Prisoner exchange
- Thread starter basketcase
- Start date
In January of 1948, Jewish terrorists killed more then 1500 Palestinians, while suffering about 400 deaths. On Feb 9, Yadin (chief of staff) called for 'deep invasions' into Palestinian territory, and subsequently destroyed three Palestinian villages. In March they instituted Plan Dalet:IDF disarmed Irgun at gunpoint. It remains the case that on May 14, 1948 there was a viable Palestinian state, and that the Arab nations invaded Israel starting the war which is still underway today.
The war was started before May 14, 1948.These operations can be carried out in the following manner: either by destroying villages (by setting fire to them, by blowing them up, and by planting mines in their rubble), and especiallythose population centres that are difficult to control permanently; or by mounting combing and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the villages, conducting a search inside them. In case of resistance, the armed forces must be wiped out and the population expelled outside the borders of the state."
Groggy, why do you insist on making up bullshit? Why not try and stick to the fact?
Let's start with a basic timeline:
Nov 1947 to April 1948 - civil war in the Mandate of Palestine, with three factions, the British, the Palestinians, and the Jews
May 1948 to present, with truce in January 1949 - the Arab/Israeli war
The Arabs weren't fighting in Israel until May 14, 1948. They invaded a few hours after the creation of the State of Israel with the express purpose of destroying the Jewish state.
Prior to that there had been a civil war in the Mandate of Palestine, between three factions, the British, the Jews, and the Palestinians. The Arab countries weren't involved in this, although they lent some support to the Palestinians.
Let's start with a basic timeline:
Nov 1947 to April 1948 - civil war in the Mandate of Palestine, with three factions, the British, the Palestinians, and the Jews
May 1948 to present, with truce in January 1949 - the Arab/Israeli war
The Arabs weren't fighting in Israel until May 14, 1948. They invaded a few hours after the creation of the State of Israel with the express purpose of destroying the Jewish state.
Prior to that there had been a civil war in the Mandate of Palestine, between three factions, the British, the Jews, and the Palestinians. The Arab countries weren't involved in this, although they lent some support to the Palestinians.
The Arab nations did not invade until 14 May 1948, they weren't involved prior to that. They allowed some of their citizens to go volunteer to fight, and they provided some supplies, but the Arab nations were not at war with Israel, and their armies were not in Israeli territory, until 14 May 1948. Had they NOT invaded on 14 May 1948 then today there would be a Palestinian state on a very large chunk of territory, much larger than the 1967 borders they're now negotiating for. The Arab war of aggression aimed at destroying Israel wasn't such a smart move in retrospect, they lost a LOT of territory.flubclown said:The war was started before May 14, 1948.
You are going to need to cite the specific events you think that refers to. I think you are muddling together terrorist attacks (which Irgun did commit from time to time) and battles between various militias, which were not terrorist attacks. You can't simply add up every Palestinian death and suppose that it's the result of terrorism.In January of 1948, Jewish terrorists killed more then 1500 Palestinians, while suffering about 400 deaths.
There was a civil war under way. Israel's strategy in the civil war was to capture and hold territory. When they captured territory that included Palestinians, if the Palestinians remained neutral they were left alone. If they Palestinians fought against the Israeli troops trying to hold the territory then they were evicted.On Feb 9, Yadin (chief of staff) called for 'deep invasions' into Palestinian territory, and subsequently destroyed three Palestinian villages. In March they instituted Plan Dalet
As for Irgun I've already pointed out to you that IDF eventually disarmed Irgun at gunpoint.
And there goes your argument that the Arab states started the war.There was a civil war under way. Israel's strategy in the civil war was to capture and hold territory.
Israel was the aggressor, capturing territory and acting as terrorists.
Try reading and comprehending. Israel was capturing ground inside its own territory. The Arab States were not involved. They invaded on 14 May as a direct consequence of the creation of the State of Israel, with the explicit objective of destroying the Jewish state.And there goes your argument that the Arab states started the war.
Israel was the aggressor, capturing territory and acting as terrorists.
Your claim that Israel was the aggressor and acting as terrorists is complete bullshit. There were some Jewish groups, like Irgun, that committed terrorist acts (though not the numbers of casualties you claimed) but given that IDF disarmed them at gunpoint I don't think you can pin that on "Israel". Israel, when it came into being, cracked down on that stuff and brought an end to it. Similar actually to the present situation in Libya, where it's apparent the TNC is doing its best to uphold human rights but some individual groups beyond its control may not be listening. Sooner or later Libya will consolidate control and, if it goes like Israel did, the governing forces will crack down on those who engage in violations.
Israel did not have its own territory legally until the UN resolution was passed in Nov 1948, until then it was invading and taking land in Palestine.
Really, read the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, its all in there, casualty figures, quotes from the terrorists themselves on their plans.
Really, read the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, its all in there, casualty figures, quotes from the terrorists themselves on their plans.
There was a civil war underway before that, which the Arab nations were not party to. Again, the Arab nations started their war of aggression, intent on destroying Israel, on 14 May 1948.Israel did not have its own territory legally until the UN resolution was passed in Nov 1948, until then it was invading and taking land in Palestine.
The Palestinian version is stuff and nonsense.Really, read the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, its all in there, casualty figures, quotes from the terrorists themselves on their plans.
There WERE some terrorist groups on the Jewish side, Irgun certainly engaged in terrorism from time to time, which was one reason why they had to be forcibly disarmed at gunpoint by IDF.
On the other hand most of what the Palestinians describe as "terrorism" were just straight forward military operations. In some cases Israel cleared villages that were actively attacking Israeli forces, but villages that were peaceful were not cleared, and today form the basis of the Arab population of Israel (it's thus indisputable that they're there). In most cases Israeli forces did not have to clear any villages out because for the most part they left on their own: Arab leaders of the day ordered them to do that. The point of clearing out people who were attacking Israeli forces should be patently obvious to anyone--you do not leave behind your lines combatants who are actively attacking you.
