| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - UN 1947 Partition plan of Palestine
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


UN 1947 Partition plan of Palestine

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
azimuth View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: UN 1947 Partition plan of Palestine
    Posted: 18 Mar 2010 at 03:01

Its clear that the plan is Bias in favor of the new Jewish state. by giving about 60% of the land to the minority Jewish population of 30%.

off course Arabs did not imagen how much support Israel will get through the years and in wars, so at that time they refused the plan and other partition plans, they only accepted a one state plan.

Zionist Jews also did not accept the plan but since they have a good idea of their power in the strong part of the world (The west), they agreed just to get the recognition, then they can get what they want through future plans such as wars arabs encouraged to start by european powers knowing in advance of Jewish victory and thus expansion.

Any way back to the plan, I wonder if this unfair plan had much to do of the fact that the UN at 1947 is more influenced by the British and the European, as many countries were still not independent yet or just got their independence.

If Todays UN made a partition plan using the 1947 statistics of palestine would the plan be the same as it was in 1947 or better ?


what do you think?


You can read the Resolution at UN site  Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine,

also a brief of the resolution at BBC  UN partition plan



Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2010 at 05:50
The entire concept of partition was doomed from the beginning to the point where many people think that the plan was forwarded for this very reason, they wanted it to fail.  
 
On the one hand many jewish leaders wanted to eradicate Palestinian existence by some sort of population exachange either by peace or by force.
 
On the other the Palestinians were extatic. Why on god's earth and by what authority should they give up their own lands just because of white guilt?
 
Several people on both sides were perfectly willing to accept a single state for two peoples but the people who opposed this the most were the "mediators" themselves.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2010 at 10:35
Originally posted by azimuth azimuth wrote:



Any way back to the plan, I wonder if this unfair plan had much to do of the fact that the UN at 1947 is more influenced by the British and the European, as many countries were still not independent yet or just got their independence.

If Todays UN made a partition plan using the 1947 statistics of palestine would the plan be the same as it was in 1947 or better ?


If I'm not mistaken, a UN Resolution has to be accepted by the security council of the UN, which included the Soviets. The creation of Israel was actually well supported by eastern europe and the Soviets at the time, so the decision didn't really have to do with the British' influence.
I suppose that if the plan was put to vote in the '60s or '70s it wouldn't be voted at all, as the USSR and China would propably veto it. Today things are less clear cut, and Russia has not bad relationship with Israel.
I suppose that yes, in 1947 consitions were most favourable for Israel to gain the maximum lands out of a Resolution. Ever since then Isarel would never be granted so much land, although I do believe that it would be granted independence anyway.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new?
it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
-Ecclesiastes
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Mar 2010 at 09:45
yes agree regarding the Soviets at that time did accept the resolution, and i think that had much to do with the soviet being friend with the British just after the fall of Hitler.

The zionist were hoping to get all Palestine as land of the jewish state, i wonder what was their plan for the majority arab population if they actually got that much?

anyway who ever participated in arranging that plan was considering Jewish interset more than anybody else.

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Mar 2010 at 21:10
This is incorrect. British were in fact anti-Jewish in that instance and they didn't have any interest in Jewish state at all. They had suffered for many years from Sionist attacks in Palestine.
Soviet Union supported Israel because there was a hope that it would become a Socialist bridgehead in the Middle East given that many Jewish groups were openly leftist and pro-Soviet and also emphasized the decisive Soviet role in the defeat of the Nazists. Also, USSR criticized British "colonial" policies in Palestine and supported the creation of the Jewish national state right after the end of WWII.
 
In many instances, British authorities were, actually, much more pro-Arabic thant pro-Jewish. In fact, the Jewish state survived because it was armed by the Soviet Czechoslovakia under direct orders from Moscow. On the other hand Arab forces, were armed mostly with British weapons and enjoyed tacit support of British.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2010 at 01:22
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

This is incorrect. British were in fact anti-Jewish in that instance and they didn't have any interest in Jewish state at all. They had suffered for many years from Sionist attacks in Palestine.
Soviet Union supported Israel because there was a hope that it would become a Socialist bridgehead in the Middle East given that many Jewish groups were openly leftist and pro-Soviet and also emphasized the decisive Soviet role in the defeat of the Nazists. Also, USSR criticized British "colonial" policies in Palestine and supported the creation of the Jewish national state right after the end of WWII.
 
