This is what you and others keep saying, but how can you know this?

How can you 'sit here' and 'speak' as if you know why the Palestinians voted for Hamas?

You accuse other people of generalizing, but your doing the exact same thing. The only difference it seems to me is you appear to believe that its okay to generalize about people just as long as you ascribe decent motives to them.

But the thing is, you can't know why the Palestinians voted for Hamas any more than Loreng or DaytonRocker.

You don't know why the Palestinians voted for Hamas. None of us do. Even the Palestinians don't know, because they all have different motives.

What matters here is not why they voted for Hamas, but that they did. For the second time now, the Palestinians have elected the most violent bunch of people on offer.

How can it be that democratic candidates, with no ties to terrorist connections, time and again, get ignored whilst actual terrorist organisations are voted into power?

I'd like to believe that the Palestinians voted for peace, that they voted for Hamas because it has a decent social support network or that they voted to do away with the corruption of Fatah... but I'm sorry, these arguments just don't hold water.

Personally I think the real reason why the Palestinians voted for Hamas is because Yasser Arafat was dead.

You claim that Fatah amended their charter, then perhaps you could produce this so-called 'amended charter' please. I will state here and now that it does not exist, nor will you be able to produce it. So please show us, since neither the PNA nor the PLO have any such amended charter.

I did produce said proof and I will go on to say that Fatah, the PLO and Tanzim are not only all terrorist organizations, but that they are in fact one in the same with Abbas as their acknowledged leader.

As for your source with "While affirming the PLO's commitment to Israel's eventual destruction, this Fatah-sponsored initiative was a clear push towards moderation." The 'eventual destruction' is moderation in who's mind? Just because they changed tactics, is not a sign of moderation. So again I ask for something that can be considered beyond rhetoric and is an actual semblance of moderation or at least a reasonable facsimile there of.

I'm sorry Loreng, that was your last chance.

I have produced citation after citation, and others have before me. Pyclist provided 6 in ONE POST. Every time you simply claim 'Thats not true' without providing any substance or justification or reasoning apart from the fact that you personally do not agree, therefore it CANNOT be true.


AGAIN you asked for evidence, AGAIN I provided it and you ignored it and then had the gall to ask for evidence AGAIN. Are you telling me you have never heard of the Ten-point plan, of the split this caused in the PLO when the majority of the organisation moderated?


I am not interested in ramming my head against the impenetrable wall of Loreng's unsubstantiated opinion, thus from now on I will confide myself to answering other people's posts. At least there might be some point in that.

Its a reasonable point, but not quite accurate.

I am simply playing common sense. The argument of Loreng and his ilk is that all palestinians voted for Hamas because all palestinians want nothing else but to see Israel destroyed, that was and could only ever be their prime objective.


I am saying that actually the situation in the election is quite complicated, and there are a LOT of much simpler reasons why people could have voted for Hamas. For example:

-Hamas has built up a huge network of shelters, schools, hopitals and food kitchens in the occupied territories. A huge number of people literally owe their health, education and food on the table to Hamas.

I am saying this must have had SOME impact on how people voted. Loreng and his ilk are claiming it could not have had ANY impact, they ONLY voted for Hamas because they want Israel destroyed. Which of those two is an inane assertion?

-The other option, Fatah, was well known as being hopelessly corrupt, stealing aid money and growing wealthy on international assistance to the people in the occupied territories. This was very commonly known and widespread, even reported on extensively in foreign media.

http://www.merip.org/newspaper_opeds/oped020806.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1693433,00.html

I am saying this must have had SOME impact on how people voted. Loreng and his ilk are claiming it could not have had ANY impact, they ONLY voted for Hamas because they want Israel destroyed. Which of those two is an inane assertion?


I am sure SOME Palestinians, members of islamicist groups and fanatics, DID vote for Hamas because they stand for the destruction of Israel. But studies around the world in every nation on earth have consistently shown that common people vote on issues basic to their home lives: food, employment, education. Why would it be ANY different here?


Besides, as Loreng is now ranting, Fatah is also an evil brutal terorist organisation that (inaccurately, but according to his opinion) never altered its quest for the destruction of Israel. So if you believe that the ONLY two parties have the same violent manifesto, how can you claim that love for a violent manifesto is the reason they voted for one over another? It just makes no sense.




Oh, I think why they voted is HUGELY important. And there is no real alternative in those elections, any more than there is in American elections. Why has no third party candidate in the US ever been elected? Or even come in second? Is it because third party candidate individuals are ALWAYS, AUTOMATICALLY worse human beings than the top two parties? No of course not.



Why not? Give me one reason why not. Give me one reason why Palestinians should base their vote on things different than voters in the rest of the world.

Give me one good reason why the fact that most of these people have been fed, clothed and educated by an organisation CANNOT POSSIBLY EVER AT ALL have positively influenced their opinion of that organisation.

Give me one good reason why the fact that there existing government was well known to be corrupt and stealing aid money from them to line their own pockets CANNOT POSSIBLY EVER AT ALL have negatively influenced their opinion of that givernment.

Governments ALL OVER THE WORLD are thrown out of office for corruption. Please explain to me how those motivations which seem universal to democracy everywhere CANNOT POSSIBLY EVER AT ALL have had any impact in THIS election.

Really?

According to the figures I've seen, Hamas has a budget of circa 30 -50 million dollars per year. (Depends on where you look)
The Palestinian government gets 600 million from from the EU plus 400 million from the USA. Then there is the money it gets... or rather, got, from Israel from its border revenue's and what have you... all in all, it comes to something like...circa 1.4 billion dollars per year.

Now, I know that Fatah is said to be corrupt, but I seriously doubt they've been ferretting away 1.4 billion dollars a year!

I also doubt, seriously, that Hamas, with its 50 million dollars is able to provide so vast a social security network of shelters, schools, hopitals and food kitchens whilst also funding their ongoing war agaist Israel.

I think its a lot more likely that in the Palestinian world view, $1 from Hamas outweighs $1,000 from the 'infidels'.

In other words, sure, some people might have bought into the idea that Hamas is an organisation with a heart of gold, but only because its such a great excuse for supporting the biggest bunch of Jew killers on offer.


Indeed... but there was nothing new about that. Whats really odd, and unmentioned in the foreign media, is that though it was widely known to be utterly corrupt, Fatah could stay in power as long as good old Yasser was still alive.


Because these are Muslims under pressure.

