Jimmy Carter's War a.k.a. the Arab-Israeli Conflicts

[brownshoe]

I was 15 when the Cuban missile crisis happened. Right you are A4's everyone was on the edge of their seats watching or listening to the news.

And of course we were helping Israel in their war efforts, my squadron trained the Israeli pilots and ground crews when we gave them A4 Skyhawks, as I recall in 66. Actually as I remember those guys all were very sharp and fun to be around. I can tell you this they were at VA-44 to learn, and learn they did, I was never asked so many questions.

Steve

 

[Mumbles]

A4s or Brownshoe..maybe you can further elucidate us on this, but it is my understanding that when the IAF was on the ropes because of the SA-6 threat during Yom Kippur in1973, AND with Nassar's army rolling up the Sinai and the Syrians....virtually overnight, dozens upon dozens of USN A-4s and F-4s were ferried to the Med, painted in a desert scheme and star of David insignia. This was because Kissinger told Nixon that we had KH overhead shots of the Jericho missiles sitting on their pads being fueled for launch. Presumably with a "special" payload, and they were desperate so we must restock their munitions. We also knew of the Russian advisor presence, and were afraid of the Arab-Israeli conflict going nuclear. Does that sound about right??

 

[raptor10]

Recent article (Oct 3rd) from the Military.com on 'new' USS Liberty developments.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,151319,00.html

 

[brownshoe]

A4s or Brownshoe..maybe you can further elucidate us on this, but it is my understanding that when the IAF was on the ropes because of the SA-6 threat during Yom Kippur in1973, AND with Nassar's army rolling up the Sinai and the Syrians....virtually overnight, dozens upon dozens of USN A-4s and F-4s were ferried to the Med, painted in a desert scheme and star of David insignia. This was because Kissinger told Nixon that we had KH overhead shots of the Jericho missiles sitting on their pads being fueled for launch. Presumably with a "special" payload, and they were desperate so we must restock their munitions. We also knew of the Russian advisor presence, and were afraid of the Arab-Israeli conflict going nuclear. Does that sound about right??

No Mumbles I can’t… I was a lowly enlisted “AO” who lived under a rock back then. I can tell you this though… After “A” school I was quickly sent to “GSE” school, was trained on the flight line/flightdeck and in the fuel pits as a “PC.” Interestingly though I was also sent to the “paint crew” for a very short stint. Now after your post I wonder about the “paint crew!” Why in the world would they have sent me there for training? Never thought about that till now.

Steve

 

[A4sForever]

..... it is my understanding that when the IAF was on the ropes because of the SA-6 threat during Yom Kippur in1973, AND with Nassar's army rolling up the Sinai and the Syrians....virtually overnight, dozens upon dozens of USN A-4s and F-4s were ferried to the Med, painted in a desert scheme and star of David insignia. .... We also knew of the Russian advisor presence, and were afraid of the Arab-Israeli conflict going nuclear. Does that sound about right??

Nasser (sic); not Nassar.

Gamal Abdel Nasser -- former high school drop out, former Egyptian Army officer (center, seated, no cover) -- all around egomaniac and self-serving rat bastard who became the leader du jour in the Pan-Arabism movement (sometimes referred to as "Nasserism" ---- no ego at work there, yes???) . He was the recognized Arab HMFIC, as it were .... only problem with your appreciation of "Nassar's (sic) army" rolling "up" (mebbe "across"??) the Suez and Sinai during the '73 War is that Nasser died in 1970. Anwar Al Sadat's army ... not Nasser's.

But the rest sounds O.K. as far as it goes ... we went to DEFCON 3 and were preparing to go to DEFCON 2 (only used once during the Cuban Missile dust-up) when the cease-fire went into effect. The Israeli's did not do their "normal" pre-emptive strike against their Arab opponents as Golda Meir did NOT want the rest of the world to think the Israeli's had initiated the conflict. Soooooooo .... they decided to take some hits they might not have otherwise.

The Russians had much more than an "adviser presence" in the area and were preparing to use Soviet paratroops and/or "naval infantry" to buttress their Arab clients when the war started going against the Rags after the first week or so ... when the Jews counterattacked in the Sinai and the Golan and the war started to swing their way.

