Israel asks for 20 F35's [Archive]

fallmonk

19th Aug 2010, 16:23

It's reported on key.aero
that Israel has asked to purchase 20 F35's (subject to congress approval) .

"August 19: Israeli newspaper Haaretz.com reports that the Israeli government has given approval for 20 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to be purchased from the US at a cost of “around $2.75 billion” (€2.1 billion).

The Israel Air & Space Force (IASF) had wanted 75 aircraft but the reduced number could be due to US blocking Israel’s demands that home-made systems be installed for electronic warfare and communications. The report says that the US has agreed that if Israel buys more F-35s from later production runs, it may allow for integration of Israeli-made systems.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said "The F-35 is the fighter of the future that will allow Israel to maintain its aerial superiority and its technological advantage in the region." The deal has yet to be approved by the US Congress."

Geehovah

19th Aug 2010, 17:10

Not a big surprise as they have been partners in development, albeit Level 9

Lonewolf_50

19th Aug 2010, 17:31

Hmm.

They gonna pay cash, or will those 20 be a grant/loan never paid back? :confused:

This US taxpayer would like to know.

Double Zero

19th Aug 2010, 17:46

Maybe best to think of it as 'extensive field testing' - if Israel has them, they'll use them sooner rather than later; at least the military would relatively soon find out if the theory works...

poina

20th Aug 2010, 01:10

The U.S. taxpayer should already know. Madoff, G/S, etc. etc.

rab-k

20th Aug 2010, 08:33

Double Zero: Maybe best to think of it as 'extensive field testing' - if Israel has them, they'll use them sooner rather than later; at least the military would relatively soon find out if the theory works... The "theory" being whether they are stealthy enough to avoid detection by Syrian, Iraqi and Iranian radars; given that within 6 months of any F35s going operational there will likely be a wee accident at a building somewhere in the high deserts of Persia.:hmm:

cornish-stormrider

20th Aug 2010, 11:10

Rab, how dare you - you cynical b'satrd you:E

Double Zero

20th Aug 2010, 19:48

Cornish Stormrider,

I was rather alluding to such an accident happening, which I must say would let me and millions or more others sleep a little easier !

Of course this 'proof of concept' would be a bit late if things turned out to be a 'disproof' as the mega-bucks will already have been spent.

I'm sure it will be alright if enough money's thrown at it and as long as GT is involved, not sure if he sticks to the 'B'...

MTOW

20th Aug 2010, 23:41

If the Israelis used F35s for their 'little trip' to various destinations within Iran, it would provide a nice, face-saving facade of "deniability" for the Saudis (and others in the Muslim Brotherhood) in saying that their air defence radars didn't see the stealth aircraft as they transited through their airspace.

I don't think there'd be too much wailing and gnashing of teeth anywhere in the Arab world (with the notable exception of Hezbollah in South Lebanon) if the Iranians were to suffer a series of mysterious explosions at their widely-scattered nuclear 'research' sites all on the same night.

walter kennedy

20th Aug 2010, 23:57

Of course if the Leahy Law was to be applied to Israel ...
That's right, the two politicians who were the addressees of the two most leathal weaponised anthrax letters (within a week of 911) were all for applying said law to Israel up until that incident.
Better not try and block the airplane deal!:E

giblets

21st Aug 2010, 07:59

Any surprise to the timing with the renewed push for ME peace? More reason not to pay for them!

Double Zero

21st Aug 2010, 13:54

One might have thought the Israeli's would fancy a few secondhand F117A's if possible, as there will be a bit of a wait for F-35.

Or is the F-117 now detectable; that would be a reason for what seems a premature retirement, I know one was shot down in Serbia but that just seemed out of luck at low level against a surprisingly suitable radar -or indeed blind AAA,( though the word was radar guided ) no doubt instructions went out among the bad guy community as to what radar to use...

Of course the B-2 has F-15's alongside ( probably with transponders I would expect ) to mask its' RCS when in public, no doubt the F-35 will do similar.

TEEEJ

21st Aug 2010, 16:13

Double Zero,

Not low level. F-117A Pilot, Lt. Colonel Dale Zelko, describes his shootdown on the following video. He was under canopy for some time. The AAA theory was purely from the stills of the wreckage at the time. Many observers confused the SA-3 fragmentation warhead holes with what they thought were bullet holes. The 250th Air Defence Missile Brigade later confirmed that it was purely SA-3s that were used in the shootdown.

XmqLyn4Q15U

At 07:09 you can hear the last position described as 'point after target'. The F-117 was on egress when shot down. Purely assumption on my part but leads to the theory that the F-117 was detected when its weapons bay doors were open.