Ooops I said the M word.

Lets not beat around the bush here Vermillion. If you think that studies around the world have any bearing on how the people in specific nations will vote when placed under the extreme pressure's of occupationand armed conflict then you need to think again.


Well, that would be a convincing argument if I agreed with your 'studies around the world' theory.

Unfortunately I don't. In Denmark, for example, we don't just have two parties (so much for studies around the world)

Just because the Americans haven't been able to build a decent electoral system doesn't have any bearing on the Palestinian issue... except in as much as it demonstrates that the Palestinians share the same intellectual and political laziness that Americans do.
Was that your point?

The thing is, when there are alternatives available, but you choose the one that looks best to you, despite they being terrorists, then it doesn't matter why you chose them the fact is you did and now you have to live with them and all the baggage they bring with them.

If you shake hands with murderers, then don't complain when you get bloody hands!


Excuse me but to which other voters are you refering to?

I am not aware of any other group of people who have consistently voted for terrorist factions as the Palestinians have.


Most of these people? Where'd you get that from?

How many Palestinians are there Vermillion? 3.2 million in the west bank and Gaza? Thats about 15,625 dollars per year for each Palestinian. Can you really wage a war against Israel AND feed, clothe and educate 3.2 million people on so little? I don't think so... you can certainly peddle the myth that you did though!

Come on, be real. Hamas isn't a charity organisation. Its a terrorist army with a good PR department, keyed into its religious indoctrination programmes now, finally able to get to power because the previous, corrupt, Islamic, Jew killing, darling of the Palestinian people has finally passed away.




Right here.


Well, first of all, there is no 'universal democracy' in the Islamic world so I don't see how its motivations have any bearing here. Looking due east from the Palestinians we see another set of Muslims voting in Iraq for sharia law and a bit further on what do we see in Iran... certainly not anything that resembles the motivations of universal democracy.

How about Afghanistan? ...nope.. more sharia by the looks of it.

What is it about Islam that is so hard for so many people to understand? Muslim DON'T vote according to the values and motivations of 'universal democracy'. Even here in the west, 40% of the Muslims in Britain want to introduce sharia law!

Just how is that a motivation universal to democracy?

The Palestinians are Muslims. Serious, hard core Muslims. They don't vote for the same reasons that you or I do. They have their own values and motivations already. Some of them may be universal... like wanting their children to succeed, but these are only passing similarities. How many Canadian parents do you know would dress their child up as a suicide bomber?

Stop trying to rationlise insanity and just deal with it. The sooner we stand up to this tyranny the better.

What atrocities have the Israelis committed?

Forcible eviction, counter attack splash damage, economic stranglement for security reasons, and probably a number of other things which I don't know about.

What atrocities have the Palestinians committed?

Terrorist attacks, insurgencies, and again, probably some things that I am unaware of.

Are crimes committed by one side less/more reprehensible?

The evictions are in the past, and the current Israeli atrocities, are just kick back results of Palestines aggressions. The Palestinian attacks, are also preventing a permanent solution to this conflict, by continuously delaying the continuation of road map to peace process. Its difficult to sympathize with violent Palestinians, as they are being both vain and uncompromising.

Less/more likely to sustain the status quo?

Kick backs invite more attacks, and more attacks invite more Kick backs. Violence and economic oppression of any sort, reenforce the status quo. Mind you what do you expect Israel to do when its attacked?...

Still playing the victim card, what about the Beirut Summit of 2002





It did have administrative control, and at least had enough say over the territory to promise the land to the zionists via the Balfour declaration after the Allies split up the Ottoman Empire. You are correct that coloniztaion has always been a part of history, but very few occasions were the occupied countries better off afterwards. A migration of people to a territory is always going to upset the natives and cause resentment. For a more recent example look at the general feeling in Houston who was gracious enough to accept a large portion of the evacuees from New Orleans last year. Now there is some resentment growing with the growing crime rate, riots in schools, and displaced native residents.

Colonization is rough no matter who is doing it. Sorry for singling out Europe, but the majority of today conflicts have been prior colonies or had some sort of European influence. This is off topic so if you'd like start a new thread and I'll meet you there.

[quote=Rev_DelFuego,Feb 21 2006, 07:16 AM]
[quote=may14,Feb 20 2006, 07:15 AM]Your solution is a perfectly good one, except to a small fault: it means all Israelis will very shortly be dead. Of course, I am aware that not everyone would think it a bad thing. Disarming both sizes? Nice demagogy. Do you know about any sovereign country who would agree to such a thing? And forcing them to retreat to 1948 borders? Which boarders- those the UN offered? The Arabs rejected them then, what makes you think they would agree now? I remind you again: in the Hamas Covenant it is written that all Jews should be killed. No amount of land surrendered to them would change their mind.

[/quote]

Still playing the victim card, what about the Beirut Summit of 2002

[quote]2- Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

a. Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights to the lines of June 4, 1967 as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

b. Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

c. The acceptance of the establishment of a Sovereign Independent Palestinian State on the Palestinian territories occupied since the 4th of June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab Countries affirm the following:

a. Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.

b. Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.
[/quote]
Yes, I play the victim card, and play it proudly. I am something of a history buff and since I was six years old I have read about Jews being prosecuted, expelled, slaughtered, gassed, and whatever else. Then I grew up in a country when you never board a bus without looking very carefully at all the other passengers. I am not much given to wishful thinking, so I just don’t believe that after two millennia of torturing Jews, the world got tired of that. There are only 12.9 million Jews in the world, and more than one billion Muslims in the world, which explains why people would rather side with the Palestinians, but also explains why I think we are at a greater risk.
I did bother to read about the Beirut Summit, where it is written:" Having listened to the statement made by His Royal Highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, the Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in which his Highness presented his Initiative, calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land for peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian State, with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel."
Very fair terns, aren't they? Israel will evacuate hundreds of thousands of people, give up all the lands she got as a result of a war the Arabs started, sacrifice her security, all for "the establishment of normal relations".
I would rather live without the normal relations. They will give Israel no security- only a time out before another attack. Time outs are fine things- in basketball. If we have to live in constant fear, at least let it be without any illusions.

Because there are more muslims? What do you mean? Personally it's never been about religion to me since if you took religion out of the situation the conflict would still exist. The conflict is about land and living there confortably. The Israelis at the very least sustain the hatred for them by not solving this issue if not making it worse. How can you question her security with the most advanced military in the Middle East, nuclear capabilities, and the US backing her. Is it because it doesn't fit into your victim mind set.

