It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How did Isreal win it's war of independence? Whas it G_d?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
No.

The Zionist Story



The convential Zionist version of events "potrays the 1948 war as a simple, bipolar, no-holds barred struggle between a monolithic Arab adversary and a tiny Israel" (Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall - Israel and the Arab World, 2001). According to this version of events 7 Arab armies invaded Israel with the exparation of the British mandate in order to extreminate the existance of a Jewish state before it was even conceived. Traditional Israeli historians may describe the war as a battle between the "Jewish David" and the "Arab Goliath". The Jewish state is represented as a heroic adversary (which it was) which fought a battle of survival against overwhelming odds.

I along with many well respected scholars and historians choose to view the facts and argue that this is blatant propoaganda and a good example of using nationalistic falsifications in the pretense of nation building. While it is true that Israel technically did fight against 7 Arab armies, it is a falsification due to the fact that the Zionist version of events is diluted through subjective and selective interperation of facts.

Simha Flapan, Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe and Avi Shlaim all cite official documents both from Arab countries and Israel, which state that the selective Zionist story of David vs Goliath is false.

Military Balance


Zionist Historians constantly cite the numerical statistics which clearly show that Israel had inferior military hardware in comparison with the Arabs untill is won an illicit arms supply deal with Czechoslavakia during the first truce. This arms deal tipped the scale in Israels favour as it enjoyed superior troops numbers. People constantly hear 7 Arab arimes versus Israel and they believe that the Arab armies enjoyed superior infantry numbers. This is wrong: In mid-May 1948 the total number of Arab troops, both regular and irregular, operating in the Palestine theatre was under 25,000, wheras the IDF fielded troops were over 35,000. In mid-July the IDF had 65,000 troops mobilized and by December it's numbers reached 96,441. While the heroism of the Jewish military cannot be questioned, their numberical superiority in regular and irregular forces can. The fact is that at each stage of the War the Jewish forces significantly outnumbered the Arab forces. As in most wars the more powerfull side prevailed. The military balance shows that Israel was the more powerfull force.

The Arab Division and Strategy


The Arab armies and states were themselves divided. Common Israeli history states that the Arab forces were unified to see the destruction of the new born Jewish state. While the Arab Legion planned a unified attack against Israel, King Abdullah of Jordan ruined this plan by making last minute changes. This illicitly depicts Jordanian reluctance an the division between the Arab states. In fact many of the Arab states involved in the war had the belief that King Abdullah was in cahoots with the enemy.

Israeli Aims


Ben Gourin, in conflict with his generals wished to focus the front against Jordan. He wished to force a showdown with the Arab legion and focus on the goal of Jerusalem. Under the U.N partition plan Jerusalem was suppose to become a separate body within Palestine. It was suppose to be an international city controlled by the U.N. Ben Gourin aimed his focus as capturing Jerusalem which was the cause for active Jordanian involvement in the Israeli war of Independence. Israel initiated the battle for Jerusalem as an offensive a few days before the expiration of the British Mandate of Palestine. In response King Abdullah ordered the Arab legion to defend the Old City on May the 17th.

U.N Truce


The U.N truce ended the first round of fighting. This was the opportunity for Israel to re-arm, re-organize and recruit. The Israeli general Moshe Carmel described the truce as “dew from heaven”. The Swedish mediator for the U.N, Count Folke Bernadotte, during this time submitted proposals to end the fighting. This was rejected by both sides. He was later killed by the Israeli Stern Gang is Jerusalem.

Subsequent Fighting


Subsequently on a number of occasions the IDF and Egypt both broke the ceasefire. With the conclusion of hostility, Israel was in a position where it controlled 79% of Palestine, more then the 52% it was promised under the U.N partition plan.

