Letters to the Editor
Xanthro
Published Letters: 522 Editor's Choice: 47
-
Unsupported opinions are not fact.
[Read the article: Israel's maximal option]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Once again Juan Cole instead of examining the evidence and reaching a conclusion, he starts for the view point that Israel is at fault and searches for evidence in support.
For example let's examine his "has a presence north or south of the Litani is not militarily decisive."
Perhaps Prof. Cole is simply splitting hairs and trying to mislead the reader, because seldom is one single objective militarily decisive, or is Prof. Cole simply unaware than the Litani would put katyushas out of range of striking Israel.
Yes, Israel could be hit by Fajdr-3 missiles, but there are only a small number of those available vs. tens of thousands of katyushas.
Prof. Cole is not uninformed, so we must assume that he is aware of the respective ranges of the ordnance in question. So why the deception and building an argument based on a false premise, that is Prof. Cole inserts his own conclusion that Israel wants to take the waters of the Litani, as opposed to having an enemy move beyond its range to strike?
This is because Prof. Cole has to attribute ulterior motives to Israeli policy, motives that he himself concludes and presents as fact, when they are merely his biased opinions.
While Prof. Cole is less blatant in this article, simply downplaying Israeli deaths instead of describing weapons of war as high school class projects, he cannot refrain from showing his true colors with comments such as “David Ben-Gurion, the Zionist state's first prime minister.” Why not refer to David Ben-Gurion as Israeli’s fist prime minister? Because Prof. Cole cannot stand Israeli’s existence, of course this is my opinion, but Cole himself provides the evidence to support such a conclusion. After all, someone taking an objective stance would not use such terminology. His choice was to avoid neutral terms and use a term that would appeal to some as derogatory.
-
The Sunni fear of Shia Power
[Read the article: The showdown]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A large percentage of persons on the left can be expected to read any article that doesn’t bash Israel and being pro-Israel. This is because it has become the cause de jur for the left.
It causes them to misunderstand the main point of the article, which is not that the World, in the form of every person, but that a major change has taken place, and that is States that reject Israeli’s existence, such as Saudi Arabia, have condemned Hezbollah for the attack. This is unprecedented since most Arab states reflexively condemn Israel.
What the article doesn’t state is that this is not because of any new found love for Israel, but because of fear of a growing Shia power controlled by Iran.
It appears that some Arab states now feel Iran is more of a threat to their rule than their hatred of Israel.
-
Answers for Publius.
[Read the article: The showdown]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What nation in the history of mankind has ever achieved peace by taking land, and then forcibly controlling the inhabitants (including their descendents) who were living on said when it was taken, and denying said inhabitants citizenship rights while at the same time continually placing "settlements" on that land which use the land's resources and have "settlers" that routinely harrass and provoke said inhabitants, without essentially committing forced expulsion and/or genocide against most of said inhabitants?
-------------------------------------------------------
That would be pretty much every single nation in the history of the World.
Let's look at English history and conquerors who did exactly this, without commiting genocide. Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, then latter the Normans (Viking decendents).
There are five example for just one country, but wait, there's more. The Russians were ruled by Vangarians, Turks come from the steps, the Mongols once peacefully ruled the largest empire on Earth, yet decendents of those ruled still live today.
Instead of pretending to have laughs with people who have died and quoting large amount of texts, perhaps it would be better to examine your own questions when they are easily answered.
You are beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist in how you are advancing your arguments, and I don't mean that in a flattering way.
-
Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 and not the other way around
[Read the article: The showdown]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Finally, the 1967 war was NOT a defensive war. Israel struck first. Would Egypt and Syria have attacked - maybe, maybe even probably, but they didn't. There was no evidence that Jordan was preparing to attack, but Israel invaded them anyway."
Israel struck Egypt first, Israel did not strike Jordan. Jordan didn't need to prepare to attack because Jordan did in fact attack. Israel even went so far as to ignore Jordanian shelling, but then Jordan invaded Israel.
Let's pick a source you will have trouble disputing, how about the Jordan goverment.
"The outbidding and rivalry of radical Arab parties allowed Israel to launch a surprise attack on June 5, 1967, virtually eliminating the Egyptian air force in a single blow.14 At that point, the outcome of the war was decided. In response to the Israeli attack, Jordanian forces launched an offensive into Israel, but were soon driven back as the Israeli forces counterattacked into the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem."
http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_periods3.html
Notice, launched an offensive into Israel.
Perhaps Jordan shouldn't have attacked and lost a war. Now, Jordan was allied with Egypt and in fact Jordan's military was under Egyptian control, but in is indisputable that Jordanian troops attacked Israel before Israeli troops attacked Jordan.