Political Crossfire Forums

[Kalu]

superskippy wrote: We didnt reach our peak at 88,000 men in the zahal until the end of the war and the bulk of them were armed police, settlement militia, and defense forces. In actual troops we were always outnumbered.

And they werent ragtag, the Arab armies were well equipped and well trained.

If you're going to repeat yourself without providing any new evidence, I can do the same:

Devaka wrote: 90,000 well-trained soldiers with modern weapons versus a rag-tag army of 30,000 disunited Arabs (also subtract the Jordanians, the best-equipped, once they got control of the West Bank).

superskippy wrote: Around 4,200 soldiers and 2,300 civilians, does that matter any less?

No, it's a terrible loss, but an even more devastating tragedy is that you're trying to make it seem like Israel was fighting for it's survival when it coerced 750,000 Palestinians to leave their homes.

superskippy wrote: Yes in the second half of the war after we halted the Arab onslaught and regrouped and rearmed for our counter attack. The Arabs made the mistake of not doing likewise thinking they would win without it.

You forget to mention that the first part of the war was between disunited Palestinian factions with an eviscerated leadership versus well-equipped Zionist forces. The part about the "seven Arab armies" attacking was after the July 6th truce ended, by which time Israel was in a superior position as I mentioned before. You wanted to paint it like Israel was facing these Arab armies with poor Czech weapons- which is just false.

superskippy wrote: At the time of the listed raid the National Assembly was a functioning government body.

With a fascist for a president, and bitter factional rivalries, and a civil war. Your point?

superskippy wrote: Nope he was 100 miles away from Beirut and his only fault was vague orders that allowed the IDF to interpret it to meaning the Phalange militia could enter the campe. He wasnt even a soldier at the time he was a Defence Minister in Jerusalem.

No. He oversaw the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 (along with Raphael Eitan). The IDF, under his supervision, provided flares to the Phalangist militias so that they could continue during the night the massacres in Sabra and Shatila, along with providing transport and other functions.

superskippy wrote: My god your denial of the facts are telling. So what were 23,000 Syrian troops doing in Lebanon? What was the 85th Brigade doing fighting alongside Arafat and the PLO in Beirut? What happened to 2,300 Syrian soldiers and entire brigades of tanks, and a 1/4 of their airforce? Pray tell how do you explain them?

...

Again it seems you have trouble reading:

Devaka wrote: The conflict between Syria and Israel had nothing to do with Syria's nonexistent support of the PLO but because Syria was backing Sulayman Franjiyah over Israeli-backed Bashar Gemayel. There were clashes between Syrian forces and the Phalangists at Zahle in 1981, preciptating a "missile crisis" and Israeli retaliation (Smith, 362).

So your attempts to connect Arafat and Syria as being in cahoots is complete bulls**t because in fact Syria hated Arafat and used Abu Nidal to assassinate a PLO official in Belgium. They also supported Amal to counter the PLO.

superskippy wrote: It still remains voluntary if they werent forced.

They were coerced into leaving their homes. Ethnic cleansing. Accept it, and quit trying to make it seem they were just overly-paranoid and now they don't deserve to get their homes back. Oh wait, they can't because Jewish homes were built over them.

superskippy wrote: Perhaps, perhaps not to my knowledge no data or statistics exist on this matter. Besides the fact that their are probably around 100,000-200,000 of the 1948 refugee's still walking this earth.


What about the refugees of the Six-Day War? What about the offspring of the 1948 refugees? The refugee population surely isn't 100,000 to 200,000 people.

superskippy wrote: Saracen surely you agree its ridiculous to view the civilians as the occupiers dont you?

An occupier can be a civilian, especially if that "civilian" infrastructure is supported by an aggressive military and armed settlers. If you've forcefully taken someone's land and are occupying it, you are by definition an occupier even if you personally don't own a gun.

[superskippy]

Saracen I beleive we're in the position we've been in so many times before. I'll keep arguing my points, you'll keep arguing yours and the archetypel argument will continue for days and days.

