Careful what you wish for.
Reminding academia that they need to put pressure on Intel to only supply all their HPCs from non-Israli-fabbed parts may not have been so clever.
Professor Stephen Hawking has been accused of hypocrisy by an Israeli activist group after he declined an invitation to speak at an important conference in Jerusalem this June, announcing instead that he's joining a growing academic boycott of Israel in protest of its policies towards Palestine. "Hawking's decision to join the …
He should also remove all atoms in his body that have ever been in Israel, stop responding to any gravitational pull from Israel, and not use any mathematical constructs ever developed by an Israeli.
Really, Palestinian supporters? The man is already backing you, stop being silly.
Evidently, both you and 8 other people failed to see my statement was in regards to an action Dr. Hawking should perform, not Nitsana Darshan-Leitner should perform - the suggesting is Dr. Hawking should remove his computer, so why should he not be expected to go all the way.
"His whole computer-based communication system runs on a chip designed by Israel's Intel team"
Yeah, well... it's just the Intel team which happens to be in Israel. It's not like it has been designed by the ultra-right-wingers of the Israeli state. It's not even particulary jewish - or, more the point, zionist (in the worst possible way).
Need to find another argument here.
".....Need to find another argument." Well, you could always wonder why Intel employ a design team in Israel. It's not that the US government paid for it, much as the Fakeistinian supporters like to pretend, and it's not because Intel are run by a bunch of Jewish Zealots. One reason is because Israel has an advanced, stable and developed economy, unlike every one of its Arab neighbours. Unlike Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, or any other number of Muslim states, there is not the imminent possibility that Islamist extremists - that all hate American companies - will seize control along with your facilities. Another reason is that Israel has a strong and politically-independent justice system, which means - unlike her Arab neighbours - Intel doesn't have to employ some dodgy prince or sultan to get anything done. And the main reason is because Israel has a lot of very clever engineers, scientists and academics, that can design their own world-beating solutions, unlike their Arab neighbours who just "develop" third hand Western tech (usually with China's or North Korea's assistance).
The Israeli team that developed the Core technology did so in competition with all the other Intel design teams. What the Fakeistinians and the Arabs hate to admit is that Intel cannot put a development team in any Arab nation because they are too under developed, unstable, and uneducated. The best Arab minds usually have to go to Western countries to find education and deployment. Indeed, I bet the one-sided "advice" Hawking got from the Fakeistinian "academics" was from ones living and working in the "infidel" West.
"And America's missiles and space program were designed by "a lot of very clever engineers, scientists and academics" from Nazi Germany....." The German contribution to the US's missile and space programs was considerable, but is often overstated in an attempt to denigrate US scientists. For example, Werner von Braun's work was a development of the pre-War work of US scientist Robert Goddard, and without Goddard's foundation von Braun's achievements would not have happened. Whilst the von Braun fanclub likes to shout long and loud about his achievements, most of them have never even heard of Goddard.
What people like you fail to realise is that development of rockets during the War was on hold in the Allied countries, as they concentrated on realistic projects that could actually be applied to winning the War. In the cloud-cuckoo-land of Nazi Germany, however, any and every idea - that usually had no chance of doing anything other than diverting German resources from actual good designs such as the early Heinkel jets - was followed with gusto. The German rocket program had a negligible effect on the course of the War. Indeed, some German scientists took advantage of the Nazi's poor grasp of science to carry on their pre-War research whilst pretending to make superweapons. Heisenberg was a good example of this when he used Nazi funds and resources to continue his work on nuclear reactor designs whilst telling the Nazis he was building them an atomic bomb. Meanwhile, in the US, where a much tighter control was exercised on scientists, the Allies actually developed the first atomic weapons. But it is understandable that someone like you with no grasp of history would fail to realise the difference between focused research and "blue-sky" projects, and somehow think the former meant the US was unskilled.
" In the cloud-cuckoo-land of Nazi Germany, however, any and every idea - that usually had no chance of doing anything other than diverting German resources from actual good designs such as the early Heinkel jets - was followed with gusto."
