Hi Bob You say:
>... 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. ... Previous: >And if you've forgotten how it all began, here's a brief sketch. I found it >on my thumbnail... It all began in 1948? That's like saying a person's life only begins when they turn 21 and anything before that is irrelevant (or didn't even happen maybe). Prior to 1948 you don't have to go all the way back to Moses to find another important event, there's this one for instance, in 1917: http://ajedrez_democratico.tripod.com/balfour_declaration.htm The Balfour Declaration A history of perfidy and betrayal in the Mideast gives insight into the motivations behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. By Dr. Robert John That's in the archives, along with much else that takes all the wind out of your arguments (along with Bill Blum's latest piece, just posted separately). Why not explain how it is that the US has vetoed just about every UN resolution on Israel since then? (Lists in the archives.) Or how it is that Ariel Sharon could announce in Israel that the US would do exactly what he told it to, and then went to the White House and proved it? Eg: "I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."-- Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3rd, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0406sharon.html Foreign Policy In Focus | Global Affairs Commentary | Congress Overwhelmingly Endorses Ariel Sharon's Annexation Plans By Stephen Zunes | June 25, 2004 "The vote, therefore, constitutes nothing less than an overwhelming bipartisan renunciation of the post-World War II international system, effectively recognizing the right of conquest." Or why US academics Mearsheimer and Walt recently had to publish a foreign policy article on Israel in the London Review of Books because it could not be published in the Land of the Free? http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html LRB | John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt : The Israel Lobby 23 March 2006 Now why would that be? We've been through all this here, most definitively in the "Oil and Israel" thread I referred you to. This is the original "Oil and Israel" post: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg35017.html [biofuel] Oil and Israel 27 May 2004 One hundred and twenty posts in that thread, through fire and brimstone to get it all sorted out and in its proper perspective, despite the vast amount of deliberate and very high-powered confusion concerning Jews and Israel and Judaism and anti-Semitism when actually what we're discussing is colonial Zionism and its unconditional backing by the US. Kind of sad to see it all being ignored in so many posts right now, as if the list was born yesterday and we've never discussed this before nor established some foundation for further discussion, and that for just the reasons Bill Blum states. These are some of the things that thread and others covered: Tanya Reinhart is a much-published Israeli professor (Tel Aviv University and the University of Utrecht) who wrote a book called "Israel/Palestine: How To End The War Of 1948". There's an interview with her here: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=50&ItemID=2595 Interview With Tanya Reinhart "... the Gaza strip, where 6000 Israeli settlers occupy one third of the land, and a million Palestinians are crowded in the rest. As years went by since Oslo, Israel extended the "Arab-free" areas in the occupied Palestinian territories to about 50% of the land. Labor circles began to talk about the "Alon Plus" plan, namely - more lands to Israel. However, it appeared that they would still allow some Palestinian self-rule in the other 50%, under conditions similar to the Bantustans in South Africa." That's all changed since 1999. Reinhart makes it clear that what has been happening is opposed by the majority of Israelis. Three chapters of her book are online: http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart/books_ME/index.html She wrote this too: http://zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=1805 Jenin- The Propaganda War And this: http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/treinhart5.htm Sharon's Gaza plan and the freedom to starve and kill 22 April 2004 Also this: http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/treinhart3.htm The reality behind Sharon's Gaza withdrawal plan 22 March 2004 These are the views of Rabbi Weiss on Israel: http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-08/26/article11.shtml Zionism, Israel Threat to Peace http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Speeches/nyc051404weiss.cfm Declaration on 'Zionism and the State of Israel" - May 14, 2004 And there's these: http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-05/02/article03.shtml Jewish Historian Questions Israel Legitimacy http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/ Jews Against Zionism http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020520&s=lerner Jews for Justice And this: Also: >September 11th has a tragic resonance in the Middle East, too. On >the 11th of September 1922, ignoring Arab outrage, the British >government proclaimed a mandate in Palestine, a follow-up to the >1917 Balfour Declaration which imperial Britain issued, with its >army massed outside the gates of Gaza. The Balfour Declaration >promised European Zionists a national home for Jewish people. (At >the time, the Empire on which the Sun Never Set was free to snatch >and bequeath national homes like a school bully distributes marbles.) -- Come September, Arundhati Roy, September 29, 2002 http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2404 She also said this, remember it Bob? >In 1937, Winston Churchill said of the Palestinians, I quote, "I do >not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger >even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not >admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong >has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of >Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people >by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more >worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their >place." That set the trend for the Israeli State's attitude towards >the Palestinians. In 1969, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said, >"Palestinians do not exist." Her successor, Prime Minister Levi >Eschol said, "What are Palestinians? When I came here (to >Palestine), there were 250,000 non-Jews, mainly Arabs and Bedouins. >It was a desert, more than underdeveloped. Nothing." Prime Minister >Menachem Begin called Palestinians "two-legged beasts." Prime >Minister Yitzhak Shamir called them "grasshoppers" who could be >crushed. This is the language of Heads of State, not the words of >ordinary people. Here's another version of "How It All Began": http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13495.htm Truman and Israel How It All Began By Harry Clark And so on and so on. But never mind all