Thread: Israel is just the size of a thumb

Originally Posted by ConsAreVile

Not sure how geographic size is relevant to how much of a threat a country can pose in 2012.

Nothing at all never was and never has been, it is all about religious extremist ideology.

Originally Posted by WanRen

1917 there was no UN yet. So the actions of the Arabs to attack Jewish settlement and eventually declare unilateral war against UN charter is not culpable, while the British dissolve the Belfour Declaration and handed the Palestine issue to the UN in which the UN formulated resolution 181 voted and officially passed it is in your definition a violation of UN charter???

Indeed the promise was made in 1917, the league of nations set up in 1919. British actions from 1919 contravened that league of nations, giving the arabs no reason to accept it.

By 1946 the British had already aided the zionist cause to the point they werent needed.

So yes of course, giving rights over a country to a mostly just moved in people is contrary to the UN's principles.

Problem?

By that argument, then we can also claim that the Jews or Israel i snot culpable because what ever right the Arabs have to engage in wars, Israel has more right to respond in defensive warfare or just war against Arab aggression that is why the UN never supported the illegal and immoral wars wage by the Arabs.

Not if zionist were/are the aggressors in this case, which of course they are. They were the ones who moved from europe to take over a country.

Yes it is very clear no partition for Arabs only, but Jews have every inherit right to have their homeland restore.

There is no such right, and its also immoral. Jewish people with no experience of known ancestry in the area have no claim on palestine. There is no inherent right of jews elsewhere in the world to palestine.

Do todays Americans have an inherent right to the UK? Or does their status in the UK depend on the will of the current UK populace?

The Arab declaration did not say anything about Palestinian self rule, their declaration was to the destruction of Israel and partitioning of Palestine between Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. The Palestinian self rule and identity will only be introduce in 1970s when the Arabs finally realized they are in no position to rule Palestine.

No it instead mentioned the destruction of palestinians lives due to the splitting of the country in favour of immigrants from europe. Much better.

Why do you bother me with such weak argumentation? I can show your ignorance with just one little quote;

the Governments of the Arab States declare the following:

First: That the rule of Palestine should revert to its inhabitants, in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and (the Charter) of the United Nations and that (the Palestinians) should alone have the right to determine their future.

Second: Security and order in Palestine have become disrupted. The Zionist aggression resulted in the exodus of more than a quarter of a million of its Arab inhabitants from their homes and in taking refuge in the neighbouring Arab countries. The events which have taken place in Palestine have unmasked the aggressive intentions and the imperialist designs of the Zionists, including the atrocities committed by them against the peace-loving Arab inhabitants, especially in Dayr Yasin, Tiberias and others. Nor have they respected the inviolability of consuls, as they have attacked the consulates of the Arab States in Jerusalem. After the termination of the British mandate over Palestine the British authorities are no longer responsible for security in the country, except to the degree affecting their withdrawing forces, and (only) in the areas in which these forces happen to be at the time of withdrawal as announced by (these authorities). This state of affairs would render Palestine without any governmental machinery capable of restoring order and the rule of law to the country, and of protecting the lives and properties of the inhabitants.

http://www.mideastweb.org/arableague1948.htm

Problem?

The Europeans have more respect for the Arabs than the Jews, Europe have bend backwards to Arabs demand that included the creation of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE it is the Arabs who have little respect for Europeans that is why the Arabs have this spoil attitude that they can have what ever they wanted. The Jews were expel from Palestine in 70 AD I am sure you are aware of that. After which Jewish return have been restricted.

Why on earth should arabs living in their own lands have respect for europeans trying to rule them? Your argument is thus defeated.

Indeed jewish return is restricted, as would any people restrict the return of anyone. Does the UK allow the free flow of Americans to live and settle in the UK?

It has everything to do with Palestine that is why the Zionist took their case to the Europeans because the majority Arabs would like to continue what the Romans did and that is to suppress the return of Jews.

Why on earth would they allow immigrants to take over their country? Who ever has done such? Come on, we are all waiting with baited breathe for your example.

Europe came to the cause of the Jews because the Arabs refuse to recognize Jewish rights, just like today, Arabs are turning once again to Europe to help them democratize their countries or liberate them from Muslim dictators.

