backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 118 comment(s) - last by nstott.. on Mar 18 at 11:40 PM

Nautilus Tactical High Energy Laser  (Source: Northrop Grumman)

Effective range of Kassam and Katyusha rockets.  (Source: Koret Communications Ltd.)
Residents in Sderot have had enough of rocket attacks and want the laser-based Nautilus system in place

DailyTech recently discussed the use of military-grade laser used as weapons in a number of articles. Boeing installed a 12,000-pound, high-energy laser into its C-130H Gunship and Northrop Grumman has similar "laser ambitions" with the Guardian anti-missile system installed in an MD-10 cargo jet.

While Americans are typically apathetic to the use of such technology for military duties, some residents in Israel are clamoring to have laser-based weapons as a safety net for their towns. Sderot residents have gone so far as to sue the Israeli government -- more specifically, they named Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as defendants in the civil suit.

The Sderot residents want the Israeli government to install the Nautilus Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) system to protect the region from Kassam and Katyusha rockets. Sderot has been heavily bombarded with such rockets over the years which have resulted in numerous deaths. The residents feel that suing the government may be its only chance for protection against further attacks.

"Israel could bring the system to Sderot and use it to protect the people there from Kassam rockets," said Nitsana Darshan-Leitner who heads the Israel Law Center which represents the Sderot residents. "In 1996, when Israel was under threat from Lebanon, Israel asked the United States to help them establish a system to protect northern settlements from Katyusha rockets. This system, called Nautilus, shot down Katyushas, Kassams and bombs with 100 percent success."

Unfortunately for the Sderot residents, the Nautilus program stalled in 2005 after ten years of development and $400 million USD spent between Israel and the United States. Since that time, rocket fire has increased which has led the Israeli government to develop yet another system dubbed "Iron Dome." The Iron Dome system will cost the government $100,000 for each incoming rocket it destroys – if it destroys them at all. Recent tests show that Iron Dome is incapable of protecting Sderot from incoming Kassam rockets.

"[Nautilus is] just sitting there in New Mexico. There is a way to take it apart, bring it to Israel and rebuild it," Darshan-Leitner continued. "A company told me that it would take no longer than five or six months. It would cost around 50 million dollars to rebuild it, but there would be unlimited protection against Katyushas, Kassams, and bombs."

Despite Darshan-Leitner's optimism of the performance of the Nautilus system -- she quotes an extremely optimistic 100 perfect effective rate -- a spokesman for the Israeli Defense Ministry says that such claims are preposterous. "As long as there was a chance that the results would lead to a functional, effective missile defense system we stuck with the program. But in 2005 the US military backed out of the program because it wasn't working, and we decided to end our involvement as well," said spokesman Shlomo Dror.

Despite the concerns from Sderot residents, Dror tried to express that the government is working hard to provide protection for its citizens.

"There is no way to put a price tag on the trauma caused by living with the ongoing threat from, and even more for people injured or even killed by Kassam attacks, God forbid," said Dror. "We are spending as much as we need to in order to develop the most effective system we can to protect residents of Sderot and the entire western Negev region."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Takin' the high road...
By Captain Orgazmo on 3/13/2008 6:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
You have got to give credit to the people of Israel who live in these towns in constant fear of being killed by a rocket attack. Instead of demanding that the government retaliate and wipe out the threat, as I surely would, they instead only wish to defend themselves. So they would put themselves at a disadvantage, if only to save the lives of civilians on the other side who likely support the terrorists anyways.




RE: Takin' the high road...
By JS on 3/13/2008 7:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you can generally expect civilians to support their own side in a conflict. That doesn't make them valid targets, though.


RE: Takin' the high road...
By Captain Orgazmo on 3/13/2008 7:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
Of course civilians are not valid targets (at least not for civilized nations), but Hamas launches the rockets from heavily populated residential neighborhoods to prevent counter-battery fire from Israel. By doing so, Hamas puts civilians in harm's way, as every nation has the right to defend itself (according to the UN and every treaty and agreement ever signed).

In any case, this was not my point, only that I am impressed at the restraint and morality of the people who live in these constantly bombarded towns. When London was bombed in the Blitz, the British wanted (and got) blood; in this particular instant, the Israelis only want not to be bombed.


RE: Takin' the high road...
By brheault on 3/14/2008 1:26:31 PM , Rating: 1
Well, you kind of predictably leave a few things out. I mean, is it any coincidence you didn't mention the fact that Israel has been occupying Gaza and the West Bank for decades? You piously appeal to the "UN and every treaty and agreement ever signed" to invoke Israel's right to defend itself by killing civilians, but does it matter here that the ENTIRE world besides Israel and its US backer have condemned the occupation as illegal. Aggression is illegal, and that's what happened back in '67 resulting in the occupation ever since. According to the principles we established at the Nuremberg trials after WWII, aggression is the supreme international crime differing only from other crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. So when we see occupied Gazans firing rockets into Israel (as I bet you wouldn't have a problem doing if friggin' Minnesota was occupied by a foreign power) then according to the principles we established ultimate responsibility lies with the occupier.

As for the restraint and morality of the Israeli people, all I can say is that in my experience that's particularly true of the peace movement there, the ones who are calling for the end to the settlements and military occupation. But when you say the Israelis "only want not to be bombed" you miss one the main reasons for the occupation. It is perhaps not a coincidence all the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank are built on the best water aquifers, and in fact according declassified documents the military planners talked a lot about water during the war of '67, even more so than they talked about "security". I think they want just a little more than not to be bombed, they want the natural resources of the region for themselves. Gaza is the biggest open air prison in the world, they don't control their borders and have lived under another people's military rule for decades, until we can deal honesty and openly with that we have no right talking about this issue. Every American who loves freedom should take up their cause as if their own freedom were being threatened.