Nope, this was for another reason. Research on artillery systems was prohibited by the treaty of Versailles, so the german had to find alternative systems. Rocket systems for example.
"Nope, this was for another reason. Research on artillery systems was prohibited by the treaty of Versailles, so the german had to find alternative systems. Rocket systems for example." Complete cobblers. Hitler and the Nazis carried out research and weapons development in many areas banned by the Treaty of Versailles, including railway artillery (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/german-artillery-of-world-war-ii-railway-artillery.htm). The whole Luftwaffe was a very good example, the Treaty banning Germany from having any air force! Indeed, the Nazis went on to build and use the biggest examples of railway artillery the World has seen. What rocket technology offered was longer range than railway guns and with an even bigger payload, and it appealed to Hitler's "gee-whizz" fascination with projecting an image of Aryan supremacy as Germany having the most advanced scientists in the World.
"In the cloud-cuckoo-land of Nazi Germany, however, any and every idea - that usually had no chance of doing anything other than diverting German resources from actual good designs such as the early Heinkel jets - was followed with gusto. "
The threat to Britain from the V1 and V2 rockets was quite serious. There was no defence against the V2. Historical comments say that it was fortunate that they only came into effect so late in the war. I have a yellowed war-time daily newspaper where the British Government finally gave an accurate public technical explanation for the recent large explosions - previously glossed as "accidents".
The Germans had a very effective fighter in the Me262 twin engined jet. However Hitler would not countenance a defensive role - and ordered it to be primarily developed as a light bomber.
"The threat to Britain from the V1 and V2 rockets was quite serious....." Not really. The short range of the V1 meant that as soon as the Allies swept into Europe and captured the launch sites it became irrelevant. Like the V2 it was an area effect weapon of very limited military value and did nothing to stop the Allied invasion of France. Once the British AA had been re-arranged and the correct fighters (mainly RAF Tempests and Mosquitos) employed the V1 threat was massively reduced. The V1 was effective in that it was cheap and simple to produce, but that also made it easier to intercept.
A grand total of 1,402 V2s hit the UK between September 1944 and March 1945, each delivering a 2,200Lb warhead (though some simply had concrete heads as explosives production lagged due to Allied bombing). Whilst they killed 2,754 civilians in London with another 6,523 injured, the entire V2 campaign failed to hit a single weapons factory. During the same period the RAF alone dropped many tens of thousands of tons of bombs to much greater effect on Germany, massively reducing the German's industrial capability but also smashing their fuel industry, a much greater strategic triumph than scaring British civilians. With the Panzers running out of fuel and their own people starving, it was ironic that the Nazis had to use 30 tons of potatoes to make the fuel for each V2. And that's ignoring that each V2 used up material and resources that could have been used for making German jets, which would have been of greater strategic impact.
".....There was no defence against the V2...." Rubbish. There were three very effective counter-measures. The first, and simplest, was that British Intelligence leaked a story through neutrals that the V2s were mainly falling 10-20 miles beyond London. The Germans fell for it, adjusted the launch trajectories, and the majority of V2s fell in rural Kent. The second was the Resistance and Allied spies, which identified factories, associated stores and launch sites for Allied attack. The third was simply the Allied advance into Germany that finished the War in Europe.
"....Historical comments say that it was fortunate that they only came into effect so late in the war....." You really need to do a bit more in-depth research rather than just watching the Discovery Channel. The entire V2 project used more materials, resources, scientist and technical effort, than the Manhattan Project did in delivering the atomic bomb. Which do you think had the bigger impact on the War? Whilst Churchill worried about civilian casualties, he is on record as acknowledging that each V2 fired by the Germans was the equivalent to one less German jet bomber overhead or a Tiger tank in the frontline. The Germans manufactured over 4,000 V2s, many of which were never launched, so just imagine if they had made 4,000 jets or 4,000 more Tiger tanks instead. The V1 and V2 were just desperate and vindictive attempts at revenge when the Germans had already lost the War.