No they came to the jewish cause because they had sympathy for the jews and disregard for the arabs, not because they beleived it is ok to let immigrants with ancestry from the area flood in to make their own country..but i guess you dont understand what Im saying here do you?

I am against those Muslims because their position is base on Islamic ideology it has nothing to do with Israel. I am with common sense like King Abdullah I of Jordan and other Arab-Muslims who understand the right of Israel to exist base on none Islamic ideology and that is confirm with Egypt and Jordan who have a peace treaty with Israel and have been co-existing with Israel productively ever since.

Its everything to do with israel, islamic ideology is a recent development of the resistance movement, mostly its always been about normal arabs muslim, christian whatever, opposing the takeover by the ideologically driven zionist state.

Wow!!! that is really out of this earth claim, the British and Israeli started the wars???? Now I understand your illogical logic!!##?* I guess this would mean all the historians are wrong and you are right....uhm.

No thats completely wrong. In fact you are the one making the wild claim, if youd bothered to read beyond israeli propaganda you know that the British and israelis started every conflict.

Thats backed up by historians, even real israeli ones. Wanna try me? Wanna try Klip Klap and all of us here? Do you really think we havent read all this stuff from all sides over and over?

Yes, King Abduallh I wanted to create his own kingdom that can co-exist in peace with Israel this mean recognizing the right of Israel to exist, he did not commit treason he was betrayed by his fellow Arab-Muslims. But as we can see it now, his son has sign a peace treaty with Israel following the lead of Egypt and they are realizing it was the right thing to do even if it cost the life of President Sadat of Egypt.

No wrong, he wanted his own kingdom first, palestinians living in their own villages and not being refugees second.
Why do you lie here? Signing peace treaties with Israel decades later is not any admissoin of arab culpability. its just realism. Theyve never recognised the original zionist cause as righteous...why lie about that?

I guess you must have forgot about Nasser of Egypt, Jordan yes, they have been trying to make peace with Israel but it was Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other Muslim-Arab states that have been stopping them from doing so for every war they wage and lost is a gain for Israel, that is hardly called expansionism...it is called self defense.

No i didnt forget a thing, youre just ignorant. Youve never read anything in detail that didnt agree with your preconceived ignorant opinion.

Nasser was a bluffer who sought peace under the table. No israelis were ever threatened, in fact the only people threatened were egyptians and jordanians.

Its easily expansionism when each victory leads not only to further defensive lines but to further and further settlement. Game set match.

Who the 80% Muslims, we know how Muslims will decide they will always vote for trouble and war not peace.

Now youve just demonstrated your casual bigotry by this sweeping statement. Your case and character are defeated. Your honour is in question.

How about you, I can see you don't like Jews and Europeans. As for me, I don't like Muslim-extremist that happens to be about 75% of Arab-Muslims are extremist.

Dont even try to paint me with the same brush you use, I like and respect the jewish people. Always have always will.

You however try to paint nearly all muslims as extremists. Not even recognising your own folly in this regard. When will you find your shame?

For peace and stability.

What was so unstable about not making deals with zionists? Did it mean the lands were not invaded?

Go on tell us, yes or no?

Jews were restricted or quotas were place upon Jewish return to Palestine and this include quota to purchase lands. And guess who is implementing the quota and restrictions...Britain and Arabs yup the two of them and for you to say Britain is against Arabs????

Um no, Britain is for immigrantion and the set up of a new state, but at times it realises its folly after it is too late.

In the meantime it crushes all arab opposition in 36. Leaving the field clear for a jewish take over a decade later. Not even aware of this detail are you? Sigh.

The Jews were expel from Palestine and their return has been highly restricted.

As it would be for anyone anywhere.

Arab- Muslim reasonably is as long as Jewish population is kept below 10% in Palestine and else where in the Middle East they can tolerate that.

Same as anywhere else for any people whatsoever. Completely natural and correct. No one has ever acted different.

They will accept the Jews if they convert to Islam.

No they wont, even newly converted muslims cant just move in anywhere they like.

