Who Is Occupying Who's Land?

[WelfareQueen]

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]

Here yiu go Monti. This is from the wikipedia article about the 1948 Arab Israeli war.
You see the word INVASION being used. What the Arab countries did is what an invasion is.
The fact that you need lies to debate says a lot about you.

The Israelis fought for their lives. The were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. In the 1967 Egypt under Nassar closed off the straits of Tiran (against a UN order) and threatened "to exterminate the Jews."

Israel launched a pre-emptive strike and badly beat the Arabs yet again. Ditto the 1956 War.

Bottom Line: Wars have consequences and the Arabs suck. Deal with it.


Straits of Tiran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nasser also massed 100 000 troops by the border AND expelled the peacekeeping troops that were put there to keep order after the previous war.

Yes he did. And again....he and the Arabs lost. Lesson from history....It's bad to lose Wars.

 

[montelatici]

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]

Here yiu go Monti. This is from the wikipedia article about the 1948 Arab Israeli war.
You see the word INVASION being used. What the Arab countries did is what an invasion is.
The fact that you need lies to debate says a lot about you.

The Israelis fought for their lives. The were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. In the 1967 Egypt under Nassar closed off the straits of Tiran (against a UN order) and threatened "to exterminate the Jews."

Israel launched a pre-emptive strike and badly beat the Arabs yet again. Ditto the 1956 War.

Bottom Line: Wars have consequences and the Arabs suck. Deal with it.


Straits of Tiran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nasser also massed 100 000 troops by the border AND expelled the peacekeeping troops that were put there to keep order after the previous war.

Yes he did. And again....he and the Arabs lost. Lesson from history....It's bad to lose Wars.

The better lesson from history would be that demographics eventually win the war. Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia etc.

 

[MJB12741]

Gosh I wonder why the likes of Monte never ***** about all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force where the indigenous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed?

 

[WelfareQueen]

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]

Here yiu go Monti. This is from the wikipedia article about the 1948 Arab Israeli war.
You see the word INVASION being used. What the Arab countries did is what an invasion is.
The fact that you need lies to debate says a lot about you.

The Israelis fought for their lives. The were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. In the 1967 Egypt under Nassar closed off the straits of Tiran (against a UN order) and threatened "to exterminate the Jews."

Israel launched a pre-emptive strike and badly beat the Arabs yet again. Ditto the 1956 War.

Bottom Line: Wars have consequences and the Arabs suck. Deal with it.


Straits of Tiran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nasser also massed 100 000 troops by the border AND expelled the peacekeeping troops that were put there to keep order after the previous war.

Yes he did. And again....he and the Arabs lost. Lesson from history....It's bad to lose Wars.

The better lesson from history would be that demographics eventually win the war. Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia etc.

Nope....tiny white populations in all the above. Apples/Oranges. The Jews are in the Holy Land to stay. They will never leave. The Arabs know this. The only answer per the Arabs has always been genocide of the Jewish people. The Arabs have been very clear about this from the beginning. They have never desired to live on peace.

 

[montelatici]

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]

Here yiu go Monti. This is from the wikipedia article about the 1948 Arab Israeli war.
You see the word INVASION being used. What the Arab countries did is what an invasion is.
The fact that you need lies to debate says a lot about you.

The Israelis fought for their lives. The were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. In the 1967 Egypt under Nassar closed off the straits of Tiran (against a UN order) and threatened "to exterminate the Jews."

Israel launched a pre-emptive strike and badly beat the Arabs yet again. Ditto the 1956 War.

Bottom Line: Wars have consequences and the Arabs suck. Deal with it.


Straits of Tiran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nasser also massed 100 000 troops by the border AND expelled the peacekeeping troops that were put there to keep order after the previous war.

Yes he did. And again....he and the Arabs lost. Lesson from history....It's bad to lose Wars.

The better lesson from history would be that demographics eventually win the war. Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia etc.

Nope....tiny white populations in all the above. Apples/Oranges. The Jews are in the Holy Land to stay. They will never leave. The Arabs know this. The only answer per the Arabs has always been genocide of the Jewish people. The Arabs have been very clear about this from the beginning. They have never desired to live on peace.

