if I was an Isreali . . .

[Benderino]

Originally posted by aaminion00


No. My points are still valid. If it wasn't for American aid coming to stop the Egyptian assault on Israel in the 70's I believe, Israel would be dead.

Right, in the 1973 War, I said that. But you said it was receiving aid since the beginning. "The beginning" would imply since 1948, which as i pointed out, they didn't get any help from us then.

Look it up, Israel had nothing in it's reserves, they got cocky and got shocked when the Egyptians put together an excellent strategy and drove them all the way back.

They got cocky? How did they get cocky. The "excellent strategy" that you speak of was that the Arabs attacked during Yom Kippur, Judiasm's holiest day. Everyone was praying that day. That's not "excellent", that's cowardly and scummy. The Israelis weren't cocky, they were just relgious. Forgive them, imagine America being assaulted 11:59 PM, Christmas Eve.

Several other Arab countries jumped in and Israel would be nothing but a chapter in Jewish history if America hadn't decided to save their ass. As for the Arabs recieving aid from the Soviets, I already explained that to you. The Arabs are corrupt, their goverments are horrible, and they are far too backwards and fundementalist to take advantage of Western aid. What are you trying to prove from Israeli success compared to Arabic failure, that Israel had a democratic goverment and rulers more interested in the future of their nation and people than personal wealth and gain? Shocking. **** man, give Bosnia the amount of support Israel had from the west and we'd be the most powerful state in East Europe. That may be rare in the Middle East, but not in other parts of the world and many other people could have done the exact same as Israelis did in such a situation. Only a demoractic moderately minded country and people can do that. And France and Britian had little to offer you up till 1973? What about the little firepower you had in previous wars or nuclear technology, I suppose those are little things? The land of Israel was chiseled from the Arabs before 1947 setting up a climate where Hebrews could eventually succeed with the necessary resources, and much of these came from Western aid. Early Israel was not the Israel we know today and western aid is largely responsible.

I don't disagree with anything here, and I don't think I said anything to the contrary. I think we agree. But during the '48 War of Independence, Israel won without any aid from the West. That's right, the nuclear stuff did happen. How early was that though? Just curious.

 

[Benderino]

Originally posted by aaminion00

1956: Britian and France help Israel in order to try and retake the Suez Canal.

To be fair, the British and French were getting just as much out of this war to reopen the Suez as Israel. They had their own agendas, and you could almost write it as "Israel helps Britain and France in order to try and retake the Suez Canal."

And I wonder if Benderino considers the core of the IAF which won the 1967 war a "small thing".

Of course I don't. That's a valid point...if indeed France did supply all those aircraft. The IAF did win the '67 War, I have little doubt of that.

...just because I think Israel shouldn't exist...

Why not?

 

[Benderino]

Originally posted by storealex


Are you and Benderino not reading what I write? It appears not. Im not saying that the Jews Stole Israel, Im saying that the are stealing land in the West Bank by use of illegal settlements and secrurity wall.
Do you know the difference between Israel and the West Bank???

We did read what you wrote, but that's not our fault we misunderstood you. When you say "stole", that could mean either of our definitions, can it not? You need to be more clear in the future.

 

[phoenix_night]

Originally posted by capslock
You said that the amount of "Muslim Land" was immaterial and asked how it benefited the Palestinians. I replied by saying that there should be plenty of land for them to repatriate their arab brothers, but they refuse to help the Palestinians because they are a valuble weapon against Israel as refugees.

I still don't see any reasoning behind this statement.

The people in Palestine have clearly been affected. This is okay because there's "Muslim Land" next door?

Originally posted by capslock
They are no different than any other arab because they are arabs. They would fit right in any of the arab nations in the surrounding areas.

And?...

Originally posted by capslock
They missed their chance: This relates to...

Again, this issue concerns Palestine, not its surrounding areas.

Originally posted by capslock
So, the amount of arab, muslim land in the surrounding region is very relevent to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not at all immaterial, as you say.

In my opinion, it is entirely immaterial, and you have yet to convince me otherwise, or give me so much as a reason to consider it.

The people of Palestine have clearly been affected, the situation of people in surrounding areas is of no relevance.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


But who provided weapons, nukes and cash also?

Europeans!

