I will not Bow!

[Victory67]

Translation...Arabs don't give a damn about each other. I couldn't have explained it any clearer.

You mean like when Ben Gurion said he'd rather save 500,000 Jews and bring them to Palestine that save 1 million Jews and have them go to the Britain?

http://windowintopalestine.blogspot.com/2009/01/words-of-theodor-hertzel-father-of.html

 

[pbel]

Yes.

The Brits had disbanded most of the Palestinian militias and decapitated their leadership during the revolt of 1936.

It is true that most Palestinian leadership was imprisoned, exiled, or killed.


Not really. Britain allowed/assisted the Jews to form militias to protect their settlements since the 1920s. There were some problems after the 1939 White Paper because the Jews thought that Britain reneged on its promise of a Jewish state.

The Arabs had had eleven (11) years... 1936-1947... to do the same...

Not really, Britain stood on them to the end. Not to mention that Palestine was not being pumped full of foreign money like Israel.

Major Arab Fail.

Translation...Arabs don't give a damn about each other.
I couldn't have explained it any clearer.[/QUOTE]
No, the real translation is the power of money...Israel was immensely helped by the richness of world Jewry and the Arabs were robbed of their natural resources with the collusion of corrupt Dictators, Sheiks, Kings that continues to this day.

The Arab Spring is the culmination, and the revolutions will bring back control of their resources.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.

Given that Israel was a brand spanking new country without a military, and that it was relying upon militias that fought with each other as much as they fought with the Arabs, and given that the Arabs had militias of their own, this comes off as a damned weak attempt at excuse-making for running away like chickenshits and not standing their ground to defend home and hearth. Run away, lose the day.

Of course that is not true. Israel started conscripting troops in December of 1947.

Britain had destroyed most of the Palestinian militias.

(COMMENT)

It was the intent of the UK to leave both sides equally disarmed; no police and no militia.

However, there were provisions in the Partition Plan for a militia.



The Arabs, having rejected participation in the implementation process, did not have the opportunity to set up the arrangements.

The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.

SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948

After the outbreak of hostilities, the Security Council noted that:

Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine,

1. Determines that the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations;

SOURCE: S/RES/54 (1948) S/902 15 July 1948

The Arab League, having refused - on several occasions - to accept a truce (noted above), only accepted the Armistice in 1949 when it was obvious they were at a military disadvantage on the battlefield; endanger of losing still more control over territory initially seized by force.

Most Respectfully,
R

Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.

Even though the Arab armies prevented Israel from taking all of Palestine it was a separate war from Israel's attack on Palestine. It had no affect on the legal standing of Israel or Palestine.

 

[toastman]

It is true that most Palestinian leadership was imprisoned, exiled, or killed.


Not really. Britain allowed/assisted the Jews to form militias to protect their settlements since the 1920s. There were some problems after the 1939 White Paper because the Jews thought that Britain reneged on its promise of a Jewish state.


Not really, Britain stood on them to the end. Not to mention that Palestine was not being pumped full of foreign money like Israel.

Major Arab Fail.

Translation...Arabs don't give a damn about each other.
I couldn't have explained it any clearer.

No, the real translation is the power of money...Israel was immensely help by the richness of world Jewry and the Arabs were robbed of their natural resources with the collusion of corrupt Dictators, Sheiks, Kings that continues to this day.

The Arab Springs is the culmination, and the revolutions will bring back control of their resources.[/QUOTE]

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.

Of course that is not true. Israel started conscripting troops in December of 1947.

Britain had destroyed most of the Palestinian militias.

(COMMENT)

It was the intent of the UK to leave both sides equally disarmed; no police and no militia.

However, there were provisions in the Partition Plan for a militia.



The Arabs, having rejected participation in the implementation process, did not have the opportunity to set up the arrangements.



After the outbreak of hostilities, the Security Council noted that:



The Arab League, having refused - on several occasions - to accept a truce (noted above), only accepted the Armistice in 1949 when it was obvious they were at a military disadvantage on the battlefield; endanger of losing still more control over territory initially seized by force.

Most Respectfully,
R

Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.

