• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Why the Arabs Started a War in 1947

Skeptic

Banned
Joined
Jul 25, 2001
Messages
18,312
Details here.

By the way, in 1947, the UN condemned the Arab world for rejecting the peace plan, calling their invasion "armed aggression". Can you imagine the modern UN - the antisemitic dictators' debating club - doing the same today?

The author is quite right to say:

There are endless debates about what it means to be "pro-Israel," and often enough these debates explore how hostility towards mainstream Israeli views can best be presented as "legitimate criticism" or "tough love." But there are few debates about what it means to be "pro-Palestinian." If some of the past UN events devoted to demonstrating the organization's solidarity with the Palestinians are anything to go by, vilifying Israel and denying the Jewish state's legitimacy is an integral part of a "pro-Palestinian" stance.
 
Last edited:
Details here.

By the way, in 1947, the UN condemned the Arab world for rejecting the peace plan, calling their invasion "armed aggression". Can you imagine the modern UN - the antisemitic dictators' debating club - doing the same today?

The author is quite right to say:

trying to determine the point of this thread....can you help?
 
By the way, in 1947, the UN condemned the Arab world for rejecting the peace plan, calling their invasion "armed aggression". Can you imagine the modern UN - the antisemitic dictators' debating club - doing the same today?
Oh c'mon. When you say stuff like this, you give the impression that you're just plain nuts.

Let us by all means support the state of Israel, and condemn Palestinian terrorism. But your own modus operandi seems to involve putting up the stupidest possible arguments for the former and against the latter.

Really, when I first started posting on these forums, I was struck by the fact that the pro-Israel side put up arguments that were stupid and deranged, whereas the pro-Palestinians dealt in facts. This suggested to me that the pro-Israelis were in the wrong and the pro-Palestinians were in the right.

Having looked at the facts myself, I am pro-Israeli. But the sheer blithering insanity exhibited by the pro-Israeli side is a barrier that impedes any sane man from taking that side. One has to be ultra-rational to find the cogent arguments in favor of Israel amongst the screaming frothing hysteria.

Every word that you have had to say on this subject drives me further away from the position that you would like me to maintain. Because your words are a shrill and hysterical song to which the lyrics are a mishmash of nonsense.
 
Last edited:
It's simple. To make it rather obvious what was the Arabs' goal in 1947, and what was the real cause of the war.
 
what is the point of this thread?

I think it's an attempt at a rhetorical trap. I think he's hoping someone will say, "But the Arabs didn't start the war; the Jews did."

Glad to see no one's taking the bait.
 
I think it's an attempt at a rhetorical trap. I think he's hoping someone will say, "But the Arabs didn't start the war; the Jews did."

Glad to see no one's taking the bait.

I'll tell you who didn't start the war......

The Israelis!

....

See what I did there?
 
well, one could argue that the Israeli declaration of independence, was in many ways a declaration of war.

the Zionists were very well aware that such a declaration would lead to an all-out Arab attack.

the Zionists could have instead let the UN deal with the situation, rather then acting unilaterally.

but they seem to have chosen war rather than peace.
 
well, one could argue that the Israeli declaration of independence, was in many ways a declaration of war.

the Zionists were very well aware that such a declaration would lead to an all-out Arab attack.

the Zionists could have instead let the UN deal with the situation, rather then acting unilaterally.

but they seem to have chosen war rather than peace.

Against the British, maybe.

Otherwise, no. It was not casus belli.
 
Against the British, maybe.

Otherwise, no. It was not casus belli.

Actually, Parky's point is much more embarrassing than that. The civil war started following the vote on the UN partition plan in November 1947. The Israeli declaration of independepnce came months after that, in May 1948. At that time the British mandate was ending, and it was clear that the UN had no way of dealing with the situation. (The UN mission for the implementation of the partition plan was shunned by the British, and did not managed to do anythings.)
 
Oh c'mon. When you say stuff like this, you give the impression that you're just plain nuts.

Let us by all means support the state of Israel, and condemn Palestinian terrorism. But your own modus operandi seems to involve putting up the stupidest possible arguments for the former and against the latter.

Really, when I first started posting on these forums, I was struck by the fact that the pro-Israel side put up arguments that were stupid and deranged, whereas the pro-Palestinians dealt in facts. This suggested to me that the pro-Israelis were in the wrong and the pro-Palestinians were in the right.

Having looked at the facts myself, I am pro-Israeli. But the sheer blithering insanity exhibited by the pro-Israeli side is a barrier that impedes any sane man from taking that side. One has to be ultra-rational to find the cogent arguments in favor of Israel amongst the screaming frothing hysteria.

