Political Crossfire Forums

[superskippy]

Thats not it and you know it, they didnt want a Jewish state at all. They expected a war do you know why? They planned it out, and the minute the mandate ended and I mean the MINUTE it ended the Arab armies declared war on the nascent state of Israel and crossed the borders with around 30,000 men and companies of tanks and armor and aircraft.

They fully expected to win and luckily they failed in their attempt. Though they forced us to ante up 2% of our population as a cost for our survival.

Quote: Wait, they've given back Southern Lebanon, even though they've been attacked from there several times in the past 20 years. And most Israeli leaders say pulling out of Southern Lebanon was a great idea. I'm curious as to wh at exactly makes the Golan any different. My guess is because Golan is an economically valuable piece of real-estate. I'm sure you'd agree, since you're so "even handed"

Because to this day we are still at war with syria, and the Golan Heights gives complete control of the Galilee. We've all but annexed it and the syrians will never ever get it back.

[Doc Holiday]

Quote: Because to this day we are still at war with syria, and the Golan Heights gives complete control of the Galilee. We've all but annexed it and the syrians will never ever get it back.

Actually, Israel did do everything including annexing. Unlike the rest of the occupied territories of 67’, The Golan is the only area Israel actually claimed as annexed back in 1981.

And even after that, Israeli leaders did have some negations on the matter with Syrian officials, how much exactly is much debated, but never the less; the annexation seemed to have little effect.

Regarding never giving it back, saying that is just like many Israelis in the 80’s claiming “There is no Palestinian nation”. So Israel learned the hard way.
Israel is not alone in the neighborhood and claims like “We will never give it back” eventually leave Israel in a position where it has to give up everything back, instead of reaching a joint compromise.

Just like in business, your red lines are much more appreciated by the other side if you don’t start with one that clearly isn’t serious.

[mr crunchy]

I don't see the big difference between the two, actually. Except that the latter still retains the use of his brain

please tell us al queda's accomplishments towards civilization
sharon extended an olive branch by giving back the gaza

as far as the golan goes
its infinitely more strategic than southern lebanon,this is why israel will keep it
its israels until someone takes it from them and their isnt any body in that neighborhood capable

as far as egypt jordan syria and the liberty being destroyed

israel hasnt carried out an attack on egypt or jordan in 30 years,syria is a different story

egypt jordan and israel are in a state of peace
syria wants to israel off the map

until syria changes its song and rids themselves of the cancerous assad family then they will be considered international pariahs,syria is ripe for revolution...

the liberty happened almost 40 years ago
the american people were still in favor of the war in vietnam,bobby kennedy was thinking about running for president and lbj was thinking about retiring and americans drove american cars..it was an eternity ago....
anyways
im open minded to your suggestions of compensation or revenge,israel was guilty as hell and they havent been called out for it then or now...

just remember it was so long ago texas was a state full of yellow dog democrats,,the black people in dixie werent voting and the football teams in alabama mississippi and florida werent yet integrated

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: Thats not it and you know it, they didnt want a Jewish state at all. They expected a war do you know why? They planned it out, and the minute the mandate ended and I mean the MINUTE it ended the Arab armies declared war on the nascent state of Israel and crossed the borders with around 30,000 men and companies of tanks and armor and aircraft.

They fully expected to win and luckily they failed in their attempt. Though they forced us to ante up 2% of our population as a cost for our survival.

No, I don't see where you're going. The Israelis wanted a whole state of Palestine for themselves. The Arabs fought back because of what was happening to the Palestinians. The stats of armament show otherwise, skippy. These Arab armies were not well-equippped, and were crushed in the incoming onslaught. The Israelis were more coordinated than the Arabs were. The Israelis were well equipped and received arms from Czechoslovakia, even though there was a general embargo on the region.

[Yrkoon]

superskippy wrote: Thats not it and you know it, they didnt want a Jewish state at all. They expected a war do you know why? They planned it out, and the minute the mandate ended and I mean the MINUTE it ended the Arab armies declared war on the nascent state of Israel and crossed the borders with around 30,000 men and companies of tanks and armor and aircraft.
Er, as my BBC link accurately points out, the Jews were already attacking and taking Palestinian territory *before* the mandate ended. Ergo, anything that happens after this would, by defintion, be retaliation.

[Saracen]

Yrkoon wrote: superskippy wrote: Thats not it and you know it, they didnt want a Jewish state at all. They expected a war do you know why? They planned it out, and the minute the mandate ended and I mean the MINUTE it ended the Arab armies declared war on the nascent state of Israel and crossed the borders with around 30,000 men and companies of tanks and armor and aircraft.
Er, as my BBC link accurately points out, the Jews were already attacking and taking Palestinian territory *before* the mandate ended. Ergo, anything that happens after this would, by defintion, be retaliation.

Exactly. Thanks for your insight, Yrkoon. As a side note, check your PM's (private messages).

[superskippy]

Saracen who was it that launched the first salvo and crossed the borders? Who was it that shelled Jerusalem in the first day of the conflict? Who was it that launched the first offensive? The Arabs, they had clear intent to what they desired to accomplish.

We werent well equipped and dont lie, we recieved old Interwar weapons 1920's and 1930's stockpiles from the Czecks, and other balken states. We had to make our own submachine guns in underground facilities and those were only Stens. We had no steady supply of ammunition and at the outbreak of the war we could only arm 1 in every 3 members of the Palmach. We had no heavy artillary or aircraft, and no heavy mortars and perhaps half a dozen heavy machine guns. Our armored vehicles were trucks with steel welded onto the side and an occasional light machine gun mounted to them.

We were outgunned and in terms of troops we were outnumbered from start to finish.

Around 2% of our population was slain in the conflict, that was our sacrifice for survival.

Quote: So, it's just because Begin and his Knesset said, the war aims were like that, no matter what the means were? That's "end justifies the means", and that's not right in anyone's book. Also, just because the IDF says it's "fact" doesn't mean it really is.

Saracen the war aims are more clear then crystal. The war objectives were decided upon months before the operation and all levels of government and the IDF conferred and agreed upon them. You cant argue the meaning of an operational order.

Quote: Oh, nice, so doing something and meddling in something that was not Israel's business was okay, like bombing a few planes and raiding Beirut.

Yep. The Lebanese had to know we would not tolerate their complicity with terrorism. We launched half a dozen raids into Beirut from the 1970's to the 1982 war, the best and most honorable one was when we captured and killed dozens of PLO and Black September operatives. Sure did surprise the hell out of em to see an Israeli soldier with a machine gun walking outside his window. :lol:

Quote: Tanks and batteries of artillery? The best opportunity they had was when they were in Lebanon. In 1948, they had none of that stuff, and the ALA was not prepared for the Israeli forces.

I'm talking about Lebanon. And for the record the ALA was well equipped and had enough artillary and armored vehicles to launch a rather deadly campaign in Northern Israel and seize quite a few settlements.

Quote: This is getting old and lame really fast, skippy. The Israelis and Palestinians both intently targeted civilians. Regardless of what the orders were, it was very obvious that the Israelis got away with mass murder and pounding the sh!t out of Beirut.

If your going to use the siege of Beirut as evidence of mass murder then I'm going to have to dispute you. Arafat moved troops into the city and turned it into a fortress. He had thousands of men at least 8,000 in the city as well as a Syrian Brigade bringing the totals to some 11,000. We had no choice but to fight, Arafat had the chose to leave Lebanon instead he decided Beirut would make a good pyre for his cause. And the wood for that Pyre? The civilians of Beirut.

Quote: Well, have you thought about it? I'll tell you: they (Hamas) think that through suicide bombing, they can strike terror and do the same thing that the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians as we speak: driving them out of their homes and their farms in the West Bank. Through this tactic, they think they can increase emigration from Israeli territory and decrease emigration from Israeli territory. That being said, both sides are driving each other out.

Dont call it resisting the occupation then because it by definition is not that. Call it terrorism and murder to support the Palestinian cause.

Quote: Well, you asked for it. The Palestinians never had a representing voice over the UN partitioning agreements since the Yishuv was in control of most of the British economical affairs. Also, the Palestinians were given under 50% and the Jews about 60% (see map, and this one for comparison purposes). They were the majority of the population, yet they were forced to be squeezed into 40% of the land. It wasn't that they didn't want the Negev, but the Negev wasn't even given to them in the first place. Prior to the Jewish acceptance of the partition plan, the Palestinians rejected it because it was indeed unfair. Also, there was a lot of action taken by terrorist thugs like the Stern Gang, who worked to expel Palestinians from their villages. With that being said, the ethnic cleansing occurred prior to the so-called "declaration of war" on part of the Palestinians and their fellow Arabs.

Yeah we got a larger state... because we got a f***ing desert that made up 55-60% of it. We would have gladly traded it for the Western Galilee and accepted a much smaller state then the piss dry completely un built up Negev Desert. The Palestinians wanted the Western Galilee, they made almost no complaints about the Negev, but wanted to have the Eastern Galilee as well.

The Stern Gang had about 200 members and could hardly have cleansed all the villages of Palestine and instigate what you say they did.

The Irgun at the very, very ,very ,very ,very maximum had about 2,000 members. Not all of which were active combatants.

It is undeniable that the Arabs struck the first blow and no Arab government denies it. Only they argue that it was justified.

Quote: The Arab armies weren't even close to being well-prepared. All we hear is about how they have "tanks" and whatnot.

They had around 60-100 tanks left over by the British and French. A few hundred Armored Vehicles, and artillary, heavy machine guns, munitions, aircraft, etc.

They lost because we fought much harder then the average Arab and had much much higher morale which is to be expected due to the circumstances of the conflict. And because the Arabs werent united and instead all planned their invasions seperatly and fought seperate wars.

They Arabs had infrastructre in place and Armies that were not restricted by arms embargos. The had every industrial advantage and technological advanatage. But we were a better army then they were.

