Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Who is right? Hamas or Israel?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Who is right?
Hamas / Palestine
36%
 36%  [ 17 ]
Israel
63%
 63%  [ 29 ]
Total Votes : 46

Author Message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003

PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If Hamas were just fighting to end Israeli settlements and have their own state which would protect the rights of minorities living in peace then they would be the good guys.

Somehow I don't think that is all they fighting for.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rookieglobetrotter



Joined: 19 Dec 2008

PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:37 pm    Post subject: One State Reply with quote

I read an article where the author wrote the best solution may just be just to have one state instead of 2. Jews and Palestinians have a long history and it may be easier where there are no borders and they have to learn with each other instead of attacking each others settlements. Hopefully Obama has some good foreign policy for this situation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blade wrote:
crusher_of_heads wrote:
Perhaps the 1948 decision to push Israel into the sea instead of partition wasn't such a good idea after all.

Sorry crusher you state the above as being an undisputed fact. It is not and many historians argue that the Zionist's at the time were the ones to start that war because they too were not happy about how little land they received. Also even if I were to accept what you say as being true I would have to say that given that the majority of the Zionist's living in the land now Israel were only then recent arrivals I don't think anyone should have been that surprised at the local Arab populations unwillingness to accept a Zionistanti-Palestinian state on its territory. Also don't forget that many of the Zionist founding fathers publicly stated they wanted expand Israel to the river Jordan.


If you can find any historical documents, sources, or anything even SEMI-legit proving your assertion that Israel started the 1948 war, I'd love to seem them.

On the other hand, the Arab forces that the Israelis fought in that war were not nearly as large or formidable as most Israelis believe.

Quote:
I think your post is a better response to the question as it's a political definition of Arabic (is Somalia Arabic?), but Arab is also a cultural label and there are people that can be identified as Arabic that can't speak Arabic.


Somalia is not Arab in any way. The only people that can be be deemed "Arab" but do not speak Arabic would be descendants of Arab immigrants. And even then, they are defined more by the nation where their ancestors came from than as Arab.

If you want to include Somalia, Pakstian, and Turkey with Arab countries, just say Islamic countries.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Justin Hale



Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express

PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:02 pm    Post subject: Re: One State Reply with quote

Israel is right. If I had any say in it, Gaza (and Judea and Samaria) would've been emptied of Muslims when the land was won in the first place. Sadly, not one Arab country would have wanted the Palestinians even if this were to have been Israel's policy. After the 1948 War of Survival, where Israel singlehandedly beat 5 Arab armies in a defensive war, 800,000 Jews were booted out of several Islamic countries where they'd lived peacefully for centuries and they emigrated to the Jewish state. After yet another Big Win in the 1967 war, when Israel gained the WB&G (and Sinai, which it gave back to Egypt in 1979), it should have occurred to the Israelis to insist on doing to the Palestinians what was done to the Jews in the Muslim world - expulsion. The only reason Jews were expelled from the Muslim world is because of the latter's humiliation at being humiliated in war. The Jews who emigrated to Israel arrived literally penniless (the Muslim states confiscated all their possessions, worth $2.5 billion in 1948 dollars).

rookieglobetrotter wrote:
I read an article where the author wrote the best solution may just be just to have one state instead of 2. Jews and Palestinians have a long history and it may be easier where there are no borders and they have to learn with each other instead of attacking each others settlements. Hopefully Obama has some good foreign policy for this situation.


Impossible. It has to be a Jewish majority state. A one-state solution will see the Jewish/Muslim population at almost 50/50. Eventually, because Muslims multiply like lice, the Jewish state will lose its Jewish character. This is partly the reason Israel refuses to annex the Territories, but another reason is that the Palestinians - unlike Arab-Israelis - refuse to accept not only the Jewish state but the very existence of the Jewish people. On both counts, a one-state solution would be madness. The two-state solution is the best idea, but 43% of Palestinians voted for Hamas (41% for Fatah - the two state solution party). Hamas are an Islamist party dedicated to an Islamic calliphate, encompassing Israel (and eventually the whole world), so there's not much chance of a solution - one or two state - at present. This is why the Israelis and the Americans armed, trained and subsidized Fatah as a bulwark against Hamas after Hamas won the election (because Israel and the US want a two-state solution).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Justin Hale



Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express

PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gopher wrote:
Ilsanman wrote:
When you take away someone's country and shove their people into a piece of land the size of Tokyo, what do you expect...?