In many instances, British authorities were, actually, much more pro-Arabic thant pro-Jewish. In fact, the Jewish state survived because it was armed by the Soviet Czechoslovakia under direct orders from Moscow. On the other hand Arab forces, were armed mostly with British weapons and enjoyed tacit support of British.

Sorry its hard to believe that British were anti-Jewish, also the weapons Israeli used in 1948 wars were also british and french more than Soviet weapons, and dont forget Balfour Declaration. 


Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2010 at 01:59
Well. You need to do some research. There were systematic Sionist terrorist attack aimed at the British at Palestine. They killed several hundred British including British minister for Middle East, Lord Moyne in 1944. At one point they blew up 100 British in the King David hotel in Jerusalem. British had to maintain a massive army to oppose Jewish terrorism and resistance. British public and leaders including Churchill became very negative regarding Jewish national movement. Even the Jewish immigration to Palestine was limited. All of that led to the crisis tha finally resulted in the creation of Israel.
 
Of course, in the first war Jewish forces had many small weapons left by British colonial troops. But they didn't have enough heavy weapons, artillery and aircraft. All of that was supplied from Czechoslovakia.
 
The irony was that the aircraft supplied by Czechs were actually German fighters (Czechoslovakia produced a lot of weapons for Germans during WWII). And those Jewish pilots operated German fighters fought with British build fighters operated by Arab pilots some of tem were WWII veterans.
 
It's uncertain whether Jewish state would be able to survive its first war without those heavy weapons.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2010 at 02:03
Check this about the anti-Jewish public feeling in Britain at that time period.
 
 
And, some Arab forces during the first Arab-Israeli war were commanded by British officers.


Edited by Sarmat - 20 Mar 2010 at 04:32
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2010 at 09:16
If you look generally at the results of the british actions and promises you will find they are far from being anti-Jews,  few incidents and dislike feeling does not change the fact that the British were the first to promis land for the Jews in Palestine.

about the British training and leading Arab Armies, its like a play, only that it coasts lives and give Jews reason to take more land.

Its very clear that Arabs were not ready, opposite to Jews who apparently just came from the holocaust and faced another war, they were much more ready and well equipped. 
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2010 at 15:21
You need to make sure whether you discuss the situation around the partition of Palestine and Israel's independence in 1947, or you're discussing a more general history of British mandate in Palestine.
In 1947 the relations between Jews in Palestine and British were hostile, filled with mistrust and animosity. The Jews thought that British were enemies of the Zionist cause and pro-Arab and British looked down at them as terrorists. In fact, the main reason why British had to abandon Palestine was the threat to strain the relations by the US. But still. the British public opinion was anti-Israeli and the country didn't recognize its independence during the UN vote.
Also seems, that you like to think about history in stereotypes, but it's more complicated than that. 
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2010 at 10:38
It is impossible to read the original 1947 UN Resolution and not recognize that not only did the British "wimp out" as to their responsibilities under the old League of Nations mandate, but that the UN itself was unwilling to fill the adminsitrative power vacuum created by the unilateral decision for withdrawal taken by His Majesty's Government. Sarmat is correct in asserting that other posts in this thread are stereotypical and appear as if drawn together after watching Paul Newman "strut his stuff" in Exodus rather than an actual inquiry into not only conditions in the Levant but the political hash within the bounds of the UN itself.
 
First and foremost, if the Balfour Declaration is to be invoked as an element of pro-Zionist feeling in Great Britain among the elite of Whitehall, then the hay nesting that egg had better be fluffed properly. Was not the "Empire" making similar promises to Hashemite dynasts?
 
Secondly, how did the lack of will in 1947 on the part of Great Britain actually complicate matters for British influence in the region to such a degree that when it actually came time to defend the status quo the only result was the debacle at Suez and the persistence of problematics that haunt the present. One can not lose sight of the fact that 1947 is the crucial year in the evolution of not only Pan-Arabism but also the preview for events from Cairo to Tehran.
 
One might be a bit mordant, but after all was not the US left to pick up the pieces from the Mossadeqh crisis in 1948 to the Kuwait imbroglio of 1990?
 
 
 
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2010 at 15:42
Nobody seems to have pointed out that the British did not vote for the partition plan.
 
Sarmat is quite right that the British at the time were anti-Zionist and in some influential cases (Ernest Bevin at the Foreign Office) known to be more generally anti-Jewish.
 
The situation changed under the subsequent Conservative government with Nasser's annexation of the Suez canal, which inevitably turned Britain against Egypt, and therefore pro-Israel (rather than anti-Arab: this gets rather confusing since Britons commanded the Transjordan Frontier Force and the Arab Legion, and there was still some romantic attachment to paricularly the Jordanian Arabs).
 
Anyway Canal annexation led to British support for Israel and Suez. Meanwhile the US tersigervated (?) on, ending up supporting Israel as the Soviet Union switched its support from Israel to Egypt and Syria.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2010 at 18:35
No one seems to have noted that the UN Commission for Palestine as envisioned by the Resolution essentially threw up its hands and "adjourned" sine die!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2010 at 19:07
Hello to you all
 
About the supposed British anti-zionism, well things are much too complicated then anyone thinks.
 
The Brits knew everything about the zionist groups and their activities, hell they knew even who blew up king David hotel, killed Bernadotte (Yiztihak Shamir was wanted for the King David hotel bombing and yet ended up being PM) and launched a vicious terror campaign against them and the Palestinians yet the British government with all the resources it had did absolutely nothing to protect the natives nor to protect themselves either.
 
There was a strong element within the British government that actively undermined the official British policy in Palestine and this has been going ever since the Brits set foot on Palestine. The British government issued one set of rules and gave one set of orders yet these were totally ignored by many officials on the ground and in Whitehall. Ever since WWII ended and despite all the embargo and official animosity the Jewish terrorist organisations (which were designated as such by the Brits not me) were constantly accumulating weapons and even building their own air force under the very eyes of the Brits. In 1947 mass deportations and outright massacres against Arabs especially in the coastal plain were in earnest under the very watchfull eye of the British forces which not only did nothing but actually prevented the Arab legion (which authority still existed across all Palestine) from defending the Palestinians.
 
 
 
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2010 at 00:43
Perhaps, one can say that the British government was reluctant to undertake serious repressive measures against the Zionists in Palestine. But that's understandable given the popular image of Holocaust after WWII and tremendous pressure from both the US and the USSR. But it's too exaggerated to claim that there was somekind of tricky British anti-Arab conspiracy or that British government was somekind of crypto-Zionist etc. In fact, Jewish accounts are claiming totally opposite i.e. British were non-responsive, hostile and pro-Arab.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2010 at 02:43
It should be pointed out that the Arab Legion that held the west bank in the '47 war was commanded by [Sir] John Baggot Glubb. He wrote a book about this exact topic, what British motives were and what they were actually trying to do much later, though I have not read it yet.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2010 at 11:29
There were pro-Arab Britons and pro-Jewish Britons involved in the situation, in different ways and in different degrees. Popular sympathy veered one way and another, being pro-Jewish at the end of the war, veering to pro-Arab with the activities of the Jewish terrorists (exacerbated by the attitude of some US Jews like Ben Hecht[1]), and going back to pro-Jewish with the war of 1948, which wa sgenerally seen as started by the Arabs (whatever the truth of the matter).
 
And of course there were substantial minorities of Jews and anti-semites, plus the somewhat romanticised followers of Lawrence....
 
None of that should be confused with the attitude of the British government which was throughout in favour of a one-state, two-community solution (though as someone said, it was forced to throw up its hands since no-one else seemed ready to agree).
 
Nor should the Attlee government be mixed up with the Churchill or Eden governments.
 
PS You'll discover Glubb's view that the Arab states were more concerned with their own positions vis-à-vis one another than with the Jewish/Arab balance: in particular he claimed that the surrounding Arab states were mainly concerned with stopping or at least undermining Abdullah's expansion of his kingdom (usually I think nowadays seen as the result of a deal between the king and the Israeli leaders).
 
Something else that doesn't seem to have been pointed out is that the upshot of the war was not a partitioned Palestine, but an expansion of Transjordan into the Kingdom of Jordan alongside Israel. It would be a generation before the idea of an independent Arab Palestine would surface again.
 
[1] "Every time you blow up a British arsenal, or wreck a British jail, or send a British railroad sky high, or rob a British bank, or let go with your guns at the British betrayers and invaders of your homeland, the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts."


Edited by gcle2003 - 22 Mar 2010 at 11:32
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Mar 2010 at 15:03
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Perhaps, one can say that the British government was reluctant to undertake serious repressive measures against the Zionists in Palestine. But that's understandable given the popular image of Holocaust after WWII and tremendous pressure from both the US and the USSR. But it's too exaggerated to claim that there was somekind of tricky British anti-Arab conspiracy or that British government was somekind of crypto-Zionist etc. In fact, Jewish accounts are claiming totally opposite i.e. British were non-responsive, hostile and pro-Arab.

If the British wanted Arabs to win the War they would've won, simply because the British knew exactly Israel's power at that time.

Regarding Jewish account considering the British as Anti-Jews, its typical of them, Zionist are never satisfied, for example the UN who gave them a country is now an-antisemitic Organisation.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Mar 2010 at 21:18
The British wanted Abdullah if anyone to win the war not 'the Arabs'. It's what happened basically. Abdullah had already done his deal with the Israelis.
 
Anything for a Hashemite.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Mar 2010 at 21:30
Right, there was no any "united Arab front" different Arab leaders made the deals with Israelis whenever they saw benefit for themselves...
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Mar 2010 at 15:55
Well, now we know that Palestine is the Gordian Knot of contemporary international politics, but such is no surprise. If anything, the UN Resolution of 1947 should serve as a reminder that "collective" peace keeping has been an utter failure from its very beginnings and that presently the same jabber from 1947 is iterated ad nauseam from the polar opposites of the extremes at that time. Will no one utter that the preservation of the current status quo is of benefit to the present Israeli political establishment and that the issue of "settlements" and Jerusalem "within-the-walls" are the catalysts that perpetuate this distension.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2012 at 17:53
Originally posted by azimuth azimuth wrote:


Its clear that the plan is Bias in favor of the new Jewish state. by giving about 60% of the land to the minority Jewish population of 30%.

off course Arabs did not imagen how much support Israel will get through the years and in wars, so at that time they refused the plan and other partition plans, they only accepted a one state plan.

Zionist Jews also did not accept the plan but since they have a good idea of their power in the strong part of the world (The west), they agreed just to get the recognition, then they can get what they want through future plans such as wars arabs encouraged to start by european powers knowing in advance of Jewish victory and thus expansion.

Any way back to the plan, I wonder if this unfair plan had much to do of the fact that the UN at 1947 is more influenced by the British and the European, as many countries were still not independent yet or just got their independence.

If Todays UN made a partition plan using the 1947 statistics of palestine would the plan be the same as it was in 1947 or better ?


what do you think?


You can read the Resolution at UN site  Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine,

also a brief of the resolution at BBC  UN partition plan




When you start and lose 5 wars, it costs you real estate.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2012 at 19:55
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by azimuth azimuth wrote:


Its clear that the plan is Bias in favor of the new Jewish state. by giving about 60% of the land to the minority Jewish population of 30%.

off course Arabs did not imagen how much support Israel will get through the years and in wars, so at that time they refused the plan and other partition plans, they only accepted a one state plan.

