Hi Keith...thanks for the references. I'm curious, why do you live in Japan? You've seen a lot of the planet and its' governments up close and personal and there you are in Japan. Thanks. Mike DuPree
----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuel@sustainablelists.org> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 2:35 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Check your Beliefs > 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/ > > _______________________________________________ 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/
