Israeli Officers Finally Admit Defeat vs Hizb'Allah

11:28 pm, Tue 6 Oct 2009

Humiliated, defeated and now Israel finally admits it.

The Israeli Army couldn't work out why they lost considering they did so well against women, babies and unarmed civilians in Gaza. So they polled many of their senior officers to find out.

A report by Major Dr. Ruby Sandman in the “Israeli” military magazine – paints a totally different view to the one propagated by the Israeli HASBARA goons (e.g. the guys who post on behalf of Israel on this site).

The poll says that the impression within the Israel Occupation Force (IOF) is that the performance of IOF was inferior to that of Hizb’Allah.

Hat Tip: Rehmat's World

Understand more...

Content recommendations from Evri

76 comments

Israeli Defeat

Submitted by John House on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 12:44am.

If israelis take up Biblical Christianity they might win don't you think?. Oh I forgot. No one else can use "religion" but Arab/Muslims.

''If israelis take up Biblical Christianity they might win''.

Submitted by K. Urban on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 5:57am.

As for your comment:
''If Israelis take up Biblical Christianity they might win''.

Rather hate to disappoint you John but....
They didn't take it up 2009 years ago.
and they haven't taken it up for two thousand and nine years since.
Instead they decided to help crucify the man.
... just as they are doing to the Palestinians
and
... just as YOU are doing to the Muslims.
Difference between Jesus and you John is that Jesus stood up for the oppressed.
But that's a very human quality.

Muppet! If Jesus had NOT been

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 6:59am.

Muppet!

If Jesus had NOT been crucified then there could be no Christianity. If God/Allah pre-ordains and guides the actions of man then he obviously pre-ordained the crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans - hence all participants are simply stooges and actors.

<... just as they are doing to the Palestinians
and>

Eh?

<... just as YOU are doing to the Muslims.>

Just race hate stirring.

Jesus was not crucified. He

Submitted by Malay on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 7:05am.

Jesus was not crucified. He ascended into the heavens. The creator decided to send him down again closer to the day of judgement.

who was the stooge that took

Submitted by Gay man on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 9:05am.

who was the stooge that took his(PBUH) place?

It was me!

Submitted by Judas on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 1:09pm.

It was me!

So you admit that "Israelis"

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 7:36am.

So you admit that "Israelis" i.e. Jews were in the Holy Land 2009 years ago?
Interesting, I thought they weren't there at all and that they have no right to the land whatsoever as the Muslims were there first. I also thought present day Jews were in fact Khazars who had no right to be there at all.
Thank you for making clear that you believe Jews have been there longer than anyone else.

Is your logic a bit

Submitted by K. Urban on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 9:21am.

Is your logic a bit ....er.... challenged shall we politely say?

"And [remember] when Moses

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 12:39pm.

"And [remember] when Moses said to his people: 'O my people, call in remembrance the favour of God unto you, when he produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave to you what He had not given to any other among the peoples. O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.'" [Qur'an 5:20-21]"

And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd.'" [Qur'an 17:104]

Seems clear to me. How about you?

So how come...

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 6:50am.

it was the supporters of Hezbollah who begged for a ceasefire if Hezbollah was winning?

How come the "winners" are the people who's population was severely damaged and population suffered so many deaths and casualties?

How come Nasrallah apologised to the Lebanese people for miscalculating the scale of the Israel response?

"who's population was

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 8:17am.

"who's population was severely damaged and population suffered so many deaths" i.e whos civilian population including women and children were masscared by well equiped troops and armour funding to the tune of billions every year by the USA.
Is it any wonder the enemies of Islam and Muslims dont want democracy in the middle east so the people can develop technology including nuclear bombs and all the Muslim countires can have an equal playing field with like for like waepons and then go to war and overrun the Military coloinal outpost that is Israel and send them all back to Europe where they came from and where they will find theire grandfathers graves because they wont find any in Palestine!

Well what happened in 1967

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 12:32pm.

Well what happened in 1967 when the Arab armies with Soviet technology and arms were comprehensively defeated by an Israel with no US backing?

I seem to remember Egypt asking if it could have some of its country back.

I While you harbour a fantasy you can't achieve then you will never make peace. A good analogy is suggesting that Venezuala will conquer the USA

The Egyptians Learnt

Submitted by Q on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 1:18pm.

It is easy to gloat over 67. The Egyptian Army was poorly led, poorly educated and reflected the neo-feudal nature of Egyptian society. They relied upon limited Soviet training which did not prepare them to fight the Israelis. Qualitatively there was not much between Israel & Egypt. Both sides in the run-up to 67 undertook massive arms purchases. (The UK firm Parker Hale once boasted that had it not been for their sales to both sides the war would have only lasted four days.)
By 73 the Egyptians had addressed many of the shortcomings, had been re-equipped by the USSR to a much higher standard and did much better. (The IDF noted that most Egyptian POW's were much better educated than had been the case in 67)
The most significant difference is that the Israelis now have a major arms industry which they developed in response to an arms embargo, and their distrust of the USA & EU as suppliers. No Arab state has that level of industry development.
there is also a fundamental weakness in many Arab armies insofar that the head of state tends to keep their best troops behind to prevent any revolution. Note that the Presidential Guards are always the first to fall back, as was the case in Iraq. This weakens the morale of the average soldier.

"Q", your analysis is a fair

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 3:11pm.

"Q", your analysis is a fair one. However any parity between the Arab and Israeli armies in 1973 has been massively overtaken by technological developments by Israel in the military field and having a much smarter army and air-force. No-one, not even Hezbollah has ever witnessed the full capacity of Israel to respond.

It is acknowledged that the Israeli govt of the day inhibited the military and tried to do the minimum. Today people realise that Netanyahu would go from nothing to Maximum Warp Drive if attacked again.

What Netanyahu might do

Submitted by Q on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 10:17pm.

Netanyahu is a complex person, but one who understands the regional dynamics. He maintains an outward impression of some one who seeks nothing but the maximum objectives for Israel at the expense of its neighbours. However behind the image is a much more considered and cautious person. In this respect he is very much like Ariel Sharon.
Netanyahu's (as with Sharon's) willingness to exert absolute force commands considerable respect and it is actually much easier for neighbouring states to predict what he will do, rather than the ambiguous liberals. The liberals tended to give the impression that they would retreat when in fact they intended to deliver massive amounts of violence. Netanyahu starts out with the threat of massive violence and then steps back from that.
The constraint upon Israel is international opinion. It can go so far but no further. Thus it cannot deliver the "Maximum Warp Drive" assault on any force. Only if one of the neighbouring countries developed parity with Israel and attacked would Israel then be permitted to retaliate without constraint. This situation does not exist nor is it likely to in the foreseeable future.
Hezbollah, Fatah & Hamas exploit that constraint in the knowledge that the Israelis cannot deliver the massive strikes they are capable of. But this has its own dangers for the region as few people have much appreciation of the consequences of total war involving Israel. What has recently occurred in South Lebanon and Gaza is certainly not total war, as any comparison with the WW2 European cities can bear witness.

Q you seem knowledgeable

Submitted by BB on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 10:23pm.

Q you seem knowledgeable about the entire situation. I would like to know your personal opinion.

What religion are you? Does this sway your opinions one way or the other? What is your take on the Zionist situation. (assuming my definition, rather than the murderous, racist charicature portrayed on this site).

I would be very interested to know.

In answer

Submitted by Q on Fri, 09/10/2009 - 9:01am.

I am a Muslim by descent. I am primarily a human being with the same sensibilities as another other person. The situation is highly complex in which pride, arrogance, greed, shame, ambition all play a powerful role.
In answer to your question, what is a Zionist? I have met Zionists who verged upon genocidal maniacs, However the majority are very ordinary. There are also those who commit themselves body and soul for the betterment of mankind. I conclcude thereforefore that there is no such thing as a simple identity for a Zionist.
Zionism is a reaction to events outside the Jewish community and the failure of any other soci-political responses to provide a modicum of security and equality for Jews. The existance and popularity of Zionism amongst Jews is primary evidence of the failure of the host / dominant communities to provide Jews with security, stability or equality. In essence it is a mirror to the behaviours of Christian and Muslims societies, and as such it perfectly reflects those communities and all their fundamental ugliness.
This situation is of course intolerable for many communities and therfore they seek to assign to Zionists all the obscenity that exists in themselves. i.e. In the Nakhba the Zionists certainly committed some dreadful acts and sought to ethnically cleanse certain areas of non-Jews. So naturally we accuse them of this monstrosity. But we conveniently overlook that we too carried out terribel acts and ethinic cleansing against the Jews, and it was a central part of our strategy and war aims. So we are both now locked into a relationship centred upon denial and that quite obviously is going nowhere.
So my proposal is that we start being honest with ourselves about our own crimes and hope that the other side will do the same. If we belive that we are in possession of the moral high ground then let us be the first to own up to our crimes.
Alternatively we can carry on trying to kill each other!

Indeed. I argue with you on

Submitted by BB on Fri, 09/10/2009 - 3:59pm.

Indeed. I argue with you on only one point:

"Zionism is a reaction to events outside the Jewish community and the failure of any other soci-political responses to provide a modicum of security and equality for Jews. The existance and popularity of Zionism amongst Jews is primary evidence of the failure of the host / dominant communities to provide Jews with security, stability or equality."

If I am not mistaken you are asserting that Zionism is a reactive movement, which arose in order to provide the Jews with a homeland in which they could provide their own security away from the prevalent anti-semitism which existed in many countries at the time.

Whilst this is certainly a factor, the root cause of Zionism is the love the Jewish people have for the land of Israel and the longing to return to live there. I feel that you have missed this major point.

Other than that I agree with you- certain Zionists (such as the Irgun and the Stern gang) undoubtedly perpetrated terrible acts and we as Zionists must own up to this.

Zionism was Always a Reaction

Submitted by Q on Fri, 09/10/2009 - 10:28pm.

Putting aside divine instruction for a moment.
If you care to read the books of Moses you will perceive I belive that the impulse for the exodus from Egypt, and the beginnings of Zionism, is a reaction to the intolerable conditions for the disparate Hebrews. These people acquire a manifesto for a national entity with defined rules pertaining to a wide range of matters, and then seek to create that state in Israel.
Judaism in this respect has always been political and national. I personally doubt it is racially based as the Hebrews appear to be disparate. I would suggest to you that rationally we can see that much in the Torah is a reaction to the corruption and abuse in Pharoanic Egypt.
Of course the Hebrews / israelites acquired a love of Israel as a concept and a land. As you read further through the various books there is a rich history of the travails of the Jewish people with displacement, conquest etc etc. It is very distinct from the texts of either Christians or Muslims, and it defines more than just a faith group. It defines a nation.
Modern Zionism is a reaction to centuries of oppression, and as such it is not the creation of the Jews but a creation of those that oppressed the Jews. Naturally it contained the romantic & historic associations the Jews had for the land.
I am sure there are many who can provide an explanation for this blaming divine or diabolic intervention. Personally I tend to think people are to blame, and those that deny this are liars.

I am very well read in terms

Submitted by BB on Fri, 09/10/2009 - 11:33pm.

I am very well read in terms of the Torah. If you were, you would have acknowledged the incident prior to the Israelites leaving Egypt which was God telling Abraham to leave his home in Haran to go and live in Canaan (Israel).

The three Jewish forefathers were born there and Jaacob was said to have wrestled the angel on the spot which would later become the Jewish Temple (and later the Dome of the Rock). Jaacobs children moved to Egypt due to famine and your story continues from there.

The point is if you believe in Judaism that God instructed Abraham to move there- if you don't believe in God, then Abraham moved there spontaneously. Either way the Land is the root of the religion. They did not fall in love with it after moving there by accident. It was specifically ordered by God.

As for your last assertion, well it depends if you believe in God or not... :)

Was Judaism Less?

Submitted by Q on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 8:14pm.

Was Judaism less when it did not control Israel? Did the teachings apply less, were the truths less true? If Judaism relies upon occupation and control of the Holy Land then it is in trouble. If it relies on Jews conducting themselves in accordance with the Torah then good. This does not mean that a Jewish nation state is delegitimised. The legitimacy from a modern Jewish state comes from the oppression of Jews, and until such time that the world can demonstrate over a reasonable period time based upon historic occurrences that Jews can live safely as complete equals then it remains legitimate.

Are you then implying that

Submitted by BB on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 8:27pm.

Are you then implying that without the persecution and oppression of Jews that they wouldn't be entitled to their own country?

I would disagree with your assertion that Israel would lose its legitimacy if people started treating Jews as equals. It seems as though you're coming from a position which says Jews wanted to escape persecution and ran off to the middle east to create their own isolated country somewhere. This isn't the case- Of course Judaism would apply equally if we did not possess Israel, but we would yearn to be able to go back there.

As long as it is perceived that Jews are occupying someone elses land, Israel will never be equal with other nations. No other country ha to justify its existence on such a regular basis as Israel.

When the Arabs finally accept the existence of the Jewish state (which won't happen for a long long time) peace will break out.

They Will Learn

Submitted by Q on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 9:00am.

This document is primary evidence of a fundamental capacity within the Zionists to learn lessons and implement change. Here they explicitly acknowledge that their structure and tactics failed to produce a knock-out blow. In this there is nothing new, and IDF said shortly after the outbreak of fighting. Further they are predicting how Hezbollah (and others) will structure themselves in the future to prosecute war. The scope of this document is limited to IDF field operations and not how israel as a state might react to another attack. Rationally one option for the Israelis would be to strike Iran or Syria as Hezbollah's sponsors / controllers.
Despite what people may think they read into this there are a number caveats that need to be applied. Hezbollah's strategy is based on very limited objectives, it is not about liberating Palestine. The strategy is based on a combination of attrition and guerilla attacks. It is preciated upon the Israelis sensitivity regarding the lives and bodies of their people, and the tendency for Israel to absorb a certain number of attacks before it retaliates.
The lesson for the Israelis from the Hezbollah adventure is that destruction of Hezbollah's and Lebanon's civilian infrastructure is the best way to end the fighting. This will be delivered through massive punative airstrikes and naval barrages. The Israelis will seek to avoid committing their ground troops so they do not get caught up in costly street to street fighting.
If Hezbollah wants to break the Israelis will to resist and fight then it must be able to increase the Israeli casualties massively into the thousands per day, and be able to invade and hold Israeli territory. At present Hezbollah does not have the capacity to do this. All it can do is act as a distraction for Iran and drag Lebanon into nation wide conflict.

No nation on the face of the

Submitted by Shan on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 12:07pm.

No nation on the face of the earth is invincible,neither can nations continue occupation and oppression permanently.
What is happening is a slow and gradual road to freedom for palestinians.

Allahu Akbar

Submitted by Mujaahid on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 12:12pm.

Allahu Akbar

THE ZIONAZIS GOT THEIR BUTTS KICKED GOOD

Submitted by VOLTAGE BROTHER on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 2:43pm.

The dirty Zionazis got their butts kicked good by the Hizbollah and soon they will face total defeat inshallah.

Who are "Zionazis"? Obviously

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 3:06pm.

Who are "Zionazis"?

Obviously Hezbollah didn't attack "Zionists" since 90% of them don't live in Israel. They must have attacked Israelis I guess.

How soon do you think that they will "face total defeat"?

In all the wars that the Arabas lost against Israel I guess that they believed Allah was on their side. So what happened?

Well in this war Allah

Submitted by Khan on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 3:20pm.

Well in this war Allah obviously WAS on their side....and it is the first of many defeats Israel will suffer God willing..

+Well in this war Allah

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 4:16pm.

+Well in this war Allah obviously WAS on their side....and it is the first of many defeats Israel will suffer God willing..+

I do not wish to insult anyone but if I follow that logic then you say that Allah was NOT on their side on the previous defeats. Does that mean that their cause was not just and Allah made them lose?

Isn't it a statistically qualified observation that Allah is not supporting the Arabs in the destruction of Israel because He gave The Land of Israel to the Children of Israel. Maybe that should be taken into account.

While I may agree with your sentiments...

Submitted by mazin on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 3:33pm.

...I was just wondering how you defined Zionism. As I keep getting different definitions of Zionism from different "Zionists". One definition of Zionism was from BB who believes that Zionism and Judaism are inextricably linked, therefore by politically oposing Zionism, you are also opposing Judaism, and therefore a "Jew hater". Another was either Gay man's or Q's (I can't remember which) definition which was purely political, and therefore opposing Zionism does not mean that yoy oppose the religion of Judaism.

Mazin, I have 2 simple

Submitted by BB on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 3:47pm.

Mazin, I have 2 simple questions for you:

1. Do you believe that Jews lived in Israel from over 2000 years ago, only leaving when they were forcibly removed by imperialsim?

2. Do you believe that Jews have the right to live in Israel today? (disregarding whether or not people are displaced)

BB I have only one question

Submitted by Shan on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 4:02pm.

BB I have only one question for you.
Since the palestinians have lived in palestine continously for thousands of years,do they have the right to live in palestine or jews from any part of the world.

Jews from "any part of the

Submitted by BB on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 4:22pm.

Jews from "any part of the world" only got to those parts because they were thrown out of Israel before Islam even existed.

Second, Palestinians have not been there thousands of years.
Arabs have been there thousands of years, you are correct, but Palestine was VERY sparsely populated. It was undeveloped.

At no time has there been a Palestinian Arab kingdom, state or political entity, until it was created by Israel as part of a treaty with Arafat. Palestinian nationhood is a fraud that none of the Arab powers who endorse it believe, as they themselves proved when they annexed or ruled the land that would become the so-called "Occupied Territories", once Israel recaptured it in the Six Day War in 1967. Over two decades, no Palestinian state was ever created when the west bank and Gaza were in the hands of Egypt and Jordan. Only after two major military defeats caused the Arab powers to abandon future wars with Israel, did they decide to endorse that particular bit of mythology.

