Jump to content

Three dead as violence erupts in the West bank and East Jerusalem


rooster59

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, coma said:

 

Not quite Lord Morch ? The Israelis were $hitting their pants at the thought of defeat and made preparations to go nuclear. Whether that was really on the table or a threat to the US to get them to start backing Israel up shows that Israel believed that defeat by the Arab coalition was imminent. English ain't my first language but I can read your own link provided and got this............

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

 

During the night of October 8–9, an alarmed Dayan told Meir that "this is the end of the third temple."[292] He was warning of Israel's impending total defeat, but "Temple" was also the code word for nuclear weapons.[293] Dayan again raised the nuclear topic in a cabinet meeting, warning that the country was approaching a point of "last resort".[295] That night Meir authorized the assembly of thirteen 20-kiloton-of-TNT (84 TJ) tactical atomic weapons for Jericho missiles at Sdot Micha Airbase, and F-4 aircraft at Tel Nof Airbase, for use against Syrian and Egyptian targets.[293] They would be used if absolutely necessary to prevent total defeat, but the preparation was done in an easily detectable way, likely as a signal to the United States.[295] Kissinger learned of the nuclear alert on the morning of October 9. That day, President Nixon ordered the commencement of Operation Nickel Grass, an American airlift to replace all of Israel's material losses.[296] Anecdotal evidence suggests that Kissinger told Sadat that the reason for the U.S. airlift was that the Israelis were close to "going nuclear"   

 

And to use the great words of Forrest Gump... That's all I got to say about that.

 

 

 

Not that the quote above actually supports what you posted earlier, and obviously the whole thing is off topic. But if you insist to post on the matter, you might have included all of the relevant quote (cont. from where the above stopped):

 

Quote

However, subsequent interviews with Kissinger, Schlesinger, and William Quandt suggested that the nuclear aspect was not a major factor in the decision to re-supply. These officials cited the ongoing Soviet re-supply effort and Sadat's early rejection of a ceasefire as the primary motivators.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Not quite:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#U.S._aid_to_Israel

 

The bulk of US supplies arrived after the ceasefire. And, of course, not a word about the massive military resupplies sent to Egypt and Syria by the USSR at the same time.

 

The USSR supplied weapons and intelligence and tried to direct the whole operation. Luckily the Arabs screwed the whole thing up. They kept lying to each other about what was going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, JDGRUEN said:

At some point - some day - the underlying compliant population that makes up the West Bank and Gaza will decide to stop supporting the futile efforts of the Islamist Radicals.  At some point they will look across the border and figure out that peace will allow them to have prosperity that they see in the distance.  Leaders will emerge that are not afraid to challenge the Jihadis ... and over several years the once thought never to end Infitada will slowly melt away ... No matter the continued indoctrination of the youth -- enough of a percentage will not believe and will decide not to support the senseless violence. 



So, at some point in the future, Gaza and the West Bank will become independent states ???
They will have governments elected by the local people, and be at the United Nations ???

 

Edited by tonbridgebrit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Not that the quote above actually supports what you posted earlier, and obviously the whole thing is off topic. But if you insist to post on the matter, you might have included all of the relevant quote (cont. from where the above stopped):

 

 

 

 

Fair use policy ?? I provided the link. You obviously read it in its entire form as will other interested members.:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first Israeli apologist response on this forum immediately and automatically labelled the OP a terrorist act against illegal Israeli colonists who should not have been in the West Bank anyway. But of course, it could have been an accident.

 

The double standards in another road death not far away in the West Bank a few days ago is interesting. 

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/blogs/middleeast/2016/09/politics-accident-occupied-palestinian-territories-160911113542508.html

 

An illegal Israeli colonist rammed into and killed a 6 year old Palestinian girl. It was probably an accident, but we will never know if the OP was also an accident or not, because of the IDF shoot to kill policy.

 

Whereas the illegal Israeli colonist in the other incident who should never have been there in the first place either will probably not even be charged with careless driving, let alone manslaughter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, coma said:

 

Fair use policy ?? I provided the link. You obviously read it in its entire form as will other interested members.:thumbsup:

 

Wouldn't know that Fair Use policy applies to Wikipedia. But even so, what you posted exceeds the allowed limit on this forum anyway.

 

Better excuses next time.

Edited by Morch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Wouldn't know that Fair Use policy applies to Wikipedia. But even so, what you posted exceeds the allowed limit on this forum anyway.

 

Better excuses next time.

