79 thoughts on “Israeli Intelligence Leaks Syrian-Hezbollah War Defense Plans to Arab Media – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. As I said before – warfare news from midnight to midnight.
    ad nauseatum –
    The more things progress I feel that the current posturing will die at the level of posturing
    The M.A.D. must be slowly sinking in the psyche of these megalomaniacs. So the more they are afraid the more the posturing.
    All bark and no bite. This time the bite will be untold.
    It is unfair to blame ONLY POTUS. many others arms dealers should be liable and they will pay because all those pretty loans to sell arms will go unpaid and THEIR economy will take the hit. The USSR did when they left Egypt and they never learned from their error.

  2. I have no idea what is going on but when one side wants to show the other side it is getting prepared – and vice versa – it simply doesn’t sound good.

    I am by no means a historian but wasn’t it a similar situation in the run-up to World War I?

    Where have all the flowers gone…?

  3. Al Rai is known for being extremely sensational inaccurate source of information. a Kuwaiti version of Debka file.
    the sources of the arab newspapers – which are known for having a great imagination since the days of 1000 nights and night – are as great as your sources.

    few days ago there was a discussion in an israel forum on a UFO that was spotted in the skies of Beirut during the war in 2006, one members speculated that it was probably hot air balloon used for intelligence gathering.

    two days alter a shark-el-wasset, a very reputable newspaper – announced that it’s sources discovered that israel is using Hot Air balloons to gather information over lebanon.

    this is the original post
    http://www.fresh.co.il/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=517765#post3804867

    and this is two days later the article from the newspaper
    http://www.aawsat.com/details.asp?section=4&article=584396&issueno=11597

    you see Richard, you are in a great company.

    1. Never new that the tales of 1000 nights and a night (more commonly called ‘Arabian nights’ in English) had to be regarded as a sensationalist newspaper. Thanks for your highly original view of Arab literature.

      1. “which are known for having a great imagination since the days of 1000 nights and night”

        maybe you should take English 101 again ?

        1. I find it offensive that an English speaker would criticize a non native speaker for translating the literal title of an Arab story from Dutch into English. How do you know what the title of 1001 Nights is in Dutch, Elisabeth’s language? It is incredibly presumptuous. It is highly plausible that the Dutch title is 1000 Nights and a Night. If Elisabeth left out an article in her translation, big deal. A little more charity & a lot less snark is called for.

          We have readers of many languages commenting here & though some have serious difficulty w. the language, patience is called for (in most cases).

          1. I think when one poster takes a pedantic attitude toward other another poster he/she runs the risk of embarrassing him/herself.

            To wit: (from Delta’s post above)

            “…..one members speculated that it was probably hot air balloon used for intelligence gathering.

            two days alter a shark-el-wasset, a very reputable newspaper – announced that it’s sources discovered that israel is using Hot Air balloons to gather information over lebanon…”

            Five grammatical and spelling errors in three or four lines.

        2. Don’t try to be smart with me Delta: To say that Arab newspapers are full of made up stories ever since the time of Arabian nights (when there were no newspapers yet) either means you do not know how to distinguish between a literary work and a newspaper, or it means that you are a bigot who willfully abuses a famous literary work in order to insult Arabs. It is clear to me now that the second option applies to you.

          1. @ Richard
            In fact, Delta in writing ‘which are known for having a great imagination since the days of 1000 night and night” is repeating her/his own sentence and not Elisabeth’s. I think the rather arrogant ‘you should take English 101 again’ was on the comprehension, i.e. ‘since the …’ but then I don’t even know what English 101 is 🙂
            In Arabic the title of the tales is “Alf laila wa laila” (One thousand nights and A night – the way you count in Arabic), the indefinite ‘a’ does not exist as an individual word but is ’embedded’ in the noun.

          2. Deir Yassin,
            You are right as to what Delta’s rude comment was directed to. (That’s how I took it too, although it was not very clear.)

            As to “English 101”: I have heard American-English speakers use this “101” thing before. They use it in a derogatory way, as it seems to refer to the introductory level of a particular subject. I think it has something to do with the coding system of the different courses in high school or college.

          3. @ Elisabeth
            Have you seen how rude your comments are ?
            if you don’t understand something – and yes i understand that being a foreigner my English may not be as eloquent as i would like it to be – just ask.
            instead you assume assumptions, and come with accusations, and then when i retaliate you say i am rude.
            poor you.

          4. yes i understand that being a foreigner my English may not be as eloquent as i would like it to be

            If that’s the case then why did you criticize someone else’s English & say they needed to take English 101? A bit of modesty is always a good thing unless you believe you’re perfect, which clearly you aren’t in English or a number of other areas.

          5. @ Delta
            Come on, you are the one being rude around here, rude and presumptuous. And aggressive too. Had to get it out !

    2. Al Rai is known for being extremely sensational inaccurate source of information. a Kuwaiti version of Debka file.

      No, you’re confusing Al Rai with other Kuwaiti publications which do feature Debka like hysterical reporting. Al Rai is much less like this.

      the sources of the arab newspapers…are as great as your sources.

      My source has NEVER been wrong, which is more than I can say for those of Arab newspapers. Pls. point out one error my source has made.

      Your story about UFOs & hot air balloons is full of…hot air. It has nothing to do w. my reporting, which stands on its own. But nice try smearing me w. a non sequitur.

      1. I am not confused, few months ago Al Rai published an article about scuds B missiles that were delivered to Hezbollah in Lebanon. that information was proven wrong. the missiles are still in Syria and never crossed the border.

        Generally speaking, blogger’s copy from each-other, you copy from rotter, rotter copies from fresh, arab news papers copy from both rotter and fresh, Ynet and NRG copy from the arab newspapers etc.

        you are creating a one big – huge – circle of hot air, which weather you like it or not, you are a part of.

        if i would have a dime for every article in an arab newspaper – presented as facts by the reporter – which originate in a user speculation in fresh or rotter i would be a millionaire.

