US Arms Trade with Israel

by Oliver O'Driscoll Sat Apr 13, 2002 19:39 olodr at eircom dot net 30 Salvia Court, Keyes Park, Limerick. 061-468518

First of all, I would like to say that I support a two state solution. It is to me, glaringly obvious that there will never be peace in the region until a Palestinian state is established based on democratic principles. A state whose leaders can be held accountable by the Palestinian people. Given what happened in Europe during the second world war, the Israelis are also entitled to a state of their own, the fact that they the preminent military power in the area does not mean that they can ever live in peace until a Palestinian state is established. There is also the matter of the Palestinian refugees in the Lebanon who have been abandoned by the PA and are discriminated against by the Beirut Government.

I do not believe that the actions of people driven to the depths of despair can be compared to the aggression unleashed by the Sharon regime. After all, the Leader of the Israeli state would be more at home in the dock at a U.N. war crimes tribunal.

It appears that in Zionist terminology “terrorism” is when somebody carries out a suicide bomb attack, whereas using artillery to shell a crowded refugee camp in Jenin is not. The long litany of Zionist crimes from Deir Yasin to
Sabra-Chatila means to me that they have no moral authority to lecture any person or government.

Regarding the church in Bethlehem, far from protecting this place of worship the IDF have directed tank fire at the building. They have also barred the press for obvious reasons. We should also not forget the Irish who are trapped in Yasser Arafat’s office, what is our government doing to assist them.

by Mags Sat Apr 13, 2002 18:19

lalric, what are you on?
Where did I say Europe was (or wasn't) an honest broker?
Or Asia, or Australia, or any other continent?
I posted the bit about US military trade to Israel purely for the information of IMC readers.

Perhaps you have some other agenda? just maybe?

by punter mc noname Sat Apr 13, 2002 11:56

point by point.....

1) eurpoe wishes to impose sanctions because isreal is an agressive colonial power that is detroying a people, sanctions dont go far enough.

2)the agression is mostly on the isreali side, 1948: the arab nations, while rejecting partiton only invaded area that had originaly been granted to the palestinians in the un partition plan.

1956: was a combined invasion of egypt by isreal britain and france after the (justified) nationalization of the suez,any other pretext was manufactured by the IDF not arab agression. Moshe Sharett reveals that the Israeli leadership was planning the territorial conquest of the Sinai and Gaza as early as the fall of 1953 (Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary (Moshe Sharett, Yoman Ishi, Ma'ariv, 1979, in Hebrew with portions trans. in Livia Rokach) Ben-Gurion became Prime Minister and Israel soon became very aggressive. On 28 February 1955 Israeli troops invaded Gaza killing 37 Egyptians and wounding 31. The attack came out of the blue. Egyptian President Gamal Nasser said it "was revenge for nothing. Everything was quiet there" (Kennett Love, Suez: the Twice Fought War, McGraw-Hill, 1969, p. 83). The Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation, Swedish General Carl von Horn, confirmed Nasser's claim, asserting that there had been "comparative tranquility along the armistice
demarcation lines during the greater part of the period November 1954 to February 1955" (Report to the Security Council, UN Doc. S3373, 17 March 1955).

1967: Israel began planning the re-conquest of the Sinai soon after its forced withdrawal in 1956. In 1967, as in 1956, Israel waited for favorable circumstances to put its plan into action. General Matityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli conquest, committed what the Israeli public considered blasphemy when he admitted the true thinking of the Israeli leadership: "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war" (Ha'aretz, 19
March 1972). Israeli Air Force General Ezer Weizmann declared bluntly that "there was never any danger of extermination" (Ma'ariv, 19 April 1972). Mordechai Bentov, a former Israeli cabinet minister, also dismissed the myth of Israel's imminent annihilation: "All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories" (Al Hamishmar, 14 April 1972).
The demilitarized zone on the Syrian-Israeli border was established by agreement on 20 July 1949. Israeli provocations were incessant and enabled Israel to increase and extend its sovereignty by encroachment over the entire Arab area. According to one UN Chief of Staff, Arab villagers were evicted and their homes destroyed (E.L.M. Burns, Between Arab and Israeli, Ivan Obolensky, 1962, pp. 113-114). It was unlikely that any
Syrian guns would have been fired if not for Israel's
provocation. Israel's need for water also played a role in the 1967 attack. The invasion completed Israel's encirclement of the headwaters of the Upper Jordan River,

1972:After coming to power in late 1970, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat indicated to the United States that he was willing to negotiate with Israel to resolve the conflict in exchange for Egyptian territory lost in 1967. In February 1971 he offered a full peace treaty to Israel, which it rejected, although international consensus supported the Sadat offer which conformed to the US position (John Kimche, There Could Have Been Peace, Dial, 1973, p. 286). any action taken was a result of the failure of diplomatic means to regain the national territory lost to isreali agression in 1967.

1982:The facts are that Israel invaded Lebanon on 6 June 1982 in
order to totally destroy the PLO, not only its insignificant military capability, but also all of its civilian functions.

The other basic war aim was described by Israeli Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon: "The bigger the blow and the more we damage the PLO infrastructure, the more the Arabs in Judea and Samaria, [the Biblical name for the West Bank used for obvious political reasons by Israel] and Gaza
will be ready to negotiate with us" -- The Times, 5 August 1982 -- Israel had hoped that, with the destruction of the PLO, Lebanon could be ripped from its Arab moorings in order to create an Israeli puppet regime of pro-Israeli Maronite Christian Lebanese, a minority of the population
At first the Israelis operated under the pretense that they
were only securing their borders and stated that they did not intend to go beyond a 25 mile limit. But the truth was very different as described by the former chief of Israeli
military intelligence, Aharon Yariv: "I know in fact that going to Beirut was included in the original military plan"
-- Jerusalem Post, 24 September 1982. Israel's invasion of Lebanon has no validity in international law. Israel thus had no grounds to rely on the provision of the Charter of the United Nations concerning self-defense, while the means used to effect the invasion clearly lacked proportionality. The cease-fire of July 1981 had been observed scrupulously.

3)not only 6 million jews, but 6 million other minorites and ethnic groups.

4)arafat is very different from bin-laden, while arafat is somewhat of a corrupt muppet, he is in no way similar to bin laden. firstly arafat is mostly secular and fighting a legitimate defence of his people against a brutal colonial force.

5)which regime are you talking about here? if by this you mean the palestinian authority first the are not a terrorist regime (an argument for another day!) and EU money to the PA has been used for schools houses and other infrasturuce programs, mostlyy later demolished by the IDF, which the EU is trying to take to court to claim compensation for the watsed money).

6)eurpoes media is disgracefull. this confilct is a long drwan out colonial struggle. painting it in any other way is wrong. this fact is never mentioned, what we hear is about cycles of violence, and retaliation on both sides, placing the violence in no context at all is acting pro isreali. just because they are willing to say that isreal is killing civillians (which it is) does not make it biased. most tv news is using IDF footage because they cant get their own reporters in, so most of this "biased footage" is what the IDF want the world to see, so what does the rest look like???

7)this last point is ture, europe is more concerned with arafat a visible face, but not for the hundereds killed in jenin over the past few days or the countless others who have been killed by the idf since the invasion began. the EU is only giving lip service to the palestinian cause, and not doing anything serious to protect the innocent civillians dying on the streets of palestine.

the EU is not an honest broker, it is not standing up for the full and complete adherence to various geneva conventions, the UN charter and the universal declaration of human rights. the have abondoned the palestinian people and should by doping a lot more.

by lalric Sat Apr 13, 2002 02:10

I suppose Europe is the big honest broker. Europe that says they regret giving Peres the Nobel Peace prize but Arafat should keep his with all honour.

A Europe that wishes to impose sanctions on Israel for defending itself against an onslaught of terror attacks.

A Europe that ignores the history of Arab aggression in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982.

A Europe that stood by and watched 6 million jews get slaughtered.

A Europe that still harbors anti Simitic sentament.

A Europe that ignores the fact that Arafat is no different from Bin Laden.

A Europe that continues to give money to a terrorist regime.

A Europe that has a Media that is so biased against Israel, with no balance in its reporting nor any desire to be balanced.

A Europe that chooses to be more concerned about how Mr. Arafat is getting his cheese and bread than the fate of innocents murdered.

Europe the honest broker! Right