I am curious now because I remember reading somewhere that there were jewish people who had also served under the British, and were therefore trained and armed by them. Furthermore the funds that Israel used to buy those weapons also came mostly from the US and Russia, again foreign aid. The US and Stalin might as well have just sent them their planes at that point (they may actually ave done so at some point, I haven't actually researched that area much). Without the foreign funding (and let's face it, the US and Russia are far more removed than the people who lived right next door to them) and weapons Israel wouldn't have defended itself.

Except... it didn't.  That money mostly came from the jewish people.

The United states actually went out of their way to try and prevent Israelis from smuggling weapons into Israel... and didn't provide any aid until after they had won their first war.  America was largely anti-Israel at this point.  The US didn't support Israel until after it became obvious they were going to be around to stay. 

and no... they didn't send them their planes.  The US didn't support Israel... and Stalin didn't help Israel.  They just didn't NOT sell weapons to them.

Which you know... is the normal "non aid" state of affairs.

Also those WW2 pilots your thinking of... were pilots who immigrated to Israel, and became part of Israel.  They weren't sent by anyone, and were volenteers... and mostly stayed in Israel.... and did not bring any british weapons with them... and most were there before the war started.

and the US and West mostly tried to prevent them from even going.

Though you know... even if you were right... you'd be COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that the arabs had far more training and support and were sold weapons... specifically buy the governments.

Volenteer pilots in Czech planes bought with the money of Israel

VS

An army trained by the West... specifically to be the armies of those countries, while blockaiding any weapons from coming into Israel....

and it's Israel who got all the outside help?

However that is false, because a decent amount of funds were received from the US and Russia, which were used to buy weapons, they did not use just their personal wealth. I know for a fact that right after the war the US gave Israel somewhere around $100million, which to me doesn't exactly scream "anti-Israel." I wouldn't exactly call 1949 the point where it was for sure that Israel woudl stick around.

As for preventing resupplies, that was part of the truce, and both sides should have adhered to it and both sides broke it.

I would... they won the war... and your proof that they got help from the US to win the war is "They got support from the US after the war."

There is a reason why it's always "How much foreign aid has the US given Israel since 1948."

Because until 1949, we didn't.  Until then we were afraid if we did it would push the Middle East into the soviets beds.

heck... because of Truman's choice to recognize Palestine... which was considered a surprise.

May 14, 1948, shortly after 6:11 p.m. eastern standard time: United States representative to the United Nations Warren Austin leaves his office at the United Nations and goes home. Secretary of State Marshall sends a State Department official to the United Nations to prevent the entire United States delegation from resigning.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/palestin.htm

That's how strongly a number of people in the government disagreed with recognizing Israel.  Truman for whatever reason wanted to support them.  It would seem to be due to Europeon Anti-semitisim.

Also I'd note that selling guns was more or less all the Czechs had when it came to making money... they also sold to other middle eastern countries.

I mean, from what i can tell they vastly overcharged the Israelis too.

Also... for what it's worth.

Obama in 2008.

I distinctly remember that there was some guy (could have been a woman) who found money in the US, maybe it was Russia too (or Stalin just supported the whole Zionist idea). Those monies were then used to buy armaments and other such things. I'll read up on that some more over the weekend to present a better case.

DEAUVILLE, France (Reuters) – Group of Eight leaders had to soften a statement urging Israel and the Palestinians to return to negotiations because Canada objected to a specific mention of 1967 borders, diplomats said Friday.

Diplomats involved in Middle East discussions at the G8 summit said Ottawa had insisted that no mention of Israel's pre-1967 borders be made in the leaders' final communique, even though most of the other leaders wanted such a reference.

The communique called for the immediate resumption of peace talks but did not mention 1967, the year Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza from Jordan and Egypt during the Six-Day War.

U.S. President Barack Obama last week laid out a vision for peace in the Middle East, saying pre-1967 borders should be a basis for talks to achieve a negotiated settlement. Israel quickly dismissed the idea as unworkable.

"The Canadians were really very adamant, even though Obama expressly referred to 1967 borders in his speech last week," one European diplomat said.

Harper, pressed repeatedly by reporters, declined to confirm he had objected to the language on borders but said he would oppose what he called unbalanced statements on finding peace in the Middle East.

"We are very much at ease with President Obama's speech but you cannot cherry pick elements of that speech," he said.

"If you're going to get into other elements then obviously I would have liked to see a reference to elements that were also in ... (the) speech, such as for instance the fact that one of the states must be a Jewish state, the fact that the Palestinian state must be demilitarized."

The G8 communique said: "Negotiations are the only way toward a comprehensive and lasting resolution to the conflict."

It added: "The framework for these negotiations is well known ... We express our strong support for the vision of Israeli-Palestinian peace outlined by President Obama."

In the wake of the vote, Harper said: "When Israel, the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack, is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand."

Regarding the 1948 Arab vs Israeli War this is a very good source-

http://1948-arab-israeli-war.co.tv/#Initial_lineup_of_forces

It's clear it was a case of one fist (Israel) vs 5 fingers (Arab forces). Israel acquired a lot of funds abroad particulary from donors in the US for covert arms acquisition (there was plenty of weapons left over from WWII all over Europe) and was much more organised and disciplined on the eve of the war then her Arab counterparts.

As for US support for Israel, it really intensified after 1967 when Israel did the US a great service and smashed Arab nationalism (Nasser was a stumbling block for US designs in the region) and Western supplied weapons destroyed Soviet supplied arms.

Not surprising that the tory so adamantly stands against it, but the 67 borders are the only thing anyone can hope for, so unless Canada wants to come out in overt support of Apartheid 2.0, Harper should back the hell off

hi thanks for not reading.  if had actually read the entire article you would have noticed he did not oppose the position.   the objection was to the need to solely repeat it in the g8 statement...the G8 statement now supports what was outlined by obama and does not just repeat specific parts of what he said.