Nukes? The French couldn't have made their nukes without the help of Israel. And as for weapons, most countries, except for a short period of France, did practically everything they could to prevent weapons from getting to Israel. Why do you think the Israelis designed the Merkava? Because the west had a MBT ban for Israel. This didn't end until 73, and Israel had to practically steal tech from the states to finish, as it wasn't like the Americans were that encouraged to help them, and since then Israel has been able to use its nuclear weapons to more or less force the Americans to keep them strong conventionally. All of this of course came AFTER Israel soundly defeated the Arab nations.

And here is a big trivia question, what is the only country that was selling arms to Israel during the Independence war........Czechoslovakia, and even that was more or less a trickle that came near the end of the war. Ya that is right, while the British were doing everything in their power outside of actually declaring war to make sure Israel lost, they still won.

 

[phoenix_night]

Originally posted by Archer 007
I dont see how you can call his statement anti-Arab.

I read it.

What would you call it then? Pro-Arab?

It was completely irrelevant, and as far I can see, contributed nothing to the thread; other than a cheap shot at the Arab Middle East. A rant.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by aaminion00


I still don't see your point. So now Hebrews are responsible for making the Atomic bomb? And the way you paint the picture you'd think that the Israelis were fighting with little slings and spears against an unbeatable opressor, singlehandedly defeating the Arab world. Right.

1948 War: Miracle. Very impressive on the Israelis part and truly something to go down in military history.

1956: Britian and France help Israel in order to try and retake the Suez Canal.

1967: Israelis use superior air force to wipe out and defeat the Arabs. This air force was obtained by the French from 1950 to 1967. In fact, France had to be pressured to stop supplying Israel with aircraft in the 1967 war. So much for them being "lucky" to obtain Western arms. And I wonder if Benderino considers the core of the IAF which won the 1967 war a "small thing".

1973: Israelis get cocky, fall to a good strategy by the Egyptians. This would have been the death of Israel, but then America came in, and the rest is history.

Oh, and as for your quote about the poor opressed Arabs, please spare me. No, and I know it's hard to believe, just because I think Israel shouldn't exist doesn't mean i'm a hippie who'll fall for such simplified garbage. If you'll argue with me please use my opinions and not stereotypes of Western liberals.

56', the French and British made a promise the Israelis, and save for a few airstrikes to help them out, more or less abandoned Israel to fight for itself.

67', Israels Mirages were almost roundly older and inferior to all of the Arab systems.

73', the Israelis won it all by themselves, as the American airlift was too late to actually achieve anything significant, not to mention that the Soviets had a rival airlift going to the Arabs. The tide turned because all of Israel's reserves that had previously been celebrating Yom Kippur began flooding to the frontline.

The IAF was small, and won because of the complete superiority of Israeli pilots and tactics. If the Egyptians had gotten off the ground they could have made Israel pay like hell with its cities. But the think about an even small airforce, is that they can do a lot of damage when they sneak attack an opponent whose planes are lined up wing-to-wing on the ground covered in explosive weaponry.

And don't give me this crap about France. You make it sound like they were giving the Israelis everything while getting nothing in return. The Israelis helped the French develop the bomb, and they paid for all their weapons. weapons. Just like practically every country in the world that doesn't have their own arms making facilities. One could say "those American M1s would be useless if the benevolent Germans hadn't sold them 120mm Rheinmetall guns".

Basically you are saying that, "if there was a complete arms embargo on Israel, they would have lost". This argument doesn't work unless you say it along the lines, "If their was an arms embargo against Israel AND the Arabs...."

 

[gorn]

Is it just me, or is the very premise of this thread kind of insulting? I mean, I DESPISE posts where others say, "If I were American, I would (fill in the blank)." Regardless of how fair-minded you think you are, you're actually imposing your own country's/culture's values on mine ... and it's not appreciated.

I have my own opinions about Israel, but I would never preface them by saying what I would do if I were Israeli. How can I possibly know that? I can honestly tell you what I would do as an American, but those are my own values. It is hypocritical to think otherwise.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Basically the point is that mutual trade, isn't benevolent aid. Israel provided a place for the west to test its weapons and technology, as well as build on them themselves, and Israeli scientists help the French develop a nuclear capability, which more than makes up for a relatively moderate amount of military supplies SOLD to Israel not GIVEN.

 

[aaminion00]

Originally posted by Benderino

Originally posted by aaminion00

1956: Britian and France help Israel in order to try and retake the Suez Canal.