Commander of the SA-3 battery, Lt. Col. Zoltan Dani, has given a number of interviews of the years. A summary of the main parts are contained on the following wiki entry.

Zoltán Dani - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Dani)

'In the evening Dani's P-18 long-distance radar set malfunctioned at 19:05, almost the same time when four F-117s prepared for take-off from Aviano air base to attack targets in Belgrade. The repaired P-18 radar returned to air by 19:50 and started to emit at the specially modified lower frequency. Lt. Col. Dale Zelko's plane (tail number 82-0806) and three other F-117 flying northbound were acquired at 20:40 local time and so the SA-3 battery's fire control radar went on air to provide a riding beam for V-601P missile launches. The UNV radar emitted at high frequency for 2 x 20 seconds, but it was unable to obtain a lock on the targets.

Lt. Col. Dani then ordered a third illumination round, against his own rulebook, but knowing that NATO lacked immediate counterstrike capability on the particular occasion. Lock was obtained and at a distance of 13 km and an altitude of 8 km. Two SA-3 missiles were launched in short succession, with one obtaining a proximity fuse hit, as notified by an automatic radio pinger burst. The F-117 was structurally disabled by the sudden minus 6G negative load and stall-crashed in inverted position in an agricultural field, near the village of Budjanovci. The pilot ejected successfully and was rescued later on by NATO CSAR helicopters. The F-117's large kite-shaped titanium engine outlet heatshield is still kept by Dani in his garage.'

Lt Col Zoltan Dani features in the following documentary. Unfortunately not in English but contains video footage of the wreckage and the F-117 part that Lt Col Dani keeps in his garage (Part 4).

38I70fVurqQ

Links to the following parts of the documentary.

YouTube - Zoltan Dani Heroj 2/4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzfEzjejX8U)

YouTube - Zoltan Dani Heroj 3/4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j74HutKOOO4)

YouTube - Zlotan Dani Heroj 4/4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOCHjOxR2SQ)

The F-22s that visited the UK recently carried transponders. If required I would say that the F-35 would do likewise. See under fuselage pod on following RIAT image.

Photos: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Lockheed-Martin-F-22A/1747901/L/)

TJ

Easy Street

22nd Aug 2010, 17:44

The F-22s that visited the UK recently carried transponders. If required I would say that the F-35 would do likewise

Is this some kind of DRFM system that returns incoming primary radar signals at magnified intensity to mask low RCS? Or is it just a simple radar reflector? A straightforward transponder would not actually mask primary returns; it works on a different frequency and is not synchronised to primary radar 'pings'.

BarbiesBoyfriend

22nd Aug 2010, 19:43

I had to laugh when reading about Israels' decision to purchase the F-35.

It droned on for a bit about who'd finally taken the momentous decision and why, before announcing that the money to pay for the jets would be coming from, wait for it..........US foreign aid to Israel.

So are they 'buying' them, or is it a sort of gift?

GreenKnight121

23rd Aug 2010, 01:14

They get the aid money first, then decide what to spend it on.

Much like the UK's aid money to India... how much of that goes to food & housing for the poor, how much to their military expansion, and how much to their space program?

BarbiesBoyfriend

23rd Aug 2010, 10:32

Green Knight, your point is, of course, 100% correct.

But so is mine.

Does anyone give the UK foreign aid?

dat581

24th Aug 2010, 02:53

The US did during and after the Second World War. Unfortunatly unlike the aid given to Israel and India it had to be paid back, the last payment was made in 2006!

Load Toad

24th Aug 2010, 03:35

- you should point out the terms and conditions were incredibly favorable to the UK.

GreenKnight121

24th Aug 2010, 04:26

And point out that many of those the US loaned money to in WW2 (and immediately after) never paid it back... and many never tried.

As of the 1980s, Finland was the only one that had paid everything back (aid to rebuild after the "Winter War", etc).

And now the UK has done so... has anyone else?

Whether a nation paid the US back or not has had no effect on our relations with them, its just something that is important to the character of the nation involved.

Kudos to the UK for meeting its obligations when so many haven't bothered.

BarbiesBoyfriend

26th Aug 2010, 01:39

Gents
Sorry for thread drift.

Main point was meant to be: Israelis: If you want planes, F-35 or others, buy them your feckin selves.

Then you will be able to bomb the poor idiots whose land you stole back in 1948, interest free.