  4. The Egyptians committed the first act of war (between Egypt and Israel) in the 6-day war by blockading the port of Eilat.
    Under international law, a blockade is not a crime, but it is an act of war.

    The Syrians had been attacking Israeli civilians near the border for months before Israel’s “preemptive” strike.

    The “preemptive strike” myth suited both Israeli leaders desire to llok tough and smart and the Arab leader’s desire to play the victim in any war they lose. The Arab way of war talk: Talk big before the war about how the streets will run red with the blood of your enemies, then after you lose pretend you were just innocently minding your own business massing 100,000 troops on the border for purely aesthetic reasons, when you were attacked without provocation.

    1. What was the usage of Eilat in 1967 and what is it today? The commercial cargo ship traffic to Eilat was then and is today rather minimal. Israel was in 1967 in no way dependent of Eilat.

      You say:Under international law, a blockade is not a crime, but it is an act of war. Well how is Gaza blockade then to be seen. Don’t then the Palestinians have every right to attack Israel by all means they have? Or is blockade only an act of war against Israel?

      The stories Syrians attacking Israel constantly before 67 is a urban legend in Israeli propaganda. Even Moshe Dayan did admit that most of the violations of border peace in Golan before 1967 war were caused by Israelis intruding to areas not belonging to them.

      What is Bob your view about the 1956 war? What is amusing is that you fanatic pro-Israelis hardly ever mention 1956 war in your rather fictional “rightful military achievements” list. Why do you not mention the war in which Israel earned a nuclear reactor and a plutonium producing factory? Israel earned its nuclear weapons by attacking its neighbour as a mercenary.

      1. The status of a blockade as an act of war does not depend in any way on the size of the blockaded port. Blockading a big port that a nation depends on is an act of war. Blockading a small port that a nation doesn’t depend on is still an act of war.

        Your question about the usage of Eilat makes as much sense as if I said “John murdered Fred” and you asking “Was Fred a rich man or a poor man?” as though murdering a poor man wasn’t still murder.

        The Gaza blockade is absolutely an act of war. It is an act of war by Israel against a people that they are at war with. The Palestinians have the same right to attack Israel as any nation at war has to attack the nation it is at war with. Of course, the same applies to Israel. Because Israel is at war with the Palestinians, the Israelis have the right to attack any military target of the Palestinians at any time, and vice versa until a peace treaty is signed. Even then, one attacking the other would be a breach of the peace treaty, not a violation of international law.

        The stories of Syrians attacking Israel before 1967 are absolutely true. The Kibbutzim had bomb shelters where the kids had to sleep because the Syrians would fire artillery at them.

        If you are referring to:
        http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

        That was from some reporter’s notes about a conversation he supposedly had with Dayan in 1976. The notes didn’t get published until 1997, after Dayan had been dead for 16 years. No witnesses other than the reporter, and the conveniently dead Dayan. Who knows how accurate or inaccurate they were.

        Even in those alleged conversations, he said

        ”They [Israeli farmers] suffered a lot because of the Syrians. Look, as I said before, they were sitting in the kibbutzim and they worked the land and had kids and lived there and wanted to live there. The Syrians across from them were soldiers who fired at them, and of course they didn’t like it.”

        Oh, and he (allegedly) said “tractors in the demilitarized zones”, not “intruding to areas not belonging to them”.

        Shelling the Israeli kibbutzim was not only an act of war, it was a war crime, since the kibbutzim were civilian, not military targets.

        The 1956 war is the closest Israel came to being on the side that started a war, from some points of view. The Egyptians violated a treaty that gave the British control of the Suez Canal and violently seized the Suez Canal from its British owners. The Brits and French were pissed about the Egyptians violating the treaty and blocking the only way for boats to travel from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean without going all the way around Africa. The Israelis sided with their allies.

        Whether violating a treaty, and seizing a vital commercial and military asset was legitimate grounds for war is a matter of opinion. Since it started with a violation of a treaty and violent seizure of the property of an ally, and not an attack on Israel itself, the 1956 war is a bit ambiguous as far as Israel is concerned. Not definitely right, not definitely wrong.

        I don’t know how Israel got any nuclear technology that it has. I suspect that if Israel wanted to build a nuclear reactor and nuclear weapons, it could have done so without the aid of the French. A home-grown nuclear industry would have taken longer, but it’s not as though the Israelis didn’t have scientists and engineers that were up to the task.

        1. Bob, or whoever you are: I’ve warned you that your comments are far too long and involved and you publish multiple comments daily. So I’ll ask you a second time to restrain your verbosity. Keep comment short. If you can’t do this I may moderate yr comments as I do not like anyone to monopolize the threads. You ignored my request the first time. Don’t ignore it the 2nd.

          Blockading a small port that a nation doesn’t depend on is still an act of war.

          Gimme a break. Eilat was a small town in 1967 w. no significance whatsoever. The only nation that would use its blockade as a cause of war would be one eager to fight one & looking for an excuse, as Israel seemed to be. The analogy to murder is ridiculous. A blockade isn’t murder unless it lasts as long as the Gaza blockade; even then its “just” slow strangulation & not outright murder.

          If the Tiran blockade was an act of war then surely the Gaza war is too & the Palestinians & Turks & whoever have a perfect right to resist with every means at their disposal, no? Or is there some fake distinction you wish to make bet. the two blockades that makes Gaza kosher & Eilat treif?? Gaza’s allies too should have a right to assist them in this “war” which you have declared. And why not bring in the Americans to go to war against Gaza’s allies? Let’s have a real regional war why don’t we?

