Israel to buy US bomb kits for $100M

[Tom Joad]

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8MV20IO0.htm

The Israeli air force has decided to buy smart munitions kits from the Chicago-based Boeing aerospace company for an estimated $100 million, Israeli defense officials said Monday.

The Jerusalem Post daily said the planned purchase was for the Joint Direct Attack Munition, or JDAM, which converts conventional 2,000 pound bombs into satellite-guided, precision weapons.

Defense officials said the acquisition was meant to replenish stores used up in last summer's monthlong war against the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon and increase future stock levels.

The Jerusalem Post said the purchase would not require Congressional approval, as it was the exercise of a previously approved purchase option.

Congress is expected on Monday to receive a preliminary State Department report on whether Israel misused American-made cluster bombs in civilian areas of Lebanon.

(snip)
_______________

This is supposed to be an example of how US taxpayer money is helping America. But who in America? If you are a rich stockholder in Boeing, this might make you happy. The problem is, most american's don't own much stock in Boeing.

In the same way as Bush's announcement this month of an escalation in Iraq and you were a stockholder in Halliburton (KBR).

But if you are not part of the elite, you are not likely to see dividends on this deal. Only a big, fat, hole in our collective pocket. In our tax money, and in the lost prestige of the US in the world.

Though i certainly would not advocate it, a direct corporate welfare check to Boeing would have been less damaging to our real interests.

It would be much better if these funds were used to build peace and meet human needs, not human greed, not a war machine, in the US or Israel.

[mike_c]

1. yep, that's the way it works....

The U.S. gives billions of taxpayer dollars to Israel as military aid, with the stipulation that whenever possible, it be used to make purchases from U.S. companies. The taxpayer's money flows to the military industrial complex, the captains of industry get richer, Israel gets the weapons, and American wage earners pay for it all. Such a deal!

[Tom Joad]

2. Helping War profiteers should not be confused with helping America

[lvx35]

4. Its like Israel is laundering money.

so the taxpayer can't trace the trail strait from them to the military industrial crowd.

[Tom Joad]

11. It is used in the furtherance of war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Pretty shameful deal.

[msmcghee]

3. One-hundred million?

That's about one third the cost of one modern jetliner. It's hardly going to bump Boeing stock very much - if at all. It might allow Boeing to keep a few more people working with benefits though.

Somewhat ironically, before smart bombs it was necessary to use many bombs to destroy whole areas and kill anybody in the vicinity.

I would think those who don't like to see innocent Palestinian civilians killed and neighborhoods destroyed would be happy to see weapons like smart bombs used when Israel tries to put rocket launchers and workshops out of business and other small targets in urban areas.

[lvx35]

5. Israel's last adventuring blowing things was immoral.

It is wrong to attack a country and its government unless you were attacked by forces under the authority of that government. ATtacks from criminals allegedly from that country do not justify an invasion of a country. So in this context, your argument is like saying its better to rob a bank with precision rifle than sawed off shotgun, and thereby justifying the sale of the weapon to the bank robber.

But then again, those who live in glass houses... :)

[msmcghee]

6. I think you might have your cops and robbers mixed up here.

Or, was it actually Israel that started firing Kassam rockets into Gaza within a few hours of Israel removing all settlements and IDF from the area. And was it Israel that continued to fire those rockets for the last year with the express purpose of killing innocent civilians. And was it Israel that continued to fire those rockets during the recent cease-fire?

It's interesting that Hamas only stopped recently for a break so they could concentrate on killing each other for a while.

[lvx35]

10. Oh, you must be talking about when Israel attacked Hamasistan

right after their government attacked. I am talking about when Israel attacked Lebanon, whose democratically elected government is NOT Hamas.

[sabbat hunter]

16. you are confused

the lebanese government does not control the southern part of its own country, it is controlled by syrian backed terror group hizbollah. agroup who sends rockets into israeli civilian cities, even before israel went into southern lebanon after hizbollah kidnapped israeli soldiers on israeli soil.

[lvx35]

17. Yes, but even Hezbollah is not the government of Lebanon

So what right does Israel have to attack Lebanon?

