I agree completly but the order must be ceasefire and negotiations first and then withdrawal not the other way around or else we would be rewarding terror ! we cannot afford to do that !
</strong><hr></blockquote>
how about:
I agree completly but the order must be withdrawal first and then ceasefire and negotiations not the other way around or else we would be rewarding Sharon's latest military actions ! we cannot afford to do that !
What's the point of such a discussion? Everybody knows what the final boarder will look like (something like pre 67). The only problem is that NEITHER side can afford to lose face. It's a deadlock situation. You just can't say: FIRST, they have to do something, because nobody wants to and will do anything FIRST. It doesn't even matter who's to blame for the current situation or who started which war, who's more civilized or who's more right than the other. It's also not of interest who lived there 2734.2 years ago, who invented algebra or who built the pyramids.
The fact is the only satisfying situation is a stable one where the Palestinians have their land and the Israelis have their security and can feel safe again. As it is more or less clear how the boarders will look like, it is now only a question of how to get to that situation without any side losing face. Easily said, but quite impossible to do. Racist statements (PC) won't help, though. Neither will "first they have to do..."-demands.
It's always the stronger one who is responsible for the maintenance or the stopping of a conflict, because he has the power. In this case, Israel is clearly stronger.
Hello again, I can only say I'm very sorry for being a part of letting the discussion deteriat like this.
It's sort of a good example of how hard the conflict is to solve, and we don't even have a palestinian hard-liner here!
The cold war is over, so lets skip that part. The cold war split the arab nations in two, and is partially responsible for people like Sadam gaining the amount of power he has.
and concerning the ceasfire, the palestinians have said that there will be no ceasefire while israeli incursions are continuing (as they are), so as far as I can see, the shortest way to a ceasefire is the withdraw. 123, you make some very good points. Neither side wants to lose face, this is true. But one of the good sides of a real democracy is that you can survive losing your face, if its in the general interest of your people, and especially if you by far is the strongest part in the conflict.
<strong>LetÂ?s just be clear about who the French really are. A quick summery of very recent historyÂ?
This is the nation that double-crossed its allies in the 40Â?s during world war II. This is the nation that sold Israel defective armor during the 50Â?s at outrageous prices. This is the nation that later promised Israel a nuclear plant (in the 50Â?s) and then backed away half way through its construction, leaving Israel scrambling to finish the job using itÂ?s native engineers and scientists. This is the nation that backed out of military operations in Sinai (1956) half way during implementation. This is the nation that later again, broke its promise in the 60Â?s and refused to re-supply Israel with spare parts to itÂ?s air force, forcing Israel to build itÂ?s own plane (Kfir). This is the nation that conspired to champion the cause of Islamic radicals in the 70Â?s in exchange for business contracts and immunity from their terror. This is the nation that in the 80Â?s transferred nuclear know how to Saddam Hussien of Iraq. This is the nation of a$$-fu<kers, that today leads the anti-American and anti-Israeli crusade in the European Union. Only this time, it's so that they can go to bed with the Iotollahs in Iran.
So you Arab/French sympathizer, keep wallowing in Arab filth. You seem to like that. I know all too well that you French are the real pigs.
1) France never double crossed his allies during WW2
2)I have no clue if France sell defectives armours to Israel : i won't argue with that until i get some info
3) I agree that it was a big mistake to sell plant to Saddam, i will add that the day Israel attack the plant, all the french engineers where invited by their israelians friends or neighboors (choose the word that you prefer)
4) For the military help, my answer will be a translation (i'll try to translate in the best way i can) of De Gaulle memory : memory of hope 1958-1962.
