Marilyn,

Sorry? What exactly didn’t happen as I suggested? Are you denying that Egypt, Syria and Jordan massed their armies on Israel’s borders? Are you denying that the peacekeepers were expelled? Are you denying that the Straits were blockaded? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War or any of the other sites I referenced. It’ not ME living in fantasy land

In 1948, 1967 and 1973 the Arab countries combined forces invaded Israel and attempted to wipe it off the map.

"The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence." Cairo Radio broadcast - May 18 1967

"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood" - President of Egypt, Nasser

“In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel. President of Egypt, Nasser
http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/

You say >>” If all these armies had been amassing to attack Israel it would have been impossible for Israel to dismantle and bomb to bits all of their airforces in a few hours and get away with it.”

I see. This is your “evidence”. It’s funny that similar claims were made by Nasser, that the devastation caused couldn’t possibly have been achieved by the Israelis alone, therefore American jets flying off carriers must have been involved. This is just grasping at straws.

For starters, armies on your borders don’t really create problems for high flying jets. Can you grasp that? Secondly, Egypt’s Airforce was caught on the ground, where it was annihilated. Jets don’t actually defend themselves very well when they are on the ground, as you may understand and they can’t remain in the sky indefinitely. The Egyptians were very poorly trained, rarely paid, and suffered from command weaknesses built in by Nasser to protect his “throne”. That’s not to say they weren’t dangerous, but it allowed Israel to achieve the surprise they needed to defeat a much larger air force.

See http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_sixday_backgd.php or
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570433/six-day_war.html

I see the Yanks have forced the Israeli's to make peace with Syria. Listen carefully to the Israelis as they try to sabotage the process by trying to keep illegal settlements on the Golan Heights.

Oh and the return of that land has been demanded by Good 'ole George.

You'd be spewing about this wouldn't you Logic. 'Fundi' David will no doubt rant about this particular injustice to christianity won't you 'Fundi?

And you know what? Neither Obama nor McCain are being funded by the Jewish Lobby in the current US campaign. They are still up to their old influence peddling activities though.

You'd both be fearful of that.

Stay tuned for more up to date info on peace prospects...

Oh and Marilyn that story about the Reuters cameraman was shown on the good old rightist Fox pay tv.

Antiseptic,

You say >> “In that case, Iraq under Saddam would have been entirely justified in attacking … the UN-sanctioned blockade”

Iraq and the UN/Coalition forces were already in a state of war. Remember the international coalition attacked Iraqi forces in Kuwait and succeeded in forcing the Iraqis to surrender. The disarming of Iraq and the consequent sanctions regime was part and parcel of that agreement. Iraq would have been violating their surrender if they’d decided to attack blockading ships. Giving up sovereignty is almost always part of surrendering. You obviously hadn’t given any thought to this issue at all. See http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015678/blockade or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli

Regarding the second quote, I don’t actually know what it is you’re talking about. Marilyn suggested that Israel is not a state. I merely reminded her that it clearly is. Or are you attempting to suggest that Israel is not a state? If so, on what basis, since it is recognised as such by the UN.

Septic >> “ … the pro-Zionist lobby would be best focussing on ways to heal the growing rift between their tired propaganda and the reality of the failing Israeli experiment.”

Besides being absolute rubbish, this is just words. Where are your supporting arguments or are you somehow under the sad misconception that these are self evident truths?

Regarding Israel failing, I just wonder how it is you soft-left types come up with that? On what do you base it? Lack of support from the soft-left? Virtually no organisation gives a sh!t whether they have ”left” support anymore because it is entirely worthless, unable to achieve anything, except perhaps the defeat of their own countries.

I’ve got to say that if that is the best that you can come up with you’d be better off not bothering. Try engaging your brain before your mouth.

Keith,

The Americans are appalled and very unhappy that Israel is looking to peace with Syria. See http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23748549-15084,00.html
http://www.themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=21597
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/985748.html

So that just blows your conspiracy nutjob theory out of the water.
BTW, The ceding of the Golan is an obvious starting point for Syria’s demands.

Paul.L: "Regarding the second quote, I don’t actually know what it is you’re talking about. "

You made a particularly stupid strawman about the "soft-left" (whatever that is), having some desire that Israel should not exist. I pointed out that you were wrong and that no one here has suggested such a thing, as far as I can see. As usual, the propaganda machine doesn't much like having facts pointed out.

Paul.L: "Iraq would have been violating their surrender if they’d decided to attack blockading ships"

Yet you claim earlier that a blockade is always a cassus belli. Do try to make up your mind.

The fact is that you want it both ways, as usual.

BOAZ_David wrote:

"She, like you, and many others on OLO, see 'Christianity' in the actions of the large Western nations which have a Judao/Christian religious tradition."

The expression ‘Judao/Christian’ is offensive. Having failed to eliminate Judaism Christianity co-opts Judaism. Christianity centres around Jesus who many Christians consider divine. Jews note that Jesus’ followers have killed Jews in his name. Christians worship Jesus but deny his religion. To many Jews Jesus inspires fear because of the actions of his followers.

Christianity has many creeds such as the Apostle’s, Nicene, Athanasian etc. Judaism has one statement of faith. "Here, oh. Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." No Trinity. Judaism is a religion of practice - not faith. Judaism has no saints or man-gods. Even Moses had his faults in losing his temper.

Jews accept but do not seek converts. Jesus claims that only through him can one reach the kingdom of heaven. To Jews any person behaving righteously is acceptable in the eyes of God regardless of their beliefs.

There are many other differences between the religions which are ignored in using the expression, Judeo-Christian. It is an expression that Christians use. Jews do not use it and generally resent it. Judaism objects to religion based on the worship of a man.

The expression, Judeo-Christian, is not as offensive as your missionary efforts that may be a violation of the Golden Rule. If you would not like an attempt to take you from your Christian faith you should not attempt to destroy other people's faith. Remember that other people mostly have a faith of their own or else don't want a religious faith.

Historically Christian missionary efforts have often been a prelude to massacre when Jews did not want to abandon their religion. There are many Jewish martyrs to Christian missionising. Your remark about conversion brings that sorry history to mind. Rather than pushing Jesus at one who is fed up with Christian missionising read some Jewish history to find why your remarks are offensive.

You seem a decent person but terribly misguided and insensitive to other's feelings.

Israel as a failed state, (Marilyn's non-state) has produced more Nobel prize winners per capita than any other country. It has produced great life saving advances in medicine, some of the participants in this debate may be alive today only because of research and development in Israel (and the nasty USA) .

Wish that all states would fail in that way. A Muslim woman wearing a head scarf recently graduated from an Israeli University, could she have done that in Saudi Arabia? So much for claims that Israel treats its minorities badly, they seem to do better in Israel than in neighboring countries.

What have Syria or Iraq, frequently mentioned in these posts, done for mankind over the last 400 years?

And don't even suggest that occupation by foreign powers has been the cause of their (stately) failures. Israel was colonised by close to three thousand years. India, Taiwan and Singapore have got over their colonial period.

Of course the anti-Israeli brigade will dismiss all of this as Zionist propaganda, of course the Jewish lobby is so unbelievably strong that it can influence Noble Prizes and the press. James Packer recently stated in an interview that the European press is antisemitic, hence unbalanced reporting of Israeli affairs (Australian papers get much of their info from UK papers), but he of course must be dismissed as a Zionist Jedi sympathiser.