Thanks Paul, but the aircraft csteele was referring to were A-4 Skyhawks, late 50's designed ground attack aircraft. Australia had them, but offloaded them to NZ when they were deemed obselete (Israel lost many of theirs to SAM's, they were simply too vulnerable).

As to who is to blame for the lack of opportunity and/or hope in the Palestinian areas, Israel was built in part using funds raised around the world and those contributed by the International Jewish Community. This money was used to build schools, hospitals, universities, industry and farms. Consequently Israel is now viewed as a First World Nation (not a bad effort considering it was very third world in 1948). In contrast, the Palestinians have engaged in a deliberate effort not to build schools, hospitals, universities, industry and farms. Consequently, and not very suprisingly, there are limited educational facilities, very few jobs and an embarrasing lack of opportunity.

The absence of these things is blamed directly or indirectly upon Israel, despite the fact that the Palestinians co-religionanists have massive resources of money, despite the fact that massive amounts of aid and supplies have been contributed to the Palestinian people and despite the fact that they have squandered every opportunity in order to pursue their continuous jihad. The simple fact is, that by building the infrastructure instead of using every cent to engage in warfare, the Palestinians could well be in a position comparable to that of Israeli's.

The excuse used is that the Palestinians could not be expected to do so, because they are in refugee camps, guess what, the people who settled Israel and fought her wars, came from places that were just as bad and some were incalculably worse. The other approach is to suggest that the Palestinian people are somehow lesser humans, with lesser intelligence, lesser abilities and lesser ambition & commitment. I don't believe that, I regard those excuses as mere crutches to make people feel better about not doing anything.

Maybe it is time to look at what is holding them back?

Haganahbet,

I was speaking metaphorically in regards to the A4s. What I meant is that they are comparable in modern fast jet evolution to biplanes during the second world war. Obsolete, in other words. I wasn't suggesting they actually were biplanes.

Csteele >> “I'm not passing judgement just trying to understand how that love deforms a person's natural conscience.”

What?? Your not passing judgement but there’s something wrong with Haganabets conscience. Is that your attempt at not passing judgement.

It is supremely arrogant to suggest that only a person with a deformed conscience could support Israel. Not only is it offensive, it also infers a superior conscience in the respondent, which is self aggrandising. Israel may not have an unblemished record, but it compares very well against the rest of the world, especially in that region. How can you in all conscience support a group who are using their youngsters as human bombs, oppress their own people and celebrate a cult of death.

Csteele>>”Do you condone your secret services training and equipping Tamil Tigers? If so why do you seem happy to engage in the same types of links for Iran?”

There is a crucial difference here. Iran is the creator and nurturer of Hezbollah and provides large amounts of funding to Hamas as well. Iran is a terrorist sponsor.

Csteele>> “However I will continue to speak out when those ideologies take their toll on others.”

Unless those others are Muslim extremists, in which case their actions are somebody else’s fault?

PauL,

I thought we might have left well enough alone on this thread but anyway here goes.

Whenever I’m at smoko on a building site and the discussion turns to the Middle East the most common assessment of the situation is that “they are all bloody nicked in the head” and they would be including Israelis in that assessment.

You view is obviously a little more sophisticated but there is a sense of you really wanting to see the world in terms of black and white. Good guys, bad guys. Our previous prime minister was very adept at painting the world in such a fashion.

Given a choice between the two, and as unsophisticated as it may be, I feel the ‘tradies’ probably have a better handle on the issue than yourself.

If I were to tell any of them that I had been chatting online to a chap who used as his moniker the name of an organisation who had been condemned in the past because of its terrorist activities, that had deliberately targeted civilians, and that one operation had targeted a hotel killing 91 people, they would tell me to leave the ‘sicko’ alone and not have anything else to do with him.

Now I don’t think Haganah bet is a sicko but I do think he is afflicted by a love of Israel that has had a deforming effect on his conscience.

While I sort of get the reasons for the way he thinks I’m finding it a lot harder to see the same for you.

