Thanks for catching that. Error was mine. I read from the source that the army thanked the NPA which I thought was the NPA financed the purchase. Actually, the NPA was thanked for swift clearance of the vehicles from the ports. Thanks
A Zambian Air Force Airman trains on the night vision goggles with members of the 818th Mobility Support Advisory Squadron in Lusaka, Zambia, May 31, 2017. The MSAS illustrates the U.S. commitment with regional partners in ways that expand cooperation between counterparts, bolster partner nation capacity, enhance trust and transparency, and create cooperative solutions. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Gustavo Gonzalez/RELEASED)
bilms: Why Israel is against 2 states solution on Palestine By Abdulrazaq O Hamzat
The United Nations Security Council meeting, an annual event, started its 72nd session few days ago at the UN Headquarters in United States of America. More than 100 world leaders, thousands of diplomats and advocates are presently in New York City, in an event scheduled to hold from 19-25 September 2017 to fashion out a way forward in pursuit of global peace and security.
This year’s theme is Focusing on people — striving for peace and a decent life for all on a sustainable planet. On the first day of the event, precisely on 19th September 2017, world leaders took turn to address their counterparts and other participants, either in advancement of their national agenda’s, pursuit of global ideas, defense of policies or solidarity with other nations.
Nigeria’s President, Muhammadu Buhari was at the event and he spoke on variety of issues, among which include Nigeria’s fight against terrorism and the country’s role in advancing democracy in Gambia.
President Buhari also spoke about the threat of nuclear war (North Korean missile program), which he says is a crisis equal to that of Cuban (1962), when the world was close to a war. "All necessary pressure and diplomatic efforts must be brought to bear on North Korea to accept peaceful resolution of the crisis." He said. In staying true to Nigeria’s long term stand on the Israel and Palestine dispute, President Buhari once again declared Nigeria’s total support for a two-state solution to the conflict, calling on world leaders not to forget about the unresolved dispute. ‘’New conflicts should not make us lose focus on ongoing unresolved old conflicts’’. ‘’For example, several UN Security Council Resolutions from 1967 on the Middle East crisis remain unimplemented. Meanwhile, the suffering of the Palestinian people and the blockade of Gaza continue’’. Buhari said.
In a similar speech given last year on the same issue, President Buhari had stated that,“our support for various Security Council resolutions restoring and respecting 1967 boundaries with Jerusalem as capital of Palestine is firm and unshaken.
What president Buhari has done since coming to power is to re-emphasize Nigeria’s stand on the issue as often done by his predecessors. Nigeria is known to take a consistent stand on key global issues and this is not in any way different.
The two-state solution refers to a solution of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict which calls for "two states for two groups of people." The two-state solution envisages an independent State of Palestine alongside the Israel, west of the Jordan River. The boundary between the two states is still subject to dispute and negotiation, with Palestinian and Arab leadership insisting on the "1967 borders", which is not accepted by Israel. The territory of the former Mandate Palestine which shall not form part of the Palestinian State, shall be part of Israeli territory.
After the Six Day War in June 1967, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed "United Nations Security Council Resolution 242" calling for Israeli withdrawal from the "Israeli-occupied territories" during the war, in exchange for "termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and "acknowledgement of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area". The "Palestine Liberation Organization" (PLO), which had been formed in 1964, strongly criticized the resolution, saying that it reduced the question of Palestine to a refugee problem.
In September 1974, 56 Member States proposed that "the question of Palestine" be included as an item in the General Assembly’s agenda. In a resolution adopted on 22 November 1974, the General Assembly affirmed Palestinian rights, which included the "right to self-determination without external interference", "the right to national independence and sovereignty", and the "right to return to their homes and property". These rights have been affirmed every year since. However, despite the resolution and endorsement by almost all countries of the world, Israel backed by the United States of America has continued to reject the solution.
While Israel doesn’t out rightly reject the two states solution, it prefer the one-state solution and the similar bi national solution. Proponents of a bi national solution to the conflict advocate a single state in Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with citizenship and equal rights in the combined entity for all inhabitants of all three territories, without regard to ethnicity or religion, but most countries of the world differ, yet are not trying to understand why Israel is reluctant to go ahead with the two states solution as resolved by the United Nations.