RE: Takin' the high road...
By encryptkeeper on 3/13/2008 8:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
Have you looked at the comparison of Israeli deaths vs Palestinian deaths from the last few years? Google it. You'll probably find that the Israeli's actions aren't exactly "defending themselves". Look at the comparisons, you're talking about 4 Palestinians killed for every 1 Israeli. Plus, the US gives Israel about 3 BILLION in aid every year and the Palestinians get less than 100 million. In the area that used to be Palestine before 1948, there are now 5 million Jews and 5 million Arabs. WTF is that? The Palestinians are refugees, living in tents in fields while the Israelis whine about their stations in life. The Israelis are perfectly capable of defending themselves as it is. I don't have a problem with Israel or the Jewish people, just the situation they take advantage of. As far as I'm concerned, even though the U.N. handed them most of Palestine at the end of WWII, and probably shouldn't have since there were people already living there, the 6 Day War pretty much settled who gets the land. But I'm tired of the US giving the Israelis a pat on the back every time they "defend" themselves. Take some time to look at some real data, you'll probably find that Israel isn't quite so helpless after all.


RE: Takin' the high road...
By HrilL on 3/13/2008 10:14:17 PM , Rating: 1
Israel would have lost the 6 day war if it wasn't for western support they would have lost. And currently the US is giving the Egyptians half of what we give Israel in military aid. So its not really that lop sided. I mean we consider Hamas a terrorist organization so why would the US want to give them money?


RE: Takin' the high road...
By JustTom on 3/14/2008 1:03:20 AM , Rating: 4
Casualty rates without context are meaningless; a nation justifiably responding to aggression has no moral imperative to lessen casualties of its enemies, a nation acting as an aggressor has no moral right to claim too many of its combatants are being killed.


RE: Takin' the high road...
By os008 on 3/14/2008 3:20:43 AM , Rating: 3
Ha? combatants? i think you're the one who needs to check on your 'context', don't you think?

Check on your facts and about who's dying from the arab's side before talking about morality or whatever!


RE: Takin' the high road...
By JustTom on 3/14/2008 10:44:14 AM , Rating: 3
I do have copious amounts of facts, do you wish to compare the percentage of combatant deaths to civilian deaths on each side?

Whatever your thoughts on whether Israel should have been imposed after WWII, and I think it was a gross historical and moral mistake, it is a simple fact Palestinian militias specifically target civilians while Israelis do not.


RE: Takin' the high road...
By os008 on 3/14/2008 12:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
So, all those civilians dying on the Palestinian side are ... casualities of war? or a side effect? or un-important to consider?


RE: Takin' the high road...
By JustTom on 3/14/2008 1:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
Of course civilian causalities are important and every side should strive to limit them. However, do you really see no difference in accidentally killing civilians during a military operation and specifically targeting them? Unless your implication is that Israel IS specifically targeting civilians in which case our world views are so disparate we have little chance of having a reasonable conversation on this topic.


RE: Takin' the high road...
By BZDTemp on 3/14/2008 4:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
It's easy to go for the high road when you sit in a comfy chair!

While I do not says it is okay that Israel are being fought with rockets "aimed"* at civilians or by suicide bombers I do understand why such measures are used. The case is one the one side there is a modern army which is even backed by the US and on the other side there is a people under siege fighting with whatever they can use. Pretty much the only chance of making Israel stop occupation is to make their war unbearable and fighting tanks, gunships and fighter planes is impossible with what is essentially home made fire works.

I can even understand the suicide bombers. Imagine your self living in a world with no future, with you family and all families around you fighting just to survive (and this is literally not just like some kid around here who can't survive without a car). In a situation like this I can see why someone pays the ultimate price in the vain little hope that the sacrifice may make a difference.

We need the UN to step in like they have done in so many places and was it not for the US vetoing that action again and again Israel and in fact the whole region would properly be a nice and peaceful place.


RE: Takin' the high road...
By os008 on 3/14/2008 5:07:12 PM , Rating: 4
Thank you very much for such a great reply. It's not biased, it's just a realistic view of the situation. I already said killing civilians is NOT justified in ANY situation. But, what could drive someone to such a desperate measure. I wish people would try to PUT themselves in others' shoes and try to view the situation from different points. But instead, people always look at it from what they've been driven by the media, or growing up, or their own beliefs.

I always try to look at it unbiased, but, i admit, it's hard, i most of the time just bash Israel, but them say to myself ... we're, as Arabs, doing huge mistakes and then blaming the world for not siding with us, or, with the right side anyway whether it's us or them. So, we should look in the mirror before blaming the world for their views. AND get this thing done for the SAKE of those innocent people getting grinded for no reason other than our own selfeshness.

Anyway, i have discussed this issue a LOT, that and Islam religion, and came to the conclusion (based on what i gathered from opinions) that people usually think in one way ... the media way. Simple example ... most of whom i talked to, think that Islam is a terrorist religion, or at least a war religion ... man, they couldn't have been more wrong. If they only BOTHERED to look deeper, or at least leave out all the fanatic views and go to the source and read the CONTEXT, they'll know the truth.

Thanks for all your opinions guys, see you in other articles.


RE: Takin' the high road...
By os008 on 3/14/2008 5:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
Forgot to add ... the word Islam means Peace in Arabic by the way, don't think a lot know that fact. Also, it means 'removing' harm off of anyone.

Correction in the previous post ... but them say to myself >>> but then say to myself.


RE: Takin' the high road...
By JustTom on 3/14/2008 6:57:13 PM , Rating: 2
The UN stepping in and doing anything successfully is unlikely in the extreme.
Going back to the original post: just because causality rates are unbalanced between two combatants implies no moral failing on the side that is killing more, what it implies is success at killing. The reasons for the killings are what determine its morality.
Nowhere did I suggest that I don’t understand why Palestinian militias use the tactics they do. I understand it fully, although it is somewhat more complex than you suggest. Part of the problem is the use of Israel as a bogey man among inept Muslim leaders. They can mask the failings of their rule by blaming everything on Israel and the West. The Palestinians after 60 years are still homeless living in refugee camps; why has no Arab government asked given them sanctuary? The answer is easy; it is the official policy of the Arab League not to allow Palestinians to be citizens of any Arab country.
I have stated elsewhere that I believe the post WWII establishment of Israel was a historical and moral mistake. However, it is unlikely that Israel is going anywhere anytime soon.


RE: Takin' the high road...
By BZDTemp on 3/14/2008 4:14:03 PM , Rating: 3
If the Israeli is not targeting civilians then what do you call taking away power, water, food and freedom of a whole nation?

Or if you want to just talk about the small scale then it is amazing how many times the Israeli army has killed children using their US made helicopter gunships!

More than any nation the Israeli people should know that putting people in camps are wrong but look what they are doing!


RE: Takin' the high road...
By nstott on 3/18/2008 11:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
Why is Israel responsible for the power, water, food, and freedom of the Gaza strip? Gaza has its own elected government, and it is that Hamas terrorist government that created the situation. What if Hamas quit firing rockets at civilian targets and put the same amount of energy into helping its civilian population? What if they built their own power plants to eliminate their dependence on the Israeli state that they attack? BTW, the Hamas government had a lot in reserve, so most of the loss of power was staged. There is a picture of them holding a meeting in candlelight after the loss of power. Close inspection shows that sunlight can be seen in back of the curtains covering the windows:

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/01/jour...


RE: Takin' the high road...
By os008 on 3/14/2008 3:28:24 AM , Rating: 3
That's summing up the situation in a few lines, thanks.

People rarely see what's 'really' happening. All i always hear is how Israel is so oppressed by the Arabs. Just cause the media shows repeatidly Israel is being attacked, doesn't mean they're sitting ducks taking hits. Why doesn't anyone ever think that 'maybe' they're the ones starting it all.

Finally ... as long as the Arabs aren't united anyone can do whatever they please with any single isolated party of them. And as long as the Palestinians are fighting amongst themselves on who should lead, or not care about authority amongst themselves, then i don't think we'll ever see any progress in that region! It's the fault of both ... Arabs and Israelis. And yes ... i'm an Arab Egyptian Muslim.


RE: Takin' the high road...
By NT78stonewobble on 3/14/2008 4:02:59 AM , Rating: 2
So youre gonna disarm hamas anytime soon?


RE: Takin' the high road...
By os008 on 3/14/2008 4:28:48 AM , Rating: 2
Are you going to disarm Israel anytime soon?

Before asking us to do something, you should do something first.

Mind you ... i do NOT approve of killing innocent people, but innocent is very subjective. In my book, agreeing to a country's policy is as guilty as if you took a weapon in hand and joined in the oppression. BUT, also ... in my book, that does NOT justify killing you over! In general, it's not so easy to judge and say ... this deserves to die, and that deserves to live, it is NOT our place to say that, only God is the judge in something like that.

That being said, i WISH Hamas would stop for say ... 6 months? and see what Israel would do. From what i've seen, their main point that they're hanging upon to not move the peace talks forward is the attacks on them, so i wish to see what other justification they'll come up with to halt the peace talks even more, even if we do everything they ask us to.

That being said, in my opinion, and i'm just talking about myself, i don't think we'll ever see this resolved by peace, i'm 99% certain it will end with war, if not WWIII even. Time will tell.


RE: Takin' the high road...
By NT78stonewobble on 3/14/2008 4:01:11 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps the palestinians should stop attackin israel then?

That is if they don't like the retalitory strikes.


RE: Takin' the high road...
By os008 on 3/14/2008 4:38:45 AM , Rating: 2
That's just not right. You're practically saying 'As Israel is big and mean, Palestinians should do as they demand and take a beating without saying a word or lifting an arm'.

If that's what every nation should do against their oppressors then no-one would have claimed their independence by now!


RE: Takin' the high road...
By Samus on 3/14/2008 4:08:22 AM , Rating: 1
But Isreali's are Jews and Palestinians aren't. So the death rate is unimportant, importance is. It's a pretty sick scenerio, but you have to think since WW2, the Jewish population has become an immesurably smaller minority than it used to be, even in this region.


RE: Takin' the high road...
By PrinceGaz on 3/16/2008 11:05:58 PM , Rating: 3
What? Every person's life is important, regardless of who they are. You can't say a particular group is more important than another for some arbitrary reason like race or religion, then use it to support the "more important" group using their more advanced military hardware to invade and occupy the land of surrounding countries.

Are we going to have a world-ranking of who is important and who isn't, then use that to determine which countries can freely use their armed-forces against others without retribution. If so, let's go back to the days where countries built empires by conquering others.

It's not like the Jewish population is in danger of extinction. As you say, it is only an immeasurably smaller minority in the region. They seem to be doing pretty well. Very well actually as they have recently decided to build more settlements in occupied territory. Land they have no right to use. Is it any wonder that some of the rightful owners of the land retaliate the best way they can (primitive random rocket attacks, and in extreme cases suicide bombers- it takes a lot to sacrifice yourself for a cause, I sure as hell wouldn't in any but the worst scenario). Meanwhile Israel respond with advanced jet-fighters bombing various targets (usually causing civilian casualties), and sending tanks rolling through territory they are not yet occupying and firing on anyone they think might be a threat.

It's about time that Israel started to obey international law, rather than ignoring countless UN resolutions against them because the US support Israel and that stops action being taken against them).


RE: Takin' the high road...
By nstott on 3/18/2008 11:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
Don't blame Israel for having a more effective military that achieves a higher kill ratio when it does occasionally retaliate for all of the unprovoked attacks. Yes, I agree that "Israel isn't quite so helpless after all." They could pretty much annihilate all of the Palestinians if they wanted to, which shows a lot of restraint on their part that the "push-Israel-into-the-sea" Palestinians would not be showing given the same power. The US does not and would not tolerate as much as Israel in these situations. Imagine the reaction to Mexico firing the same number of missiles at US border towns. How long do you think that would last?


LASER!
By UppityMatt on 3/13/2008 2:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
That word can never be used in a serious matter now because of Austin Powers. Love the Picture!




RE: LASER!
By Alias1431 on 3/13/2008 2:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
Missile dust. Don't breathe that!


RE: LASER!
By drakanious on 3/13/2008 2:54:00 PM , Rating: 2
Love the "Will It Blend" reference.


RE: LASER!
By AToZKillin on 3/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: LASER!
By DigitalFreak on 3/13/2008 3:25:16 PM , Rating: 4
That is getting so f'ing old.


RE: LASER!
By Etsp on 3/13/2008 3:43:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That is getting so f'ing old.

That is getting so frickin' old.

There, fixed that for you.


RE: LASER!
By BMFPitt on 3/13/2008 5:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
When I saw that headline, I really thought for a second I had accidentally gone to The Onion.


RE: LASER!
By PWNettle on 3/13/2008 8:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
No kidding. Between that and the iPud patent silliness the news today is nearly unbelievable.


