Hamas Kills 6 Suspected Israel Collaborators: Witnesses (GRAPHIC PHOTO)

[root]

Honestly, I fail to understand why people continue to support Hamas - It only gives justification to Israel to attack - To me Hamas seems to be doing good work for Israel. Palestinians are idiots for electing Hamas - This is the same stupidity that Pakistanis wanted to do few years ago (When Population of Swat favored Taliban in Swat) It was only when Swatee people saw the true face of Taliban they realized how evil these religious fundoos are. Likewise, Taliban destroyed Afghanistan by hosting Jihadis from all over the world in Afghanistan. I mean if tomorrow Afghan Government (elected by Afghani People) start firing rockets at Karachi, Lahore and Rawalpindi Pakistan would do the same - strike back with full force. However Israel too should stop the settlements (I have discussed this issue with various Israelis on internet and the liberal Israelis don't support Settlements it's the right wing Israeli's (Israel Version of JI) who support these settlements..)

 

[Developereo]

Yes, Dr. Lewis' assessment is an opinion. Until you find a source with as great learning and integrity it will remain the authoritative one.

Bernard Lewis has a very anti-Islamic bias in his writings. Of course, since he is Jewish and his bigotry is against Muslims, he is allowed to get away with it.

You're ignoring the legal arguments I gave previously. We can dispose, then, of the idea that Jewish settlements are illegal or that Israel is somehow an illegal state.

Saying that Jews lived there 2000 years ago is not a legal argument, it's an ideological plea.

People do buy and sell land.

Of course, people buy land and Jews bought some land legally. No one is denying that. But how does than justify making the whole land a "Jewish" land when neither the Jewish population, nor land ownership, exceeded single digits?

If some Muslims buy some land in outback Australia, does that mean it's open season to declare Australia a "Muslim" land? to mass import whole populations of Muslims to evict any non-Muslims who get in the way and to take over the land?

Peoples do migrate. Archaeologists say, however, that while the Hebrews colonized Canaan the process was gradual and evidence of large-scale conquest is scanty. I have no explanation for the discrepancy. What is not in doubt is that the Arabs were not the original inhabitants, were comparatively recent arrivals, and that the land was strikingly empty.

Neither the Jews nor the Arabs were the "original inhabitants", so any appeal to Jewish historical entitlement is bogus. The only thing that matters is who was living on the land during towards the end of the colonial era.

Btw, I've stopped providing links to you because I've done so in our previous conversations. You should be able to search PDF and find these yourself. In my opinion, you don't merit the effort of sticking in the links and references a second time.

Yes, your links are all about opinions and ideological claims. As I mentioned, the post-colonial model adopted by the Western powers was to award the land to the people actually living there; Israel was the only exception.

Honestly, I fail to understand why people continue to support Hamas

I am not supporting Hamas. I am supporting the Palestinian cause, even though I may not agree with their tactics for winning their rights.

 

[Solomon2]

Israel had a stronger force in 1948, the war has plenty of exaggerations. Both sides started with 30,000 to 35,000 at the beginning until Israel received more soldiers -

The Israelis didn't receive "more soldiers" but untrained civilians from Eastern Europe who were slain almost as quickly as they were thrown into battle. The Chinese can afford to fight battles like that but not the Jews. The Israelis did eventually receive fighter aircraft with experienced pilots and that helped turn the tide - but in the beginning it was entire Arab villages surrounding and massacring isolated Jewish settlements, then the tanks of Arab armies stopped by the Jews wielding grenades and Molotov cocktails (almost all of these died.)

I think you'd find a tour of Israeli war memorials to be very informative. Sadly, Israel has more of these than it likes.

1967 Israel still had the superior force

Nobody who looks at the armor tables would believe that the overwhelming numbers of Arab T-55s and T-64s (even though they were the "Monkey Models") could be defeated by mere Shermans. Israel didn't have superior force. Israel had superior tactics and leadership - and, as Sadat and the Soviets both noted, superior courage (though in May 67 I'm not sure one could tell courage from desperation and resolution.) Sadat fought the '73 war to get Arabs' balls back.