You admit to living in fear now but its ok, but living under fear under questionable "normal relations" is unacceptable? It sounds like you will not be satisfied until one side is completely beat into submission no matter what the cost is. You simply dismiss it because it would make you unconfortable, caused by your paranoia about being a victim, despite being militarily superior. Although you would expect the Palestinians to live in a incontiguous state and still subject to checkpoints manned by Israelis to travel around their own country, with no control of their borders, roads to settlements through their country that only settlers could use, no control of their airspace or ports, no control of water....... In other words you would like to live confortably at the expense of the Palestinians misery, which hasn't been working for the past 50 years, and expect me to sympatize with you when they lash out as a result, and if I don't then I clearly want to destroy Israel.

The poor Palestinians. I would sympathize more with them had they not done so many foolish things, like electing Hamas. If someone does not chose to help themselves, why should I care?
And I tell you why I don’t believe there will be peace. Their children are taught in school that Jews are apes and pigs, and that the holocaust has never been. (I have read testimonies of Palestinian students saying that) they are taught to hate.
I live in a city where a Palestinian stabbed to death a woman only two weeks ago, and injured a few others. And I have never been taught to hate. When I was in school my teachers would tell us, after every terror attack, to pray that these attacks would stop. They have never taught us that Palestinians are sub-humans. Just the contrary- we learned that every person was a creation of God and therefore deserved respect and compassion.
I don’t say that we in Israel are a bunch of sweet little angles. Of course there are times I hate all Palestinians, but even when I experience extreme anger I never wish to kill!
And no, I don’t even wish Palestinians to be miserable, but their misery is their own fault. They would have their own state by now, had they not been so obstinate "to have all or nothing."
It is really ridiculous. I am not even Zionist. I mean, I would be quite happy not to have an independent state, if I knew that we would still be safe. But I really trust no one to stand by us. You say the US would back us? Only as long as it would be their interest to do so, and who knows how long that will be?
Call me a paranoid, if you wish. History taught me to trust only in God.

Maybe they wouldn't have elected Hamas if Israel hadn't elected Sharon which infuriated the Palestinians with his visit to the Temple Mount and caused the current uprising. Who will you elect next month.......... Maybe you should care since your well being depends on it as well, as well as the US that has supported Israel at the cost of any meaningful relations with the Arab countries. Everything in this conflict is cause and effect, and like I said in my first post it all boils down to the planned mass immigration of Zionist Jews pushing out, neglecting, demonizing, and mistreating the native inhabitants.



Here we go again, do need to demonize your enemy every chance you get before you make a remark? We could go down the line listing propaganda on both sides. Is it helping anything? No, but I bet it helps you sleep well at night thinking that the IDF is out there slaying all the people who want to drive you into the sea and simply dismissing and chance of a fair peace. By fair I mean the only things are required to change is the land you use for settlements and outposts which are illegal, Sharing Jerusalem which is significant for a large portion of the world, and treating the other country as equals.



What interest do we have there now? I haven't seen anything relatively beneficial from our support of Israel.

I just went back through every one of yours and Pyclist citations, guess what not a single one of them had anything at all to do with that charter. Not one. You are totally deluded in your statement. The reason you are is simple NOBODY in the entire world has EVER seen the amended charter. The PLO simply announced that they removed all of the anti-semitic material and that is all they did.

You have categorically proven that they did not modify their charter since every single link provided does not have any said charter. You really should check your own links before stating things of that nature.

As for moderation, well lets go back to last week Fatah agrees: Wipe out Israel thats true moderation in action.

As for being unsubstantiated opinion, I guess the 1,200 people murdered and the 100,000 plus terrorist attacks can't be subtantiated either, right?

Although I enjoy debating, I also know that it is quite a pointless activity. Most people would stick to their convictions no matter what, and very rarely does anyone get convinced by the other. So I think I just stop here. It is plain to me you think that the world should treat equally Israelis and Palestinians. I disagree, because I do think Israelis are better- you would not catch an Israeli soldier intentionally murdering a baby and then go about boasting of that.
I acknowledge that I am not objective, but I decline any criticism from anyone who seems to believe all the problems will be solved by Israel "compromising". Let the Palestinians first stop trying to kill us, and then we can discuss which lands they can get. I come from a religious background which discourages settling in the west bank, not because we don’t have the right to but in order not to infuriate the Arabs. But as long as it seems that even giving up the west bank will not satisfy the Palestinians (giving up Gaza was acknowledged by them by burning the synagogues there) I don’t see why we should compromise at all. I did not support Sharon's decision to visit the Temple Mount, but it is interesting how people "understand" Palestinian fury even when it is express itself by killing innocent civilians. I mean, because you feel hurt by an Israeli leader going to a religious place you may start murdering Israeli people? That is sick! I would like to see what you would have to say had Israel behaved like that. I am much hurt by Palestinians desecrating the Tomb of Josef, and still I don’t look for some Palestinians to kill.
But you are entitled to your own opinion…I have already pointed out I am far from being surprised by people like you. You think Palestinians are the underdog here and you root for them…enjoy feeling holier-than-thou. I think you will find your mistake pretty soon, when terror starts to be an everyday problem everywhere.

Ah, I am a bad man. Here I am allowing myself to be goaded into responding to you again, though I know it serves no purpose...




Please. Firstly, I produced a citation regarding the moderation of Fatah, you ignored it. You then asked to see the amended charter. That was in your last post.

Now your rant is that in this entire thread nobody has ever shown you the amended fatah charter. Well no, my single-linded friend, thats because you only launched that challenge in your last post. Forgive us all for not being precognitive.

You mistake me. I am not saying you refuse to aknowledge or deal with contrary opinions or citations on this issue, I am saying you refuse to deal with contrary opinions or citations on ANY issue. Thus my referencing the 6 citations Psyclist made in one post, all of which you either said @its wrong' with no justification, or just ignored. Once again we run into the solid wall of Loreng's unsubstantiated opinion.



That is some of the most twisted logic I have ever seen on this board, and to be fair, that is saying a lot. I provide a citation which states they changed their charter and moderated their tone, and explains the substantial fallout of this decision. You skim it (at best) and decide that because it does not list verbatum the new charter (which you only asked for AFTER I posted the citation) it therefore (in your words) categorically proves the exact opposite of what it actually states?