RE: LASER!
By jtemplin on 3/14/2008 4:32:16 AM , Rating: 1
Frau Furbissina--FIRE THE LASA!!!


RE: LASER!
By sirius4k on 3/14/2008 7:36:52 AM , Rating: 4
LOL!

That's right.. the pic is awesome XD

We're going to use "The Laser" to shoot down "The Missiles".


Jerusalem
By os008 on 3/14/2008 4:53:40 AM , Rating: 2
Considering the main conflict is simply the city of Jerusalem, why don't Israel leave it to us, considering it was actually mostly inhabited by us by 1948, AND it was mostly inside the Jordanian borders by then also.

I think both are being stubborn, we want to declare the capital of Palestine as Jerusalem, and Israel is ... and that's weird and rediculous (there're international laws) ... afraid that we would prevent them from visiting their religious sites. So in the end, both of us are hanging by that thread, and not wanting a real solution.

Won't say more, as i would be repeating myself, i already posted some replies above. But, i would like to hear your comments on this.




RE: Jerusalem
By crystal clear on 3/14/2008 10:10:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Considering the main conflict is simply the city of Jerusalem


NO ! thats only for Western consumption.

When palestenians organizations talk amongst themselves they seek the destruction of Israel as the only solution to the conflict.

Any & all palestenian groups/leadership/organizations are basically corrupt ,scandals galore.

The ordinary palestenians want jobs/healthcare/stability/education/etc like any ordinary human beings.
They have lost faith in any Palestenian leadership as they all the same.
They dare not speak their minds as they will be shot dead & branded as traitors.

No palestenian group till today can provide peace & prosperity & nor can they do so,not because of Israel but because of Corruption.

You enemy is in fact your own people.


RE: Jerusalem
By os008 on 3/14/2008 12:55:57 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, what you say is true. And if you checked my previous posts you'll notice that i said the same exact thing.

But, not everyone thinks that Israel should be destroyed, most ask that they return to the borders of 1948 and give us Jerusalem as a capital. That simple, plus, it's our right, don't you think? it was already ours even after the formation of Israel.

If you don't consider that Israel kicked arabs from their lands (as someone here said before), then consider than they're actually taking our land a bit by bit.

As i said before, this won't be solved till every party from both sides start to stop being fanatic and consider a 'real' solution!


RE: Jerusalem
By charliee on 3/15/2008 2:46:14 PM , Rating: 1
I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine. D&C 104:14


RE: Jerusalem
By JustTom on 3/14/2008 10:46:05 AM , Rating: 2
Jerusalem is hardly the only sticking point, there is also the right of return. Which from an Israeli viewpoint would be national suicide.


RE: Jerusalem
By crystal clear on 3/14/2008 11:15:14 AM , Rating: 2
There are no instant solutions but certainly TERROR is not the solution to the problem.

STOP the violence keep on talking & live peacefully.

The ordinary palestenian needs food/medical care/education/jobs/stability/peaceful life just like anybody in Europe/USA etc.

They do not want war nor do they want the current leadership-they live in fear NOT from the Israelis but from the corrupt leadership & criminal gangs .


RE: Jerusalem
By os008 on 3/14/2008 1:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm against any kind of terrorism, but to ask someone to stop the violence, while being acted upon in the same way, and live peacefully while he's being oppressed is really contradicting to logic.

I mentioned before that i agree on the second point, about the internal conflict, this needs to be resolved first, and that's my opinion too indeed. I always prayed for Palestinians to start uniting amongst themselves, THEN the arabs, before we could actually make ANY difference.

By the way, i forgot to mention before about our hate to USA and Israel. Well, our hate to Israel is well known ... they took our land (specifics has been dicussed before, don't take it for granted). As for the USA ... just remember they're always behind Israel for some reason, as an Egyptian i can talk for my own country ... during the Israeli occupation of Egypt back in the 60s and 70s, USA gave Israel a ton of weapons to fight against us, while WE were the oppressed, now, i would like to see how you would argue against a REAL occupation and USA helping in it. While on the other hand going to Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan trying to free its people from oppression, what kind of sick mentality is that?!

In the end, i would like to say that i do NOT hate Israelis, or Americans, and i do NOT think they're the big evil of this world coming to consume us all. I HATE their government and anyone inside those countries who agree to their policies. And it happens that i know a LOT of normal Americans who actually disagree with their country's policy and think it's stupid and has an agenda behind it. Same goes for Israelis but a bit of a minority. Also, a lot of Arabs think the same way ... extremists who think Israel should be erradicated are like 0.01% of Muslims, most Muslims are just upset and want a solution. When someone is angry he can say a lot of things, but doesn't necessarily mean it.


RE: Jerusalem
By crystal clear on 3/15/2008 12:42:26 AM , Rating: 2
Since you are from Egypt then what better example can I give-

Israel/ Egypt were at wars for many years till came Mr Sadat
who took the bold step of talking to Mr Begin.

Now WE both live in PEACE -NO WAR NO BLOODSHED.

Yes we have our differences but we talk it out & settle them
in a peaceful way.

We have REAL peace with you...........


RE: Jerusalem
By os008 on 3/14/2008 12:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
Right of return? you mean the 1948 border line? well, there you go, both sides are stubborn and think the other side is their doom!


hmmm...
By kattanna on 3/13/2008 3:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
while it has been a bit, the last thing i had read about the THAD system was it was ready to go and fully operational. The sticking point was the chemicals used in the process to make the laser fire.




RE: hmmm...
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/13/2008 4:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
Got a link on this? I've never heard of the THAD system


RE: hmmm...
By kattanna on 3/13/2008 4:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
hmm.. sorry dont know what i was thinking when i typed that. i meant THEL..

but i do see that the radar system for thel IS already installed an operational as noted here

quote:
The system's radar is already operational in Israel, providing early warning from Palestinian attacks on the the city of Shderot. there are also rumors about a planned THEL deployment to Iraq, where it could provide RAM protection of the US Forces command and new Iraqi government.


http://www.defense-update.com/directory/THEL.htm

but this next link IS what i was thinking about

http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/skyguard-...

the succesor to THEL

its also possible that since the radar part of the system is operational in that city, they are now simply wanting the rest of it.


