After TV interview with captured arms ship captain, PA stops denying relation to ship

[HisMajestyBOB]

The US together with Micronesia are our only true allies (I have no idea why Micronesia likes us) and Turkey is a strategic ally.

I thought Germany sold a lot of military equipment to Israel and could be considered at least a friend? Or was this only when Israel was new?

[Natan]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

You'll be surprised that those "defense" weapons are used often as attack weapons.

Hezballa killed quite a few Israeli conscripts with anti-tank missiles. They aim it at bases, not tanks.

Arguably though, that's a fair military strategy. The point is not that what the PA is doing is immoral in and of itself (although it does seem clear that the weapons were intended for terrorist use, there's no evidence open to the public), but that it is a violation of the Oslo accords. Of course, it was long ago obvious to anyone who didn't actively want not to know it that Fatah had rejected the Oslo accords, but oh well.

Also, 2.5 Tons of high quality explosives.

Why would they need it unless they are providing it directly to Hamas and Jihad and PFLP?

1) IIRC, Fatah has deployed suicide bombers once or twice.
2) These can be used in the manufacture of mortars and grenades to kill wicked settler-occupiers like Shelhavet Pass
3) They can be used by the Tanzim and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade to plant roadside bombs to kill future Zionist Criminals of Gaza like those kids who had their legs blown off at the beginning of the Intifada.
Thus we see that there are many non-terrorist uses of the explosives.

[Sirotnikov]

Natan, I have a strong suspicion they are indeed cooperating very nicely. PLO and Hamas and such.

Originally posted by HisMajestyBOB
I thought Germany sold a lot of military equipment to Israel and could be considered at least a friend? Or was this only when Israel was new?

IIRC only when Israel was new.

There was even a time when France was our close ally

[faded glory]

And Britian too

Remember? 1956, Israel, france, and England used combined military force to retake Suez/Sinai. Had it not been for Soviet Union.....you probably would of kept it.

And Britian and France Bankrolled most of the operation. Of couse, they also provided some air-strikes and 2,000 paratroops

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Idiot.

Hey, Natan: I'd gotten the impression that Oslo was sorta beyond salvaging at this point,

Neither the Israeli govt nor the PA, much less the US or the EU have reounced Oslo, despite claims by commentators that Oslo is dead. Both sides have commited violations of the accords (pardon me for thinking that harboring and encouraging terrorists is a greater violation than expanding settlements or bulldozing houses in retaliation, but i understand some disagree) but the arms ship is a far greater violation of Oslo than anything that either side had done before. It is not merely a technical violation, but it strikes at the heart of the peace process - land for peace - ie israeli withdrawl from Palestinian land and recognition of a Palestinian state in exchange for that state being DEMILITARIZED and NOT having alliances with other states, like IRAN or IRAQ.
Israel now has no legal reason not to destroy the PA, re-occupy whatever territory it wishes, etc. We're back at square one. The only deterrent to such Israel action is the desire of those Israelies who are pro-peace and of the US to see a moderate successor to Arafat, rather than a hardline successor.

I realize there are "pro"-palestinian voices, including some here, who never accepted the Oslo ground rules, that the Palestinian state should be demilitarized and limited in foreign policy choices - they did not accept such assymetry between Palestine and Israel. However Israel will never accept such symetry with a Pal. state west of the Jordan. Sovereign states do not routinely commit suicide, no matter how much outsiders think that simple fairness indicates they should.

LOTM

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Natan
Another way to say this would be that the Egyptians and Syrians thought that killing Israeli civillians and blockading the country wouldn't result in war (actually, Nasser considered the possibility and decided he could win) and that the Arab states were never able to act in concert.

Israel didn't need to use the Straights of Tiran since almost all of its trade came from Europe. Second, Israel was just as guilty, if not more so, of launching raids into neighboring countries. In 1967, Nasser had just spent 3-4 losing in Yemen to local rebels. I doubt he was under any illusions he could hurt the Israelis. Syria certainly wasn't.

The other thing is that Sadat genuinely convinced the Israelis that he was willing to make peace.

Well, he also convinced the Israelis that Egypt was enough of a potential military threat that the time for peace had finally arrived. Prior to '73, Israel had no need for peace since it could crush any Arab foe it wanted. Sadat had tried to negotiate peace before the '73 war.

[Az]

the Straits of Tiran were blocked .that was an act of war. PERIOD. Nasser knew that very well . he was hoping to start a war . otherwise , why on earth would he do that ?

also , There was a build-up of hardware of Arab armies. Israel launched raids mainly against those egyptians that have made countless killings , including ambushes of civilian buses , and cars . attacking schools , etc.

Prior to '73, Israel had no need for peace since it could crush any Arab foe it wanted. Sadat had tried to negotiate peace before the '73 war.

a very simple argument could counter your point. Israel could crush any Arab foe AFTER 73' as well.....

[chequita guevara]

The Straights of Tiran were blockaded in 1948, and were also Egyptian territorial waters, so as for being ab act of war, it's debatable. The Settlement of 1956 opened the water ways and forced Egypt to consider them as international waters. He did close them again years later (over some Israeli provacation). Israel likes to bring this up, but always leaves out the the waters had been closed to them for years. In the few years that it was open to them, there were only a handful of ships using the Straights. The vast amjority of Israel's shipping, then, as now, was with Europe.