".....The Germans had a very effective fighter in the Me262 twin engined jet..." The first practical German jet fighter was the Heinkel He.280, which easily bested an FW190 fighter in a demonstration mock dogfight in 1941. The Germans could have massed produced it for 1942 and it would have been superior to all Allied fighters until the arrival of the Gloster Meteor III, and could have maintained air superiority until the arrival of the even better Me262. But the Germans had fooled themselves into the idea the War would be won soon and persisted with the conventional designs they had (another example of poor planning). Hitler's interference in the Me262 program is often mentioned but had a relatively minor impact - by the time the Me262 was available in numbers, even if they had all been used as fighters, they were too few to affect the course of the War. In fact, more fighter Me262s were shot down by Allied piston-engined fighters (usually when the Me262s were low and slow during landings) than Allied aircraft the Me262s managed to shoot down in fighting Allied bomber fleets.
"(2 british passport holding neutral here)"
I thought you needed three British passports these days? Apparently some countries' immigration officials were suspicious of those who might have a duplicate passport with Israeli visas - and started asking "do you have two British passports?". A bright British consular official found that the pedantic way round the problem was to issue two duplicates - giving a total of three.
"prey tell when you were last in any of these "Arab neighbours"?...." Last year, actually.
".....You are seriously comparing Abu Dhabi to Syria?" The underlying problem of a despotic, dictatorial elite ruling over an oppressed people (though you might say the Abu Dhabians have a gilded cage) is fundamentally the same in both Syria and Abu Dhabi, though one is a "revolutionary" dictator and the other is a historic monarchy. The Sunni-Shia schism is playing out in both. In the case of Syria it is the Sunni Gulf States pushing the Sunni clans into unseating the Allawite government as part of their ongoing Cold War with Iran, whilst in Abu Dhabi it is Iran stirring up the Shias against the Sunni rulers. Whilst the Al Nahyan family has the oil money to try and bribe their Shias with social programs, Assad is all out of luck in Syria. The worry for the Sunni Saudis is what happens if one of the Gulf States sees a full-blown Shia revolution, they believe it could have a domino effect across the area, hence their quickly sending their army in to support their fellow Sunnis in Bahrain in 2011, and if the problems escalate in Abu Dhabi then the Saudis will get involved there too. Oh, by the way, the Saudi officer that discussed the very issue with me last year used the domino analogy without realising he was echoing the American tone when they talked themselves into the Vietnam conflict.
But I see you do not contest the idea that Intel would be unable to build a development team in Abu Dhabi, though.
Intel's care of Dr. Hawking is compassionate, not political. And not compassionate for Dr. Hawking, but for the future generations he might yet inform. Also, it is a goldmine of research into care for others of this sort.
Not seeing the Intel connection to the politicized situation here.
"I suggest that if he truly wants to pull out of Israel he should also pull out his Intel Core i7 from his tablet."
I find this attitude deeply disgusting. What next, they'll find out that some components in his wheelchair were also made in Israel, and they'll demand the good professor be tipped out of it.
He should replace the lenovos with a couple of AMD jobs then - just to show them.
Anyway, top marks to Davros for taking a stand.
To suggest that just because something he uses is made there, means he can't disagree with Israel's determined efforts to recreate the Warsaw getto, but with them on the outside this time is moronic.
In my professional dealing I try to avoid all dealings with Isrealli companies for the same reasons.
Yes, my mac has an i7 in it, but I don't remember ticking a box saying ' I agree that by buying an i7 I am happy with Israel's (american funded) policy of eradicating Palestinians from the last part of the county we (the UK) were stupid enough to give you in the 50s.
So I suppose in your professional dealing you also try to avoid all dealings with Chinese companies because of China's brutal occupation of Tibet, or China's less than stellar record of human rights.?