As for your claim that Jordan collaborated with Israel... my god Saracen thats the most lunatic thing I've ever heard you say. The Jordanians spent months laying Siege to Jerusalem and attacking it day in and day out expending thousands of casualties until finally seizin the Old City. They attacked all across the Jordan Valley and seized the West Bank with ease. They pushed their tendrals to close that they were within 20 miles of Tel'Aviv with an Iraqi Armored Brigade leading the fore at one point.

As for us outnumbering the Arabs we had miltia, the settlement and town defenders. Then we had the Army. The Arabs far outnumbered us when it came to troops but if you want to count kids and old men with rifles on settlments and towns that may have seen no action than fine we ountnumbered them, and if thats how you count an advantage in war thanks but no thanks I'll take the regular army that is outnumbered anyday.

And if your so stubborn to refuse the fact that the Arabs had Tanks, Aircraft, Armored Vehicles, or Heavy Ordanence then by god feel free to email the Egyptian, Syrian or Jordanian embassy they will gladly dispell this myth that you have. Even better you can get the actual order of battle.

Or you could just as well email the British consulate and ask for information on the Arab Legion and the colonial Arab Armies that were left behind. Or you could pick up any chronology of the military aspect of the conflict and read about the Armored Engagements between Egyptian and Israeli forces in the Negev, or the armored thrusts by Syria into the Galilee against our settlements and our Palmach troops.

[Yrkoon]

superskippy wrote: Saracen who was it that launched the first salvo and crossed the borders?
STOP.

Across the borders?

There is a fundamental flaw in your question here. Can you guess what it is?

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: Saracen who was it that launched the first salvo and crossed the borders? Who was it that shelled Jerusalem in the first day of the conflict? Who was it that launched the first offensive? The Arabs, they had clear intent to what they desired to accomplish.

The Israelis started the war because of what they did to Palestinians prior to any impending invasion. The Israeli terrorist groups, even before 1940, collaborated with the British in order to expel Palestinians from their homes.

Source wrote: 1937
18 January
Royal Commission leaves Palestine.
April
IZL/Irgun, linked to Revisionist movement under Ze'ev Jabotinsky, reorganizes and advocates armed attacks on Palestinians.

[...]

1938
April-August
IZL/Irgun bombings kill 119 Palestinians. Palestinian bombs and mines kill 8 Jews.
June
British officer Orde Wingate organizes Special Night Squads of British and Haganah personnel for operations against Palestinian villages.

And don't forget about the hundreds of thousands of ethnically cleansed Palestinians. Moreover, the Palestinians were onto the Zionist plot ever since Herzl, Samuel and their bunch kept insisting on the totalitarianism of the Jewish state in Palestine. The Arabs did not want it all for themselves form the beginning, but it seems that the Israelis themselves did.

superskippy wrote: We werent well equipped and dont lie, we recieved old Interwar weapons 1920's and 1930's stockpiles from the Czecks, and other balken states. We had to make our own submachine guns in underground facilities and those were only Stens. We had no steady supply of ammunition and at the outbreak of the war we could only arm 1 in every 3 members of the Palmach. We had no heavy artillary or aircraft, and no heavy mortars and perhaps half a dozen heavy machine guns. Our armored vehicles were trucks with steel welded onto the side and an occasional light machine gun mounted to them.

We were outgunned and in terms of troops we were outnumbered from start to finish.

I'm not lying. I'm telling you what happened. The Palestinians and their fellow ALA outnumbered the Israelis from the start, but were outnumbered later on by the Israelis. The ALA wasn't the strongest army: the Saudis were kept at bay with rebellious uprisings in Yemen. The Sudanese were under British colonial rule. The Lebanese were sidelined by the French, even though they provided mediocre artillery. The Jordanians collaborated with the Israelis and gave them free land. The situation wasn't that simple, skippy. The ALA outnumbered the Israelis but were not as prepared. The ALA became outnumbered due to lack of coordination, and the Egyptians and Iraqis were far from their supply lines to coordinate any attack. You want to bounce the same points back and forth again, fine, I'll be willing to.

superskippy wrote: Around 2% of our population was slain in the conflict, that was our sacrifice for survival.

Yes, about that 2%...

Source wrote: Fatality - Category Value - Percentage of Total
Civilians killed* -1,150 - 20.15%
Military killed - 4,558 - 79.85%
Total - 5,708 - 100%
Soldiers killed between Nov. 30, 1947 - May 15, 1948 -- 1,345** -- 23.56%
Soldiers killed between May 15, 1948- March 10, 1949 -- 3,213** -- 56.29%
Killed within the areas designated by the UN -- 1,581 -- 27.70%
Killed outside the areas designated by the UN -- 2,759*** -- 48.33%
Killed defending Jewish settlements -- 984 -- 17.24%
Killed attacking Arab settlements -- 1,212 -- 21.23%

It's also clear that most military operations occurred on the borders of Palestine prior to 1948, thus making the whole role of the Israelis an offensive one. You'll also note that by 1948, most of the operations of Israelis were within the proposed Palestinian state. Even before the entry of a single Arab army into Palestine, the Israelis had more military control over the area.

superskippy wrote: Saracen the war aims are more clear then crystal. The war objectives were decided upon months before the operation and all levels of government and the IDF conferred and agreed upon them. You cant argue the meaning of an operational order.

Maybe you can't, but I can, because I'm not part of the IDF and the IDF does not impose its "orders" or circumstances on anyone else.

superskippy wrote: Yep. The Lebanese had to know we would not tolerate their complicity with terrorism. We launched half a dozen raids into Beirut from the 1970's to the 1982 war, the best and most honorable one was when we captured and killed dozens of PLO and Black September operatives. Sure did surprise the hell out of em to see an Israeli soldier with a machine gun walking outside his window.

Yet, those raids accomplished the killings of many civilians. Only a few medical reports leaked out on the Israeli atrocities that were occurring in Beirut, when the air raids launched killed not only Palestinians, but Lebanese and Syrians as well who were living in Beirut.

superskippy wrote: I'm talking about Lebanon. And for the record the ALA was well equipped and had enough artillary and armored vehicles to launch a rather deadly campaign in Northern Israel and seize quite a few settlements.

Did they? The Israelis already had control of many Palestinian settlements prior to that. After all, it is a war, as you would put it. Moreover, as I said before, the cleansing of Palestinian civilians from their homes and their lands was unethical to say the least and was indeed an act of war, and this happened prior to 1947. In short, the Arabs had every right to attack and defend their Palestinian brethren, yet they were not as equipped, and also did not coordinate as well.

superskippy wrote: If your going to use the siege of Beirut as evidence of mass murder then I'm going to have to dispute you. Arafat moved troops into the city and turned it into a fortress. He had thousands of men at least 8,000 in the city as well as a Syrian Brigade bringing the totals to some 11,000. We had no choice but to fight, Arafat had the chose to leave Lebanon instead he decided Beirut would make a good pyre for his cause. And the wood for that Pyre? The civilians of Beirut.

I agree that he did some stupid things, but the Israelis had no right to intervene and cause a mess out of it. The Palestinians have been suffering from Israeli oppression and torture prior to the Lebanese civil war, and escaped into Beirut. The Lebanese Phalange fascists did their worst in bombing Palestinian buses in retaliation to a small skirmish. Other than that, the Lebanese Christians were almost on their own on the side of the Israelis; the Druze, the Shiites, and others were caught up in fighting for their lives against Phalangists and Israeli soldiers.

superskippy wrote: Dont call it resisting the occupation then because it by definition is not that. Call it terrorism and murder to support the Palestinian cause.

Then I must say that the Israeli cause (expansion, terrorism, ethnic cleansing, transfer, Jewish majority by all means) is a better one?

superskippy wrote: Yeah we got a larger state... because we got a f***ing desert that made up 55-60% of it. We would have gladly traded it for the Western Galilee and accepted a much smaller state then the piss dry completely un built up Negev Desert. The Palestinians wanted the Western Galilee, they made almost no complaints about the Negev, but wanted to have the Eastern Galilee as well.

So it's all about fertile land now? Since when? The Palestinians were a majority and were squeezed into less than 50% of land for themselves. The Jewish minority had most of Palestine for themselves. Now, you talk about the Negev. The Jews received much of the land despite the fact that they only occupied a few isolated colonies in the Negev. The Palestinians were never referred to in the Security Council because of bribery and fraud on part of the Israelis. They actually caused more votes against the Palestinian referral.

superskippy wrote: The Stern Gang had about 200 members and could hardly have cleansed all the villages of Palestine and instigate what you say they did.

The Irgun at the very, very ,very ,very ,very maximum had about 2,000 members. Not all of which were active combatants.

It is undeniable that the Arabs struck the first blow and no Arab government denies it. Only they argue that it was justified.

The Arabs did not attack first. The Israelis ethnically cleansed civilians. And the Stern gang and the IZL were both responsible for the ethnic cleansing, and as shown above, they collaborated with the British on part of this ethnic cleansing.

superskippy wrote: They had around 60-100 tanks left over by the British and French. A few hundred Armored Vehicles, and artillary, heavy machine guns, munitions, aircraft, etc.

Since when did the Palestinians ever have Tanks? Pre WWI they were occupied and run by the Turks. Post WWI they were run and occupied by the Brits. The Brits did not leave until 1948... in 1946 the Irgun a Jewish terrorist group blew up The King David Hotel to pressure the Brits to leave because they wanted to set up a Jewish state in Palestine.
The Brits handed the problem to the UN and they proposed a partition in 47 that heavily favored the Jews even though at the time they only accounted for 33% of the population (640,000).
This is where the problems started...

superskippy wrote: They lost because we fought much harder then the average Arab and had much much higher morale which is to be expected due to the circumstances of the conflict. And because the Arabs werent united and instead all planned their invasions seperatly and fought seperate wars.

They Arabs had infrastructre in place and Armies that were not restricted by arms embargos. The had every industrial advantage and technological advanatage. But we were a better army then they were.

