that it was not Israel's main duty to convince the world that Israel can be deersoytd but rather to emphasize the other danger . . .of the threat to peace in the Middle East. We are capable of scoring a victory in war, and we are doing what we can to ensure out ability to do so in the future. My reading of Peres' words is that ISRAEL is the graver danger to peace in the Middle East.Flapham concurs: The acquisition of arms, more arms and better arms, from whatever source, at whatever price, whatever the implications, are the alpha and omega of the theory Israel's Deputy Prime Minister advocates. Flapham went on to discuss Israel's two track approach a defense army to protect the homeland, and a strike force designed for preventive war, i.e. for a first strike: These two concepts involve completely different implications. The first calls for a combination of political and military strategy in which the political is predominant . . . The second concept leads to the domination of military over political considerations and the overwhelming predominance of offensive weapons in the military sphere. The first implies an avoidance of military conflict and attempts to localize clashes and to relax tension, while the second utilizes local clashes in order to increase tension and seeks opportunities to deliver a crushing blow. In the Kennedy administration the US still retained some sovereignty over its foreign and war policy. With JFK's assassination and the presidency of LBJ, that sovereignty was seriously weakened, until, with the rise of the neocons, the USA is now Israel.Did Hannah Arendt examine the corrosive effect on the host nation of of Israel's policy of survival by demanding the military support of other powers? Or is USA, the object lesson, all the discussion required?

Aha, fantastikos knygu megejams yra ka paskaityt.:)))

Fantastinis straipsnis

čia galerijoje yra nemažai gerų nuotraukų

Kietai :) Laik