"here is David Ben Gourion ! at the first, i have for this wrestler (in French lutteur mean some one who have a big fighting spirit : a positive attitude) and this courageous champion many sympathic consideration. His person symbolyse Isreal, that he govern after have diriged his fondation and his struggle. Since France, has not participated, in the form, to the creation of this state, born from a joint decision of britains, americans, soviets, she has warmly approved. The higness of an enterprise, consisting to replace a Jew people disposing of him self on a land printed by his fabulous history and who was belonged to them nineteen century ago, cannot miss from seducing (attracting) me. In a human point of vue, i think it's good that they will find back a national home, and i see there a compensation for all such sufferings through the ages especially the most terribles one during the massacre commited by Hitler's germany. Even if the existence of Israel appear to me very justified, i think that many carefullness is needed towards arabs. They are their neigboors, and theyÂ*are for always. It is as their detriment (prejudice) and on their lands that the Jew people is installed supremely. By this way the Jew people has hurted them in all their religions and her proudness is sensitive. That's why , when Ben Gourion speak to me of his project to implant four to five millions of jews in Israel who; in is actual form, could not contain them, and that his speach are telling me his will to extend his fronteers has soon the occasion will be offered, i invit him to do not do this. " The France" i said to him " will help you tomorrow, like she helped you before, to maintain you anyway. But she is not ready to bring you the means to conquest news territories. You have succeed an incredible task. Now do not exagerate, make shut up the pride, who according to Eschyle "is the son of happyness and devour his father ". Better than listening ambitions who will led Orient in terribles shakes and will led you to to loose slowly the internationals sympathies, continue to make the astonish improvement of a land , who was some times ago desertic and to knot relations with your neighboors that will be usefull for the long time. "
While i was giving this councils to Ben Gourion, i stop excessive practices of collaboration on the military plant, since the expedition of Suez, between Tel-Aviv and Paris and who introduce permanently israelians people at all levels of the french general staffs and services. In this way cease, in particular, the help lent by us at the beginning, near bersheba, of a plant transforming uranium in plutonium, where may came in the future atomics bombs.
I will add that France get their atomics bomb alone, without the help of USA . De Gaulle never make the fake statement that USA should have helped France. If you want to be independant you have to do it your self (i will add that Israelians have their own nuclears bombs now : did the US help them, or did they make it alone i don't know). De Gaulle was in charge of France from1958 to 1968 : it was the man who make France independant in a military and diplomatic point of vue, and who let France becoming a nuclear power.
1) France never double crossed his allies during WW2
If you make a commitment you stick to it. Period.
If you say you?re going to fight the Germans, than you better be prepared to fight the Germans. If you say you?re going to fight Egypt, than you better be prepared to fight Egypt. If you say you?re going to help Israel build a nuclear plant, than you need to follow through. Your government has made many commitments in the past and than walked away. You armed Israel during the 50?s and 60?s. Part of an arms sale to a nation is to maintain spare parts. But when things got a little uncomfortable for your government, they reneged on their basic promise, and left Israel in a very bad position.
You can sugarcoat the language any way you like. The facts remain the same.
Show me one statment I made that fit that discription! (appart from calling PC^KILLA an "irving" )</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let me refresh your memory:
quote:
There is one thing you have to understand about Arafat. He has not risen to become leader of the PLO with sweettalk. He is a hard, determind man, who has forced the many fractions of the PLO into the fold.
These fractions are not under his control, but they still regard him as the palestinian leader because he has not made deals that they cannot accept.
His mandate from the PLO members (and the palestinian people), is not to make concessions to Isreal.
This statement also contradicts in logic, but that?s something we?ve come to expect from a brain dead, duplicitous hypocrite. Notice I refrained from calling you Irving. Oops too late.
But to be civil, I think from now on I?ll call you Kissinger. After all, you?ve been trying so hard to solve our worlds problems.
Why don't you let outsider lead his own argument. he is far more open minded than you. Your skill seems to be limited to semi-creative namecalling.
The statement only show my perception of Arafat and why he has the power he has. It doesn't reflect any of my own views at all. Do you want my "sociological" understanding on how and why Sharon has the power he has too, just to ballance things?
1) France never double crossed his allies during WW2
If you make a commitment you stick to it. Period.
If you say you?re going to fight the Germans, than you better be prepared to fight the Germans. If you say you?re going to fight Egypt, than you better be prepared to fight Egypt. If you say you?re going to help Israel build a nuclear plant, than you need to follow through. Your government has made many commitments in the past and than walked away. You armed Israel during the 50?s and 60?s. Part of an arms sale to a nation is to maintain spare parts. But when things got a little uncomfortable for your government, they reneged on their basic promise, and left Israel in a very bad position.
You can sugarcoat the language any way you like. The facts remain the same.
1) A little precision of history of WW2 is needed here :
- after WW1 France decided to make a system of defense call the Maginot line, consisiting of huge bunker and fortification ranging from thousands kilometers but who unfortunately do not include the Ardennes (milatary expert of the time was thinking that this mountains was not a good place to make an invasion), there was no line either between France and Belgium, but the latter state own his own line of defense who was supposed to be even more stronger.
There was a treaty between Great Britain, France and Polland. When Germany invade Polland, France and Great Britain declares the war to germany according to that treaty.