Thank God for Israel. Where would we be without you?:rolleyes:

poina

26th Aug 2010, 02:31

Maybe without this current financial debacle?

ospreydriver

26th Aug 2010, 03:42

Not to quibble about who stole whose land, but the Jews were there 2000 years ago--they just took a vacation and all these squatters were there!

Anyway I'm just glad not all the foreign military sales for the F-35 are flaking out on us. The UK is looking pretty shaky, not to mention the USN, and the price increases are beginning to be reminiscent of the F-22.

I'm sure the Israelis will be able to give us real-world OPEVAL of both its air-to-air and air-to-ground capability--bonus!

Butch Lewis

1st Sep 2010, 11:40

EDO/ITT supplied military components for the VER-2, the main bomb rack for Israel's F-16s.

When Israel was using F-16s to kill hundreds of civilians (including 350 children) in Gaza last year, activists broke into their Brighton factory, smashed up the production line and closed the factory.

After hearing evidence of Israeli war crimes the jury at their trial found all the activists not guilty of conspiracy to cause criminal damage because they had been acting to prevent a greater crime.

The ”decommissioners” as they are known said their actions were in response to the atrocities being committed in Gaza . “The international community appeared to be completely helpless. The UN could not even protect its own compounds. The only light at the end of the tunnel for the people of Palestine is if ordinary people like us take direct action on their behalf."

EDO Decommissioners Victorious Corporate Watch – Tracking Corporate Complicity in the Occupation of Palestine (http://corporateoccupation.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/edo-decommissioners-victorious/#more-834)

Training Risky

2nd Sep 2010, 10:05

Got any evidence of the 'hundreds of civilians including 350 children' Butchie?

Any undisputable evidence? As opposed to questionable Hamas propaganda or the 'testimony' of a load of hand-wringing Brighton hippies?

I have a feeling I know where this thread is headed.........

Load Toad

2nd Sep 2010, 10:41

jury at their trial found all the activists not guilty of conspiracy to cause criminal damage because they had been acting to prevent a greater crime.

That's an interesting concept for a jury to make a decision on.

I can't see that 'acting to prevent a greater crime' appears in the links you've provided.

ORAC

2nd Sep 2010, 10:48

Anyway I'm just glad not all the foreign military sales for the F-35 are flaking out on us. Israel having second thoughts on purchase of Joint Strike Fighter (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/me_israel0838_08_31.asp) :E

Jabba_TG12

2nd Sep 2010, 11:01

Just another case of the criminal justice system going down the sh*tter in the UK, if a bunch of no-job, no hope, aching-conscience, self loathing middle class spotty student tw@ts can argue their "direct" action is justified as part of the greater good. :mad:

Where did they get the jury from? Brick Lane?

I could/should have thought of that line of defence and gone and pressed a Browning Hi Power to a former Labour party leader's temple and see where that would have got me. "Honestly, your honour, I was doing the country a favour." :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Load Toad

2nd Sep 2010, 11:22

Rage and stereotyping go so well with injustice and hate don't they?

Jabba_TG12

2nd Sep 2010, 11:42

Maybe they do. :E

In all seriousness, I'd wager a pound to a pinch of s*** that those who were guilty of the break in and trashing the place have not even met any Palestinians, diaspora or not, let alone been within 500 miles of Gaza or the West Bank. Not good enough reason to go into a place you've got no business to be in and trash the joint.

And I think the comment about the justice system going down the pan was perfectly justified, if the case is indeed true. Any judicial system that would allow this kind of criminal damage to go unpunished whilst using RIPA against homeowners with wheelie-bin lids that dont close or prosecuting a pet shop owner for selling a goldfish to a teenager is an ass. And thats putting it very politely. :rolleyes:

Tester_76

2nd Sep 2010, 12:15

Quote:
jury at their trial found all the activists not guilty of conspiracy to cause criminal damage because they had been acting to prevent a greater crime.
That's an interesting concept for a jury to make a decision on.

I can't see that 'acting to prevent a greater crime' appears in the links you've provided.

Unfortunately it seems its "normal". The group that beat up the Hawk at Warton, and the Raytheon protesters in NI got away with their actions under the same jury decision

AR1

2nd Sep 2010, 13:50

you should point out the terms and conditions were incredibly favorable to the UK. - Of course they were, they stood back for long enough to ensure we were bankrupted into rationing for 9 years and lumbered paying back our war debt, conveniently allowing uncle Sam to step into the empires shoes and ensuring were were eternally ****ed as a nation, despite being on the winning side.

Other than that - it was great.

if ordinary people like us take direct action on their behalf." - A bit like terrorism perhaps?

Load Toad

2nd Sep 2010, 14:20

Other than that - it was great.