Nasser was deluded -

Nobody doubts that Nasser was deluded but that was a characteristic shared and beloved by his people and the majority of the Arabs. King Hussein knew better but threw his lot with Nasser because he thought he'd be assassinated otherwise. (See Michael Oren's Six Days of War.)

Israel also had been preparing for 1967 since 63

Which has nothing to do with which side is stronger or not.

not to mention it already had the first of it's Atomic Arsenal.

Really?

1973 the Egyptian and Syrian forces were inferior to the IDF, Sadat wanted to fight a limited war with political victory, the EAF was inferior to the IAF unless they managed to take it out they would have to fight a limited war, and once Egypt went beyond the SAM Defensive line thats when they started losing.

Without U.S. resupply the Israelis could not launch a strong Sinai counter-offensive, the Egyptians destroyed almost all the Israeli tanks sent to the Canal with anti-tank weapons, and the Syrians nearly made breakthroughs in the Golan - they actually did break the southern Golan front but they failed to exploit it. On paper the Israelis were superior but that ignored Egypt's secret weaponry (hydraulic cannons) and the Arabs' extensive and effective Soviet-built anti-aircraft missile system.

 

[Solomon2]

Bernard Lewis has a very anti-Islamic bias in his writings. Of course, since he is Jewish and his bigotry is against Muslims, he is allowed to get away with it.

You appear to know very little of Bernard Lewis and his writings.

Saying that Jews lived there 2000 years ago is not a legal argument, it's an ideological plea.

That's not the legal argument you're ignoring, but the whole structure of the post-WWI settlement. Apparently you find the legality indisputable.

Of course, people buy land and Jews bought some land legally. No one is denying that. But how does than justify making the whole land a "Jewish" land when neither the Jewish population, nor land ownership, exceeded single digits?

Palestine was declared the Jewish National Home and the Jews were encouraged to "closely settle" its lands, providing the civil and property rights of Arabs were respected. Jews were already a majority in Jerusalem in the mid-nineteenth century and the primary source of population growth in Palestine by 1914. It was thought this status would hold for a long time; only the aggressiveness of the Arabs and the post-WWII weakness of the British compelled the British to abandon administering the Mandate. The only measure left to the Jews to protect themselves was to reach for full statehood.

Had the Arabs not behaved badly Britain would have remained in charge a long time and all the Arabs would have remained in Palestine rather than a small fraction. Israel might never have existed as a state with a predominantly Jewish character at all.

As I mentioned, the post-colonial model adopted by the Western powers was to award the land to the people actually living there; Israel was the only exception.

You seem to be quite aware that the area called Palestine was accepted as the Jews ancestral land, that Jews lived there continuously in small numbers since the devastation of Roman times, and that nationalities were concentrated into states rather than dispersed after the collapse of empires. The Germans had to move from Russia to Germany, the Poles concentrate in Poland, the Hungarians and Romanians separate, and so on. Israel might have been unique only in the sense that the population movement there covered all three empires, not just one or two.

I am not supporting Hamas. I am supporting the Palestinian cause, even though I may not agree with their tactics for winning their rights.

What are "Palestinian rights"? You don't argue that the "Palestinians" are descendants of people who revolted and thus forfeited their civil and property rights under Ottoman law and practice. You don't have a legal basis to deny the Jews' peaceful settlement of Palestine. You don't deny that Hamas invokes a blood libel failure as it seeks to exterminate the Jews, plain and simple, and was democratically elected to power on that basis by the Palestinians.

What rights are you fighting for - the rights of Muslims to act as a mob to steal property, engage in terrorism, and commit genocide? Are those really the rights and values Pakistanis should be seeking right now? If so, why should young Pakistani men even bother with the Palestinian cause when they could behave the same way to assert their "rights" at home?

 

[Sasquatch]

The Israelis didn't receive "more soldiers" but untrained civilians from Eastern Europe who were slain almost as quickly as they were thrown into battle. The Chinese can afford to fight battles like that but not the Jews. The Israelis did eventually receive fighter aircraft with experienced pilots and that helped turn the tide - but in the beginning it was entire Arab villages surrounding and massacring isolated Jewish settlements, then the tanks of Arab armies stopped by the Jews wielding grenades and Molotov cocktails (almost all of these died.)