That's your perspective. Arabs were indeed poorly equipped because they had bad supply lines and only had mediocre support. The Israelis had high morale because of the Arab troops, who were lacking in both equipment and morale.

Source wrote: "Perhaps the most important [of the Arab armies problems] was a crippled shortage of ammunition, owing to the international arms embargo ..., in the case of the Iraqis and Egyptians, long lines of communications. For example, after February 25, 1948, the Arab Legion received no new ammunition for its 20mm guns. Some of the ammunition used by the Iraqi artillery was more than thirty years old; the Syrians had no ammunition for their heavy 155mm guns. Whereas Jewish stockpiles were growing all the times [especially the big arms shipment from Czechoslovakia in May 1948], the enemies were so depleted they stole ammunition shipments for each other. In addition, they were ill-coordinated, technically incompetent, slow, ponderous, badly led, and unable to cope with night operations that willy-nilly, constituted the IDF's expertise." (The Sword And The Olive, p. 95-96)

Yes, indeed you were a better army, because they were a worse army than you wanted them to be.

superskippy wrote: As for your claim that Jordan collaborated with Israel... my god Saracen thats the most lunatic thing I've ever heard you say. The Jordanians spent months laying Siege to Jerusalem and attacking it day in and day out expending thousands of casualties until finally seizin the Old City. They attacked all across the Jordan Valley and seized the West Bank with ease. They pushed their tendrals to close that they were within 20 miles of Tel'Aviv with an Iraqi Armored Brigade leading the fore at one point.

What are you talking about? Every Arab to date knows that the Jordanian King collaborated with the Israelis and ceded that land to the Israelis without a fight. Yes, they did fight the Israelis, but they already gave away the land to the Israelis afterwards. However, the Jordanians were not able to pass through completely:

Source wrote: Soon after the execution of Operation Dani in the first half of July 1948, Yigal Allon wrote a Palmach (Haganah's strike force) report stating that the expulsion of Lydda's and Ramla's inhabitants had: "clogged the routes of the advance of the [Transjordan Arab] Legion and had foisted upon the Arab economy the problem of "maintaining another 45,000 souls . . . Moreover, the phenomenon of the flight of tens of thousands will no doubt cause demoralization in every Arab area [the refugees] reach . . . This victory will yet have great effect on other sectors." (Israel: A History, p. 218 & Benny Morris, p. 211)

Yep, your army did have an upper hand indeed.

superskippy wrote: As for us outnumbering the Arabs we had miltia, the settlement and town defenders. Then we had the Army. The Arabs far outnumbered us when it came to troops but if you want to count kids and old men with rifles on settlments and towns that may have seen no action than fine we ountnumbered them, and if thats how you count an advantage in war thanks but no thanks I'll take the regular army that is outnumbered anyday.

The Haganah recruited a lot of servicemen, and they indeed outnumbered the Arabs later on in the war. You can take whatever account you wish, but our perspectives indeed do differ when it comes to such matters.

superskippy wrote: And if your so stubborn to refuse the fact that the Arabs had Tanks, Aircraft, Armored Vehicles, or Heavy Ordanence then by god feel free to email the Egyptian, Syrian or Jordanian embassy they will gladly dispell this myth that you have. Even better you can get the actual order of battle.

Or you could just as well email the British consulate and ask for information on the Arab Legion and the colonial Arab Armies that were left behind. Or you could pick up any chronology of the military aspect of the conflict and read about the Armored Engagements between Egyptian and Israeli forces in the Negev, or the armored thrusts by Syria into the Galilee against our settlements and our Palmach troops.

Even then, they lacked coordination, and were not able to hammer blows against the Israelis. It's a myth to me and every other Arab that the Arabs were well-equipped, as it is a myth to you that they were not.

Source wrote: Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, recognized that Palestinian nationalism created the very danger he was most afraid of. He knew that the victory in 1948 was achieved not because the Israeli Army was more heroic but because the Arab armies were corrupt and the Arab world was divided. He became obsessed with the fear that a charismatic leader would modernize Arab education, their economies, and unite all the Arab states. He wrote on November 11, 1948:

"The Arab people have been beaten by us. Will they forget it quickly? Seven hundred thousand people beat 30 million. Will they forget this offense? It can be assumed that they have a sense of honor. We will make peace efforts, but two sides are necessary for peace. Is there any security that they will not want to take revenge? Let us recognize the truth: we won not because we performed wonders, but because the Arab army is rotten. Must this rottenness persist forever? The situation in the world beckons towards revenge: there are two blocs; there is fear of world war. This tempts anyone with a grievance. We will always require a superior defensive capability." (Simha Flapan, p. 238

I still stand by my assertion that they lacked coordination and preparation.. They were busy bickering over the use of arms while the Israelis were armed to the teeth, but if you want to keep this issue aside and agree to disagree, I'll be more than happy.

[Kalu]

superskippy wrote: Saracen who was it that launched the first salvo and crossed the borders? Who was it that shelled Jerusalem in the first day of the conflict? Who was it that launched the first offensive? The Arabs, they had clear intent to what they desired to accomplish.

The Jordanians shelled Jerusalem, and while they might be Arabs, let's remember that Arabs don't all think alike. The Jordanians only wanted Jerusalem, they weren't part of some vast Arab conspiracy to destroy Israel.

superskippy wrote: We werent well equipped and dont lie, we recieved old Interwar weapons 1920's and 1930's stockpiles from the Czecks, and other balken states. We had to make our own submachine guns in underground facilities and those were only Stens. We had no steady supply of ammunition and at the outbreak of the war we could only arm 1 in every 3 members of the Palmach. We had no heavy artillary or aircraft, and no heavy mortars and perhaps half a dozen heavy machine guns. Our armored vehicles were trucks with steel welded onto the side and an occasional light machine gun mounted to them.

What utter lies! The Haganah was extremely well equipped: over 90,000 soldiers with Western weapons (perhaps you've forgotten that while the Zionists were working with the British to crush various Arab revolts during the late 1930s, they were also smuggling weapons?) In fact, demographically speaking there were more young men to fight for the Zionist cause versus the Palestinian cause (men between ages 18 and 45). The US and British intelligence agencies all agreed that the Zionists would rout the Arabs...which they did.

superskippy wrote: Around 2% of our population was slain in the conflict, that was our sacrifice for survival.

Meanwhile 750,000 Palestinians were kicked out of their homes. Your survival's dependent upon ethnic cleansing?

superskippy wrote: Yep. The Lebanese had to know we would not tolerate their complicity with terrorism. We launched half a dozen raids into Beirut from the 1970's to the 1982 war, the best and most honorable one was when we captured and killed dozens of PLO and Black September operatives. Sure did surprise the hell out of em to see an Israeli soldier with a machine gun walking outside his window.

It's key here to define which Lebanese you're referring to. The Shia sure didn't like the Palestinians. The Maronites didn't like the Palestinians. So which "Lebanese" are you referring to? The Israelis backed the likes of Bashir Gemayel, a Phalangist who killed thousands of Palestinians and God knows how many Lebanese.

And perhaps the "best" and "most honorable" event of the 1982 Israeli invasion was when thousands of Palestinians were massacred inside their refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila under Israeli supervision?

superskippy wrote: Arafat moved troops into the city and turned it into a fortress. He had thousands of men at least 8,000 in the city as well as a Syrian Brigade bringing the totals to some 11,000. We had no choice but to fight, Arafat had the chose to leave Lebanon instead he decided Beirut would make a good pyre for his cause. And the wood for that Pyre? The civilians of Beirut.

The Syrians were fighting for Israel's Christian Phalangist allies. You do realize their army was incomparable to Arafat's PLO ragtag group?

superskippy wrote: Dont call it resisting the occupation then because it by definition is not that. Call it terrorism and murder to support the Palestinian cause.

So Israel "retaliates" but Palestinians support "terrorism"? That's doubleplustruespeak!

superskippy wrote: The Stern Gang had about 200 members and could hardly have cleansed all the villages of Palestine and instigate what you say they did.

Never doubt the power of Zionist psychological warfare operations. Besides, Stern wasn't the only one going at it.

superskippy wrote: As for your claim that Jordan collaborated with Israel... my god Saracen thats the most lunatic thing I've ever heard you say. The Jordanians spent months laying Siege to Jerusalem and attacking it day in and day out expending thousands of casualties until finally seizin the Old City. They attacked all across the Jordan Valley and seized the West Bank with ease. They pushed their tendrals to close that they were within 20 miles of Tel'Aviv with an Iraqi Armored Brigade leading the fore at one point.

The Jordanians didn't want Israel, nor did they want Israel's destruction. Jordan being ruled by a "moderate" Hashemite monarchy, it wanted the West Bank and Jerusalem. After they got that, they didn't push any further. In fact, Jordan was able to lay siege to Jerusalem because it was the only Arab army with decent supplies. Later, Israel and Jordan decided it'd be worth it to form some basis of an alliance. Do you remember when Jordan expelled the PLO and other groups in the early '70s?

Finally going back to a previous point that Saracen has also extensively supported, anyone who thinks the Zionists were ill-equipped to defeat the Arab armies is delusional.

[superskippy]

Quote: The Israelis started the war because of what they did to Palestinians prior to any impending invasion.

So the attacks on convoys or the siege of Mishmar never occured did they?

Quote: I'm not lying. I'm telling you what happened. The Palestinians and their fellow ALA outnumbered the Israelis from the start, but were outnumbered later on by the Israelis. The ALA wasn't the strongest army: the Saudis were kept at bay with rebellious uprisings in Yemen. The Sudanese were under British colonial rule. The Lebanese were sidelined by the French, even though they provided mediocre artillery. The Jordanians collaborated with the Israelis and gave them free land. The situation wasn't that simple, skippy. The ALA outnumbered the Israelis but were not as prepared. The ALA became outnumbered due to lack of coordination, and the Egyptians and Iraqis were far from their supply lines to coordinate any attack. You want to bounce the same points back and forth again, fine, I'll be willing to.