Conclusion


The information presented shows that the common Zionist depiction of the Israeli war of independence has been propagandised and is highly selective. The heroism of the great Jewish people cannot be denied, but the factual accord shows that Israel enjoyed superior troop numbers through out. The Arabs had superior military hardware but Israel soon caught up thanks to the illicit arms supply deal it organized with Czechoslovakia. The image of a “Jewish David” vs a “Arab Goliath” is a falsification of events.

Scources


Ben Gourin War Diary
Simha Flapan: The Birth of Israel
Benny Morris: The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem
Benny Morris: 1948 and After
Ilan Pappe: Britain and the Arab Israeli Conflict 1948-51
Ilan Pappe: Collusion across the Jordan
Ilan Pappe: “The Debate about 1948”
International Journal of Middle East Sturdies 27. no.3 (Aug. 1995)
Report of the Parlimentary Committee of Inquiry on the Palestine Problem
The Palestine Misfortune and Its Political and Military Secrets
Abdullah al-Tall: The Palestine Catastrophe
Interview with Yaacov Shimoni(Israel)
Sir John Bagot Glubb: A Soldier with the Arabs (London)
Interviews with Lieutenant General Yigael Yadin, Major General Moshe Carmel, Ze’ev Shared and Yehoshua Palmon
Yehoshua Freundlich: Documents on the Foreign Policy of Israel (DPFI_ vol.1 14 May-30 Spetember 1948 (Jerusalem, 1981).
From: Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall – Israel and the Arab World.




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
from the OP stats, it would seem that israel had the advantage.

given that,

why would the "Zionist" agenda need to exaggerate and twist the facts ?

what makes the stories of "miracles" so important ?

what makes some people actually believe certain versions of history.

and, what makes the "Zionists" actually believe that the average person really believes it anyway ?

many people are starting to wonder if all the liminal accounts are just hysterical, Maniacal Incessant paranoias, all based on the Neanderthal Theory.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Excellent

Factual and concise

S & F

It would pay to mention that the Arabs held the land prior to the British occupation too.

The Arabs were forcefully removed and denied the return to their homes after WWII.
edit on 21/6/2011 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
Excellent

Factual and concise

S & F

It would pay to mention that the Arabs held the land prior to the British occupation too.

The Arabs were forcefully removed and denied the return to their homes after WWII.
edit on 21/6/2011 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)


It would only pay to mention it if it were true; the Isrealies held the land but co-exited with the Arabs (as they still do!). A prime example of this would be Haifa; where the Arabs and Jews fought side by side against the British.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 


" you and other scholars “ ? Mr. Speech Militant ?
What an arrogant opening to another addition to your usual BS posts.

Did you fully read all of the sources you have provided? I doubt it.
Do you even know who Ilan Pappe is? The fact that you chose to use him a reliable source for at least three times, shows you have no Idea who he is, or chose to hide it from your readers.

Ilan Pappe in an interview to Le Soir:

“There is no historian in the world who is objective. I am not as interested in what happened as in how people see what's happened”

"I admit that my ideology influences my historical writings”

"Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truth seekers. “

www.camera.org...

You continue with other sources, most of which belong to the |'new historian revisionists” stream that emerged lately, Avi Shlaim, Benny Morris and Pappe, just to name a few of a few.
What is common among those scholars, is that they can't back up their claims with any document accept their ideology. They claim for instance Israel was all for the 1967 war, but poor them, the archive documents shows the complete opposite.

In another thread I showed you a short table of how inferior the Israeli armed forces were, lacking in equipment in relation to the Arab forces.
You chose to ignore that.



You chose to ignore that a large number of the IDF soldiers were mere Holocaust survivors, drafted on arrival to Israel, with little to no training at all.

I believe this is the fifth time you write on this subject.
Obsessed much?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by gravitational
 


The evidence you provide is in regards to military hardware. Not troop numbers deployed, not to mention that the full hardware capabilities on the Arab side were not deployed. The evidence I provide has to do with troop numbers. Yes I do scource Ilan Pappe and Benny Moris aswell as Avi Shlaim. I was expecting you to attack these scources, however the fact that you stated that Avi Shlaim believes Israel wanted the 1967 war is utterly false. In his book he explicity states that Israel did not want to go to war in June-1967. In fact I have a direct quote from his book which states "Of all the Arab-Israeli wars. the June 1967 war was the only one which neither side wanted" (The Iron Wall page 236).

Gravitational, I do not expect much from you, but I do expect you to back up your argument with facts rather than lies. Personally I don't like Ilan Pappe nor do I like his works. I agree they are heavily ideologically influenced, but unlike many Zionist scholars, he uses official documentation to back up his argument. Yes he does twist this documentation to serve his agenda yet one can still look at the scource. Benny Moris and Avi Shlaim have both done this and shown that Israeli troop numbers were at all times significantly higher than Arab troop numbers. I suggest you read there books before you try to lie here on ATS about them. Infact Avi Shlaim consistantly cites Israeli documents, pro-Zionist scources and interviews with pro-Israeli politicians. I noticed this when sifting through his notes. You should do the same before you lie.

Why did you not attack my Israeli scources. Ben Gourin, the Israeli military personal, interviews with Israeli's and Israeli foreign policy documents? Were these ideologically motivated to suit the "Arab" or "Palestinian" agenda. No. The statistics saying that Israel had superior troop numbers are from guess where? Israeli scources.

You also state that I am hiding from the reader my scources, which is utter garbage as I provided a list of scources in regards to this information for one to read through and decide themselves. All statistics come from Israeli scources.

Once again this is my contention: The Israeli war of independence was not a David vs Goliath battle where the Jews were David and the Arabs Goliath. The Jews fought heroically, however their troop numbers were at all stages signicantly higher. The Arabs has superior military hardware relative to the Israeli's atleast untill the Israli's acquired a illicit arms deal. That is my contention.

I do not see why you have to use lies in order to smoke screen my argument. Why can't you do the same with factual documentation and historical accords.

The fifth time I write on this matter? This is the first thread I made in regards to it and the 4th time I have commented on this subject. Is it a problem for you if I choose to present facts which show that the official Zionist story is selective?

There is no doubt that the Jews fought heroically. 1% of their population was lost (6000-8000) and much territory was acquired. I don't see why they have to propagandise their history. I am sure using dead heroes and twisting the reality of their achievments to achieve a political agenda is not moral, would you agree?
edit on 21-6-2011 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2011 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by gravitational
 


assuming all your facts are correct,

how did Israel "fight off" all those forces ?

they may have got help from somewhere.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
How can one say your thread is a honest research, when an elementary factors such as Arab Weaponry and equipment superiority is missing?

Anyone familiar with military history will tell you, number of troops can not be considered a win \ loose factor on its own. Training, tactics, geography, ammo, logistics among many other things, are extremely important factors, yet you provide no analysis of them.
Therefore, your thread remains nothing more than a cheap anti Israeli propaganda.

The last factor – which might answer xuenchen's question – is the win or die factor.
Israel had it's back to the wall ,literally, and fought for its very survival. They simply had no other choice but to win or be annihilated , unlike the Arab armed forces. Given the Jewish people survived the claws of the Nazi regime and allies just three years ago, their mentality is one huge crucial wining factor.

If you are truly keen in bringing facts, I suggest not to nitpick only sources that backup your claims, such as the revisionists. I highly recommend reading the work of Uri Milstein - “History of the War of Independence” in particular. I guarantee you will began to see a better and wider picture than the one you show us here. Uri Milstein is not one to evade hard controversial questions and myths, as you will find out in all his work.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Is there some sort of rule against typing GOD??
Why the whole G_D thing?
Is it a curse word now?
Or perhaps you were referring to GAD. or GUD perhaps.
or maybe GED. That's it GED. Now I understand.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
It would pay to mention that the Arabs held the land prior to the British occupation too.