In 1967, yes, there was a build up of Egyptian armies. Israel had been threatening Syria with war for several months and Nasser moved tanks up to the border with Israel, basically as a warning to Israel. It backfired terribly, as Israel used it as the excuse to grab territory it had been trying to grab since '48.

Dalgetti, yer supposed to be a commie, which should mean you aren't supposed to believe your own state's propaganda. Israel is an actor, not a reactor. Israel was just as guilty, if not more, than the Arab states which surrounded it in instigating violence.

[Sirotnikov]

Blah.

I had excellent responses to Che but then Apolyton crashed on me and wouldn't add the ****ing post.

Great

[chequita guevara]

God hates ugly.

[Natan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Israel didn't need to use the Straights of Tiran since almost all of its trade came from Europe.

I don't think saying that it only deprived Israel of 4 or 5 percent of its trade is a good argument.

Second, Israel was just as guilty, if not more so, of launching raids into neighboring countries.

The US does that too, but that doesn't mean that when we strike back against sponsors of terrorism against us, we are engaging in agression.

In 1967, Nasser had just spent 3-4 losing in Yemen to local rebels. I doubt he was under any illusions he could hurt the Israelis.

I, and Arab historian Albert Hourani disagree. Nasser was under the impression that he could still beat Israel with Soviet help if war came. Leaders in the modern Arab world have always overestimated their military strength.

Syria certainly wasn't.

Which is why they shouldn't have used the hills of Jawlan to shell Israeli Kibbutzim in the valley below.

Well, he also convinced the Israelis that Egypt was enough of a potential military threat that the time for peace had finally arrived. Prior to '73, Israel had no need for peace since it could crush any Arab foe it wanted. Sadat had tried to negotiate peace before the '73 war.

As Dalgetti noted, the '73 war was a victory in psychology only. Sadat though that he could hold onto the east bank of the Canal, and he was wrong. The war was only a victory in that the Arab armies did not instantly disintegrate as they had in '67.

In 1967, yes, there was a build up of Egyptian armies. Israel had been threatening Syria with war for several months

and Nasser moved tanks up to the border with Israel, basically as a warning to Israel.

Not a warning, but a threat, and in the belief that his military could defeat Israel.

It backfired terribly, as Israel used it as the excuse to grab territory it had been trying to grab since '48.

I think calling this an excuse is a tad biased.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HisMajestyBOB


I thought Germany sold a lot of military equipment to Israel and could be considered at least a friend? Or was this only when Israel was new?

Siro's mention of micronesia has me thinking that he is focusing on UN votes, where most europeans abstain on anti-Israel resolutions, unless they are obviously unbalanced.
In reality Israel has several allies, including Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Australia, though none are as understanding of Israels strategic dilemna as is the US. Britain has tended through the 80's and 90's to maintain a greater distance from Israel, though there is evidence that in the last few months Tony Blair is becoming almost as frustrated with PA behaviour as the US is. France and Italy continue to be less sympathetic to Israels frustrations with the PA, though they continue to be important trade partners. Israel of course has other friends of less stratgic importance in africa and Latin America, as well as a developing relationship with India.

As for Turkey, it is very important that Israel maintains an ally in the islamic world, and one that shares its strategic concerns regarding Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Oh, and a democracy and friend of the US at that.


LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In 1967, yes, there was a build up of Egyptian armies. Israel had been threatening Syria with war for several months and Nasser moved tanks up to the border with Israel, basically as a warning to Israel. It backfired terribly, as Israel used it as the excuse to grab territory it had been trying to grab since '48.

Note on 1967. Egypt has a large population, and its army in 1967 (as now)was a small portion of that pop. Israel's active army is tiny - each time egypt mobilized (which it was doing with some frequency in 1967) Israel had to mobilize its reserves - virtually the entire male population under 45, and single females under 25. Basically a catastrophic disruption of the Israeli economy, with most of the civilian workforce under arms. Continued mobilization and demobilization in response to Egyptian threats was proving intolerable to Israel - preventive action was required.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara



Well, he also convinced the Israelis that Egypt was enough of a potential military threat that the time for peace had finally arrived. Prior to '73, Israel had no need for peace since it could crush any Arab foe it wanted. Sadat had tried to negotiate peace before the '73 war.

This is incorrect. Israeli leaders such as Golda Meir were quite eager for a compromise peace with Egypt in 1967-73, and floated the Allon plan for partial withdrawl from the west bank. It was egypt that was not ready. Sadat did not come to power until '70. and spent first 2 years consolidating power and expelling Soviet advisors (iirc). He launched war to restore eqyptian pride, and make peace palatable to Egypt.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Natan, I have a strong suspicion they are indeed cooperating very nicely. PLO and Hamas and such.



IIRC only when Israel was new.

There was even a time when France was our close ally

socialist 4th republic, locked in battle with algerian rebels. Replaced by degaulle, eager to assert great power status, distance from US, appeal to 3rd world and arabs.
When giscard and mitterand succeeded gaulists, some moderation of French policy toward israel, but France under any leadership has a strategic interest in differentiating itself from US, and opposing a strong Israel that is tied to American intersts. France wont openly ally with the nasty-nasties(they are a western demo after all) , but as long as PA is halfway moderate France has an out to oppose Israel. (NB - I have not heard french response to arms boat, should be very interesting)

LOTM