Of course by far the ALA wasnt the strongest Army, but it did have a good supply of heavy artillary and armored vehicles.

Quote: It's also clear that most military operations occurred on the borders of Palestine prior to 1948, thus making the whole role of the Israelis an offensive one. You'll also note that by 1948, most of the operations of Israelis were within the proposed Palestinian state. Even before the entry of a single Arab army into Palestine, the Israelis had more military control over the area.

Not true, the excess casualty rates on the outer areas is reflective of the fact that the Jerusalem block consumed around 700-1,000 men, and in the south the Egyptians had extremely heavy fortifications.

The bulk of tactical operations took place in Northern and Center Israel.

Quote: Yet, those raids accomplished the killings of many civilians. Only a few medical reports leaked out on the Israeli atrocities that were occurring in Beirut, when the air raids launched killed not only Palestinians, but Lebanese and Syrians as well who were living in Beirut.

Not really Operation Spring of Youth resulted in 0-2 civilian fatalities who lived in the same neighborhood as the PLO members we sought. We killed 3 major PLO leaders a dozen secondary targets and numbers between 12-80 PLO militants.

Quote: I agree that he did some stupid things, but the Israelis had no right to intervene and cause a mess out of it. The Palestinians have been suffering from Israeli oppression and torture prior to the Lebanese civil war, and escaped into Beirut.

Intervene? He'd been bombing and attacking us for the past year killing hundreds of civilians and launching cross border raids. We got fed up and decided to destroy the threat on our border.

Arafat made a pyre of Lebanese corpses for his cause.

Quote: Then I must say that the Israeli cause (expansion, terrorism, ethnic cleansing, transfer, Jewish majority by all means) is a better one?

You can call it what you will god knows you already do that :lol: , but by definition as you laid out in your post what the Palestinians are doing lacks any connection to resisting the occupation.

Quote: So it's all about fertile land now? Since when? The Palestinians were a majority and were squeezed into less than 50% of land for themselves. The Jewish minority had most of Palestine for themselves. Now, you talk about the Negev. The Jews received much of the land despite the fact that they only occupied a few isolated colonies in the Negev. The Palestinians were never referred to in the Security Council because of bribery and fraud on part of the Israelis. They actually caused more votes against the Palestinian referral.

All abour Fertile? No, no, no it has to do with the richness of the lands. The Negev in 1948 posessed qualities that can be best compared to the sands of Western Egypt. It lacked any real infrastructre, it was a hot arid place that lacked crops, and it was a destitute area that offered promise only to a government that was willing to push millions and millions of dollars and decades into refining it.

The Arabs never clamored for it at negotiations, they were more keen on securing the Galilee and more of the waste of the Jerusalem block.

Quote: The Arabs did not attack first. The Israelis ethnically cleansed civilians. And the Stern gang and the IZL were both responsible for the ethnic cleansing, and as shown above, they collaborated with the British on part of this ethnic cleansing.

If were talking about Jew vs Arab violence it is impossible to say who started it first.

Quote: Since when did the Palestinians ever have Tanks? Pre WWI they were occupied and run by the Turks. Post WWI they were run and occupied by the Brits. The Brits did not leave until 1948... in 1946 the Irgun a Jewish terrorist group blew up The King David Hotel to pressure the Brits to leave because they wanted to set up a Jewish state in Palestine.

Ahhh maybe this is where we've been so confused! I dont mean the Palestinians I mean the Arab Legion and the Egyptian National Army, and the Syrian Army and the Iraqi army. Of course the Palestinians didnt have tanks, perhaps this is where we became misunderstood?

Quote: That's your perspective. Arabs were indeed poorly equipped because they had bad supply lines and only had mediocre support. The Israelis had high morale because of the Arab troops, who were lacking in both equipment and morale.

The only Arab nation that had supply issues was Egypt and that was minimally effected because we didnt get air support to harress their very long supply columns until later in the war.

The Arabs lacked morale since the average Arab as you can expect felt no urge to die for his country in a war that in no way affected him. While we were willing to throw our lives down to the last defending every inch of ground. This is why the Palestinians fought harder then the Arabs but were more inneffective due to lack of organized numbers and arms, they had a real reason to fight, the Arab soldiers did not.

Quote: What are you talking about? Every Arab to date knows that the Jordanian King collaborated with the Israelis and ceded that land to the Israelis without a fight. Yes, they did fight the Israelis, but they already gave away the land to the Israelis afterwards. However, the Jordanians were not able to pass through completely:

Jordan fought harder then any Arab foe we faced, the Arab Legion battered into the Old City and kept us out for the duration of the war and sealed off the new city. They pushed North and South along the West Bank driving back our settlements and our troop positions.

King Abdullah was smart he saw his allies were for all intents and purposes defeated, and to secure what he had gained he had to make peace and end the war quickly.

Quote: The Haganah recruited a lot of servicemen, and they indeed outnumbered the Arabs later on in the war. You can take whatever account you wish, but our perspectives indeed do differ when it comes to such matters.

It would appear they do.

Quote: Even then, they lacked coordination, and were not able to hammer blows against the Israelis. It's a myth to me and every other Arab that the Arabs were well-equipped, as it is a myth to you that they were not.

They were well equipped and well organized, but they were not well united , we werent fighting the combined Jordanian-Syrian-Iraqi-Egyptian Army, we fought each army individually which aided us immensly and shaved off the advanteges the Arabs brought to the field and in doing so we made it so that we could fight each Army with a level playing field. Albeit we fought them all at once and on all fronts.

[Saracen]

Devaka wrote: superskippy wrote: Saracen who was it that launched the first salvo and crossed the borders? Who was it that shelled Jerusalem in the first day of the conflict? Who was it that launched the first offensive? The Arabs, they had clear intent to what they desired to accomplish.

The Jordanians shelled Jerusalem, and while they might be Arabs, let's remember that Arabs don't all think alike. The Jordanians only wanted Jerusalem, they weren't part of some vast Arab conspiracy to destroy Israel.

superskippy wrote: We werent well equipped and dont lie, we recieved old Interwar weapons 1920's and 1930's stockpiles from the Czecks, and other balken states. We had to make our own submachine guns in underground facilities and those were only Stens. We had no steady supply of ammunition and at the outbreak of the war we could only arm 1 in every 3 members of the Palmach. We had no heavy artillary or aircraft, and no heavy mortars and perhaps half a dozen heavy machine guns. Our armored vehicles were trucks with steel welded onto the side and an occasional light machine gun mounted to them.

What utter lies! The Haganah was extremely well equipped: over 90,000 soldiers with Western weapons (perhaps you've forgotten that while the Zionists were working with the British to crush various Arab revolts during the late 1930s, they were also smuggling weapons?) In fact, demographically speaking there were more young men to fight for the Zionist cause versus the Palestinian cause (men between ages 18 and 45). The US and British intelligence agencies all agreed that the Zionists would rout the Arabs...which they did.

superskippy wrote: Around 2% of our population was slain in the conflict, that was our sacrifice for survival.

Meanwhile 750,000 Palestinians were kicked out of their homes. Your survival's dependent upon ethnic cleansing?

superskippy wrote: Yep. The Lebanese had to know we would not tolerate their complicity with terrorism. We launched half a dozen raids into Beirut from the 1970's to the 1982 war, the best and most honorable one was when we captured and killed dozens of PLO and Black September operatives. Sure did surprise the hell out of em to see an Israeli soldier with a machine gun walking outside his window.

It's key here to define which Lebanese you're referring to. The Shia sure didn't like the Palestinians. The Maronites didn't like the Palestinians. So which "Lebanese" are you referring to? The Israelis backed the likes of Bashir Gemayel, a Phalangist who killed thousands of Palestinians and God knows how many Lebanese.

And perhaps the "best" and "most honorable" event of the 1982 Israeli invasion was when thousands of Palestinians were massacred inside their refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila under Israeli supervision?

superskippy wrote: Arafat moved troops into the city and turned it into a fortress. He had thousands of men at least 8,000 in the city as well as a Syrian Brigade bringing the totals to some 11,000. We had no choice but to fight, Arafat had the chose to leave Lebanon instead he decided Beirut would make a good pyre for his cause. And the wood for that Pyre? The civilians of Beirut.

The Syrians were fighting for Israel's Christian Phalangist allies. You do realize their army was incomparable to Arafat's PLO ragtag group?

superskippy wrote: Dont call it resisting the occupation then because it by definition is not that. Call it terrorism and murder to support the Palestinian cause.

So Israel "retaliates" but Palestinians support "terrorism"? That's doubleplustruespeak!

superskippy wrote: The Stern Gang had about 200 members and could hardly have cleansed all the villages of Palestine and instigate what you say they did.

Never doubt the power of Zionist psychological warfare operations. Besides, Stern wasn't the only one going at it.

superskippy wrote: As for your claim that Jordan collaborated with Israel... my god Saracen thats the most lunatic thing I've ever heard you say. The Jordanians spent months laying Siege to Jerusalem and attacking it day in and day out expending thousands of casualties until finally seizin the Old City. They attacked all across the Jordan Valley and seized the West Bank with ease. They pushed their tendrals to close that they were within 20 miles of Tel'Aviv with an Iraqi Armored Brigade leading the fore at one point.

The Jordanians didn't want Israel, nor did they want Israel's destruction. Jordan being ruled by a "moderate" Hashemite monarchy, it wanted the West Bank and Jerusalem. After they got that, they didn't push any further. In fact, Jordan was able to lay siege to Jerusalem because it was the only Arab army with decent supplies. Later, Israel and Jordan decided it'd be worth it to form some basis of an alliance. Do you remember when Jordan expelled the PLO and other groups in the early '70s?

Finally going back to a previous point that Saracen has also extensively supported, anyone who thinks the Zionists were ill-equipped to defeat the Arab armies is delusional.

Thanks for the help, Devaka. :clap:

superskippy wrote: So the attacks on convoys or the siege of Mishmar never occured did they?