[sabbat hunter]

19. israel had a right

to defend itself against an illegal armed force.

[lvx35]

28. Absolutely.

Its when the definition of defending itself involves invading countries who didn't attack them but they get into moral problems, IMHO...But I will speak about this no more, because pointing to Israel is such a massive act of hypocrisy given the actions of my own country :(

[breakaleg]

20. That doesn't explain why they attacked NORTHERN Lebanon.

[sabbat hunter]

21. i agree

they should have limited the attack to the hizbollah who were based in the south.

[msmcghee]

22. Actually the Hisb'allah command and control, communications . .

. . political offices, (remember they are part of the government) logistics and procurement were located in several urban / commercial blocks in the suburbs of Beirut.

Added on edit: The web is full of verification of this. But, here's a blog from a Lebanese civilian who was in Beirut at the time. (July 14, 2006)

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/charles_chuman/2006/07/beirut_blues.html

(snip)

Many Beirutis have evacuation plans. We have small bags packed and are ready to move to the mountains or head to Syria. However, we will not use the Beirut-to-Damascus highway because the Israelis are currently bombing the Bekaa Valley, and there are reports that the border crossing is backed up with heavy traffic.

The worst-case scenario would be if Israel attacked Syria, which would leave us no place to go.

However, the majority of people in Beirut choose to stay. As bad as it is to have the infrastructure destroyed and the airport inoperable, this is nowhere near as bad as the Israeli invasion in 1982. There is no chance of street fighting in West Beirut. There are no snipers on rooftops. Hezbollah's militia operations are based in the southern suburbs of Beirut, and they are very unlikely to move into the centre.

Residents of West Beirut remember when Israeli troops were here before. We recall that the Israelis know the Lebanese landscape well, and have little reason to bomb West Beirut, with all the shops, residential areas, the American University of Beirut, and the many international and evangelical schools.

In the meantime, we wait for Hezbollah, Israel, and the international community to take actions that will dramatically alter our lives. By and large, most people in my neighbourhood - the religiously diverse Hamra area of West Beirut - are outraged with Hezbollah and feel little connection with the Shia religious political party.

As a Palestinian and Christian member of the anti-semitic Syrian Social Nationalist Party (which calls for the destruction of Israel) recently told me, "We take two soldiers, and they destroy our airport. They destroy the whole south and billions of dollars of investments. They destroy the stock market. What was Hezbollah thinking?"

Hezbollah's actions have undermined much of what the assassinated former prime minister Rafiq al Hariri tried to build. On the bright side, the rival political factions might actually rise up to challenge Hezbollah now, rather than allowing the party of God and its fiscal and military backers in Syria and Iran to continue strangling the country.

(snip)

[breakaleg]

23. and what about the oil refinery they destroyed? The bridges and infrastucture in Beirut?

It was collective punishment, pure and simple.

[msmcghee]

25. I know you think it is all so unfair . .

. . that the attempts to kill Israelis are met with violence from Israel. You always seem to forget that the violence and destruction could have ended at any time if the kidnapped soldiers had been returned and the rocket barrage halted.

When a lawful nation is attacked across its borders it has the right of self defense and the right to use however much force is necessary to stop the attack. This is a long-established component of all international law and is written into the UN Charter.

Israel gradually increased the force level hoping to see the rockets halted and the soldiers returned. Eventually the Hisb'allah rockets were stopped based on assurances by France and Lebanon that the soldiers would be returned and that Hisb'allah would be disarmed. Israel apparently had found the level of violence necessary to defend its borders and its citizens and halted all bombing and artillery at the agreed to time.

I remind that Israel halted the violence even before the soldiers were returned - and they still remain in captivity or are dead. Also, that Lebanon, with the assurance of France and under UN auspices, agreed to disarm Hisb'allah to prevent further violence in S. Lebanon. Both those promises have been broken.

It would be helpful for you to try to use some objectivity when looking at events in the region.

[breakaleg]

26. Oh, give it up already.

Let's see, the "lawful nation" I assume you are referring to is Israel? The very same nation that is continually breaking international law as I write this? Yes, they have every right to destroy another nation for 2 soldiers.

I would give you the same advice. It's oh so difficult when Israel can do no wrong, isn't it?

[msmcghee]

27. The point is that on the night that Hisb'allah crossed . .

. . the blue line to kill several IDF on the Israel side of the line and kidnap 2 others - and simultaneously started firing rocket barrages into civilian areas of N. Israel - Israel was the lawful party and Lebanon / Hisb'allah was committing a war crime.

If it requires destroying a nation to make that nation stop firing thousands of rockets into civilian areas of N. Israel, then yes, they have every right to do that according to international law - as long as the violence is graduated over a reasonable amount of time to reach the necessary level and as long as Israel uses leaflets etc. to warn civilians of impending attacks.

However, Lebanon was hardly destroyed in this case. But, Lebanon seems to have suffered damage enough to enrage those who despise Israel and perhaps lament that Israel did not suffer more damage and casualties in the conflict.

[breakaleg]

29. Out of curiousity, is there a line which if Israel did cross you would consider it too far?

Looking at the damage done, the casualties on both sides, any clear thinking individual would see that Israel over-reacted. What would it take for you to come to that conclusion?

[msmcghee]

30. Yes, that line is the use of force against another state or people . .

. . when not in self-defense. As far as I know Israel has not, since its inception in 1948, acted except in self-defense against its enemies.

I answered your question. Will you answer mine as forthrightly?

Israel's enemies consistently use anti-personnel weapons such as suicide bombers, snipers and unguided missiles to attack innocent Israeli civilians whenever they have the opportunity and have been doing this for 70 years. I can't remember ever hearing an original complaint from you about this.

Is there a line which if Israel's enemies did cross you would consider it too far?

[breakaleg]

31. Your statement is false. I have voiced my opinion against attacks on Israelis civilians.

You just are choosing not to see it.

[msmcghee]

32. My statement is false?

Are you more aware of what I remember than I am? Also, I said original complaint. I can remember times when you were challenged to denounce some attack on Israeli citizens - but I don't think you have never started a thread to do so or volunteered a criticism of any such violent actions against Israelis.

But, maybe my memory is faulty. I will admit that you may have done so at some time - even if I don't remember it.

But, you still haven't answered my question.

[breakaleg]

33. Yes.

This one: "I can't remember ever hearing an original complaint from you about this."

[msmcghee]

34. So . . .

. . you're not going to answer my question?

[breakaleg]

35. I believe I did.

[msmcghee]

36. Please reread post # 30 . . the last sentence. I am . .

. . asking for a line that should not be crossed - a principle - that you would apply generally to judging the actions of Israel's enemies. Like the principle that I provided in my answer to you. A simple admission that you criticized one of Israel's enemies at some time is not what I was looking for. I can't imagine you would have found my answer sufficient if I had responded to your question in that way.

[breakaleg]

37. and in post #31 I said I have voiced my disagreement with suicide bombers. Aka criticism of

some Palestinians. Whereas I've never heard any criticism of Israel coming from you. Just excuses.

[msmcghee]

38. Well, what you said was . .

"I have voiced my opinion against attacks on Israelis civilians."

But let's run with your suicide bomber statement, "I have voiced my disagreement with suicide bombers".

OK, But there could be many ways to disagree with suicide bombers.

You could disagree with them in their choice of target as being not valuable enough, for example. But, I'll try to give you some slack here. I think you are saying that suicide bombers are immoral and unethical is that correct?

What is it about suicide bombers that you find immoral?

[breakaleg]

39. self delete. you aren't worth my time.

[msmcghee]

40. I'm sorry you quit.

I was going to explain that I can think of circumstances where a suicide bombing could be quite moral and honorable. If someone was attacking your family, for example, and the only way to save your family from death would be to sacrifice your own. In war soldiers are often known to give their own life to save their comrades. They get medals for that - and they should.

What I wanted to get to was that the important part is not the weapon one uses but whether one uses a weapon in defense from attack by others - or offensively against others who are not attacking you.

No matter what the weapon, in one case, it is honorable and moral to defend the lives of your family and fellow citizens from attack by those who want something you have, like your land or resources - and are initiating force against you to take it.

It is never honorable to attack others to get what you want from them. That's a war crime and is against international law. That's what negotiations and the UN are for. Attacking others to take something from them is always immoral.

Hisb'allah attacked Israel committing a war crime in the process. Israel was defending itself and trying to stop the rockets that were injuring and killing its citizens. Israel was acting honorably.

An exception to this rule is when one state repeatedly attacks another from a specific area - in that case it is moral and justified for the defensive party to occupy that area to prevent further attacks if that is necessary - at least until a peace treaty with the offending party can be signed and effective defensive borders can be established. That's what UN Resolution 242 is all about.

You say I'm not worth your time to respond. Don't you think that's a pretty mean thing to say. I said nothing to you that was disrespectful.

[breakaleg]

41. nothing disrespectful???? how about this:

"You could disagree with them in their choice of target as being not valuable enough, "

You've got nerve. Accusing me of wanting more death and destruction.

It takes a really sick person to accuse anyone of approving of suicide bombers.

[msmcghee]

42. I never accused you of anything.

I used that example to show how your unspecific statement could be interpreted in even an opposite way from the one you probably intended it. I explained that completely in my post and I even stated that you probably meant to say that suicide bombings are immoral. But you know that.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msmcghee]

44. Well, I don't think you are a sick individual.

I just don't think you reason things through very well.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Let's discuss those moral and honorable suicide bombings...

I was going to explain that I can think of circumstances where a suicide bombing could be quite moral and honorable.

Fire away. I'm all ears coz I can't think of a single case where a suicide bombings has been honourable and moral. What I found a bit bizarre was you said you were going to explain why they were honourable and moral and then went straight on to talk about soldiers dying in war to save other soldiers. I'm not aware of any instances where a military force has used suicide bombings as a tactic, so maybe you can fill me in?

btw, breakaleg has unequivocally spoken out against suicide bombings in this forum. I'll go grab you the links if you missed seeing them...

[msmcghee]

64. VC - I have no problem getting into a discussion with you but . .

. . let's both try to limit the personal digs that usually result. The sentences in my post following the one that you quoted - that I believe fully answer your question are:

If someone was attacking your family, for example, and the only way to save your family from death would be to sacrifice your own. In war soldiers are often known to give their own life to save their comrades. They get medals for that - and they should. What I wanted to get to was that the important part is not the weapon one uses but whether one uses a weapon in defense from attack by others - or offensively against others who are not attacking you.

I agree that the difference between unprovoked attacks against innocent civilians and defensive operations to prevent those attacks is understandably a difficult one for the anti-Israel side of this debate to acknowledge - but it is the concept that underlies all of international law and is embedded in the Charter of the UN.

As you should know by now it is also the idea that informs almost all of my views of the I/P conflict. It very simply states that it is immoral and illegal to attack others but it is moral and legal to defend your people and your territory from such attacks - and to fully reduce the attacker's ability to attack again, if you possibly can. I can't imagine how the world could become a reasonably peaceful place in the future without fully embracing this concept. I believe that enforcing such a morality on the world's states should be the primary function of the UN - and that most of the the problems of the ME and elsewhere in the world in places like Rwanda and Darfur can largely be blamed on the failure of the UN to follow that principle mandated by its charter.

You said, "I'm not aware of any instances where a military force has used suicide bombings as a tactic, so maybe you can fill me in?"

I was not discussing military tactics specifically. Militaries are in the business of killing the enemy and therefore usually prefer means of doing so without causing casualties of their own in the process. There are exceptions of course like the Japanese Kamikaze of WWII. This is an interesting psychological issue but has little or nothing to do with my discussion with breakaleg.

You said, "btw, breakaleg has unequivocally spoken out against suicide bombings in this forum. I'll go grab you the links if you missed seeing them..."

Why would you do that? I said in post #32 to breakaleg, "But, maybe my memory is faulty. I will admit that you may have done so at some time - even if I don't remember it."

[Shaktimaan]

46. It's not just about the 2 soldiers.

Israel's security is strongly connected to its image as a strong, not to be fucked with state. The weaker they appear the greater chance there is of an actual war happening. Last summer's action was supposed to solidify Israel's standing militarily. Obviously, it was a total clusterfuck and it ended up doing the opposite. So in this case, it was not a useful invasion.

But in terms of the morality, whether or not they were ethically justified in their actions, there is no question that they were. You think they were callous in their disregard for Lebanon's infrastructure and civilians, right? OK, compared to what? This isn't an isolated incident. Hezbollah has been attacking them with Katyushas ever since they left Lebanon, there never was a moment of peace. And their armaments from Iran are getting more sophisticated. As it is Israel couldn't manage to disable their attacks, and there were many, many attacks.

So when was the last time a well armed neighboring state, crossed borders and attacked someone unilaterally and was met with a light response? When was the last time any state weathered a rocket attack as severe as Israel anyway? World War II maybe?

Consider that Israel took every precaution they could to reduce civilian casualties, they gave warning before striking civilian areas. And they limited their air strikes to Hezbollah dominated areas. In Beirut, they only hit Hezbollah's district. They were attacked by a semi-governmental group and retaliated against them alone. I don't see what they could have done to reduce the damage to non-combatants any more than they did without abandoning the whole idea of retaliating altogether.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah actively targeted civilian areas and tried to do as much damage as possible. Intent is important here. Is Israel more brutal than Hezbollah because they have shelters to hide their civilians? The fact that Israel tried so hard and was unable to really hurt Hezbollah is evidence of the level of threat that they are. No, they aren't going to destroy Israel outright. But that's not the point. No one should be expected to just weather constant attacks without having the right to defend themselves.

I have a question. By the nature of the enemy that Israel faces, retaliation will always entail striking at civilian areas. If this is unacceptable to you, then what other feasable option would you propose? In the case of Lebanon, consider that the UN has ratified the border and there is no legitimate reason for Hezbollah to be attacking Israel.

[breakaleg]

47. So basically this was Israel flexing its muscles in an attempt to remind Hezbollah of their might.

That's the most pathetic excuse for invading another country that I've heard to date.

As for "whether or not they were ethically justified in their actions, there is no question that they were", I take issue with that. There is apparently no doubt among Israel and it's supporters but that's a pretty small group these days. And getting smaller.

If Israel wants to go after the specific people who they believed kidnapped those soldiers, then they should go after them directly and not invade the whole country. But Israel cared more about their own troops than the civilians on the other end and they wanted to attack from a distance so as to put their soldiers at as little risk as possible while killing indiscriminately the civilians on the other side. There is no way to clean that fact up so it becomes acceptable or excusable.

In either case, it's over, it's been discussed extensively and we will never agree.

[Shaktimaan]

48. indiscriminately?

If Israel ever killed indiscriminately I think things would look very different than they have been. For example, look at the difference between the US invasion of Iraq and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in terms of casualties.

And yes, they put their soldiers at as little risk as possible even though it greatly increased the risks to the Lebanese civilians. I'm not sure why you think any other country has ever done differently. Or even should do differently for that matter. Hezbollah put their citizens at great risk by launching attacks from civilian centers. It is not right to expect Israel to refrain from retaliating in any real way because of actions taken by their enemy that place their own civilians at risk.

How many times is a reasonable amount for Israel to get attacked by rocket fire before responding would be considered appropriate?

[breakaleg]

49. Who said Israel couldn't respond? No one. It's how they chose to respond that's the issue.

2 soldiers. They could have sent in smaller groups to try to find them or find the perpetrators and punish them. Not invade the whole country. They thought they could accomplish their tasks from the air and from tanks. They were wrong. And in the end they inflicted much more damage to civilians and infrastructure than they needed to.

I'm sure these are things you've heard before. Just as I've heard the many excuses about why Israel is justified in their "defensive war" (I love that phrase - gives me a chuckle every time I hear it).

We are both wasting our time here.

[Shaktimaan]

50. really...

They could have sent in smaller groups to try to find them or find the perpetrators and punish them.

are you serious?