Do you want to end it right here? I'll continue if you wish I have a response reasy, but I think you'll have come to the same conclusion I have.

The same goes for you Devaka.

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: Saracen I beleive we're in the position we've been in so many times before. I'll keep arguing my points, you'll keep arguing yours and the archetypel argument will continue for days and days.

Do you want to end it right here? I'll continue if you wish I have a response reasy, but I think you'll have come to the same conclusion I have.

The same goes for you Devaka.

Sure thing. Let's end it right here, but it was a good debate nonetheless. I'm busy these days anyways, so arguing days on end would be indeed pointless.

[DavidXV]

Well I'm glad we finally got that settled...

[Kalu]

superskippy wrote: Saracen I beleive we're in the position we've been in so many times before. I'll keep arguing my points, you'll keep arguing yours and the archetypel argument will continue for days and days.

Do you want to end it right here? I'll continue if you wish I have a response reasy, but I think you'll have come to the same conclusion I have.

The same goes for you Devaka.

Okay, ceasfire.

[foadi]

im not through wit u yet

[Saracen]

foadi wrote: im not through wit u yet

You haven't even started.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Did you read anything Saracen posted?

Yes, it was all irrelevent. He's playing you like a violin.

[Saracen]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Did you read anything Saracen posted?

Yes, it was all irrelevent. He's playing you like a violin.

I think you are, queasy, with that post, trying to play Devaka like a violin. This discussion is over anyways.

[CommunistLeague]

you might first want to try to get an unbiased source, that might help.

[Saracen]

CommunistLeague wrote: you might first want to try to get an unbiased source, that might help.

Umm... this thread died a long time ago.

[mulberrymagnet]

Etienne wrote: So the Jews, of all people, understand suffering...which makes their crimes against the Palestinians all the more heinous.

A useful article. I used to post on a website which was run by a couple of anti Arab bigots and it was my first exposure to real Jewish racism, and it stopped me in my tracks, that really, they were no better than the Arab filth which condoned the murdering of innocent men, women and children. Lots of tribes/countries have been at loggerheads for centuries, and the only grief that Israel faces right now is of its own choosing. I'm sick to the back teeth of its whining and Jewish racists would do well to remember that it too, is founded on terrorism. At long last, it's leaders who have blood on their hands are dying off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

I just hope that young Israelis realise that its country has a far from perfect history and that Arabs too, who have no interest in this centuries old 'feud', have a right to peacefully exist. Its the 21st century for Christs sake. Move on.

[Saracen]

mulberrymagnet wrote: Etienne wrote: So the Jews, of all people, understand suffering...which makes their crimes against the Palestinians all the more heinous.

A useful article. I used to post on a website which was run by a couple of anti Arab bigots and it was my first exposure to real Jewish racism, and it stopped me in my tracks, that really, they were no better than the Arab filth which condoned the murdering of innocent men, women and children. Lots of tribes/countries have been at loggerheads for centuries, and the only grief that Israel faces right now is of its own choosing. I'm sick to the back teeth of its whining and Jewish racists would do well to remember that it too, is founded on terrorism. At long last, it's leaders who have blood on their hands are dying off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

I just hope that young Israelis realise that its country has a far from perfect history and that Arabs too, who have no interest in this centuries old 'feud', have a right to peacefully exist. Its the 21st century for Christs sake. Move on.

I agree with what you said, but I have a point for you to consider: not everyone condones terrorism in the Arab world, and not even most condone it. Only those who get airtime on your MSM do. Other than that, you also have to consider that not all pro-Israel supporters are racists. I'm Palestinian and you know where I reside in this conflict. Other than that, good post.

[mulberrymagnet]

I'm aware that bigotry and hatred exists on both sides.. and on both sides too, there are voices of reason and peace. Fair point about the pro Israel supporters too, although Isreal's chickens will never stop coming home to roost as long as they pretend that the roots of it's nation are based on nothing much better than any other terrorist organisation today. Would their actions be allowed today? I very much doubt it. But we move on, and put that behind us.

The life of just one Palastinian child, or one peaceful Israeli settler's child today, and tomorrow, HAS to be worth more than the lives of millions on either side who were murdered by the forces of evil in the past, whether its from the Dark Ages or in the Holocaust. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but we HAVE to move on.

[Saracen]

mulberrymagnet wrote: I'm aware that bigotry and hatred exists on both sides.. and on both sides too, there are voices of reason and peace. Fair point about the pro Israel supporters too, although Isreal's chickens will never stop coming home to roost as long as they pretend that the roots of it's nation are based on nothing much better than any other terrorist organisation today. Would their actions be allowed today? I very much doubt it. But we move on, and put that behind us.

The life of just one Palastinian child, or one peaceful Israeli settler's child today, and tomorrow, HAS to be worth more than the lives of millions on either side who were murdered by the forces of evil in the past, whether its from the Dark Ages or in the Holocaust. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but we HAVE to move on.

Yes, we have to move on.

[venator]

mulberrymagnet wrote: Etienne wrote: So the Jews, of all people, understand suffering...which makes their crimes against the Palestinians all the more heinous.

A useful article. I used to post on a website which was run by a couple of anti Arab bigots and it was my first exposure to real Jewish racism, and it stopped me in my tracks, that really, they were no better than the Arab filth which condoned the murdering of innocent men, women and children. Lots of tribes/countries have been at loggerheads for centuries, and the only grief that Israel faces right now is of its own choosing. I'm sick to the back teeth of its whining and Jewish racists would do well to remember that it too, is founded on terrorism. At long last, it's leaders who have blood on their hands are dying off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

I just hope that young Israelis realise that its country has a far from perfect history and that Arabs too, who have no interest in this centuries old 'feud', have a right to peacefully exist. Its the 21st century for Christs sake. Move on.

I concur. The really tragic thing is that all sort of criticism towards Izrael, or Jews genarally is de facto not allowed. One would be labelled antisemite, nazi etc. - and indeed I have a feeling that such labelling itself is an act of racism towards gentiles as such.

Also I wonder how the younger generations of Jews are going to change the future when since childhood they are indoctrinated that they are the 'chosen people'. They are given an extremely biased account on modern history (of the creation of Izrael etc.). Obviously some strong individuality would have to arise to change this situation and the Izraeli society as such.

:-|

[superskippy]

Quote: I concur. The really tragic thing is that all sort of criticism towards Izrael, or Jews genarally is de facto not allowed. One would be labelled antisemite, nazi etc. - and indeed I have a feeling that such labelling itself is an act of racism towards gentiles as such.

Which is in reality a myth that has it's roots from arguments from the Neo Nazi's of the early 1990's and people like David Duke, if it were so easily quashed and suppressed the massive criticism and negative policies towards my country would not exist.

Quote: Also I wonder how the younger generations of Jews are going to change the future when since childhood they are indoctrinated that they are the 'chosen people'.

Indoctrined that we are the chosen people eh? We are indoctrined with our faith. I ask you how many Jews have you ever met that have claimed superiority because god decided to grace us with the Torah and his Convent? Which is why we are called the chosen people, it's not because of some beleif of superiority, its because God gave us the Torah and his graced us with his blessing and the convent between us and God.

It is a deeply religous matter that has been twisted for millenia by people who have tormented us or used it as a pretext for such torment.

Quote: They are given an extremely biased account on modern history (of the creation of Izrael etc.). Obviously some strong individuality would have to arise to change this situation and the Izraeli society as such.

Or rather it is that we have been given an account of our own factual history.

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: Or rather it is that we have been given an account of our own factual history.

That depends on what you perceive as facts.

[superskippy]

Well if we're going to go for the literal term, I think I'd perceive it as a piece of information that is true and has not been derived from opinion.

:lol: :wink:

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: Well if we're going to go for the literal term, I think I'd perceive it as a piece of information that is true and has not been derived from opinion.

:lol: :wink:

:lol: