<$BlogRSDUrl$>

September 04, 2006

Clowns on the World Stage 

Haaretz says:
A number of European states are refusing to allow El Al cargo planes carrying Israel Defense Forces equipment from stopover landings in their airports.

The refusal came from states considered friendly with Israel, including Britain, Germany and Italy, according to Captain Etai Regev, the chairman of El Al's pilots' union.
Once again, Europe at its most stupid and vile. Stupid, because this isn't going to make a lot of difference in the long term: Israel only needs more flights, or can transport her ammo by ship.
Denying landing rights is as stupid as the lefty ticks blocking military trains during the preparation for Operation Iraqi Freedom: it didn't really change anything. That behaviour is already intolerable from libtards, and absolutely pathetic from governments.

Vile, because trying to hamper Israel's self-defense efforts against the jihadis is indeed vile.

However, a caveat: this is the only source with this story, and I suspect there may be more than meets the eye. For example, regulations regarding air transport of explosives. I'd like to know the stated reasons for these refusals.

Tech notes: The word libtard appears green because if you mouse over it, you'll see an explanation of its meaning.

Update 05/09: a German reader (#295) left this comment to the Haaretz article:
The article omits a few important points. There is no political refuelling ban. The reasons why some (and not all) El Al cargo flights have been denied stopover and refuelling is because they refused to identify their cargo which authorities in Germany and other countries need to assess security risks.
The refuellings have taken place at public airports, sometimes close to passenger areas. The stopover country has a right to know about the cargo and conduct inspections to make sure that the right safety measures are taken. You don`t want a plane loaded with bombs and other explosives land close to passenger areas. The planes could safely land at U.S. bases, for example.
Well, this makes sense. And an apparently Israeli reader (#400) adds:
[Not sure this is true]Or the whole truth. Blair came in for a roasting over the passage of weapons to Israel DURING the last spat with Hizbollah. Islamistic pressure groups tried to force a trial on the matter but it fell at the very first post - the judge stating "there was no evidence of war crimes" and calling the case "hopeless".
Why would Britain halt flights now, when the storm has passed? Also there is no other report of this. My guess - and it is a guess - is that Mr Regev is trying to score some points against people who have national carriers which compete
with El Al.
It appears that Haaretz is doing a shoddy job of investigating the issue; instead it relies only on the statements of an El-Al pilot who can be suspected of having a vested interested.

And do yourself a favour: do not read the comments. It's worse than a bad thread on LGF; it's a clash of lefty idiots and right-wing troglodytes.

Comments:


Ho fatto un giro sul tuo blog. Sei espertissimo di armi. Oltretutto il trattato mi sembra scritto molto bene e molto chiaro.
 

Grazie... ma non sono poi molto esperto paragonato ad altri. E purtroppo le mie conoscenze sulle armi sono in gran parte teoriche (per ora).
 

però puoi confermarmi che la Garibaldi è un incrociatore col ponte allungato simile alla classe invincible della marina militare britannica. :-) Noi la chiamiamo portaerei, ma ha un ponte ridotto, che può ospitare solo aerei harrier, a decollo verticale e diversi elicotteri.
 
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?