We needed it - who else was offering?

AR1

2nd Sep 2010, 14:33

We needed it - who else was offering?

Bloke with a 'tache...;)

No, a little earlier involvement would probably have helped.

Tashengurt

2nd Sep 2010, 16:02

Just another case of the criminal justice system going down the sh*tter in the UK, if a bunch of no-job, no hope, aching-conscience, self loathing middle class spotty student tw@ts can argue their "direct" action is justified as part of the greater good. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif

Perhaps I'm being dense but F16s aren't made in the UK are they?

boftr

2nd Sep 2010, 16:12

No, a little earlier involvement would probably have helped.

I thought wars of choice aren't in vogue now, much less in 1940 (never mind the several hundred USN sailors killed by U-boats/accidents in convoying those supplies well past the midway point in the Atlantic. Or those several thousand US Marines who garrisoned Iceland to free up those British troops who subsequently went to North Africa and Greece).

One could wonder if the Czechs thought the same thing in 1938 or the Poles during "The Phoney War" while the BEF and French Army sat behind their line with the vast majority of the Wehrmacht visiting Poland? But that would be poor form would it not?

No comments about Hamas' claiming "credit" for murdering those four Israelis at the start of this current round of peace talks? Lots of furor about Isreal responding to rocket attacks originating from Gaza, but nary a word about events like this.

A message there perhaps?

Lonewolf_50

2nd Sep 2010, 17:23

Bomb racks for the F-16, if I recall the story correctly. An accessory, if you like.

off centre

2nd Sep 2010, 21:53

Oi! You took out rebuttal reply but left this? I thought the poster had rather answered the charge.

No, a little earlier involvement would probably have helped.

BarbiesBoyfriend

3rd Sep 2010, 10:49

Why does Israel want the JSF anyway?

The opposition are mainly armed with stones and have no air force.

When it comes to bombing civilians, which is mainly what the IDF/ AF does, surely the F-16 can do the job as well as the F-35?

GeeRam

3rd Sep 2010, 11:59

Why does Israel want the JSF anyway?

Iran's nuclear facilities would be a wild stab in the dark guess..........

Jabba_TG12

3rd Sep 2010, 12:11

BarbiesBoyfriend:

You conveniently forget that they're surrounded on three sides by nations who have attacked them, not to mention the percieved Iranian and HizbAllah threats as well. :=

They've got more enemies than just Hamas and the rest of the Palestinian peace process refuseniks. And, incidentally both the state and non-state actors opposed to them are armed with a teensy bit more than just stones which you should know as well - if you had the faintest idea what you were talking about.

Mind you with a trite, uneducated, foolish, facile comment like this, I shouldnt have expected any better, should I?

"When it comes to bombing civilians, which is mainly what the IDF/ AF does..."

:ugh::hmm: :rolleyes:

BarbiesBoyfriend

3rd Sep 2010, 12:54

Well Jabba.

What about Israels' undeclared nuclear capability as opposed to Irans' suspected nuclear intentions?

As for bombing civilians, what else do you want to call those killed in the last war on Gaza? 350 kids too. Would the F-35 do better?

As for being 'surrounded by enemies', that's true for sure, better not get into why though.

If only the giant mess here could be sorted out, peace might breakout.

Jabba_TG12

3rd Sep 2010, 13:29

I dont recall Israel going public saying that it wanted to wipe anywhere off the map, BB, nuclear or not. Nuclear proliferation is another matter entirely. Iran is developing a ballistic missile capability which regardless of whether it carries a nuclear payload or not, will be capable of reaching targets inside Israel. If someone has publicly said they want you wiped off the map, I'd be inclined to take them seriously. :=

As for Gaza, you've fallen into the trap of thinking exactly what Hamas want you to think. Hamas have no intention of trying to reach any kind of peace solution with Israel and retain the overthrow of the state in their objectives. Now, if someone launches rockets from built up urban areas which kill your citizens, I'm presuming that you're the type of man who will just turn the other cheek and say "those lives dont matter"? Palestinian lives are worth more than Jewish ones, is that it? :E :yuk:

Hamas and other non state players have launched such devices from built up urban areas, schools, factories, etc knowing full well what the Israeli response would be, using their own citizens, their own women and kids as human shields. :yuk:

They know that Israel plays by exactly the same rules as them, ie no rules.