          The stories of Syrians attacking Israel before 1967 are absolutely true.

          I guess you missed Dayan’s memoirs quoted by a commenter here in which he describes how the IDF deliberately placed its personnel in situations to provoke a Syrian armed response which could be used to provoke a war with Syria. The victim scenario will only get you so far if the published memoirs of Israel’s leaders contradict you. I have no doubt that Israelis sat in bomb shelters during Syrian shelling. But these Israelis were sacrificial victims of their own military which caused their suffering through provocation.

          The 1956 war is the closest Israel came to being on the side that started a war, from some points of view.

          Your apologias for Israel are pathetic. The Suez wasn’t “the closest” Israel came to being the aggressor. It WAS the aggressor plain & simple. The very fact that you cannot acknowledge even a single fault of Israel in all its military history confirms that you are a rank apologist. One uninterested in facts or truth, but rather in redeeming Israel’s reputation at all costs, even when it is impossible to do so. I have very little patience for this grandstanding. So if that’s what you’re here for you’re now on a very short leash & have been warned.

          I’m so glad Pres. Eisenhower disagreed w. yr assessment of the Suez War & forced all parties to withdraw fr. their ill gotten gains. Too bad we don’t have such a president now.

          1. The provocation of the military response you mention here above reminds me of the Gleiwitz incident.

            Again, I am not a historian but leaders of powerful states saying they came under attack first, or were about to come under attack, and only acted in response makes we being rather wary of such claims.

            As the saying goes, to a man with a large hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

          2. the words of Berl Katznelson written in 1936 still echo to date:
            היש עם בעמים אשר בניו הגיעו לסילוף כזה, שכלי ונפשי, שכל מה שעושה עמם, כל יצירתו וכל ייסוריו, הם בזויים ושנואים, וכל מה שעושה אויב עמם, כל שוד וכל רצח וכל אונס ממלא את לבם רגש הערצה והתמכרות?… וכאן ידבקו בו חיידקים של שנאה לעצמו… עד כדי כך שיראה את הגאולה בנאצים הפלשתינאים, שהצליחו לרכז כאן בארץ את האנטישמיות הזואולוגית של אירופה עם תאוות הפגיון שבמזרח. כל עוד ילד יהודי… יכול לבוא לארץ ישראל ולהידבק כאן בחיידק השנאה העצמית… אל דומי למצפוננו”(ברל כצנלסון 1936).

          3. Translation of Katznelson’s hate-filled diatribe assaulting Judah Magnes:

            Is there is another nation which some of its sons and daughters reached such a twisted state that everything their people does, all its creations and sufferings are hated by them, and every action taken by the enemies of their people, every robbery, murder, and rape fills their heart with appreciation and identification [with the aggressor]? And so the germs of self-hatred cling to them….to the point they will see their redemption in the Palestinian Nazis who succeeded in merging here in this land the zoological anti-Semitism of Europe with the thirst for the dagger of the East…

            This was written as a response to an article written by J.L Magnes.

            What an odious disgusting piece of anti-Jewish propaganda. I had no idea that Katznelson hated some of his fellow Jews to that extent. The fact that you admire this only makes you a repulsive hater of yr fellow Jews. If this is yr idea of me I have no quarrel w. banning you right now. You are gone.

          4. That is of course very convenient. That’s your carte blanche, now you are free to hammer everyone and can feel great about it because you are merely defending yourself. This way you don’t need to ask yourself any questions anymore about such things as morality or justice nor do you need to look at historical events in more detail and consider different interpretations of these. This way, war will always be justified for you and an attack becomes just another form of defence.

            Scary, scary…

          5. Murder is murder, no matter who the victim. Blockading a port is an act of war, no matter how large or small the port.

          6. Murder was an analogy, not a direct result of the blockade. I didn’t think I had to spell it out but:

            You can’t deny that something violates the law because of something irrelevant to whether it is a crime. Pick any crime, it doesn’t matter whether the victim was rich or poor, the crime is still a crime.

            This is analogous to, you can’t deny that something is an act of war because of something that is irrelevant. Blockade, it doesn’t matter whether the victim is a big port or a small one. The blockade is still an an act of war.

          7. Damn right the Gaza War was an act of war (several acts). Israel and the Palestinians are at war. Acts of war are part of war. So?

            Hamas had the right to resist, but not to violate the laws of war that are intended to protect their civilians (no dressing soldiers in civilian clothes, no storing explosives in mosques, etc.). They don’t have the right to target people they know are civilians, that isn’t resistance, it is just murder.

            The Turks had the same right to resist as any soldier. The right to fight, and the right to get shot by the enemy if they didn’t surrender. The right to be a POW if captured.

            Gaza’s “allies” have the right to assist them, and thus become a party to the war and get attacked by Israel.

            The reason my posts are long is because it takes longer to refute a soundbite lie or half truth than it does to say one.

          8. They don’t have the right to target people they know are civilians, that isn’t resistance, it is just murder.

            So you would agree that the IDF, which targeted people known to be civilians (acc. to accounts by the IDF’s own advocate general in complaints against several officers), engaged in murder? I’d like to see you acknowledge that explicitly. Will you?

            The reason my posts are long is because it takes longer to refute a soundbite lie or half truth

            If you are remotely claiming that my statements are “lies” you’ll be banned so fast yr head will spin. A warning.

            And no excuse for length. Keep it short, & I mean it.

          9. Your poster didn’t quote Dayan’s memoirs, he referred to comments Dayan supposedly made in an interview in 1976 that didn’t get reported until 1997 (after Dayan was dead).

            Even the Suez war was after increasing escalations of terrorist attacks by the Egyptians. Not a big army, but a lot of murders of Israelis by Egyptian forces.

            As I have said before, if you don’t listen to the other side, you stop recognizing sincere dissent. I am very interested in facts and truth, I just don’t have the same biases you do about the facts.