The Christians and Muslims of Palestine would have lived in peace with the Jews had the Jews not insisted on ruling over them. The Jewish population is tiny compared to the non-Jewish population. The Jews will go the way of all colonial enterprises that are unable to overcome the demographics of the colonial enterprise. Non-Jews now outnumber the Jews in lands the Jews control, and the non-Jew population is increasing its lead.

 

[Phoenall]

It is true that the surrounding Arab countries that united to annihilate Israel put it to the Palestinians but good ultimately leaving them as refugees.

The Arab states were a coalition attempting to stop the ethnic cleansing of the non-Jews under the Jew's Plan Dalet.

The arab states were the arab league and declared their intention to wipe out the Jews as far back as 1947 when Jordan mobilised its troops

Jordan - History - The Tragedy of Palestine


The 1948 Arab-Israeli War
Prior to the UN General Assembly’s November 1947 decision to partition Palestine, King Abdullah had proposed sending the Arab Legion to defend the Arabs of Palestine. Reacting to the passing of the partition plan, he announced Jordan’s readiness to deploy the full force of the Arab Legion in Palestine. An Arab League meeting held in Amman two days before the expiration of the British mandate concluded that Arab countries would send troops to Palestine to join forces with Jordan’s army
Immediately after the proclamation of the state of Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Iraq sent troops to join with Jordanian forces in order to defend their brethren, the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine.




Note this is an Islamic source that tells the truth, then we have this that shows the intention was all out genocide of the Jews

Azzam s Genocidal Threat Middle East Quarterly

Of the countless threats of violence, made by Arab and Palestinian leaders in the run up to and in the wake of the November 29, 1947 partition resolution, none has resonated more widely than the warning by Abdul Rahman Azzam, the Arab League's first secretary-general, that the establishment of a Jewish state would lead to "a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades."

War of Extermination
An October 11, 1947 report on the pan-Arab summit in the Lebanese town of Aley,[9] by Akhbar al-Yom's editor Mustafa Amin, contained an interview he held with Arab League secretary-general Azzam. Titled, "A War of Extermination," the interview read as follows (translated by Efraim Karsh; all ellipses are in the original text):
Abdul Rahman Azzam Pasha spoke to me about the horrific war that was in the offing… saying:
"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre[10] or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine's Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine … You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews.
"This war will be distinguished by three serious matters. First—faith: as each fighter deems his death on behalf of Palestine as the shortest road to paradise; second, [the war] will be an opportunity for vast plunder. Third, it will be impossible to contain the zealous volunteers arriving from all corners of the world to avenge the martyrdom of the Palestine Arabs, and viewing the war as dignifying every Arab and every Muslim throughout the world …
"The Arab is superior to the Jew in that he accepts defeat with a smile: Should the Jews defeat us in the first battle, we will defeat them in the second or the third battle … or the final one… whereas one defeat will shatter the Jew's morale! Most desert Arabians take pleasure in fighting. I recall being tasked with mediating a truce in a desert war (in which I participated) that lasted for nine months…While en route to sign the truce, I was approached by some of my comrades in arms who told me: 'Shame on you! You are a man of the people, so how could you wish to end the war … How can we live without war?' This is because war gives the Bedouin a sense of happiness, bliss, and security that peace does not provide! …
"I warned the Jewish leaders I met in London to desist from their policy,[11] telling them that the Arab was the mightiest of soldiers and the day he draws his weapon, he will not lay it down until firing the last bullet in the battle, and we will fire the last shot …"
He [Azzam] ended his conversation with me by saying: "I foresee the consequences of this bloody war. I see before me its horrible battles. I can picture its dead, injured, and victims … But my conscience is clear … For we are not attacking but defending ourselves, and we are not aggressors but defenders against an aggression! …"

Thanks, from the source you linked: It is as I said, the Jordanians and others were trying to prevent the expulsion of the non-Jews by the Jews under the Plan Dalet. You have been quite helpful.

"Immediately after the proclamation of the state of Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Iraq sent troops to join with Jordanian forces in order to defend their brethren, the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine."