Wow. I am in awe of the mental calethenics it must have taken to puzzle that bit of neo-logic through.



A few posts ago you claimed just over 50,000 terrorist attacks (which is in itself an insane number). Are you now suffering from terrorist inflation?


By the way, you also never answered my question:

Actually I counted, that was my fourth request, just for those that are mathematically challenged. Are you surprised that you can't find a verbatim amended charter? Doesn't that surprise you in the least? Don't you think that lack there of might actually be say something?

As for the 55,000 that is in the past 5 years, since signing the Oslo Agreements it is well over 100,000 attacks. Better do a better job reading the responses. And if you think it that number is insane yesterday, a quiet day there were only 16 different terrorist attacks. That is by no means an unusual day. The least number of terrorist attacks in the past 12 years is ten in one day the highest well over 100. That's just some more 'unsubstantiated opinions'.

Let me introduce you to one of those 'unsubstantiated opinions'. His name Avraham (Avi) Boaz, 71, of Ma'aleh Adumim, an American citizen, was kidnapped at a PA security checkpoint in Beit Jala. His bullet-riddled body was found in a car in Beit Sahur, in the Bethlehem area on Jan 15, 2002. The Fatah's Al-Aksa Brigade claimed responsibility for the murder.

Or perhaps one at a time is not enough, maybe Jan 17, 2002 - Edward Bakshayev, 48, of Or Akiva; Anatoly Bakshayev, 63, of Or Akiva; Aharon Ben Yisrael-Ellis, 32, of Ra'anana; Dina Binayev, 48, of Ashkelon; Boris Melikhov, 56, of Sderot; and Avi Yazdi, 25, of Hadera were killed and 35 injured, several seriously, when a terrorist burst into a bat mitzva reception in a banquet hall in Hadera shortly before 23:00, opening fire with an M-16 assault rifle. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.

If you care to discuss Fatah's moderation, you could start by explaining it to them, but you may have to shout real loud for them to hear you Those are just two of the hundreds they have moderately murdered.

But since you changed your mind then I too can and will answer your question one time.



To end all funding of the Palestinian Authority, stop supplying them with anything, stop employing any of their citizens, stop treating them in Israel's hospitals and clinics, close the borders, have nothing at all to do with them until such time they prove that they will live in peace.

Hey Rev, could you enlighten me as to with which Arab countries you consider the US not having meaningful relations? I’m trying to think of who that would include:

- Egypt, whom we have given $50 Billion in aid since the mid-70’s. Despite this week’s setback, they seem to be on the road to some sort of democracy due to our prodding? Is free access to the Suez and influencing government not “meaningful”?

- Jordan, another US aid recipient, has been cooperative in the war on terror and has had friendly relations with the US.

- Iraq, well, our relationship there is meaningful, to say the least.

- Syria – blaming our support for Israel for bad relations here is probably oversimplifying things. Calling them on the Hariri assassination has chilled things, to say the least. Do we want “meaningful relations” with this type of dictatorship anyway?

- Lebanon – democracy on the rise, decent relations with the US.

- UAE – excellent relations

- Saudi Arabia – relations so good that the Bushie’s have adopted Bandar as a son or something. Relations here are too meaningful for my taste.

I’m running out of Arab states. Even in Yemen we have progress I think.



Actually stating that the kids are brainwashed to hate Jews in school, and that they want “all or nothing” is factual, not demonization. Do you deny this?

Here in the San Francisco Chronicle you can find an article on Hamas brainwashing children to “sing "intifada songs," including one urging them to "kill Zionists wherever they are, in the name of God."

Here is a photo gallery of palestinian children pictured with guns and anti-Jewish propaganda.

And as to the “all or nothing” claim - Here you can see maps used by the Palestinian Authority in propaganda and children’s textbooks which eliminate Israel from the map. One of these maps was prominently on display at a UN conference last year. Israel is a dues-paying member of the UN…


The Jewish race still exists. That’s something, isn’t it?

Psyclist:

Maybe you should watch that documentary entitled The Fifty Years War. As someone else aptly summed up the relevant portion of the same [http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/oncamera/oc99pbs.html]:

"While Palestinian Arabs have termed the event [Deir Yassin] a massacre and have focused on it as emblematic of alleged Jewish policy, the PBS account includes interviews with Jews and Arabs present at the village who tell a more complex story. That deaths occurred is undisputed, but the calculated attempt by Palestinian Arab leadership at the time to magnify and distort the occurrences in an attempt to draw in neighboring Arab armies is also described. As Arab interviewees recount, instead of attracting those armies, lurid and false claims of Jewish atrocities frightened Palestinian Arab villagers throughout the area, who fled by the thousands."

And since I own my own copy of the video, I know what was said. A part of the same [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html]:

"Hazam Nusseibi, who worked for the Palestine Broadcasting Service in 1948, admitted being told by Hussein Khalidi, a Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate the atrocity claims. Abu Mahmud, a Deir Yassin resident in 1948 told Khalidi "there was no rape," but Khalidi replied, "We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews." Nusseibeh told the BBC 50 years later, "This was our biggest mistake. We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror.""

Yep, it's all there on the video entitled The Fifty Years War. So you too can see Abu and Hazam report that there was no rape of Arab women and no indiscriminate murder of children at Deir Yassin. You can also watch Hazam report that the false charge of mass rape was made precisely to inflame Arab sentiment in the neighboring countries [so their goverments would be persuaded to send their armies to crush the fledgling State of Israel]. As Hazam further reports, it had an unintended catastrophic effect, as the report resulted in more than a few Arabs fleeing the fledgling State of Israel.

Oh, sorry, the catalogue info:

http://www.lib.unc.edu/house/mrc/films/full.php?film_id=9484

And please note from that same site:

"Among those interviewed: Hazem Nusseibeh [Palestine Broadcasting Service], Yair Zaban [High School student, Jerusalem, 1940s], Meir Pail [Palestinian Jew], Yitzhak Havon [Palestinian Jew], Uzi Narkiss [Palmach Officer], Yitzhak Rabin [Haganah Brigade Commander], Abu Mahmoud [Resident of Deir Yassin, 1940s],.."

So, Abu and Hazam know, because they were there.