            I have a morally consistent position on civilian attacks though. Targeting civilians is wrong, no matter why you do it. Whether collateral damage is wrong depends on the amount of collateral damage and the amount of military benefit.

            I notice you haven’t provided a morally consistent position on civilian attacks. So, why do you think it is OK for the Syrians to attack Israeli civilians when “provoked” but not for the Israelis to incidentally kill civilians when provoked and when attacking military targets?

          10. As another commenter has noted here other IDF generals have confirmed this general Israeli policy.

            I am very interested in facts and truth

            Not really. You’re interested in propagating yr own particular set of prejudices, which isn’t the same thing.

            Targeting civilians is wrong, no matter why you do it. Whether collateral damage is wrong depends on the amount of collateral damage and the amount of military benefit.

            Gobbledy-gook. What does this mean? What do you define as “collateral damage??” YOu’ve just said killing civilians is wrong & then you conditioned that statement by claiming that killing civilians may not be wrong. Which is it?

            why do you think it is OK for the Syrians to attack Israeli civilians when “provoked”

            They Syrians weren’t attacking Israeli civilians. They were attacking military forces who were provoking them by pretending to farm & engage in other activities. Besides, the Syrians never killed any civilians during these attacks, while Israel has killed thousands of Palestinian civilians. Did you forget proportionality?

          11. Bob, you are once again creating a lovely fantasy which I’m beginning to think you actually believe.

            IDF soldiers frequently dress up as Palestinians in the West Bank in order to throw stones at Israeli tanks. They try to stir up the local youth to join them, and then their buddies with tanks, jeeps and big guns attack Palestinian men, women and children with rubber coated bullets, live ammunition, tear gas and tear gas canisters, claiming they were attacked first. Apart from reports by others, I have witnessed this personally on more than one occasion, in Al Ram (now annexed to Jerusalem so Israel could steal it) and in Bil’in. Fortunately the locals often are able to spot these fakes and run them off. In one instance one or more such IDF soldiers pretending to be Palestinian had to be “rescued” by their IDF comrades.

            As for using ambulances to transport weapons or fighters, there have been many accusations by zionist groups that Palestinians are guilty of this; in fact I have never found any evidence or reports from credible sources (other than Israeli government or zionist hatemongers such as Michelle Malkin) that this ever happened. I rode with medical rescue personnel when the people of Nablus were being massacred in 2002, and I never saw a weapon or a militant. The ambulances themselves were riddled with IDF bullets (I can provide photos) and several doctors and medics were shot and killed while trying to pick up bleeding civilians from the streets.

            l have read reports I believe credible of Israelis commandeering Palestinian ambulances to hide troops and weapons. i

            And nobody can compete with the Israelis when it comes to using Palestinians, often children, as human shields, so I wouldn’t go there if I were you.

          12. A translation of part of an article written by Berl Katzenlson in 1936 titled Germs of Self Hatred.

            “Is there is another nation which some of its sons and daughters reached such a twisted mental state that everything there nation does, all its creations and agonizing are hated by them, and every action taken by their enemies every murder and rape fulfills their hart with a feeling of enjoyment and identification (with the aggressor)? And here (in the land of Israel) they will be contained with the germs of self-hatred….to the point they will see their redemption in the Palestinian-Nazi’s who succeeded in merging here in this land the zoological anti-Semitism of Europe with the thirst for the dagger of the East.

            that was written as a response to one of the articles published by someone you identify with… J.L Magnes

          13. “So you would agree that the IDF, which targeted people known to be civilians (acc. to accounts by the IDF’s own advocate general in complaints against several officers), engaged in murder? I’d like to see you acknowledge that explicitly. Will you?”

            Any IDF soldiers who targeted people known by them to be civilians are guilty of murder (or attempted murder if they missed). As are any commanders who gave orders to kill people they knew were civilians. However, the IDF as an organization is not guilty of murder, because the IDF does not have a policy of targeting civilians. Hence the prosecutions of the accused soldiers.

            Your Hamas friends OTOH, do have an organizational policy of targeting civilians. They praise and reward those who murder Israeli civilians instead of prosecuting them. Therefore the Hamas organization is guilty of murder, not just rogue members of that organization.

          14. the IDF as an organization is not guilty of murder, because the IDF does not have a policy of targeting civilians.

            That is a lie. Haaretz wrote copious articles after the war/massacre in which it documented the battle plans for Cast Lead which called for the IDF to show no mercy on civilians, to take no account of them or their presence, & treat every Gazan as a militant. The resulting civilian carnage was a direct result of commands communicated fr the upper officer echelon to soldiers in the field.

            Your Hamas friends

            If you hadn’t have already been banned for violating the comment rules this would’ve been another reason to do so. Engage in snark at yr peril.

        2. Come-on “Bob”. What Moshe Dayan said is not unproven. Wikipedia tells us: Former Israeli General Mattityahu Peled said that more than half of the border clashes before the 1967 war “were a result of our security policy of maximum settlement in the demilitarized area.” Israeli incursions into the zone was responded to with Syrians shooting. Israel in turn would retaliate with military force. In an interview in 1976 Moshe Dayan made similar claims. Jan Mühren, a former UN observer in the area at the time, told a Dutch current affairs programme that Israel provoked most border incidents as part of its strategy to annex more land. Hmmmmmm…..

          Your 1956 war “excuses” are laughable. The dispute was between Egypt and GB and France over the nationalization of Suez Canal. Israel was a paid mercenary and it attacked without good reasons. Haven’t you heard of Protocol of Sèvres? Israel was in the 50’s and 60’s a relative poor small country so it is rather unlikely that Israel could have built a plutonium producing reactor by it self. Let us remember for what Israel uses Dimona rector. Certainly not to produce energy for civilian usage, only energy in form of nuclear weapons.

          Israel has never been the almost defenceless, weak “victim” you Bob want to portray it to be. Israel has been the aggressor and attacker since its birth and financed and armed by others. Jews, generally speaking, were victims in WW2 but they have not been or are not now in Israel. In Israel they are increasingly taking the role of those who some decades ago oppressed Jews.

          1. Peled: Unreliable source, one article that doesn’t say how the author got the quote (no source). So it’s unknown levels of hearsay. In any case, this isn’t a quote from an active Israeli general, it is a quote from a radical peace activist who used to be a general.

            The 1976 “interview” was not reported until 1997 after Dayan, the only witness besides the reporter, was dead.

            Jan Muhren’s “current affairs” interview was 40 years later. Not exactly “current”.

            A few random, unreliable quotes pulled from years after memories have faded and Monday morning quarterbacking kicked in won’t change the truth. Literally hundreds of thousands of Arab soldiers moved to the borders of Israel and their leaders declared their intentions to destroy it.

            You can find people claiming that Pearl Harbor was a setup or that the Moon landing were faked. That doesn’t make it so.

            The Suez dispute was between France and Britain, and anyone whom the Egyptians were denying access to the canal. Aside from any pay in the form of a nuclear reactor, the Israelis had independent reasons to attack Egypt, such as cross border terrorism and a blockade of Eilat (same as would later happen in 1967). Sevres was an agreement between allies to attack a mutual enemy who had committed a severe act of war against one ally and a series of less severe acts of war against another ally.

            I’ve never said Israel was defenseless. Only that in most cases, is isn’t the aggressor. In no case has it attacked any country that wasn’t an enemy that had attacked and murdered Israelis.

          2. Jan Mühren’s memory is OK. I read a much more detailed account of his memories a while ago in my newspaper. It was interesting to read how he and his soldiers were stunned by the fact that the Dutch newspapers arriving at the base told a completely different story from what they witnessed every day.

    2. @ Bob
      “The Arab way of war talk”. What a racist remark.

      And what’s the ‘Jewish way’ of whining about being the eternel victims ?? I guess you have at least a doctor degree in ‘Orientalist Behaviour Studies’ to back up your very sophisticated observations !

      1. Sorry, I meant “the Arab countries’ way of war talk”. Of course individual Arabs have different ways of talking about wars. However, as a historical fact, whenever the Arab countries attack Israel, they always follow that pattern. “We are the big powerful aggressors who will kill them all”, followed by “we were just minding our own business when all of a sudden…”

        1. @ Bob
          “whenever the Arab countries attack Israel”.
          Yeah, we all know they did that a dozen of times and the Israelis only defended themselves, they were never the ones to start out the hostilities. Read some new stuff, I suggest the ‘1967’ by Tom Segev.

          1. Nah, bad review.

            “…by disregarding the Arab dynamic and twisting his text to meet a revisionist agenda, he undermines his attempt to reach a deeper understanding of the war. Such an understanding is vital if Arabs and Israelis are to avoid similar clashes in the future and peacefully co-exist.” -Michael Oren.

            Seriously, if I want to read biased, badly researched stuff against Israel, there’s plenty of web sites to choose from.

        2. OK, Bob. Here’s the deal. You made a racist comment. And in attempting to clarify it you’ve added another racist comment. If you don’t know what’s racist (& stupid) about what you’ve just said then either you shouldn’t be commenting here or you need racial sensitivity training before you return.

          Racism is a hangin’ offense here, Bob. Clean up yr act or there will be consequences.

    3. The Egyptians committed the first act of war (between Egypt and Israel) in the 6-day war by blockading the port of Eilat.
      Under international law, a blockade is not a crime, but it is an act of war.

      Look, I’m not going to refight the 1967 war with you. That’s off limits. The truth is that Israel attacked first & was the aggressor. It may have had reasons to attack, but they were only reasons. The attack was Israel’s responsibility & it was & remains the primary aggressor in the region.

      The Syrian attacks were provoked by the IDF as has been documented by historical references including the Israeli defense minister at the time.

      Your tone & content is racist & not permitted in this blog. Go back & read the comment rules. If you can’t restrain yr racism I will restrain yr participation in the comment threads here.

      1. If you want to agree to disagree, that’s fine. You are welcome to believe your side of the 1967 war story. I mean, it all comes down to opinion over what constitutes “an attack”. Me, I think that if Billy the Kid says to Sheriff Cohen “I’m going to kill you” and then starts to pull out his gun, that is an attack. And the Sheriff is under no moral or legal obligation to wait for Billy to actually start shooting before shooting him. You OTOH, would say that the Sheriff attacked Billy.

        I have no position on the Arabs, or anyone else as a race. Lots of Jews are the same race, and lots of those that aren’t the same race as the Arabs have a significant ancestry from the same race (including me). I do have a problem with the culture of most Arab countries Israel. I consider equal rights for minorities, tolerance of harmless religious differences and women’s rights to be good things. For the most part, the governments and a majority of the populations of those countries don’t agree. Though that doesn’t mean any randomly chosen individual Arabs have any particular opinion on the matter.

        As for Syria being “provoked”. You are very morally inconsistent about what you consider to be a legitimate reason for attacking someone.

        The “provocation” you are talking about was Israel sending tractors into the demilitarized zone, then the Israeli military retaliating when the Syrians attacked the tractor.

        How does that justify shelling civilian farmers on a Kibbutz?

        If Syria was justified in attacking Israeli civilians in response to attacks on Syrian military by Israeli military, does that mean Israel would be justified in attacking Palestinian civilians in response to attacks by Palestinian terrorists on Israeli military? Israeli civilians?