You forgot this which shows it was initially a war of extermination that failed because the arabs were such losy fighters

Azzam s Genocidal Threat Middle East Quarterly

Of the countless threats of violence, made by Arab and Palestinian leaders in the run up to and in the wake of the November 29, 1947 partition resolution, none has resonated more widely than the warning by Abdul Rahman Azzam, the Arab League's first secretary-general, that the establishment of a Jewish state would lead to "a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades."

again from an Islamic source

The source is a Zionist propaganda book and even it says that the "threat" you quote is only "believed" to have been said. "This threat is generally believed to have been made"

Thanks again you nitwit.

Now it is a fact as the original source has been found and it was an Egyptian newspaper. I take it you can read Arabic

An October 11, 1947 report on the pan-Arab summit in the Lebanese town of Aley,[9] by Akhbar al-Yom's editor Mustafa Amin, contained an interview he held with Arab League secretary-general Azzam. Titled, "A War of Extermination," the interview read as follows (translated by Efraim Karsh; all ellipses are in the original text):


So yet another ISLAMONAZI LIE put to bed.

Ask nicely and I will post the English translation for you again

 

[Phoenall]

Oh now I get it. The Arab countries united for peace with Israel. So those Zionists started a war with them. Amazing what we can learn from Monte. Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors what I just learned.

Just read the Plan Dalet. Here is what actually happened:

" a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..."

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

AH yes Plan Dalet that was actually this

Plan Dalet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Plan Dalet, or Plan D, (Hebrew: תוכנית ד'‎, Tokhnit dalet) was a plan worked out by the Haganah in Mandatory Palestine in March 1948. Its name was from the letter Dalet (ד), the fourth letter of the Hebrew alphabet.
Its purpose is much debated. The plan was a set of guidelines to take control of the territory of the Jewish state and to defend its borders and people, including the Jewish population outside of the borders, 'before, and in anticipation of' the invasion by regular Arab armies.[1][2] According to the Israeli Yehoshafat Harkabi, "Plan Dalet" called for the conquest of Arab towns and villages inside and along the borders of the area allocated to the proposed Jewish State - according to the UN Partition Plan.[3] In case of resistance, the population of conquered villages was to be expelled outside the borders of the Jewish state. If no resistance was met, the residents could stay put, under military rule.[qt 1][4][5][6]
The intent of Plan Dalet is subject to much controversy, with historians on one side asserting that it was entirely defensive, while other historians assert that the plan aimed at the expulsion, sometimes called an ethnic cleansing, which was an integral part of a planned strategy.


Now then monti how long did Plan Dalet last and when did it start ?

As soon as the British were no longer in the way, it was designed to expel the non-Jews from "Hebrew" territory.

The British still had control of Palestine when Plan Dalet was put into operation, and it was purely a defensive action to remove any possible fifth columnists from inside the borders of Israel.

Now again HOW LONG DID PLAN DALET LAST AND WHEN DID IT START

Balderdash.

Whats wrong Mohamed been found out telling lies about Plan Dalet and saw that it was implemented for just 6 weeks and was legal and allowed under Customary International Law.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The Israelis fought for their lives. The were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. In the 1967 Egypt under Nassar closed off the straits of Tiran (against a UN order) and threatened "to exterminate the Jews."

Israel launched a pre-emptive strike and badly beat the Arabs yet again. Ditto the 1956 War.

Bottom Line: Wars have consequences and the Arabs suck. Deal with it.


Straits of Tiran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nasser also massed 100 000 troops by the border AND expelled the peacekeeping troops that were put there to keep order after the previous war.

Yes he did. And again....he and the Arabs lost. Lesson from history....It's bad to lose Wars.

The better lesson from history would be that demographics eventually win the war. Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia etc.

Nope....tiny white populations in all the above. Apples/Oranges. The Jews are in the Holy Land to stay. They will never leave. The Arabs know this. The only answer per the Arabs has always been genocide of the Jewish people. The Arabs have been very clear about this from the beginning. They have never desired to live on peace.

The Christians and Muslims of Palestine would have lived in peace with the Jews had the Jews not insisted on ruling over them. The Jewish population is tiny compared to the non-Jewish population. The Jews will go the way of all colonial enterprises that are unable to overcome the demographics of the colonial enterprise. Non-Jews now outnumber the Jews in lands the Jews control, and the non-Jew population is increasing its lead.

No....you're wrong. Per the CIA Factbook. Israel is 76% Jewish....24% Arab. Your point = Fail.