France and Great Britan where easily defeated by the new way to conduct modern war invented by the germans. Germans invade France by the Ardennes and by belgium who decided to let pass the german force in exchange of neutrality ( belgium was to weak to fight germany). Great Britain retires his Force during the terrible Battle of Dunkerke by the sea, France was quickly invaded.
So i do not see what does it means double crossed his allies, losing is not double crossing and Great Britain who where our principle allie of this time did not do better than us (nobody in France have said that Great Britain has double crossed us sending a bad help during this war).
For the israelians relations, De Gaulle said he stop his aid when he see that Ben Gourion want to increase his territories. The help of France in the 50 was for to help Israel defending himself against his ennemies, not to help Israel expand. De Gaulle think that this politic of expansion will lead to troubles in this region for a long time : he did not said that this politic was nor good or evil in his book .
Between states unconditional help is very rare.
And last thing i did not sugarcoat the language , i just made a (poor) translation of a book
For the israelians relations, De Gaulle said he stop his aid when he see that Ben Gourion want to increase his territories. The help of France in the 50 was for to help Israel defending himself against his ennemies, not to help Israel expand.
This doesn't make sense. Both in terms of time line, and in terms of what I know about Ben-Gurion. He was actually very much opposed to "expansion" as you termed it.
This doesn't make sense. Both in terms of time line, and in terms of what I know about Ben-Gurion. He was actually very much opposed to "expansion" as you termed it.
mika.</strong><hr></blockquote>
well i am not an expert of history, i just read this book, recently and search what he was saying about Israel : i find only this page and gave you the translation. I think that the best way to understand this decisions was to read the book of the man who was in charge of France during this period : that' s why i didn't answer to your post before, because i haven't any clue on it.
This book was written in 1969 one year before his death, and is his legacy to posterity. Of course like all the autobiagraphi there is a place for subjectivity, but De Gaulle was our last president where truth and sense of honnor were essential virtues, so i think he trie to do his best to try to be honnest in his analysis.
De Gaulle did not say that Ben Gourion said directly that he wanted to expand israel, but he was saying that he wanted to recieved some 5 to 6 millions more jew. Knowing the little size of Israel at this time, De Gaulle deducted that Ben Gourion needed expansion.
On 3 October 1957, France and Israel signed a revised agreement calling for France to build a 24 MWt reactor at Dimona, in the Negev desert.
That?s a full ten years before the 1967 war?
You know that nuclear plants are NOT a very cheap thing to build. And for Israel?s fragile economy at that time, it was a colossal undertaking. I think you?ll understand why Israelis are a little pived off at France when she walked away from her commitment half way through the construction.
"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." David Ben-Gurion, 1936
<strong>"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." David Ben-Gurion, 1936</strong><hr></blockquote>
I fail to see your point. Are you trying to say that my statement concerning Ben-Gurion is false? Please elaborate.
<strong>On 3 October 1957, France and Israel signed a revised agreement calling for France to build a 24 MWt reactor at Dimona, in the Negev desert.
That?s a full ten years before the 1967 war?
You know that nuclear plants are NOT a very cheap thing to build. And for Israel?s fragile economy at that time, it was a colossal undertaking. I think you?ll understand why Israelis are a little pived off at France when she walked away from her commitment half way through the construction.
mika.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i understand your point and your anger, but the purpose of France was to help Israelians to make a nuclear plant, not to help them make plutonium for another purposes.
France was stupid to sell a nuclear plant to irak and luckily Israel have bombed it. When they sell the nuclear plant , Irak gave warranties to not use the plutonium for other purposes. There was supposed to have controls by technicians (but it's always possible to cheat), it was stupid to believe that. I have always wonder if France was not knowing in advance what Israel has scheduled for this plant : perhaps France was happy that this plant was destroy but not by themselves : however it's just a personal thought.
Israel attempts to get help developing a nuclear weapon arsenal by disguising it as an attempt to get nuclear energy power. France catches on and shuts the process down. Good for France, although she was massively stupid for not seeing through it in the first place.
---
What the hell is not to understand with that quote?
"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." David Ben-Gurion, 1936
How in God's name is this any different from a Muslim saying that the area should be theirs?
What the hell is not to understand with that quote?
"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." David Ben-Gurion, 1936
How in God's name is this any different from a Muslim saying that the area should be theirs?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No difference. But I really don´t believe that that statement is shared by Israelis today just like when all things are settled down and a permanent solution to the palestinian question (a la 242) is found only a small minority among the arabs won´t accept Israels boarders.