And from my friends at Yahoodi [http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/deiryassin.html]:

""I know when I speak that God is up there and God knows the truth and God will not forgive the liars," said Radwan, who puts the number of [Dier Yassin] villagers killed at 93, listed in his own handwriting. "There were no rapes. It's all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda that... Arabs put out so Arab armies would invade," he said. "They ended up expelling people from all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin." - Mohammed Radwan, fought and survived the Deir Yassin battle, reported by Paul Holmes, Middle East Times, 20-April-1998"

And from that same site, and once again, back to the video:

"I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story. He said, "We must make the most of this". So we wrote a press release stating that at Deir Yassin children were murdered, pregnant women were raped. All sorts of atrocities. - Hazen Nusseibeh, an editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service's Arabic news in 1948, was interviewed for the BBC television series "Israel and the Arabs: the 50-year conflict." He describes an encounter with Deir Yassin survivors and Palestinian leaders, including Hussein Khalidi, the secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, at the Jaffa Gate of Jerusalem's Old City."

And for more [http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_diryassin.php]:

"On the contrary, there are eyewitness accounts from the time, Jewish and Arab, that tell the story as it happened. For example, according to the Daily Telegraph, April 8, 1998, Ayish Zeidan, a resident of the village and a survivor of the fighting there, stated:

The Arab radio talked of women being killed and raped, but this is not true... I believe that most of those who were killed were among the fighters and the women and children who helped the fighters. The Arab leaders committed a big mistake. By exaggerating the atrocities they thought they would encourage people to fight back harder. Instead they created panic and people ran away."
***
The BBC program then shows a recent interview with Abu Mahmud, who was a Dir Yassin resident in 1948, who says:

... the villagers protested against the atrocity claims: We said, "There was no rape." [Khalidi] said, "We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews.
***
Nusseibeh, who is a member of one of Jerusalem's most prominent Arab families and presently lives in Amman, told the BBC that the fabricated atrocity stories about Dir Yassin were:

"...our biggest mistake," because "Palestinians fled in terror" and left the country in huge numbers after hearing the atrocity claims."

Call it the nakhba. And maybe, just maybe, one day, those responsible for spreading the lie about the deliberate murder of children, the rape of women, yes, even pregnant women, who were slit open, will finally own up to their lie and the accompanying effect that it had on the Palestinian Arabs. However, since these same people have been wiring Palestinian Arab children to self-detonate, I'm not holding my breath in that regard.

And please kindly note that I am not relying on historians, but those who were there, in this circumstance, Palestinian Arabs themselves.

And for a repeat of most of the above, but in one place, please see:

http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac17.htm

And Ilan Pappe? Surely, you can do better. In any event, please see:

http://www.masada2000.org/Ilan-Pappe.html

And, yes, his own words convict him:

"we do [historiography] because of ideological reasons, not because we are truth seekers."

An example? Well, if we believe our friends at Masada2000.org:

"Pappe routinely and purposefully discredits or ignores sources that contradict his anti-Zionist views, and when challenged by students who cite accepted historical narratives, criticizes them for reading "the wrong books." When confronted by the actual, benign text of an Israeli military doctrine, which contradicted Pappe's thesis that such documents called for the expulsion of Palestinian Arabs, he admitted that no such doctrinal statement actually existed, but was implied simply by the existence and concomitant predispositions of Zionism."

And Benny Morris is not his biggest fan:

"Notwithstanding a negative court finding, and a scholarly review debunking the veracity of a master's thesis of one of Pappe's students, claiming an IDF massacre at Tantura, Pappe continued to support the claim. Upon reviewing Pappe's latest book, historian Benny Morris warned: "Anyone interested in the real history of Palestine/Israel and the Palestinian/Israel conflict would do well to run vigorously in the opposite direction!" This book is awash with errors of quantity and quality that are not found in serious historiography." Pappe admits that most historians share Morris' views and again freely admits that his "ideology influences his historical writing.""

Of course, one could rightly ask when, if ever, the Marxist historian has been concerned with the truth, but I digress...And so the record is correct, Teddy Katz was not Pappe's student, but Pappe did become his biggest espouser and supporter [so call it a distinction without much in the way of what I will call a practical difference].

And note that our friend here more than amply demonstrates that he has Ilan's number (as it were):

http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2006/01...s-response.html

And please note the right column [under the heading "Introduction to the site"]. That's the part that you and more than a few others on your side of the fence never seem to have time to discuss, or even mention. Why is that? Does the right of return flow in only one direction?

And I don't know whether anyone has posted the same, but here's a link to Karsh's "rebuttal" to Morris:

http://www.meforum.org/article/711

I think we here in the US would call that Mr. Morris' "fisking."

Now on to Palumbo [http://www.ameu.org/printer.asp?iid=121&aid=164]:

"An inevitable clash with the Zionists occurred, in November 1947, when the U.N. General Assembly approved a plan to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states.
***
For many years this story, with further embellishments, was propagated by Zionist authors and generally accepted throughout the western world, particularly the United States.
***
Other Zionist authors maintain “many Arabs were encouraged to leave by their own leaders who promised that they would be able to return.”4"

Zionists? He might as well have played the Nazi and said "sub-humans".

But for more:

"He thereby attempts to resurrect the myth that the Arabs started the war in order to massacre the Jewish colonists in Palestine. Clearly both sides in late 1947 and early 1948, after the passage of the U.N. partition resolution, contributed to the escalating violence, since they realized that a war was inevitable."
***
Morris seems to believe that the Jews in Palestine in 1948 were right in suspecting that “the Palestinians and the Arab states, if given the chance, intended to reenact a Middle East version of the Holocaust.”18 This is a a common theme of most Zionist historians, which is used to excuse the numerous atrocities committed by Jewish forces in the “War of Independence.” In reality, there is no reason to believe that the Arab states planned the extermination of Jewish colonists in Palestine in 1948. Indeed, all the evidence argues against it."

I don't suppose that Mr. Palumbo has ever heard of a place called Hebron? Of course not, since the Arab anti-Jewish riots in Hebron destroy his entire premise. But hold the thought, since we'll have occasion to consider again the planned extermination. In the meantime, as with all dishonesty, eventually, the same gives itself away:

"Morris also overlooks Israeli evidence with regard to the Deir Yassin massacre. He correctly points out that the atrocity “had the most lasting effect of any single event of the war in precipitating the flight of Arab villagers from Palestine.”25 However, Morris relegates a description of the massacre to one paragraph in which he claims “the weight of evidence suggests that the dissident [Stern Gang and Irgun] troops did not go in with the intention of committing a massacre, but lost their heads during the battle.”"