Now, you're probably quite happy with that. You were probably quite happy for the likes of the IRA to plant bombs in dustbins and other such places in towns like Warrington where they blew kids up as well, I would venture, if we extend the analogy. :hmm:

You could argue that Israel's response to such attacks is valid from a self defence perspective, but is not proportional. But you didnt say that. :hmm:

The response probably isnt proportional, but the weapons systems are more accurate. If you dont want kids blown up by F16's or Apaches, dont go chucking Katyusha's around from built up areas next to schools. Its perfectly simple really.

Hamas pursue these tactics because they know it works on the international sympathy front, garnering money and headlines thanks to the useful idiots and those who have a prejudice against Israel for political or religious reasons. If it means they have to sacrifice a number of their population, so be it. It maintains the climate of fear and terror, it gives them an enemy to focus on rather that trying to rebuild the state they're responsible for and develop their economy, it allows them to pursue their military agenda against Israel and it entrenches their own political position - "who else is going to defend you against the evil zionist babykillers apart from us?" - and the loss of lives of their own refugees is an acceptable price to pay. :yuk:

The offence on Gaza last year was avoidable. It could have been completely avoided if Hamas hadnt triggered it. Likewise the incursion into Southern Lebanon the year before. The IDF's response was predictable and brought waves of condemnation from the usual players and the usual useful idiots, which is why it was wrong.

But you didnt say any of that. You accused a sovereign air force of existing essentially only to bomb children, which is completely and utterly wrong, smacks of religious or political prejudice and a staggering lack of knowledge which I would not normally expect to see on a site like this and on a military sub-section of a site like this. :suspect:

Unless you're just really bored at work on a Friday, and looking to push peoples buttons, that is. I cant rule that out. :rolleyes: :(

glad rag

3rd Sep 2010, 13:37

Unbelievable. :rolleyes:

They know that Israel plays by exactly the same rules as them, ie no rules.

So why offer succour to either side? You have already stated ^^^^^^^^^that they are as uncivilised as each other.

BarbiesBoyfriend

3rd Sep 2010, 13:58

Jabba

I said that they mainly bomb 'civilians' not 'children'.

And that is mainly what they do.

Whenever I think about you-know-where, it makes me annoyed.

We will never be at peace til these people knock it off. I hear they are talking at the moment so perhaps there's hope. Then again, maybe not.

I don't want to push my luck as the ROE on here are specific when it comes to I.

boftr

3rd Sep 2010, 14:02

As for being 'surrounded by enemies', that's true for sure, better not get into why though.

If only the giant mess here could be sorted out, peace might breakout.

Would you apply that same logic to the situation in 1940? A small nation surrounded by enemies. Yet that small nation fought on when "peace" might have broken out.

That's different, I suppose.

Thelma Viaduct

3rd Sep 2010, 15:48

After the states, israel is the most corrupt nation on Earth, FACT. :ok:

I wouldn't trust them with a spud gun.

Butch Lewis

3rd Sep 2010, 16:01

Got any evidence of the 'hundreds of civilians including 350 children' Butchie?

The figures come from the UN. Fact is, Israel inflicted a collective punishment on the entire population of Gaza and left the civilians nowhere to run. It is the UN that has said that Israel (and Palestinian groups) committed war crimes but the Israeli bombardment was massively disproportional and according to the Red Cross left a "full blown humanitarian crisis."

The blockade of Gaza continues to cause massive suffering to the whole population.

No amount of diplomatic effort from any country stopped the bombing of hospitals, schools, use of phosphorous etc. To the defendants in the trial their actions were the only thing they could do to prevent more slaughter as all other avenues had failed.

Causing criminal damage at a factory is nowhere near equivalent to murdering hundreds of innocent people.

Jabba_TG12

3rd Sep 2010, 16:12

"Causing criminal damage at a factory is nowhere near equivalent to murdering hundreds of innocent people. "

It may have escaped your radical conscience Butchy, but THIS AINT ISRAEL. ITS ENGLAND. :mad::mad::mad:

Fine, these guys want to make a difference? Get them on the next donkey through the tunnels from Egypt into Gaza, pick up a shovel and start doing something useful. Smashing a place up where they have no business being because their aching middle class overfed radical consciences and their latent anti-semitism tells them to aint bloody good enough. They have no bloody right whatsoever to tell any company who it can or cannot do flippin' business with.

"The entire population of Gaza" Butchie? You quite sure about that? Or is it just what you read in the Grauniad??

So, lets look at it a different way. If the democratically elected parliament in Scotland decided that its stated position was that England was a stain on the earth and had to be overthrown and all its inhabitants driven into the sea, what would you do Butchy? Be the first one lined up on Beachy Head to jump to your fate?? Of course you'd blockade the joint, it would be stupid not to.