Zionist Jews also did not accept the plan but since they have a good idea of their power in the strong part of the world (The west), they agreed just to get the recognition, then they can get what they want through future plans such as wars arabs encouraged to start by european powers knowing in advance of Jewish victory and thus expansion.

Any way back to the plan, I wonder if this unfair plan had much to do of the fact that the UN at 1947 is more influenced by the British and the European, as many countries were still not independent yet or just got their independence.

If Todays UN made a partition plan using the 1947 statistics of palestine would the plan be the same as it was in 1947 or better ?


what do you think?


You can read the Resolution at UN site  Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine,

also a brief of the resolution at BBC  UN partition plan




When you start and lose 5 wars, it costs you real estate.
 
No it doesn't. Since Westphalia civilised nations (even Napoleon and the US) gave back what they occupied in a war of aggression unless it was by mutual agreement.
 
The Israelis started 5 wars of aggression (massacring and ethnically cleansing Palestinians since 46, attacking without cause in 56, attacking without cause in 67, shelling in 73 and attacking without cause in 82) and won only 2 of them. In 56 they were forced to leave, they were kicked out from Lebanon in 85 and accepted a forced settlement in 73 when they lost much more territory than gained and had an entire corps size unit between the jaws of 2 field armies threatening to nuke the Arab world (as Van Crevald claims) if the Egyptians did what they threatened and annihilated the corps and took no prisoners.
 
The real question is this, in a war of liberation that ends up with the occupation of Israel large Israeli territories or even destroying that state for good, are you willing to accept the outcome of such a war?
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2012 at 21:31
Jas, I mean no disrespect my friend, but your post borders on the absurd.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2012 at 23:36
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Jas, I mean no disrespect my friend, but your post borders on the absurd.
 
In 1948, Arab armies attacked Israel after decades of encroachment, unwanted immigration, and land grabs by Jews in Palestine, culminating in an unfair partitition plan. They gained some land after more than a year of desperate struggle.
 
In 1956, Israel plotted with France and Britain to re-take the Suez Canal. Israel hoped for some spin-off benefits by charging in through the back door. They were disappointed. They were forced to withdraw under US pressure.
 
In 1967, Israel initiated a surprise attack on her neighbours, after being pressured on unresolved issues by Arab states, particularly Egypt. They did well. Easier of course if it is a surprise.
 
In 1973, Egypt attempted to get some of its land back. They almost did. Having nuclear weapons and a massive airlift of arms from the US certainly helped Israel in this case. The front line remained were it was.
 
1982- Israel killed a lot of people in Lebanon in its invasion, and pushed guerilla groups back for a time, but ultimately only added to the turmoil in that country. The rockets came crashing back down in....
 
2006- This time results were even more mixed. Israel never did met all its goals, and guerillas and missiles remain.
 
The image of Israel as a plucky little country that is fighting off warlike, crazed Arabs, and doing a remarkable job about it, is one that only has unquestioned acceptance in the US. Ever wondered why?
 
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2012 at 07:43
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Jas, I mean no disrespect my friend, but your post borders on the absurd.
 
In 1948, Arab armies attacked Israel after decades of encroachment, unwanted immigration, and land grabs by Jews in Palestine, culminating in an unfair partitition plan, open warfare broke out between Israeli terrorist groups and newly independent Arab armies. They The Israelis gained some land given to them in the partition plan and significant addition gains after more than a year of desperate struggle and ethnic cleansing.
 
In 1956, Israel plotted with France and Britain to re-take the Suez Canal. Israel hoped for some spin-off benefits by charging in through the back door. They were disappointed. They were forced to withdraw under US pressure.
 
In 1967, Israel initiated a surprise attack on her neighbours, after being pressured on unresolved issues by Arab states, particularly Egypt. They did well. Easier of course if it is a surprise.
 