Sirhan B. Sirhan and 9/11?

You have chosen the wrong side. The Palestinians represent a dangerous, foaming-at-the-mouth, mob of terrorists. I do not have the information on who "took away their country" (and how did they come to claim it as theirs, again?). But I do know that their strategies and tactics -- that is, violence, violence, and more violence -- reap the harvest that they deserve.

As far as I am concerned right now, let them eat all of this that Tel Aviv is about the hurl their way. Last I heard the Israeli high command was massing tanks. Good.


Crusher of Heads wrote:
Perhaps the 1948 decision to push Israel into the sea instead of partition wasn't such a good idea after all.


HAHA! Good stuff above.

ReaseDog wrote:
True, Islam seems to spawn violent groups all over the world, but violence isn't the basis of the religion as a whole. Let's keep that in mind.


Islam without violence is like grass without green.

Big_Bird wrote:
bangbayed wrote:
Kuros wrote:
bangbayed wrote:
There is a third party who arguably takes most of the blame:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyaBWyNFZfA&playnext=1&playnext_from=QL


ha ha. That was predictable.


"You have such a stunningly superficial knowledge of what went on that it's almost embarrassing to listen to you."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mk18af8z9Y&feature=channel_page


LMAO!

Yes, that's my understanding of what happened too. Arafat walking away from the talks is a complete myth, and it baffles me that it is repeated in so many mainstream news outlets as an accepted fact.


I didn't have the patience to watch the vid, but when we say Arafat walked away from the talks, who walked away, in the literal sense, isn't important. The important thing is, who came with offers, compromises, solutions, and who came with nothing? Who refused to dismantle terrorist infrastructure in return for a gradual withdrawal of all settlements leading to Palestinian control of the 100% of Gaza and 95% of Judea and Samaria?

Which is the more reasonable position?

Arafat: get out of the West Bank and Gaza immediately, please, and I'll see to it that terrorist infrastructure is dismantled

Israel: dismantle terrorist infrastructure immediately, please, and we'll see to it that settlements and military are withdrawn gradually

In any remotely sane system of ethics, terrorism must go before Jewish villages. And before someone says 'Jewish settlements cause terrorism', no they don't. Subscription to obscene religion causes terrorism - nothing else.

And, as I said above, the world needs to realize how liberal the Israelis are by continuing to allow Muslims to fester on the cradle of Jewish civilization, the so-called West Bank. There are, what, 300,000 Jews in the West Bank - less than half that booted out of the Muslim world in the 40s and 50s and forced to flee to Israel. The Palestinians in Gaza, Judea and Samaria, after the Six Day War, should've been repatriated and compensated handsomely in a straightforward land swap. The $2.5bn in Jewish assets stolen from them should've been invested and used to repatriate the Palestinians. But no Arab state with the exception of Jordan will even allow Palestinians to be citizens.

Since the Palestinians are actually sufferers of a genuine injustice (mostly at the hands of fellow Arabs rather than Israel, but an injustice for sure), what's happened is that the Hard Left have been allowed to take over the issue and insert sheer fantasy as historiography. The Muslim world, and Palestinian leaderships past and present, have, to an extent that's absolutely unforgivable, screwed the Palestinians in the bum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BreakfastInBed



Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Location: Gyeonggi do

PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Justin Hale wrote:
The Muslim world, and Palestinian leaderships past and present, have, to an extent that's absolutely unforgivable, screwed the Palestinians in the bum.