I am not trying to deceived anyone, the Palestinian position is base on Arab-Muslim talk that has to do with Islamic ideology not common sense. I understood both side that is why can am able to recognize the Palestinian position is that as long as they do not accept the right of Israel to exist base on Islamic ideology they'll never be peace.

Yes, my avatar is the crusade for if not for the crusade the modern civilization as we know and see it now would not have existed, the crusades that put a stop to Islamic insatiable appetite for world conquest.

Youve never even read both side's narratives. So you dont understand both sides. You have little knowledge of their historical writers. You are lying about that completely and deliberately....could I be any more clear?

You have no credibility as anything other than an ignorant islamophobic bigot. At least take some pride in that or prove us wrong.

The Jews are not just any people, they are not foreigners of Palestine, they were returning home after centuries of exile and denial of returning home by other ethnic groups. Yes, I will welcome them because we are of the same race, yes I will welcome them because they have that right.

Why do you lie? They had no knowledge of the land and had never set foot in it before, please name any individual that had, not even ben gurion had been there before he arrived.

You wont welcome them because they wont recognise you as one of them, they denied your kinship, and whats more they want to bring millions of themselves in as soon as possible. Therefore they dont have any such right. There is no need to lie about what actually their aims were, they had no intention of being brothers of the same race with arabs. Just ask Gilos or HBendor.

Let me ask you the same question, if your country was destroyed and your town folks or country men were uprooted but you were able to escape the uprooting and become a minority of #your own homeland and that your countrymen that have been uprooted have the opportunity to return would you support their return and the restoration of your homeland and nation or not?

Good question, deserves a clear answer;

1. the country was not detroyed.

2. if i was still alive then of course I would have that right.

3. If i was dead that right is not passed to my children, as they have no knowledge, or input into that area.

4. after centuries that above statement is even more powerful.

5. thus there could be no reason to support any return or restoration of homeland etc etc.

6. prove me wrong. use historical example etc etc whatever you wish...


We are waiting with baited breath.

=creation;1061226591]Indeed the promise was made in 1917, the league of nations set up in 1919. British actions from 1919 contravened that league of nations, giving the arabs no reason to accept it.

It does not excuse the Arabs to resort to a worse violation that is to wage an illegal war.

By 1946 the British had already aided the zionist cause to the point they werent needed.

The British aided both the Zionist and the Arabs in fact 90% was to the Arabs and 10% to the Zionist, the Arabs wants everything they want to deny the Jews their homeland which the Arabs have no right to do so.

So yes of course, giving rights over a country to a mostly just moved in people is contrary to the UN's principles.

Problem?

The Jews were not just moving from another country, they are reclaiming their country. The problems is the Arabs wants to deny the Jews their rightful and inherit right to their home and country.

Not if zionist were/are the aggressors in this case, which of course they are. They were the ones who moved from europe to take over a country.

The Zionist went through all the proper peaceful and political channel, the Arabs wants to skip all of that and want to settle it with war because they know they don't have a case and still after they lost the wars they refuse to accept the outcome of "judgement by combat or war", truly the Arabs were the aggressors from the very beginning their position is war the Zionist was through political process.

There is no such right, and its also immoral. Jewish people with no experience of known ancestry in the area have no claim on palestine. There is no inherent right of jews elsewhere in the world to palestine.

The exiled Jewish never gave up their heritage, identity and aspiration to one day be able to return to their homeland that is why it was easy for them to re-integrate to their lost home, Palestine. Base on your position that is identical to the Arabs is why the UN can not support the Arabs. And that is why Jordan and Egypt finally accepted the position of the Jews and the UN.

Do todays Americans have an inherent right to the UK? Or does their status in the UK depend on the will of the current UK populace?

No, Americans no longer have an inherent right to UK because they have establish their own country and have separated themselves from the UK, just like Jordan refuse to recognize Palestinian rights to Jordan. The Jews never gave up their identity and separation from their Israel.

No it instead mentioned the destruction of palestinians lives due to the splitting of the country in favour of immigrants from europe. Much better.

The Palestinians or Arabs have 90% of Palestine, the Jews have only 10% the reason that now many Palestinians were displace was because of the decision of their leaders to use war over political process. If the Arabs were smart enough and not let their Islamic ideology be their guideline Israel today will still be the 1948 border and Jerusalem will either be under Jordan, International or Palestinian rule.

Why do you bother me with such weak argumentation? I can show your ignorance with just one little quote;

The only thing that you have show is your clear bias support for the Arabs and it is that hard line stance that has resulted in wars.

http://www.mideastweb.org/arableague1948.htm

Why on earth should arabs living in their own lands have respect for europeans trying to rule them? Your argument is thus defeated.

Because the Arabs tried to conquer Europe once upon a time and they failed, because Arabs have fell back in modernization and progress compare to Europe, that is why up to this day Arabs still relay on Europe for support.

Indeed jewish return is restricted, as would any people restrict the return of anyone. Does the UK allow the free flow of Americans to live and settle in the UK?

Americans are not British same thing British are not Americans. Jews are Jews and they have the right to their homeland and nation.

Why on earth would they allow immigrants to take over their country? Who ever has done such? Come on, we are all waiting with baited breathe for your example.

As I have said, the Jews are not foreigners, they are not immigrants they are not taking over anybody's country the Jews are reclaiming their homeland and nation, that is your example.

=creation;1061226601]No thats completely wrong. In fact you are the one making the wild claim, if youd bothered to read beyond israeli propaganda you know that the British and israelis started every conflict. Thats backed up by historians, even real israeli ones. Wanna try me? Wanna try Klip Klap and all of us here? Do you really think we havent read all this stuff from all sides over and over?

No wrong, he wanted his own kingdom first, palestinians living in their own villages and not being refugees second.
Why do you lie here? Signing peace treaties with Israel decades later is not any admissoin of arab culpability. its just realism. Theyve never recognised the original zionist cause as righteous...why lie about that?

I have read all history books and according to history that the Arabs unilaterally declare war against Israel in 1948, 1952, 1966 and again in 1972. On the other hand the British allied with the Arabs in 1915 to defeat the Ottoman and the British help the Arabs establish independence and the creation of several Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirate and also the British help the Arabs to enforce immigration quota against the Jews, arms embargo and detention of hundred of suspected Jewish militants. No where in the history from 1917 - 1948 will we find that the British allied with the Jewish military force attack, invaded or conquer any Arab lands. Show me what history book you are reading please.

King Abduallh I as you have pointed out was planning to expand his own kingdom, yes but you refuse to recognize that his plan include to co-exist in peace with Israel that mean recognizing the right of Israel to exist and not support the other hard line Arab's position of war.


Let me ask you the same question, if your country was destroyed and your town folks or country men were uprooted but you were able to escape the uprooting and become a minority of #your own homeland and that your countrymen that have been uprooted have the opportunity to return would you support their return and the restoration of your homeland and nation or not?

Good question, deserves a clear answer;

1. the country was not detroyed.

Israel was destroyed

2. if i was still alive then of course I would have that right.

Same with the Jews

3. If i was dead that right is not passed to my children, as they have no knowledge, or input into that area.

The Jews pass it on to their children children because they never gave up their birth right.

4. after centuries that above statement is even more powerful.

For Arabs maybe not for Jews they never forgotten and never gave up their rights to their homeland and nation.

5. thus there could be no reason to support any return or restoration of homeland etc etc.

Well, you have said it very clear your position is the same as the hard line Muslims that is why the UN can not support the Arabs position.

6. prove me wrong. use historical example etc etc whatever you wish...

I have already proof you wrong and I have already provided you with historical example the UN and Israel.

Originally Posted by WanRen

It does not excuse the Arabs to resort to a worse violation that is to wage an illegal war.

Yes it does excuse it, in fact it demands it. Self defence is both wise and moral. Resorting to war was the only reasonable course of action given the aggresive, unjust and violent actions of british and zionists.

The British aided both the Zionist and the Arabs in fact 90% was to the Arabs and 10% to the Zionist, the Arabs wants everything they want to deny the Jews their homeland which the Arabs have no right to do so.