Can I ask you, breakaleg, how old are you? Seriously, I am just curious.

[breakaleg]

51. Have you not heard of such raids? Is it an impossiblity?

[Shaktimaan]

52. Do you know what occurred during this conflict?

Israel actually did send in a small team right at the very beginning to try and rescue the two soldiers. They were all killed.

You're making it sound as though Hezbollah sent in a ragtag group of terrorists and happened to get lucky. That wasn't the case at all. This was a really serious conflict, not at all similar to skirmishes the IDF has had with the Palestinians. Hezbollah was using state of the art weapons from Iran and Syria. They hit an Israeli ship miles away with a radar guided, liquid fueled missile. Almost a million Israelis were stationed in safe rooms or bomb shelters for the entire duration. And Israel's ground force got massacred, they were totally smooshed on the ground in Lebanon.

If there was any way for Israel to have gotten their soldiers back and avoided this kind of conflict, believe me, they would have done it. There's no political will to reoccupy Lebanon in Israel. And they had nothing to gain by opening up a second front while they were already fighting in Gaza. But in this case, Hezbollah fired rockets at and shelled several towns and a few military installations, crossed the border and killed eight soldiers, kidnapping two more. It was some real serious shit.

No one has ever done anything to disarm Hezbollah. They control the south completely and are a part of the national government. Even now both Lebanon and UNIFIL have stated that they aren't going to fulfill the UN resolution and even attempt to disarm them. Or even prevent them from rearming for that matter. This isn't anything that can be solved by a simple commando raid. If the Lebanese government and the UN and anyone else who is supposedly responsible for disarming Hezbollah fails in that task then this is just going to happen all over again. This is already the second or third time this has happened. But unlike the PLO, Hezbollah isn't a dime store quality military force. They are a legit threat. Sooner or later they are going to have to be dealt with. Personally, I'd like to see the UN do something for once. But they've been there since the 70's to "secure the border" and they've been about as useful as my grandma in mitigating cross-border attacks.

[breakaleg]

53. You'll have to excuse me. I thought the goal, or at least the stated goal, was to

retrieve those 2 soldiers. Apparently you are saying that the real goal was to disarm Hezbollah. As with all things, it's hard to discuss what actually happened when that's kept secret, or when their stated purpose is an excuse for something else.

I am very well aware of what went on. I'm also sick and tired of hearing how justified Israel was - I think I may have mentioned that already.

I actually stumbled upon this site during that fiasco because I was appalled at my local news reports and was looking for another point of view or someone willing to criticize Israel.

[Shaktimaan]

54. You lost me there.

You'll have to excuse me. I thought the goal, or at least the stated goal, was to retrieve those 2 soldiers. Apparently you are saying that the real goal was to disarm Hezbollah. As with all things, it's hard to discuss what actually happened when that's kept secret, or when their stated purpose is an excuse for something else.

Are you implying some kind of conspiracy is going on? What was kept secret? What are you talking about?

Israel had two stated goals upon entering the conflict. One, to retrieve the soldiers. Two, to destroy the military capabilities of Hezbollah. It wasn't exactly a secret. It was cited in every article written about the conflict that I read. In fact, the whole reason people are saying that Hezbollah won so decisively is because neither goal of Israel's was accomplished. But besides that, the UN resolution halting the war calls for Hezbollah to disarm. They are ignoring it, but it was part of the resolution.

I am very well aware of what went on.

Uh-huh. OK then. You seem to think that Israel had ulterior motives in invading Lebanon. What could they be?

[breakaleg]

55. I think they wanted to destroy Hezbollah and used the kidnapping of those

2 soldiers as the excuse. I think their reaction was an over-reaction and they had no right to cause all of the civilian casualties and damage that they did.

Quite frankly, they seem to have walked away clean from the whole thing and have taken no responsibility for leaving a country in disarray.

That's it for me.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

57. And you were also very rude. None of your God damned business.

If you are over 18, you should know better than to even ask.

[Shaktimaan]

58. Is it really rude to ask that?

I was just curious. You can decline without going bananas, you know.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. What has any poster's age got to do with this discussion?

I'd really like to know, because when I see someone repeatedly asking someone else a question like that in this forum, I start to think that it's really out of line. It's none of yr business how old anyone else is unless they offer that information up themselves, so please stop asking people personal questions that have zero to do with the discussion of the I/P conflict...

[Shaktimaan]

63. It's not an unreasonable question.

Anyone may decline to answer if they choose. But I don't see why you see it as being so inappropriate. I wasn't badgering anyone and it isn't as though it's a question of such a personal nature that it warrants hostility.

A simple, "no thanks" would suffice.

[breakaleg]

65. It actually is since it has nothing to do with this or any discussion in this forum.

You are looking to pigeon hole me in some way so you can justify something to yourself. If I say I'm young, you'll say I'm naive and have no life experience. If I say I'm older you'll say I'm out of touch or some such thing. Any way to make my opinions invalid.

I can only gather from your post that you are very young. You can interpret that any way you like.

[Shaktimaan]

67. actually I was just curious.

It wasn't a prelude to critique you. But you aren't obligated to answer and since you don't want to I'll drop it.
But I'd like to point out that rather than publicly speculating about you and then using my assumptions to insult you (as you have just done to me) I actually asked you for the truth.

Perhaps you find your method less rude or more relevant to the subject at hand. It's certainly more hypocritical. Let me know how it works out for you.

[breakaleg]

68. As soon as I see you asking other posters

for their age, I'll apologize.

[Shaktimaan]

69. By the way, you could have just asked WHY

I wanted to know your age before deciding that it was part of a scheme to discredit your opinions.

The actual reason has to do with a general tendancy that I've been seeing all over to automatically assume that fault in any middle eastern flare up automatically lies with Israel and a cynical belief that Israel's policy is to use these situations to illegally colonize or steal from its neighbors. I see people back up these assumptions with impartial or incorrect facts and then when presented with more information they just alter aspects of their theory to accomodate them as opposed to rethinking more practical possibilities. The reason I asked your age is because I feel that you do this and while most people I've met who debate like this are around their early to late 20's I've been wondering if this isn't a trend that's becoming more common independant of age. If you ended up being college age then it doesn't mean anything because this kind of thinking is really prevalent in college. But if you're in your 30s or 40s it has different implications. People that age aren't exposed to the same kind of prop and tend to have a less solidly negative view of Israel, so where people fall on the timeline says something about the general perception of Israel in the world.

Note that I'm not talking about negatively critiqueing Isreal. People like Violet and Doug have consistently critical views on Israel but they both have a solid background and understanding of the whole situation. That's different. What I'm talking about is a fundamental assumption that Israel is always in the wrong and always makes amoral decisions, arrived at prior to viewing the facts. What I'm talking about is a suspicion that Israel is fundamentally flawed in a way that transcends their actions or policy.

That's why I wanted to know your age. Now, you may not feel this way. It was just my impression and I hadn't spent too much time before now mulling it over, but I figured I'd ask you how old you are just to see how it fit in.

Dig?

[breakaleg]

70. You couldn't be more wrong.

I have heard nothing but the Israelis perspective for most of my life. I was bombarded with that and nothing but from all of my news sources and saw no reason to question it. I believed it wholeheartedly. Palestinians were terrorists - all of them - and nothing but. This was what I was led to believe.

It wasn't until the second intifada that I began to question why the news was reported the way it was, in every newspaper I picked up. Why did the newspapers report that an Israeli named xxx was killed by terrorist yyy. xxx was this many years old, had this many family members, all of his friends say he was like that, and his hopes and dreams were this. Oh, and there were 15 Palestinians killed by the IDF in their defense of Israel against terrorists. (no more information was forthcoming about those) (I didn't have access to tv) So I began to research it. And what I discovered was shocking.

I firmly believe that if the western world did their own research rather than relying on the one sided view of the major news outlets in the US, they would have a completely different perspective.

Israel had my support for way too long. So my opinions do not stem from lack of knowledge but quite the opposite.

I find your explanation of the ages to be insulting as well. As if to say that educated people of a certain age should support Israel. As if it's not possible to be educated and not be able to see how right and just Israel is.

At the very least I know I've come by my opinions honestly.

[Tom Joad]

7. It could end a 40 year illegal, immoral, insane occupation.

That is a better alternative. That would help the people of Israel and Palestine.

[msmcghee]

8. The only thing illegal, immoral and insane . .

. . is the refusal of the Palestinian leadership to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist in peace and security - and to seek a resolution to the conflict according to UN Resolution 242. That is the only way the Palestinians will ever be able to live in peace.

The only thing possibly more immoral and insane than the Palestinian's intractability are the efforts of those who support and encourage their self-destructive actions.

[razors edge]

9. How dare they stand

against an occupying force, where do they get these crazy ideas?

[Recursion]

12. Yeah, they should just give up their farms and wells like good people

*shrug*

I'm not sure why people think there has to be a happy ending to every political dispute. We had a bunch of European refugees who just watched about 6 million of their relatives get murdered go to the middle east and kick out a bunch of people who were living there. Then two superpowers divy up all these populations and support them as proxies against each other. I'm not sure there's a happy ending that can come from this.

Great countries we've got here, the US and Israel. Real beacons to the world.

[Shaktimaan]

45. You're a bit off.

The refugees went to the M.E., bought land from the people living there, were attacked repeatedly without cause, THEN kicked out the people who were living there so they would stop attacking. When they didn't, they lost more and more land. Simply, if no one had ever attacked the Israelis, they would not have lost any land.

War is a risky business. If you have the stones to start one, you should refrain from crying about the outcome if it isn't to your liking.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. And yr way off the mark...

Simply, if no one had ever attacked the Israelis, they would not have lost any land.

There's no simply about it, because that statement doesn't stand up to examination. Firstly and most obviously, the Palestinians had already lost a lot of their land as soon as the partition happened. Secondly, the Zionist leadership accepted the partition plan only grudgingly and thought it was a wise move to take what they were offered and then later on gain more territory....

On yr claim that Holocaust survivors arrived armed with enough funds to buy land from people living there. That sounds a bit suss to me, because even though I know that sabra attitudes towards Holocaust survivors were mixed (they were seen as genuine victims who had suffered a lot, but at the same time they were seen by sabras as weak), many lived in camps when they first arrived. What I thought was that when the Palestinians fled or were expelled, the Israeli govt took over their property and either sold or gave it to Jewish immigrants. I'd be interested in seeing what it is that you read to lead you to think otherwise...

[Anarcho-Socialist]

13. Interesting

How Israel is singled out here for condemnation for purchasing military equipment from the United States, when a lot of other countries are (or have done) doing the same.

[provis99]

14. what are you implying? Criticizing an arms sale to Israel is anti-semitism?

State it plainly; don't just make veiled suggestions.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

15. That's a pretty big leap

I commented that I found the observation interesting, but not the criticism of an arms sale to Israel, but why Israel is singled out for condemnation in this instance. Although perhaps someone will give me an insight into why Israel ought to be singled out for condemnation for importing military hardware.

[Tom Joad]

18. Why do you find it surprising that US arms sales to Israel is brought up in the Israel/Palestine

forum? We should talk about Burma here?

Why do also find it surprising since the US sends more aid to Israel than any single nation.
Since it gets more economic aid than all of Africa from the US.

[The Magistrate]

24. Still, Mr. Joad

Your objection to the employment of more accurate weapons, in a conflict marked by the use of non-combatants as a species of cover by armed militants, does strike an odd note....

[Violet_Crumble]

60. Maybe you should try addressing what Tom actually said...

He did not say anything about objecting to the employment of more accurate weapons. He spoke of US funding to Israel. What strikes me as odd is yr objection to Israel going out and using its own money to buy its own more accurate weapons, instead of using US funding for it...

[Tom Joad]

66. I do oppose all weapons sales to any nation that engages human rights abuses, or

engages in wars of aggression. Actually, that is US law as well.

[Wise Doubter]

71. Israel to buy US bomb kits for $100M......

Giving us back some of our own money huh ?