Comments
<strong>
I agree completly but the order must be ceasefire and negotiations first and then withdrawal not the other way around or else we would be rewarding terror ! we cannot afford to do that !
</strong><hr></blockquote>
how about:
I agree completly but the order must be withdrawal first and then ceasefire and negotiations not the other way around or else we would be rewarding Sharon's latest military actions ! we cannot afford to do that !
What's the point of such a discussion? Everybody knows what the final boarder will look like (something like pre 67). The only problem is that NEITHER side can afford to lose face. It's a deadlock situation. You just can't say: FIRST, they have to do something, because nobody wants to and will do anything FIRST. It doesn't even matter who's to blame for the current situation or who started which war, who's more civilized or who's more right than the other. It's also not of interest who lived there 2734.2 years ago, who invented algebra or who built the pyramids.
The fact is the only satisfying situation is a stable one where the Palestinians have their land and the Israelis have their security and can feel safe again. As it is more or less clear how the boarders will look like, it is now only a question of how to get to that situation without any side losing face. Easily said, but quite impossible to do. Racist statements (PC) won't help, though. Neither will "first they have to do..."-demands.
It's sort of a good example of how hard the conflict is to solve, and we don't even have a palestinian hard-liner here!
The cold war is over, so lets skip that part. The cold war split the arab nations in two, and is partially responsible for people like Sadam gaining the amount of power he has.
and concerning the ceasfire, the palestinians have said that there will be no ceasefire while israeli incursions are continuing (as they are), so as far as I can see, the shortest way to a ceasefire is the withdraw. 123, you make some very good points. Neither side wants to lose face, this is true. But one of the good sides of a real democracy is that you can survive losing your face, if its in the general interest of your people, and especially if you by far is the strongest part in the conflict.
[ 04-27-2002: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>LetÂ?s just be clear about who the French really are. A quick summery of very recent historyÂ?
This is the nation that double-crossed its allies in the 40Â?s during world war II. This is the nation that sold Israel defective armor during the 50Â?s at outrageous prices. This is the nation that later promised Israel a nuclear plant (in the 50Â?s) and then backed away half way through its construction, leaving Israel scrambling to finish the job using itÂ?s native engineers and scientists. This is the nation that backed out of military operations in Sinai (1956) half way during implementation. This is the nation that later again, broke its promise in the 60Â?s and refused to re-supply Israel with spare parts to itÂ?s air force, forcing Israel to build itÂ?s own plane (Kfir). This is the nation that conspired to champion the cause of Islamic radicals in the 70Â?s in exchange for business contracts and immunity from their terror. This is the nation that in the 80Â?s transferred nuclear know how to Saddam Hussien of Iraq. This is the nation of a$$-fu<kers, that today leads the anti-American and anti-Israeli crusade in the European Union. Only this time, it's so that they can go to bed with the Iotollahs in Iran.
So you Arab/French sympathizer, keep wallowing in Arab filth. You seem to like that. I know all too well that you French are the real pigs.
mika.
[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]
[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) France never double crossed his allies during WW2
2)I have no clue if France sell defectives armours to Israel : i won't argue with that until i get some info
3) I agree that it was a big mistake to sell plant to Saddam, i will add that the day Israel attack the plant, all the french engineers where invited by their israelians friends or neighboors (choose the word that you prefer)
4) For the military help, my answer will be a translation (i'll try to translate in the best way i can) of De Gaulle memory : memory of hope 1958-1962.