Even though the Arab armies prevented Israel from taking all of Palestine it was a separate war from Israel's attack on Palestine. It had no affect on the legal standing of Israel or Palestine.

You just love making up bullshit as you go along, right??

BTW, what attack on Palestine are you talking about ?? Can you provide a link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.


(COMMENT)

It was the intent of the UK to leave both sides equally disarmed; no police and no militia.

However, there were provisions in the Partition Plan for a militia.



The Arabs, having rejected participation in the implementation process, did not have the opportunity to set up the arrangements.



After the outbreak of hostilities, the Security Council noted that:



The Arab League, having refused - on several occasions - to accept a truce (noted above), only accepted the Armistice in 1949 when it was obvious they were at a military disadvantage on the battlefield; endanger of losing still more control over territory initially seized by force.

Most Respectfully,
R

Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.

Even though the Arab armies prevented Israel from taking all of Palestine it was a separate war from Israel's attack on Palestine. It had no affect on the legal standing of Israel or Palestine.

You just love making up bullshit as you go along, right??

BTW, what attack on Palestine are you talking about ?? Can you provide a link?

I did already. You probably did not look at it.

 

[Kondor3]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.


(COMMENT)

It was the intent of the UK to leave both sides equally disarmed; no police and no militia.

However, there were provisions in the Partition Plan for a militia.



The Arabs, having rejected participation in the implementation process, did not have the opportunity to set up the arrangements.



After the outbreak of hostilities, the Security Council noted that:



The Arab League, having refused - on several occasions - to accept a truce (noted above), only accepted the Armistice in 1949 when it was obvious they were at a military disadvantage on the battlefield; endanger of losing still more control over territory initially seized by force.

Most Respectfully,
R

Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.

Even though the Arab armies prevented Israel from taking all of Palestine it was a separate war from Israel's attack on Palestine. It had no affect on the legal standing of Israel or Palestine.

You just love making up bullshit as you go along, right??

BTW, what attack on Palestine are you talking about ?? Can you provide a link?

An attack by Israel?

What Israel?

Where were its borders?

Where is the link showing where its borders were, so that we know which land it legitimately held, and which land it intruded upon?

To serve-up some of our Pal-Apologist colleague's own words as counterpoint...

<snicker>

 

[Indeependent]

Translation...Arabs don't give a damn about each other. I couldn't have explained it any clearer.

You mean like when Ben Gurion said he'd rather save 500,000 Jews and bring them to Palestine that save 1 million Jews and have them go to the Britain?

Window Into Palestine: WORDS OF Theodor Hertzel (the father of zionism) and Other Zionist Leaders

Yes; especially since what he said was a quip and had nothing to do with reality.
How about when Golda Meir came to the US and asked a bunch of secular Jew businessmen for 25M and they gave 50M?
Any other episodes of Jewish Solidarity you'd like to know about?

I know we can't compete with the Arabs when it comes to helping each other, but we try.

 

[Kondor3]

Translation...Arabs don't give a damn about each other. I couldn't have explained it any clearer.

You mean like when Ben Gurion said he'd rather save 500,000 Jews and bring them to Palestine that save 1 million Jews and have them go to the Britain?

Window Into Palestine: WORDS OF Theodor Hertzel (the father of zionism) and Other Zionist Leaders

Yes; especially since what he said was a quip and had nothing to do with reality.
How about when Golda Meir came to the US and asked a bunch of secular Jew businessmen for 25M and they gave 50M?
Any other episodes of Jewish Solidarity you'd like to know about?

I know we can't compete with the Arabs when it comes to helping each other, but we try.

And, of course, last I looked, Jews weren't blockading Jews, and building walls to keep them out, like the Egyptians are doing to the mad-dog Palestinians...

 

[pbel]

Translation...Arabs don't give a damn about each other. I couldn't have explained it any clearer.

You mean like when Ben Gurion said he'd rather save 500,000 Jews and bring them to Palestine that save 1 million Jews and have them go to the Britain?