Haganah bet doesn’t bat an eye when I referred to Mossad’s supply and training of the Tamil Tigers in Israel and blithely states they were possibly doing the same for the Sri Lankan Army at the exactly the same time. I can’t help but see their actions as incredibly distasteful but Haganah bet may well feel the exercise provided capital vital for Israel’s economy or it fulfilled a vital part of its foreign policy objectives and so justifies it that way.

Cont

Cont

And he might even have a little pride in the chutzpah shown by Mossad.

You however see Iran providing “large amounts of funding” to Hamas as making them a “terrorist sponsor”. The obvious conclusion is that if a country supplies both sides of a conflict (even if one of them is a declared terrorist organisation) to make a buck then it is okay but if it supplies just one then they are terrorist supporters.

Haganah bet has reasons for having the attitudes he has which is why I am not tripping over myself to judge him, you on the other hand …

Ultimately to be even handed and give our consciences any validity we have to condemn actions for what they are, regardless of the entity perpetrating them. Haganah Bet is possibly not in a position to do that but what about you?

However for understanding we have to be prepared to step in another’s shoes. I wonder how profoundly I would be altered by torture. At one stage the Israelis were torturing 80% of those it took into captivity. Thankfully Israeli courts have substantially modified this practice. That it continues so routinely in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia supposedly under far more western influence than others in the region should be an anathema to us all. One can only guess at how the world would look if Qutb and Zawahiri were not so brutalised in prison.

My apologies for talking about you while you are ‘still in the room’ Haganah Bet. It would seem I can’t refrain from further scaling the heights of rudeness. Just on the schools issue I’m wondering if you would care to comment on the piece by the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Mairead Maguire on the closure of schools in Hebron? http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87919

I feel it is going to take a long while to have many Australians prepared to reinvest the time and possibly the emotional energy looking properly at the nuances of the conflict in Palestine. Perhaps being prepared to acknowledge it is fruitless looking for good and bad guys is a start.

Lol, Paul's still talking aobut the evils of Iran while ignoring the real reality: US and Israel fund Fatah in the near past, which wasn't elected by the Palestinians and which are trying to set up a different government. That's treason and funding terror. THere is so much more crap than that but I can't be bothered for it.

We do need to get a few things straightened out about the A-4 Skyhawks.

For the record.

Israel sold 14 to Indonesia in 1979 and the rest a few years later taking the total to 32. In that year, although the design was coming to the end of its time, the A-4 was still being delivered new to the United States Marine Corp. The USMC only retired the planes in 1998 but the US Navy kept them flying until 2003.

“A-4s still served well in the 1982 Falklands War where they achieved success against the Royal Navy.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-4_Skyhawk

So PaulL they were neither “obsolete” nor “basically useless as attacking weapons”

The most dangerous aspect from Australia’s point of view was that they were capable of refuelling each other in mid air thus putting Australian cities within reach of air strikes. This was at a time when the Australia military considered its northern neighbour its biggest strategic threat. The A4 is capable of delivering nuclear payloads.

“In the early 1980s, the Air Force, needing modern strike aircraft, organized Operation Alpha to clandestinely acquire ex-Israeli Air Force A-4 Skyhawks. Air Force personnel were sent in secret by different routes and eventually Indonesian received 32 aircraft.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_Air_Force#Rebirth_of_the_Indonesian_Air_Force_.281970-1980.29

Why do you think they had to operate ‘clandestinely’? Could it be because they were fearful of being vetoed by the U.S. as happened later when “In 1983, the United States vetoed delivery by Israel of 24 A-4H for the Argentine Navy as the A-4Q replacement which were finally retired in 1988.” If Australia had been aware of the impending sale it may well have put pressure on the US to can the sale.

Do you accept that the sale was against Australia’s best interest?

Do you understand that as an Australian I am quite uneasy that this occurred?

Is it acceptable to ask those who confess divided loyalties to give their position on the sale?

I accept Haganah Bet’s non-answer but I don’t resile from asking in the first place. My curiosity lay in how he might have resolved these things intellectually.