Nazi Concentration Camps

[Johnny Canuck3]

Surely you mean "the Israelis", Johnny, because you can't be referring to 1947, can you?

I suspect that in 1948, most if not all Israelis were jews.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

In most of the histories I've read, including pointedly anti-Arab literature on the subject, the only national army that participated that was "for shit" was the Egyptian army, who were poorly equipped and supported.
That a large percentage of the irregulars/militias were "for shit" goes without saying, but the other national armies? History doesn't agree with you, Johnny.

See post 659. What 'histories' have you been reading?

 

[Detroit City]

That comes across as a tad Judaeophobic to me.

what do you mean? when i was a kid me best friend was Ari Goldstein. i know more about Jews than the avg person cause i grew up with Jews.

...of course, none of them associate with me now

 

[Spion]

..............................

I notice there's no source for your figures on the Arab armies. I expect they are from some dubious propaganda site.

Mine were from a zionist writer citing a well known zionist and former high ranking military man who participated in the 47/48 events.

So, your sources are for shit to start with.

Even if they're not, the total Arab forces you cite is around 66,000. The Haganah in July 48 was 63,000. As any fule know the ratio of attackers to defenders required is 3:1

 

[Spion]

Which line of argument: the one wherein I note that arab leaders threatened extermination?

It's not a line of argument, it's a fact.

Why do the words of Arab leaders bother you while the actions of Jews killing Arabs and stealing their homes and property render you silent? It's an odd moral universe you live in. Or maybe it's not. It's usually called racism

 

[nino_savatte]

what do you mean? when i was a kid me best friend was Ari Goldstein. i know more about Jews than the avg person cause i grew up with Jews.

...of course, none of them associate with me now

Really?

 

[Spion]

Remind me of the 'context' of a dozen leaders making comments along the lines of 'we'll commit a massacre unseen since the time of the Mongols.' And remind me why the jews shouldn't have taken that at least somewhat seriously.

You provided only one quote from an Arab leader that was anywhere near the events of 47/48

There are several points to note about that quote:

1. We've no idea who he was speaking to. It could have been his diary for all we know
2. As we don't know who he was speaking to we've no idea whether any Jews were aware of this threat
3. Most important of all, the quote is dated after the Haganah et al had ethnically cleansed 200 villages, several city quarters and carried out a number of massacres.

So, no surprise an Arab leader should issue bloodcurdling threats against a hated thief, eh?

 

[Spion]

Spion: "Arab armies had a disadvantage of numbers." That is insane. 1 billion Muslims, 57 Nations, 32 Arab Nations not including the PA, and only 1 Jewish Nation, with 14 million Jews worldwide....Want to take a look again?

In 47 Israel has less than 2 million Jews who had just emerged collectively (and some quite literally on an individual basis) from the Hoplocaust. Yet, they managed to triumph over those astronomical odds. Blame it on the real reason, Arab incompetence and the lack of true desire for the "Palestinians" to receive their own homeland.

Utterly pitiful. Come back when you can deal with real history rather than fevered Kahanist propaganda

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I notice there's no source for your figures on the Arab armies. I expect they are from some dubious propaganda site.

Mine were from a zionist writer citing a well known zionist and former high ranking military man who participated in the 47/48 events.

So, your sources are for shit to start with.

Even if they're not, the total Arab forces you cite is around 66,000. The Haganah in July 48 was 63,000. As any fule know the ratio of attackers to defenders required is 3:1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War#Arab_forces

Plus, I edited the post.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I notice there's no source for your figures on the Arab armies. I expect they are from some dubious propaganda site.

Mine were from a zionist writer citing a well known zionist and former high ranking military man who participated in the 47/48 events.

So, your sources are for shit to start with.

Even if they're not, the total Arab forces you cite is around 66,000. The Haganah in July 48 was 63,000. As any fule know the ratio of attackers to defenders required is 3:1

When I add up the numbers from the site itself, which include the Arab Liberation Army etc, it comes to approx. 114,000.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Why do the words of Arab leaders bother you while the actions of Jews killing Arabs and stealing their homes and property render you silent? It's an odd moral universe you live in. Or maybe it's not. It's usually called racism

If you recall, we were discussing a specific point: whether or not the Arabs would carry out some sort of wholesale massacre had they won the wars. I was addressing the point, not embarking on a general dissertation on the middle east.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

3. Most important of all, the quote is dated after the Haganah et al had ethnically cleansed 200 villages, several city quarters and carried out a number of massacres.

So, no surprise an Arab leader should issue bloodcurdling threats against a hated thief, eh?

I don't know if threatening to exterminate the jews, is a proportional threat.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You provided only one quote from an Arab leader that was anywhere near the events of 47/48

But you're forgetting that there was more than one war. All of the quotes fall within the context of the time of the wars between the arab states and israel.

 

[Spion]

I don't know if threatening to exterminate the jews, is a proportional threat.

You still haven't shown who this Azzam guy said it to, so we still can't accept it was a threat. As I said, he could have written it in his diary for all we know

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

:

1. We've no idea who he was speaking to. It could have been his diary for all we know

I don't have access to his diary. I believe that the sources are given.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Utterly pitiful.

A well reasoned answer.

 

[Spion]

But you're forgetting that there was more than one war. All of the quotes fall within the context of the time of the wars between the arab states and israel.

I'm not forgetting. I'm very well aware of the fact that they all come from after the zionists had enthically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Arabs and stolen their property. Any sane individual would see that they therefore fall into the category of vengeful threats against a thief. Hardly as despicable as the theft itself is it?

If I kicked you out of your house, murdered some of your family and stole all your property, I expect you and your mates would issue threats along the lines of 'I'll fucking kill you' as I kept you enclosed in a couple of sq metres in the garden.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If I kicked you out of your house, murdered some of your family and stole all your property, I expect you and your mates would issue threats along the lines of 'I'll fucking kill you' as I kept you enclosed in a couple of sq metres in the garden.

Maybe they would. But there's more at stake when statesmen say these things, especially when they promise a massacre unlike anything seen since the time of the mongols.

It's one thing to say that the jews had illegally taken the land and had wrongfully killed people; it's another to threaten to exterminate them as a form of retaliation.

As I recall, the nazis bombed british cities, etc. Churchill promised to fight them on the beaches, etc, but he didn't promise to exterminate the german race.

Some things go too far. Telling the jews, 2 years after the holocaust, that you're going to exterminate them, goes too far.

 

[Spion]

Ben Gurion knew the score.

“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Ben Gurion knew the score.

“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”

And he was right.

But wanting your land back, and sending your army to vanquish the invader is a separate matter from shooting all the jews in palestine, once the war is over and the israelis have given up.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I suspect that in 1948, most if not all Israelis were jews.

But not all Jews are Israelis.

BTW, your suspicions would be wrong.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But not all Jews are Israelis.

BTW, your suspicions would be wrong.

What was the percentage then?


p.s. The arabs said they were going to massacre the jews. I wonder what they were going to do with the non jewish israelis?

 

[ViolentPanda]

See post 659. What 'histories' have you been reading?

You want another reading list?

Are you going to request this on every thread when someone gainsays you/wikipedia/the JVL (seeing as you appear to garner most of your "knowledge" from those sources)?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You want another reading list?

Are you going to request this on every thread when someone gainsays you/wikipedia/the JVL (seeing as you appear to garner most of your "knowledge" from those sources)?

It was more of a rhetorical question. Sorry.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What was the percentage then?

Given that there was no census until (IIRC) 1954, I'm not certain, but going by the mandate population figures for Palestinian Arabs and subtracting 500,000 (halfway between the figure the state of Israel claims "left voluntarily" and the best guesstimates of less partial organisations), then extrapolating the influx of Jews to Palestine between '45 and '48, Jews were around (probably give or take a 5% margin) 80% of the population. A significant majority, but not "most".

p.s. The arabs said they were going to massacre the jews. I wonder what they were going to do with the non jewish israelis?

Why not speculate about the Arabs doing something horrific, that being the avenue you usually go down?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Jews were around (probably give or take a 5% margin) 80% of the population. A significant majority, but not "most".

So 80% isn't 'most'?

What is it?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

For example: if 80% of your body mass turned into useless fat, I think you'd be safe to say that 'most' of your body had turned into useless fat.

 

[Lock&Light]

Jews were around (probably give or take a 5% margin) 80% of the population. A significant majority, but not "most".

You don't think that 80% of something is most of it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

So 80% isn't 'most'?

What is it?

It's a significant majority.

If you'd said "most people in Britain are 'Caucasian' " I'd agree with you, because over 94% of them are. If you'd said "most people in Brazil are non-Anglo" I'd agree with you, because about 93% are.

As it is, a minority of 20% of a population is a significant minority (1 in 5), it isn't overwhelmed to the same degree a minority of less than 10% is, is it?

BTW, I see your dog is at heel again. Pity he's neutered.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If we're reduced to arguing over whether or not 80% of something is 'most' of it, then maybe it's time to give the thread a rest.