So he agrees that Deir Yassin had the most lasting effect re precipitating the flight of Arab villagers from Palestine. Fine. Now he and you can consider again the above-related remarks of Abu Mahmud and Hazam Nusseibeh. No indiscriminate murder of children and no rapes of women [pregnant or otherwise]. But that's not what Hussein Khalidi told Hazam Nusseibeh to report via the Palestine Broadcasting Service. And, again, according to Hazam, that "was our biggest mistake," the Palestinians' self-inflicted nakhba. And for the obvious reason, some have been in denial ever since.

And for more dishonesty:

"The Arab states were not looking for a reason to enter the war, but for an excuse to stay out. After the easy Jewish victories, especially in Haifa, Arab leaders saw that the Zionists had developed a formidable fighting machine which their tiny military forces, little more than palace guards, could hardly face."

Right...the Arabs had tanks, the Jews had none. Three of the Arab nations had air forces, the Jews did not. And the Arab armies of Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon otherwise invaded Israel the day after the Israelis' Proclamation Of Independence [or on 15 May 1948]. The initial invasion was an Egyptian air attack on Tel Aviv.

Oh, and re Palumbo's claim of no ill treatment of Israelis captured during the war, perhaps the patent anti-Semite would kindly remember Kfar Etzion.

And back to war, and the desire for the same, while Palumbo won't blame the Arabs, he otherwise seems to rely so heavily on UN reports. That being so, let's take his own favored source, since the UN's Palestine Commission reported to the UN Security Council on 16 February 1948:

"Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."

And two months later, the same Jamal Husseini that I quoted prior informed the UN Security Council [on 16 April 1948]:

"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight."

And now for the extermination that I promised we'd discuss again, to refresh your recollection, Palumbo claims that the Arabs didn't want to exterminate and/or expel the Jews. Well, not so sorry to say, but that's not what Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League told the world:

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

Might I simply suggest that you find a more honest historian? And Azzam Pasha told such to the world on the very day that the Israelis made/read their Proclamation of Independence.

And in addition to Azzam Pasha, we have the words of the late Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who reported:

"I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!"

And so can be no mistake, here is a picture of the Grand Mufti talking with Hitler:

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal...eini-Hitler.htm

And here he is shaking Himmler's hand:

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal...jpg_jpg_jpg.htm

And please note the caption below the photo. He wanted to see the gassing of the Jews and apparently got his wish.

But for more on Amin al-Husseini, here he is inspecting the Nazi-Muslim troops of the Hanzar SS division:

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal...jpg_jpg_jpg.htm
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal...s/new10_jpg.htm

And for all those who thought that the Muslims of the Balkans got a raw deal not so long ago, well, again, payback is a b, and what goes around comes around:

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal...jpg_jpg_jpg.htm

Yes, Bosnian Muslim Nazi SS troops, murdering Serbs, Gypsies, and Jews. It took a while, but payback did indeed come...Think of the prior Muslim Nazi genocide as the murder of Jews, Crusaders, and in the case of the Gypsies, godless idolators [all in accordance with the classical Islamic position respecting kufr and those people of the book who do not accept the status of dhimmi].

And here's al-Husseini planning the genocide:

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal...jpg_jpg_jpg.htm

And some still haven't shed their Nazi tendencies:

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal...jpg_jpg_jpg.htm

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gal...jpg_jpg_jpg.htm

Now getting back to Mr. Palumbo, what was he saying again about there being no evidence that extermination was on the minds of some? Don't the Secretary-General of the Arab League and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem count in the computation?

And for more on why the Palestinian "exodus," in his Arabs, Edward Atiyah, secretary of the Arab League office in London, wrote:

"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re­enter and retake possession of their country."

And from the Near East Arabic Radio, 3 April 1948:

"It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees to flee from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem, and that certain leaders . . . make political capital out of their miserable situation . . ."

And some are still making political capital. As I have said here prior, the camps exist for two reasons: (1) good propaganda and (2) if the Palestinian Arabs are permanently resettled then, over time, they will lose their desire to return [just as I have no desire to return to the ancient sod of Ireland, i.e., this is my home and it's otherwise all I've ever known]. And I trust that you are aware that the Israelis at one time were rather seriously attempting to permanently resettle the refugees in Gaza. Of course, once again, the UN frustrated the attempt. No surprise as to why, given that there can't be a UNRWA without any refugees.

But from Habib Issa, writing in Al Hoda, on 8 June 1951:

"The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade... He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean. -- Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighbouring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down."

And just one more time, since it bears repeating, Hazam Nusseibeh:

"This was our biggest mistake. We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror."

Again, I did not say that there was no expulsion. For the most part, the expulsions occurred in "strategic areas", and, more often than not, in the face of Palestinian Arab hostility. Take Lod-Ramle. Palestinian Arabs residing in those cities had been active in the blockade of roads and had taken part in ambushing convoys and bus transport to Jerusalem and on the Lod-Wilhelmina road. The Palestinian Arabs of Lod first surrendered, but then some armored cars belonging to the Arab Legion entered the town and a "revolt" broke out. More than a few Palestinian Arabs took to sniping. The Israelis first drove out the armored cars and then more or less used some rather indiscriminate fire to suppress the sniping. It was following such that the expulsion order was issued.

Then there's Beersheba, Ashdod, and Ashkelon. Most of the Palestinian Arab residents of those cities fled when the Egyptian army withdrew. Those that hadn't fled were then expelled.

In contrast, again, the Palestinian Arabs of Haifa were asked, pleaded with, to stay. So were those in Acco and Nazareth.

Probably the worst case of expulsion concerned those Palestinian Arabs living in small towns and villages in the Lake Huleh area. They were frightened away by reports from Jewish residents that a large Jewish force was expected to come, burn all the Arab villages, and either expel or exterminate the inhabitants.

All of which is to say that a goodly majority left of their own volition, some were expelled, and no time did the State of Israel have as policy the expulsion of Palestinian Arabs from Israel.

Rev. Del Fuego:

First, a map of Israel:

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/travel...50_israel_m.gif

See the beach there on the Med right next to Tel Aviv?

How far do you think it is from there to the border with the West Bank? You can cheat and use the scale and your ruler.

Now, how long do you think that it would it take to drive a tank from the West Bank border to the beach at Tel Aviv?

That settles the pre-Six Day War border re the Palestinian Arabs. So on to the Golan.

Ooops, almost forgot. Golan HEIGHTS. Ever hear of the military talking about the need to control the high ground? Now ask yourself why. Maybe you could visit the Galilee and see the bomb shelters that were built for purposes of protecting the inhabitants from incoming Syrian artillery. And back to things purely military, the high ground gives one the view, so the Syrians could see all the Israeli positions. On the other hand, the Israelis could not see the Syrian positions all that well. The only thing that kept things reasonably balanced was that the Syrians were rather poor artillerymen. I don't think that you and I should expect the Israelis to have to count on that poor marksmanship forever.

And so Israel will never return to the pre-Six Day War borders. And anyone with any understanding of things military will understand why [in two words: NOT DEFENSIBLE].

And by the way, did you know that prior to the Six Day War, given the lack of depth, that Israeli military planning was based on the premise that the initial deployment of more than a few units would be in "enemy territory"? And precisely because there was no such thing as depth. And such also explains why the Israelis "preempted" and began the Six Day War. Well, there were two reasons actually, first, the indefensible borders, and second, such a small nation could not long survive with such a large number of its male citizens mobilized for military duty.

But I'm otherwise glad that you brought up the ridiculous Saudi plan, since that reminded me of something that I had wanted to relate to Psyclist.

So, Psyclist, you here?

Something no one, or should I say, one rarely ever hears....the simple historical truth that during the Yom Kippur War, Arab-Muslim women, citizens of a Jewish state, were found out on the street handing out water and food to Jewish males, their fellow citizens, who were on their way to their mobilization centers to report for duty. And that's one of the primary reasons that I despise Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. If they hadn't done their evil thing and hardened feelings all around.......................

As I expressed two times before, its not about how bad the Palestinians are, its not about them being the underdog, and it's certainly not anything religious since the land or the people involved in this conflict has little to do with my own. Its about the Israelis stealing the land from the native inhabitants and refusing them equal rights by denying them a viable two state solution or a single state solution with equal rights. Everything else is a consequence of it, cause and effect. You deal with an effect, like suicide bombings, it will reappear as witnessed between the Infatidas when settlement growth was at an all time high. If you can find a cause of this conflict prior to the zionist colonists planning to set up a Jewish state on land they did not own despite the objections of the natives or give a valid reason (no victim responses) why they should not hate and wish to destroy Israel because of that cause I'll be waiting.

Carlitowhey:

If you consider giving large amounts of money to the government of people who dislike us in order for us to receive something in return beneficial, ok your right. How many soliders were in the coalition of the willing besides a token force? Why haven't we caught OBL yet when we are pretty sure he's in Pakistan? How much money did we need to pay Turkey to use their airspace for our invasion of Iraq? Our relations with the Middle East is about money, and friendship based on money is superficial.

Kivrot:
Your military defense of Israel relies on outdated technology and assumes too much like them actually mounting a surprise attack. Lets take your Tank on the West Bank theory.



How long would it take a warplane anywhere in Israel to fire a missile at said tank?



Air superiority, Satellites, Drones, Submarines some of the technological advances Israel has made since the last few wars. If the Israelis can keep an eye on Iran why can't they do the same for their neighbors. The land was INDEFENSIBLE 50 years ago, now it's just playing the victim card again. This is still of course dependent on the Arabs getting a viable resolution to this problem and violating an agreement, stop bickering with one another, advance their own military, and actually mounting an attack against the only nuclear armed nation in the Middle East.

[quote=Rev_DelFuego,Feb 22 2006, 09:37 AM]
[quote=may14,Feb 21 2006, 06:05 AM]Although I enjoy debating, I also know that it is quite a pointless activity. Most people would stick to their convictions no matter what, and very rarely does anyone get convinced by the other. So I think I just stop here. It is plain to me you think that the world should treat equally Israelis and Palestinians. I disagree, because I do think Israelis are better- you would not catch an Israeli soldier intentionally murdering a baby and then go about boasting of that.
I acknowledge that I am not objective, but I decline any criticism from anyone who seems to believe all the problems will be solved by Israel "compromising". Let the Palestinians first stop trying to kill us, and then we can discuss which lands they can get. I come from a religious background which discourages settling in the west bank, not because we don’t have the right to but in order not to infuriate the Arabs. But as long as it seems that even giving up the west bank will not satisfy the Palestinians (giving up Gaza was acknowledged by them by burning the synagogues there) I don’t see why we should compromise at all. I did not support Sharon's decision to visit the Temple Mount, but it is interesting how people "understand" Palestinian fury even when it is express itself by killing innocent civilians. I mean, because you feel hurt by an Israeli leader going to a religious place you may start murdering Israeli people? That is sick! I would like to see what you would have to say had Israel behaved like that. I am much hurt by Palestinians desecrating the Tomb of Josef, and still I don’t look for some Palestinians to kill.
But you are entitled to your own opinion…I have already pointed out I am far from being surprised by people like you. You think Palestinians are the underdog here and you root for them…enjoy feeling holier-than-thou. I think you will find your mistake pretty soon, when terror starts to be an everyday problem everywhere.

[/quote]

"As I expressed two times before, its not about how bad the Palestinians are, its not about them being the underdog, and it's certainly not anything religious since the land or the people involved in this conflict has little to do with my own. Its about the Israelis stealing the land from the native inhabitants and refusing them equal rights by denying them a viable two state solution or a single state solution with equal rights. Everything else is a consequence of it, cause and effect. You deal with an effect, like suicide bombings, it will reappear as witnessed between the Infatidas when settlement growth was at an all time high. If you can find a cause of this conflict prior to the zionist colonists planning to set up a Jewish state on land they did not own despite the objections of the natives or give a valid reason (no victim responses) why they should not hate and wish to destroy Israel because of that cause I'll be waiting."