Or is your fake outrage only reserved for certain ethic group, a bit like Hawking who's new found morality didn't put a dampener on his trip to China a few years back?
Speaking of human rights, one wonders why Hawking instead of taking the moral hight ground saw fit to attend a conference in Iran, yes that last bastion of human rights where homosexuality is punishable by death and political dissidents are tortured and hanged.
Hypocrisy, yours, Hawking's equally as ugly.
He “received a number of emails from Palestinian academics”.
Let's see what each side has given to humanity:
Israel and the Jews:
• The Bible
• The ten commandments
• First true humanistic monotheism
• Care obligation for the weak in the society in the ancient world
• Personal hygiene requirements – first in the ancient world
• Einstein’s theories
• Intel chips (from 8080 to Core iX) - design and manufacturing (developed in Haifa, produced in Kiryat Malachi)
• First modern cell phone (Motorola)
• Most of the Windows NT and XP operating systems were developed by Microsoft-Israel
• ICQ, intant messengers
• X-Box Kinect
• B-stent for heart operations
• MRI/Ultrasound/Nuclear scanners
• Drip irrigation which improved the lives of hundreds of millions in drought stricken countries
• large-scale solar energy generating plant in southern California (Mojave desert)
• Disk-on-key, SMS, voice-mail, multi-channel civilian radio recording
• Hundreds of start-ups on Nasdaq
• Dozens of Nobel prize winners in various sciences
And what has the Palestinian nation given to humanity? Let me think, oh yes:
• civilian airplane hijacking;
• international terrorism; and
• the civilian-targeting suicide bombing, as supported by a great majority of the Palestinian society.
Yes, Mr Hawking, you should listen to “Palestinian academics”.
> • The Bible
> • The ten commandments
> • First true humanistic monotheism
I'm sorry, was this supposed to bolster your argument?
I think you also need to realise that there is a distinct difference between the Israeli people and the politics of their government. A clue: they are different.
"We don't have a problem with Jews; we have a problem with Israel."
ever read the Qur'an, man? Let me enlighten you. There is no mention of the State of Israel in the Qur'an, but boy do they have a problem with Jews there. For example, as reproduced faithfully in the Hamas Charter from a hadith (canon interpretation of the Qur'an):
"The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until the Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them), until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh Muslim! Oh Abdullah!, there is a Jew behind me, come on and kill him. Only the Gharqad tree would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.""
So, my foe, do you still believe that the problem is "with Israel", or you continue to be a naïve fool, a useful idiot?
I think you'll find that you get little sympathy here for that kind of lunacy.
Quoting religious scripture is not evidence of anything. One religious whack job is as bad as any other.
So Muslims and Jews hate each other? Neither Mr Hawking nor many others on this side of the world really give a shit about your petty religious squabbles. They are beyond contempt.
What we do care about is normal decent human beings on both side of the border just trying to live their lives without getting blown up. That single point seems to get lost in the midst of all the rhetoric and silly religious bickering.
Do us all a favour and become atheists. The world would be a better, decent place because of it.
Asher, you know full well that there are many Israeli-Arabs living in Israel without becoming terrorists.
At the same time, how would you feel if your land was invaded, house bulldozed, and the invading force kept building settlements on your land?
".....how would you feel if your land was invaded, house bulldozed, and the invading force kept building settlements on your land?" LOL, do you mean like when the Fakeistinains and six Arab nations invaded the newly declared State of Israel in 1948? Or how Hamas and Hezbollah ans Iran state they want to do so now? Please try and think outside your popularist box.
> .....how would you feel if your land was invaded, house bulldozed, and the invading force kept building settlements on your land?
Probably the same as those unlucky bastards that found themselves living in a new Jewish state just after the war.
Either move out or put the f*ck up with it I guess.
The problem is that it all began when one of them hit the other back.
Israel is behaving like a spoiled brat of a child. It's the playground bully.
Palestinians are living in squalor because Israel won't let them have anything, it's a repeat of the ghetto.
