egafd.com

"The creation of the state of Israel was a way of driving a wedge between semitic people in that part of the world probably forever"

Why would anyone want to do that?


"I don't think that the Jews had an automatic right to live in Palestine"

Even though it is the land of their forefathers, their ancestral homeland?


"the people who had been living there for 2000 years or so were turfed out without any consideration."

That doesn?t sound fair. But was it really like that? Are you sure you are not putting the worst possible spin on it to season your anti-Zionist stew?


"The invasion of the west bank of Jordan in 1967 was a criminal act and they are still there today,"

The Arabs were getting lairy and threatening war. Israel had to smarten them up - and it did so, in spectacular style. Outstanding.


"having been grudgingly allowed an election, some Islamic terrorists get elected and then risk having their US aid taken away "

Well, come on. Lets try to be rational - why would anyone give millions of dollars to someone who was always slagging them off, calling them the great Satan ?n? stuff and threatening to destroy one of their pals? In a world of reason you do not normally help out those whose avowed intention is to destroy you, do you? Jeez. It?s not logical, it's not rational. In fact you?re not being fair and rational in your criticism. You're so poisoned by this antipathy towards Israel that your twist everything round to suit your arguments. Here?s another example...


"People tend to forget, the blitzkrieg war the Isrealis prosecuted in the Lebanon in 1982"

No mention of the fact that the Israelis were being provoked big-time by Islamic Jihadist groups coming over the border from Lebanon and killing folks at random (not just military personal). Wasn't the 1982 invasion an attempt to clear them out once and for all? The way you said it made it sound like Israel simply marched in there as an imperialist conquering army to annex Lebanon.

And another example...

"After the invasion there were several mass killings in refugee camps."

You leave it hanging in the air, so those who did not know the facts, and bearing in mind in the context of what you have been saying, might then draw the conclusion that it was the Israeli army that was responsible for those massacres. But it wasn't, was it? It was the Christian Phalangists, a paramilitary group.


"just after GWB got elected in 2001 he issued a stark warning which included a direct warning to those who were going to interfere with Israel which even pre 9/11 was very sinister."

Sinister? Sinister to whom? Not to me. Not to you. Not to the general populace of the UK. So why should you care? Aren?t you being a pit pretentious here? It seems to me that it would only be sinister if you were a wild-eyed, Jihadist terrorist sort, brandishing a Kalashnikov and chanting 'Huba, Huba, Huba!' Far from being sinister, from my perspective I found it intriguing and encouraging - I?m all for being beastly to our enemies.

So Keith, when did you first feel this antipathy towards Zion? You weren't born with it, so where did you pick it up? Was it at uni? Did you think it would be cool to join the campus 'Freedom For Palestine' group' and feel all anarchic ?n? rebellious - over compensating for your proper middleclass upbringing, maybe? Did it then get out of hand? Come on, don't be shy, you can tell us...we've heard it all before, we will understand?


Officer Dibble

Rumours of Armageddon have been greatly exaggerated???

Talk to the majority of folk in Israel or the Occupied Territories and they?ll vocalise that they?ve had enough of living under violence. Both sides seem to be showing signs of compromise, it?s now up to Hamas to stop their political dick waving and stop the suicide attacks. A democratic mandate is a wonderful thing.

Out of interest Dibble you seem to loathe both the working classes (apart from the clich?d ?all right guv?ner?, cap doffing, salt of the earth types who haven?t existed for decades), and the Guardian reading middle classes, is there any demographic group that doesn?t inspire you to write, amusing, lengthy, anger fuelled missives. Minor aristocracy for example?

(Adopts childish, schoolyard chant):

"Dibble fancies Camilla Paker-Bowles" (Repeat to Fade)

You're right Mike, although the term "Jihad" is getting very overused nowadays. Defending your country against hostile invaders isn't a holy war, it's the simple right of any person to defend their homeland against attack, invasion or occupation.

If Britain faced attack, millions here would also be prepared to fight to defend our right to self-rule.

"You use the term ?Zionist? disparagingly. Are we to then take it that you are anti-Semitic?"

Let me tell you that I despise Zionism.

And I'm Jewish.

Zionism is an extreme right-wing ideology that makes use of terrorism and race hate to fulfill its objectives. Hating such a belief set doesn't make someone into an anti-Semite. Neither does opposing Israel's behaviour against the Palestinians. In fact around a quarter of Jewish Israelis strongly oppose Zionism. Are they anti-Semites?

Armageddon approaches with the continued build-up of Coalition forces surrounding Iran. On the Islamic side a million martyrs are ready to launch suicide attacks if the allied forces invade Iran.
Mike Freeman

Not a lot of people know this, but Officer Dibble is Julie Burchill's alter ego. !grin!

Iraq had a well trained, modern equipped airforce 15(ish) years ago. Superior planes from US carriers stripped out the anti-air defenses and then bombed the army until the modern armour was gone. Iran wouldn't fair any better. The campaign against Iran would take longer, and US casualties would be higher but the outcome would still be predictable.

The only way Iran could defeat a US invasion would be by killing enough US troops to convince the US press that a US-Iranian war needed ending. Iran couldn't win in the classical manner of defeating the US in combat.

Hi Oscar,

Remember Vietnam? A million suicide troops could kill a lot of Coalition troops . Also Iran has a modern equipped, fanatical army,navy and airforce.
Unless Israel and Coalition forces use tactical nuclear weapons the outcome would be far from certain.
Mike Freeman

Before going to war in Iraq, the US ran 2 sets of war games. They had to run 2 because the US lost the first set and took heavy casualties when the US General controlling the Iraqi side decided to use suicide attacks to destroy 2/3 of the US naval fleet.
When the Iraq war happened there were very few suicide attacks during the actual war itself. Iran is not Iraq though. I dare say that in Iran suicide attacks would be more widely used, meaning the outcome cannot be predicted based on the outcome of the Iraq war.