RE: hmmm...
By kattanna on 3/13/2008 5:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
and this article here

http://www.omedia.org/Show_Article.asp?DynamicCont...

is im sure known to the people filing the suit


The Bottom Line
By Ringold on 3/14/2008 4:36:23 AM , Rating: 2
So many college degrees, so many graduate degrees, and yet so many of you running in circles playing the blame game -- even Kristopher, pointing out who owned what when and the relative prosperity of the time.

The bottom line is that everyone over there with a functional head on their shoulders is, or should be, aware of what 'peace' will ultimately look like. It'll most likely look extremely similar to what Clinton brokered at Camp David. Ehud Barak knows it, and wants it; I know because I was lucky enough to meet him. It's the obvious solution. It doesn't matter, it never matters, who did what to whom first. All that matters is the current reality and how best to fix things. When Ehud Barak gave a talk to a private group here in Florida, he said it was only a matter of time until everyone involved finally accepted it.

If you think back to your government school educations, what would a teacher do when two children were squabling? She'd tell them both to stop it. If she were real touchy-feely, might even force both to apologize to each other. Doesn't even matter who started it. If that mattered, Mexico would still be planning to retake much of the Western United States and native American's would be blowing themselves up in Starbucks.

That doesnt mean it's easy to do, particularly for Hamas to finally bury the hatchet; my impression is that Israel is ready to sign a peace treaty today if they felt Palestinians would keep their end of the bargain. Likewise, that insecurity will mean it'll be difficult for Israel to withdraw; every time they do, they have to rush back in because the areas they evacuate are just turned in to enemy bases. Unfortunately though, easy or not, that is the only way for it to end. All you with those advanced degrees should realize that is exactly how it ended in Northern Ireland; the British still control it, the IRA just had to accept reality and bury the hatchet. It wasn't easy, but as I understand it former IRA leaders are now running the place -- legally. Imagine the day when Israel elects a man of Palestinian descent to Prime Minister. It'll happen, it always does. Some of you might balk, but in 1860 Mississippi would've sooner shot Obama than to of allowed him to even run in a Democrat presidential primary. Today he's ahead in delegates for that same party, and he won that state.

Until the Palestinians get with the program, and until they both happen to simultaneously have leaders ready to sign off on an arrangement, this'll all continue just the way it has.

By the way, for a tech site, I'm doubly disappointed. Captain Kirk and Captain Picard, if I'm not mistaken, both came across groups locked in perpetual, generations-long feuds. They just had to bury the hatchet, regardless of who started it. Everything you need to know about life, guys, can be learned from Star Trek.




RE: The Bottom Line
By theapparition on 3/14/2008 11:51:19 AM , Rating: 2
Great post Ringold. Truely first rate.

Yes, there have always been injustices. You can't fall back on petty childish "well they started it..." rhetoric. To move forward, you have to accept that what happend and look toward a solution.

Israel is not going anywhere. The Palestinians are going anywhere. Either each side learns to play nice, or one will destroy the other (or both). I think the majority of people in the region are willing for peace, but like most things, it's the very vocal (read: armed) minority that screws it up.


RE: The Bottom Line
By os008 on 3/14/2008 1:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed nice point of view, i've always said that the internal parties of Palestine are the ones screwing everything up. I always wish they'd stop for a second and think ... why don't we stop giving the world an excuse to think we're extremists, and that Israel has the right to strike us, we should be the ones getting the attention and heart of the world, not the other way around.

Hope that happens soon.

I think after all those posts, and all those years of talks (more than 50), it comes down to the problems amongst the Arabs themselves. Also, outside of the Arab world people don't know what we say to each others ... we're always angry and furious at how each of us is in his own world, not caring about his neighbor, and just want power for himself, and leaving those stupid extremists (Muslims extremists) reek havok to those poor people inside Palestine.


RE: The Bottom Line
By JustTom on 3/14/2008 12:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you think back to your government school educations, what would a teacher do when two children were squabling? She'd tell them both to stop it.


Interesting analogy, but it breaks down because there is no outside force with enough influence and power (teacher) to seperate the squabling children (Hamas/Israel). Clinton could not do it and I doubt anyone can anytime soon.

While the problems of Northern Ireland are an often brought up to make the case that solutions are possible the underlying problem with this comparasion is civilians on both sides were tired of the killing. And, at least at this point, this is hardly the case in the Middle East.


A few minor corrections
By Bla7 on 3/16/2008 9:50:40 AM , Rating: 2
1. The meaning of the word Islam is submission (to god) and not peace. The word for peave is Salam.

2. Gaza is not occupied. In fact, the Israelis won't let the Palenstinians in Israel, for fear of terror, the Egyptians don't have that fear and they, also, don't let the Palenstinians inside. That is, mainly, so that Israel could be blamed of a "siege". Why don't anyone blame the Egyptians of a "siege"? The occupation of Gaza, and areas which were never inhabitted by palestinians before, was removed a few years ago. There is absolutely no moral justifications for bombarding Israel, but the Palenstinian propoganda is extraordinary.

3. As opposed to what someone wrote here, there was no "Palestine" prior to 1948, with regards to "Palenstinians". Actually, the name "Palenstine" for Israel was given to it by the Romans, with regards to the Philistines, which have absolutely no relation to arabs or to the Islam. The name Palestinians is a relatively new name, invented mainly as a propoganda against Israel. The concept did not even exist in the beginning of the 1900s.




RE: A few minor corrections
By nstott on 3/18/2008 11:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
Let's correct your incorrect correction:

Islam has the Arabic word for peace as its root: "slam" in "Islam" is the same meaning as "salam."

"Submission (to God)" is the meaning of "Muslim."


mmmm
By crystal clear on 3/14/2008 7:57:04 AM , Rating: 2
Prevention is bettter than cure as often quoted is the solution to the problem.

An expensive high tech solution as a cure to the problem is not the solution.
There are many practical & less expensive solutions that can stop this menace of rocket attacks.

I know Israel very well from the geographical,political & also from the military point of view.

The kasam rockets as they are referred to are basically a crude homemade rocket launched from equally crude launchers.

A picture of the rocket+launcher would have helped readers understand what its all about.

This is not a katusha rocket manufactured by Russia .

It has no guidance system nor any fixed predetermined range or settings,with zero reliability rate.