Many have been asking, why is Israel against the two states solution when almost all countries of the world endorsed it as the best solution? Do they really love the crisis to remain unresolved for as long as possible? If not, why are they refusing to implement a resolution the global body consider appropriate? Or better still, when will Israel agree to end this crisis that is doing more harm than good to both parties?
My understanding as a peace professional is that, Israel has fears and worries, which are genuine and needed to be adequately dealt with by the global body. They understand that if those issues are not addressed before the two states solution is implemented, the two states will not be a solution; it would rather be the beginning of greater crisis.
It is not a secret that between Israel and Palestine leadership, there is intractable mutual hatred. Individual leaders that have worked for a peaceful resolution of the crisis from both sides had been murdered for their efforts. Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and President Anwar Sadat of Egypt come to mind here.
If Israel declare the conflict over today and allow the resolution to take place as proposed, the unaddressed mutual hatred within both parties will only give the Palestinian hardliners some legitimacy to not only acquire arms to engage in real hostility against Israel, it would also enable them to partner with enemy nations to start a greater conflict with Israel, in furtherance of their mutual hatred. I am sure no nation would deliberately empower its hostile neighbor to have more capacity to turn against it.
In conclusion, my proposition would that, the United Nations design a 5 years strategic confidence building program to reduce hostility and mutual hatred between both parties.
The high level programme should carefully articulate Israel’s fear and concerns and work to address them before pushing for the implementation of the UN resolution.
The programme should be built in such a way that, both parties interact more and are given platform to commit themselves to not just being independent of each other, but working together at the highest level.
Until Israel become comfortable that it is safe in a two state solution, it would never agree for it to be implemented.
Abdulrazaq O Hamzat is the Executive Director of Foundation for Peace Professionals.
T34 where third and forth line tanks in the 80s and Cuba did not use them in Angola. During cuito Cuban tanks where the main tank force.
T34 where common in the fighting in the 60s and 70s and rarely seen in the 80s.
O and don't knock the T34 though it useless as a main battle tank even to day it a great fire support vehicle. I all so don't think we ever had one of our oliphants ever fight against any T34s. The Angolan T34s where easy targets for the AML90 and Ratels. Even Allouet K car gunships could take them out with there 20mm auto cannons.
I wonder how many of the chapter T34s we even brought to south africa. I know most where given to Unita and any we left in SWA is now in Namibian hand. I suspect we left most of them in Angola.
All so wonder how many of the option tanks we still have. I know we have a few T55s captured including some from a shipment, we gave a few to Rhodesia and Zimbabwea still uses them and there is the T72s we bought I know those still work. Still there no complete list on South Africa war loot and how much of it could be made operational.
The Cubans used T-34s when they were trying to reinforce Cassinga in the late 70s. Most of those were taken out by the SAAF Mirages and Bucaneers.
Castro is on record in 1985 as complaining that the Soviets hadn't given him enough T-55s to replace his entire T-34 fleet. This is according to the minutes from a meeting he had with the Soviet chief of staff in Angola.
I personally know of 6 FAPLA T-34s that were brought back by the SADF. Three are on display at Tempe, at least two were used as gunnery targets, and one was on a base in Namibia (Oshakati?) for a while. One of the "target" tanks was salvaged and restored by the War Museum in Joburg.
overhypedsteve: it's ok. Now I understand your kind of thinking. If the need arises we will procure the needed assets. The need arose years ago for a dedicated COIN airframe and many years later, Many dead heroes later, many civilian casualties later and many widows later we are still waiting for some white guys in the Senate of a foreign country to approve our procurement.
Do you think these are things you just wake up and buy? It takes years men, it takes bilateral agreements, pacts and treaties and believe you me we do not have any tangible agreement on defence procurement with any nation. Those things are reserved for tangible customers. Not people that lobby to procure 50 pieces of outdated junk and still try to bribe to get the worst at cheap price so they can get money from it. You talk about Russia but Forget it men, the Cold War ended long ago. What do you have to offer the Russians? How will any bilateral effort on their side to side Nigeria during a war fulfil their wider interest (I speak of wider interest cus that is the only place where we can reflect) .
We are a energy producing nation, same goes for Russia, we produce farm produce that Russians don't eat, Our rich men drive cars that Russians don't produce, we live a life of luxury that is either made in China or Europe. Dude Nigeria paid for Russian amunitions during the war with yams, cocoa, palm oil etc. And non of them got to mother Russia they were traded in the European market by the big Russian cargo ships that flooded our waters during the period of 3R reconstruction, re-unification and restoration. While the Russian ships were moving our food produce, French and other European ships were bringing in cement, iron sheets, steel and other construction materials that G Yakubu needed to re-build the torn country, the Russians realised they had nothing to sell to Nigeria and Nigeria had nothing to sell to her. Hundreds of trade Expo were held by both foreign ministeries but nothing happened.
The Nigerian upper class preferred the luxuriant European produce to the developing Russian ones, despite the offer of building the assembly industries in Nigeria, the market was not there. Nigeria-Russia Bi-National relations woukd have worked in the area of defence but we just do not spend that much on defence(a big defence budget present the hawks with more money to steal from.). So it's this Russia that you couldn't align with during the Cold War that will now protect you from France, a rich Nuclear armed state, Russia with a failing economy and a much weaker Military compared to the Cold War will play a Cold War type proxy war with a nuclear armed state just because some dude that would have fled the country by the time hostilities ensue didn't know that you needed to train and arm your Armed Forces for the worst.
Russia would be very much willing to provide the ammunition for the French planes that would assault Abuja if France would agree to help remove some of the sanctions placed by the European Bloc on her products and trade. You think the international system work by sentiments? Oh Russia please France is attacking us and we know you hate France, please come and fight for us, we will give you oil, oh wait! You have oil. Damn we are in trouble, why didn't anybody see this coming? Oh we did but we thought they have oil assets down south. Dummy the oil assets is the main reason why France would go all out to make anybody attacking Nigeria to win.
They aId Biafra, refused us weapons and though they did not directly sponsor the war, their oil companies continued operating in the secetionist Republic. They withheld support for Nigeria for fear that Nigeria may lose and they do not want to lose along with Nigeria, so they paid the Biafrans to protect t their oils assets. War is no joke men. It doesn't come from one side. Nigeria would be facing Cameroon and Biafra all backed by France and the French people will go all out to make sure that this time they take the oil rivers. mettre le géant nigérian à genoux( they will bring the Nigerian Giant to its knee.) That's enough history class for your unpatriotic soul.
Here is a link to the Russian 24hours delivery online shop for Planes, Frigates, Submarines, SAMs and machinery pilot, they even make same day delivery for upgrades T-90s . I won't post it here it's too secret. But be sure that our DOD people have it and once France is ready, they will login and start buying what we need.
Watch British TV show contestants go through the South African Parabats selection course.
Note: Current contestants have gone through different elite force selection courses (including Navy SEALs) and survived. The South African challenge being the final
Look at this onanist! "I'm marrying the Energy Minister so I must put on a uniform I haven't earned." Damn right we in service were furious. An air force pilot’s wings and a sailor’s cap, the insignia of a submarine crew member and a few medals - which appear to be from the Anglo-Boer War, the epaulettes of an air force lieutenant colonel, but with the stripes on the wrong side, the fleet insignia on the cap is that of a naval crewman. What an abortion! We in South Africa do not take kindly to this nonsense.
A furious Kubayi, who was this week back at her post after her wedding last weekend, called City Press’ sister newspaper Rapport to defend her husband’s outfit.
“My husband’s suit was designed by Linda Makhanya and the material comes from Italy.
“It is not a uniform. The outfit is designed to look like a pilot’s. You can buy the insignia at any shop. It has nothing to do with the defence force,” she said.
“If it weren’t for the fact that I was a minister, this would not be news. All you want to do is ridicule me. I’m just a woman who hasn’t even been married for a week and you don’t even want to give me the chance to enjoy being married.”
In an email, Kubayi threatened legal action against the newspaper.
However, some soldiers and former soldiers were furious when the photos began to circulate. One said Ngubane looked like an “unguided missile”.
Ngubane said the insignia could be bought from any army surplus store.
He was entirely unaware that the Defence Act made it a criminal offence for anyone to wear a military uniform, parts of a uniform, or any defence force insignia that the person is not entitled to.
“We chose the white colour because it was for a wedding. It’s expensive, imported material,” said Ngubane.
Defence force spokesperson Brigadier General Mafi Mgobozi said Defence Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula would speak to Kubayi about the issue.
“The defence force asks that members of the public not wear military items, as it is illegal,” he said.