        Do you have a morally consistent position? Spell it out objectively, and in a way that applies to both sides. When is it OK to attack civilians, and when isn’t it by your standards?

        Or are you unable to do that? Is the real difference for you between a legitimate target and an illegitimate target that the Israelis are all legitimate targets and the Arabs are all illegitimate targets?

        1. I have no position on the Arabs, or anyone else as a race.

          Are you being deliberately dense? I don’t care what you think about the Arabs as a race. You made a racist statement. Period. Do it again & you’re gone. Understand? Cut out all the nattering & understand what I’m telling you if you want to stay.

        2. @ Bob
          “I think that if Billy the Kid says to Sheriff Cohen “I’m going to kill you” and then starts to pull out his gun, that is an attack”.

          Okay, but we also understand that if it’s the other way around, Sheriff Cohen threatening Billy the Kid, the latter is still responsible, according to you. I wonder if it has something to do with the name of the sheriff . . . Cohen ?

          And you need to update not only your historical facts, but also your knowledge of genetics.

          I don’t want to shock you too much but “races” don’t exist. That’s a pseudo-scientific misdeed invented for political – particularly colonial – reasons. There is only one race: THE HUMAN RACE, and either you belong to it or you don’t, though you sometimes doubt about certains bipeds 🙂

          1. Mr. Yassin
            Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel would be extremely disappointed, hearing your statement about their work

            From Wikipedia:

            “Race and genetics is a broad multidisciplinary set of studies that attempt to use the sciences of human genetics and evolution to inform our understanding of race”

            “A study by Noah Rosenberg and Jonathan K. Pritchard, geneticists from the laboratory of Marcus W. Feldman of Stanford University, assayed 377 polymorphisms (i.e. gene types) in more than 1,000 people from 52 ethnic groups in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. They concluded that without using prior information about the origins of individuals, they were able to identify six main genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major geographic regions, and subclusters that often correspond to individual populations. The clusters corresponded to Africa, Europe and the part of Asia south and west of the Himalayas, East Asia, Oceania, the Kalash (of Pakistan) and the Americas. (Rosenberg, 2002 and Rosenberg, 2005)

          2. @ Delta
            I’m not a ‘Mr’ 😉

            Well, the concept of race is a central part in my field of study and research, so you gotta give me more than ‘wikipedia’ to convince me. Much water has run under the bridge since Darwin and Mendel, and by the way Darwin has been used and abused by almost everybody with a political agenda. I think, to paraphrase Marx, that he would probably say ‘if this is Darwinism’ then I’m not one’.

            Genetics differences does not validate the concept of race which goes much further in physical, intellectual and of course ideological implications.

            The world-leading specialist in this field, Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, a population geneticist and professor emiritus at Stanford says:
            “The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin” (‘The Genetics of Human Populations’)

          3. I’m well aware that races don’t exist in any fundamental biological sense in the way that species exist. Any fertile human can interbreed with any other fertile human of the opposite sex (all the same species). Race is a very fuzzy characterization because it just involves average concentrations of genes that code for particular characteristics. There is more variation within any given race than between the average characteristics of one race and the average characteristics of another. That’s why regimented classification into races by genes is futile. Races of man aren’t as uniform within each race like breeds of animals are within each breed.

            That said, just because there are no hard and fast biological distinctions doesn’t mean that race doesn’t exist as a sociological phenomenon. Most people self identify by “race” and are suspicious of people of other “races”. The only time I care about race is when someone is trying to harm me or mine because of it. To the extent that race is a matter of having a high proportion of common ancestry, the Arabs and some Jews are the same race. Other Jews have a mixture of Semitic and European, or Ethiopian, or what have you, ancestry.

            I find culture far more important than race because culture is far more predictive of behavior.

          4. culture is far more predictive of behavior.

            What the hell does that mean? It sounds ludicrous. How does culture “predict” behavior?? I find this notion absolutely nutty.

          5. “Most people self identify by “race” and are suspicious of people of other “races”.”

            This is absolute nonsense. What statistics do you have to support your claim that “most people” self identify by race?

            I have been working in multi-cultural contexts in a dozen different countries on various continents for over ten years and never came across anyone who told me he belongs to a particular race (except the human race of course).

            What races are these that “most people” usually identify themselves with? The Aryan race maybe? Or the Black race perhaps? I’d really like to hear some examples from you because in some countries you can actually go to prison for using the term race when referring to people of different backgrounds.

          6. @Steffen

            Re: evidence that most people self-identify by race:

            In the U.S., the U.S. Census. In 2000, 85.8 picked one race.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States_Census#Census_2000_.28Population.29

            Most people know what they will answer if some form asks what race they are. Given a free hand, some might answer “English” or whatever rather than “white” but very few would answer “human”. I seriously doubt that anyone spontaneously told you they belong to the human race.

            I didn’t say the suspicions were justified, just that people are insular and tend to differentiate between members of their own group, however designated, and members of other groups. Whether it is blacks and whites, Jews and Christians, Goths and Jocks, etc. My, I don’t care what race someone is, but if you think most people don’t care at least a bit, you are wrong.

          7. That is an absolutely stupid piece of evidence. It’s a CENSUS in which they’re ASKED to identify their race. That’s what the U.S. census IS. If you asked Americans how they identify themselves personally (not during a census enumeration) most would not identify by race, especially Caucasians.

          8. Re: culture as a predictor of behavior.

            A predictor in the sense of setting odds, not in the sense of certainty.

            A southern American (regardless of race) is more likely to eat grits regularly than a native New Yorker (regardless of race). Culture is a better predictor of grits eating behavior than race. Q.E.D.

            Assuming that all individuals in a culture will behave in the way that the majority do is a type of racism, Assuming that more people than not in that culture will behave in the way that the majority do is simply understanding the meaning of the word “majority”.

