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

Gad is the son of Jacob who resided with his tribe in the current Palestine:

www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a028.html

The Israeli's didn't like that Jewish tribe much because Gad's mommy was merely a maid....Gad was a son of a slave ole Jacob put the bone too.

So the Gad tribe moved North and are what you currently call Germans.

So historically, the land the Palestines occupy technically belongs to German blooded people's who have Jewish blood...but currently aren't practicing the Jew religion.

There are records saying WHO is a descendent of the Israel Gad tribe. It would make a good Dan Brown novel.

King James knew the secret and there's a reason he made up the word "God" in 1610. In 1609 that English word didn't exist. Very few people know why King James pulled that word out of his rear and made it up. Have any of you done your home work and found out what English speaking people called their deity in 1609?

Now why did King James make up that new word "God"???? It's the 401st Anniversary of the new word...and you still don't know the big secret.

The Tribe of Gad is going to deal punishment to Israel.


""""And of Gad he said: "Blessed is he who enlarges Gad; He dwells as a lion, And tears the arm and the crown of his head. He provided the first part for himself, Because a lawgiver's portion was reserved there. He came with the heads of the people; He administered the justice of the LORD, And His judgments with Israel."""""

reply to post by Pervius

The Israeli's didn't like that Jewish tribe much because Gad's mommy was merely a maid....Gad was a son of a slave ole Jacob put the bone too.

Taking the colorful description (and scientific basis of your post in general) aside - was Gad the only tribe whose ,emmm, mommy was merely a maid?
You know, out of curiosity....

reply to post by Logarock


Logarock, I have to laugh at your attempt to twist my word. I am not at all saying that "big and bad Israel beat up all poor little Syria and Egypt had to offer". What I am saying is that the propaganda history of the David vs Goliath showdown(David being the Jews, Goliath being a united Arab force) is untrue and a selective representation of facts. I have on numeroud occasions stated that my contention is:
1. The Jews had the advantage in troop numbers
2. The Arabs had military hardware superiority
3. The Jews had tactical superiority
4. The Arabs were divided, not united
And this is why Israel won the war of independence. I am not saying one side is good or one side is bad nor am I saying the Arabs were morally superior. I am just stating the facts.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


No. Not in Abraham or Israel.

But this "God" thing. We can pass over all this talk about where this word came from by just calling Him by his name Yahweh. And so the question... Did Yahweh insure the victory of Israel? Proof of this will not be given untill a battel at a later date according to the prophet Ezekiel. This question will always reside untill this very large battel takes palce at which time, the prophet says, there will be no question.

This is all IMHO of course:
because there is no end to this debate..
nor are there any totally credible and decisive sources.


david verses goliath?
That would be a couple muslims with box cutters ( the smallest army in the world )
beating the largest, most expensive army in the world
at 911
(if the OS were to be believed that is)
who's side was god on there?
goliath?
haha
ooops

Israel has proven time and time again thet their version of history and their rational for invasion are spurious big lie propaganda and nothing more
for instance the USS liberty, the Lavon affair, the bombing of the king david hotel...
I'm not even going to mention the questions surrounding the dredded hall of cost

here is another good example:

by Dan Parkinson, BBC News
…newly released documents contain a claim that the 1976 rescue of hostages, kidnapped on an Air France flight and held in Entebbe in Uganda, was not all it seemed. A UK government file on the crisis, released from the National Archives, contains a claim that Israel itself was behind the hijacking. An unnamed contact told a British diplomat in Paris that the Israeli Secret Service, the Shin Bet, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) collaborated to seize the plane....

...British document: Israel initiated Entebbe hijack

socioecohistory.wordpress.com...

etc etc
there are about 6 million jews In israel today
and luciferian money and skull duggery created Israel..
and according to their Talmudic prophecy
their god can't come back till after
there are 6 million burnt offerings..
did their messiah come after world war two?

!'d say be careful over there....
They say history repeats itself
but that means its a given that history also has a first time

PS
so Im going to say the OP has a decent arguement
which can be seen as a pattern of deception aimed at garnering support..
for something that maybe ought not to be supported..
Without the support of christians and their money Israel couldn't even exist

so god must want Israel to be there
send money
as god is a little short this week

reply to post by SpeachM1litant



Well you never did show just what hardware gains that Israel gained during the break in action. Just one guys "manna from heaven" thing. What did that amount to?

reply to post by Danbones


Yea, allah the box cutter god. lol Oh and car bombs. Man he sure likes those things.

The 1967 six day war was not all it was cracked up to be.

First they attacked without warning much like Japan did at pearl harbour (Attack was allowed and US knew it was comming) and they had lots of military suport from the USA including a lot of planes that recived a coat of paint to discuise the origin.

The USA wanted the US Liberty to sink so it could nuke Egypt and planes carrying nukes even took off but because the plan had not worked quite as well as planed they called back the bombers.

Nothing is ever as it seem when it come to USrail and merly asking questions about why such a small country is allowed to own 300 nukes will get you called a racist but that card has been played all to often and i hope the gaza aid ship came with a russian escort and they sink the ships of the pirates/zionists and then asked Uncle Sam what he wanted to do about it.

Don't point the finger at Libya when talking about a terrorist state because it is the USA that is attacking everyone for its zionists masters and it is high time the bully got a good kicking and sorry to the majority of americans who don't agree with the libya bombing but you need to stand up and take you're country back.

reply to post by Logarock


I simply flagged that Israel managed to achieve an arms deal during the truce and that this greatly helped Israel. I never claimed it achieved hardware superiority. The arms deal dosen't change my contention that the Arabs had hardware superiority while Israel had, unified superiority and troop number superiority. Your simply nitpicking semantics now.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by Logarock

 

.... Your simply nitpicking semantics now.

Lol, reminds me of “ what is Antisemitism “.
Semantics, ha Speachmilitant ?

reply to post by gravitational


Is that all the input you have in this debate:
There are two different types of sematnics, one is the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning - That is what I was arguing with you in the thread about anti-Semitism. That debate was a debate on semantics whereas this one is not, this is a debate on the war of independence.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


Since you have this remarkable ability to twist reality, than yes,
this is my only contribution to your silly little semantics argument.
I feel sorry that for someone like you - who is clearly far from being stupid – lacks the decency to put aside his preconceived opinions. elevate and be true and honest for once.

P.S It didn't even bother you to source a so called historian (Ilan Pappe) that cares nothing about the truth, and he openly admits that. What does it say about you?

Back to semantics MR Militant, Antisemitism = Jew Hating. Not Arab hating, not all Semites, not Syrians, not Egyptians, not Lebanese, not Saudis....Jews.

Oh I seem to forget you had a hard time distinguishing between the 6 million Jews that were murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators and all the other millions that died in the war...

What is it about you you that clouds your judgment?

reply to post by gravitational

P.S It didn't even bother you to source a so called historian (Ilan Pappe) that cares nothing about the truth, and he openly admits that. What does it say about you?

This is just an outrageous lie, as I clearly sourced him, infact I did 3 times under sources: I am no fan of Ilan Pappe, none the less in regards to the war of independence he presented his argument based on official documentation. It is funny that you simply choose to avoid my other sources: Ben Gourin War Diary, International Journal of Middle East Sturdies 27. no.3 (Aug. 1995), Report of the Parlimentary Committee of Inquiry on the Palestine Problem, 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 and most revealing of all, Yehoshua Freundlich: Documents on the Foreign Policy of Israel (DPFI_ vol.1 14 May-30 Spetember 1948 (Jerusalem, 1981).

I feel sorry that for someone like you - who is clearly far from being stupid – lacks the decency to put aside his preconceived opinions. elevate and be true and honest for once.

Explain to me exactly what my preconceived convictions are? And tell me exactly with which part of my OP I am lying. I can tell you that you are lying with your claim that I did not bother to source Ilan Pappe when I clearly did.

Back to semantics MR Militant, Antisemitism = Jew Hating. Not Arab hating, not all Semites, not Syrians, not Egyptians, not Lebanese, not Saudis....Jews.

We have debated this subject on a previous thread. I say it counts for all semites, you say it counts for all Jews. We can agree to disagree here as this is a linguistics argument. The first thing I learnt in high school linguistics is that words are arbitrary without definition, thus I shall apply it to this aswell. Linguistics has far reaching debate on many things including language acqusition in children and so forth. This is not the appropriate thread.

Oh I seem to forget you had a hard time distinguishing between the 6 million Jews that were murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators and all the other millions that died in the war..

Wow... now that is also a lie. I openly stated that the manner in which the Jews died was different to how the others did. I simply asked you the question, were the other deaths not also tragic? Mr. Gravitational, I am really getting sick of you constantly putting forth acusations of me lying without sustaining these with evidence, yet you openly lie yourself.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by Logarock

 

I simply flagged that Israel managed to achieve an arms deal during the truce and that this greatly helped Israel. I never claimed it achieved hardware superiority. The arms deal dosen't change my contention that the Arabs had hardware superiority while Israel had, unified superiority and troop number superiority. Your simply nitpicking semantics now.

Well the suggestion that the arms deal pulled things in Israels favor is there. At any rate to put any meat on this observation, as the deal affected the outcome, some figure would be nice.

reply to post by Danbones

“A UK government file on the crisis, released from the National Archives, contains a claim that Israel itself was behind the hijacking. An unnamed contact told a British diplomat in Paris that the Israeli Secret Service, the Shin Bet, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) collaborated to seize the plane.... “

An unnamed source told an unnamed diplomat...wow. That is a sure credible proof, just about like all the stuff you write here.

Originally posted by Master_007
The 1967 six day war was not all it was cracked up to be.

First they attacked without warning much like Japan did at pearl harbour (Attack was allowed and US knew it was comming) and they had lots of military suport from the USA including a lot of planes that recived a coat of paint to discuise the origin.