Quite simple solution. Quit chucking rockets at them, get their arses around the negotiating table and recognise its existance.

BarbiesBoyfriend

3rd Sep 2010, 17:43

Jabba

If you were Palestinian, you'd be fighting them yourself.

So would I.

Pure Pursuit

4th Sep 2010, 08:56

Jabba,

You clearly have very strong views on the subject. I for one am not a fan of how the Israelis go about business and fully belief that the middle east will always be unstable because if the Arab Jewish issue.

BB is spot on.

Training Risky

4th Sep 2010, 09:34

If you were Palestinian, you'd be fighting them yourself.

That is an inane comment. You can't make an assessment of what you or anybody else would do in other circumstances. Circumstances of which you have no concept other than reading the news and taking out a subscription to George Galloway's fan club.

Only the Palestinians know why they act the way they do. I am sure there are many Palestian civilians who just want to raise a family and live their lives peacefully - maybe they should stop the intifada from within and refuse to support Hamas...

...And maybe the PRC will recognise Taiwan and Tibetan sovereignty.

And maybe the Iranian people will get a free and fair election.

And maybe we can all live in a tee-pee and hold hands while singing hymns and smoking hash. (Or we could live in the real world :rolleyes::ugh:)

Jabba_TG12

4th Sep 2010, 13:07

Maybe I would BB, but I'm not.

And neither are you.

I'd rather have emigrated.

PP, your observation is probably correct. BB on the other hand is delusional.

BarbiesBoyfriend

16th Sep 2010, 19:38

Jabba

I'm not delusional.

Israel does not want peace: They want the rest of Palestine.

The Palestinians also do not want peace: They want their Country back.

I'm with the Palestinians but if it had happened here, in Scotland, I'd fight them to the Death. You know, like you would in America.

If you do not see that, you are delusional.:hmm:

Jabba_TG12

17th Sep 2010, 07:28

First off BB, there was never any such thing as a single Palestinian state and if there was, it was located more in Jordan than it ever was in Israel. The Palestinian diaspora could have been absorbed into Jordan, had the British not made so much of a godalmighty pigs ear of the whole situation back at the end of the second World War.

Secondly, had you had the holocaust mentality that the Jews do, plus being attacked on all sides repeatedly by your surrounding Arab neighbours, you'd be damned careful about suing for peace as well. I dont recall it saying anywhere in the constitution of the state of Israel that they are dedicated to pushing the Arabs into the sea and destroying any trace of them on the face of the earth. I dont recall it including anything resembling the following passage, which the Hamas charter refers to:

"The charter presents the Arab-Israeli conflict as an inherently irreconcilable struggle between Jews and Muslims, and Judaism and Islam. According to the charter, it is not a national or territorial conflict but a conflict between the believers and the infidels. The charter states that the only way to confront this struggle between "truth and falsehood" is through Islam and by means of holy war, until victory or martyrdom.

Also this may interest you.

"According to a November 2009 survey conducted by (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#cite_note-webman-6)Haaretz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaretz), 57% of Israelis support the view of MK Shaul Mofaz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaul_Mofaz) of Kadima (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kadima), that Israel should establish a dialogue with Hamas under certain conditions, for example, that Hamas renounces violence, recognizes Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation, and loses its designation as a terrorist organization. Hamas responded to this by labeling it "Zionist vulgarity" and stating that they will never negotiate with or recognize their "enemy", the state of Israel."
Third, Arafat was offered virtually all he could ever have hoped for, barring the dissolution of the state of Israel in the 1990's by a Clinton led round of peace talks. He turned it down.

Fourth: What the hell are you talking about Scotland for? The situation is completely and utterly different. Unlike some others, the overwhelming majority of the English and the Scots have moved on from this middle-aged territorial view and have managed to live in harmony with each other.

Sorry BB. Not only are you deluded, you dont know the history of it and if I may be so bold, you are talking out of your @rse about something you know precious little - if anything - about.

Your opinions mean about as much to me as my facts do to you. There is no point prolonging this "discussion" any further.

Mr.Bloggs

17th Sep 2010, 07:58

I fully agree with Jabba TG12, who clearly has done his homework. Idiotic one-liners from BB and others are based on laziness and prejudice.

The Jewish State is historically just that since before 3000BC, and the Jews were shoved out by the muslims after Mohammed got cracking around 700AD. And as for the Palestinians being ejected in 1947, they chose to go before their arab counterparts attempted to invade Israel. They were not thrown out, unlike all the Jews kicked out of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, etc following 1947. These were the refugees.