Can't speak to the rest, but this is undeniably true.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blade



Joined: 30 Jun 2007

PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

According to Shlaim (2000) who are argues that the Israeli forces significantly outnumbered the Arabs during all stages of the conflict and during the final decisive phase by a ratio of nearly 2:1. The picture of a monolithic Arab force determined to destroy Israel is also disputed. Flapen (1987) suggests that the primary objective of King Abdollah of Transjordan (who had nominal control of the Arab forces) was not to prevent the emergence of a Jewish state but to take control of the Arab Part of Palestine, as a secret pact he had made with Golda Meir in November 1947. Ovendale (1999) further suggests that the other Arab states involved were riven by competing territorial and political ambitions, in contrast to the Jewish forces that mostly fought with a united front.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blade wrote:
According to Shlaim (2000) who are argues that the Israeli forces significantly outnumbered the Arabs during all stages of the conflict and during the final decisive phase by a ratio of nearly 2:1. The picture of a monolithic Arab force determined to destroy Israel is also disputed. Flapen (1987) suggests that the primary objective of King Abdollah of Transjordan (who had nominal control of the Arab forces) was not to prevent the emergence of a Jewish state but to take control of the Arab Part of Palestine, as a secret pact he had made with Golda Meir in November 1947. Ovendale (1999) further suggests that the other Arab states involved were riven by competing territorial and political ambitions, in contrast to the Jewish forces that mostly fought with a united front.


Blade, I am not disagreeing with the above statements. What I AM disputing is your claim that Israel STARTED the 1948 war. None of what you wrote above suggests that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blade



Joined: 30 Jun 2007

PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 1948 War

Myth


The roots of the 1948 war go as far back as the first

recognition on the part of the Palestinians that the Zionists wished to establish a Jewish state on their land. In late 1947 the United Nations proposed that Palestine be divided into a Palestinian Arab state and a Jewish state. The UN Partition Plan recommended that 55 percent of Palestine, and the most fertile region, be given to the Jewish settlers who compromised 30 percent of the population. The remaining 45 percent of Palestine was to comprise a home for the other 70 percent of the population who were Palestinians. The Palestinians rejected the plan because it was unfair. Israel and its supporters claim that the Arabs first attacked in Janurary 1948 and then invaded Israel in May 1948.



Fact

The truth is that by May 1948 Zionist forces had already invaded and occupied large parts of the land which had been allocated to the Palestinians by the UN Partition Plan. In January 1948 Israel did not yet exist.



The evidence that Israel started the 1948 war comes from

Zionist sources. The History of the Palmach which was

released in portions in the 1950s (and in full in 1972)

details the efforts made to attack the Palestinian Arabs and secure more territory than alloted to the Jewish state by the UN Partition Plan (Kibbutz Menchad Archive, Palmach Archive, Efal, Israel). Already, Zionist forces were implementing their "Plan Dalet" to "control the area given to us [the Zionists] by the U.N. in addition to areas occupied by Arabs which were outside these borders and the setting up of forces to counter the possible invasion of Arab armies after May 15" (Qurvot 1948, p. 16, which covers the operations of Haganah and Palmach, see also Ha Sepher Ha Palmach, The Book of Palmach).



1. Operation Nachson, 1 April 1948

2. Operation Harel, 15 April 1948

3. Operation Misparayim, 21 April 1948

4. Operation Chametz, 27 April 1948

5. Operation Jevuss, 27 April 1948

6. Operation Yiftach, 28 April 1948

7. Operation Matateh, 3 May 1948

8. Operation Maccabi, 7 May 1948



9. Operation Gideon, 11 May 1948

10. Operation Barak, 12 May 1948

11. Operation Ben Ami, 14 May 1948

12. Operation Pitchfork, 14 May 1948

13. Operation Schfifon, 14 May 1948



The operations 1-8 indicate operations carried out before the entry of the Arab forces inside the areas allotted by the UN to the Arab state. It has to be noted that of thirteen specific full-scale operations under Plan Dalet eight were carried out outside the area "given" by the UN to the Zionists.