that, eh? It all comes down to the same tired old usual suspect who so often gets wrongly convicted on this sort of count, that it's just dear old human nature to go on and on killing each other forever: >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. That was the Victorian view and it survived on to the American playwright Robert Ardrey's work in the 60s: >Ardrey "proved" all men are not created equal in The Social >Contract, that man has an innate drive to defend his property in The >Territorial Imperative, that man has a killer instinct in African >Genesis, and in The Hunting Hypothesis he completes his defamation >and derogation of humanity by just as unimpressively proving that >the male of the species was, is, and will always be a hunter. > >Ardrey's main thesis is that mankind was born in Africa over 2 >million years ago, and for most of that two million years the >species' success has been largely dependant on its ability to kill. >Without that underlying hard edge the species would have vanished >aeons ago along with all the others that failed to survive. And only >if we take that unpalatable truth about ourselves into account can >modern mankind be truly understood. But not since then - eg: http://snipurl.com/o8fg Foreign Affairs A Natural History of Peace By Robert M. Sapolsky From Foreign Affairs, January/February 2006 From the NYT: http://ranprieur.com/crash/baboons.html No Time for Bullies: Baboons Retool Their Culture Please see: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg61070.html Re: [Biofuel] Fw: "How To Steal an Election" But the Victorian mythology lives on in zombi fashion mainly via large infusions of corporate PR money, along with the rest of the neo-liberal crap: >"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits >and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic >society," Bernays argued. "Those who manipulate this unseen >mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the >true ruling power of our country. . . . In almost every act of our >daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our >social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the >relatively small number of persons . . . who understand the mental >processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the >wires which control the public mind." >This definition of "democratic society" is itself a contradiction in >terms--a theoretical attempt to reconcile rule by the few with the >democratic system which threatened (and still threatens) the >privileges and powers of the governing elite. -- From: The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays & The Birth of PR, Larry Tye, book review by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q2/bernays.html An empowered public - God forbid! The masses can't be trusted to make their own decisions, they need "guidance", don't you know. Try this instead, all is explained (well, the conclusions need some expansion, coming soon): http://journeytoforever.org/rrlib/greenspan.html Toward a Psychology of Interdependency A Framework for Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation Stanley I. Greenspan, M.D. and Stuart G. Shanker, D.Phil. >... The basic assertion is that we exist in >a state of nature where it is eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, and >that the only way to contain this brutality is through the social >contract of laws that insure a commodious life. This outdated and >psychologically uninformed political philosophy is the basis for >present day policymaking that intends to repress and contain what >would otherwise be a dangerous population of potential miscreants. Laws >from this orientation seek to make consequences as a deterrent against >the dangerous nature that is within us. > >I agree with Kieth's assertions that people do many good and >cooperative things all the time, and the suggestion that this is the >norm. People want to help each other, which makes a lot of sense for >obvious reasons. Research confirms what some of us don't already know: >that people are naturally cooperative. How then do we account for those >who profit at the expense of the commonweal?Well, the dictionary >defines sociopathic personality n : a personality disorder >characterized by amorality and lack of affect; capable of violent acts >without guilt feelings. Consider recent corporate and US policy... -- Jai Haissman: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg30705.html We humans are just fine, until we make the mistake of believing that the behaviour of our governments and corporations is human, just the same as us. There's a LOT of pressure to believe that, especially in the industrialised socities, and especially in the US. However, along with everything else, an elegantly watertight study made in Britain at the height of the Thatcher era found that most people would make sacrifices, including money sacrifices, in order that someone they didn't know, hadn't seen, knew nothing about and knew they'd never meet might have a higher opinion of them. There's plenty to show that that is a more powerful "instinct" than the so-called law of the jungle and survival of the fittest (NOT necessarily the strongest), and the most common way of achieving it is by generosity, not grasping and taking whatever you want because "might is right". Not even cavemen thought that way. As it turns out, the law of the jungle doesn't even apply in the jungle - the mythical tooth-and-nail competition for survival is there to be found, to be sure, but it's only about 5% of what happens in jungles, and moreover it happens within the context of the other 95%, which turns out to be symbiosis - cooperation, not competition. Human societies are much the same, left to themselves, they cooperate - until they encounter the problem of power, which is what you're talking about, not human nature at all. Please see: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg32878.html Re: [biofuel] The Oil we eat (Harper's) http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg31874.html [biofuel] The Oil We Eat: Following the food chain back to Iraq (Richard Manning's original) So. I'm not going to allow further discussion of Israel that doesn't take account of the foregoing, our previous work here with this issue, one reason being that establishing a framework where it could be discussed without distortion simply cost us too much. So go ahead - but do your homework first. Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner >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: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Fritz Friesinger >To: <mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.org>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: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Bob Molloy >To: <mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org>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. s _______________________________________________ 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/
