Jacob Resler wonders what would have happend to Britain in World War II if the United States had taken an ‘even handed’ approach between the UK and Nazi Germany.
The British Government has imposed a de facto embargo on the supply of defence related items to Israel. A spokesman of the Israeli Defence Ministry by the name of Mr. Kuti Mor confirmed this in an interview. There were 130 items that the Ministry of Defence whished to purchase from British suppliers, but an export permit has been denied by Britain. British officials said it was their policy not to send military supplies to zones of conflict though they never openly declared an embargo. Most of the items were spare parts, and two of them have been cited as examples: one is a pyrotechnic charge needed to eject the pilot from Phantom fighter planes in emergencies; the other is a small engine used in unmanned aircraft (drones).
It seems Britain’s government idea is that the best way to fight terrorism is to punish its victims. In this Britain fits very well in the EU, it behaves exactely like France, Belgium or Germany. (I could not think of a worse curse). Interesting what would have happened in both World Wars if the US had adopted a policy of not sending supplies to zones of conflict. I think this piece of idiocy needs to be more exposed to the public.
Jacob Resler
To say that the IDF are the victims of terrorism is fairly cheap. Israel as a state may well be the threatened victim in the Arab world as a whole, but in the conflict between Israel/Palestinians they most definately are not the victim. They are the occupiers, yet they claim they are defending themselves. It’s a no-brainer to point out that it is impossible to both invade and defend at the same time. One defends oneself against invasion, not the other way around.
Bazm,
Your points would be more persuasive were it not for the fact that the Palestinians don’t just an end to Israeli ‘oocupation’, they want an end to Israel in its entirety.
Dale,
I still can’t find anything on this in my usual news sources but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were true. HMG has instituted arms embargoes on Israel on and off since the 1980’s, mostly under pressure from the Foreign Office.
Why would any clients make future purchases of British ordinance if they can’t be resupplied when they actually need it, ie during a conflict?
How large a market for military hardware does the Blair administration think exists outside of ‘zones of conflict?” What exactly can one do with this sort of materiel apart from conflict? Air shows? Anti-Mothra patrol? (do conflicts with non-human forces count?)
Correction: unless we’re attacking small Pacific islands, Mothra is one of the good guy-monsters.
“It’s a no-brainer to point out that it is impossible to both invade and defend at the same time.”
Yep, that’s a no-brain statement.
The British bombing German airstrips from which attacks were launched in WWII was a defensive act despite the fact that it meant sending British warplanes into Germany.
In 1948 in the western part of the area long known as Palestine (the eastern part was already known as Trans Jordan – Jordan) the Arabs (from many nations) and the Jews fought a war.
When that particular fight calmed down (it never totally stopped) the Arabs controlled part of the western part of Palestine and the Jews controlled part.
In the areas the Jews controlled many Arabs remained (and they are still there – in spite of all the protests about the expulsion of Arabs from Israel).
In the areas the Arabs now controlled there had been many Jews (the Turkish Empire estimated that the biggest population group in Jerusalem were the Jews – way back in 1890).
Very few Jews indeed were left under Arab rule (1948-1967) and you will not find a word about this
in the “Guardian” or the rest of the Jew baiting “liberal” media.
As for W.W. I and W.W. II.
My opinion is this. If the United States had not entered W.W.I in 1917 Britain and France would not have won. Germany managed (thanks to Lenin and co) to knock Russia out of the war and would have fought the Allies to a standstill (in 1918 Germany almost managed it). Whether this would have been good or bad I do not know.
WWII – without lend-lease (etc) Britain would have been very likely to have gone bust and had to make a deal with Hitler. In the years of W.W.I Britain managed to borrow to pay for U.S. supplies (thanks, in part, to the Morgan banking family). However, British investments could not be used twice – in 1939 Britain was not as strong as it had been in 1914. So (in part) Britain had to beg as well as borrow.
Perhaps if so much stuff had not been shoved into France and lost in 1940 Britain could have avoided begging – but after the 1940 collapse Britain was in big trouble.
On the plus side “Operation Sea Lion” (the German invasion of Britain) may well have been a bluff even before the Germans lost the battle of Britain (which they lost by switching from airfield attacks to city attacks) – the Germans may not have the resources for such a large transportation and SUPPLY operation over the sea (D. Day and after involved a vast operation).
However, the Germans may not have needed to invade to defeat Britain – starving this overpopulated island of food and other supplies may have been enough.
Paul Marks.
Adolph Hitler took a position against the Jews in 1924 and look what happened to him and his precious Vaterland.
I serve B(J)ism and the Jew baiting “Guardian” with notice:
You betray and slander the Jews at your peril. I wish on wahhaabbiis and their sympathizers the fate suffered by Hitler and his fabled thousand year Myth, er Reich. That includes the enabler “Guardian” as well. I direct your attention to A House Divided Against Itself.
I didn’t get to actually read this until fairly late last night and so am late posting a link to it, but Kim DuToit has written an excellent piece about John Poindexter’s heinous snoop-a-base. Read it and do like the man says. It’s quite possible that we can win the WOT abroad while losing it here at home, and this is one sure way to do exactly that. The inevitable price we’ll pay if we follow the advice of the pacifists and isolationists and do nothing about terrorism is more of this sort of thing. We can’t afford not to take the fight to the terrorists, and we likewise can’t afford to allow this sort of thing to gain a bigger foothold here at home either. Anyone who is truly concerned about the erosion of our liberty and privacy needs to give this one some serious thought.
P.S. sorry, I meant to say- Like them or loathe them, it doesn’t matter, you betray and slander the Jews at your peril
There is no German embargo on exports to Israel, neither de jure or de facto. The former defence minister Scharping had the delivery of suplies delayed, not cancelled during the Jenin incident. BTW, these supplies are not sold to Israel, they are part of the German efforts to strengthen the IDF.
Germany is the EU member nation that is most supportive of Israel, btw.
Before anyone asks, I disapprove of these delays.
And please note that it was Germany which prevented a formal embargo of Israel by the EU (some member-nations actually had demanded that).
The comparision with Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and Britain’s with Nazi Germany is ludicrous.
There isn’t even a minute chance that Israel will be defeated by Palestinian terrorism. There was a very good chance that the UK would lose to Nazi Germany.
Furthermore I really don’t think British governments need lessons from anyone in fighting terrorism – they’ve been doing it for longer than anyone else.
Could we maybe once have a discussion about terrorism and/or the palestinian situation, *without* once mentioning hitler, or resorting to accusations of antisemitism?
In terms of power, Hitler is quite unequalled by anyone in the world today, and no-one’s circumstances even approach his. And opposing the policies of a country which chooses to define itself principally with reference to a particular religion doesn’t make one opposed to that religion; it makes one opposed to the country’s policies.
No antisemitism? Does “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” ring a bell? (A bestseller in the Muslim world)
I meant more in the context of debate in the west. The weird idea, widespread in the US, that Europe is overrun with anti-semites, just because many people oppose Israel’s actions etc. The number of times I’ve seen the Guardian etc. accused of being antisemitic….