To be fair, the British and French were getting just as much out of this war to reopen the Suez as Israel. They had their own agendas, and you could almost write it as "Israel helps Britain and France in order to try and retake the Suez Canal."

And I wonder if Benderino considers the core of the IAF which won the 1967 war a "small thing".

Of course I don't. That's a valid point...if indeed France did supply all those aircraft. The IAF did win the '67 War, I have little doubt of that.

...just because I think Israel shouldn't exist...

Why not?

1. I agree with your assesment of the 56 war

2. Nothing to argue about the IAF, it is and was very good

3. Because I don't believe that Jews would have been much worse off in Europe. It's arguable that there is more anti-semitism in Europe now because of israel than there was in the years following World War II when Western goverments made sure nothing like the holocaust would ever be repeated. Alright, I'll take back a bit of what I said, I support a Jewish state. However, I don't think Israel was done the right way, and I feel that it has created far more problems than it has solved. As it currently stands the world would have been much better off if Israel didn't exist.

Originally posted by Benderino

Originally posted by aaminion00


No. My points are still valid. If it wasn't for American aid coming to stop the Egyptian assault on Israel in the 70's I believe, Israel would be dead.

Right, in the 1973 War, I said that. But you said it was receiving aid since the beginning. "The beginning" would imply since 1948, which as i pointed out, they didn't get any help from us then.

Look it up, Israel had nothing in it's reserves, they got cocky and got shocked when the Egyptians put together an excellent strategy and drove them all the way back.

They got cocky? How did they get cocky. The "excellent strategy" that you speak of was that the Arabs attacked during Yom Kippur, Judiasm's holiest day. Everyone was praying that day. That's not "excellent", that's cowardly and scummy. The Israelis weren't cocky, they were just relgious. Forgive them, imagine America being assaulted 11:59 PM, Christmas Eve.

Several other Arab countries jumped in and Israel would be nothing but a chapter in Jewish history if America hadn't decided to save their ass. As for the Arabs recieving aid from the Soviets, I already explained that to you. The Arabs are corrupt, their goverments are horrible, and they are far too backwards and fundementalist to take advantage of Western aid. What are you trying to prove from Israeli success compared to Arabic failure, that Israel had a democratic goverment and rulers more interested in the future of their nation and people than personal wealth and gain? Shocking. **** man, give Bosnia the amount of support Israel had from the west and we'd be the most powerful state in East Europe. That may be rare in the Middle East, but not in other parts of the world and many other people could have done the exact same as Israelis did in such a situation. Only a demoractic moderately minded country and people can do that. And France and Britian had little to offer you up till 1973? What about the little firepower you had in previous wars or nuclear technology, I suppose those are little things? The land of Israel was chiseled from the Arabs before 1947 setting up a climate where Hebrews could eventually succeed with the necessary resources, and much of these came from Western aid. Early Israel was not the Israel we know today and western aid is largely responsible.

I don't disagree with anything here, and I don't think I said anything to the contrary. I think we agree. But during the '48 War of Independence, Israel won without any aid from the West. That's right, the nuclear stuff did happen. How early was that though? Just curious.

1. Like I said, the war in 1948 was brilliant on the part of the Israelis, and had nothing to do with Western Aid.

2. No, I am not talking about attacking on Yom Kippur, I am talking about the tactics used by the Egyptians at the Suez Canal at the very beginning of the war. Look it up... the bridgehead, engineers, fortifications, ships, all sorts of good stuff. A former u.s. soldier that I know told me that he and his companions were taught of the Egyptians strategy as part of their training.

3. The nuclear development was in the 60's via France iirc

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

via and TO France. In 56' the Israelis were helping the British and French, until the British abandoned the two.

Although you are right that America would have helped Israel defeat the Arabs in 73' it was irrelevant because Israel won the war before the Americans showed up. The reservists coming to the battle lines is what won that war.

 

[aaminion00]

@Sobieski - Right, that's exactly what I'm saying . No, I'm saying that Western Aid was largely responsible for the many successes Israel has had against the Arab world, including actual wars or mere conflicts. A nation of, what, 10 million, can not beat 200,000,000 without outside help, that's simple fact and no amount of propaganda or Israel-friendly assesments can change that. The notion of Israel simply surviving because of the determination of it's people and hard work for half a century against such superior armies as you talk about is crap, plain and simple.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

It isn't aid when you are trading something back. And yes, a nation that small can defeat 200 000 000 people, when most of those people aren't anywhere close to the borders of the small nation, and when the people of the small nation actually want to fight, and are not more or less slave soldiers to a dictatorship.

