion as well. Israel had almost no tanks and a handful (3) B17 Bombers so that hardly gave them a significant edge.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=tFRP5WvTDWkC&pg=PA352&lpg=PA352&dq=jordanian+armed+forces&source=web&ots=4jlj5W7CQm&sig=U4TUjVki3FPU1dxo9m1Jt4Ym9E0&hl=en#PPA15,M1

or see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War#Weapons

The very idea of a well armed Israel defeating helpless arabs is preposterous. Even if the Arabs were less well armed ( and they were not ) they had the upper hand holding positions in the hills and in Arab cities only minutes from major Israeli cities. Strategically the Arabs had it in their power to cut Israel in two and bring it to its knees by driving their armies to the sea.

Bushbred,

Kissinger was only 25 in 1948, he only began to seriously influence world affairs in the late 60s.

Personally I would ask Murdoch University for my money back, as even a simple cause and effect time line seems beyond their grasp.

Possibly in the 70s the armaments of the Israelis compared to the Arabs but not before. The Arabs were brought down by their own military ineptitude, which in the first couple of decades is the only thing that stood between Israel and annihilation.

A focus on the Arab version of history is useful for insight but untenable as a balanced version of history.

PaulL and Democritus, the info about Kissinger has been used to prove examples in a study called The Changing Global Political Economy, an example how Israel was and still is a virtual lackey of the US, conveniently monetarily protected by her as a frontline watchkeeper, as proven when Saddam's part-built nuclear istallation was taken out by Israel in the early 1980's.

Also the very fact that the bulk of the build-up of Israel's now very efficient war machine has been arranged by US loans, proves how Israel is really part of what some political philosophers call America's determination to follow former imperialist Britain as global supremo - part proven of course, by the White House neo-con rhetoric about an American 21st Century, and a needed regime change proven first by the illegal attack on Iraq and the seemingly determination to also take out Iran, leaving the Middle East needing the rise of another Gandhi to oust the 21st century US neo-colonialists, Israel included.

As non-academics, Democritus and Paull, as both you appear to be, would still wish you to check up with registered historians about the role of Kissinger in those early Israeli Arab wars, even for the genuineness of our
Online debates.

It is interesting we bring Ghandi into the discussion because he needs to be properly understood, perhaps illuminatingly so viz from his personal secretary. In 1947, on the Indian/ Kashmir question of military intervention, Ghandi's view was that "if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, war would be the only alternative left to the government. But war was no joke, that way lay destruction but he could never advise anyone to put up with injustice. If all the Hindus were annihilated for a just cause; he would not mind it. True, his own way was different, he worshipped God which was truth and non-violence. But "he was not the government". (Pyarelal, Mahatma Gandhi, The last phase P472, P502)

Quite evident is the case, Gandhi, ironically the apostle of non-violence was more realistic about the role and need of the Indian army than in fact the Fabian Jawaharlal Nehru at the time of the transition of India from colony to sovereignty. There is much about Ghandi that is popuralised, but a true delving and analysis of history distills the convenient, if not rather romantic myth, often held by many.

Soulful pacifism, in considering the militaristic arm of a sovereign state as innately evil' or immoral is simply erroneous, whether from a philosophical or theological standpoint. The U.S. is often morally, and demonstrably so, proved inadequate - but the vacuum surrounding her, however, gives her more effect than she really should.

Bushbred v Democritus/Paull. Yep! That's about even I'd say.

Attaboy BB!

(And yes D and P, that IS the only comment I'll make. No need for anything else;- BB is doing verrrry nicely...........)

Ginx

I really must say that I am incredibly offended by you remarks. When a well educated and balanced person like yourself attacks me in such a manner I must confess I feel the need to critically re examine my whole belief system. I am only thankful that you spared me from your famous ability to make sharp and witty nicknames for those who don't hold to your standards of intellectual rigour. And I suppose I should also be thankful you haven't used your verrrrry impressive powers of observation to point out my appalling spelling.

Whats that you say. You’re restricting yourself to 25 words or less. Hmmm interesting.
I've got to say that being "schooled" in such a manner by a hormonal teenage girl has really deflated me. I think I might have a cup of bex and a good lie down .... Please don’t pick on me anymore, I can’t stand it.

No guaranties Paully. Enjoy your rest.

Bushbred,

I notice you didn’t argue any of my points. I had a quick look at the course “The Changing Global Political Economy” and whilst it seems heavily left wing biased they still use phrases like “ XYZ argues that …., while ABC sees the issue in terms of ….”. Certainly the course co-ordinator isn’t making the claims of truth in the manner in which you have put forward.

In any case I have provided you with two sources that suggest that militarily the Israeli and Arab armies had equipment of similar effectiveness and that the Arabs had significant numerical advantages, at least initially. Kissinger always said that he supported the existence of Israel and helping to arm Israel to prevent it from being wiped out is hardly an imperialist act. I mean how many billions of dollars of aid flowed to the soviets during ww2? How many billions did lend lease make available to the British in order to defend themselves. Roosevelt wanted the US to be the arsenal of democracy. In this context arming Israel is continuing a noble tradition.

Don’t you think that Saddams nuclear installation posed a greater threat to Israel than it did to the US? The US didn’t need to tell Israel to bomb the O’Chirac reactor. The threat it posed would have been obvious to PM Begin and his cabinet.

BBC 7/6/1981 The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

"The American Century" is a term coined by Time publisher Henry Luce used to claim preeminence of the United States during the 20th century. It was not a statement of imperialism.

I actually have academic experience, I’ve been a tutor. But that is irrelevant. Whatever you are or were you have no claim as an historian because you aren’t arguing the toss based upon primary sources. You’re talking about having the “absolute truth” because an American tutor told you so, or you learned it in a class. That’s not even a decent tertiary source.

OLO class mates please accept my apologies concerning Henry Kissinger’s role in Israeli-Arab wars when the passage used had only been taken from an outline which portrayed Kissinger’s role as covering both the 1967 Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War which occurred seven years after the latter.

Although the Soviets had supplied the Arabs with arms in previous engagements, it seems they were only similar to the lighter armaments apparently supplied from Soviet occupied Czecho-Slovakia mentioned previously

A different story was when the Soviets became more resolute about finishing off the Israelis once and for all, supplying the Arabs with their top range tanks and planes. Please read below from JEWISH NEWS et al:

With Egyptian and Syrian forces now inflicting heavy losses on Israel’s army and air force through better quality Soviet supplies, a panicked Jewish state pleaded with America for help.

Facing the worst possible losses, Prime Minister Golda Meir decided to fly to Washington personally to plead with President Nixon for help.

It was when US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger ordered hundreds of the latest tanks and planes to be immediately dispatched to Israel to counter the power of the latest Soviet supplies.

It was after the successful end to the Yom Kippur War that the US quadrupled its yearly aid to Israel from 535 million dollars to 2.1 billion. Also as a result of the special Camp David Awards Israel’s grants went up to 3 billion.

So it was from then on and doubtless with the help of Henry Kissinger , US Head of State, that the US came closer to Israel, but at the same time it has been interestingly said that Israel won't need America so much. (I wonder?)

Once again apologies for picturing Kissinger in a more extensive historical role, yet it was apparently only three years after the Six Day War that the youngish Kissinger had worked his way up to be US Head of State.

Looks like still some things to find out?

Cheers, BB - WA.