In 1973, Egypt attempted to get some of its land back. They almost did. Having nuclear weapons and a massive airlift of arms from the US certainly helped Israel in this case. The front line remained were it was.
 
1982- Israel killed a lot of people in Lebanon in its invasion, and pushed guerilla groups back for a time, but ultimately only added to the turmoil in that country. The rockets came crashing back down in....
 
2006- This time results were even more mixed clearly against Israel. Israel never did meet all any of its goals, and guerillas and missiles remain.
 
The image of Israel as a plucky little country that is fighting off warlike, crazed Arabs, and doing a remarkable job about it, is one that only has unquestioned acceptance in the US. Ever wondered why?
 
 
Just some minor edits to your post.

I think its because Israel puts a very large amount of money and effort into ensuring that they are viewed that way in the US. Although even that has to be significantly aided by the information coocoon like nature of the US, where it is hard to get good reliable information about the rest of the world.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2012 at 08:52
I have a minor addition of my own.
 
On 15th of May 1948 Israeli groups controlled not the 60% of Palestine allocated to them by the UN, but over 80% of Palestine under full support of the US and the USSR (forcing the hands of the British not to intervene) during their campaign of winter and spring of 48.
 
Al-Jassas
 
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2012 at 13:40
@Captain
For the early part of the period, i.e. from say '45 to '67, there wera a couple of reasons why Western European countries (paticularly not the US) accepted the Israeli cause. One of course was the emotional aftermath of the Holocaust. Irrespective of rational arguments, the popular emotional appeal for giving Jews a safe home of their own was unstopppable.
 
Moreover the early Jewish state was socialist and democratic, and promoted women's rights, and the ideal of the kibbutz appealed strongly in the new welfare states. The Arab states of the time were still either quasi-feudal monarchies or dictatorships, which might or might not be OK at different times with Western governments but lacked mass political appeal.
 
Compare Weizmann's Israel with any of the Arab states of the time. Which do you think would get the better coverage in the popular press of western Europe in the 1950s?
 
This of course is quite independent of what the reality on the ground might have been. I'm talking about image.
 
Things gradually changed somewhat after 1967-73.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
fusong View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 485
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fusong Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2012 at 23:27
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

@Captain
For the early part of the period, i.e. from say '45 to '67, there wera a couple of reasons why Western European countries (paticularly not the US) accepted the Israeli cause. One of course was the emotional aftermath of the Holocaust. Irrespective of rational arguments, the popular emotional appeal for giving Jews a safe home of their own was unstopppable.


Moreover the early Jewish state was socialist and democratic, and promoted women's rights, and the ideal of the kibbutz appealed strongly in the new welfare states. The Arab states of the time were still either quasi-feudal monarchies or dictatorships, which might or might not be OK at different times with Western governments but lacked mass political appeal.


Compare Weizmann's Israel with any of the Arab states of the time. Which do you think would get the better coverage in the popular press of western Europe in the 1950s?


This of course is quite independent of what the reality on the ground might have been. I'm talking about image.


Things gradually changed somewhat after 1967-73.


Now its on the verge of theocracy
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2012 at 16:53
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

@Captain
For the early part of the period, i.e. from say '45 to '67, there wera a couple of reasons why Western European countries (paticularly not the US) accepted the Israeli cause. One of course was the emotional aftermath of the Holocaust. Irrespective of rational arguments, the popular emotional appeal for giving Jews a safe home of their own was unstopppable.
 
Moreover the early Jewish state was socialist and democratic, and promoted women's rights, and the ideal of the kibbutz appealed strongly in the new welfare states. The Arab states of the time were still either quasi-feudal monarchies or dictatorships, which might or might not be OK at different times with Western governments but lacked mass political appeal.
 
Compare Weizmann's Israel with any of the Arab states of the time. Which do you think would get the better coverage in the popular press of western Europe in the 1950s?
 
This of course is quite independent of what the reality on the ground might have been. I'm talking about image.
 
Things gradually changed somewhat after 1967-73.

Graham, I'm shocked. I enjoyed your excellent post sir.


May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.