DEPRIVING THE ARABS OF THEIR PREY (GREAT READ)

The major increase in terrorism really began with the Madrid talks. When the average Arab in the street saw that their violence got them concessions, it increased impetence to the call for random violence. The primary key was the continued offers of negotiations by Israeli leaders to the PLO, culminating in the Oslo talks. The Arabs saw that the Jews themselves would give them arms and training.

This final assault on Jews with homicide bombers is the result of the negotiations come to fruition. The only answer to it is to simply terminate all negotiations and annex all the land currently under Israeli control. All the leaders, including religious Islamic ones, who preach murder must be incarcerated, mosques demolished, and all murderous literature destroyed.

There is much more, but this is the only way to stop the bloodshed. When we came into Germany with Patton's army, we made the Germans do exactly the same. There can be no compromise with absolute evil. It must be rooted out and destroyed.

It was only once the tide turned against the attackers that the US and the UN intervened to prevent any more loses on the part of the Arabs.

You said: Again, no facts. Since Israel would not be able to survive without massive US subsidies, the burden of proof is on those challenging US motivations.

There seems to be some cognitive dissonance in your response. Before '73 particularly, Israel functioned, as most small and new nations without a lot of natural resources do, on grants, loans, etc. to help in their economic growth and national security. What preceded '73 was a consistent threat of intervention by World powers if Israel pushed the envelop and secured a victory unequivocally. In 1967 Israel could have gone to Amman, Damascus, and Cairo if necessary to make the issue of victory fully demonstrable. Israel was threatened by both superpowers and this was particularly evident in '73 when again Israel in turning the tide of the war was prepared to achieve unequivocal surrender by marching into anyone of those Arab cities noted above.

While you were quick to point out the U.S.' help to Israel, more related to the point of the Yom Kippur War and forward (since as noted above Israel functioned without "massive U.S. subsidies" before the '73 War) you concurrently forgot to mention the massive amount of strategic and military aid the Soviets were pouring in to both Egypt and Syria. It is undisputed that the U.S. specifically intervened to stop Israel's progress in the War of independence, the 1956 War with Egypt, the '67 and '73 Wars. The latter two wars particularly the U.S. used Israel as a international pawn in its strategic Cold War against the Soviets. And one of the reasons for Egypts indebtedness to the U.S. and that which started the U.S. on its course of of buying the status quo in that region is the U.S.'s specific intervention in the Sinai in stopping Sharon from destroying the Egyptian Third Army thus saving Egypt's face in the Arab world. And of course this is partly the reason for the U.S.' straightjacket on Israel oil and their influence in the Arab countries.

The Arab nations continue to whine and complain that America has unfairly deprived them of their victory over Israel since 1948. Somehow, in their fertile imagination where Arabs wander about in their fantasy land, they believe they are not to blame for losing six wars of intended annihilation to their hated enemy, the Jews. They claim that "It wasn't the Jews who met each attack with courage and fighting skills that beat them on the field of battle." Clearly, 'they' didn't lose to the despised Jews who, for centuries the Arab Muslims had designated as lowly habitants of most Arab lands. If it wasn't the Jews, who in the Arabs' fables and imagination were weak and cowardly, it must have been America, who they call "The Great Satan" that defeated them.

Middle East list

If people want on or off this list, please let me know.

LOL, is that right? That's not my recollection, but if you wish to try to prove it somehow, go right ahead.

It's history. I don't know what kind of proof would be acceptable to you beyond historical records.

Whenever the Arabs attacked, neither the US nor the UN said anything.

I don't see any facts backing this up.

Again, it's a matter of historical record.

It was only once the tide turned against the attackers that the US and the UN intervened to prevent any more loses on the part of the Arabs.

Again, no facts.

Sorry, it again is a matter of historical record. You can check all you want, you will not find any protests or condemnation from the UN or the US when the Arabs attacked.

Since Israel would not be able to survive without massive US subsidies, the burden of proof is on those challenging US motivations.

Your logic escapes me. Especially since your premise is incorrect. Israel would indeed be able to survive without what you term "massive US subsidies". All she has to do is eliminate the need for devoting such a large percentage of her budget to military purposes. Through a program of denazification of the Arab population in Israel and the Liberated Territories, and total destruction of her enemies' ability to wage war, and Israel can reduce her need for military aid and thus reduce the "massive US subsidies".

So, victory entails ensuring the survival of the Israeli state. Pretty much what I said originally,

We have different definitions of survival. Living in conditions where your citizens are murdered by terrorists is not survival in my opinion. Perhaps you feel it's something Israel can live with.

though I question the utility of forcing the Arabs to acknowledge "defeat" in a latter-day Treaty of Versailles situation.

I was thinking more of the defeat of the Nazis, not the Treaty of Versailles.

"Defeat" as you define it would not stop terrorism one iota and perhaps only give it more impetus.

We will have to agree to disagree on this as well.

"Demilitarizing" the Arabs would not solve the terrorism problem, either, and Israel has not been attacked in a major land war in almost 30 years.

The Arabs have recognized that Israel needs to be sufficiently weakened before the "final solution". Terrorism is a means to do this...to force concession after concession while their propaganda war isolates her diplomatically. By denazifying the population, you eliminate terrorism.

I don't need to supply any more facts than I have. I have given textual support for my questioning of the author's unsupported and biased attack on the US. But thanks very much for the permission to think what I like.

I don't see that you've supported your position with any facts. No doubt you feel the same way about my position. However, since you're starting to take a nasty tone, I will not respond to any further postings from you on the subject. Simply put, you can have the last word.

" a) one wonders how they could be both pro-Arab and anti-Semitic"

Cute. Did you come up with that yourself, or are you just repeating what you heard at the mosque? It's a common, erroneous, disingenuous, and muslim argument. Please excuse the redundancy.

Besides all of that, it is a deliberate sidetrack, intended to obscure the fact that muslims hate the Jews. It is a silly argument, implying that since the arabs are semites, they can't be anti-Semitic, therefore they can't hate Jews. Illogical muslim BS, but I'm being redundant again.

One only wonders if one is willfully ignorant of the meaning of the term "anti-Semitic". While both the Jews and the Arabs are Semites, anti-Semitic doesn't mean anti-Arab. The term was coined by Jew-haters, and means just that - Jew-hater.

Try a dictionary. Go ahead and look up "Semite", and pat yourself on the back for being so clever. But don't close the book until you've looked up "anti-Semite", and then go stand in the corner.

The American Heritage^® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

Semite

SYLLABICATION: Sem·ite
PRONUNCIATION: smt
NOUN: 1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians. 2. A Jew. 3. Bible A descendant of Shem.
ETYMOLOGY: Back-formation from Semitic.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/87/S0258700.html

anti-Semite

SYLLABICATION: an·ti-Sem·ite
PRONUNCIATION: nt-smt, nt-
NOUN: One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.
OTHER FORMS: anti-Se·mitic (-s-mtk) —ADJECTIVE
http://www.bartleby.com/61/90/A0349000.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.