IRAN BLITZED Israel hits Iran’s Syria bases with 70 missiles killing ‘at least 23 fighters’ and vowi

You said the Arabs attacked you... Attacking means taking the initiative and going out of your way to agress someone, isn't it? So when did the Arabs invaded the jews?

I'm pretty sure you'll manage to figure out a scenario where you guys are, again, victims, don't you?

 

The war didn't start when the Arab armies "came in" (invaded), it started the day after 181 was voted on 1947, the Arab armies attacked in 1948. the Palestinians declared war and attacked the Jews.
The Palestinians attacked before the Arab armies attacked and they lost before the Arab armies attacked.

 

and during this time you call war when the Palestinians had virtually no weapons and few leaders having just recently been destroyed in the 36-39 uprising with the Zionists working with the British, Israel was indulging in massacres and the ethnic cleansing of 3-400,000 Palestinians. That is why the armies came in apart from the extra I mentioned the deal between Israel and Jordan and Egypt wanting a little bit of what was to have been the Palestinian state also.

 

Educating a mind full of Nazi-Muslim propaganda is not my objective and beyond my Jewish powers I'm afraid, we can charm a toad but not an ass, read and learn, we can debate if you finish your homework :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947–48_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine

 

Yeah I love you too, man.

 

Both sides had no weapons when the Palestinians attacked, the Brits took Jewish weapons - if the Palestinians had no weapons and no leaders as you suggest how did they manage to kill Jews and siege Jerusalem? how did they even made threats on the Jews that even the UN publicly addressed ? only when Israel bought the Czech weapons did we make a change.

 

The non violent approach you give the Palestinians is non existent, now I agreed with you before that the Arabs (that includes the Palestinians) had a good reason to fight from their own national perspective but to twist that to they never fought is just a lie.

 

Of course they fought back - some of them viciously. I never denied it.

But to say they started the war...

 

The Jews had plenty of weapons, the Palestinians virtually none. This is a well know fact.

No they did not. Israel was well supplied with weapons and fighters. Not enough to win until she broke the ceasefire and got better in particular planes as you describe you got from the Czech's

ha ha. this is just showing the lies in what you said before. Israel was using planes even before the war with the Arabs began to kill Palestinians trying to keep their homeland from foreign Colonialists.

No there was never any time when Israel was not following her Plan D regardless of what the Palestinians may or may not have said, they had been rendered all but powerless through their 36-9 revolt which of course the Zionists helped the British with. That really was their last hope of saving their homeland. This has been discussed in depth in this forum on two occasions. I know you were involved in one. I am pretty sure the other also which dealt with the details of the above. Obviously the Palestinians did whatever they could to stop foreign Colonialists taking their homeland. You had basically beaten them with the British by 39. Most of their leaders and weapons gone. Then there was the 'for show' deal at the UN and then you got on with it. Dig up the old threads if you want to go into this again.

 

Is quoting history....

 

By Muslims who invented this propaganda, the Palestinian Arabs had guns in their villages where they grouped to attack Jewish towns, Jews had been subject to British raids on their own guns.

Yes they did and the raids are documented by the Brits, what cease fire are you talking about ?

"Ha ha" is not a serious reply, source what you say, what attacks did those planes did during the British mandate/before the Arab armies invaded ?
here is my source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Jerusalem

Here is one Palestinian leader:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Qadir_al-Husayni

They were strong and arrogant enough to start a war in 1947, weak and defeated would never have sieged Jerusalem and never boasted the Jews will be massacred if they declare Independence. that not how weak and defeated act like.

 

wrong. That is what you write every time you do not like what you read. It is either what Gilos says or propaganda. Or to put it another way it is either Zionist propaganda or you say it is propaganda.

They had virtually nothing after 39. It is true that given that the Jews were trying to out them people did bring in arms but this was a very difficult thing given that the Brits would not allow the indigenous people to get them but even sold them to the Zionists. You remember that drama/documentary we had on this time in the UK made on the memories of British soldiers. This was brought out in it. Ordinary soldiers while originally feeling enormous sympathy for Jews after liberating Belsen, by the time you were ethnic cleansing the indigenous population before they left knew they had done wrong. Their officers, quite a different thing. The Zionists had a small army and had gained more ammunition by fighting with the Brits to destroy the indigenous population in their last attempt to keep their homeland....and that was a very good attempt which at times almost succeeded. However it also resulted in most of their best fighters being killed or driven into exile and the British destroying their weapons helped by your people. I seem to remember the British had such respect for the life of a Palestinian that they would hang them if they found them with a bullet. Meanwhile they put up with terrorism from yourselves.