 

[Phoenall]

The Israelis fought for their lives. The were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. In the 1967 Egypt under Nassar closed off the straits of Tiran (against a UN order) and threatened "to exterminate the Jews."

Israel launched a pre-emptive strike and badly beat the Arabs yet again. Ditto the 1956 War.

Bottom Line: Wars have consequences and the Arabs suck. Deal with it.


Straits of Tiran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nasser also massed 100 000 troops by the border AND expelled the peacekeeping troops that were put there to keep order after the previous war.

Yes he did. And again....he and the Arabs lost. Lesson from history....It's bad to lose Wars.

The better lesson from history would be that demographics eventually win the war. Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia etc.

Nope....tiny white populations in all the above. Apples/Oranges. The Jews are in the Holy Land to stay. They will never leave. The Arabs know this. The only answer per the Arabs has always been genocide of the Jewish people. The Arabs have been very clear about this from the beginning. They have never desired to live on peace.

The Christians and Muslims of Palestine would have lived in peace with the Jews had the Jews not insisted on ruling over them. The Jewish population is tiny compared to the non-Jewish population. The Jews will go the way of all colonial enterprises that are unable to overcome the demographics of the colonial enterprise. Non-Jews now outnumber the Jews in lands the Jews control, and the non-Jew population is increasing its lead.

Is that why they committed so many atrocities against the Jews, killed many millions of them, raped their wives and daughters and stole all their property. Have you read the pact of Omar yet and seen what the Jews and Christians had to agree to if they wanted to stay alive


We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.
We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
We shall not sell fermented drinks.
We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
We shall not take slaves who have beenallotted to Muslims.
We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.


Then we have the Laws of dhimma

Dhimmi - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia I would recommend you read it and see just how you muslims treated everyone they conquered

 

[docmauser1]

The Christians and Muslims of Palestine were not cowardly. They were living in Palestine since the birth of Christ and a bunch of Europeans with superior firepower attacked them. Their neighbors tried to help them, but the Jews had too much support from the West. Thankfully, they have not given up and they now outnumber the Jews that control them. It won't be long. Demographics are a *****. Check out what happened in Bolivia, the indigenous people are back in power. Remember what happened in Algeria, Rhodesia and South Africa.

Drivelaggio.

 

[MJB12741]

Gosh I wonder why the likes of Monte never ***** about all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force where the indigenous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed?

Hmmm! Still no comment from Monte & his terrorist supporting ilk. Golly gee, I wonder why? Heh Heh!

 

[montelatici]

Gosh I wonder why the likes of Monte never ***** about all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force where the indigenous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed?

Hmmm! Still no comment from Monte & his terrorist supporting ilk. Golly gee, I wonder why? Heh Heh!

I respond to facts, it is patently untrue that non-Jews were "forced" to convert.

"The idea that Islam was spread by the sword has had wide currency at many differeet
times and the impression is still widespread among the less reflective sections of the media and
the wider public that people converted to Islam because they were forced to do so. This is, of
course, a very useful argument in all sorts of ways. It allows non-Muslims to explain the
otherwise problematic fact that so many people converted to Islam when it was, clearly, an
inferior or even completely wicked religion. Claiming that people were forced to convert meant
avoiding the difficult idea that people might have converted because of inadequacies or failings
among the Christian clergy or worse, the intolerable thought that Islam was the true religion and
that God was on the side of the Muslims. So much easier, then, to say that people were converted
because they had no choice or rather that the choice was between conversion and death.....
The nature of the early Muslim conquests in the Middle East made forcible conversion
almost impossible. The Muslim armies were comparatively small, between ten and twenty
thousand are possible estimates for the numbers in the armies which conquered Syria and Iraq,
probably fewer in Egypt and Iran. To be sure, more Arab Muslims emigrated from Arabia to
settle in the newly conquered areas but even so the Arab Muslims were a small minority, perhaps
10% of the population of Egypt and perhaps 20% of the most densely settled area, Iraq. In these
circumstances, forcing unwilling people to convert was out of the question.....
There were clear fiscal incentives not to encourage the spread of Islam. As we have seen,
Quran itself had laid down that the unbelievers should pay taxes, called jizya, which was
originally a generic name for tribute of all sorts. By the period in the late eighth century when the
Muslim fiscal system reached its maturity, it had been established that the dhimmis should pay a
poll-tax. All landowners were now obliged to pay the kharaj or land tax but the dhimmis suffered
under extra fiscal burdens. The produce of the jizya was very useful because it was paid in cash.
This became specially valuable in the years when structure of caliphal finance collapsed. Land
tax became much more difficult to collect and was often assigned away to bureaucrats or soldiers.
Petty rulers and warlords could still collect the jizya in cash money. There were, in short, clear
reasons why Muslim governments would not want to encourage conversion to Islam. They were
in most cases effectively unable to prevent conversion but they were certainly not going to use
force to achieve it.