The number of casualties attributed to Irgun terrorism is quite small. It is far less than the total number of casualties attributed to Irgun, but it is not zero. Irgan engaged both in legitimate military operations, and in stuff that went clearly over the line. Again, that is why Irgun was eventually disarmed at gunpoint by IDF.
As usual you are spouting bullshit to cover up the fact that you lost the point we were debating:
The Arab nations surrounding Israel were not involved until 14 May 1948, when they launched of an invasion of Israel, a war of aggression designed to destroy the Jewish state, as they rejected the idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East.
Grog does a good job of cherry picking a small sample of facts to support his unbridled hatred and is not deterred by the larger number of facts that contradict him.
Why bother with truthfulness when hatred is easier?
Why bother with truthfulness when hatred is easier?
Not to mention that they did so on the very day that the UK officially left and as a result stole the Palestinian state....
The Arab nations surrounding Israel were not involved until 14 May 1948, when they launched of an invasion of Israel, a war of aggression designed to destroy the Jewish state, as they rejected the idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East.
A little biased there, buddy?The Palestinian version is stuff and nonsense.
How can you even have a conversation with someone who immediately discounts everything anyone else says?
Read the book, open your eyes and grow some morals.
Here are some facts Groggy, you can go look them up, or I can supply sources, either way you will lose this debate:
-- The Arabs themselves told the Palestinians to leave Jewish territory, it was their belief at the time that their awe inspiring multi-national army was going to crush all the Jews, and they didn't want to cause Palestinian casualties in their unstoppable attack (oops)
-- In most cases where Haganah captured a town or village, the Palestinian residents were gone before Haganah got there (see above point)
-- In the cases where Haganah captured a down that did NOT resist, the residents were left to be, peacefully, and these people form the ancestors of the modern Arab Israeli population
-- Haganah did have orders to clear out towns that resisted violently, to secure the territory behind the front lines--but there were very, very few cases where this happened (resisters followed Arab orders to leave; the rest were peaceful)
I can tell by your claims earlier that you have been reading bullshit. You made exaggerated claims about the number of people killed in "terrorist attacks", which tells me you were taking legitimate military casualties and lumping them into that number, and so on.
Basically you are just going to cower there and point to propaganda and refuse to enter into the debate, because you know when it comes down to facts you ALWAYS lose.
-- The Arabs themselves told the Palestinians to leave Jewish territory, it was their belief at the time that their awe inspiring multi-national army was going to crush all the Jews, and they didn't want to cause Palestinian casualties in their unstoppable attack (oops)
-- In most cases where Haganah captured a town or village, the Palestinian residents were gone before Haganah got there (see above point)
-- In the cases where Haganah captured a down that did NOT resist, the residents were left to be, peacefully, and these people form the ancestors of the modern Arab Israeli population
-- Haganah did have orders to clear out towns that resisted violently, to secure the territory behind the front lines--but there were very, very few cases where this happened (resisters followed Arab orders to leave; the rest were peaceful)
I can tell by your claims earlier that you have been reading bullshit. You made exaggerated claims about the number of people killed in "terrorist attacks", which tells me you were taking legitimate military casualties and lumping them into that number, and so on.
Basically you are just going to cower there and point to propaganda and refuse to enter into the debate, because you know when it comes down to facts you ALWAYS lose.
You can write that you dispute it all you like but you are a propaganda clown who has been wrong on the facts in pretty much every debate we've ever had.
Your odds are not looking good.
Here's what the Economist had to say at the time:
Your odds are not looking good.
Here's what the Economist had to say at the time:
And here's the Secreatry of the Arab league speaking of it in 1955:The Economist said:“Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit... It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.”
And here is what Mahmoud Abbas, current PLO leader, had to say on the subject:Edward Atiyah said:“This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re**enter and retake possession of their country”
About the only person in the world who thinks the Arabs themselves didn't order the exodus from Israel is you, groggy.Abbas said:The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live.
Do you mean the nationalization of the Suez canal?1956: Arab's commit an act of war and Israel/Britain retaliate
No, I mean Egypt's naval blockade against Israel. Egypt closed the canal to Israeli shipping, closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba.Do you mean the nationalization of the Suez canal?
That was an act of war, a violation of the Convention of Constantinople (which requires the canal to be open to all countries), and also a violation of the terms of the 1949 armistice with Israel.
Nationalizing the canal was just business, closing it to the shipping of Israel was war. Had the Egyptians just collected the fees from ships passing through and allowed everyone to use it, it would not have been an act of war. The actual naval blockade in the Gulf of Aqaba and the blockade of the Straits of Tiran were also acts of war in their own right, so three separate acts of war by Egypt here.
No, that's business as well.Nationalizing the canal was just business, closing it to the shipping of Israel was war.
Declining a service is not war.
Once again you are clueless. Egypt did three different things that day:No, that's business as well.
Declining a service is not war.
1. It blockaded the Straits of Tiran, which is an outright act of war
2. It blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, which is an outright act of war
3. It closed the canal to Israeli shipping, in clear violation of the Convention of Constantinople that guaranteed all nations access to the canal, and in clear violation of the 1959 armistice agreement it had with Israel that guaranteed Israeli access to the canal
So two outright acts of war, on treaty violation, and one violation of its armistice agreement with Israel. Given that violating the Convention of Constantinople was also an act of war it's really three acts of war.
You really ought not to post when you know so bloody little about the topic.
This comment shows a clear lack of knowledge of both the history of the events around the Suez and international law.Outright acts of war?
Hardly.
Trade war, yes.
War, no.