Now while it is true there were terrorist actions by both after the deal .... deal what deal? Palestinians were willing to accept even partition as the British archives attest to. However as they also attest, the Zionists would not accept any deal unless it was so much in their favour that it would be impossible for the Palestinians to accept. The UN vote offered the new immigrants who numbered about one third of the population just over 56% of historic Palestine, offering the indigenous population who had more than twice the number of people only 43%. (The UN only did this after a break for bribery and blackmail) The UN's suggestion was only a suggestion. The Arabs said No . That was the end of the UN's suggestion. The Zionists said yes but just so they could with some legitimacy present what they were about to do with the already defeated Palestinian. .....OH, but the very first problem is that the area which has been given to the Zionists has almost as many indigenous people in it as Zionist immigrants. Clearly had the UN really believed that Zionists should have 56% of the land, it never would have been land which had almost as many non Zionists in it as Zionists. Clearly something else was going on as the Zionists wanted a State and a Jewish State at that and being offered even 56% of the land when almost as many indigenous people came with it and they were quicker at reproduction was not going to provide even the very basics that the Zionists wanted.

The UN also suggested that both the partitioned states should be economically linked. Indeed the Brits saw it a bit like the UK and it was believed that with this it would be necessary for both to hold restraint until a time passed when they accepted each other. This of course was pure romanticism. Israel never once considered the economic union part of the deal and the US State Department was the one who correctly saw what the Zionists were up to. They would according to the State department be continually at war, continually taking more land and continually saying it was for security.

No one has ever said the Zionists were foolish and it would be ridiculous to imagine they would have accepted the UN partition plan if they did not have an ulterior intention which they did indeed have in Plan Dalet which is what the Zionists put in after the UN Resolution which resulted in 3-4hundred thousand Palestinians being ethnically cleansed before Israel had even declared itself a State. - but of course you blame the Palestinians for this. How come it is not Zionists displaced then. I guess you could say the Palestinians put up a good fight given that their military had been destroyed 36-9. You also would be correct to say that had they not had the 36-9 rebellion and have met the Zionists alone for the first time then, without the Zionists clinging onto the tails of the Brits as they were in 36-9, they would without question have had a resounding victory.

This one

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/Israel and the Arab Coalition in 19481.html

I have not looked at your source. I am not sure even what you are giving. However I was talking about you saying the Israelis had no weapons, the Brits had taken them and then I remembered previous discussions and yes they were at least in part with you, and I can remember that when taking the road to Jerusalem at one point the Israelis used planes which they had bought from the brits to bomb the Palestinians - hence your suggestion that the Brits had taken the Zionists weapons is not true. I think you are over identifying with your terrorists which you are supposed to say were not you.

Yes I have just remembered him - again not checked your link so that is not saying I agree with what it says.

They were weak and defeated for 36-39 and that is when they lost their homeland. That does not mean that they did not want to continue fighting for it. I am going to have to remind myself of what was going on at this time but I can tell you I can remember it is not as you present. There again a Palestinian even resisting an Israel is considered a most arrogant thing to do. Benny Morris as I gave you the link to last time made clear that there were around 28 massacres by Zionists and only 3 by the Arab armies, 2 of which were in retaliation. I can also remember reading that when the arabs did an attack on Zionists or their property, the Zionist result would be to go to a village and kill either the number who were killed by the Palestinian regardless of the reality that they had nothing to do with the initial attack or even the whole village including the children. Seems you always went for attacking disproportionately violently.

 

I basically said what's there on WIKI, you suggest the Palestinians did not start the 1947 war thou they were right to do it.......so yea..

It makes no sense the Brit leadership no less was so favorable with the Zionists and then give the "White Book", Phill commission proposal and an abstain in 181.

The Arabs rejected ANY Jewish state by any borders way before 1947 181,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloudan_Conference_of_1937
So when they went to war following 181 it was not to adjust borders, it was to occupy the land.

Perhaps you can explain to me how such economic union to be possible if the Arabs boycotted the Jews since 1936 till.....now, forcing them to build Tel Aviv harbor.

Dear lady, to know how started what - simple hate will not do, give dates of events you mention, if you say Brits gave Jews guns and they started to ethnic cleanse villages - say which villages and at what dates.

That's an orgenized Palestinian attack on Jerusalem prior to plan D.

I said both didn't have weapons - meaning not many weapons, at the time the Palestinians started the war in 1947.

He didnt fight alone BTW.....

What land did they lose - and be specific please, during 1936-39 ?

I think they didnt lose any land, they lost thier dream for an all Arab state, which makes it not an ethnic cleansing threat, not a genocidal threat but a national ego fight and they went in it fully aware of it.

 

... Which makes me wonder, once again, what kind of "education" you guys are subjected to out there.

 

We talk to both Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs learning the two narratives, we do not boycott anyone, cowards do that.

 

I too was wondering, so I've asked wiki...

"The Israeli education system has been praised for various reasons, including its high quality and its major role in spurring Israel's economic development and technological boom.[29][30] Many international business leaders and organizations such as Microsoft founder Bill Gates and the technology giant IBM have praised Israel for its high quality of education in helping spur Israel's economic development.[31][32]"

Not too bad, I think.

 

You didn't provide a wiki there. You said first

insane. how can anyone be attacking when no one has any weapons - but the Zionist did. Many people write just what I said which you called propaganda but I know they are not people who write propaganda. Provide a proper link, not wiki, someone reputable to say the Palestinian Arabs started what you call a 'war'. Here is what I have memory of reading. It is quite correct that the Palestinian arabs did the first terrorist attack after the UN decision, but that was in no way starting a war. However if you put it as that started a war, you believe you can get away with it. That I remember reading somewhere. I should not get too tough on you as I know you are not taught this honestly in school and that has been way back since Israel came into being. I remember when the revisionists came out having seen the archives and knowing a little about things, the old boys saying, they knew, they had always known but they were just supposed to keep mum.

Avi Shlaim speaking about this war

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/Israel and the Arab Coalition in 19481.html

what is the white book? What is the Phill commission proposal. Ok abstaining in 181. The British had failed. To be frank I don't think they or the French were intending much more than the usual making a bob or two from colonialism. However they very much supported a Jewish State but not for Israel to take all of Palestine - that is why they helped the Jordanians get the West Bank.

First what I said was what the British archives said. From your link you are saying they refused the Peel Commission. That does not make the British Archives wrong in that they were open to two states under fair conditions, even if their leaders were not.

Gilos a terror attack does not make a going to war. Provide proper evidence of this. It may be an excuse for Zionists who had planned it, but it does not make an excuse for war.

You provide this evidence of them going to war.

what? It was a never looked into. The Zionists were too busy ethnically cleansing 3-4 hundred thousand men women and children before the real war even started.

You see here you make yourself just into someone who clearly only wants to abuse and clearly is used to abuse being the only way of dealing with people with a different opinion. You actually expect anyone to want to talk to you after you have done this baiting.

All been discussed before. Meanwhile I suggest as you were the first person to make accusations you start proving how the Palestinian indigenous people started a war against the foreign Colonisers. Hell you even being there in the way you came in, telling them you were going to take their land is pretty much an invitation for a fight anyway is it not and indeed that is what began the fighting although I know in your particular situation it was simply abusing the welcome they had given your ancestors.

was there indeed. I am going to check up on Jerusalem. I have a feeling this was something to do with defence.

Oh are you telling me he wasn't a God.

I did not speak about losing any land.

Then your education has failed you miserably.

They suffered from European Colonialism and ethnic cleansing from their homeland.

Ah is that how you try and make your conscience ok. No it was not. It was European Colonialism and ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people so that the European colonisers could replace them, stealing their culture and destroying their villages in an attempt to create a false history of the land.

 

Here you go, alexa. But of course Palestinians and Arabs on ther behalf started a war.

The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-warAnd

 

That isn't what Gilos is talking about. He is saying the people of Palestine started a war against the Zionists and that is why the Zioinists had to rape and murder and ethnically cleanse 3-400,000 Palestinians before the arab armies came in.

 

False dichotomy as there are significant differences. Regardless - naked claims are not worth much - where is the justification/rational for your claim.

 

I sourced Iran with the rest of the world did, to activate the deal.

 

Not only that but a mind full of Nazi-Muslim propaganda can not be dealt with rationally and with reason....it must be defeated. There are some who do not believe in compromise....only in the complete destruction of their opponents. This is the problem the Israelis face with the enemies that hate them!

 

Ya Arabs - read Hamas charter - Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.
http://www.acpr.org.il/resources/hamascharter.html
Palestinian Hamas are Nazis !!

 

Israel could not even win a decisive victory against Hezbollah in Lebanon, yet you believe they could take over half of Syria without a single shot? Gee whiz.

And, no, Israel was not invited into Syria. The Syrian government has expressly told Israel to leave Syria. That makes Israel invaders and occupiers.

The fact is, Israel is nowhere near as tough as some people make them out to be. They are in a very vulnerable position and they know it, which is why they are ALWAYS trying to get the much more powerful USA to fight their wars for them.

 

Living in denial is much easier than having to confront that reality. The truth is a burden and most people would rather not bear it.