Bob, Thank you for the explanation. I don't know much about the Middle East and the conflicts there so this was quite enlightning. I have heard that one of the root causes was when a forefather of Saddam took hold of Nazi beliefs and stirred up a radical element of Islam against the Jews. Have you heard that? Could you shed any light on that particular facet of this mess? It may be just garbage , but right or wrong I would like to know.
Thank you, Jim Bob Molloy wrote: > Hi Fritz, > Greetings and genuine warm thoughts. Sorry I appeared > sarcastic. I've looked again at what I posted and realise it could be > interpreted that way. Apologies for that. I'm afraid I gave in to my > worst instincts. The Arab-Israeli conflict always generates a kind of > knee-jerk reaction in me. I spent time in Israel and Gaza. I went > there an innocent and came away a cynic, which is the worst and last > state of the frustrated idealist. > > I wish I had Mike Weaver's light touch but my humour tends more to the > black. > > My knee-jerk reaction on hearing the latest horror in this long, sorry > saga was the equivalent of quoting Shakespeare and wishing a pox on > both their houses. Yet when you pointed me in the direction of > the btselem websites I did get a glimpse of a possible sane outcome > for all. Thank you again for that. > > The Geneva Convention and international law on human rights, in fact > even the recognition that humans /have /rights, all stem from > international agreements - in short a backing away from survival of > the fittest. However, what I said was that we are still savages under > the skin. And those of us still around are demonstrations of our > fitness to survive the ongoing competition for space and land. Our > international agreements are but fragile protection against our > instincts. > > The analysis I put forward was based on taking a moment in time and > working forward from there, always a contentious method. If I were to > apply that to second century Britain, 16th century America, 18th > century Canada or 19th century Australia the result would condemn the > present populations of those countries as usurpers. In fact, as I > pointed out, none of us would be able to stand tall. > > The reason for starting from the moment when UNO accepted Israel as a > member (in other words as a legally constituted legitimate state) was > in my view the only possible point of departure. There are many > others, but none so clearly legitimised as the moment when the most > modern international organisation we had then in existence chose to do > so. You point out that the Arab League did not accept that, hence > their reason for going to war. This means they accepted war as a > legitimate means of solving their dispute i..e a return to survival of > the fittest. They went to war and lost. That's why the Palestinians > were not compensated for land. The reality is that land is not the > issue here, cultural hegemony i.e. the dominance of Islam, is. > The wars that followed and the massacres you refer to were - as surely > as night follows day - the inevitable outcome. They went unpunished > due to modern power politics which, as I pointed out, is dominated by > the winners. > > An alternative to beginning the analysis with the legitimisation of > the modern State of Israel would be to go back even further to > the post-Moses period during which the Israelites entered the > so-called Promised Land and lived there for some 1,300 years - > surviving Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Syrian and a half-dozen other > invasions - until sent into Diaspora (i.e scattered around the known > world) in AD 78 when the Romans burned Jerusalem, killed thousands, > enslaved the rest, destroyed the Temple and - a year later - wiped out > the last outpost of Jewish resistance at Masada. > > After the Romans got their come-uppance (about 400 years later - from > the Germans would you believe - then known as Visigoths) the land of > Israel was occupied by nomadic desert tribes. The Jews never - in the > almost 2,000 years since the Diaspora - ever gave up their claim. In > fact, they had a standard greeting which endured for centuries in > many languages which wished themselves "next year in Jerusalem". > > However, if we start our analysis from pre-Mosiac times i.e. before > the Israelites entered the Promised Land (which obviously had people > living in it) then of course the Jews had no right to what was then > known as Canaan. But here's the question: who the hell did? Answer: > the guy with the biggest stick. > > In AD 630 (more than 550 years after the Romans tossed out the > Jews) the guy in the Middle East with the biggest stick happened to be > a man called Muhammed who invaded Mecca with 10,000 believers, united > the desert tribes with a new religious message known as Islam, and > spread it across the entire Middle East including Israel and its > principal city, Jerusalem. If you start your analysis from that point > then the Palestinians are in the right. > > Does that make your head spin? It does mine. > > The point I'm making is that if you are looking for legitimacy in > terms of land occupation you have to start somewhere. However, it is > an academic approach. What matters in the heat of the moment is blood > and fire and our separate reactions to them. Inevitably there will > always be people on opposing sides of the issue. > I finished my post with the view that the Arab-Israeli war will never > end until Israel is destroyed or the Arabs accept her existence. > Neither is likely. Sanctioning Israel is simply taking sides; > admonishing the Palestinians ditto. Jumping up and down and > handwringing avails us naught. > > You can if you wish build your analysis on the basis of active > violence /vis a vis/ reactive violence i.e who threw the first > punch. That would make an interesting debate but still at the sterile > academic level. The reality is that people are dying right now, > children are being maimed and traumatised for life, blood and treasure > is being poured out and nations are impoverishing themselves in a > fruitless war. > > The US could send Israel back behind her legitimate borders tomorrow. > But the US cannot stop the rocket attacks. Only the Arabs acting as a > whole can do that and no Arab leader would agree. The last one to sign > a peace treaty with Israel was assassinated. Without secure > borders Israel cannot survive and would be forced to react - again. > True, the US in concert with the West could stop all arms and other > supplies to Israel and slowly starve her into submission. > > To what? Arab occupation? Sharia law? Eventual total Islamisation? > That would be a Final Solution. Where have I heard that phrase before? > However, it is the 21st century and final solutions are a luxury we > can no longer afford. > > Why not? Israel's nuclear arsenal says so. If we hate and detest what > their reactive violence is doing in Lebanon right now we certainly > won't enjoy their fall-back plan. Nor, on reflection, will we > particularly relish what Iran has in mind. The nearest German > equivalent is Gotterdammerung. (I think there's an umlaut in there > somewhere). > > The Bible has a more apt word for it. In fact it is not only a word it > is a prediction. Can't think of it at the moment but I'm sure someone > will post it. (I'm not a god-botherer by the way nor even a nominal > Christian. It took me half a lifetime to reason my way to out of my > childhood conditioning so please don't put me in that slot). > > In sum, Fritz, I feel your pain. I appreciate your concern. I agree > with your sentiments and have no wish to naysay them. I do not > condone the violence nor do I excuse it. What I have attempted to do > is explain it. My failure is abysmal but then I'm in a long, > long queue of previous explainers. > > Regards, > Bob. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Fritz Friesinger <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > <mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.org> > *Sent:* Saturday, July 22, 2006 6:06 AM > *Subject:* [Biofuel] Check your Beliefs > > So Bob, > You are rigth on this,its about Land,Power Oil and Money and so on! > The fact that the UNO did sanction the implantation of Israel is > no consolation for the dispossest Palestinians,who have been > driven of theire Land without compensation or all! > That the Arabligue did oppose the implantation of Israel is no > secret and the price for all this have been payed by the > Palestinian Population! > The Shabra and Shatilla Massacres and the rest of the atrocyties > by the Israel Government on Palestinians can all be excused by > your motion of "survival of the fittest" > Well German Nazis had to stand trial for their Warcrimes and so i > agree with all Holocaust sufferers (and the rest of the civil > world) that there should not be any amnesty for Warcriminals! > But explain me why the Shabra and Shatilla Massacres have not been > punished despite the perpetrayers have been clearly identified? > And explain me why we have a "Convention of Geneva" and why we > have established basic Humanrigths if you can brush them away with > "survival of the fittest" > Now,i can not beliefe that all the things you have said are your > real beliefes so i think you are sarcastic but you should realice > that is exactly the problem in our society at the very most we are > "sarcastic" the suffering of these people does not concern us to > much after all its not hurting us directly or is it? > Fritz > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Bob Molloy <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* biofuel@sustainablelists.org > <mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org> > *Sent:* Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:11 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] Check Your Beliefs > > Hey guys, > It's a war; dirty, messy, cruel, inhuman and > unnecessary - unless you happen to be a Palestinian yearning for > your land > back or an Israeli who's been threatened with annihilation since > birth. It's > also a war that's been going on since mankind began. It's about > land and > religion and culture and who dominates who. There are no rights > and wrongs > there are only who wins and who loses. The winners write history > and we move > on. > > Mike Weaver made the point when he wondered if he might be living > on land > owned by an indigenous people, a point which also applies to you > too, Fritz, > despite your disingenuous attempt to justify occupation of > "unwanted" land. > However, before you think of noble savages, remember that all > those nice > peace-loving indigenes slaughtered and plundered their way through the > millenia since they left Africa (where we all originated) to > wherever they > finally settled. The 19th century saw the last vestiges of this > land grab. > > If you were a theologian you'd call it original sin. Darwin was > earthier, > and more enlightening, he called it survival of the fittest. You > may take > sides, wring your hands, jump up and down, talk about human rights > but we > are all - even those nice people in the rain forest who we think > live in > harmony with nature - guilty of genocide and dispossession. In the > present > case it's called the Arab-Israeli war. We'll know who was right when > somebody wins. > > And if you've forgotten how it all began, here's a brief sketch. I > found it > on my thumbnail. > > The UNO blessing on the establishment of Israel in 1948 was merely the > recognition of a de facto situation. From that moment on Israel > was de jure, > i.e. a legal entity in international law. The Arabs disagreed. > Five Arab > armies (Egypt, Syria, Trans-Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq - including the > British-trained and armed Arab Legion) immediately invaded the > fledgling > state. The world responded by clapping a total arms embargo on Israel. > Against that the Israelis had nine obsolete aircraft, a few tanks, > fewer > than 20,000 armed civilians -and balls. They won, and pushed out their > frontiers to safeguard their collective backsides from future attacks. > > The attacks never stopped (rockets, mines, cross-border shelling and > guerilla incursions) but the next big one came in 1967 - the > so-called Six > Day War. This time the Arabs meant business. Egypt closed the > Straits of > Tiran to all Israeli shipping, cutting off Israel's only supply > route with > Asia and stopping the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran. > > President Nasser of Egypt challenged Israel to fight. "Our basic > objective > will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." He > ordered all UN peace-keeping forces stationed on Israeli borders > to leave. > The UN complied without even calling a meeting. The Voice of the > Arabs radio > station proclaimed: "As of today, there no longer exists an > international > emergency force to protect Israel. The sole method we shall apply > against > Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist > existence". Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad was more blunt: > "The Syrian > army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a > military man, > believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation. > Nasser topped that: "We shall not enter Palestine with its soil > covered in > sand; we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood." He > meant Israeli > blood. > > The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon massed on the > borders of > Israel. Backing them with men and munitions were Iraq, Algeria, > Kuwait, > Sudan and the whole Arab world. The actual count was 465,000 > troops, more > than 2,800 tanks, and 800 aircraft. President Johnson warned the > Israelis > not to fight. The Red Cross stocked up on blankets, the rest of > the world > stood by and watched. Israel couldn't get a hearing in the UN. The > Security > Council, it seemed, was difficult to contact. > > We all know what happened. The Israelis didn't wait for the war. They > pre-empted it. In six days (about the same time God needed to > create heaven > and earth) the Israelis - using an army 80% of which were weekend > soldiers > i.e. civilians taking time off from work -and an airforce a > fraction the > size of that possessed by the Arabs defeated the lot and pushed > out the > borders to a more comfortable fit. Figuring that sauce for the > goose was > sauce for the gander they also closed the Suez Canal to all > nations. On the > sixth day just as the Israelis were heading for Damascus the Security > Council suddenly found time to convene and ordered a cease fire on all > sides. Nasser promptly died and left the mess to his successor, > Anwar Sadat. > > Sadat waited six years and then famously announced he was willing to > "sacrifice one million soldiers" (nice man) in a showdown with > Israel. He > joined Syria in assembling a vast army - the equivalent of the > total forces > of NATO in Europe. On the Golan Heights alone 180 Israeli tanks > faced up to > 1,400 Syrian tanks. Along the Suez Canal 500 Israeli defenders > were pitted > against by 80,000 Egyptians. > > There was going to be no mistake this time. Nine Arab states, > including four > non-Middle Eastern nations, actively aided the Egyptian-Syrian war > effort. > Iraq transferred a squadron of Hunter jets and MiGs to Egypt and > deployed a > full division of 18,000 men and several hundred tanks in the > central Golan. > Besides serving as financial underwriters, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait > also > committed troops. A Saudi brigade of approximately 3,000 men was > dispatched > to Syria. Violating a French ban on the transfer of French-made > weapons, > Libya sent Mirage fighters to Egypt. President Gaddafi gave Cairo > more than > $1 billion in aid to re-arm Egypt and to pay the Soviets for weapons > delivered. Other North African countries responded to Arab and > Soviet calls > to aid the frontline states. Algeria sent three aircraft squadrons of > fighters and bombers, an armored brigade and 150 tanks. Approximately > 1,000-2,000 Tunisian soldiers were positioned in the Nile Delta. Sudan > stationed 3,500 troops in southern Egypt, and Morocco sent three > brigades to > the front lines, including 2,500 men to Syria. > > Lebanese radar units were used by Syrian air defense forces. > Lebanon also > allowed Palestinian guerillas to shell Israeli civilian > settlements from its > territory (do you get a sense of deja vu?). Palestinians lined up > on the > Southern Front with the Egyptians and Kuwaitis. Hussein of Jordan > sent two > of his best units, the 40th and 60th Armored Brigades. Three Jordanian > artillery batteries and some 100 Jordian tanks also participated. > > Irael, having been battered for the previous six years by the > propaganda > line that they were warmongers, decided to wait it out. The Arabs > bided > their time and struck in October, 1967, on Yom Kippur day - the > holiest day > in the Jewish calendar. They caught the Israelis napping. Again > the world > watched as Israelis died. Israel appealed but the Security Council was > noticeably quiet. While it looked as if the Arabs were winning the > Soviet > Union showed no interest in initiating peacemaking efforts. The > same was > true for UN Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim who stayed quiet. > > But lo and behold, on October 22, after 12 days of slaughter, the > Security > Council adopted Resolution 338 calling for "all parties to the present > fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity > immediately." > > The vote came on the day that Israeli forces cut off and isolated the > Egyptian Third Army and were in a position to destroy it. Israel > and Egypt > signed a peace treaty which stands to this day, Israel gave up > territory, > the Canal was re-opened and the rest of the Arab world sulked. > Sadat was > subsequently assassinated by pro-Palestinian forces for agreeing > to peace. > > Since then the Palestinians have switched to killing civilians > with suicide > bombers and rocket attacks. The present debacle is the result. Israel, > maddened by constant bloodletting, has loosed its big guns. Like > the sleeper > who flails around in the dark swatting a mosquito and wrecking the > furniture, this present disaster makes sense only in the context > of what > went before. > > It will never end until either Israel is destroyed or the Arabs > agree to its > existence. Neither is likely. > > > Regards, > Bob. > _______________________________________________ > Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 > messages): > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Biofuel mailing list >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