Following is a list drawn from the New York Times of the

major military operations the Zionists mounted before the

British evacuated Palestine and before the Arab forces

entered Palestine:

* Qazaza (21 Dec. 1947)

* Sa'sa (16 Feb. 1948)

* Haifa (21 Feb. 1948)

* Salameh (1 March 1948)

* Biyar Adas (6 March 1948)

* Qana (13 March 1948)

* Qastal (4 April 1948)

* Deir Yassin (9 April 1948)

* Lajjun (15 April 1948)

* Saris (17 April 1948)

* Tiberias (20 April 1948)

* Haifa (22 April 1948)

* Jerusalem (25 April 1948)

* Jaffa (26 April 1948)

* Acre (27 April 1948)

* Jerusalem (1 May 1948)

* Safad (7 May 1948)

* Beisan (9 May 1948).

David Ben-Gurion confirms this in an address delivered to American Zionists in Jerusalem on 3 September 1950:

"Until the British left, no Jewish settlement, however remote, was entered or seized by the Arabs, while the Haganah, under severe and frequent attack, captured many Arab positions and liberated Tiberias and Haifa, Jaffa and Safad" (Ben-Gurion, Rebirth and Destiny of Israel (N.Y.: Philosophical Library, 1954, p. 530).



Although late PM Ben-Gurion speaks of "liberating" Jaffa it

was alloted to the Palestinians by the UN Partition Plan.

Late PM Menachem Begin adds: "In the months preceding the Arab invasion, and while the five Arab states were conducting preparations, we continued to make sallies into

Arab territory. The conquest of Jaffa stands out as an event of first-rate importance in the struggle for Hebrew independence early in May, on the eve [that is, before the alleged Arab invasion] of the invasion by the five Arab states" (Menachem Begin, The Revolt, Nash, 1972, p. 348)

On 12 December 1948 David Ben Gurion confirmed the fact that the Zionists started the war in 1948: "As April began, our War of Independence swung decisively from defense to attack. Operation 'Nachson'...was launched with the capture of Arab Hulda near where we stand today and of Deir Muheisin and culminated in the storming of Qastel, the great hill fortress near Jerusalem" (Ben Gurion, Rebirth and Destiny of Israel (N.Y.: Philosophical Library, 1954, p. 106).



Israeli historians have themselves refuted the claim that the Arabs started the 1948 war. Benny Morris uncovered a report from the Israeli Defense Force Intelligence Branch (30 June 1948) that shows a deliberate Israeli policy to attack the Arabs should they resist and expel the Palestinians (Benny Morris, "The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: the Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Branch Analysis of June 1948", Middle Eastern Studies, XXII, January 1986, pp. 5-19).



Conclusion



In sum, it is not true that the Arabs "invaded Israel" in

1948. First, Israel did not exist at the time of the alleged invasion as an established state with recognised bounderies. When the Zionist leaders established Israel on 15 May 1948 they purposely declined to declare the bounderies of the new state in order to allow for future expansion.



Secondly, the only territory to which the new state of Israel had even a remote claim was that alloted to the Jewish state by the UN Partition Plan. But the Zionists had already attacked areas that were alloted to the Palestinian Arab state.



Thirdly, those areas which the Arab states purportedly

"invaded" were, in fact, exclusively areas alloted to the

Palestinian Arab state proposed by the UN Partition Plan. The so-called Arab invasion was a defensive attempt to hold on to the areas alloted by the Partition Plan for the Palestinian state.



Finally, the commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, was under

orders not to enter the areas alloted to the Jewish state

(Sir John Bagot Glubb, "The Battle for Jerusalem", Middle

East International, May 1973).



http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/snakebite/Wars.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So where was the part in which Israel attacked its Arab neighbors?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BTW, I am not defending Israel here. And I suppose you weren't saying Israel attacked its neighbors first. So yeah, nevermind.

In any case, the Zionists were more astute, unified, and had a much better plan than any Arabs around them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003

PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How can anyone know how many soldiers were sent against Israel in 1948? It is not like the governments of that area have open records.

Also :


many of the "Israeli soldiers" weren't professional soldiers or even men.

and the while the numbers include Israeli's who were involved in logistics or support they don't include any soldiers from arab lands that were involved in logistics or other support.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joo, I suggest reading the sources Blade just provided. It is pretty legit. That's the story for a # of wars between Israel and the Arabs: the former were well-organized and cohesive while the latter was the opposite.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003

PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is what Benny Morris - one of Blades sources above says about the number of forces.


Quote:
As for manpower, the picture of relative force remains somewhat murky. The reason for the incompleteness of our knowledge is simple. Israel's archives are open, and the figures for the Israeli side are clear and available; but the archives of all the Arab states, which are dictatorships, remain closed. Thus the figures about Arab military manpower at given stages of the war remain partial and tentative, based perforce mainly on IDF intelligence estimates. But according to the latest research, particularly the work of Amitzur Ilan and Yehoshua Ben-Aryeh and Asaf Agin, the invading Arab troops (in the third week of May 1948) numbered 22,000 to 28,000, bolstered by several thousand irregulars, while the Haganah, the mainstream Zionist militia, which became the IDF on June 1, 1948, fielded some 27,000 to 30,000 troops, with another 6,000 elderly Home Guardsmen, and some 2,000 to 3,000 IZL members. (The IZL was the Irgun Zva'i Leumi, or National Military Organization, a terrorist-militia group of the Zionist right.) But the invading Arab forces were all combat troops, teeth formations, who were backed, in terms of logistics, training, and so on, by at least a similar number of rear-echelon base camp troops; whereas the Haganah figure includes both combat troops (all told, about 16,000 to 17,000) and rear echelon units.

In mid-October, the balance stood at 79,000-95,000 to 47,000-53,000 in favor of the Israelis, who vastly expanded their recruitment. But again, the figure for the Arabs represents the numbers engaged in Palestine, not the full roll call of the relevant Arab armies, with their rear echelons. (All these figures relate to ground forces; the air and naval forces of the two sides, which were negligible in terms of manpower and importance, are omitted.) It is perhaps worth adding that in 1948 Israel suffered just over 6,000 dead, one-third of them civilians, out of a total population of 650,000 to 700,000--or one killed and two seriously wounded out of every hundred in the population--in the course of a year-long war that was launched, in two stages, by the Palestinian Arabs (in November-December 1947) and by the Arab states (in May 1948) after they had rejected the United Nations Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947. (Had America suffered a similar proportion of casualties in the Vietnam War, there would have been more than two million dead and four million wounded.) Arab losses in 1948 are uncertain. It is usually estimated that about 8,000 Palestinians died, and that the Arab armies' fatalities were about half that number.

So yes, Israel won each of its wars against the Arab states. But no, this was not because it had greater manpower or more equipment; it usually had less of each. The wars were decided by the failure of the significantly stronger and more populous Arab world to mobilize its resources or concentrate its forces where they counted, or to provide them with adequate leadership.


Moreover:


Quote:
Following is a list drawn from the New York Times of the

major military operations the Zionists mounted before the

British evacuated Palestine and before the Arab forces

entered Palestine:

* Qazaza (21 Dec. 1947)

* Sa'sa (16 Feb. 1948)

* Haifa (21 Feb. 1948)

* Salameh (1 March 1948)

* Biyar Adas (6 March 1948)

* Qana (13 March 1948)

* Qastal (4 April 1948)

* Deir Yassin (9 April 1948)

* Lajjun (15 April 1948)

* Saris (17 April 1948)

* Tiberias (20 April 1948)

* Haifa (22 April 1948)

* Jerusalem (25 April 1948)

* Jaffa (26 April 1948)

* Acre (27 April 1948)

* Jerusalem (1 May 1948)

* Safad (7 May 1948)

* Beisan (9 May 1948).

Blades reading above only counts jews attacks on arabs before / in 1948 but not arabs attacks on jews before /in 1948 so it is incredibly one sided & misleading.

In fact the entire article by Blade is cherry picked quotes and information compiled by some one sided site called electronic intifada .

From Blades source:

Quote:
[Compiled by http://www.electronicintifada.net]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International