 

Only if you say so Lord Morch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

The first Israeli apologist response on this forum immediately and automatically labelled the OP a terrorist act against illegal Israeli colonists who should not have been in the West Bank anyway. But of course, it could have been an accident.

 

The double standards in another road death not far away in the West Bank a few days ago is interesting. 

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/blogs/middleeast/2016/09/politics-accident-occupied-palestinian-territories-160911113542508.html

 

An illegal Israeli colonist rammed into and killed a 6 year old Palestinian girl. It was probably an accident, but we will never know if the OP was also an accident or not, because of the IDF shoot to kill policy.

 

Whereas the illegal Israeli colonist in the other incident who should never have been there in the first place either will probably not even be charged with careless driving, let alone manslaughter.

 

 

It was no accident. The wounded Palestinian is the sister of the Palestinian girl who tried the same thing, at the same place, a few month ago. The driver, from the same village, is described by Palestinian media as her fiance. On Palestinian social media, however, it is claimed they were lovers, and that the attack was a sort of suicide pact (to preserve family honor etc.). This wouldn't be a first. Before the usual nonsense comes up - doubt an engaged couple of this age and from their locality would be allowed a drive without a chaperon. Contrary to your "we will never know" nonsense, the girl was wounded, not killed.

 

Double standards how? The offending driver in your link owned up and did not run away. He did not "ram the car into" the girl. Traffic accidents do happen, and even the Palestinians do not claim it was deliberate. There is an investigation underway, how's about waiting for the outcome?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It was no accident. The wounded Palestinian is the sister of the Palestinian girl who tried the same thing, at the same place, a few month ago. The driver, from the same village, is described by Palestinian media as her fiance. On Palestinian social media, however, it is claimed they were lovers, and that the attack was a sort of suicide pact (to preserve family honor etc.). This wouldn't be a first. Before the usual nonsense comes up - doubt an engaged couple of this age and from their locality would be allowed a drive without a chaperon. Contrary to your "we will never know" nonsense, the girl was wounded, not killed.

 

Double standards how? The offending driver in your link owned up and did not run away. He did not "ram the car into" the girl. Traffic accidents do happen, and even the Palestinians do not claim it was deliberate. There is an investigation underway, how's about waiting for the outcome?

 

 

The double standards are that the offending driver in the OP was not even given a chance to own up, but killed on the spot, unlike the illegal Israeli colonist in the parallel incident. Can you imagine the uproar if police made this standard practise in any other western democracy?

 

Do let us know when the illegal Israeli colonist is charged, if you are closer to Israeli media than we at TV are.

Transparency and justice would be good PR for Israel... and I will honestly congratulate Israel if charges are brought. But neither I nor the little girl's family are holding their breath.

Edited by dexterm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, dexterm said:

The double standards are that the offending driver in the OP was not even given a chance to own up, but killed on the spot, unlike the illegal Israeli colonist in the parallel incident. Can you imagine the uproar if police made this standard practise in any other western democracy?

 

Do let us know when the illegal Israeli colonist is charged, if you are closer to Israeli media than we at TV are.

Transparency and justice would be good PR for Israel... and I will honestly congratulate Israel if charges are brought. But neither I nor the little girl's family are holding their breath.

 

There are traffic accidents occurring every day in the West Bank. Most don't make the news at all, some appear on local news (both Israeli and Palestinian). For the most part, they are dealt with without violence, by either Israeli or Palestinian security forces. Yet you seem to imagine that each and every traffic accident involving Palestinians results in them being shot. Not the case.

 

And own up to what? To carrying out an attack copycatting her sister? The only way to advocate this was an accident is by ignoring all the available details. 

 

As for your last paragraph, doubt there is any real interest by those blindly supporting one side or another. Most of their posting is aimed at maximizing  here-and-now effect and nothing more. Anything that complicates the picture is a hindrance to the agenda. For someone who posts so often and confidently on these topics, one would imagine you'd be manage your own follow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Wouldn't know that Fair Use policy applies to Wikipedia. But even so, what you posted exceeds the allowed limit on this forum anyway.

 

Better excuses next time.

Fair Use applies to all articles.   Without some standard, we have people posting very, very lengthy quotes from sources such as Wikipedia.  

 

Please limit your quotes to the 3 relevant sentences and a link.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please stay on this topic.   Continued off-topic posts will be removed and members run the risk of a suspension.  

 

The thread isn't about anything and everything that happens somewhere in the vicinity of the conflict.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...