Stealing the land. Oh, yes. If you want to be absolutely just, you should go back and blame the Italians for driving the Jews out of the land two thousands years ago. That is the real cause to everything that happened afterwards.
And of course it is all about religion. I believe the land belongs to us because it is written in the Bible. The Palestinians are told by their religious leaders that the land is holly for them, and belongs to them. They can not really claim that the land belongs to them only because they have always lived there, because Jews have always lived there too, and much before the Arabs came. There have always been Jews in the Holy Land, mainly in Jerusalem, Hebron and Safed. Sometimes they were few- but there have always been some. When Jews started to settle in other places, it was because no Arab wanted to live in these places. I live in a city called Petach Tikva, which means in Hebrew "an opening of hope". The settlers needed to be very hopeful indeed to live here. The Arabs considered the land dangerous, and kept their distance. The Jews came, struggled with bad air and vast swamps, and fought against the malaria. Now there is a big city here, but it took a lot of gritty determination to build it. Do you think I live on stolen lands because Arabs, more than hundred years ago, staunchly refused to have anything to do with this land?

So your religion says that its acceptable to drive everyone who has been living on your promised land because your gods choosen people? Do you expect people who do not believe in your god to stand by and watch you do so? Then would it also be acceptable for other religions and beliefs to conquer other lands not their own because of religion?

To answer your question I think you live on stolen lands because it's not in your interest to settle the dispute. The Arab population would not allow a "Jewish Homeland" because your number of voters would be eclipsed. So you, the Israeli people, decided to divide the Jewish majority areas with the exception of important areas realated to resources, cultural importances, and logistical reasons. Doing so though leaves the Arab poplation devoid of those reasons listed above.
I noticed in your other post you questioned why the Palestinians don't mount a peaceful resistance to the invasion of foriegners like Ghandi. Why don't you take look at what Ghandi comments on the issue.

Ghandi



As far as developing the land, who is to say the Arabs would not have done the same if it weren't for 100 years of war, invasion, and occupation? Especially when you consider it coincides with the industrial revolution in which many of the technolgies used to make this land habitable began to expirience wide spread use, for example the automobile.

You are really becoming a little too predictable. Do try to use new arguments against Israel, it is no fun answering the same things over and over. You ask if I expect other nations to stand by and watch? Goodness, no. I expect them to be against us. I have a "victim mindset", remember?
Please don’t make up things. I have never mentioned Gandhi (not Ghandi! be careful with your spelling) in this forum. Read my posts again and you will see I am right. Reading comprehension seems to be a common problem among people who would rather die than admit they don’t know what they are talking about (have you ever been to Israel, by any chance?). Of course it is not in my interest to settle the dispute. I too much enjoy being accused of colonialism, apartheid, etc. If you want to make me happy, just add genocide to this flattering list.
And that is absolutely my last post in this thread, because it seems I only answer to you, and there is nothing new you could tell me, nor do I wish to change your mind. Indeed, am indebted to you for assisting me unknowingly. I am currently writing a book and have to put in it some anti-Israeli characters, and you have supplied me with material for their dialogue with Israeli diplomats. Thanks!

Rev_DelFuego I respect and appreciate your intellect and your convictions, but I see that you know absolutely nothing about the military. To this day nobody, I do mean nobody has created an aircraft or missile that can take and hold ground. As a former military pilot I say this.

Terrain is the second most important factor in combat, second only the the caliber of the troops. With the very best soldiers miracles can be achieved, but terrain is the greatest force multiplier after that. Only then does technology become a factor.

This is a fact that goes back throughout history. For two years a small band of nearly untrained militia held off one of the finest military's in the world. The besieging force was the best trained in the world, had the most technologically advanced weapons. and had more the 100 times the soldiers as the defenders. That was Masada.

In 1973 a single Armored Brigade stopped 3 entire Armored Divisions (equal to 15 times their number). The attackers had the most advanced weapons, there was no real air support for either side. The defenders were superior trained troops, using the natural terrain, not only did they stop the attackers, but totally gutted all three divisions.

If you have anything at all to back up that outrageous claim, I suggest you go to Military Academies and start teaching, because that is the exact opposite of what they teach.

Tell you what KivrotHaTaavah, I'll watch The Fifty Years War if you watch Aftershock. Deal?

While your post was massive it failed to do the one thing it was supposed to do: address my point. I never said anything about Deir Yassin. I was addressing your comment that the exodus of the Palestinians was because the Arab Leaders asked them or forced them to leave. Now you can try and slander Benny Morris or any of the sources till your blue in the face but I highly doubt you'll address the original souce done by the IDF.

Rev Del Fuego:

Trying to be cute? Yeah, they could take out one tank. But what about a tank division? And this two-state solution that I keep hearing about, well, if the Palestinian Arabs control their own fate, then who can say whether they wouldn't get themselves an air force? And maybe just as good, a[n] [un]healthy [depending on one's view] supply of surface-to-air missiles? When Loreng spoke of the respective air forces of Israel and Syria not playing much of a role on the so-called northern front during the Yom Kippur War, what he meant to say but didn't was that in air to air combat, the Israeli Air Force simply decimated the Syrian Air Force. The Israeli Air Force was otherwise kept from performing the rather valuable task of providing support for ground forces by Syrian surface to air missiles. So, some protection, by air and/or by missile for that tank division, and who knows, one 15 or so mile drive to the Med and the Palestinian and/or other Arab army/armies cut Israel in half. With such operating to not only rather drastically affect Israeli military operations, but also to afford the invading army/armies the option of consuming Israel piecemeal [one half at a time].

And, yes, I was otherwise aware of the nondefensible borders that came into being in 1948. The pity is that you have failed to draw the appropriate conclusion, to wit, given that circumstance, then maybe it's the Palestinian and other Arabs who need to be especially careful re what they do and say regarding Israel's right to exist as a nation. The nondefensible borders also explain the prior phenomenon of the fedayeen [roughly, "self-sacrificers"] who were infiltrating into Israel and making life rather dangerous and miserable for residents of towns near Gaza, back when Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan the West Bank. The Israelis eventually conducted a limited invasion of Gaza and made hash of the terrorist operatives' base area and so they weren't heard from for a while thereafter.

Loreng is also right about terrain. Satellites are wonderful things, but they are not real-time. It's much easier to adjust your artillery when the soldier responsible for making that call can actually observe where the rounds are landing in real time. And then there's the matter of so-called targets of opportunity, which is to say that if one doesn't strike while the proverbial iron is hot, one may have missed his chance to strike at all. And so real time beats the satellite photos any and every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

And Loreng also brought up something that I had left out, which is that I only spoke of the matter in terms of Israelis in the Galilee being on the receiving end of incoming Syrian artillery and the advantage [or lack thereof] afforded each side's artillery by the terrain. But in the Six Day War, one of the concerns on the mind of Israeli military planners when it came to