But Israel's normal source for many of their arms -- Europe -- as usual, Europe = always a profile in courage -- dried up when the Arabs threatened an oil boycott against them if the Europeans supported and/or resupplied the Jews. So it was up to "UNCLE" to resupply them and we did it, big time... long story short: A-4's to the the IAF is the reason that many USN A-4 drivers "lost" their seats. :sleep_125

 

[A4sForever]

Mumbles .... I couldn't remember the name of the resupply op .... Operation Nickel Grass .... try this link F.Y.I. : OPERATION NICKEL GRASS

 

[Flash]

The U.S. never condemned Israel for building that wall. In fact, they voted, along with the Aussies, to vote against the U.N.'s condemnation of that wall. The wall itself is a security barrier. Some of it cannot be moved, but a lot of that barrier can. Plus, attacks from those parts of the area where the barrier exists have gone down something like 87 percent.

I have no problem with a barrier, but when the Israelis use it to make land grabs on internationally recognized Palestnian territories, they have built it far into the occupied territories of the West Bank, then I got a problem.

As for the US not condemning it, you need to check your facts a little bit better. We did not vote for the UN resolution, which was incredibly lopsided, but we have condemned the construction of the wall and further settlements in the West Bank.

"I think the wall is a problem, and I discussed this with Ariel Sharon. It is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and the Israel -- Israel -- with a wall snaking through the West Bank. "

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030725-6.html

"Therefore, Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion. The barrier being erected by Israel as a part of its security effort must be a security, rather than political, barrier. And its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050526.html

Both are quotes from President Bush.

One of the Israeli Supreme Court decisions, which only affect specific parts of the wall:

"We have reached the conclusion that the route of the Separation Fence, which separates the villages of Beit Likia and Beit Anan from the lands which provide the villagers with their livelihood, is not proportionate."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasite/images/iht_daily/D010704/hcfen0604.rtf

Like I said before, the Israelis can build the biggest fence/wall/barrier they want and I won't have a problem with it. It is when they start building it on land that is not their's, that is where the problem starts. If you need any further proof that they are doing a land grab, just look at planned and completed route of the wall (which has approximately 10% of the West Bank behind it). The ironic thing is that those huge sections that reach into the West Bank are to protect settlements in those areas. The Israeli's created the problem themselves when they constructed the settlements in the first place, to justify the extension of the security barrier into occupied territories because of a problem they created themsleves is a bit........stupid.

http://www.btselem.org/Download/Separation_Barrier_Map_Eng.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456944/html/nn2page1.stm

 

[MasterBates]

Back not too long ago, when countries won wars, they got to claim territory. And it was legally recognized.

I personally view the West Bank as territory Israel "Won".

JMHO.

 

[Mumbles]

Liberty link....

http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

I am by no means anti Israel....hell, I was the guy that posted this...

...
but WTF??

 

[Flash]

Back not too long ago, when countries won wars, they got to claim territory. And it was legally recognized.

I personally view the West Bank as territory Israel "Won".

JMHO.

Like the USSR annexing parts of Finland, half of Poland, a chunk of Romania etc? Yeah, that really was the right thing to have happen........

Believe it or not, many smart Israeli's, including much of their security establishment, fully realiize that occupying the West Bank forever just ain't going to work. Ever heard of the saying 'the revenge of the cradle'? The Quebecois tried it, having way mroe kids than the Anglos so they would eventually outnumber them. The Palestinian population in the West Bank and the surrounding Arab terriroties is expanding at a much greater rate than the Israeli population. In long run, no matter how many controls the Israeli's put in place, they are going to be way more outnumbered than they already are soon enough.

 

[A4sForever]

.....The Israeli's created the problem themselves when they constructed the settlements in the first place, to justify the extension of the security barrier into occupied territories because of a problem they created themsleves is a bit........stupid.....

You mean ... "stupid" like building a wall to STOP Arab suicide bombers from entering the Jewish state to kill as many Jews (and anyone else) as possible??? That wall??? -- conceived and built to stop the bombers -- which the wall has done in large part. Or ... do you mean .... "stupid" like when "Israeli's created the problem themselves" after Israel was officially recognized by the 1947 U.N. Mandate, became a country in 1948, only to be immediately invaded by all of its Arab neighbors in defiance of U.N. Resolution 181??? A resolution which the Jews accepted, but the Arabs rejected, 'cause they wanted it ALL???

