historian

Now about this quote reference the Lebanese forces you claimed was from the “The Israeli Secret Service” by Richard Deacon, no wait you later admitted that he never mentioned Lebanon.

So you first statement was clearly untrue, sad that you have to invent quotes and be so dishonest in a desperate effort to salve your fragile ego.

By the way I never said “world class” in regard to the Arab armies but they were professional soldiers in the main. The Dutch army is a professional army but trust me far from world class.

While the majority of the Israeli at the time were armed civilians.

The fact that Nasser recognised the failing of the Egyptian army, incidentally similar failing are present in most armies, means he himself was if not a brilliant officer at least a competent one.

According to Brigadier Fawzi Commandant of the Egyptian Military academy said of Nasser who enrolled in 1937, that he was made squad leader (Corporal) out of 43 other cadets, in other words he was one of the best. He was commissioned Lieutenant in 1938 and by 1943 was a Captain and instructor at the Egyptian Military academy were he stayed until 1946. He entered Staff College (for military ignoramuses like yourself that means he was destined for high command) in 1948. He did fight in the 1948 war and yes recruiting fellow officers for the fascist organisation he was part of.

So not world class, few armies are, but certainly professional, while as I said the Israelis were main armed civilians.

Challenger

I never claimed anything. I just suggested a clue towards the reason Israel could discount the Lebanese army. You jumped to conclusions and wild extrapolations with the speed of a gazelle on steroids. Your response demonstrated to all your complete lack of knowledge and insight on this subject.

In fact US and French representatives had put huge diplomatic pressure on the Lebanese government not to intervene, which is one reason the Lebanese army pulled out. The H.I.S. and the Israeli high command were aware of these moves. all they needed to do was to occupy key positions along the projected invasion route with a few troops and launch a few raids into Lebanon to confirm that the Lebanese army would remain supine, which it did. Israel subsequently ignored the Lebanese Front throughout the rest of the war. Something you'd know if you'd read any general history outside of Zionist propaganda sites.



More Zionist mythology.

historian

Let us examine your other “truths”

There was no Syrian Army before 1946. Native ‘Syrians’ were recruited by the French as “Troupes Speciales” mainly as police/paramilitaries to guard rear areas.

Syria in fact declared independence in 1941, but which wasn’t recognised until 1944 and the French army didn’t leave until 1946

So there was no Syrian Army prior to 1946, nice statement misleading and inaccurate (normal for you) however, it could just as easily be said that there was not Israeli army prior to 1947.

The French founded the 8,000 strong Syrian Legion in 1919 and in 1939 they doubled that strength, 16,000 slightly more than the two battalions you claim. The Syrian Legion fought with the Vichy French against British and Australian forces in the campaigns of 1941. So this army you claim never existed has a history dating back to at least 1919, fought the British.

In fact the French left Syria in 1946 however their Mandate ended I think 1943, so you say for three years a nation in a contested region possessed no army then in 1946 suddenly developed one...its that historical perspective again.

Why your statement that “there was no Syrian Army before 1946” it is almost as stupid as saying an Army could ignore a hostile 3000 strong French trained and supplied forces on their Northern flank. Oh that is right you did say that didn’t you?

“Try reading “The Israeli Secret Service” by Richard Deacon. The title might give you a clue as to why the Lebanese could be safely ignored.”

Apart from the utter stupidity of the statement you then go on to compound it by later admitting:

Had ‘historian’ actually read the book he would have found Deacon concentrates on the foundation and activities of what became Mossad. In the 1945-48 period, he concentrates on detailing the arms deals and the setting up of intelligence gathering in U.S.A Europe and the Middle East. The Lebanese Army is not mentioned

So the book you claimed proved your point that the IDF could “safely” ignore a hostile 3000 strong French trained and supplied forces on their Northern flank (the Lebanese Army ) never even mentions the Lebanese Army.

So just to ensure we all realise how incredibly stupid it was you then claim:

I never claimed anything. I just suggested a clue towards the reason Israel could discount the Lebanese army.

Yet you claimed:

“Try reading “The Israeli Secret Service” by Richard Deacon. The title might give you a clue as to why the Lebanese could be safely ignored.”

As I have said you are amusing but frankly boring, predictable, sad and pathetic and it would seem dishonest.

historian

In fact US and French representatives had put huge diplomatic pressure on the Lebanese government not to intervene

Since the US, French, British, UN and uncle Tom Cobley and all put huge diplomatic pressure on all the participants exactly what does that inane statement prove? I suppose you invented it as that is yout style.

Oh Yes you read in“The Israeli Secret Service” by Richard Deacon” that the IDF could safely ignore a hostile 3000 strong French trained and supplied forces on their Northern flank . No wait you invented that one too, so I guess your proven dishonesty does not exact make it easy to take you seriously at all, but don’t worry from your first few immature posts it was obvious that taking you seriously was not an option.

Challenger

This is getting tedious, the Syrian legion became the Army of the Levant, and was mainly composed of Metropolitan French units, Foreign Legion, and colonial troops from various other French African colonies. There were only 11 battalions raised from local recruitment as "special troops" for internal security and garrison work. 3 of these formed the basis of the Lebanese Army, the rest, the Syrian.

I've said this before, what's your point?

historian

This is getting tedious, the Syrian legion became the Army of the Levant, and was mainly composed of Metropolitan French units, Foreign Legion, and colonial troops from various other French African colonies. There were only 11 battalions raised from local recruitment as "special troops" for internal security and garrison work. 3 of these formed the basis of the Lebanese Army, the rest, the Syrian.

You also said that the book “The Israeli Secret Service” by Richard Deacon” claimed that the IDF could safely ignore a hostile 3000 strong French trained and supplied forces (the Lebanese Army ) on their Northern flank and then later rather stupidly admitted that the book never mentioned them. In other words you are a dishonest fool and not to be taken all seriously in a debate.

Perhaps your worse sin is that you are predictable and boring.

However to answer your attempt above, the French in 1916 formed the "Legion of the Orient", which formed the basis for the Lebanese Army. So another army you apparently claim did not exist has a history going back to at least 1916. In actual fact the history of the Lebanese armed forces can be traced back to the 17th century.

While under Vichy command they fought the Free French and British and when transferred to Free French command they fought with the allies in North Africa, Italy and France during the latter phases of WW2. No combat experience I believe you claimed? Mind you as a proven dishonest person your claims cannot be taken seriously can they? Yes some of the troops who fought North Africa, Italy and France did become part of the Syrian army another army you clam (?) never existed before 1946 and had no combat experience. (you can see why you are not taken seriously surely?)

Some units came immediately under Lebanese control on independence in 1943, others remained under French command until 1945 when they were transferred to Lebanese control. All these units which you claim (is that another fictional claim from your “The Israeli Secret Service” by Richard Deacon” book?) did not exist.

The Third Sharp Shooters Regiment fought against the Israeli Forces in 1948, a professional army unit and the first to be commanded directly by the Lebanese in 1943, these were the forces that you claimed could be safely ignored by the IDF, no wait that was a lie wasn't it?

Like I said you are predictable and boring.

Challenger

Well, they say "Offence" is the best "Defence", and now that you're argument is being systematically destroyed, I suppose being offensive is all that is left to you.

historian

You actually have to present an argument to “systematically destroy” one and since you cannot present an intelligent argument and invent fictitious references in an attempt to cover it up your statement is like most of them you make completely stupid.

Like I said you are immature, dishonest and boring, frankly a joke, do try to grow up.

Elijah

The reason behind the Balfour Declaration i think was instrumental to help the British war effort against the Ottoman empire by any possible means. Thus the British would get the support of both Jews living in the Ottoman empire and Jews of diaspora. The post-war history showed that Britain did not really intend to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine but only to "divide and rule" by encouraging hostility between Jews and Arabs there (just like in other colonies: Greeks vs. Turks in Cyprus, Muslims vs. Hindus in India). But despite this purely practical meaning for the British the Balfour Declaration became a great deal for Jews: it was the first time in history a great power hinted some kind of support for the main Zionist idea - creation of a Jewish state. It really helped morally in bolstered those who worked towards the goal of re-creation of Israel.

scholar

It's safe to say that neither challenger nor historian is free from propaganda. But each are on the opposite ends of a highly polarized debate that neither feel the need to actually recognize the facts in either argument... Which I'm not all that thrilled about. The arms during the Israeli War of Independence (or so it's been dubbed) was a mix and match of highly assorted german, english, american, and french arms. Oh, and some crummy Mussolini stuff. Some were fighting with American hunting rifles. You could compare it to giving the wild west an army and telling them to defend.

My source is twentieth century battlefields: The Israeli War of Independence or something to that effect. It's a good documentary series.

Israelis were inside the middle east during the Ottoman Empire. They were there later during the first and second world war. Now they aren't in any of the nations with a sizable population, which was there just a hundred years ago. It's safe to say as the population of Israel doubled at least once that many fled there. Many more fled to France, England, and America. The immigration from British and french controlled Africa and the surrounding areas went to America in droves.

That said, I don't think they left because of some promised "Mass extermination", certainly the negativity felt towards non-muslims certainly didn't make them feel welcome. There were a lot of murders and expulsions as well. But this is relatively minor to those that left of their own volition to the nation of their ancestral home and the promise of reuniting distant (and I mean distant) relatives. But just as they went there they flooded the gates of the Superpowers of Great Britain and The United States.

Were there murders? Yes. Has those murders been used as a political ploy by both sides, the Arabs and the Israelis? By god, yes! That shouldn't be surprising. Spouting "Zionist Propaganda" doesn't help the situation. Everything that we know from the war is someone's propaganda. The US's propaganda, the UK's propaganda, the Israeli Propaganda, and various arabic nations wanting their own version of the war written down.

If you lead an army of trained individuals (Regardless of former profession) and use them to attack an enemy that's half or less your size and you lose the obvious conclusion is that the smaller force is better trained and had unfair advantages. For those who overcome the larger force it's a triumph over a hostile invading army that was well supplied. Yeah... emphasis on both arguments. Both armies were relatively new and both received training from their European occupiers, the training may have been to a varying degree, with the Israeli being better trained. In the end that still doesn't change that they both had similar circumstance.

That said it's impossible to actually be free from bias, either your own, or the people who wrote the history we're using to formulate arguments. I could go on, but for some reason I think the debate is over as the belligerents ended off at a bad and offensive conclusion.