As for PP, further blind bias, based on ignorance. Leave Israel alone; it is a tiny country, but possibly our best hope for democracy and human rights in the Middle East. Anyone who has any doubts, just try and visit Saudi with your wife, and try to go to church, let her drive the car, have a beer, wear a crucifix, or even discuss the Pope or the Chief Rabbi. You'll be in big trouble with that intolerant regime soon enough.

barnstormer1968

17th Sep 2010, 08:03

BB
I have figured out the problem here, You and Jabba are trying to offer you opinions to each other, so you can have a debate, but Jabba considers his 'opinion' to be 'fact'.

There's the problem. I wonder why the Palestinians would tend not to agree with him, if he is quoting purely factual stuff, and not just his own opinion:E.

I am also puzzled that there has never been a state of Palestine...How can this be?
I was only looking at my father's Palestine medal the other day. I fully understand that folks can have an opinion that the state can't be real, as it has not existed for long, but the same would apply to the USA if we used that notion (a country invented in a land already occupied).

Back to being serious, who on earth believes that the Scots are now mostly happy with the sate of the union? The English seem to not have a problem with it, but it is different North of the border!:}

Jabba_TG12

17th Sep 2010, 09:07

Not quite Barnstormer, I'm happy to correct any factual inaccuracies, but BB is just another placard carrying, anti-semitic, Grauniad-reading, bedroom revolutionary who doesnt know what he's talking about who knows nothing of Gaza or the West Bank then or now. He's hopelessly out of his depth.

Just accusing the Israelis of being a bunch of civilian murdering bigots who would use F35's purely for genocidal purposes is not only way short on fact, but ignorant of history, soaked through with prejudice... and just damned wrong on every level.

As he says "if you were a Palestinian, you'd be fighting them yourself" is bolleaux. Those who would glibly make such statements have either never seen action themselves or known anyone who has. Jaw-jaw is always better than war-war. If he's that keen, let him get on the next freighter thats so keen to break the blockade and see how he gets on putting his money where his mouth is.

Also Barnstormer, you dont get to hear much in the way of genuine grass-roots Palestinian "opinion" do you? If you do, tell me, where does it come from? Palestinian bloggers? Independent Palestinian Journalists? Or from the mouthpieces of the organisations that are happy to perpetuate the conflict for their own ends, plus the bleeding heart do gooders who think that Israel (and by association, the US and the oft mentioned jewish lobby) deserve everything they get?

Youre right I do hold strong opinions on the subject, but I try and back up what I say with something more than just lazy prejudice or left-leaning bleeding heart newspaper columns. I dont see any of that reinforcement of opinion with historical fact from BB or his ilk. He just basically see's me as a supporter of a genocidal regime. I readily acknowledge that Israel's handling of the situation has on a number of occasions been counter productive. BB can see no wrong in how the Arab world is addressing this ongoing problem. I vehemently disagree.

As for the Scots... Gah, I'm not going there. I spent 7 years at Buchan and thoroughly enjoyed it, never had any problems with the locals at all. Salmond is a danger to both himself and to Scotland, not to mention the union. The current situation regarding the SDSR has got him completely tied up in knots. He's all for kicking the English out and going for full independance, but if we dare think of closing Lossie, ISK, Leu, cancelling the carriers or binning Trident (which his own party is meant to be against), you see a volte-face that would make even a Frenchman blush. Man's an @rse.

ANYWAY, this is meant to be an aviation forum, isnt it, not one for student bedroom revolutionaries.

barnstormer1968

17th Sep 2010, 09:32

Hi Jabba.
Thanks again for your 'opinion'

Please, simply put IMHO before telling anyone else what 'they' think, or who 'they' have heard opinions from, and your posts may be easier to take on board:ok:

That way, if you are completely wrong (as you have no idea what I have heard, and who from, even though you chose to tell me as fact!), it will be only your opinion, and may not rile other posters as much.

Jabba_TG12

17th Sep 2010, 10:01

Very well Barnstormer.

I trust you'll extend the same courtesy to BB, from post 21 onwards. :ok:

GreenKnight121

17th Sep 2010, 17:22

Simply put, from before time when the Romans conquered the Jewish nation of Israel, until 1947, the land we call Palestine was never an independent nation, but was always part of, and under the rule of, a foreign nation.

Lets start with the Greeks, who ruled the area from when Alexander took it until the Romans took over.

Then the Romans came and took over.

The Roman Empire split, and the Eastern Roman Empire renamed themselves the Byzantine Empire.

They were kicked out by the Muslims, but they never set up a muslim state... keeping the area as part of a larger empire.