Furthermore it was the Arab powers who rejected the 1947 UN Partition plan that would have created two states, one Jewish and one Arab. It was the Arab side that rejected the plan and chose war, and then urged Arabs in Israel to leave so that they would be out of harm's way when the Jews were driven into the sea, thereby creating the refugee camps.

If anyone denied the "National Rights of the Palestinian People", it was the Arab powers. But then the national rights card has always been a fraud, as can be demonstrated when the PLO's founding chairman, Ahmed Shukairy, proclaimed in the UN in 1956, "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria".

The PLO did not call for a state until after the Yom Kippur War in 1973 made it clear that brute force alone would not allow the regional Arab powers to seize Israel by force.

BB so shall i take from your

Submitted by Shan on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 5:17pm.

BB so shall i take from your response ,that palestinians do not have a right to live in palestine.
Btw the majority of israelis are ashkenazi jews who have no blood or historical connection to palestine,so theres no way their ancesters were exiled from palestine.
lastly todays palestinians are a mix of former jews and christians,so it they have double the right to palestine, unless if you believe only a jew can live in palestine,as long as he is a jew.

I have no problem with

Submitted by BB on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 5:30pm.

I have no problem with Palestinians living in Palestine, (as long as they stop attacking Israelis) but I fear that the leadership will not allow the creation of a Palestinian state.

If a new state of Palestine were created, the Palestinians would have no "legitimate" reason to attack Israel. If they then continued to attack Israel, they would be internationally condemned.

Your last two claims are simply falsehoods that you have picked up somewhere, please show me any evidence to back up these spurious claims.

+BB so shall i take from your

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 6:44pm.

+BB so shall i take from your response ,that palestinians do not have a right to live in palestine.+

It is clear from the Mandate For Palestine that the intention was to create The Lebanon, Syria and Jordan as Arab countries and to create Palestine to be the home to Jews and Arabs.

That is the principle that most people, including most Israelis hold to. However, the Arabs rejected a state in 1947 but Israel accepted one. This means that West Bank and Gaza revert to what pertained before Partition and that means The Mandate, which could not have terminated for West Bank and Gaza since the conditional offer was rejected by the Arabs.

The reverse question is "Do you deny the rights of Jews to live in West Bank? If you say no then you are someone who even wants Jews out of Israel

I don't know if you're...

Submitted by mazin on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 7:05pm.

...the same Anonymous Coward I replied to six posts above, but if you are, could you answer the question that I posed to you?

Thanks.

Palestinian Rights

Submitted by Q on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 10:33pm.

The Palestinian people have an absolute right to live in the region, to express their opinions freely, to pursue their lawful pursuits as they wish. These are inalienable rights. However possession of these rights does not confer upon the Palestinians the right to seek genocide and the seizure of properties owned by Jews, anymore than Zionism or any other concept / belief confers upon the Jews the right to do the same.
The Mandate was a piece of imperialism both the dominant powers thatsought to address a problem. Rather than solving one problem it created another. However this should have been as predictable as the Sabra-Shatilla Massacres given the long history of exploitation and violence towards the Jewish minority. (Pls don't anyone throw in a repeat of the fiction of happy families in 19th C Palestine!)
In the 1948 war both sides sought to exclude the other and seize legally owned property from the other. Both sides carried out ethnic cleansing in the areas they controlled, the Palestinians more successfully by percentage than the Jews. Both sides are in denial about their respective policies and actions.
There can be no progress or reconciliation until both sides acknowledge their own wrong doings and seek the others forgiveness. At present there is little will on either side to do this.

"Btw the majority of israelis

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 10:44pm.

"Btw the majority of israelis are ashkenazi jews who have no blood or historical connection to palestine,"
Simply not true. Asheknazi Jews do not have Khazar ancestry.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars

Haha I love that picture on

Submitted by Ted on Wed, 07/10/2009 - 6:03pm.

Haha
I love that picture on the article!
Looks like Hizb'Allah really wacked this tank up its........

Ashke-NAZI Jews are counterfeits: FACT

Submitted by Abd Al Haq on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 1:16am.

The hook nose and the beady eyes along with the woolly hair is a Turkish feature and the Khazars were a Turkish people. A large percentage of Jews today exhibit these features to varying degrees. So to say that the Khazar aspect to Jewry is false is completly unfounded when the Jews admit it themselves.

According to the Standard Jewish Encyclopedia, 96% of all the Jews known today are the descendants of the Khazar Tribes of Russia, Eastern Europe and Western Mongolia; these are the Ashkenazi Jews, the other major sect of the Jews are the Sephardic Jews, and they are a bastard mongrel people from the mixing of the Canaanites / Hitites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, Girgashites, Kenites, Edomites. Most Jews of today have never been Hebrew; they are not Hebrew now; and they will never be Hebrew.

The truth is that most Jews have more Khazarian DNA than anything else. Moreover, these Ashkenazi's are the ones that are conspiring against humanity of all races and think of themselves as special, superior, and being God's chosen people. Talk about racism! The Jews are the most racist and egotistical people in the world today. No wonder they've brought so much misery upon themselves. When a group of people look down on other humans as being a mere animal it's going to cause a backlash.

The Jews have been expelled from almost every nation they've been to. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why. They've brought all their misery upon themselves. They're simply reaping a bad harvest that they've planted. No one is going to be able to have them once the world at large (including the liberals) wake up to the fact that zionism is racism and is conspiring against all people ..... white, black, Asian, Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc. The sooner we get rid of this plague, the better.

wow. This site seems to have

Submitted by BB on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 1:56am.

wow.

This site seems to have hit a new low.

That is a foul, Jew hating antisemitic LIE

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 9:21am.

and you know it

Jews are not and never were Khazars

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 9:25am.

From WIkipedia

DNA Evidence
Modern DNA studies on the Y chromosome of Jews worldwide have largely disproven the Khazar origin theory for the vast majority of Ashkenazi DNA.
A 1999 study by Hammer et al., published in the Proceedings of the United States National Academy of Sciences compared the Y chromosomes of Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian Jews with 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. It found that "Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level... The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora."[45] According to Nicholas Wade "The results accord with Jewish history and tradition and refute theories like those holding that Jewish communities consist mostly of converts from other faiths, or that they are descended from the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that adopted Judaism."
A 2001 study by Nebel et al. found Eu 19 chromosomes, which are very frequent in Eastern European populations (54%-60%), at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews. The authors hypothesized that these chromosomes could reflect low-level gene flow into Ashkenazi populations from surrounding Eastern European populations, or, alternatively, that both the Ashkenazi Jews with Eu 19, and to a greater extent all Eastern European populations in general, might have some partial Khazar ancestry.
A 2005 study by Nebel et al., based on Y chromosome polymorphic markers, showed that Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to their local neighbouring populations in Europe. However, 11.5% of male Ashkenazim were found to belong to R-M17, the dominant Y chromosome haplogroup in Eastern Europeans, suggesting possible gene flow between the two groups. The authors hypothesized that "R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazim may represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars". They concluded "However, if the R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazi Jews do indeed represent the vestiges of the mysterious Khazars then, according to our data, this contribution was limited to either a single founder or a few closely related men, and does not exceed ~ 12% of the present-day Ashkenazim.

Debunked in another thread!

Submitted by Jameel on Fri, 09/10/2009 - 6:10pm.

Debunked in another thread! Pathetic zionists.

Yes, yet the lie that jews

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Fri, 09/10/2009 - 7:03pm.

Yes, yet the lie that jews are really Khazars is is still believed.
The lie needs to be repeatedly exposed as a Jew hating libel.

Ashkenazi Jews are Jews!

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 11:23am.

Apart from the deeply antisemitic nature of the post above I shall comment on the sheer stupidity of the point.

On the SAME basis its impossible for a Black person like Oona King to be Jewish - but she is. The point missed by the poster is that being "Jewish" is passed by the mother. If a Sephardi Jew marries a European man then the child is Jewish. Hence, being Jewish is propogated by Jewish women marrying anyone, wehether a Jew or non-Jew. Hence it is obvious that the attribute of being Jewish is not dependent on race but dependent on marriage.

Why MPAC UK tolerates such deeply antisemitic posts is damaging to it.

Actionable Incitement to Racial and Religious hatred

Submitted by Anonymous Cow on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 11:28am.

Abd Al Haq, your whole point about Ashkenazi Jews is clearly an incitement to Religious and Racial hatred under UK laws where your point is published. You compromise MPAC UK by making such statements.

Racial and religious hatred laws should be repealed

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 11:31am.

Let Mr Al Haq spout his Jew hating bile. He is only being honest about how he has been brought up to think of Jews. And I wonder what influenced him to have these nasty opinions?

Its up to MPAC UK...

Submitted by Anonymous Cow on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 12:00pm.

... if they wish to associate themselves with such points or whether by the removal of the post they demonstrate that they won't tolerate such comments. Over to you MPAC UK....

An open comments policy is admirable IMHO - and I guess it carries the risk of extreme racism.

Zionism is religious & racial hatred!

Submitted by Jameel on Fri, 09/10/2009 - 6:08pm.

Zionism is not a religion nor a race, but the movement is racist.
Ashkenazi's are Khazars who are not semitic, but they are infact anti-semitic. This is directly from the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Yawn. An equivalent comment

Submitted by BB on Fri, 09/10/2009 - 6:25pm.

Yawn.

An equivalent comment would be:

Shia Muslims are actually camels, who are not Islamic. In fact they are not even human. Look it up its in the Islamic Encyclopaedia of Ignorance.

Do you not see how your comments come across?

(ps. Do you think Indonesians are any less Muslim than Arab Muslims?)

ASHKENAZI JEWS DO NOT HAVE KHAZAR ANCESTRY

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Fri, 09/10/2009 - 6:55pm.

YOU REPEAR THE LIE. IT IS STILL A HATEFUL LIE.

Wikipedia:
DNA Evidence

Modern DNA studies on the Y chromosome of Jews worldwide have largely disproven the Khazar origin theory for the vast majority of Ashkenazi DNA.

A 1999 study by Hammer et al., published in the Proceedings of the United States National Academy of Sciences compared the Y chromosomes of Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian Jews with 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. It found that "Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level... The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora."[45] According to Nicholas Wade "The results accord with Jewish history and tradition and refute theories like those holding that Jewish communities consist mostly of converts from other faiths, or that they are descended from the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that adopted Judaism."[46]

A 2001 study by Nebel et al. found Eu 19 chromosomes, which are very frequent in Eastern European populations (54%-60%), at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews. The authors hypothesized that these chromosomes could reflect low-level gene flow into Ashkenazi populations from surrounding Eastern European populations, or, alternatively, that both the Ashkenazi Jews with Eu 19, and to a greater extent all Eastern European populations in general, might have some partial Khazar ancestry.[47]

A 2005 study by Nebel et al., based on Y chromosome polymorphic markers, showed that Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to their local neighbouring populations in Europe. However, 11.5% of male Ashkenazim were found to belong to R-M17, the dominant Y chromosome haplogroup in Eastern Europeans, suggesting possible gene flow between the two groups. The authors hypothesized that "R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazim may represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars". They concluded "However, if the R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazi Jews do indeed represent the vestiges of the mysterious Khazars then, according to our data, this contribution was limited to either a single founder or a few closely related men, and does not exceed ~ 12% of the present-day Ashkenazim.[48]

I don't want to start an

Submitted by BB on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 3:11pm.

I don't want to start an argument, but the only people condemining this post are Anonymous Coward and myself.

Regular MPAC posters, Shan, Q, Muhammad, Kish, Mazin- What is your take on what Abd Al Haq has said here?

You will not get a reasoned

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 4:49pm.

You will not get a reasoned reply from these persons.

BB the words used hooked nose

Submitted by Shan on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 4:53pm.

BB the words used hooked nose and beady eyes are remnants of the christian and nazi propaganda and i would recommend Abd Al haq that since your name implies you are a muslim ,then brother use words that do not cause hurt on purpose,event though we may feel that zionists are down playing the hurt and pain of palestinian suffering we must try and avoid it.
As for the rest of his comments he is right askenazi jews are not semitic people as stated on many occasions.

thanks Shan...I guess...

Submitted by BB on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 5:00pm.

thanks Shan...I guess...

That is an outright LIE. Ashekenazi Jews are Semitic = FACT

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 5:26pm.

And all the times the lie is repeated does not stop it being a LIE.

Nasal features

Submitted by Q on Mon, 12/10/2009 - 10:03pm.

With reference to the nasal features I just wiondered if anyone had seen a photograph of Yassior Arafat recently and come to any conclusions.

A fascinating claim

Submitted by Q on Mon, 12/10/2009 - 10:01pm.

A fascinating claim, but as it is virtually impossibel to distinguish between the DNA Israeli Jews and Palestinian Christians & Muslims it must mean that most Palestinians are not indigenous to the region.
Actually it is all rubbish. Any historian knows that the consequence of some many armies marching through the region that there is no purity of DNA.

To Q:

Submitted by mazin on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 9:19am.

You say:

"The most significant difference is that the Israelis now have a major arms industry which they developed in response to an arms embargo, and their distrust of the USA & EU as suppliers."

While I may agree with you about Israel having it's own "major arms industry", I do have to take exception to the lie that this was "developed in response" "to their distrust of the USA & EU as suppliers."

Here is a NON-COMPREHENSIVE list of weapons, arms, vehicles and missiles that are used by Israel that have either been developed completely in the EU or USA, or jointly with Israel:

AIRCRAFT:
AMIT Fouga Magister (France)
Grob G-120 (Germany)
Hawker Beechcraft T-6 Texan II (USA)
McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (USA)
Beechcraft Bonanza (USA)
Beechcraft Super King Air (USA)
Beechcraft C-12 Huron (USA)
Boeing 707-320 (USA)
Lockheed C-130 Hercules (USA)
Gulfstream G550 (USA)
Boeing F-15 Eagle (USA)
Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle (USA)
Lockheed F-16 Fighting Falcon (USA)
Eurocopter Panther (France)
Bell AH-1 Cobra (USA)
Boeing AH-64 Apache (USA)
Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion (USA)
Sikorsky S-70 Blackhawk (USA)

SEACRAFT:
Z class destroyers (UK)
Hunt class destroyer (UK)
River class frigates (UK)
Flower class corvettes (UK)
Sa'ar 5-class corvettes (Israel/US)
Sa'ar 2-class missile boats (Israel/Germany/France)
Sa'ar 3-class missile boats (Israel/German/France)
S class submarines (UK)
T class submarines (UK)
Gal class submarines (Israel/Germany/UK)
Dolphin class submarines (Israel/Germany)

TANKS:
AMX-13 (France)
M47 Patton (USA)
M48 Patton (USA)
M50 Super Sherman (USA)
M60 Patton (USA)

APCs:
M3 Half-track (USA)

PISTOLS:
Glock 17 (Austria)
Glock 19 (Austria)

SNIPER RIFLES:
M24 (USA)
SR-25 (USA)
M82 (USA)
Pro Series 2000 (USA)

MACHINE GUNS:
FN MAG (Germany)
Browning M2 (USA)

SHOTGUNS:
Remington 870 (USA)
Mossberg 695 (USA)

ASSAULT RIFLES:
CAR-15 (USA)
M16 rifle (USA)
M4 carbine (USA)

GRENADE LAUNCHERS:
Mk 19 (USA)
Mk 47 Striker (USA)

SHOULDER–LAUNCHED ROCKETS:
RPG-7 (Russia)
M72 LAW (USA)

GUIDED MISSILES:
AGM-12 Bullpup (USA)
AGM-45 Shrike (USA)
AGM-114 Hellfire (USA)
AGM-142 Have Nap (Israel/USA)
Arrow (Israel/USA)
MIM-23 Hawk (USA)
MIM-104 Patriot (USA)

This list is NOT complete. A complete list would need a whole new thread.

Arms Industry development

Submitted by Q on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 10:26am.

Following the post 67 War of Attrition the world imposed a regional arms embargo. While the Israelis had a small arms industry it was limited largely to small arms (FN-FAL, MAG, Uzis). Although they did start to develop it, it was not until after the 73 war that they really started to crank it up. It was their secret policy to become self-sufficient in arms supply. Under the remaining part of the Labour govt and throughout the Begin leadership the Israelis put vast resources into developing the technological industrial resource. They actively recruited unemployed engineers from UK to help develop their manufacturing capability. Astonishingly they kept much of this secret even from the USA.
So in the 1980's the USA was taken aback when Mexico announced that it would buy 200 (?) Kfir C fighters. The USA had assumed that a US firm would get the contract. The USA bribed both Mexico & israel to cancel the deal and the US supplied US made jets at the same price as the Kfirs. From there on the Pentagon did 2 things: 1. Bribe the Israelis out of US defence markets 2. Sought out partnerships w/ Israel on arms development.
Although people are generally unaware of it, Israeli companies like Elint have taken significant proportions of what was traditionally an exclusive US defence market and this has hurt US companies like Rockwell-Collins.
In relation to EU, and especially UK, the Falklands war proved to be a real shock. 1. The UK found that the Argentinians had been supplied with Israel made equipment, some of it better than UK equipment. (Note Argentinian troops all wearing IDF Dubon parkas) 2. The Israelis had known months ahead of Argentinian plans but due to the post 79 break down in relations between UK and Israel, Israel had not informed UK. Hence the dismissal of Carrington.
The lesson for the politicians in US & EU that arms supply independence for the Israelis meant loss of influence by the US & EU, and loss of defence engineering markets. It is easy also to overlook that Israel is one of the world's most important R&D centres. It is why universities are constantly knocking on Israels door for partnership projects. The threat of academic embargo by UK universities caused non-UK universities to start bidding to take their place.
This is one of the reasons why I repeatedly state that there is far more to be gained from collaboration & peace with the Zionists than being at war with them. The consequence of their technological progress is that there are industries there which need to relocate and Palestine could offer a location if it were stable.

What a load of nonsense you speak.

Submitted by mazin on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 11:58am.

I don't even bother reading the whole of your postings, as they're obviously pre-prepared Zionist scripts. I just pick one of your points and blow a hole in your entire argument.

Fistly, you tried to imply that Israel had very little help from the EU and the USA in developing it's arsenal of weapons, and I think I demolished that idea. Then you come back trying to clarify your point better by stating that:

"Following the post 67 War of Attrition the world imposed a regional arms embargo"

What arms embargo are you referring to? When you say "world, do you mean the whole world or just certain contries? When you say "regional", which countries do you mean? Was this an official arms embargo, or just a tacit understanding among the major arms selling governments?

Lyndon B Johnson, in 1968, approved the sale of F4 Phantom fighters to Israel DURING the war of attrition (1967-1970).

Richard Nixon ordered operation Nickel Grass to commence on the 14th of October, 1973, to supply Israel with tanks, artillery, ammunition and supplies days into the Yom Kippur War (6th - 26th October, 1973).

If you are referring to the Rogers Plan that was implemented after the 6 Day War and the War of Attrition as your "arms embargo", then you're wrong to do so. The Rogers Plan was more like a reccommendation to cease hostilities and escalation of violence on both sides of the conflict, it was not an arms embargo. Even that did not work out, as Israel refused to accept it.

Please, I would really like to know WHAT arms embargo you were referring to, WHICH countries did it apply to (receiving and supplying), and from which date to which date did it apply.

I suggest you go and read

John F.Kennedy and the Politics of Arms Sales to Israel
by Abraham Ben-Zvi

Before you start making false statements and try to pass them off as common knowledge.

Interesting Source

Submitted by Q on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 3:02pm.

Abraham Ben-Zvi asserts that Kennedy approved sales of Hawks to Israel and changed policy. Bu this is not supported by delivery of planes or any legal mechanism to effect the policy change. Kennedy was dead by the time the first Hawk jets arrived. Ben-Zvi's claim contradicts everyone else, but of course he may had special access to info. Everyone else states it was Johnson.

??

Submitted by Q on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 3:28pm.

Johnson Proposed Congress Approved.
USA - post 1948 until 1968 (?) formal policy of even handedness which ensured partial embargo on Israel. Policy ended due to USSR supplies to Arabs. Despite promise to supply Phantoms it was delayed / impeded by State dept until 73. Hence why Phantoms painted in jungle camo during 73 war - see papers magazines of time.
France - embargo following 1967
UK - Embargo following 1973
Other sources of arms unavailable or irrelevant.

You simply provided an inadequate list covering a 60 year period. You did not provide any substantive evidence that the creation of the Israeli defence industry was evolved from collaboration with West. I would point out to you that the collaboration that you do identify occurs after the period I refered to. Please show me where the USA / EU states / Israel are collaborating on significant projects before about 1980?

Fascinating List

Submitted by Q on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 2:58pm.

Mazin, I read through your list and wondered why RPG's should be included. So I asked a friend who knows far more about these things to comment. The list seems to contain some modern military collaborations, sales of military equipment & surplus going back decades and some civilian items. I am not sure that it tells us anything other than Israel has existed for 60+ years and has obtained a range of items.
It is also not really surpising that the Israelis have US & EU produced weapons, other than their own of course, as the only other major suppliers were in the communist bloc that supplied the Arab states.
BTW - why do you have issue with the idea that the Israelis may not actually trust either USA or EU?

AIRCRAFT:
AMIT Fouga Magister (France) - 1950s French two-seat jet trainer
Grob G-120 (Germany) - trainer
Hawker Beechcraft T-6 Texan II (USA) - military trainer
McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (USA)
Beechcraft Bonanza (USA) - 1947 designed GA civil aircraft
Beechcraft Super King Air (USA) - civil turboprop not combat
Beechcraft C-12 Huron (USA) - military designation for Super King
Boeing 707-320 (USA) - civil commercial jetliner
Lockheed C-130 Hercules (USA) - military transporter
Gulfstream G550 (USA) - civil business jet aircraft
Boeing F-15 Eagle (USA)
Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle (USA)
Lockheed F-16 Fighting Falcon (USA)
Eurocopter Panther (France)
Bell AH-1 Cobra (USA)
Boeing AH-64 Apache (USA)
Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion (USA)
Sikorsky S-70 Blackhawk (USA)

SEACRAFT:
Z class destroyers (UK) - The W and Z class was a class of sixteen destroyers of the Royal Navy launched in 1943–1944.
Hunt class destroyer (UK) - The Hunt class was a class of escort destroyer of the Royal Navy. The first vessels were ordered early in 1939
River class frigates (UK) - The River class frigate was a class of 151 frigates launched between 1941 and 1944
Flower class corvettes (UK) - The Flower class corvette was a class of 267 corvettes used during World War II
Sa'ar 5-class corvettes (Israel/US)
Sa'ar 2-class missile boats (Israel/Germany/France)
Sa'ar 3-class missile boats (Israel/German/France)
S class submarines (UK) - The S-class submarines of the Royal Navy were originally designed and built during the modernisation of the submarine force in the early 1930s
T class submarines (UK) - The Royal Navy's T class (or Triton class) of diesel-electric submarines was designed in the 1930s to replace the O, P and R classes.
Gal class submarines (Israel/Germany/UK)
Dolphin class submarines (Israel/Germany)

TANKS:
AMX-13 (France) - too light for combat sold to Singapore 1969
M47 Patton M48 Patton M60 Patton (USA) - Evolution of US Cold War generation MBT following WW2 ealier models supplied to IDF by Germany, last deliveries around Oct73
M50 Super Sherman (USA) M50's are locally upgraded WW2 Shermans

APCs:
M3 Half-track (USA) - WW2 vintage APC not in use by IDF

PISTOLS:
Glock 17 & Glock 19 (Austria) - Law enforcement weapon widely used by police forces around the world - IDF does not have service pistol

SNIPER RIFLES:
M24 (USA)
SR-25 (USA)
M82 (USA)
Pro Series 2000 (USA)

MACHINE GUNS:
FN MAG (Germany) ??? - Fabrique Nationale Mitrailleuse A Gaz (Belgium) sold to Israel in license sharing deal in 1960’s. Germany does not produce nor use MAG. MAG also known in UK as GPMG
Browning M2 (USA) - WW2 vintage weapon still in manufacture

SHOTGUNS:
Remington 870 (USA) - civilian shotgun available for sale in UK
Mossberg 695 (USA) - civilian shotgun available for sale in UK

ASSAULT RIFLES:
CAR-15, M16 rifle, M4 carbine (USA) - All Armalite M16 variants

GRENADE LAUNCHERS:
Mk 19 (USA)
Mk 47 Striker (USA) - updated version of Mk19

SHOULDER–LAUNCHED ROCKETS:
RPG-7 (Russia) - Captured weapons, Israel not supplied by Russia
M72 LAW (USA)

GUIDED MISSILES:
AGM-12 Bullpup (USA)
AGM-45 Shrike (USA)
AGM-114 Hellfire (USA)
AGM-142 Have Nap (Israel/USA)
Arrow (Israel/USA)
MIM-23 Hawk (USA)
MIM-104 Patriot (USA)

The point was...

Submitted by mazin on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 3:19pm.

...that I was contesting your implication that Israel developed it's vast arms manufacturing industry as a response to a distrust of the EU and the US. Israel has a history of developing and buying arms from the EU and the US, that goes back many decades. By adding dates to some of the items on my list, you just proved my point further.

At the same time, you ignored the question that I put to you a number of times very bluntly. Here it is again:

Which arms embargo were you referring to?

The fact that you cannot answer such a simple question, and instead choose to ignore it and raise another point, just goes to show what a Zionist you are.

In answer to your question (which I am able to do, unlike yourself), I have no issue with the idea that the Israelis may not actually trust either the USA or EU, because it is a lie (w.r.t. arms sales/manufacturing). The fact that they developed so many weapons over so many years with the help of the EU and the USA speaks for itself. Otherwise, it would be a very funny way to behave when you don't trust someone.

Israel: I don't trust the US or EU to sell me or help me develop any arms, so I'm going to buy a lot of arms from them and co-operate with them in joint ventures to develop more arms.

Distrust

Submitted by Q on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 3:37pm.

Mazin,
Despite having consumed vast amiunt of text about this confliuct you really do not understand these Zionists one iota.
In the back of the Israelis mind is the belief that when push come to shove the USA will abondon them at the crucial moment. At no time was this perception more apparent than during 73. Despite Mossad telling the govt that Egypt was planning another war, the US kept insisting that this was not the case. The State Dept were so strong on this that they assured Nixon that it was the case and that the Israelis were just exaggerating. But Mossad was right and State was wrong.
We forget today that from the israeli perspective 73 was a near run thing and they blame the USA & EU for failing to supply enough advanced weapons. In the lesson learning process they beat the **** out of the "american" israelis who had such "good" relations with USA. When Begin arrived he was convinced that the USA and EU would ditch Israel and that they could not be trusted.
If you do not understand this, and it powerful effect on israelis and US governments, then you have no way of understanding this conflict.

Dodging the issue again.

Submitted by mazin on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 5:07pm.

I asked you a specific question, several times now, and you have continued to ignore it.

Let's try again:

Which arms embargo were you referring to?

Distrust 2

Submitted by Q on Thu, 08/10/2009 - 7:57pm.

Your incredulity regarding Israeli distrust of the US & Europe in fact tells us an awful lot about you and your ability to understand much beyond your own narrow existance. Israeli distrust is based upon the collective experience as Jews. One only has to consider perhaps the last 300 or 400 years to recognise that they may distrust both Christian and Muslim societies. Even if one limits oneself to the alst 100 years the same basis for distrust remains.
Whether it is the anti-semitism (sorry Misojudaism) of 20th europe.
Or the violence and expulsions of Jews by the Arab states post 1948 simply for being Jewish (isn't that anti-semitism again? sorry misojudaism. Semitic Arabs can't be anti-semitic)
It does not take much imagination to realise the impact upon a colelctive these experiences might have, and how they would influence perceptions and behaviour.
So Mazin why don't you understand it if you are as so damned clever and infallible as you like to portray yourself?

Dodging the issue again. 2

Submitted by mazin on Fri, 09/10/2009 - 6:55am.

I'll ask you again.

For the 4th time.

Which arms embargo were you referring to?

It's a simple question.

You referred to an arms embargo in one of your postings.

I have asked you three times before to which arms embargo you were referring.

And you continue to avoid the question.

See Below??

Submitted by Q on Fri, 09/10/2009 - 8:42am.

See below
Then answer my more fundamental question.
In fact despite your repeated demands that people substantiate their assertions based on recollection you frequently unable to respond coherently to challenges. I may err from time to time simply because my recollection of circumstances when I was a teenager is imprecise. However I have do have the experience of travelling back and forth between Europe and ME at the time and do remember people's perceptions, opinions and expectations. I am also able to compare and constrast statements and portrayals in the popular media with my own experiences on the ground.

Its to do with impotence

Submitted by Anonymous CowPat on Fri, 09/10/2009 - 7:11am.

All the verbal attacks on Israel, its people and Jews/Zionists is simply due to the fact that people are completely impotent to constrain Israel to do anything Israel doesn't want to do.

60 years of Nakba are 60 years of failure by the Palestinians to recognise that attacking Jews/Israelis is a failure to achieve peace and a state

arms embargo

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Fri, 09/10/2009 - 3:08pm.

The arms embargo could be referring to the post 1967 French embargo when they refused to deliver hight-speed patrol boats, already paid for. I am sure there were other items not delevered.