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.