The moment its launched anything can happen.

It can take off a few metres in the air & fall down,it can explode at launch,it can take off & land anywhere/anytime.

In short its plain crude ...

These rockets made in Gaza use raw material smuggled across the border with EGYPT.
The funding/money comes from Iran via the hamas-a terrorist organization.

The nomadic tribes roaming the Sinai desert are involved in smuggling anything for money.

From explosives to drugs to human beings(refugees) across the border into Gaza & Israel.

Refer to the maps - Egypt has a common border with Gaza & Israel.

Egypt border patrols function just as good as non existant or simply corrrupt.

Given this background the raw materials are easily smuggled into GAZA.

You do not need a multi million dollar system to protect the residents.

There more practical/cheaper solutions to protect the residents from the rockets.

1) Egypt intensify & stop cross border smugglings to prevent flow of raw materials to manufacture these rockets.
This will automatically stop the manufacture of these rockets.

2) Israel take military action to dismantle Hamas & other terror organization in Gaza.
In addition the international community namely the USA,E.U. & the U.N. support such action,without any condemnation or sanctions applied on Israel.

3) The international community jointly act to stop countries like Iran & people/organizations funding to terrorist operating in GAZA.

In short Gaza has become another Lebonen controlled by a Iran backed terror organization with tacit support from Syria.

If Egypt does not act decisively to stop cross border smuggling then only military action can stop these rockets falling into Israel.




In other news...
By dflynchimp on 3/14/2008 11:23:38 AM , Rating: 2
...starved and impoverished orphans of Darfur scavenge for the bread crumbs of a decrepit society...

Seriously? Israel already has one of the most advanced military infrastructure in the world. They're government has already done much to make sure they stay near the very top. I don't think it's up to the citizens to *sue* their government over something like this...




A word from isael
By maduser on 3/16/2008 8:26:16 AM , Rating: 2
Well, there are two sides here I see, pro israel and pro Palestinian.
Let me help you sort thing down.

deaths comparison is not a way to deciede who is right and who is wrong or who suffers more!!

I blame only Europe for doing nothing but criticize isreal and Palestinian for years!!

obviously there are several terror organizations, sponsered by Iran and Syria, that took over Lebanon and Palestine.

Israel can not eliminate them because they are hiding behind innocent civilians and Palestine doesn't have the strength to take over. only a worldwide action can eliminate this problem. but everybody but US are afraid to take a stand.

I guess it's much easier to stand aside and criticize everybody.




slaughter them
By Nyu on 3/14/2008 4:04:14 AM , Rating: 1
I think Israel should step up already and launch a full scale war on palestina and claim the land, while taking every single citizen out of their territories.




Peace
By abzillah on 3/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Peace
By mdogs444 on 3/13/2008 2:53:55 PM , Rating: 2
Hello! McFly! Is anyone home?

Wake up from your dreamworld hippy man, peace hasn't been an option in the middle east since Kane & Abel for god sake. Your flowing waving is not going to stop the wars of Holy Lands.


RE: Peace
By abzillah on 3/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Peace
By mdogs444 on 3/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Peace
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/13/2008 4:06:22 PM , Rating: 5
Please see my post below in the other thread. There's the media version of what's going on, and then there's the actual version that shows up in history books, peace negotiations, etc. You're referring to the media version.


RE: Peace
By FITCamaro on 3/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Peace
By cochy on 3/13/2008 4:29:57 PM , Rating: 5
No one was kicked out of anywhere. The Palestinians left on their own accord after the neighboring Arab nations told them that they are going to annihilate Israel and they should leave until the job is done. The resulting wars against the Arab nation were all handedly won by Israel. The Arabs who stayed are now all citizens of Israel with Arab representation in the parliament. The ones who left were kicked out of Jordan or Egypt or where ever they fled to and now rest in Gaza and the West bank.


RE: Peace
By derwin on 3/13/2008 5:27:01 PM , Rating: 4
"kicked out" is a very subjective term. Perhaps the leadership of palestine agreed due to pressure from their neigbhors, but i doubt the people who actually lived there, the citizens of palestine, agreed with this plan. Hence the sensation of being "kicked out." Perhaps their own gov't is to blame, but these people none the less feel as if they were removed from their home land.

Ask a native american who removed them from their land. Was it the US gov't or was it their leaders who agreed to the deals to sell the US land. I doubt many would blame their own leaders.

It is a subjective question, and the answer varies not just by what side of it you are on, but even by who you ask regardless of side.

In all fairness, I think a just world would not have given Isreal that land, but then again, in a just world, the Jews would have been protected from Hitler... and in a just world Hitler would not have rose to power... and I can go on. The matter of fact is that Isreal is where it is, and it is not going anywhere.

That statement has to mean both implyied meanings. It is not leaving, nor is it spreading out.

That is the one point that Isreal must take the high road on for anything to work. Religious values are not worth the lives of your citizens. Period. If taking more of the holy land costs you 1000 civilian deaths, just don't do it.

As for the other side, how does the extremist muslim side become quelled? That is the harder question. The US has in recent years tried a new solution "proactive war." Arguably it has reduced attacks again US facilities (beyond Iraq) and has given other extremist (not to neccisarily argue Sadam was anything of the sort, but I digress...) groups in the region a second thought if they intend to act beyond their boarders or against a civilian population. This strategy however may have untold consequences. What of those who's lives were ruined by the results of fighting due to US occupation? Will they blame Sadam for briging us here, or will they more likely blame us for being there? What will they do to retaliate? More than likely they will not take any action against us, out of both fear and civility, but I am sure of the thousands of lives ruined, there will be a hand full who will attempt to take action. What then?

This leaves us where we started. What to do about the at-best loosely affiliated and very feverant muslim groups?

I for one feel that killing them, even if an effective solution could not be the right one, so we still have some work to do.


RE: Peace
By os008 on 3/14/2008 3:41:46 AM , Rating: 2
Good point of view really, I've always tried comparing the Native Americans to the Palestinians, with an exception, Israelis actually were living in peace with Arabs, they weren't occupants. But they took advantage of the Arabs as soon as they got the green light.

Unfortunately, extremists will always make us look as if we're all terrorists. It's up to anyone to take a closer look and stop generalizing. Just an example ... KKK.