"here is David Ben Gourion ! at the first, i have for this wrestler (in French lutteur mean some one who have a big fighting spirit : a positive attitude) and this courageous champion many sympathic consideration. His person symbolyse Isreal, that he govern after have diriged his fondation and his struggle. Since France, has not participated, in the form, to the creation of this state, born from a joint decision of britains, americans, soviets, she has warmly approved. The higness of an enterprise, consisting to replace a Jew people disposing of him self on a land printed by his fabulous history and who was belonged to them nineteen century ago, cannot miss from seducing (attracting) me. In a human point of vue, i think it's good that they will find back a national home, and i see there a compensation for all such sufferings through the ages especially the most terribles one during the massacre commited by Hitler's germany. Even if the existence of Israel appear to me very justified, i think that many carefullness is needed towards arabs. They are their neigboors, and theyÂ*are for always. It is as their detriment (prejudice) and on their lands that the Jew people is installed supremely. By this way the Jew people has hurted them in all their religions and her proudness is sensitive. That's why , when Ben Gourion speak to me of his project to implant four to five millions of jews in Israel who; in is actual form, could not contain them, and that his speach are telling me his will to extend his fronteers has soon the occasion will be offered, i invit him to do not do this. " The France" i said to him " will help you tomorrow, like she helped you before, to maintain you anyway. But she is not ready to bring you the means to conquest news territories. You have succeed an incredible task. Now do not exagerate, make shut up the pride, who according to Eschyle "is the son of happyness and devour his father ". Better than listening ambitions who will led Orient in terribles shakes and will led you to to loose slowly the internationals sympathies, continue to make the astonish improvement of a land , who was some times ago desertic and to knot relations with your neighboors that will be usefull for the long time. "
While i was giving this councils to Ben Gourion, i stop excessive practices of collaboration on the military plant, since the expedition of Suez, between Tel-Aviv and Paris and who introduce permanently israelians people at all levels of the french general staffs and services. In this way cease, in particular, the help lent by us at the beginning, near bersheba, of a plant transforming uranium in plutonium, where may came in the future atomics bombs.
I will add that France get their atomics bomb alone, without the help of USA . De Gaulle never make the fake statement that USA should have helped France. If you want to be independant you have to do it your self (i will add that Israelians have their own nuclears bombs now : did the US help them, or did they make it alone i don't know). De Gaulle was in charge of France from1958 to 1968 : it was the man who make France independant in a military and diplomatic point of vue, and who let France becoming a nuclear power.
This is trully funny coming from you.
1) France never double crossed his allies during WW2
If you make a commitment you stick to it. Period.
If you say you?re going to fight the Germans, than you better be prepared to fight the Germans. If you say you?re going to fight Egypt, than you better be prepared to fight Egypt. If you say you?re going to help Israel build a nuclear plant, than you need to follow through. Your government has made many commitments in the past and than walked away. You armed Israel during the 50?s and 60?s. Part of an arms sale to a nation is to maintain spare parts. But when things got a little uncomfortable for your government, they reneged on their basic promise, and left Israel in a very bad position.
You can sugarcoat the language any way you like. The facts remain the same.
mika.
[ 04-27-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
originaly posted by outsider:
and we don't even have a palestinian hard-liner here!
This is trully funny coming from you.
<hr></blockquote>
Show me one statment I made that fit that discription! (appart from calling PC^KILLA an "irving"
<strong>
Show me one statment I made that fit that discription! (appart from calling PC^KILLA an "irving"
Let me refresh your memory:
quote:
There is one thing you have to understand about Arafat. He has not risen to become leader of the PLO with sweettalk. He is a hard, determind man, who has forced the many fractions of the PLO into the fold.
These fractions are not under his control, but they still regard him as the palestinian leader because he has not made deals that they cannot accept.
His mandate from the PLO members (and the palestinian people), is not to make concessions to Isreal.
This statement also contradicts in logic, but that?s something we?ve come to expect from a brain dead, duplicitous hypocrite. Notice I refrained from calling you Irving. Oops too late.
But to be civil, I think from now on I?ll call you Kissinger. After all, you?ve been trying so hard to solve our worlds problems.
mika.
[ 04-27-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
The statement only show my perception of Arafat and why he has the power he has. It doesn't reflect any of my own views at all. Do you want my "sociological" understanding on how and why Sharon has the power he has too, just to ballance things?
[ 04-27-2002: Message edited by: New ]</p>
mika.
[ 04-27-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
<strong>quote:
1) France never double crossed his allies during WW2
If you make a commitment you stick to it. Period.
If you say you?re going to fight the Germans, than you better be prepared to fight the Germans. If you say you?re going to fight Egypt, than you better be prepared to fight Egypt. If you say you?re going to help Israel build a nuclear plant, than you need to follow through. Your government has made many commitments in the past and than walked away. You armed Israel during the 50?s and 60?s. Part of an arms sale to a nation is to maintain spare parts. But when things got a little uncomfortable for your government, they reneged on their basic promise, and left Israel in a very bad position.
You can sugarcoat the language any way you like. The facts remain the same.
mika.
[ 04-27-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) A little precision of history of WW2 is needed here :
- after WW1 France decided to make a system of defense call the Maginot line, consisiting of huge bunker and fortification ranging from thousands kilometers but who unfortunately do not include the Ardennes (milatary expert of the time was thinking that this mountains was not a good place to make an invasion), there was no line either between France and Belgium, but the latter state own his own line of defense who was supposed to be even more stronger.