1- the independence war was in 1948, not 1967.
2- in 1967 Israel had no American support. Most of it's hardware was European, and self -upgraded old weaponry.
3- In 1967 Israel made a preemptive attack against the Egyptian air force. They did not attack Syria or Jordan.
4- You sound angry. Have a glass of water.
5- deny ignorance and read books.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant



Star & flag for you my friend.Some hardliners bimbos, flash words with no credible proof , you just made my day...respect

reply to post by gravitational


True, the Syrians did launch a limited aerial attack and limited areil bombardments upon the northern settelments thus Israel launched a devestating counter attack on Syria's airforce, however the capture of the Golan Heights is an entirely different story.

There was no need for Israel to open another front with Syria, infact David Elazar of the OC Northern Commaned exerted all the pressure he could for all-out war against Syria. Thankfully Moshe Dayan kept him on a tight leash. However on the night of 5-6 of June, Dayan and Rabin together held discussions in regards to possible further military action on the Syrian front. Dayan wanted to take over the demilitarized zones and this decision was confiremed by the ministerial defence committee. Eshkol proposed an operation with the aims of capturing the sources of the Banias and Tel Azaziat. These were Syrian positions in the Golan Heights. All the participants supported this proposal although Rabin and Elazar wished to go farther than Tel Azaziat.

The settlers from the north also pressured for the capture of the Golan heights. Essentially the settler lobby sprang into action. Infact Eshkol invited 3 representitives of the settlers to foward their case infront of the ministerial defence committee. At this time Israel was able to disintigrate the armies of Jordan and Egypt(8 June), allowing it to focus on the Syrian front.

On the 9th of June, a few hours after Syria requested a cease-fire, Dayan called General Elazar directly, bypassing the chief of staff, ordering him to go to war with Syria. Dayan did this in the wake of a cable sent by Gamal Adbel Nasser of Egypt to the Syrian president. This message stated "I believe that Israel is about to concentrate all its forces against Syria in order to destroy the Syrian army and regard for the common cause oblidges me to advide you to agree to the ending of hostilities and to inform U Thant (the UN secretary general) immediately, in order to preserve Syria's great army. We have lost this battle. May god help us in future. Your brother, Gamal Abdel Nasser. Dayan saw that this message changed the situation with Syria and oblidged him to capture more territory then was proposed the day before. He stated in his order "Yesterday I did not think that Egypt and Syria would collapse in this way and give up the continuation of the campaign. But since this is the situation, it must be exploted to the full." That seems like an expansionist statement to me, and of course this is typical of early Dayan policy.

In 1976 Dayans conversations with Rami Tal(a journalist) were published. Dayan confessed that he failed on the 4th of the war by agreeing to go to war with Syria. He said there was really no pressing reason to go to war with Syria. He also said that the kibbutz residents who pressed the government to take ghe Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmlang. Here is a statement from Dayan: "But I can tell you with absolute confidence, the delegation that came to persuade Eshkol to take the heights was not thinking of these things. (security). They were thinking about the heights' land'.

Rami Tal, tried to make to Dayan the argument that Syria was a thread to Israeli security. To this Dayan replied "Look, it's possible to talk in termos of the Syrians are bastards, you have to get them and this is the right time, and other such talk, but that is no policy. You don't strike at every enemy because he is a bastard but because he threatents you. And the Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a thrreat to us." Remember these are the words of Moshe Dayan, I am sure I don't have to tell you who he is. In case i do think "eyepatch".

Israel used the auspicies of the June-1967 war and limited Syrian agression which they dessimated, to justify the capture of the Golan Heights.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant

True, the Syrians did launch a limited aerial attack and limited areil bombardments upon the northern settelments thus Israel launched a devestating counter attack on Syria's airforce, however the capture of the Golan Heights is an entirely different story.

Yeah. Land invasion by Syrian forces never happened in this alternative history of yours. Check Tel Dan and other places. Massive artillery barrage on civilian targets also probably happened in alternative dimension.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by SpeachM1litant

 

True, the Syrians did launch a limited aerial attack and limited areil bombardments upon the northern settelments thus Israel launched a devestating counter attack on Syria's airforce, however the capture of the Golan Heights is an entirely different story.

Yeah. Land invasion by Syrian forces never happened in this alternative history of yours. Check Tel Dan and other places. Massive artillery barrage on civilian targets also probably happened in alternative dimension.

A star for you.
That pretty much answers how things are written in a parallel univers.

Spechmilitant, you know what, forget books.
Go to Israel and ask the residents of the Galilee how they were bombarded day in and day out for years, by the Syrians. How they were cut off of water supply, how they used snipers to kill Israeli civilians.
Above all, stop nitpicking and limiting your sources to the revisionists, who, as I clearly showed you, are motivated by their political ideas and have little to no concern about the truth. For every so called interview, I can show you a hundred sources that say differantly.