You need to learn your history. You are a smart guy, but you are sadly deceived on the subject of "homelands" and the Middle East convulsions of the past century. Your information seems based more on the political expediency of the day, fallacious justifications of anti-Semites in the U.N. and elsewhere, and an Arab world which cannot abide the idea of a small Jewish state on the eastern end of the Mediterranean. At least learn some historical fact. There is no such thing as a "Palestinian", any more than there is a "Judean", a "Galilean", or a "Sumarian" ... you really need to learn your history of the region before you become yet another trumpeter of the mindless, corrupt U.N. and it's world wide collection of anti-semitic supporters.

Naaaaaah .... just keep one thing in mind if nothing else: if the Arabs had no oil ... and thus no influence on the British (originally) or the rest of the world (today) .... no one would give "the Palestinians" 2 seconds of concern --- those same "Palestinians" who were given over half of the original British Mandate for their Arab homeland ---Trans-Jordan. But, as we have seen, it wasn't enough ... and thus began the present 60+ year war that will not cease until the last Arab and the last Jew leave this planet. :sleep_125

 

[eddie]

You mean ... "stupid" like building a wall to STOP Arab suicide bombers from entering the Jewish state to kill as many Jews (and anyone else) as possible??? That wall??? -- conceived and built to stop the bombers -- which the wall has done in large part.

I believe he meant it was stupid to build it on an area that much of the world recognizes as "Palestinian" (lack of national / state-based legitimacy matters little in the court of clowns and kings in international opinion, no?). Active construction on "somebody else's" land will incur conflict, all other things in this equation ignored!

But, as we have seen, it wasn't enough ... and thus began the present 60+ year war that will not cease until the last Arab and the last Jew leave this planet. :sleep_125

I'm not sure historical hatred has as much to do with it as I used to think it did (or that it even exists to the degree I was always taught it does, but more on that later...), because circumstances of the 20th century, in my understanding, can explain the entirey of the "violence in the Middle East."

I don't deny traditional power. If I were an Israeli, I would believe that in giving a inch, we would risk too much by emboldening the enemy. I do not believe consequences are guaranteed, but I would believe the risk too high to trust to faith and good will. I also believe societies are short-sighted and that something's gotta give. Don't know who it will be, but my money says fifty years from now, Gaza and the West Bank will be going / have gone the way of Alsace and Lorraine.

The Palestinian population in the West Bank and the surrounding Arab terriroties is expanding at a much greater rate than the Israeli population. In long run, no matter how many controls the Israeli's put in place, they are going to be way more outnumbered than they already are soon enough.

Can anyone else spell Sparta? States that are forced and/or choose to exist in a perpetual state of militarism are non-sustainable over the long term.

[/Break from East Asian Conflict Midterm]

 

[NavAir42]

S-P-A-R-T-A....what do I win?

 

[A4sForever]

I believe he meant it was stupid to build it on an area that much of the world recognizes as "Palestinian" ......

Yeah, I think so, too ... even though I never try to explain what someone else "meant" -- it never works out too well ....

The point being ... the present lands under discussion were never intended to be "Palestinian" or "Arab", even though the most prosperous Arabs in the region (normal people -- discounting corrupt leaders and oil sheiks, of course) have traditionally worked and lived in the "Jewish" areas of control.

"Much of the world"?? Much of the world is wrong. Much of the world used to think slavery was O.K., too .... in fact, some still do. Arab countries still figure prominently in this, if I am not mistaken. :sleep_125

While you are taking a history study break -- if you like "world opinion", check out: the Supreme Court of the League of Nations at its San Remo meeting in April 1920 and the Palestine Mandate of 1922. They CLEARLY state that the "territory of Palestine" will provide the basis for the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people -- no ambiguity -- no politics of oil -- no "Palestinians" -- no currently held popular misconceptions that the Jewish immigration into the area was a result of or was begun after the WW2 European Jewish Holocaust.

 

[raptor10]

Can anyone else spell Sparta? States that are forced and/or choose to exist in a perpetual state of militarism are non-sustainable over the long term.

Didn't Sparta last from ~1100 BC to 371 BC? What's our definition of long term?