Window Into Palestine: WORDS OF Theodor Hertzel (the father of zionism) and Other Zionist Leaders

Yes; especially since what he said was a quip and had nothing to do with reality.
How about when Golda Meir came to the US and asked a bunch of secular Jew businessmen for 25M and they gave 50M?
Any other episodes of Jewish Solidarity you'd like to know about?

I know we can't compete with the Arabs when it comes to helping each other, but we try.

I think the solidarity is admirable, the problem is Money in Politics...

 

[Hossfly]

Translation...Arabs don't give a damn about each other. I couldn't have explained it any clearer.

You mean like when Ben Gurion said he'd rather save 500,000 Jews and bring them to Palestine that save 1 million Jews and have them go to the Britain?

Window Into Palestine: WORDS OF Theodor Hertzel (the father of zionism) and Other Zionist Leaders

Yes; especially since what he said was a quip and had nothing to do with reality.
How about when Golda Meir came to the US and asked a bunch of secular Jew businessmen for 25M and they gave 50M?
Any other episodes of Jewish Solidarity you'd like to know about?

I know we can't compete with the Arabs when it comes to helping each other, but we try.

I remember when Golda Meir came to New York and there were pictures in the Times and other papers. She came to the US and didn't even have a winter coat because of lack of money. And in the end she borrowed and was donated enough money for a new country. That's called enterprise.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You mean like when Ben Gurion said he'd rather save 500,000 Jews and bring them to Palestine that save 1 million Jews and have them go to the Britain?

Window Into Palestine: WORDS OF Theodor Hertzel (the father of zionism) and Other Zionist Leaders

Yes; especially since what he said was a quip and had nothing to do with reality.
How about when Golda Meir came to the US and asked a bunch of secular Jew businessmen for 25M and they gave 50M?
Any other episodes of Jewish Solidarity you'd like to know about?

I know we can't compete with the Arabs when it comes to helping each other, but we try.

I think the solidarity is admirable, the problem is Money in Politics...

Money cannot buy people's inalienable rights out from under them.

 

[pbel]

Yes; especially since what he said was a quip and had nothing to do with reality.
How about when Golda Meir came to the US and asked a bunch of secular Jew businessmen for 25M and they gave 50M?
Any other episodes of Jewish Solidarity you'd like to know about?

I know we can't compete with the Arabs when it comes to helping each other, but we try.

I think the solidarity is admirable, the problem is Money in Politics...

Money cannot buy people's inalienable rights out from under them.

That's why the history of mankind is full of revolutions where the masses go after the money of the rich.

 

[toastman]

Even though the Arab armies prevented Israel from taking all of Palestine it was a separate war from Israel's attack on Palestine. It had no affect on the legal standing of Israel or Palestine.

You just love making up bullshit as you go along, right??

BTW, what attack on Palestine are you talking about ?? Can you provide a link?

I did already. You probably did not look at it.

Where . What post

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No nothing of the sort.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.

Of course that is not true. Israel started conscripting troops in December of 1947.

Britain had destroyed most of the Palestinian militias.

(COMMENT)

It was the intent of the UK to leave both sides equally disarmed; no police and no militia.

However, there were provisions in the Partition Plan for a militia.



The Arabs, having rejected participation in the implementation process, did not have the opportunity to set up the arrangements.



After the outbreak of hostilities, the Security Council noted that:



The Arab League, having refused - on several occasions - to accept a truce (noted above), only accepted the Armistice in 1949 when it was obvious they were at a military disadvantage on the battlefield; endanger of losing still more control over territory initially seized by force.

Most Respectfully,
R

Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.

Even though the Arab armies prevented Israel from taking all of Palestine it was a separate war from Israel's attack on Palestine. It had no affect on the legal standing of Israel or Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Armies prevented nothing of the sort, because nothing of the sort was attempted by the Israelis. The Israelis, in hot pursuit of externally interfering Arab Armies attempting to defy the UN Partition Plan, assumed additional ground not originally allocated to the Jewish State.

There was not Palestine to have a legal impact on. However there was the State of Israel.

I've read the Palestinian version of events. Even though the Arabs declared genocide on the Jewish in January of 1948, the Arab version sounds like this:

"Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine."​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Even though the Arab armies prevented Israel from taking all of Palestine it was a separate war from Israel's attack on Palestine. It had no affect on the legal standing of Israel or Palestine.

