The British government says it is suspending free trade negotiations with Israel and leveling new sanctions targeting West Bank settlers as it criticizes Israel’s military actions in Gaza.
The U.K. suspended free trade talks with Israel on Tuesday and hit West Bank settlers with sanctions, less than a day after vowing “concrete actions” if Israel didn’t stop its new military offensive in Gaza.
They don’t need real support or care what the public thinks. When they lost the Yom Kippur war they got ready to start nuking everyone, which resulted in Nixon, replacing their military and upgrading their hardware and flying support missions to bail them out.
They are literal nuclear terrorists. Look up the Samson option if you want to read more.
When they lost the Yom Kippur war they got ready to start nuking everyone
They lost the Yom Kippur war? The war didn’t end with the three days of Egyptian and Syrian offensives, but does also include the subsequent successful counter attack by Israel. Historians argue whether it should be considered an Israel victory or a military stalemate, when the conflict was ended after almost three weeks.
When looking up Operation Samson, I read that despite pressure from her generals, Meir declined to arm nuclear weapons, so again not as clear as you make it seem.
Yes, they lost the Yom Kippur war. The United States bailed them out calling it operation nickel grass. They replaced and upgraded their Air Force and provided massive amounts of support, equipment, and ammunition. That was a direct response to Israel signaling that they were going to start nuking people.
I’m not sure what’s unclear to you on the second point. She did arm the nuclear weapons. Someone who was not in charge of the nuclear weapons not wanting to doesn’t muddy the point at all in my mind.
Yes, they lost the Yom Kippur war. The United States bailed them out calling it operation nickel grass. They replaced and upgraded their Air Force and provided massive amounts of support, equipment, and ammunition.
You do realise who in turn supported the Arab side? Welcome to the Cold War, where both Soviets and Americans supported ‘their’ side in whatever proxy war there was on the planet. As in Operation Nickel Grass, there was a Soviet airlift providing arms to both Syria and Egypt.
I’m not sure what’s unclear to you on the second point. She did arm the nuclear weapons.
The point is that she apparently did not. I know about the rumours concerning Operation Samson during the Yom Kippur War, but the whole situation isn’t as clear cut as your description make it seem.
“what about the Soviet Union?” Is not an argument or really related to anything we were discussing and I trust the primary sources on Wikipedia more than an op-ed in the New York times.
Maybe you can get Wikipedia edited to be more accurate in your mind, but you aren’t going to do it with the that op-ed.
“what about the Soviet Union?” Is not an argument or really related to anything we were discussing
We’re discussing a war where both parties were heavily supported by the two opposing major powers of the Cold War. I understand that you see it as a sign of defeat that Israel was supported by the US yet don’t see a problem with the Arab side being supported by the SU? How is the help from the US to Israel a sign of weakness, but the help from the SU to the Arabs not?
I trust the primary sources on Wikipedia more than an op-ed in the New York times.
The primary source for this version is Hersh’s ‘The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy.’ from 1991. Yet, a video interview released to the public in 2013 with Arnan Azaryahu, advisor to minister Galili close to Meir, disputed these claims and instead said that Meir opposed Dayan’s pressure to arm them. Now, I can’t tell which one the versions is the factual truth but my point is that neither can you.
They don’t need real support or care what the public thinks. When they lost the Yom Kippur war they got ready to start nuking everyone, which resulted in Nixon, replacing their military and upgrading their hardware and flying support missions to bail them out.
They are literal nuclear terrorists. Look up the Samson option if you want to read more.
They lost the Yom Kippur war? The war didn’t end with the three days of Egyptian and Syrian offensives, but does also include the subsequent successful counter attack by Israel. Historians argue whether it should be considered an Israel victory or a military stalemate, when the conflict was ended after almost three weeks.
When looking up Operation Samson, I read that despite pressure from her generals, Meir declined to arm nuclear weapons, so again not as clear as you make it seem.
Yes, they lost the Yom Kippur war. The United States bailed them out calling it operation nickel grass. They replaced and upgraded their Air Force and provided massive amounts of support, equipment, and ammunition. That was a direct response to Israel signaling that they were going to start nuking people.
I’m not sure what’s unclear to you on the second point. She did arm the nuclear weapons. Someone who was not in charge of the nuclear weapons not wanting to doesn’t muddy the point at all in my mind.
You do realise who in turn supported the Arab side? Welcome to the Cold War, where both Soviets and Americans supported ‘their’ side in whatever proxy war there was on the planet. As in Operation Nickel Grass, there was a Soviet airlift providing arms to both Syria and Egypt.
The point is that she apparently did not. I know about the rumours concerning Operation Samson during the Yom Kippur War, but the whole situation isn’t as clear cut as your description make it seem.
“what about the Soviet Union?” Is not an argument or really related to anything we were discussing and I trust the primary sources on Wikipedia more than an op-ed in the New York times.
Maybe you can get Wikipedia edited to be more accurate in your mind, but you aren’t going to do it with the that op-ed.
We’re discussing a war where both parties were heavily supported by the two opposing major powers of the Cold War. I understand that you see it as a sign of defeat that Israel was supported by the US yet don’t see a problem with the Arab side being supported by the SU? How is the help from the US to Israel a sign of weakness, but the help from the SU to the Arabs not?
The primary source for this version is Hersh’s ‘The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy.’ from 1991. Yet, a video interview released to the public in 2013 with Arnan Azaryahu, advisor to minister Galili close to Meir, disputed these claims and instead said that Meir opposed Dayan’s pressure to arm them. Now, I can’t tell which one the versions is the factual truth but my point is that neither can you.
e: link to the interview