Maybe my phrasing was wrong, but correct Israel received many volunteers survivors of the holocaust and and many Jewish soldiers that fought for the allies. Israel also did receive many more civilians during the ceasefire phases of the war, the early Arab victories were many due to the Jews under equipped until Czechoslovakia supplied them that is when the war started to turn the tide.

Nobody who looks at the armor tables would believe that the overwhelming numbers of Arab T-55s and T-64s (even though they were the "Monkey Models") could be defeated by mere Shermans. Israel didn't have superior force. Israel had superior tactics and leadership - and, as Sadat and the Soviets both noted, superior courage (though in May 67 I'm not sure one could tell courage from desperation and resolution.) Sadat fought the '73 war to get Arabs' balls back.

The T-55's and T-64s lacked many of the features that was on the Soviet versions and Eastern Europe, Centurion & M60 were superior not to mention upgraded while the Arab tanks were lacking many features as I have mentioned before. Israel did have a superior force not mention superior tactics, Sadat wanted to force Israel into a settlement to get the Sinai back hence the limited war the Arabs suffered a psychological defeat due to 1967.

Nobody doubts that Nasser was deluded but that was a characteristic shared and beloved by his people and the majority of the Arabs. King Hussein knew better but threw his lot with Nasser because he thought he'd be assassinated otherwise. (See Michael Oren's Six Days of War.)

The False sense of victory in 56 is what drove he to that not to mention he considered himself the leader of the arabs. Hussein was still hostile to the idea or a Palestine, and the fact Jordan won the west bank lead him to follow nassers message of getting more land from Israel.

Which has nothing to do with which side is stronger or not.

That's incorrect it gave Israel time to upgrade much of it's forces during the three years not to mention plan and strategize.

Really?

Yes after receiving help from France it was widely suspected Israel had attained Nuclear Weapons during 1967 and during the 1973 one of the reasons of Nicklegrass.

Without U.S. resupply the Israelis could not launch a strong Sinai counter-offensive, the Egyptians destroyed almost all the Israeli tanks sent to the Canal with anti-tank weapons, and the Syrians nearly made breakthroughs in the Golan - they actually did break the southern Golan front but they failed to exploit it. On paper the Israelis were superior but that ignored Egypt's secret weaponry (hydraulic cannons) and the Arabs' extensive and effective Soviet-built anti-aircraft missile system.

Even without the resupply Israel was stronger, there were many plans on how to gain superiorty one was a combined Arab air attack, but that could not be accomplished mainly due to the Arab airforces were weaker. The Arab armies before the invasion only received limited amount of resources from the USSR and were still weaker, While I am not denying with out the support Israel could not trap the 3rd army and launch plenty of counter offenses in Golan as well, but the Advancing Arab forces could not go any further without many losses, Israel did have a superior force hence the limited war it was only due to the soviet advice the Egyptians went on and the losses got heavy from there. Much of it can be debated.

 

[Solomon2]

The T-55's and T-64s lacked many of the features that was on the Soviet versions and Eastern Europe, Centurion & M60 were superior -

Yes, but in 1967 Israel was not equipped with the M60 and I think it was the Jordanians who had both the British Centurions and modern American-made tanks (though not the M60).

not to mention upgraded while the Arab tanks were lacking many features as I have mentioned before.

I've read "Victor Suvorov's" account of the Monkey Models, but I can only recall right now that they lacked NBC systems and stabilized gun mounts. The Israelis' Shermans had inferior armor, a barely adequate upgraded 100mm gun which may have been stabilized, I don't know.

Israel did have a superior force hence the limited war it was only due to the soviet advice the Egyptians went on and the losses got heavy from there. Much of it can be debated.

Too bad the Russians burn their secret records while the Arabs never release theirs. Almost all the only info available on the Arab side seem to be self-serving memoirs.

 

[Sasquatch]

Yes, but in 1967 Israel was not equipped with the M60 and I think it was the Jordanians who had both the British Centurions and modern American-made tanks (though not the M60).

Centurions were the most advanced tank at the time used by Israel, better then the T-55, Jordanians did have older Shermans if I am correct.

I've read "Victor Suvorov's" account of the Monkey Models, but I can only recall right now that they lacked NBC systems and stabilized gun mounts. The Israelis' Shermans had inferior armor, a barely adequate upgraded 100mm gun which may have been stabilized, I don't know.

The monkey models were suppose to last a couple of months in the case of outbreak of war between NATO and the Warsaw the USSR didn't really did not trust the Arabs with the more up to date versions and they certainly were no match against the centurions.

Too bad the Russians burn their secret records while the Arabs never release theirs. Almost all the only info available on the Arab side seem to be self-serving memoirs.

Would have been quite interesting, do you have any links to these memoirs, I really could not find much info on the 6 Day War as the Yom Kippur war or any Israeli memoirs it would be great if you could share.

 

[Solomon2]

Would have been quite interesting, do you have any links to these memoirs, I really could not find much info on the 6 Day War as the Yom Kippur war or any Israeli memoirs it would be great if you could share.

The best account so far of the Six-Day War is Six Days of War written by Michael Oren (now Israel's ambassador to the U.S.) which has details from Israeli and Western records and extracts from Arabs' accounts.

 

[Sasquatch]

The best account so far of the Six-Day War is Six Days of War written by Michael Oren (now Israel's ambassador to the U.S.) which has details from Israeli and Western records and extracts from Arabs' accounts.

Thanks

 

[Mujraparty]

thats just f#$%d up ..


Paraded: Palestinian gunmen ride motorcycles as they drag the body of a man, who was suspected of working for Israel


No respect for the dead: The killed 'spy' is dragged through the streets of Gaza City



Killed: Palestinian gunmen shot dead six alleged collaborators in the Gaza Strip who 'were caught red-handed', according to a security source quoted by the Hamas Aqsa radio


Tied and towed: The body is dragged through the streets as the killers hold guns in the air

Read more: Gaza conflict: Egyptian president says peace in Gaza is 'imminent' and predicts lasting ceasefire will begin from tomorrow | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Israel had a stronger force in 1948, the war has plenty of exaggerations. Both sides started with 30,000 to 35,000 at the beginning until Israel received more soldiers as the war went on the Arabs generally fought for their own ambitions, the Jordanians were able to secure the West Bank due to it having the best trained and equipped of the Arab Forces during the time and it was lead by the British, but then again Jordan wanted the West Bank so the newly formed IDF did not have to worry about them while fighting Egypt in south, same with Syria and Lebanon, the foreign Arab forces did not make much of a difference.

1967 Israel still had the superior force, Nasser was deluded by the victory of the Suez Crisis, and moved a bunch of highly untrained soldiers into the Sinai while the best of his forces fought in Yemen, not to mention the Monkey Model weaponry received from the USSR & his false messages to Jordan and Syria which caused even more humiliations. Israel also had been preparing for 1967 since 63 not to mention it already had the first of it's Atomic Arsenal.

1973 the Egyptian and Syrian forces were inferior to the IDF, Sadat wanted to fight a limited war with political victory, the EAF was inferior to the IAF unless they managed to take it out they would have to fight a limited war, and once Egypt went beyond the SAM Defensive line thats when they started losing.

Wow buddy, I never knew that you knew so much about the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Possibly. Remember the difference between Jewish and Christian ideas of "justice": only the person offended can forgive, not a third party, and it is the duty of the community to punish the perpetrators of the crime of murder.

Solomon can you expand on this a bit?

So only the person who was wronged has the ability to bestow forgiveness? Makes sense.

 

[Mercenary]

Israel had a stronger force in 1948, the war has plenty of exaggerations. Both sides started with 30,000 to 35,000 at the beginning until Israel received more soldiers as the war went on the Arabs generally fought for their own ambitions, the Jordanians were able to secure the West Bank due to it having the best trained and equipped of the Arab Forces during the time and it was lead by the British, but then again Jordan wanted the West Bank so the newly formed IDF did not have to worry about them while fighting Egypt in south, same with Syria and Lebanon, the foreign Arab forces did not make much of a difference.