For a time, western Crusaders took possession, and set up several separate kingdoms in the area, but they were eventually kicked out by the muslims.

This time, the muslims formed the Ottoman Empire, which ruled the area as simply another administrative district from what is now Turkey.

During all this time, there were still ethnic Jews living in the land beside Muslims.

This situation held until 1917-1919, when the British and French and their Arabic and Jewish allies defeated the Ottoman forces.

At this time, Britain was given control of "Palestine" (modern Israel & Jordan), and their stated intention was to administer the area so as to prepare for the development of a "Jewish homeland" (not necessarily an independent Jewish state) as well as to prevent Arab-Jewish violence.

This is when the modern states of Syria & Lebanon (a French Mandate under French control until WW2) , Lebanon, Jordan (TransJordan), Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and all the smaller states were formed... not by the Arabs, but by the meddling of Britain & France.

TransJordan slowly drifted into becoming a separate nation over the next 3-4 years, as local politics led the British to relinquish control in order to lessen administrative costs and headaches.

The new kings of Iraq, and Jordan (TransJordan) were sons of Hussein ibn Ali, Sherif and Emir of Mecca, King of the Hejaz (west coast of Saudi Arabia)... who was persuaded to give up his claim in favor of the House of Saud, who held the east coast.

France gave up control of Syria after WW2, and the nations of Lebanon and Syria were formed from it.

The British kept full control of the Palestinian Mandate territories until the nations of Israel and Palestine were formed by the UN in 1947.

During this time, Jewish immigration was in full swing, with large sections of land being purchased from the Arabs, who were encouraged to sell by the Arabic leaders, who assured them that it would all be returned to them or their heirs.

When the UN set up the two states in 1947, the borders were drawn up based on which areas had a majority of residents of a particular ethnicity... thus they were an intertwined hodge-podge of lands with no defensible lines for either group.

During the final phase of the set-up, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt all sent word to the Arabs living in the proposed Palestinian and Israeli states to be ready to evacuate (for their own safety), because as soon as the last UN (mostly British and French) forces left, they would invade to crush the Jews, and make all the land one Palestinian nation.

This is where the Palestinian refugees came from... they are the ones who evacuated. Since Israel won that war (and all the succeeding ones), they would only be allowed to return to their lands if they took Israeli citizenship and renounced any support for the "Palestinian cause"... something most were not willing to do.

The "Palestinian refugees" were kept as refugees by policies of the Arab nations which kept them from integrating into the Syrian, Jordanian, etc towns and cities, and which prevented them from becoming citizens of those nations... they were kept in their refugee camps to make them more visible and effective political tools to apply pressure against Israel in the international press.

There is still a significant ethnic Arabic population inside Israel, which has been there since 1947... these are the Arabs that didn't leave... they kept their lands, and are Israeli citizens just like the ethnic Jewish population.

Thus, you see... the "Independent Nation of Palestine" only existed for a few days... and was destroyed by the Arab nations' failed attempt to destroy the nation of Israel which had been formed at the same time.

ICBM

17th Sep 2010, 18:48

Whoa, thread creep.

Please post the above on the Professional Politicians' Rumour Network please
:ugh::ugh::ugh:

TBM-Legend

18th Sep 2010, 05:41

IDF wants F-35 but with their own avionics. LM wants to sell the standard suite to recover big R&D plus make a few $$$$.

IDF needs arise from fact that they already have a sophisticated integrated electronic network. They don't use Link 16 etc as an example. So LM gave they a giant price causing numbers to be whittled dow.

Twas in Israel until Thursday and all Israelis I met want peace and to be left alone to chase pretty girls [no shortage I noticed] like the rest of us...

Jabba_TG12

18th Sep 2010, 13:18

Hopefully GreenKnight will have drawn a line under it all now.

Back to the subject of the F35, which what the thread is meant to be about!:ok:

fallmonk

21st Nov 2010, 14:18

Is it a buy one get one free deal ???

November 17: Israeli newspaper the Jerusalem Post is reporting that the US government has offered up to 20 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for “free” in exchange for the Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu agreeing to impose a three-month moratorium on construction in the West Bank.

Israel has already signed a contract for 20 F-35s, but the extra aircraft would allow a second squadron to be formed. The report says the offer was made during talks in Washington in early September between the Obama administration and Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak. It is believed that the deal was initially rejected, but the newspaper thinks “Netanyahu is working to obtain a majority in his cabinet to approve a new moratorium” in order to get the jets.

US State Department spokesman P J Crowley has refused to comment on the speculation.