Yes, some of them do fire rockets and set off bombs. Israel fires artillery rounds and air-to-ground strikes.
This tit-for-tat will continue killing forever, unless one side chooses to stop. And the longer it goes on, the more fear and hatred on both sides.
Compare this with Northern Ireland. How did we get them to stop? It wasn't by walling them in, refusing any travel into the area or killing them - although to our shame, that was tried - it was by talking to their political wing.
Killing yet more people on the other side only escalates the violence and never solved a problem like this - unless Israel intends a "Final Solution", and I would hope their citizens wouldn't agree to that.
We want Israel to grow up and become a responsible adult, instead of the petulant child it currently acts like. That's all!
"We want Israel to grow up and become a responsible adult, instead of the petulant child it currently acts like"
Over the years it appears that Israel's political character has moved from a European model - and is becoming more like its Arab neighbours. This has partly been down to the increasing political influence of the large number of Jews who had fled Arab countries where they had been part of the community for many generations.
Another factor is that the ultra-orthodox Jews are opposed to the compromise aims of the Israeli moderate groups. The former apparently don't care about the State of Israel - but only about their own religious aims in occupying biblical areas. Unfortunately they often have enough democratic voting power to hold a balance in the parliament. Currently their sub-culture also produces more offspring - who are rigidly raised in their dogma - than the more liberal groups.
The Arab Spring is rapidly turning into internal sectarian conflicts fracturing societies on mainly religious schism fault lines. Israel could eventually go the same way.
It took Europe a long time to resolve similar "tribal" differences - and sometimes it appears that some cracks were merely papered over.
hmm let's see.
IRA bombings would be preceded with a phone call to minimize the loss of life.
Islamic terrorism? here is the conversation between the terrorists and their handlers. watch the part whey they so gleefully kill two Jewish hostages.
why should Israel or anyone for that matter engage politically with pure evil?
Wishful thinking. We tried that already, the terrorist acts only got bolder as they tend to think that playing nice is a sign of weakness.
Unfortunately the only thing proven to reduce terrorism acts is strong handing them into it. Hopefully one day that would change and they will accept Israel's right to exist.
"".....how would you feel if your land was invaded, house bulldozed, and the invading force kept building settlements on your land?" LOL, do you mean like when the Fakeistinains and six Arab nations invaded the newly declared State of Israel in 1948?"
Newly declared by whom? A bunch of self righteous Western nations. Some of these westerners were eager to atone for Adolf's activities, but many others saw it as a good opportunity to give the Jews somewhere to go in the hope they'd all fuck off. Either way, it wasn't their land to give.
Presumably if an angry mob burst in and throw you out of your house, then you'll be in the wrong by trying to take it back? And by similar logic when the fast growing Arab world eventually turn the Jews out of the Holy Land for a second time, you'll be OK with that? I think not, but that will illustrate your weak grasp of logic.
Personally I look forward to the day when Iran moves from Photoshopping nuclear weapons to actually having some. Then the Israelis can either start behaving with a bit of humility and respect for other people's human rights, or the whole Middle East can become a glowing green crater. I'd be relaxed about either outcome.
"Newly declared by whom? A bunch of self righteous Western nations...." By the UN, actually, you complete ignoramus, which happened to contain a lot more than just Western nations.
".... Either way, it wasn't their land to give....." Actually, it was no-ones - the previous owners were the Ottoman Empire, which had been defeated by the Allies in the Great War. The British referred the matter to the UN as they could not find a solution that satisfied the Jews and the Arabs. The UN promptly came to the same conclusion and decided to impose a solution based on existing areas with Jewish or Arab majorities. This not only means it WAS already Jewish land, but also that many Jewish areas were OUTSIDE the original state designated to become Israel. The Jews accepted an area much less than what they had been promised in return for gaining an independent homeland - prompted by their mullahs, the Arab leaders rejected the Plan in the interest of erasing the Jewish homeland. The Fakeistinians have been paying for the stupidity of their leaders ever since. The Israelis won the 1948 war because they were fighting for their homes, whereas the majority of the Arab combatants were far from home and fighting for the gain of their leaders.
"....Presumably if an angry mob burst in and throw you out of your house, then you'll be in the wrong by trying to take it back?...." Completely different scenario - my home is my land, protected by British law and in the sovereign state of Great Britain. I would simply call the Police to evict the invaders. The "police" in the case of Palestine was the UN that decided on the Partition Plan, which is why the rejection by the Arabs meant they lost legally too.
"....And by similar logic when the fast growing Arab world eventually turn the Jews out of the Holy Land for a second time, you'll be OK with that?...." The Arabs are too busy killing each other, as shown by Syria, Iraq, the Lebanon and Yemen, amongst others, and the powerful Arab nations are preoccupied with the threat of Iran. The Arabs tried and failed to defeat Israel several times when they were united by the Pan-Arab pipe dream, they are unlikely to try when they are disunited. Even should they somehow overcome their differences, Israel has shown many times before that it can face and defeat Arab armies that massively outnumber the IDF, so you'll just have to swallow that bitterness for a long while.
".....Personally I look forward to the day when Iran moves from Photoshopping nuclear weapons to actually having some...." Whatever. Your hatred for Israel and Jews simply stops you from realising that even if the Americans let that happen, it is unlikely Israel will stand idly by. History has shown that Israel is not squeamish about doing what is needed to defend herself. But even if enough Iranian scientists survive long enough to complete the project, it is more likely Iran will be too busy propping up the puppets of Syria and Hezbollah to want to go to war with Israel. Sadly, the more Sunnis and Shias carry on killing each other in Syria the safer Israel remains. Which means you will have to choke on that hatred of yours for a good while longer. Enjoy!
> The UN promptly came to the same conclusion and decided to impose a solution based on existing areas with Jewish or Arab majorities.
So, you agree then that the current occupants were forced to accept imposed rule by a new Jewish state then.
> This not only means it WAS already Jewish land
What on earth do you mean by that? There happened to be some Jewish people living on it, it is "Jewish" land?
There are Jewish people living in Golders Green. Does that make it Jewish land FFS?
I could go on, but to be quite frank, I think it would be pointless.
I swear you're just making this shit up.
".....So, you agree then that the current occupants were forced to accept imposed rule by a new Jewish state then......" Seriously, are you just being deliberately obtuse or do you actually have as little comprehensive capability as your posts suggest? The "current occupants" of the State of Israel as declared in 1948 WERE the Jews intent on creating the State of Israel, so nothing was imposed on them other than the need to defend themselves from the immediate murderous attacks of their Arab neighbours. Christian and Muslim Arabs that stayed in Israeli territory after the 1948 fighting were given Israeli citizenship and freedom to worship as they pleased, unlike the Jews who were illegally evicted by the defeated Arab states.
"Newly declared by whom? A bunch of self righteous Western nations. Some of these westerners were eager to atone for Adolf's activities, but many others saw it as a good opportunity to give the Jews somewhere to go in the hope they'd all fuck off. Either way, it wasn't their land to give."
Ummm nope, it was defintely there's to give. You see it had been entrusted to them by the Islamic Caliphate that was the Ottoman Empire. So they defintely had the right to give it to whomsoever they chose.
Try a history book, they can be terribly helpful when it comes to making statements about historical events.
"At the same time, how would you feel if your land was invaded, house bulldozed, and the invading force kept building settlements on your land?"
AND anyone who complained or resisted was shot in cold blood? (And then called a "terrorist" because, of course, the righteous Israeli forces would never harm anyone who wasn't a terrorist).
""At the same time, how would you feel if your land was invaded, house bulldozed, and the invading force kept building settlements on your land?"
AND anyone who complained or resisted was shot in cold blood? (And then called a "terrorist" because, of course, the righteous Israeli forces would never harm anyone who wasn't a terrorist)."
This is a really pointless argument. Israel only has control of the West Bank, Golan Heights etc. because of an act of aggression by the countries that used to have that land. Yes, I know Israel fired the first shot, but they were going to invade, that much was clear. They lost, so lost land. It's always been that way, throughout history. And, Israel has handed land back; e.g. Sinai; when peace agreements were signed etc.
So, was it really 'their land'? They decided to attach, but simply lost, hence lost the land. Plenty of evidence throughout history that this is acceptable. If you attack someone, you have to take your chances in return. Also, don't forget that the West Bank was taken from Jordan, but the UN has given it to the Palestinians!! So, according to the above logic, the Palestinians don't own it either, Jordan does!!
I'm not saying what the Israelis are doing is right or proper. Far from it. But, the situation pointed out above is nowhere near as clear as made out and is a result of aggressive acts against israel to some extent. However, that's not to denigrate the bad things they're doing now.
However, taking sides will never resolve this conflict. It simply provide more cannon fodder. We need people to see the good and bad on BOTH sides and who can act in a calm and even manner, acknowledging that both are good and bad and that external parties are also having a big effect.
"Yes I know Israel fired the first shot. But they were going to invade"
Hitler said similar things about Poland in 1939. It's rationalisation, and the global community (except USA) doesn't buy it at all.
Look: International law is quite unequivocal about this kind of thing. No matter how 'clear' Israel imagined the threat to be, firing the first shot is an act of aggression, and can be regarded as a war crime (after nuremburg). So Israel was the aggressor in legal terms, and they still insist on playing the victim. This isn't about religion or race, it's about law and common decency.
In fact Israel is the only country in the region that has invaded all its neighbours in recent times. The idea that they are a model of stability is ludicrous.
"Hitler said similar things about Poland in 1939. It's rationalisation, and the global community (except USA) doesn't buy it at all."
Totally and utterly different. Did Poland have all its forces massed on the border? Had it called up reservists etc.etc. No.
"Look: International law is quite unequivocal about this kind of thing. No matter how 'clear' Israel imagined the threat to be, firing the first shot is an act of aggression, and can be regarded as a war crime (after nuremburg). So Israel was the aggressor in legal terms, and they still insist on playing the victim. This isn't about religion or race, it's about law and common decency."
I think we all know that international law is interpreted by the powerful countries and the winners and also should, like all laws, be guidelines, as there are always exceptions. This is precisely what a court is supposed to allow for. So, whilst technically Israel was the aggressor in that it fired the first shot, no sane person is going to hold them liable. It was quite clear the Arab countries were going to attack and Israel simply got in first to prevent it. Anyone blaming Israel or holding them liable for 'starting' that particular conflict is completely missing the point. Also, do bear in mind that the Falklands (for instance) was a conflict and not a war as we never technically declared war on Argentina. So, strict technicalities are pretty irrelevant as I would personally say the Falklands was a war.
"In fact Israel is the only country in the region that has invaded all its neighbours in recent times. The idea that they are a model of stability is ludicrous."
Israel has invaded Lebanon. You can argue about whether the constant bombardment from southern Lebanon gave them just cause. They have only invaded the other countries through attacking before being attacked during the various Arab Israeli wars. So, yes, technically you are correct, but the real intelligent reasoning is not really the same.
"To quote a Gulf Arab friend of mine, "We don't have a problem with Jews; we have a problem with Israel."" LOL! please ask him what exactly is his problem with Israel then? Is it that he thinks there shouldn't be one Jewish nation when there are dozens of Islamic states? Or maybe it's that he thinks Jews are OK, just as long as they are not in the same country as him? Does he think Israel is "wrong" because he dislikes the idea of Jews not being in dhimmitude to Arabs? Maybe he thinks Israel is "wrong" because his parents and teachers brought him up to believe that once a land is conquered by the Islamic horde it is Islamic for ever. The history of widespread support in the Gulf for the Arab wars against Israel suggest he is probably talking porkies.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019