1967 Israel still had the superior force, Nasser was deluded by the victory of the Suez Crisis, and moved a bunch of highly untrained soldiers into the Sinai while the best of his forces fought in Yemen, not to mention the Monkey Model weaponry received from the USSR & his false messages to Jordan and Syria which caused even more humiliations. Israel also had been preparing for 1967 since 63 not to mention it already had the first of it's Atomic Arsenal.

1973 the Egyptian and Syrian forces were inferior to the IDF, Sadat wanted to fight a limited war with political victory, the EAF was inferior to the IAF unless they managed to take it out they would have to fight a limited war, and once Egypt went beyond the SAM Defensive line thats when they started losing.

Good analysis, I would add that

In 1948, the Israelis were better trained and fought harder than the Arabs. Many were veterans of World War II and just had experienced the Holocaust, so with their backs to the sea they fought with every ounce of their strength to win.

Agree with 67 but for 1973, the key weakness in the plan was the failure of Syria to place SAM batteries near the Jordanian border. While the Egyptian SAMS halted the Israeli Air Force attacking the 2nd and 3rd Egyptian Armies in Sinai, in the Golan, the Israelis flew over Jordan to attack at the flanks of the Syrian Forces which devastated the Syrians and forced them to withdraw from the Golan in 4 Days. This caused the Syrians and Russians to pressure Egypt to launch its offensive towards the Sinai passes on October 14th, which ran into the teeth of Israeli defenses. This depleted the Armored Forces of the Egyptian 3rd Army allowing the Israelis to cross the canal and encircle the Egyptian 3rd Army.

 

[Sasquatch]

Wow buddy, I never knew that you knew so much about the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I like to Study Military History and see what we can learn from the mistakes as the case of the Sino-Japanese war and Sino-Vietnamese war, PLA would not be where it is if it did not learn from the mistakes of the past, plus I am Muslim so I keep an eye out Middle East Affairs including military history, If I have time I will give you my take on the Iraq-Iran war the reasons of it's failures and what could have been done.

 

[Sasquatch]

Good analysis, I would add that

In 1948, the Israelis were better trained and fought harder than the Arabs. Many were veterans of World War II and just had experienced the Holocaust, so with their backs to the sea they fought with every ounce of their strength to win.

Agree with 67 but for 1973, the key weakness in the plan was the failure of Syria to place SAM batteries near the Jordanian border. While the Egyptian SAMS halted the Israeli Air Force attacking the 2nd and 3rd Egyptian Armies in Sinai, in the Golan, the Israelis flew over Jordan to attack at the flanks of the Syrian Forces which devastated the Syrians and forced them to withdraw from the Golan in 4 Days. This caused the Syrians and Russians to pressure Egypt to launch its offensive towards the Sinai passes on October 14th, which ran into the teeth of Israeli defenses. This depleted the Armored Forces of the Egyptian 3rd Army allowing the Israelis to cross the canal and encircle the Egyptian 3rd Army.

Thanks, not to mention in 48 the Arab forces were highly unfit for the war and even in the early victories the Jews gave them a strong resistance.

Undoubtedly the Syrians were the biggest losers of the war the Valley of Tears was a clear example, not to mention Israelis gave the USSR a run for their money shooting down Soviet Pilots, would be interesting to see what would happen if Soviet Troops did enter the war.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I like to Study Military History and see what we can learn from the mistakes as the case of the Sino-Japanese war and Sino-Vietnamese war, PLA would not be where it is if it did not learn from the mistakes of the past, plus I am Muslim so I keep an eye out Middle East Affairs including military history, If I have time I will give you my take on the Iraq-Iran war the reasons of it's failures and what could have been done.

Your posts are great buddy, keep it up.

I like to read military history too, but usually only about regional conflicts involving China.

You're right though, we should be studying all conflicts not just ours.