Yes, it did, but they occurred... when? After all the attacks against Palestinian villages and the bombings of several buses? We're pointing fingers now.

superskippy wrote: Of course by far the ALA wasnt the strongest Army, but it did have a good supply of heavy artillary and armored vehicles.

And yet they lacked coordination and competence. No matter what they had in reserve, they obviously bickered over who was going to use these arms more than they actually used them against the Israelis, who soundly defeated the Arab armies and pushed more Palestinians out of their homes. This policy of transfer occurred even during 1967.

superskippy wrote: Not true, the excess casualty rates on the outer areas is reflective of the fact that the Jerusalem block consumed around 700-1,000 men, and in the south the Egyptians had extremely heavy fortifications.

The bulk of tactical operations took place in Northern and Center Israel.

Yeah, and those military operations were the same ones that not only included the paratrooping assault on Jerusalem, but also the cleansing of other villages like Lyd and Ramle.

superskippy wrote: Not really Operation Spring of Youth resulted in 0-2 civilian fatalities who lived in the same neighborhood as the PLO members we sought. We killed 3 major PLO leaders a dozen secondary targets and numbers between 12-80 PLO militants.

And that's just one of many operations.

ghazi.de wrote: Throughout this period, which saw heavy Israeli air, naval, and artillery bombardments of west Beirut, Ambassador Habib worked to arrange a settlement. In August, he was successful in bringing about an agreement for the evacuation of Syrian troops and PLO fighters from Beirut. The agreement also provided for the deployment of a three-nation Multinational Force (MNF) during the period of the evacuation, and by late August, U.S. Marines, as well as French and Italian units, had arrived in Beirut. When the evacuation ended, these units departed. The U.S. Marines left on September 10.

Beirut was hammered by Israeli and Syrian artillery strikes, and, as Devaka claimed, they (the Syrians) were fighting for the Phalangists, not against them.

[quote="superskippy"]Intervene? He'd been bombing and attacking us for the past year killing hundreds of civilians and launching cross border raids. We got fed up and decided to destroy the threat on our border.[/quoite]

He considered his attacks retaliatory, but I have to disagree with the method he used to attack the Israelis. However, this still does not excuse the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and their forceful and subsequent eviction from their homes. Heck, many Palestinian refugees alive today still have the deeds to their homes in Haifa, Jaffa, Jerusalem, et al.

superskippy wrote: You can call it what you will god knows you already do that , but by definition as you laid out in your post what the Palestinians are doing lacks any connection to resisting the occupation.

In their eyes, they see it as a way of resisting occupation because, as I before, it has to do with striking terror in the Israeli populace so as to force emigration rates to go high and immigration rates to drop. It did work for quite a time.

superskippy wrote: All abour Fertile? No, no, no it has to do with the richness of the lands. The Negev in 1948 posessed qualities that can be best compared to the sands of Western Egypt. It lacked any real infrastructre, it was a hot arid place that lacked crops, and it was a destitute area that offered promise only to a government that was willing to push millions and millions of dollars and decades into refining it.

That's funny. The last time I heard, the Israelis were supposed to have "made the deserts bloom"... or did they? Now, back to the discussion. The Negev still had small Jewish colonies that fared well at the time. Moreover, the Israelis, it seems, were willing to spend that much money into developing that land, yet look what they did (from the link).

Source wrote: Israel has been investing billions of dollars, mostly financed by U.S. taxpayers, to divert fresh waters from the Jordan River and Tiberias Lake. On the other hand, Lebanon has had no such good luck.

Yes, it seems that they were more concerned with other matters when they could have used it. Seriously, skippy. Saudi Arabia was even more arid and dry, and yet look at where it is. You might say that its oil got it there, but it was really a lot of hard work and commitment on part of Saudi governmental contractors who made Riyadh's desert a literal paradise.

superskippy wrote: Arafat made a pyre of Lebanese corpses for his cause.

The first attack against Lebanese people occurred as a skirmish by loose gunmen. If he seriously killed Lebanese, he killed those who either resisted his stupid "republic", or killed them in combat.

superskippy wrote: If were talking about Jew vs Arab violence it is impossible to say who started it first.

You're right. And on that we just have to agree to disagree.

superskippy wrote: Ahhh maybe this is where we've been so confused! I dont mean the Palestinians I mean the Arab Legion and the Egyptian National Army, and the Syrian Army and the Iraqi army. Of course the Palestinians didnt have tanks, perhaps this is where we became misunderstood?

Nope. I'm talking about the Palestinians and their fellow Arabs. Like I said above, they had tanks and vehicles; I didn't deny this. However, not only did they lack the coordination, but they also lacked the manpower to use them efficiently against the Israeli forces. The Egyptians and Iraqis had poor supply lines, and were decimated by the Israelis in the later stages of the war, where the King of Jordan sidelined himself from the conflict, and, as Devaka said, collaborated with the Israelis.

superskippy wrote: The only Arab nation that had supply issues was Egypt and that was minimally effected because we didnt get air support to harress their very long supply columns until later in the war.

Minimally affected? They had the Sinai and their mainland between them, and how could you say that they weren't affected?

superskippy wrote: The Arabs lacked morale since the average Arab as you can expect felt no urge to die for his country in a war that in no way affected him. While we were willing to throw our lives down to the last defending every inch of ground. This is why the Palestinians fought harder then the Arabs but were more inneffective due to lack of organized numbers and arms, they had a real reason to fight, the Arab soldiers did not.

So you admit that, while the Palestinians fought hard but were poorly armed, the Arabs had better equipment but fought poorly not only due to lack of morale, but lack of coordination and constant bickering amongst themselves? Thank you for agreeing with me.

superskippy wrote: Jordan fought harder then any Arab foe we faced, the Arab Legion battered into the Old City and kept us out for the duration of the war and sealed off the new city. They pushed North and South along the West Bank driving back our settlements and our troop positions.

They fought harder because they wanted Jerusalem for themselves. The Arabs really did not collaborate or coordinate with each other, no matter how seemingly unified they were in their attacks and reprisals against the oncoming Israeli onslaught. However, as stated above, the Jordanians later collaborated with the Israelis and ceded much of their territory, including Jerusalem, without a fight later on.

superskippy wrote: King Abdullah was smart he saw his allies were for all intents and purposes defeated, and to secure what he had gained he had to make peace and end the war quickly.

Smart? More like twisted. To date, the Hashemites are still serving Israeli interests more than they are serving the Palestinians.

superskippy wrote: They were well equipped and well organized, but they were not well united , we werent fighting the combined Jordanian-Syrian-Iraqi-Egyptian Army, we fought each army individually which aided us immensly and shaved off the advanteges the Arabs brought to the field and in doing so we made it so that we could fight each Army with a level playing field. Albeit we fought them all at once and on all fronts.

Yet your army did not fight them all at the same time. They weren't united and lacked the coordination to do so. They all suffered supply line setbacks (especially the Egyptians and the Iraqis) and the Jordanians only shelled Jerusalem. The Lebanese were sidelined from the start, and Saudi Arabia was more concerned with the Yemenite rebellion in the south. Also, the Israelis were more on the offensive than the defensive, as I've proven. The Palestinians, within time, were ethnically cleansed from their homes... many of them never to return to this date. Also, concerning the Jordanians, their only offense was the shelling of Jerusalem.

Source wrote: "Ben-Gurion made serious efforts, shortly before the United Nations vote on the Partition proposal, to seek the neutrality of King Abdullah of Transjordan, whose British trained and officered army, the Arab Legion, was the STRONGEST fighting force in the Middle East. The king had long been at loggerheads with Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, for the moral leadership of the Arabs of the whole region. Abdullah's secret interlocutor was to be Golda Meir:"' ...... He [King Abudullah] soon made the heart of the matter clear: he would not join in any Arab attack on us. He would always remain our friend, he said, and like us, he wanted peace more than anything else. After all, we had a common foe, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini.'"(Israel: A History, p.149-150)

"As for Abdullah's Arab Legion, it had fought better than any other Arab force. Yet on scarcely any occasion had the Arab Legion attempted to conquer territories allotted to the Jews by the partition plan, preferring to stay on the defensive." (The Sword And The Olive, p. 95)

"Perhaps the most important [of the Arab armies problems] was a crippled shortage of ammunition, owing to the international arms embargo ..., in the case of the Iraqis and Egyptians, long lines of communications. For example, after February 25, 1948, the Arab Legion received no new ammunition for its 20mm guns. Some of the ammunition used by the Iraqi artillery was more than thirty years old; the Syrians had no ammunition for their heavy 155mm guns. Whereas Jewish stockpiles were growing all the times [especially the big arms shipment from Czechoslovakia in May 1948], the enemies were so depleted they stole ammunition shipments for each other. In addition, they were ill-coordinated, technically incompetent, slow, ponderous, badly led, and unable to cope with night operations that willy-nilly, constituted the IDF's expertise." (The Sword And The Olive, p. 95-96)

They had lack of coordination. They never fought as a unified group, and yet all were inefficient in combat, save for the Jordanian army, which was at the defensive, most of the time.

Enjoy...

[superskippy]

Quote: The Jordanians shelled Jerusalem, and while they might be Arabs, let's remember that Arabs don't all think alike. The Jordanians only wanted Jerusalem, they weren't part of some vast Arab conspiracy to destroy Israel.

Did I say they were? No of course they werent, it wasnt a conspiracy it was an open land grab by all Arab nations involved, Jordan wanted Jerusalem and the West Bank and to push towards the coasts. Egypt wanted the Negev and to push up the coast towards Tel'Aviv. The Syrians wanted all of the Galilee, and to push across to the Lebanese-Israeli border.

Quote: What utter lies! The Haganah was extremely well equipped: over 90,000 soldiers with Western weapons (perhaps you've forgotten that while the Zionists were working with the British to crush various Arab revolts during the late 1930s, they were also smuggling weapons?) In fact, demographically speaking there were more young men to fight for the Zionist cause versus the Palestinian cause (men between ages 18 and 45). The US and British intelligence agencies all agreed that the Zionists would rout the Arabs...which they did.

Nope. The Haganah never reached 90,000 men, the Zahal did and the zahal encompassed all Jews in arms from the settlement police and defenders, to the Givati and Alenxdroni brigades. We were not equipped to battle standerds until a few weeks after the war when the British blockade was lifted we got full access to Czeck arms. We had no armor, no planes, no heavy artillary, a few pieces of light artillary, almost no heavy machine guns, an uneven small arms distrubition and a constant desperate need for ammunition. It was so bad that when the war broke out and 1,000 rifles were smuggled in it vastly improved our stocks of weaponry.

Quote: Meanwhile 750,000 Palestinians were kicked out of their homes. Your survival's dependent upon ethnic cleansing?

And yet we didnt kick all 750,000 out, the bulk werent kicked out or evicted but fled in panic from impending battle expecting to return when the war ended.

Quote: It's key here to define which Lebanese you're referring to. The Shia sure didn't like the Palestinians. The Maronites didn't like the Palestinians. So which "Lebanese" are you referring to? The Israelis backed the likes of Bashir Gemayel, a Phalangist who killed thousands of Palestinians and God knows how many Lebanese.

The National Assembly of Lebanon which at the time was in rather good control and was the government of Lebanon.

Quote: And perhaps the "best" and "most honorable" event of the 1982 Israeli invasion was when thousands of Palestinians were massacred inside their refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila under Israeli supervision?

A terrible act by the Phalange and the commander of the IDF in the area should be courtmartialed for not forseeing what would occur and making no effort to observe their actions.

Quote: The Syrians were fighting for Israel's Christian Phalangist allies. You do realize their army was incomparable to Arafat's PLO ragtag group?

Except that they werent and over 1,400-2,300 Syrian soldiers lost their lives in battle against us, and entire tank companies were annihilated, and 1/4 of their airforce was destroyed in action against us.

Not to mentiont he fact that the 85th Brigade remained behind in Beirut alongside the PLO.

They only agreed to a ceisefire and withdrew from the conflict after we crushed them in the early days of the war.

Quote: So Israel "retaliates" but Palestinians support "terrorism"? That's doubleplustruespeak!

All I said was dont call it "resisting the occupation" since by definition of his own post thats not what they are doing. Your free to call what Israel does what ever you want, though I'll argue against it.

Quote: Never doubt the power of Zionist psychological warfare operations. Besides, Stern wasn't the only one going at it.

Ah yes the Irgun which at its height held a very very very maximum number if men at 2,000. Not all of which were operatives by far, and we subdued the Irgun with force and destroyed the organization.

Quote: Yes, it did, but they occurred... when? After all the attacks against Palestinian villages and the bombings of several buses? We're pointing fingers now.

Right after and before partition was declared my friend. :lol: The ALA began operations long before the mandate officially expired and the British left.

Quote: And yet they lacked coordination and competence. No matter what they had in reserve, they obviously bickered over who was going to use these arms more than they actually used them against the Israelis, who soundly defeated the Arab armies and pushed more Palestinians out of their homes. This policy of transfer occurred even during 1967.

They lacked unity with other Arab Armies and were isolated from support from the Syrians so the ALA though it made headway was eventually overrun and crushed.

Quote: Yeah, and those military operations were the same ones that not only included the paratrooping assault on Jerusalem, but also the cleansing of other villages like Lyd and Ramle.

Paratroopers in 1948??

Quote: He considered his attacks retaliatory, but I have to disagree with the method he used to attack the Israelis. However, this still does not excuse the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and their forceful and subsequent eviction from their homes. Heck, many Palestinian refugees alive today still have the deeds to their homes in Haifa, Jaffa, Jerusalem, et al.

His attacks were part of a war he began and we ended.

As for your latter question, I'd guess between a 1,000-4,500. Not only are their very few 1948 refugees from those places but after 60 years I doubt many have the deeds anymore.

Quote: In their eyes, they see it as a way of resisting occupation because, as I before, it has to do with striking terror in the Israeli populace so as to force emigration rates to go high and immigration rates to drop. It did work for quite a time.

So your theory is that they use terrorism to change emmigration and immigration rates... Thats utterly ludicrous my friend. They attack because by killing civilians they feel they can hit home against Israel and make their bloody actions more recognizable to the world. Its a terrible thing they do and if they actually resisted the occupation by fighting soldiers more people in the world might care about the Palestinian cause. A soldier is made of flesh and blood just like a person riding a bus, and lord knows they have plenty of soldiers they could hit as targets.

Quote: That's funny. The last time I heard, the Israelis were supposed to have "made the deserts bloom"... or did they? Now, back to the discussion. The Negev still had small Jewish colonies that fared well at the time. Moreover, the Israelis, it seems, were willing to spend that much money into developing that land, yet look what they did

Which we have done, the Negev is 20x more economically productive then it was in 1948 and its agricultural economy has gone up astronomically.

Quote: Yes, it seems that they were more concerned with other matters when they could have used it. Seriously, skippy. Saudi Arabia was even more arid and dry, and yet look at where it is. You might say that its oil got it there, but it was really a lot of hard work and commitment on part of Saudi governmental contractors who made Riyadh's desert a literal paradise.

Saudi Arabia keeps its watersupply thorough because it has the oil money to build massive irrigation lines that go all across the country.

Quote: The first attack against Lebanese people occurred as a skirmish by loose gunmen. If he seriously killed Lebanese, he killed those who either resisted his stupid "republic", or killed them in combat.

I'm speaking of when he decided to make the Lebanese capitol his fortress and the civilians the martyrs for his cause against Israel. A sickening act for a man whos depravity is well known and documented.

Quote: Nope. I'm talking about the Palestinians and their fellow Arabs. Like I said above, they had tanks and vehicles; I didn't deny this. However, not only did they lack the coordination, but they also lacked the manpower to use them efficiently against the Israeli forces. The Egyptians and Iraqis had poor supply lines, and were decimated by the Israelis in the later stages of the war, where the King of Jordan sidelined himself from the conflict, and, as Devaka said, collaborated with the Israelis.

Manpower was never an issue amongst the Arabs, and their supply lines didnt affect them until much later in the war when we fough our way to the Sinia border and managed to assault Egyptian supply lines the only Arab foe we managed to do that too. The Iraqi's didnt have poor supply lines they had allies (Jordan) who didnt care to let the Iraqi's have too much supply.

They were poor commanders on top of their lack of unity and lack of morale. Their plans and tactics were very textbook, and once we added variables and random events to their plans and operations they went to mush and let us take the advantage we normally wouldnt get.

Quote: Minimally affected? They had the Sinai and their mainland between them, and how could you say that they weren't affected?

Because places like El-Arish were heavily built up munitions depots from World War 2 and could transport supplies to the front in a few hours and still return back befor ethe day was out. Not to mention the many many supply dumps along the Sinia border that remained in place until 1967.

Quote: So you admit that, while the Palestinians fought hard but were poorly armed, the Arabs had better equipment but fought poorly not only due to lack of morale, but lack of coordination and constant bickering amongst themselves? Thank you for agreeing with me.

They were not nearly as equipped as their Arab neighbors were, though when the war began we were near equal in terms of small arms. Their strength lay in a large population that they could draw militia support for guerilla attacks. But yes in principle I agree with you, but this lack was made up by the Arab Armies who attacked and began supplimenting the ALA.

Quote: They fought harder because they wanted Jerusalem for themselves. The Arabs really did not collaborate or coordinate with each other, no matter how seemingly unified they were in their attacks and reprisals against the oncoming Israeli onslaught. However, as stated above, the Jordanians later collaborated with the Israelis and ceded much of their territory, including Jerusalem, without a fight later on.

I dont think it was Jerusalem I think it was more that they had the Arab Legion.

They didnt cede Jerusalem or the West Bank without a fight in 1967 were crushed them and threw them across the Jordan River and had we chose to we could have marched on Amman.

Quote: Smart? More like twisted. To date, the Hashemites are still serving Israeli interests more than they are serving the Palestinians.

Be more reasonable than that, what would you have done? You've just taken the Old City, you have the West Bank and an extended coastline. But your allies are now defeated, your armies are exhausted and your enemy the Israelis can now reorganize and focus all their attacks on you. Do you fight a useless battle only to have your territory lost and potentially another few thousand men killed for no reason?

No he made the right choice, he accepted a ceasefire and then secured the territory he had taken he also soldified his annexation of the West Bank and the Old City by granting citizenship to all the Palestinians there.

Quote: Yet your army did not fight them all at the same time. They weren't united and lacked the coordination to do so.

Yep. Inter-Arab unity was not a real factor, but we still had to fight 7 Arab armies that were equipped to battle standerd and had a nice array of artillary and armor, we had no choice but to win the Arabs had options. Our nascent state still managed to defeat the Egyptian Army, the Syrian Army, the 1,300-2,000 Lebanese that managed to cross the border, and then at last we managed to turn back the Arab Legion at all points save Jerusalem.

An enormous feat. We may not have fought them as one group of enemies at once, but they all attacked at the same time but on multiple fronts.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Thats not it and you know it, they didnt want a Jewish state at all. They expected a war do you know why? They planned it out, and the minute the mandate ended and I mean the MINUTE it ended the Arab armies declared war on the nascent state of Israel and crossed the borders with around 30,000 men and companies of tanks and armor and aircraft.

You know what, Skip? You just put your finger right on it. That fact destroys any argument these terrorist sympathizers can make.

Just keep making sure that the 2% didn't die in vain.

God bless'em.

[Kalu]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Thats not it and you know it, they didnt want a Jewish state at all. They expected a war do you know why? They planned it out, and the minute the mandate ended and I mean the MINUTE it ended the Arab armies declared war on the nascent state of Israel and crossed the borders with around 30,000 men and companies of tanks and armor and aircraft.

You know what, Skip? You just put your finger right on it. That fact destroys any argument these terrorist sympathizers can make.

Just keep making sure that the 2% didn't die in vain.

God bless'em.

Did you read anything Saracen posted? Wow.

Let's go over the facts again since some people have a hard time getting past their prejudices and accepting that Palestinians, human beings, were kicked off their land and oppressed to this day:

-90,000 well-trained Haganah 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).
-Over 80% of the "2% dead" (5708 people) were soldiers as Saracen mentioned (source)
-The Yishuv and all other Zionist elements were planning on connecting their territories into a much bigger state and knew full well they had to expel hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians from their homes to do it.

superskippy wrote: Did I say they were? No of course they werent, it wasnt a conspiracy it was an open land grab by all Arab nations involved, Jordan wanted Jerusalem and the West Bank and to push towards the coasts. Egypt wanted the Negev and to push up the coast towards Tel'Aviv. The Syrians wanted all of the Galilee, and to push across to the Lebanese-Israeli border.

Great, so now that the myth that all these Arab armies were a functional, united fighting force has been exploded, let's also remember that Jordan was really the only Arab country with any semblance of an army that could actually stand up to the Haganah.

superskippy wrote: Nope. The Haganah never reached 90,000 men, the Zahal did and the zahal encompassed all Jews in arms from the settlement police and defenders, to the Givati and Alenxdroni brigades. We were not equipped to battle standerds until a few weeks after the war when the British blockade was lifted we got full access to Czeck arms. We had no armor, no planes, no heavy artillary, a few pieces of light artillary, almost no heavy machine guns, an uneven small arms distrubition and a constant desperate need for ammunition. It was so bad that when the war broke out and 1,000 rifles were smuggled in it vastly improved our stocks of weaponry.

No. Read this:

Smith, 198 wrote: In theory an arms blockade was in force, imposed by the British, the Americans and the French, but its major effect was to block shipment of Western arms to the Arabs. The Israelis stepped up their purchases from Czechoslovakia, eager for Western currency, and began to implement their long-established plans to ship arms stockpiled in Europe and the United States. When the truce ended on July 6, the Israelis were in a much better military position than the Arabs in terms of weaponry and unitary command structure.

superskippy wrote: And yet we didnt kick all 750,000 out, the bulk werent kicked out or evicted but fled in panic from impending battle expecting to return when the war ended.

750,000 fled because they heard of massacres like Deir Yassin and because of the effectiveness of Zionist pyschological warfare operations. You don't need to directly put a gun to someone's head to coerce them to leave.

superskippy wrote: The National Assembly of Lebanon which at the time was in rather good control and was the government of Lebanon.

The National Assembly was being ripped apart by sectarian factions, and a fascist ally of Israel named Bashir Gemayel was President. But one thing most of these groups had in common was their keen dislike for Palestinians, especially the Maronites.

superskippy wrote: A terrible act by the Phalange and the commander of the IDF in the area should be courtmartialed for not forseeing what would occur and making no effort to observe their actions.

Good, so you agree that Ariel Sharon should be on trial for war crimes then.

superskippy wrote: Except that they werent and over 1,400-2,300 Syrian soldiers lost their lives in battle against us, and entire tank companies were annihilated, and 1/4 of their airforce was destroyed in action against us.

Not to mentiont he fact that the 85th Brigade remained behind in Beirut alongside the PLO.

They only agreed to a ceisefire and withdrew from the conflict after we crushed them in the early days of the war.

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: All I said was dont call it "resisting the occupation" since by definition of his own post thats not what they are doing. Your free to call what Israel does what ever you want, though I'll argue against it.

You'll argue against it but I'm merely pointing out how it's all doctrinal doublespeak to accuse Israel of "retaliation" against Palestinian "terrorists" while ignoring Israel's own state terror.

superskippy wrote: Ah yes the Irgun which at its height held a very very very maximum number if men at 2,000. Not all of which were operatives by far, and we subdued the Irgun with force and destroyed the organization.

Yes, there were limited power struggles but you forget that the Haganah was also involved with it's own psyops operations.

Works Cited:
Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Charles D. Smith.

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: Did I say they were? No of course they werent, it wasnt a conspiracy it was an open land grab by all Arab nations involved, Jordan wanted Jerusalem and the West Bank and to push towards the coasts. Egypt wanted the Negev and to push up the coast towards Tel'Aviv. The Syrians wanted all of the Galilee, and to push across to the Lebanese-Israeli border.

An open land grab? Yes, but the Arabs weren't intent on getting that territory for themselves more than returning it to the Palestinians, yet the Jordanians, who collaborated with the Israelis, and the Egyptians, who had bad supply lines, weren't able to fight well.

superskippy wrote: Nope. The Haganah never reached 90,000 men, the Zahal did and the zahal encompassed all Jews in arms from the settlement police and defenders, to the Givati and Alenxdroni brigades. We were not equipped to battle standerds until a few weeks after the war when the British blockade was lifted we got full access to Czeck arms. We had no armor, no planes, no heavy artillary, a few pieces of light artillary, almost no heavy machine guns, an uneven small arms distrubition and a constant desperate need for ammunition. It was so bad that when the war broke out and 1,000 rifles were smuggled in it vastly improved our stocks of weaponry.

The Zahal itself splintered off from the Haganah, and that alone tells you that the Israeli army was stronger than was anticipated. They were fortunate enough to have been able to hammer down the Palestinians and their allies on all fronts. Zahal and the Haganah were part of the new Israeli army. That being said, the Israelis who were defending did their worst in also ethnically cleansing the nearby Palestinian villages and whatever villages they came across. Their arms supply was steady when the Arabs themselves lacked coordination and had faulty equipment. But this talk on who has better equipment is starting to become a comedy more than anything else.

superskippy wrote: And yet we didnt kick all 750,000 out, the bulk werent kicked out or evicted but fled in panic from impending battle expecting to return when the war ended.

They were ordered to stay on the ground and defend themselves from the impending invasion, yet many fled after the majority of them were kicked out by the incoming Israeli forces who ethnically cleansed Lydd and Ramlé, and most notably 'Imwas.

Source wrote: The truth is most Palestinians were terrorized out of their homes, farms, and businesses. PalestineRemembered.com is fortunate to receive pictures portraying the terror that came upon the Palestinian people, click here to witness the ethnic cleansing and destruction of 'Imwas, and make sure to browse through the before and after images posted in its Pictures section. It should be noted that what happened to 'Imwas by the Israeli Army was a copycat war crime to what already happened to other 450 Palestinian towns during the 1948 war.

Since the inception of Zionism, its leaders have been keen on creating a "Jewish State" based on a "Jewish majority" by mass immigration of Jews to Palestine, primarily European Jews fleeing from anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia and Nazi Germany. When a "Jewish majority" was impossible to achieve, based on Jewish immigration and natural growth, Zionist leaders (such as Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharett, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, and Chaim Weizmann) concluded that "population transfer" was the only solution to what they referred to as the "Arab Problem." Year after year, the plan to cleanse Palestine away from its indigenous people became known as the "transfer solution."

The Palestinians never voluntarily left their homes; they fled because it was the smart thing to do, as the Zionists themselves were running rampant and destroying the villages, and killing its people.

Source wrote: Yitzhak Rabin, one of Israel's Prime Ministers, had written in his diary soon after the occupation of Lydda and al-Ramla on July 10th-11th, 1948:

"After attacking Lydda [later called Lod] and then Ramla, .... What would they do with the 50,000 civilians living in the two cities ..... Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution .... and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he [Ben-Gurion] remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endangered the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward.
Ben-Gurion would repeat the question: What is to be done with the population?, waving his hand in a gesture which said: Drive them out! [garesh otem in Hebrew]. 'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring, .... Psychologically, this was on of the most difficult actions we undertook". (Soldier Of Peace, p. 140-141 & Benny Morris, p. 207) .

Later, Rabin underlined the cruelty of the operation as mirrored in the reaction of his soldiers. He stated during an interview (which is still censored in Israeli publications to this day) with David Shipler from the New York Times on October 22, 1979:

"Great Suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in the eviction action. [They] included youth-movement graduates who had been inculcated with values such as international brotherhood and humaneness. The eviction action went beyond the concepts they were used to. There were some fellows who refused to take part. . . Prolonged propaganda activities were required after the action . . . to explain why we were obliged to undertake such a harsh and cruel action." (Simha Flapan, p. 101)

It was obvious that the Israelis were up to no good at that time.

superskippy wrote: The National Assembly of Lebanon which at the time was in rather good control and was the government of Lebanon.

So what you're trying to say is that the National Assembly of Lebanon was in good control of Lebanon, and Arafat wasn't?

superskippy wrote: A terrible act by the Phalange and the commander of the IDF in the area should be courtmartialed for not forseeing what would occur and making no effort to observe their actions.

Yep, and that regional commander was Ariel Sharon. He supervised the destruction, and with the help of another war criminal, Elie Hobeika, who is dead now.

I haven't heard any news on Sharon, though.

superskippy wrote: Except that they werent and over 1,400-2,300 Syrian soldiers lost their lives in battle against us, and entire tank companies were annihilated, and 1/4 of their airforce was destroyed in action against us.

Not to mentiont he fact that the 85th Brigade remained behind in Beirut alongside the PLO.

They only agreed to a ceisefire and withdrew from the conflict after we crushed them in the early days of the war.

And yet they still fought for the Phalange in the end.

superskippy wrote: All I said was dont call it "resisting the occupation" since by definition of his own post thats not what they are doing. Your free to call what Israel does what ever you want, though I'll argue against it.

And to which I argue that what the IRA had done was also resisting occupation, though by the same despicable means.

superskippy wrote: Ah yes the Irgun which at its height held a very very very maximum number if men at 2,000. Not all of which were operatives by far, and we subdued the Irgun with force and destroyed the organization.

Yeah, it was the Israeli army in general, then: Haganah + IZL + Stern... + Zahal.

superskippy wrote: Right after and before partition was declared my friend. The ALA began operations long before the mandate officially expired and the British left.

Here's what I got:

Source wrote: 21 December-late March 1948
Haganah and IZL attack villages and Bedouin settlements of coastal plain north of Tel Aviv in first coastal "clearing" operation.31 December
Haganah and IZL paramilitary gangs perpetrate Balad al-Shaykh (Haifa) massacre, in which more than 60 civilians are murdered.
December 1947-January 1948
Arab Higher Committee organizes 275 local committees for defense of Palestinian towns and villages.

This was after the rejection of the unfair UN GA partition plan. Thus, the only operations that were occurring against the Israelis was mobilization of troops, which was against the Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing. However, there were units that attacked the British mainly before that. But the ALA... carrying out operations against the Israelis before then? I don't think so.

superskippy wrote: They lacked unity with other Arab Armies and were isolated from support from the Syrians so the ALA though it made headway was eventually overrun and crushed.

And yet that headway wasn't as satisfactory as it turned out to be in the end. It turns out that the "headway" made by the Jordanians was lost because of their King's collaboration with the Israelis, and the "headway" wasn't as big as you wanted it to be:

Source wrote: Based on H.M. King Abdullah's orders (who also commanded the Iraqi Army in addition to Transjordan's), the strongest Arab armies did not even encroach on the areas allotted to the Jewish state by the 1947 UN GA Partition plan. On the contrary, the truth was the exact opposite, for example:

1- Lydda, Ramla, and the Triangle Areas were handed over to the Israelis without a fight. Although Transjordan's Army withdrew based on the orders of H.M. the King, the Iraqi Army (which was positioned few kilometers north in Ras al-'Ayn) was given explicit orders not to intervene (their motto in Arabic was: maku 'Awamer). It should be noted that these areas used to be densely populated with Palestinians, were fertile, and were strategically located for both Arab and Israeli supply lines.

2- When the Israeli Army attacked the Egyptian (south) and Syrian (northeast) armies in mid-October, 1948, the Iraqi and Jordanian armies were forbidden from opening a third front in the middle and south. The Iraqi Army was capable of splitting Israel in half if it was given the orders, and the Jordanian Army watched from the sidelines as the Israeli Army mauled the Egyptians in southern Hebron and Beersheba areas (Righteous Victims, p. 244). Note that the Iraqi Army was well positioned in the Tulkarm-Jinin areas (southeast of Haifa) which is only 12-14 kilometers from the Mediterranean, click here for a map illustration.

Yet, Lydd and Ramle were also the scenes of ethnic cleansing, which was another reason for them being handed over.

superskippy wrote: Paratroopers in 1948??

What? Oh, sorry, I was reading about the paratroopers in 1967. My mistake. :lol: Damn, I'm not myself these days.

superskippy wrote: His attacks were part of a war he began and we ended.

As for your latter question, I'd guess between a 1,000-4,500. Not only are their very few 1948 refugees from those places but after 60 years I doubt many have the deeds anymore.

There are many who still have the deeds, yet all Palestinians I have met and seen on the net can trace their ancestry back to a family in a Palestinian village, many which have been conquered by Israeli forces.

superskippy wrote: So your theory is that they use terrorism to change emmigration and immigration rates... Thats utterly ludicrous my friend. They attack because by killing civilians they feel they can hit home against Israel and make their bloody actions more recognizable to the world. Its a terrible thing they do and if they actually resisted the occupation by fighting soldiers more people in the world might care about the Palestinian cause. A soldier is made of flesh and blood just like a person riding a bus, and lord knows they have plenty of soldiers they could hit as targets.

I know that, but to them, striking the civilian population would increase their chances of expelling the Israelis in the same way the Israelis expelled many Palestinians from their lands back then (although not with suicide bombings... were there?). However, they have the saying "why attack the tiger when the sheep is right in front of you?" or something like that. I disagree with their tactics, but I can see their motives. The Israeli civilians are to them "occupiers", so they attack them. However, if I were Hamas's leader, I would focus more on IDF soldiers... but I would spare you if I saw you on the battlefield crippled.

superskippy wrote: Which we have done, the Negev is 20x more economically productive then it was in 1948 and its agricultural economy has gone up astronomically.

You could have done that from the beginning.

superskippy wrote: Saudi Arabia keeps its watersupply thorough because it has the oil money to build massive irrigation lines that go all across the country.

They get most of their water supplies not from irrigation, but from desalination.

superskippy wrote: I'm speaking of when he decided to make the Lebanese capitol his fortress and the civilians the martyrs for his cause against Israel. A sickening act for a man whos depravity is well known and documented.

Sounds like Sharon when he ordered the killings of 2,000+ civilians, and the bombing of many of the camps' buildings and homes. War is hell.

superskippy wrote: Manpower was never an issue amongst the Arabs, and their supply lines didnt affect them until much later in the war when we fough our way to the Sinia border and managed to assault Egyptian supply lines the only Arab foe we managed to do that too. The Iraqi's didnt have poor supply lines they had allies (Jordan) who didnt care to let the Iraqi's have too much supply.

They had allies who betrayed them. The Iraqis and Egyptians were butchered by the Israeli army while the Jordanians looked on..

superskippy wrote: They were poor commanders on top of their lack of unity and lack of morale. Their plans and tactics were very textbook, and once we added variables and random events to their plans and operations they went to mush and let us take the advantage we normally wouldnt get.

Yep, that's what I was saying.

superskippy wrote: Because places like El-Arish were heavily built up munitions depots from World War 2 and could transport supplies to the front in a few hours and still return back befor ethe day was out. Not to mention the many many supply dumps along the Sinia border that remained in place until 1967.

Take a look at this map . It was very obvious from the lack of roads and proper supply lines that they weren't able to hammer home any effective strikes.

superskippy wrote: They were not nearly as equipped as their Arab neighbors were, though when the war began we were near equal in terms of small arms. Their strength lay in a large population that they could draw militia support for guerilla attacks. But yes in principle I agree with you, but this lack was made up by the Arab Armies who attacked and began supplimenting the ALA.

The same Arab armies that had yet to push into Israeli territory, and were given explicit orders not to? The strongest of armies were benched in defensive actions, and the weakest ones were the ones who were attacking. But yes, we are genearlly in agreement over disagreement on this one. So, don't reply to this post unless you are eager to bounce the points back and forth. ;)

cap'n queasy wrote: You know what, Skip? You just put your finger right on it. That fact destroys any argument these terrorist sympathizers can make.

Terrorist sympathizers? queasy, the same can be said for the terrorists who made up the Israeli army who drove out the Palestinians from their homes and their land. You know very well that the state of Israel was incepted on racism and terrorism, and the "transfer solution" was the only solution the Israelis had to the "Palestinian problem". So stop pointing the finger on the Palestinians who went through so much sh!T over the past five decades. The Palestinians have suffered enough. The minute the mandate ended, the ALA declared war because the Israelis were already causing acts of war. So, in short, any subsequent Arab attacks were... retaliation.

superskippy wrote: I dont think it was Jerusalem I think it was more that they had the Arab Legion.

They didnt cede Jerusalem or the West Bank without a fight in 1967 were crushed them and threw them across the Jordan River and had we chose to we could have marched on Amman.

The Jordanians wanted Jerusalem, but they ceded large parts of the West Bank and Jerusalem without firing a single shot at the Israelis, as I have proven above.

superskippy wrote: Be more reasonable than that, what would you have done? You've just taken the Old City, you have the West Bank and an extended coastline. But your allies are now defeated, your armies are exhausted and your enemy the Israelis can now reorganize and focus all their attacks on you. Do you fight a useless battle only to have your territory lost and potentially another few thousand men killed for no reason?

No he made the right choice, he accepted a ceasefire and then secured the territory he had taken he also soldified his annexation of the West Bank and the Old City by granting citizenship to all the Palestinians there.

He didn't care for his allies. He betrayed them by sidelining his men when the Iraqi army was being decimated by the Israelis. So, in short, he collaborated with the Israelis even during the war and was playing a double game. It's known fact in the Arab world.

superskippy wrote: Yep. Inter-Arab unity was not a real factor, but we still had to fight 7 Arab armies that were equipped to battle standerd and had a nice array of artillary and armor, we had no choice but to win the Arabs had options. Our nascent state still managed to defeat the Egyptian Army, the Syrian Army, the 1,300-2,000 Lebanese that managed to cross the border, and then at last we managed to turn back the Arab Legion at all points save Jerusalem.

Come on, skip. These Arab armies weren't equipped even close to wellness.

Source wrote: The other strongest Arab armies, Egyptian and Iraqi, had long supply and communication lines away from their bases in their respective countries.

Saudi Arabian and Sudanese armies contributed few thousand soldiers in the middle of the war to shore up the exhausted Egyptian army in southern Palestine.

Under American and French pressure, the Lebanese Army was sidelined from the start, and it did not even cross the international borders. At the most, the Lebanese army provided a mediocre artillery cover to some ALA [Arab Liberation Army] volunteers at the beginning of the war. (Righteous Victims p. 233-234)

When the Arab armies entered Palestine on May 15, 1948, close to 400,000 Palestinian refugees were already ethnically cleansed out of their homes, and they clogged the roads, burdened local economies, and demoralized the Arab populations and armies, as it was admitted by Yigal Allon. In other words, the Palestinian refugees were used as a weapon against Israel's enemies.

The Arab armies neither coordinated their military operational plans, nor shared military intelligence among themselves. In fact, it wasn't until April 30, 1948 that the Arab armies' chiefs of staff met for the first time to work out a plan for military intervention. It's worth noting that this plan was later wrecked by H.M. King Abdullah, when he made last minute changes just before the entry of any Arab army into British Mandated Palestine. (Simha Flapan, p. 133 & Iron Wall, p. 35)

According to a Jewis