You just love making up bullshit as you go along, right??

BTW, what attack on Palestine are you talking about ?? Can you provide a link?

I did already. You probably did not look at it.

You knowledge concerning what took place 1948 and before is so off Tinmore.

You need to stop making things up, and stop reading crap from Al Jazeera, Press Tv, etc....

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No nothing of the sort.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.


(COMMENT)

It was the intent of the UK to leave both sides equally disarmed; no police and no militia.

However, there were provisions in the Partition Plan for a militia.



The Arabs, having rejected participation in the implementation process, did not have the opportunity to set up the arrangements.



After the outbreak of hostilities, the Security Council noted that:



The Arab League, having refused - on several occasions - to accept a truce (noted above), only accepted the Armistice in 1949 when it was obvious they were at a military disadvantage on the battlefield; endanger of losing still more control over territory initially seized by force.

Most Respectfully,
R

Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.

Even though the Arab armies prevented Israel from taking all of Palestine it was a separate war from Israel's attack on Palestine. It had no affect on the legal standing of Israel or Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Armies prevented nothing of the sort, because nothing of the sort was attempted by the Israelis. The Israelis, in hot pursuit of externally interfering Arab Armies attempting to defy the UN Partition Plan, assumed additional ground not originally allocated to the Jewish State.

Not true. Israel was attacking Palestinians outside the "allocated" land before the Arab armies entered Palestine.

And, allocated is a misleading term. Land was allocated by the partition plan but since the plan was never implemented Israel never acquired that land.

There was not Palestine to have a legal impact on. However there was the State of Israel.

I have proven many times that this is not true, but...oh well.

I've read the Palestinian version of events. Even though the Arabs declared genocide on the Jewish in January of 1948, the Arab version sounds like this:

"Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine."​

(NO COMMENT)
That looks like the Wikipedia version. I'm not going to comment on that.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No nothing of the sort.

Even though the Arab armies prevented Israel from taking all of Palestine it was a separate war from Israel's attack on Palestine. It had no affect on the legal standing of Israel or Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Armies prevented nothing of the sort, because nothing of the sort was attempted by the Israelis. The Israelis, in hot pursuit of externally interfering Arab Armies attempting to defy the UN Partition Plan, assumed additional ground not originally allocated to the Jewish State.

Not true. Israel was attacking Palestinians outside the "allocated" land before the Arab armies entered Palestine.

And, allocated is a misleading term. Land was allocated by the partition plan but since the plan was never implemented Israel never acquired that land.


I have proven many times that this is not true, but...oh well.

I've read the Palestinian version of events. Even though the Arabs declared genocide on the Jewish in January of 1948, the Arab version sounds like this:

"Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine."​

(NO COMMENT)
That looks like the Wikipedia version. I'm not going to comment on that.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true. Israel was attacking Palestinians outside the "allocated" land before the Arab armies entered Palestine.

More lies. Please tell us, when did these attacks take place ? Where? How many people died??

And, allocated is a misleading term. Land was allocated by the partition plan but since the plan was never implemented Israel never acquired that land.

Still peddling that "Israel never acquired land drivel" I see.
You completely made that crap up, and you know it. Please explain to me, what does 'acquiring land' have to do with anything? And more importantly, you still never answered this questions, which I've asked so many times: "where did you read that Israel had to acquire land in order to declare independence"

As for the partition plan never being implemented, what does it matter? Resolution 181 was the basis for both Israel and Palestine declaring independence

 

[Victory67]

According to Benny Morris, much of the fighting in the first months of the war took place in and on the edges of the main towns, and was initiated by the Arabs

1947?48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I may look like the Wiki version, but you would be wrong.

I've read the Palestinian version of events. Even though the Arabs declared genocide on the Jewish in January of 1948, the Arab version sounds like this:

"Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine."​

That looks like the Wikipedia version. I'm not going to comment on that.

(COMMENT)

It comes from the third bullet point of the "The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background" extracted out of the Summary, The PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD); pure Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R