Uh.....where do you think the American revolution got fought......in football stadiums?
In fields, and woods, and valleys and hills. Usually not in cities. And when it was fought in cities, it wasn't (with a few small exceptions, mainly involving Indian/Native American allies) fought with either side deliberately targeting civilians, or with either side using civilians as human shields.
In the fields and woods but in the villages and towns as well. Places like Lexington, Concord, Bunker Hill and Breed Hill. The American colonists were farmers and hunters, not urbanites. And they fought like Hamas......they were a ragtag group of men...not a standing army. I am sure you've heard of the Boston Massacre. It was civilians who took on the Brits and a few of them died for their efforts.
The West Bank and Gaza were intended as the Arab half of the UN partition plan.
Your response is like as if I said 1+1=2, and you said "no 2+2=4". My statement wasn't about the intentions in the 40s, but the facts on the ground pre 67. The West Bank was Jordanian territory, Gaza was Egyptian territory. Jordan and Egypt waged war against Israel, and they both lost territory in the wars. Either Jordan or Egypt, or both, could have created a Palestinian state, or at least Palestinian autonomous region(s) with the territory but they never did. They kept it for themselves until Israel took it from them after they waged war on Israel.
Jordan annexed the West Bank and Egypt Gaza in the 1950s. Neither had any more right to those places than Israel does today. What's left of the West Bank and Gaza were part of the British Mandate, not Jordan, Egypt or Israel.
Not true, but they have never had an effective standing army.
That's total BS.
The PLO/Fatah, and Hamas have had a standing army. People who are permanently employed as members of a military force. A militia/non-standing army is distinct from a standing army, not in terms of having worse equipment (even though they often do have worse equipment), but in terms of not being a permanent standing force.
At best they are a militia.....hardly what we would call a modern army. You're stretching over backwards to make your point and I ain't buying it.
Also if you can't break away from the equipment idea, the PLO had tanks and other heavy equipment in Lebanon. Never anywhere near as many, or as good as Israel had (and importantly never anywhere near the training levels), but they had armor, it wasn't just "farmers and ranchers".<
Nonsense. The PLA 'military' was a bit of fakery perpetrated mainly by Syria:
"History of deployment
The fact that the PLA was formally Palestinian was used as political cover by the host governments. Syria, especially, would make great use of its PLA units. In 1970 it sent hastily repainted Syrian Army tanks under the command of the PLA into Jordan to aid the Palestinian guerrillas during the Black September fighting. After international pressures, and threats of intervention from both Israel and the USA, they were forced to turn back; an embarrassment which would contribute greatly to the overthrow of the regime of Salah Jadid by Hafez al-Assad.
During the Lebanese Civil War, Syria likewise made extensive use of the PLA as a proxy force, including against the PLO (the PLA however proved unreliable when ordered to fight other Palestinians, and suffered from mass defections). The PLA was largely destroyed as a fighting force during the 1982 Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon that started the 1982 Lebanon War. Its fighters in Lebanon left for Tunis when the PLO evacuated Beirut that year, in a US-sponsored cease fire agreement. The Egyptian PLA was also deployed in Lebanon in 1976, after Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat had approached the Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, to mend relations damaged by Sadat's peacemaking attempts with Israel. Still, the Egyptian units never proved as important as the fully-deployed Syrian PLA."
en.wikipedia.org |