RE: Peace
By HrilL on 3/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Peace
By os008 on 3/14/2008 3:45:09 AM , Rating: 2
We're not fighting anything currently, every single nation of us is in its own world, we're just taking the safe road and not actually doing anything effective (however you may interpret that is up to you).

There're no Holy Wars going on, we're just being passive, and seems to not consider uniting ourselves anytime soon, THAT's our main problem.

Plus, i would consider the Iraq war to be a holy war from the USA point of view, don't you think? You're freeing the people there from their oppressor in the name of ... freedom?! (I won't go into the real motivation for the Iraq war here of course, that's up to you to research for).


RE: Peace
By Alexstarfire on 3/13/2008 4:50:43 PM , Rating: 1
I think that all religion is wrong, though what they practice may be useful, so I'll answer yes to your question. I'm pretty sure that no religious text is going to tell you it's all right to kill people as long as it's in the name of God. There is no such thing as a Holy War IMO because of this. Sounds more like it's two bickering kids who can't share a toy and Mom/Dad aren't doing anything to stop them. Of course, there is no Mom/Dad in this situation, but I think you get the point.


RE: Peace
By Obsoleet on 3/13/2008 11:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
You would give up on peace??

You are a damn fool. Your mentality is exactly what's wrong with our world and why we're at war.

Peace IS possible if you take up the real, daily work that peace requires. See Northern Ireland if you don't quite understand how peace can "just happen" through effort.

You disgust me and you didn't study hard enough in school, start using your head.


RE: Peace
By cochy on 3/13/2008 3:23:23 PM , Rating: 3
Your personal take on history needs revising. Plus you should also understand that "peace" is relative. There hasn't been "peace" in the region since well, I can't say exactly but definitely since before WWII. The Ottomans had a pretty brutal occupation of Palestine before the British took over in WWI. I wouldn't call British occupation peaceful, all the lands they've occupied in Asia and Africa (not to mention America) have had or have now lots of issues as a result.


RE: Peace
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/13/2008 4:04:30 PM , Rating: 5
You sure about that?

The Ottomans didn't even have a name for the region, it was largely dismissed as a backwater nowhere in the empire.

And you can't say that the Ottomans were particularly brutal to just the residents of the region, since they ended up being particularly brutal to residents in all of its regions *cough*Armenia*cough* before the empire fall apart.

But find me an example of genocide or war over the region during the Caliphs? The Romans and Byzantians completely banned Jews from the area for the previous 700 years -- the Caliphs not only removed the ban, but encouraged Jewish pilgrams to resettle the area.

Sounds like peace to me.


RE: Peace
By cochy on 3/13/2008 4:24:36 PM , Rating: 5
I'm not talking about wars or genocide. Basically I'm referring to the fact that Palestine has been "occupied" by a foreign power for a very long time. It was only until the birth of Israel do we have a true nation there. The land is being developed and an economy is hoping to flourish. The Ottomans may not have been brutal in the sense of murders and prosecution but they sure were not a catalyst for prosperity, nor were the British.

To the OP, don't just say the Israeli's need to practice human rights with a perfect sense of understanding of what is going on there. For quick example: What happened after the Israelis unilaterally completely withdrew from the Gaza Strip? An increase in violence is what. Militants took over the area and started launching more rocket attacks, now the militant Hamas are completely in charge of that region. That is the result of Israeli withdrawal, forgive them if they are a little hesitant to withdraw some more at the moment.


RE: Peace
By WelshBloke on 3/13/2008 7:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Basically I'm referring to the fact that Palestine has been "occupied" by a foreign power for a very long time.


According to the Palestinians it still is.


RE: Peace
By JustTom on 3/14/2008 11:32:55 AM , Rating: 2
If you define peace in the narrowest terms then after the initial Islamic conquests -which were very often horrific - the area certainly was peaceful. What it was not is just. There legal system existed specifically to benefit Muslims. Any other religious group was treated as a second tier citizen.

Also, you are ignoring the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim who ordered the destruction of churches and synagogues along with forced conversion to Islam. While these actions probably did not merit being called genocidal they dance around the edge of it. Most of the Fatimid Caliphs were religiously tolerant-especially in historical context-but there were certainly exceptions.

As far as war over the region during the rule of the Caliphate, certainly you are not indicating your belief that the area was peacefully acquired? I won't point out the Christian Crusades since legitimately the Caliph was not in control of them. However, there are ample examples of warfare among Muslims during the rule of the Caliphs. The Mamluk conquest of Egypt is an obvious example.
And specifically, how do you think a Caliph would respond to rockets raining down on his villages? I am pretty sure his actions would make the Israeli's appear to be scared little school girls.


RE: Peace
By eye smite on 3/13/2008 5:11:12 PM , Rating: 4
Here, you need to read the sites information on the link below first.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/w...

For a modern day history of that same story and reasoning behind it read this next link below.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_col...

and then to add to this mix let me put a quote and a link that will tie it all up for you and possibly clear up your perception issues. Here's the quote:
The Human Animal which accompanies a major six-part series, shows that, however much we may think we have evolved from our animal ancestors, our instincts and behaviour are still rooted in our animal past. By denying this inheritance we are in danger of destroying everything we have strived so hard to create.
Now let me give you the link for that.

http://www.tvfactual.co.uk/human_animal.htm

Now after you've studied all that my young college fellow, I'd like to see you continue to rattle off the idealistic and unrealistic propoganda of peace.


RE: Peace
By encryptkeeper on 3/13/2008 8:52:25 PM , Rating: 1
See my post above. Basically, the root of the most current series of problems is because the UN took land that BELONGED to the Palestinians and turned it into what is now Israel. Why the UN thought the Palestinian people would be all yippie skippy about giving up their homes to live in tents is beyond me...


RE: Peace
By cochy on 3/13/2008 9:16:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
BELONGED


That's the big problem. The land never belonged to any sovereign native population. Have a look. Throughout all this time there were Arabs and Jews living on the land. Before WWII Arab population was the majority however.

UN partition
British Mandate (1920–1948)
Ottoman Rule (1841-1917)
Mamluk rule (1270–1516 CE)
Crusader rule (1099–1187 CE)
Fatimid rule (969–1099 CE)
Abbasid rule (750–969 CE)
Umayyad rule (661–750 CE)
Arab Caliphate rule (638–1099 CE)
Byzantine (Eastern Roman Empire) rule (330–640 CE)
Roman rule (63 BCE)
Hasmonean Dynasty (140 BCE)
Hellenistic rule (333 BCE)
Persian rule (538 BCE)
Hebrew Bible period


RE: Peace
By onereddog on 3/13/2008 9:27:33 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, but I must be a picky bastard with your post.

Firstly: You're probably a college student...not a collage student, although that would explain your claim that being a hippy comes with the title.

Secondly: Your arguement against this laser is akin to saying let's not produce better ways of producing condoms and give them to those who need them and spend more time on a cure. Sure, if a solution to the conflict or a cure for aids was just around the foreseeble coner, then that arguement would hold (barely), but since that isn't the case, missile defense systems are a good idea.


RE: Peace
By 91TTZ on 3/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Peace
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/13/2008 3:11:02 PM , Rating: 3
You sure about that? The Abbasid Empire ruled the region for 500 years resulting in one of the most prosperous empires in history while Europe was stuck in the Dark Ages.

And believe it or not the Muslims and Jews got along just fine back then; the empire encouraged Christians, Jews and Muslims to respect each other since it was profitable for everyone to cooperate.

So peace hasn't been an option in the middle east since relatively recently. And to dismiss the thought that it could not return to peace as proposed by the great thinkers of Jewish and Muslim faith seems pretty shortsighted.


RE: Peace
By mdogs444 on 3/13/2008 3:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
I think you fail to see the real reason in this case. Its not necessarily that the Muslims hated the Jews. The problem is the Gaza Strip & holy land, and one side trying to take sole ownership of that land. Thats what is creating a conflict between religions because neither side is going to give up their faith and need for the land for their people.


RE: Peace
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/13/2008 3:47:44 PM , Rating: 4
That is a perceived threat on both sides, I understand. However there is considerably more to the conflict, and the debate over religious relics and temples is a "here look at this shiny ball and ignore the core issues" sort of thing.

Much of the Palestinian resentment, for example, focuses around collective retribution, settlements and refugee status. The Israeli resentment focuses on security and international status. And then both sides dispute resources like water for irrigation.

The media spin that Jewish holy places will be in Palestinian territory, and that Muslim holy places will be in Israeli territory is a cheap tactic to easily infuriate both sides, though from what I remember it doesn't even garner recognition in the Oslo accords.

Tourism a GREAT thing, do you think the people who live near those relics honestly care who officially owns it? Seems to me they'd rather just let things cool and continue to make money of pilgrams, like they've done for thousands of years -- OK 1200 years in the case of the Muslim holy places.


RE: Peace
By UzairH on 3/13/2008 4:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
All well stated, Kristopher. I knew you were a smart guy in tech and science and all that jazz, but had no idea you were so well-read on (non-USA) history :) Anyways I have no affiliation with either side of the conflict but as an impartial observer I just ask the question: why was Israel formed by kicking out those who were already living there for centuries, when it was not the Arabs and Muslims who had tormented them in WW2 and the centuries before but the German Nazi regime and before that the Roman empire, the Christians in the crusades etc. The point is that, as you pointed out, the Muslims had always been nice to the people of Judaism, there never was any anti-semitism in the Muslims. Now the world has been turning to a blind eye while Israel openly threatens (and in fact carries out), a new holocaust on the people of Palestine.

Anyway, there is a saying that Might is Right, and obviously the people of Palestine are but a midget next next to the mighty American backed Israeli juggernaut.

Peace for all,
Uzair


RE: Peace
By FITCamaro on 3/13/2008 4:22:48 PM , Rating: 1
You forget that the Jews lived in that region long before the Muslims. Compared to Judaism, Islam is an extremely young religion.


RE: Peace
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/13/2008 4:31:17 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, but it was the Roman and Christian empires that banned Jews from living in the area until Muslim rule in 750. This is well documented from Jewish, Muslim, Christian and Roman accounts too.


RE: Peace
By cochy on 3/13/2008 4:42:32 PM , Rating: 4
Impartial observer? lol you must be kidding me. You state that Israel is conducting a "Holocaust" on Palestinians. Don't insult people's intelligence by claiming no bias.

Most of your information is incorrect. No one was kicked out of any land as a result of the formation of Israel. As I have mentioned the Palestinians who left, left on they own because they wanted to flee the upcoming Arab-Israeli wars. There are over 1,000,000 Arab-Israeli citizens in the country and those are the ones who stayed with the new nation.

Trust me the people of Israel want peace. They are fed up with the circle of violence.


RE: Peace
By bigpimpatl on 3/13/2008 6:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
the circle goes around and back, just to clear that up. The israelis are just as culpable as the palestinians. And yes, I would say that the current events do dictate a "catastrophe" on Palestinians as the gaza blockade has resulted in over 1 million people on the brink of starvation, with no access to food, water, supplies etc.

I absolutely admire the israeli tactic: Make everyone suffer for the actions of a few...


RE: Peace
By encryptkeeper on 3/13/2008 9:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
As I have mentioned the Palestinians who left, left on they own because they wanted to flee the upcoming Arab-Israeli wars.

Those wars wouldn't have happened if the Jews weren't promised the land...why do you think there is so little care for international cooperation, particularly with the UN? Besides, on most matters in the UN concerning Israel's violence against Palestine, Israel holds a veto power. That's a huge load of steaming crap if I ever saw one.

Trust me the people of Israel want peace. They are fed up with the circle of violence.

This part of your argument is just laughable. If they really wanted to extend an olive branch, why would they want a laser defense system?????


RE: Peace
By cochy on 3/13/2008 9:21:02 PM , Rating: 2
Not one inch of truth in that post. Israel holds no veto power in the UN. Have a look at how many resolutions are passed in the General Assembly against Israel the answer is quite a bit.

quote:
This part of your argument is just laughable. If they really wanted to extend an olive branch, why would they want a laser defense system?????


To shield themselves from rocket attacks. It's called a circle of violence it's not easy to break. Israel unilaterally withdrew 100% from Gaza in an attempt to "extend and olive branch". It had the opposite effect of allowing a militant organization with a platform of war to gain control.