http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/rps/kennedy.pdf

 

[MJB12741]

Gosh I wonder why the likes of Monte never ***** about all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force where the indigenous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed?

Hmmm! Still no comment from Monte & his terrorist supporting ilk. Golly gee, I wonder why? Heh Heh!

I respond to facts, it is patently untrue that non-Jews were "forced" to convert.

"The idea that Islam was spread by the sword has had wide currency at many differeet
times and the impression is still widespread among the less reflective sections of the media and
the wider public that people converted to Islam because they were forced to do so. This is, of
course, a very useful argument in all sorts of ways. It allows non-Muslims to explain the
otherwise problematic fact that so many people converted to Islam when it was, clearly, an
inferior or even completely wicked religion. Claiming that people were forced to convert meant
avoiding the difficult idea that people might have converted because of inadequacies or failings
among the Christian clergy or worse, the intolerable thought that Islam was the true religion and
that God was on the side of the Muslims. So much easier, then, to say that people were converted
because they had no choice or rather that the choice was between conversion and death.....
The nature of the early Muslim conquests in the Middle East made forcible conversion
almost impossible. The Muslim armies were comparatively small, between ten and twenty
thousand are possible estimates for the numbers in the armies which conquered Syria and Iraq,
probably fewer in Egypt and Iran. To be sure, more Arab Muslims emigrated from Arabia to
settle in the newly conquered areas but even so the Arab Muslims were a small minority, perhaps
10% of the population of Egypt and perhaps 20% of the most densely settled area, Iraq. In these
circumstances, forcing unwilling people to convert was out of the question.....
There were clear fiscal incentives not to encourage the spread of Islam. As we have seen,
Quran itself had laid down that the unbelievers should pay taxes, called jizya, which was
originally a generic name for tribute of all sorts. By the period in the late eighth century when the
Muslim fiscal system reached its maturity, it had been established that the dhimmis should pay a
poll-tax. All landowners were now obliged to pay the kharaj or land tax but the dhimmis suffered
under extra fiscal burdens. The produce of the jizya was very useful because it was paid in cash.
This became specially valuable in the years when structure of caliphal finance collapsed. Land
tax became much more difficult to collect and was often assigned away to bureaucrats or soldiers.
Petty rulers and warlords could still collect the jizya in cash money. There were, in short, clear
reasons why Muslim governments would not want to encourage conversion to Islam. They were
in most cases effectively unable to prevent conversion but they were certainly not going to use
force to achieve it.

http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/rps/kennedy.pdf

LMAO! Just how nutty are you? Go tell what you just posted to a Zoroastrian.

 

[montelatici]

Gosh I wonder why the likes of Monte never ***** about all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force where the indigenous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed?

Hmmm! Still no comment from Monte & his terrorist supporting ilk. Golly gee, I wonder why? Heh Heh!

I respond to facts, it is patently untrue that non-Jews were "forced" to convert.