There was a treaty between Great Britain, France and Polland. When Germany invade Polland, France and Great Britain declares the war to germany according to that treaty.
France and Great Britan where easily defeated by the new way to conduct modern war invented by the germans. Germans invade France by the Ardennes and by belgium who decided to let pass the german force in exchange of neutrality ( belgium was to weak to fight germany). Great Britain retires his Force during the terrible Battle of Dunkerke by the sea, France was quickly invaded.
So i do not see what does it means double crossed his allies, losing is not double crossing and Great Britain who where our principle allie of this time did not do better than us (nobody in France have said that Great Britain has double crossed us sending a bad help during this war).
For the israelians relations, De Gaulle said he stop his aid when he see that Ben Gourion want to increase his territories. The help of France in the 50 was for to help Israel defending himself against his ennemies, not to help Israel expand. De Gaulle think that this politic of expansion will lead to troubles in this region for a long time : he did not said that this politic was nor good or evil in his book .
Between states unconditional help is very rare.
And last thing i did not sugarcoat the language , i just made a (poor) translation of a book
[ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
For the israelians relations, De Gaulle said he stop his aid when he see that Ben Gourion want to increase his territories. The help of France in the 50 was for to help Israel defending himself against his ennemies, not to help Israel expand.
This doesn't make sense. Both in terms of time line, and in terms of what I know about Ben-Gurion. He was actually very much opposed to "expansion" as you termed it.
mika.
<strong>quote:
This doesn't make sense. Both in terms of time line, and in terms of what I know about Ben-Gurion. He was actually very much opposed to "expansion" as you termed it.
mika.</strong><hr></blockquote>
well i am not an expert of history, i just read this book, recently and search what he was saying about Israel : i find only this page and gave you the translation. I think that the best way to understand this decisions was to read the book of the man who was in charge of France during this period : that' s why i didn't answer to your post before, because i haven't any clue on it.
This book was written in 1969 one year before his death, and is his legacy to posterity. Of course like all the autobiagraphi there is a place for subjectivity, but De Gaulle was our last president where truth and sense of honnor were essential virtues, so i think he trie to do his best to try to be honnest in his analysis.
De Gaulle did not say that Ben Gourion said directly that he wanted to expand israel, but he was saying that he wanted to recieved some 5 to 6 millions more jew. Knowing the little size of Israel at this time, De Gaulle deducted that Ben Gourion needed expansion.
That?s a full ten years before the 1967 war?
You know that nuclear plants are NOT a very cheap thing to build. And for Israel?s fragile economy at that time, it was a colossal undertaking. I think you?ll understand why Israelis are a little pived off at France when she walked away from her commitment half way through the construction.
mika.
<strong>"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." David Ben-Gurion, 1936</strong><hr></blockquote>
I fail to see your point. Are you trying to say that my statement concerning Ben-Gurion is false? Please elaborate.
mika.
<strong>On 3 October 1957, France and Israel signed a revised agreement calling for France to build a 24 MWt reactor at Dimona, in the Negev desert.
That?s a full ten years before the 1967 war?
You know that nuclear plants are NOT a very cheap thing to build. And for Israel?s fragile economy at that time, it was a colossal undertaking. I think you?ll understand why Israelis are a little pived off at France when she walked away from her commitment half way through the construction.
mika.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i understand your point and your anger, but the purpose of France was to help Israelians to make a nuclear plant, not to help them make plutonium for another purposes.
France was stupid to sell a nuclear plant to irak and luckily Israel have bombed it. When they sell the nuclear plant , Irak gave warranties to not use the plutonium for other purposes. There was supposed to have controls by technicians (but it's always possible to cheat), it was stupid to believe that. I have always wonder if France was not knowing in advance what Israel has scheduled for this plant : perhaps France was happy that this plant was destroy but not by themselves : however it's just a personal thought.
[ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
---
What the hell is not to understand with that quote?
"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." David Ben-Gurion, 1936
How in God's name is this any different from a Muslim saying that the area should be theirs?
<strong>
What the hell is not to understand with that quote?
"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." David Ben-Gurion, 1936
How in God's name is this any different from a Muslim saying that the area should be theirs?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No difference. But I really don´t believe that that statement is shared by Israelis today just like when all things are settled down and a permanent solution to the palestinian question (a la 242) is found only a small minority among the arabs won´t accept Israels boarders.