Israeli

Author
Discussion

cloggy

4,959 posts

208 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
TheRealFingers99 said:
It's just a rant. Racism is evil. Where have I ever said otherwise? Hamas builds upon the opportunities presented by the Israeli authorities. The PLO was and is corrupt. The PA is a tool of the Israelis. Hamas' tactics are pretty stupid.

But, Israel are the occupying power and are also terrorists. The Israeli state was founded on ethnic cleansing. Israel is itself corrupt.

Resistance has to be understood -- we can argue about the methods -- you don't kick people from their house, shove them into a dog kennel, let them out when it suits you, harass them
Fool.

TheRealFingers99

1,996 posts

127 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
Lost soul said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
A former hard man of the Shin Bet (and Shalom was a hard, hard, man) has likened Israel to the Germans.
He was not talking about the holocaust as he stated
He was talking about all the other aspects of occupation: everything but the Shoah (and the Parajmos). Do you really think the Czech resistance fought on behalf of the Jews, the Roma? For sure, there are examples of that happening, but it was never the main issue for them.

Slaav

4,240 posts

209 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
Well as this thread is 'back on form' with insults starting again frown I thought I would ask a simple question:

In support of a viable two State solution, with Palestinians living freely alongside Israelis wherever the borders actually lie; with free elections and equal rights being paramount could there ever be peace without Israel giving back some of the undoubtedly illegally settled and 'seized' lands? Let alone greater spreading settlements?

Making loads of assumptions, if some ground was conceded by a forthright and visionary Israeli leader, do we think there COULD ever be peace? I certainly think that there could be.....

Without concessions - and by that I mean TRUE concessions by Israel, I don't see how there will ever be peace! Unfortunately frown

We therefore have a slight stalement don't we? Make concessions and there may be a chance of peace or make no concessions and ????? (Again, making many other assumptions)

Quite simple really in my own simplistic view beer

TheRealFingers99

1,996 posts

127 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
Lost soul said:
This is a ludicrous statement

You really are something else laugh

In the 48 war, the Israelis actually outgunned the Arabs (and were substantially better trained and organised -- only the (Jordanian) Arab Legion came close).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Isr...

For more, read Benny Morris 1948. A History of the 1st Arab-Israeli War and Ilan Pappe The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.

TheRealFingers99

1,996 posts

127 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
cloggy said:
Fool.
Then put up an argument and stop regurgitating half understood nonsense. The history of Israel has been re-written (and re-discovered) since before 2000. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Historians

One summary:

"Avi Shlaim described the New Historians' differences from what he termed the "official history" in the following terms. According to Shlaim:

  • The official version said that Britain tried to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state; the New Historians claimed that it tried to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state
  • The official version said that the Palestinians fled their homes of their own free will; the New Historians said that the refugees were chased out or expelled
  • The official version said that the balance of power was in favour of the Arabs; the New Historians said that Israel had the advantage both in manpower and in arms
  • The official version said that the Arabs had a coordinated plan to destroy Israel; the New Historians said that the Arabs were divided
  • The official version said that Arab intransigence prevented peace; the New Historians said that Israel is primarily to blame for the "dead end""
All you need do is read and look at the sources. Without sources, and without reading, you're just mouthing off.

TheRealFingers99

1,996 posts

127 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
cloggy said:
Fool.
Well reasoned, logical argument, well researched. Wonder why you bothered wasting the bandwidth...........

cloggy

4,959 posts

208 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
TheRealFingers99 said:
cloggy said:
Fool.
Then put up an argument and stop regurgitating half understood nonsense. The history of Israel has been re-written (and re-discovered) since before 2000. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Historians

One summary:

"Avi Shlaim described the New Historians' differences from what he termed the "official history" in the following terms. According to Shlaim:

  • The official version said that Britain tried to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state; the New Historians claimed that it tried to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state
  • The official version said that the Palestinians fled their homes of their own free will; the New Historians said that the refugees were chased out or expelled
  • The official version said that the balance of power was in favour of the Arabs; the New Historians said that Israel had the advantage both in manpower and in arms
  • The official version said that the Arabs had a coordinated plan to destroy Israel; the New Historians said that the Arabs were divided
  • The official version said that Arab intransigence prevented peace; the New Historians said that Israel is primarily to blame for the "dead end""
All you need do is read and look at the sources. Without sources, and without reading, you're just mouthing off.
I have spent a lot of time in the ME and what I have learned is never trust a fking Arab.
Who the fk are you any way than another mouthy scouser.

TheRealFingers99

1,996 posts

127 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
Slaav said:
Well as this thread is 'back on form' with insults starting again frown I thought I would ask a simple question:

In support of a viable two State solution, with Palestinians living freely alongside Israelis wherever the borders actually lie; with free elections and equal rights being paramount could there ever be peace without Israel giving back some of the undoubtedly illegally settled and 'seized' lands? Let alone greater spreading settlements?