No wrong. Thats trans jordan youre talking about. In actual palestine however the arab were still a clear majority in every district from the arrival of the British right up to 1945. The arabs want everything indeed just as the local majority anyone else would. Can you disprove that?

The Jews were not just moving from another country, they are reclaiming their country. The problems is the Arabs wants to deny the Jews their rightful and inherit right to their home and country.

No thats wrong, it wasnt their country to reclaim. The only jews who could say it was theirs were those already living there, the ones whod never left. Everyone else, whod never even seen had no such country called palestine, they had all of europe and the middle east where they lived, had property, jobs and had made contributions.

The Zionist went through all the proper peaceful and political channel, the Arabs wants to skip all of that and want to settle it with war because they know they don't have a case and still after they lost the wars they refuse to accept the outcome of "judgement by combat or war", truly the Arabs were the aggressors from the very beginning their position is war the Zionist was through political process.

No thats wrong, the zionists persuaded the latest conqueror to let them in. Thats not a proper political channel. The only proper political channnel is the decision of the local arab majority of people, as it would be anywher else - especially in your own country.

The exiled Jewish never gave up their heritage, identity and aspiration to one day be able to return to their homeland that is why it was easy for them to re-integrate to their lost home, Palestine. Base on your position that is identical to the Arabs is why the UN can not support the Arabs. And that is why Jordan and Egypt finally accepted the position of the Jews and the UN.

Passing down stories of palestine and tribal history doesnt mean theyve retained any rightful claim to palestine.

It wasnt easy for them to integrate in palestine at all. In fact it was very difficult.

And that is not why egypt and jordan accepted their position. They accepted it because the invasion of zionists had long begun and wasnt about to reversed, ive already said that. Youve yet to counter that, can you?

I know english is not your first language, though you speak it very very well. So perhaps thats why youre having trouble answering my points.

No, Americans no longer have an inherent right to UK because they have establish their own country and have separated themselves from the UK, just like Jordan refuse to recognize Palestinian rights to Jordan. The Jews never gave up their identity and separation from their Israel.

1/ Establishing another country is a mass political move and is therefore irrelevant to the individual, further it has no bearing on rights to the mother country and further your position has no basis in international law.

2/ The notion that the jewish people have special connection to palestine is simply wrong;
Where were the jewish people when palestine was being pillaged by christian crusaders?
Do the millions of converts to judaism in eastern europe also have this special identity and heritage?
Could Palestinians reclaim their looted homes if they all made a mass conversion to Judaism?

3/ Jewish connection to palestine is no more than any palestinian, as Jabotsinsky said;
"They [Palestinians] look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true favor that Aztecs looked upon Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. Palestine will remain for the Palestinians not a borderland, but their birthplace, the center and basis of their own national existence."

The Palestinians or Arabs have 90% of Palestine, the Jews have only 10% the reason that now many Palestinians were displace was because of the decision of their leaders to use war over political process. If the Arabs were smart enough and not let their Islamic ideology be their guideline Israel today will still be the 1948 border and Jerusalem will either be under Jordan, International or Palestinian rule.

No thats wrong, the jews had only 10% and therefore had no right to any of the more that they took. The zionists started this conflict by arriving en mass to create their own country without even asking the local population. The palestinians were displaced because no political process was available to them and when they resisted they were driven out en mass, be they women, children, old men whatever. Their homes and farms were then stolen en mass.

It was nothing to do with islamic ideology, it was christian, muslim and even simply nationalist and socialist opposition of normal people.

The only thing that you have show is your clear bias support for the Arabs and it is that hard line stance that has resulted in wars.

When you choose to invade another country youve never seen while claiming it as your god given birthright that hard line stance results in wars.

But hey Ive demonstrated that youre wrong by quoting the actual statement - thus youre defeated again arent you?

Because the Arabs tried to conquer Europe once upon a time and they failed, because Arabs have fell back in modernization and progress compare to Europe, that is why up to this day Arabs still relay on Europe for support.

Are you saying one should respect invading people if they are militarily strong? The nazis occupied most of europe for four years, are you saying everyone should have respected them?

Youre position is really really dumb. Are you sticking by that?

Americans are not British same thing British are not Americans. Jews are Jews and they have the right to their homeland and nation.

Ah yes, Americans are Americans, British are British, but Jewish people are both American, British and Israeli, with rights to all? Does that include converts to Judaism?

As I have said, the Jews are not foreigners, they are not immigrants they are not taking over anybody's country the Jews are reclaiming their homeland and nation, that is your example.

Yes thats the example, the only example you can think of is one we are arguing over. Dont you have any other?

Obviously not. So in no case has any peoples ever wanted to divide their lands with an immigrant community. Yet you expect that of arabs. Thats why youre defeated, your argument is illogical.

Originally Posted by WanRen

I have read all history books and according to history that the Arabs unilaterally declare war against Israel in 1948, 1952, 1966 and again in 1972. On the other hand the British allied with the Arabs in 1915 to defeat the Ottoman and the British help the Arabs establish independence and the creation of several Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirate and also the British help the Arabs to enforce immigration quota against the Jews, arms embargo and detention of hundred of suspected Jewish militants. No where in the history from 1917 - 1948 will we find that the British allied with the Jewish military force attack, invaded or conquer any Arab lands. Show me what history book you are reading please.

Firstly, you’ve got your dates wrong so you haven’t read much at all.

Secondly, the arabs, despite the possibility of retaliation of the Ottomans against their citizens help the arabs kick them out in return for independence. Indeed alot of kingdoms were established. Not nearly enough considering the population. The British in Palestine let in hundreds of thousands of immigrants, then realising their mistake try to stem the flow. Meanwhile they allow the jewish to set up their own state, arm them and train them while also crushing all arab resistance to their rule.

Thirdly, from 1917 to 1948, we find the British invading Palestine and ignoring the local population;s wishes, then the jewish military force from 1947 marauding across the jewish and arab areas of partition destroying over 400 villages and evicting hundreds of thousands of innocent Christians and muslim people.

Fourthly, work by Avi Shlaim is always a favourite of mine. Try Israel and Palestine, revisions and refutations.

King Abduallh I as you have pointed out was planning to expand his own kingdom, yes but you refuse to recognize that his plan include to co-exist in peace with Israel that mean recognizing the right of Israel to exist and not support the other hard line Arab's position of war.

Yes, indeed he did agree to Israeli demands but that wasn’t because he agreed with Zionism, it was because he was a realist, his own first minister Wasfi Al-Tall described Zionists as imperialist, aggressive and facist.

Israel was destroyed

No it wasn’t.

The Jews pass it on to their children children because they never gave up their birth right.

No the jews don’t pass any such thing on. Nothing is passed on. Only stories of a land the neither the parents or the children have never seen. Please just name one jewish leader of Israel who’d ever seen Israel before he arrived on a boat from Europe?

For Arabs maybe not for Jews they never forgotten and never gave up their rights to their homeland and nation.

No they forgot it for thousands of years, and they gave those rights up centuries ago when they left. You can tell your child about your home country all day long, doesn’t mean he or she has any right to it.

Well, you have said it very clear your position is the same as the hard line Muslims that is why the UN can not support the Arabs position.

The UN does support the arabs position and has done for decades now. Some 100 resolutions have been passed against Israel.

I have already proof you wrong and I have already provided you with historical example the UN and Israel.

As above that would be quite wrong. The UN broke its own rules with resolution 181 but since has followed them correctly. Plus the mere fact that the only example you can provide in all history is the one we are arguing over proves your position is illogical and wrong.

=creation;1061228233]Yes it does excuse it, in fact it demands it. Self defence is both wise and moral. Resorting to war was the only reasonable course of action given the aggresive, unjust and violent actions of british and zionists.

Then, this also mean that Israel have the right to react in self defense against an over whelming and excessive use of force. Resorting to war by the Arab-Muslims was because they have no winnable argument to present.

The Arab-Muslims in all aspects have no political capital no winnable argument, no just war only peace and common sense that is why under great threat from the Islamist, Egypt and Jordan have broke away from them and sign a peace treaty with Israel that treaty have proof to be the silver bullet. Soon, Lebanon, Libya and Saudi Arabia will follow suite. In fact, the Palestinian Authority under President Abbas is also seriously considering that too the only thing that is stopping Pres. Abbas i snot Israel, not the UN, not the USA or Europe but the extremist Islamic groups that include Hamas.

Originally Posted by WanRen

Then, this also mean that Israel have the right to react in self defense against an over whelming and excessive use of force. Resorting to war by the Arab-Muslims was because they have no winnable argument to present.

What a pathetic excuse for a response, youve had so many points to counter and defend and you cant defend any of them.

But no, lets be clear, this DOES NOT mean Israelis have the right to react in self defence against overwhelming force, as they as the aggressors have always been in the wrong.

Moreover in every example, every war and skirmish except 1973, it is the Israelis who have had the overwhelming and excessive use of force - THATS IN EVERY EXAMPLE. ESPECIALLY 1948.

And you really really dont know your history, in 1956 Israelis were effectively ordered to retreat. And ever since 1948 Israelis have been losing the argument again and again, with the only thing defending them being a veto by the USA - thats not winning the argument, thats losing it.

The Arab-Muslims in all aspects have no political capital no winnable argument, no just war only peace and common sense that is why under great threat from the Islamist, Egypt and Jordan have broke away from them and sign a peace treaty with Israel that treaty have proof to be the silver bullet. Soon, Lebanon, Libya and Saudi Arabia will follow suite. In fact, the Palestinian Authority under President Abbas is also seriously considering that too the only thing that is stopping Pres. Abbas i snot Israel, not the UN, not the USA or Europe but the extremist Islamic groups that include Hamas.

1. The arabs in have fact have all the political capital and all the winning arguments, thats why the USA has used the veto in israel's defence so many times.

2. They have accepted and delivered land for peace every time and have offered this ever since the 50s. Egypt and Jordan offered israel land for peace long before any Islamism or political islam or radical islam EVEN EXISTED in this conflict. You really really dont know what youre talking about Wanren.

3. Saudia Arabia has already offered a comprehensive solution to the entire problem . a real peace deal, Something you dont know about again. You really really dont know what youre talking about Wanren.

4. President Abbas does not think its Hamas stopping things at all, he thinks its Israel. He knows as do we that if Israel offered to stop buillding tommorrow there would be renewed talks that very same day.

You are defeated, bother me no more unless you can do some real historical reading.

Originally Posted by Gilos

Who trained them and when? IDF did not exist, there was no compulsory service in the Palmah, only those they wanted to guard their settlements and families enlisted - until the war that is,

So i still don't follow you vague and very general accusations, you say refugees from Europe came to Palestine to live away from what they went through, got a gun, had to train and then sent to raid Arab villages to ethnically clear the area, shooting and raping Arabs?, you would expect that from Nazi refugees that had their own families murdered in such a way ?

The only way such ppl will fight is in defense, your whole 'European Raiders" theory is based on Jewish Nazi refugees that only a sick mind will accuse in being blood thirsty, you will do anything to escape responsibility of the Arab part in this war and that is a shame...

Who trained them? They benefitted from British training and knowledge they brought with them from europe.

The IDF did not exist, the Hagannah did. You know that fine well Gilos. This was an initially defensive organisation while they had the British around to crush the arabs for them. Monty in fact, the British killed large numbers of arab resistance.

Later when ready the Hagannah took to the offensive across the territory. It was not defence at all Gilos, the Golani Brigade cleared hundreds of villages by itself.

Being a european refugee in no way means one wold be reluctant to kill and evict innocent people Gilos, humanity doesnt work that way. In fact it works quite the opposite way - under orders, and with a gun, a brutalised refugee is easily capable of commiting the worst of crimes. And thats what happened again and again.

Israeli history has propangandised its beginnings for the simple reason that all of its historians and chroniclers were actual partipants in the conflict. Thus they developed this 'purity of arms' fable about israelis in war.

I understand your objections here to Moons constant barrages against your country but really you should acknowledge the reality and its your own government you should really be trying to stop rather than Moon if you really really care about your country - how much really do you care about what Israel does? For example do you support Bt'selem? Peace Now? Settlement watch? That sort of thing?