That is incorrect. The Turks and the Ottoman Empire were the owners of the land before the British Mandate. They surrendered the land to the Allies after WWI when they signed the Treaty of Sèvres. Do these men (The Ottoman signers) look like Arabs to you?




The signatories of the Ottoman Empire. Left to right: Rıza Tevfik; Grand vizier Damat Ferid Pasha; ambassador Hadi Pasha; and the Ottoman Minister of Education Reşid Halis.

edit on 21-6-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by gravitational
 


The evidence you provide is in regards to military hardware. Not troop numbers deployed, not to mention that the full hardware capabilities on the Arab side were not deployed. The evidence I provide has to do with troop numbers.


Well man when you have troops backed up by tanks and APCs it has the effect of greatly increasing the strength of what boots you do have on the ground. Used and deployed well one division with tanks and APCs could take on an army of many divisions that were poorly armed.

Israel also had many men with just rifles and a limited number of rounds and mostly a citizens band rounded up and thrown into war. Thier larger numbers is only a reflection of the fact that everybody got into the fight becouse they saw it as a fight for their life. Most of these guys had zero or only very basic training. The Arab armies were better trained to fight as a unit with support hardware. They had some air cover and field intel from the air to help them get a good look at what Israel had on the ground. Egypt had enough going for them that they alone should have taken a big bite out of Israels defence. Just lots of factors here that say on paper that Israel should have been crushed.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


ahhh yes....

You touched on some of the other lesser known but highly contested history and agreements from that period of the region. This period in the Middle East is not very well known. The subject of Palestine/Israel are closely tied to the topic.


Emir Faisal's party at Versailles, during the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. At the center, from left to right:Rustum Haidar, Nuri as-Said, Prince Faisal, Captain Pisani (behind Feisal), T.E. Lawrence, Faisal's slave (name unknown), Captain Tahsin Qadri


How France sank the original Mideast peace


Every day politicians and pundits talk of another chance at Middle East peace missed, delayed or subverted. The focus is always on Palestinians and Israelis as the keystone to a global settlement with the West and across the region. But in the original peace arrangement between the Jews, Arabs and the Western powers, it was not settlements and Jerusalem that were at the heart of the problem. In fact, the Arabs originally agreed to a Jewish state complete with massive Jewish immigration. For Arabs, the prize was not Palestine, it was Syria.
Zionist Organization...

This is the story of how the original Middle East peace plan crafted among all sides in the aftermath of World War I was subverted - not by Jews or Zionists, but by the French.

It begins at the Paris Peace Conference in January 1919, in a flag-bedecked, battle-scarred but victorious Paris. There, the great top-hatted Allied men of vision and illusion gathered to remake the world and invent the post-Ottoman Middle East. At those fateful meetings, the Arabs and Jews formally agreed to mutually endorse both their national aspirations and live in peace.



British Mandate for Palestine

In 1916, Britain and France concluded the Sykes–Picot Agreement, which proposed to divide the Middle East between them into spheres of influence, with "Palestine" as an international enclave. (Pappé 1994, p. 3)

The British made two potentially conflicting promises regarding the territory it was expecting to acquire.[7] Britain had promised Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca, through T. E. Lawrence, independence for an Arab country covering most of the Arab Middle East in exchange for his support, while also promising to create and foster a Jewish national home in Palestine in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, in return for Jewish support.




Map showing boundaries of the proposed Jewish state, as outlined by the Zionist representatives at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, superimposed on modern boundaries



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
This period in the Middle East is not very well known. The subject of Palestine/Israel are closely tied to the topic.

Exactly. It's not as if the Jews just appeared *poof* in 1948 with an army and started fighting although that's the way many discussions on the event read. You have to go way back in time to understand the situation. Even before the Balfour Declaration of 1917 there were Jews living in this area.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
"was it G_D"??? not at all. Even to the contrary... t was simply a looooooooooot of dirty money



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by SLAYER69
This period in the Middle East is not very well known. The subject of Palestine/Israel are closely tied to the topic.

Exactly. It's not as if the Jews just appeared *poof* in 1948 with an army and started fighting although that's the way many discussions on the event read. You have to go way back in time to understand the situation. Even before the Balfour Declaration of 1917 there were Jews living in this area.


Well this was a look at the tactical situation at the time, 1948. In that light the history doesnt matter. But yea many dont understand that there were Jews in that area before WWII. Anyway the history from 36 to 48 is very important if you want to talk history. There was really no threat of an independent state before 46 although the independence movment was underway and there had been some fighting even before the war.
edit on 21-6-2011 by Logarock because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by gravitational
 


Your missing the whole point which I am trying to dispel. Zionist historians claim that this was a war of David vs Goliath proportions with Israel being David. I am saying that this is a falsification of facts. I explicitly state that the Arabs had superior military hardware and Israel only caught up after the first truce. I also aim to dispell the fact that people say "7 bloodfirsty Arab armies together united to kill the Jewish state". The fact is they were neither united nor did 7 of them actively fight. The 3 main beligerents were Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Most were just flag waving nationalists to hesitant to commit.

The story around the war of independence is propagandised. Yes the Jews fought for survival, however no they were not outnumbered by the 7 armies. That is what most people believe, however it is false. This is what people believe: The convential Zionist version of events "potrays the 1948 war as a simple, bipolar, no-holds barred struggle between a monolithic Arab adversary and a tiny Israel" and that is false. You cannot say this is not honest research as I did explicitly state the Arabs had superior military hardware. I know you probably didn't read the whole post because if you did you would see that I did comment on this.

You cannot deny that my scources are not wide ranging. Infact 1/3 are impartial, 1/3 pro-Zionist and 1/3 anti-Zionist. The facts are mostly from the 1/3 impartial and 1/3 pro-Zionist.

Debate the logistics of the numerical advantage in terms of troop numbers all you want. Provide factual evidence to support your claims but do not let me catch you openly lying like before.
edit on 21-6-2011 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 


Nonsense.
Wars are not won by troop numbers alone.
Have you ever been to Israel ? I guess not.

If you did, than you would see with your own two eyes how in terms of topography, the Arab armed forces had the unequivocal advantage with large maneuvering capabilities and logistics “backyard”.
Israel was fighting on three fronts with its back to the Mediterranean with very little military hardware, with very large number of troops who had little to no military background or training (see the Latrun battle), and had very few weapons and ammunition supply.

Combining all this factors, to me it's David vs Goliath.
But if you insist on being called a scholar, let alone a military expert, which you are clearly not, than go ahead, enjoy the ride.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by gravitational
 


I am neither a scholar nor a military expert and I never asserted myself as one. You are obviously twisting my words in the original post. 3 fronts? Let me tell you know it is not as clean cut as you say. You claim the IDF was completely poorly trained and armed. This is true, but not entierly.

Can you please provide me with some figures on the proportion of Israeli troops which imigrated to Israel after the Holocaust and were poorly trained. I am interested in this and I am finding it hard to find specific figures.

Firstly the first offensive for the battle of Latrun failed and was halted by the Arab legion. Ben Gourin against the advice of his well organized and well trained general aimed for a 3 frontal attack on Latrun. This failed. After the battle of Latrun the U.N truce ended the first round of hostilities. This is when the so called "unequiped and poorly trained" IDF recruited more soldiers, retrained, reorganized and rearmed. In the words of General Moshe Carmel this truce was like "dew from heaven" for Israel and the IDF. During this truce the IDF merged with ultra-nationalist dissidents such as the Stern Gang and Irgun as they cracked down on them after the Stern Gang assasinated Count Folke of the U.N. When the truce was violated by Egypt Lydda and Ramale had been left virtually undefended by the Arabs thus the IDF captured these regions. Latrun, Ramallah and the Old City of Jerusalem was defended by the Arab Legion succesfully. The Arab Legion during this period made no attempt to capture the areas assigned to the Jewish state. This in some respect dispell the Idea that all the Arabs had expansionist policices. Jordan did not aim to capture areas assigned to a Jewish state. All the other Arab armies lost ground to Israel but King Abdullah of Jordan has a special relationship with Israel (thus the other Arab states thought he was in cahoots with the enemy) and he never aimed to enroach on territory assigned to the Jewish state. This dosen't sound like a bloodthirsty enemy nor a comitted adversary.

Infact even when the armies came to blows, they were the "best of enemies" (Uri-Bar Joseph). While king Abdullah pursued limited objectives and showed restraint Ben Gourin did not. On the 26 September, Ben Gourin proposed a military offensive to the cabinet, which was designed to capture large chunks of the West Bank (expansionist much, not defensive). This plan was shelved after 6 members voted for and 6 against. The reason for this is that a Jewish state could not maintain such a large Arab population and they also feared the Anglo-Jordanian defence pact. The Arab legion the most highly trained of the Arab militaries did not intervene when Israel did capture Negev from Egypt. This demonstrates the Arab Legions hesitation and shows that relations between Egypt and Transjordan were not unified in aims. This was a major factor in the outcome of the Arab-Israeli war. The special relationship that Israel shared with King Abdullah. If the Arab Legion became far more active and far less neutral then the military balance could have shifted in Egpts favour. Israel had the ability of focus on one front at a time (much thanks to Transjordan) and Ben Gourin exploited this to the fullest extent. So your 3 active fronts is not entirely true.

Golda Meir of Israel and King Abdullah met during the war and King Abdullah (according to official documentation) remained rather loyal to his agreement with Golda Meir, contrary to popular Zionist history.Once again this shows that the Arabs were not a united Goliath. They were deeply divided and Israel intellegently exploited this factor.

1. Israel had superior troop numbers deployed (by the final stages of the war Israel had a 2:1 troop advantage
2. Israel was united the Arabs were not
3. Israel enjoyed the ability to focus on 1-2 fronts at a time thanks to it's special relationship with Tranjordan
4. The Arab Legion, the most highly trained Arab army was succesful at defending Israeli offensives, however it did not aim to enroach on Israeli terriotry assigned to it in the U.N partition plan.

This is not shown in typical Zionist history and this to me shows the war was not a clean cut David vs Goliath battle. I am not saying the Arabs did not have the advantage, I am saying that they were divided and Israel had superior troop numbers which ensured Israeli victory.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 


Well then are you trying to say that big and bad Israel beat up all poor little Syria and Egypt had to offer? Oh those pesky arms deals. What did the Czech send them? A bunch of old bolt action rifles?

I read once that the army Israel put in the field had about as many sorts of assorted weapons as it had men and a dozen diffrent calibers.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   
I agree that it was certainly not David vs Goliath, every side got they strong and weak points. Jordanian legion was well trained and equiped and Jews mainly lost against it. Local militias had no training/equipment and were di-sorganaized thus Jews mainly won against them.
However it is good that you notice this:


The fact is they were neither united nor did 7 of them actively fight. The 3 main beligerents were Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Most were just flag waving nationalists to hesitant to commit.

No Palestinian army. There were local groups under Jihad flags ,but no Palestinian army because there were no Palestinians as nation then. And Arab countries in the region were not interested in creating one since there would be no land to grab for them self. As they did after 1948. When no Palestinian state was created on Arab-controlled land.
So the "miracle" was that really that Jews fought for creation of their own land, foreign armies fought to take piece of land for them self,local Jihad armies were fighting to throw Jews out. Palestinians were not united ,you say? Well it is simply because because there were no Palestinians then,only local non-Jewish population that had no different national identity from the rest of the region.
So the result was - Jews had a country.
Arab countries took pieces of land.
No Palestine.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join