Making loads of assumptions, if some ground was conceded by a forthright and visionary Israeli leader, do we think there COULD ever be peace? I certainly think that there could be.....

Without concessions - and by that I mean TRUE concessions by Israel, I don't see how there will ever be peace! Unfortunately frown

We therefore have a slight stalement don't we? Make concessions and there may be a chance of peace or make no concessions and ????? (Again, making many other assumptions)

Quite simple really in my own simplistic view beer
As I posted earlier, the elephant in the room is going to be the (right of) return of the refugees.

I broadly agree on the possibility of (a real) peace. It would take real balls from both sides.

But I'm inclined to think that a one state solution -- as Pappe and others have proposed -- would be more viable. Hell, call it Palisrael (has a nice peaceful, happy, ring).

TheRealFingers99

1,996 posts

127 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
cloggy said:
I have spent a lot of time in the ME and what I have learned is never trust a fking Arab.
Who the fk are you any way than another mouthy scouser.
Racism as well! Another great supporter of Israel. I'm actually a Brummie, support Chelsea, and am proud of my Roma and Jewish heritage.

Who are you but an illiterate (and foul mouthed) troll?


Grumfutock

5,274 posts

164 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
TheRealFingers99 said:
I can't follow the logic. Where do I get from the Israeli myth (and it is a myth) of poor little Israel defending itself from overwhelming Arab force to Hamas holed up in one of the most heavily populated areas in the world?
My god you are so brainwashed you now consider this a myth?????? Here is a news flash for you, it is called historical fact!!!

1948: Israel fights troops from the armies of Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Trans Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen & Arab Liberation Army.

1967: Israel fights troops from the armies of Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Jordan & Lebanon whilst those nations are supported by Algeria, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Pakistan, PLO, Saudi Arabia, Sudan & Tunisia.

1970: Israel fights troops from the Armies of Egypt & Syria with combat support from Jordan, Iraq, Algeria, Cuba, Morocco & Tunisia.

Yea MYTH! Do me a favour!



TheRealFingers99

1,996 posts

127 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
Grumfutock said:
My god you are so brainwashed you now consider this a myth?????? Here is a news flash for you, it is called historical fact!!!

1948: Israel fights troops from the armies of Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Trans Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen & Arab Liberation Army.

1967: Israel fights troops from the armies of Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Jordan & Lebanon whilst those nations are supported by Algeria, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Pakistan, PLO, Saudi Arabia, Sudan & Tunisia.

1970: Israel fights troops from the Armies of Egypt & Syria with combat support from Jordan, Iraq, Algeria, Cuba, Morocco & Tunisia.

Yea MYTH! Do me a favour!

See the link I posted. Exercise your brain and your finger. Here it is again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Isr...

Here I'll deal only with 1948. Israel outgunned and outmanned the Arabs. Simple fact.

Grumfutock

5,274 posts

164 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
TheRealFingers99 said:
In the 48 war, the Israelis actually outgunned the Arabs (and were substantially better trained and organised -- only the (Jordanian) Arab Legion came close).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Isr...

For more, read Benny Morris 1948. A History of the 1st Arab-Israeli War and Ilan Pappe The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.
Really? And I quote from your own link! Funny how EVERY military expert's assessment disagrees with yours!

Military assessments

On the eve of war, the Palestinians hardly existed as a military force.[83] The British Intelligence and Arab League military reached similar conclusions.[84]

The British Foreign Ministry and C.I.A believed that the Arab States would finally win in case of war.[85][86] Martin Van Creveld says that in terms of manpower, the sides were fairly evenly matched.[87]

In May The Egyptians generals told their government that the invasion will be “A parade without any risks” and Tel Aviv “in two weeks”.[88] Egypt, Iraq, and Syria all possessed air forces, Egypt and Syria had tanks, and all had some modern artillery.[89] Initially, the Haganah had no heavy machine guns, artillery, armored vehicles, anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapons,[47] nor military aircraft or tanks.[42] The four Arab armies that invaded on 15 May were far stronger than the Haganah formations they initially encountered [90]

On 12 May, three days before the invasion, David Ben-Gurion was told by his chief military advisers (who over-estimated the size of the Arab armies and the numbers and efficiency of the troops who would be committed — much as the Arab generals tended to exaggerate Jewish troops strength) that Israel's chances of winning a war against the Arab states were only about even.[89]

TheRealFingers99

1,996 posts

127 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
Depends when you "want" the war to start and when you do the count.

From the article: "By March 1948, the effective number of Arab combatants numbered 12,000. The Yishuv had a numerical superiority." and "By March 1948, the Yishuv had a numerical superiority, with 35,780 mobilised and deployed troops for the Haganah, 3,000 of Stern and Irgun, and a few thousand armed settlers." "By the end of 1948, the Israel Defense Forces had 88,033 soldiers, including 60,000 combat soldiers."

The arms shipments from Czech were critical.

"As the war progressed, the IDF managed to field more troops than the Arab forces. In July 1948, the IDF had 63,000 troops; by early spring 1949, they had 115,000. The Arab armies had an estimated 40,000 troops in July 1948, rising to 55,000 in October 1948, and slightly more by the spring of 1949."

That's a 2 to 1 advantage.

cloggy

4,959 posts

208 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
TheRealFingers99 said:
cloggy said:
I have spent a lot of time in the ME and what I have learned is never trust a fking Arab.
Who the fk are you any way than another mouthy scouser.
Racism as well! Another great supporter of Israel. I'm actually a Brummie, support Chelsea, and am proud of my Roma and Jewish heritage.

Who are you but an illiterate (and foul mouthed) troll?
I wondered when you were going to play the racist card, well done.
Roma and Jewish heritage, then you should have learned something about the holocaust that the Arabs supported fool.

Grumfutock

5,274 posts

164 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
It also says:

"According to Collins and LaPierre, by April 1948, the Haganah had managed to accumulate only about 20,000 rifles and Sten guns for the 35,000 soldiers who existed on paper."

"On the eve of the war, the available number of Arab troops likely to be committed to war was between 23,000-20,000 (10,000 Egyptians, 4,500 Jordanians, 3,000 Iraqis, 6-3,000 Syrians, 2,000 ALA volunteers, 1,000 Lebanese, and several hundred Saudis), in addition to the irregular Palestinians already present. Prior to the war, Arab forces had been trained by British and French instructors. This was particularly true of Jordan's Arab Legion under command of Lt Gen Sir John Glubb"


Grumfutock

5,274 posts

164 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
TheRealFingers99 said:
I'm actually a Brummie, support Chelsea, and am proud of my Roma and Jewish heritage.
Bloody hell, a with a brum accent, that supports a Russians play thing when he should support Spurs!

You really were unlucky weren't you!

TheRealFingers99

1,996 posts

127 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
Grumfutock said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
I'm actually a Brummie, support Chelsea, and am proud of my Roma and Jewish heritage.
Bloody hell, a with a brum accent, that supports a Russians play thing when he should support Spurs!

You really were unlucky weren't you!
So keres? Let's not forget, Roman Abramovich is a Jew, so Chelsea is the real Jewish London club! (He supports Israel, too, but hopefully in that sentimental way a lot of non-Zionist Jews do.)

(Italics on in the hope that the webmasters have fixed them!)

Grumfutock

5,274 posts

164 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
TheRealFingers99 said:
So keres? Let's not forget, Roman Abramovich is a Jew, so Chelsea is the real Jewish London club! (He supports Israel, too, but hopefully in that sentimental way a lot of non-Zionist Jews do.)

(Italics on in the hope that the webmasters have fixed them!)
smile

TheRealFingers99

1,996 posts

127 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
Grumfutock said:
It also says:

"According to Collins and LaPierre, by April 1948, the Haganah had managed to accumulate only about 20,000 rifles and Sten guns for the 35,000 soldiers who existed on paper."

"On the eve of the war, the available number of Arab troops likely to be committed to war was between 23,000-20,000 (10,000 Egyptians, 4,500 Jordanians, 3,000 Iraqis, 6-3,000 Syrians, 2,000 ALA volunteers, 1,000 Lebanese, and several hundred Saudis), in addition to the irregular Palestinians already present. Prior to the war, Arab forces had been trained by British and French instructors. This was particularly true of Jordan's Arab Legion under command of Lt Gen Sir John Glubb"
As I say, it depends on when you want to do the count. Haganah also received a lot of British training pre-war, and some actually fought under Brit command in the war. Syrians were screwed by French orchestrated arms embargo. But 2 to 1 is one hell of an advantage, later on.

For sure, the Israelis did well early on, but it was never in the face of overwhelming odds.

As a rule, they had better training, better command structure.

TheRealFingers99

1,996 posts

127 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
cloggy said:
I wondered when you were going to play the racist card, well done.
You did that yourself
cloggy said:
never trust a fking Arab
cloggy said:
Roma and Jewish heritage, then you should have learned something about the holocaust that the Arabs supported fool.
Some Arabs did. So did some Poles, Czechs, French (not a comprehensive list) and probably English. Racism is bad -- it's utterly stupid to hate people on the basis of something over which they have no control.