            As for group behavior, culture is an even stronger predictor of that. If a culture oppresses women today, there is a very good chance they will oppress women tomorrow.

          9. A predictor in the sense of setting odds

            Culture doesn’t predict anything. Other commenters here have told you how ludicrous yr statements are & yet you keep sticking yr foot in it, ever deeper w. every comment. Like this inanity:

            Culture is a better predictor of grits eating behavior than race.

            Sad. I simply can’t stand reading another piece of stupidity by you & I feel so comfortable w. the idea that you are banned & won’t darken the threads here again.

  5. Iran has issued very serious threats against Israel if the Zionist fanatics ruling there are foolish enough to launch still another war.

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/140637.html

    Iran is a nation that lost hundreds of thousands dead in the 8-year war against Iraq.

    How many is Israel prepared to lose? Israel’s weakness it that it can dish it out but cannot take it. This fact probably will prevent another war IMHO.

  6. In arabic they are saying on the Iranian threats “Calam Fadi”
    the iranians are under a lot of stress, the international sanctions are effective and taking a toll on the Iranian economy. the Iranians are afraid of a possible attack from either the US or Israel, hence the are announcing daily the development of another “best in the world” weapon system. from speed boats that will attack the us carriers to old US made F5’s now called “Saaeka”, from Chinese artillery shells to old versions of the Germans old V1.

    the Iranian military is as much joke as was the Iraqi republican guard and if it will come to a conflict, they will be taken out within less then a week.

    they know that, and to compensate for their disadvantage they are talking themselves to death.

    1. the international sanctions are effective and taking a toll on the Iranian economy.

      And you know this how? Because you’re in Iran? Because you have contact w. anyone in Iran? Because you’re an Iran specialist? Because you know anything at all about Iran? No to all those questions. You don’t know anything about Iran or the success or failure of the sanctions other than what you read at whatever propaganda sheet provided you this intelligence. The real truth is that Iran has faced sanctions going back to 1995. The Iranians are very skillful & adaptable & managed to elude the worst impact of the sanctions & they can more than absorb whatever minor blow the current round offers.

      the Iranian military is as much joke as was the Iraqi republican guard and if it will come to a conflict, they will be taken out within less then a week.

      Now I know who your source is: Don Rumsfeld. Except both he & you are in a weird time warp circa 2003. You think we’re about to invade Iraq & Saddam will fall in a week.

      Pls. don’t bore us w. yr pontificating when it so empty of any substance.

      1. Du you know anything about military technology ?
        lets take the Iranian airforce for example:
        13 Sukhoi Su-25
        24 Sukhoi Su-24
        75 Northrop F-5 (out of 313 purchase)
        21 MiG-29
        37 F-4 Phantom II
        11 Azarakhsh (a local production of the F5)
        24 Saeqeh (a local production of a modified F5)
        60 F14 Tomcats
        24 Mirage F1
        24 Mig 21 (china made)
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Iranian_Air_Force

        as you can see from the list, these are old planes, the F14, F4, F5 were sold to iran prior to 1979, assuming they were sold in 1979 they have 35 years old systems inside them. the iranian’s were unable to upgrade them (because no one sold them upgrade kits to Americans airplanes) the situation of the French Mirage F1 isn’t much better and the same applies to the Russian airplanes.

        in short the difference between Don Rumsfeld and you is that he knows what is talking about, and you are just babbling.

        1. You think because the Iranian air force isn’t the match of the Israeli that this means Iran will have no recourse after Israel attacks? Perhaps you’d like to read Yigal Sarna’s column fr Yediot in which he disagrees w. you. I think I’d rather trust Sarna’s sense of dread over a war w Iran over yours. He’s sitting in a place & in a country that will suffer from this lunacy. How about you? Where are you sitting? What will you suffer?

          I suppose if there are “thousands of Israelis” killed which Sarna predicts, then you may have a few regrets. Or will you write ’em off as collateral damage as yr mentor Rumsfeld did?

          the difference between Don Rumsfeld and you is that he knows what is talking about, and you are just babbling.

          Make one more crack like that are you’re outa here? Do you understand? Mind yr manners or you’re history.

          But I do thank you for showing yr true colors. Perhaps you should be starting a Don Rumsfeld fan page on Facebook?

          1. Excuse me please clarify what is wrong with my statement ?
            you had proven already you are incapable of having a civilized debate. the prof is written in many of your posts, in which you treat Israeli’s who oppose your radical views with very little dignity yet you expect them to be civilized to others.
            but what is wrong with the statement that Don Rumsfeld being the ex. secretary of defense was exposed to information that makes him way more knowledgeable on the subject of the Iranian armies capabilities then yourself ?
            where i come from we are saying “דרך ארץ קדמה לתורה”
            judging by your comments, you have very little “דרך ארץ”

            and now following the famous Silverstien Doctrin, i will be warned, and if i went to far i will be moderated, and if i really went to far i will be banned.
            why ? because you can’t handle any sort of civilized debate.

  7. The same Zionist liars who claim that Iran is an “existential threat” to Isael also argue that a war against that nation of 70 million would be a cakewalk.

    LOL!

    1. My friend, the Iraqi army was the 4th in the world, they got they got there ass kicked twice. they had a better army then the Iran’s army. so laugh all you want, the technological advantage of the west is huge, Iran’s army will be blown at no time.

      1. the Iraqi army was the 4th in the world

        What’re you smokin’?? YOu have the U.S., England, France, Germany, Japan, China, Russia, Israel, S. Africa, Cuba. And you dare to claim that Iraq was 4th in the world? Who told you this?

        Stop blathering. Every time you open yr mouth you embarrass yrself.

