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...........)