"The idea that Islam was spread by the sword has had wide currency at many differeet
times and the impression is still widespread among the less reflective sections of the media and
the wider public that people converted to Islam because they were forced to do so. This is, of
course, a very useful argument in all sorts of ways. It allows non-Muslims to explain the
otherwise problematic fact that so many people converted to Islam when it was, clearly, an
inferior or even completely wicked religion. Claiming that people were forced to convert meant
avoiding the difficult idea that people might have converted because of inadequacies or failings
among the Christian clergy or worse, the intolerable thought that Islam was the true religion and
that God was on the side of the Muslims. So much easier, then, to say that people were converted
because they had no choice or rather that the choice was between conversion and death.....
The nature of the early Muslim conquests in the Middle East made forcible conversion
almost impossible. The Muslim armies were comparatively small, between ten and twenty
thousand are possible estimates for the numbers in the armies which conquered Syria and Iraq,
probably fewer in Egypt and Iran. To be sure, more Arab Muslims emigrated from Arabia to
settle in the newly conquered areas but even so the Arab Muslims were a small minority, perhaps
10% of the population of Egypt and perhaps 20% of the most densely settled area, Iraq. In these
circumstances, forcing unwilling people to convert was out of the question.....
There were clear fiscal incentives not to encourage the spread of Islam. As we have seen,
Quran itself had laid down that the unbelievers should pay taxes, called jizya, which was
originally a generic name for tribute of all sorts. By the period in the late eighth century when the
Muslim fiscal system reached its maturity, it had been established that the dhimmis should pay a
poll-tax. All landowners were now obliged to pay the kharaj or land tax but the dhimmis suffered
under extra fiscal burdens. The produce of the jizya was very useful because it was paid in cash.
This became specially valuable in the years when structure of caliphal finance collapsed. Land
tax became much more difficult to collect and was often assigned away to bureaucrats or soldiers.
Petty rulers and warlords could still collect the jizya in cash money. There were, in short, clear
reasons why Muslim governments would not want to encourage conversion to Islam. They were
in most cases effectively unable to prevent conversion but they were certainly not going to use
force to achieve it.

http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/rps/kennedy.pdf

LMAO! Just how nutty are you? Go tell what you just posted to a Zoroastrian.

Just posting a scholarly work from Yale. You can go ahead and spout nonsense.

 

[montelatici]

Nasser also massed 100 000 troops by the border AND expelled the peacekeeping troops that were put there to keep order after the previous war.

Yes he did. And again....he and the Arabs lost. Lesson from history....It's bad to lose Wars.

The better lesson from history would be that demographics eventually win the war. Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia etc.

Nope....tiny white populations in all the above. Apples/Oranges. The Jews are in the Holy Land to stay. They will never leave. The Arabs know this. The only answer per the Arabs has always been genocide of the Jewish people. The Arabs have been very clear about this from the beginning. They have never desired to live on peace.

The Christians and Muslims of Palestine would have lived in peace with the Jews had the Jews not insisted on ruling over them. The Jewish population is tiny compared to the non-Jewish population. The Jews will go the way of all colonial enterprises that are unable to overcome the demographics of the colonial enterprise. Non-Jews now outnumber the Jews in lands the Jews control, and the non-Jew population is increasing its lead.

No....you're wrong. Per the CIA Factbook. Israel is 76% Jewish....24% Arab. Your point = Fail.

The "fail" is the fact that you are not very clever. The Jews control the borders, air space an territorial sea of the area that includes a population of 4.5 million non-Jews, Christians and Muslims. You can play your silly game, the same game the South African whites played with the Bantustans, but frankly, I don't think your pea brain can figure that out.

 

[Hossfly]

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]

Here yiu go Monti. This is from the wikipedia article about the 1948 Arab Israeli war.
You see the word INVASION being used. What the Arab countries did is what an invasion is.
The fact that you need lies to debate says a lot about you.

The Israelis fought for their lives. The were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. In the 1967 Egypt under Nassar closed off the straits of Tiran (against a UN order) and threatened "to exterminate the Jews."

Israel launched a pre-emptive strike and badly beat the Arabs yet again. Ditto the 1956 War.

Bottom Line: Wars have consequences and the Arabs suck. Deal with it.


Straits of Tiran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nasser also massed 100 000 troops by the border AND expelled the peacekeeping troops that were put there to keep order after the previous war.

Yes he did. And again....he and the Arabs lost. Lesson from history....It's bad to lose Wars.

The better lesson from history would be that demographics eventually win the war. Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia etc.

Apples and oranges, dood.

 

[montelatici]

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]

Here yiu go Monti. This is from the wikipedia article about the 1948 Arab Israeli war.
You see the word INVASION being used. What the Arab countries did is what an invasion is.
The fact that you need lies to debate says a lot about you.

The Israelis fought for their lives. The were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. In the 1967 Egypt under Nassar closed off the straits of Tiran (against a UN order) and threatened "to exterminate the Jews."

Israel launched a pre-emptive strike and badly beat the Arabs yet again. Ditto the 1956 War.

Bottom Line: Wars have consequences and the Arabs suck. Deal with it.


Straits of Tiran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nasser also massed 100 000 troops by the border AND expelled the peacekeeping troops that were put there to keep order after the previous war.

Yes he did. And again....he and the Arabs lost. Lesson from history....It's bad to lose Wars.

The better lesson from history would be that demographics eventually win the war. Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia etc.

Apples and oranges, dood.

Not at all. But go delusional if you like.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Monte....no offense but every point you have made has been completely shot down. Okay if you want to defend the Arabs...but history is not on your side.

Btw....according to the Koran non-Muslims are only presented three options. 1. Convert. 2. Become a subjugated people and pay a jizya. 3. Or be killed.

None of those sound real appealing to me....how about to you?


Jizya - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Hossfly]

Gosh I wonder why the likes of Monte never ***** about all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force where the indigenous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed?

Hmmm! Still no comment from Monte & his terrorist supporting ilk. Golly gee, I wonder why? Heh Heh!

I respond to facts, it is patently untrue that non-Jews were "forced" to convert.

"The idea that Islam was spread by the sword has had wide currency at many differeet
times and the impression is still widespread among the less reflective sections of the media and
the wider public that people converted to Islam because they were forced to do so. This is, of
course, a very useful argument in all sorts of ways. It allows non-Muslims to explain the
otherwise problematic fact that so many people converted to Islam when it was, clearly, an
inferior or even completely wicked religion. Claiming that people were forced to convert meant
avoiding the difficult idea that people might have converted because of inadequacies or failings
among the Christian clergy or worse, the intolerable thought that Islam was the true religion and
that God was on the side of the Muslims. So much easier, then, to say that people were converted
because they had no choice or rather that the choice was between conversion and death.....
The nature of the early Muslim conquests in the Middle East made forcible conversion
almost impossible. The Muslim armies were comparatively small, between ten and twenty
thousand are possible estimates for the numbers in the armies which conquered Syria and Iraq,
probably fewer in Egypt and Iran. To be sure, more Arab Muslims emigrated from Arabia to
settle in the newly conquered areas but even so the Arab Muslims were a small minority, perhaps
10% of the population of Egypt and perhaps 20% of the most densely settled area, Iraq. In these
circumstances, forcing unwilling people to convert was out of the question.....
There were clear fiscal incentives not to encourage the spread of Islam. As we have seen,
Quran itself had laid down that the unbelievers should pay taxes, called jizya, which was
originally a generic name for tribute of all sorts. By the period in the late eighth century when the
Muslim fiscal system reached its maturity, it had been established that the dhimmis should pay a
poll-tax. All landowners were now obliged to pay the kharaj or land tax but the dhimmis suffered
under extra fiscal burdens. The produce of the jizya was very useful because it was paid in cash.
This became specially valuable in the years when structure of caliphal finance collapsed. Land
tax became much more difficult to collect and was often assigned away to bureaucrats or soldiers.
Petty rulers and warlords could still collect the jizya in cash money. There were, in short, clear
reasons why Muslim governments would not want to encourage conversion to Islam. They were
in most cases effectively unable to prevent conversion but they were certainly not going to use
force to achieve it.

http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/rps/kennedy.pdf

And we are to believe that all those devout Christians just rolled over for the Arab invaders and happily converted to Islam. Why don't we just Google History of Jihad to see what happened in many countries? It certainly looks like the one-man propaganda machine must have had his Wheaties this morning. He is going, going, going and never seems to stop as all the viewers will notice. One would think that since he supposedly is a Christian, he would have a little bit of a problem with what these early Christians had to go through in the Middle East when their countries were invaded.

 

[toastman]

Monte....no offense but every point you have made has been completely shot down. Okay if you want to defend the Arabs...but history is not on your side.

Btw....according to the Koran non-Muslims are only presented three options. 1. Convert. 2. Become a subjugated people and pay a jizya. 3. Or be killed.

None of those sound real appealing to me....how about to you?


Jizya - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"every point you made has been completely shut down"

Exactly, I've been telling him this for a while now. Yet he still runs around spewing the same lies. It says a lot about someones agenda when they need to repeat the same lies that have been dismantled numerous times