        1. Mr. Silverstien
          can you behave like a civilized human being ? can you initiate a debate without all the insults and nasty comments ?

          as for your questions, pre desert storm the iraqi armi was the biggest in the middle east, and the 4th in size in the world
          after US, Russia, And China.
          you might want to get yourself educated a bit before embarrassing yourself every time you open your big mouth.
          http://www.inss.org.il/upload/%28FILE%291194174886.pdf

          1. can you behave like a civilized human being ?

            I’ll make ya a deal. When Israel can implement civilized policies then I’ll be as mild as milk. Till then, those who are apologists for Israeli policies won’t be coddled here.

            You said the Iraqi army was “4th in the world.” Not “4th in size in the world.” Or don’t you pay attention to what you write? The size of an army has absolutely no bearing on its fighting capability.

            you might want to get yourself educated a bit before embarrassing yourself every time you open your big mouth.

            As for embarrassment, I’d say it’s you who’s embarrassing yrself. But keep on trying, maybe you’ll eventually walk or hit a single if you try long enough. And even a broken watch tells time right twice a day.

    2. Who’s claiming it would be a cakewalk? The Israelis would be in for a tough fight if a war started between them and Iran. I don’t know who would win a conventional war. I can easily come up with a scenario in which a country is both and existential threat and easy to defeat. It happens any time a country has belligerent intent and inferior-but-improving forces.

      Most of the population of Israel could be killed with a small number of nuclear weapons, so any country that is hostile to Israel, has leaders with an insane disregard for mutually assured destruction, has relatively weak conventional forces, and is heading toward having nuclear weapons would be defeatable by Israel and an existential threat to Israel.

      Iran: Hostile, check. That insane leaders, maybe. Relatively weak conventional forces, outside my knowledge. Heading toward nukes, check.

      Of course, in the category of insane, include “severely miscalculating”. As in, if they miscalculate how much conventional terrorism Israel will stand for before starting a war with them, the Iranians may end up starting what ends up as a nuclear war without intending it to go beyond terrorism.

      Terrorism as a sword and nuclear weapons as a shield against retaliation isn’t something that anyone has tried before. All indications are Iran will be the first.

  8. Has anyone here read the following chapter in the Muslim Koraan, ‘The Repentance’?
    Might sound abit, zealous but.. Some very strikingly familiar situations here!! It is simply amazing.
    If I’m not mistaken, this chapter was revealed during the muslim wars led by Muhammad against the Pagans etc.

    I recommend atleast a quick read for any knowledgeable open minded person and see if you can find the relation.

    Good day. And I sure hope Israel does not have to depend on Obama to stop the war, they should know that they are about to plunder the whole damn world if they act so foolishly.
    Cannot zionists just move to and occupy Greenland instead of the MiddleEast? 🙂

  9. Hey peeps,

    I don’t know much about international war except than what I see in the news. I believe in any war there is always a good side and a bad one. The fight is between leaders and it is always the normal citizen that lose. Everyday I see people dying in the middle east. I don’t’ understand, what drives people to go into wars? Why are people being killed in Palestine? Is it why the territory of Israel ever expanding?

    Thnx Silverston keep the flag flying bru.
    Peace.

  10. Is crazy John Bolton surfing here? Or just John Bolton clones.

    His assertions about how easy a war with Iran would be are identical to at least one poster here.

    A senior Iranian commander has rapped former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton for his ‘nonsensical’ war rhetoric against the Islamic Republic.

    Brigadier General Seyyed Masoud Jazayeri, the deputy head of Iran’s Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Bolton and has still kept his “notoriety for idiotic remarks,” Mehr news agency reported on Monday.

    Jazayeri’s remark comes after Bolton said on Saturday that in case of a US military attack, Iran would be able to hold on to the Strait of Hormuz for two or three days “at the most” before the US forces crushed the Iranian Army, Navy and Air Force.

    “Apparently, the former US official in the UN is in the dark about the changes in the global situation and thinks America can do whatever it wants especially militarily,” the Iranian commander said.

    He further noted that the Islamic Republic is fully capable of defending its sovereignty.

    Bolton’s latest remarks come two weeks after the former UN envoy controversially formulated an eight-day deadline for an Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities before the August 21 launch of the country’s first nuclear power plant in the southern port city of Bushehr.

    Iranian officials have dismissed the likelihood of any attacks but have warned that the consequences of such a move would be fierce and not limited to the region.

    Earlier in August, A group of ex-CIA officials warned Washington against Tel Aviv’s efforts to “mousetrap” the US on Iran, a mistake that would “destroy” Israel.

    In a memo to the US President Barack Obama, a group of former CIA intelligence officers at the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity warned that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is ready to go unilateral on Iran.

    Israel, which is the only entity in the Middle East that possesses nuclear weapons, has repeatedly voiced its determination to stop Iran’s nuclear program, even through military means.

    Unlike Israel, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has repeatedly declared that its nuclear program is civilian.

    GHN/MGH

  11. Richard Silverstein: I don’t really understand your animosity towards “Bob” He lies through his teeth a lot, and adds to that a lot of bullshit, but that is standard hasbara practice.

    Let him speak: he keeps his foot in his mouth.

    His last message on the equivalence between Israel and Iran is total nonsense. Israel is not ‘standing for’ terrorism from Iran, because there isn’t any. Hezbollah in Lebanon is defencive; no more than that, and if they acquire weapons from any source to try and prevent another ‘overkill’ attack like in 2006 from Israel, then good luck to them.

  12. come on people!!

    we can all argue and have oppinions about what may/ will happen. The difference now is that there is alot more innocent civillians living on all sides of the borders. Iff and when war does come, it is usualy these people who will suffer most of all. familys will be torn appart, lives will be lost, homes and bussinesses will be destroyed and individual economiese will be affected for years to come.

    i call on all sides to step back and think very carefully, is this what you all want, (turn each ohers country into a wasteland.

    st thomas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link