A lot of aid did flow from the west......primarily the Jewish community in America. The JEWISH community in that it was more or less the Jews helping themselves.

And trade ISN'T aid. Nowadays the aid to Israel is very large, but before 73' the west was too afraid to aid Israel. France selling weapons isn't aid, as Israel has to buy them.

 

[aaminion00]

The West established Israel and it was in the West's interest that Israel didn't die.

 

[capslock]

Originally posted by phoenix_night
In my opinion, it is entirely immaterial, and you have yet to convince me otherwise, or give me so much as a reason to consider it.

The people of Palestine have clearly been affected, the situation of people in surrounding areas is of no relevance.

Here is why the people and nations in the surrounding area are relevant:

They asked the arabs of Palestine to leave when the invaded in 1948. Now, they refuse to help the refugees and keep them in refugee camps to use as weapons against Israel.

Why do you think their role in creating these refugees is irrelevent? How about their role in keeping them refugees for 50 years? What about their support for terrorism?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by aaminion00
The West established Israel and it was in the West's interest that Israel didn't die.

The west voted in the UN for Israel's right to exist, which was accurate considering that if anyone is coherent as a nation it is Israel, but besides that, the west did very little to help Israel until after Israel had already beaten the Arabs strategically.

Actually I think a more accurate statement would be that "If the Soviet Union and Britain hadn't aided the Arabs so much over the years the Israelis would have destroyed any and all military resistence many years before they did"

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by capslock

Why do you think their role in creating these refugees is irrelevent? How about their role in keeping them refugees for 50 years? What about their support for terrorism?

It is easier to argue when you ignore half of the argument.

 

[Benderino]

Originally posted by aaminion00

3. Because I don't believe that Jews would have been much worse off in Europe. It's arguable that there is more anti-semitism in Europe now because of israel than there was in the years following World War II when Western goverments made sure nothing like the holocaust would ever be repeated. Alright, I'll take back a bit of what I said, I support a Jewish state. However, I don't think Israel was done the right way, and I feel that it has created far more problems than it has solved. As it currently stands the world would have been much better off if Israel didn't exist.

That's arguable. However, we'll never really know that for sure. The rising anti-Semitism may be caused by other things (heck, a long tradition of that in Europe is reason enough). Things probably weren't caried out perfectly, but under the circumstances, that would have been impossible.


2. No, I am not talking about attacking on Yom Kippur, I am talking about the tactics used by the Egyptians at the Suez Canal at the very beginning of the war. Look it up... the bridgehead, engineers, fortifications, ships, all sorts of good stuff. A former u.s. soldier that I know told me that he and his companions were taught of the Egyptians strategy as part of their training.

But that's hard to say, since you have to also ask whether the tactics would have worked as well if they hadn't happened on Yom Kippur. I think that's an important variable that effects everthing. You mustn't overlook it.

 

[Maj]

If I was Israeli I'd be very angry and frustrated.

 

[allhailIndia]

Ok, no amount of *****ing and cribbing on these forums is going to get the Israelis to leave the land and disappear. No amount of suicide bombing and terrorism is going to that either.

It is irrelevant now whether Israel "stole" or "bought" that land cause they aren't going to leave it on the basis of such a technicality either

The reason why the Arabs have no gotten over the creation of Israel is because their leaders don't want them to. It would mean focussing all that energy and anger against their own depsotic ruler and the blind robbery going on. No, it is easier to keep up bogies like Israel and the US and attribute all miseries to them rather than take any reponsiblity and take some constructive action as well.

The real problem for Israel is the poor and awful condition in which most PAlestinians are forced to live in the squalid refugee camps. These are the breeding grounds for hate and if you can mprovethe quality of their lives, it will automatically put an end to terrorism.

Also, I don't think Israel's determination to survive and win wars has anything to do with Western support. Frankly, if 1/4th of my people were wiped out by a madman and his fanatical followers, I would do EVERYTHING to stop it. I would never surrender and prefer to fight to the last round and the last man. When faced with such determination, no foe, let alone a rag-tag bunch of poorly trained Arab armies can hope to win the battle