Every word that you have had to say on this subject drives me further away from the position that you would like me to maintain. Because your words are a shrill and hysterical song to which the lyrics are a mishmash of nonsense.


You are right about someone seeming hysterical.. but it's not him. What an odd and ironic rant. Take a deep breath.

Screaming, frothing hysteria? :rolleyes:

It's too bad you don't take the idea of how certain arguing methods don't help people to your point of view more seriously.
 
Last edited:
Oh c'mon. When you say stuff like this, you give the impression that you're just plain nuts.
Did you read the article? It has some very good evidence to show why it is extremely unlikely the UN today will do anything except blame the Jews.

I might add my own: e.g., that a full 1/3 or so of UN condemnations are against Israel. Or that the "human rights committee" -- led by such beacons such as Zimbabwe, Libya, Algeria, Sudan, etc., -- is not much more than a rubber stamp for anti-Israeli rants.
 
Last edited:
Really, when I first started posting on these forums, I was struck by the fact that the pro-Israel side put up arguments that were stupid and deranged, whereas the pro-Palestinians dealt in facts.
Here are a few of the kinds of facts the pro-Palestinian side "deals with":

1). Israel must be destroyed violently (PLO and Hamas charter. etc., etc., etc.)
2). All Jews must be destroyed in Jihad (Hamas charter).
3). Jews in "occupied Palestine" since the "illegal" Balfur declaration (1917) must be expelled (PLO charter).
4). The so-called Oslo "peace" agreement is merely a Trojan horse, an attempt to put into motion the "staged plan" for Israel's destruction (Arafat in many interviews, PA's Lebanese ambassador, etc., etc.)
5). The holocaust never happened (Hamas TV, Egyptian UN officials, Iran, etc., etc., etc.)
6). Children should be taught the greatest thing to be is a suicide bomber who kills Jews (Hamas TV, PA TV's "Sesame Street")
7). Jews, the brothers of apes and pigs, are naturally the cause of swine flu (Hamas TV).
8). The goals of the wars against Israel was to destroy it and throw the Jews into the sea.
9). There have been over a thousand deaths, and thousands wounded, by Arafat's 'peace partners', the PA, in a terror war against Israel he launched in 2001 after he was offered a Palestinian state, a war long in planning.
10). Every bit of land ceded to the Palestinians simply turned into a terror base for further attacks on Israel.
11). Arafat was murdered by Israel -- by some curious coincidence, Israel is seen as a large-nosed ultra-orthodox Jew, as it is usually portrayed in Palestinian caricatures, in case it isn't portrayed as the hooked-nosed devil or an octopus or a ritual murderer. All of which are motifs straight out of the classical antisemitic cartoons. But hey, they're "just anti-Zionists, not antisemites". Right.
12). The protocols of the Elders of Zion are true.
13). Israel wants to rule the world from the Nile to the Euphrates.
14). Virgins greet suicide bombers in paradise (hey, it's true! It's on TV!) -- courtesy of the "moderate" Fatah, of course.

Etc., etc., etc. I could go on almost literally ad infinitum.

Care to deal with such facts, Dr.? They all point in one direction: the Arab goal, and more specifically the Palestinian goal, is Israel's destruction -- by one Jihad, if possible, but by stages, if necessary.
 
Last edited:
Actually, Parky's point is much more embarrassing than that. The civil war started following the vote on the UN partition plan in November 1947.
Only in 1947? Missed all the previous riots? 1929? 1936? And its not really a civil war.

The Israeli declaration of independepnce came months after that, in May 1948. At that time the British mandate was ending, and it was clear that the UN had no way of dealing with the situation.
Neither did the British, hence they handed over the mandate to the UN in the first place.

(The UN mission for the implementation of the partition plan was shunned by the British, and did not managed to do anythings.)
Who cares if its shunned by the British. As if they are the word of reason.

Even after the one-sided (guess which?) British land reform of the mandate in the mid to late 1920's of state land, after the failed 'oil diplomacy' of dealing the the Al-Sauds in Arabia (guess who they lost to?), after handing over 3/4 of the original mandate to Hashemite royalty, after the 1939 White paper offering the Arabs a one-state solution and total control, the British failed to solve this situation.

I might have missed a few more issues, but this sums it up nicely. The British had no intention of solving this mandate issue 'fairly' or 'justly', but rather use it as a tool to gain favor in the Arab world. Pretty straight forward.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom